|
On June 11 2013 09:31 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 09:05 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 08:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:52 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:27 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:11 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:00 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 07:53 r.Evo wrote:
[quote]
There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it.
A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is.
The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it.
What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business". you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism. why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating. why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects. If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place. Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so. plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc. If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal. Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender? You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo. I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine. So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave." Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized. Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive. Here's where we disagree. The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active. This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters. This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object. The spiral you're describing says womens have their rights taken away, which forces them to abide an unfavorable system and are then stupid enough to tell their children that being beautiful is better than being accomplished. Apparently (judging from the lack of general outrage amongst women) their rights aren't that bad after all. As I mentioned earlier, try taking examples that are more extreme then "majority of sports viewers enjoy looking at nice boobies" and see if women would stand on the streets burning down cars to make noise. It's fine to say that being beautiful and being "princess-like" is a good thing. It's not fine to tell someone else that being accomplished in life is what their goal should be. One is expressing your view on an issue, the other is trying to tell someone else what view they should have on an issue.There is no earth-wide mindcontrol project that tells women to be sex objects and single mothers. Women can speak up for themselves, so can men. All I see here is males rambling about how exactly they think they have to save women as a gender from just giving their rights away, pretending they're too inferior to men to defend themselves in the process. The reason you see mostly males in a video game forum has more to do with problems in gaming (and, in a sense, all male dominated) culture. There's a reason most people on TL are dudes--and its not genes, it's the way we treat men and women in society. As much as people would love for it to be true--there is no videogame gene. Do you seriously believe that men and women have completely identical preferences and that most gamers being male is entirely culturally constructed? That there are no differences in, say, hormones like testosterone, which might lead more men to prefer video games, the vast majority of which are violent and competitive? http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2005/How-Women-and-Men-Use-the-Internet.aspxThis survey lends credence to the hypothesis that men might be gamers for the same reason men are more adept with the internet and more daring with technology by way of pointing out that there is a difference between older men and older women when it comes to internet usage. Considering that post-computer youth live under the influence of egalitarian movements like first/second wave feminism, it stands to reason that there, at the very least, was a major cultural construction which made it more likely for men to attach themselves to technology than women. The very fact that this has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon.
this is what I was considering responding with, but with far more concrete premises. computing in general was male-dominated from the beginning, only really expanding with the advent of personal computers (to families, but I think we can reasonably assume to a male head of household) and video game consoles (to children and men). designed by, and marketed to and for, men until very recently with the millennial generation, the continued proliferation of technology, and the reaction to an untapped market (well, video games are working at it, anyway).
...how about those women's sports.
|
On June 11 2013 09:31 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 09:05 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 08:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:52 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:27 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On June 11 2013 08:11 r.Evo wrote:On June 11 2013 08:00 TheExile19 wrote:On June 11 2013 07:53 r.Evo wrote:
[quote]
There is no problem until someone in question has a problem with it.
A mother calling her daughter princess is all fine, unless the daughter doesn't want to be called princess. The very article you linked is talking about how she started a career as a model, didn't enjoy the experience ("too stressful") and was critiqued as being “too tall and muscular". So what? It's part of her history, it's a part of who she is.
The actual problem that you personally have only shows up because you want to fit her into one neat category: "high school jumper who just broke an american high school record" - besides that she used to be a teen model. She is also considered to be good looking and fit. If she wants to use that perception to be on the next playboy frontpage, start a career as a lawyer or simply keep on doing what she's doing, it's her choice. However, no matter which choice she makes the public and the press will react to it.
What you're saying is that "you shouldn't call a daughter princess because it's bad" while I'm saying "it's none of your damn business". you're talking about a anecdotal microeffect, he's talking about a cultural macroeffect. this basically summarizes the entire thread "discourse", because unfortunately, as I am discovering, you really can't talk about institutionalized objectification of women (and men) in any context, let alone sexualization in sports, without eventually coming around to the overall package of cultural sexism. why is it none of his business? I assume we're all familiar with western cultural practices, we get flooded with these influences every day and you can't possibly reduce it to some sort of vacuum or every-woman-is-an-island situation like you would seem to be advocating. why are you saying he "personally" has a problem? how can you possibly conclude My "anecdotal microeffect" is an example the person I was responding to gave and is very much on point. The cultural macroeffect is the result of millions of anecdotal microeffects. If a random daughter wants to call herself princess, it's none of your business. If a random mother wants to call her random daughter princess, it's also none of your business. You can't look at a anecdotal microeffect and generalize it without knowing all the possible backgrounds, if it would be something that's not circumstantial we wouldn't even be having an argument in the first place. Why am I saying he personally has a problem? Because he said so. plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender, plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care, etc. If they don't give two shits either way about it, maybe it isn't that big of a deal? If this would be about cutting off someones genitals, they would give a shit about it. Simply because that is a big deal. Too indoctrinated? So what you're saying is that women can't speak up for themselves and that your job, as a privileged male who understands where when and how women are "too indoctrinated to care", is to speak up for that weak, defenseless gender? You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave. People who are indoctrinated are just that--indoctrinated. There is no sex that is specifically subjugated to indoctrination, its a societal deal. There are men and women who are against this normative construct, there are those that don't care, and there are those that will fight to keep this status quo. I do not want to keep this status quo, I'm not the only one. There are those who want to enforce this status quo, people such as yourself who wants people like me to mind my own business. I get bothered by moral wrongs, that's just me. So I won't shut up about seeing things I find wrong with the world. If you prefer keeping a blind eye and pretending its not a problem, go ahead. That's your prerogative, not mine. So let me sum up: #1) "plenty of women could not give two shits either way about this and many other topics regarding the treatment of their gender" #2) "plenty of women are too indoctrinated to care" #3) "You don't speak up for a gender no more than you speak up for a slave." Within those three statements I see women being called indifferent about how their gender is being treated, women being called indoctrinated (aka retarded in this context) and lastly being compared to slaves. And most of all, I see them grossly generalized. Personally, I want you to mind your own business instead of trying to tell other people how to treat women because I'm able to spot all the misogynistic implications in your statements. I was hoping to be able to turn a blind eye to this kind of hatred against women because I thought it to be over but your attempts are just as blatantly obvious as they are offensive. Here's where we disagree. The US in particular has been hacking away at women's right for the past 10 years from pro-choice rights to health care access to attacks on Planned Parenthood (a main way for lower income women to gain access to birth control). This combined with steadily increased regulations on adoptions as well a terribly regulated foster care system has made it worse and worse for a woman to be able to plan her future. She is less able to prevent unwanted pregnancies and is less able to protect herself when wanting to be sexually active. This forces women into fitting into the hetero-norm male/female marriage system to ensure stability in case of pregnancy. This is then enforced more when children and young women taught by mimicry to praise women who are beautiful moreso than praise women that are accomplished. This is enforced by little things such as mothers saying "little princess" to their daughters. This trains them to think of themselves as wives and birthers because there is dwindling support to becoming a single mother and increasing praise to being a male's sex object. The spiral you're describing says womens have their rights taken away, which forces them to abide an unfavorable system and are then stupid enough to tell their children that being beautiful is better than being accomplished. Apparently (judging from the lack of general outrage amongst women) their rights aren't that bad after all. As I mentioned earlier, try taking examples that are more extreme then "majority of sports viewers enjoy looking at nice boobies" and see if women would stand on the streets burning down cars to make noise. It's fine to say that being beautiful and being "princess-like" is a good thing. It's not fine to tell someone else that being accomplished in life is what their goal should be. One is expressing your view on an issue, the other is trying to tell someone else what view they should have on an issue.There is no earth-wide mindcontrol project that tells women to be sex objects and single mothers. Women can speak up for themselves, so can men. All I see here is males rambling about how exactly they think they have to save women as a gender from just giving their rights away, pretending they're too inferior to men to defend themselves in the process. The reason you see mostly males in a video game forum has more to do with problems in gaming (and, in a sense, all male dominated) culture. There's a reason most people on TL are dudes--and its not genes, it's the way we treat men and women in society. As much as people would love for it to be true--there is no videogame gene. Do you seriously believe that men and women have completely identical preferences and that most gamers being male is entirely culturally constructed? That there are no differences in, say, hormones like testosterone, which might lead more men to prefer video games, the vast majority of which are violent and competitive? http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2005/How-Women-and-Men-Use-the-Internet.aspxThis survey lends credence to the hypothesis that men might be gamers for the same reason men are more adept with the internet and more daring with technology by way of pointing out that there is a difference between older men and older women when it comes to internet usage.
Or maybe it's the fact that women tend to leave the workforce significantly earlier than men, while men who stay in the workforce are more likely to be forced to adopt new technology...
On June 11 2013 09:31 Shiori wrote:
Considering that post-computer youth live under the influence of egalitarian movements like first/second wave feminism, it stands to reason that there, at the very least, was a major cultural construction which made it more likely for men to attach themselves to technology than women.
Suggesting that women are catching up because of feminism is completely wrong, given that feminism was around long, long before the rise of the video games.
On June 11 2013 09:31 Shiori wrote:
The very fact that this has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon.
"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic?
|
On June 11 2013 09:36 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 09:29 bardtown wrote:On June 11 2013 09:24 Shiori wrote:On June 11 2013 09:15 JimmiC wrote:I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now. Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that. Honestly stop making stuff up. All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim. Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black. The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science. No doubt the development of those cultures has no basis in the biology of humankind... When you see running themes in cultures across the world since time immemorial, it's actually much simpler to apply the differences between the sexes to biology than to culture, so you've completely misapplied Occam's razor. Except there are enough major differences across cultures that biological distinctions don't help us much, especially since our knowledge of different cultures diminishes greatly as we move farther into the past. Furthermore, there are a great many variations that seem like the norm over a long period of time but actually don't represent a uniform thing at all. For example, a cursory look at Western civilization might lead one to believe that homosexuality is something that we have some sort of genetic basis for hating, because the last millennium and a half is filled with various cultures simultaneously reviling it. But if you go back just a little farther, you find a much more relaxed (though not egalitarian, by any means) approach to homosexuality in ancient Greek society. So no, there aren't really any relevant "running themes" that are truly universal since "time immemorial" aside from general monogamy (or at least serial monogamy) and that men have penises and women vaginas.
A single example (of an exception that proves the rule, no less) doesn't change the fact that there are general identifiable trends. But ultimately, cultural differences are derived from both sex differences and social conditioning.
The simple fact is, there are empirically established sex differences besides the obvious physical ones. The argument that men and women are psychologically identical is preposterous if you look at it from a biological sciences viewpoint, because sexual dimorphism exists in nearly all mammals and extends to non-physical differences as well. Ideologues who argue against this are essentially making the ridiculous claim that humans are unique in that unlike all of our relatives, we're identical in every way except physically.
|
|
|
"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic?
sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons.
not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though. similarly unsure that you could make anyone in this thread say that sexual dimorphism absolutely isn't a thing...just that it's static compared to sociocultural influences.
|
I believe it all comes down to the pretty girls have more chances to do good. As kids all these attractive females probably had a lot of attention and people watching as they played, Likes are that it in some way pushed them to work harder and play better. Of course more often then not, this may not occur, but for these women, it may have been some kinda factor in helping them work ahrd and become the best.
And just my two sense, how in the world can you call lebron James not ascetically pleasing... he is like the most manly of all men.... BEAST SAUCE.... just not very good about choosing his teams.. but this is off topic, sorry.
|
On June 11 2013 09:50 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 09:36 Shiori wrote:On June 11 2013 09:29 bardtown wrote:On June 11 2013 09:24 Shiori wrote:On June 11 2013 09:15 JimmiC wrote:I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now. Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that. Honestly stop making stuff up. All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim. Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black. The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science. No doubt the development of those cultures has no basis in the biology of humankind... When you see running themes in cultures across the world since time immemorial, it's actually much simpler to apply the differences between the sexes to biology than to culture, so you've completely misapplied Occam's razor. Except there are enough major differences across cultures that biological distinctions don't help us much, especially since our knowledge of different cultures diminishes greatly as we move farther into the past. Furthermore, there are a great many variations that seem like the norm over a long period of time but actually don't represent a uniform thing at all. For example, a cursory look at Western civilization might lead one to believe that homosexuality is something that we have some sort of genetic basis for hating, because the last millennium and a half is filled with various cultures simultaneously reviling it. But if you go back just a little farther, you find a much more relaxed (though not egalitarian, by any means) approach to homosexuality in ancient Greek society. So no, there aren't really any relevant "running themes" that are truly universal since "time immemorial" aside from general monogamy (or at least serial monogamy) and that men have penises and women vaginas. A single example (of an exception that proves the rule, no less) doesn't change the fact that there are general identifiable trends. But ultimately, cultural differences are derived from both sex differences and social conditioning. The simple fact is, there are empirically established sex differences besides the obvious physical ones. The argument that men and women are psychologically identical is preposterous if you look at it from a biological sciences viewpoint, because sexual dimorphism exists in nearly all mammals and extends to non-physical differences as well. Ideologues who argue against this are essentially making the ridiculous claim that humans are unique in that unlike all of our relatives, we're identical in every way except physically.
Except at no point did I claim that men and women are psychologically identical. My point is that the argument you are making, namely that some tendency X is a result of sexual dimorphism and differences in brain chemistry, is a positive claim. This means you need to show it to be true. Obviously not all behaviours which differ between men and women are genetically determined, so you need to actually show that a behaviour in question is definitely a result of biology, not culture. You have not done this when it comes to gaming. You have constructed a post-hoc hypothesis that is plausible but by no means certain or even probable (i.e. the notion that disparities between men/women in tech has something to do with perceived loser status later ameliorated and blah blah is a quaint and consistent system, but it's totally unfounded because it's just hypothetical and hasn't been substantiated. But to be clear: I'm not dismissing your points about women and social status, or whatever, but merely that this particular example isn't necessarily due to the system you are proposing).
For example, the fact that women leave the workforce earlier than men could either be a result of a biological inclination to cease activity earlier or due to cultural influences. Evidence suggests it's the latter. Interestingly, this implies by way of ipso facto that your reasoning about men being more acclimatized to technology is indeed the result of a cultural construction, just a step further away than I initially suggested.
|
On June 11 2013 09:52 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic? sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons. not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though.
Shiori assumes that any rapid changes over a period of a few generations establishes that the phenomenon was cultural (e.g. due to cultural reasons).
The example of women joining the workforce shows that this is poor logic, because the real reason that men were historically the primary breadwinners is because most work was hard physical labor that women could not perform, and because until the advent of birth control women were generally constrained too much by childbirth to be primary breadwinners (and even today, pregnancy is a major factor for women in the workplace).
In other words, the change was due to technology alleviating biological conditions, not because male breadwinners were a cultural phenomena that simply was dispensed with when the prevailing cultural winds shifted.
TL;DR: you can't assume that simply because a phenomena changes quickly that the phenomena is cultural, because the phenomena might be a biological one that simply applies differently.
|
|
|
On June 11 2013 09:36 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 09:29 bardtown wrote:On June 11 2013 09:24 Shiori wrote:On June 11 2013 09:15 JimmiC wrote:I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now. Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that. Honestly stop making stuff up. All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim. Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black. The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science. No doubt the development of those cultures has no basis in the biology of humankind... When you see running themes in cultures across the world since time immemorial, it's actually much simpler to apply the differences between the sexes to biology than to culture, so you've completely misapplied Occam's razor. Except there are enough major differences across cultures that biological distinctions don't help us much, especially since our knowledge of different cultures diminishes greatly as we move farther into the past. Furthermore, there are a great many variations that seem like the norm over a long period of time but actually don't represent a uniform thing at all. For example, a cursory look at Western civilization might lead one to believe that homosexuality is something that we have some sort of genetic basis for hating, because the last millennium and a half is filled with various cultures simultaneously reviling it. But if you go back just a little farther, you find a much more relaxed (though not egalitarian, by any means) approach to homosexuality in ancient Greek society. So no, there aren't really any relevant "running themes" that are truly universal since "time immemorial" aside from general monogamy (or at least serial monogamy) and that men have penises and women vaginas.
Let me give you a running theme: men predominantly fighting. Let me give you another: women predominantly raising children. Let's now consider something (apparently ridiculously unlikely from your perspective): that men and women are distinct in their biology in order to further their natural roles.
No no, men develop muscles, women lactate - but any differentiation in the mind is clearly cultural.
Even in ancient Greece homosexuality was primarily about men dominating boys.
|
On June 11 2013 09:52 TheExile19 wrote:Show nested quote +"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic? sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons. not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though. similarly unsure that you could make anyone in this thread say that sexual dimorphism absolutely isn't a thing...just that it's static compared to sociocultural influences.
To bring up a couple of examples:
-One day old babies tend to choose either a mechanical object or a face based on their testosterone level (...which naturally is higher in male babies. Interestingly, female babies with a high testosterone level at birth will also have more "male interests" later in their life)
-Women in less equal societies tend to be more interested in technical subjects than women in more gender equal societies
-Evolution has created differences between males and females in our physique, in our voices, our hair - to say it had no effect on our brains and our behaviours is very, very daring.
|
On June 11 2013 10:00 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 09:52 TheExile19 wrote:"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic? sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons. not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though. Shiori assumes that any rapid changes over a period of a few generations establishes that the phenomenon was cultural (e.g. due to cultural reasons). The example of women joining the workforce shows that this is poor logic, because the real reason that men were historically the primary breadwinners is because most work was hard physical labor that women could not perform, and because until the advent of birth control women were generally constrained too much by childbirth to be primary breadwinners (and even today, pregnancy is a major factor for women in the workplace). In other words, the change was due to technology alleviating biological conditions, not because male breadwinners were a cultural phenomena that simply was dispensed with when the prevailing cultural winds shifted. TL;DR: you can't assume that simply because a phenomena changes quickly that the phenomena is cultural, because the phenomena might be a biological one that simply applies differently.
It is unbelievably disingenuous to suggest that there was no cultural component to women joining the workforce. Actually, it's absolutely absurd. While technology alleviating biological conditions was certainly important and relevant to women joining the workforce, so too was the women's rights movement which challenged the widespread belief that women were best suited to work in a particular field or only in the home.
Furthermore, even the idea that children should be raised by women or by one mother is completely a cultural phenomenon, as evidenced by hunter-gatherer tribes which are structured in a completely egalitarian fashion and which had children raised by men as well as multiple women; mothers even lived with their mothers for a period, undermining the very typical conception of the nuclear family that continues to dominate Western culture. Of course, men are generally breadwinners in these sorts of societies, but there are exceptions to this rule.
Ultimately, my point is that you appear far too eager to justify virtually any existent divide between men and women in modern culture by way of biology in order to uphold the utterly absurd conclusion that feminism not only has nothing to accomplish but is actually unfounded by definition.
|
On June 11 2013 10:04 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 09:36 Shiori wrote:On June 11 2013 09:29 bardtown wrote:On June 11 2013 09:24 Shiori wrote:On June 11 2013 09:15 JimmiC wrote:I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now. Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that. Honestly stop making stuff up. All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim. Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black. The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science. No doubt the development of those cultures has no basis in the biology of humankind... When you see running themes in cultures across the world since time immemorial, it's actually much simpler to apply the differences between the sexes to biology than to culture, so you've completely misapplied Occam's razor. Except there are enough major differences across cultures that biological distinctions don't help us much, especially since our knowledge of different cultures diminishes greatly as we move farther into the past. Furthermore, there are a great many variations that seem like the norm over a long period of time but actually don't represent a uniform thing at all. For example, a cursory look at Western civilization might lead one to believe that homosexuality is something that we have some sort of genetic basis for hating, because the last millennium and a half is filled with various cultures simultaneously reviling it. But if you go back just a little farther, you find a much more relaxed (though not egalitarian, by any means) approach to homosexuality in ancient Greek society. So no, there aren't really any relevant "running themes" that are truly universal since "time immemorial" aside from general monogamy (or at least serial monogamy) and that men have penises and women vaginas. Let me give you a running theme: men predominantly fighting. Let me give you another: women predominantly raising children. Let's now consider something (apparently ridiculously unlikely from your perspective): that men and women are distinct in their biology in order to further their natural roles. No no, men develop muscles, women lactate - but any differentiation in the mind is clearly cultural. Even in ancient Greece homosexuality was primarily about men dominating boys.
Nowhere have I claimed that there exists to mental differentiation between men and women. I have only claimed that it is far too debated a field to actually presume that any existent behavioural difference is the result of biology.
Pederasty was not about men dominating boys; it was about an older mentor exchanging his expertise for the affections of a young boy, who, like it or not, actually did learn from his lover.
|
On June 11 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 10:00 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 09:52 TheExile19 wrote:"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic? sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons. not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though. Shiori assumes that any rapid changes over a period of a few generations establishes that the phenomenon was cultural (e.g. due to cultural reasons). The example of women joining the workforce shows that this is poor logic, because the real reason that men were historically the primary breadwinners is because most work was hard physical labor that women could not perform, and because until the advent of birth control women were generally constrained too much by childbirth to be primary breadwinners (and even today, pregnancy is a major factor for women in the workplace). In other words, the change was due to technology alleviating biological conditions, not because male breadwinners were a cultural phenomena that simply was dispensed with when the prevailing cultural winds shifted. TL;DR: you can't assume that simply because a phenomena changes quickly that the phenomena is cultural, because the phenomena might be a biological one that simply applies differently. It is unbelievably disingenuous to suggest that there was no cultural component to women joining the workforce. Actually, it's absolutely absurd. While technology alleviating biological conditions was certainly important and relevant to women joining the workforce, so too was the women's rights movement which challenged the widespread belief that women were best suited to work in a particular field or only in the home.
In Norway today about 10-15% of engineers are female and about 10-15% of nurses are male. Care to explain that phenomena in one of the most gender-equal countries in the world?
|
On June 11 2013 09:58 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 09:50 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 09:36 Shiori wrote:On June 11 2013 09:29 bardtown wrote:On June 11 2013 09:24 Shiori wrote:On June 11 2013 09:15 JimmiC wrote:I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now. Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that. Honestly stop making stuff up. All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim. Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black. The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science. No doubt the development of those cultures has no basis in the biology of humankind... When you see running themes in cultures across the world since time immemorial, it's actually much simpler to apply the differences between the sexes to biology than to culture, so you've completely misapplied Occam's razor. Except there are enough major differences across cultures that biological distinctions don't help us much, especially since our knowledge of different cultures diminishes greatly as we move farther into the past. Furthermore, there are a great many variations that seem like the norm over a long period of time but actually don't represent a uniform thing at all. For example, a cursory look at Western civilization might lead one to believe that homosexuality is something that we have some sort of genetic basis for hating, because the last millennium and a half is filled with various cultures simultaneously reviling it. But if you go back just a little farther, you find a much more relaxed (though not egalitarian, by any means) approach to homosexuality in ancient Greek society. So no, there aren't really any relevant "running themes" that are truly universal since "time immemorial" aside from general monogamy (or at least serial monogamy) and that men have penises and women vaginas. A single example (of an exception that proves the rule, no less) doesn't change the fact that there are general identifiable trends. But ultimately, cultural differences are derived from both sex differences and social conditioning. The simple fact is, there are empirically established sex differences besides the obvious physical ones. The argument that men and women are psychologically identical is preposterous if you look at it from a biological sciences viewpoint, because sexual dimorphism exists in nearly all mammals and extends to non-physical differences as well. Ideologues who argue against this are essentially making the ridiculous claim that humans are unique in that unlike all of our relatives, we're identical in every way except physically. Except at no point did I claim that men and women are psychologically identical. My point is that the argument you are making, namely that some tendency X is a result of sexual dimorphism and differences in brain chemistry, is a positive claim. This means you need to show it to be true. Obviously not all behaviours which differ between men and women are genetically determined, so you need to actually show that a behaviour in question is definitely a result of biology, not culture. You have not done this when it comes to gaming. You have constructed a post-hoc hypothesis that is plausible but by no means certain or even probable (i.e. the notion that disparities between men/women in tech has something to do with perceived loser status later ameliorated and blah blah is a quaint and consistent system, but it's totally unfounded because it's just hypothetical and hasn't been substantiated. But to be clear: I'm not dismissing your points about women and social status, or whatever, but merely that this particular example isn't necessarily due to the system you are proposing).
The reality is, there is no way to positively show that any sex differences are due entirely to biology or culture. However, empirically establishing a biologically difference is enough to reasonably make inferences that such a biological difference may explain a sex difference.
In the case of gaming, it has been established that men prefer physical violence more than women do, probably due at least in part to the 20x greater amount of testosterone in men. We can also reasonably observe (or possibly find studies, but this is probably non-controversial enough to accept) that most popular video games are violent. Therefore, it is reasonable to claim that men are more likely to play video games since they are more likely to prefer the physical violence prevalent in video games.
On June 11 2013 09:58 Shiori wrote:For example, the fact that women leave the workforce earlier than men could either be a result of a biological inclination to cease activity earlier or due to cultural influences. Evidence suggests it's the latter.
The article you linked argues that the main reason women retire earlier is because they face more caregiving demands. However, you're making the assumption that women are primary caregivers due to cultural influences, without any evidence to support that notion, when it is at least partly due to the fact that women are inclined towards caregiving.
|
On June 11 2013 10:00 JimmiC wrote:
Max,
Pretty boys (handome men if you prefer) have the same advantages you are speaking of, not saying this is right or wrong, simply pointing out that this is not a gender issue.
Ya man, and to be honest, i think (NO HOMO) that for the most part that more athletic guys/athletes are the more physically attractive ones. I mean it depends on your type a lot, but a lot of the people playing professional sports are often used as models for stuff, and not just because they are way good at sports.
But as to my original post, i did not think it through all of the way, but i think this would relate more strongly to females than males.
|
On June 11 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 10:00 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 09:52 TheExile19 wrote:"The fact that men usually being the breadwinner has changed over a period of a few generations establishes that this is a cultural phenomenon."
Oh wait, except for the fact that women didn't start joining the workforce until birth control and relatively comfortable jobs became the norm...
Do you see the problem with your logic? sunprince, how do you manage to define your premises as non-cultural? shiori didn't give concrete causes like you're attempting to, and you're giving definably cultural reasoning for your examples. suffice it to say I am confused, because his point is that biology is a largely impermeable and consistent influence on behavior, ergo the suddenness of the shift is by definition culturally based...which you would seem to agree it is, by the nature of your own possible reasons. not sure about the influence of feminism on the proliferation of technology from a gender standpoint, though. Shiori assumes that any rapid changes over a period of a few generations establishes that the phenomenon was cultural (e.g. due to cultural reasons). The example of women joining the workforce shows that this is poor logic, because the real reason that men were historically the primary breadwinners is because most work was hard physical labor that women could not perform, and because until the advent of birth control women were generally constrained too much by childbirth to be primary breadwinners (and even today, pregnancy is a major factor for women in the workplace). In other words, the change was due to technology alleviating biological conditions, not because male breadwinners were a cultural phenomena that simply was dispensed with when the prevailing cultural winds shifted. TL;DR: you can't assume that simply because a phenomena changes quickly that the phenomena is cultural, because the phenomena might be a biological one that simply applies differently. It is unbelievably disingenuous to suggest that there was no cultural component to women joining the workforce. Actually, it's absolutely absurd. While technology alleviating biological conditions was certainly important and relevant to women joining the workforce, so too was the women's rights movement which challenged the widespread belief that women were best suited to work in a particular field or only in the home.
The argument I was making is that division of labor which explained the historical trend of male breadwinners was a biological phenomenon in the first place. Culture certainly was constructed around it, and needed to change for women to join the workforce, but that doesn't mean that the phenomenon was cultural.
On June 11 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote:Furthermore, even the idea that children should be raised by women or by one mother is completely a cultural phenomenon, as evidenced by hunter-gatherer tribes which are structured in a completely egalitarian fashion and which had children raised by men as well as multiple women; mothers even lived with their mothers for a period, undermining the very typical conception of the nuclear family that continues to dominate Western culture. Of course, men are generally breadwinners in these sorts of societies, but there are exceptions to this rule.
Modern hunter-gatherer tribes are egalitarian. This does not imply that most hunter-gatherers historically were egalitarian.
In fact, I would argue that the reason why archaeologists and anthropologists disagree on this notion is because the anthropologists study modern hunter-gatherers, whereas archaeologists look at historical ones.
Why the difference? I would speculate this is because the non-egalitarian ones were the ones that developed civilizations because they figured out that division of labor was an advantageous strategy, given the biological differences between men and women.
On June 11 2013 10:09 Shiori wrote:
Ultimately, my point is that you appear far too eager to justify virtually any existent divide between men and women in modern culture by way of biology in order to uphold the utterly absurd conclusion that feminism not only has nothing to accomplish but is actually unfounded by definition.
I haven't recently argued that feminism is unfounded, and my posts in this conversation were not aimed at establishing that notion.
My conclusion that feminism is unfounded is due to the fact that it rests on patriarchy theory (an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory with no evidence to support it), the fact that feminists in practice do not actually pursue gender equality as they claim, and the fact that feminism assumes that all gender differences are entirely culturally constructed.
|
On June 11 2013 10:12 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 10:04 bardtown wrote:On June 11 2013 09:36 Shiori wrote:On June 11 2013 09:29 bardtown wrote:On June 11 2013 09:24 Shiori wrote:On June 11 2013 09:15 JimmiC wrote:I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now. Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that. Honestly stop making stuff up. All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim. Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black. The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science. No doubt the development of those cultures has no basis in the biology of humankind... When you see running themes in cultures across the world since time immemorial, it's actually much simpler to apply the differences between the sexes to biology than to culture, so you've completely misapplied Occam's razor. Except there are enough major differences across cultures that biological distinctions don't help us much, especially since our knowledge of different cultures diminishes greatly as we move farther into the past. Furthermore, there are a great many variations that seem like the norm over a long period of time but actually don't represent a uniform thing at all. For example, a cursory look at Western civilization might lead one to believe that homosexuality is something that we have some sort of genetic basis for hating, because the last millennium and a half is filled with various cultures simultaneously reviling it. But if you go back just a little farther, you find a much more relaxed (though not egalitarian, by any means) approach to homosexuality in ancient Greek society. So no, there aren't really any relevant "running themes" that are truly universal since "time immemorial" aside from general monogamy (or at least serial monogamy) and that men have penises and women vaginas. Let me give you a running theme: men predominantly fighting. Let me give you another: women predominantly raising children. Let's now consider something (apparently ridiculously unlikely from your perspective): that men and women are distinct in their biology in order to further their natural roles. No no, men develop muscles, women lactate - but any differentiation in the mind is clearly cultural. Even in ancient Greece homosexuality was primarily about men dominating boys. Nowhere have I claimed that there exists to mental differentiation between men and women. I have only claimed that it is far too debated a field to actually presume that any existent behavioural difference is the result of biology. Pederasty was not about men dominating boys; it was about an older mentor exchanging his expertise for the affections of a young boy, who, like it or not, actually did learn from his lover.
It being a 'debated field' (a worthless term) does not mean there aren't many things as good as established. There are a ridiculous amount of studies on the relation of testosterone to competitiveness. "Males and females across all sexually reproducing species display gender-specific behavior in many areas, including mating, territorial marking, aggression and parental care" - first Google result.
Now let's debate the actual issue, rather than whether men and women are different, which they indubitably are, both mentally and physically. The issue is more like, should biological differences be 'overcome' to create a more 'fair' society. What I would suggest is that repressing masculine/feminine instincts is not beneficial.
I really hate the idea of humans being somehow 'beyond nature'. People who think like this completely miss what society is. The reason people are starving all over the world is because competition is the foundation of life, in our species as much as in the next. We're just animals, and we have sex differences that are not mutable.
Edit: worth noting that I strongly support feminism in the sense of combating oppression of women. I just don't see innate sex differences as oppression in and of themselves. And I don't see women doing 'feminine' things or being seen in a 'feminine' light as a negative in and of itself.
|
On June 11 2013 10:14 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2013 09:58 Shiori wrote:On June 11 2013 09:50 sunprince wrote:On June 11 2013 09:36 Shiori wrote:On June 11 2013 09:29 bardtown wrote:On June 11 2013 09:24 Shiori wrote:On June 11 2013 09:15 JimmiC wrote:I'd give it a 95% artificial/5% natural breakdown in construction. incidentally, your line of argument is far better served by focusing on an increased preference for socialization in females, which is practically the only biological behavior that is researched and supports any sort of natural reasoning for differences in gender participation in video gaming. since I guess that's where this thread is at now. Great I would give it 5% artificial and 95% natural. Oh wait I'm just throwing out numbers with out facts, studies or anything to back it out. But now that I have said it I'm going to act as though it's true because thats how smart I am and you should all agree with me based on that. Honestly stop making stuff up. All things should be presumed as incidental unless someone can prove they are necessary i.e. it is infinitely more reasonable to assume that a given behaviour is a product of the environment (since environments are contingent and can change) rather than that a behaviour is a necessary genetic consequence, because the latter is a much stronger claim. Kinda like: you go to a particular country and see a black sheep. Then you see a couple more or perhaps a herd. It would be incorrect to presume that all sheep are black since that's too broad a variable for what you've observed. Instead, it would be much more reasonable to conclude that at least one species from this particular country is black. The problem with the debate right now is that somewhere we're equivocating "there are biochemical differences between men and women" and "men and women have wildly different behaviours/preferences/aptitudes" when there's pretty much no indication of how powerful the biochemical influence actually is. The reason there is very little evidence is that, unfortunately, no one beyond infancy hasn't been exposed to culture, so culture can't really be eliminated as a variable, especially since varying cultures tend to have had some perspectives on sexuality that are more or less analogous in relevant ways.Yes, I'm aware of studies that show varying interests among infant boys and girls, but to move from this subtle distinction to a grand dismissal of the fucking huge skewing that we observe among adults is simply not substantiated by science. No doubt the development of those cultures has no basis in the biology of humankind... When you see running themes in cultures across the world since time immemorial, it's actually much simpler to apply the differences between the sexes to biology than to culture, so you've completely misapplied Occam's razor. Except there are enough major differences across cultures that biological distinctions don't help us much, especially since our knowledge of different cultures diminishes greatly as we move farther into the past. Furthermore, there are a great many variations that seem like the norm over a long period of time but actually don't represent a uniform thing at all. For example, a cursory look at Western civilization might lead one to believe that homosexuality is something that we have some sort of genetic basis for hating, because the last millennium and a half is filled with various cultures simultaneously reviling it. But if you go back just a little farther, you find a much more relaxed (though not egalitarian, by any means) approach to homosexuality in ancient Greek society. So no, there aren't really any relevant "running themes" that are truly universal since "time immemorial" aside from general monogamy (or at least serial monogamy) and that men have penises and women vaginas. A single example (of an exception that proves the rule, no less) doesn't change the fact that there are general identifiable trends. But ultimately, cultural differences are derived from both sex differences and social conditioning. The simple fact is, there are empirically established sex differences besides the obvious physical ones. The argument that men and women are psychologically identical is preposterous if you look at it from a biological sciences viewpoint, because sexual dimorphism exists in nearly all mammals and extends to non-physical differences as well. Ideologues who argue against this are essentially making the ridiculous claim that humans are unique in that unlike all of our relatives, we're identical in every way except physically. Except at no point did I claim that men and women are psychologically identical. My point is that the argument you are making, namely that some tendency X is a result of sexual dimorphism and differences in brain chemistry, is a positive claim. This means you need to show it to be true. Obviously not all behaviours which differ between men and women are genetically determined, so you need to actually show that a behaviour in question is definitely a result of biology, not culture. You have not done this when it comes to gaming. You have constructed a post-hoc hypothesis that is plausible but by no means certain or even probable (i.e. the notion that disparities between men/women in tech has something to do with perceived loser status later ameliorated and blah blah is a quaint and consistent system, but it's totally unfounded because it's just hypothetical and hasn't been substantiated. But to be clear: I'm not dismissing your points about women and social status, or whatever, but merely that this particular example isn't necessarily due to the system you are proposing). The reality is, there is no way to positively show that any sex differences are due entirely to biology or culture. However, empirically establishing a biologically difference is enough to reasonably make inferences that such a biological difference may explain a sex difference. In the case of gaming, it has been established that men prefer physical violence more than women do, probably due at least in part to the 20x greater amount of testosterone in men. We can also reasonably observe (or possibly find studies, but this is probably non-controversial enough to accept) that most popular video games are violent. Therefore, it is reasonable to claim that men are more likely to play video games since they are more likely to prefer the physical violence prevalent in video games.
Another one of your houses of cards! Well, actually, your own link notes that Kenyan boys and girls are equally likely to use physical violence, which pretty much annihilates whatever point you were trying to make, given that, as far as I'm aware, Kenyan's don't have different testosterone than everyone else. But that's actually beside the point, because using physical violence is not the same as being comfortable playing a game that has physical violence. What's more, you've completely dodged the much more plausible hypothesis that arises out of the fact that you failed to adequately explain women's slow warming up to technology, namely that the reason women are less interested in video games is because they tend to use technology less than men to begin with! It's not like women are super on board with using all sorts of technology across all demographics and just magically don't play any video games! For one thing, tonnes of video games are very obviously marketed to men (shooters, especially).
On June 11 2013 09:58 Shiori wrote:For example, the fact that women leave the workforce earlier than men could either be a result of a biological inclination to cease activity earlier or due to cultural influences. Evidence suggests it's the latter.
The article you linked argues that the main reason women retire earlier is because they face more caregiving demands. However, you're making the assumption that women are primary caregivers due to cultural influences, without any evidence to support that notion, when it is at least partly due to the fact that women are inclined towards caregiving.[/QUOTE]
It's cute that you ignore the other two reasons, or the research on the following page which suggests that women are facing age discrimination and that this is a problem. This is such a perfect illustration of what's wrong with your position: you literally discount two other bullet points and research on the following page to draw attention to the only possible cause that might have a biological influence.
Furthermore, there is virtually no agreement nor scientific consensus around women being better/more natural caregivers than men other than convention and the simple fact that women bear children and, therefore, can't really run away from them while men have generally not encountered any career impediments as a result of fathering a child, barring illegitimate or scandalous pregnancies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
