0385: "How It Works"

[apeman5291]

However, those are interesting statistics*. Can't say they're interpreted correctly, though.

*assuming they're at least true.

[Sarr]

For example, he proposes that the reason men dominate politics, business, etc... is, among other things, because men tend to take more risks than women.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Because it's TOTALLY not because women weren't allowed to participate in those things until recently BECAUSE of the men on top. Nope. Nothing to do with that at ALL.

[Strillz]

For example, he proposes that the reason men dominate politics, business, etc... is, among other things, because men tend to take more risks than women.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Because it's TOTALLY not because women weren't allowed to participate in those things until recently BECAUSE of the men on top. Nope. Nothing to do with that at ALL.

And how do you suppose that paradigm started? Are you trying to say that there's some near universal conspiracy among men to keep women out of those fields?

[luketheduke]

Do you want to defend the patriarchy by saying "it's been that way some time"?

You better not.

[Mavketl]

For example, he proposes that the reason men dominate politics, business, etc... is, among other things, because men tend to take more risks than women.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Because it's TOTALLY not because women weren't allowed to participate in those things until recently BECAUSE of the men on top. Nope. Nothing to do with that at ALL.

And how do you suppose that paradigm started? Are you trying to say that there's some near universal conspiracy among men to keep women out of those fields?

No one is saying that there's a conspiracy or that men are evil and women are good. Society is to blame for these kinds of sexism, and society consists of men and women.

As for how it all started: there were some very basic biological differences that made it a lot easier for men to be dominant over women than the other way around.

[Strillz]

For example, he proposes that the reason men dominate politics, business, etc... is, among other things, because men tend to take more risks than women.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Because it's TOTALLY not because women weren't allowed to participate in those things until recently BECAUSE of the men on top. Nope. Nothing to do with that at ALL.

And how do you suppose that paradigm started? Are you trying to say that there's some near universal conspiracy among men to keep women out of those fields?

No one is saying that there's a conspiracy or that men are evil and women are good. Society is to blame for these kinds of sexism, and society consists of men and women.

agree

As for how it all started: there were some very basic biological differences that made it a lot easier for men to be dominant over women than the other way around.

disagree

[Sarr]

For example, he proposes that the reason men dominate politics, business, etc... is, among other things, because men tend to take more risks than women.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Because it's TOTALLY not because women weren't allowed to participate in those things until recently BECAUSE of the men on top. Nope. Nothing to do with that at ALL.

And how do you suppose that paradigm started? Are you trying to say that there's some near universal conspiracy among men to keep women out of those fields?

No. I'm not. I'm saying it's been that way for so long there doesn't NEED to be a conspiracy. As Mavketl said, there are basic biological differences that have put women as a lower class for all but a handful of civilizations in the history of the world.

EDIT - Oh, and at least give a reason you disagree, please. Don't just say you do and leave it at that.

[Strillz]

The assumption that men subjected women just because they could doesn't make sense from a practical perspective. By doing that you're restricting your resources, which is a stupid thing to do if your society is competing against hostile neighbors. There has to be a practical reason for it.

[luketheduke]

The holocaust was just as impractical. It restricted and bound a lot of resources. I believe that refutes your point that discriminatory behaviour must be practical?

EDIT: That's not a Godwin, right?

[Strillz]

The holocaust was just as impractical. It restricted and bound a lot of resources. I believe that refutes your point that discriminatory behaviour must be practical?

EDIT: That's not a Godwin, right?

The holocaust is nowhere near as universal though. And if you really want to make that point, then it's also worth pointing out that Nazi Germany didn't fare too well as a country.

What I'm trying to say is that If it weren't a good idea, at least from a pragmatic perspective, to "oppress" women, then the societies that didn't would have an advantage over those who did. So either luck conspired to ensure that oppressive societies triumphed in spite of their inherent disadvantage, or there's some utility in having a society which restricts women from business, politics, etc...

[luketheduke]

And if you really want to make that point, then it's also worth pointing out that Nazi Germany didn't fare too well as a country.

Then it is also worth noting that mankind is currently not doing too well as a species.

What I'm trying to say is that If it weren't a good idea, at least from a pragmatic perspective, to "oppress" women, then the societies that didn't would have an advantage over those who did. So either luck conspired to ensure that oppressive societies triumphed in spite of their inherent disadvantage, or there's some utility in having a society which restricts women from business, politics, etc...

Or it just doesn't have enough of a disadvantage to be actively selected against.

Also, you are applying a reasoning of evolutionary biology. That might be hugely inaccurate.

[Strillz]

And if you really want to make that point, then it's also worth pointing out that Nazi Germany didn't fare too well as a country.

Then it is also worth noting that mankind is currently not doing too well as a species.

We're at the top of the food chain, and the population is up to almost 7 billion. I'd say we're doing pretty good as a species.

But regardless, what does that response have to do with my statement? You gave the holocaust as an example of how people make irrational decisions, so I pointed out that that the establishment that made that irrational decision happened to be destroyed shortly afterwards. That doesn't necessarily mean that their irrational decision directly lead to their destruction, but it doesn't support your position either.

[luketheduke]

Hm, you're probably right about that.

[Sarr]

The assumption that men subjected women just because they could doesn't make sense from a practical perspective. By doing that you're restricting your resources, which is a stupid thing to do if your society is competing against hostile neighbors. There has to be a practical reason for it.

No. No they weren't limiting the resources. See, one of the running theories is that while men hunted, women were foragers. This gave them an important role, as foraging is generally a surer way to find food than hunting. Around the time civilization developed, so did the Agricultural Revolution. Thus woman's role as a sure source of food changed, and they were relegated to a more domestic role - raising children, mainly. Men, as the physically stronger of the two genders would have done more labor in the fields and fighting said hostile neighbors. Therefore they also took control over governments.

[luketheduke]

Around the time civilization developed, so did the Agricultural Revolution. Thus woman's role as a sure source of food changed, and they were relegated to a more domestic role - raising children, mainly.

I think this is highly implausible. In the feudal societies of the middle ages misogyny was already fully developed, but in farmer families men and women both worked in the fields. Well, and the children, too, as soon as they were old enough.

Do you have historical records or sociological studies to back this up?

[Sarr]

Around the time civilization developed, so did the Agricultural Revolution. Thus woman's role as a sure source of food changed, and they were relegated to a more domestic role - raising children, mainly.

I think this is highly implausible. In the feudal societies of the middle ages misogyny was already fully developed, but in farmer families men and women both worked in the fields. Well, and the children, too, as soon as they were old enough.

Do you have historical records or sociological studies to back this up?

Note I said that men would have done more work in the fields, not that women wouldn't have worked in the same. Also, I'm speaking of much earlier than the middle ages, back to Assyria and the like. Sadly, no I don't have studies to back it up, although I'm looking for some. This is mostly me taking what I've learned in class and making logical assumptions off it.

[Mavketl]

Re: Men did not start to dominate women ages and ages ago because it would not have been practical.

Even if you think that today's world isn't sexist or misogynist, surely you wouldn't make that claim for the last, say, 3000 years?

[luketheduke]

Even if you think that today's world isn't sexist or misogynist [nb - I don't], surely you wouldn't make that claim for the last, say, 3000 years?

Well, where is the reason for sexism or misogynism? That is a valid question. It must have developed somehow. There are sociological approachs surrounding group theory, group dynamics; "othering" is a term that is also very dominant in feminist theory.
It makes "sense" to dehumanize other tribes, with which your own tribe is in competition for resources, but if the same happened for women in men's eyes, that must have been a "bug", an "overfitting" to use a term from learning theory, in those early societies where it originated; maybe - and that is pure speculation - the marginal biological superiority of the male, who could fight better, run better, etc. gave a society/tribe where males were dominant an advantage (that is again an argument from a socio-evolutionary perspective, which might not be applicable at all).

In today's industrialized societies, where the biological superiority in terms of strength and endurance has become irrelevant, and girls are on average already better at mathematics than boys (in Germany, that is), and where the fact that sex and gender are not binary but spread on a spectrum or transcendent becomes more and more obvious, where humanity has mostly liberated itself from its biology, - sexism and the restriction of women to caretakers, housewives, etc., is not only unfair, but an impediment to the progress of science, technology, and humanity as a whole.

This is purely an interested layman's opinion; I have no education nor training in sociology, evolutionary biology, or applied transhumanism.

Also, I'm speaking of much earlier than the middle ages, back to Assyria and the like.

I doubt that sexism and misogyny in those ages followed the same patterns or had the same expressions as it does today, or that there must be an unbroken chain of patriarchy that can be followed back from today to the first male homo sapiens that grabbed a female homo sapiens by the hair and dragged her into his cave. But I really have no historical facts to draw any conclusions from...
Whenever war decimated the male population, women had to assume all functions of society, and they usually didn't do too bad.

[jimmywoods]

I think in simplest terms, men have historically dominated due to the following:

Women are more likely to collaborate and put a bit of food in the center for everyone to share.

Men are more likely to run off with the whole damn pile when they can get away with it.

It's just the way we're wired. Men have things like testosterone and sexual frustration so it causes us to become violent. Throw in a bit of extra muscle and height to boot and it's easy to see how men physically dominated women in nearly all cultures.

Of course we're more civilized now, and some noble things like human rights and social justice keep us in check (sorta). But underneath all the civil niceties the same rules still apply. Men compete with each other for sex and power, women compete with each other for powerful men. It's a vicious cycle, but it ultimately means that women try to get the alpha male, and the alpha male tries to get away with anything and everything.

[luketheduke]

"Just how we're wired"?

Not a compelling argument.

[jimmywoods]

Yeah? Well, the little green fairy in my watch told me that's just the way it is.

[luketheduke]

Ah! I make a point of not trusting little green fairies. Sorry dude, bad experiences.

[indigo_fremont]

The fact that most of the things I love to do (IE, Math, video games) are "male dominated" and thus if I'm not as good at something as the next guy it's assumed that the cause is two X chromosomes really makes me hate being female. = /

ALSO, is it just me or is that exponent like impossible to see? And he left off the differential...

[Passerby25]

Now, umm, I'm sure someone else has pointed this out, but why does it say in the mousover text that it is pi + C, when the answer is, as far as I can tell, (x^3)/3 +C?

[scarletmanuka]

Now, umm, I'm sure someone else has pointed this out, but why does it say in the mousover text that it is pi + C, when the answer is, as far as I can tell, (x^3)/3 +C?

It's a joke, indicating that the person on the left also sucks at math.

[mszegedy]

For example, he proposes that the reason men dominate politics, business, etc... is, among other things, because men tend to take more risks than women.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiight. Because it's TOTALLY not because women weren't allowed to participate in those things until recently BECAUSE of the men on top. Nope. Nothing to do with that at ALL.

And how do you suppose that paradigm started? Are you trying to say that there's some near universal conspiracy among men to keep women out of those fields?

No one is saying that there's a conspiracy or that men are evil and women are good. Society is to blame for these kinds of sexism, and society consists of men and women.

As for how it all started: there were some very basic biological differences that made it a lot easier for men to be dominant over women than the other way around.

…sort of. Generally, females have superior "major biological differences" that allow them to be dominant over males. Most likely, the sexism mindset came when men realized that they contributed to the reproductive process too: "MINE!" With everything.

[Annihilist]

The question itself has no solution. The integral of x^2 has no solution unless it's with respect to something, i.e. dx.

∫x^2 dx = x^3/3 + c
∫x^2 dQ = Qx^2 + c

Without a d(something), it has nothing to give respect to. Hence, it has no solution. No wonder they guessed Pi.

[SoaG]

…sort of. Generally, females have superior "major biological differences" that allow them to be dominant over males. Most likely, the sexism mindset came when men realized that they contributed to the reproductive process too: "MINE!" With everything.

It's even simpler than that. Two old saws each sum it up. Sorry, I'm unsure of their origins.
'90% of human history is men trying to impress women.'
'Behind every successful man is a woman.'
Just for fun, the Groucho Marx variant:
'Behind every successful man is a woman. Behind her is his wife.'

[theo1358]

The fact that most of the things I love to do (IE, Math, video games) are "male dominated" and thus if I'm not as good at something as the next guy it's assumed that the cause is two X chromosomes really makes me hate being female. = /

ALSO, is it just me or is that exponent like impossible to see? And he left off the differential...

I once had a teacher who would always forget to include the differential ...