Tzadeck, I think that's pretty much utter nonsense (re: reproductive strategies). That's less a reflection of you and more my feelings about evolutionary psychology and sexual selection as too often applied (too often being, well, at all, hehe).

And you can attempt to refine and focus on specific aspects of the discussions in this thread, but from the onset there was an obvious attempt to justify sexist, overgeneralized statements about men and women as they relate to homemaking and 'empathy', &c., using pseudoscientific, anecdotal, and rather vague references to physiology and statistics.

Feel free to remain in the layperson discussion on a Japanese language forum about biology and society, I can see how that can be entertaining... my issue is more 'meta' and multivalently applicable to lurkers and posters, i.e. a philosophical perspective about 'delusions of gender' and that discourse. I thought the connection was obvious from the first handful of words, but apparently not to all.

At any rate, no need for anyone to get defensive (or in the case of some, childish and belligerent). It was just a link and a scattershot reference to a still-popular popsci book in the context of a lengthy thread on gender in Japan.

What's going on in here?

Offshore Wrote:What's going on in here?

I learned my lesson. Best to just let it be ^^

You're rejecting a huge number of studies in biology when you dismiss knowledge about sexual behavior among mammals as 'utter nonsense' (which most of my post concentrated on, rather than evolutionary psychology).

I'm not saying that there weren't sexist overgeneralized statements about men and women in this thread--I'm saying that the article you posted talks primarily about cognitive abilities and play, and that they were not mentioned in this thread. My impression is that only in a really general way--in the idea that men and women are a lot more alike than people think they are--would your article be relevant. However, it would be incorrect to use that generalization about cognitive abilities and toys when we're talking about completely different things.

My argument in my last post about sexual behavior was only trying to show a possible reason why there could be very little difference in cognitive ability between the sexes, but there could be a lot of differences in sexual behavior. It doesn't actually matter whether the specifics are correct, because you'd still be inappropriately using a vague generalization if you were trying to relate your link to this dicussion.

The thing is, human mating is not selective for that type of sexual separation.

Most humans mate in their lives, while for animals with big differences between the two animals, only the 'best' (in the female's eyes) get to mate.

zachandhobbes Wrote:Most humans mate in their lives, while for animals with big differences between the two animals, only the 'best' (in the female's eyes) get to mate.

We are already the...



Now we just mate to further diversify.

dizmox Wrote:

liosama Wrote:

dizmox Wrote:Psh, a housewife of mine would hardly have to do anything if we had no kids. Cleaning up an apartment every now and then, getting groceries, doing the laundry, making a lunchbox and cooking me a meal for when I get home wouldn't take more than an two hours a day.

2 hours, sorry are you being sarcastic with me or something here, because I'm not following at all. You can't be serious can you? Have you ever cleaned and cooked a whole house before in your life? Being a housewife is a full-time job in itself. You can't just think of a housewife as your pet puppy that waits all day for you to come home and be petted. She has the ultra hard job of satisfying our excessive male ego too. Though in fairness, it's mutual since we have to put up with some yap yap yap for a while. But you get my drift.

There is a huge difference between cleaning properly, and moving shit out of the way. Cooking proper wholesome food, and ordering something for heating up. In any case unless you're very well off, this day and age it would be hard to survive financially with only 1 person working.

A small 1 bedroom flat does not take more than 20 minutes to clean up a day unless you have two very messy residents. |: Vacuuming each room only takes a few minutes. Cleaning up and making everything neat and tidy is fun anyway, at least to me.

I cook "proper wholesome food" every day for myself and it doesn't take any time at all. @_@ I just pop it on to cook while playing an MMO or something. Same for popping clothes in the laundry. Ironing takes a while more but nothing excessive.

I just don't understand how it'd be a full time job if it takes me an 1 hour a day to do my daily chores when living alone. My mum does a part time job, does all the housework (3 bedroom house), and still has plenty of free time.

Maybe I'm just unco then, it takes at least an hour to clean my room, wipe down my window, 30 minutes to clean up after myself in the kitchen, ontop of the 2+ hours it takes me to prepare a meal. My mum has a part time job too, but she's been a mum for decades already so she's at least level 106 with +5 agil

Tzadeck Wrote:You're rejecting a huge number of studies in biology when you dismiss knowledge about sexual behavior among mammals as 'utter nonsense' (which most of my post concentrated on, rather than evolutionary psychology).

No, most of your post concentrated on *human* reproductive behaviour. Connecting modern human behaviour such as wearing makeup to the sex differences of other species, and at the same time trying to sidestep the involvement of the brain? Nonsense. This sort of arbitrary, retroactive connection of complex behaviour to Darwin's already problematic 'sexual selection' is precisely the domain of those sloppy-minded sexists known as evolutionary psychologists.

Tzadeck Wrote:I'm not saying that there weren't sexist overgeneralized statements about men and women in this thread--I'm saying that the article you posted talks primarily about cognitive abilities and play, and that they were not mentioned in this thread. My impression is that only in a really general way--in the idea that men and women are a lot more alike than people think they are--would your article be relevant. However, it would be incorrect to use that generalization about cognitive abilities and toys when we're talking about completely different things.

The article talks, as I already pointed out and which is obvious, of notions such as sex role socialization (such as boys = GI Joe) and emotional perception, and the problematic trends and institutionalized discrimination that results in bad science, bad science journalism, and sexist thinking.

These were topics raised here, amongst other things. If you were to refer to the book the article is about, you would see this entire line of thought, reflected here (describing gender differences as hardwired) 'eviscerated'. Useful to those who see the pattern of their own or others' faulty logic, re: gender and science. By the way, the book is on Google, try doing some searches, you'll learn some stuff. I'd hoped the article would've inspired this anyway, but I guess you were too busy pretending the interview only referred to very specific things and couldn't possibly be related here.

Tzadeck Wrote:My argument in my last post about sexual behavior was only trying to show a possible reason why there could be very little difference in cognitive ability between the sexes, but there could be a lot of differences in sexual behavior. It doesn't actually matter whether the specifics are correct, because you'd still be inappropriately using a vague generalization if you were trying to relate your link to this dicussion.

It's not just a matter of cognitive ability, which is clear within a few words. It's a pattern of looking at human gender 'differences' and coding them as evolutionary in practicality, as traceable back to biological differences. If you think behaviour can be discussed without consulting the brain or cultural conditioning, we've got a lot of work to do on your thinking process, dude.

The default assumption should be that the science indicates very little that can be attributed to such, especially in light of systemic cultural biases. Those same biases act on the science itself, revealing both overinterpretation and methodological flaws (Fine breaks down many of these in her book, from what I gather, and in case you haven't yet realized, yes, she talks about the brain *and* culture *and* other aspects of science, such as genitalia and hormones. Amazing! Totally not a given!)

As for the domination of the male gaze in modern societies...

Just stick to deconstruction and activism centered around the logistics of sociohistorical/political skews uncoloured by one's own native biases and we'll work it out. ;p

nest0r Wrote:Nonsense.

nest0r Wrote:(...)try doing some searches, you'll learn some stuff.

nest0r Wrote:I'd hoped the article would've inspired this anyway, but I guess you were too busy(...)

nest0r Wrote:(...)we've got a lot of work to do on your thinking process, dude.

nest0r Wrote:Amazing! Totally not a given!

I'm not partcipating in this debate any longer. The only thing I did was point out that I didn't find the link particularly relevant, and give some reasons for it. I didn't phrase my posts in a I'm-so-right-and-you're-so-wrong/you-must-be-an-idiot kind of way. I don't know why you feel the need to do so, to be rude over absolutely nothing.

Tzadeck Wrote:

nest0r Wrote:Nonsense.

nest0r Wrote:(...)try doing some searches, you'll learn some stuff.

nest0r Wrote:I'd hoped the article would've inspired this anyway, but I guess you were too busy(...)

nest0r Wrote:(...)we've got a lot of work to do on your thinking process, dude.

nest0r Wrote:Amazing! Totally not a given!

I'm not partcipating in this debate any longer. The only thing I did was point out that I didn't find the link particularly relevant, and give some reasons for it. I didn't phrase my posts in a I'm-so-right-and-you're-so-wrong/you-must-be-an-idiot kind of way. I don't know why you feel the need to do so, to be rude over absolutely nothing.

Riiight, Tzadeck, grow a thicker skin maybe? Before posting again, for your own feelings' sake.

At any rate, IceCream, that article's main point was to discuss widespread misperceptions thinking women are more empathetic than men, that they generally naturally prefer things like, say, romance because of some a priori aspect of their nature, etc. If you want to play myopic and refuse to acknowledge the link's relevance out of some blown out-of-proportion defensiveness, feel free, and if you don't like that example, as I said, the book's on Google, go read about its refutations of sexist beliefs based on hormones and mirror neurons and cultural conditioning, etc.

As for Tzadeck's 'exception' that you crowed about (as these superficial rhetorical aspects seem most important to you, until you throw a tantrum and toss around personal insults then edit/delete them), it wasn't an exception to their connecting human behaviour to mammalian reproductive strategies, it was a contrast within that context, the entirety of which I think is nonsense that is consistently trotted out by sexist theorists.

As for sexual selection, your purposefully oversimplified interpretation of my use of the words "already problematic" notwithstanding, I don't think you're worth explaining my reference to, I can't see you learning anything from it. Going back to ignoring you now, thanks for sharing that you didn't like my link in such detail.

Haha. Apparently...

Trying not to be rude, encourging others not to be rude, thinking that a debate should be about solving the issue at hand=being weak.

nest0r Wrote:Delusions of gender: http://www.salon.com/books/feature/2010/...index.html

Something to counteract the occasional reek of "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus." ^_^

What a waste of ink that book seems to be. Of course men and women are different. Obviously it is nonsense to believe men are better wired for math or women are more suited to do housework. If one were to go on more than two dates with a member of the opposite sex, arguing we aren't from different planets would seem unimaginable.

IceCream Wrote:There are also studies that show that when pregnant women are given particular female hormones, their male children will take on more traditionally female behavioural roles more often.

Oh god, what irresponsible parent agreed to take part in that study?!
This was done on actual humans?

caitlind Wrote:Oh god, what irresponsible parent agreed to take part in that study?!
This was done on actual humans?

The horror

caitlind Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:There are also studies that show that when pregnant women are given particular female hormones, their male children will take on more traditionally female behavioral roles more often.

Oh god, what irresponsible parent agreed to take part in that study?!
This was done on actual humans?

I am sure the hormones weren't given to pregnant women for the purpose of a study. The data had to of been examined after the fact.

Hahaha...I see. I feel pretty retarded now.

IceCream Wrote:

bodhisamaya Wrote:

IceCream Wrote:There are also studies that show that when pregnant women are given particular female hormones, their male children will take on more traditionally female behavioral roles more often.

I am sure the hormones weren't given to pregnant women for the purpose of a study. The data had to of been examined after the fact.

That's correct. Women were given the hormone to prevent repeated spontaneous miscarriages, and the effects on the fetus were only found by linking the information after the fact.

Kazelee is still a little bitter over the whole process though :mad:

bodhisamaya Wrote:Kazelee is still a little bitter over the whole process though :mad:

Selective... anxiety... man... headache...