|
United States22883 Posts
On May 17 2009 23:15 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:14 Jibba wrote:On May 17 2009 23:03 cz wrote:
The article in the OP could be either parody or a journal-level (ie professional level) feminist/cultural critique. I take it you've never actually read journal-level work, unless you mean the journal of a 10th grade girl. Actually as a university student I have to read drivel like this all the time. If you edit the article with more academic buzzwords it would be equivalent to a lot of sociological/cultural-critical journal articles I've had to read. Also, to your edit, anecdotal evidence and specific examples don't prove or disprove statistics or general trends, which is what I was talking about (ie the claim "society is male dominated"). Labeling it qualitative or any other multi-syllabic term doesn't change that.
You must be an economist. Not everything is quantifiable. It can be done in this case and I've read a few economic papers on labor disparities, but it's easier to do it qualitatively.
|
On May 17 2009 23:26 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:10 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote:On May 17 2009 22:14 DwmC_Foefen wrote:On May 17 2009 20:58 Foucault wrote:On May 17 2009 20:47 DwmC_Foefen wrote:There's a difference between feminists who strive for equality in politics, bussinessworld, ... and feminists who just plain hate men :s They always toss the words equality and sexist around where it fits them the best. You can't win an discussion with these women (with any women really "OH NOES SEXIST REMARK" they rely too much on their emotions in the heat of the discussion) Anyway, most women rule :D . They're soft, smell nice, pretty looking, compassionate, kind, sweet, I could go on and on  But to those few bitter women/feminists/whatever who are out to spite and are looking to pick a fight I say gtfo The argument about the "good" feminists and "bad" (who hate men) ones is common. It can be interpreted as a masculine way of stripping the "stronger" women of their power by calling the ones "who hate men" the bad ones, because they are a threat to the male hierarchy. How many men hates women? Certainly theres quite alot of men who despise women for many of the ways of how women behave. Also, the hatred some women feel towards men is quite justifiable when taking into account how many women are abused physically, sexually and mentally each and every day, still in this day and era. Throughout history women have been dominated by men, and frankly have been viewed as second class citizens. I'm not that into feminist theory but I think it's VERY important for both men and women to realize that there are still issues regarding equality, and actually see how we as a society play a huge role in socializing the next generations with these views that are already ingrained in us. Everybody should take a 101 Sociology course for a better understanding of society as a whole, because I often see how these insights are lacking in people. It's something that concerns us all very much. I meant that there is nothing wrong with women who want equality, it's horrible that ie. men earn more money doing the same job in the same company than a woman. That's just plain wrong. I was adressing a) the women who just like to toss around words like sexist, discriminating, ... whenever it fits them. b) the women who say they're feminist just to mask the fact that they just plain hate men. By dismissing their claims without understanding them, you're perpetrating their status as an Other. I don't think you've considered that from their perspective, it could be a reasonable claim. And the pay equity thing is a completely different problem, but it's generally not like what people describe. In most jobs, equally qualified women do not earn 76% of men's salaries, or else companies would be filled with women instead of men. And isn't that just the way nature works? Men dominating women? Not in a bad way ofcourse but just, more decisive and such. I think there's a reason why throughout history most of the leaders were men and still are. Isn't that just genetics(can't find another word for it, genetics isn't the good word)? Even amongst other animals we see the males take the lead, protecting the females, getting food, whatever they do and the females just follow, fullfilling the female roles (as opposed to the male roles). No. Different animals have different cultures, and that's the guiding idea behind feminism. Culture shapes behavior and roles more than anything else. There may be certain traits like strength which tend to give more power to males in the wild, but there are some female dominant animals and even among male dominant ones, females often do more of the work. For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture. I think you really underestimate the biological/genetic side of things. It's only thought that biology has little psychological role among feminists/sociologists/etc. Evolutionary psychology disagree heavily with the "society dictates almost everything" view, but it's not politically correct to say so. Even the most basic observations back it up, though. Evolution psychology/sociobiology is the baby theory here. I'm not saying it doesn't have merit, but it's much less explored than the idea of socialization. I think they both have a place. I was responding to this: "Even amongst other animals we see the males take the lead, protecting the females, getting food, whatever they do and the females just follow, fullfilling the female roles (as opposed to the male roles)." Different species have different cultures and roles for the sexes. Extrapolating the female behavior of cats based on a lioness, for instance, does no good.
Well, I suppose it depends on what exactly we are talking about when it comes to nurture vs nature, or sociological explanations vs evolutionary psychology ones. Without defining exactly what we are talking about, we can't really argue whether it's nature or nurture "more" responsible.
As for animals and cultures, I can't really discuss this further until the word "culture" is exhaustively defined. Until then we are both using our own pre-conceived views of what the term means and we can both be right/wrong with contradicting statements.
|
On May 17 2009 23:27 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:15 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:14 Jibba wrote:On May 17 2009 23:03 cz wrote:
The article in the OP could be either parody or a journal-level (ie professional level) feminist/cultural critique. I take it you've never actually read journal-level work, unless you mean the journal of a 10th grade girl. Actually as a university student I have to read drivel like this all the time. If you edit the article with more academic buzzwords it would be equivalent to a lot of sociological/cultural-critical journal articles I've had to read. Also, to your edit, anecdotal evidence and specific examples don't prove or disprove statistics or general trends, which is what I was talking about (ie the claim "society is male dominated"). Labeling it qualitative or any other multi-syllabic term doesn't change that. You must be an economist. Not everything is quantifiable.
Then don't make claims you can't back up, which is what I'm talking about. Can't just claim "modern culture is male dominated", say there is no quantifiable evidence (and so far no other evidence given) and say that your statements stands as true. If you want to say its an opinion, do so, but the original guy's context made it appear that it wasn't just his opinion, but obviously true.
Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific.
|
United States22883 Posts
I probably could've chosen a better term than 'culture.' I meant the behaviors/characteristics of a particular group, in this case a species or sub-species.
|
On May 17 2009 23:25 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:21 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:18 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:17 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:14 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:11 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:04 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 22:50 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote:
For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture. It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't. Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything. Do you understand how badly you just contradicted yourself? Anyone with half of a brain knows there is no pie-chart for male dominance in society without citing specific examples or anecdotal evidence. I didn't contradict myself. I asked for you to support your claim with evidence, and pre-emptively struck out against anecdotal and specific examples as evidence because I knew that's what you would go for first AND that "evidence" is not evidence at all: ie, it being true doesn't necessarily prove the claim. I'll repeat again, please provide evidence to back up your claim that "society is male dominated". Ok, prove to me how it is not male dominated without using evidence. I'm not making the claim. The burden of proof is on you. Also, go ahead and back up your claim that "society is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want. You will have to establish that your evidence, if true, actually proves your claim however (otherwise it's not useful evidence). Its a good thing you are not head of research anywhere. Thanks for wasting my time, people like you should have stuck to studying marine biology. So, summary of your discussion so far. - I come into thread and see you claiming that "culture is male dominated". - I ask you to establish that claim or back it up with evidence, pre-emptively striking out against anecdotal and specific examples as non-evidence as they don't prove or disprove general claims - You respond that I contradicted myself (I'm not sure how) - I reply by explaining why I didn't want anecdotal evidence, but decide to just ask you to establish your claim that "culture is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want, though I say I will criticize your evidence if I feel it doesn't necessarily prove the claim (that is what evidence is supposed to do) - You respond by saying I'm "wasting your time" Again, please go ahead and establish your claim that "modern culture is male dominated" with whatever evidence you want, otherwise you may want to retract it and/or learn to brazenly state things as true if you can't back them up when challenged.
Alright, lets try again.
- Lets get technical: I never said "culture is male dominated" I said "I think its undeniable that modern culture is male dominated."
- You ask me to establish why I think this its true without citing specific examples of why I think its true. I think most would understand that this is not a "Yes" or "No" answer, but rather like that of a trial or debate. I have to prove to you that my claim of "I think its undeniable that modern culture is male dominated" holds weight.
- I now realize that I am speaking with a fool. Thus, you are wasting my time.
It was never a brazen claim. Please read next time.
|
On May 17 2009 22:14 DwmC_Foefen wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 20:58 Foucault wrote:On May 17 2009 20:47 DwmC_Foefen wrote:There's a difference between feminists who strive for equality in politics, bussinessworld, ... and feminists who just plain hate men :s They always toss the words equality and sexist around where it fits them the best. You can't win an discussion with these women (with any women really "OH NOES SEXIST REMARK" they rely too much on their emotions in the heat of the discussion) Anyway, most women rule :D . They're soft, smell nice, pretty looking, compassionate, kind, sweet, I could go on and on But to those few bitter women/feminists/whatever who are out to spite and are looking to pick a fight I say gtfo The argument about the "good" feminists and "bad" (who hate men) ones is common. It can be interpreted as a masculine way of stripping the "stronger" women of their power by calling the ones "who hate men" the bad ones, because they are a threat to the male hierarchy. How many men hates women? Certainly theres quite alot of men who despise women for many of the ways of how women behave. Also, the hatred some women feel towards men is quite justifiable when taking into account how many women are abused physically, sexually and mentally each and every day, still in this day and era. Throughout history women have been dominated by men, and frankly have been viewed as second class citizens. I'm not that into feminist theory but I think it's VERY important for both men and women to realize that there are still issues regarding equality, and actually see how we as a society play a huge role in socializing the next generations with these views that are already ingrained in us. Everybody should take a 101 Sociology course for a better understanding of society as a whole, because I often see how these insights are lacking in people. It's something that concerns us all very much. I meant that there is nothing wrong with women who want equality, it's horrible that ie. men earn more money doing the same job in the same company than a woman. That's just plain wrong. I was adressing a) the women who just like to toss around words like sexist, discriminating, ... whenever it fits them. b) the women who say they're feminist just to mask the fact that they just plain hate men. And isn't that just the way nature works? Men dominating women? Not in a bad way ofcourse but just, more decisive and such. I think there's a reason why throughout history most of the leaders were men and still are. Isn't that just genetics(can't find another word for it, genetics isn't the good word)? Even amongst other animals we see the males take the lead, protecting the females, getting food, whatever they do and the females just follow, fullfilling the female roles (as opposed to the male roles). I could be using a stupid argument here because we're in the 21st century where people are much more sophisticated but I think it still applies. But you seem like a well-educated person and I'm surely wrong, just wanted to express my thoughts. And I do want to take sociology 101 tbh, it seems interesting.
Why are you assuming that women just throw around words like sexism and discrimination? Seems like you think that they aren't capable of actually understanding these words.
Btw, do tell how you are able to know when you can actually use those 2 words and when you can't. When do you know that you got the job because you are a beautiful girl and when do you know that you didn't get the job because you are an immigrant. Also sexism and discrimination is to an large extent built into our society, because a man is the norm, which makes women inferior.
I got your view on feminists the first time, and I already adressed them in my first response.
You say that some women just plain hate men. Why? Why do they hate men? Are some women just born like that? Are they retarded? Why would they hate men, just because?
How "nature" works...What is nature? I think "men" and "women" are largely socially constructed roles of behavior. This socialization continues through generations. Well I think there is a biological factor too but I think it's not that big and that our gender roles are more important. Sure, women are physically weaker than men in general, but are they less decisive? For one, they are taught to be less decisive and being in closer touch with their emotions.
In my opinion, your argument applies to pure physical strength but that's about it.
Nah man, I'm glad you are expressing your thoughts and don't think your opinion is bad in any way, it's how you think at this point in your life as a result of your parents, school, friends, society; basically your current level of knowledge of the world in which you live.
Well I've studied sociology, psychology and social work so I'm a bit experienced but anyone can study sociology. It's extremely fascinating.
|
On May 17 2009 23:32 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:25 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:21 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:18 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:17 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:14 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:11 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:04 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 22:50 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote:
For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture. It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't. Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything. Do you understand how badly you just contradicted yourself? Anyone with half of a brain knows there is no pie-chart for male dominance in society without citing specific examples or anecdotal evidence. I didn't contradict myself. I asked for you to support your claim with evidence, and pre-emptively struck out against anecdotal and specific examples as evidence because I knew that's what you would go for first AND that "evidence" is not evidence at all: ie, it being true doesn't necessarily prove the claim. I'll repeat again, please provide evidence to back up your claim that "society is male dominated". Ok, prove to me how it is not male dominated without using evidence. I'm not making the claim. The burden of proof is on you. Also, go ahead and back up your claim that "society is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want. You will have to establish that your evidence, if true, actually proves your claim however (otherwise it's not useful evidence). Its a good thing you are not head of research anywhere. Thanks for wasting my time, people like you should have stuck to studying marine biology. So, summary of your discussion so far. - I come into thread and see you claiming that "culture is male dominated". - I ask you to establish that claim or back it up with evidence, pre-emptively striking out against anecdotal and specific examples as non-evidence as they don't prove or disprove general claims - You respond that I contradicted myself (I'm not sure how) - I reply by explaining why I didn't want anecdotal evidence, but decide to just ask you to establish your claim that "culture is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want, though I say I will criticize your evidence if I feel it doesn't necessarily prove the claim (that is what evidence is supposed to do) - You respond by saying I'm "wasting your time" Again, please go ahead and establish your claim that "modern culture is male dominated" with whatever evidence you want, otherwise you may want to retract it and/or learn to brazenly state things as true if you can't back them up when challenged. Alright, lets try again. - Lets get technical: I never said "culture is male dominated" I said "I think its undeniable that modern culture is male dominated." - You ask me to establish why I think this its true without citing specific examples of why I think its true. I think most would understand that this is not a "Yes" or "No" answer, but rather like that of a trial or debate. I have to prove to you that my claim of "I think its undeniable that modern culture is male dominated" holds weight. - I now realize that I am speaking with a fool. Thus, you are wasting my time.
Your original wording doesn't change anything. You are still making a statement. I'm asking you to establish that statement as true. Use whatever evidence you want. Go.
Otherwise admit that your statement is opinion, and you are not willing to establish it's validity. It's one or the other.
|
On May 17 2009 23:04 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 22:50 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote:
For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture. It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't. Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything.
lol
Presidents, CEOs of large companies. differences in wages, sports etc etc etc
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:27 Jibba wrote:On May 17 2009 23:15 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:14 Jibba wrote:On May 17 2009 23:03 cz wrote:
The article in the OP could be either parody or a journal-level (ie professional level) feminist/cultural critique. I take it you've never actually read journal-level work, unless you mean the journal of a 10th grade girl. Actually as a university student I have to read drivel like this all the time. If you edit the article with more academic buzzwords it would be equivalent to a lot of sociological/cultural-critical journal articles I've had to read. Also, to your edit, anecdotal evidence and specific examples don't prove or disprove statistics or general trends, which is what I was talking about (ie the claim "society is male dominated"). Labeling it qualitative or any other multi-syllabic term doesn't change that. You must be an economist. Not everything is quantifiable. Then don't make claims you can't back up, which is what I'm talking about. Can't just claim "modern culture is male dominated", say there is no quantifiable evidence (and so far no other evidence given) and say that your statements stands as true. If you want to say its an opinion, do so, but the original guy's context made it appear that it wasn't just his opinion, but obviously true. I was referring to the fact that you said evidence entailed hard numbers, and other methods don't work. If you want a small bit of qualitative work, Throwing Like a Girl by Iris Young (should be on JSTOR) describes the way that girls are brought up to objectify themselves, and why men tend to be more "active" in their motions and how they perceive the world rather than passive. She goes a bit out there when she's talking about "yonder" and crap.
If you want numbers, you could look at labor practices and the work cycles of men and women. The pay discrepancy argument is mostly bogus, but there's a lot worthwhile in the explanations of why most engineers and men and most teachers are women.
|
On May 17 2009 23:39 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:04 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 22:50 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 22:43 Jibba wrote:
For humans today, this doesn't mean shit because being an engineer has nothing to do with physical capacity and yet the vast majority are men, and the left brained/right brained thing is a myth. There definitely are innate differences but it's thought that most of the differences are created through socialization, which isn't necessarily a good or bad bad thing. Feminism has gone in hiding because most people associate it with the women from the 60s and 70s who wanted nothing to do with men, but most younger feminists embrace gender differences, they just think they've been mostly created by culture. It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't. Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything. lol Presidents, CEOs of large companies. differences in wages, sports etc etc etc
So your arguement is:
1. If most presidents, CEOs of large companies are male, and there are differences in wages and spectator sports are dominated by males, then modern culture is male dominated.
2. Most presidents, CEOs of large companies are male, and there are differences in wages and spectator sports are dominated by males
3. Therefore modern culture is male dominated.
Please establish premise #1, as your entire argument relies on it being true for the conclusion to be true. Also premise #2 on the wage gap needs to be established.
|
On May 17 2009 23:34 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:32 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:25 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:21 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:18 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:17 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:14 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:11 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:04 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 22:50 keV. wrote:
[quote]
It's true about them being associated with baby boomer crazies. I also believe that feminism is an idea with no ideas. I think its undeniable that at least modern culture is generally male dominated. But feminists have no idea how to fix anything either and if they can't think of anything reasonable, then males surely can't.
Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything. Do you understand how badly you just contradicted yourself? Anyone with half of a brain knows there is no pie-chart for male dominance in society without citing specific examples or anecdotal evidence. I didn't contradict myself. I asked for you to support your claim with evidence, and pre-emptively struck out against anecdotal and specific examples as evidence because I knew that's what you would go for first AND that "evidence" is not evidence at all: ie, it being true doesn't necessarily prove the claim. I'll repeat again, please provide evidence to back up your claim that "society is male dominated". Ok, prove to me how it is not male dominated without using evidence. I'm not making the claim. The burden of proof is on you. Also, go ahead and back up your claim that "society is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want. You will have to establish that your evidence, if true, actually proves your claim however (otherwise it's not useful evidence). Its a good thing you are not head of research anywhere. Thanks for wasting my time, people like you should have stuck to studying marine biology. So, summary of your discussion so far. - I come into thread and see you claiming that "culture is male dominated". - I ask you to establish that claim or back it up with evidence, pre-emptively striking out against anecdotal and specific examples as non-evidence as they don't prove or disprove general claims - You respond that I contradicted myself (I'm not sure how) - I reply by explaining why I didn't want anecdotal evidence, but decide to just ask you to establish your claim that "culture is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want, though I say I will criticize your evidence if I feel it doesn't necessarily prove the claim (that is what evidence is supposed to do) - You respond by saying I'm "wasting your time" Again, please go ahead and establish your claim that "modern culture is male dominated" with whatever evidence you want, otherwise you may want to retract it and/or learn to brazenly state things as true if you can't back them up when challenged. Alright, lets try again. - Lets get technical: I never said "culture is male dominated" I said "I think its undeniable that modern culture is male dominated." - You ask me to establish why I think this its true without citing specific examples of why I think its true. I think most would understand that this is not a "Yes" or "No" answer, but rather like that of a trial or debate. I have to prove to you that my claim of "I think its undeniable that modern culture is male dominated" holds weight. - I now realize that I am speaking with a fool. Thus, you are wasting my time. Your original wording doesn't change anything. You are still making a statement. I'm asking you to establish that statement as true. Use whatever evidence you want. Go. Otherwise admit that your statement is opinion, and you are not willing to establish it's validity. It's one or the other.
I wouldn't waste numbers on someone who can't comprehend them (or just plain words for that matter). You are asking me to prove an argument is true, which as we all know can't be done, the best I can do is give you specific examples and other research as to why my argument is correct and your argument is false. There is one problem, you have no argument. Google debate.
|
On May 17 2009 23:42 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:34 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:32 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:25 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:21 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:18 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:17 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:14 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:11 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:04 cz wrote:
[quote]
Modern culture is male dominated? Please back this up with statistics and evidence, and please no anecdotal evidence or specific examples as they are not necessarily representative of anything. Do you understand how badly you just contradicted yourself? Anyone with half of a brain knows there is no pie-chart for male dominance in society without citing specific examples or anecdotal evidence. I didn't contradict myself. I asked for you to support your claim with evidence, and pre-emptively struck out against anecdotal and specific examples as evidence because I knew that's what you would go for first AND that "evidence" is not evidence at all: ie, it being true doesn't necessarily prove the claim. I'll repeat again, please provide evidence to back up your claim that "society is male dominated". Ok, prove to me how it is not male dominated without using evidence. I'm not making the claim. The burden of proof is on you. Also, go ahead and back up your claim that "society is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want. You will have to establish that your evidence, if true, actually proves your claim however (otherwise it's not useful evidence). Its a good thing you are not head of research anywhere. Thanks for wasting my time, people like you should have stuck to studying marine biology. So, summary of your discussion so far. - I come into thread and see you claiming that "culture is male dominated". - I ask you to establish that claim or back it up with evidence, pre-emptively striking out against anecdotal and specific examples as non-evidence as they don't prove or disprove general claims - You respond that I contradicted myself (I'm not sure how) - I reply by explaining why I didn't want anecdotal evidence, but decide to just ask you to establish your claim that "culture is male dominated" using whatever evidence you want, though I say I will criticize your evidence if I feel it doesn't necessarily prove the claim (that is what evidence is supposed to do) - You respond by saying I'm "wasting your time" Again, please go ahead and establish your claim that "modern culture is male dominated" with whatever evidence you want, otherwise you may want to retract it and/or learn to brazenly state things as true if you can't back them up when challenged. Alright, lets try again. - Lets get technical: I never said "culture is male dominated" I said "I think its undeniable that modern culture is male dominated." - You ask me to establish why I think this its true without citing specific examples of why I think its true. I think most would understand that this is not a "Yes" or "No" answer, but rather like that of a trial or debate. I have to prove to you that my claim of "I think its undeniable that modern culture is male dominated" holds weight. - I now realize that I am speaking with a fool. Thus, you are wasting my time. Your original wording doesn't change anything. You are still making a statement. I'm asking you to establish that statement as true. Use whatever evidence you want. Go. Otherwise admit that your statement is opinion, and you are not willing to establish it's validity. It's one or the other. I wouldn't waste numbers on someone who can't comprehend them (or just plain words for that matter). You are asking me to prove an argument is true, which as we all know can't be done, the best I can do is give you specific examples and other research as to why my argument is correct and your argument is false. There is one problem, you have no argument. Google debate.
So basically you have nothing to offer to back up your claim, despite my repeated requests?
Okay.
edit: Also I'm not making any argument. You are the one with the claim, not me.
|
On May 17 2009 23:42 keV. wrote:Google debate.
|
On May 17 2009 23:40 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:27 Jibba wrote:On May 17 2009 23:15 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:14 Jibba wrote:On May 17 2009 23:03 cz wrote:
The article in the OP could be either parody or a journal-level (ie professional level) feminist/cultural critique. I take it you've never actually read journal-level work, unless you mean the journal of a 10th grade girl. Actually as a university student I have to read drivel like this all the time. If you edit the article with more academic buzzwords it would be equivalent to a lot of sociological/cultural-critical journal articles I've had to read. Also, to your edit, anecdotal evidence and specific examples don't prove or disprove statistics or general trends, which is what I was talking about (ie the claim "society is male dominated"). Labeling it qualitative or any other multi-syllabic term doesn't change that. You must be an economist. Not everything is quantifiable. Then don't make claims you can't back up, which is what I'm talking about. Can't just claim "modern culture is male dominated", say there is no quantifiable evidence (and so far no other evidence given) and say that your statements stands as true. If you want to say its an opinion, do so, but the original guy's context made it appear that it wasn't just his opinion, but obviously true. I was referring to the fact that you said evidence entailed hard numbers, and other methods don't work. If you want a small bit of qualitative work, Throwing Like a Girl by Iris Young (should be on JSTOR) describes the way that girls are brought up to objectify themselves, and why men tend to be more "active" in their motions and how they perceive the world rather than passive. She goes a bit out there when she's talking about "yonder" and crap. If you want numbers, you could look at labor practices and the work cycles of men and women. The pay discrepancy argument is mostly bogus, but there's a lot worthwhile in the explanations of why most engineers and men and most teachers are women.
I'm not interested enough to read the article, so I won't criticize it but I don't see it's relevance to the original claim of "modern culture is male dominated". Or are we just talking about socialization in general and how it affects gender roles?
|
On May 17 2009 23:45 keV. wrote:
Summary:
- You make claim
- I ask for evidence/backing of claim
- You keep dodging.
Yeah.
|
i had a really good laugh reading some of this : )
but starcraft is feminine somehow too.. for example when i select all zerg units the ultralisk speaks, but when i disselect the ultra speaks the queen (somehow feminine!)... also when you select all the terran units speaks the valkyrie -> valkyrie is the responible for all terran troops -> a woman is the boss -> wtf sc so feminist!!
also when you select medic and marine -> the medic speaks -> how can this happen in a masculine world XD
for toss units speaks the carrier, but after that is the dark templar (which i believe was connected to matriarchy somehow)
|
On May 17 2009 23:10 cz wrote:
I think you really underestimate the biological/genetic side of things. It's only thought that biology has little psychological role among feminists/sociologists/etc. Evolutionary psychology disagree heavily with the "society dictates almost everything" view, but it's not politically correct to say so. Even the most basic observations back it up, though.
Also, "animals have different cultures". What?
Are you trying to group up feminists and sociologists as the weird people who are against "science" or something? I get that impression anyways.
I've studied different fields of psychology and while there of course is a large biological aspect of psychology, it's heavily affected by environment. Thus some genes don't express themselves because of environmental factors and some genes come to expression because of some different environmental factors.
Biological and environmental factors affect each other in complicated ways, so one can't really say that it's all nature or all environment.
Evolutionary psychology has some huge weaknesses. Mainly that they are too focused on biology and hardly considers environmental factors. For some reason they don't take environment into account, and that's a serious scientifical flaw; they see what they want to see.
Evolutionary pscyhology is like science from the early 2000:th century, where everything that can't be measured is not interesting. You can measure genes and atoms, but you hardly can't measure how a society works and what effect it has on people.
|
On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote:
Honestly this is what really irritates me about the social "sciences": they are unscientific.
For someone who seems to be advocating precise definitions and backing up claims with scientific proof that's a pretty bold statement. Where do you take the expertise from to make that claim?
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 17 2009 23:46 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:40 Jibba wrote:On May 17 2009 23:30 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:27 Jibba wrote:On May 17 2009 23:15 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:14 Jibba wrote:On May 17 2009 23:03 cz wrote:
The article in the OP could be either parody or a journal-level (ie professional level) feminist/cultural critique. I take it you've never actually read journal-level work, unless you mean the journal of a 10th grade girl. Actually as a university student I have to read drivel like this all the time. If you edit the article with more academic buzzwords it would be equivalent to a lot of sociological/cultural-critical journal articles I've had to read. Also, to your edit, anecdotal evidence and specific examples don't prove or disprove statistics or general trends, which is what I was talking about (ie the claim "society is male dominated"). Labeling it qualitative or any other multi-syllabic term doesn't change that. You must be an economist. Not everything is quantifiable. Then don't make claims you can't back up, which is what I'm talking about. Can't just claim "modern culture is male dominated", say there is no quantifiable evidence (and so far no other evidence given) and say that your statements stands as true. If you want to say its an opinion, do so, but the original guy's context made it appear that it wasn't just his opinion, but obviously true. I was referring to the fact that you said evidence entailed hard numbers, and other methods don't work. If you want a small bit of qualitative work, Throwing Like a Girl by Iris Young (should be on JSTOR) describes the way that girls are brought up to objectify themselves, and why men tend to be more "active" in their motions and how they perceive the world rather than passive. She goes a bit out there when she's talking about "yonder" and crap. If you want numbers, you could look at labor practices and the work cycles of men and women. The pay discrepancy argument is mostly bogus, but there's a lot worthwhile in the explanations of why most engineers and men and most teachers are women. I'm not interested enough to read the article, so I won't criticize it but I don't see it's relevance to the original claim of "modern culture is male dominated". Or are we just talking about socialization in general and how it affects gender roles? It's claimed that patriarchal society is what causes them to grow up objectifying themselves.
|
On May 17 2009 23:48 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:10 cz wrote:
I think you really underestimate the biological/genetic side of things. It's only thought that biology has little psychological role among feminists/sociologists/etc. Evolutionary psychology disagree heavily with the "society dictates almost everything" view, but it's not politically correct to say so. Even the most basic observations back it up, though.
Also, "animals have different cultures". What?
Are you trying to group up feminists and sociologists as the weird people who are against "science" or something? I get that impression anyways. I've studied different fields of psychology and while there of course is a large biological aspect of psychology, it's heavily affected by environment. Thus some genes don't express themselves because of environmental factors and some genes come to expression because of some different environmental factors. Biological and environmental factors affect each other in complicated ways, so one can't really say that it's all nature or all environment. Evolutionary psychology has some huge weaknesses. Mainly that they are too focused on biology and hardly considers environmental factors. For some reason they don't take environment into account, and that's a serious scientifical flaw; they see what they want to see. Evolutionary pscyhology is like science from the early 2000:th century, where everything that can't be measured is not interesting. You can measure genes and atoms, but you hardly can't measure how a society works and what effect it has on people.
Well we disagree then, I give a lot more weight to evolutionary psychology than socialization in a lot of things than you do. Depends on the specific topic we are discussing though.
It's a strawman to claim that evolutionary psychologists view everything as purely dictated by genes, though. Everyone knows that environment and biology interact in complicated ways: it's that way that is unclear and where disagreement comes from.
I also disagree with what you claim to be a weakness, but again it depends on what exactly we are talking about. We need a specific example to discuss genetics vs socialization, rather than talking about human behaviour as a whole.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
