|
On June 28 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:17 Ghostcom wrote:On June 28 2013 01:29 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:27 Sokrates wrote:On June 28 2013 01:16 Shodaa wrote:On June 28 2013 00:58 Sokrates wrote: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: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. Yes of course, I am fully aware of those studies On June 28 2013 00:58 Sokrates wrote:
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?
Not necessarily, but in social science there is the notion that we try to explain social with social and keep biology on the side. Historically, this is because of racist and sexist theory within the field. Biology is obviously important, because without it we would be like other animal. Our biology is what allow us to be so culturally diverse. With biology, you can explain why we have relationship, why we have feeling, why we love our family, why do we live in group (evolution), and so on. But to say that biology explains why less women are in engineering is a bit of stretch since engineering is a fully socially constructed profession by humans. There is no special skillset within that field that is exclusive or only learnable by men. We should look at social reason why less women are interested. Well biology doesnt say that is is just exclusive for men or only learnable by men. It is the nature of the field being rather directed toward lifeless things in contray to other fields that focus more on interactions with other human beings like medicine etc. So If you have the choice (lets say both genders do on average equally good) then you chose a field that is more based on your own interests. That doesnt take social reasons out of the equation but saying biology is relevent is something you cannot dismiss.That is the main point just because you dont show interesed for something doesnt mean you cannot master it. Ok, we can't dismiss it. If we're talking about weather phenomena and you say the sky is blue we can't really dismiss it either but it's also not meaningful nor does it contribute to the discussion at hand. It does contribute to the discussion when one side is effectively arguing for equality of outcome as the true measure of equality - which it is not as proven by the existence of gender differences which reasonably could influence the outcome independently of social structures. You deeming what is relevant and what is not is getting really tiring because you have a tendency of not understanding what people are discussing and misrepresent their positions to suit your own beliefs. What does this have to do with the majestic TL logo? I have read all the previous posts, and they don't reference the horses beautiful mane in any way.
This sprung from codonbyte calling someone sexist (which arguably he was), someone disagreed because they mistook what was originally stated, codonbyte then began to argue what seemed to be that social norms decided 100% the outcome and thus logically would follow that a 50/50 split would happen in a society without sexism (this later got modified to a his current and more reasonable position). Sokratas called him out on it. A bunch of people misunderstood Sokrates and subsequently misrepresented his argument and here we are.
Are we off-topic? Sure. Was it important to point out the fallacy initially presented by codonbyte and thus a justified detour? I would say so. Should we get back on topic? Probably, though I fail to see what there is to discuss about a horse with a rainbow coloured flag, so any discussion is really going to be off-topic following your standards.
|
On June 28 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:17 Ghostcom wrote:On June 28 2013 01:29 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:27 Sokrates wrote:On June 28 2013 01:16 Shodaa wrote:On June 28 2013 00:58 Sokrates wrote: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: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. Yes of course, I am fully aware of those studies On June 28 2013 00:58 Sokrates wrote:
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?
Not necessarily, but in social science there is the notion that we try to explain social with social and keep biology on the side. Historically, this is because of racist and sexist theory within the field. Biology is obviously important, because without it we would be like other animal. Our biology is what allow us to be so culturally diverse. With biology, you can explain why we have relationship, why we have feeling, why we love our family, why do we live in group (evolution), and so on. But to say that biology explains why less women are in engineering is a bit of stretch since engineering is a fully socially constructed profession by humans. There is no special skillset within that field that is exclusive or only learnable by men. We should look at social reason why less women are interested. Well biology doesnt say that is is just exclusive for men or only learnable by men. It is the nature of the field being rather directed toward lifeless things in contray to other fields that focus more on interactions with other human beings like medicine etc. So If you have the choice (lets say both genders do on average equally good) then you chose a field that is more based on your own interests. That doesnt take social reasons out of the equation but saying biology is relevent is something you cannot dismiss.That is the main point just because you dont show interesed for something doesnt mean you cannot master it. Ok, we can't dismiss it. If we're talking about weather phenomena and you say the sky is blue we can't really dismiss it either but it's also not meaningful nor does it contribute to the discussion at hand. It does contribute to the discussion when one side is effectively arguing for equality of outcome as the true measure of equality - which it is not as proven by the existence of gender differences which reasonably could influence the outcome independently of social structures. You deeming what is relevant and what is not is getting really tiring because you have a tendency of not understanding what people are discussing and misrepresent their positions to suit your own beliefs. What does this have to do with the majestic TL logo? I have read all the previous posts, and they don't reference the horses beautiful mane in any way.
Hmm we can argue if the horse inherently likes the new mane or if it is socially constructed on him, and if it dyes back to the old color. And if it does is it because it wants its old colour because of biology or someone forced it?
SO all the reasoning before was just to discuss the analogy to the horse new mane!
|
On June 28 2013 02:33 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2013 02:17 Ghostcom wrote:On June 28 2013 01:29 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:27 Sokrates wrote:On June 28 2013 01:16 Shodaa wrote:On June 28 2013 00:58 Sokrates wrote: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:On June 28 2013 00:43 Sokrates wrote:On June 28 2013 00:38 Shodaa wrote:
[quote]
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. Yes of course, I am fully aware of those studies On June 28 2013 00:58 Sokrates wrote:
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?
Not necessarily, but in social science there is the notion that we try to explain social with social and keep biology on the side. Historically, this is because of racist and sexist theory within the field. Biology is obviously important, because without it we would be like other animal. Our biology is what allow us to be so culturally diverse. With biology, you can explain why we have relationship, why we have feeling, why we love our family, why do we live in group (evolution), and so on. But to say that biology explains why less women are in engineering is a bit of stretch since engineering is a fully socially constructed profession by humans. There is no special skillset within that field that is exclusive or only learnable by men. We should look at social reason why less women are interested. Well biology doesnt say that is is just exclusive for men or only learnable by men. It is the nature of the field being rather directed toward lifeless things in contray to other fields that focus more on interactions with other human beings like medicine etc. So If you have the choice (lets say both genders do on average equally good) then you chose a field that is more based on your own interests. That doesnt take social reasons out of the equation but saying biology is relevent is something you cannot dismiss.That is the main point just because you dont show interesed for something doesnt mean you cannot master it. Ok, we can't dismiss it. If we're talking about weather phenomena and you say the sky is blue we can't really dismiss it either but it's also not meaningful nor does it contribute to the discussion at hand. It does contribute to the discussion when one side is effectively arguing for equality of outcome as the true measure of equality - which it is not as proven by the existence of gender differences which reasonably could influence the outcome independently of social structures. You deeming what is relevant and what is not is getting really tiring because you have a tendency of not understanding what people are discussing and misrepresent their positions to suit your own beliefs. What does this have to do with the majestic TL logo? I have read all the previous posts, and they don't reference the horses beautiful mane in any way. This sprung from codonbyte calling someone sexist (which arguably he was), someone disagreed because they mistook what was originally stated, codonbyte then began to argue what seemed to be that social norms decided 100% the outcome and thus logically would follow that a 50/50 split would happen in a society without sexism (this later got modified to a his current and more reasonable position). Sokratas called him out on it. A bunch of people misunderstood Sokrates and subsequently misrepresented his argument and here we are. Are we off-topic? Sure. Was it important to point out the fallacy initially presented by codonbyte and thus a justified detour? I would say so. Should we get back on topic? Probably, though I fail to see what there is to discuss about a horse with a rainbow coloured flag, so any discussion is really going to be off-topic following your standards.
Just pointing out that when Klondikebar says "Yo, all this shit be true, but none of it really matters in the discussion as a whole." isn't that far off base. It is a series of misunderstandings and misreadings.
|
On June 28 2013 02:33 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2013 02:17 Ghostcom wrote:On June 28 2013 01:29 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:27 Sokrates wrote:On June 28 2013 01:16 Shodaa wrote:On June 28 2013 00:58 Sokrates wrote: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:On June 28 2013 00:43 Sokrates wrote:On June 28 2013 00:38 Shodaa wrote:
[quote]
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. Yes of course, I am fully aware of those studies On June 28 2013 00:58 Sokrates wrote:
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?
Not necessarily, but in social science there is the notion that we try to explain social with social and keep biology on the side. Historically, this is because of racist and sexist theory within the field. Biology is obviously important, because without it we would be like other animal. Our biology is what allow us to be so culturally diverse. With biology, you can explain why we have relationship, why we have feeling, why we love our family, why do we live in group (evolution), and so on. But to say that biology explains why less women are in engineering is a bit of stretch since engineering is a fully socially constructed profession by humans. There is no special skillset within that field that is exclusive or only learnable by men. We should look at social reason why less women are interested. Well biology doesnt say that is is just exclusive for men or only learnable by men. It is the nature of the field being rather directed toward lifeless things in contray to other fields that focus more on interactions with other human beings like medicine etc. So If you have the choice (lets say both genders do on average equally good) then you chose a field that is more based on your own interests. That doesnt take social reasons out of the equation but saying biology is relevent is something you cannot dismiss.That is the main point just because you dont show interesed for something doesnt mean you cannot master it. Ok, we can't dismiss it. If we're talking about weather phenomena and you say the sky is blue we can't really dismiss it either but it's also not meaningful nor does it contribute to the discussion at hand. It does contribute to the discussion when one side is effectively arguing for equality of outcome as the true measure of equality - which it is not as proven by the existence of gender differences which reasonably could influence the outcome independently of social structures. You deeming what is relevant and what is not is getting really tiring because you have a tendency of not understanding what people are discussing and misrepresent their positions to suit your own beliefs. What does this have to do with the majestic TL logo? I have read all the previous posts, and they don't reference the horses beautiful mane in any way. This sprung from codonbyte calling someone sexist (which arguably he was), someone disagreed because they mistook what was originally stated, codonbyte then began to argue what seemed to be that social norms decided 100% the outcome and thus logically would follow that a 50/50 split would happen in a society without sexism (this later got modified to a his current and more reasonable position). Sokratas called him out on it. A bunch of people misunderstood Sokrates and subsequently misrepresented his argument and here we are. Are we off-topic? Sure. Was it important to point out the fallacy initially presented by codonbyte and thus a justified detour? I would say so. Should we get back on topic? Probably, though I fail to see what there is to discuss about a horse with a rainbow coloured flag, so any discussion is really going to be off-topic following your standards.
Ghostcom has been keeping up with everything. 
|
On June 28 2013 02:33 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2013 02:17 Ghostcom wrote:On June 28 2013 01:29 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:27 Sokrates wrote:On June 28 2013 01:16 Shodaa wrote:On June 28 2013 00:58 Sokrates wrote: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:On June 28 2013 00:43 Sokrates wrote:On June 28 2013 00:38 Shodaa wrote:
[quote]
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. Yes of course, I am fully aware of those studies On June 28 2013 00:58 Sokrates wrote:
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?
Not necessarily, but in social science there is the notion that we try to explain social with social and keep biology on the side. Historically, this is because of racist and sexist theory within the field. Biology is obviously important, because without it we would be like other animal. Our biology is what allow us to be so culturally diverse. With biology, you can explain why we have relationship, why we have feeling, why we love our family, why do we live in group (evolution), and so on. But to say that biology explains why less women are in engineering is a bit of stretch since engineering is a fully socially constructed profession by humans. There is no special skillset within that field that is exclusive or only learnable by men. We should look at social reason why less women are interested. Well biology doesnt say that is is just exclusive for men or only learnable by men. It is the nature of the field being rather directed toward lifeless things in contray to other fields that focus more on interactions with other human beings like medicine etc. So If you have the choice (lets say both genders do on average equally good) then you chose a field that is more based on your own interests. That doesnt take social reasons out of the equation but saying biology is relevent is something you cannot dismiss.That is the main point just because you dont show interesed for something doesnt mean you cannot master it. Ok, we can't dismiss it. If we're talking about weather phenomena and you say the sky is blue we can't really dismiss it either but it's also not meaningful nor does it contribute to the discussion at hand. It does contribute to the discussion when one side is effectively arguing for equality of outcome as the true measure of equality - which it is not as proven by the existence of gender differences which reasonably could influence the outcome independently of social structures. You deeming what is relevant and what is not is getting really tiring because you have a tendency of not understanding what people are discussing and misrepresent their positions to suit your own beliefs. What does this have to do with the majestic TL logo? I have read all the previous posts, and they don't reference the horses beautiful mane in any way. This sprung from codonbyte calling someone sexist (which arguably he was), someone disagreed because they mistook what was originally stated, codonbyte then began to argue what seemed to be that social norms decided 100% the outcome and thus logically would follow that a 50/50 split would happen in a society without sexism (this later got modified to a his current and more reasonable position). Sokratas called him out on it. A bunch of people misunderstood Sokrates and subsequently misrepresented his argument and here we are. Are we off-topic? Sure. Was it important to point out the fallacy initially presented by codonbyte and thus a justified detour? I would say so. Should we get back on topic? Probably, though I fail to see what there is to discuss about a horse with a rainbow coloured flag, so any discussion is really going to be off-topic following your standards.
I don't believe I ever said that social norms decided 100% of the outcome, nor did I say that an exact 50/50 split would happen in a society without sexism. All I was saying (or trying to say, I will admit I worded it poorly) was that saying that biology accounts for most of the gender split invites sexism to continue.
Other than that, very good summery.
Edit: I would also argue that calling out sexism was enough reason on its own to justify this multi-page detour.
|
On June 28 2013 02:41 codonbyte wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:33 Ghostcom wrote:On June 28 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2013 02:17 Ghostcom wrote:On June 28 2013 01:29 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:27 Sokrates wrote:On June 28 2013 01:16 Shodaa wrote:On June 28 2013 00:58 Sokrates wrote: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:On June 28 2013 00:43 Sokrates wrote:
[quote]
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. Yes of course, I am fully aware of those studies On June 28 2013 00:58 Sokrates wrote:
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?
Not necessarily, but in social science there is the notion that we try to explain social with social and keep biology on the side. Historically, this is because of racist and sexist theory within the field. Biology is obviously important, because without it we would be like other animal. Our biology is what allow us to be so culturally diverse. With biology, you can explain why we have relationship, why we have feeling, why we love our family, why do we live in group (evolution), and so on. But to say that biology explains why less women are in engineering is a bit of stretch since engineering is a fully socially constructed profession by humans. There is no special skillset within that field that is exclusive or only learnable by men. We should look at social reason why less women are interested. Well biology doesnt say that is is just exclusive for men or only learnable by men. It is the nature of the field being rather directed toward lifeless things in contray to other fields that focus more on interactions with other human beings like medicine etc. So If you have the choice (lets say both genders do on average equally good) then you chose a field that is more based on your own interests. That doesnt take social reasons out of the equation but saying biology is relevent is something you cannot dismiss.That is the main point just because you dont show interesed for something doesnt mean you cannot master it. Ok, we can't dismiss it. If we're talking about weather phenomena and you say the sky is blue we can't really dismiss it either but it's also not meaningful nor does it contribute to the discussion at hand. It does contribute to the discussion when one side is effectively arguing for equality of outcome as the true measure of equality - which it is not as proven by the existence of gender differences which reasonably could influence the outcome independently of social structures. You deeming what is relevant and what is not is getting really tiring because you have a tendency of not understanding what people are discussing and misrepresent their positions to suit your own beliefs. What does this have to do with the majestic TL logo? I have read all the previous posts, and they don't reference the horses beautiful mane in any way. This sprung from codonbyte calling someone sexist (which arguably he was), someone disagreed because they mistook what was originally stated, codonbyte then began to argue what seemed to be that social norms decided 100% the outcome and thus logically would follow that a 50/50 split would happen in a society without sexism (this later got modified to a his current and more reasonable position). Sokratas called him out on it. A bunch of people misunderstood Sokrates and subsequently misrepresented his argument and here we are. Are we off-topic? Sure. Was it important to point out the fallacy initially presented by codonbyte and thus a justified detour? I would say so. Should we get back on topic? Probably, though I fail to see what there is to discuss about a horse with a rainbow coloured flag, so any discussion is really going to be off-topic following your standards. I don't believe I ever said that social norms decided 100% of the outcome, nor did I say that an exact 50/50 split would happen in a society without sexism. All I was saying (or trying to say, I will admit I worded it poorly) was that saying that biology accounts for most of the gender split invites sexism to continue. Other than that, very good summery.
I am sorry I should have been more clear. You didn't say it, but it seemed to be the logical conclusion from your initial posts. You and Sokrates then managed to confuse each other a great deal and it became apparent that you actually did agree from the start outside of some rather minor differences.
EDIT:
On June 28 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:33 Ghostcom wrote:On June 28 2013 02:23 Plansix wrote:On June 28 2013 02:17 Ghostcom wrote:On June 28 2013 01:29 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:27 Sokrates wrote:On June 28 2013 01:16 Shodaa wrote:On June 28 2013 00:58 Sokrates wrote: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:On June 28 2013 00:43 Sokrates wrote:
[quote]
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. Yes of course, I am fully aware of those studies On June 28 2013 00:58 Sokrates wrote:
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?
Not necessarily, but in social science there is the notion that we try to explain social with social and keep biology on the side. Historically, this is because of racist and sexist theory within the field. Biology is obviously important, because without it we would be like other animal. Our biology is what allow us to be so culturally diverse. With biology, you can explain why we have relationship, why we have feeling, why we love our family, why do we live in group (evolution), and so on. But to say that biology explains why less women are in engineering is a bit of stretch since engineering is a fully socially constructed profession by humans. There is no special skillset within that field that is exclusive or only learnable by men. We should look at social reason why less women are interested. Well biology doesnt say that is is just exclusive for men or only learnable by men. It is the nature of the field being rather directed toward lifeless things in contray to other fields that focus more on interactions with other human beings like medicine etc. So If you have the choice (lets say both genders do on average equally good) then you chose a field that is more based on your own interests. That doesnt take social reasons out of the equation but saying biology is relevent is something you cannot dismiss.That is the main point just because you dont show interesed for something doesnt mean you cannot master it. Ok, we can't dismiss it. If we're talking about weather phenomena and you say the sky is blue we can't really dismiss it either but it's also not meaningful nor does it contribute to the discussion at hand. It does contribute to the discussion when one side is effectively arguing for equality of outcome as the true measure of equality - which it is not as proven by the existence of gender differences which reasonably could influence the outcome independently of social structures. You deeming what is relevant and what is not is getting really tiring because you have a tendency of not understanding what people are discussing and misrepresent their positions to suit your own beliefs. What does this have to do with the majestic TL logo? I have read all the previous posts, and they don't reference the horses beautiful mane in any way. This sprung from codonbyte calling someone sexist (which arguably he was), someone disagreed because they mistook what was originally stated, codonbyte then began to argue what seemed to be that social norms decided 100% the outcome and thus logically would follow that a 50/50 split would happen in a society without sexism (this later got modified to a his current and more reasonable position). Sokratas called him out on it. A bunch of people misunderstood Sokrates and subsequently misrepresented his argument and here we are. Are we off-topic? Sure. Was it important to point out the fallacy initially presented by codonbyte and thus a justified detour? I would say so. Should we get back on topic? Probably, though I fail to see what there is to discuss about a horse with a rainbow coloured flag, so any discussion is really going to be off-topic following your standards. Just pointing out that when Klondikebar says "Yo, all this shit be true, but none of it really matters in the discussion as a whole." isn't that far off base. It is a series of misunderstandings and misreadings.
Klondikebar specifically said that it did not contribute to the discussion at hand. The discussion at hand was the one I referenced. It very much contributed.
|
To be fair, I don't think this was that off topic. The banner is about equal right, equality and I think gender issue are relevant in that.
Gender issue are important in many aspect of LGBT, for instance the idea about not conforming to gender role and gender expression.
|
On June 28 2013 02:44 Shodaa wrote:
To be fair, I don't think this was that off topic. The banner is about equal right, equality and I think gender issue are relevant in that.
Gender issue are important in many aspect of LGBT, for instance the idea about not conforming to gender role and gender expression.
Well I think that technically the banner is about equal rights specifically for the LGBT community. I have no doubt that TL is in favor of equal rights in general though. But yes talking about equality in general in this thread seems relevant to me.
|
On June 28 2013 02:44 Shodaa wrote:
To be fair, I don't think this was that off topic. The banner is about equal right, equality and I think gender issue are relevant in that.
Gender issue are important in many aspect of LGBT, for instance the idea about not conforming to gender role and gender expression.
Agreed, I just wanted to point out that people were getting dangerously close to "being up their own asses" with the discussion.
And sexism should always be called out, preferably in the most amusing way possible.
|
Osaka27174 Posts
On June 28 2013 02:05 codonbyte 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 in this context. Exactly! Just go into any female player's livestream and look at all the bullshit they have to put up with compared to male players. Male players don't have to deal with people telling them to "go back to the kitchen, bitch", or implying that they are only valuable for their looks. At every corner, a female gamer has to deal with people making it clear to her that she is not welcome in the gaming community. If an entire group of people gets that much bullshit thrown at them for doing x activity, then you have to expect that fewer members from the group are going to do x activity.
However the lack of female streamers does allow the few who remain to wear low cut tops and ask for donations to play silver league 2v2 matches!
|
On June 28 2013 06:14 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:05 codonbyte 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 in this context. Exactly! Just go into any female player's livestream and look at all the bullshit they have to put up with compared to male players. Male players don't have to deal with people telling them to "go back to the kitchen, bitch", or implying that they are only valuable for their looks. At every corner, a female gamer has to deal with people making it clear to her that she is not welcome in the gaming community. If an entire group of people gets that much bullshit thrown at them for doing x activity, then you have to expect that fewer members from the group are going to do x activity. However the lack of female streamers does allow the few who remain to wear low cut tops and ask for donations to play silver league 2v2 matches!
So sexism degrades the quality of content we're provided. Unless you actually want to see tits but why you aren't just on google images for that is beyond me.
|
On June 28 2013 06:18 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 06:14 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 28 2013 02:05 codonbyte 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 in this context. Exactly! Just go into any female player's livestream and look at all the bullshit they have to put up with compared to male players. Male players don't have to deal with people telling them to "go back to the kitchen, bitch", or implying that they are only valuable for their looks. At every corner, a female gamer has to deal with people making it clear to her that she is not welcome in the gaming community. If an entire group of people gets that much bullshit thrown at them for doing x activity, then you have to expect that fewer members from the group are going to do x activity. However the lack of female streamers does allow the few who remain to wear low cut tops and ask for donations to play silver league 2v2 matches! So sexism degrades the quality of content we're provided. Unless you actually want to see tits but why you aren't just on google images for that is beyond me.
People are weird and want said female streams to respond to them in chat and talk. The creeper demographic in the game world is large and will watch anything.
|
On June 28 2013 06:18 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 06:14 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 28 2013 02:05 codonbyte 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 in this context. Exactly! Just go into any female player's livestream and look at all the bullshit they have to put up with compared to male players. Male players don't have to deal with people telling them to "go back to the kitchen, bitch", or implying that they are only valuable for their looks. At every corner, a female gamer has to deal with people making it clear to her that she is not welcome in the gaming community. If an entire group of people gets that much bullshit thrown at them for doing x activity, then you have to expect that fewer members from the group are going to do x activity. However the lack of female streamers does allow the few who remain to wear low cut tops and ask for donations to play silver league 2v2 matches! So sexism degrades the quality of content we're provided. Unless you actually want to see tits but why you aren't just on google images for that is beyond me.
I agree with you, but I fear the is a large group of people out there that doesn't think the same.
|
On June 28 2013 06:14 Manifesto7 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:05 codonbyte 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 in this context. Exactly! Just go into any female player's livestream and look at all the bullshit they have to put up with compared to male players. Male players don't have to deal with people telling them to "go back to the kitchen, bitch", or implying that they are only valuable for their looks. At every corner, a female gamer has to deal with people making it clear to her that she is not welcome in the gaming community. If an entire group of people gets that much bullshit thrown at them for doing x activity, then you have to expect that fewer members from the group are going to do x activity. However the lack of female streamers does allow the few who remain to wear low cut tops and ask for donations to play silver league 2v2 matches!
LOL yup! Although really, when I want to see T+A I just hit the good ol' porn sites.
Also low-cut tops are hardly even necessary.
Just being a girl who plays video games has an incredible amount of appeal on it's own.
|
On June 28 2013 06:18 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 06:14 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 28 2013 02:05 codonbyte 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 in this context. Exactly! Just go into any female player's livestream and look at all the bullshit they have to put up with compared to male players. Male players don't have to deal with people telling them to "go back to the kitchen, bitch", or implying that they are only valuable for their looks. At every corner, a female gamer has to deal with people making it clear to her that she is not welcome in the gaming community. If an entire group of people gets that much bullshit thrown at them for doing x activity, then you have to expect that fewer members from the group are going to do x activity. However the lack of female streamers does allow the few who remain to wear low cut tops and ask for donations to play silver league 2v2 matches! So sexism degrades the quality of content we're provided. Unless you actually want to see tits but why you aren't just on google images for that is beyond me.
Sort of. I think what's actually happening is that sexism reduces the number of girls who play video games. Fewer female gamers means that there is a market for female streamers to work off their sex appeal and target the mostly-male audience.
If the gender split for gamers was 50/50, then you'd see the same ratio of "sex appeal" streamers to "quality gameplay" streamers from both genders. But because there are so few female gamers, there is no market for male "sex appeal" streamers, and therefore virtually all the male streamers are "quality gameplay" streamers, while a good portion of female streamers are "sex appeal" streamers because there is a huge audience of viewers who are attracted to females and not much of an audience that is attracted to males. This creates the (false) impression that males are superior at actually playing the game, while females can only hope to compete by using sex-appeal. Basically, you have sexism reinforcing the base that it stands on.
Edit: also, I think that since this is the thread for the rainbow banner, we should all make our posts rainbow-colored to show our support for LGBT equality (well, as rainbow colored as we can get with only red, green, and blue).
|
Osaka27174 Posts
I think you shouldnt do that anymore.
|
On June 28 2013 08:06 Manifesto7 wrote:
I think you shouldnt do that anymore.
Okay, I'll stop. It was just an idea I had.
|
On June 28 2013 06:18 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 06:14 Manifesto7 wrote:On June 28 2013 02:05 codonbyte 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 in this context. Exactly! Just go into any female player's livestream and look at all the bullshit they have to put up with compared to male players. Male players don't have to deal with people telling them to "go back to the kitchen, bitch", or implying that they are only valuable for their looks. At every corner, a female gamer has to deal with people making it clear to her that she is not welcome in the gaming community. If an entire group of people gets that much bullshit thrown at them for doing x activity, then you have to expect that fewer members from the group are going to do x activity. However the lack of female streamers does allow the few who remain to wear low cut tops and ask for donations to play silver league 2v2 matches! So sexism degrades the quality of content we're provided. Unless you actually want to see tits but why you aren't just on google images for that is beyond me.
same reason people like exhibitionism or actually having sex. the fact of being in vivo makes it all the more tantalizing.
|
|
|
Sweet! I'll use that for my facebook whatever-you-call-it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
