Log in

View Full Version : Philosophical Discussion - split from OTC thread



Pages : 1 2 3 4 [5]

The Snark
07-20-2005, 02:01 PM
Personally I don't hold men or women in particularly high regard just because they are men or women. And I think the feminists and chauvinists are both equally wrong for the same reasons.
I'm with Jenny on this one. A feminist (bearing in mind that there are many definitions of feminism) is someone who believes in gender equality and advocates the interests of women. A male chauvinist is someone who believes that men are superior to women.

I know (hell, I've dated) feminists who genuinely like men and consider them their equals.

xdamage
07-20-2005, 02:07 PM
I'm with Jenny on this one. A feminist (bearing in mind that there are many definitions of feminism) is someone who believes in gender equality and advocates the interests of women. A male chauvinist is someone who believes that men are superior to women.

I know (hell, I've dated) feminists who genuinely like men and consider them their equals.

I am sure nobody, including myself, is objecting to equal rights AND equal responsibilities.

What is being objected to is men and women whose basic goal is to spread a hate, really not much different then racial hate, or religious hate, but instead they are trying to spread a sex based hate. These types tend to do litttle or nothing practical that actually forwards equality, because that's not really what they want at all. They really just want some group to associate with, and some group to dislike, and they fundamentally enjoy feeling superior to the group of people they look down on (I guess because it makes them feel superior and part of a group). Equality? Why it's the last thing they want. If things were equal they would have nothing to be angry about - and where's the fun in that?

mr_punk
07-20-2005, 03:00 PM
It is naive and whitewashy to say that one sex (i.e. men) have not benefitted at the expense of the other (i.e. women).i agree, but it's equally naive if you think it's as bad today as it was in your grandmother's day.

A feminist (bearing in mind that there are many definitions of feminism) is someone who believes in gender equality and advocates the interests of women.well, that's a nice dry, academic definition. too bad it doesn't quite work out that way when you add people to the mix.

This is a somewhat fair point, and I don't object to feminism when it comes to equal rights.neither do i, but here's my take on feminism. after years of Gloria Steinem, bra burning, NOW, ERA and a seemingly endless chant of "what about the women". it seems as if the feminists finally got their wish (or a good portion of it). what i don't get is all of the continued animosity against the "evil patriarchy" especially today. nowadays, you have companies, governments and the legal system bending over backwards to accommodate them or correct past wrongs either out of a sense of fairness, it makes good business sense or the fear of seeming politically incorrect. you have a generation of throughly feminized men trained to be so overly sympathtic to your cause. it's a wonder they aren't carrying a purse and popping midol. but hey, what do i know? i'm just part of the oppressive patriarchy. still, i can't shake the feeling that's it not necessarily about equal rights anymore (they already have half of the cake or pretty close to half) or the sense that men "just don't get it". i think that sometimes feminists (like many women) just like to breaking the balls of the "evil patriarchy" simply because they can. then again, who really knows what these biatches complaining about?....j/k.

xdamage
07-20-2005, 04:16 PM
what i don't get is all of the continued animosity against the "evil patriarchy" especially today.


still, i can't shake the feeling that's it not necessarily about equal rights anymore (they already have half of the cake or pretty close to half) or the sense that men "just don't get it". i think that sometimes feminists (like many women) just like to breaking the balls of the "evil patriarchy" simply because they can.

Yep, that's it. I also can't shake that feeling that (for some) it's not about equal rights.

Maybe it's fun to imagine oneself to be persecuted, part of a larger cause, like Luke Skywalker and the Rebels battling against the evil forces of the Empire and Darth's Bitch Boys.

All that said, I won't be joining the group of men who feel bad about being men today. I don't feel guilty for the choices made by my predecessors or others over whom I have no control, and, I happen to like feeling like a pirate sometimes, so... Shiver Me Timbers and Blow the Man down cause I'm going to do some guy stuff and I'm going to enjoy it ;)

The Snark
07-20-2005, 05:55 PM
Speaking of facile generalizations about an entire class of people... There's a stereotype of feminists in the popular imagination: they look like Andrea Dworkin, speak like shrill harpies, and think like a joyless, man-hating Gestapo. The great advantage of this kind of caricature is that it allows you dismiss their ideas without ever seriously engaging them. So, of course, hardly anybody wants to be considered a feminist. Poll a group of young female undergraduates about their attitudes toward gender, and you'll find that their beliefs are, for all intents and purposes, feminist. Then ask them if they're feminists, and most will squeal, "Eww, no, I'm not one of them!"

But for what it's worth, feminists ask a lot of uncomfortable questions about the distribution of power and wealth in our society, and point out that a lot of the patterns of inequality that appear "natural" are nothing but. Then again, most people don't like to be asked uncomfortable questions.


well, that's a nice dry, academic definition. too bad it doesn't quite work out that way when you add people to the mix.
Well, actually, as I mentioned in my previous post, it is based on my actual interactions with actual people, some of whom (gasp) might have shared my bed. Honestly, given the prejudice most people have toward feminists, I have a great deal of respect for people who have the guts to label themselves as such. I'd rather surround myself with women who speak their minds than ones who tell me what I want to hear.

xdamage
07-20-2005, 06:41 PM
Poll a group of young female undergraduates about their attitudes toward gender, and you'll find that their beliefs are, for all intents and purposes, feminist. Then ask them if they're feminists, and most will squeal, "Eww, no, I'm not one of them!"


I don't know if what you just wrote is fact and backed by polls, or is just made up fact and there are no polls to back it. But lets say it's true, that's the point. Equality is good, but the stereotypical shrieking nut-case is not, and you'er polled female students see that too.



But for what it's worth, feminists ask a lot of uncomfortable questions about the distribution of power and wealth in our society, and point out that a lot of the patterns of inequality that appear "natural" are nothing but. Then again, most people don't like to be asked uncomfortable questions.


Uncomfortable questions are like that. Which is why I brought up the uncomfortable questions that are being asked by evolutionists today, that lead to the conclusion that female and male behaviors are deeply intertwined with how males/females have evolved, and how their socials beliefs have evolved. This is tough stuff to get your head around since it's not so clear then who the good/bad guys are anymore in the sex wars. Men and women become inseparable halfs of a greater whole. But as you said, uncomfortable questions, the problem with them is they are easy to ask, and hard to deal with (even for those who excel at asking them).

Keep in mind to that most of us have lived through the equality discussions for longer then the the younger dancers have been reading, and we back equality. We really aren't that uncomfortable with feminism. We're probably as shocked to learn just how oppressed both men and women are in so many 3rd world countries that have not yet caught up to where the US is in terms of equality for people as a whole, let alone the relative differences between men and women in the U.S and so many European countries that have adopted similar beliefs.

mr_punk
07-20-2005, 07:11 PM
There's a stereotype of feminists in the popular imagination: they look like Andrea Dworkin, speak like shrill harpies, and think like a joyless, man-hating Gestapo.that's strange....i'm sure Naomi Wolfe gets a lot more press than the more militant Andrea Dworkin ever will.

The great advantage of this kind of caricature is that it allows you dismiss their ideas without ever seriously engaging them.you mean like the absurd idea of McKinnon's and Dworkin's that porn violated women's civil rights and encouraged rape and sex discrimination? caricature or not, it's a crackpot idea.

But for what it's worth, feminists ask a lot of uncomfortable questions about the distribution of power and wealth in our society, and point out that a lot of the patterns of inequality that appear "natural" are nothing but. Then again, most people don't like to be asked uncomfortable questions.asking uncomfortable questions is fine. however, given that society has made and continues to make considerable effort to accommodate them. one has to wonder is it something more beyond inequality or is that too uncomfortable of a question?

Well, actually, as I mentioned in my previous post, it is based on my actual interactions with actual people, some of whom (gasp) might have shared my bed.well, let's not overlook the fact that feminists have their own political agenda and ambitions as well and it goes a little further than merely stopping "male oppression" and equal rights. not that there's anything wrong with that...i just dislike it when people blow smoke up my ass and expect me to like it.

Honestly, given the prejudice most people have toward feminists, I have a great deal of respect for people who have the guts to label themselves as such. I'd rather surround myself with women who speak their minds than ones who tell me what I want to hear.not on SCJ. we pay those biatches. so they better be nice to us.

Jenny
07-20-2005, 07:15 PM
Poll a group of young female undergraduates about their attitudes toward gender, and you'll find that their beliefs are, for all intents and purposes, feminist. Then ask them if they're feminists, and most will squeal, "Eww, no, I'm not one of them!"
Hee. Not me. Although, that really does speak a lot to my experience - once when I was taking a history of sexuality class I was the only woman in the room who would own to being a feminist.


I don't know if what you just wrote is fact and backed by polls, or is just made up fact and there are no polls to back it. But lets say it's true, that's the point. Equality is good, but the stereotypical shrieking nut-case is not, and you'er polled female students see that too.
Okay - I think that perhaps part of Snark's point (and please feel free to correct me) is that there is a REASON that stereotype exists. It is a stereotype that was invented even before feminism was a political movement - it was invented for feminism precursors. It is a STEREOTYPE (which, by definition lacks veracity) invented as a weapon against a political movement. It's not something that came about in the 1970's.


Keep in mind to that most of us have lived through the equality discussions for longer then the the younger dancers have been reading, and we back equality. We really aren't that uncomfortable with feminism.
Really? Because everything you have written seems to mark you as someone uncomfortable with feminism. Asserting that female oppression is natural. Asserting that female oppression isn't oppression. Asserting that female oppression doesn't exist and finally saying that feminists are shrill and ugly.
Something I noticed - when I asserted that a feminist was not the natural opposite of a chauvinist you dismissed me. When The Snark asserted largely the same thing you said "Well, good point." Even here you are dismissing female opinions with age - I've known about feminists longer than you've been able to read.
I'm not judging - just noticing.

Jenny
07-20-2005, 07:22 PM
that's strange....i'm sure Naomi Wolfe gets a lot more press than the more militant Andrea Dworkin ever will.
well, the militant Dworkin is dead. And Wolfe betrayed the sisterhood. So. What the hell have you been reading anyway?


you mean like the absurd idea of McKinnon's and Dworkin's that porn violated women's civil rights and encouraged rape and sex discrimination? caricature or not, it's a crackpot idea.
Okay, have you even read the Dworkin? Yeah, that's what I thought.



asking uncomfortable questions is fine. however, given that society has made and continues to make considerable effort to accommodate them. one has to wonder is it something more beyond inequality or is that too uncomfortable of a question?
Tell it to women who want to be firefighters in NY. Seriously. Do you even know what is on varying feminist agenda? As I said - most contemperary feminist writing is all about critiquing other feminists. Tell me about mere equality when an equal number of women are senators. And corporate CEO's. And firefighters. And there are an equal number of men in the pink collar ghetto. And when when the girls from the remedial high schools are encouraged to learn auto repair instead of hair dressing.



well, let's not overlook the fact that feminists have their own political agenda and ambitions as well and it goes a little further than merely stopping "male oppression" and equal rights. not that there's anything wrong with that...
What is it, in your opinion?


not on SCJ. we pay those biatches. so they better be nice to us.
Wait a minute. If I'm nice to you guys, I get paid? Why did nobody tell me of this? I mean, I'm still not going to do it. But I like to have options.

xdamage
07-20-2005, 07:59 PM
Really? Because everything you have written seems to mark you as someone uncomfortable with feminism.


Maybe, but you may also be wanting to find this in people and so you do?




Asserting that female oppression is natural. Asserting that female oppression isn't oppression. Asserting that female oppression doesn't exist and finally saying that feminists are shrill and ugly.

I'm not judging - just noticing.

Well I never asserted that female oppression is natural or isn't oppression.

What I asserted is that evolutionists tell us that historically females are attracted to strong, aggressive, sometimes brutish men, which tied in with discussions e customers who act well, brutish at times. And that men's social behavior and behavior around women is deeply intertwined with women's social behavior (and vice versa) and how they respond to men. The point of that is men are as they are in-half because of how women are.

As for oppression, it's also human nature that people will abuse power. Ever heard the saying "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely?" Well its true, and both men and women are abusers of power given the opportunity to do so. Men have had more opportunities to do so which is also a byproduct of what has transpired, but don't think that they just direct oppression at woman. Nope, abusers of power abuse everyone less than them equally. Democracy, the right to vote, freedom of speech, well supposedly our founding ancestors left a country to gain these rights and free themselves of the control of others. And supposedly we're fighting for people to have these rights in several 3rd world countries now. And guess who is fighting these fights? Lots of men who are dying and spilling blood to make it so. Evolution and history haven't resulted in oppression strictly for the female half of the species.

Some goals of feminists I applaud. Some of what you wrote though on the other hand just made make my red flags go off as surely they would go off had this been a discussion about races, or about religious beliefs.

The shrill/ugly stereotype, that was someone else line, my only comment was that his sentence indicated that even female college students don't want to be associated with the stereotypical extremist who is at heart a mean spirited man hating, non-listening (because she is too busy screeching) type of person. Not a good goal for anyone to be like that. And hopefully the majority of people do see that the stereotype is, well, an ugly person (inside at least).

I'm uncomfortable with doctrine that verges on hate group type of think and that broadly paint other groups as bad, particularly It wouldn't matter if it was extreme racism, extreme religiousity, extreme feminism, so while I see some good directions in where the feminists are going, I don't believe in the people are inherently good. I don't trust them anymore than I would trust a man not to abuse power given the opportunity. So while I applaud the direction of feminism up to a point of balance, I don't believe that feminists are completely neutral or just want equality. I think a lot of them want more power, just like men want more power, and I think given the opportunity, they will abuse it for the same reasons men abuse power if too much is given to them.

Now as I said, I do generally agree that women have had the short end of the evolutionary stick, and it's well explained why by evolutionists. It's not rocket science stuff. But unfortunately it also isn't just one sided those evil men reasons either.

Somewhere between the extremes positions of men are entirely at fault for women's history, and men are faultless in women's history, is the truth, and unfortunately, in the truth the women can't be seen as entirely faultless. Women have contributed in many ways to their own outcome in history. Why that's so hard to accept? Probably because it's easier to believe in an all or nothing, one sided, simple to grasp doctrine then one that is complex.

The strange irony is that on the one hand an extreme feminist will argue that women are equally capable as men, equally as intelligent, don't need men to protect them, and yet when you then suggest they should then assume some responsibility for their outcome in society and in their relationships, then it goes back to its all mens fault.

What really sucks about equality and equal responsibility? Is that you get to also share in equal responsibility when things are screwed up. But you have to choose. Nobody gets to have equal benefits without sharing equal risk, and equal blaim for the outcome.

Okay, well then you say, the obvious reason that equality doesn't work is men are physically stronger then women and beat them to control them. But then we get back into realms of maybe men and women haven't been quite equal in all ways, maybe men being stronger do make better protectors against aggressors? or maybe women's choices back fired by chooseing aggressive protectors? for women to keep breeding with the aggressive brute types and they should have bred with the gentler wimpier types? Tough questions that evolutionists look at, but have no place in a simple all or nothing men are at fault feminist doctrine. And not the types of questions that you can talk about on an individual scale. These are choices and behaviors that have occurred over eons of trillions of people.

mr_punk
07-20-2005, 08:44 PM
well, the militant Dworkin is dead.really? what did she die from she died from...obscurity?

And Wolfe betrayed the sisterhood.in what way?

As I said - most contemperary feminist writing is all about critiquing other feminists.or you critiquing Wolfe for betraying the sisterhood.

Tell me about mere equality when an equal number of women are senators.first of all, i never said there was equality. second of all, i hardly think it's the fault of the oppressive males that women don't vote for other women.

And corporate CEO's.point taken.

And firefighters.as long as they (men or women) can all pass the physical requirements without standards being lowered in the name of equality.

And there are an equal number of men in the pink collar ghetto.and a lot of feminists ignore the fact that women choose pink collar professions not necessarily of discrimination, but because they want different lifestyles than men.

And when when the girls from the remedial high schools are encouraged to learn auto repair instead of hair dressing.and what if they're not interested in auto repair?

What is it, in your opinion?power. yes, it's still a good ol' boys club in many ways. men have it and women want it or want more of it. like i said, there nothing wrong with that. however, when i hear feminists talk about how they're doing this for the common good of society, blah, blah, blah. it sounds like politically correct pandering and i hate that.

Wait a minute. If I'm nice to you guys, I get paid?didn't you recieve a check in the mail? if you didn't get your money. i think you should PM FBR about that.

Jenny
07-20-2005, 08:52 PM
Maybe, but you may also be wanting to find this in people and so you do?
Why would I want to find that in people? What a strange thing for me to want.




Well I never asserted that female oppression is natural or isn't oppression.

What I asserted is that evolutionists tell us that historically females are attracted to strong, aggressive, sometimes brutish men, which tied in with discussions e customers who act well, brutish at times. And that men's social behavior and behavior around women is deeply intertwined with women's social behavior (and vice versa) and how they respond to men. The point of that is men are as they are in-half because of how women are.
And so... oppression of women is natural?



And supposedly we're fighting for people to have these rights in several 3rd world countries now. And guess who is fighting these fights? Lots of men who are dying and spilling blood to make it so. Evolution and history haven't resulted in oppression strictly for the female half of the species.
I don't think any feminist of any brand has contended that ONLY women are oppressed. And you're right - women are traditionally the spoils of war, not the fighters of it.



Some goals of feminists I applaud. Some of what you wrote though on the other hand just made make my red flags go off as surely they would go off had this been a discussion about races, or about religious beliefs.
Oh, you mean like the part where I asked punky what feminist treatises he had read (since his information seemed a little dated)? Or the part where I asked you to inform me when your Senate had proportionate sexual representation? Or the part where I asked punk what he thought the goals of feminists were? I don't see anything in there to cause discomfort.



The shrill/ugly stereotype, that was someone else line, my only comment was that his sentence indicated that even female college students don't want to be associated with the stereotypical extremist who is at heart a mean spirited man hating, non-listening (because she is too busy screeching) type of person. Not a good goal for anyone to be like that. And hopefully the majority of people do see that the stereotype is, well, an ugly person (inside at least).
Yes, but surely you understand my point which was that the stereotype was invented by people who disliked feminists as a weapon to stop them from gaining political power. It's a rhetorical device dating back long before women wanted to be firefighters - back in fact to before they could vote. The shrill, ugly, man-hating lesbian feminist - now you girls don't want to be like this, do you? No boys will like you, and since you have limited ways of earning a living, boys had BETTER like you.



I'm uncomfortable with doctrine that verges on hate group type of think and that broadly paint other groups as bad, particularly It wouldn't matter if it was extreme racism, extreme religiousity, extreme feminism, so while I see some good directions in where the feminists are going,
What, in your opinion, is "extreme feminism"? Can you give me an example of an extreme feminist and show me what is so wrong with her ideology? And - just for fun - let's do it with anyone besides Dworkin and MacKinnon. I'm sick to death with the bashing of poor, dead, Dworkin.



I don't believe in the people are inherently good. I don't trust them anymore than I would trust a man not to abuse power given the opportunity. So while I applaud the direction of feminism up to a point of balance, I don't believe that feminists are completely neutral or just want equality. I think a lot of them want more power, just like men want more power, and I think given the opportunity, they will abuse it for the same reasons men abuse power if too much is given to them.
But we're not talking about individuals seeking political power. We're talking about a socio-political movement and school of thought. That kind of abuse of power isn't relevent unless you can demonstrate it within the school of thought.


Now as I said, I do generally agree that women have had the short end of the evolutionary stick, and it's well explained why by evolutionists. It's not rocket science stuff. But unfortunately it also isn't just one sided those evil men reasons either.
No, it's not rocket science. And it's not widely accepted as accurate.



Somewhere between the extremes positions of men are entirely at fault for women's history, and men are faultless in women's history, is the truth, and unfortunately, in the truth the women can't be seen as entirely faultless. Women have contributed in many ways to their own outcome in history. Why that's so hard to accept? Probably because it's easier to believe in an all or nothing, one sided, simple to grasp doctrine then one that is complex.
Do you not see the inherent dismissal here? I really don't think you know very much about feminist thought or theory - just based on what you've said. Why are you ASSUMING then that it is so much less complex and so simplistic compared to yours?


The strange irony is that on the one hand an extreme feminist will argue that women are equally capable as men, equally as intelligent, don't need men to protect them, and yet when you then suggest they should then assume some responsibility for their outcome in society and in their relationships, then it goes back to its all mens fault.
You are engaging with a caricature of your own creation, so you can make it say whatever you want. Again, it has nothing to do with the actual school of thought or political movement, let alone anything that I've said.


What really sucks about equality and equal responsibility? Is that you get to also share in equal responsibility when things are screwed up. But you have to choose. Nobody gets to have equal benefits without sharing equal risk, and equal blaim for the outcome.
Do you think that you can viably distribute blame equally if you are not equally distributing power and responsibility? Then why worry about it until you have? I always wonder when people say that - like until all branches of government are proportionately represented by women, African-North Americans, aboriginals, etc., why worry about allocating responsibility and blame? It's not an issue yet. It's imaginary.



Okay, well then you say, the obvious reason that equality doesn't work is men are physically stronger then women and beat them to control them.
See - caricature. I would never say anything like that. I would say that men beating women is a demonstration of inequality, not a reason equality doesn't work. Men who beat their wives are frequently not "generally" violent - they would not respond to other men in the same way. They feel lisenced to beat their wives because they see them as less than human. Or at least less human than they are.


But then we get back into realms of maybe men and women haven't been quite equal in all ways, maybe men being stronger do make better protectors against aggressors?
Even by your logic this is fallacious - how can an aggressive man make a better protector for a woman when what she needs protection from is him?


or maybe women's choices back fired by chooseing aggressive protectors? for women to keep breeding with the aggressive brute types and they should have bred with the gentler wimpier types? Tough questions that evolutionists look at, but have no place in a simple all or nothing men are at fault feminist doctrine.
And apparently there is limited space for them in the realms of accurate scholarship. That is a contention, far from a proven fact, and an untenable position.

Richard_Head
07-20-2005, 09:03 PM
Wow, this is quite the 'quote' slugfest, Jenny's 14 quotes is setting the bar very high but I'm guessing mr_p won't give up easily.

xdamage
07-21-2005, 03:59 AM
Why would I want to find that in people? What a strange thing for me to want.


Because this is typical human nature. We see what we want to see.



And so... oppression of women is natural?


No, again, what I said is that oppression of weaker people (men and women) is a natural outcome of individuals gaining too much power, and often people gain power slowly because those around them give it to them because they are benefiting, creating a monster.

And I said that women have historically been attracted to strong, aggressive, even downright brutish men because they make good protectors and may tend to increase their own wealth through aggression. But unfortunately aggressive types can turn on you, like Pit Bulls sometimes turn on their owners.

Is it natural? It may be what is or was. That doesn't mean what is or was means we can't do something different or better in the future.

The world isn't an all or nothing place. Just because the past was one way doesn't mean the future can't be different, we don't just give up and say because something that worked in the past that it must always be so in the future.




Yes, but surely you understand my point which was that the stereotype was invented by people who disliked feminists as a weapon to stop them from gaining political power.


I understod.



What, in your opinion, is "extreme feminism"? Can you give me an example of an extreme feminist and show me what is so wrong with her ideology?


I don't have any problem with individuals being extremely passionate about their beliefs, and sometimes (often) it requires people who have strong personal reasons to be passionate about something to make changes happen. In order to make changes happen sometimes some extreme, overly reaching beliefs are needed to achieve balance. However that doesn't mean I trust the long term goals of an extremely emotional person once their goals are achieved.

The tool you need to put out a fire isn't the same tool you need to cleanup after one or to prevent one in the future. Eventually the fire fighters are replaced by a different kinds of people with different mindsets.

Put another way, once the oppression eases, the oppressed eventually need to grow out of the stage of anger/blaiming their oppressors and eventually learn to ask questions about themselves, what have we done to allow or even an encourage the oppressor to gain so much power?, and what are we going to do in the future to prevent it from happening again?



Even by your logic this is fallacious - how can an aggressive man make a better protector for a woman when what she needs protection from is him?


There is no inconsistency in that thought and this why you should read modern evolutionary theories. This is simply choosing the lesser of two evils. People do it all the time. It's not all or nothing. We often have to choose from a scale of sucks terribly to sucks mildly. If the alternative is the woman will be abused by some man she doesn't know and she has nothing in common with (e.g., no kids, no family, etc.) she is better off with the lesser evil.


On a more practical note, my daughter just entered college last year and she is studying computer programming. I've been encouraging her all along to utilize her potential and push herself to do all that she can. She is also the only one of two females in any Engineering field, and it's not because the college is discouraging females. Quite the contrary her primary professor is a female. The college was offering extra incentive pricing for females to enter the program. She is by some definitions a feminist, but she also takes on responsibility for her outcome in life and doesn't blaim men for holding her back. She has had to work summers to help pay for her school, not because I need the money, but so that she learns the value of earning what she has.

Now this summer her inclination was to work in another teenager like, low stress job. Fortunately she agreed this is a bad idea, and is working as an apprentice for a large computer programming company, and yes, she is stressed by it. But they aren't treating her any differently then they would a guy, maybe a little easier, but she is being held responsible to work, solve problems, and meet deadlines like everyone else. They are giving her junior level responsibilities of course, but this is great, she is learning what work in a traditionally male role is all about. But the glamour of a job like this is bittersweet. Sure she gets paid more, she also gets stressed more. All in all a good thing but I don't think she holds any delusions that she is being paid more than her previous summer job because it's just a "man's job". She is now carrying a lot more responsibility too, she doesn't have a routine to follow, she has to adapt, it requires more of her, which is why they pay her more. It has nothing to do with being a male vs female. And she gets paid exactly what a male apprentice would. She is not getting paid what a senior engineer is making because she isn't doing senior engineering level work yet. When/if she does, she will be paid accordingly, and she will have increased stress accordingly.

This is equality and equal responsibility in practice, which I fully embrace. What I don't embrace is standing on the side lines and complaining about how evil men are while not actually doing anything practical about it. If my daughter wanted to be a mom and raise a family, that would fine too. What I don't want though is for her to become one of these bitter people that don't actually do anything with their life, but stand on the sidelines complaining about how others hold her back while at the same time not actually diving in and taking on responsibilities that are (frankly) not so glamorous. Work is ultimately just that, work.

But I am proud of her. She is a well balanced person. For example, she has told me that she probably will cut her career short and raise a family after working a few years. She doesn't blaim that on society making her feel that way. She perceives this as a deep seated biological urge, the desire to have and raise children. She doesn't blaim that urge on men, or society or on conspiratory evil forces, any more than should we blaim society for having a biological urge to eat. It just is what it is.

And think that's my problem with the extremists. I think I believe some extremist would want to blaim her evolutionary biological urges to have sex, and to have and raise kids on consipirators. Why? Because the extremists wants to be in a rage, the extremist likes being in a rage because it makes them feel important. They don't necessarily do anything practical, they still end up in traditional womens roles/jobs, not because they are stupid, but because they really don't want a stressful job or go through the hard training to do a job that requires unique skills (that's all just a lot of work and not very glamorous), no I think what they really want is to be pissed off at someone else so they can feel important and not have to look at themselves. And that's the kind of feminist extremist I find ugly and plain out unattractive.

The Snark
07-21-2005, 08:18 AM
There's a difference between feeling like a victim and being outraged by injustice. The feminists I know are successful, strong-willed people who don't blame others for their problems, but who do have a basic sympathy with the underdog, and don't hesitate to speak out when someone is treated unfairly. Is that so wrong?

xdamage
07-21-2005, 08:35 AM
There's a difference between feeling like a victim and being outraged by injustice. The feminists I know are successful, strong-willed people who don't blame others for their problems, but who do have a basic sympathy with the underdog, and don't hesitate to speak out when someone is treated unfairly. Is that so wrong?

Sure but there is more than just 2 options. There is also a difference between being outraged by injustice (and generally enough to do something about it), and just being an emotional nut-job that is just looking for something, anything to be outraged over because it makes one feel important and allows one to avoid taking on personal responsibilities. Outrage has it's place, but the injustices aren't as significant as they were, and at some point they will be less so still. At some point we have those whose outrage is justified, and at some point we have those who enjoy feeling outraged. The later is not a good trait, it's not healthy, it doesn't benefit, and actually hurts the cause because there is no appropriate appeasement. When extremism is in play, the extremists sometimes need to be told that their views are lopsided, too extreme, and no longer functional. You see extremists who live in perpetual states of emotional outrage in areas of racism and religious zealotry too.

Outrage is appropriate when one is under direct threat, and/or when is actually resulting in motivation to get up and doing something constructive.

Outrage is inappropriate when it's embraced just because it is fashionable, group think, or because the person just enjoys being in a state of rage, and it does not result in real valueable or tangible constructive activity.

And in the end, if you really want to lead people, you have to do so by way of example because talk is cheap. Embrace what you believe in enough to live it. Assuming that it isn't just circular rage, no matter what the enraged one is going to find logic that allows them to make no changes to themselves, and stay in the enraged state.

Like I said, afaik colleges are encouraging girls to enter traditionally male jobs. So do it. Enjoy, nobody is stopping them and as I said, I actively encourage my daugher to do so. Good role models have a way of really doing a lot more good then just sitting around and being pissed off at the evil empire.

Jenny
07-21-2005, 09:01 AM
If the alternative is the woman will be abused by some man she doesn't know and she has nothing in common with (e.g., no kids, no family, etc.) she is better off with the lesser evil.


What an odd, and culturally based assumption - that a woman would prefer being beaten by a man that she (may) have children with (and this is of course, assuming that pre-literate people knew of a connection between sex and fertilization, which I personally believe that they did, but there is limited evidence of that) than another man. Again - taking for granted that they even knew to connect the children with the father's, which they may not have, why is that preferable, in real terms? As in, in terms from outside our particular cultural exchange. What you have been saying here is that we're like this because they were like that and we know they were like that because we are like this. It's pointless.


don't have any problem with individuals being extremely passionate about their beliefs, and sometimes (often) it requires people who have strong personal reasons to be passionate about something to make changes happen. In order to make changes happen sometimes some extreme, overly reaching beliefs are needed to achieve balance. However that doesn't mean I trust the long term goals of an extremely emotional person once their goals are achieved.

The tool you need to put out a fire isn't the same tool you need to cleanup after one or to prevent one in the future. Eventually the fire fighters are replaced by a different kinds of people with different mindsets.

Put another way, once the oppression eases, the oppressed eventually need to grow out of the stage of anger/blaiming their oppressors and eventually learn to ask questions about themselves, what have we done to allow or even an encourage the oppressor to gain so much power?, and what are we going to do in the future to prevent it from happening again?
And this answers the quotation that you used how? This is also pointless - I am trying to engage with you about the history and goals of different kinds of feminism and you are trying to engage with me about popular misconceptions and stereotypes created precisely to combat feminists. I have little to say to you except "But... that's completely inaccurate" and you have nothing to say to me except "Feminists are extremist whiners."

xdamage
07-21-2005, 09:07 AM
What an odd, and culturally based assumption - that a woman would prefer being beaten by a man that she (may) have children with (and this is of course, assuming that pre-literate people knew of a connection between sex and fertilization, which I


Prefer? No. I'd prefer not to get cancer or deal with the pain of it, but if I do get cancer, then I'll probably pick the pains of chemotherapy over the worse pains of the cancer. It's the lesser of two evils.



And this answers the quotation that you used how? This is also pointless - I am trying to engage with you about the history and goals of different kinds of feminism and you are trying to engage with me about popular misconceptions and stereotypes created precisely to combat feminists. I have little to say to you except "But... that's completely inaccurate" and you have nothing to say to me except "Feminists are extremist whiners."

That would make it a good point to probably accept that we won't be seeing eye to eye on this anytime soon, however, it's been an interesting discussion and seemed to stay civil. Sometimes radical changes in how we think won't happen no matter how much we go round and round and discuss this, but I can and do still respect that we are able to discuss what we did without it turning into a screaming match.

mr_punk
07-21-2005, 12:25 PM
She is also the only one of two females in any Engineering field, and it's not because the college is discouraging females. Quite the contrary her primary professor is a female. The college was offering extra incentive pricing for females to enter the program.how did she slip through the cracks of the system? everyone knows that girls can't do math. seriously, universities have been bending over backward and doing cartwheels trying to get women into the fields of science and engineering for years. however, if you listen to an organization like NOW. they act if nothing has changed since the sixties. not long ago, NOW called for the resignation of Harvard University president Lawrence Summers because he had the audacity to suggest that perhaps there are other forces at work besides gender discrimination which might explain the lack of female interest in the field.

xdamage
07-21-2005, 12:40 PM
how did she slip through the cracks of the system? everyone knows that girls can't do math. seriously, universities have been bending over backward and doing cartwheels trying to get women into the fields of science and engineering for years. however, if you listen to an organization like NOW. they act if nothing has changed since the sixties. not long ago, NOW called for the resignation of Harvard University president Lawrence Summers because he had the audacity to suggest that perhaps there are other forces at work besides gender discrimination which might explain the lack of female interest in the field.

I'm aware of that story, as well as research from a few others who are questioning the same things, and drawing some of the same (possible) conclusions that where our interests and intellectural strengths lie may not be equal. Major heresy stuff, and terribly politically charged. Of course even the word "intellect" can set off a firestorm of screams from those who can't seem to grasp that while the word "intellect" is a simple thing, what we actually mean by it is very complex and multi-faceted. And it's funny, people are okay with acknowledging that people have differences in their size, their attractiveness (again multifaceted), physical strengths and abilities, innate talents, and so on, and even acknowledge that IQ some people are clearly retarded, some clearly genius, but when you suggest that maybe men and women do have deep seated evolutionary differences in their brains, and their innate intellectual abilities and interests (as plotted on a bell curve, there are always exceptions), then out come the nut cases screaming at the top of their lungs because they are so worried that the next logical conclusion must be that we will all revert to treating women like complete crap.

BTW it was interesting to me that my daughter had mentioned that the college had told her that the number of females who have been entered into the engineering and some of the other science branches of the college has been steadily decreasing over the years, even though the number of students has been rapidly increasing. Things that make you go hmmm.

Jenny
07-21-2005, 01:02 PM
how did she slip through the cracks of the system? everyone knows that girls can't do math. seriously, universities have been bending over backward and doing cartwheels trying to get women into the fields of science and engineering for years. however, if you listen to an organization like NOW. they act if nothing has changed since the sixties. not long ago, NOW called for the resignation of Harvard University president Lawrence Summers because he had the audacity to suggest that perhaps there are other forces at work besides gender discrimination which might explain the lack of female interest in the field.Lawrence Summers said that "girls can't do math" at a symposium of women in science and math. The bad judgement alone should be adequate to call for his resignation. The board at Harvard should be looking at his resume saying "He looks so qualified and intelligent. There is nothing here to indicate that he is a barely functioning retard. What's next, are we going to have to water him, too?"

xdamage
07-21-2005, 01:23 PM
I searched for transcripts, and didn't find them via an internet search, only found people saying what I would expect, that he never said "girl's can't do math", he never said that phrase, and what he was talking about was possible reasons for why girls scored lower in math oriented tests overall. At best he said that on average, they score a little below the boys, not that they just can't do any of it. And actually the theory that there are innate differences is hardly unique, it's just very politically charged and everyone has to tread carefully.

Given that I don't have transcripts, it's just as likely those are not his words, and rather it's the re-interpreted wording of simple mind people who have trouble understanding concepts like bell curves, ideas that are not absolute all or nothings, so they reduced it to something simple their brains can understand, "girl's can't do math". All on, or all off, nice and simple (and scary!)

Nevertheless I'd like to see the transcripts of what he actually said. I suspect it was a bit more intelligent then the one liner.

Jenny
07-21-2005, 01:32 PM
Yeah. Because a group of professors in science, engineering and math wouldn't understand what a bell curve was?

xdamage
07-21-2005, 01:37 PM
Yeah. Because a group of professors in science, engineering and math wouldn't understand what a bell curve was?

Not everyone in the room went into an uproar. Some did, not all. It is not all or nothing. Some people interpreted his comments that way, but not all. Which means we really don't what he said. Maybe some where asleep and apathetic. Or maybe he didn't say that and some got emotionally charged over the implications that men and women might have innate differences. The "can't do math" wording -- for all we know that's he said she said he said by the time it got to the public.

It's a terribly politically charged topic, innate differences between men and women, and socially were probably not ready to digest the implications, let alone even at the point of talking about the possibility.

Jenny
07-21-2005, 02:27 PM
Don't you think it is interesting, though, that despite the obvious ill-judgement, ill-timing, lack of expertise (because keep in mind that his background is strongly in economics) on the issue, etc., etc., you are still more willing to believe and credit the one man over the roomful of women? You don't extend the same "let's wait and see when we have all the facts" attitudes towards (for example) feminists and their varying schools of thought. Regarding that you seem to have come to some extremely firm decisions based on very few facts (for example, I asked you for an example of an extreme feminist and an explanation of the flaws in her ideology and you went off on a tangent about your daughter's major).

Jenny
07-21-2005, 02:29 PM
And, by the way, by googling his name I found a transcript of his remarks. What do you think that says about research skills of men vrs. women? ;)

xdamage
07-21-2005, 04:25 PM
Don't you think it is interesting, though, that despite the obvious ill-judgement, ill-timing, lack of expertise (because keep in mind that his background is strongly in economics) on the issue, etc., etc., you are still more willing to believe and credit the one man over the roomful of women? You don't extend the same "let's wait and see when we have all the facts" attitudes towards (for example) feminists and their varying schools of thought. Regarding that you seem to have come to some extremely firm decisions based on very few facts (for example, I asked you for an example of an extreme feminist and an explanation of the flaws in her ideology and you went off on a tangent about your daughter's major).


Is the question, am I favoring the male perspective? Perhaps, so. I'd like to think though I that favor a somewhat more neutral, less emotional perspective. That's just my opinion right or wrong. It's not my goal to convince you of anything, it's only my goal to make it clear that I see things differently, and besides would you really want me to agree when I didn't? That would be lying ;)

It wasn't just a room full of woman against one man, there were also men there too, and I have no idea what percentage of the people there of either sex took sides. I'm not taking the side of one man against a room full of women. I'm taking the side of the bunch of other people there, presumably some men, some women.

I don't divide up everything into my mind into women against men. I don't see things that way, anymore than I see things in terms of black vs white, or muslim vs jew, or any other simple division of us vs them that people get behind and strongly believe in.

But in this case yes I am taking the side of one probably very intelligent person over the masses that are looking to burn him on the stake. I don't trust the masses

As for the specific remark he made, as I said it's not really news except that it's also not popular main stream think (yet, that could change) and he should have known better than to speak it in that forum.

Look at it like this, have you ever been to a Chinese dinner where everyone orders what they want but you also share a little? Well, if you have been, not everyone has exactly the same things in their plates, but there is no overall inequality because of that, everyone still has a full plate.

As for the girls score on the math tests, it's out of context. Because in context the notions that we aren't all equal is more like the chinese dinner. What didn't get said is, but woman score higher then men in other areas including areas of speech, language comprehension, language composition, some forms of spacial tests, and so on. I can dig up some more on that when I get a chance.

The notion that males and females don't have equal interests/brains (again, over a large set of people) has nothing to do with anyone specific piece of our intellect. And it's not a consipiracy against women. It is however a possible explination for why it is that men tend to gravitate towards (again, averages) certain types of jobs while women tend to gravitate towards others.

And what if it was true that at the very highest levels of math women did score a little lower overall. What practical difference would it make anyway? It would affect what, less than .01% of the jobs they might engage in? Even computer programming, the vast majority of it requires little math (database programing, web programming, UIs, logic, etc., very little math unless your dealing 3-d graphics and physics simulations).

It seems that the only reasons to not study the topic of evolutionary differences is the extremists that fear (without real cause) that some of their equality beliefs will be deflatedm, or maybe that their social conspiracy beliefs will be deflated. But so what? Nothing will change. We wont suddenly start treating women any worse (or better) for it. Because we are talking about relatively minor differences, averages over large groups, and differences that can be overcome through education if the individual wants to overcome them. And I don't think human knowledge should be made to suffer because the extreme feminists, extreme racists, extreme religious, have decided that some topics are too just too controversial. Too fricken bad, the rest of us want to know the truths, not what aligns with the extremist groups belief systems.

An example of extreme feminism gone wrong? When it crosses the line into witch hunts and paranoia. Let's suppose Summers did not say that "girls cant do math" but his career suffers for it because the extremists don't care what he really said, they are out for blood. Then extreme feminists have crossed the line into dangerous behavior.

p.s., I found the transcript, and as I suspected, he never said "girls can't do math" - its not a quote, its some nitwits 4 word interpretation of a very long discussion. I need to finish reading it but this is not some moron who walked up on stage and said 'women are stupid'.

mr_punk
07-21-2005, 11:10 PM
There is nothing here to indicate that he is a barely functioning retard. What's next, are we going to have to water him,too?" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930293.html
yeah, this guy is a total moron. how he made it through university in the days before grade inflation is beyond me.


I searched for transcripts, and didn't find them via an internet search, only found people saying what I would expect, that he never said "girl's can't do math", he never said that phrase, and what he was talking about was possible reasons for why girls scored lower in math oriented tests overall.correct. he never made that statement not that it really matters. didn't you know? the evil male oppressors aren't the only group that often uses rhetorical devices to discredit their opponent. BTW, if anyone is interested. you can find the full transcript here: http://www.president.harvard.edu/speeches/2005/nber.html

Don't you think it is interesting, though, that despite the obvious ill-judgement, ill-timing, lack of expertise (because keep in mind that his background is strongly in economics) on the issue, etc., etc.,i find it more interesting that his opponents ignore the fact that his remarks were made at an academic conference. a place were academicians engage in freewheeling lines of thought or inquiry and rigorous intellectual debate in an area of interest. in fact, he prefaced his remarks by stating and i quote:


I asked Richard, when he invited me to come here and speak, whether he wanted an institutional talk about Harvard's policies toward diversity or whether he wanted some questions asked and some attempts at provocation, because I was willing to do the second and didn't feel like doing the first.

of course, none of that matters. the fact that his intent was to provoke thought among his peers in the hopes that someone who is more qualified than he might research this line of inquiry in-depth and possibly provide more definitive answers is irrelevant. nowadays, it's more important to be politically correct than intellectually honest. it's more important to protect and boost the self-esteem no matter the cost.


It's a terribly politically charged topic, innate differences between men and women, and socially were probably not ready to digest the implications, let alone even at the point of talking about the possibility.sure. a couple of biatches (who should know better) throw a hissy fit over his remarks and his feminist opponents aren't satisfied with just breaking his balls. they also want him to issue one groveling apology after another for hurting their self-esteem.

xdamage
07-22-2005, 03:43 AM
sure. a couple of biatches (who should know better) throw a hissy fit over his remarks and his feminist opponents aren't satisfied with just breaking his balls. they also want him to issue one groveling apology after another for hurting their self-esteem.

Probably what engraged the extremist about Summer's comments was not that 'girls cant do math'. Mostly it comes down to the extremist belief that all wrongs against women can be explained by way of social conspiracy.

I think eventually we will come to adopt many of the views of behavioral genetics the same way many have come to believe evolution as a better explination than creationism (note of course that many still do not accept evolutionary theory, or accept only a very twisted view of it because of their previously held beliefs).

There are big holes in the (currently popular) beliefs that assume human behavior is shaped strictly by society. It doesn't add up.. It requires huge leaps in logic, and circular dependencies to fill in the missing bits vs an explination that stands on its own.

It's a different group of extremists demanding the books and witches be burned, but not really anything new, it will pass (though it may take a few decades).

Here is a quote from Larry Summers:

"My point was simply that the field of behavioral genetics had a revolution in the last fifteen years, and the principal thrust of that revolution was the discovery that a large number of things that people thought were due to socialization weren't, and were in fact due to more intrinsic human nature, and that set of discoveries, it seemed to me, ought to influence the way one thought about other areas where there was a perception of the importance of socialization. I wasn't at all trying to connect those studies to the particular experiences of women and minorities who were thinking about academic careers."

Instrinsic human nature? POP - I can hear the air being let out of the extremist beliefs that all wrongs can be attributed to society and the evil men that shaped it. But without society and men to blaim, what's left? Oh yea, I remember what's left. People can still work on building a fair society, and offering equal opportunties for men and women. Surprisingly nothing really changes, just like nothing really changed due to learning about evolution. We didn't suddenly all revert to cavemen and monkeys. And we won't suddenly all revert to housewives and bread winners because of behavioral genetics.

evan_essence
07-22-2005, 04:45 AM
It's a terribly politically charged topic, innate differences between men and women, and socially were probably not ready to digest the implications, let alone even at the point of talking about the possibility.If this statement at Wikipedia is true (remembering the fact that it's Wiki pedia)...

"According to most statistical evidence, there is only a small mean gender difference in mathematical aptitude scores, but the variance is greater in males, so there are more male individuals at the high and low extremes."

... then it sounds like Summers didn't do his homework. Given the statistical evidence there's not a wide range of difference in testing aptitude, there appears to be no justification in calling for an investigation into the reasons why a small difference in ability exists.

What worries me about these types of theories is not what's actually in the various studies, but the people who will jump to conclusions that the studies don't actually address. If you think these theories of evolutionary development won't be adopted to advance some group's political agenda, the same way you're complaining that theories of socialization have been, then I suspect you'll be mistaken. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

-Ev

xdamage
07-22-2005, 05:13 AM
... then it sounds like Summers didn't do his homework. Given the statistical evidence there's not a wide range of difference in testing aptitude, there appears to be no justification in calling for an investigation into the reasons why a small difference in ability exists.


He was throwing out many possibilities, not stating one as fact.

Note again, he is talking about research ideas that are more than 15 years old, and I can recomend some works from R. Dawkins, and S. Pinker who have written a lot of mainstream books in this area and the fact is that it is a fascinatiing field, and it goes beyond any one comment made by Summers (even if Summers was slightly off, the field is valid and important, and it ruffles the feathers of those who are using socialization as a catch-all explination/excuse for human behavior).

If nothing else, read the follow up debate between Pinker and Spelke.

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/debate05/debate05_index.html

If nothing else it's good to see that two intelligent people, yes, even of different sexes, can debate the science and keep it civil and not a sex war. And even Pinker pulled out a quote from a female, Diane Halpern, who he quoted as:

"At the time I started writing this book it seemed clear to me that any between sex differences in thinking abilities were due to socialization practices, artifacts, and mistakes in the research. After reviewing a pile of journal articles that stood several feet high, and numerous books and book chapters that dwarfed the stack of journal articles, I changed my mind. The literature on sex differences in cognitive abilities is filled with inconsistent findings, contradictory theories, and emotional claims that are unsupported by the research. Yet despite all the noise in the data, clear and consistent messages could be heard. There are real and in some cases sizable sex differences with respect to some cognitive abilities. Socialization practices are undoubtedly important, but there is also good evidence that biological sex differences play a role in establishing and maintaining cognitive sex differences, a conclusion I wasn't prepared to make when I began reviewing the relevant literature."

It's not just men that are asking question, scientists are, both male and female. And isn't that ultimately a good thing? Women and men actively participating in the same fields, actively arriving at some of the same questions? Seems like that's equality at work, even if earlier dogma must suffer for it.




What worries me about these types of theories is not what's actually in the various studies, but the people who will jump to conclusions that the studies don't actually address. If you think these theories of evolutionary development won't be adopted to advance some group's political agenda, the same way you're complaining that theories of socialization have been, then I suspect you'll be mistaken. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

-Ev

Sure, but that's not a reason to live with one's head buried in a hole. If that was the overriding concern then evolutionary theory wouldn't have made it off the ground, and we'd probably still be attributing what we don't understand to the likes of witchcraft.

I'd rather have my head half way out of the hole and still be somewhat mistaken then keep my head buried deep because of some fear that if we know more, it may somehow be turned against us by groups who will misinterpret the data.

Yes there will be those groups who twist the data. Yes, some of them will twist the meanings to suit their agenda (the same way I believe the extreme feminists are using socialization as a catch all), but it's not my goal to say "haha, see you feminists were wrong" and "we men were right" - I don't see things in terms of us versus them, men vs women. It's just another form of dangerous prejudice to me, no different then black vs white, or white vs black, muslim vs jew, jew vs muslim, well anyone on either side who is emotionally and mentally pre-occupied with seeing everything in these dual-sided terms is misguided (and sometimes dangerous).

I do think that people (of whatever race, sex, religion) that are socialization extremists (e.g., using socialization to explain all human behavior, and worse, using to promote hate/rage towards a group they have personal problems with) are misguided, but socialization as a popular concept will pass the same way so much other misinformation has passed. If it's replaced my some new group of extremists who twist the knowledge to suit their agenda, fine, as long as we (society) are generally moving in a forward direction that's overall more true/correct then the past, that's what matters. We learn slowly, by making general forward moving steps. We aren't going to discover absolute truth tomorrow, but we are generally and slowly improving our knowledge. It's what benefits everyone in the long run that counts; not the agendas of a few individuals that matters. I think overall we will benefit from behavioral geneticists are learning. Individuals with strong emotional ties and deep seated dogma tied to socialization will be worse off for it. That will pass. But I think in the long run people will be better off, have a better understanding of what's driving their interests in some areas vs others.

I'm fairly moderate in my personal view on the matter. I believe people are products of their society and their biology. Product means society can compensate for what biology lacks, there is no fear that the end of the world will come because we acknowledge biology as an important factor in who we are, and how we think and feel. But biology is not all bad, nor are differences in biology all bad, the differences between the sexes has served it's purposes. As society changes those purposes will change and biology will change accordingly.

mr_punk
07-22-2005, 08:40 AM
"According to most statistical evidence, there is only a small mean gender difference in mathematical aptitude scores, but the variance is greater in males, so there are more male individuals at the high and low extremes."

... then it sounds like Summers didn't do his homework.really? it still doesn't explain why there's a lack of women going into the fields of science and engineering. BTW, he never proclaimed to have an answer. he merely proposed that there may be other factors at work. frankly, no one really knows why not even his opponents. although, they will tell you it's simply gender discrimination.


Given the statistical evidence there's not a wide range of difference in testing aptitude, there appears to be no justification in calling for an investigation into the reasons why a small difference in ability exists.of course, why actually try to address the core issue with actual research when you can sum it up as gender discrimination. it's a lot cheaper and it works wonders on the self-esteem. can you say Galileo?

evan_essence
07-22-2005, 12:20 PM
He was throwing out many possibilities, not stating one as fact.Here's the only thing I'm saying, in Pinker's own words.
These are two Gaussian or normal distributions; two bell curves. The X axis stands for any ability you want to measure. The Yaxis stands for the proportion of people having that ability. The overlapping curves are what you get whenever you compare the sexes on any measure in which they differ. In this example, if we say that this is the male curve and this is the female curve, the means may be different, but at any particular ability level there are always representatives of both genders.


So right away a number of public statements that have been made last couple of months can be seen as red herrings, and should never have been made by anyone who understands the nature of statistical distributions. This includes the accusation that President Summers implied that "50% of the brightest minds in America do not have the right aptitude for science," that "women just can't cut it," and so on. These statements are statistically illiterate, and have nothing to do with the phenomena we are discussing.

Pinker himself doesn't dismiss the influence of environmental factors on aptitude, so I don't see a debate about the proportions of nature and nuture as germane to countering the feminist political agenda. All one has to do to legitimately continue the focus of one's political agenda on socialization is say, "Yup, Pinker's right, biology does play some role. Of course, we can't change biology so let's concentrate on making changes within the role socialization has, which is a substantial element that we can change." Meanwhile, folks with the opposite political agenda can say, "Well, socialization may play some role but it's clear that biology is a substantial factor, so the changes you propose are misguided." Ad infinitum.


-Ev

evan_essence
07-22-2005, 12:58 PM
of course, why actually try to address the core issue with actual research when you can sum it up as gender discrimination. it's a lot cheaper and it works wonders on the self-esteem. can you say Galileo?When the f**k did I say it was gender discrimination? I don't automatically dismiss that, but I don't automatically assume it either. My assertion is the core issue is not aptitude. I'm saying Summers apparently mischaracterized/misinterpreted the statistical data in claiming there was a significant difference between the sexes in aptitude, and therefore, it appears there's no point in studying a statistically insignificant difference. I don't want my tax dollars (yes, I pay them) wasted on studies with no practical value. Instead, concentrate on discovering why women are not entering math-related fields in anywhere near an equal proportion to men. If statistics show it's not aptitude, what is it?

-Ev

xdamage
07-22-2005, 01:05 PM
Of course, we can't change biology so let's concentrate on making changes within the role socialization has, which is a substantial element that we can change."

Partially agree, but again careful of simpleton all or nothing positions.

We don't need to choose a or b - we need both.

While it's true that biology cannot be completely changed, understanding it is critical. It's because we understand more about biology today that we know (for example) that to some degrees emotional and mental problems are due to biological causes. That may seem obvious to you today, but it wasn't always obvious in the past and even now, many people confuse mental and emotional illness with moral problems, demonic possession, and "psychological" problems (meaning problems they think the person can control, if they just try harder or wanted to try).

Today we are to some degree more tolerant of people with chemical emotional problems, and we have a come to accept this is part of the human condition, it's going to happen, and we aren't as quick to assume that people with psychiatric problems are morally weak, evil, possessed, can solve it via will power alone, etc.

Infact not all problems in society can be solved, no matter how much you bang your head on walls, or no matter how loudly we scream for others to find solutions, understanding our biology better will help us to separate out what is solvable by changing peoples attitudes, and what is just part of the human condition and is going to require extra efforts to cope with.

And on an individual basis as well, we are finally starting to come to a point of accepting that not all kids are born with the same interests, and realizing not all kids are cut out to study the three Rs. Which doesn't make them useless, just they need to be taught other skills.
No matter how much you try, some kids just aren't cut out to be physicists. Their biology holds them back as surely as it prevents other kids from being track stars or football players. And the result is we are more tolerant of individual limitations, we don't judge them as harshly, we don't (to the same degree) have it in the back of their minds that it's the fault of their parents, or the fault of their own lack of wil.

And, here is the part the extreme feminists won't like, it will end up with the women and men having a little better understanding of each other, one that is less adversarial and more understanding of why each as it is. Except for those who enjoy the adversarial position, I think the rest of us welcome that.

We should never give up the pursuit of knowledge just because it doesn't have immediate obvious applicability. It always does, eventually.

xdamage
07-22-2005, 01:30 PM
If statistics show it's not aptitude, what is it?
-Ev

Read Richard Dawkins and Steve Pinkers books because any explination here wont full satisify you.

But in a nutshell, there are 3 factors at play (read the books for the long explination, this is the 1 minute primer).

1. Not every kid that is born loves math (or chemistry or literature or pick your example).

Most of us learn enough to get by, but we feel no strong love for it, or innate understanding. Nothing that would make us pursue at as a career. Quite the opposite, most kids like doing math about as much as they like going to the dentist. But you remember that one geeky kid in school that people use to throw spit wads at? The one who was spending his afternoons learning about vector cross products and matrices so that he could get some 3d graphics up on his computer. That kid loved math.

The study of twins is interesting here because you find their interests develop very similarly even when the are brought up far apart, so for example, the degree to which they love math, or show strong musical apptitude, etc., are very clearly related to how their brains are wired, not how they are raised.

Basically, you can teach a kid to do math, but you can't make him or her love it, innately understand it.

This is not a sociological issue, except to a few nut-cases who blaim everything on others (e.g., "I don't love math because my teachers didnt...[fill in blank]). No they didn't love math because MOST of us don't love it, it's not a necessary skill, its not particularly useful in attracting the opposite sex, it's a only useful for a limited things in a primitive world and even in a modern world most careers do not require much math.

2 - People don't tend to choose careers that require skills in areas they don't innately love doing (on average). Basic logic 101 - someone who doesn't innately love math is unlikely to choose a career in say, physics.

3 - Evolution plays the same game the casinos do. The best odds play out over the long run. It's random that some kids are born one way vs another. But say out of every million kids 100 really love math, I mean they love it so much they do math puzzles for fun rather than go on dates. Say out of those 10 go on to be brilliant mathematicians. Say out of those 1 goes on to contribute something new and significant to the field.

It's all about the odds over the long run, and so to the point, study enough numbers over the long runs and the bottom line is you find more men appearing in some fields then women, and vice versa, women gravitating towards other fields.

And this is KEY - Casinos do not concern themselves with individual bets. If you start picking this apart looking at individual people you know or individual cases you will fail to see the big picture. Evolution and biology don't favor (or disfavor) individuals. But over the long run patterns develop.

p.s. BTW, the casinos also play on the fact that most people's brains don't handle the concept of odds over the long run very well. Most people just don't believe it, they really think they see patterns over the short run and so they do stupid things at casinos (like make bets at blackjack tables that don't favor the odds). Unfortunately these extends to studies of social behavior too. Most people can't get their heads around looking at social patterns that have developed over the long run. They can only see their immediate situation and try to paint their understanding of everything and everyone in terms of their own limited life experience. Evolution is about what happens over the long run, periods of time which our brains simply are not wired to really grasp, not what happens in the 50-80 years we are alive. We are here today discussing this but it's the eons of time that preceeded today that shaped who and what we are today. It's myth that we are born with blank slates for brains. Our brains like everything else about us that is biological is the result of a long (very long) random evolutionary selection that came before.

There are also some good solid explinations why it is that the males of the species have tended to evolve one way vs the other, but I won't go there. It sure to start a flame war (though it shouldn't because it's neutral information, doesn't justify any injustices towards women), but read the books. Again, none of this a new field to the academics.

Of course though even what I wrote above is very incomplete because you do have to factor in societies influences. Like if a woman does show an interest in math, how much encouragement or discouragement do women tend to receive? But before you say yea, consider that about half the people that influence women in women's lives are other women. Over the long run women are as deeply intertwined with how society has turned out as men are unless you believe that women were on vacation while "societies" are evolving, or you believe men have out played them at every turn, in which case you'd least have to wonder about equality beliefs, but actually it seems women suppress certain behaviors in other women for their own competative reasons - they are also their own worst enemies in the shaping of society (and boys do this to each other too, compete, and try to limit each other from excelling, like the boys beat up the nerd because he makes the other average intelligence boys look bad to the girls).

And even when you talk about something like "math" you have to stop and realize math may be a four letter word, but the actual field is incredibly immense. The little bit of math you learn in high school is just a small taste of what mathematicians study, and many kids that make it through high school math struggle with at least one branch in high school, but in college, many don't make it very far because the concepts become even less intuitive, more grueling to learn. High school math is more like, intro to math 101 for a mathematician. Making it through algebra 1 and trig doesn't mean someone male or female is cut out for being a mathematician.

Finally don't forget, MOST men are not cut out for being mathematicians and a lot of men really did not like math classes. They get by, but it was not a fun topic they pursue as a hobby or a career. Once class is over that's pretty much it, they retain only what they minimally need to do their jobs. And if all we are looking to do is blaim this on society, then who shall we hold responsible for that? Who in society do we want to blaim that on if some of this isn't biological. I bet a lot of those boys were heavily influenced by their mothers and female teachers, so do we blaim them? Or do we blaim that on "society" as if society is some kind of independent monster that exists independent of us people?

mr_punk
07-22-2005, 01:53 PM
When the f**k did I say it was gender discrimination? I don't automatically dismiss that, but I don't automatically assume it either.oh, you didn't say it. the statement was my sarcastic way of saying that one possibility is a lot more simpler and more comforting than any number of other possibilities to summer's opponents. no, i'm not saying that you're one of his opponents either. although, i wouldn't be surprised.....

I'm saying Summers apparently mischaracterized/misinterpreted the statistical data in claiming there was a significant difference between the sexes in aptitude, and therefore, it appears there's no point in studying a statistically insignificant difference.perhaps. still, the data is hardly conclusive and it was only one facet of his speech. the fact of the matter is that we're just beginning to discover the tools necessary to do this kind of work. any definitive answers are probably a long, long way off.

I don't want my tax dollars (yes, I pay them) wasted on studies with no practical value.basic research does have value. no, it's not always practical at the moment, but advances in practical research are made with basic research.

Instead, concentrate on discovering why women are not entering math-related fields in anywhere near an equal proportion to men. If statistics show it's not aptitude, what is it?which was exactly the whole point of his speech...to provoke thought on exactly why this is happening. OTOH,given the reaction. perhaps he should have just paid lip service and given some vanilla, politically correct speech about the need for diversity.

xdamage
07-22-2005, 01:59 PM
which was exactly the whole point of his speech...to provoke thought on exactly why this is happening. OTOH,given the reaction. perhaps he should have just paid lip service and given some vanilla, politically correct speech about the need for diversity.

Exactly, it was suppose to be a thought provoking discussion, sometimes I think the the problem here is that for some the real question they are asking isn't a neutral question, it's not even a question at all, it's more along the lines of a demand:

You better tell me why, and it better be an answer that ends or starts with "because men held women back all these years"

evan_essence
07-23-2005, 06:27 AM
As I said before, ad infinitum. Thank you, boys. Good night. Turn the lights out on the thread when the last one leaves.

-Ev

xdamage
07-23-2005, 07:30 AM
As I said before, ad infinitum. Thank you, boys. Good night. Turn the lights out on the thread when the last one leaves.

-Ev

In the end all that really matters is what you do with your own life. If you end up stuck in a traditionally female career, then join the big crowd of men and women who shaped society and can both take credit for how we turned out.

It's easy to remain a girl or a boy and spend our lives complaining and demanding the adults fix the problems. You only really have the ability to change yourself, and if a life time of complaining about what others are doing doesn't add up to enough energy to change yourself and what you're doing for a living, well then you have first hand experience with understanding exactly why it is that society has turned out as it has (and you get some small portion of the credit for how it will turn out in the future).

I encouraged my daughter all along to pursue her dreams and now she is studying Engineering in college. If you don't already have a career path that is leading to a less traditional role, I encourage you to enter one. You may find in the end it's not for you but your convinctions will have real impact on others either way via showing them by way of example. And if you don't back your convinctions with example, you harm your cause. The louder you are, the more likely it is people will just remember the apparent hypocrisy.

erippy
12-05-2005, 02:56 PM
Some days I feel like I'm the only honest pinkie left out there.My honesty even got me requested to stay down here in in the deep dark dysmal abyss...

-- Hey, I appreciate your honesty, Kat. It's all too damn' rare. People who are honest with me may hurt my feelings sometines, but that's Life. Rock on.

wakko0129
12-05-2005, 04:48 PM
OK, I don't think I can read this all the way through, but I feel the need to contribute.

I consider myself a "nice guy." I don't go to strip clubs expecting to get laid, get a BJ, or anything like that. I'm a fairly quiet, shy person who keeps to himself most of the time. In short, I have trouble meeting people and occasionaly get lonely. So, I go out to a strip club, either my local one, or find one nearby if I'm travelling. I'll go out, have a couple beers (only 2 or 3 since I have to drive back), and have a decent conversation, and a few dances with a couple attractive women who probably wouldn't give me the time of day in a "regular" bar. Sure, I spend a couple hundred bucks, but is that any different than going out to a regular dance club, spending who knows how much money buying different girls a drink, and then going home alone?

I've never met a dancer OTC. I have made the offer to one girl at my local club. I gave her my number, and she had the option as to whether or not she chose to use it. We've played voicemail-tag a couple times, but nothing has gone on outside the club, other than a phone call or 2. If things escalate to a point where there is something more, be it simply a friendship, or something more, I'll figure out what to do if/when that comes to pass.

I guess the point is, that everyone needs to judge each person they meet individually. If you avoid getting to know someone, just because they are a customer, or a co-worker, or a dancer, then you could be missing out on meeting and getting to know some really interesting people.