Live data from Hacker News

On Geeks and Gays

newstilt.com

141–150 of 232 posts

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the links. While I was part of an "out" group growing up, I managed not to get bullied much (it usually stopped quickly after a round of fisticuffs and my father being a boxing coach in his youth). But a great many of my friends were bullied, some horribly. I've never been able to understand the mechanics of it very well even after having seen it so many times.

"... I managed not to get bullied much (it usually stopped quickly after a round of fisticuffs and my father being a boxing coach in his youth) ..." However this technique does not always work. Bullying is about finding weakness and applying an asymmetric attack. I'm not sure this approach will work with say a group of girls?

For guys? It works pretty well, close to 100%. If you can stand up for yourself, even "losing" a fight will usually put a stop to the bullying. The desire not to get hurt, even as a fight "winner", will typically prevent most bullies from engaging in the behavior. Self-preservation is a powerful motivator. Bullies seem to try and pick most subjects to pick on because they believe that subject won't fight back. Once they do (at least with guys), they become too much of a hassle to deal with. I will caveat this though in that the subject has to be smart and assess the chances of the bully returning with a posse to even the score later.

There is a problem though with many subjects in that they are simply not physically capable to respond. I was lucky that my father taught me how to box and told me that he would stand up for me with the school administration if I ever got in a fight standing up to bullies at school. I knew, because of that, that if I was called out to a fight, I could show up at the designated time and place and give what I could. The only times I was every bullied was immediately after transferring between schools, and it only lasted the first time. However, most of my friends were not so lucky, they either didn't have the parental support, or were actively advised to keep their heads low and just suffer through. A few of them had physical problems that prevented them from getting into fights, etc. Some of my friends got hurt pretty bad as a result and were tormented throughout school.

I'm not a girl so I can't really say how to deal with girl bullying. Girl bullies seem to operate on a much subtler level than guy bullies, mostly through social ostracization campaigns. What always fascinated me is how girl bullying has almost no effect on a guy (even with other girls), so girls quickly give up on bullying guys (I'll come back to this in a second), but can devastate a girl, while the inverse, guys bullying girls can be just as effective as guys bullying guys.

It seems to me that getting a girl who is bullied out of the environment where she is bullied as much as possible, and into a group of peers where she can exist without that kind of mal-treatment (basically allow her to socialize in a safe way) can do wonders to build social skills. I have a niece who is smart, creative, talented and otherwise charming, but who is definitely not one of the popular girls. I happened to see her socializing with some of her friends in a public area when the "popular girls" came into the space. I noticed that her friends immediately withdrew while she more or less just ignored them. I think the difference is that her parents enroll her in all kinds of activities, so she has enough confidence through socialization to ignore being ignored, while her friends do no such extra-curricular activities and only know how to socialize with that particular group of peers.

The problem with girls also seems to be identifying bullying. Is she just getting ignored or is she getting bullied? With a guy, a torn shirt or bloody nose is easy to see. So I asked my niece, did she feel like those girls bullied her? Without hesitating she said "no, but they do bully my friends." And I think that the secret for her is what I said earlier about girl bullies and guys. Most guys just ignore girl bullies, and my niece seems to do the same. She has enough socialization with other kids her age who don't bully her that she feels confident enough to simply ignore the bullies and as a result she doesn't get bullied. She knows that she has a peer group she can draw positive socializations from, while her friends are still thinking that someday, those popular girls might want to be friends with them and care about maintaining that possible relationship -- which the popular girls seem to use as an avenue for their bullying.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is something I have an interest in, but from a different perspective. I wasn't bullied. I was smart, fat, unapologetically nerdy, and never paid a social price (I had friends, girlfriends in high school, and was not socially maladjusted other than a stubborn anti-authority streak that remains with me). Seemingly I also had higher confidence and was more physically oriented than many geeks I have met later in lif…

"... I was smart, fat, unapologetically nerdy, and never paid a social price (I had friends, girlfriends in high school, and was not socially maladjusted other than a stubborn anti-authority streak that remains with me). Seemingly I also had higher confidence and was more physically oriented than many geeks I have met later in life. ..." Extrovert? This matters because if you are introverted people see less informati…

Extroverts won't have a clue about these subtle body language because they have more interesting things to think about.

I think you mean "introverts", there.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#143
post #131
post #54

A thought: Alan Turing died when he was 41. Anything Turing would have invented between 41 and his natural death are things lost to society because of the persecution of homosexuals. What an incredible cost.

You make it sound like he was murdered because he was gay. I don't think it was quite that clear cut. I'm quite a believer in "if he hadn't done it, someone else would have" personally. I don't mean to belittle anyones contribution, but the idea that there's only one genius who can come up with something seems very unlikely to me. Most inventions are 'discovered' by many people at around the same time.

> You make it sound like he was murdered because he was gay. I don't think it was quite that clear cut.

Lets turn it around then. If he hadn't been gay, would he have been murdered?

> Most inventions are 'discovered' by many people at around the same time.

Yeah, this is true. Even revolutionary ideas seem to show up at multiple places at the same time. So it seems that the state of knowledge at the time of invention matters a great deal.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#144
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An interesting question that might help everyone learn how they feel about this: Would you allow a pair of people who are not in a relationship to adopt, for example, two great friends who just happen to live together, but are not in a sexual or romantic relationship with each other?

The deal here is that long term stability is what it is all about. Heterosexuals and Homosexuals alike appear in all variations, some are promiscuous, some stay with the same partner all their lives. The perception is that in the gay scene because there are no children to worry about sexuality is much freer than it is in the hetero scene. I doubt if that is actually the case though. But I think the 'stable family arr…

No, long term stability is not "what it is all about".

Long term stability is one of the very important aspects of the quality of parenting, but it's not all of them.

In fact long term stability is itself determined to some extent by the nature of the relationships between each parent and the child or children.

The point of my question was to help each person who wants to think about this issue clarify their ideas by asking themselves whether it's the nature of the relationship between the "parents" that's the issue, or whether it just matters that there is some sort of strong bond, whatever that may be.

I'm not trying to lead anyone to on conclusion or other, just point out a thought experiment that might help people understand their own points of view.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#145
post #48
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Devils advocate: a child raised by the gay couple might be stigmatized by its peers, so in the best interest of the child it might be better for the child to be raised in traditional nuclear family. If you look at it that way it is also a chicken and egg problem.

Are you saying being raised in a foster home makes for a better childhood than having two loving (same sex) parents?

Where did anyone mention love? I think you've just presented us with a false dilemma.

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

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the links. While I was part of an "out" group growing up, I managed not to get bullied much (it usually stopped quickly after a round of fisticuffs and my father being a boxing coach in his youth). But a great many of my friends were bullied, some horribly. I've never been able to understand the mechanics of it very well even after having seen it so many times.

"... I was part of an "out" group growing up, I managed not to get bullied much (it usually stopped quickly after a round of fisticuffs and my father being a boxing coach in his youth) ..." Excellent stuff, go boxing. There's a lot to say for standing up for yourself. "... But a great many of my friends were bullied, some horribly. I've never been able to understand the mechanics of it very well even after having see…

I agree, most of the time when I got into a fight in school was because I wasn't paying attention to the aggressive body language of my challenger. When I did notice it, I found I was usually able to talk myself out of the fights by simply taking what the guy was saying and turning it back on him. It defused the immediate situation because it prevented the bully from amping himself up.

One incident in middle school permanently ruined the reputation of a would-be bully since all he knew how to say to start a fight was "common man, let's go". To which I responded "okay, sounds great, where to?" He repeated his statement over and over while I repeated mine. Eventually, it defused the fight. I think he simply didn't know how to respond when I didn't back down and simply took what he was saying absolutely literally instead of as the slang he meant. It also happened in front of a crowd and all through middle and high school was ribbed as the guy who couldn't figure out where to go. He used to get a few compasses at the beginning of every year and offers to help him find his way to class.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#147
post #97
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Magical quality? Well, 2 genders instead of one. I don't find the idea that children take their cues depending on the gender of the parent at all unreasonable. It's certainly entered the common mind as an idea of what happens. Is it true? No idea, haven't seen any research on it. But there's at least a possible basis for the "magical" quality of gender being important.

I'm skeptical. What cues? Are you thinking a girl learns how she should act by emulating a mom, and the same for a boy in relation to his dad?

How is this even in debate? Of course boys learn how to be a man, to a significant degree, by observing their father (not emulating, but observing) and girls by observing their mother.

I think there's a tendency for people to underestimate the exposure they get to their families as compared to the exposure they get to anyone else in the world when it comes to close emotional contact.

Some of use who are aware of having had emotionally withdrawn fathers (or mothers) realise this better than others.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#148
post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's the logic of a non-homophobic argument I have heard of. The majority of research on parenting and raising children has been done with heterosexual parents as a base assumption. Someone who is extremely supportive of gay rights who is also a rational thinker might be cautious when considering the issue of adoption by homosexuals. Why be cautious? Because it is necessary to take reasonable measures to guarantee…

So, if i get a surrogate and we have a child, and my gay partner wants to adopt the baby so that we are both legal parents, surely it make no sense to deny the adoption?

It would make sense not to allow you (not you personally, in fact anyone) to have a child with a "surrogate", i.e. a mother who deliberatly chooses before conception to play no role in raising that child.

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have never encountered a rational argument for homophobia. A gay friend told me about the theory that homophobia is misogyny e.g. some people are homophobic because they don't like men acting like women (mannerisms, dress, voice pitch, sensitivity) because they dislike women.

Ironically enough, a homophobic friend told me about the theory that homosexuality is misogyny e.g. some men are homosexual because they dislike women and don't want to associate with them. Interestingly enough, I'm pretty sure my comment will shock more people than your comment--even though both comments posit some sort of handwavy unsubstantiated psychological theory nakedly constructed to fit some sort of politica…

There was a study that went like this (but I can't find it now...I hope I remember it correctly):

We take a sample of subjects. They sit in a room. They are told that in the other room is another person that they will play a game against (actually the outcomes of the games they play are the same for everyone). At some point this involves giving electric shocks to this person. Before they start they are shown a movie of this other person. Now, part of the group gets a movie of a man acting normal and the other part is gets a movie of the same man acting gay. After this the subjects are tested for gayness. It turned out that there is a positive correlation between gayness and the severity of the electric shocks delivered to the gay acting guy. So the theory is that homophobes are (a little) gay themselves, and they are afraid that they act like the gay guy.

Edit: here it is http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=single-angr...

It turns out my memory didn't work flawlessly ;)

Re: On Geeks and Gays

#150
post #131
post #54

A thought: Alan Turing died when he was 41. Anything Turing would have invented between 41 and his natural death are things lost to society because of the persecution of homosexuals. What an incredible cost.

You make it sound like he was murdered because he was gay. I don't think it was quite that clear cut. I'm quite a believer in "if he hadn't done it, someone else would have" personally. I don't mean to belittle anyones contribution, but the idea that there's only one genius who can come up with something seems very unlikely to me. Most inventions are 'discovered' by many people at around the same time.

Other people did do it, and even at nearly the exact same time. Turing just did it more convincingly. (See: Alonzo Church and the Lambda calculus).
Post reply on HN