Feminism?

[Lucas]

I had a girl on campus berate me a year ago for holding the door open for her. I had noticed her reflection behind me as I opened the door, so held it afterwards for her to go into the building, and got a dressing-down about how I shouldn't assume a woman needs my help. Stuff like that? I've no patience for those who'd rather misconstrue general acts of kindness (that, it should go without saying, I extend to all people, not just women) as some sort of offence.

Some women think like that. As for me, I always hold the door open for anybody, be it woman, man, child or elder.

 

[mustafur]

Seems to me that your argument is that if feminists haven't successfully identified, catalogued, and spoken against every single instance of inequality in this world, then their entire cause is invalid.

Before I continue with my thoughts about that, it's only fair that I allow you to confirm or deny. Would you care to?

Not at all and it's not what im saying, I just think that those that want women into Military should atleast take into the considerations of what standards men are at and it should be Equal(after all is this not the point in the first place?).

Yet there still lacks any action on this part once the women them selves have the ability to join the Military by choice, they are given the ability of volunteered service in many countries (Developed first world ones keep in mind) where as the other gender doesn't have said choice.

Not to go into the realms of assumption but do you think Feminisim would be okay with it the other way around? I think it would itself become an issue of higher importance then what it currently is for men.

Since those that class themselves Feminist would be by a large majority be of a Single gender would it not naturally Target the disadvantages for that gender before considering the disadvantages of the minority gender, simply because the movement as a whole would be coming from a more Single Gender leaning angle, and this is not to imply it is done on purpose but mainly from self perception from said gender.

Today men are unable to compete with women for preferred education and jobs. They have smoked too much pot and grown boobs, belly fat and arteriosclerosis. They are psychological basket cases whose highest calling is to be a sniper in an unwinnable war, then come home disabled and die young in dementia.

The age of patriarchy is dead. Now is the time for women to assert themselves and rule the world as best they can. Think of Hillary Clinton and Victoria Nuland as the avatars of a new caste of warrior monks destined to guide civilization to a glorious future - a future without the need for men.

I would say alot of it comes down to genetics on what jobs Men or Women may choose, and it has some basis for fact, the more Socially free a Country gets the more likely Men and Women will go towards gender specific roles, despite what Some may say: interesting video here:


I would like to note: Not saying all Feminists come from the Social Science view of Culture changing how the Gender reacts, but it certainly is the Majority thought from the group.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

You, the person who routinely adds random capitals and punctuation into your four line run-on sentences, are accusing me of lacking an understanding of the English language?

I ask you for a clear explanation of a point that was unclear, and the best you can come up with is to tell me that it's my fault for being dumb? You have an opportunity to enlighten and educate another person, but you'd rather not bother.

Honestly, why would anyone want to have a discussion with such a person?

Carry on. Best of luck, buddy. You'll need it.

It's okay, I find it very hard to read his posts, too. I was going to get involved in this discussion but most of his posts are borderline unreadable. And then he wonders why people don't understand what he's saying

@mustafur

You will not use “textspeak” (“r”, “u”, “plz”, etc.) in your messages. Decent grammar is expected at all times, including proper usage of capital letters.

https://www.gtplanet.net/aup

 

[LeMansAid]

A feminist is someone who believes that the sexes should be treated equally.

None of the definitions for the suffix "ist" would allow "feminist" to be for equality by definition though. Same as moving northward gets you closer to the equator while in the southern hemisphere, but is not an equalising motion in and of itself.

A movement that is "for women" can appear to have a goal of equality, but that appearance is situation specific.

 

[Imari]

None of the definitions for the suffix "ist" would allow "feminist" to be for equality by definition though.

It's a good job then that words aren't defined as the sum of their parts, but instead they mean what people use them to mean. Inflammable doesn't mean what you'd think it meant either.

Look up feminist anywhere and you'll get something along the lines of "person who advocates equal rights for women". And what is equal for one side is automatically equal for the other, or it wouldn't be equal.

 

[Encyclopedia]

Funny how discussions about feminism so often turn into a discussion of the semantics of the word itself.

 

[Snorevette]

This is bait.

From the same blog:

Can we stop taking blatant trolling as the opinion of the masses now? Yes, some of the stupid stuff on the internet IS something that an actual person thinks, but it irritates me to no end when people see this sort of stuff and use it to say 'this is what actual feminists think'.

Also, in my eyes, feminism is more specifically about changing society's perception of femininity over anything else (hence the name). Right now, being feminine is seen as being weak and powerless as opposed to strong and independent masculinism, which adds to why in many cases men are generally chosen over women when applying for jobs (although in a few cases women are chosen over men), and why men who prefer to stay at home looking after the house are often mocked (because looking after the house is a woman's job, apparently), so I don't think it's really fair to discredit the movement for being woman-centric. I can understand discrediting it because of 'Tumblr SJWs' but again most of the time it's either a vocal minority or just some jokester trying to be funny.

 

[LeMansAid]

It's a good job then that words aren't defined as the sum of their parts, but instead they mean what people use them to mean. Inflammable doesn't mean what you'd think it meant either.

Look up feminist anywhere and you'll get something along the lines of "person who advocates equal rights for women". And what is equal for one side is automatically equal for the other, or it wouldn't be equal.

Why not have the best of both worlds though, and use a term that make sense in principle and in practice? As it stands "feminism" confuses the goal in both contexts because not everyone uses it as if it has a goal of equality, and it technically shouldn't mean that either.

Funny how discussions about feminism so often turn into a discussion of the semantics of the word itself.

That's a really annoying comment. If we get the terminology right, there's that little bit less wiggle room for sexists, and I like that idea.

 

[mustafur]

Look up feminist anywhere and you'll get something along the lines of "person who advocates equal rights for women". And what is equal for one side is automatically equal for the other, or it wouldn't be equal.

That would be all well in good thought if women had less equality in every subject that exists, the fact remains that this applies to both sexes and that is where a group such as Feminism will never address properly due to it's Clear gender bias. Yes it's true that women are naturally more in tune with social issues as it's where they as a whole are more interested in biologically and it means groups such as these exist for women but not for men.

 

[niky]

Since those that class themselves Feminist would be by a large majority be of a Single gender

Goodness me... of course. Because there is a vanishingly small number of people with multiple genders, though hermaphroditism is a very real thing. (sex educator here, who often stayed up nights helping his Ob-Gyne grandfather prepare presentations.

would it not naturally Target the disadvantages for that gender before considering the disadvantages of the minority gender

Only if there were socially created disadvantages, rather than biological.

, simply because the movement as a whole would be coming from a more Single Gender leaning angle, and this is not to imply it is done on purpose but mainly from self perception from said gender.

In other words, why are Feminists not anti-Feminist?

You are basically asking me, a member of a gender which gets preferential treatment... whose career track has been granted him by the greater opportunity given men... whose secondary job was breezy easy to get because of said gender, in an industry (auto-journalism) that is not only male-centric, but extremely misogynistic, with women relegated to the role of PR, booth-girls and the like... why I'm not focusing on the fact that many new industry executives are increasingly female?

Really?

I would say alot of it comes down to genetics on what jobs Men or Women may choose, and it has some basis for fact, the more Socially free a Country gets the more likely Men and Women will go towards gender specific roles, despite what Some may say: interesting video here:


I would like to note: Not saying all Feminists come from the Social Science view of Culture changing how the Gender reacts, but it certainly is the Majority thought from the group.

There is a real problem in completely separating cultural influences from actual biological influences.

Just because women and men are technically given equal footing in the eyes of the law, doesn't mean that they have the same upbringing and opportunities. Programming, for example, is one area where childhood experiences affect life choices later in life... as well documented by the prevalence of male-centric video games in previous decades leading to the previously equal balance of men and women in computer programming to tilt vastly towards the male side.

This can also affect men, as alluded to by @Dotini - and also relates to how young males are viewed by potential employers, co-workers and the police.

Not that the woman interviewed wasn't somewhat naive, but that's not the entirety of the Feminist movement. Also, the doll-car experiment? Also hopeless. Completely: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/dec/13/women-children

Speaking as the father of two girls who love toy cars, watch Ben 10, and yet still like boys (the younger one is still too young to make this pronouncement), that's pretty much true. Girls simply gravitate towards girly things as they grow older, due to cultural expectations.

-

It's a common tactic of anti-Feminists to pull out radical views and the noisy minority as a way to discredit the movement in its entirety... while still denying or downplaying the fact that inequity exists.

 

[mustafur]

You are basically asking me, a member of a gender which gets preferential treatment... whose career track has been granted him by the greater opportunity given men... whose secondary job was breezy easy to get because of said gender, in an industry (auto-journalism) that is not only male-centric, but extremely misogynistic, with women relegated to the role of PR, booth-girls and the like... why I'm not focusing on the fact that many new industry executives are increasingly female?

Really?

Do you ever think that women Biologically gravitate to those roles as it appeals to Social biological differences and not just Cultural.

Women have every ability to be an engineer a Mechanic or what they choose in First world societies, yet it's been proven the more Socially Free a country gets the more Traditional the Workforce becomes.

There is a real problem in completely separating cultural influences from actual biological influences.

Just because women and men are technically given equal footing in the eyes of the law, doesn't mean that they have the same upbringing and opportunities. Programming, for example, is one area where childhood experiences affect life choices later in life... as well documented by the prevalence of male-centric video games in previous decades leading to the previously equal balance of men and women in computer programming to tilt vastly towards the male side.

This can also affect men, as alluded to by @Dotini - and also relates to how young males are viewed by potential employers, co-workers and the police.

Not that the woman interviewed wasn't somewhat naive, but that's not the entirety of the Feminist movement. Also, the doll-car experiment? Also hopeless. Completely: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/dec/13/women-children

Speaking as the father of two girls who love toy cars, watch Ben 10, and yet still like boys (the younger one is still too young to make this pronouncement), that's pretty much true. Girls simply gravitate towards girly things as they grow older, due to cultural expectations.

-

It's a common tactic of anti-Feminists to pull out radical views and the noisy minority as a way to discredit the movement in its entirety... while still denying or downplaying the fact that inequity exists.

Clearly you didn't watch the video that shows Biologically we gravitate towards those things and that biological difference is more significant then the cultural.

Yes Cultural exists, but studies have shown before that even comes into question as an infant they still make those preferences.

Biologically Men and Women are not the same and those Biological difference make us different, there is no scientific basis, on which the Cultural element has been proven over the Biological element where it has the other way.

Yes there will always be men who want to be teacher or Nurses and Women who want to work in Construction and Engineering but as a whole the Gap exists fully, and to say it's a problem is far from reality, especially when you your self only seem to mention the Female side.

Please watch the video.

 

[niky]

Yes it's true that women are naturally more in tune with social issues as it's where they as a whole are more interested in biologically

Hahahaha.

Seriously.

You will find a bigger difference in the attitude towards gender equality amongst men from different countries than you will find between men and women in enlightened countries like the United States.

Or possibly, there is a huge biological difference between Egyptian Women and Lebanese Women.

Possibly.[/sarcasm]

 

[Imari]

Why not have the best of both worlds though, and use a term that make sense in principle and in practice? As it stands "feminism" confuses the goal in both contexts because not everyone uses it as if it has a goal of equality, and it technically shouldn't mean that either.

That'd be great. Unfortunately, English is not the most rational of languages. It seems pointless to start trying to redefine the language in the middle of a discussion when it works perfectly fine as is. Whether the etymology of a word makes sense or not really has no bearing on anyone's ability to use it in a sentence.

If you want to use a word to mean something outside of what most people would consider it's normal meaning then that's fine, but you need to state that you're doing so at the start.

That's a really annoying comment. If we get the terminology right, there's that little bit less wiggle room for sexists, and I like that idea.

Except that it shouldn't be about terminology and definitions, except as far is as necessary to understand what someone else means. That's what words are for, to convey meaning.

You can redefine "feminism" to mean whatever you like, but it doesn't change the arguments and opinions that other people hold, it just forces them to express them in different ways.

I find it far more productive to try and make the words I use as clear as possible so that others don't misunderstand, and to ask when others use words that I think aren't being used for their common meanings.

The goal is to understand the other party, not to redefine them out of being able to have an opinion at all.

 

[mustafur]

Hahahaha.

Seriously.

You will find a bigger difference in the attitude towards gender equality amongst men from different countries than you will find between men and women in enlightened countries like the United States.

Or possibly, there is a huge biological difference between Egyptian Women and Lebanese Women.

Possibly.[/sarcasm]

This is not what I said, I'm talking about career choices that people have made.

I was also comparing countries in which Equality is rated very highly(as both genders are more free to express their choice in career and social choices).

Obviously not all women are the same, and culture does have an effect(I did say this did I not?)

But the biological science will show you this: http://www.simplypsychology.org/gender-biology.html

 

[LeMansAid]

That'd be great. Unfortunately, English is not the most rational of languages. It seems pointless to start trying to redefine the language in the middle of a discussion when it works perfectly fine as is.

The goal is to understand the other party, not to redefine them out of being able to have an opinion at all.

That'd be fine, if the discussion was between you and I, or maybe even you and all GTP members - but it's not, it's a worldwide discussion.

My goal would be to have a sexist person have to argue clearly that they think equality is not relevant, rather than that the ambiguous feminism is not relevant. I say don't give them a term that can be manipulated.

 

[Imari]

That'd be fine, if the discussion was between you and I, or maybe even you and all GTP members - but it's not, it's a worldwide discussion.

Oh right. So this discussion that we're having here on GTP with other GTP members is in fact a worldwide discussion on feminism.

You're wrong.

This is a discussion between you, me, and all the other GTP members. That's it. If you somehow think that one thread in the Opinions section of a car game forum has greater meaning, I think you're sadly mistaken.

People who aren't involved in this discussion are not involved in this discussion. It seems elementary, but obviously it needed pointing out.

My goal would be to have a sexist person have to argue clearly that they think equality is not relevant, rather than that the ambiguous feminism is not relevant. I say don't give them a term that can be manipulated.

How did we get from you correcting my definition of feminist, which was a generic thing that roughly corresponds to general usage, to needing to redefine a term so that sexists have to argue clearly?

Am I the sexist that you're attempting to force to argue clearly? Do we have sexists in the thread that are not arguing clearly because they're misusing the word feminist?

Or is this just a derail that's gotten out of hand? Is this just your own pet peeve against a movement for sexual equality being named after the one gender that was most disadvantaged at the time it was named?

 

[Encyclopedia]

That's a really annoying comment. If we get the terminology right, there's that little bit less wiggle room for sexists, and I like that idea.

What's also annoying is how the semantics discussion often is used to simply to divert attention and/or derail threads/discussions about feminism. It happens in virtualy all threads on the subject.

 

[niky]

Do you ever think that women Biologically gravitate to those roles as it appeals to Social biological differences and not just Cultural.

Women have every ability to be an engineer a Mechanic or what they choose in First world societies, yet it's been proven the more Socially Free a country gets the more Traditional the Workforce becomes.

Define "traditional"... because, as I recall, doctors have traditionally always been men.

Clearly you didn't watch the video that shows Biologically we gravitate towards those things and that biological difference is more significant then the cultural.

If you're not testing people in isolation, then you can't isolate culture. And the only way to test people in isolation? Test infants. Before gender preference starts.

Yes Cultural exists, but studies have shown before that even comes into question as an infant they still make those preferences.

Read my link. Other studies have shown otherwise. And that gender-specific preference becomes more pronounced as the child gets older, which points towards the cultural factor being a big one.

And other studies have shown that gender stereotyping of occupations "suited" for men and women increases as they get older. Which again, points to culture being a factor in occupational stereotyping.

Biologically Men and Women are not the same and those Biological difference make us different, there is no scientific basis, on which the Cultural element has been proven over the Biological element where it has the other way.

There is plenty of evidence for the cultural element, and plenty of evidence debunking the idea that the Biological element is all encompassing and over-riding. Hormonal function does come into play, but aside from strength and speed differences due to biological construction, the differences in certain skill sets are still not as great as the differences between the best and worst of each gender.

In other words, not all men make great engineers. Not all women make great doctors. In fact, one of the best engineers I know is a woman, and half the men in my family are doctors.

Yes there will always be men who want to be teacher or Nurses and Women who want to work in Construction and Engineering but as a whole the Gap exists fully, and to say it's a problem is far from reality, especially when you your self only seem to mention the Female side.

Please watch the video.

I did.

There's no doubt men and women in certain cultures gravitate to certain jobs. but to say that there's no problem or gender gap based on that observation is woefully short sighted.

And to deny that even in an ostensibly egalitarian society, that cultural expectations don't affect the outcome, is woefully myopic as well.

-

Would you like me to talk about Male issues? In a thread about Feminism? Why? Aside from the draft... which is not an issue about gender, but more specifically an issue of civil rights, and in which the exclusion of women is a mysoginistic holdover due to the patriarchal structure of the military (the structure which views homosexuals dimly, as well...), men are given opportunities at all occupations and positions that don't require them to look pretty or take off their clothes.

This is not what I said, I'm talking about career choices that people have made.

You said women are more conscious of social issues. I pointed out that the variability in awareness of gender issues between men of different cultures is greater than the difference between men and women in their acknowledgement of those same issues.

I was also comparing countries in which Equality is rated very highly(as both genders are more free to express their choice in career and social choices).

The perception of equality does not mean the absence of cultural influences on gender identity. Let's get that straight.

Obviously not all women are the same, and culture does have an effect(I did say this did I not?)

You pointed towards a documentary... a rather one-sided one that cherry-picked facts to try and prove a political point... ... that suggested biology was over-riding. In my experience, this is not so. Not unless you're talking something like sports.

More to the point, a modern view of feminism realizes that there are differences between men and women, and does not target perceived inequity, but rather the root causes of it.

Or it should.

Still, the rantings of a few ultra-extremist feminists should not be confused as the opinions of the majority.

But the biological science will show you this: http://www.simplypsychology.org/gender-biology.html

That page doesn't support your argument very well. Or even at all. It presents several different theories, some outmoded, and with citations of small studies, often with caveats and disclaimers. It presents no argument that biology trumps culture, or that it is more important, in the assignation of gender stereotypes.

While there is a large body of work studying the fields directly, that suggests other reasons for the gap in representation:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/science-engineering-and-the-gender-gap/

And that the gap varies largely by culture:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/c2/c2s5.htm
http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/append/c2/at02-39.xls

With some cultures showing up to 40% participation in engineering programs by women, and in Math and Computer Sciences, which are traditionally male dominated, up to 70% depending on the country. Granted... some countries perceived as "more equal" get much lower participation rates. But these rates are not zero. Again... women can and do enter those fields, and may want to... but workplace factors often mitigate their participation after graduation.

-

Long story short: Yes, biological differences exist, but cultural barriers and preconceptions carry either the same weight or a much greater weight in the long run. Considering that we are still in a transition (remember, voting rights for women in many countries are still just half-a-century old) phase from traditionally patriarchal societies to more egalitarian ones, we can't yet say that what is is what should be.

 

[mustafur]

Traditional as in Men doing Technical jobs and Women doing Social Centric ones.

If you're not testing people in isolation, then you can't isolate culture. And the only way to test people in isolation? Test infants. Before gender preference starts.

I Agree and it has been tested, further research is still on going on this but it hasn't so far supported your theory, and rather the opposite.(Also in the video)

Read my link. Other studies have shown otherwise. And that gender-specific preference becomes more pronounced as the child gets older, which points towards the cultural factor being a big one.

But would you not agree the gender specific biological differences them selves also get larger at the same time?

other studies have shown that gender stereotyping of occupations "suited" for men and women increases as they get older. Which again, points to culture being a factor in occupational stereotyping.

How does it though, none of this single handly points to anything definitive. As ones genetics mature over time that alone could point to many things that are not cultural related.

There is plenty of evidence for the cultural element, and plenty of evidence debunking the idea that the Biological element is all encompassing and over-riding. Hormonal function does come into play, but aside from strength and speed differences due to biological construction, the differences in certain skill sets are still not as great as the differences between the best and worst of each gender.

I would love to see this evidence.

In other words, not all men make great engineers. Not all women make great doctors. In fact, one of the best engineers I know is a woman, and half the men in my family are doctors.

This still is making it obvious you haven't seen the video I put down as this is all highlighted, it does show a direct correlation in Testosterone difference do infact change the Way the gender operates at the infant level.

There's no doubt men and women in certain cultures gravitate to certain jobs. but to say that there's

no problem or gender gap based on that observation is woefully short sighted.

In a Equal society it seems to me that you would rather equal outcome as the end result more so then equal opportunity, because as it stands both can not be had without effecting the other.

And to deny that even in an ostensibly egalitarian society, that cultural expectations don't affect the outcome, is woefully myopic as well.

Never said Cultural Issues had no effect.



-

Would you like me to talk about Male issues? In a thread about Feminism? Why?

Well you where claiming Feminism is about Equality this doesn't sound like your in support of that.

Aside from the draft... which is not an issue about gender, but more specifically an issue of civil rights, and in which the exclusion of women is a mysoginistic holdover due to the patriarchal structure of the military (the structure which views homosexuals dimly, as well...), men are given opportunities at all occupations and positions that don't require them to look pretty or take off their clothes.

I guess you don't know the meaning of Affirmative action or Gender Equality laws.

You said women are more conscious of social issues. I pointed out that the variability in awareness of gender issues between men of different cultures is greater than the difference between men and women in their acknowledgement of those same issues.

You may of pointed this out but you didn't give evidence for this claim, and I gave evidence debunking it in the video.

The perception of equality does not mean the absence of cultural influences on gender identity. Let's get that straight.

Yes I understand that, however what is considered Equal by some is not by others.

You pointed towards a documentary... a rather one-sided one that cherry-picked facts to try and prove a political point... ... that suggested biology was over-riding. In my experience, this is not so. Not unless you're talking something like sports.

Please point out which parts are cherry picked I would like to know this.

More to the point, a modern view of feminism realizes that there are differences between men and women, and does not target perceived inequity, but rather the root causes of it.

It may target the root cause of why inequality exists, but the only way it can enforce anything is by either giving preferable treatment to balance it out(AKA Equal Outcome/Affirmative action) or force it on those that are part of the Equality Problem(Such as women doing social centric jobs).

Still, the rantings of a few ultra-extremist feminists should not be confused as the opinions of the majority.

I fully agree and I am aware there are plenty of people such as what your describing who are of radical thought from the rest of the group.

With some cultures showing up to 40% participation in engineering programs by women, and in Math and Computer Sciences, which are traditionally male dominated, up to 70% depending on the country. Granted...

some countries perceived as "more equal" get much lower participation rates. But these rates are not zero. Again... women can and do enter those fields, and may want to... but workplace factors often mitigate their participation after graduation.

The reason I am only using Countries with more Egalitarian laws is because both genders have all the choice they want to do the Jobs they choose, where as in cultures where they don't have the full right of choice(whether it be in Law or due to poverty) the statistics can't paint a proper picture when choice is limited.

Long story short: Yes, biological differences exist, but cultural barriers and preconceptions carry either the same weight or a much greater weight in the long run. Considering that we are still in a transition (remember, voting rights for women in many countries are still just half-a-century old) phase from traditionally patriarchal societies to more egalitarian ones, we can't yet say that what is is what should be.

The problem with this thought is it requires a subjected person to make it anything other then a hypothesis, and that alone would defeat the argument it presents.

 

[LeMansAid]

Oh right. So this discussion that we're having here on GTP with other GTP members is in fact a worldwide discussion on feminism.

You're wrong.

This is a discussion between you, me, and all the other GTP members. That's it. If you somehow think that one thread in the Opinions section of a car game forum has greater meaning, I think you're sadly mistaken.

People who aren't involved in this discussion are not involved in this discussion. It seems elementary, but obviously it needed pointing out.

I think you're getting a bit carried away. I'm talking about THE discussion being a worldwide one, not this discussion. (though clearly this one is also accessible by many). Another example of when semantics matters, and where I didn't realise that I needed to be clearer.

 

[Joel]

I Agree and it has been tested, further research is still on going on this but it hasn't so far supported your theory, and rather the opposite.(Also in the video)

Well, there's been tests on gender identity that support the idea that it's biological (David Reimer, born as a boy, raised as a girl his whole life, but "knew" he was a boy), but it's a stretch to say that gender roles are overwhelmingly biological.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Just to add to the discussion - as I think I have similar views to both @Imari and @Noob616 - the term "feminism" has taken on a broader meaning here, but as with most things, the vocal minority (the Tumblr crowds, the constantly-offended) have sort of soured the idea for some people. I'd say all my friends are feminists in the classic sense - I don't think I'd really be friends with someone who saw women (or men) as inherently greater - but I have run into a few women who take the more extreme thoughts to heart. I had a girl on campus berate me a year ago for holding the door open for her. I had noticed her reflection behind me as I opened the door, so held it afterwards for her to go into the building, and got a dressing-down about how I shouldn't assume a woman needs my help. Stuff like that? I've no patience for those who'd rather misconstrue general acts of kindness (that, it should go without saying, I extend to all people, not just women) as some sort of offence.

I would have smiled and just closed the door on her.

Talk to me like a douche and I'll treat you like one.

 

[niky]

Traditional as in Men doing Technical jobs and Women doing Social Centric ones.

To see the problem with the idea that this matters in deciding whether a man or woman is fit for a job... there are more men not doing technical jobs than there are women who are doing them.

In other words... Not all men are engineers, either. And not all men have the mechanical aptitude or the head for figures to be engineers.

If you'd refer the to chart I gave... In Norway, 20% of engineering graduates are women. So why would you have a workplace that is 100% men? Statistical deviation? Or does that not point to a cultural reason for the exclusion?

There doesn't need to be a legal impediment to discourage women from entering a job.

GTPlanet is an equal opportunity website. Why do we not have more girls?

1. Because girls are not as interested. This much is true. But again, this has both genetic and cultural factors.

But also:

2. Because girls don't feel welcome.

We have had a number of girls come in over the years. Very few of them stay long. The only one who posts regularly is one who actually knows some of the guys in real life. Another who stays has no choice, she's married to one of us.

This is what happens to women in male-dominated workplaces. There's the "girl" jokes, the mild sexual innuendos, and the feeling that they don't belong.

They don't last long that way.

But would you not agree the gender specific biological differences them selves also get larger at the same time?

How does it though, none of this single handly points to anything definitive. As ones genetics mature over time that alone could point to many things that are not cultural related.

Not in the study I cited, or in the studies on occupational preferences.

The study on toys took a range from under one year to two years and above. Changes in secondary sexual characteristics and hormonal levels are not apparent until much, much later.

Studies on gender preference for occupations all take students past puberty, which avoids the biggest change in sexual differentiation. Did you think they wouldn't take this into account.

Both show a trend towards increasing stereotyping as time goes on.

I would love to see this evidence.

Forgive me for being lazy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_intelligence

But my browser doesn't save history, and I closed a boatload of links last night. I had other meta-analysis pages open, and they all said the same thing. There is a difference, but the difference is measured as +/- 3 IQ points, within any area.

The difference between people of the same gender is often bigger than 3 IQ points.

Go back, now, to what I said:

there are more men not doing technical jobs than there are women who are doing them.

A 3 IQ point spread is statistically significant. But as an overall indicator of aptitude, means basically nothing.

This still is making it obvious you haven't seen the video I put down as this is all highlighted, it does show a direct correlation in Testosterone difference do infact change the Way the gender operates at the infant level.

Of course testosterone affects babies! But that's partly pre-natal testosterone. From the mother. And partly testosterone produced due to environmental factors:

http://www.livescience.com/20231-infant-testosterone-levels-environment.html

But more to the fact, the study I've posted, as well as many others, have debunked the doll-car study many times over.

In a Equal society it seems to me that you would rather equal outcome as the end result more so then equal opportunity, because as it stands both can not be had without effecting the other.

Where have I ever said that? I simply stated that even in the absence of legal impediments to occupational equality, cultural impediments still exist.

Well you where claiming Feminism is about Equality this doesn't sound like your in support of that.

I guess you don't know the meaning of Affirmative action or Gender Equality laws.

Affirmative action is simply giving equal opportunity for participation. Or should be. That some countries confuse setting quotas as equal opportunity doesn't change the fact that when it's done properly, it simply means a company or school must consider applicants of different genders or ethnicities for education/position, not that it must take them. A position upheld by the Supreme Court.

Or are you telling me Gender Equality should mean advantages are given to females?

You may of pointed this out but you didn't give evidence for this claim, and I gave evidence debunking it in the video.

I gave you a graph. Which shows variability in consciousness amongst social issues among men of different cultures is greater than variability between men and women in more enlightened cultures. What's unclear about that?

Yes I understand that, however what is considered Equal by some is not by others.

Does not change the fact that inequality exists.

Please point out which parts are cherry picked I would like to know this.

Interviews, only of people who are in traditional gender-preferred occupations, reinforcing only the reason why they are there, instead of interviewing the very few in the "wrong" occupation, asking why there are not more of them there.

Then interviewing people who deny all differences. The video was very obviously meant as a takedown of the woman "researcher" featured. A good one... but then, the video producer is a comedian, beyond being a sociologist.

Interesting to note that the doctor there says further studies refuted the idea of brain differences... rather than refuted... I'd say "called into question" (refer again to the Wikipedia page), as studies have conflicting results. And that he said "basically" no difference. Not that there was none.

And, again... note... where figures are given... a 3 IQ point spread between the averages is smaller than the typical difference between members of the same gender.

-

Do note, again, that extremist positions do not always reflect the majority. It was a good assassination piece, but definitive science, it was not.

It may target the root cause of why inequality exists, but the only way it can enforce anything is by either giving preferable treatment to balance it out(AKA Equal Outcome/Affirmative action) or force it on those that are part of the Equality Problem(Such as women doing social centric jobs).

Again: Equal Outcome is not the only interpretation of Gender Equality.

-

The only way to target the root cause of inequality is to raise children in isolation of gender stereotypes. Which is impossible without raising children without human intervention at all.

The reason I am only using Countries with more Egalitarian laws is because both genders have all the choice they want to do the Jobs they choose, where as in cultures where they don't have the full right of choice(whether it be in Law or due to poverty) the statistics can't paint a proper picture when choice is limited.

Which is why I posted studies on College degrees... College entrance in most countries is gender equitable, whereas employment is not.

Of course, poverty does affect College performance. In many poorer countries, women outnumber the men in all fields. Whether they can find jobs in those fields is another matter entirely.

The problem with this thought is it requires a subjected person to make it anything other then a hypothesis, and that alone would defeat the argument it presents.

Why would you say that? All it requires is a rigorously controlled society in which home life for the first generation is made as gender-neutral as possible, with male and female children raised together with mixed role models.

And whatever gender stereotypes exist by the third generation will be true stereotypes.

-

Again, though, I do not debate that a general gender preference exists for certain occupations. I am simply noting that the absence of legal impediment does not mean that this is not due to cultural impediment, either partially or wholly.

-

If you'd like a more complete critique of the video, there is one here:

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/psychology/the-gender-equality-paradox-t32654.html#p1384152

And it's a very good critique.

 

[mustafur]

Well, there's been tests on gender identity that support the idea that it's biological (David Reimer, born as a boy, raised as a girl his whole life, but "knew" he was a boy), but it's a stretch to say that gender roles are overwhelmingly biological.

I would agree and it would make sense that Evolution did have an effect on our brains for this to happen as the roles men and women have played in the Human existence has been the way of Hunter/Gatherer for the vast majority of human existence.

To deny this is to say its possible to Manufacturer men or women to be Homosexual Quite easily.

There is a Survey on Gender study that surveyed 200,000 people the largest of it's kind by a significant margin and it found some answers to be nearly identical from the individual sexes across all the countries in the survey which would point to a Biological direction:

http://calstate.fullerton.edu/news/2007/155_lippa.html

@niky I'll be reading through your sources later and will comment on what I know after reading them as im a bit time poor at the moment, but to go back a bit to the topic before this biological vs Culture topic started. If you know there are some Biological differences between the genders regardless of whether they are significant of the gender experience or smaller then Cultural, you do acknowledge they exist which would then have me say that would that alone be enough justification on why Equal opportunity never really gives an equal outcome between the sexes and propably never will, as there will always be some kind of Biological difference which would effect their choice no matter the significance or not if they do in fact exist?

 

[niky]

I would agree and it would make sense that Evolution did have an effect on our brains for this to happen as the roles men and women have played in the Human existence has been the way of Hunter/Gatherer for the vast majority of human existence.

Not really. We haven't been evolving long from our hunter-gatherer phase (though I have to review the literature) enough for structural changes in the brain to develop from that point. We have been mammals long enough, however, for females to develop general nurturing traits, and males to develop general aggressiveness traits.

If physical differences in brain construction could evolve within such short time periods, men ought to be more sociable than (or just as sociable as) women, since the prosperity of Homo Sapiens, as well as other intelligent primates, actually, depends on male cooperation and social interaction in order to ensure success during hunting.

There is a Survey on Gender study that surveyed 200,000 people the largest of it's kind by a significant margin and it found some answers to be nearly identical from the individual sexes across all the countries in the survey which would point to a Biological direction:

http://calstate.fullerton.edu/news/2007/155_lippa.html

Sexual selection. Not occupation. The difference being that sexual selection has had millions of years to evolve. Occupational selection, in terms of cultural roles assumed in human society, only tens of thousands.

@niky I'll be reading through your sources later and will comment on what I know after reading them as im a bit time poor at the moment, but to go back a bit to the topic before this biological vs Culture topic started. If you know there are some Biological differences between the genders regardless of whether they are significant of the gender experience or smaller then Cultural, you do acknowledge they exist which would then have me say that would that alone be enough justification on why Equal opportunity never really gives an equal outcome between the sexes and propably never will, as there will always be some kind of Biological difference which would effect their choice no matter the significance or not if they do in fact exist?

Who says that the outcome will be equal? Or that they have to be equal? I've said again and again that this is not the case.

-

I'm simply pointing out that a 100% gender-pure work environment is not the natural result of biological differences, because, again (again, again), the variance between members of the same sex in inclination and ability in certain fields of study and work is greater than the variance between the average of the opposite sexes.

-

The existence of any biological difference, again, does not preclude the existence of cultural barriers, even if legal and financial barriers do not exist.

And that is all.

 

[LeMansAid]

Well, there's been tests on gender identity that support the idea that it's biological (David Reimer, born as a boy, raised as a girl his whole life, but "knew" he was a boy), but it's a stretch to say that gender roles are overwhelmingly biological.

While it might be a curio', it shouldn't matter when it comes to how we treat people anyway. Any person can choose to go as much against their biology as they want for all I care. None of my business.

 

[mustafur]

I'm simply pointing out that a 100% gender-pure work environment is not the natural result of biological differences, because, again (again, again), the variance between members of the same sex in inclination and ability in certain fields of study and work is greater than the variance between the average of the opposite sexes.

That I could understand and I do acknowledge that Women and Men that have qualifications in the opposite gender dominated Industry has been short term endeavours for most(or atleast a significant percentage that do) and that cause would very much be culture related, All I am saying is that the reason it is initially swinging to that gender in terms of dominance of numbers and percentage could well have Biological reasons.

-

The existence of any biological difference, again, does not preclude the existence of cultural barriers, even if legal and financial barriers do not exist.

And that is all.

Im not disputing this, it's just the reasons that people do things are not purely Cultural or Biological when given full choice, although to be fair with a culture changing as much as it is, its hard to present any definitive proof on that subject, where as the Biology is there to study on basically any given person.

 

[BobK]

the by product of the phone im using.

Then you clearly need a new phone, or you need to learn how to override its autocapitalization or whatever. It is impeding your ability to communicate lucidly. And several people have pointed out how this your communication skills or lack thereof are causing problems.

 

[Danny]

 

[LeMansAid]

Taken from the Funny News Stories and Quotes thread......... Yep..... really, truly.

NFL Cheerleader buys high schoolers booze and sleeps with one of them - is convicted of rape.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/08/21/former-nfl-cheerleader-sentenced-to-probation-for-rape/

We've got to track down that boy and give him his luckiest kid of the year award.

I'm sorry, but why are we celebrating rape? If this was the other way around, with an NFL player getting a high school student drunk and having sex with her, we'd be condemning him no end. But because the victim is male and the perpetrator an attractive woman, then we're celebrating it as if he is a hero. She's 48 and he's 15. That makes him unable to consent and her a sexual predator.

Yup, that's exactly right. Also, btw, US law recognizes that there is a difference between statutory rape perpetrated by a male vs. female. Sentencing females convicted of the crime is far lower than for males. In fact, statutory rape differences between genders was cited recently by the supreme court as a textbook case of "material differences" resulting in a lack of application of equal protection.

TL;DR? Men and women are different. Get over it.

Some people are also a little bemused over the recent sentencing of Maggie Kirkpatrick - avoiding jail despite the being found guilty of 2x indecent assault, and 1x gross indecency of underage girls - http://www.smh.com.au/victoria/magg...uilty-of-child-sex-abuse-20150820-gj3rv8.html. That's kind of a double whammy isn't it? Perpetrator and victim seemingly getting discriminatorily generous, and discriminatorily ungenerous treatment respectively, based on the female factor.

That the boy from @Danoff's link might ultimately be messed up due to the sexual assault in a different way to how a girl may typically, doesn't mean that it's of any less importance - and certainly shouldn't mean that the woman is any less culpable. Surely it's counter to what feminism is ideally all about...... equal treatment.