ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
View Poll Results: Does gender privilege exist in the US?
Yes, gender privilege does exist in the US + I am male 73 76.04%
No, gender privilege does NOT exist in the US + I am male 5 5.21%
Yes, gender privilege does exist in the US + I am NOT male 16 16.67%
No, gender privilege does NOT exist in the US + I am NOT male 2 2.08%
Voters: 96. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Old 19th October 2017, 12:09 PM   #401
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
And once again you are showing a complete inability to understand simple points. I said, very clearly, that the differences in biology (which you CANNOT remove) mean that there will always be differences between the sexes (EVEN if you remove the other differences). That's not the same as saying that biology is the only difference maker. But you have your mind set on thinking that I'm saying that, so every single post is interpreted under that ideology.

It would be really nice if you stopped doing that and instead sought to actually address what's posted, but there's little hope for that at this point.
Oh come off it. It would be really nice if you'd engage in a discussion about the OTHER difference makers instead of always and consistently arguing that biology is the factor. Seriously - show me where in this thread you've discussed anything other than biology in which you weren't actively dismissing that factor in favor of biology as the explanation.


Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
You know the part where you admit that your first paragraph is made up nonsense and then continue to treat similar nonsense as the gospel truth? That part. "Women aren't expected to be smart, self-sufficient, confident, competitive, and capable." is a lie. It's ideological, not based on reality.
This is a reading comprehension fail on your part. It's not a lie, you just did not understand it.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 12:09 PM   #402
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Which sports do you except from your rule here?
Gymnastics, for one.

Women are better at some things, too.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 12:11 PM   #403
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Oh come off it.
No. The central problem here is that you simply don't understand people's arguments. You've been called on this several times in other threads, very recently. Your behaviour is pretty consistent in this respect, so asking you to adjust it in order to foster more productive discussions, while uncomfortable for you, is pretty damned important.

Quote:
It would be really nice if you'd engage in a discussion about the OTHER difference makers instead of always and consistently arguing that biology is the factor.
Why? When biology is being ignored, I pop in to point it out. If social factors were ignored, which they are not, I'd do the same. If discrimination was ignored, which it never is, I'd do the same too. This isn't a complicated concept.

Quote:
This is a reading comprehension fail on your part. It's not a lie, you just did not understand it.
No, it's a lie, unless you really think it's true, in which case it's insane (the argument, not you).
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 12:17 PM   #404
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Gymnastics, for one.

Women are better at some things, too.
Are you sure of that? Because men have better upper body strength, and they outperform women in many fields of gymnastics. The vault, the bars, the rings, for example.

But it is more popular among women as a competitive sport.

Do you think that male ballet dancers or ice skaters are less physically capable and skilled than their female counterparts? I don't think that's the case. But male ballet dancers simply aren't considered to be 'manly', so it is a much less popular style of dance among men than among women. What's the biological explanation for that?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 12:19 PM   #405
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Why? When biology is being ignored, I pop in to point it out. If social factors were ignored, which they are not, I'd do the same. If discrimination was ignored, which it never is, I'd do the same too. This isn't a complicated concept.
Biology has not been ignored. FFS, I've explicitly included physical differences in a large number of my posts... but you only actually bother to "pop in" and point out biology. And you HAVE NOT YET "popped in" to point out anything other than biology - even when other posters have posited that there are no social factors.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 12:21 PM   #406
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Argumemnon, I'd actually really like to hear your thoughts on this:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I don't think that's a fair response. I don't think it's perfectly one or the other. I mean, you see xjx as having a preferred conclusion... but you also seem to have a preferred conclusion. Your preferred conclusion appears to be that the preference in viewing related to sports is somehow biologically driven because men are better at sports than women. Sure, you can hold up an exception to that with respect to gymnastics... but you're also ignoring the alternate scenario that xjx presented - that a higher volume of people are interested in watching male high school and college football and basketball than watching the female professional versions of those sports.

Is it your contention that high school boys are better at those sports than professional females?

And to xjx's point, there's a difference in opportunity here. How many high schools do you know of that have female football teams? Colleges? How about middle-schools? Women are not given the opportunity to practice and excel at those sports during their formative years. Do you believe that is because there's a substantial difference in physical ability in pre- and early-teen males and females... even before the hormones have driven the physical differences?

Do you think that the additional 8 to 10 years of practice and conditioning might have an impact on skill?


When it comes to gymnastics, that is a sport that is offered to women when they are children as well as to men. Girls have the opportunity to take part in gymnastics at a young age. Similarly with other sports where women excel - they are given the opportunity to begin learning, practicing, and growing that skill at the same age that men are given the opportunity. Do you think there's at least a reasonable possibility that the lack of equal opportunity to practice more traditionally male sports like football and basketball might possibly have an impact on the level of skill attained as adults?

There are actually many different sports and pastimes where having equal opportunity to learn that skill at a young age helps to reduce both the difference in psychical skill attained as well as the popularity of the pastime to spectators. Female marksmen are on a fairly even keel with male marksmen. Female archers have a lighter average draw (upper body strength is a real thing), but their accuracy and precision is as good as that of their male counterparts, and popularity of archery among viewers doesn't have a strong difference from male to female.

Similar story with golf. There are physical differences, of course, and women simply drive shorter distances... but their accuracy and skill are no less. And as competitive golf has become more accessible to females at younger ages (my high school had a female golf team, as did my spouse's middle school and high school), the popularity of women's golf to spectators has grown.

One of the points that I've tried to make, as have several others, is that it's NOT one or the other. There's a feedback loop. There's a biological component that nobody has denied (let me reiterate that, since you've played that strawman repeatedly: nobody has denied that this is a component)... but there is also a social element. And the two are intertwined. Social norms about what the expected behavior, skills, and attributes of a gender play in to what opportunities are available to that gender... which then play into selection by that gender, which results in a higher separation of outcomes. You can't just look at the disparity and say "biology" as the answer. It's not biology alone.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 12:22 PM   #407
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Are you sure of that? Because men have better upper body strength, and they outperform women in many fields of gymnastics. The vault, the bars, the rings, for example.
Gymnastics isn't just about strength but flexibility, and women have us beat on that, and that means they can do things that men can't do. I'd call that better.

Quote:
But male ballet dancers simply aren't considered to be 'manly', so it is a much less popular style of dance among men than among women. What's the biological explanation for that?
You really can't think of one?

Quote:
Biology has not been ignored. FFS, I've explicitly included physical differences in a large number of my posts.
Yeah, just long enough to pretend that I'm arguing that they're the only difference.

Quote:
but you only actually bother to "pop in" and point out biology.
Again, because it's the one most commonly ignored, presumably because it's uncomfortable to discuss it.

Quote:
And you HAVE NOT YET "popped in" to point out anything other than biology - even when other posters have posited that there are no social factors.
Like who?
__________________
<Roar!>


Last edited by Argumemnon; 19th October 2017 at 12:23 PM.
Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 12:23 PM   #408
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Argumemnon, I'd actually really like to hear your thoughts on this:
Easy: you're still misrepresenting my argument. Get that right, and we'll talk.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 12:59 PM   #409
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Easy: you're still misrepresenting my argument. Get that right, and we'll talk.
I'll ignore yet another dodge from you and play along.

What is your argument?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 03:08 PM   #410
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
I'll ignore yet another dodge from you and play along.

What is your argument?
Cat, I keep repeating it over and over and over, and now you act as if I've never made it. Can you make a modicrum of effort and go back and READ the stuff I actually post? It would go a long way towards me giving you the benefit of the doubt and discussing this with you. Instead, you keep insisting that I repeat myself while pretending that it would be the first time I say this. Try to understand my frustration, here.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 03:31 PM   #411
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Cat, I keep repeating it over and over and over, and now you act as if I've never made it. Can you make a modicrum of effort and go back and READ the stuff I actually post? It would go a long way towards me giving you the benefit of the doubt and discussing this with you. Instead, you keep insisting that I repeat myself while pretending that it would be the first time I say this. Try to understand my frustration, here.
Look, we've gone round and round and round on this. You believe you've given your position... but if you have, it's been scattered throughout many posts. Regardless, it's not clear. And every time I ask you to tell me what your argument is, instead of doing so you resort to castigating me for not getting it - you insist I'm not reading, or I'm misrepresenting it, or any number of other things that effectively dodge the request. You're frustrated? So am I. I do NOT understand what you believe you've explained. It is NOT clear, it is NOT concise. So far as I can tell, you haven't been repeating your argument... you've only been repeating that you've already given your argument, but you have not actually given me your argument.

So let's cut the crap. Let's reset.

What is your argument?
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 03:51 PM   #412
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,287
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Why do you keep saying that? You've given no reason why you think that. There are also biological factors at play, and personal preferences that may vary between the groups. That's only one other other possibility, which you seem to want to ignore.
I haven't ignored biological factors. I recognize that there are some evolutionary and genetic factors that influence our behavior and preferences. But biology is only a part of the picture because we are human. Human behavior is a mix of biology and environment.

Sports, like cuisine, art, religion, etc are all sociocultural expressions of biological predispositions. Cuisine is probably a better example of "privilege" than sports is. Why are there so few top female chefs? There are 77 restaurants in NYC with at least one Michelin star and only 6 of them have female chefs. There are 5 times more male head chefs than female. Are women less biologically able to cook well? Less creative? I think you'd have a tough time making that particular argument.

Quote:
False dichotomy. Are we even talking about the same audience? We're not even talking about the same sport!
The argument is about talent level and a sports fan's desire to watch the highest talent. This is obviously not true. Sports fans desire to watch male sports over female sports even when the male sport is played by children.

Quote:
Absolutely not. That social dynamics encourage one sex in different directions than the other is not a privilege. It's not even an advantage. It's a difference. At this point it seems like any difference between the sexes is targeted for elimination for ideological reasons.
Of course it's a privilege and an advantage. Society doesn't encourage sexes in different directions, it simply rewards women less than men (in pay and in opportunity) in almost any direction you want to look. Sports? Dead end, men are physically superior so they get more money. Medicine? By and large, men are doctors and women are nurses. Tech? Academia? Cuisine? Art? Movies? Law? Politics? Those are male-dominated fields. Women dominate much lower paying fields like teaching, waitstaff, cleaning, clerical, etc.

If you have more opportunity simply because of the sex you were born, then I don't see how you can't call it an advantage to be a member of the sex with more opportunities. Like I said, privilege is a clunky word but if you define privilege as "having advantages based on demographic status," then it works.


Quote:
Yes, that was my point.

Can you think of a reason why? I sure can. There's no reason to assume that sci-fi written by women would be significantly different from works written by men.
Sci-fi written by women is different. Very few women (I can't think of any off hand) write hard sci-fi, for example. We still enjoy that difference equally. Why can't we enjoy women's hockey on it's own merits without comparison to men's hockey?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 04:11 PM   #413
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I haven't ignored biological factors. I recognize that there are some evolutionary and genetic factors that influence our behavior and preferences. But biology is only a part of the picture because we are human. Human behavior is a mix of biology and environment.
Then why did you say "What we value as a society is entirely the result of social/cultural conditioning."? You didn't mention or even leave room for biology or any other factor.

Quote:
The argument is about talent level and a sports fan's desire to watch the highest talent. This is obviously not true. Sports fans desire to watch male sports over female sports even when the male sport is played by children.
Again you're simply ignoring other options. Have you considered that perhaps their reasons for watching children's sports are not the same as those for watching adult sports? You're creating an equivalence without justifying it.

Quote:
Of course it's a privilege and an advantage. Society doesn't encourage sexes in different directions, it simply rewards women less than men (in pay and in opportunity) in almost any direction you want to look. Sports? Dead end, men are physically superior so they get more money. Medicine? By and large, men are doctors and women are nurses. Tech? Academia? Cuisine? Art? Movies? Law? Politics? Those are male-dominated fields. Women dominate much lower paying fields like teaching, waitstaff, cleaning, clerical, etc.
None of this demonstrates that it's a privilege, nor that any of those advantages are one-sided.

Quote:
If you have more opportunity simply because of the sex you were born, then I don't see how you can't call it an advantage to be a member of the sex with more opportunities.
You're ignoring female advantages, for one, and you are over-simplifying the issue.

Quote:
Why can't we enjoy women's hockey on it's own merits without comparison to men's hockey?
Again you are equivocating without justification. I've explained this to you already! There is a SKILL DIFFERENCE in hockey. There is no such difference in writing, which is what I was refering to.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 04:14 PM   #414
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
you have not actually given me your argument.
It's one thing to say you don't understand it, but to claim I haven't made it is a lie. Why do you lie? What possible benefit could it give you? You ask me to reset and give you the benefit of the doubt and you go on a lie right there and then. Do you think it predisposes me to agree to your request?

Quote:
Let's reset.
We've already tried that to no avail. Tell me with a straight face that I haven't already told you a dozen times that I don't think biology is the only factor, even though you keep pretending that I do. Again, acknowledging that, permanently, would go a long way towards restoring some confidence, here. But if you're unwilling to demonstrate some effort and honesty, why would I spend 20-30 minutes to compose a post for your benefit?
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 05:11 PM   #415
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,229
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Handful of questions around this statement:

Do you believe that women are biologically less competitive than men, or do you believe that women are socially less competitive than men.. or a combination of the two?

Do you consider "competitiveness" to be an admirable trait in women? What about in men?
Both. I think culture magnifies our differences.

I think I consider it an admirable trait in general. Haven't really thought about it in terms like that before but I don't think it differs to me by sex
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 06:09 PM   #416
jakesteele
Fait Accompli
 
jakesteele's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Rain City
Posts: 2,095
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
This is a split-out from the thread ‘Straight Black Men Are The White People Of Black People’

Please select the statements that you believe are accurate.
No. Gender inequality is a crock of **** cooked up by the alt left designed to shame white males.
__________________

DEATH ALWAYS RIDES SHOTGUN
jakesteele is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th October 2017, 07:02 PM   #417
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,039
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Those tests provide plausibility, but nothing more. You have not demonstrated that they actually account for the real-world observation. You have not eliminated other possible explanations. Again, that's not hand-waving. That's pointing out that you have never, ever actually demonstrated your claim. The fact that your claim is plausible doesn't actually suffice.
If only your speculation had the same level of support. It doesn't even have that.

Your double standard of evidence doesn't make your speculation evidence, and it doesn't make my evidence speculation. (And before the cherry picking, yes, I have also speculated.)

Quote:
Furthermore, you have in fact actually ignored other strands of evidence. For example:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/art...l.pone.0153857
http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/...n_tab_contents

Cross-country comparisons actually point to factors other than just discrimination and sexism as being extremely important to the labor pool distribution.
Oh, I ignored that. I must have been imagining this part of my post that you quoted from...

Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
In most fields, there isn't even a solid mechanism hypothesized besides 'something biological' (the major exceptions being fields with a strong physical labor component, and to a far lesser degree certain STEM fields).
...because otherwise it seems I already knew about those exact papers.

Tell me how they show the other disparities are biologically driven? They don't even show that those disparities are.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Ziggurat and Argumemnon:

In this thread you are engaging in the argument of AGW deniers. You insist that because every single other possible factor that is NOT anthropogenic cannot be explicitly quantified, that there's no way to conclude that anthropogenic effects exist. You've made the argument that there are natural underlying cycles of heating/cooling, and that all of those possible cycles, and all of the things that *might* be a result of those cycles must first be identified and quantified before anything other than natural cycles can even begin to be discussed.

You've been presented with research and analysis that specifically controls for all other factors EXCEPT anthropogenic effects. And you've dismissed them because they don't quantify the natural cycle effect that you've claimed is there.

You also insist that you're not making any claims, and that the burden of proof of natural cycles (which you claim as a substantial factor) is on other people to provide, and that until they provide the proof of the thing you've speculated as a cause, nothing else is valid.

This is your approach. This is your method of argumentation in this thread.

This analogy is very fitting. It's classic FUD arguments. 'You can't absolutely prove all of it, so this speculation is just as good as your evidence.' It's putting the standard of evidence where ever it's most convenient at the time. For your claims, only proof will do; for theirs, speculation is enough.
__________________
Circled nothing is still nothing.
"Nothing will stop the U.S. from being a world leader, not even a handful of adults who want their kids to take science lessons from a book that mentions unicorns six times." -UNLoVedRebel
Mumpsimus: a stubborn person who insists on making an error in spite of being shown that it is wrong
tyr_13 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:17 PM   #418
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,287
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Then why did you say "What we value as a society is entirely the result of social/cultural conditioning."? You didn't mention or even leave room for biology or any other factor.
I'll put it this way: If you raised someone from birth in a remote cabin isolated from society, the things they value would be based solely on what their little isolated "culture" offered. They would still have all the biological drives and influences but an extremely limited set of the sociocultural influences to express those drives through. Their food preferences would be based on what they were fed through their lives. They wouldn't even have sports preferences because there would be no sports. How can they value something they don't even know exists?

We, OTOH, are raised from birth in a society with developed values. For example, there is no biological urge to watch guys dunk a basketball. It wasn't even a part of early basketball; it was viewed as showboating and discouraged by defenders taking cheap shots at dunkers. It was even banned for a short time in the NCAA. But the crowd loved it -valued it- and so it became a feature of the game, so much so that there is a hugely popular slam dunk contest at every All-Star weekend. That is an example of how sociocultural influences entirely shape what we value. You can argue (as I'm sure you will) that evolution/biology has shaped us to value physical prowess. To that I would say, "No duh!" But, again, it's the society/culture that shapes the exact manifestations of physical prowess that we value or prefer to see.

You mentioned earlier that gymnastics was one sport where we value women more than men. This is true. But we don't value gymnastics very much at all. The top female gymnasts can pull off some amazing displays of physical prowess that no man can ever accomplish because the sport suits a female's flexibility, grace and smaller size. So why don't we pay female gymnasts, the elite of their sport, anywhere near what we pay the men of other sports? The answer is that we do not value women's sports on the same level we value men's sports and the reason for that is entirely sociocultural.

Quote:
Again you're simply ignoring other options. Have you considered that perhaps their reasons for watching children's sports are not the same as those for watching adult sports? You're creating an equivalence without justifying it.
No. What I'm saying is that saying, "we want to watch high talent level sports," is not a sufficient justification for why we value men's sports higher than women's. The fact that more people tune into the LLWS Finals as opposed to the WNBA finals is an illustration of that. Of course people have different reasons for watching children's sports than adult sports. My question then is this: Why don't people have different reasons for watching female sports than male sports?

Quote:
None of this demonstrates that it's a privilege, nor that any of those advantages are one-sided.
I completely agree that females have many biological advantages over men. The problem in our society is that we don't value their advantages on the same level we value men's advantages. That disparity in valuing advantages is a privilege men have.

Quote:
You're ignoring female advantages, for one, and you are over-simplifying the issue.
I'm not ignoring anything, I'm focusing on the advantages that society values. Again, females may have certain biological advantages, this is true. So why doesn't society value and reward those advantages on the same level as male advantages? Is your argument that this value disparity is basically immutable because it's biologically baked into us?

My argument is that it isn't immutable, that we can change it (albeit very slowly and with great difficulty) and that we should change it because it is inherently unfair to women.

Quote:
Again you are equivocating without justification. I've explained this to you already! There is a SKILL DIFFERENCE in hockey. There is no such difference in writing, which is what I was refering to.
1)Of course there is a "skill difference*" in writing, why wouldn't there be? You've gone to great pains to point out that men and women are different. Women do not, generally speaking, write about the same things or in the same way as men. As I mentioned before, women don't choose to write hard sci-fi novels. Yet we can enjoy books written by women on their own merits -we value their contributions to literature even though they are different.

2) Literature is a great example of how society can change over time. Women were not always respected as authors; it wasn't until the 90's that they started getting an equitable share of the NYT Best Sellers list.. Go back to the 1800's and how many female authors were taken seriously? George Eliot? Male pen name. Jane Austen? It wasn't until decades after her death that she was taken seriously.

3)Skill difference does not mean that one skill is superior to another in terms of "ability to be enjoyed" on it's own merits. Why can't you watch women's hockey with a different set of expectations in what you are going to see? I would argue you can't because you've been socioculturally conditioned to value the skills that men have over the skills women have.

*Skill difference is actually a great way to put it. Men don't have "better" skills, they have different skills. They are only viewed as better and more worthy because of sociocultural influence.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 01:51 PM   #419
Dancing David
Penultimate Amazing
 
Dancing David's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 38,573
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Zenobia, Cleopatra, Boudicca, Liz the 1st, Victoria, Esther, Catherine the Great, Christina of Sweden and Nerfertiti say hi.

Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk
the Iroquois confederattion
__________________
I suspect you are a sandwich, metaphorically speaking. -Donn
And a shot rang out. Now Space is doing time... -Ben Burch
You built the toilet - don't complain when people crap in it. _Kid Eager
Never underestimate the power of the Random Number God. More of evolutionary history is His doing than people think. - Dinwar
Dancing David is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 02:33 PM   #420
ahhell
Muse
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 537
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Individual female heads of state isn't what Allen was refering to. The hint was in the use of the word "matriarchy". Those are possible outside of matriarchies.
Glad someone pointed that out, he forgot Benazir Bhotto and Indira Ghandi, leaving out the noted matriarchies of South Asia.

Side note, I once read an interesting article regarding the fact that women were more likely to be heads of states in developing democracies because they tend to have more entrenched political dynasties, so you get the widows and daughters of powerful politicians elected.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:38 PM   #421
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It's one thing to say you don't understand it, but to claim I haven't made it is a lie. Why do you lie? What possible benefit could it give you? You ask me to reset and give you the benefit of the doubt and you go on a lie right there and then. Do you think it predisposes me to agree to your request?
Let me reiterate:
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
You believe you've given your position... but if you have, it's been scattered throughout many posts. Regardless, it's not clear.
...

I do NOT understand what you believe you've explained. It is NOT clear.


Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
We've already tried that to no avail. Tell me with a straight face that I haven't already told you a dozen times that I don't think biology is the only factor, even though you keep pretending that I do. Again, acknowledging that, permanently, would go a long way towards restoring some confidence, here.
Fine. I acknowledge that you've said biology isn't the only factor.

Now that this is out of the way... What other factors than biology do you acknowledge as having an impact?

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
But if you're unwilling to demonstrate some effort and honesty, why would I spend 20-30 minutes to compose a post for your benefit?
Again, let me reiterate:
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
You believe you've given your position... but if you have, it's been scattered throughout many posts. Regardless, it's not clear.
...

I do NOT understand what you believe you've explained. It is NOT clear.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.

Last edited by Emily's Cat; Yesterday at 04:46 PM.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 04:40 PM   #422
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,857
Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
Both. I think culture magnifies our differences.
That's a perfectly fair answer

Where this discussion comes in is regarding whether or not it is just and equitable for culture to magnify those differences... especially when that magnification of differences produces unequal access to opportunities.

Originally Posted by pharphis View Post
I think I consider it an admirable trait in general. Haven't really thought about it in terms like that before but I don't think it differs to me by sex
Glad to hear it. For a lot of people, it differs more than they believe it does.
__________________
I am me. I am just me. I'm a little like other cats... but mostly I am just me.
Emily's Cat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:10 PM   #423
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,362
Still don't get why the obvious reason that womens sport in the vast majority is less skilled and this brings boredom and lack of interest keeps being brushed over.

Of course fans are going to get into men's sport more.

You do have lesser skilled teams people support

These are normally based on geographical pride.

Your regional team. Your town team. Your franchise. In America your college. Your state, blah de blah de blah.

But even these are usually the men's version of the sport

Because although they are less skilled than the top teams the men are still more skilled than their level of women

And half the smaller teams are a amateur so it has nothing to do with money sexism or whatever

Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000

Last edited by cullennz; Yesterday at 05:11 PM.
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:14 PM   #424
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
For example, there is no biological urge to watch guys dunk a basketball.
Isn't it? You keep making these declarations but I see not basis for them.

Quote:
So why don't we pay female gymnasts, the elite of their sport, anywhere near what we pay the men of other sports? The answer is that we do not value women's sports on the same level we value men's sports and the reason for that is entirely sociocultural.
Idem.

Quote:
What I'm saying is that saying, "we want to watch high talent level sports," is not a sufficient justification for why we value men's sports higher than women's. The fact that more people tune into the LLWS Finals as opposed to the WNBA finals is an illustration of that. Of course people have different reasons for watching children's sports than adult sports. My question then is this: Why don't people have different reasons for watching female sports than male sports?
Wait a second. Are you retracting your claim that the little league finals being more popular than the women's basketball finals is due to bias towards males, now?

Quote:
I completely agree that females have many biological advantages over men. The problem in our society is that we don't value their advantages on the same level we value men's advantages.
I don't agree.

Quote:
Of course there is a "skill difference*" in writing, why wouldn't there be? You've gone to great pains to point out that men and women are different. Women do not, generally speaking, write about the same things or in the same way as men. As I mentioned before, women don't choose to write hard sci-fi novels. Yet we can enjoy books written by women on their own merits -we value their contributions to literature even though they are different.
You're still equivocating. You're treating "skill difference" (one is better than the other) as meaning "skill difference" (they are different). The two aren't the same (they're different!) What I don't understand is that later in your post you acknowledge that distinction.

Quote:
Literature is a great example of how society can change over time. Women were not always respected as authors; it wasn't until the 90's that they started getting an equitable share of the NYT Best Sellers list.. Go back to the 1800's and how many female authors were taken seriously?
How many were there in the first place? You've got to look at proportions before you draw conclusions.

Quote:
Why can't you watch women's hockey with a different set of expectations in what you are going to see?
I can, but since it's skill I want to see, I don't.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:16 PM   #425
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,305
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Now that this is out of the way... What other factors than biology do you acknowledge as having an impact?
Social pressure, culture, individual preferences, discrimination, etc.

Quote:
Again, let me reiterate:
You can reiterate all you want. Until you put that modicrum of effort in, you're not getting more than a few seconds of my time per post.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 05:52 PM   #426
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 13,312
I'm finding it quite awesome that the Harvey Weinstein thread is coming up right above this one for me in "new posts".
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 06:32 PM   #427
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,362
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
I'm finding it quite awesome that the Harvey Weinstein thread is coming up right above this one for me in "new posts".
Don't suppose you could enlighten me with what you think the connection is.

Sent from my SM-J500Y using Tapatalk
__________________
I generally oppose gun control, but I support the ban on assault weapons and I support a slightly longer waiting period to purchase a gun. With today’s Internet technology we should be able to tell within 72-hours if a potential gun owner has a record.

Source: The America We Deserve, by Donald Trump, p.102 , Jul 2, 2000
cullennz is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Yesterday, 08:44 PM   #428
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,229
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I'll put it this way: If you raised someone from birth in a remote cabin isolated from society, the things they value would be based solely on what their little isolated "culture" offered. They would still have all the biological drives and influences but an extremely limited set of the sociocultural influences to express those drives through. Their food preferences would be based on what they were fed through their lives. They wouldn't even have sports preferences because there would be no sports. How can they value something they don't even know exists?

We, OTOH, are raised from birth in a society with developed values. For example, there is no biological urge to watch guys dunk a basketball. It wasn't even a part of early basketball; it was viewed as showboating and discouraged by defenders taking cheap shots at dunkers. It was even banned for a short time in the NCAA. But the crowd loved it -valued it- and so it became a feature of the game, so much so that there is a hugely popular slam dunk contest at every All-Star weekend. That is an example of how sociocultural influences entirely shape what we value. You can argue (as I'm sure you will) that evolution/biology has shaped us to value physical prowess. To that I would say, "No duh!" But, again, it's the society/culture that shapes the exact manifestations of physical prowess that we value or prefer to see.

You mentioned earlier that gymnastics was one sport where we value women more than men. This is true. But we don't value gymnastics very much at all. The top female gymnasts can pull off some amazing displays of physical prowess that no man can ever accomplish because the sport suits a female's flexibility, grace and smaller size. So why don't we pay female gymnasts, the elite of their sport, anywhere near what we pay the men of other sports? The answer is that we do not value women's sports on the same level we value men's sports and the reason for that is entirely sociocultural.

No. What I'm saying is that saying, "we want to watch high talent level sports," is not a sufficient justification for why we value men's sports higher than women's. The fact that more people tune into the LLWS Finals as opposed to the WNBA finals is an illustration of that. Of course people have different reasons for watching children's sports than adult sports. My question then is this: Why don't people have different reasons for watching female sports than male sports?

I completely agree that females have many biological advantages over men. The problem in our society is that we don't value their advantages on the same level we value men's advantages. That disparity in valuing advantages is a privilege men have.

I'm not ignoring anything, I'm focusing on the advantages that society values. Again, females may have certain biological advantages, this is true. So why doesn't society value and reward those advantages on the same level as male advantages? Is your argument that this value disparity is basically immutable because it's biologically baked into us?

My argument is that it isn't immutable, that we can change it (albeit very slowly and with great difficulty) and that we should change it because it is inherently unfair to women.

1)Of course there is a "skill difference*" in writing, why wouldn't there be? You've gone to great pains to point out that men and women are different. Women do not, generally speaking, write about the same things or in the same way as men. As I mentioned before, women don't choose to write hard sci-fi novels. Yet we can enjoy books written by women on their own merits -we value their contributions to literature even though they are different.

2) Literature is a great example of how society can change over time. Women were not always respected as authors; it wasn't until the 90's that they started getting an equitable share of the NYT Best Sellers list.. Go back to the 1800's and how many female authors were taken seriously? George Eliot? Male pen name. Jane Austen? It wasn't until decades after her death that she was taken seriously.

3)Skill difference does not mean that one skill is superior to another in terms of "ability to be enjoyed" on it's own merits. Why can't you watch women's hockey with a different set of expectations in what you are going to see? I would argue you can't because you've been socioculturally conditioned to value the skills that men have over the skills women have.

*Skill difference is actually a great way to put it. Men don't have "better" skills, they have different skills. They are only viewed as better and more worthy because of sociocultural influence.
You've been talking about economic difference which would make this a discussion of economic values, which is wholly or mostly separate from moral values. Not sure if that's relevant to your point but figured I'd point it out
pharphis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:05 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.