Brainwash - The Gender Equality Paradox - General

well you don't have to be a scientist to know women are manipulative and passive aggressive. definitely more-so than men. Especially when it comes to passive aggressiveness. worrying about scientific proof for that is the very definition of "you're overthinking it". trust me i know from too much experience.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39703504]hey silly sil, science called and asked that you stop putting words in its mouth. "Research on the relationship between testosterone and aggression is difficult since the only reliable measurement of brain testosterone is by a lumbar puncture which is not done for research purposes. Studies therefore have often instead used more unreliable measurements from blood or saliva. Most studies support a link between adult criminality and testosterone although the relationship is modest if examined separately for each sex. Nearly all studies of juvenile delinquency and testosterone are not significant. Most studies have also found testosterone to be associated with behaviors or personality traits linked with criminality such as antisocial behavior and alcoholism. Many studies have also been done on the relationship between more general aggressive behavior/feelings and testosterone. About half the studies have found a relationship and about half no relationship." [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone#Aggression_and_criminality[/URL][/QUOTE] What am I putting in your mouth? That you said that newborns are nearly blind? You want me to quote you on that? Or the sources that you linked that prove you wrong? Those are the things that you've said and I can quote you on that. Now the testosterone-aggression/empathy. I've said it before, differences don't come solely from biology. "Social influence can either strengthen or weaken biological predispositions". Testosterone is required for aggressiveness but not sufficient. It's predisposition. [QUOTE=yawmwen;39703504]it also makes it incredibly complex to actually study and come to a conclusion about.[/QUOTE] Hence studies on newborns and toddlers. Oh wait those are the studies we're supposed to ignore for no reason. [QUOTE=yawmwen;39703504]no it doesn't actually prove that men will fall into leading roles at all. and even if they do, the burden is still on you to show that the current inequality can be shown through biological reasons versus plain discrimination and patriarchy.[/QUOTE] "That is your theory, this is my theory. My theory is right until you prove yours" Also, are the differences in male:female ratio in professions like nurse and engineer in Sweden explained by plain discrimination and patriarchy? No. The more free the country the more picky people can afford to be about the job and what they want to do. Hence the more free the country the bigger differences in gender ratio in certain professions.

^ yawmwen is science

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;39703817]^ yawmwen is science[/QUOTE] i noticed that :v: [QUOTE=Silly Sil;39703782]What am I putting in your mouth? That you said that newborns are nearly blind? You want me to quote you on that? Or the sources that you linked that prove you wrong? Those are the things that you've said and I can quote you on that. Now the testosterone-aggression/empathy. I've said it before, differences don't come solely from biology. "Social influence can either strengthen or weaken biological predispositions". Testosterone is required for aggressiveness but not sufficient. It's predisposition.[/quote] but what i quoted said there isn't conclusive evidence that testosterone is a great predictor of aggression, and the amount it may contribute to aggression is unclear at best. for all we know the difference could be negligible compared to cultural and social factors. that means you CANNOT explain the inequalities in certain professions by saying that men are naturally suited towards these professions due to testosterone production. [quote]Hence studies on newborns and toddlers. Oh wait those are the studies we're supposed to ignore for no reason.[/quote] we are supposed to ignore them because: 1) the study done on newborns is flawed due to the eyesight limitations of newborns, as well as not knowing what exactly may attract a newborn to a certain picture. i'm also waiting to know what the control was on this study. you don't do an experiment without them. 2) the one done on toddlers is done late enough that cultural or societal bias can begin to play a role. how did baron-cohen control for these variables besides doing it on 9 month old babies? are these cross-cultural studies? [quote]"That is your theory, this is my theory. My theory is right until you prove yours" Also, are the differences in male:female ratio in professions like nurse and engineer in Sweden explained by plain discrimination and patriarchy? No. The more free the country the more picky people can afford to be about the job and what they want to do. Hence the more free the country the bigger differences in gender ratio in certain professions.[/QUOTE] actually evidence points to the opposite. the more free a country is, the more you see these gender inequalities shrink. women become more represented in politics, medicine, law, business, engineering, and just about every other skilled job out there. the gap is still wide in more physically demanding jobs, but that can also be explained due to culture more than psychological differences between gender.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39703504]hey silly sil, science called and asked that you stop putting words in its mouth. "Research on the relationship between testosterone and aggression is difficult since the only reliable measurement of brain testosterone is by a lumbar puncture which is not done for research purposes. Studies therefore have often instead used more unreliable measurements from blood or saliva. Most studies support a link between adult criminality and testosterone although the relationship is modest if examined separately for each sex. Nearly all studies of juvenile delinquency and testosterone are not significant. Most studies have also found testosterone to be associated with behaviors or personality traits linked with criminality such as antisocial behavior and alcoholism. Many studies have also been done on the relationship between more general aggressive behavior/feelings and testosterone. About half the studies have found a relationship and about half no relationship." [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone#Aggression_and_criminality[/url] it also makes it incredibly complex to actually study and come to a conclusion about. no it doesn't actually prove that men will fall into leading roles at all. and even if they do, the burden is still on you to show that the current inequality can be shown through biological reasons versus plain discrimination and patriarchy.[/QUOTE] Please stop using quotes in my address similar to me "not doing any justice to science or society" I am not looking for a nobel piece prize, nor am I conducting a professional scientific experiment, I am brainstorming and expressing my fairly abstract thoughts against someone who is doing the same thing. I am technically doing a significantly greater service to science and society by presenting honest freeform speculation, than if I was somehow making this out to be as something else, such as a genuine scientific debate. Asking for evidence in a discussion such as this one, is somewhat unsuitable, and to some degree even inappropriate. What you are doing, is an equivalent of asking me to provide precise blueprints and measurements for a stickman that I just drew on a piece of paper, to then compare it or to challenge it against your stickman that you drew on a piece of paper. There is a reasonable chance that what we are currently discussing, will never be genuinely proven in either direction. Regarding the actual argument: If females are not innately submissive, then why does this order exist in the first place? And why does our gender exist in the first place? You may be ignoring the fundamental relationship between genders, that have been not only shown in humanity, but also in many other species. One gender is always dominant, and the other one is always submissive. Some species have females as dominant types, we have males as dominant types. If genders did not differ in their behaviors, then the entire nature of gender would have no purpose. Non differentiating asexual reproduction would be far more efficient than non differentiating sexual reproduction. Having no difference between genders, would effectively make us end up with crippled hermaphrodites that do not have the other set of organs. I am not ignoring any socioeconomic factors, if anything you might be ignoring certain socioeconomic factors. Societies form around the people that inhabit them, not the other way around. It is not like the first human society suddenly sprung out out of the ground by itself, and stated “come on in! Oh and by the way, males are the leaders, and females are the supporters”. It could not be the fault of the society, even with discrimination, if these things did not exist before a society. And even if society and environments are the reason, what is the problem with that? A society has a natural way of determining who is better for what, especially if we were to consider the modern example in the video, with discrimination being completely absent. If females were dominant or equal, then societies would be forming in entirely different ways, in significantly more asexual or reversed ways. Being a male is not just about muscles and testicles, it is about the priorities that the gender has, females are technically reasonably suitable for everything that a male does, they may not be as efficient at it, but fully adequate. they do not do it for reasons listed above. And the physical differences also brings me to the repeated point that it is not about physical bodies, please stop repeatedly assuming that we are discussing bio-truths. Physical sex and gender are different things, it is not about the physical bodies, otherwise transsexualism would not exist, and actual gender roles would not exist, it would simply be a bunch of people doing exactly the same things with greater proficiencies and lesser proficiencies, instead of having genuinely different roles. You also somehow keep repeatedly assuming that I am insulting females, while I am listing different attributes related to each gender, please for the love of god stop doing that, I love females, they are awesome, and I have complete respect for them.

maybe you guys should make a mass debate thread. there's almost no discussion of the documentary right now.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;39703998]maybe you guys should make a mass debate thread. there's almost no discussion of the documentary right now.[/QUOTE] im goin to a movie i'll make it when i get back if genkaz or silly sil don't make it before me.

[QUOTE=HybridTheroy;39702739]p sure it's been proven that women have a better sense of empathy [/QUOTE] If they even do, wouldn't that be because by history telling men to be "Stoic" and "Emotionless" they bottled up and thus can't experience so naturally they wouldn't be able to relate to others? Meanwhile woman were pushed to be emotional and thus empathetic? Doesn't seem like it makes them more naturally empathetic. I'll search for some studies tomorrow because it's late where I am and I want to get to sleep.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;39703942] 1) the study done on newborns is flawed due to the eyesight limitations of newborns, as well as not knowing what exactly may attract a newborn to a certain picture. i'm also waiting to know what the control was on this study. you don't do an experiment without them.[/QUOTE] There is no point debating with you. You make something up or you're misinformed about something, then using that misinformation you're "refuting" proofs of the opposite side of the argument, and when asked for source you give us articles proving YOU wrong, then you get called out on it several times, you ignore it completely and continue repeating your original point like the sources proved you right. It's like talking to a loony creationist, you don't listen.

I just finished watching this, and found it immensely interesting. I sent it to the people in my college, much to the chagrin of the college lecturers.

[QUOTE=Silly Sil;39690990]I'm at 13 minutes and I'm already raging. Why is it so important to prove that men and women are identical? What's the point? We're not. Generally men will be stronger, it's just biology. That itself will create social differences. Just because there isn't any discrimination it doesn't mean every profession will have 50-50 gender split. Men and women are interested in different things. Get over it. We're different psychologically too. Give little kids toys for both girls and boys. After few months they will start to distinguish between those toys and will usually choose those corresponding with their gender. There are differences between male and female brain, every fucking brain tomography is going to show you this, example: Hypothalamus. Hell the difference starts showing in first weeks after conception. And we think in different ways about things. When introduced to a labyrinth, boys would draw a map in their heads when going through it, girls would remember details about corners, but in the end difference between girls and boys in time spent in the labyrinth before reaching the exit was similar, with boys being better very slightly. I mean, is it really that hard to accept that there are physical differences in our body and there will also be physical differences in our brains? And that will mean that the brain is gonna function a bit differently? In the end we're born a bit different and our environment can either strengthen or weaken it, but the difference is there. And it's okay. It doesn't mean that one is better than the other. Just different. Personally I find it amazing and great. Also the part about the construction sign. What a steaming load. How is it supposed to look to be gender neutral according to that guy? A dickgirl? You want 2 signs one showing a guy and another one a girl in a dress? Oops that would be sexist because it would imply that girls are supposed to wear dresses right? The stickman represents a human. It's gender neutral enough.[/QUOTE] you're wrong. the brains function different but you're assuming it goes beyond simple functions and extends to things like "I love barbies" or "vroom fast cars!" (in saying "they are interested in different things). "they" are not, by default, "interested" in different things, the difference is in how they go about processing different things. What they like and dislike has very, very little to do with genetics outside of basic instincts associated with each gender [editline]10th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=HybridTheroy;39703745]well you don't have to be a scientist to know women are manipulative and passive aggressive. definitely more-so than men. Especially when it comes to passive aggressiveness. worrying about scientific proof for that is the very definition of "you're overthinking it". trust me i know from too much experience.[/QUOTE] woooooooow [editline]10th March 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=wraithcat;39700611]Actually we probably wouldn't get better characterisation and player choice since that's not something that directly appeals to a female demo. If you look at the number of generally most popular SP titles in the female demo you'll notice that they tend to be very linear in story progression. And the characterisation isn't much better, merely differently focused.[/QUOTE] please, tell me what are the "most popular SP titles in the female demo" rofl

[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;39861435]you're wrong. the brains function different but you're assuming it goes beyond simple functions and extends to things like "I love barbies" or "vroom fast cars!" (in saying "they are interested in different things). "they" are not, by default, "interested" in different things, the difference is in how they go about processing different things. What they like and dislike has very, very little to do with genetics outside of basic instincts associated with each gender[/QUOTE] I think the point being made is that nature vs nuture is like arguing which dimension is more important when drawing a square (the first or second). The problem that Norwegian social "scientists" have is they try to draw a square using only one dimension.

[QUOTE=RoadOfGirl;39861435]you're wrong. the brains function different but you're assuming it goes beyond simple functions and extends to things like "I love barbies" or "vroom fast cars!" (in saying "they are interested in different things). "they" are not, by default, "interested" in different things, the difference is in how they go about processing different things. What they like and dislike has very, very little to do with genetics outside of basic instincts associated with each gender[/QUOTE] The difference in the brain doesn't directly influence what toys you'll like, it doesn't tell boys to "like weapons". The difference in the brain gives us different basic instincts and makes us process things differently as you said yourself. Therefore boys and girls will find different things interesting. If your basic instinct to fight is stronger than caring for other beings you will play with weapons, if it's the other way around you will play with dolls. Get it? The different functioning of the brain gives you different basic instincts and ways you process things and that in turn shapes your interests.