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

The Great Feminization

compactmag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: The Great Feminization

#51

Post by morshu9001 »

UncleMeat wrote: post #45
morshu9001 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying I was right, but the teacher's explanation was not what you said. It was that the correct answer is the inoffensive one. I'm also still not sure about the answer. A lot of unrelated cultures developed music independently and ended up with some kind of rhythm beaten from something. I didn't say they had tuning forks or scales, and ofc 12 tones or 8 notes per scale isn't universal, but there's still the…

Consonance and dissonance between pitches are physical properties. How they relate to the enjoyability of music is culturally constructed.

Right. The thing is, I don't know if there's any culture that enjoys completely dissonant music and doesn't enjoy consonance. I like Arabic classical and pop a lot, they use disonance a bit more and also don't always use the 12-ET tuning. But anyone who's developed any kind of tuning, it still divides up an octave, ie the notes reset when the frequency doubles.

Re: The Great Feminization

#52

Post by BobaFloutist »

arnoooooo wrote: post #17
ogurechny wrote: post #2

The idea that there are straightforward “female” and “male” traits should seem quite shaky to anyone who is even a little bit into humanities. The problem is that both sides of the equation are constructs of the mind, both the thing we would like to measure, and the measure itself. Fighting journalistic simplification with journalistic simplification is not the mentioned “pursuit of truth”. So before arguing whether…

If you look at things like physical strength for instance, the difference is quite marked. That some females can be stronger than some men does not change the fundamental distribution. This is not a construct of the mind. If male and female abilities differ, it should follow that our social expectations differ.

When the variation within the category is greater than the variation between categories, it's worth asking just how useful or informative the categories actually are.

Re: The Great Feminization

#53

Post by K0balt »

ogurechny wrote: post #39
K0balt wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we are just going to be serious here, the morphology of females differs significantly from males, and there are well documented behavioral biases that have been shown to predate or even defy socialization time and time again. Just because some people -want- men and women to be interchangeable in all respects does not mean that they are, or can be. Women bring a critical set of biases and skills to the human condit…

> some people -want- men and women to be interchangeable in all respects That's a generalisation that loses all sense. For example, you're building giant pyramids out of human corpses. Based on experiments and precise calculations, you know that you need x.y% more female corpses than male corpses, and get really angry when suppliers try to argue that men and women are equal in all respects. Obviously, this is not the…

You’re right that my generalization was overly broad when taken out of context, as you have, but I don’t think that anything I was saying can be interpreted in good faith to mean that I assert that things were better in pre history or even 50 years ago.

I am a supporter of legal equality for women, of course, and of women having the social agency and opportunities to choose the path of their life on an individual basis.

That has nothing to do with the abandonment of reason for empathy, which I see as threatening and highly dangerous to the cause of female empowerment. You don’t have to use your imagination to see how that works out.

Re: The Great Feminization

#54

Post by UncleMeat »

morshu9001 wrote: post #51
UncleMeat wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Consonance and dissonance between pitches are physical properties. How they relate to the enjoyability of music is culturally constructed.

Right. The thing is, I don't know if there's any culture that enjoys completely dissonant music and doesn't enjoy consonance. I like Arabic classical and pop a lot, they use disonance a bit more and also don't always use the 12-ET tuning. But anyone who's developed any kind of tuning, it still divides up an octave, ie the notes reset when the frequency doubles.

So? We have different degrees of dissonance, different uses for dissonance, and different reactions to dissonance across many different musical traditions. I don't see why there would need to be some musical tradition that refuses to ever have octaves in order for us to say that our relationship with consonance and dissonance is culturally constructed.

Gamelan music might be a good example of one where microtonal dissonance is expected basically continuously through a piece.

There is also music that is completely without traditional pitch information (all sorts of percussion traditions).

Re: The Great Feminization

#55

Post by judahmeek »

marcusverus wrote: post #48
bigyabai wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would it be feminine of me to ask you for a citation?

Only if you did so in a passive-aggressive way ;) From the relevant Wikis: Chimps: At the core of social structures are males, which patrol the territory, protect group members, and search for food. Males remain in their natal communities, while females generally emigrate at adolescence. Males in a community are more likely to be related to one another than females are to each other. Among males, there is generally a…

> male and female traits/roles pervade the animal kingdom

Your citations don't really support your claim well, since the sections you quoted don't mention traits or roles much at all.

---

Also, why mention Orangutans and Gorillas, but leave out Bonobos?

According to https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/natured-nurture/2022..., "Evolutionarily, humans are equally related to patriarchal chimpanzees and matriarchal bonobos".

I almost thought to argue that this means that humanity could basically pick its traits, except... the traits mentioned for two species seem fairly gendered themselves: "Chimpanzees are male-dominated, competitive, territorial, and sometimes violent. Bonobos are female-dominated, peaceful, and highly sexual."

This reminds me of the ""Nordic gender equality paradox", where "in Sweden and Norway, gender strongly influences job choice despite high levels of gender equality".

Ultimately, I think the argument that everyone should be having is not whether gendered traits exist, but whether this fact is something that should be enforced or resisted.

I personally think it should be resisted as resisting our basic impulses is generally considered more enlightened or noble and the world already has enough idiots who will try to put others in a box and claim some sort of evolutionary justification.

Re: The Great Feminization

#56

Post by marcusverus »

judahmeek wrote: post #55
marcusverus wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if you did so in a passive-aggressive way ;) From the relevant Wikis: Chimps: At the core of social structures are males, which patrol the territory, protect group members, and search for food. Males remain in their natal communities, while females generally emigrate at adolescence. Males in a community are more likely to be related to one another than females are to each other. Among males, there is generally a…

> male and female traits/roles pervade the animal kingdom Your citations don't really support your claim well, since the sections you quoted don't mention traits or roles much at all. --- Also, why mention Orangutans and Gorillas, but leave out Bonobos? According to https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/natured-nurture/2022... , "Evolutionarily, humans are equally related to patriarchal chimpanzees and matriarchal…

> Your citations don't really support your claim well, since the sections you quoted don't mention traits or roles much at all.

The sections do mention roles very clearly. If you're not capable of making these basic connections, it's no wonder that you're confused.

For chimps:

> At the core of social structures are males, which patrol the territory, protect group members, and search for food

Male roles: Patroller of territory, protector of group members.

For Orangutans:

> One to several resident female home ranges are encompassed within the home range of a resident male, who is their main mating partner.

Female roles: harem member. Male Roles: Alpha, Harem haver

For Gorillas:

> Troops tend to be made of one adult male or silverback, with a harem of multiple adult females and their offspring.

Female roles: harem member. Male Roles: Alpha, Harem haver

If roles weren't based on sex, a female Chimp would be just as likely to patrol territory, and a female gorilla would be just as likely to be an alpha with her own harem. The fact that these roles are only filled by males indicates that they are sex-based roles.

> Evolutionarily, humans are equally related to patriarchal chimpanzees and matriarchal bonobos

You've lost the plot. For bonobos to be matriarchal implies male and female traits/roles, which obviously supports my argument.

> I personally think it should be resisted as resisting our basic impulses is generally considered more enlightened or noble and the world already has enough idiots who will try to put others in a box and claim some sort of evolutionary justification.

Telling the truth is a good thing, actually. Encouraging people to understand their nature is good. Lying to people about their nature is bad. Encouraging people to misunderstand their nature, which will inevitably lead to them making life decisions based on lies, is bad. Borderline evil.

Re: The Great Feminization

#57

Post by judahmeek »

marcusverus wrote: post #56
judahmeek wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> male and female traits/roles pervade the animal kingdom Your citations don't really support your claim well, since the sections you quoted don't mention traits or roles much at all. --- Also, why mention Orangutans and Gorillas, but leave out Bonobos? According to https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/natured-nurture/2022... , "Evolutionarily, humans are equally related to patriarchal chimpanzees and matriarchal…

> Your citations don't really support your claim well, since the sections you quoted don't mention traits or roles much at all. The sections do mention roles very clearly. If you're not capable of making these basic connections, it's no wonder that you're confused. For chimps: > At the core of social structures are males, which patrol the territory, protect group members, and search for food Male roles: Patroller of…

I don't think that resisting our baser impulses is the same thing as lying.

And I don't think the fact that we have baser impulses is justification enough to tell people that they should live a certain way.

Re: The Great Feminization

#58

Post by morshu9001 »

UncleMeat wrote: post #54
morshu9001 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. The thing is, I don't know if there's any culture that enjoys completely dissonant music and doesn't enjoy consonance. I like Arabic classical and pop a lot, they use disonance a bit more and also don't always use the 12-ET tuning. But anyone who's developed any kind of tuning, it still divides up an octave, ie the notes reset when the frequency doubles.

So? We have different degrees of dissonance, different uses for dissonance, and different reactions to dissonance across many different musical traditions. I don't see why there would need to be some musical tradition that refuses to ever have octaves in order for us to say that our relationship with consonance and dissonance is culturally constructed. Gamelan music might be a good example of one where microtonal dis…

What I mean is, it seems like every culture's music has some things in common, and it's not because all of them are derived from a common ancestor. Isolated people can make music that everyone else will perceive as music, maybe enjoy it too. Some music has very broad appeal. Again I'm not sure, but it's pretty strong to assert that it's absolutely culture-dependent.

Re: The Great Feminization

#59

Post by UncleMeat »

morshu9001 wrote: post #58
UncleMeat wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So? We have different degrees of dissonance, different uses for dissonance, and different reactions to dissonance across many different musical traditions. I don't see why there would need to be some musical tradition that refuses to ever have octaves in order for us to say that our relationship with consonance and dissonance is culturally constructed. Gamelan music might be a good example of one where microtonal dis…

What I mean is, it seems like every culture's music has some things in common, and it's not because all of them are derived from a common ancestor. Isolated people can make music that everyone else will perceive as music, maybe enjoy it too. Some music has very broad appeal. Again I'm not sure, but it's pretty strong to assert that it's absolutely culture-dependent.

But what are they?

You said this:

> One example of many I remember was a social/music class where the prof asked the lecture if there are any innate, non-culture-specific features that make music enjoyable. I raised my hand to say I think so, because octave equivalence seems pretty universal, but the right answer was no.

Does the octave interval make music enjoyable in some non culturally contingent way? I don't think that the evidence for this is super strong. There's music from around the world that would consider harmonic motion from consonance to dissonance to consonance to be wrong. There's music from around the world that would consider metered rhythm to be wrong.

Re: The Great Feminization

#60

Post by vapg1974 »

ogurechny wrote: post #2

The idea that there are straightforward “female” and “male” traits should seem quite shaky to anyone who is even a little bit into humanities. The problem is that both sides of the equation are constructs of the mind, both the thing we would like to measure, and the measure itself. Fighting journalistic simplification with journalistic simplification is not the mentioned “pursuit of truth”. So before arguing whether…

The idea that there are straightforward “female” and “male” traits should seem quite shaky to anyone who is even a little bit into humanities... "Humanities", that alone makes your whole argument invalid.

As if brain configuation, that staemming from genetics and hormone levels, had no influence in how the sexes perceive world and social clues and behave according to those perceptions. Not mentioning the inherent physical differences which also influence how they differently percieve the world and behave.

Post reply on HN