On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote: You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender.
This is a false dichotomy, because "opportunity" should really not be solely understood as the legal possibility to get a given job whether you're male or female. If there are cultural norms and practices in a given society which lead men and women to statistically choose different paths in terms of professional formations and occupations, you could very well argue that "equal opportunity" isn't exactly achieved as long as these gender-related cultural norms continue to have a major impact on what studies and careers men and women tend to pursue in their lives. Your opportunities can also be restrained by the gender stereotypes you've been led to internalize and integrate since you were a child, by the approval or disapproval you've received around you in reaction to the preferences you've exhibited, by how you've been pushed or not pushed in certain directions by your teachers, family, friends, etc. Of course, there are plenty of people who go against the norm, who grow up in environments protecting them to an extent from internalizing certain of these gender stereotypes, etc., but looking at the representation of genders in general throughout society, these things matter. And that's not even taking into account the reticence still present at the structural and individual levels to hire women in several situations.
On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote: You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender.
This is a false dichotomy, because "opportunity" should really not be solely understood as the legal possibility to get a given job whether you're male or female. If there are cultural norms and practices in a given society which lead men and women to statistically choose different paths in terms of professional formations and occupations, you could very well argue that "equal opportunity" isn't exactly achieved as long as these gender-related cultural norms continue to have a major impact on what studies and careers men and women tend to pursue in their lives. Your opportunities can also be restrained by the gender stereotypes you've been led to internalize and integrate since you were a child, by the approval or disapproval you've received around you in reaction to the preferences you've exhibited, by how you've been pushed or not pushed in certain directions by your teachers, family, friends, etc. Of course, there are plenty of people who go against the norm, who grow up in environments protecting them to an extent from internalizing certain of these gender stereotypes, etc., but looking at the representation of genders in general throughout society, these things matter.
So say you have a society with legally equal opportunities, and yet some industry still has a disparity between the genders. How do you decide if the disparity is some social construct, or if it is a product of biology? I mean, there are some careers that women are simply not biologically inclined to enter. Generally speaking, women are more frail then men, so it shouldn't be surprising that the most physically demanding careers are male-dominated. You don't see many female crewmembers on Deadliest Catch for instance.
A more subtle example might be that not only is the ability to enter a career could be biological, so too could the desire. I don't know the data on this, but it's conceivable that women enter nurturing careers more than men because they have a biological inclination to enjoy them more. Maybe we have more female nurses because a greater percentage of females enjoy that line of work.
On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote: You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender.
This is a false dichotomy, because "opportunity" should really not be solely understood as the legal possibility to get a given job whether you're male or female. If there are cultural norms and practices in a given society which lead men and women to statistically choose different paths in terms of professional formations and occupations, you could very well argue that "equal opportunity" isn't exactly achieved as long as these gender-related cultural norms continue to have a major impact on what studies and careers men and women tend to pursue in their lives. Your opportunities can also be restrained by the gender stereotypes you've been led to internalize and integrate since you were a child, by the approval or disapproval you've received around you in reaction to the preferences you've exhibited, by how you've been pushed or not pushed in certain directions by your teachers, family, friends, etc. Of course, there are plenty of people who go against the norm, who grow up in environments protecting them to an extent from internalizing certain of these gender stereotypes, etc., but looking at the representation of genders in general throughout society, these things matter.
So say you have a society with legally equal opportunities, and yet some industry still has a disparity between the genders. How do you decide if the disparity is some social construct, or if it is a product of biology? I mean, there are some careers that women are simply not biologically inclined to enter. Generally speaking, women are more frail then men, so it shouldn't be surprising that the most physically demanding careers are male-dominated. You don't see many female crewmembers on Deadliest Catch for instance.
A more subtle example might be that not only is the ability to enter a career could be biological, so too could the desire. I don't know the data on this, but it's conceivable that women enter nurturing careers more than men because they have a biological inclination to enjoy them more. Maybe we have more female nurses because a greater percentage of females enjoy that line of work.
Yeah, that's all speculation on predetermined desires and there is very little data to back that up. There are more women in nursing because it is a hold over from an era where it was one of the few professions they could hold without issue. Same with teaching and secretary. It had nothing to do with biological desire, it was caused by there only being 3-4 professions that any women could get into for quite some time and diversity had not caught up.
Also I know nurses and I don't think they could call it a "nurturing" career. Its a very hard job that has some aspects of being nurturing, I doubt any of them would call it the primary trait of the job. And some of these nurses are men.
On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote: You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender.
This is a false dichotomy, because "opportunity" should really not be solely understood as the legal possibility to get a given job whether you're male or female. If there are cultural norms and practices in a given society which lead men and women to statistically choose different paths in terms of professional formations and occupations, you could very well argue that "equal opportunity" isn't exactly achieved as long as these gender-related cultural norms continue to have a major impact on what studies and careers men and women tend to pursue in their lives. Your opportunities can also be restrained by the gender stereotypes you've been led to internalize and integrate since you were a child, by the approval or disapproval you've received around you in reaction to the preferences you've exhibited, by how you've been pushed or not pushed in certain directions by your teachers, family, friends, etc. Of course, there are plenty of people who go against the norm, who grow up in environments protecting them to an extent from internalizing certain of these gender stereotypes, etc., but looking at the representation of genders in general throughout society, these things matter.
So say you have a society with legally equal opportunities, and yet some industry still has a disparity between the genders. How do you decide if the disparity is some social construct, or if it is a product of biology? I mean, there are some careers that women are simply not biologically inclined to enter. Generally speaking, women are more frail then men, so it shouldn't be surprising that the most physically demanding careers are male-dominated. You don't see many female crewmembers on Deadliest Catch for instance.
A more subtle example might be that not only is the ability to enter a career could be biological, so too could the desire. I don't know the data on this, but it's conceivable that women enter nurturing careers more than men because they have a biological inclination to enjoy them more. Maybe we have more female nurses because a greater percentage of females enjoy that line of work.
doesn't really matter it only becomes a problem when a big strong great fisherman gets rejected/flack for wanting to be on deadliest catch cause they have a vagina.
I don't really see a big problem with women / men statistically preferring different choices of careers, as long as those careers are still as open to them as to people of the other sex if they actually choose to pursue them. I don't see how it is that relevant if the reason for those preferences are cultural or biological or whatever else either.
The problem is when the statistically "preferring" is, in fact, caused because one sex is driven out or not welcome in a profession. The legal field took years to get enough women in the field to even have judges and its still not at 50/50, but its growing.
There is a lot of work being done to get women into the sciences and tech industry, because its been pretty categorically proven that they were discouraged from going into those fields for about 20-30 years, which has lead to a lot of problems for women now entering that field.
@Darkwhite Here's something on Dungeon Keeper 3- an example of how it was reviled.
I think Total Biscuit did a video on it as well, but I can't find it right now.
You don't know my specific examples of so bad, they're good films... but do you know the concept? Have you ever seen an unintentionally bad film? I don't mean Snakes on a Plane, where they are trying, but honest to goodness, try and fall on your face fail? There are some directors that are still convinced of their own genius or else noting the reaction, try to play it off like it was all a joke to begin with. Do you know the sort of films I mean? Really bad 80's fantasy films, for example.
I still don't understand your view as it seems you are against criticism in its entirety. I don't think shaming is something typical for criticism. If shaming is to be used at all, it is to be used carefully. I think you are jumping on shaming because of the Shamus article, I posted, but I think you need to read it more carefully. It is not the game itself, nor Ubisoft's choice to not include a female playable character. It was specifically directed at "fumbling at PR and game design." The reasons they gave were bad, which is largely what the article was about. That's legit to call someone out and say, 'dude your reasons don't make sense. Don't dodge, just give us the real reason.' Furthermore, one thing Shamus really harps on is unfinished games that are released with glaring problems and the game design was specifically directed at the multiplayer choices. He also goes to town on DRM in general, but especially debilitating DRM such as 3 install limits- he will heap shame for those reasons. Given that Shamus' shaming was directed as PR and game design, do you suppose you can stop throwing around shaming as though that is the end goal of all criticism?
Criticism does a lot of things whether it is evaluating and finding what works and what doesn't or finding meaning. However, when identifying what isn't working, there is an implied ought. You seem to balk at this idea. However, if you say, this doesn't work at this point, for these reasons, then the implication is that the work would be better if changes were made. For instance, when people critique Jar Jar Binks in Star Wars or the length of the Hobbit films, they are saying the films could have been better with Jar Jar changed (or gone) or with shorter or less Hobbit films.
Similarly, when a game is released in an unfinished state, critiques on the games bugginess and non-functionality, the critiques are saying the developers ought not to have released the game in such a state. A similar critique could be made on a story that makes no sense of else critique a sequel whose story undercuts everything in the first story.
Criticism focusing on poor female characterization is simply looking at a problem common to many games. The problem is rarely in an individual game, but in aggregation. Another film example- the one African American character who will get killed by the end, protecting the main character. Criticism can take a big picture view and say, 'hey, this is a weird trend that may be due to lazy writing- there might be some parts of the story that are done by default, maybe this could be looked at.' It isn't a call for African Americans to never be killed in a film ever again. However, it is a call to think more carefully about the story and the role characters are playing the story.
Identifying where a game or story (or story in a game) could be better is a good thing because it helps us think about what are the different ways that makes a good game or story. That can be helpful for current and future developers, but also for fellow consumers. A well-explained critique can give words to people that had a gut feeling that something was good or lacking, but couldn't describe why. Reading the critique, people can say- yeah, that's exactly why I felt that way, or that X is off the mark, but now I think it was Y instead. Furthermore, critiques that look at trends amongst many games can help uncover unexamined assumptions. It can help elucidate, that 'oh hey, I guess games have been pretty vanilla with their female characters. Maybe shaking things up a bit, would be interesting.' That exercise in itself is hugely helpful just to get creative juices going- at least for me. I read something that's done to death, and I think- hm, well how could it be done differently and suddenly my mind is going off in all directions with new ideas.
I completely disagree with the idea that creators are in the best position to evaluate their own work. They are, by their nature, very partial to their work. Put it this way, do you only listen to developers to decide whether you like a game? Or do read or listen to reviews that are not the developers, or listen to a friend that has played, and finally rely upon your own evaluation of the game? The creator's opinion of their own work is irrelevant to the works goodness or badness- else every self-published author would be the best author ever.
Again, drawing on CS Lewis' essay On Criticism- the author is one of the better authorities on describing what is actually in their work (they, after all made it and ought to know what is in it.) However, they are among the worst in actually evaluating whether it is good or bad or even what it means. Few are the creators that can take a step back and pull out the meaning of the work, based on the work itself because they so often get muddied with what they intended rather than what actually exists- what was actually created. They certainly have a hard time determining the goodness or badness of the work because they made, they tend to think it is good regardless of whether anyone else does.
But everything is wrong with crossing the line and imposing on the artist's right to make whatever he pleases
There is no imposition with criticism. Criticism does not enter the developers workplace and drive the developer to do this that or the other. There is no enforcement and neither should there be. Criticism may focus on certain things in the hopes of change, but it's a conversation and not autocratic rule. It might be a heated conversation at times, but it is still a conversation.
I'm pretty sure I have more to say on criticism, but I'm going to stop now because this is turning into a poorly structured essay.
On March 14 2015 04:41 Simberto wrote: I don't really see a big problem with women / men statistically preferring different choices of careers, as long as those careers are still as open to them as to people of the other sex if they actually choose to pursue them. I don't see how it is that relevant if the reason for those preferences are cultural or biological or whatever else either.
It's relevant because it can cloud your studies. It's tough to tell if you have some cultural bias keeping women out of a career, or if women simply have some innate, biological bias against it. So you could have activists raising a stink about perceived sexism when really women simply have a biological desire to avoid that career.
And yeah, I don't have a problem with women entering any career they like, so long as they're just as capable at doing them as men. If some woman is tough enough to be a commercial fisherman and wants to do it, good for her. I just wouldn't immediately blame sexism if not a lot of women took that job.
On March 14 2015 04:41 Simberto wrote: I don't really see a big problem with women / men statistically preferring different choices of careers, as long as those careers are still as open to them as to people of the other sex if they actually choose to pursue them. I don't see how it is that relevant if the reason for those preferences are cultural or biological or whatever else either.
It's relevant because it can cloud your studies. It's tough to tell if you have some cultural bias keeping women out of a career, or if women simply have some innate, biological bias against it. So you could have activists raising a stink about perceived sexism when really women simply have a biological desire to avoid that career.
And yeah, I don't have a problem with women entering any career they like, so long as they're just as capable at doing them as men. If some woman is tough enough to be a commercial fisherman and wants to do it, good for her. I just wouldn't immediately blame sexism if not a lot of women took that job.
Its good that you don't have a problem with people doing what they want... i guess you are sane... but some people wanted to be gamers and they get flack cause of their gender. I don't think they were asking your permission just asking people to stop being derogatory to their gender.
On March 14 2015 04:41 Simberto wrote: I don't really see a big problem with women / men statistically preferring different choices of careers, as long as those careers are still as open to them as to people of the other sex if they actually choose to pursue them. I don't see how it is that relevant if the reason for those preferences are cultural or biological or whatever else either.
It's relevant because it can cloud your studies. It's tough to tell if you have some cultural bias keeping women out of a career, or if women simply have some innate, biological bias against it. So you could have activists raising a stink about perceived sexism when really women simply have a biological desire to avoid that career.
And yeah, I don't have a problem with women entering any career they like, so long as they're just as capable at doing them as men. If some woman is tough enough to be a commercial fisherman and wants to do it, good for her. I just wouldn't immediately blame sexism if not a lot of women took that job.
Its good that you don't have a problem with people doing what they want... i guess you are sane... but some people wanted to be gamers and they get flack cause of their gender. I don't think they were asking your permission just asking people to stop being derogatory to their gender.
You're missing my point, or you just don't care. I'm saying that you might be fighting biology, not society. Some of the disparity between the genders could be because one gender has a biological aversion or attraction to something.
Say Career A is split 70/30, with more men than women. Over the years, activists protest against some perceived oppression in the career. They get the ratio down to 60/40. So they struggle more and more. And their gains decline, and they just cannot get the ratio any closer to 50/50. If that last gap is due to some biological fact about men or women, no amount of protesting or documentaries could ever change it. If all you ever look at is the stats that say more men are in Career A than women, you'll never know that you've done all you could, and that any further documentaries or bitching online is just tilting at windmills.
On March 13 2015 03:27 ComaDose wrote: This is getting kinda silly, "the girls i tell about dnd get bored while i explain the mechanics" isn't exactly proof of a biological difference. saying "Its our whole culture that paints women in a "sexist" light." while correct, isnt reason video games shouldn't change somehow coming up with a claim that people are "demanding that others change their behavior to accommodate you" doesn't help your argument.
Can anyone argue with the point that video games are generally made by men for men about men and that lots of people think that could use a little change.
Didn't they make a study on whether there's a biological difference between boys and girls when it comes to what their interests are. Something about studying how much time boys and girls spent observing different things (even before having stuff like barbie dolls introduced in their lives) where boys spent more time on "typical boy things" and girls spent more time on "typical girly things", suggesting that there is indeed a biological difference. I mean the brains are indeed somewhat different between sexes so it would not be too far-fetched to assume they would have slightly different interests.
For me, personally, the empirical evidence to boys having different interest than girls is at this point too enormous to be ignored that I would be convinced even without such a study.
I don't know what study you're referring to, but there is no scientific basis to assert that there are definitive innate biological differences between boys and girls when it comes to the type of activities you're referring to, let alone choosing which video games to play later in life. There are volumes of scientific studies showing the impact on such choices of cultural factors and of the integration by individuals of gender stereotypes, however. Since you may be referring to a study by Baron-Cohen that was already discussed on these forums, allow me to quote a post of mine in which I explained why the study did not prove the existence of the kind of innate biological differences some claimed it did:
One of the cornerstones of his demonstration is the opinion of Simon Baron-Cohen, which he goes into great length to present as a legitimate scientific authority (shots of the University of Cambridge where he works, etc.), and Baron-Cohen's study on what he says are 24 hrs-old male and female babies. According to Baron-Cohen, his study shows that babies with virtually no amount of socialization through culture still act differently based on their sex: male babies will tend to be more interested by the movement of a mechanical object and female babies by a human face. Let's start by pointing out that the "mechanical object" referred to here is actually a ball on which were pasted bits of a photograph of a human face - not exactly the type of "mechanical object" that some argue boys are naturally more interested in than girls. Second, the babies were not actually a day old but, on average, 36,7 hrs old - we do not know more from the information given in the study, but the difference is far from being negligible in terms of child development, and culture can already have started to have an impact at that point.
More importantly, however, the study does not, in fact, show statistically significant differences between the sexes in terms of interest in the human face, and does not show a statistically significant preference among boys in favor of the mobile object. There were 58 girls and 44 boys selected for the study, and the numbers in terms of time spent watching each stimulus are simply too close in both cases. Looking at confidence intervals clearly shows that the differences are not statistically significant. To mention the numbers themselves, boys spent around 51-52 seconds looking at the mobile object and around 46 seconds looking at the face. Girls spent barely more time than the boys looking at the face: just below 50 seconds. From a scientific point of view, these differences are non-existent because they are, again, not statistically significant.
If you look at the numbers even further, you'll notice that, beyond the averages put forward by the authors (Baron-Cohen was not alone in writing the study), 64% of the girls did not manifest a preference for the face, and 57% of the boys did not manifest a preference for the mobile object (these percentages include those who manifested a preference for the other stimulus and those who manifested no preference for either). I'll let that sink in. In the documentary (and, in fact, in the article itself), Baron-Cohen deliberately chose to look at the results which seemed to go this way (for example, girls did spend on average more time watching the mobile stimulus than the face - even though the difference was less than 10 seconds between the two), and presented interpretations that went way beyond, and were actually contradicted by, the very results of his experience. An assertion of the type that "girls preferred the face" and "boys preferred the mobile" is actually false for a majority of both groups. In addition to these problems with the interpretation of the results, several methodological biases and problems have been pointed out with regards to the study, including actual mistakes in the statistical analysis of the results - see NASH, Alison Nash, GROSSI, Giordana (2007), "Picking Barbie’s brain: inherent sex differences in scientific ability?".
Beyond these numbers, which do not support what is said in the documentary, it's also worth mentioning that the authors apparently did not keep the actual data (or at least they're unwilling to share it), and the results they cherry-pick to support their idea that biology plays a major role have never been reproduced. In fact, they've been contradicted by other studies - see SPELKE, Elizabeth (2005), "Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics - A critical review", American Psychologist, 60(9), pp. 950-958.
To put Baron-Cohen's opinion back into context as well, he did not - contrary to what Harald Eia asserts in the documentary - happen to coincidentally discover what he presents as a difference between sexes in his study. In fact, Baron-Cohen formulated several years prior to the study his personal theory of autism as an extreme form of the natural cerebral masculinity which he posits the existence of. His theory notably included some of what is mentioned in the "documentary" in terms of a link between testosterone levels and differences in cognitive dispositions with regards to the spatial and the social among males and females. In his following research, therefore, he tried to prove this theory of his, and the study referred to here is part of that effort. He had a prior interest in presenting certain specific results and not simply an interest in discovering what results he could find. In the scientific field on autism, his theory on "essential" differences between female and male brains is absolutely not consensual (and, in fact, rather unpopular if we look at citations).
I explored the detail of this specific part of the documentary, but similar comments can be made with regards to the other testimonies defending the existence of a biological determinism separating male and female brains in a way that leads to differences in interests and even career paths. The social scientist interviewed at the beginning which says that there is no actual scientific evidence of such biological determinism is actually perfectly right. They were not very articulate at the end (I suspect that there might have been a bias in the selection of footage to show for their answers at the end, but oh well), but the fact is simply that the scientific research done so far does NOT establish the existence of such biological determinism. There have been articles claiming to establish such differences, such as Baron-Cohen's, but they do not resist scrutiny and are systematically characterized by methodological biases/flaws and interpretation problems. In fact, if you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture these initial differences (see also WITELSON, S. F. (1991), "Neural Sexual Mosaicism: Sexual Differentiation of the Human Temporo-Parietal Region for Functional Asymmetry". Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16 (1-3): pp. 131-153). Clearly, cultural factors are a driving force behind differences in career paths between men and women, and social construction of gender roles is a fundamental object of study for whomever is interested in more equality between sexes.
Is your position that there are no biological differences on what boys/girls generally feel inclined to do?
Everyone do yourself a favor. Have a few beers, maybe smoke a bowl, then start this thread from page 1. The entertainment...not even joking I've been laughing for about a half an hour now.
On March 09 2015 01:05 travis wrote: I really don't think the immature kids that talk to girl gamers like this are going after girl gamers. I think they are being dicks to everyone. Most guys, especially ones over 12, LOVE to have girls that play their games too.
In general this "defend girl gamers!" thing is ridiculous. Everyone has to deal with the shitty little immature trolls, not just girls.
The majority of this journalism on girl gamer equality is only a way for the producers of this content to make money. Which is why I didn't click the link.
Agreed. /end thread
Although, I am interested in the psychology of males/females/other and gaming in general. So I would watch this docu with low expectations anyway.
Most gaming related docus are pretty weak, or the same rehashed shit, regardless what they are about, but I watch em anyway.
I even watched a ton of those Anita Sarkeesian videos about female tropes (even though she is way off, and who gives a shit).
are you suggesting no one has ever made fun of someone on a video game because they were girls? not just normal flack but when they identified as a girl they got made fun of specifically for being a female.
what do you think the 'defend girl gamers' people are doing thats so bad? i though in essense it was just people saying stop being a dick.
On March 09 2015 01:05 travis wrote: I really don't think the immature kids that talk to girl gamers like this are going after girl gamers. I think they are being dicks to everyone. Most guys, especially ones over 12, LOVE to have girls that play their games too.
In general this "defend girl gamers!" thing is ridiculous. Everyone has to deal with the shitty little immature trolls, not just girls.
The majority of this journalism on girl gamer equality is only a way for the producers of this content to make money. Which is why I didn't click the link.
Agreed. /end thread
Although, I am interested in the psychology of males/females/other and gaming in general. So I would watch this docu with low expectations anyway.
Most gaming related docus are pretty weak, or the same rehashed shit, regardless what they are about, but I watch em anyway.
I even watched a ton of those Anita Sarkeesian videos about female tropes (even though she is way off, and who gives a shit).
are you suggesting no one has ever made fun of someone on a video game because they were girls? not just normal flack but when they identified as a girl they got made fun of specifically for being a female.
what do you think the 'defend girl gamers' people are doing thats so bad? i though in essense it was just people saying stop being a dick.
On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote: You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender.
This is a false dichotomy, because "opportunity" should really not be solely understood as the legal possibility to get a given job whether you're male or female. If there are cultural norms and practices in a given society which lead men and women to statistically choose different paths in terms of professional formations and occupations, you could very well argue that "equal opportunity" isn't exactly achieved as long as these gender-related cultural norms continue to have a major impact on what studies and careers men and women tend to pursue in their lives. Your opportunities can also be restrained by the gender stereotypes you've been led to internalize and integrate since you were a child, by the approval or disapproval you've received around you in reaction to the preferences you've exhibited, by how you've been pushed or not pushed in certain directions by your teachers, family, friends, etc. Of course, there are plenty of people who go against the norm, who grow up in environments protecting them to an extent from internalizing certain of these gender stereotypes, etc., but looking at the representation of genders in general throughout society, these things matter.
So say you have a society with legally equal opportunities, and yet some industry still has a disparity between the genders. How do you decide if the disparity is some social construct, or if it is a product of biology? I mean, there are some careers that women are simply not biologically inclined to enter. Generally speaking, women are more frail then men, so it shouldn't be surprising that the most physically demanding careers are male-dominated. You don't see many female crewmembers on Deadliest Catch for instance.
A more subtle example might be that not only is the ability to enter a career could be biological, so too could the desire. I don't know the data on this, but it's conceivable that women enter nurturing careers more than men because they have a biological inclination to enjoy them more. Maybe we have more female nurses because a greater percentage of females enjoy that line of work.
Again, there is currently no scientific basis to assert that "desire to enter specific careers" or anything of the sort is rooted in any way in innate biological differences between men and women. Meanwhile, it is a scientific fact that cultural factors play a huge role in career paths.
With regards to your mention of "some careers that women are simply not biologically inclined to enter", let me point out first of all that physically-demanding jobs represent a minuscule amount of careers compared to those exhibiting the kind of gender disparities we're addressing here. Second, there being jobs "too physically difficult for women" is largely a myth. The barriers limiting the percentage of women in these kind of jobs are, again, very much cultural as well as the product of the institutionalization of men's presence in these occupations. Many of the jobs you're referring to have been those which have seen the highest resistance to women's entry, regardless of the fact that accomplishing what needed to be accomplished in the job was perfectly well possible for women. If you're interested in learning more on the topic, I notably advise you to read: Carol Chetkovich (1992), Real Heat (about the career of firefighter); Karen Messing (1998), One-eyed science, in particular Chapter 3, "Are Women Biologically fit for Jobs? Are Jobs Fit for Women?"; Anne Fausto-Sterling (1992), Myths Of Gender.
On March 13 2015 03:27 ComaDose wrote: This is getting kinda silly, "the girls i tell about dnd get bored while i explain the mechanics" isn't exactly proof of a biological difference. saying "Its our whole culture that paints women in a "sexist" light." while correct, isnt reason video games shouldn't change somehow coming up with a claim that people are "demanding that others change their behavior to accommodate you" doesn't help your argument.
Can anyone argue with the point that video games are generally made by men for men about men and that lots of people think that could use a little change.
Didn't they make a study on whether there's a biological difference between boys and girls when it comes to what their interests are. Something about studying how much time boys and girls spent observing different things (even before having stuff like barbie dolls introduced in their lives) where boys spent more time on "typical boy things" and girls spent more time on "typical girly things", suggesting that there is indeed a biological difference. I mean the brains are indeed somewhat different between sexes so it would not be too far-fetched to assume they would have slightly different interests.
For me, personally, the empirical evidence to boys having different interest than girls is at this point too enormous to be ignored that I would be convinced even without such a study.
I don't know what study you're referring to, but there is no scientific basis to assert that there are definitive innate biological differences between boys and girls when it comes to the type of activities you're referring to, let alone choosing which video games to play later in life. There are volumes of scientific studies showing the impact on such choices of cultural factors and of the integration by individuals of gender stereotypes, however. Since you may be referring to a study by Baron-Cohen that was already discussed on these forums, allow me to quote a post of mine in which I explained why the study did not prove the existence of the kind of innate biological differences some claimed it did:
One of the cornerstones of his demonstration is the opinion of Simon Baron-Cohen, which he goes into great length to present as a legitimate scientific authority (shots of the University of Cambridge where he works, etc.), and Baron-Cohen's study on what he says are 24 hrs-old male and female babies. According to Baron-Cohen, his study shows that babies with virtually no amount of socialization through culture still act differently based on their sex: male babies will tend to be more interested by the movement of a mechanical object and female babies by a human face. Let's start by pointing out that the "mechanical object" referred to here is actually a ball on which were pasted bits of a photograph of a human face - not exactly the type of "mechanical object" that some argue boys are naturally more interested in than girls. Second, the babies were not actually a day old but, on average, 36,7 hrs old - we do not know more from the information given in the study, but the difference is far from being negligible in terms of child development, and culture can already have started to have an impact at that point.
More importantly, however, the study does not, in fact, show statistically significant differences between the sexes in terms of interest in the human face, and does not show a statistically significant preference among boys in favor of the mobile object. There were 58 girls and 44 boys selected for the study, and the numbers in terms of time spent watching each stimulus are simply too close in both cases. Looking at confidence intervals clearly shows that the differences are not statistically significant. To mention the numbers themselves, boys spent around 51-52 seconds looking at the mobile object and around 46 seconds looking at the face. Girls spent barely more time than the boys looking at the face: just below 50 seconds. From a scientific point of view, these differences are non-existent because they are, again, not statistically significant.
If you look at the numbers even further, you'll notice that, beyond the averages put forward by the authors (Baron-Cohen was not alone in writing the study), 64% of the girls did not manifest a preference for the face, and 57% of the boys did not manifest a preference for the mobile object (these percentages include those who manifested a preference for the other stimulus and those who manifested no preference for either). I'll let that sink in. In the documentary (and, in fact, in the article itself), Baron-Cohen deliberately chose to look at the results which seemed to go this way (for example, girls did spend on average more time watching the mobile stimulus than the face - even though the difference was less than 10 seconds between the two), and presented interpretations that went way beyond, and were actually contradicted by, the very results of his experience. An assertion of the type that "girls preferred the face" and "boys preferred the mobile" is actually false for a majority of both groups. In addition to these problems with the interpretation of the results, several methodological biases and problems have been pointed out with regards to the study, including actual mistakes in the statistical analysis of the results - see NASH, Alison Nash, GROSSI, Giordana (2007), "Picking Barbie’s brain: inherent sex differences in scientific ability?".
Beyond these numbers, which do not support what is said in the documentary, it's also worth mentioning that the authors apparently did not keep the actual data (or at least they're unwilling to share it), and the results they cherry-pick to support their idea that biology plays a major role have never been reproduced. In fact, they've been contradicted by other studies - see SPELKE, Elizabeth (2005), "Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics - A critical review", American Psychologist, 60(9), pp. 950-958.
To put Baron-Cohen's opinion back into context as well, he did not - contrary to what Harald Eia asserts in the documentary - happen to coincidentally discover what he presents as a difference between sexes in his study. In fact, Baron-Cohen formulated several years prior to the study his personal theory of autism as an extreme form of the natural cerebral masculinity which he posits the existence of. His theory notably included some of what is mentioned in the "documentary" in terms of a link between testosterone levels and differences in cognitive dispositions with regards to the spatial and the social among males and females. In his following research, therefore, he tried to prove this theory of his, and the study referred to here is part of that effort. He had a prior interest in presenting certain specific results and not simply an interest in discovering what results he could find. In the scientific field on autism, his theory on "essential" differences between female and male brains is absolutely not consensual (and, in fact, rather unpopular if we look at citations).
I explored the detail of this specific part of the documentary, but similar comments can be made with regards to the other testimonies defending the existence of a biological determinism separating male and female brains in a way that leads to differences in interests and even career paths. The social scientist interviewed at the beginning which says that there is no actual scientific evidence of such biological determinism is actually perfectly right. They were not very articulate at the end (I suspect that there might have been a bias in the selection of footage to show for their answers at the end, but oh well), but the fact is simply that the scientific research done so far does NOT establish the existence of such biological determinism. There have been articles claiming to establish such differences, such as Baron-Cohen's, but they do not resist scrutiny and are systematically characterized by methodological biases/flaws and interpretation problems. In fact, if you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture these initial differences (see also WITELSON, S. F. (1991), "Neural Sexual Mosaicism: Sexual Differentiation of the Human Temporo-Parietal Region for Functional Asymmetry". Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16 (1-3): pp. 131-153). Clearly, cultural factors are a driving force behind differences in career paths between men and women, and social construction of gender roles is a fundamental object of study for whomever is interested in more equality between sexes.
Is your position that there are no biological differences on what boys/girls generally feel inclined to do?
I think I made my position pretty clear in the post you replied to.
On March 13 2015 17:12 Falling wrote: @Darkwhite Do you believe in the idea of criticism at all? (Or for that matter, reviews?) Because I can't understand your comments in any way, shape, or form in terms of what critics do all the time. To paraphrase CS Lewis, an author intends, but a work means. There is such thing as failed art- that is an artist intends to create something according to his vision and he fails. That's why there are films that are so bad, they're good (Star Crash and Troll 2, for example.) A critic can come in and separate from creator intention, evaluate the success of the work on its own merits. I, as gamer, can evaluate whether I think the story holds together, whether I think the gameplay is interesting, whether I think the characters make sense, etc, etc. No an artist is not my bitch- to borrow Neil Gaiman's defence of GRRM. But criticism is a way of engaging in the work- especially if the work isn't working for you. It's not lazy, nor is it naive- uncritical and passive acceptance could possibly be considered lazy- I'm not sure I'd go there. But I don't see criticism as lazy- far from it.
I'm trying to get a sense of your defence of game developers- Was the cancellation of Dungeon Keeper 3 a terrible travesty because people dared to criticize the artistic vision of the free artist, who ought to have been defended and protected from condemnation?
I am not at all familiar with any of the particulars you reference, though it doesn't seem to matter much.
There is of course nothing wrong holding your own opinions about an art piece, or about expressing these. One can of course try to engage in criticism - to evaluate an art piece, relative to whatever criteria one deems important.
But literally no one other than the artist himself can evaluate whether his art is a failure or not, because it is he who has decided to invest resources into making it, and it is he who decides what the purpose of that investment was. It is perfectly irrelevant whether critics think his art is distasteful, insofar as he is himself satisfied. Insofar as he isn't, it is only relevant what he himself feels that he failed to achieve.
There is nothing wrong with thinking a game isn't fun to play. There is nothing wrong with expressing an honest opinion either, even with a sweeping generalizations like This game feels like it's straight out of 1992 and will bore you to tears if you even manage to install the broken piece of junk.
But everything is wrong with crossing the line and imposing on the artist's right to make whatever he pleases. Every statement about what the artist should have done is a sleight of hand, where you substitute the artist's autonomy with an obligation towards you, or society at large, or your own moral standards. An artist has no right to demand that others care about his art, and a consumer has no right to demand that the artist accommodates his whims.
Just try writing out the argument for why Ubisoft should have put a female main character in AC:Unity - or read the article you were yourself applauding (?) . These perversions crop up everywhere - Ubisoft should care about the female demographic, Ubisoft should feel that the sex of the main character is important for reaching this demographic, Ubisoft should take responsibility for the lack of female main characters in games at large (though they themselves have only made a tiny slice of all games), Ubisoft should contribute to upending the heteronormativity of popular culture. Long version short, Ubisoft should surrender part of their self-authorship to my vision of gaming, and if they don't follow up on my supposedly well-intended guidance, I will shame them for it, for who are they to just decide what they want to spend their time making?
Notice that this is not a blanket criticism of making requests, but only of pretending others have a moral duty to comply. It's fine to ask someone to be your girlfriend, but not to shame her and call her a failure of a human being for refusing.
Your comparison between demands addressed at a video games developer/artist for the product he produces and shaming a woman for not going out with you is extremely dishonest.
In the context of the debate going on here, we are talking about attempting to convince video games developers that the characters of their games should not be trapped in sexist, stereotypical gender roles. For example, female characters should not systematically be oversexualized and occupy the position of the damsel in distress. Why? Because this perpetuates a sexist image of women and actually has an impact on people's view of women (for both men and women). This fact is supported by plenty of scientific studies. See, among others, pages 428-430 of Burgess, Melinda C R, Steven Paul Stermer and Stephen R Burgess (2007), "Sex, Lies, and Video Games: The Portrayal of Male and Female Characters on Video Game Covers", Sex Roles, Vol. 57, No. 5, 419-433, available here: http://www.paulstermer.com/resources/SR.pdf
Two short excerpts:
Additional research has demonstrated that exposure to media portrayals of women also influences teens’ and young adults’ perceptions of their desire of and suitability for various vocations (Anderson et al. 2001). Davies et al. (2002) provided some of the most disturbing evidence for a relationship between media exposure and vocational attitudes. They showed women commercials that portrayed women in either stereotypic ways or neutral ways and then asked them to rate interest in educational and vocational choices that required math. The women who viewed the stereotypic commercials indicated lower interest in those careers and higher interests in careers that were more in keeping with traditional, stereotypic female strengths such as teaching children.
It is perhaps in the area of establishing a secure physical identity that the literature is most critical of the media’s influence. A body of research demonstrates that both male and female teens and young adults who have greater exposure to media representations of male and female forms have a more negative self image (e.g., Ferron 1997; Aubrey 2006; Arbour and Ginis 2006; Slater and Tiggemann 2006; Labre 2005). Recent research has even suggested that exposure to objectifying media, such as that found in this analysis, can induce a self-objectified state in both men and women and that this state is associated with significant, negative psychological states (Roberts and Gettman 2004).
Contrary to what some posters have suggested, asking for more equality in gender representations in gaming does not entail "dumbing down" games or "making them more casual". It does not have to impact gameplay in any way. It's all about paying attention to gender representation and scenaristic tropes.
On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote: You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender.
This is a false dichotomy, because "opportunity" should really not be solely understood as the legal possibility to get a given job whether you're male or female. If there are cultural norms and practices in a given society which lead men and women to statistically choose different paths in terms of professional formations and occupations, you could very well argue that "equal opportunity" isn't exactly achieved as long as these gender-related cultural norms continue to have a major impact on what studies and careers men and women tend to pursue in their lives. Your opportunities can also be restrained by the gender stereotypes you've been led to internalize and integrate since you were a child, by the approval or disapproval you've received around you in reaction to the preferences you've exhibited, by how you've been pushed or not pushed in certain directions by your teachers, family, friends, etc. Of course, there are plenty of people who go against the norm, who grow up in environments protecting them to an extent from internalizing certain of these gender stereotypes, etc., but looking at the representation of genders in general throughout society, these things matter.
So say you have a society with legally equal opportunities, and yet some industry still has a disparity between the genders. How do you decide if the disparity is some social construct, or if it is a product of biology? I mean, there are some careers that women are simply not biologically inclined to enter. Generally speaking, women are more frail then men, so it shouldn't be surprising that the most physically demanding careers are male-dominated. You don't see many female crewmembers on Deadliest Catch for instance.
A more subtle example might be that not only is the ability to enter a career could be biological, so too could the desire. I don't know the data on this, but it's conceivable that women enter nurturing careers more than men because they have a biological inclination to enjoy them more. Maybe we have more female nurses because a greater percentage of females enjoy that line of work.
Again, there is currently no scientific basis to assert that "desire to enter specific careers" or anything of the sort is rooted in any way in innate biological differences between men and women. Meanwhile, it is a scientific fact that cultural factors play a huge role in career paths.
With regards to your mention of "some careers that women are simply not biologically inclined to enter", let me point out first of all that physically-demanding jobs represent a minuscule amount of careers compared to those exhibiting the kind of gender disparities we're addressing here. Second, there being jobs "too physically difficult for women" is largely a myth. The barriers limiting the percentage of women in these kind of jobs are, again, very much cultural as well as the product of the institutionalization of men's presence in these occupations. Many of the jobs you're referring to have been those which have seen the highest resistance to women's entry, regardless of the fact that accomplishing what needed to be accomplished in the job was perfectly well possible for women. If you're interested in learning more on the topic, I notably advise you to read: Carol Chetkovich (1992), Real Heat (about the career of firefighter); Karen Messing (1998), One-eyed science, in particular Chapter 3, "Are Women Biologically fit for Jobs? Are Jobs Fit for Women?"; Anne Fausto-Sterling (1992), Myths Of Gender.
On March 13 2015 03:27 ComaDose wrote: This is getting kinda silly, "the girls i tell about dnd get bored while i explain the mechanics" isn't exactly proof of a biological difference. saying "Its our whole culture that paints women in a "sexist" light." while correct, isnt reason video games shouldn't change somehow coming up with a claim that people are "demanding that others change their behavior to accommodate you" doesn't help your argument.
Can anyone argue with the point that video games are generally made by men for men about men and that lots of people think that could use a little change.
Didn't they make a study on whether there's a biological difference between boys and girls when it comes to what their interests are. Something about studying how much time boys and girls spent observing different things (even before having stuff like barbie dolls introduced in their lives) where boys spent more time on "typical boy things" and girls spent more time on "typical girly things", suggesting that there is indeed a biological difference. I mean the brains are indeed somewhat different between sexes so it would not be too far-fetched to assume they would have slightly different interests.
For me, personally, the empirical evidence to boys having different interest than girls is at this point too enormous to be ignored that I would be convinced even without such a study.
I don't know what study you're referring to, but there is no scientific basis to assert that there are definitive innate biological differences between boys and girls when it comes to the type of activities you're referring to, let alone choosing which video games to play later in life. There are volumes of scientific studies showing the impact on such choices of cultural factors and of the integration by individuals of gender stereotypes, however. Since you may be referring to a study by Baron-Cohen that was already discussed on these forums, allow me to quote a post of mine in which I explained why the study did not prove the existence of the kind of innate biological differences some claimed it did:
One of the cornerstones of his demonstration is the opinion of Simon Baron-Cohen, which he goes into great length to present as a legitimate scientific authority (shots of the University of Cambridge where he works, etc.), and Baron-Cohen's study on what he says are 24 hrs-old male and female babies. According to Baron-Cohen, his study shows that babies with virtually no amount of socialization through culture still act differently based on their sex: male babies will tend to be more interested by the movement of a mechanical object and female babies by a human face. Let's start by pointing out that the "mechanical object" referred to here is actually a ball on which were pasted bits of a photograph of a human face - not exactly the type of "mechanical object" that some argue boys are naturally more interested in than girls. Second, the babies were not actually a day old but, on average, 36,7 hrs old - we do not know more from the information given in the study, but the difference is far from being negligible in terms of child development, and culture can already have started to have an impact at that point.
More importantly, however, the study does not, in fact, show statistically significant differences between the sexes in terms of interest in the human face, and does not show a statistically significant preference among boys in favor of the mobile object. There were 58 girls and 44 boys selected for the study, and the numbers in terms of time spent watching each stimulus are simply too close in both cases. Looking at confidence intervals clearly shows that the differences are not statistically significant. To mention the numbers themselves, boys spent around 51-52 seconds looking at the mobile object and around 46 seconds looking at the face. Girls spent barely more time than the boys looking at the face: just below 50 seconds. From a scientific point of view, these differences are non-existent because they are, again, not statistically significant.
If you look at the numbers even further, you'll notice that, beyond the averages put forward by the authors (Baron-Cohen was not alone in writing the study), 64% of the girls did not manifest a preference for the face, and 57% of the boys did not manifest a preference for the mobile object (these percentages include those who manifested a preference for the other stimulus and those who manifested no preference for either). I'll let that sink in. In the documentary (and, in fact, in the article itself), Baron-Cohen deliberately chose to look at the results which seemed to go this way (for example, girls did spend on average more time watching the mobile stimulus than the face - even though the difference was less than 10 seconds between the two), and presented interpretations that went way beyond, and were actually contradicted by, the very results of his experience. An assertion of the type that "girls preferred the face" and "boys preferred the mobile" is actually false for a majority of both groups. In addition to these problems with the interpretation of the results, several methodological biases and problems have been pointed out with regards to the study, including actual mistakes in the statistical analysis of the results - see NASH, Alison Nash, GROSSI, Giordana (2007), "Picking Barbie’s brain: inherent sex differences in scientific ability?".
Beyond these numbers, which do not support what is said in the documentary, it's also worth mentioning that the authors apparently did not keep the actual data (or at least they're unwilling to share it), and the results they cherry-pick to support their idea that biology plays a major role have never been reproduced. In fact, they've been contradicted by other studies - see SPELKE, Elizabeth (2005), "Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics - A critical review", American Psychologist, 60(9), pp. 950-958.
To put Baron-Cohen's opinion back into context as well, he did not - contrary to what Harald Eia asserts in the documentary - happen to coincidentally discover what he presents as a difference between sexes in his study. In fact, Baron-Cohen formulated several years prior to the study his personal theory of autism as an extreme form of the natural cerebral masculinity which he posits the existence of. His theory notably included some of what is mentioned in the "documentary" in terms of a link between testosterone levels and differences in cognitive dispositions with regards to the spatial and the social among males and females. In his following research, therefore, he tried to prove this theory of his, and the study referred to here is part of that effort. He had a prior interest in presenting certain specific results and not simply an interest in discovering what results he could find. In the scientific field on autism, his theory on "essential" differences between female and male brains is absolutely not consensual (and, in fact, rather unpopular if we look at citations).
I explored the detail of this specific part of the documentary, but similar comments can be made with regards to the other testimonies defending the existence of a biological determinism separating male and female brains in a way that leads to differences in interests and even career paths. The social scientist interviewed at the beginning which says that there is no actual scientific evidence of such biological determinism is actually perfectly right. They were not very articulate at the end (I suspect that there might have been a bias in the selection of footage to show for their answers at the end, but oh well), but the fact is simply that the scientific research done so far does NOT establish the existence of such biological determinism. There have been articles claiming to establish such differences, such as Baron-Cohen's, but they do not resist scrutiny and are systematically characterized by methodological biases/flaws and interpretation problems. In fact, if you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture these initial differences (see also WITELSON, S. F. (1991), "Neural Sexual Mosaicism: Sexual Differentiation of the Human Temporo-Parietal Region for Functional Asymmetry". Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16 (1-3): pp. 131-153). Clearly, cultural factors are a driving force behind differences in career paths between men and women, and social construction of gender roles is a fundamental object of study for whomever is interested in more equality between sexes.
Is your position that there are no biological differences on what boys/girls generally feel inclined to do?
I think I made my position pretty clear in the post you replied to.
I made a straight yes/no question and you can't give a proper reply. You didn't state your position clearly, or in case you did, I'd like to make sure I didn't misinterpret you; humor me.
On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote: You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender.
This is a false dichotomy, because "opportunity" should really not be solely understood as the legal possibility to get a given job whether you're male or female. If there are cultural norms and practices in a given society which lead men and women to statistically choose different paths in terms of professional formations and occupations, you could very well argue that "equal opportunity" isn't exactly achieved as long as these gender-related cultural norms continue to have a major impact on what studies and careers men and women tend to pursue in their lives. Your opportunities can also be restrained by the gender stereotypes you've been led to internalize and integrate since you were a child, by the approval or disapproval you've received around you in reaction to the preferences you've exhibited, by how you've been pushed or not pushed in certain directions by your teachers, family, friends, etc. Of course, there are plenty of people who go against the norm, who grow up in environments protecting them to an extent from internalizing certain of these gender stereotypes, etc., but looking at the representation of genders in general throughout society, these things matter.
So say you have a society with legally equal opportunities, and yet some industry still has a disparity between the genders. How do you decide if the disparity is some social construct, or if it is a product of biology? I mean, there are some careers that women are simply not biologically inclined to enter. Generally speaking, women are more frail then men, so it shouldn't be surprising that the most physically demanding careers are male-dominated. You don't see many female crewmembers on Deadliest Catch for instance.
A more subtle example might be that not only is the ability to enter a career could be biological, so too could the desire. I don't know the data on this, but it's conceivable that women enter nurturing careers more than men because they have a biological inclination to enjoy them more. Maybe we have more female nurses because a greater percentage of females enjoy that line of work.
Again, there is currently no scientific basis to assert that "desire to enter specific careers" or anything of the sort is rooted in any way in innate biological differences between men and women. Meanwhile, it is a scientific fact that cultural factors play a huge role in career paths.
With regards to your mention of "some careers that women are simply not biologically inclined to enter", let me point out first of all that physically-demanding jobs represent a minuscule amount of careers compared to those exhibiting the kind of gender disparities we're addressing here. Second, there being jobs "too physically difficult for women" is largely a myth. The barriers limiting the percentage of women in these kind of jobs are, again, very much cultural as well as the product of the institutionalization of men's presence in these occupations. Many of the jobs you're referring to have been those which have seen the highest resistance to women's entry, regardless of the fact that accomplishing what needed to be accomplished in the job was perfectly well possible for women. If you're interested in learning more on the topic, I notably advise you to read: Carol Chetkovich (1992), Real Heat (about the career of firefighter); Karen Messing (1998), One-eyed science, in particular Chapter 3, "Are Women Biologically fit for Jobs? Are Jobs Fit for Women?"; Anne Fausto-Sterling (1992), Myths Of Gender.
On March 14 2015 07:44 GoTuNk! wrote:
On March 14 2015 02:47 kwizach wrote:
On March 13 2015 22:52 haleu wrote:
On March 13 2015 03:27 ComaDose wrote: This is getting kinda silly, "the girls i tell about dnd get bored while i explain the mechanics" isn't exactly proof of a biological difference. saying "Its our whole culture that paints women in a "sexist" light." while correct, isnt reason video games shouldn't change somehow coming up with a claim that people are "demanding that others change their behavior to accommodate you" doesn't help your argument.
Can anyone argue with the point that video games are generally made by men for men about men and that lots of people think that could use a little change.
Didn't they make a study on whether there's a biological difference between boys and girls when it comes to what their interests are. Something about studying how much time boys and girls spent observing different things (even before having stuff like barbie dolls introduced in their lives) where boys spent more time on "typical boy things" and girls spent more time on "typical girly things", suggesting that there is indeed a biological difference. I mean the brains are indeed somewhat different between sexes so it would not be too far-fetched to assume they would have slightly different interests.
For me, personally, the empirical evidence to boys having different interest than girls is at this point too enormous to be ignored that I would be convinced even without such a study.
I don't know what study you're referring to, but there is no scientific basis to assert that there are definitive innate biological differences between boys and girls when it comes to the type of activities you're referring to, let alone choosing which video games to play later in life. There are volumes of scientific studies showing the impact on such choices of cultural factors and of the integration by individuals of gender stereotypes, however. Since you may be referring to a study by Baron-Cohen that was already discussed on these forums, allow me to quote a post of mine in which I explained why the study did not prove the existence of the kind of innate biological differences some claimed it did:
One of the cornerstones of his demonstration is the opinion of Simon Baron-Cohen, which he goes into great length to present as a legitimate scientific authority (shots of the University of Cambridge where he works, etc.), and Baron-Cohen's study on what he says are 24 hrs-old male and female babies. According to Baron-Cohen, his study shows that babies with virtually no amount of socialization through culture still act differently based on their sex: male babies will tend to be more interested by the movement of a mechanical object and female babies by a human face. Let's start by pointing out that the "mechanical object" referred to here is actually a ball on which were pasted bits of a photograph of a human face - not exactly the type of "mechanical object" that some argue boys are naturally more interested in than girls. Second, the babies were not actually a day old but, on average, 36,7 hrs old - we do not know more from the information given in the study, but the difference is far from being negligible in terms of child development, and culture can already have started to have an impact at that point.
More importantly, however, the study does not, in fact, show statistically significant differences between the sexes in terms of interest in the human face, and does not show a statistically significant preference among boys in favor of the mobile object. There were 58 girls and 44 boys selected for the study, and the numbers in terms of time spent watching each stimulus are simply too close in both cases. Looking at confidence intervals clearly shows that the differences are not statistically significant. To mention the numbers themselves, boys spent around 51-52 seconds looking at the mobile object and around 46 seconds looking at the face. Girls spent barely more time than the boys looking at the face: just below 50 seconds. From a scientific point of view, these differences are non-existent because they are, again, not statistically significant.
If you look at the numbers even further, you'll notice that, beyond the averages put forward by the authors (Baron-Cohen was not alone in writing the study), 64% of the girls did not manifest a preference for the face, and 57% of the boys did not manifest a preference for the mobile object (these percentages include those who manifested a preference for the other stimulus and those who manifested no preference for either). I'll let that sink in. In the documentary (and, in fact, in the article itself), Baron-Cohen deliberately chose to look at the results which seemed to go this way (for example, girls did spend on average more time watching the mobile stimulus than the face - even though the difference was less than 10 seconds between the two), and presented interpretations that went way beyond, and were actually contradicted by, the very results of his experience. An assertion of the type that "girls preferred the face" and "boys preferred the mobile" is actually false for a majority of both groups. In addition to these problems with the interpretation of the results, several methodological biases and problems have been pointed out with regards to the study, including actual mistakes in the statistical analysis of the results - see NASH, Alison Nash, GROSSI, Giordana (2007), "Picking Barbie’s brain: inherent sex differences in scientific ability?".
Beyond these numbers, which do not support what is said in the documentary, it's also worth mentioning that the authors apparently did not keep the actual data (or at least they're unwilling to share it), and the results they cherry-pick to support their idea that biology plays a major role have never been reproduced. In fact, they've been contradicted by other studies - see SPELKE, Elizabeth (2005), "Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics - A critical review", American Psychologist, 60(9), pp. 950-958.
To put Baron-Cohen's opinion back into context as well, he did not - contrary to what Harald Eia asserts in the documentary - happen to coincidentally discover what he presents as a difference between sexes in his study. In fact, Baron-Cohen formulated several years prior to the study his personal theory of autism as an extreme form of the natural cerebral masculinity which he posits the existence of. His theory notably included some of what is mentioned in the "documentary" in terms of a link between testosterone levels and differences in cognitive dispositions with regards to the spatial and the social among males and females. In his following research, therefore, he tried to prove this theory of his, and the study referred to here is part of that effort. He had a prior interest in presenting certain specific results and not simply an interest in discovering what results he could find. In the scientific field on autism, his theory on "essential" differences between female and male brains is absolutely not consensual (and, in fact, rather unpopular if we look at citations).
I explored the detail of this specific part of the documentary, but similar comments can be made with regards to the other testimonies defending the existence of a biological determinism separating male and female brains in a way that leads to differences in interests and even career paths. The social scientist interviewed at the beginning which says that there is no actual scientific evidence of such biological determinism is actually perfectly right. They were not very articulate at the end (I suspect that there might have been a bias in the selection of footage to show for their answers at the end, but oh well), but the fact is simply that the scientific research done so far does NOT establish the existence of such biological determinism. There have been articles claiming to establish such differences, such as Baron-Cohen's, but they do not resist scrutiny and are systematically characterized by methodological biases/flaws and interpretation problems. In fact, if you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture these initial differences (see also WITELSON, S. F. (1991), "Neural Sexual Mosaicism: Sexual Differentiation of the Human Temporo-Parietal Region for Functional Asymmetry". Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16 (1-3): pp. 131-153). Clearly, cultural factors are a driving force behind differences in career paths between men and women, and social construction of gender roles is a fundamental object of study for whomever is interested in more equality between sexes.
Is your position that there are no biological differences on what boys/girls generally feel inclined to do?
I think I made my position pretty clear in the post you replied to.
I made a straight yes/no question and you can't give a proper reply. You didn't state your position clearly, or in case you did, I'd like to make sure I didn't misinterpret you; humor me.
Let me quote the post you replied to:
there is no scientific basis to assert that there are definitive innate biological differences between boys and girls when it comes to the type of activities you're referring to, let alone choosing which video games to play later in life. There are volumes of scientific studies showing the impact on such choices of cultural factors and of the integration by individuals of gender stereotypes, however.
On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote: You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender.
This is a false dichotomy, because "opportunity" should really not be solely understood as the legal possibility to get a given job whether you're male or female. If there are cultural norms and practices in a given society which lead men and women to statistically choose different paths in terms of professional formations and occupations, you could very well argue that "equal opportunity" isn't exactly achieved as long as these gender-related cultural norms continue to have a major impact on what studies and careers men and women tend to pursue in their lives. Your opportunities can also be restrained by the gender stereotypes you've been led to internalize and integrate since you were a child, by the approval or disapproval you've received around you in reaction to the preferences you've exhibited, by how you've been pushed or not pushed in certain directions by your teachers, family, friends, etc. Of course, there are plenty of people who go against the norm, who grow up in environments protecting them to an extent from internalizing certain of these gender stereotypes, etc., but looking at the representation of genders in general throughout society, these things matter.
So say you have a society with legally equal opportunities, and yet some industry still has a disparity between the genders. How do you decide if the disparity is some social construct, or if it is a product of biology? I mean, there are some careers that women are simply not biologically inclined to enter. Generally speaking, women are more frail then men, so it shouldn't be surprising that the most physically demanding careers are male-dominated. You don't see many female crewmembers on Deadliest Catch for instance.
A more subtle example might be that not only is the ability to enter a career could be biological, so too could the desire. I don't know the data on this, but it's conceivable that women enter nurturing careers more than men because they have a biological inclination to enjoy them more. Maybe we have more female nurses because a greater percentage of females enjoy that line of work.
Again, there is currently no scientific basis to assert that "desire to enter specific careers" or anything of the sort is rooted in any way in innate biological differences between men and women. Meanwhile, it is a scientific fact that cultural factors play a huge role in career paths.
With regards to your mention of "some careers that women are simply not biologically inclined to enter", let me point out first of all that physically-demanding jobs represent a minuscule amount of careers compared to those exhibiting the kind of gender disparities we're addressing here. Second, there being jobs "too physically difficult for women" is largely a myth. The barriers limiting the percentage of women in these kind of jobs are, again, very much cultural as well as the product of the institutionalization of men's presence in these occupations. Many of the jobs you're referring to have been those which have seen the highest resistance to women's entry, regardless of the fact that accomplishing what needed to be accomplished in the job was perfectly well possible for women. If you're interested in learning more on the topic, I notably advise you to read: Carol Chetkovich (1992), Real Heat (about the career of firefighter); Karen Messing (1998), One-eyed science, in particular Chapter 3, "Are Women Biologically fit for Jobs? Are Jobs Fit for Women?"; Anne Fausto-Sterling (1992), Myths Of Gender.
On March 14 2015 07:44 GoTuNk! wrote:
On March 14 2015 02:47 kwizach wrote:
On March 13 2015 22:52 haleu wrote:
On March 13 2015 03:27 ComaDose wrote: This is getting kinda silly, "the girls i tell about dnd get bored while i explain the mechanics" isn't exactly proof of a biological difference. saying "Its our whole culture that paints women in a "sexist" light." while correct, isnt reason video games shouldn't change somehow coming up with a claim that people are "demanding that others change their behavior to accommodate you" doesn't help your argument.
Can anyone argue with the point that video games are generally made by men for men about men and that lots of people think that could use a little change.
Didn't they make a study on whether there's a biological difference between boys and girls when it comes to what their interests are. Something about studying how much time boys and girls spent observing different things (even before having stuff like barbie dolls introduced in their lives) where boys spent more time on "typical boy things" and girls spent more time on "typical girly things", suggesting that there is indeed a biological difference. I mean the brains are indeed somewhat different between sexes so it would not be too far-fetched to assume they would have slightly different interests.
For me, personally, the empirical evidence to boys having different interest than girls is at this point too enormous to be ignored that I would be convinced even without such a study.
I don't know what study you're referring to, but there is no scientific basis to assert that there are definitive innate biological differences between boys and girls when it comes to the type of activities you're referring to, let alone choosing which video games to play later in life. There are volumes of scientific studies showing the impact on such choices of cultural factors and of the integration by individuals of gender stereotypes, however. Since you may be referring to a study by Baron-Cohen that was already discussed on these forums, allow me to quote a post of mine in which I explained why the study did not prove the existence of the kind of innate biological differences some claimed it did:
One of the cornerstones of his demonstration is the opinion of Simon Baron-Cohen, which he goes into great length to present as a legitimate scientific authority (shots of the University of Cambridge where he works, etc.), and Baron-Cohen's study on what he says are 24 hrs-old male and female babies. According to Baron-Cohen, his study shows that babies with virtually no amount of socialization through culture still act differently based on their sex: male babies will tend to be more interested by the movement of a mechanical object and female babies by a human face. Let's start by pointing out that the "mechanical object" referred to here is actually a ball on which were pasted bits of a photograph of a human face - not exactly the type of "mechanical object" that some argue boys are naturally more interested in than girls. Second, the babies were not actually a day old but, on average, 36,7 hrs old - we do not know more from the information given in the study, but the difference is far from being negligible in terms of child development, and culture can already have started to have an impact at that point.
More importantly, however, the study does not, in fact, show statistically significant differences between the sexes in terms of interest in the human face, and does not show a statistically significant preference among boys in favor of the mobile object. There were 58 girls and 44 boys selected for the study, and the numbers in terms of time spent watching each stimulus are simply too close in both cases. Looking at confidence intervals clearly shows that the differences are not statistically significant. To mention the numbers themselves, boys spent around 51-52 seconds looking at the mobile object and around 46 seconds looking at the face. Girls spent barely more time than the boys looking at the face: just below 50 seconds. From a scientific point of view, these differences are non-existent because they are, again, not statistically significant.
If you look at the numbers even further, you'll notice that, beyond the averages put forward by the authors (Baron-Cohen was not alone in writing the study), 64% of the girls did not manifest a preference for the face, and 57% of the boys did not manifest a preference for the mobile object (these percentages include those who manifested a preference for the other stimulus and those who manifested no preference for either). I'll let that sink in. In the documentary (and, in fact, in the article itself), Baron-Cohen deliberately chose to look at the results which seemed to go this way (for example, girls did spend on average more time watching the mobile stimulus than the face - even though the difference was less than 10 seconds between the two), and presented interpretations that went way beyond, and were actually contradicted by, the very results of his experience. An assertion of the type that "girls preferred the face" and "boys preferred the mobile" is actually false for a majority of both groups. In addition to these problems with the interpretation of the results, several methodological biases and problems have been pointed out with regards to the study, including actual mistakes in the statistical analysis of the results - see NASH, Alison Nash, GROSSI, Giordana (2007), "Picking Barbie’s brain: inherent sex differences in scientific ability?".
Beyond these numbers, which do not support what is said in the documentary, it's also worth mentioning that the authors apparently did not keep the actual data (or at least they're unwilling to share it), and the results they cherry-pick to support their idea that biology plays a major role have never been reproduced. In fact, they've been contradicted by other studies - see SPELKE, Elizabeth (2005), "Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics - A critical review", American Psychologist, 60(9), pp. 950-958.
To put Baron-Cohen's opinion back into context as well, he did not - contrary to what Harald Eia asserts in the documentary - happen to coincidentally discover what he presents as a difference between sexes in his study. In fact, Baron-Cohen formulated several years prior to the study his personal theory of autism as an extreme form of the natural cerebral masculinity which he posits the existence of. His theory notably included some of what is mentioned in the "documentary" in terms of a link between testosterone levels and differences in cognitive dispositions with regards to the spatial and the social among males and females. In his following research, therefore, he tried to prove this theory of his, and the study referred to here is part of that effort. He had a prior interest in presenting certain specific results and not simply an interest in discovering what results he could find. In the scientific field on autism, his theory on "essential" differences between female and male brains is absolutely not consensual (and, in fact, rather unpopular if we look at citations).
I explored the detail of this specific part of the documentary, but similar comments can be made with regards to the other testimonies defending the existence of a biological determinism separating male and female brains in a way that leads to differences in interests and even career paths. The social scientist interviewed at the beginning which says that there is no actual scientific evidence of such biological determinism is actually perfectly right. They were not very articulate at the end (I suspect that there might have been a bias in the selection of footage to show for their answers at the end, but oh well), but the fact is simply that the scientific research done so far does NOT establish the existence of such biological determinism. There have been articles claiming to establish such differences, such as Baron-Cohen's, but they do not resist scrutiny and are systematically characterized by methodological biases/flaws and interpretation problems. In fact, if you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture these initial differences (see also WITELSON, S. F. (1991), "Neural Sexual Mosaicism: Sexual Differentiation of the Human Temporo-Parietal Region for Functional Asymmetry". Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16 (1-3): pp. 131-153). Clearly, cultural factors are a driving force behind differences in career paths between men and women, and social construction of gender roles is a fundamental object of study for whomever is interested in more equality between sexes.
Is your position that there are no biological differences on what boys/girls generally feel inclined to do?
I think I made my position pretty clear in the post you replied to.
I made a straight yes/no question and you can't give a proper reply. You didn't state your position clearly, or in case you did, I'd like to make sure I didn't misinterpret you; humor me.
there is no scientific basis to assert that there are definitive innate biological differences between boys and girls when it comes to the type of activities you're referring to, let alone choosing which video games to play later in life. There are volumes of scientific studies showing the impact on such choices of cultural factors and of the integration by individuals of gender stereotypes, however.
Stating what some scientific texts say =/= stating your opinion
Saying biology has no impact on what people do or like seems utterly ridicolous to me. The fact that no studies have been made to prove something (I do not now if they exist or how the could be done) doesn't make it any less real (I'm not saying culture has no role aswell)
On March 11 2015 20:24 Ghostcom wrote: You guys need to agree on what defines an equal society: 1) a 50:50 representation of genders throughout all society or 2) equal opportunities regardless of gender.
This is a false dichotomy, because "opportunity" should really not be solely understood as the legal possibility to get a given job whether you're male or female. If there are cultural norms and practices in a given society which lead men and women to statistically choose different paths in terms of professional formations and occupations, you could very well argue that "equal opportunity" isn't exactly achieved as long as these gender-related cultural norms continue to have a major impact on what studies and careers men and women tend to pursue in their lives. Your opportunities can also be restrained by the gender stereotypes you've been led to internalize and integrate since you were a child, by the approval or disapproval you've received around you in reaction to the preferences you've exhibited, by how you've been pushed or not pushed in certain directions by your teachers, family, friends, etc. Of course, there are plenty of people who go against the norm, who grow up in environments protecting them to an extent from internalizing certain of these gender stereotypes, etc., but looking at the representation of genders in general throughout society, these things matter.
So say you have a society with legally equal opportunities, and yet some industry still has a disparity between the genders. How do you decide if the disparity is some social construct, or if it is a product of biology? I mean, there are some careers that women are simply not biologically inclined to enter. Generally speaking, women are more frail then men, so it shouldn't be surprising that the most physically demanding careers are male-dominated. You don't see many female crewmembers on Deadliest Catch for instance.
A more subtle example might be that not only is the ability to enter a career could be biological, so too could the desire. I don't know the data on this, but it's conceivable that women enter nurturing careers more than men because they have a biological inclination to enjoy them more. Maybe we have more female nurses because a greater percentage of females enjoy that line of work.
Again, there is currently no scientific basis to assert that "desire to enter specific careers" or anything of the sort is rooted in any way in innate biological differences between men and women. Meanwhile, it is a scientific fact that cultural factors play a huge role in career paths.
With regards to your mention of "some careers that women are simply not biologically inclined to enter", let me point out first of all that physically-demanding jobs represent a minuscule amount of careers compared to those exhibiting the kind of gender disparities we're addressing here. Second, there being jobs "too physically difficult for women" is largely a myth. The barriers limiting the percentage of women in these kind of jobs are, again, very much cultural as well as the product of the institutionalization of men's presence in these occupations. Many of the jobs you're referring to have been those which have seen the highest resistance to women's entry, regardless of the fact that accomplishing what needed to be accomplished in the job was perfectly well possible for women. If you're interested in learning more on the topic, I notably advise you to read: Carol Chetkovich (1992), Real Heat (about the career of firefighter); Karen Messing (1998), One-eyed science, in particular Chapter 3, "Are Women Biologically fit for Jobs? Are Jobs Fit for Women?"; Anne Fausto-Sterling (1992), Myths Of Gender.
On March 14 2015 07:44 GoTuNk! wrote:
On March 14 2015 02:47 kwizach wrote:
On March 13 2015 22:52 haleu wrote:
On March 13 2015 03:27 ComaDose wrote: This is getting kinda silly, "the girls i tell about dnd get bored while i explain the mechanics" isn't exactly proof of a biological difference. saying "Its our whole culture that paints women in a "sexist" light." while correct, isnt reason video games shouldn't change somehow coming up with a claim that people are "demanding that others change their behavior to accommodate you" doesn't help your argument.
Can anyone argue with the point that video games are generally made by men for men about men and that lots of people think that could use a little change.
Didn't they make a study on whether there's a biological difference between boys and girls when it comes to what their interests are. Something about studying how much time boys and girls spent observing different things (even before having stuff like barbie dolls introduced in their lives) where boys spent more time on "typical boy things" and girls spent more time on "typical girly things", suggesting that there is indeed a biological difference. I mean the brains are indeed somewhat different between sexes so it would not be too far-fetched to assume they would have slightly different interests.
For me, personally, the empirical evidence to boys having different interest than girls is at this point too enormous to be ignored that I would be convinced even without such a study.
I don't know what study you're referring to, but there is no scientific basis to assert that there are definitive innate biological differences between boys and girls when it comes to the type of activities you're referring to, let alone choosing which video games to play later in life. There are volumes of scientific studies showing the impact on such choices of cultural factors and of the integration by individuals of gender stereotypes, however. Since you may be referring to a study by Baron-Cohen that was already discussed on these forums, allow me to quote a post of mine in which I explained why the study did not prove the existence of the kind of innate biological differences some claimed it did:
One of the cornerstones of his demonstration is the opinion of Simon Baron-Cohen, which he goes into great length to present as a legitimate scientific authority (shots of the University of Cambridge where he works, etc.), and Baron-Cohen's study on what he says are 24 hrs-old male and female babies. According to Baron-Cohen, his study shows that babies with virtually no amount of socialization through culture still act differently based on their sex: male babies will tend to be more interested by the movement of a mechanical object and female babies by a human face. Let's start by pointing out that the "mechanical object" referred to here is actually a ball on which were pasted bits of a photograph of a human face - not exactly the type of "mechanical object" that some argue boys are naturally more interested in than girls. Second, the babies were not actually a day old but, on average, 36,7 hrs old - we do not know more from the information given in the study, but the difference is far from being negligible in terms of child development, and culture can already have started to have an impact at that point.
More importantly, however, the study does not, in fact, show statistically significant differences between the sexes in terms of interest in the human face, and does not show a statistically significant preference among boys in favor of the mobile object. There were 58 girls and 44 boys selected for the study, and the numbers in terms of time spent watching each stimulus are simply too close in both cases. Looking at confidence intervals clearly shows that the differences are not statistically significant. To mention the numbers themselves, boys spent around 51-52 seconds looking at the mobile object and around 46 seconds looking at the face. Girls spent barely more time than the boys looking at the face: just below 50 seconds. From a scientific point of view, these differences are non-existent because they are, again, not statistically significant.
If you look at the numbers even further, you'll notice that, beyond the averages put forward by the authors (Baron-Cohen was not alone in writing the study), 64% of the girls did not manifest a preference for the face, and 57% of the boys did not manifest a preference for the mobile object (these percentages include those who manifested a preference for the other stimulus and those who manifested no preference for either). I'll let that sink in. In the documentary (and, in fact, in the article itself), Baron-Cohen deliberately chose to look at the results which seemed to go this way (for example, girls did spend on average more time watching the mobile stimulus than the face - even though the difference was less than 10 seconds between the two), and presented interpretations that went way beyond, and were actually contradicted by, the very results of his experience. An assertion of the type that "girls preferred the face" and "boys preferred the mobile" is actually false for a majority of both groups. In addition to these problems with the interpretation of the results, several methodological biases and problems have been pointed out with regards to the study, including actual mistakes in the statistical analysis of the results - see NASH, Alison Nash, GROSSI, Giordana (2007), "Picking Barbie’s brain: inherent sex differences in scientific ability?".
Beyond these numbers, which do not support what is said in the documentary, it's also worth mentioning that the authors apparently did not keep the actual data (or at least they're unwilling to share it), and the results they cherry-pick to support their idea that biology plays a major role have never been reproduced. In fact, they've been contradicted by other studies - see SPELKE, Elizabeth (2005), "Sex differences in intrinsic aptitude for mathematics - A critical review", American Psychologist, 60(9), pp. 950-958.
To put Baron-Cohen's opinion back into context as well, he did not - contrary to what Harald Eia asserts in the documentary - happen to coincidentally discover what he presents as a difference between sexes in his study. In fact, Baron-Cohen formulated several years prior to the study his personal theory of autism as an extreme form of the natural cerebral masculinity which he posits the existence of. His theory notably included some of what is mentioned in the "documentary" in terms of a link between testosterone levels and differences in cognitive dispositions with regards to the spatial and the social among males and females. In his following research, therefore, he tried to prove this theory of his, and the study referred to here is part of that effort. He had a prior interest in presenting certain specific results and not simply an interest in discovering what results he could find. In the scientific field on autism, his theory on "essential" differences between female and male brains is absolutely not consensual (and, in fact, rather unpopular if we look at citations).
I explored the detail of this specific part of the documentary, but similar comments can be made with regards to the other testimonies defending the existence of a biological determinism separating male and female brains in a way that leads to differences in interests and even career paths. The social scientist interviewed at the beginning which says that there is no actual scientific evidence of such biological determinism is actually perfectly right. They were not very articulate at the end (I suspect that there might have been a bias in the selection of footage to show for their answers at the end, but oh well), but the fact is simply that the scientific research done so far does NOT establish the existence of such biological determinism. There have been articles claiming to establish such differences, such as Baron-Cohen's, but they do not resist scrutiny and are systematically characterized by methodological biases/flaws and interpretation problems. In fact, if you want a very extensive look at the literature on the topic, I suggest you read Rebecca M. Jordan-Young's book Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences (2010), it's extremely exhaustive and well-documented. Her conclusions include that we are not blank slates (predispositions are not completely identical in individuals) but that the binary system of gender does not accurately capture these initial differences (see also WITELSON, S. F. (1991), "Neural Sexual Mosaicism: Sexual Differentiation of the Human Temporo-Parietal Region for Functional Asymmetry". Psychoneuroendocrinology, 16 (1-3): pp. 131-153). Clearly, cultural factors are a driving force behind differences in career paths between men and women, and social construction of gender roles is a fundamental object of study for whomever is interested in more equality between sexes.
Is your position that there are no biological differences on what boys/girls generally feel inclined to do?
I think I made my position pretty clear in the post you replied to.
I made a straight yes/no question and you can't give a proper reply. You didn't state your position clearly, or in case you did, I'd like to make sure I didn't misinterpret you; humor me.
Let me quote the post you replied to:
there is no scientific basis to assert that there are definitive innate biological differences between boys and girls when it comes to the type of activities you're referring to, let alone choosing which video games to play later in life. There are volumes of scientific studies showing the impact on such choices of cultural factors and of the integration by individuals of gender stereotypes, however.
Stating what some scientific texts say =/= stating your opinion
You asked what my position was and I told you. I can add to what I wrote that I think you shouldn't assume the existence of fundamental differences between men and women on the cognitive level when there is no scientific basis so far to argue that those imagined differences exist.
On March 16 2015 03:11 GoTuNk! wrote: Saying biology has no impact on what people do or like seems utterly ridicolous to me. The fact that no studies have been made to prove something (I do not now if they exist or how the could be done) doesn't make it any less real (I'm not saying culture has no role aswell)
I made a point of stating my position clearly, yet you are already completely distorting it. I never said that "biology has no impact on what people do or like". Biology obviously has an impact on what people do or like. Please pay attention to what I'm writing. We're not discussing the impact of biology in general, we're discussing whether there exist innate biological differences between men and women that would lead men and women to make different choices with regards to their career paths and to the video games they want to play. There is no scientific evidence indicating that this is the case, while there is overwhelming evidence proving the importance of cultural factors in such choices.