|
On June 27 2013 23:53 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 23:52 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 23:46 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 22:20 YumYumGranola wrote:On June 27 2013 16:26 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote:On June 27 2013 11:30 Sokrates wrote:
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not.
Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world. Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes. Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing. You simply dont get my point. Reread what i was refering to: I said that i will say what i think is true when i have good reasoning for this. Codonbyte said i cannot do this because it doesnt sound nice. So i brought up an example showing that codonbytes idea is also not nice if i take it word by word. No way i said that women shouldne be encouraged to pick up a profession in engeeniering or likewise. I dont know why it is so hard to read properly esp. when i phrased it in easy, clear words. Just dont make stuff up i never said. And this "constructionist nonsense" as you call it causes people to call other people sexist because they do not share their very own belives. That was my point. On June 27 2013 15:03 Ghostcom wrote:On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote:On June 27 2013 11:30 Sokrates wrote:
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not.
Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world. Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes. Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing. I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to (or rather it would force people out of their preferred field). This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one. The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles. As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place. EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument. You got the point right. On June 27 2013 15:22 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 15:03 Ghostcom wrote:On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote:On June 27 2013 11:30 Sokrates wrote:
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not.
Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world. Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes. Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing. I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to. This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one. The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles. As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place. EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument. To be honest his argument didn't make a whole lot of sense. I basically said that the current gender split in fields such as engineering is at least partially caused by sexism which, in spite of improvements, is still very much alive today. If you don't believe me, just tune into any female streamer and see what people say in chat. Then he responded to me with that argument, which really didn't make any sense at all. I mean, I never said anything about forcing anyone into any career. I never said anything about creating quotas. All I said was that because sexism is very much alive, we cannot just assume that the current gender split in fields such as engineering or gaming is caused by biology. For the record, here is my post that he was responding to: Wow. Just wow. So you think that you can fix all the sexism in the world by actively forcing people into a career until you get to 50/50?? Oh my god. No. What I've been arguing is that benevolent sexism makes it more difficult for men and women to move outside of gender roles that have been developed. Here is a quote from a feminist site that describes benevolent sexism and the problems it causes: Although benevolent sexism may sound oxymoronic, this term recognizes that some forms of sexism are, for the perpetrator, subjectively benevolent, characterizing women as pure creatures who ought to be protected, supported, and adored and whose love is necessary to make a man complete. This idealization of women simultaneously implies that they are weak and best suited for conventional gender roles; being put on a pedestal is confining, yet the man who places a woman there is likely to interpret this as cherishing, rather than restricting, her (and many women may agree). Despite the greater social acceptability of benevolent sexism, our research suggests that it serves as a crucial complement to hostile sexism that helps to pacify women’s resistance to societal gender inequality.
[Peter Glick and Susan Fiske (American Psychologist Volume 56(2), February 2001, p 109–118): "An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender Inequality".] While that quote talks solely about women, the same concepts can be used to restrict the roles that men can assume in society. No again i wasnt arguing on that. I just stated that beliving men and women are to some degree different in their behaviour having natural as well as social causes is not sexist. That is all what i want to say. You said: If i say women in general like to pick up other professions than men (because they inherently like them more) then i m sexist. So by your logic stating that there are NO biological differences we would expect 50/50 in every field. That means if we DO NOT see 50/50 the reason has to be sexism. Right? Because after this logic the quota would be exactly 50/50. Simple pure logic. So if there is "sexism" since there is no 50/50 we have to get rid of sexism, and how are you going to do it without force when the reason for no 50/50 isnt sexism? I m also not denying that there isnt any sexism. For me sexism is : Women suck at enigneering. Not: Women do generally like enigneering less than men do. That was my whole point. As is often the case with prejudicial comments, it's not the comment themselves which makes it prejudicial, but the context of the discussion to which it is being applied which does so. Maybe I should have covered my final paragraph in more detail. Yes, I accept that in a perfect world of zero sexism that it's entirely possible that gender splits in certain fields will occur simply due to biological differences between the two sexes. But that's not really in any way relevant to the real world, and implying that it does have any relevance to the discussion is what's kind of insulting. You're basically implying two things: 1) That our understanding of sexism as it pertains to the workplace is limited to looking at org charts. 2) That we should be willing to accept gender discrepancies in the workplace because maybe they're just what they ought to be, and attempting to change it could hurt people by upsetting the already perfect balance. Like I said before, I have experience in engineering in both academia and the professional world. I don't think sexism exists because there were only 20 girls out of 130 students in my graduating class. I think that sexism exists because I've seen it. Everything from TAs talking about purposely giving hot female students poorer grades in the hopes that they will come visit office hours (true story), to the more subtle, but no less hurtful, forms of subconscious sexism that are made apparent in how females were treated when they worked in teams and how women are presented career opportunities. So any sort of discussion about whether we'd be doing harm by trying to get more women into a particular field (in my case engineering) because we might be upsetting the balance of the force is simply absurd. That balance does not exist, and frankly the discussion to me reeks of a weak attempt to ignore that sexism exists. If you really wanted to not be sexist you should have asked the follow-up question "Why do women generally like engineering than men do?" If you can't think of a single answer that doesn't involve brain chemistry, I'm sorry, but you're probably sexist (or at least blind to it's existence).. 1. Again you miss my point. I try to make it very easy for you since you post unrelated stuff: Saying that women and men are different in behaviour because of biological reasons is not sexist. 2. Ever came up with the idea that women do like engineering less because they like other stuff more? How about that? Did that came to your mind? Ever came to your mind that women generally like to interact with people more than men do for example being a doctor or a nurse? You only see this from one perspective which has a reason, but saying it is the ONLY reason is not making sense. And i didnt ingnore that sexism doesnt exist, as i already mentioned before. How to make it very easy again: Women dont become engineers because: a) there is some kind of sexism as you described and b) women dont become engineers because they are less interested in this topic had have more interested in other topics. So do you agree with that? This has is also shown in the genderparadox where women in the least sexist societys pick the most genderspecific jobs. I hope you understood this. And saying that doesnt make me a sexist. It is really funny that i have to repeat stuff a million times to make a really simple standpoint clear. It's not that he doesn't understand. He's just saying you're wrong. Those are two very distinct things. Where am i wrong? Point it out? Point it out on my own words and tell me where i was wrong. And dont make up stuff. Quote me and then you disprove me.
YumYumGranola already did that. Simply plugging your ears and saying "no he didn't!" doesn't change that. And if you won't be swayed by him, I think my critique would be a waste of all our time.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On June 27 2013 23:53 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 23:52 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 23:46 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 22:20 YumYumGranola wrote:On June 27 2013 16:26 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote:On June 27 2013 11:30 Sokrates wrote:
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not.
Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world. Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes. Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing. You simply dont get my point. Reread what i was refering to: I said that i will say what i think is true when i have good reasoning for this. Codonbyte said i cannot do this because it doesnt sound nice. So i brought up an example showing that codonbytes idea is also not nice if i take it word by word. No way i said that women shouldne be encouraged to pick up a profession in engeeniering or likewise. I dont know why it is so hard to read properly esp. when i phrased it in easy, clear words. Just dont make stuff up i never said. And this "constructionist nonsense" as you call it causes people to call other people sexist because they do not share their very own belives. That was my point. On June 27 2013 15:03 Ghostcom wrote:On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote:On June 27 2013 11:30 Sokrates wrote:
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not.
Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world. Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes. Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing. I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to (or rather it would force people out of their preferred field). This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one. The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles. As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place. EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument. You got the point right. On June 27 2013 15:22 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 15:03 Ghostcom wrote:On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote:On June 27 2013 11:30 Sokrates wrote:
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not.
Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world. Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes. Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing. I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to. This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one. The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles. As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place. EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument. To be honest his argument didn't make a whole lot of sense. I basically said that the current gender split in fields such as engineering is at least partially caused by sexism which, in spite of improvements, is still very much alive today. If you don't believe me, just tune into any female streamer and see what people say in chat. Then he responded to me with that argument, which really didn't make any sense at all. I mean, I never said anything about forcing anyone into any career. I never said anything about creating quotas. All I said was that because sexism is very much alive, we cannot just assume that the current gender split in fields such as engineering or gaming is caused by biology. For the record, here is my post that he was responding to: Wow. Just wow. So you think that you can fix all the sexism in the world by actively forcing people into a career until you get to 50/50?? Oh my god. No. What I've been arguing is that benevolent sexism makes it more difficult for men and women to move outside of gender roles that have been developed. Here is a quote from a feminist site that describes benevolent sexism and the problems it causes: Although benevolent sexism may sound oxymoronic, this term recognizes that some forms of sexism are, for the perpetrator, subjectively benevolent, characterizing women as pure creatures who ought to be protected, supported, and adored and whose love is necessary to make a man complete. This idealization of women simultaneously implies that they are weak and best suited for conventional gender roles; being put on a pedestal is confining, yet the man who places a woman there is likely to interpret this as cherishing, rather than restricting, her (and many women may agree). Despite the greater social acceptability of benevolent sexism, our research suggests that it serves as a crucial complement to hostile sexism that helps to pacify women’s resistance to societal gender inequality.
[Peter Glick and Susan Fiske (American Psychologist Volume 56(2), February 2001, p 109–118): "An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender Inequality".] While that quote talks solely about women, the same concepts can be used to restrict the roles that men can assume in society. No again i wasnt arguing on that. I just stated that beliving men and women are to some degree different in their behaviour having natural as well as social causes is not sexist. That is all what i want to say. You said: If i say women in general like to pick up other professions than men (because they inherently like them more) then i m sexist. So by your logic stating that there are NO biological differences we would expect 50/50 in every field. That means if we DO NOT see 50/50 the reason has to be sexism. Right? Because after this logic the quota would be exactly 50/50. Simple pure logic. So if there is "sexism" since there is no 50/50 we have to get rid of sexism, and how are you going to do it without force when the reason for no 50/50 isnt sexism? I m also not denying that there isnt any sexism. For me sexism is : Women suck at enigneering. Not: Women do generally like enigneering less than men do. That was my whole point. As is often the case with prejudicial comments, it's not the comment themselves which makes it prejudicial, but the context of the discussion to which it is being applied which does so. Maybe I should have covered my final paragraph in more detail. Yes, I accept that in a perfect world of zero sexism that it's entirely possible that gender splits in certain fields will occur simply due to biological differences between the two sexes. But that's not really in any way relevant to the real world, and implying that it does have any relevance to the discussion is what's kind of insulting. You're basically implying two things: 1) That our understanding of sexism as it pertains to the workplace is limited to looking at org charts. 2) That we should be willing to accept gender discrepancies in the workplace because maybe they're just what they ought to be, and attempting to change it could hurt people by upsetting the already perfect balance. Like I said before, I have experience in engineering in both academia and the professional world. I don't think sexism exists because there were only 20 girls out of 130 students in my graduating class. I think that sexism exists because I've seen it. Everything from TAs talking about purposely giving hot female students poorer grades in the hopes that they will come visit office hours (true story), to the more subtle, but no less hurtful, forms of subconscious sexism that are made apparent in how females were treated when they worked in teams and how women are presented career opportunities. So any sort of discussion about whether we'd be doing harm by trying to get more women into a particular field (in my case engineering) because we might be upsetting the balance of the force is simply absurd. That balance does not exist, and frankly the discussion to me reeks of a weak attempt to ignore that sexism exists. If you really wanted to not be sexist you should have asked the follow-up question "Why do women generally like engineering than men do?" If you can't think of a single answer that doesn't involve brain chemistry, I'm sorry, but you're probably sexist (or at least blind to it's existence).. 1. Again you miss my point. I try to make it very easy for you since you post unrelated stuff: Saying that women and men are different in behaviour because of biological reasons is not sexist. 2. Ever came up with the idea that women do like engineering less because they like other stuff more? How about that? Did that came to your mind? Ever came to your mind that women generally like to interact with people more than men do for example being a doctor or a nurse? You only see this from one perspective which has a reason, but saying it is the ONLY reason is not making sense. And i didnt ingnore that sexism doesnt exist, as i already mentioned before. How to make it very easy again: Women dont become engineers because: a) there is some kind of sexism as you described and b) women dont become engineers because they are less interested in this topic had have more interested in other topics. So do you agree with that? This has is also shown in the genderparadox where women in the least sexist societys pick the most genderspecific jobs. I hope you understood this. And saying that doesnt make me a sexist. It is really funny that i have to repeat stuff a million times to make a really simple standpoint clear. It's not that he doesn't understand. He's just saying you're wrong. Those are two very distinct things. Where am i wrong? Point it out? Point it out on my own words and tell me where i was wrong. And dont make up stuff. Quote me and then you disprove me.
You're not wrong, and neither is Yumyum. You're just dancing around each other emphasising different points. Basic point is there's gender differences in various jobs, with the two reasons being
1) innate gender/natural tendencies
2) sexism in whatever form causing discrepancies.
As far as I can tell, yumyum is saying it's irrelevant thinking about 1) while 2) is still out there and going strong. Nonetheless 1) probably exists. But there's a reeeeeeeeeeeeally long way to clearing up 2) before 1) becomes a particularly valid argument for anything.
|
On June 27 2013 23:59 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 23:53 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 23:52 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 23:46 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 22:20 YumYumGranola wrote:On June 27 2013 16:26 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote:On June 27 2013 11:30 Sokrates wrote:
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not.
Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world. Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes. Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing. You simply dont get my point. Reread what i was refering to: I said that i will say what i think is true when i have good reasoning for this. Codonbyte said i cannot do this because it doesnt sound nice. So i brought up an example showing that codonbytes idea is also not nice if i take it word by word. No way i said that women shouldne be encouraged to pick up a profession in engeeniering or likewise. I dont know why it is so hard to read properly esp. when i phrased it in easy, clear words. Just dont make stuff up i never said. And this "constructionist nonsense" as you call it causes people to call other people sexist because they do not share their very own belives. That was my point. On June 27 2013 15:03 Ghostcom wrote:On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote:On June 27 2013 11:30 Sokrates wrote:
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not.
Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world. Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes. Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing. I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to (or rather it would force people out of their preferred field). This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one. The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles. As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place. EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument. You got the point right. On June 27 2013 15:22 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 15:03 Ghostcom wrote:On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote:On June 27 2013 11:30 Sokrates wrote:
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not.
Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world. Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes. Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing. I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to. This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one. The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles. As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place. EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument. To be honest his argument didn't make a whole lot of sense. I basically said that the current gender split in fields such as engineering is at least partially caused by sexism which, in spite of improvements, is still very much alive today. If you don't believe me, just tune into any female streamer and see what people say in chat. Then he responded to me with that argument, which really didn't make any sense at all. I mean, I never said anything about forcing anyone into any career. I never said anything about creating quotas. All I said was that because sexism is very much alive, we cannot just assume that the current gender split in fields such as engineering or gaming is caused by biology. For the record, here is my post that he was responding to: Wow. Just wow. So you think that you can fix all the sexism in the world by actively forcing people into a career until you get to 50/50?? Oh my god. No. What I've been arguing is that benevolent sexism makes it more difficult for men and women to move outside of gender roles that have been developed. Here is a quote from a feminist site that describes benevolent sexism and the problems it causes: Although benevolent sexism may sound oxymoronic, this term recognizes that some forms of sexism are, for the perpetrator, subjectively benevolent, characterizing women as pure creatures who ought to be protected, supported, and adored and whose love is necessary to make a man complete. This idealization of women simultaneously implies that they are weak and best suited for conventional gender roles; being put on a pedestal is confining, yet the man who places a woman there is likely to interpret this as cherishing, rather than restricting, her (and many women may agree). Despite the greater social acceptability of benevolent sexism, our research suggests that it serves as a crucial complement to hostile sexism that helps to pacify women’s resistance to societal gender inequality.
[Peter Glick and Susan Fiske (American Psychologist Volume 56(2), February 2001, p 109–118): "An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender Inequality".] While that quote talks solely about women, the same concepts can be used to restrict the roles that men can assume in society. No again i wasnt arguing on that. I just stated that beliving men and women are to some degree different in their behaviour having natural as well as social causes is not sexist. That is all what i want to say. You said: If i say women in general like to pick up other professions than men (because they inherently like them more) then i m sexist. So by your logic stating that there are NO biological differences we would expect 50/50 in every field. That means if we DO NOT see 50/50 the reason has to be sexism. Right? Because after this logic the quota would be exactly 50/50. Simple pure logic. So if there is "sexism" since there is no 50/50 we have to get rid of sexism, and how are you going to do it without force when the reason for no 50/50 isnt sexism? I m also not denying that there isnt any sexism. For me sexism is : Women suck at enigneering. Not: Women do generally like enigneering less than men do. That was my whole point. As is often the case with prejudicial comments, it's not the comment themselves which makes it prejudicial, but the context of the discussion to which it is being applied which does so. Maybe I should have covered my final paragraph in more detail. Yes, I accept that in a perfect world of zero sexism that it's entirely possible that gender splits in certain fields will occur simply due to biological differences between the two sexes. But that's not really in any way relevant to the real world, and implying that it does have any relevance to the discussion is what's kind of insulting. You're basically implying two things: 1) That our understanding of sexism as it pertains to the workplace is limited to looking at org charts. 2) That we should be willing to accept gender discrepancies in the workplace because maybe they're just what they ought to be, and attempting to change it could hurt people by upsetting the already perfect balance. Like I said before, I have experience in engineering in both academia and the professional world. I don't think sexism exists because there were only 20 girls out of 130 students in my graduating class. I think that sexism exists because I've seen it. Everything from TAs talking about purposely giving hot female students poorer grades in the hopes that they will come visit office hours (true story), to the more subtle, but no less hurtful, forms of subconscious sexism that are made apparent in how females were treated when they worked in teams and how women are presented career opportunities. So any sort of discussion about whether we'd be doing harm by trying to get more women into a particular field (in my case engineering) because we might be upsetting the balance of the force is simply absurd. That balance does not exist, and frankly the discussion to me reeks of a weak attempt to ignore that sexism exists. If you really wanted to not be sexist you should have asked the follow-up question "Why do women generally like engineering than men do?" If you can't think of a single answer that doesn't involve brain chemistry, I'm sorry, but you're probably sexist (or at least blind to it's existence).. 1. Again you miss my point. I try to make it very easy for you since you post unrelated stuff: Saying that women and men are different in behaviour because of biological reasons is not sexist. 2. Ever came up with the idea that women do like engineering less because they like other stuff more? How about that? Did that came to your mind? Ever came to your mind that women generally like to interact with people more than men do for example being a doctor or a nurse? You only see this from one perspective which has a reason, but saying it is the ONLY reason is not making sense. And i didnt ingnore that sexism doesnt exist, as i already mentioned before. How to make it very easy again: Women dont become engineers because: a) there is some kind of sexism as you described and b) women dont become engineers because they are less interested in this topic had have more interested in other topics. So do you agree with that? This has is also shown in the genderparadox where women in the least sexist societys pick the most genderspecific jobs. I hope you understood this. And saying that doesnt make me a sexist. It is really funny that i have to repeat stuff a million times to make a really simple standpoint clear. It's not that he doesn't understand. He's just saying you're wrong. Those are two very distinct things. Where am i wrong? Point it out? Point it out on my own words and tell me where i was wrong. And dont make up stuff. Quote me and then you disprove me. You're not wrong, and neither is Yumyum. You're just dancing around each other emphasising different points. Basic point is there's gender differences in various jobs, with the two reasons being 1) innate gender/natural tendencies 2) sexism in whatever form causing discrepancies. As far as I can tell, yumyum is saying it's irrelevant thinking about 1) while 2) is still out there and going strong. Nonetheless 1) probably exists. But there's a reeeeeeeeeeeeally long way to clearing up 2) before 1) becomes a particularly valid argument for anything.
Woho someone understood it.
But to add i have to say beliving that 1) exists doesnt make me a sexist.
And if you cleared out 2) and 1) stays and you are saying there is still sexism can only be brought to 50/50 if you force it.
To get the whole picture : codonbyte said beliving 1) exists is not a nice thing to think. Because it is sexist.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On June 28 2013 00:02 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 23:59 marvellosity wrote:On June 27 2013 23:53 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 23:52 Klondikebar wrote:On June 27 2013 23:46 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 22:20 YumYumGranola wrote:On June 27 2013 16:26 Sokrates wrote:On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote:On June 27 2013 11:30 Sokrates wrote:
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not.
Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world. Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes. Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing. You simply dont get my point. Reread what i was refering to: I said that i will say what i think is true when i have good reasoning for this. Codonbyte said i cannot do this because it doesnt sound nice. So i brought up an example showing that codonbytes idea is also not nice if i take it word by word. No way i said that women shouldne be encouraged to pick up a profession in engeeniering or likewise. I dont know why it is so hard to read properly esp. when i phrased it in easy, clear words. Just dont make stuff up i never said. And this "constructionist nonsense" as you call it causes people to call other people sexist because they do not share their very own belives. That was my point. On June 27 2013 15:03 Ghostcom wrote:On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote:On June 27 2013 11:30 Sokrates wrote:
I give a fuck of your feminist sites because they do not hold the ultimate truth. There are many feminists claiming that transmen are just foced into this role because of society. I m sure some will disagree.
If i belive something i have VERY GOOD reasoning for, i m saying it NO MATTER what you think about it when i think it is true. By your defintion i only can say things that sound good no matter if they are true or not.
Same goes for the blank sheet theory where everyone is able to be the next mozard, einstein, maria curie or mike tyson.
Sounds fucking good right? But that isnt true. And that is why i m not agreeing on it nor do i holy back my opinion about it.
And then again you didnt even understand what i said. When men and women are equal in every way you have to expect 50 50 everywhere, if this is not the case sexism or patriarchy or whatever has to be the reason for it. And then you have to foce it so it becomes 50 50 because that would be the next logical step. Which is forcing people into something they dont like if the theory is wrong.
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world. Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes. Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing. I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to (or rather it would force people out of their preferred field). This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one. The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles. As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place. EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument. You got the point right. On June 27 2013 15:22 codonbyte wrote:On June 27 2013 15:03 Ghostcom wrote:On June 27 2013 14:51 YumYumGranola wrote:
[quote]
I feel like in a sort of abstract metaphysical way you might kinda-sorta-not really have a point, but let's try to keep things to the real world.
Nobody is forcing women to do anything they don't want to do when they suggest "wouldn't it be nice if we encouraged women who wanted to learn math and science and pursue a career in engineering?" I just don't buy that there's this dystopic place where women are being forced into being engineers when they'd rather be doing something which you find acceptably feminine. I do however know firsthand as an engineer that there are many women who are turned off by the general machoism and sexism that still exists in the field despite recent changes.
Is it okay if at the end of the day the equilibrium gender split in a certain field is 60-40? Sure, whatever. But let's not have any more of this constructionist nonsense implying we've already reached that equilibrium and all differences are simply due to biology. Sexism is still a thing. I am pretty sure he argued that if anyone insisted that gender roles were entirely dictated by society and biology did not play a role one would expect a 50/50 split between genders everywhere in society, and if that was not the case, then there would still be sexism. The next logical step to get rid of sexism, if that was really how you wanted to measure sexism; as an inequality of outcome, would then be to impose quotas and thus force some people (male or female) into a field they did not want to. This however would mean that people would be treated unequal depending on gender to reach the equal outcome - thus making equal outcome as a measure for equality a bullshit one. The position thus boils down to that equality should be measured as equality of opportunity as there are also a biological component to the gender roles. As far as I read him he did not deny that sexism still took place. EDIT: I could of course be mistaken, but I honestly think you misunderstand and misrepresent his argument. To be honest his argument didn't make a whole lot of sense. I basically said that the current gender split in fields such as engineering is at least partially caused by sexism which, in spite of improvements, is still very much alive today. If you don't believe me, just tune into any female streamer and see what people say in chat. Then he responded to me with that argument, which really didn't make any sense at all. I mean, I never said anything about forcing anyone into any career. I never said anything about creating quotas. All I said was that because sexism is very much alive, we cannot just assume that the current gender split in fields such as engineering or gaming is caused by biology. For the record, here is my post that he was responding to: Wow. Just wow. So you think that you can fix all the sexism in the world by actively forcing people into a career until you get to 50/50?? Oh my god. No. What I've been arguing is that benevolent sexism makes it more difficult for men and women to move outside of gender roles that have been developed. Here is a quote from a feminist site that describes benevolent sexism and the problems it causes: Although benevolent sexism may sound oxymoronic, this term recognizes that some forms of sexism are, for the perpetrator, subjectively benevolent, characterizing women as pure creatures who ought to be protected, supported, and adored and whose love is necessary to make a man complete. This idealization of women simultaneously implies that they are weak and best suited for conventional gender roles; being put on a pedestal is confining, yet the man who places a woman there is likely to interpret this as cherishing, rather than restricting, her (and many women may agree). Despite the greater social acceptability of benevolent sexism, our research suggests that it serves as a crucial complement to hostile sexism that helps to pacify women’s resistance to societal gender inequality.
[Peter Glick and Susan Fiske (American Psychologist Volume 56(2), February 2001, p 109–118): "An Ambivalent Alliance: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism as Complementary Justifications for Gender Inequality".] While that quote talks solely about women, the same concepts can be used to restrict the roles that men can assume in society. No again i wasnt arguing on that. I just stated that beliving men and women are to some degree different in their behaviour having natural as well as social causes is not sexist. That is all what i want to say. You said: If i say women in general like to pick up other professions than men (because they inherently like them more) then i m sexist. So by your logic stating that there are NO biological differences we would expect 50/50 in every field. That means if we DO NOT see 50/50 the reason has to be sexism. Right? Because after this logic the quota would be exactly 50/50. Simple pure logic. So if there is "sexism" since there is no 50/50 we have to get rid of sexism, and how are you going to do it without force when the reason for no 50/50 isnt sexism? I m also not denying that there isnt any sexism. For me sexism is : Women suck at enigneering. Not: Women do generally like enigneering less than men do. That was my whole point. As is often the case with prejudicial comments, it's not the comment themselves which makes it prejudicial, but the context of the discussion to which it is being applied which does so. Maybe I should have covered my final paragraph in more detail. Yes, I accept that in a perfect world of zero sexism that it's entirely possible that gender splits in certain fields will occur simply due to biological differences between the two sexes. But that's not really in any way relevant to the real world, and implying that it does have any relevance to the discussion is what's kind of insulting. You're basically implying two things: 1) That our understanding of sexism as it pertains to the workplace is limited to looking at org charts. 2) That we should be willing to accept gender discrepancies in the workplace because maybe they're just what they ought to be, and attempting to change it could hurt people by upsetting the already perfect balance. Like I said before, I have experience in engineering in both academia and the professional world. I don't think sexism exists because there were only 20 girls out of 130 students in my graduating class. I think that sexism exists because I've seen it. Everything from TAs talking about purposely giving hot female students poorer grades in the hopes that they will come visit office hours (true story), to the more subtle, but no less hurtful, forms of subconscious sexism that are made apparent in how females were treated when they worked in teams and how women are presented career opportunities. So any sort of discussion about whether we'd be doing harm by trying to get more women into a particular field (in my case engineering) because we might be upsetting the balance of the force is simply absurd. That balance does not exist, and frankly the discussion to me reeks of a weak attempt to ignore that sexism exists. If you really wanted to not be sexist you should have asked the follow-up question "Why do women generally like engineering than men do?" If you can't think of a single answer that doesn't involve brain chemistry, I'm sorry, but you're probably sexist (or at least blind to it's existence).. 1. Again you miss my point. I try to make it very easy for you since you post unrelated stuff: Saying that women and men are different in behaviour because of biological reasons is not sexist. 2. Ever came up with the idea that women do like engineering less because they like other stuff more? How about that? Did that came to your mind? Ever came to your mind that women generally like to interact with people more than men do for example being a doctor or a nurse? You only see this from one perspective which has a reason, but saying it is the ONLY reason is not making sense. And i didnt ingnore that sexism doesnt exist, as i already mentioned before. How to make it very easy again: Women dont become engineers because: a) there is some kind of sexism as you described and b) women dont become engineers because they are less interested in this topic had have more interested in other topics. So do you agree with that? This has is also shown in the genderparadox where women in the least sexist societys pick the most genderspecific jobs. I hope you understood this. And saying that doesnt make me a sexist. It is really funny that i have to repeat stuff a million times to make a really simple standpoint clear. It's not that he doesn't understand. He's just saying you're wrong. Those are two very distinct things. Where am i wrong? Point it out? Point it out on my own words and tell me where i was wrong. And dont make up stuff. Quote me and then you disprove me. You're not wrong, and neither is Yumyum. You're just dancing around each other emphasising different points. Basic point is there's gender differences in various jobs, with the two reasons being 1) innate gender/natural tendencies 2) sexism in whatever form causing discrepancies. As far as I can tell, yumyum is saying it's irrelevant thinking about 1) while 2) is still out there and going strong. Nonetheless 1) probably exists. But there's a reeeeeeeeeeeeally long way to clearing up 2) before 1) becomes a particularly valid argument for anything. Woho someone understood it. But to add i have to say beliving that 1) exists doesnt make me a sexist. And if you cleared out 2) and 1) stays and you are saying there is still sexism can only be brought to 50/50 if you force it. To get the whole picture : codonbyte said beliving 1) exists is not a nice thing to think. Because it is sexist.
I think where people are getting uptight about it is that while 1) might exist, using it as an explanation for gender disparities in various industries is a weak or misleading argument, given the importance of 2)
|
As i said before it is a mixture of both: Biological and social reasons. I dont know how someone can be "uptight" about this?
But rather throw out the inflationary sexist, that proves the point better than logical reasoning.
You know that is the thing what i was saying before: dont throw out the sexist card. It is just disgraceful.
|
What most people are, correctly, saying is that 1) might as well not exist while there's so much 2) going on.
The amount of innate differences caused by 1) in the world at the moment is completely negligible on the scale that 2) happens on a daily basis.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On June 28 2013 00:21 Gowerly wrote:
What most people are, correctly, saying is that 1) might as well not exist while there's so much 2) going on.
The amount of innate differences caused by 1) in the world at the moment is completely negligible on the scale that 2) happens on a daily basis.
Swear to god I just said that 
|
On June 28 2013 00:24 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 00:21 Gowerly wrote:
What most people are, correctly, saying is that 1) might as well not exist while there's so much 2) going on.
The amount of innate differences caused by 1) in the world at the moment is completely negligible on the scale that 2) happens on a daily basis. Swear to god I just said that
Most likely you did. Unfortunately people are loath to believe that 2) is so bad because 1) must logically exist in some form.
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On June 28 2013 00:25 Gowerly wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 00:24 marvellosity wrote:On June 28 2013 00:21 Gowerly wrote:
What most people are, correctly, saying is that 1) might as well not exist while there's so much 2) going on.
The amount of innate differences caused by 1) in the world at the moment is completely negligible on the scale that 2) happens on a daily basis. Swear to god I just said that Most likely you did. Unfortunately people are loath to believe that 2) is so bad because 1) must logically exist in some form.
Yes, I think that's the nub of it. When people use 1) to excuse 2), then we have a problem.
|
On June 28 2013 00:21 Gowerly wrote:
What most people are, correctly, saying is that 1) might as well not exist while there's so much 2) going on.
The amount of innate differences caused by 1) in the world at the moment is completely negligible on the scale that 2) happens on a daily basis.
I m not saying 2) doesnt exist.
But how much 1) or 2) taking an influence on the "charts" is up for discussion. I think it is 50/50.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz#Gender_Equality
There is also the genderparadox, (as i said before) that women in the least sexist society (like sweden etc.) tend to have the most genderspecific jobs. Even iran has less of a gendergab in the choices of a profession.
|
Brunei Darussalam622 Posts
but when you multiply 2) by a factor of 1) you still get 2), which means 2) > 1).
|
United Kingdom36156 Posts
On June 28 2013 00:30 Dienosore wrote:
but when you multiply 2) by a factor of 1) you still get 2), which means 2) > 1).
And you need twice as much 1) to = 2). Fascinating stuff.
|
On June 28 2013 00:30 Dienosore wrote:
but when you multiply 2) by a factor of 1) you still get 2), which means 2) > 1).
No acutally you get 3) (the result). Because 1) is a constant and 2) is a variable.
|
On June 28 2013 00:19 Sokrates wrote:
As i said before it is a mixture of both: Biological and social reasons. I dont know how someone can be "uptight" about this?
But rather throw out the inflationary sexist, that proves the point better than logical reasoning.
You know that is the thing what i was saying before: dont throw out the sexist card. It is just disgraceful.
I think people might get the vibe that you're using biological/innate difference to justify #2.
Those difference are important, but they are extremely negligible in a complex profession like engineering that requires up to decades of education.
Biology is important, because it provide the basis that allows us to perform complex task. But it does not dictate our behavior outside of instincts.
Keep in mind that the social influence is extremely huge in our life; since the moment your parent knew your sex with ultrasound, you were treated differently. They talked to you differently, they used different word, they expected, encouraged or suppressed certain behavior you did, they gave you different toy. And through your life you saw stuff differently: movie, ads, people you see in public, all those show different perspective depending on your gender and they teach you from a very young age gender roles.
I could go on forever on how society influenced you through your life. But this is why at this point, #1 is largely irrelevant in this context.
|
On June 28 2013 00:38 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 00:19 Sokrates wrote:
As i said before it is a mixture of both: Biological and social reasons. I dont know how someone can be "uptight" about this?
But rather throw out the inflationary sexist, that proves the point better than logical reasoning.
You know that is the thing what i was saying before: dont throw out the sexist card. It is just disgraceful. I think people might get the vibe that you're using biological/innate difference to justify #2. Those difference are important, but they are extremely negligible in a complex profession like engineering that requires up to decades of education. Biology is important, because it provide the basis that allows us to perform complex task. But it does not dictate our behavior outside of instincts. Keep in mind that the social influence is extremely huge in our life; since the moment your parent knew your sex with ultrasound, you were treated differently. They talked to you differently, they used different word, they expected, encouraged or suppressed certain behavior you did, they gave you different toy. And through your life you saw stuff differently: movie, ads, people you see in public, all those show different perspective depending on your gender and they teach you from a very young age gender roles. I could go on forever on how society influenced you through your life. But this is why at this point, #1 is largely irrelevant.
Ofc society did, i m not dening it, but to say #1 is irrelevant is not correct. Many studies show this, not just refering gender but also intelligence and interests etc.
I just dont belive we are a blank mass that can be molded in any direction someone wants us to be. And there is no reason to belive this. If it would be this way how would you explain the existence of transgender or gay people? And this is not just limited to sex and gender.
|
On June 28 2013 00:43 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 00:38 Shodaa wrote:On June 28 2013 00:19 Sokrates wrote:
As i said before it is a mixture of both: Biological and social reasons. I dont know how someone can be "uptight" about this?
But rather throw out the inflationary sexist, that proves the point better than logical reasoning.
You know that is the thing what i was saying before: dont throw out the sexist card. It is just disgraceful. I think people might get the vibe that you're using biological/innate difference to justify #2. Those difference are important, but they are extremely negligible in a complex profession like engineering that requires up to decades of education. Biology is important, because it provide the basis that allows us to perform complex task. But it does not dictate our behavior outside of instincts. Keep in mind that the social influence is extremely huge in our life; since the moment your parent knew your sex with ultrasound, you were treated differently. They talked to you differently, they used different word, they expected, encouraged or suppressed certain behavior you did, they gave you different toy. And through your life you saw stuff differently: movie, ads, people you see in public, all those show different perspective depending on your gender and they teach you from a very young age gender roles. I could go on forever on how society influenced you through your life. But this is why at this point, #1 is largely irrelevant. Ofc society did, i m not dening it, but to say #1 is irrelevant is not correct. Many studies show this, not just refering gender but also intelligence and interests etc. I just dont belive we are a blank mass that can be molded in any direction someone wants us to be. And there is no reason to belive this. If it would be this way how would you explain the existence of transgender or gay people? And this is not just limited to sex and gender.
1 is irrelevant in the context of trying to fix 2. There's still plenty of 2 to fix. We don't even need to think about 1 yet.
|
On June 28 2013 00:53 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 00:43 Sokrates wrote:On June 28 2013 00:38 Shodaa wrote:On June 28 2013 00:19 Sokrates wrote:
As i said before it is a mixture of both: Biological and social reasons. I dont know how someone can be "uptight" about this?
But rather throw out the inflationary sexist, that proves the point better than logical reasoning.
You know that is the thing what i was saying before: dont throw out the sexist card. It is just disgraceful. I think people might get the vibe that you're using biological/innate difference to justify #2. Those difference are important, but they are extremely negligible in a complex profession like engineering that requires up to decades of education. Biology is important, because it provide the basis that allows us to perform complex task. But it does not dictate our behavior outside of instincts. Keep in mind that the social influence is extremely huge in our life; since the moment your parent knew your sex with ultrasound, you were treated differently. They talked to you differently, they used different word, they expected, encouraged or suppressed certain behavior you did, they gave you different toy. And through your life you saw stuff differently: movie, ads, people you see in public, all those show different perspective depending on your gender and they teach you from a very young age gender roles. I could go on forever on how society influenced you through your life. But this is why at this point, #1 is largely irrelevant. Ofc society did, i m not dening it, but to say #1 is irrelevant is not correct. Many studies show this, not just refering gender but also intelligence and interests etc. I just dont belive we are a blank mass that can be molded in any direction someone wants us to be. And there is no reason to belive this. If it would be this way how would you explain the existence of transgender or gay people? And this is not just limited to sex and gender. 1 is irrelevant in the context of trying to fix 2. There's still plenty of 2 to fix. We don't even need to think about 1 yet.
That wasnt the discussion. It was not about "fixing" something, it was about the idea how things are the way they are.
.
|
Sure it is. That's the only discussion.
How much there is of 1) and 2) is completely irrelevant. The fact is there is a lot of 2) going on.
Once 2) is eliminated then you can say 100% of all of the differences are down to 1) and feel all pleased about it to yourself. I highly doubt this will ever happen, though.
|
On June 28 2013 00:43 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 00:38 Shodaa wrote:On June 28 2013 00:19 Sokrates wrote:
As i said before it is a mixture of both: Biological and social reasons. I dont know how someone can be "uptight" about this?
But rather throw out the inflationary sexist, that proves the point better than logical reasoning.
You know that is the thing what i was saying before: dont throw out the sexist card. It is just disgraceful. I think people might get the vibe that you're using biological/innate difference to justify #2. Those difference are important, but they are extremely negligible in a complex profession like engineering that requires up to decades of education. Biology is important, because it provide the basis that allows us to perform complex task. But it does not dictate our behavior outside of instincts. Keep in mind that the social influence is extremely huge in our life; since the moment your parent knew your sex with ultrasound, you were treated differently. They talked to you differently, they used different word, they expected, encouraged or suppressed certain behavior you did, they gave you different toy. And through your life you saw stuff differently: movie, ads, people you see in public, all those show different perspective depending on your gender and they teach you from a very young age gender roles. I could go on forever on how society influenced you through your life. But this is why at this point, #1 is largely irrelevant. Ofc society did, i m not dening it, but to say #1 is irrelevant is not correct. Many studies show this, not just refering gender but also intelligence and interests etc. I just dont belive we are a blank mass that can be molded in any direction someone wants us to be. And there is no reason to belive this. If it would be this way how would you explain the existence of transgender or gay people? And this is not just limited to sex and gender.
Being transgender has nothing to do with gender roles though. It's about gender identity, which is innate. Gender identity dictate how you identify yourself, but it does not say how you must act or what you should do. Some trans people conform to gender role, some don't. Like I said in my last post, biology dictate "instinct", and this is part of it.
|
So if somebody thinks 1) exists you have the right to call him/her sexist? Does that help your cause? Or is it right to do so?
On June 28 2013 00:58 Shodaa wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 00:43 Sokrates wrote:On June 28 2013 00:38 Shodaa wrote:On June 28 2013 00:19 Sokrates wrote:
As i said before it is a mixture of both: Biological and social reasons. I dont know how someone can be "uptight" about this?
But rather throw out the inflationary sexist, that proves the point better than logical reasoning.
You know that is the thing what i was saying before: dont throw out the sexist card. It is just disgraceful. I think people might get the vibe that you're using biological/innate difference to justify #2. Those difference are important, but they are extremely negligible in a complex profession like engineering that requires up to decades of education. Biology is important, because it provide the basis that allows us to perform complex task. But it does not dictate our behavior outside of instincts. Keep in mind that the social influence is extremely huge in our life; since the moment your parent knew your sex with ultrasound, you were treated differently. They talked to you differently, they used different word, they expected, encouraged or suppressed certain behavior you did, they gave you different toy. And through your life you saw stuff differently: movie, ads, people you see in public, all those show different perspective depending on your gender and they teach you from a very young age gender roles. I could go on forever on how society influenced you through your life. But this is why at this point, #1 is largely irrelevant. Ofc society did, i m not dening it, but to say #1 is irrelevant is not correct. Many studies show this, not just refering gender but also intelligence and interests etc. I just dont belive we are a blank mass that can be molded in any direction someone wants us to be. And there is no reason to belive this. If it would be this way how would you explain the existence of transgender or gay people? And this is not just limited to sex and gender. Being transgender has nothing to do with gender roles though. It's about gender identity, which is innate. Gender identity dictate how you identify yourself, but it does not say how you must act or what you should do. Some trans people conform to gender role, some don't. Like I said in my last post, biology dictate "instinct", and this is part of it.
Yeah but some people belive that is not innate and can be changed just by the way you get raised. Because society is the only factor and can change everything. They belive nothing is innated. So even made medical experiments with boys that had micro penises, castrating them and raise them as girls because they thought it didnt matter. So something that all those genderpeople truely belived and yet it failed miserable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
