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

231–240 of 273 posts

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#231

Post by onemoreact »

lukeschlather wrote: post #217
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…

The lack of women in the military is purely a result of sound military strategy. Suppose two idealized states in a perpetual state of war, where they have frequent engagements in which both sides lose 50% of their soldiers in each generation. The state that uses no women as soldiers whatsoever will eventually win. This is because of biology, but it is not because of any sort of hardwired instincts. It's just that 200…

I think my original point still stands even if you were correct because I am arguing the biological basis for many behaviors.

However you’re missing the basic concept that the country that used both women and men could simply create a larger army and crush the other country. The reason this did not work historically was more to do with men’s larger size and muscle mass than reproductive issues. If you can fire an arrow and extra 20 feet you can kill someone before they can attack back. If can lift a heaver weapon with a longer range you are far more likely to win in melee combat. Such minor advantages are far less important in gathering food so sending a largely male army off to combat is simply more efficient prior to the use of fire arms. (There is some evidence that women do better in modern firefights so you could see a reversal of this trend fairly soon.)

PS: Population sizes are far closer linked to the ability to gather food and avoid disease than the ability to reproduce. In theory more women = more baby’s but you could also see 4x population growth in 30 years which does not happen.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#232

Post by rmc »

lukeschlather wrote: post #217
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…

The lack of women in the military is purely a result of sound military strategy. Suppose two idealized states in a perpetual state of war, where they have frequent engagements in which both sides lose 50% of their soldiers in each generation. The state that uses no women as soldiers whatsoever will eventually win. This is because of biology, but it is not because of any sort of hardwired instincts. It's just that 200…

Militaries do not think like this. They do not plan like this. If they did, they would only allow gay men in the military. In fact the opposite happens. Your theory doesn't match reality.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#233

Post by rmc »

onemoreact wrote: post #192
rmc wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 att…

Lots of assumptions have changed. Here are some assumptions that have changed: "No women can do maths or science". "Women do not want to do very complicated scientific research". "Women are unable to fight in a military and will get very scared and turn into bubbering heaps the first sign of danger". "Women cannot be CEOs because they will just quit as soon as they have a baby". "A woman's life can be fulfilled by raising children & home making"

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#234

Post by orangecat »

rhygar wrote: post #188

The amount of ignorance and misogyny in here is staggering. Have any of you ever actually talked to a woman? I'll boil down the argument into one that favors women: Men are biologically programmed to be violent. We should find it as no surprise that the vast majority of violent criminals are men. After all, it's their biology. And thus all men should be regarded as likely violent in the right circumstances. Also we s…

The amount of ignorance and misogyny in here is staggering.

Suggesting that biological factors result in statistical differences between men and women is not misogyny. "Different" does not mean better or worse.

Men are biologically programmed to be violent. We should find it as no surprise that the vast majority of violent criminals are men.

Essentially true. "Biologically programmed" is a bit strong, but in a sexism-free utopia would you seriously expect 50% of violent criminals to be women?

Also we should not trust men to care for small children, because they have no idea what they are doing since they lack the biological drive for child-rearing.

Strawman. Nobody is saying that women should be discouraged from or can't excel in any area. It's just that if individual choices result in more male than female tech startup founders, and more female than male preschool workers, it may not be due to the all-powerful patriarchy.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#235

Post by tomlin »

Alex3917 wrote: post #177
loup-vaillant wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'…

"How did we manage to have a disorder that affects nearly 10% teenagers?" A combination of rising maternal age, increased body load of many environment contaminants, terrible diets, ubiquitous TV watching before age 2, parental drug use (everything from starbucks to antibiotics), etc. From a draft version of the latest EPA report: "Between 1993 and 2007, the rate of preterm birth rose from 11.0% of births in 1993 to…

> ...and impulsivity, which are common behaviors of ADHD, and exposures to lead, PCBs, mercury, and certain pesticides. Animal studies that examine the link between environmental exposures and animal models of ADHD, or common ADHD behaviors, provide supporting evidence that exposures to lead, PCBs, mercury, and pesticides may contribute to ADHD.

Sure, so how do you explain my two brothers along with myself and mother all having different severities of ADHD? From everything I've read, especially newer studies, genetics play a much larger role in ADHD, specifically genetic relationships with dopamine levels.

The PDF you cited actually notes genetics as a frontrunner:

   Research indicates that individual genetic features
   influence the incidence of ADHD, but 
   often in combination with environmental factors
Further, ADHD-PI has a much higher incidence of genetic cause (sometimes referred to as SCT, or Sluggish Cognitive Tempo) [1].

   Like ADHD, those with SCT symptoms have a condition 
   that appears to be genetic in nature.
I wouldn't disagree that environment plays a factor, but the frontrunner is genetics.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sluggish_cognitive_tempo

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#236

Post by Alex3917 »

tomlin wrote: post #235
Alex3917 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How did we manage to have a disorder that affects nearly 10% teenagers?" A combination of rising maternal age, increased body load of many environment contaminants, terrible diets, ubiquitous TV watching before age 2, parental drug use (everything from starbucks to antibiotics), etc. From a draft version of the latest EPA report: "Between 1993 and 2007, the rate of preterm birth rose from 11.0% of births in 1993 to…

> ...and impulsivity, which are common behaviors of ADHD, and exposures to lead, PCBs, mercury, and certain pesticides. Animal studies that examine the link between environmental exposures and animal models of ADHD, or common ADHD behaviors, provide supporting evidence that exposures to lead, PCBs, mercury, and pesticides may contribute to ADHD. Sure, so how do you explain my two brothers along with myself and mother…

"From everything I've read, especially newer studies, genetics play a much larger role in ADHD, specifically genetic relationships with dopamine levels."

As the paragraph I quoted says, most of the studies the EPA report cites were published within the last five years. Even if ADHD is caused mostly by DNA variations, that still doesn't tell us what is causing the DNA variations. E.g. is it something that's relatively stable across all countries and time periods, or is it something specific to certain ethnic groups, or are there environmental factors that are altering DNA or even directly altering brain functioning.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#237

Post by chrischen »

overgryphon wrote: post #205
_delirium wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yet when talking to boys, people generally don't say - "Oh, what a handsome boy you are, and how nicely you dress!" I agree it's not symmetrical, but I do hear this kind of thing directed at male children pretty frequently, especially in the relatives/family-friends type setting. "Oh what a handsome young man you have!" isn't uncommon at all. Though I do tend to associate it with older women, for some reason; at le…

Boys generally only hear that sort of statement from family members at family gatherings. Young girls hear how pretty their dress or hair or smile is from just about anyone upon introduction. They are put into ballet classes where they learn to act pretty, into girl scouts where they do traditional arts and crafts rather than the camping and leadership that boy scouts focuses on, and are given play makeup until aroun…

It is at a different level, but only because it's simply more practical in society for a girl to be pretty than it is for a boy.

You'd have to make everyone ignore beauty to disincentivize being pretty for girls and that is going to be pretty impossible.

As more girls start to realize their independence from men (because of education now opened up fully for women) the emphasis on beauty will naturally start eroding away as they realize they can do other things to support themselves and get what they want in life.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#238

Post by rhygar »

orangecat wrote: post #234
rhygar wrote: post #188

The amount of ignorance and misogyny in here is staggering. Have any of you ever actually talked to a woman? I'll boil down the argument into one that favors women: Men are biologically programmed to be violent. We should find it as no surprise that the vast majority of violent criminals are men. After all, it's their biology. And thus all men should be regarded as likely violent in the right circumstances. Also we s…

The amount of ignorance and misogyny in here is staggering. Suggesting that biological factors result in statistical differences between men and women is not misogyny. "Different" does not mean better or worse. Men are biologically programmed to be violent. We should find it as no surprise that the vast majority of violent criminals are men. Essentially true. "Biologically programmed" is a bit strong, but in a sexism…

I find it amusing that you took a parody of the group-think displayed here as a serious argument.

Re: Don't dumb girls down

#239

Post by jcromartie »

rmc wrote: post #233
onemoreact wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 att…

Lots of assumptions have changed. Here are some assumptions that have changed: "No women can do maths or science". "Women do not want to do very complicated scientific research". "Women are unable to fight in a military and will get very scared and turn into bubbering heaps the first sign of danger". "Women cannot be CEOs because they will just quit as soon as they have a baby". "A woman's life can be fulfilled by ra…

> "A woman's life can be fulfilled by raising children & home making"

This feels like a cheap shot from old-school feminists. That assumption hasn't changed, it's just not the only option. A woman's life can be fulfilled by taking care of a family.

Post reply on HN