|
On May 17 2009 23:50 Orome wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Personal observation and opinion. It's not a claim I'm really going to defend or stand by too much.
The difference is that I admit that.
|
On May 17 2009 23:51 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:46 cz wrote: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.
I see. Patriarchal society does not necessarily mean that culture is male dominated though.
|
On May 17 2009 23:47 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:45 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:42 keV. wrote:Google debate. Summary: - You make claim - I ask for evidence/backing of claim - You keep dodging. Yeah.
No, you don't understand what a debate is. The statement "modern society is male dominated" can never be 100% true. I am not claming that is 100% true, I am stating that I believe there is more evidence that society is generally more male dominated, then that it is not.
Disproving me does not come from mind games that you think are super clever, where I cannot correctly connect a specific piece of evidence with an 100% truth, but rather from evidence that says that society is not male dominated.
Your inability to understand this is what makes communication between me and you impossible.
You are trying to use your little mind game that you probably learned in 6th grade to disprove everything. When all it does in reality is make you look like a moron.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 17 2009 23:53 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:51 Jibba wrote:On May 17 2009 23:46 cz wrote: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. I see. Patriarchal society does not necessarily mean that culture is male dominated though.
I think it absolutely does, since males begin as the main authority.
Let me ask you, is evolutionary biology a science? Where are the statistics there? Calculus has a much bigger role in political science (for better or worse) than in some of the "hard" sciences. Do you measure a science strictly by the result?
|
|
|
On May 17 2009 23:42 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:39 Foucault 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. 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.
There is research on wages, don't tell me you have never heard or actually read anything about it?
It's a known fact that women make less than men, and I think you're just trying to be technical here because everyone knows this. But I agree that everything should be backed up by evidence, so heres a link for ya regarding wages in the US:
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm
We all know sports are male dominated. In the same way I know that 1+1=2 there's no point in trying to "prove" it in any other way. This is not maths and no one is going to write a paper to discuss whether or not sports are male dominated, because they are.
So presidents in pretty much every country in the world are male. Go look them up on wikipedia or whatever, because I sure as hell won't bother just so you will get your facts, which I already know are true. Like I said, look em up yourself. Men hold the positions in power basically, which makes men have a huge impact on culture, spending and the direction on society.
|
On May 17 2009 20:07 qoou wrote:
The 'evidence' part at the end is what saddens me the most. Example:
Siege Tank:
"Yes Sir."
"Orders Sir."
(While these last two are not sexual, they give the obvious implication that the game player must be male.)
These people will see what they want to see.
What else? "Yes Madam?"
LOL im getting tingles
|
On May 17 2009 23:57 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:47 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:45 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:42 keV. wrote:Google debate. Summary: - You make claim - I ask for evidence/backing of claim - You keep dodging. Yeah. No, you don't understand what a debate is. The statement "modern society is male dominated" can never be 100% true. I am not claming that is 100% true, I am stating that I believe there is more evidence that society is generally more male dominated, then that it is not. Disproving me does not come from mind games that you think are super clever, where I cannot correctly connect a specific piece of evidence with an 100% truth, but rather from evidence that says that society is not male dominated. Your inability to understand this is what makes communication between me and you impossible. You are trying to use your little mind game that you probably learned in 6th grade to disprove everything. When all it does in reality is make you look like a moron.
Then show your evidence.
|
Let's move this to being about the wage gap, I've always been skeptical about it and wanted to see some hard evidence. Looking at Foucaults evidence now.
edit: It says that women make 75.5 cents for every dollar a man makes. But are these at the same positions, with the same seniority, or just an aggregate of everything? I mean if a man is more likely to be a doctor than a woman is, and women are more likely to be a nurse, I wouldn't say the wage gap is bad but expected and just.
Anyone have hard evidence showing that women and men with the same job and level make different amounts of money per hour worked?
|
On May 17 2009 23:58 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:57 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:47 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:45 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:42 keV. wrote:Google debate. Summary: - You make claim - I ask for evidence/backing of claim - You keep dodging. Yeah. No, you don't understand what a debate is. The statement "modern society is male dominated" can never be 100% true. I am not claming that is 100% true, I am stating that I believe there is more evidence that society is generally more male dominated, then that it is not. Disproving me does not come from mind games that you think are super clever, where I cannot correctly connect a specific piece of evidence with an 100% truth, but rather from evidence that says that society is not male dominated. Your inability to understand this is what makes communication between me and you impossible. You are trying to use your little mind game that you probably learned in 6th grade to disprove everything. When all it does in reality is make you look like a moron. Then show your evidence.
Why don't you use that block in your skull to read some of the evidence that has already been presented here.
|
On May 18 2009 00:01 keV. wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:58 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:57 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:47 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:45 keV. wrote:On May 17 2009 23:42 keV. wrote:Google debate. Summary: - You make claim - I ask for evidence/backing of claim - You keep dodging. Yeah. No, you don't understand what a debate is. The statement "modern society is male dominated" can never be 100% true. I am not claming that is 100% true, I am stating that I believe there is more evidence that society is generally more male dominated, then that it is not. Disproving me does not come from mind games that you think are super clever, where I cannot correctly connect a specific piece of evidence with an 100% truth, but rather from evidence that says that society is not male dominated. Your inability to understand this is what makes communication between me and you impossible. You are trying to use your little mind game that you probably learned in 6th grade to disprove everything. When all it does in reality is make you look like a moron. Then show your evidence. Why don't you use that block in your skull to read some of the evidence that has already been presented here.
I have been and was discussing it. Read above.
|
On May 17 2009 23:57 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:53 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:51 Jibba wrote:On May 17 2009 23:46 cz wrote: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. I see. Patriarchal society does not necessarily mean that culture is male dominated though. I think it absolutely does, since males begin as the main authority. Let me ask you, is evolutionary biology a science? Where are the statistics there? Calculus has a much bigger role in political science (for better or worse) than in some of the "hard" sciences. Do you measure a science strictly by the result?
A lot of evolutionary psychology is just theories, but a lot is backed up via statistics and incidence of genes vs results, ie how much IQ is linked to genetics etc.
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 17 2009 23:58 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:42 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:39 Foucault 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. 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. There is research on wages, don't tell me you have never heard or actually read anything about it? It's a known fact that women make less than men, and I think you're just trying to be technical here because everyone knows this. But I agree that everything should be backed up by evidence, so heres a link for ya regarding wages in the US: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/censusandstatistics/a/paygapgrows.htm
The 76% paygap thing is a great example of numbers being used to deceive people. The only things it takes into account are income and sex. It says nothing about careers or qualification or anything else.
This is a good working paper on the issue.
http://www2.binghamton.edu/economics/research/working-papers/pdfs/wp04/WP0412.pdf
The author doesn't find that much corporate discrimination, if you account for qualification, experience, work habits (ie. leaving work to start a family), etc. If it were the case, it'd be a simple economic problem and you'd see more women being hired at a lower price than an equally qualified man. He does, however, find societal discrimination which causes differences in division of labor and some business practices that are unfair to women.
|
On May 17 2009 23:52 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:50 Orome wrote: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? Personal observation and opinion. It's not a claim I'm really going to defend or stand by too much. The difference is that I admit that.
Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable.
With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes.
Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true.
|
On May 18 2009 00:08 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2009 23:52 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:50 Orome wrote: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? Personal observation and opinion. It's not a claim I'm really going to defend or stand by too much. The difference is that I admit that. Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable. With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes. Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true.
Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within.
Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion.
|
Yeah, that's the result of the research but does it mean anything? It might just have happened. They need to do this over and over and over like 1000 times in order for it to be statistical and significant at all.
|
On May 18 2009 00:13 Foucault wrote:Yeah, that's the result of the research but does it mean anything? It might just have happened. They need to do this over and over and over like 1000 times in order for it to be statistical and significant at all.
I think they repeated a bunch of tests, but yeah I don't know the methodology without reading it all.
|
On May 18 2009 00:00 cz wrote:
Let's move this to being about the wage gap, I've always been skeptical about it and wanted to see some hard evidence. Looking at Foucaults evidence now.
edit: It says that women make 75.5 cents for every dollar a man makes. But are these at the same positions, with the same seniority, or just an aggregate of everything? I mean if a man is more likely to be a doctor than a woman is, and women are more likely to be a nurse, I wouldn't say the wage gap is bad but expected and just.
Anyone have hard evidence showing that women and men with the same job and level make different amounts of money per hour worked?
Expected and just? Then it's an obvious result of a society where a man is the norm and he gets the power position as the doctor, and the woman gets to be the inferior nurse. Why would a man be more likely to be a doctor than a woman, in a biological sense?
http://gupea.ub.gu.se/dspace/bitstream/2077/17897/1/gupea_2077_17897_1.pdf
|
United States22883 Posts
On May 18 2009 00:12 cz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 00:08 Foucault wrote:On May 17 2009 23:52 cz wrote:On May 17 2009 23:50 Orome wrote: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? Personal observation and opinion. It's not a claim I'm really going to defend or stand by too much. The difference is that I admit that. Yeah ok that's probably coming from someone in the field of math, physics, economy or something similar, where you are taught that only quantitative methods are reliable. With the social sciences it's usually not possible to measure stuff with cruder methods that work for example with math; i.e 1+1=2. Does that mean that feminist statements aren't true? Of course not, it's just a realization of the fact that not everything can be measured and organized into certain schemes. Science isn't as clear-cut as you'd think. Alot of scientists try to fit stuff into pre-thought out slots, that will make their claims true. Lack of evidence isn't an excuse. If it's the case, just admit that there is a lack of evidence and therefore the theories are essentially unprovable until the evidence is found. To say that it's hard to find evidence and therefore lower standards to need to be applied for what can be accepted as "true" in the social sciences vs the hard sciences is unacceptable. Things are either true or not, whatever artificially-designated discipline you are working within. Also nothing of which I am talking about is learned from any qualified instructor. I am self-taught, mostly through discussion. What makes hard numbers more correct than a case study? The people who create the models in which the numbers go are also human and so in some sense they're arbitrary as well. I would submit that science is a process, not a result. Nothing is ever deductively proven, but reasonable inferences can be made from qualitative and quantitative data.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/nature/IIprocess.shtml
|
On May 18 2009 00:17 Foucault wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2009 00:00 cz wrote:
Let's move this to being about the wage gap, I've always been skeptical about it and wanted to see some hard evidence. Looking at Foucaults evidence now.
edit: It says that women make 75.5 cents for every dollar a man makes. But are these at the same positions, with the same seniority, or just an aggregate of everything? I mean if a man is more likely to be a doctor than a woman is, and women are more likely to be a nurse, I wouldn't say the wage gap is bad but expected and just.
Anyone have hard evidence showing that women and men with the same job and level make different amounts of money per hour worked? Expected and just? Then it's an obvious result of a society where a man is the norm and he gets the power position as the doctor, and the woman gets to be the inferior nurse. Why would a man be more likely to be a doctor than a woman, in a biological sense? http://gupea.ub.gu.se/dspace/bitstream/2077/17897/1/gupea_2077_17897_1.pdf
I think it's changing greatly now, ie the sex ratio of new doctors. Also women are being encouraged via government initiatives to be doctors far more than men are, along with receiving female-only scholarships.
It's not necessarily the result of society at all, either. What matters is that there is now more than equal opportunity for women to become doctors than men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
