|
at this point you're just strawmanning yourself, i swear. there's no way you can pin all of this on nurture and you know it.
|
On March 16 2015 04:30 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 03:11 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 03:05 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 03:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 02:47 kwizach wrote:On March 14 2015 03:38 Millitron wrote:On March 14 2015 03:17 kwizach wrote: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. Show nested quote +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, 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.
So what people do or like doesn't have an impact on their career choices and/or video games they play? Because that's what you are implying with your statement.
|
On March 16 2015 04:43 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 04:30 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 03:11 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 03:05 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 03:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 02:47 kwizach wrote:On March 14 2015 03:38 Millitron wrote:On March 14 2015 03:17 kwizach wrote: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, 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. So what people do or like doesn't have an impact on their career choices and/or video games they play? Because that's what you are implying with your statement. No, that is not what my statement is implying in any way.
|
Nuance appears lost on people. The argument of binary choices continues.
|
On March 16 2015 04:43 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 04:30 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 03:11 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 03:05 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 03:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 02:47 kwizach wrote:On March 14 2015 03:38 Millitron wrote:On March 14 2015 03:17 kwizach wrote: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, 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. So what people do or like doesn't have an impact on their career choices and/or video games they play? Because that's what you are implying with your statement.
It is? That's not what I got from it.
|
On March 16 2015 05:37 RuiBarbO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 04:43 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 04:30 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 03:11 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 03:05 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 03:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 02:47 kwizach wrote:On March 14 2015 03:38 Millitron wrote:On March 14 2015 03:17 kwizach wrote: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: [quote]
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, 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. So what people do or like doesn't have an impact on their career choices and/or video games they play? Because that's what you are implying with your statement. It is? That's not what I got from it. Some people keep trying to frame kwizach's argument that biology does not factor into peoples choices, which is easy to argue against. By backing him into a binary argument, they can continue to make points that it does contribute without having to show any evidence as to how much. This is because the weakest part of the "biology makes girls not like competitive games," is that there is very little evidence to back up that point.
|
On March 16 2015 06:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 05:37 RuiBarbO wrote:On March 16 2015 04:43 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 04:30 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 03:11 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 03:05 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 03:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 02:47 kwizach wrote:On March 14 2015 03:38 Millitron wrote:On March 14 2015 03:17 kwizach wrote: [quote] 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:[quote] 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: [quote] 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, 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. So what people do or like doesn't have an impact on their career choices and/or video games they play? Because that's what you are implying with your statement. It is? That's not what I got from it. Some people keep trying to frame kwizach's argument that biology does not factor into peoples choices, which is easy to argue against. By backing him into a binary argument, they can continue to make points that it does contribute without having to show any evidence as to how much. This is because the weakest part of the "biology makes girls not like competitive games," is that there is very little evidence to back up that point.
For what it's worth I understand and agree with Kwi's point. I do however see how games where gender roles were disregarded could be perceived as "worse" when viewed through the eyes of someone who thinks those roles are biological. They wouldn't find it "realistic". That's because it wouldn't fit their warped gender roled world.
Of course they are wrong, but I understand how they might see it like that.
|
On March 16 2015 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 06:24 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2015 05:37 RuiBarbO wrote:On March 16 2015 04:43 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 04:30 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 03:11 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 03:05 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 03:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 02:47 kwizach wrote:On March 14 2015 03:38 Millitron wrote: [quote] 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: [quote]
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, 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. ", while there is overwhelming evidence proving the importance of cultural factors in such choices. So what people do or like doesn't have an impact on their career choices and/or video games they play? Because that's what you are implying with your statement. It is? That's not what I got from it. Some people keep trying to frame kwizach's argument that biology does not factor into peoples choices, which is easy to argue against. By backing him into a binary argument, they can continue to make points that it does contribute without having to show any evidence as to how much. This is because the weakest part of the "biology makes girls not like competitive games," is that there is very little evidence to back up that point. For what it's worth I understand and agree with Kwi's point. I do however see how games where gender roles were disregarded could be perceived as "worse" when viewed through the eyes of someone who thinks those roles are biological. They wouldn't find it "realistic". That's because it wouldn't fit their warped gender roled world. Of course they are wrong, but I understand how they might see it like that.
"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" and "There is no scientific evidence indicating that this is the case"
He is explicitly saying being male or female has no impact on career choosing or what video games people like. A sane person can't honestly believe this.
Take birth control pills for a month (or have any male do it) and tell me gender doesn't impact their identity or preferences.
|
On March 16 2015 06:53 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2015 06:24 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2015 05:37 RuiBarbO wrote:On March 16 2015 04:43 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 04:30 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 03:11 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 03:05 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 03:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 02:47 kwizach wrote: [quote] 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.
[quote] 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, 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. ", while there is overwhelming evidence proving the importance of cultural factors in such choices. So what people do or like doesn't have an impact on their career choices and/or video games they play? Because that's what you are implying with your statement. It is? That's not what I got from it. Some people keep trying to frame kwizach's argument that biology does not factor into peoples choices, which is easy to argue against. By backing him into a binary argument, they can continue to make points that it does contribute without having to show any evidence as to how much. This is because the weakest part of the "biology makes girls not like competitive games," is that there is very little evidence to back up that point. For what it's worth I understand and agree with Kwi's point. I do however see how games where gender roles were disregarded could be perceived as "worse" when viewed through the eyes of someone who thinks those roles are biological. They wouldn't find it "realistic". That's because it wouldn't fit their warped gender roled world. Of course they are wrong, but I understand how they might see it like that. "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" and "There is no scientific evidence indicating that this is the case" He is explicitly saying being male or female has no impact on career choosing or what video games people like. A sane person can't honestly believe this. Take birth control pills for a month (or have any male do it) and tell me gender doesn't impact their identity or preferences. Citation needed. Once again, no one is making an argument that gender does not effect someones decisions. How much it effect their decisions is the point you keep missing. You have provided no evidence to prove that how much it effects someones decisions or proven that it is significant factor when compared against their environment and culture.
So no one is saying gender does not contribute to someones decisions. Since no one disagrees with you, I don't know why you keep posting like we do.
|
On March 16 2015 06:57 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 06:53 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2015 06:24 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2015 05:37 RuiBarbO wrote:On March 16 2015 04:43 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 04:30 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 03:11 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 03:05 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 03:02 GoTuNk! wrote: [quote]
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, 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. ", while there is overwhelming evidence proving the importance of cultural factors in such choices. So what people do or like doesn't have an impact on their career choices and/or video games they play? Because that's what you are implying with your statement. It is? That's not what I got from it. Some people keep trying to frame kwizach's argument that biology does not factor into peoples choices, which is easy to argue against. By backing him into a binary argument, they can continue to make points that it does contribute without having to show any evidence as to how much. This is because the weakest part of the "biology makes girls not like competitive games," is that there is very little evidence to back up that point. For what it's worth I understand and agree with Kwi's point. I do however see how games where gender roles were disregarded could be perceived as "worse" when viewed through the eyes of someone who thinks those roles are biological. They wouldn't find it "realistic". That's because it wouldn't fit their warped gender roled world. Of course they are wrong, but I understand how they might see it like that. "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" and "There is no scientific evidence indicating that this is the case" He is explicitly saying being male or female has no impact on career choosing or what video games people like. A sane person can't honestly believe this. Take birth control pills for a month (or have any male do it) and tell me gender doesn't impact their identity or preferences. Citation needed. Once again, no one is making an argument that gender does not effect someones decisions. How much it effect their decisions is the point you keep missing. You have provided no evidence to prove that how much it effects someones decisions or proven that it is significant factor when compared against their environment and culture. So no one is saying gender does not contribute to someones decisions. Since no one disagrees with you, I don't know why you keep posting like we do.
Honestly I think it's self evident gender's effect on career choices is not negligible. To what extent I honestly do not care and don't even know where you people find this studies.
My general pet pevee is with people trying to pretend men are woman are the same; we are not. Equals yes, the same no.
|
On March 16 2015 06:53 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2015 06:24 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2015 05:37 RuiBarbO wrote:On March 16 2015 04:43 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 04:30 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 03:11 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 03:05 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 03:02 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 02:47 kwizach wrote: [quote] 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.
[quote] 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, 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. ", while there is overwhelming evidence proving the importance of cultural factors in such choices. So what people do or like doesn't have an impact on their career choices and/or video games they play? Because that's what you are implying with your statement. It is? That's not what I got from it. Some people keep trying to frame kwizach's argument that biology does not factor into peoples choices, which is easy to argue against. By backing him into a binary argument, they can continue to make points that it does contribute without having to show any evidence as to how much. This is because the weakest part of the "biology makes girls not like competitive games," is that there is very little evidence to back up that point. For what it's worth I understand and agree with Kwi's point. I do however see how games where gender roles were disregarded could be perceived as "worse" when viewed through the eyes of someone who thinks those roles are biological. They wouldn't find it "realistic". That's because it wouldn't fit their warped gender roled world. Of course they are wrong, but I understand how they might see it like that. "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" and "There is no scientific evidence indicating that this is the case" He is explicitly saying being male or female has no impact on career choosing or what video games people like. A sane person can't honestly believe this. Take birth control pills for a month (or have any male do it) and tell me gender doesn't impact their identity or preferences. You said that my argument implied that "what people do or like doesn't have an impact on their career choices and/or video games they play". It does not imply that: I explicitly said that yes, biology obviously has an impact on what people do, like, choose as a career, play in terms of video games, etc. Indeed, for example, having a functional brain has an impact on what we do, what we like, what we choose as a career, what we play in terms of video games etc. If we were animals instead of humans, we would also do and like different things.
Saying that biology has such an impact is however not the same thing as saying that there are innate biological differences between men and women that lead men and women to make different choices with regards to their career paths and to the video games they want to play. Here, what's at stake is not whether or not biology plays a role with regards to these activities, it's whether or not there exist innate biological differences (probably at the cognitive level) between men and women that translate into different career choices and different preferred video games. Again, there is no scientific basis so far to assert or suggest that this is the case, while it is a known fact that cultural factors have a huge impact on these choices.
|
On March 16 2015 08:37 kwizach wrote: I explicitly said that yes, biology obviously has an impact on what people[..] choose as a career etc.
Saying that biology has such an impact is however not the same thing as saying that there are innate biological differences between men and women that lead men and women to make different choices with regards to their career paths
i honestly don't understand how this isn't a case of severe doublethink. men and women are generally different on a hormonal level.
|
On March 16 2015 10:11 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 08:37 kwizach wrote: I explicitly said that yes, biology obviously has an impact on what people[..] choose as a career etc.
Saying that biology has such an impact is however not the same thing as saying that there are innate biological differences between men and women that lead men and women to make different choices with regards to their career paths i honestly don't understand how this isn't a case of severe doublethink. men and women are generally different on a hormonal level. Its because you quoted him out of context and didn't read the rest of his posts in the thread. Seriously, are people going to keep making the really dumb ass argument of "Men and women are different, its like DNA and shit." There isn't a single person in this thread saying otherwise.
|
I feel like the issue of game companies producing sexist content in gaming is putting the cart before the horse. Going after game companies for producing the culturally desired product is missing the mark be a wide margin. Change needs to start with the culture itself not a byproduct of the culture.
Edit: Yes I do know games are a component of culture, but in my mind they are too far a derivative of it to be the place to focus on for change.
|
On March 16 2015 10:57 DonKey_ wrote: I feel like the issue of game companies producing sexist content in gaming is putting the cart before the horse. Going after game companies for producing the culturally desired product is missing the mark be a wide margin. Change needs to start with the culture itself not a byproduct of the culture.
Edit: Yes I do know games are a component of culture, but in my mind they are too far a derivative of it to be the place to focus on for change.
A very interesting question---what changes first, culture, or the things that are produced in that culture? It isn't necessarily the case that asking how game devs can change their approach is "putting the cart before the horse"---one could make the argument that changing cultural products can cause shifts in culture more broadly just as much as the reverse is true.
Edit: Which I see you addressed right there But anyway, I don't know if I'd be so hasty in saying that they are "too far a derivative"---video games get a pretty decent chunk of pop culture screen time, after all. But it's not easy to say.
|
On March 16 2015 07:04 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 06:57 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2015 06:53 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 06:42 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 16 2015 06:24 Plansix wrote:On March 16 2015 05:37 RuiBarbO wrote:On March 16 2015 04:43 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 04:30 kwizach wrote:On March 16 2015 03:11 GoTuNk! wrote:On March 16 2015 03:05 kwizach wrote: [quote] Let me quote the post you replied to: [quote] 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, 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. ", while there is overwhelming evidence proving the importance of cultural factors in such choices. So what people do or like doesn't have an impact on their career choices and/or video games they play? Because that's what you are implying with your statement. It is? That's not what I got from it. Some people keep trying to frame kwizach's argument that biology does not factor into peoples choices, which is easy to argue against. By backing him into a binary argument, they can continue to make points that it does contribute without having to show any evidence as to how much. This is because the weakest part of the "biology makes girls not like competitive games," is that there is very little evidence to back up that point. For what it's worth I understand and agree with Kwi's point. I do however see how games where gender roles were disregarded could be perceived as "worse" when viewed through the eyes of someone who thinks those roles are biological. They wouldn't find it "realistic". That's because it wouldn't fit their warped gender roled world. Of course they are wrong, but I understand how they might see it like that. "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" and "There is no scientific evidence indicating that this is the case" He is explicitly saying being male or female has no impact on career choosing or what video games people like. A sane person can't honestly believe this. Take birth control pills for a month (or have any male do it) and tell me gender doesn't impact their identity or preferences. Citation needed. Once again, no one is making an argument that gender does not effect someones decisions. How much it effect their decisions is the point you keep missing. You have provided no evidence to prove that how much it effects someones decisions or proven that it is significant factor when compared against their environment and culture. So no one is saying gender does not contribute to someones decisions. Since no one disagrees with you, I don't know why you keep posting like we do. Honestly I think it's self evident gender's effect on career choices is not negligible. To what extent I honestly do not care and don't even know where you people find this studies. My general pet pevee is with people trying to pretend men are woman are the same; we are not. Equals yes, the same no.
"My personal ideas and anecdotes are sufficient. It doesn't matter that there is no scientific evidence for what I believe."
This is exactly what you are saying. Do you not realize how ridiculous this is?
|
On March 16 2015 11:13 RuiBarbO wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 10:57 DonKey_ wrote: I feel like the issue of game companies producing sexist content in gaming is putting the cart before the horse. Going after game companies for producing the culturally desired product is missing the mark be a wide margin. Change needs to start with the culture itself not a byproduct of the culture.
Edit: Yes I do know games are a component of culture, but in my mind they are too far a derivative of it to be the place to focus on for change. A very interesting question---what changes first, culture, or the things that are produced in that culture? It isn't necessarily the case that asking how game devs can change their approach is "putting the cart before the horse"---one could make the argument that changing cultural products can cause shifts in culture more broadly just as much as the reverse is true. Edit: Which I see you addressed right there But anyway, I don't know if I'd be so hasty in saying that they are "too far a derivative"---video games get a pretty decent chunk of pop culture screen time, after all. But it's not easy to say. Ya my position on people attacking products of our culture is that the act is targeting the wrong thing. It's like getting angry at a mirror for showing a reflection of person.
Change needs to happen during a person's development stage in life, so they can hold the correct values society wants to promote. Of course there in lies the issue of the products of culture influencing culture itself. (Video games shaping youths values)
My minuscule amount of experience in life though leads me to believe that the sexism issue is far more influenced by the lack of care our society provides to youth development which then leads to problems like game companies producing sexist/racist content. Although unintentional by those who support "fighting video game misogyny" I believe they create an accidental red herring that obfuscates the real issue; which is focusing on guiding youths to form the desired societal values.
|
On March 16 2015 10:11 Hryul wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 08:37 kwizach wrote: I explicitly said that yes, biology obviously has an impact on what people[..] choose as a career etc.
Saying that biology has such an impact is however not the same thing as saying that there are innate biological differences between men and women that lead men and women to make different choices with regards to their career paths i honestly don't understand how this isn't a case of severe doublethink. men and women are generally different on a hormonal level. The effects of hormones and their impact on possible differences between genders are widely discussed in neuroscience, and in recent years there have been many contributions highlighting that the role of hormones should not be overemphasized with regards to cognitive development and differentiation in behaviors between males and females. This is looked at extensively in Jordan-Young, RM (2011), Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences, which presents an analysis of the literature on the topic. To quote a rather lengthy passage of the final chapter (p. 288 onwards):
Very few developmental endpoints are truly “final”; instead, they are interim states, with the possibility of growth and change until death. This is the meaning of plasticity. In this ongoing process, the interaction of physiological and experiential variables is iterative, meaning that the current state of the organism interacts with each subsequent input—whether that input is experiential or physical (including biochemical). [...] As early as 1969 it was known that many of the “organizing” effects of hormones are not permanent, but are easily modifiable by experience. In a little-cited study by researchers at UCLA, for example, scientists found that allowing an androgenized female rat to have just two hours to adapt to a stud male completely eliminated the behavioral effects of prenatal testosterone injections (Clemens, Hiroi, and Gorski 1969). Money and Ehrhardt (1972, 85) suggested that “neonatal androgen may have rendered the females more sensitive to the copulatory environment, possibly to olfactory cues, in the manner that is usually typical of males. Once adapted to the environment, they became disinhibited. The behavior that was then released was not masculine in type, but the feminine response of lordosis” (emphasis added). Subsequent experiments have shown that a great many of the sex-typed behaviors that are supposedly permanently organized by prenatal hormones can be dramatically modified or even reversed by simple and relatively short-term behavioral interventions such as neonatal handling (Wakshlak and Weinstock 1990), early exposure to pups (in rats) (Leboucher 1989), and sexual experience (Hendricks, Lehman, and Oswalt 1982), to cite just a few examples. A recent very exciting example of plasticity in humans concerns dyslexia, a cognitive trait that has been theoretically linked to early testosterone and has even been examined in some brain organization studies as a marker of “masculinization” (for example, Götestam, Coates, and Ekstrand 1992). Simos and colleagues (2002) studied children with dyslexia before and after eighty hours of intensive remedial reading instruction. At the beginning of the study, magnetic source imaging showed that the children with dyslexia had a different pattern of brain activation compared with normal children with no reading problems. In particular, they showed very low signals associated with an area that is normally involved in phonological processing. Remarkably, after the intensive intervention the children not only made substantial improvement in their reading skills but also showed much larger signals associated with the phonological processing area that formerly showed low signals.
Another powerful example concerns spatial cognition—one of the hallmarks of psychosexual differences. Feng, Spence, and Pratt (2007) identified a basic information-processing capacity that underlies spatial cognition and showed that differences in this capacity (the distribution of spatial attention) are related to differences in the higher-level process of mental rotation ability. They then showed that a remarkably brief intervention— just ten hours of practice with an action video game—caused “substantial gains in both spatial attention and mental rotation, with women benefiting more than men” (850). The ten-hour training did not completely eliminate the sex difference, but it came extraordinarily close— the mean scores after training were no longer statistically distinguishable between males and females.
Thus, even though early hormones affect neural development, the language of “hardwiring,” “blueprints,” “latency,” “permanent organization,” and so on clearly conveys an inaccurate picture of the nature of early hormone effects on behavior. As Doell and Longino (1988) noted two decades ago, these metaphors fail to accurately capture how development really works. Even in rats, early hormone exposures do not create a solid foundation on which behavior must forever stand. At first glance the true process might seem to be captured by the notion of developmental “cascades,” which several organization theory researchers raised in their interviews with me. The notion of developmental cascades suggests that hormones don’t directly determine behavior, but create a small push in one direction, which is then amplified by experiences and other inputs that in turn trigger additional inputs, such that a tiny push at the front end can end up in a sizable difference in outcome. But this is only half the story— one in which the small initial differences almost inevitably grow larger as additional effects accumulate. But an early push in a certain direction can be either enhanced or entirely eliminated by subsequent experience, such that development from that point forward would proceed as though the early hormone exposure had never happened. I'm not saying that there are no differences whatsoever on average between men and women on the cognitive level, but the small initial differences that have been identified (for example with regards to certain limited aspects of spatial recognition) are way smaller than people like GoTuNk make them out to be. These differences can in addition very well be bridged as people and brains develop, and they also only exist as averages, with both groups exhibiting greater variance within themselves than the difference in averages between the two groups. To quote Jordan-Young again (pp. 290-291):
- Steroid hormones are important, but they aren’t best conceptualized as “sex hormones.” They do lots of things; “sex hormones” was the original conceptualization that drove the research and classification on hormones, but it doesn’t fit the data on what hormones do any better than other possible schemes. And the “sex hormone” framework demonstrably blocks recognition of complex and accurate information (Oudshoorn 1994; Fausto-Sterling 2000; Nehm and Young 2008). - Personality traits and predispositions are not identical in individuals, but they are also not well captured by the binary system of gender (Witelson 1991)—even in spite of pervasive cognitive schemas that exert pressures toward this pattern. We aren’t blank slates, but we also aren’t pink and blue notepads. - Brains develop only in interaction; input from the external world, as well as from one’s own sensory apparatus, is as critical to development of the brain as food and water are to the entire organism. - Brains change and develop over the lifetime. Few inputs are irreversible. Even the animal experiments on brain organization showed that the “permanent” effects of early steroid hormone exposures could be eliminated or even reversed by fairly brief interventions in the physical and/or social environment. - Gender relations change, and these are demonstrably related to changes in psychosexual outcomes. For example, structural-level shifts in education (removing barriers to admission for women to colleges and graduate programs, barring gender discrimination in funding, and so on) have quickly reshaped the landscape in terms of the proportion of college graduates who are female, as well as the sex composition of particular programs of study (accounting, law, medicine, biology, and so forth). The kind of male and female essentialization explaining different career paths that some have pushed here is simply not supported by the science so far. Meanwhile, and like I've said repeatedly, it is well documented that cultural factors have a huge impact on career choices. And hey, even if you believe that we'll one day discover fundamental biological differences between men and women on the cognitive level, how exactly does this mean that we should not fight against socially constructed sexist cultural norms that we already know have a negative impact?
|
On March 16 2015 10:57 DonKey_ wrote: I feel like the issue of game companies producing sexist content in gaming is putting the cart before the horse. Going after game companies for producing the culturally desired product is missing the mark be a wide margin. Change needs to start with the culture itself not a byproduct of the culture.
Edit: Yes I do know games are a component of culture, but in my mind they are too far a derivative of it to be the place to focus on for change. Games, as cultural products, also contribute to shaping culture and the lenses through which the individuals who play these games look at the world. This is true as well of films, tv series, books, advertisements, etc., etc. It is therefore precisely necessary to change them in order to make steps towards achieving the broader cultural changes that are sought.
See also my previous post, in which I cite a study detailing the psychological impact on individuals of representations of women and men in various media.
|
On March 16 2015 12:32 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2015 10:57 DonKey_ wrote: I feel like the issue of game companies producing sexist content in gaming is putting the cart before the horse. Going after game companies for producing the culturally desired product is missing the mark be a wide margin. Change needs to start with the culture itself not a byproduct of the culture.
Edit: Yes I do know games are a component of culture, but in my mind they are too far a derivative of it to be the place to focus on for change. Games, as cultural products, also contribute to shaping culture and the lenses through which the individuals who play these games look at the world. This is true as well of films, tv series, books, advertisements, etc., etc. It is therefore precisely necessary to change them in order to make steps towards achieving the broader cultural changes that are sought. See also my previous post, in which I cite a study detailing the psychological impact on individuals of representations of women and men in various media. Right I am completely with you on culture products shaping culture and vice versa. It's just that I believe that instead of nitpicking at products on a micro level, that it's more productive to "prevent the disease"(sexism/racism/prejudice) from manifesting in the development stage, rather than going about trying to convince the stubborn older populace that their ways are faulty.
To be precise focus needs to be on "youth" as the target not "games/movies/clothing/etc"; go after the core issue not its shadows.
Edit: to be fair what I said above about "go after the core issue not its shadows." isn't fair because to reach the youth you will need to a extent influence the media and culture products they use, However i still believe the focus(youth) needs to be not lost sight of. Getting caught up in every minute detail will detract from the big picture.
|
|
|
|