Nordic Countries defund Gender Ideology. - Polidicks

[quote]A devastating blow for “Gender Theory”: the Nordic Council of Ministers (a regional inter-governmental co-operation consisting of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Iceland) has decided to close down the NIKK Nordic Gender Institute. The NIKK had been the flagship of “Gender Theory”, providing the “scientific” basis for social and educational policies that, from the 1970s onward, had transformed the Nordic countries to become the most “gender sensitive” societies in the world.[/quote] [url]http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/content/nordic-countries-defund-gender-ideology.html[/url] The video in question; [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70[/media]

[quote]people began to ask why it was necessary to fund with 56 million Euro of taxpayers’ money some ideology-driven “research” that had no scientific credentials at all.[/quote] Well if they didn't have anything to back it up, and were basing everything off pure theory, it's no wonder it closed. Taxpayer money has better places to be spent.

[QUOTE=Computrix;39907775]Well if they didn't have anything to back it up, and were basing everything off pure theory, it's no wonder it closed. Taxpayer money has better places to be spent.[/QUOTE] [img]https://dl.dropbox.com/u/11648828/1363205476733.jpg[/img]

A victory for science.

id like to believe that we aren't living in the 1800's, and if a biological difference affecting behavior was definitively shown between genders the information wouldn't be used for bigotry or self interest. I would also like to believe that those who would call themselves scientists would be open to all possibilities irregardless of their implications.

they don't need a "scientific" organization to promote gender equality. people should promote equality through social means. [editline]14th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;39907847]id like to believe that we aren't living in the 1800's, and if a biological difference affecting behavior was definitively shown between genders the information wouldn't be used for bigotry or self interest. I would also like to believe that those who would call themselves scientists would be open to all possibilities irregardless of their implications.[/QUOTE] there's a lot of very tentative evidence on both sides because of the subjective nature of social sciences and our own inability to fully understand how the human mind develops. some differences between genders have been shown, but even then it's hard to say whether they have been controlled for social and environmental factors like culture. [editline]14th March 2013[/editline] it's obviously a hot-button issue because gender equality and sexism are still major problems in today's society.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39907856]there's a lot of very tentative evidence on both sides because of the subjective nature of social sciences and our own inability to fully understand how the human mind develops.[/quote] Except objective (or close to objective as you can get) research is not only possible to carry out, but has been carried out. [quote]some differences between genders have been shown, but even then it's hard to say whether they have been controlled for social and environmental factors like culture.[/QUOTE] The problem with gender studies (as the Norway example shows) is that they refuse to take in advances in sciences such as biology into account because it often harms their "theory". Often they will pick and choose what suits them.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39907856]but even then it's hard to say whether they have been controlled for social and environmental factors like culture. [/QUOTE] Last time the video was posted you claimed the study done by Simon Baron-Cohen on female and male new born babies was null because babies are born blind, invalidating 8 years of study by professionals. This would be a strong indication of a study which is not effected by social factors/culture. But you don't think that's the case, despite babies not being born blind (which you insisted that they were).

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39907886]Except objective (or close to objective as you can get) research is not only possible to carry out, but has been carried out.[/quote] can you share? i'm aware of some research but most of it seems to be done without taking cultural influences into account. [quote]The problem with gender studies (as the Norway example shows) is that they refuse to take in advances in sciences such as biology into account because it often harms their "theory". Often they will pick and choose what suits them.[/QUOTE] which shows that they are unscientific, obviously.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39907856]they don't need a "scientific" organization to promote gender equality. people should promote equality through social means. [editline]14th March 2013[/editline] there's a lot of very tentative evidence on both sides because of the subjective nature of social sciences and our own inability to fully understand how the human mind develops. some differences between genders have been shown, but even then it's hard to say whether they have been controlled for social and environmental factors like culture. [editline]14th March 2013[/editline] it's obviously a hot-button issue because gender equality and sexism are still major problems in today's society.[/QUOTE] That being my issue with the situation. We shouldn't conjoin social issues with scientific matters. And it feels as though almost all of the tension in the scientific community concerning this particular side of research is social, not scientific. As in, the findings are being dismissed for their implications or results rather than their actual methodology or logic. Again, it isn't a problem with a simple answer. It's a hot button issue for a reason. But the prime goal of all scientists in areas of research should be to find the truth, not reinforce social ideologies, no matter how beneficial those ideologies are. It simply isn't their job.

[QUOTE=Vasili;39907905]Last time the video was posted you claimed the study done by Simon Baron-Cohen on female and male new born babies was null because babies are born blind, invalidating 8 years of study by professionals. This would be a strong indication of a study which is not effected by social factors/culture. But you don't think that's the case, despite babies not being born blind (which you insisted that they were).[/QUOTE] that's a study on newborns(they do have very poor eyesight, after all) which shows a clear contradiction to normal societal gender roles. it's tentative, at best. [editline]14th March 2013[/editline] i mean it implies women are more social which doesn't explain why the most social jobs in the world are dominated by men.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39907919] i mean it implies women are more social which doesn't explain why the most social jobs in the world are dominated by men.[/QUOTE] Please expand.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39907907]can you share? i'm aware of some research but most of it seems to be done without taking cultural influences into account.[/QUOTE] Well for gender identity, there was the work with babies recognizing faces, the infants choosing toys, the children who had malformed genitals, and when raised as the opposite sex, had extreme dysphoria to the point of suicide.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39907936]Well for gender identity, there was the work with babies recognizing faces, the infants choosing toys, the children who had malformed genitals, and when raised as the opposite sex, had extreme dysphoria to the point of suicide.[/QUOTE] Could you provide links to these studies, or at least some more info on them. Im just curious to do some reading on these issues

[QUOTE=Vasili;39907905]Last time the video was posted you claimed the study done by Simon Baron-Cohen on female and male new born babies was null because babies are born blind, invalidating 8 years of study by professionals. This would be a strong indication of a study which is not effected by social factors/culture. But you don't think that's the case, despite babies not being born blind (which you insisted that they were).[/QUOTE] I think the main issue with gender research is that I have yet to see studies showing exactly what would be responsible for a change in behavior. Which is my main issue with that study, it simply shows results without presenting any cause for those results, which makes the results very hard to interpret. It's known that male and female bodies have distinct average physical and chemical differences. I feel like measuring the affect of those naturally produced chemicals on development would be better avenue of research than studying how people act after development has gone underway or completed. Starting from the beginning rather than the end, if you understand me.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;39907936]Well for gender identity, there was the work with babies recognizing faces, the infants choosing toys, the children who had malformed genitals, and when raised as the opposite sex, had extreme dysphoria to the point of suicide.[/QUOTE] gender-identity is different from objective differences between sexes. gender-identity has pretty much been proven to exist. what i'm asking for is evidence that the identity(masculine, feminine) are static, and not completely dependent upon culture. for example, in a culture where it is considered feminine to wear a skirt, many women will be drawn to wearing a skirt and men will avoid it. however, is it objective feminine to wear a skirt no matter what? or is that just a construct of our culture? [QUOTE=Vasili;39907934]Please expand.[/QUOTE] um politicians are mostly men, doctors are mostly men, executives are mostly men, and there are probably a lot more i could think of with a little bit more time, but those were 3 off the top of my head.

[QUOTE=Rhenae;39907971]Could you provide links to these studies, or at least some more info on them. Im just curious to do some reading on these issues[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer[/url] this is a major case of gender dysphoria

[QUOTE=Rhenae;39907971]Could you provide links to these studies, or at least some more info on them. Im just curious to do some reading on these issues[/QUOTE] Well the examples I talked about were from the Hjernevask video series. Most of it being in this video: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQ2xrnyH2wQ[/url] However, there's also Simon Baron Cohen, who is famous for his work in autism, but also has done research into this area as well.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39907919]i mean it implies women are more social which doesn't explain why the most social jobs in the world are dominated by men.[/QUOTE] "Most social" is a very vague term. Though if I were to assume I know what you're referring to, I'd say the obvious explanation is that men have tended to more ruthlessly pursue positions of dominance or wealth, and in doing so force out less competitive individuals, who have tended to be female. A socially competent sociopath will usually find a way to get ahead of a socially adept yet passive individual, for example. [editline]14th March 2013[/editline] and the doctoring profession is infamously callous and disconnected socially, what are you on about calling it social

[QUOTE=Mr. Scorpio;39908021]"Most social" is a very vague term. Though if I were to assume I know what you're referring to, I'd say the obvious explanation is that men have tended to more ruthlessly pursue positions of dominance or wealth, and in doing so force out less competitive individuals, who have tended to be female. A socially competent sociopath will usually find a way to get ahead of a socially adept yet passive individual, for example. [editline]14th March 2013[/editline] and the doctoring profession is infamously callous and disconnected socially, what are you on about calling it social[/QUOTE] but what evidence is there that men tend to be more mentally dominant anyways? there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to both support and dismiss that claim.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39907987][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer[/url] this is a major case of gender dysphoria[/QUOTE] These are the sorts of things that convince me that there must be some sort of average difference between genders. But from a scientific standpoint, a statistically negligible group of people isn't enough to base a theory on.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39907987][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer[/url] this is a major case of gender dysphoria[/QUOTE] Oh god there are so many things wrong with the way they tried to do that...

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39908035]but what evidence is there that men tend to be more mentally dominant anyways? there is plenty of anecdotal evidence to both support and dismiss that claim.[/QUOTE] I do not claim that men are more dominant, merely that they have been historically in the developing world.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39907983] um politicians are mostly men, doctors are mostly men, executives are mostly men, and there are probably a lot more i could think of with a little bit more time, but those were 3 off the top of my head.[/QUOTE] I think people are starting to forget that women being able to become politicians, doctors etc - is only a recent development by law/stigma. Since the opportunities have opened up for women the numbers have been steadily going up, it can also be explained with the whole cultural aspect of male and female associated work places e.g - politics is a mans world/being a doctor is a male profession. And by executives I assume you mean business? Because if we're going into a world associated with psychopaths and sociopaths machines I think you can see why its mostly a male world. Saying that, women are reportedly quite successful in business, but men get noticed more due to their desire for more power and more risk taking.

[QUOTE=Vasili;39908046]And by executives I assume you mean business? Because if we're going into a world associated with psychopaths and sociopaths machines I think you can see why its mostly a male world. Saying that, women are reportedly quite successful in business, but men get noticed more due to their desire for more power and more risk taking.[/QUOTE] But is there any evidence that men inherently "desire power more and take more risks" as opposed the prevailing culture (let's say business culture) encouraging them to do it?

[QUOTE=Vasili;39908046]I think people are starting to forget that women being able to become politicians, doctors etc - is only a recent development by law/stigma. Since the opportunities have opened up for women the numbers have been steadily going up, it can also be explained with the whole cultural aspect of male and female associated work places e.g - politics is a mans world/being a doctor is a male profession. And by executives I assume you mean business? Because if we're going into a world associated with psychopaths and sociopaths machines I think you can see why its mostly a male world. Saying that, women are reportedly quite successful in business, but men get noticed more due to their desire for more power and more risk taking.[/QUOTE] well that's my point actually. there is more evidence that these feminine and masculine traits are more likely cultural constructs rather than inherent to women and men. baking and sewing used to be men's professions, but now culture has shifted to where baking and sewing are considered more feminine. it's hard to say what the real differences are between genders because culture has such a huge impact on our development.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39908115]well that's my point actually. there is more evidence that these feminine and masculine traits are more likely cultural constructs rather than inherent to women and men. baking and sewing used to be men's professions, but now culture has shifted to where baking and sewing are considered more feminine. it's hard to say what the real differences are between genders because culture has such a huge impact on our development.[/QUOTE] I don't believe the documentary ever attempted to say that gender roles via culture don't exist.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39907983] however, is it objective feminine to wear a skirt no matter what? [/QUOTE] No. Kilts are basically skirts and Scottish men do not give a damn about being seen in them. It's entirely a social construct, we call skirts feminine because we think they are not because they actually are.

[QUOTE=Vasili;39908134]I don't believe the documentary ever attempted to say that gender roles via culture don't exist.[/QUOTE] no but it did heavily imply that there are inherent differences between men and women without providing much evidence for it, and not taking into account cultural expectations. i mean the documentary was aimed at a pseudoscientific organization collecting tax money to push ideology, but through that it made implications that aren't necessarily well proven.

[QUOTE=Megafan;39908086]But is there any evidence that men inherently "desire power more and take more risks" as opposed the prevailing culture (let's say business culture) encouraging them to do it?[/QUOTE] Well I assumed this was a well known assumption about mans nature but well there is this; [url]http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/monkey-my-shoulder/201002/men-power-more-they-admit[/url] Its probably a bit of both, but I do know that men are often given promotions from other men if they're married/having children also.