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

121–130 of 273 posts

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#121

Post by Duff »

Great, another whiny article about the poor, maligned girls doomed to a future of breast enhancement and cellulite cream thanks to misogny.

The article is a troll, here to elicit an emotional response that will sell a book.

Enter the strawman: "In my book, Think: Straight Talk for Women to Stay Smart in a Dumbed-Down World, I reveal that 15 to 18 per cent of under-12 girls in the United States now wear mascara, eyeliner and lipstick regularly; eating disorders are up, and self-esteem is down; and 25 per cent of young American women would rather win America's Next Top Model than the Nobel Peace Prize. Even bright, successful, university-educated women say they'd rather be hot than smart. A Miami mother recently died from cosmetic surgery, leaving behind two teenagers."

Would the hysterical premise of the article hold true if you substituted common male gripes or practices? What percentage of boys aspire to be basketball or baseball players instead of whatever profession is deemed acceptable? How many young men would rather be football heroes than academics? How many would rather win a NASCAR race than win the Nobel Prize? Did a Miami father die of a heart attack because he was playing basketball at 45 in 100 degree heat?

It's easy and convenient to beat up strawmen and find a sexist boogeyman behind every perceived problem. Just don't lose sight of the fact that when you do that, you are dumbing things down.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#122

Post by ap22213 »

jcromartie wrote: post #97
JonnieCache wrote: post #75

To all the people in this thread who seem so absolutely sure that the gender differences are strictly biological, do you fancy telling us what exactly makes you so sure? Last time I checked there was no evidence to support this idea. Obviously there are easily observed physiological differences in brain structure and in the endocrine system etc, however it is a massive leap to go from that to asserting that observed…

I feel like there has to be some kind of biological root (even if it's indirect, like if it comes out of social pressures which are based in sexual dimorphism) when nearly every culture in the world seems to have pretty much the same sort of normative ideas about men and women.

Do you have proof of this? Or can refer to evidence?

You seem pretty confident in your claim. But, yet it goes against most of what that my freshman and sophomore anthropology professors taught me.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#123

Post by adrianbye »

JonnieCache wrote: post #75

To all the people in this thread who seem so absolutely sure that the gender differences are strictly biological, do you fancy telling us what exactly makes you so sure? Last time I checked there was no evidence to support this idea. Obviously there are easily observed physiological differences in brain structure and in the endocrine system etc, however it is a massive leap to go from that to asserting that observed…

the social/behavioural problems of aspergers (autism spectrum disorder) are diagnosed in men at a 4x greater ratio than women.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#124

Post by Jem »

127 wrote: post #95
Jem wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're saying that looking attractive for women is basically a biological imperative? The problem, as I see it, is that the evolved visual cues signalling good reproductive health are not in the slightest bit similar to what the media purport to be attractive today. Look for example at Neolithic figurines... women with large bellies, ample bosoms, wide hips. That's not what's plast…

I'm thinking that the fertility symbols where the woman is fit and thin far outnumber the ones where the woman is visibly obese. Wide hips, large bosom, healthy layer of fat, most certainly. But obesity? Rare. India, Egypt, Rome. All those sculptures look to be in the confines of healthy weight. I doubt that people living in that age had access to TV or magazines. Looks to me like you're quite obviously cherry-pickin…

Not deliberately cherry picking, simply picking a time before great royal families and extravagant emperors had an impact on fashions and culture. Don't get me wrong, I'm no expert on this (just a passing interest) so happy to be informed otherwise.

Side note: there's an interesting theory in Ann Sinnott's Breastfeeding Older Children about fertility / female symbols and their relation to patriarchy and our 'progress' from nomadic hunter gatherers. The theory goes that as we settled down into working the land / raising animals, where women were obviously needed more, they became less valued for child birth / child rearing and consequently these fertility symbols not only got slimmer, but started to be replaced by a greater quantity of male / phallic symbology.

Only vaguely related to the topic at hand but hugely interesting (to me, anyway!)

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#125

Post by starwed »

jcromartie wrote: post #97
JonnieCache wrote: post #75

To all the people in this thread who seem so absolutely sure that the gender differences are strictly biological, do you fancy telling us what exactly makes you so sure? Last time I checked there was no evidence to support this idea. Obviously there are easily observed physiological differences in brain structure and in the endocrine system etc, however it is a massive leap to go from that to asserting that observed…

I feel like there has to be some kind of biological root (even if it's indirect, like if it comes out of social pressures which are based in sexual dimorphism) when nearly every culture in the world seems to have pretty much the same sort of normative ideas about men and women.

That's a little like saying there must be a thunder god, because nearly every culture has the same idea.

Thor Lives!

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#126

Post by antihero »

rdtsc wrote: post #100
JonnieCache wrote: post #75

To all the people in this thread who seem so absolutely sure that the gender differences are strictly biological, do you fancy telling us what exactly makes you so sure? Last time I checked there was no evidence to support this idea. Obviously there are easily observed physiological differences in brain structure and in the endocrine system etc, however it is a massive leap to go from that to asserting that observed…

To convince yourself of the opposite of one fact you are suggesting -- that endocrine system doesn't play a major role in behavior, try administering yourself testosterone shots (ok don't actually do it (!) this is just for the argument's sake). You'll notice how you'll start feeling more agressive. You might start behaving more aggressively. If you stop after a while you might look back and even say something like "…

Who's to say that you are acting aggressively simply because of having more testosterone. Perhaps it's having more testosterone in relation to what you're used to?

Sure, testosterone is a factor, and it may have contributed to the trend of men to be more aggressive than women, however, women have demonstrated that they can be just as aggressive if not more aggressive with far less testosterone than men.

To say we should give up and let our biology dictate who we are despite having plenty of examples to the contrary is rather defeatist.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#127

Post by Tichy »

robertskmiles wrote: post #115
Tichy wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also consider this: if PG or Steve Jobs made some claim, would you also reply with a blunt "citation needed"?

If Steve Jobs made some claim about the history of Apple Computer, I wouldn't ask for a source because he is a source. If he were making a claim about the correlation between attractiveness and success, then yes I'd ask for a source, because why should he know anything about that in particular? But even in that case, he's already a real person I know of, a person who is known to be pretty intelligent, a person whose…

"a person who is known to be pretty intelligent"

That is just the thing. Your default assumption about an unknown person seems to be that he or she is not intelligent and doesn't have anything worthwhile to say. That might be rational, but I don't think it is very conductive for human exchange.

Another thing: why should I be interested in convincing you that I have something worthwhile to say? What is in it for me?

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#128

Post by Tichy »

JonnieCache wrote: post #75

To all the people in this thread who seem so absolutely sure that the gender differences are strictly biological, do you fancy telling us what exactly makes you so sure? Last time I checked there was no evidence to support this idea. Obviously there are easily observed physiological differences in brain structure and in the endocrine system etc, however it is a massive leap to go from that to asserting that observed…

I think what sexual organs you have is very likely influenced by biology alone. And looks, too - different hormones affect your skin, bone development and so on. It is of course possible for men to swallow the right hormones and also grow boobs (and also for women to swallow hormones and not grow boobs, I suppose). Some chose to do so, and I have nothing against it. I question if we should make it a standard that people should freely decide if they want to grow boobs or not (I mean they can decide freely now, they are just not usually encouraged to ponder the issue much). I am not saying it would be wrong, just that it isn't obvious to me that it would be a more desirable world to live in.

Behaviors are another matter, however, genders have different realities (like the 9 months pregnancy period mothers face for bearing children) which automatically leads to behavior differences. It would be weird if it would not lead to behavioral differences.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#129

Post by antihero »

adrianbye wrote: post #123
JonnieCache wrote: post #75

To all the people in this thread who seem so absolutely sure that the gender differences are strictly biological, do you fancy telling us what exactly makes you so sure? Last time I checked there was no evidence to support this idea. Obviously there are easily observed physiological differences in brain structure and in the endocrine system etc, however it is a massive leap to go from that to asserting that observed…

the social/behavioural problems of aspergers (autism spectrum disorder) are diagnosed in men at a 4x greater ratio than women.

Leading us to believe that Autism may have a genetic root.

But does that mean we should treat women differently from men? Fuck no.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#130

Post by antihero »

ErrantX wrote: post #49

I was musing on this the other day (beware; anecdote alert!). I went out for some drinks with a friend of mine from a long time ago - he is certainly not the sharpest of individuals, but a laugh and good fun in small doses (even if a lot of the jokes include farts :S). For some reason he is also constantly surrounded by very attractive women. I've seen him out and about before and thought "I'd like to have some of th…

It's one of the shameful effects of living in a society purely based one image. Most guys I know (anecdotal) love women that have brains, as do I. Studies dictate that men prefer women that are above average weight to below average weight. However, magazines tell us women need to be celebrity absorbed, stick thin bimbos who are utter bullshit. Why? Because that demographic is easier to sell to.
Post reply on HN