Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

"I don't care if you landed a spacecraft on a comet, your shirt is sexist"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by square_peg View Post
    but when women make up half the world's population, there shouldn't be THAT drastic of a difference.
    Ad populum fallacy. Just because half of the world's population is women, does not mean that every field or statistic should be an even split between the two genders.
    “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” - Richard Dawkins

    Comment


    • Originally posted by square_peg View Post
      How did I know those three would amen this post?
      I amen'd his NEXT post just to irritate you.
      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Jesse View Post
        I should have been more clear and that is my fault. So here is a quote from research conducted this year that will answer your question:

        Source: psychologicalscience.org


        The results of our myriad analyses reveal that early sex differences in spatial and mathematical reasoning need not
        stem from biological bases, that the gap between average female and male math ability is narrowing (suggesting strong
        environmental influences), and that sex differences in math ability at the right tail show variation over time and across
        nationalities, ethnicities, and other factors, indicating that the ratio of males to females at the right tail can and does
        change. We find that gender differences in attitudes toward and expectations about math careers and ability (controlling
        for actual ability) are evident by kindergarten and increase thereafter, leading to lower female propensities to major in
        math-intensive subjects in college but higher female propensities to major in non-math-intensive sciences, with overall
        science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) majors at 50% female for more than a decade. Post-college,
        although men with majors in math-intensive subjects have historically chosen and completed PhDs in these fields more
        often than women, the gap has recently narrowed by two thirds; among non-math-intensive STEM majors, women are
        more likely than men to go into health and other people-related occupations instead of pursuing PhDs.

        © Copyright Original Source



        If you actually took the time to read any of the research in this field you will see that your assertion is false. And it's becoming less true year by year.
        Er...it's refreshing to read that progress is apparently being made, but that doesn't falsify my assertion. They acknowledged in their study that "there is agreement that women are under-represented in all math-intensive fields in the academy." The claim that the gap is shrinking doesn't change the fact that a gap still exists.

        Additionally, you still haven't addressed the link I provided about the many women who claim to have personally experienced sexism in the workplace.

        Of course you do. Unless you mean you don't know what the term "feminist politics" means.
        No, I really don't. I consider myself a feminist, but my politics differ from the political views of writers at Jezebel.com, whose views differ from my feminist classmate's views, and so forth. So I would appreciate it if you stopped assuming that I understand what you mean when I specifically say that I don't.

        I bet you were holding that in for a while huh? Just itching to claim this as a conspiracy of an angry male.
        Never claimed at all that there was a conspiracy, and no, I wasn't "holding anything in for a while." Your psychoanalysis and assumption-leaping are quite amusing, if nothing else.

        Not that it matters, but this is one of the many things that don't anger me. But I do understand how uncomfortable the thought is that there are people out there in a movement that use their power as a club against what they deem as "wrong thinking".
        No, that thought isn't uncomfortable at all, because I've seen it and know that it exists--for instance, clergymen who defrock and vilify certain pastors for daring to think that people who happen to be gay should be treated with love and respect, and that scripture doesn't require believers to condemn others on the basis of homosexuality.

        Besides, what activist feminists seem to be about is using power as a club against wrong thinking that may produce hurtful actions, not necessarily wrong thinking by itself.

        The woman in question deemed this guys shirt as insulting only to HER. Did you ever ask the question as to why no one but her made a fuss about his shirt at the beginning of all of this? How did her grievance over a simple shirt become a political rallying cry over the span of a few days?
        Because she received multiple responses that reinforced perceptions of sexism?

        But no square_peg, there couldn't possibly be any grievance olympics going on here.
        Silly term aside, I suppose there theoretically could be, but if given only two options, I would much rather take every grievance seriously, knowing that some may not have been legitimate BUT many people who did have genuine grievances will be comforted and helped, rather than outright dismissing every grievance on the rationale that I might end up listening to a few people who didn't have legitimate complaints.
        Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

        I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

        Comment


        • Originally posted by ChaosRain View Post
          Ad populum fallacy. Just because half of the world's population is women, does not mean that every field or statistic should be an even split between the two genders.
          Right, but I have yet to see a specific reason to think that technology-related fields shouldn't have a relatively even split.
          Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

          I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

          Comment


          • Originally posted by square_peg View Post
            Right, but I have yet to see a specific reason to think that technology-related fields shouldn't have a relatively even split.
            Perhaps it's due to genetic differences in the wiring of male versus female brains. It's certainly a possibility. I won't claim to have extensive knowledge at my disposal with regard to human biology, but it seems like a point worth looking into.

            Also, to argue that the fields should have an even split, is to take upon yourself the Burden of Proof as to why there should be an even split. Just FYI. The skeptic does not possess the Burden in this case.
            “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” - Richard Dawkins

            Comment


            • Originally posted by square_peg
              Er...it's refreshing to read that progress is apparently being made, but that doesn't falsify my assertion. They acknowledged in their study that "there is agreement that women are under-represented in all math-intensive fields in the academy." The claim that the gap is shrinking doesn't change the fact that a gap still exists.

              Additionally, you still haven't addressed the link I provided about the many women who claim to have personally experienced sexism in the workplace.
              This progress that is being made has been going on for over a decade as far as they can tell. You seem to think this is some new phenomenon. Of course there is a frigin' gap, not every woman on the planet wants to have a job in STEM. There still being a gap is not proof of sexism.

              I didn't address your link because there was no need to. You are still under the impression I said something I never said. I am not going to answer it again. Stop being lazy and re-read the posts.

              Originally posted by square_peg
              No, I really don't. I consider myself a feminist, but my politics differ from the political views of writers at Jezebel.com, whose views differ from my feminist classmate's views, and so forth. So I would appreciate it if you stopped assuming that I understand what you mean when I specifically say that I don't.
              Here I believe you are just feigning ignorance so I am letting it go. No need to go further with someone who won't be serious.

              Originally posted by square_peg
              Never claimed at all that there was a conspiracy, and no, I wasn't "holding anything in for a while." Your psychoanalysis and assumption-leaping are quite amusing, if nothing else.
              Of course neither did I. But it didn't stop you from using the word did it? You must have been holding onto something since the word "conspiracy" doesn't pop up in everyday conversations.

              Originally posted by square_peg
              No, that thought isn't uncomfortable at all, because I've seen it and know that it exists--for instance, clergymen who defrock and vilify certain pastors for daring to think that people who happen to be gay should be treated with love and respect, and that scripture doesn't require believers to condemn others on the basis of homosexuality.

              Besides, what activist feminists seem to be about is using power as a club against wrong thinking that may produce hurtful actions, not necessarily wrong thinking by itself.
              No I understand. It's only uncomfortable when it is coming from your particular political tribe. When that happens, it's best it pretend that it doesn't exist. I got it.

              Originally posted by square_peg
              Because she received multiple responses that reinforced perceptions of sexism?
              No. Because she didn't like his shirt and decided the best way to humiliate him was to create that as the story. It worked and the familiar faces came out to pounce.

              Originally posted by square_peg
              Silly term aside, I suppose there theoretically could be, but if given only two options, I would much rather take every grievance seriously, knowing that some may not have been legitimate BUT many people who did have genuine grievances will be comforted and helped, rather than outright dismissing every grievance on the rationale that I might end up listening to a few people who didn't have legitimate complaints.
              Then your problem is that you have no discernment? You can't separate false outrage from real outrage? Or again, is the only outrage you adhere to are those of your tribe?
              "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                Right, but I have yet to see a specific reason to think that technology-related fields shouldn't have a relatively even split.
                Actually, you'll find there's many woman dominated career fields too. Men and women tend to gravitate towards different career choices (although that is slowly changing up a bit).
                "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                Comment


                • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                  Actually, you'll find there's many woman dominated career fields too. Men and women tend to gravitate towards different career choices (although that is slowly changing up a bit).
                  The study I am using as proof shows that women are dominant in non STEM careers like healthcare. I guess in Squares mind that must mean there is sexism in healthcare. It couldn't be that women gravitate to those fields because they have natural nurture instincts. No, sexism!
                  "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                    The study I am using as proof shows that women are dominant in non STEM careers like healthcare. I guess in Squares mind that must mean there is sexism in healthcare. It couldn't be that women gravitate to those fields because they have natural nurture instincts. No, sexism!
                    You could argue that healthcare does contain a lot of science stuff too, but I really doubt a tee shirt is going to stop anybody from joining in a career field, if they really want to be a part of it. Besides, women can be just as mean as men can be. It isn't as though men have a monopoly on being jerks.
                    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                      You could argue that healthcare does contain a lot of science stuff too, but I really doubt a tee shirt is going to stop anybody from joining in a career field, if they really want to be a part of it. Besides, women can be just as mean as men can be. It isn't as though men have a monopoly on being jerks.
                      Absolutely. The new study's are showing women are becoming a force in all fields. And have been for some time now. This is not a matter of they can't do something, but whether they want too. Humans mostly go where their instincts and skills lead them.
                      "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." ― C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock: Essays on Theology (Making of Modern Theology)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by ChaosRain View Post
                        Perhaps it's due to genetic differences in the wiring of male versus female brains. It's certainly a possibility. I won't claim to have extensive knowledge at my disposal with regard to human biology, but it seems like a point worth looking into.

                        Also, to argue that the fields should have an even split, is to take upon yourself the Burden of Proof as to why there should be an even split. Just FYI. The skeptic does not possess the Burden in this case.
                        I'm not sure that's fair. In areas in which there are significant disparities, it's usually easy to see why that disparity exists--some factor of physical capability. Childbirth classes will be attended by women more so than men because men are incapable of childbirth and thus don't have to personally worry about it, whereas women do. The highest levels of athletics tend to feature men more so than women, because men in general tend to have higher maximum capability in height and strength, all else (like diet, training methods and sheer work volume) being equal. So it's because of the existence of positive evidence that we don't question why disparity exists in those areas. Therefore, I'd think that we ought to assume evenness as the default until some positive evidence comes along indicating otherwise. But I haven't seen any positive evidence suggesting that women are somehow more physically incapable than men at excelling in technology fields. If they're equally capable, then it seems that the disparity is probably due to some cultural factor. And once I consider that possibility, which seems plausible to me, it's easy to recall childhood observations of how boys like myself tended to receive more encouragement and influences along those fields compared to girls, and reason that that is a partial explanation of the disparity--socially imposed standards, not biological wiring.
                        Last edited by fm93; 11-19-2014, 10:10 PM.
                        Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                        I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                          I'm not sure that's fair. In areas in which there are significant disparities, it's usually easy to see why that disparity exists--some factor of physical capability. Childbirth classes will be attended by women more so than men because men are incapable of childbirth and thus don't have to personally worry about it, whereas women do. The highest levels of athletics tend to feature men more so than women, because men in general tend to have higher maximum capability in height and strength, all else (like diet, training methods and sheer work volume) being equal. So it's because of the existence of positive evidence that we don't question why disparity exists in those areas. Therefore, I'd think that we ought to assume evenness as the default until some positive evidence comes along indicating otherwise. But I haven't seen any positive evidence suggesting that women are somehow more physically incapable than men at excelling in technology fields. If they're equally capable, then it seems that the disparity is probably due to some cultural factor. And once I consider that possibility, which seems plausible to me, it's easy to recall childhood observations of how boys like myself tended to receive more encouragement and influences along those fields compared to girls, and reason that that is a partial explanation of the disparity--socially imposed standards, not biological wiring.
                          Hmm, but as you mention here, if there is a distinction between men and women physically when it comes to certain fields, what makes it so difficult to consider the possibility that there are certain psychological differences that make men and women gravitate toward different fields of research? Of course, culture plays a role in this, but I can't help but feel as though biology also plays a role in this. It would seem premature to reject such an idea.
                          “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” - Richard Dawkins

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ChaosRain View Post
                            Hmm, but as you mention here, if there is a distinction between men and women physically when it comes to certain fields, what makes it so difficult to consider the possibility that there are certain psychological differences that make men and women gravitate toward different fields of research?
                            If you've ever been married or even had ever had a girlfriend, seems to me that this would be obvious. I'm reminded of this classic:

                            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                              This progress that is being made has been going on for over a decade as far as they can tell. You seem to think this is some new phenomenon.
                              Never said that. More like the opposite, in fact.

                              Of course there is a frigin' gap, not every woman on the planet wants to have a job in STEM. There still being a gap is not proof of sexism.
                              My argument entails that part of the reason that SO MANY women historically haven't wanted to have a job there is due to cultural sexism (i.e. reasoning that boys are better-suited to those fields compared to girls).

                              I didn't address your link because there was no need to. You are still under the impression I said something I never said. I am not going to answer it again. Stop being lazy and re-read the posts.
                              You wondered how people like me could see sexism in every corner. That's exaggerated, but "every corner" includes this corner. It's entirely fair to answer "how do you see sexism in this corner" with accounts of women who claim to have personally experienced it in this corner.

                              Here I believe you are just feigning ignorance so I am letting it go. No need to go further with someone who won't be serious.
                              Wow.

                              Me: "I don't understand what you mean by this. Could you please clarify?"

                              You: "You know what I mean."

                              Me: "Uh, no. I really don't. That's precisely why I'm asking you to clarify--because I don't understand what you mean but I want to, so I can be sure I'm understanding you."

                              You: "You're just feigning ignorance. I'm ignoring you."

                              Of course neither did I. But it didn't stop you from using the word did it? You must have been holding onto something since the word "conspiracy" doesn't pop up in everyday conversations.
                              The heck? That's some bizarre logic. The words "sexist" and "political tribe" don't usually pop up in everyday conversations either.

                              No I understand. It's only uncomfortable when it is coming from your particular political tribe. When that happens, it's best it pretend that it doesn't exist. I got it.


                              This is getting infuriating. No, I really am not affiliated with any specific political group by virtue of being a feminist. I certainly don't side with the Republican Party, but neither do I side with the Democratic Party, or Libertarian Party or whatever, as I have points of disagreement with all of them. And I don't support everything that others who consider themselves to be feminists believe in politically.

                              No. Because she didn't like his shirt and decided the best way to humiliate him was to create that as the story. It worked and the familiar faces came out to pounce.
                              More psychoanalysis. Meanwhile, my statement has been backed up by those linked tweets calling her the b-word and telling her to kill herself for offering her take.

                              Then your problem is that you have no discernment? You can't separate false outrage from real outrage? Or again, is the only outrage you adhere to are those of your tribe?
                              I can certainly try, but you've hardly made a case yourself that this is false outrage. You realize that "potentially unjustified outrage" is not at all the same thing as "false outrage?"
                              Last edited by fm93; 11-19-2014, 11:01 PM.
                              Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                              I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                              Comment


                              • Also,


                                Originally posted by Jesse View Post
                                The study I am using as proof shows that women are dominant in non STEM careers like healthcare. I guess in Squares mind that must mean there is sexism in healthcare. It couldn't be that women gravitate to those fields because they have natural nurture instincts. No, sexism!
                                Do men not also have nurture instincts? If they do, then why are they not encouraged to act upon those instincts as often as women are? I do, in fact, think there should be more men in the healthcare fields, and that a reason for this disparity is the same cultural sexism that I mentioned earlier--it's seen as less important for men to bring out their nurturing side; instead, we're encouraged to focus on "hard," rational, physical studies and activities that reflect cultural presumptions of what men "should be like," rather than encouraging us to follow whatever we discover our passions to be.
                                Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                                I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                135 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                46 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X