Don't dumb girls down • Hacker News Board

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#161

Post by crazygringo » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 2:54 PM UTC

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.

I really have to agree with you. I've lived in China, spent weeks together with pastoral tribesmen in Kenya, lived in Paris, and spent years in Brazil, as well as being from the US.

The more I travel, the more I see how fantastically different cultures can be, but I also see the common thread which tells me what people are really like. The fact is, men tend to think in certain ways, women in another, and then homosexual men too. Of course there's lots of variation within individuals, but I'm talking about the whole.

There isn't any culture in the world where men aren't respected more because they are better providers, or any culture where women aren't respected more because they are prettier. That's just the way it is.

I've seen so much cultural variation that is seems like the kinds of things which can change, do change across cultures. The ways in which men and women express their preferences are almost infinitely varied. But I see the same basic, yet different, male and female instincts in every country I've ever lived in.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#162

Post by bigfudge » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 2:54 PM UTC

1gor wrote: post #160

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…

> our social/political/economic hegemony. Hm, sorry, what hegemony are you talking about? I always wonder why people who go all excited about gender issues can't accept that women are not men and do not have to be like men? Your 'hegemony' (I assume you speak the well known thesis about male-dominated society) may not actually exist, and the 5 year old's desire to look attractive may not be bad at at all. Imagine, th…

>But still, it is normal for the girls to try to look beautiful, just as it is normal for the boys to try to be strong.

Except that boys are also expected to be resourceful, independent, intelligent etc... The OP rightly notes that an excessive focus on external attributes (themselves highly historical and culturally specific) are unlikely to help girls develop in an adaptive manner, and she provides evidence that our current discourses actively harm women in various ways.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#163

Post by Tichy » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 2:57 PM UTC

marvin wrote: post #56

pharrington wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 Evolut…

Well read Jared Diamonds "The Third Chimpanzee" or "Why Is Sex Fun" for some actual research on gender differences.

That we don't know how Hormones affect us is pretty irrelevant in that context. There are other forces at play, hormones are just mechanisms for changing behaviors, not the force that shapes behaviors.

It is also true, to some extent, what Steven Pinker says: "if I don't like what my genes want from me, they can go jump in the lake". But individuals acting against evolution does not change the big, global trend. In the long run those people die out - they might still have good lives, but not every lifestyle is sustainable at (web) scale.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#164

Post by bigfudge » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 2:57 PM UTC

rdtsc wrote: post #141

antihero wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

I agree, but I think a key point off the OP's argument is that a change in our expectations for what girls can and should be doing and worrying about has been to their detriment (increased dieting, watching of beauty pageants etc). Nowhere does she argue that we should ignore biological gender differences. However she rightly notes that culture strongly shapes experience and development, and our current culture is (in her and my opinion) likely to harm girls opportunities to experience a rich and fulfilling life.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#165

Post by bigfudge » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 2:59 PM UTC

Duff wrote: post #139

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…

Sure, and it's an equally massive leap to say "OMG! Little girls want to be reality TV stars instead of !" and assume that this is some sort of problem driven by sexism. The folks who deal in this controversy have a vested interest to keep it controversial. Don't hold your breath for rational explanation.

How is your comment relevant to the OP? How does she demonstrate an interest in controversy?

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#166

Post by JulianMorrison » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 2:59 PM UTC

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 "…

From Wikipedia:

"In adulthood, it is clear that testosterone is not related to any consistent methods of measuring aggression on personality scales, but several studies of the concentration of blood testosterone of convicted male criminals who committed violent crimes compared to males without a criminal record or who committed non-aggressive crimes revealed in most cases that men who were judged aggressive/dominant had higher blood concentrations of testosterone than controls. However, a correlation between testosterone levels and aggression does not prove a causal role for testosterone. Studies of testosterone levels of male athletes before and after a competition revealed that testosterone levels rise shortly before their matches, as if in anticipation of the competition, and are dependent on the outcome of the event: testosterone levels of winners are high relative to those of losers."

People who think that testosterone causes aggression are putting the cart before the horse. Aggression (and status) causes testosterone.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#167

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 3:02 PM UTC

jcromartie wrote: post #147

ap22213 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#168

Post by bigfudge » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 3:04 PM UTC

jcromartie wrote: post #147

ap22213 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's a big jump from nurturing to sexual display. If we really were trying to prepare women for nurturing roles would we be encouraging them to have breast implants likely to harm their chances of successfully breastfeeding children?

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#169

Post by ap22213 » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 3:05 PM UTC

jcromartie wrote: post #147

ap22213 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'll recount from a 10+ years gap of memory - and also with a disclaimer that this is not my area of expertise, by far. So, please don't believe me without additional supporting evidence.

However, what I took away from those classes was that gender was a very mutable 'invention' that Humans created through culture to systematically specialize labor in response to environmental forces. Some cultures invented two-genders, aligned with biology, to succeeded in environments where two specialized gender roles were more advantageous. However, other cultures of Humans invented several types of genders, and genders that crossed biology, to succeeded in different environments.

So, if those memories are even accurate, gender and gender roles in Humans are more aligned with the overarching systematic cultural forces than biology. And, even if we consider biology, there is a lot of cross-over. Humans are a very adaptive and mutable species.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#170

Post by loup-vaillant » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 3:10 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #150

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…

> 5.4% of girls and 14.1% of boys age 11 - 17 have been diagnosed with ADHD.

Wait what?! How did we manage to have a disorder that affects nearly 10% teenagers? There must be something odd with either the school system or the term "disorder" itself, because otherwise, such a flaw would likely have been filtered out of the gene pool. I wonder which it is.

(Same remark for learning "disabilities" by the way, though I'm less confident.)