Don't dumb girls down • Hacker News Board

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#141

Post by rdtsc » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 1:37 PM UTC

antihero wrote: post #126

rdtsc wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sho…

> 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.

Sorry for misunderstanding. I wasn't saying that, just highlighting that biological makeup, specifically the endocrine system, can affect behavior quite bit. It should not be used as an excuse but it should be acknowledged as well. Small tendences when averaged over a lifetime can create quite different outcomes in the end. Think of a stream that slowly etches a rock and we end up with the Grand Canyon in the end.

So just to repeat again, I am not for sending all girls to home-ec classes and prep only boys for engineering and science, just showing that biological differences are there and they can affect behavior, perception & learning in significant way. Ignoring those factors, might end up being detrimental in the long run.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#142

Post by hessenwolf » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 1:47 PM UTC

ajuc wrote: post #68

hessenwolf wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looking like a contestant for America's next top model is not really going to get a girl far in her career, though... Both men and women should care, in detail, about their aesthetics when at work. They should be healthy and fit, and, unless they are very sure they have the fashion sense to get away with interesting clothes, be conservatively and neatly dressed. Anything less smacks of imcompetence, poor organisation…

"lack of respect for others (who do have to suffer looking at you)" If I suffer when I speak with people that don't agree with my beliefs - is it good enough reason for them to convert to my beliefs? How is it different than requiring people to respect you esthetical sense by complying with it?

Poor health, poor posture, ill-fitting, ragged clothes, poor hygiene... this is what I mean.

If you carefully design your aesthetic, even if it does not fit with my personal style preferences, then that will be fine. Just show that you thought about it ;)

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#143

Post by mbesto » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 1:52 PM UTC

rmc wrote: post #11

Tichy wrote: post #6

"Teaching girls that their appearance is the first thing you notice tells them that looks are more important than anything." Hate to say it, but what if they are? Lots of studies show that pretty people get further in life. Not that I mind girls being interested in other things, but perhaps the ideology should be kept in check. Even if a girl doesn't care about her looks, other people will, and she has to learn to de…

Perhaps we should change the world's attitudes then.

I don't think this has anything to do with attitudes but is natural. Isn't attractiveness a sign of health? (for example - [1] the waist-to-hip ratio)

Are we to defy natural selection?

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist-hip_ratio

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#144

Post by Peaker » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 1:56 PM UTC

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…

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13596-male-monkeys-pre...

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#145

Post by funkah » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 2:06 PM UTC

saturn wrote: post #31

None of this advice applies to me, of course. As a man and therefore a child molesting rapist just waiting for my chance to strike, the idea that I could have any sort of conversation with a little girl - let alone sit down on a couch and talk privately - is simply laughable.

That was my thought too. I can't use this advice because I'm not supposed to be talking to little girls in the first place.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#146

Post by onemoreact » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 2:07 PM UTC

rmc wrote: post #111

jcromartie wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

when nearly every culture in the world seems to have pretty much the same sort of normative ideas about men and women. You're saying Saudi Arabia is like USA now? Have you even watched the TV show Mad Men? 1960s USA was different from 2000s USA.

Sorry, same sort of normative ideas + Reductio ad absurdum = what you said.

Clearly, there are cultural differences. However, name one country that’s military is made up of significantly more women than men. Far more women in the US go to college today than men do, go back 50 years and the ratios was very different. So clearly cultural norms change, yet there is less cultural diversity than you would expect if biology was not significant.

Edit: Another vary important thing to realize is that these biological traits are not universal. For example there is a huge amount of individual diversity in the amount of hormones produced at various stages of development. Some of these produce noticeable external changes and other impact the brain far more than the rest of the body. Multiply those differences with different developmental experences and the average says very little about the individual.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#147

Post by jcromartie » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 2:12 PM UTC

ap22213 wrote: post #122

jcromartie wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What did your anthropology professors tell you?

I'm talking about the very basic level, where women generally have nurturing roles: raising children, caring for the sick and dying, preparing food/clothing.

Obviously there are examples of cultures where men cook or women hunt, but I can't find any culture around the world where women don't traditionally have nurturing roles.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#148

Post by johnny22 » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 2:14 PM UTC

mbesto wrote: post #143

rmc wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps we should change the world's attitudes then.

I don't think this has anything to do with attitudes but is natural. Isn't attractiveness a sign of health? (for example - [1] the waist-to-hip ratio) Are we to defy natural selection? [1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waist-hip_ratio

been doin it for a long time already.. so why not.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#149

Post by overgryphon » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 2:15 PM UTC

Meai wrote: post #101

vectorpush wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could recount similar anecdotes, I think there is a lot to be said for the way that women who put their intelligence on display are treated. A talented intelligent male with an ego is regarded as a condescending elitist genius, but the same traits ascribed to a female makes her an intolerable bitch.

That is such a stereotype. If you are genuinely nice and intelligent, I can assure you that men would be very eager to battle their wits against yours. Most women just don't hold up to their own claims and they see such "attacks" as personal ; but the reality is that men are suddenly treating you as equal and you don't like it. Men do not discard a valuable member of a team just because of gender, that is ridiculous.…

Perhaps some nice and intelligent women don't care to battle their wits against others to prove their intelligence. Such arguments are often tedious, use baseless arguments, and leave others out of the conversation.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#150

Post by Alex3917 » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 2:20 PM UTC

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 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?"

I don't believe gender differences are strictly biological, but I think the balance of evidence points to biology being a factor:

1) The differences in the prevalence of neurodevelopmental disorders. E.g. .1% of women are diagnoses with autism, vs .7% of men. Similarly, 5.4% of girls and 14.1% of boys age 11 - 17 have been diagnosed with ADHD. And 12.3% of boys and 7.1% of girls have been diagnosed with a learning disability.

2) Different psychoactive drugs tend to effect the sexes in different ways, suggesting that there is something in the chemical makeup of men and women that effects consciousness that is different to begin with. We can see this both qualitatively and by looking at the differences in the statistics for usage patterns.

3) The fact that certain drugs can make a person more or less empathic, or can make flowers more or less pretty (brighter colors), or whatever, shows that it's definitely possible that many of the purported differences in gender are attributable to biology.

4) Cognitive development research that can find cognitive differences between the sexes as early as a few weeks in age.

5) The fact that women tend to become more like men in their late 40s when their sex hormones are fading away. And the other way around. And how this effects people's behavior, e.g. this tends to be the age that most women start businesses.

6) The fact that sexual orientation seems to be determined be prenatal hormone exposure, combined with the fact that SSRIs and other serotonergic drugs can temporarily make people attracted to the 'wrong' gender. (E.g. make straight people gay, make gay people straight, etc.) I think it's telling that these drugs that alter our consciousness also impact/determine our sexual orientation. It strikes me that sexual orientation is probably profoundly connected with sensory perception, emotional processing, and consciousness in general.

It would presumably only take a few tiny differences in consciousness at birth to produce fairly large differences in twenty or thirty years. We tend to work at things we're already good at, and neural nets can be strengthened like any other muscle, especially if there is social encouragement pushing in one direction or the other.