Don't dumb girls down • Hacker News Board

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#191

Post by sliverstorm » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 4:59 PM UTC

ap22213 wrote: post #169

jcromartie wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-gende…

That "evidence" is 110% wild speculation without examples of cultures with several types of genders. Theorizing they may have existed doesn't count.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#192

Post by onemoreact » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 4:59 PM UTC

rmc wrote: post #187

onemoreact wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 biolog…

There has been loads of cultural change, even in the USA. For example, it's no longer accepted that all women really want is to have kids & raise a family. (There are several instances of this in Mad Men, from Betty Draper's psych issues at the start) This change is due to 'second wave feminisim', have a look at this book which covers it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feminine_Mystique . To think that all that has…

While many behaviors have changed quickly in the US I think a lot of those behaviors are based around the same assumptions.

You could say 200 years ago in the US many women covered their legs because of taboo's, but dig a little deeper and that taboo ties into female legs are attractive. Now days women often dress to show off their legs and 'she has great legs' is not uncommon complement because female legs are attractive. So they might be opposite behaviors, but IMO it's the same idea that leads to Muslim women completely covering themselves.

You can even study things like cheating by looking at genetic information and find culture often has less impact on behavior than you might expect. Consider, people still cheat when they risk death to do so.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#193

Post by JonnieCache » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 5:02 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

>Are we to defy natural selection?

Hell yes. Have you ever been to a hospital?

Defying natural selection is what makes us human beings.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#194

Post by king_jester » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 5:05 PM UTC

kamaal wrote: post #138

Duff wrote: post #121

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, eyeli…

This is worth thinking over. I think a lot of boys do aspire the adrenaline rush professions. But if they don't end up being one, do they now resign from their whole lives and just go saying the social persuasions to be such, destroyed their whole lives? There is always going to be a social persuasion for nearly everything. They way we eat, dress, talk nearly anything people can see, people can pass a comment on. And…

You are correct in that there are social persuasions for almost everything in a society, and that is true for sexist roles and definitions for both men and women. Feminism and anti-sexism are not about empowering women over others, but rather allowing for equality among all genders. Any person of any gender should be allowed to pursue being a primary provider if they so choose, just as any person with a child should be able to access leave, for example.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#195

Post by aprrrr » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 5:18 PM UTC

kamaal wrote: post #138

Duff wrote: post #121

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, eyeli…

This is worth thinking over. I think a lot of boys do aspire the adrenaline rush professions. But if they don't end up being one, do they now resign from their whole lives and just go saying the social persuasions to be such, destroyed their whole lives? There is always going to be a social persuasion for nearly everything. They way we eat, dress, talk nearly anything people can see, people can pass a comment on. And…

> I think a lot of boys do aspire the adrenaline rush professions. But if they don't end up being one, do they now resign from their whole lives and just go saying the social persuasions to be such, destroyed their whole lives?

(This is very tangential to the overall discussion, but) I'd say that practicing a team sport a lot around ages 8-15 is an excellent thing for a kid to do. It's good for fitness, for thinking on your feet, for working towards a team goal, and (if you really grok the game) for learning how to outsmart an opponent in a zero-sum situation.

So, when little Billy gets cut from the school team and his NBA dreams are shattered, it still will have been worthwhile. I'd vastly prefer that my kids aspire to be pro athletes than models.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#196

Post by Alex3917 » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 5:24 PM UTC

JonnieCache wrote: post #185

Alex3917 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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…

"neural nets can be strengthened like any other muscle, especially if there is social encouragement pushing in one direction or the other. " This is exactly what I'm talking about. Just like everything else in the world of human beings, we are seeing mutual feedback between society and genetics, which flows in both directions and is impossible to separate. Like I said in my other comment, I am not arguing that biolog…

"the problems begin when people start trying to paint behaviour as an immutable product of predefined genetic destiny, and then using this to support political stances that promote their own status in society"

At the same time, trying to change people's behavior is a lot like cutting down the rainforest or wiping out indigenous peoples. It sounds like a great idea, but the destruction of cognitive and behavioral diversity is probably going to lead to our extinction in the long run.

That's not meant as a justification of the status quo, but rather to point out that no one really knows what the fuck is going on.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#197

Post by tmvphil » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 5:25 PM UTC

jcnnghm wrote: post #120

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 find these articles boorish. When I was a little boy I distinctly recall every stranger I met telling me how handsome I was because it's a superficial complement that can be delivered without great insight. Aunt's used to tell me that I'd "break some ladies hearts" because they didn't know me, and had no idea if I was intelligent or not. How intelligent can a five year old be, anyway? I didn't see little Maya pick…

> I don't recall developing an eating disorder or wearing makeup at an early age

Shouldn't you take this as evidence that there is something different in the way girls and boys are treated? In case you're not aware, eating disorders are horrifyingly prevalent among college-age women. [this statistic](http://www.anad.org/get-information/about-eating-disorders/e...) reports 25% engage in purging, and in my anecdotal experience, that number could be an underestimate. It would stretch my imagination to think of purging as being a biologically rooted phenomenon, so I'd say it has to have societal roots. Saying that women are statistically more likely to go to college, and therefore can't complain about a society that profoundly fucks with their psychology is analogous to saying that blacks are statistically over-represented in sports, so they can't complain about a society that holds them back in so many other ways.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#198

Post by drzaiusapelord » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 5:27 PM UTC

starwed wrote: post #125

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.

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

No, that's like saying "There probably a biological/psychological need to create gods that transcends culture or learned experiences."

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#199

Post by scott_s » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 5:29 PM UTC

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…

Your conclusion is that they were acting the way they were expected to - which is certainly possible. I'm not sure. But I don't think you considered another possibility, which is this night out was a release, and it was refreshing to go out and not think deep thoughts. Or, in other words, to go out and have fun.

Yes, when you're with good friends you know well, you can seamlessly go back and forth between serious conversation and fun, goofing around conversation. But when you're around new people, and you want to have a good time, I think we (as a species) tend towards goofing around conversation. If I've been working a lot, a night out where I don't think Deep Thoughts is exactly what I want.

And for the record, I tend not to go into too much detail about my work unless I'm seriously prodded because, really, what I do is boring to most people.

So, my point: there are alternate explanations.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#200

Post by drzaiusapelord » Tue, Sep 06, 2011, 5:30 PM UTC

JohnsonB wrote: post #94

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…

>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 differences in behaviour are down to this rather than down to societal factors. It's actually no leap at all. Evolution put those differences in brain structure for a reason. It certainly isn't random, but due to some evolutionary be…

I lot of the people who refuse to accept biological origins of gender differences don't usually have much faith in evolution to begin with. Funny how both the far-right and the far-left tend to agree on things, especially skepticism of science (or at least its casual dismissal) that counters their zealous views.