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

Don't dumb girls down

smh.com.au

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 273 posts

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#51

Post by pharrington »

127 wrote: post #14
sgentle wrote: post #5

This reminds me of a story that I wish I could find again. It was in the Reader's Digest Young Peoples' Annual from sometime in the 60s. I read it in the 90s, so some of the advice ("don't go dutch too often") was truly perplexing, but this particular story was about a girl who played baseball. She always sat and watched the boys play baseball. One boy in particular caught her eye. He asked if she wanted to play and…

Human biology is not that quick to change. It demonstrates a large amount of hubris to even think it should be. Women marry up and across dominance hierarchies. Artificially boosting the career success of women just causes misery on the long run for men and for society. I thought that the girl in your story was very smart, and even if people had treated her like a pretty doll for her entire life she would still be th…

>Human biology is not that quick to change

This implies that biology is why in most cultures men have higher status potential than women. Not only does this ignore lots of horribly obvious things, but in turn implies an understanding of how physiology affects behavior. Besides current science barely having a rough idea of some hormones' areas of effect (eg low testosterone levels having some positive or negative effect on aggression), we can't begin to aggregate how the average minute physical differences between men and women would affect something as high level as behavior. We're still learning the physical effects. Trying to reason beyond that is irrelevant at best. Meanwhile, centuries of oppression and concrete, prescribed gender roles seem alot more insightful.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#52

Post by 5hoom »

erikb wrote: post #10

I often read such articles from women, but never from men. After looking deeply at myself and how the world around me acts, I feel that it is really true: Women ARE evaluated mostly by their looks. Women who look good, wear good clothes, have a good makeup, will get what they want much more easily then others. To some degree that is also true for men. It is just how the world IS. So instead of teaching girls about th…

I think the issue is not that being attractive is bad, it's just that often that's the _only_ message that is consistently heard by young girls.

Girls might hear positive messages about being smart, creative, independent, etc. from all sorts of well intentioned sources, but there isn't the same sort of powerful, all pervasive weight attached to them as the message that being attractive is important.

Appearance is the 'common standard' of value for a female in many societies. I think that is the real problem.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#54

Post by wgren »

127 wrote: post #14
sgentle wrote: post #5

This reminds me of a story that I wish I could find again. It was in the Reader's Digest Young Peoples' Annual from sometime in the 60s. I read it in the 90s, so some of the advice ("don't go dutch too often") was truly perplexing, but this particular story was about a girl who played baseball. She always sat and watched the boys play baseball. One boy in particular caught her eye. He asked if she wanted to play and…

Human biology is not that quick to change. It demonstrates a large amount of hubris to even think it should be. Women marry up and across dominance hierarchies. Artificially boosting the career success of women just causes misery on the long run for men and for society. I thought that the girl in your story was very smart, and even if people had treated her like a pretty doll for her entire life she would still be th…

>Human biology is not that quick to change.

No, but a lot of things with regards to our current expected behaviour of genders is in fact social, not biological. A lot of 18th century male behaviour would today be regarded as effeminate. Red was once the color of choice for baby boys, and blue for girls.

>Artificially boosting the career success of women just causes misery on the long run for men

Hang on, did anyone propose affirmative action here or something? All the blog talked about was trying to praise girls for their smarts rather than their looks. If this is enough to cause misery for you, I think you have self-esteem issues. (Edit: Oops, that was needlessly confrontational and personal. Apologies for last sentence.)

>I thought that the girl in your story was very smart, and even if people had treated her like a pretty doll for her entire life she would still be the same. Intelligent, critical and capable.

Perhaps, but as mentioned in the article, some girls as young as 5 think they are "too fat" and try to go on a diet. It is clearly an issue for some.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#55

Post by 127 »

vectorpush wrote: post #50
127 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human biology is not that quick to change. It demonstrates a large amount of hubris to even think it should be. Women marry up and across dominance hierarchies. Artificially boosting the career success of women just causes misery on the long run for men and for society. I thought that the girl in your story was very smart, and even if people had treated her like a pretty doll for her entire life she would still be th…

> It demonstrates a large amount of hubris to even think it should be. So what? It's this same hubris which bucks against the biological directive to impregnate every fertile female that enters your field of vision. Since when do humans settle for the biological imperative?

No, the force that bucks against the biological directive to impregnate every fertile female that enters your field of vision is the very real threat of violence and social ostracization. Plus, unless you're a total sociopath: empathy. Unlike some people would have you believe, being a man does not equal being a rapist.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#56

Post by marvin »

pharrington wrote: post #51
127 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human biology is not that quick to change. It demonstrates a large amount of hubris to even think it should be. Women marry up and across dominance hierarchies. Artificially boosting the career success of women just causes misery on the long run for men and for society. I thought that the girl in your story was very smart, and even if people had treated her like a pretty doll for her entire life she would still be th…

>Human biology is not that quick to change This implies that biology is why in most cultures men have higher status potential than women. Not only does this ignore lots of horribly obvious things, but in turn implies an understanding of how physiology affects behavior. Besides current science barely having a rough idea of some hormones' areas of effect (eg low testosterone levels having some positive or negative effe…

Thanks for pointing this out. Everyone jumps at evolution whenever a discussion comes up about gender differences. There is probably an evolutionary component in there, but they way everyone declares "this is because in old times, men hunted lions while the women watched the children" to every gender stereotype is just ridiculous.

When related to dating, I like to call this "The Mystery Method Theory of Sexual Evolution", because most of the pervasive explanations about why the sexual market works the way it does is copied straight from Neil Strauss' book "The Game". A lot of these ideas are taken to be truth even though there is absolutely no scientific research behind them.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#57

Post by knowtheory »

kamaal wrote: post #33
antihero wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's put it another way - if you teach a girl that her good looks are super super important, and she's bombarded with adverts telling her ways to improve, and images of people on TV that are portrayed vastly superior to her physically, then she is being set up to feel that no matter what she does, she's never good enough. Whilst us boys can "hit the gym" or "hit the books" and our manliness and success can exude, a…

C'mmon. I am thin, I can't call myself super good looking either. I am not very extrovert and not too much into sports. But I can't use this as a reason to be bad at other things. Present ability, hygiene , looking good, neat and clean matter to both the genders. But if a person is not very attractive by natural look, that is no reason to not perform well in life by personal choice . That is not a reason, not to work…

There is is a substantial difference.

Society's sense of your worth, and as a result your sense of self-worth is not tied into those physical characteristics.

This isn't a matter of how hard someone tries at life, this is a question on what basis society judges individuals by (and i should note, this is an emergent equilibrium. It's nudged this way and that, but now that it's driven by financial interests, it's hard to shift the equilibrium).

I have a friend who's 6'7". Invariably the first question he was asked when he met new people was "wow you're tall, do you play basketball?" He hates basketball. But society's perception of what he'd be good at was tied into his height. He can't change it, he didn't ask for it, and he certainly showed no interest or indication that he'd like to discuss basketball.

That's an outside force impinging on his sense of identity. Same goes for women and what they think society values. Some women play the game, double down and use it as a zero-sum weapon against other women to get ahead. Some don't have a choice, or the will, and just get trampled (by the first group of women).

But again, the difference is that you don't have to play this game. There are other games you can play, and society will accept you for it. Women don't get that choice. This is the game that has to be played, if they're to participate in society.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#58

Post by 127 »

wgren wrote: post #54
127 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human biology is not that quick to change. It demonstrates a large amount of hubris to even think it should be. Women marry up and across dominance hierarchies. Artificially boosting the career success of women just causes misery on the long run for men and for society. I thought that the girl in your story was very smart, and even if people had treated her like a pretty doll for her entire life she would still be th…

>Human biology is not that quick to change. No, but a lot of things with regards to our current expected behaviour of genders is in fact social, not biological. A lot of 18th century male behaviour would today be regarded as effeminate. Red was once the color of choice for baby boys, and blue for girls. >Artificially boosting the career success of women just causes misery on the long run for men Hang on, did anyone p…

>Hang on, did anyone propose affirmative action here or something? All the blog talked about was trying to praise girls for their smarts rather than their looks. If this is enough to cause misery for you, I think you have self-esteem issues.

As the pool of eligible husbands diminishes, the pool of men who simply can't get a wife grows and the disparity between the lucky and unlucky men increases. I'm sure you can see how this can generate social friction inside a nation?

I'm not making a moral statement either way here, just observing some forces that I believe do affect our lives.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#59

Post by pygy_ »

127 wrote: post #14
sgentle wrote: post #5

This reminds me of a story that I wish I could find again. It was in the Reader's Digest Young Peoples' Annual from sometime in the 60s. I read it in the 90s, so some of the advice ("don't go dutch too often") was truly perplexing, but this particular story was about a girl who played baseball. She always sat and watched the boys play baseball. One boy in particular caught her eye. He asked if she wanted to play and…

Human biology is not that quick to change. It demonstrates a large amount of hubris to even think it should be. Women marry up and across dominance hierarchies. Artificially boosting the career success of women just causes misery on the long run for men and for society. I thought that the girl in your story was very smart, and even if people had treated her like a pretty doll for her entire life she would still be th…

> ... even if people had treated her like a pretty doll for her entire life she would still be the same. Intelligent, critical and capable.

Intelligence withers if it isn't stimulated. The other traits are completely acquired.

Education is not only about career, but about preventing stupidity at large. See [1], for example, keeping Poe's law[2] in mind.

.

[1] http://imgur.com/MVZ2h

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poes_law

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#60

Post by kamaal »

wgren wrote: post #54
127 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Human biology is not that quick to change. It demonstrates a large amount of hubris to even think it should be. Women marry up and across dominance hierarchies. Artificially boosting the career success of women just causes misery on the long run for men and for society. I thought that the girl in your story was very smart, and even if people had treated her like a pretty doll for her entire life she would still be th…

>Human biology is not that quick to change. No, but a lot of things with regards to our current expected behaviour of genders is in fact social, not biological. A lot of 18th century male behaviour would today be regarded as effeminate. Red was once the color of choice for baby boys, and blue for girls. >Artificially boosting the career success of women just causes misery on the long run for men Hang on, did anyone p…

Hang on, did anyone propose affirmative action here or something? All the blog talked about was trying to praise girls for their smarts rather than their looks. If this is enough to cause misery for you, I think you have self-esteem issues.

Sorry the blog talked silently about a lot of things, which squarely put the blame on people for a lot of mistakes which girls make personally.

I appreciate my nephew all the time when he wins a running race or plays cricket well. But that is never taken as something that can be used to be bad at academics nor does not speaking about he being good at studies permanently deter him from being good at studies.

If girls aren't good looking, how does that stop them from picking up a book and studying hard for an entrance exam. Or burning the midnight oil meeting a tough deadline? None of that has anything to do with beauty. That's something which has to come from within. Willingness to work hard and go to tough times is what brings success and that is irrespective of gender.

Somehow I find it difficult to accept that argument that saying somebody that they look good suddenly becomes the reason to be never good at anything else ever after.

Post reply on HN