Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Eek, A Male

online.wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 174 posts

Re: Eek, A Male

#151

Post by axod »

Cushman wrote: post #150
axod wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, decided to completely ignore all my points and evidence about physical differences in the brain between the sexes, evolution etc eh? I think we're getting nowhere here. You clearly have an agenda to follow rather than a desire to find out the 'truth'. I'm also guessing from your comment about toys that you don't have kids yet.

No, really, you should read that study. It directly contradicts what you're saying in an experimental, repeatable way. It's totally wild.

UTTER BS.

It shows that women can 'learn' to get better at spacial awareness. Just like men can 'learn' to get better at communication.

It doesn't "directly contradict" anything.

Re: Eek, A Male

#152

Post by yardie »

alex_c wrote: post #65
kenjackson wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are few other professions that result in a baby being sexually abused. I'm more than willing to bend over backwards to give someone a chance writing code, fixing plumbing, making clothing, painting a room. Some things I'm less willing to do. With that said, its a great opportunity for people who don't mind male daycare teachers to really get top quality care for less money. I think you'd be foolish not to explo…

This is what I mean by hysteria. Actual odds of a child being molested by a male teacher/caregiver? Female teacher/caregiver? Family member or family friend of either gender? Regardless of numbers or justification, you're also accepting a form of discrimination that would be much less acceptable for any other situation. Hell, even "I would never get a gay babysitter" would likely provoke more outrage. The worst part…

When it comes to our children, all bets are off - forget statistics and numbers, if your kid gets hurt and you feel you could have prevented it, no matter how unlikely the event, you'll never forgive yourself for it.

This is how junk science gets peddled. Instead of thinking logically when presented with evidence that doesn't make sense scammers rely on base instincts even though we know its not true.

For example, how many people were lead to believe that vaccines caused autism? Even when the junk science number were statistically small, and eventually found to be false, parents just assume their kids would hit the unlucky lottery and get autism.

The worst thing is the US invented the 24-hour news channel and they have to fill a 24hour slot so they'll pump out whatever junk they can find. This is what Michael Moore was getting at in Bowling for Columbine. Guns aren't bad, people with guns aren't bad, the constant beat of paranoid, locked and loaded, TV viewers is the problem. People die because they feel like they are at general quarters everyday of their lives.

Re: Eek, A Male

#153

Post by sarkozy »

Cushman wrote: post #142
sarkozy wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The study indicates women, on average, have higher empathy scores than men. But other studies have demonstrated similar results. Such as this one: http://www.springerlink.com/content/r2k31831780w417w/ On the "Empathy Quotient" test, the average female score is 47 while for males it is 42. So, no, I'm not using "a slight statistical association to rationalize" either (a) "a cultural prejudice" or (b) "bigotry" (which…

I don't think you see my point here. You can't use statistics to judge individuals. If that study were a hiring situation and you figured that, since "women are more empathic than men", you should only consider the female applicants, you would be tossing out nearly as many qualified applicants as you'd be keeping. It's just not a useful thing to say based on that data. When you add in the fact that saying "women are…

I agree on the importance of caution when applying statistical conclusions in individual cases - especially hiring decisions. I don't deny that there are, as you said, "mean women and caring men". But I don't believe in denying the existence of gender differences simply to avoid supporting the status quo. It can be useful to be aware of these patterns because, with a broad brush, we can cautiously identify where people's skills are most likely to reside.

Re: Eek, A Male

#154

Post by Dylanlacey »

I get a weird mix of this.

I'm a scout leader in Australia, where Scouts is non-denominational, non-discriminatory and mixed gender. I'm a Venturer leader, the 14 - 18 year olds, and I'm gay.

These things ARE linked. I'm a Venturer leader because it was this or being a Joey leader, which is the under 10's, and I just CBF dealing with that noise, because I'm also gay, which makes parents immediately suspicious. 'Cause, you know, once a little bit of a pervert, NATURALLY a complete monster. Just like how litterbugs all become worse then Pol Pot.

So, on the one hand I avoided one sort of leadership. On the other, I'm wanted because I'm a male, I can relate to the younger dudes. At camps we have a leader of both sexes not because there are touching fears, but because kids need someone of either gender to talk too if they need it, to make them comfortable.

Re: Eek, A Male

#155

Post by argv_empty »

axod wrote: post #139
Cushman wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm discussing one such study in a sibling thread. I'd be happy to do the same here if you have one you feel is persuasive.

Show me a study that proves that men and women think in exactly the same ways and that there are no biological differences in their programming. I really can't understand how anyone who accepts evolution (Surely most people), but doesn't accept the idea that perhaps the female and male minds have evolved and optimized to different things. Given that we have obvious and numerous physical differences, it seems terribly…

Show me a study that proves that men and women think in exactly the same ways and that there are no biological differences in their programming.

"The following specific differences in behavior are attributable to biological differences between male and female: _____" is a rather different claim from "There exist biological differences between male and female." I believe the former claim is the one being challenged. Disproof of the latter claim, while sufficient to disprove the former, is not strictly necessary.

Re: Eek, A Male

#156

Post by Cushman »

axod wrote: post #151
Cushman wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, really, you should read that study. It directly contradicts what you're saying in an experimental, repeatable way. It's totally wild.

UTTER BS. It shows that women can 'learn' to get better at spacial awareness. Just like men can 'learn' to get better at communication. It doesn't "directly contradict" anything.

Since you still haven't provided any research in support of your claims, I suppose it doesn't contradict anything. Fair cop.

Re: Eek, A Male

#157

Post by Cushman »

sarkozy wrote: post #153
Cushman wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you see my point here. You can't use statistics to judge individuals. If that study were a hiring situation and you figured that, since "women are more empathic than men", you should only consider the female applicants, you would be tossing out nearly as many qualified applicants as you'd be keeping. It's just not a useful thing to say based on that data. When you add in the fact that saying "women are…

I agree on the importance of caution when applying statistical conclusions in individual cases - especially hiring decisions. I don't deny that there are, as you said, "mean women and caring men". But I don't believe in denying the existence of gender differences simply to avoid supporting the status quo. It can be useful to be aware of these patterns because, with a broad brush, we can cautiously identify where peop…

Perhaps it's more an issue of naming.

If you have a man and a woman in a room together, it's going to be more or less a toss-up which of them happens to be more suited for a particular task, since what the body of research mostly shows is that, in general, men and women are pretty much the same.

Considering that, it strikes me as disingenuous to say something like "men are better at [x] than women" — which is vague by the most generous reading, outright false by the most literal — when what you really mean is "the mean for [x] among all men is 5% higher than the mean among all women."

I think the reason people don't say that instead is because it's obviously a very weak statement.

Re: Eek, A Male

#158

Post by [deleted] »

oiuhjyftgrdgh wrote: post #64
kenjackson wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have to admit I'd go the complete opposite. I do know there are great male teachers, but in environments where the male teacher might be alone with children I am hesitant. The data bears this out, as does personal experience. With that said male coaches or piano teachers or tutors I have no problem with, since those generally take place in plainsight of parents. I know that really sucks for the good ones, and most…

Most abuse is by family members/friends. So rather than trusting your husband to drop your kids off in the SUV and worrying about the gym teacher - you would be safer letting them walk with strangers.

[deleted]

Re: Eek, A Male

#159

Post by true_religion »

kenjackson wrote: post #90
potatolicious wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've failed to address the core question, and instead are following a red herring: What are the chances of my child's teacher (of any gender) being a molester? The answer to that, as always is: vanishingly low. So sure, I'm willing to go along with the notion that, in the absurdly improbable case that your child's teacher is a molester, it's probably a man and not a woman. So? Your child is orders of magnitude more…

The answer isn't vanishingly low. Contrary to popular belief, while family is the single largest group to molest a child it isn't an order of magnitude difference. And to capture just sheer numbers, I've borrowed a quote from Wikipedia: "In North America, for example, approximately 15% to 25% of women and 5% to 15% of men were sexually abused when they were children.[11][12][13] Most sexual abuse offenders are acquai…

> studies show that women commit 14% to 40% of offenses reported against boys

I don't usually like "studies of studies" because of quotations like this. Its disturbing when the margin is +/-20% difference between the high estimate and the low estimate.

Re: Eek, A Male

#160

Post by krakensden »

Cushman wrote: post #131
krakensden wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Height?

You'd be forgiven for thinking this is a cheap shot, but nope— Wikipedia lists the difference in mean height for Americans as about 5" (~5'10" for men, ~5'5" for women). If you get three guys together in a room, you've probably already got more variation than that. The general point here is that there is much, much more overlap between the sexes than there is difference between them. That's why although you certainly…

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr010.pdf

Look at page 11. 19 year old women in the 90th percentile are still shorter than 19 year old men in the 50th percentile. Now, while I was never very good at statistics, I'm pretty sure if we had a running bet over who was taller in any random male/female pairing, I would drain your bank account dry.

Post reply on HN