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 10th October 2017, 03:51 PM   #321
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,863
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Unfalsifiable. You're making it both impossible to prove or disprove this claim, and heretical to even question it.

No, it is not obvious that because discimination exists, it is a major factor is representation disparity in a given field. We know other factors exist. If we cannot determine the impact of discrimination directly, it makes sense to eliminate the other factors to at least get an idea of its magnitude.

You want to ignore this crucial question because the odds are the impacts are very small, and it would disallow the constant outrage and victimhood.
It's autumn. Leaves are falling.

Can you tell me whether many or few leaves have fallen from the tree nearest your house?

Can you tell me exactly how many leaves have fallen? Can you tell me what percentage of leaves have fallen?

Is it unfalsifiable to say "leaves are fallen, and it's more leaves than it was last week" simply because you can't actually count them?

ETA: Regarding the red, we have been able to quantify some of the bias. Just because you dismiss it and conveniently forget that it exist doesn't make it not there.
__________________
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; 10th October 2017 at 03:53 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 12th October 2017, 08:21 AM   #322
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,047
Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
Sorry....sarcasm isn't always obvious in typed words. I wrote it very sarcastically because it clearly IS NOT TRUE.
Ah, sorry I didn't realize that and assumed you were falling into a strawman view of what some of us are saying...

Quote:
For either side to cherry pick stats to support their position is ridiculous. Do I think there is possibly sexism by some? Yes. Do I think it is systemically perpetrated on the general populace by our government? No.
...or you were. Do, do you think anyone has argued that last bit?

Quote:
If you can show me an example of a clearly preferential treatment towards males in any form or fashion that is systemic and not the product of an individual's actions, I'll be happy to support you. At the same time, if you will argue that sexual dimorphism doesn't play a large role in the differences we see between the sexes, I'm not sure that headway can be made.

Or you really, really were. Sexual dimorphism can, but doesn't mean it explains away all the differences, or most of them, or any specific field's disparity without evidence of it. No one has denied that sexual dimorphism can and does play a role, but I have argued against 'baking it in' or simply assuming any given disparity is explained by it without evidence.

And I'll ask you the same question I asked earlier; what level of resolution do you demand? Define 'clear'. There are many pillars of evidence, but it seems like you want single self-contained examples of proof.

Quote:
We, as differently sexed human beings, are NOT THE SAME. Most girls throw like girls. Some outliers exist...I'm sure all female professional athletes could beat the snot out of me. But to simply ignore biology and dismiss all arguments based on some hypothetical 50% starting line seems dismissive and best.
So what does throwing or athletic ability have to do with math? Programing? My specific reoccurring example of governmental officials?

If we want to explain the disparity, we start at 50% and every other factor would then have to add up to the existing disparity. If the disparity is 20% and biology explains all of that, then discrimination would be none of it. But there would have to be evidence of this. We have a plausible mechanism and evidence in things like firefighter for biologically driven differences. We have some suggestion and speculation that this might be the case for some fields like programing. We don't have that for many other fields.

How do you know that the 'base biological rate' for elected governmental officials isn't 90% women, and the Haudenosaunee had it right? How do we know that 'base biological rate' for programing isn't actually 30% women, and the 10% is explained by both, but not entirely biologically driven and still mostly the long-term effects of discrimination? (Note, I'm saying 'discrimination' for short, but I'm including in this 'invalid biases and socially constructed gender pressures.) No, the only rational thing to do is start at a 50% rate and then examine the other evidence to support what is causing the remaining differences, which is why these other supporting evidence strands are important. We have evidence in many fields for these other invalid, non-biological pressures, but lack this evidence for biological differences driving this in many fields.

Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
Out of respect and, with a little bit of honesty thrown in, it'll take me awhile to get through those. I've skimmed through the first two and had a quick reaction in the form of a question about the Heidi-Howard print:

Is it not telling that the conceived gender bias associated with the changing of the names associated with both groups of both male and females a little weird? In other words: is it gender bias when the women hated Heidi as much as the men seemed to? What does that mean (for your argument....I know what it means, hehe)?

No one here has argued that women are separate or superior to men in regards to driving these biases and discriminator forces. There are people who call themselves 'feminist' who are this kind of misandrist 'if women ran the world there would be no war' nonsense, but they aren't arguing in this thread. Why would women be immune to perpetuating gender bias?
__________________
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 12th October 2017, 08:27 AM   #323
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,356
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Or you really, really were. Sexual dimorphism can, but doesn't mean it explains away all the differences, or most of them, or any specific field's disparity without evidence of it.
How the hell would you determine that? You've run away from this question for weeks now. If you know it has an effect, how would you go around determining how much of an effect it has before you say it doesn't account for all or most of the observations?
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 12th October 2017, 08:30 AM   #324
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,047
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
How the hell would you determine that? You've run away from this question for weeks now. If you know it has an effect, how would you go around determining how much of an effect it has before you say it doesn't account for all or most of the observations?
You first. Biologically driven difference is a positive claim, so support it. My positive claim has already been supported by many strands of evidence.

Your speculation is not my place to support. How did you determine the biologically driven rate?
__________________
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 12th October 2017, 11:15 AM   #325
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,356
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
You first.
Dodge noted. You're the one who claims that it's insufficient to account for the observations.

Quote:
How did you determine the biologically driven rate?
I'm not making a claim about this. My point remains that biology accounts for _some_ of the observations, and that because of your inability to show how much, you can't say that discrimination, which you can't quantify either, is responsible for a substantial part of those observations.
__________________
<Roar!>


Last edited by Argumemnon; 12th October 2017 at 11:43 AM.
Argumemnon 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 12th October 2017, 11:36 AM   #326
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,863
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
How the hell would you determine that? You've run away from this question for weeks now. If you know it has an effect, how would you go around determining how much of an effect it has before you say it doesn't account for all or most of the observations?
It's a stupid question.

You're assuming that biology is a factor, and you're ignoring all the various bits of evidence from other potential factors... And then you're insisting that nobody can even know if other potential factors are actual factors until we can specifically quantify the biological factor. But we CAN quantify the non-biological factors that actually affect the dynamic in at least some areas. Why does that get dismissed?

Seriously, this is algebra. We've got multiple variables that include biology (B) and others (Xn) and multiple equations (many different jobs). We know there that the Xns exist, because we've been able to solve for some of the Xns in some of the equations, but not in all of them.

You keep insisting that we're not allowed to look at ANY of the Xns until after we've perfectly solved for B in all of the equations.

That's a highly ineffective way to solve that problem. I'm bordering on saying that it's a purposeful misdirection... but that couldn't possibly be your intent.
__________________
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 12th October 2017, 11:38 AM   #327
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,863
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Dodge noted. You're the one who claims that it's insufficient to account for the observations.
Because we've been able to quantify non-biological factors in at least some cases! Therefore biology is insufficient to account for all of the observations!

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
I'm not making a claim about this.
What is it that you believe you are doing?
__________________
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 12th October 2017, 12:19 PM   #328
Allen773
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
This thread reminds me that very few truly "matriarchies" have ever existed in any society or culture (assuming that any have existed; I think there's definitely some divergence of opinions among scholars regarding that).

However, we do have many examples of societies and cultures that are more egalitarian on gender (among other things) - and guess what? They're generally nicer places to live, by both objective measures and subjective measures of people's life satisfaction and well-being.

It's almost as if sharing power leads to a happier, less violent, and more broadly prosperous society than the alternative...
Allen773 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 12th October 2017, 12:21 PM   #329
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,356
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
This thread reminds me that very few truly "matriarchies" have ever existed in any society or culture (assuming that any have existed; I think there's definitely some divergence of opinions among scholars regarding that).

However, we do have many examples of societies and cultures that are more egalitarian on gender (among other things) - and guess what? They're generally nicer places to live, by both objective measures and subjective measures of people's life satisfaction and well-being.

It's almost as if sharing power leads to a happier, less violent, and more broadly prosperous society than the alternative...
That sounds like a very simplistic analysis of reality.

Do you know why there were very few matriarchies? Do you know what egalitarian cultures, historically, were? How do you know that equality isn't a consequence of a more peaceful and more prosperous society? Etc.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 12th October 2017, 01:09 PM   #330
Crawtator
Student
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
This thread reminds me that very few truly "matriarchies" have ever existed in any society or culture (assuming that any have existed; I think there's definitely some divergence of opinions among scholars regarding that).

However, we do have many examples of societies and cultures that are more egalitarian on gender (among other things) - and guess what? They're generally nicer places to live, by both objective measures and subjective measures of people's life satisfaction and well-being.

It's almost as if sharing power leads to a happier, less violent, and more broadly prosperous society than the alternative...
That's a major argument of Hitchens...in favor of atheism. All major religions (that I can think of) are patriarchal in nature. Most, if not all, countries that oppose reproductive freedoms for women have really poor quality of life. Hitchens' argument is something like "If you want to pull your country out of poverty, one thing has worked consistently: the empowerment of women and the establishment of their reproductive rights". I can't say that I disagree with him.

Is gender bias a cornerstone of the major religions? I would say so.
Crawtator 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 12th October 2017, 03:38 PM   #331
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,356
Originally Posted by Crawtator View Post
Is gender bias a cornerstone of the major religions? I would say so.
I don't think it's deliberate, however, but a "logical" consequence of their various tenets about reproduction and what counts as something "natural" or god-ordained. There's also the oft-mentioned biological realities that come into play in there as well.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 12th October 2017, 07:17 PM   #332
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,047
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Dodge noted. You're the one who claims that it's insufficient to account for the observations.
Sure, if you ignore all the lines of evidence I've talked about and cut out the other sentence, it's a dodge.


Quote:
I'm not making a claim about this. My point remains that biology accounts for _some_ of the observations, and that because of your inability to show how much, you can't say that discrimination, which you can't quantify either, is responsible for a substantial part of those observations.
Your point is a claim. You can't just frame it a little differently to get out of burden of proof.

You're ironically in the position you believe I'm in. You don't actually have evidence that biology accounts for all these disparities in these various fields, while we have several lines of evidence that biases do, so you can't say that biology drives this. Further, if biology did account for such massive disparities, it would be much easier to detect than it has been. We've been able to find bias by test, by comparison, and by differences in rates after changes that effect biases and/or outright discrimination. These things support each other. 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).

On one hand, we have fairly robust research and observation that bias and discrimination play substantial roles, and this is perfectly in line with observations of similar countries that differ in certain aspects effecting those things having massively different disparities from otherwise similar countries that have certain aspects that don't. If for no other reason, Occum's razor applies to cast doubt on this 'biological base line' that varies so much independent of biology. On the other hand we have mostly speculation supported by other speculation.

How do you know the 'biological' rate for women politicians isn't 70%?
__________________
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 13th October 2017, 02:30 AM   #333
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,356
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
Sure, if you ignore all the lines of evidence I've talked about and cut out the other sentence, it's a dodge.
No, it's a dodge nonetheless. You'd been very clear that you have absolutely no clue how to determine whether and by how much discrimination accounts for the observed disparity. You simply assume that it does, and that in fact it accounts for most or all of said disparity. That's why you flipped out when it was suggested by myself and others that there may be other factors at play.

Quote:
Your point is a claim. You can't just frame it a little differently to get out of burden of proof.

You're ironically in the position you believe I'm in. You don't actually have evidence that biology accounts for all these disparities in these various fields
It's amazing that, after I made very clear what my point is, you are utterly unable to properly repeat it. Apparently when I post "biology accounts for _some_ of the observations", you read "biology accounts for all these disparities".

At this point it's clear that you're doing this on purpose, presumably to distract from your own inadequacies. The alternative is not any more charitable.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 13th October 2017, 07:19 AM   #334
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,047
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
No, it's a dodge nonetheless. You'd been very clear that you have absolutely no clue how to determine whether and by how much discrimination accounts for the observed disparity. You simply assume that it does, and that in fact it accounts for most or all of said disparity. That's why you flipped out when it was suggested by myself and others that there may be other factors at play.
No.

Originally Posted by tyr_13
Further, if biology did account for such massive disparities, it would be much easier to detect than it has been. We've been able to find bias by test, by comparison, and by differences in rates after changes that effect biases and/or outright discrimination. These things support each other. 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).

And that's after I already explained many times. So no, you're wrong, just flat out, straight up wrong. You're even wrong about what you said yourself, as you have several times said "if and how much".



Quote:
It's amazing that, after I made very clear what my point is, you are utterly unable to properly repeat it. Apparently when I post "biology accounts for _some_ of the observations", you read "biology accounts for all these disparities".

At this point it's clear that you're doing this on purpose, presumably to distract from your own inadequacies. The alternative is not any more charitable.

I didn't say you made that claim. Read what I wrote again. For your claim to be true, it would have to account for all the disparity. It does not, so your claim is wrong. I didn't say you said it accounted for all of it, but that is absolutely necessary for the claim you did make to be true. Got any evidence, or is it going to be speculation?

Your clumsy personalization reflects the quality of your argument.

How do you know the 'biological base rate' for women politicians isn't 70%?
__________________
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 13th October 2017, 07:26 AM   #335
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
How do you know the 'biological base rate' for women politicians isn't 70%?
He doesn't know that. Nor does he need to for his argument. But you do need to for yours.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 13th October 2017, 07:33 AM   #336
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,356
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
And that's after I already explained many times. So no, you're wrong, just flat out, straight up wrong.
Your explanation is not evidence for your claim. It's part of the claim.

Quote:
You're even wrong about what you said yourself, as you have several times said "if and how much".
No, I've been very clear about why I include "if" in there. What I said is that although discrimination exists, it might not have a significant effect that we can see in the larger disparity due to a number of factors that cancel it out (including discrimination in the opposite direction). So even though I agree that discrimination exists, it does not follow that I think you can spot it in the observations of country-wide disparity. You're over-simplifying the entire issue.

Quote:
I didn't say you made that claim. Read what I wrote again.
I just did, and you said exactly that. Why else would you say I have no evidence for X if I did not claim X?

Quote:
For your claim to be true, it would have to account for all the disparity.
Then you simply don't understand my argument, no matter how many times I've made and clarified it. In fact I listed at least one other item that could be a major factor. Don't be surprised about the personalisation under those circumstances.

Quote:
I didn't say you said it accounted for all of it, but that is absolutely necessary for the claim you did make to be true.
Talk about splitting hairs! No only is the above false, but you're trying to say that a logical implication of my 'claim' doesn't count as me claiming that implication. That's pretty desperate.

Quote:
How do you know the 'biological base rate' for women politicians isn't 70%?
I don't. It could very well be. And? That's in fact part of my argument!
__________________
<Roar!>


Last edited by Argumemnon; 13th October 2017 at 07:35 AM.
Argumemnon 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 13th October 2017, 09:33 AM   #337
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,047
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
He doesn't know that. Nor does he need to for his argument. But you do need to for yours.
For his argument to be anything more than a speculative hand-wave, he does.

But as that argument is nothing but a speculative hand-wave, it's appropriate that there isn't any evidence supporting it.
__________________
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 13th October 2017, 09:41 AM   #338
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,047
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Your explanation is not evidence for your claim. It's part of the claim.
You have a bad habit of ignoring inconvenient evidence. I listed evidence that has already been cited. Don't pretend to have not read this thread. (What is it the kids are calling it in these threads? DOK?



Quote:
No, I've been very clear about why I include "if" in there. What I said is that although discrimination exists, it might not have a significant effect that we can see in the larger disparity due to a number of factors that cancel it out (including discrimination in the opposite direction). So even though I agree that discrimination exists, it does not follow that I think you can spot it in the observations of country-wide disparity. You're over-simplifying the entire issue.
I'm over-simplifying? Care to address any of the threads of evidence supporting that these observations are in line with and supportive of discrimination being a major or the major component (in many fields).



Quote:
I just did, and you said exactly that. Why else would you say I have no evidence for X if I did not claim X?
Because it's necessary for your argument to have any utility. As I already said.



Quote:
Then you simply don't understand my argument, no matter how many times I've made and clarified it. In fact I listed at least one other item that could be a major factor. Don't be surprised about the personalisation under those circumstances.

I wasn't the least bit surprised. Again, I understand your argument apparently better than you do, which is why I object to it.



Quote:
Talk about splitting hairs! No only is the above false, but you're trying to say that a logical implication of my 'claim' doesn't count as me claiming that implication. That's pretty desperate.

What I said was true, and trivially so. Why do trivially true statements get people making untrue statements so up in arms?



Quote:
I don't. It could very well be. And? That's in fact part of my argument!

In other words, your argument is worthless speculation. All it does is hand-wave the scary need for some change, and like you object to so many times it's change in gender norms.

Old US guys need to grow the hell up.
__________________
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 13th October 2017, 09:42 AM   #339
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
For his argument to be anything more than a speculative hand-wave, he does.

But as that argument is nothing but a speculative hand-wave, it's appropriate that there isn't any evidence supporting it.
Suppose you want to know if eating apples reduces the risk of heart attacks. You go out, find a bunch of people, some of whom eat apples and some of whom do not. You watch them for a while and observe the rate at which they have heart attacks. Perhaps you notice that the ones who eat apples are less likely to have heart attacks.

Do you then conclude that eating apples reduces the risk of heart attacks? No, you do not. Why not? Because you did nothing to control for other possible factors. This wasn't a controlled experiment, the observed effects could be due to other differences between your two groups.

Pointing that out isn't a speculative hand wave. It's basic logic.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 13th October 2017, 09:43 AM   #340
tyr_13
Penultimate Amazing
 
tyr_13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 15,047
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Suppose you want to know if eating apples reduces the risk of heart attacks. You go out, find a bunch of people, some of whom eat apples and some of whom do not. You watch them for a while and observe the rate at which they have heart attacks. Perhaps you notice that the ones who eat apples are less likely to have heart attacks.

Do you then conclude that eating apples reduces the risk of heart attacks? No, you do not. Why not? Because you did nothing to control for other possible factors. This wasn't a controlled experiment, the observed effects could be due to other differences between your two groups.

Pointing that out isn't a speculative hand wave. It's basic logic.
This ignores the other strands of evidence and verifiable, tested mechanism.

So, no, fail.
__________________
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 13th October 2017, 09:58 AM   #341
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,356
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
You have a bad habit of ignoring inconvenient evidence. I listed evidence that has already been cited. Don't pretend to have not read this thread.
I have, and I'm yet to see anything I'd consider to be evidence from you.

Quote:
What is it the kids are calling it in these threads? DOK?
That's not what a DOK is but I'm not surprised you can't grasp this other simple concept, either.

Quote:
I'm over-simplifying?
Yes. I'm the one telling you that it's more complex than you make it out to be, and you're the one saying "nuh-huh."

Quote:
Because it's necessary for your argument to have any utility. As I already said.
You said it but have not demonstrated it.

Quote:
Again, I understand your argument apparently better than you do, which is why I object to it.
You consistently show that you have no clue what's been discussed, so you're in no position to make this claim. Every time you try to repeat my own argument or draw conclusions from it, you get it wrong even after repetition and clarification from me.

It really shouldn't be complicated. You claim that observations of disparity mean that discrimination is the major factor. I'm saying that it does not follow at all, that other factors are at play, and that if you can't establish the relative weights of these factors, you can't make that claim.

What part of that is causing you so much trouble?

Quote:
What I said was true, and trivially so.
I can't help you if you think something that's blatantly false is trivially true. Well, you don't, but it's convenient to pretend that you do because it's yet another way you've found to avoid the hard questions and problems about your claim.

Quote:
In other words, your argument is worthless speculation.
It's lethal to your claim. How is that worthless speculation? You have agreed that biology plays a role. I'm sure you'll agree that social mores play a role as well. So it's in fact not speculation, is it?

Quote:
Old US guys need to grow the hell up.
What does that even mean?
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 13th October 2017, 10:01 AM   #342
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by tyr_13 View Post
This ignores the other strands of evidence and verifiable, tested mechanism.
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.

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.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 13th October 2017, 10:45 AM   #343
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,863
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.
__________________
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 13th October 2017, 10:54 AM   #344
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
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.
No. You have badly mischaracterized the AWG debate. Climate scientists claim that they can quantify how much global warming is due to CO2 increases. The debate is about whether or not that claim is accurate.

You, on the other hand, have no claim that can even be evaluated for accuracy.

Quote:
You've been presented with research and analysis that specifically controls for all other factors EXCEPT anthropogenic effects.
Sure, in very specific and controlled settings. But except in a few cases (such as blind auditions for symphonies), you can't translate from those tests to demonstrate the magnitude of real-world differences, and certainly not the specific case claimed here of politicians. Social science studies are not so easily generalizable. And that's leaving aside the replication crisis the entire field faces.

You are trying to lay claim to the mantle and authority of science, but your claim to it is invalid. You have not done what you claim to have done.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 13th October 2017, 11:31 AM   #345
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,356
It's amazing how consistently Cat and Tyr can misrepresent what others are saying. It takes quite a bit if dedication to one's task.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 13th October 2017, 12:57 PM   #346
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,863
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Sure, in very specific and controlled settings. But except in a few cases (such as blind auditions for symphonies), you can't translate from those tests to demonstrate the magnitude of real-world differences, and certainly not the specific case claimed here of politicians. Social science studies are not so easily generalizable. And that's leaving aside the replication crisis the entire field faces.

You are trying to lay claim to the mantle and authority of science, but your claim to it is invalid. You have not done what you claim to have done.
Given that you've claimed a hand-wave with a pile of speculation and have done nothing at all... I think my claim is better supported than yours.

Either way, I've reached the end of my patience. You're not even bothering to pretend to consider the situation. All you've done is naysay and dismiss anything presented to you. Then you insist that some presumed element must be perfectly quantifiable before anything else can be considered at all. There's no point to this discussion anymore.

So go ahead and go forth with your message: Women just aren't naturally as good at stuff as men are, and besides women just naturally don't want leadership or scientific roles! It's biology!
__________________
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; 13th October 2017 at 12:58 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 13th October 2017, 01:14 PM   #347
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
Given that you've claimed a hand-wave with a pile of speculation and have done nothing at all... I think my claim is better supported than yours.

Either way, I've reached the end of my patience. You're not even bothering to pretend to consider the situation. All you've done is naysay and dismiss anything presented to you. Then you insist that some presumed element must be perfectly quantifiable before anything else can be considered at all. There's no point to this discussion anymore.

So go ahead and go forth with your message: Women just aren't naturally as good at stuff as men are, and besides women just naturally don't want leadership or scientific roles! It's biology!
You are correct about one thing: there is indeed no point to discussion anymore. I have repeatedly pointed out that you are fighting against straw men, that I have not said what you claim I have said (especially your last paragraph). Yet my patience has not run out. I am willing to continue to correct your lies. And they are lies. At this point, after multiple corrections already, there can be no longer any doubt.

It is you who has run away from honest discussion, not me. And you ran away from it a long time ago. You have no high ground from which to criticize me. You have run out of patience the same way all zealots do when they fail to convince someone of their heresy.

So do whatever you want, brave sir Robin.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 13th October 2017, 01:16 PM   #348
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,356
Go Cat, go! Spew forth your own message: men are scum.

(it's as accurate a representation of your views as yours is to mine or Zig's. But I suppose it's much more comfortable to believe that your opponents are morally bankrupt. It's easier to dismiss and misrepresent them).
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 13th October 2017, 01:16 PM   #349
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It's amazing how consistently Cat and Tyr can misrepresent what others are saying. It takes quite a bit if dedication to one's task.
You called it:

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat View Post
So go ahead and go forth with your message: Women just aren't naturally as good at stuff as men are, and besides women just naturally don't want leadership or scientific roles! It's biology!
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 13th October 2017, 01:27 PM   #350
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,356
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You called it:
It's really quite a fascinating look into human psychology.

"Men and women's biology being very different, it's expected that the end results might differ between them" translates to "women just aren't as good as men and they don't want leadership roles, because biology!".

Notice how little the two sentences have in common. I don't claim to know exactly how the differences between the sexes would be expressed. It's a very complicated subject, but Cat conjures up the worst possible scenario, presumably because it's the only alternative to believing that men and women are the same and that sexual dimorphism is a social construct. I mean, why else would you interpret the first sentence as meaning the same as the second if you didn't think biology DOESN'T make any difference? If you think it DOES make a difference, then suggestion that it makes a difference shouldn't be shocking, right?

But men and women _aren't_ the same. Testosterone alone makes a whole lot of difference in physiology and psychology. So why is it so difficult to even consider that it can and will affect career paths, among other things? Women are over-represented in just about every field that requires an empathetic touch and social skills. Is that coincidence? Is that insulting to men? Of course not. It just is. The point of equality is to remove undue discrimination, not make everyone the same so no one feels that life is unfair.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 13th October 2017, 02:46 PM   #351
Emily's Cat
Knows how to push buttons... er... press keys
 
Emily's Cat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pacific Northwet
Posts: 8,863
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
It's really quite a fascinating look into human psychology.
Yes, it really, really is.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
"Men and women's biology being very different, it's expected that the end results might differ between them" translates to "women just aren't as good as men and they don't want leadership roles, because biology!".
I have previously assumed that you're smart enough to recognize hyperbole but hey, apparently not.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Notice how little the two sentences have in common. I don't claim to know exactly how the differences between the sexes would be expressed. It's a very complicated subject, but Cat conjures up the worst possible scenario, presumably because it's the only alternative to believing that men and women are the same and that sexual dimorphism is a social construct. I mean, why else would you interpret the first sentence as meaning the same as the second if you didn't think biology DOESN'T make any difference? If you think it DOES make a difference, then suggestion that it makes a difference shouldn't be shocking, right?
Holy cow. Okay, you have GOT to be playing games here.

NOBODY IN THIS THREAD has suggested that sexual dimorphism is a social construct EXCEPT YOU, and you have only introduced it as a strawman.

NOBODY IN THIS THREAD has suggested that sexual dimorphism doesn't make a difference EXCEPT YOU, and you have only introduced it as a strawman. In fact, I have REPEATEDLY said that it would be expected to make a difference, but that it doesn't account for all of the differences.

AT NO POINT have either you or Zig acknowledged that biology is NOT the whole of the observed differences.

FFS, You 'don't claim to know exactly how the differences between the sexes would be expressed'... but you also won't consider ANY OTHER POSSIBLE FACTOR. Furthermore, you INSIST that we must be able to completely quantify the full extent of the impact of biology BEFORE we can consider whether or not any other factors exist.

This is completely backwards, smoke-and-mirrors, dishonest engagement and remarkably bad logic.

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
But men and women _aren't_ the same. Testosterone alone makes a whole lot of difference in physiology and psychology. So why is it so difficult to even consider that it can and will affect career paths, among other things?
NOBODY EXCEPT YOU AND ZIG HAS SUGGESTED IT DOESN'T AFFECT OUTCOMES - and your introduction of that suggestion is ONLY as a strawman!

Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
Women are over-represented in just about every field that requires an empathetic touch and social skills. Is that coincidence? Is that insulting to men? Of course not. It just is. The point of equality is to remove undue discrimination, not make everyone the same so no one feels that life is unfair.
NOBODY IN THIS THREAD HAS SUGGESTED THAT EQUALITY OF OUTCOME IS A DESIRABLE GOAL.

The entirety of your argument and your characterization in the whole thread has been one long running, ever larger strawman.
__________________
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 15th October 2017, 03:45 AM   #352
cullennz
Embarrasingly illiterate
 
cullennz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 12,367
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
This thread reminds me that very few truly "matriarchies" have ever existed in any society or culture (assuming that any have existed; I think there's definitely some divergence of opinions among scholars regarding that).
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
__________________
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 todayís 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; 15th October 2017 at 03:52 AM.
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 15th October 2017, 04:06 AM   #353
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,356
Originally Posted by cullennz View Post
Zenobia, Cleopatra, Boudicca, Liz the 1st, Victoria, Esther, Catherine the Great, Christina of Sweden and Nerfertiti say hi.
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.
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 16th October 2017, 11:25 AM   #354
Allen773
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
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.
So the UK in the 1980s (and currently) and Germany currently are matriarchies? Nice!
Allen773 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 16th October 2017, 11:28 AM   #355
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,356
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
So the UK in the 1980s (and currently) and Germany currently are matriarchies? Nice!
...you do realise I was arguing for the exact opposite, correct?
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 16th October 2017, 11:31 AM   #356
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 38,608
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
...you do realise I was arguing for the exact opposite, correct?
Given that Allen773 was the one who pointed out the paucity of matriarchies, I read his post as being sarcastic and directed at cullennz (ie, in agreement with you).
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat 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 16th October 2017, 11:32 AM   #357
Allen773
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 800
Originally Posted by Argumemnon View Post
...you do realise I was arguing for the exact opposite, correct?
Sarcasm failed...
Allen773 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 16th October 2017, 11:33 AM   #358
Argumemnon
World Maker
 
Argumemnon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the thick of things
Posts: 67,356
Sorry, Allen. I wasn't sure it was sarcasm of my comment or cullennz's...'z's...
__________________
<Roar!>

Argumemnon 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 17th October 2017, 07:16 PM   #359
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,296
On average, men and women have different biological capabilities. But this is true of humans in general. Thus, while men on average are stronger than women, on an individual level some particular women are stronger than some particular men. But as a society, we donít recognize this. Females are not allowed to compete with males in most sports -certainly not the sports that make the real money; those sports are male dominated. I canít really see a reason why certain women couldnít make a good NBA player, for example or even a good NFL receiver. Since our society does not allow them to compete against each other, females donít have the same opportunity to develop their skills. This lack of opportunity is certainly a privilege of being male.

Outside of the physical realm, I suspect the differences between sexes are even smaller. So why is there still such a discrepancy in the number of women who pursue STEM careers? I would argue that itís because society also doesnít allow women to compete against men in those fields. Itís viewed as ďweirdĒ when a woman doesnít want to devote her life to raising kids. Men have the privilege of not having those expectations put on them by society.

If you want to fix it, it ainít easy. You only have to change the attitudes of every living person ...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 17th October 2017, 08:47 PM   #360
pharphis
Graduate Poster
 
pharphis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 1,230
It is "weird", as in not the majority situation. Same with men who want to be stay-at-home dads. Men mostly don't want to do this and women especially would rather do it themselves. I think society helps perpetuate these ideas in a way but I also think that they are ingrained into our biology in a very significant way.

When I look around (Canadian) I see message after message after message telling women to do whatever they want and that they can do anything. Despite this, we still see that women largely want to be stay-at-home moms and resources are a large source of attraction for women (not so for men). Men know they need status to attract women and women know they need to be beautiful to attract men. Have you EVER heard a woman say she needs a nice well-paying job in order to attract a man? Ever hear a man say that he needs a high economic status woman unless he has explicitly said he doesn't want kids (and therefore not someone who is just a housekeeper)?

I doubt there would be many in such a scenario.

Now I hope it's obvious why we should expect to see SOME differences in this realm due to biological differences. Men don't have paternal certainty, and can impregnate like... 600x more than a woman can become pregnant. Women DO have paternal certainty, and having a child is a high risk option.

TBH, I would expect brain and hormonal differences to make a much larger difference these days in what choices men and women make. The vast majority of jobs don't require larger muscle mass, anymore. Most work is made up of general labor, service jobs, deskwork and factory work (now in factory work I could see a difference in strength being more important). 50 years ago, 100 years ago, and even further I would expect much larger differences due to strength playing a larger role in what type of job can be had, but these days I think psychology plays a much larger role, and that it's reasonable to expect it to.
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 09:07 PM.
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.