Uh, say what? What is this statement based on???ahugeblunt":2581441c said:
What. The. Fuck.
Um, did you even read your first two lines? You are insinuating that women are inferior in 'spheres' that you do not believe they are built for. Is it here that I point out that historically most of the 'spheres' that make up today's world didn't even f'ing exist back when humans were evolving? Seriously, who evolved to be a 'scientist' or 'mathametician'???
Depends on the society and species. Most in terms of overall numbers? Sure. Most as a predicator of success? Not really. Matriachial societies have and do exist where women take leadership roles including hunting. Without any noticable drawbacks. Outside of homo sapiens sapiens, lots of species have females as the primary hunters(lions are an example). There is no evidence that I am aware of that males are inherently or genetically better hunters.ahugeblunt":3guou1uw said:
You do know that science is not based on a single non-corroborated research paper to draw sweeping conclusions, right? While its within the realm of possibility that he is correct in some aspects, it is likely that he is wrong about several others and most importantly the reasonings and implications are likely far off base as early research typically is. And I'm *certain* that if you read the source paper he will have called this out himself as responsible researchers typically do.
Your personal political biases have nothing to do with this discussion.
The politically correct position is to conform to whatever is popular in society, as will gain the most political capital. In other words, since our society predisposes boys to play with trucks, it is most politically correct to support the idea that this is the natural state, never mind the fact that trucks would have zero genetic encoding as they are less than 100 years old.superslav223":2rux0q80 said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchygrimlog":1iuqsu2c said:
Both male and female humans are sufficiently strong and fast enough to kill their prey. Evolution only requires that much. Nothing about it requires 'optimal' or 'maximal' in any attribute. Just enough to survive and procreate.
In order to disprove my point you would need to demonstrate a couple things:superslav223":3adrypra said:
That you are not capable of detecting cultural influences on children speaks to your own observations rather than scientific evidence. There is mountains of actual data demonstrating that a large portion, if not the overwhelming majority of such preferences are cultural rather than biological. Your personal observations of children in non-controlled environments aside.
Nobody is dismissing the idea that there may be genetic basis for color preferences. What they are doing, however, is requesting peer reviewed evidence of such before making decisions along such lines.superslav223":2e1enwai said:
As pointed out previously, to you no less, the 'politically correct' position would be to affirm the popular opinion as that builds political capital. Since those who think scientifically tend to reject assumptions and instead question common belief, they are rarely in the position of being 'politically correct'. Furthermore, the very basis of such lines of questioning are inherently what is considered to be 'rational thought' as they require evidence and review before jumping to conclusions.
Another already deconstructed this.
The gender of the researchers is irrelevant, only the quality of the work is relevant. However, again, pointing to a single study is meaningless and those who worked on it would tell you that themselves. What is required is a body of evidence, and that is something you have failed to provide for the assertions you are choosing to make.
Wow, racist as well. Nice.ahugeblunt":4ozc5siu said:
Just to be absolutely clear that my racist charge was not a Godwin: The first link I found to the theory that testosterone is corrolated to race was 'stormfront.org' which is the online home of the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nations. They assert that black men have the most testosterone and asian men the least, and base that assertion on superficial observations of masculinity.ahugeblunt":1v2yx6oh said:
WTF? Seriously? YOu don't think that has anything to do with the fact that, oh, I don't know, the average asian is shorter than the average white or black person and height has a lot to do with success in basketball? Or how about the fact that professional basketball has a 70 year tradition in the US, while in most of Asia its only been well known since the late 90's and it takes time to groom superstars?ahugeblunt":4ugcbjys said:
Not only that, but Table Tennis is a great example of my point. The NBA has existed and held championships since 1950. Table Tennis as a competitive sport with continental champions has existed in Asia sine 1952. Yes, sports that are widely popular with long running leagues and championships tend to produce a lot of good players. Sports that are relatively new or not very popular in a region tend not to produce a lot of high level international players from that region.The Ginger Rat":1euceljg said:
The majority of the population believes males and females are inherently different, thus it is most politically correct to affirm this cultural norm. One gains no political capital by opposing the cultural norm, indeed one loses political capital.knbgnu":26otd6cl said:
The theory you are reffering to is based on "The Natural Varieties of Mankind" by Johann Bluembach. You forgot the Malaysian Race and Native American Race that he also identified. However during the course of his own research he discredited his own theory when he found that there was more variation among members of a given 'race' than there was between the races themselves. He found no evidence of any 'racial' basis for given 'traits' commonly attributed to them, however unfortunatly scientific racism was often based on his work, ignoring the inconvenient parts.ahugeblunt":3piddi7d said:
Do you even realize what it means to assign a meaning to something after the fact? Its confirmation bias, you have decided that boys are into violence and thus you assign that value to the logic of why they would pick up such toys.Linkdead":1mqmc1hd said:
The problem with his assertion, however, is that he has identified cultural rather than genetic differences. Yes, a lot of women love pink, and a lot of other 'girly' things, but there is little evidence that these things have anything to do with the genetics of women, and a lot of evidence they have to do with the culture we have created. And that is the problem.Linkdead":3e2n2ad6 said:vl_oka":3e2n2ad6 said:I think you'll find that women and men are different psychologically, and not just physiologically. Saying the only difference between the sexes are the genitals (OK, and tits) is to completely misunderstand how biology works. I know that blank slaters disagree (see above), but I firmly believe they are wrong.
Oh, and not to be misunderstood: I am all against condescending and belittling and any other kind of discrimination of anyone based on anything - including women and pink underpowered gadgets. My argument is that a) there is clearly a market for this (cf. my wife and possibly also Nintendo + the whole of Japanese market, for that matter), and b) there may very well be valid reasons and areas where man-kit should be different from women-kit in order to maximise both profit and customer satisfaction. And I'm *not* talking underwear or tampons here!
I could have written that
I already dissented with the article several pages ago, but that got ignored in favor of a bunch of sexist and racist garbage. I think the article was somewhat poorly researched and several of the phones are not examples of Casey's problem(especially the WP7 and Dior device). But nobody wants to discuss that, or come up with better examples.Operative Alex":3lhurumg said:reflex-croft":3lhurumg said:Stop destroying thier ability to generalize!thirdfaceofjanus":3lhurumg said:
Let me just say: I'm partially against some of what Casey wrote. I think that in some ways, it's over-simple to just say "bad companies, don't make crappy phones for women!". As others have said, there is some truth to the idea that there IS a market for them. Why should they cost the same? Because it's what the market will bear. In some ways, this isn't a bad thing: free will for both the customers AND the consumers, essentially. It's too simple to say "stop"...because then that's a market segment whose desires are not being met. However, on the flip side, you have years of societal and cultural norms that reinforce this purchase, and companies intentionally targeting that same behavior, in a way that can be considered repugnant and manipulative OR simply common sense from a business perspective. So I think Casey might have stopped short of weighing why these companies are able to do this.
Yet, in spite of all this, there's a nasty habit on posts with Casey for there to be a great number of people who have...shall we say, opinions not supported by sound logic. I hesitate, as always, to switch from "attack the idea" to "attack the speaker", and people who make sweeping generalizations on how the "others" developed, going so far as to suggest it's okay to make decisions based on stereotypes because there's a reason the stereotype exists...well, those people come close to making me want to attack the individuals on a personal level. What I've seen, however is a community of people perfectly willing to attack the foolishness of the ideas, to meet poor logic with more sound logic, and, by and large, avoid name-calling and pedantry.
So, thanks to those of you who- regardless of your opinion- keep themselves away from insults. It makes it easier for me to do the same. I myself have mixed feelings on this report. I have no such conflict when it comes to those who blatantly hold views that are demonstrably false, and use flimsy pretexts to make sweeping generalizations. Thankfully, Ars has enough good people in it that I think those who might give the community a bad name are shouted down.
So...again, complex issues were raised here (which, hey, kudos to Casey for). Some of the commenters, though, need some serious time re-considering their position, in light of both the scientific imperatives raised in the nurture/nature debate, or in the far more anthropological consideration of why we're using cultural norms to define why prejudice is justifiable today. Regardless of what the culture was in China in the 1600's or what Rome was in the time of Ceasar, I'd like to think we could, perhaps, consider aspiring to more than our ancestors? Just a thought.
You are missing the point. A woman has the right to live however she likes, whether its as a sex object for men, a baby maker, or a strong career woman. The change that needs to come is not from women, but from males who see one type of woman and then attempt to apply that to all women. A woman is just an object of sexual gratification. Or is just devoted to a career. Or should only be in the kitchen. They must fit a male's mold in order to be 'acceptable' in society to many males. But for true equality, a male should simply accept females. Period. Not attempt to put them in roles that are part of their own worldview of what is 'acceptable' or not.ibad":2ba2z5r3 said:
Not only that, but he is ignoring the point that there is a legal difference. I can flirt with anyone I wish at work, even a subordinate. That is NOT sexual harrassment and would NEVER get me in trouble with my employer or the law. Sexual harrassment is a very specific offense, and requires the person I am flirting with to explicitly tell me to stop. If I then continue to flirt with them, then I am sexually harrassing them and my behaviour is legally actionable.Janne":2b8hshqp said:
Nothing in your post negates the fact that women get paid less for the same jobs that men do. Nor does it negate the fact that they are promoted less often. Or that they face more harrassment in the workplace. Or that companies often attempt to do things like determine if they intend to have children before making hiring decisions. Or any of the other multitude of issues raised in this thread.neffer":esktutxz said:
Mandatory sexual harrassment training is not a federal requirement. Companies do it to limit liability. I have also had to take mandatory training for a number of other potential liability situations. If my job included interacting with children, it would not suprise me if there was training about what is appropriate, most teachers I know actually do get such training to help avoid liability.neffer":1fjjo1eh said:
This is an unsupported assertion. Multiple studies have found just the opposite, that even after correcting for the factors you mention the gap in pay is very significant. You need to support this assertion if you are going to make it.neffer":2q43ktec said:
I did no such thing. I even told you that I agree that there are areas where our culture is unfair to men. I simply pointed out that even though that is true, it in no way changes the fact that our culture is unfair to women, and that we should work to improve this facet of our society.
So in other words you have no evidence to back up your claim? I've read several studies that have found the exact opposite of your claims, and that did indeed take into account the problems you are mentioning. Do you feel all researchers are idiots? Are you aware that the pay gap exists even for career women who never start families or get married, as well as for lesbians?neffer":2dr253zp said:
How so? The training I've attended is gender neutral and demonstrates both male and female sexual harrassment.
Actually I live in a nice part of town. However even if I did live in a bad part of town, how would that somehow prove your point? Women being harrassed in a bad part of town are still being harrassed on the basis of their gender.
Selection bias: Checkneffer":osuocjca said:
Again, why would you be more of an expert on recieving catcalls than actual women? Why would you call my gf a liar so casually? The day she came home crying because a car full of guys was pacing her as she walked home yelling what they wanted to do to her was entirely in her mind or made up so that I could hypothetically win an argument on an internet forum? Seriously?
The selection bias is that you select exactly one book by one researcher and hold it up as the end all of gender studies. That is not how science works. Science is a consensus, based on a multitude of studies from multiple researchers as they all identify gaps that others do not. The consensus is much higher than 2%, my only point was that even at 2% that is pretty significant over the course of a career.neffer":3brvgme5 said:
So your argument is that my girlfriend is a liar because your super hearing does not ever hear this type of thing. Fuck you too.
"Just plain obvious" usually means "Just plain obvious to me". The fact that almost everyone in the thread is arguing against you, and using evidence and studies to do so, means it is NOT 'just plain obvious' to most people. Which means its not obvious at all.
Really? Which facts? Can you lay them out for me and the peer reviewed studies and general consensus that supports them? I'm going to need a lot more than just your word.Linkdead":3pkoi1th said:
What makes your choice of studies more authoritative than the general consensus? Why do you assert that the gap is only explainable your way and discount the general consensus? You keep asserting that your sources are better than mine. What I am asking for is *why*?neffer":2qi6rxqj said:
It is 'plain obvious' that you are not a female.
The point is not that there are not differences. The point is that the differences are not necessarily what is reflected in our society. I am in tech. I do a lot of interviews for my company. Candidates who are from the US are almost always males. Candidates from India and China are split about 50/50, with females being often the best candidates. This strongly implies to me that the supposed aversion to tech that women as a group have according to my culture is purely a cultural artifact, and has no relation to genetics since those from other cultures do not seem to have this aversion.Henrys":hitrgua4 said:
You are ignoring my point. My point is that in thier culture there is no bias against engineering for women. Forced or not, they produce a ton of female engineers and they are at parity with their male counterparts. I was not making the case that women in India have it better than the USA. I was simply pointing out that women in India are as likely to enter engineering fields as males in India, and that the engineers produced are no worse than their male counterparts.neffer":12enfq2x said:
I never said it was representative. I said that the engineers that are produced are equally qualified regardless of gender, pressure or anything else. Which throws genetic arguments out the window.neffer":1f6kwtvq said:
You are making unsupported assertions that fly in the face of hundreds of studies. It is not unreasonable to ask that you back up your 'human history' with, you know, evidence. Or is that trollish?Linkdead":1q8ikg8d said:
