Rules of attraction
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, May 7, 2009 02:16
VIEWED: 16249
PAGE 2 of 3
I see a lot of hyper-sensitivity bouncing around here.
Citizen, thanks for a most excellent direction in this thread! I've read every word with fascination.
I feel like I've just been at a graduate school lecture.
My wife & I have discussed brain differences for some time, using ourselves as the subjects, and have come to the discovery that [See Cit's first post here].
(No way I could say it better, dude.)
I work hard at getting the female skillset in my brain in gear, as she does the male- we find greater harmony that way.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Citizen: I don't think there's a such thing as "reverse sexism" or "reverse racism" because both sexism and racism are ideological isms founded on account of an oppression of one group by another. All there is are women feminists who are complete bitches (who to be honest I think go way too far and I can't stand), and bitter minorities who've been hurt by society.
I think that's just plain crazy. Racism is the assumption that one race is inferior to another. It's racism when a White person assumes all black people are inferior, or that they're all thieves or whatever, but it's also racism when a black person assumes all white people inferior. I don't think bigotry gets a pass because there's other bigots out there (and I'm not claiming your a bigot, to make that clear). Women who hate Men because they're Men, are worse sexists than most of the sexists they oppose. It's not 'reverse sexism' at all, it's just plain old sexism being put forward by people who were traditionally the victims of it. But being the victim of something, doesn't mean it's ok when you do it. In fact saying only Men can be sexist, that only white people can be racist, would seem to be racism and sexism in it's own right.
Quote:
I'm merely questioning THESE men in particular. Science tries its best to eliminate personal biases. But the field of psychology, where results are not always consistent and are sometimes contradictory, where the science is very young and not much is known or easy to substanciate, and where "normal" and "control" are arbitrary, sometimes results are not always HARD results. This allows a lot of interpretation in, interpretations which COULD be influenced by upbringing and social expectation, biases that the men may not be aware of.
Possibly, but you're not providing evidence, you're saying that the results run counter to your expectation, and because it's run by Men it must be suspect. But then, do you know it was run by Men? Would it make a difference if it were run by Women?
What I mentioned were that Men do better in tests for spacial awareness. I fail to see how social biases could play into that. Sure if you took those results and said they proved that men were more intelligent than Women, but not the actual results themselves.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Bugs was secure in his sexuality."
I would say that by a VERY early age (4 or 5) expected sex roles are SO well known by children that they find this funny.
Either that, or there is an evolutionary reason why survival depended on females wearing frilly halter tops and it's in our genes !
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ooh, are we playing bingo now? I love bingo!
http://punkassblog.com/2007/10/25/evolutionary-psychology-bingo
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Where I grew up, girls regularly got into fist fights, even with boys.
Originally posted by rue:
We shape our children from the time they are born - boys get roughhoused-with, girls coddled.
Quote:I know that it seems to be this way in many places, but I didn't experience much of that. In my youth, excess of personality gained the highest ground, regardless of sex. The only place I didn't see that was in sports.
Boys get told they have to stop crying and be a 'little man', girls get comforted. Girls get talked-to more, boys get more things. Girls are rewarded for being compliant, boys are rewarded for being loud.
But then, I was one of only four guys in a mostly female Junior High Home Ec class, one of only two guys in a college Ballet class, and the only guy in a Women's History in the Western World class, so I may be seeing more equality by my nature than there actually was...
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The main problem is, despite all the disclaimers that "this doesn't mean women are stupider or weaker than men!" that the studies themselves add in, it is ENTIRELY how a certain segment of the population chooses to interpret them.
Spatial awareness... Like the type you could gain through throwing a ball around?
If it were women doing psychological tests on men and coming up with demeaning results, I would question them as well.
So I would say, if it were women performing the experiments on other women, I would say that they were influenced by the same social biases that the men were.
They sort of permeate our culture. Sometimes I even catch myself submitting to social bias and expectation, because not only is it easier, but my brain doesn't always notice that's what's going on. Our brains have a remarkable tendency to assume, generalize details, and act unconsciously in order to get us through our day and prevent ourselves from being overwhelmed by input.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"What I mentioned were that Men do better in tests for spacial awareness."
But that may be as a result of being roughhoused with as infants and children. Of being encouraged to toss a ball around rather than sit and color.
While you can point to differences, you can't point to them as being genetic.
OTOH, I have pointed out that many differences that were thought to be inborn, have been shown not to be so.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:When I was a kid, I found it funny that the characters Bugs pulled this s**t on were STUPID enough not to see through it!
Originally posted by rue:
I would say that by a VERY early age (4 or 5) expected sex roles are SO well known by children that they find this funny.
What maroons.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Where I grew up, girls regularly got into fist fights, even with boys."
Well, we didn't get into fist fights, but the girls were just as physical as the boys and played with the boys. We all did a lot of roughhousing together, played kickball, spud, pies, hide-and-go-seek, bike-racing, foot-racing, built snow forts and water-dams, and things I don't even remember. Of the 4 girls in the neighborhood I regularly played with - 2 are scientists ('hard' science - geology, chemistry), one is an artist, and one I don't know about. And then there's me, chemist.
My family was very egalitarian, as was the neighbor's. So, either it was in the water or there was something in the common upbringing that created that result.
And now, I have to go.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I had a friend in Karate who was female, and 4'11", and she used her small size to work her way inside the (bigger) guy's defenses. She was awesome, and respected. Her spacial awareness wasn't so good though, because if you were able to keep her at a distance, she found it difficult to judge the path to a strike, so she trained to circumvent this limitation in this particular venue to a point where it actually became her advantage. She had been her older brother's playful punching bag from an early age, btw (which ended with her martial art classes).
Originally posted by rue:
But that may be as a result of being roughhoused with as infants and children. Of being encouraged to toss a ball around rather than sit and color.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The point Rue and I are trying to make Chris, is that the spatial awareness that Citizen pointed out IS training, not something inherent.
Your friend started out with a disadvantage compared to the men because in their lives, it is more likely they engaged in activities that unknowingly and unintentionally improved their spatial awareness. And it is also likely that they were activity encouraged to do so, while for your friend it wasn't such a big deal if she didn't participate.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I disagree, for instance, my wife can keep a cool head better than I can. In that instance, I have the inherent disadvantage.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The point Rue and I are trying to make Chris, is that the spatial awareness that Citizen pointed out IS training, not something inherent.
Quote:No way, she was a tomboy.
Your friend started out with a disadvantage compared to the men because in their lives, it is more likely they engaged in activities that unknowingly and unintentionally improved their spatial awareness.
And throwing a ball doesn't give or enhance the ability to look at something and see it in 3D, judge volume, divide it in your head, or anything like that. All it *might* help you with is judging speed & trajectory as it applies to other things.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I was a tomboy too, but that doesn't mean I played sports nearly as much as the guys I knew, or when I did, that I paid as much attention to developing the technical skills. I mostly ran... And tackled people. I'm a big fan of the tackling. Fun!
Quote:
I disagree, for instance, my wife can keep a cool head better than I can. In that instance, I have the inherent disadvantage.
You kind of made a jump here from spatial awareness that I'm not following.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
And throwing a ball doesn't give or enhance the ability to look at something and see it in 3D, judge volume, divide it in your head, or anything like that. All it *might* help you with is judging speed & trajectory as it applies to other things.
I disagree. Our brains are "use it or lose it," and this seems to be especially important when we're younger. It's easier to learn languages before the age of seven, for example. So it makes sense that if children more actively use certain areas of the brain, then those will develop better than ones that are more neglected. And, it makes sense to me that manipulating 3-D objects can increase understanding of them and lead to better visualization.
http://tinyurl.com/cqkps4
Edited to add more
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"... doesn't give or enhance the ability to look at something and see it in 3D, judge volume, divide it in your head ..."
One of the jobs I used to do was analyzing asbestos. One way you do it is to look at the sample and estimate volume percent in your head. NOBODY did well at that, nationally. Some samples with 2% asbestos came back as an estimated 30 - 80 % during those round robins (due, it was theorized, to the brain's ability to find patterns and then focus on them). The NIST had to institute a training course along with materials to standardize these eyeball measurements - to train people's brains. The result - training is everything. People who got the training all performed equally well.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Just trying to show that males get some inherent disadvantages according to this thinking on the subject.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
You kind of made a jump here from spatial awareness that I'm not following.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Citizen
I gave examples of whole societies who believe men and women are exactly opposite of what we believe them to be - and who would point to the men and women there to prove it. I gave examples of how men and women were thought to be SO different that women couldn't do medicine, or engineering - and then pointed out how, with the right opportunities, it was shown to not be true. I gave examples of how differences in intellectual abilites were thought to be inborn due to differences in class - an idea we find laughable today.
Women are more into color and fashion, into soft and shiny fabrics, into fancy shoes and long hair by genetic difference ?
...
Everywhere where these differences were supposedly inborn, they were shown to not be so.
What you did, Rue, is called a Red Herring. Because a bunch of other totally unrelated issues had this outcome, it proves something about this one?
Erm, nope. The only thing that gets close to a relevant objection are your statements about how many Women became engineers in the USSR. I find it funny how you some how see your largely irrelevant arguments to be a damning final word that I must be ignoring because I haven't held up my hands and admitted you're right and I'm wrong, while claiming my arguments are shaky and irrelevant by, well by ignoring much of them. Fact is, nothing you've come up with thus far proves a damn thing, for all your claiming that I'm talking about little daemons shuffling genes about.
Clearly there are differences between Men and Women. I mean it's as plain as the breast (or lack there of) on your chest. I fail to see how pointing out that Men and Women are different, is such a radical and even sexist position. I fail to see how pointing out one of those differences is belittling to either sex, unless there's a few people here with hang ups of their own, which frankly have bugger all to do with me.
But back with USSR, I'm not sure, because of the totalitarian nature of the regime, and it's willingness to mess with it's citizens for national aims, it's the best case to use. This is the nation who's female athletes could grow moustaches because the state decided to improve them. So as far as I'm concerned even your most rock solid piece of argument, isn't all that solid. Have you any better examples?
Quote:
EVERYTHING you can point to, I can show differences in rearing from an early age ACCORDING TO SEX STEREOTYPES.
Yes, apparently by IGNORING the major point of my argument that REFUTES YOU.
How, pray tell, does this explain away girls exposed to male hormones during development, having more male like mental abilities? They'll be treated like girls, so regardless of the male hormones, if my argument is as baseless as you claim, and yours as water tight as you seem to think, I wonder why you have to completely ignore that part. So you tell me Rue, how does your position account for this data? How does developmental hormones affect an individuals future cultural experiences? Because you know what, I don't think they do.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm coming into this discussion a little late, but it's good to see some open and (above all) non-hateful discussion of these things.
Attraction, I think, is both simple and complicated. You know when you're feeling it, and that is very simple. Why you feel it might not be easily explained.
I'm bisexual. I've always been bisexual. I don't know why. Before I knew about sex or had hormones flooding my system, I thought my female friends were pretty, and wanted to give them hugs and kisses. I had fewer male friends, but I thought they were pretty, and wanted to give them hugs and kisses. My family, for the most part, was very huggy, so it seemed a natural thing to me to be affectionate. Of course, it freaked more than a few kids out. There's of course always the 'cootie' angle between little boys and girls, but actually it freaked the girls out more that I would dare to give them a peck on the cheek.
I didn't understand this.
Not only was my family pretty affectionate, they weren't and aren't too concerned with 'normal.' Some of them are, but not the ones I spent most of my time with. There was never any insinuations that attraction to certain people would be considered 'wrong' or 'inappropriate' in any way; I got all such 'teachings' from outside sources, such as my horrified friends, and the couples shown to pair off in Disney movies and such. I started getting the idea that it was more common for men and women to be couples, before I was quite certain what that meant. As I gained further understanding of what it meant, and continued to find girls very pretty, I asked my mother if women were ever in love with women. She told me yes, and that some men were also in love with men. The nuances of transgender weren't explained to me at this point, as that is an entirely different can of worms. I've done some research into gender dysphoria, androgen insensitivity, and such, but they seem mostly unrelated to sexual orientation. A man might want to be a woman, but be attracted to women. Someone with complete androgen insensitivity might have XY chromosomes, appear in all ways female, and be attracted to men. It's just another layer of the complex human animal.
I got off track a little bit, where was I? Yes, my mom basically told me that anyone could be in love with anyone, and it just depended on the people. I still had a vague notion that this wasn't acceptable to a lot of people, though, and the notion grew as I got closer to puberty. I was made to feel uncomfortable about my attraction to women in junior high, and only really talked about it to my mother and my very closest friend. I didn't date much all through high school, though I badly wanted to. I was shy about approaching anyone, no matter who they were, but I was definitely attracted to both men and women.
Since leaving the oppressive atmosphere of high school, I have mostly dated men, because the majority of women I've been attracted to have been straight or otherwise uninterested, while the majority of men I've been attracted to have been more interested. That just the way the chips fall, but it doesn't make me less attracted to women.
There are three major arguments I've gotten into with certain ignorant people.
The first is the 'choice' aspect. "Why don't you just choose to be straight?" Because I'm not. "What happened to you to make you not want to be with men?" Nothing happened to me, and I have been with men, more than I've been with women. It's the people I find attractive, while the plumbing is secondary. All bodies can have their beauty, it's the beauty of the person as a whole that concerns me.
Another is the 'changing orientation' argument. "Well, if you're with a man, doesn't that make you straight?" No, it does not. I'm attracted to the man I'm with, and I'm loyal to the man I'm with, but that doesn't keep me from seeing a pretty girl and going "Day-um!" on occasion. "Well, if your orientation doesn't switch back and forth, how can you be satisfied by only being with a man?" Because I'm satisfied by the person, not the equipment. Not that
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I always thought Bugs was gay.
---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Then how do you explain me? I was virtually inactive before bullies in Junior High made it a guilt-edged priority to learn martial arts. No sports, no throwing the ball with Dad, the most physical thing I did until I was 11 was bicycling, and that was purely low-speed local stuff.
Originally posted by yinyang:
it makes sense that if children more actively use certain areas of the brain, then those will develop better than ones that are more neglected. And, it makes sense to me that manipulating 3-D objects can increase understanding of them and lead to better visualization.
Yet I tested unusually high on the spacial relations part of the IQ test I took around that time.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:WHO won't fully accept you?
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
The thing I most often have to get past is that there are people who won't fully accept me, and I hope to see less of that as time rolls on.
I'll kick their intolerant a**es!!!
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The main problem is, despite all the disclaimers that "this doesn't mean women are stupider or weaker than men!" that the studies themselves add in, it is ENTIRELY how a certain segment of the population chooses to interpret them.
Well yes. One segment seems to be making the leap that it must be about Men belittling Women AGAIN. I could easily have talked about the things that Women prove to be better at and, hang on, I did do that. In fact I clearly said that Men and Women are of equal intelligence, but tend to excel at different areas of intelligence. So really there was no belittling, unless you decide you want to focus just on where I talked about things Men do better, and ignoring what Women do better. Seems to me that I'm not the one focusing on just one side of this issue.
Men and Women are different. I don't see how, objectively, pointing out those differences can possibly be considered belittling to either sex. Should I refrain from pointing out that Men have Penises and Women don't? I mean surely, pointing out that Men can pee standing up, and write their name in the snow, while Women can't, is surely belittling of Women, right?
Quote:
Spatial awareness... Like the type you could gain through throwing a ball around?
No. I explained what I was talking about earlier, it's the ability to mentally manipulate objects in 3D I'm talking about. To see an object from angle, and to accurately guess what it'll look like from another. I fail to see how throwing a ball around will have any bearing on that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Then how do you explain me? I was virtually inactive before bullies in Junior High made it a guilt-edged priority to learn martial arts. No sports, no throwing the ball with Dad, the most physical thing I did until I was 11 was bicycling, and that was purely low-speed local stuff.
Originally posted by yinyang:
it makes sense that if children more actively use certain areas of the brain, then those will develop better than ones that are more neglected. And, it makes sense to me that manipulating 3-D objects can increase understanding of them and lead to better visualization.
Yet I tested unusually high on the spacial relations part of the IQ test I took around that time.
The laughing Chrisisall
Maybe you did other things that helped with your spatial functioning? Maybe it's pure talent? Maybe you're just an outlier?
::shrugs::
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Ooh, are we playing bingo now? I love bingo!
http://punkassblog.com/2007/10/25/evolutionary-psychology-bingo
No, we're at the "straw man the argument we don't like, and insult the person making it" stage.
So, I'm the undergraduate who can't get laid right? Thanks ever-so, I'll pass your thoughts on to my girlfriend, and she can throw all her headache medicine away, 'kay.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Maybe it's hardwired?
Originally posted by yinyang:
Maybe you did other things that helped with your spatial functioning?
I just remembered- when I was 10, I made pistol phasers out of cardboard by drawing out the entire unfolded schematic on a box, cutting it out, folding it into position & taping it together, never having done it before. My friends were impressed how it managed it, I really didn't consider it much back then.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
]WHO won't fully accept you?
I'll kick their intolerant a**es!!!
Hee ^_^
Well, there was the guy who proclaimed he had turned me straight. There was the other guy who apparently lived in constant fear that I would leave him for a woman. There was the guy who assumed because he was dating a bi girl, a three-way was automatically on the table. There was... several people I worked with who decided to go off on tangents about pervert gays being scout masters, or those disturbed gay people wanting to get married, or in one case what a travesty it was that a gay man had played Gandalf, or any number of other horrid things they assumed I would agree with because I appeared 'normal' in my behavior, mostly because I make work a pretty impersonal place. Oh, things got very awkward after I gave them a few pieces of my mind. There are plenty of people who haven't wanted to be around me, women who assumed I wanted to jump their bones (I didn't) and were terrified that i would somehow force myself on them, men who thought I either wasn't a real woman or that I was a skank who would do anything, just because I've kissed a few girls in my life. Even my own extended family, who insisted I must be going through a 'phase' because it certainly couldn't have anything to do with them or their genes. The list goes on and on, Chris. Please feel free to kick as many intolerant a**es as you wish to, if you can find them.
[/sig]
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Ooh, are we playing bingo now? I love bingo!
http://punkassblog.com/2007/10/25/evolutionary-psychology-bingo
No, we're at the "straw man the argument we don't like, and insult the person making it" stage.
So, I'm the undergraduate who can't get laid right? Thanks ever-so, I'll pass your thoughts on to my girlfriend, and she can throw all her headache medicine away, 'kay.
Actually, that's the square I really don't like. And, maybe I shouldn't have posted that (especially without explanation), and just said instead, "Evolutionary psychology is bullshit, and so is most of your argument." You want to make up some fairy story about how "men were this way, and women were this way," call that historical fact, and then run with that, fine. You want to dismiss Rue's argument that maybe these so-called inborn traits are actually the result of socialization, okay. But I'm wasn't interested in seriously arguing, so I posted what I thought was a silly little graphic that, nevertheless, made my point about how flawed arguments like yours are. If I intended to insult you, I would have mentioned you by name.
And, seriously, why do you feel the need need to point out that, yes, you do actually have a girlfriend? If you really think I insulted you at such a sophomoric level, why would you think I cared if I was right or not?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Shame on you for disappointing him!
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
There was the guy who assumed because he was dating a bi girl, a three-way was automatically on the table.
Seriously, sounds like a lot of idiots to ignore where you live. I live next to Smith College, an exceptionally tolerant area.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Maybe it's hardwired?
Originally posted by yinyang:
Maybe you did other things that helped with your spatial functioning?
I just remembered- when I was 10, I made pistol phasers out of cardboard by drawing out the entire unfolded schematic on a box, cutting it out, folding it into position & taping it together, never having done it before. My friends were impressed how it managed it, I really didn't consider it much back then.
The laughing Chrisisall
Maybe there are things you're not remembering that would have helped you out with that? Maybe it's hardwired just for you, and it would be silly to generalize your situation to half the population? Maybe brain science is still in its baby stages, so it's too early to tell if these types of things can even be hardwired or not? Maybe fully nature or fully nurture is too simplistic a perspective?
Hell if I know.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Actually, that's the square I really don't like. And, maybe I shouldn't have posted that (especially without explanation), and just said instead, "Evolutionary psychology is bullshit, and so is most of your argument." You want to make up some fairy story about how "men were this way, and women were this way," call that historical fact, and then run with that, fine. You want to dismiss Rue's argument that maybe these so-called inborn traits are actually the result of socialization, okay. But I'm wasn't interested in seriously arguing, so I posted what I thought was a silly little graphic that, nevertheless, made my point about how flawed arguments like yours are. If I intended to insult you, I would have mentioned you by name.
And, seriously, why do you feel the need need to point out that, yes, you do actually have a girlfriend? If you really think I insulted you at such a sophomoric level, why would you think I cared if I was right or not?
Uhuh. So basically your point is you can't argue against what I said, so you thought you'd just strawman my argument, then insult me.
My argument is based off of scientific studies, which not a one of you have managed to refute beyond "they were done by men" and "people wore different clothes in the past!" and other irrelevant nonsense. I only went into our (actually true, no matter what way you cut it) evolutionary past to explain why these differences may have come about, and why they make sense given our evolutionary history. I didn't go into that in order to prove those differences exist, as far as I'm concerned the studies do that. I didn't make up a fairy tale to explain away some sexist comment, as you seem so desperate to fallaciously claim. That you may not be sharp enough to notice the difference between musing on why something came about, and making up fairy tales to support some random statement, is hardly my problem. Personally I don't need a silly graphic to point out how flawed your strawman of my argument is, nor to point out that just because you don't understand my argument, nor bothered to read it, doesn't make it flawed.
I'm sure if my argument was based around "evolutionary psychology" it would be bullshit, but since it isn't, since it's based on scientific studies, and your objections are based on you wanting the studies to say something different, we perhaps can take your objection as little more than fallacious whining.
Tell me, if you weren't interested in insulting me, why are you so pissed that I claim your insult isn't true?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think I'd remember.
Originally posted by yinyang:
Maybe you did other things that helped with your spatial functioning?
Oh, here's another, I never used instructions when making models as a teen.
Quote:I resist thinking I'm that special...
Maybe it's hardwired just for you, and it would be silly to generalize your situation to half the population?
Quote:I have too much anecdotal evidence to fully go that way.
Maybe brain science is still in its baby stages, so it's too early to tell if these types of things can even be hardwired or not?
Quote:It's never only one thing, IMO.
Maybe fully nature or fully nurture is too simplistic a perspective?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Well yes. One segment seems to be making the leap that it must be about Men belittling Women AGAIN. I could easily have talked about the things that Women prove to be better at and, hang on, I did do that. In fact I clearly said that Men and Women are of equal intelligence, but tend to excel at different areas of intelligence. So really there was no belittling, unless you decide you want to focus just on where I talked about things Men do better, and ignoring what Women do better. Seems to me that I'm not the one focusing on just one side of this issue.
I've only responded to what you've said to me. You're having multiple arguments here: I'm only one part of them. I have not brought up the parts where you've said men do something better or women do something better except in regards to what you have said to me.
All I am trying to point out is the potentially damaging nature of these reports. On one side, you have those who might use them to validate their belief in female inferiority. On the other side, you have the women who get up in arms about men hating on them, who then turn into man haters.
What is positive about any of this? How does this promote science or better the understanding of the human race or genders? By having people kick up dust storms and squabble, thus confusing the issue?
Why promote the viewpoints in the studies you have mentioned when they are damaging, and when psychological studies are so untrustworthy in the first place?
Too many variables. I truly do hate psychology, especially how everything gets touted around as the gods honest truth.
Quote:
Men and Women are different. I don't see how, objectively, pointing out those differences can possibly be considered belittling to either sex. Should I refrain from pointing out that Men have Penises and Women don't? I mean surely, pointing out that Men can pee standing up, and write their name in the snow, while Women can't, is surely belittling of Women, right?
...A little bit, yeah, but it depends on the context. Stating the fact isn't belittling, but the mocking nature in how you said that is.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
My argument is based off of scientific studies, which not a one of you have managed to refute beyond "they were done by men" and "people wore different clothes in the past!" and other irrelevant nonsense. I only went into our (actually true, no matter what way you cut it) evolutionary past to explain why these differences may have come about, and why they make sense given our evolutionary history. I didn't go into that in order to prove those differences exist, as far as I'm concerned the studies do that. I didn't make up a fairy tale to explain away some sexist comment, as you seem so desperate to fallaciously claim. That you may not be sharp enough to notice the difference between musing on why something came about, and making up fairy tales to support some random statement, is hardly my problem. Personally I don't need a silly graphic to point out how flawed your strawman of my argument is, nor to point out that just because you don't understand my argument, nor bothered to read it, doesn't make it flawed.
Studies promoting opposite views to the studies you speak of haven't been performed. How can we refute you with counter-examples then? I'm working with what I have. Specific examples, I don't have. I have logic, which may be flawed, and I have common sense, which may also be flawed. You'll have to forgive the crudeness of my arguments.
Doesn't it speak of a problem that these studies don't exist? Does that lack say anything about the people performing these studies?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Personally, to me, studies are useful as "pointers" only, tools to form hypotheses. I see that some things can be explained using them, like ADD & such. Such studies on men & womens brains have brought some measure of peace to myself & MrsIsall; they have helped us to understand my lack of multi-tasking ability as they apply to passing on that different friends & relatives called while she was out- she can easily random access in her mind all manner of stuff, while my mind works like a train on a track. We have forgiven each other that we are so hindered by being male/female in certain areas.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I truly do hate psychology, especially how everything gets touted around as the gods honest truth.
It used to be "If you cared, you'd......."
Now it's "Okay, that's how your brain works..."
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Re nature versus nurture:
When I was growing up, I had no need to be physically strong. What's more, I admired my skinny arms and legs as pretty and feminine. At some later point in life I discovered sports and got into being strong, and actually tried to put on muscle weight. I was no nut about it, but I did work out, tried to eat plenty of protein, and did pull-ups or whatever when I had the chance. It was always there in the background, this desire to be strong. And I got a bit bulky.
To generalize and follow the pressures of society:
Young girls live in the first state. They don't want more muscle, because they then they wouldn't look "feminine." I know women who refuse to take up skating because they might build thigh muscle. Eek!
Young boys live in the second state. It is considered MALE to be muscular, so boys and young men tend to be more active, eat more, and fill out. Even if it's not the point of their lives, it's always there in the background. It's where they want to go.
Our entire exercise industry is built around this - just look at what is marketed to men versus women: men must build bulk, women must build lean definition. If that was just the natural course that our bodies had no choice but to take, why would it need to be marketed this way? Why would our workouts be different? Why would our diets be different?
My point: Suppose a woman decides that she wants muscle and spends the same amount of time in the gym as the average male athletic type, doing similar workouts, and eats a similar diet. There are some idiots out there who will yammer away about how she is not feminine. This is completely bogus. The yammerheads need to redefine word "feminine" to include her and her choice of lifestyle, I say. Because she's a woman, and that's how she looks. Deal with it.
I believe the same exact thing is behind this myth that men are better at "spatial" thought. Fuck that. It's an absolute myth created by what is and isn't considered "feminine" behavior. I work at a school where academic prowess is the top goal, and these young woman who have always been encouraged to use their heads - for science and engineering if they choose - are every bit as capable as the young men.
And I'm every bit as capable as my male counterpart. In fact, we both have PhDs from a very honorable institution, and we both do "spatial thought" extremely well. And believe me, I'm very much a woman in the more "standard" ways.
So, Citizen, how about you actually post that data you're speaking of so those of us who are good at science can tear it up, hmm? Because - duh! - of course there are differences between male and female, but when you take it here:
"My general point was that Men and Women are physically and mentally different, and that those differences are by no means irrelevant. They lead to more Women wanting to be nurses, while more Men want to be surgeons."
You are just so very, extremely, beyond belief wrong.
Maybe you need to work on those logic skills, son. 
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
These studies, no offense or anything, but they remind me of racial studies performed in the 1940s. Or homosexual studies.
We focus so much on ability, the minor things that divide us. Who's better at what, who's worse at what. Then, who's BETTER, who's WORSE.
I'd rather sidestep all of that ugliness and say, with conviction, that I think all of us are more alike than we are different.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I find that to be sexy.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
My point: Suppose a woman decides that she wants muscle and spends the same amount of time in the gym as the average male athletic type, doing similar workouts, and eats a similar diet.
I am so lost in this society.....
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not pissed, Citizen, I'm amused. You think you can just say "my argument is based off science" and that makes you right. Until 1973, homosexuality was listed in the DSM printed by the AMA. It was a fact that the dinosaurs were cold-blooded... until it was overturned. Science can be wrong, scientists can be wrong, and I don't think we have enough evidence or can leave our biases out of the area of sexual dimorphism well enough yet.
Or, maybe I'm wrong. But, right now, I just don't think that all the science on sexual dimorphism is sound, especially when it comes to the brain, which we still know so little about. And any story about humans that predates written records is a fairy story, and therefore not necessarily right - I don't care if an anthropologist tells the story, or if you do.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think you may be missing the more important (IMO) WHYS that can get answered in such studies.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
We focus so much on how everyone is so different. Who's better at what, who's worse at what. Then, who's BETTER, who's WORSE.
Just sayin'.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Double double
toil & troubles,
'puter hiccupped
& my post doubles.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:He can say that as long as he doesn't actually have to talk about the science itself, is what I think.
Originally posted by yinyang:
I'm not pissed, Citizen, I'm amused. You think you can just say "my argument is based off science" and that makes you right.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The why's become subverted, hence the leap following these studies to the unceasing arguments about who is better.
I find it frustrating and needless. It is not illuminating anything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
It's never only one thing, IMO.
Okay. That's all I wanted. There's no need for me to continue this discussion.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Chris, meant to ask:
So, it's the weirdness of men attracted to men that got you starting this thread. You discussed how females look so lovely to you, and that's nice and all. But do you ever wonder how woman can be attracted to men when you aren't? Why is it only men attracted to men that is beyond your understanding?
Can you see that there might be an assumption and a bias in that?
ETA: I've had my own thoughts along these lines, is why I ask. Just wanted to hear your own thoughts first.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I just don't understand how studies that show women's dexterity to be generally superior or their spacial perception to be generally inferior to be faked or 'bad science'...are evil sexist male scientists picking test subjects that test poorly to test on the MAIN test that gets published to slant the conclusions to keep women down?
Originally posted by mal4prez:
It's an absolute myth created by what is and isn't considered "feminine" behavior.
Know what? MY reflexes were inferior to my karate class friend mentioned above, and I worked DAMN hard at improving them. Never got as good as she was, but I DID improve them.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not "weirdness," more like the unflavoured-tofu-ness. Just like, why? I feel like the flavour is in the differences.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
So, it's the weirdness of men attracted to men that got you starting this thread.
Quote:I just thank God they are, for my sake.
But do you ever wonder how woman can be attracted to men when you aren't?
Quote:I kinda feel (and don't hold me to this, my beliefs are subject to change here) that since both man and woman are born of woman, that it's more 'natural' for a higher level of same-sex interest to manifest on the part of women, and that women would have a much higher recognized percentage of bisexuality were it not for suppression due to social stigma.
Why is it only men attracted to men that is beyond your understanding?
There, totally intuition based, non scientific, and ready to be discarded should conflicting reasonable scientific (or simply logical) data come to my attention.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It's not so much evil scientists, and more not thinking outside the box for their explanations. They're just assuming that their results represent a natural state... When, in our modern world, humanity is in anything BUT a natural state.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I just don't understand how studies that show women's dexterity to be generally superior or their spacial perception to be generally inferior to be faked or 'bad science'...are evil sexist male scientists picking test subjects that test poorly to test on the MAIN test that gets published to slant the conclusions to keep women down?
Clearly, if there were more pirates, global warming wouldn't be a problem.
Do you see what I'm getting at? It might take superior logic skills to make the connection...
Yes, and now I'm just being a bitch.
Sorry. Situation called for it.Anyhoo - I'm not trying to say there aren't gender differences. Of course there are. Women tend to be smaller, so if you're looking for the smallest people in the world to do the wiring on Cray supercomputers, you'll hire women. (Which the Cray people did.) If you want to beat the StrongMan champion and thrown more heavy barrels over the high bar, you'll need to be a man. Check.
But when some schmoe waves his hand at some science study (without including any specifics) and says that that this pseudo-science defines MY desires in life, (I must want to be a nurse, not a surgeon, because I have no penis!) you bet I'm gonna tear him a new one.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
There actually have been studies to suggest that all women can become aroused by witnessing any sort of sexual encounter, be it heterosexual or same sex... Whereas men can only be aroused by witnessing an encounter from their stated orientation.
Of course, that's also one of the studies that I find suspect...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Is "unnatural" the new "natural"?
Originally posted by Bytemite:
in our modern world, humanity is in anything BUT a natural state.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:How could pirate population possibly...
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Clearly, if there were more pirates, global warming wouldn't be a problem.
LOL, okay, how to lie (or be mistaken with) with statistics.
Quote:I understand your POV here. I have always though of the psychological & medical sciences as works in progress, myself.
But when some schmoe waves his hand at some science study (without including any specifics) and says that that this pseudo-science defines MY desires in life, (I must want to be a nurse, not a surgeon, because I have no penis!) you bet I'm gonna tear him a new one.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, yeah, isn't that the whole problem, what I've been saying? Society = unnatural? So isn't it kind of odd to measure the potential of an entire gender when you got such a lot of interference clouding it all, and then declare it natural?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Jayne's "Bunk" comment says that study is misleading.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Whereas men can only be aroused by witnessing an encounter from their stated orientation.
Of course, that's also one of the studies that I find suspect...
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Ooh, yup. The study just talks about men and their orientation. There is kind of a prevalence of girl on girl fantasizing among the male population, isn't there? Good catch! I hadn't thought of that.
I mostly found it suspect again because of social norms. A lot of guys are encouraged to be homophobic, because that's a "masculine" trait. Not so much with girls.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I believe the thinking is that you can peel away the surface, the artificial societal engrams, and examine the 'natural' mind, then place that analysis back into the larger context later.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Well, yeah, isn't that the whole problem, what I've been saying? Society = unnatural? So isn't it kind of odd to measure the potential of an entire gender when you got such a lot of interference clouding it all?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
There actually have been studies to suggest that all women can become aroused by witnessing any sort of sexual encounter, be it heterosexual or same sex... Whereas men can only be aroused by witnessing an encounter from their stated orientation.
I defy you to find a handful of men who don't get set to pop at the mere thought of two women together.
[/sig]
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Not "weirdness," more like the unflavoured-tofu-ness. Just like, why? I feel like the flavour is in the differences.
Originally posted by mal4prez:
So, it's the weirdness of men attracted to men that got you starting this thread.Quote:I just thank God they are, for my sake.
But do you ever wonder how woman can be attracted to men when you aren't?Quote:I kinda feel (and don't hold me to this, my beliefs are subject to change here) that since both man and woman are born of woman, that it's more 'natural' for a higher level of same-sex interest to manifest on the part of women, and that women would have a much higher recognized percentage of bisexuality were it not for suppression due to social stigma.
Why is it only men attracted to men that is beyond your understanding?
There, totally intuition based, non scientific, and ready to be discarded should conflicting reasonable scientific (or simply logical) data come to my attention.
OK, we're much in agreement. Sort of. I think. Except I see it as more due to social pressure than womb comfort levels or whatever.
I've noted recently (My workplace is extremely interested in diversity and there have been plenty of discussions about this lately) that woman have more freedom than men. Women can be "masculine", can put on muscle (I thank women's soccer and basketball for making this cool) and still be sexy women. We can wear baggie pants and spit and swear and be "guyish" and still be ok. In most places anyway. I won't speak for Texas.
But men can't cross that line. When's the last time you saw a man wearing a skirt? Why is it not OK for a man to wear a skirt?
(Personally, I saw men at a hippie gathering wearing skirts and no shirts and I thought it extremely sexy. But we've already established that I'm outside the norm, right?
)OK, so I'm a dancer. I go to dance concerts, and I've long been aware that I watch the female dancers. I just like their lines better. I think the female body is absolutely beautiful. But when it comes to sex - whoa! So not into women LOL! I totally share your sense of gratitude that men are into women, because I'm just so... not!
Yep, genetics have got to play into that. But there's no hard rule. Some women like women. Some men like men.
And this does happen in nature. This is the thing about science that makes me crazy: scientists see macaco monkies being homo and write it in their notebooks as "abnormal." Then they come home to write up reports, cross-reference all their observations of "normal", and all they see in their notebooks is hetero. Duh!
Biases are powerful things.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But that's really hard, Chris, when those societal norms and expectations are recorded unconsciously into all our behaviours and assumptions.
How do you separate from those when you're not aware of being under their influence?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I wanna see a study that correlates the instance of breastfeeding & bisexuality of females. My theory is that the closeness of mothering creates a more natural environment for female to female eroticism. And what of the boomers that were TOLD breastfeeding was BAD for babies & switched to formulas- did that generation wind up with the fewest bisexual (or potentially so) females ever?
Maybe I can get a grant....
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh! I saw a guy in a long black velvet skirt a month or two ago and I thought he looked great!
True it doesn't happen very often, though. it's too bad. People should be allowed to be whatever they wanna be. Well, so long as what they wanna be isn't a murderous cannibal rapist or something.
I myself think there would some higher percentages of bisexuality in general without all the social stigmas. I think it's likely there's a bell curve to it, with most people falling at various spots on the 'attracted to both' part of the curve. It could go from simply recognizing a member of the same sex as attractive without active interest in touching them, to having the same reaction to members of the opposite sex, and everything in between. Could just be because I'm pretty firmly in between, but it makes a certain statistical sense to me.
Just my opinion. I have angered a few people who thought I must be implying that they were repressed bisexuals or even (*gasp!*) homosexuals. In at least one case the girl was bi and came out several years later, but that's probably moot. [/sig]
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:LOL! I've seen grants given for much less...
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Maybe I can get a grant....
I was breastfed for a good long time. Still not into women.
ETA: PR, I think you're right. I think there is an attraction at all levels, both ways, but it's so suppressed. More so in men, sadly. I don't think it does them any good. Harms them, even.
-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My mother fed me formula, not because of the encouragement to switch from formula, but because she had a ginormous brain tumour surgery and a hysterectomy right after I was born. She was given a blood transplant, heard about an AIDS infected batch, and despite assurances that breastmilk couldn't carry AIDS, she decided to take the precaution. Later it did turn out that milk was a vector (though she never got AIDS, thankfully).
...I kind of wonder too, Chris. Maybe that's why I have personal space and touching issues. Genes are a nice explanation, but while I included the nonsexual, they don't really fit anywhere that makes sense in my proposed evolutionary history of gender roles.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Umm...become aware?
Originally posted by Bytemite:
How do you separate from those when you're not aware of being under their influence?
When I was a lad, I used to observe behaviour around me & leave in the gutter that which I believed to be useless or self-defeating (not always so successfully, I totally bought into the man-must-have-muscles thing), and this left me with VERY few friends. As I learned, half of making friends is pretending that most peeps are not mindless sheep under the complete control of the advertising industry.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
Oh! I saw a guy in a long black velvet skirt a month or two ago and I thought he looked great!
True it doesn't happen very often, though.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Tiny doesn't mean irrelevant. It means that they are there and noticable, but they do not encompass the entirety of the ability.
No, it suggests it, the same way my statements apparently suggest that Women have no spacial awareness
I do not mean that you intend to say this, obviously, but words have great power, especially on children who learn about gender roles from the world around them through absorbing details like this unconsciously.
Why do you find it so unlikely that calling traits "male" or "female" has an effect on motivation and and opportunity, unrelated to mere biological aptitude?
Quote:
I don't think the differences are as small as you claim across the board. I'm not dismissing the role societal expectations play, I'm saying that the differences would remain without them.
And where did I imply that it wouldn't?
My only point is that your choice of words - and the social training involved in using them - artificially increases this difference through means of social pressure, essentially.
And I think it's safe to assume that the amount of skill-advantage that men have over women based on biology only would be small when compared to the skill overlap.
And more men may be mathematicians, but how many men ARE mathematicians? Slightly larger natural aptitude or not, saying "maths are a male skill" does diminish the women who use mathematics on the same level of most men every day, in business, in science.
Let's use an illustrative example.
You have two ice skaters. Good ice skaters. Professional ice skaters. One is better than the other. So ice skating is only the skill of the better one??
Maths are a human skill. Not a male skill.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think infants and children learn social norms like they learn language. I think it's a bit different than embracing fads, no offense. Good that you resisted the crowd. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Citizen -
"There's clear sexual dimorphism within the human species ..."
But that dimorphism is relatively insignificant in the context of the animal world. http://www.pnas.org/content/100/16/9103.full.pdf "Humans today display relatively limited sexual dimorphism (15%) (my calculation works out to 7%), whereas some of the other hominoids (gorillas and orangutans) are highly dimorphic (50%)." The average US male is 5'9", the average female 5'4" (a difference of 5", or diff/ mean = 7.5%) with a standard deviation of 2.5". We are talking of a difference of a mere 5". Furthermore, because of population distribution, roughly 34% of all women will be taller than 34% of men. This is not such a large difference that one would expect much significance.
"... muscle mass ... nerve endings in the skin ... clotting factors in their blood ... more red blood cells aiding physical endurance ... more white blood cells and b lymphocytes... There's numerous physical differences between men and Women that are a matter of scientific fact, not just societal expectation."
To clear a few items off the list - if women did not menstruate, their 'normal' level of red blood cells would be identical to men's. Young girls have the same number as boys (assuming they are given the same diet. There are societies that deprive girl children in preference to boys). Menopausal women have the same number as men their age. And when menstruating women are supplemented with adequate iron, they have as many as men. So, red blood cell numbers are not the significant inborn biological marker with the biological meaning you think they are. The same is true for white blood cells - by carrying children women are exposed to more foreign antigens (the fetus), leading to an increased expression of white blood cells (and, it is theorized, responsible for the far higher levels of autoimmune disease in women). And some differences, where they exist, are of minor significance. For example, the difference in pain perception between men and women is, on the average, 0.5 to 1 C. While some consider this of moderate significance (at most), for all practical purposes it results in very little actual differences. Would you argue that the increased sensitivity to pain would make women unequipped for childbirth ? I'm guessing the answer is no.
So, while "There's numerous physical differences between men and women that are a matter of scientific fact, not just societal expectation", it turns out that there is a very large overlap between men and women, and these differences are at most small.
"Men have more Grey matter, where as Women have more White. Grey matter is thought to be 'thinking' material, and White matter is thought to be connecting material."
The significance of this, though isn't known. One outcome appears to be that women recover better from a stroke than men as they can tap into other areas of the brain to perform the compromised functions - better connect across brain halves. Other than that, I know of no significance to the observation.
But you don't let that stop you, you carry on to further unsupported territory even farther afield ...
"Men excel at spatial acuity (seeing objects in 3D, and being able to mentally rotate them to 'see' them from other sides)." And yet, given training, men and women perform equally well at tasks requiring those visualization skills, arguing that the differences are due to learning, not genetics.
"Men have a more 'systematizing' intelligence ... which means Men tend to make better mathematicians, scientists and Engineers ..." Except, where women have the same opportunities than men. And suddenly that supposed inborn difference goes away. And despite the fact that I provided evidence that when women were not expected to be able to be doctors, there were no female doctors, or when they were not expected to be able to be engineers there were no female engineers, and when poor people were not expected to be able to be scientists, there were no commoner scientists, you dismiss these examples as not bei
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But it's a more hard-to-fully-grasp thing than language, a more life-intensive thing, more fluid, IMO.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I think infants and children learn social norms like they learn language.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But no less essential for them to start to learn, and learn early, for them to be functional within society and their families.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But you girls suck at this:
Originally posted by rue:
"Women also are better at multi-tasking ..." Not true ... http://clearinghouse.missouriwestern.edu/manuscripts/520.php
Quote:
From this test Stumpf concluded that males perform better at mental rotations.
*Does the Snoopy Dance*
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:You know anybody that really is that? LOL, I sure don't.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
for them to be functional within society and their families.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I dunno, I'm actually pretty decent at sculpture. I love working with clay, and I've made what I think are some nice statues of animals, mythological creatures, and people. I mean, they impressed my professor in college, so that's good, right?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"But you girls suck at this: 'From this test Stumpf concluded that males perform better at mental rotations.'"
But is that due to inborn differences, or differences in upbringing / expectations ?
HHhhmmmm ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I don't know anyone who doesn't try. At least when they're younger. Teenage years are kind of iffy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I guess it is, but some pictures of your work would help me give a more precise answer.
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I dunno, I'm actually pretty decent at sculpture. I love working with clay, and I've made what I think are some nice statues of animals, mythological creatures, and people. I mean, they impressed my professor in college, so that's good, right?
The non sequitur acknowledging Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I've only responded to what you've said to me. You're having multiple arguments here: I'm only one part of them. I have not brought up the parts where you've said men do something better or women do something better except in regards to what you have said to me.
I'm aware of that, but what you initially responded to was far more even handed, and far more about the idea that Men and Women are equal but different, than you give credit too. By focusing solely on the one thing I said Men performed better at, and ignoring the rest of my argument, you have put a far more biased slant on it than there ever actually was in my statements.
I take exception to your statements indicating I'm belittling Women when I'm doing nothing of the sort. I'm pointing out differences, and talking about how those differences may manifest. That also expecting every profession to be a 50-50 representative split, and seeing that as equality, is just as bad as thinking some professions are just for Women, and some are just for Men.
Quote:
...A little bit, yeah, but it depends on the context. Stating the fact isn't belittling, but the mocking nature in how you said that is.
Yeah, I was being belittling, of the idea that pointing out differences between Men and Women is belittling. Though I was actually going for more humorous, but never mind, there seems to be a gap in humour between us all, YinYang thought posting something that claimed I was a sad sexist undergraduate that can't get laid was silly and funny, so perhaps we can take it as read that the various attempts at humour are falling flat all round at the moment.
I was belittling the idea, not you, and certainly not Women in general, so I really don't get what your problem is with what I said in that regard. In fact the idea that Women are so fragile and so in need of help that we can't point out they're different to Men would seem to be what is belittling.
Homosexuality seems pretty solidly genetic from the evidence. But I've heard some people claim that since it's genetic we can see it as a genetic disease. I don't get that logic at all, but then I don't get the logic that sees saying there's differences between Men and Women is belittling to Women. Should the fact that some people are going to take the science in support of their twisted agenda mean we should ban it from being studied or discussed because it might be dangerous? Erm nope, I don't think so, because then we'd have to ban everything. Eugenics, which in it's most vicious and twisted form became the holocaust, took evolution as it's legitimacy. If we're worried what some crazed twisted fanatic will do with science, we can't study anything.
Quote:
Studies promoting opposite views to the studies you speak of haven't been performed. How can we refute you with counter-examples then? I'm working with what I have. Specific examples, I don't have. I have logic, which may be flawed, and I have common sense, which may also be flawed. You'll have to forgive the crudeness of my arguments.
Doesn't it speak of a problem that these studies don't exist? Does that lack say anything about the people performing these studies?
Well, that's a strange argument. Scientific studies aren't supposed to set out to support certain views you know. That's not actually how it works, so the fact that someone hasn't produced a study that tells you what you want to hear, doesn't tell us anything about the people doing the studies, actually. As I see it the only way you could come to the conclusion you have done, that the studies must have been done by biased people looking to push their biases, is if you already thought that, and use any evidence to support what you already 'know'. Or, to put it another way, it seems you're doing exactly what you accuse them of doing.
Perhaps they did the studies well and objectively, and this happens to be where the evidence leads? I don't get where this assumption that science isn't being done well until two sets of 'scienti
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not mine...
Originally posted by citizen:
so perhaps we can take it as read that the various attempts at humour are falling flat all round at the moment.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"Maybe it's hardwired?
I just remembered- when I was 10, I made pistol phasers out of cardboard by drawing out the entire unfolded schematic on a box, cutting it out, folding it into position & taping it together, never having done it before. My friends were impressed how it managed it, I really didn't consider it much back then.
Your male friends ? Maybe it's just an individual talent !
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You said rotations, right?
I do manga/comic book sorts of drawings too. I have to know what characters look like and be able to rotate them so they look like the same character from the back, front, and profile.
I actually posted an example of that on my log just today... On the main page of this site... The characters of Firefly...
Does that count?
The only one who I don't think is perfectly rotated is Inara, but it's just her hair, and I kind of changed the style between drawing her face front-on and drawing her profile. Oh, and River, but I'm working on her hair issue too.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When I was in elementary school, I used to cut shapes out of paper and make them into three dimensional dinosaurs, without any patterns or anything.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Why do you find it so unlikely that calling traits "male" or "female" has an effect on motivation and and opportunity, unrelated to mere biological aptitude?
...
My only point is that your choice of words - and the social training involved in using them - artificially increases this difference through means of social pressure, essentially.
Ok, my personal terse use of language is responsible for the social pressure on men and women, despite the fact that what my use of language seemed to imply to you, was certainly not what I meant, can we perhaps move on now please?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
I'm not pissed, Citizen, I'm amused. You think you can just say "my argument is based off science" and that makes you right.
And I'm amused that you think you can know what I think, even when you clearly haven't even bothered to read my posts. So I shoot down your first strawman, so you immediately construct another? That's fast work! My statements about being based off of scientific studies, was refuting your claims that my argument was based off of nothing other than a fairy tale, when clearly it was based off of the findings of scientific studies. I never claimed that it being science makes me right, I just said that I wasn't making the argument you claimed I was. I suggest you refrain from telling me what I think, you clearly aren't very good at it
.Quote:
Science can be wrong, scientists can be wrong, and I don't think we have enough evidence or can leave our biases out of the area of sexual dimorphism well enough yet.
Hmm, I don't remember saying it couldn't be. Science does require evidence, and if the evidence goes another way science changes course. That's a strength of science, one religious fanatics often try to portray as a flaw. But arguing from the evidence doesn't automatically make me right, but it doesn't give you the right to make shit up either. I never once claimed that it being science proves I'm right, but it does mean I'm arguing from evidence, and you're arguing from where you wish the evidence went.
Quote:
And any story about humans that predates written records is a fairy story, and therefore not necessarily right - I don't care if an anthropologist tells the story, or if you do.
Uhuh, and since all you've managed to bring to this discussion so far, are lies about what I said and personal insults, forgive me if I don't take your council on what good arguments are, and what constitutes a fairy tale.
Not to mention that Hunter Gather societies still exist today, but hey if some evidence doesn't go the way you want, it's just a fairy tale, right.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
Why do you find it so unlikely that calling traits "male" or "female" has an effect on motivation and and opportunity, unrelated to mere biological aptitude?
...
My only point is that your choice of words - and the social training involved in using them - artificially increases this difference through means of social pressure, essentially.
Ok, my personal terse use of language is responsible for the social pressure on men and women, despite the fact that what my use of language seemed to imply to you, was certainly not what I meant, can we perhaps move on now please?
So you can sarcastically overstate my point but not give a real response. Thanks.
Do you entirely disagree with the fact that such language has an effect, or do you not? I'm really curious, because your reaction implies that you think it's ridiculous. And I really don't think it is, because that's what shapes childrens minds, whether you like it or not.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
In psychology, there's contradictions and competing schools of thought EVERYWHERE. I was pointing out that in this one field, it's strange how there isn't.
Ideally, the scientific method slowly making progress and eliminating ideas while promoting more correct ones is how science should be... Psychology is not an ideal school of science, however.
The only time I said you were being belittling is your comment about peeing standing up. Although, the comment about thinking women are fragile just because we don't like having differences pointed out that might suggest we're inferior...?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So you can sarcastically overstate my point but not give a real response. Thanks.
Do you entirely disagree with the fact that such language has an effect, or do you not? I'm really curious, because your reaction implies that you think it's ridiculous. And I really don't think it is, because that's what shapes childrens minds, whether you like it or not.
I think I'm bored of having every single statement I make taken out of context, and having people claim I'm saying things I'm not. Thanks.
I rather doubt, given the context that the statements originally came in, that they foster what you claim. If that language was used continually in a different context then maybe, but in the context it did appear in, yes I think it's ridiculous.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The only time I said you were being belittling is your comment about peeing standing up. Although, the comment about thinking women are fragile just because we don't like having differences pointed out that might suggest we're inferior...?
Yes, I was suggesting that your statements suggest inferiority. I'm not suggesting Women are inferior, I'm suggesting that you are suggesting that.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
So you can sarcastically overstate my point but not give a real response. Thanks.
Do you entirely disagree with the fact that such language has an effect, or do you not? I'm really curious, because your reaction implies that you think it's ridiculous. And I really don't think it is, because that's what shapes childrens minds, whether you like it or not.
I think I'm bored of having every single statement I make taken out of context, and having people claim I'm saying things I'm not. Thanks.
I rather doubt, given the context that the statements originally came in, that they foster what you claim. If that language was used continually in a different context then maybe, but in the context it did appear in, yes I think it's ridiculous.
I'm confused what you think I'm claiming you said. I wasn't saying anything about your intentions. I can only assume that the thread in general has made you defensive.
I think there is a sense of dismissal inherent in referring to entire skill sets as male or female, like you did, even in the context you used it in. AND I think that such language and the accompanying attitude are more prevalant than you think, and have greater psychological effect than you want to admit. Be that an offending or a discouraging effect.
But since you're feeling so defensive now, I'll leave it alone.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not feeling defensive as I think you're being too anal about all this ( dear lord, please do forgive the pun ) 
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, Citizen. I apologize for posting that bingo link, and for the strawmen. I'm sorry for not making myself clearer - it seemed to me that you were saying "it's science, so I'm right," and stories about humans that pre-date writing seem to me to be fairy stories. I shouldn't have gotten involved with your argument because I'm not really interested in going back and forth over this subject. I fully admit that I could be wrong, and that my biases could be misleading me; sexual dimorphism could be as significant as it seems you're saying.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Briefly - I think the problem with these studies people are trying to get at is that - you see what you look for. Way back when, when the Germans (and British) were first developing the study of animal behavior, social Darwinism was at it's height. The idea of 'alpha' males went hand-in-glove with the prevailing social constructs. And the scientists went out and by gosh ! they found those alpha males everywhere. There were all sorts of rationales offered up - they were the fittest and the best at cornering females - as the best they were likely to pass on their genes - there were direct lines drawn between an individual's physical prowess and evolution.
Turns out - it wasn't true. While some species do have select males that mate, other species that appear to have alpha males have just as much (or more) mating done by the non-alpha males. (Makes me wonder why the alphas bother.) And other species have no alpha males at all.
Because, not only does 'sterility negate virility', the number of offspring that SURVIVE to reproduce is most important. Physical contests between males are a way of reducing the male load on resources that are more essential to the females and young. Not at selecting the fittest.
You have to be careful what you look for - and especially careful about what you assume.
Anyway - enough for today.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
I'm not feeling defensive as I think you're being too anal about all this ( dear lord, please do forgive the pun )
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think I was talking to citizen here...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AgentRouka:
But since you're feeling so defensive now, I'll leave it alone.
Well please forgive me for that, and if I lashed out at you unjustly, but I do feel like I've been attacked on all sides here. Not that my argument has been, but that I, personally have been. Seems that way to me. Ok so some things may have just been in jest, and I'm taking them too seriously, but from the outset I had one thing to say, and ever since it feels like that one thing has been pushed to the side while people have been taking me to task for completely irrelevant factors, which may be interesting or important topics but weren't what I was talking about.
So I'm sorry, to all, if I've come across as too defensive, but so far I've seen a lot of personal comments directed at me, and a lot of claims of what I've said, that I simply haven't (like for instance bitemite's continued insistence that I'm suggesting Women are inferior because I'm saying they have different skill sets to men). I really have no idea where a lot of that is coming from.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Suppose a woman decides that she wants muscle and spends the same amount of time in the gym as the average male athletic type, doing similar workouts, and eats a similar diet.
Well, I believe such things have and are done. I'm well aware that there are female body builders, in fact. They're are Women that are stronger
Quote:
I believe the same exact thing is behind this myth that men are better at "spatial" thought. Fuck that. It's an absolute myth created by what is and isn't considered "feminine" behavior. I work at a school where academic prowess is the top goal, and these young woman who have always been encouraged to use their heads - for science and engineering if they choose - are every bit as capable as the young men.
Actually it's based on Men and Women taking the same test for spatial awareness. You can find the same sort of things on IQ tests. It's not a "myth" (as in completely made up) at all.
And frankly you're making the same arguments I've already argued against a dozen times. A number of times I've said it's a trend, which means that it's perfectly possible for individual Women to be as good or better than Men at something Men tend to be better at.
Quote:
You are just so very, extremely, beyond belief wrong.
Maybe you need to work on those logic skills, son.
And you have evidence to back up that the same number of Women as Men want to be Surgeons?
Maybe you need to work on those logic and argument skills, because last I checked saying "I don't agree with that, so that makes you completely wrong and also incapable of thinking logically" isn't much of a logical argument.
Honestly I don't know what is so controversial about suggesting Humans are a sexual dimorphic species, or why that could possibly be so offensive. This whole thing feels like Monty Pythons life of Brian when Stan announces he wants to be a Woman because he wants to have babies. Maybe, just maybe there are inherent differences between the sexes, and that's nobodies fault not even the Romans. I mean sexual dimorphism is so prevalent in our closest primate relatives, and becomes greater the larger the species, it seems silly to be shocked that Humans, one of the largest of the Great Apes, are the only Apes that don't exhibit any sexual dimorphism.
Quote:
So, Citizen, how about you actually post that data you're speaking of so those of us who are good at science can tear it up, hmm?
Let me get to that tomorrow because it's nearly 2am and I need to get to sleep.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"I mean sexual dimorphism is so prevalent in our closest primate relatives, and becomes greater the larger the species, it seems silly to be shocked that Humans, one of the largest of the Great Apes, are the only Apes that don't exhibit any sexual dimorphism."
You apparently missed my post on sexual dimorphism, and its relative insignificance in modern humans (10%) as compared to gorillas (50%) and orangutans.
Here, read this - http://www.pnas.org/content/100/16/9103.full.pdf
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My concern was that there might be an implication that "different skill sets" means "things women can't do."
But, I'll take you at face value when you say that you did not intend to imply and do not believe women are inferior.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
You apparently missed my post on sexual dimorphism, and its relative insignificance in modern humans (10%) as compared to gorillas (50%) and orangutans.
Here, read this - http://www.pnas.org/content/100/16/9103.full.pdf
Well to be honest Rue, I've not bothered to read much of what you've posted lately on the thread, and frankly for good reasons. Those being that: you started out being unwarrantedly personal straight away; you happily post about scientific studies that support you, and act, just like here, as if that's an end to the matter, while studies that don't support you "well they're just going out to find what they want to find". You've ignored fully half (at least) of what I said, and claimed that due to this abridged version of my argument, I was fully disproved.
Now here you misrepresent your own source, because firstly it says ~15% dimorphic, not 10% as you claim. Secondly, 15% dimorphism (or 10% for that matter) is far from insignificant, the article claims relatively limited, but presumably that's compared to Gorillas with their >50% sexual dimorphism. Lastly I can only assume you haven't read the whole text, since this source, which you seem to post to refute what I said, actually supports my statements. I said that the Great Apes show a trend to increasing sexual dimorphism with size, and that I would find it a rather striking conincidence if, just as societal pressures were moving toward the idea that it's bad to notice that there might be any differences between Men and Women (an idea I find completely illogical), that Humans turned out to be the only Ape with no Sexual Dimorphism.
As it turns out, my case all along has been that Humans are Sexually Dimorphic, a case I seem to have to defend throughout. Perhaps posting a source that says humans are ~15% sexually dimorphic, isn't the best way to dismiss my claim that Humans are sexually dimorphic, because stop me here, but it seems you rather helped prove my case.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
My concern was that there might be an implication that "different skill sets" means "things women can't do."
But, I'll take you at face value when you say that you did not intend to imply and do not believe women are inferior.
Surely, even if I meant it to be interpreted in such absolute terms, it also means "things men can't do."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yes, I am friends with a body builder. She got on those ESPN top 5 competitions and won her region. She's BIG! Certainly stronger than many men - she bench presses 225. Interestingly, her ex-husband had almost exactly the same build, as far as height and general size, but he benched a whole whole lot more (I forget how much exactly). Genetic difference right there.
Originally posted by citizen:Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Suppose a woman decides that she wants muscle and spends the same amount of time in the gym as the average male athletic type, doing similar workouts, and eats a similar diet.
Well, I believe such things have and are done. I'm well aware that there are female body builders, in fact. They're are Women that are stronger
But look at the social difference: both of these people have maxed out their muscle building potential, and while that's easily accepted as gender-normal behavior in him, it's often called abnormal in her. I've talked to her about what she has to deal with in daily life (though few people say anything to her face LOL!)
I explain this so I can make an analogy to to those studies of gender behavior in nature that Rue talked about. (It's really a shame you didn't read her posts, citizen) Science types may do studies to show that my friend is not properly being a woman, since she may stop her menstrual cycle when she has no body fat and therefore can't get pregnant. But these scientists would completely ignore changes in her ex-husband's physical processes that may also mess with his ability to procreate. The scientists could be biased by thinking alpha male behavior is simply the norm, so they don't even look into it.
Quote:Do you get the point of the pirates versus global warming figure I posted? It was in response to this point exactly. I guess you didn't get the message.
Actually it's based on Men and Women taking the same test for spatial awareness. You can find the same sort of things on IQ tests. It's not a "myth" (as in completely made up) at all.
Correlation does not mean causation.
Do you see? Sure, a study may have found that men outscored women. Okay. But then you take the step of drawing a conclusion: women genetically aren't capable, and actually don't *want* to be capable. To that I must cry bullshit.
If some schmoe gave a test to a few white kids at fancy schools and then to a few black kids in the projects, and published a report claiming that whites are genetically more intelligent than blacks, what would you make of that?
Which is why I ask that you post these actual studies, or links to them, rather than just say "There was this study that said..." Frankly, I'd much rather tear into that study than tear into your logic skills, but you're leaving me no choice.
Quote:You're still missing the point. See my argument above. Re-read what you're actually posted - all of it, not just the dimorphism part. Think about those pirates.
And frankly you're making the same arguments I've already argued against a dozen times. A number of times I've said it's a trend, which means that it's perfectly possible for individual Women to be as good or better than Men at something Men tend to be better at.
Quote:Do you have evidence of the opposite? Other than vague hand waves at some study you saw once?
And you have evidence to back up that the same number of Women as Men want to be Surgeons?
I have much personal experience: women who were told that they had to be teachers or nurses. One women in particular, when she was old enough to learn that she could make her own damned choices, went back to college in her 40s to major in physics while raising two kids. She wanted to be a specialist - she was into MRI - rather than a nurse.
I've seen women come into a high-ranking engineering school fully funded to do grad work, but no professor in the all-male department would work with them. The male profs choose to work with male students, even if they had to find funding. (This happ
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
Genetic difference right there.
Or, in other words, one of the comments I made about Sexual Dimorphism in the species, that you and others argued against, turns out to have some weight to it.
Quote:
I explain this so I can make an analogy to to those studies of gender behavior in nature that Rue talked about. (It's really a shame you didn't read her posts, citizen)
I ignore much of what Rue posted, because much of what Rue posted was just personal attacks, sexist comments about my ability to think because I'm a man, and a lot of "if I don't agree with it, we can just ignore it". When Rue stops distorting and ignoring what I actually said, I'll consider returning the favour.
Quote:
Science types may do studies to show that my friend is not properly being a woman, since she may stop her menstrual cycle when she has no body fat and therefore can't get pregnant. But these scientists would completely ignore changes in her ex-husband's physical processes that may also mess with his ability to procreate. The scientists could be biased by thinking alpha male behavior is simply the norm, so they don't even look into it.
And the hypothetical situation where they don't test Men or come to these conclusions (which is pretty much the opposite to reality, but lets run with it) invalidates the findings when done on Women because...
Quote:
Do you get the point of the pirates versus global warming figure I posted? It was in response to this point exactly. I guess you didn't get the message.
Correlation does not mean causation.
I got the message, it's just your attempt to dismiss my point through irrelevant comparisons doesn't really apply.
In fact the correlation does not mean causation thing works just as well for the idea that Men's higher scores are due to social expectations.
Quote:
Do you see? Sure, a study may have found that men outscored women. Okay. But then you take the step of drawing a conclusion: women genetically aren't capable, and actually don't *want* to be capable. To that I must cry bullshit.
Well, yes, do you see? Do you see what I'm talking about when I said you're making the same arguments I've already argued about? By devolving my argument down to one of me simply saying "they score higher, it must be genetic". That's not my argument, that's a strawman of my argument. It's a shame you've only looked at Rue's claims of what my Argument was, not what my argument actually was.
Quote:
If some schmoe gave a test to a few white kids at fancy schools and then to a few black kids in the projects, and published a report claiming that whites are genetically more intelligent than blacks, what would you make of that?
If someone insists on only taking select parts of your argument, and ignoring the other parts that help support your assertions, then tells you you can't think logically, what would you think of that?
If someone conducted tests on white and black kids at fancy schools, and then to white and black kids in the same schools, and then to black kids who are somehow genetically white, and white kids who are genetically black, would you still lie about what they said?
Quote:
You're still missing the point. See my argument above. Re-read what you're actually posted - all of it, not just the dimorphism part. Think about those pirates.
No, you're still missing the point. Read my post, any of them, for quite obviously the first time. I know what I said, and clearly you don't. Think about those lies.
Quote:
Do you have evidence of the opposite? Other than vague hand waves at some study you saw once?
Oh, so it's ok to call me stupid and illogical off of data you don't have. Well that's very stupid and illogical.
Quote:
In my experience, women want very much to be the "surgeons" of their fields, and they want it bad enough to fight an uphill battle that men don't face. How many more women would want these careers if the battle
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just curious, what is everyone's take on the science behind climate change?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME