Rules of attraction by chrisisall

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
Citizen: I don't think there's a such thing as "reverse sexism" or "reverse racism" because both sexism and racism are ideological isms founded on account of an oppression of one group by another. All there is are women feminists who are complete bitches (who to be honest I think go way too far and I can't stand), and bitter minorities who've been hurt by society.

I think that's just plain crazy. Racism is the assumption that one race is inferior to another. It's racism when a White person assumes all black people are inferior, or that they're all thieves or whatever, but it's also racism when a black person assumes all white people inferior. I don't think bigotry gets a pass because there's other bigots out there (and I'm not claiming your a bigot, to make that clear). Women who hate Men because they're Men, are worse sexists than most of the sexists they oppose. It's not 'reverse sexism' at all, it's just plain old sexism being put forward by people who were traditionally the victims of it. But being the victim of something, doesn't mean it's ok when you do it. In fact saying only Men can be sexist, that only white people can be racist, would seem to be racism and sexism in it's own right.

Quote:

I'm merely questioning THESE men in particular. Science tries its best to eliminate personal biases. But the field of psychology, where results are not always consistent and are sometimes contradictory, where the science is very young and not much is known or easy to substanciate, and where "normal" and "control" are arbitrary, sometimes results are not always HARD results. This allows a lot of interpretation in, interpretations which COULD be influenced by upbringing and social expectation, biases that the men may not be aware of.

Possibly, but you're not providing evidence, you're saying that the results run counter to your expectation, and because it's run by Men it must be suspect. But then, do you know it was run by Men? Would it make a difference if it were run by Women?

What I mentioned were that Men do better in tests for spacial awareness. I fail to see how social biases could play into that. Sure if you took those results and said they proved that men were more intelligent than Women, but not the actual results themselves.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 8:06 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Bugs was secure in his sexuality."

I would say that by a VERY early age (4 or 5) expected sex roles are SO well known by children that they find this funny.

Either that, or there is an evolutionary reason why survival depended on females wearing frilly halter tops and it's in our genes !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 8:10 AM

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Ooh, are we playing bingo now? I love bingo!

http://punkassblog.com/2007/10/25/evolutionary-psychology-bingo

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 8:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

We shape our children from the time they are born - boys get roughhoused-with, girls coddled.

Where I grew up, girls regularly got into fist fights, even with boys.

Quote:
Boys get told they have to stop crying and be a 'little man', girls get comforted. Girls get talked-to more, boys get more things. Girls are rewarded for being compliant, boys are rewarded for being loud.

I know that it seems to be this way in many places, but I didn't experience much of that. In my youth, excess of personality gained the highest ground, regardless of sex. The only place I didn't see that was in sports.
But then, I was one of only four guys in a mostly female Junior High Home Ec class, one of only two guys in a college Ballet class, and the only guy in a Women's History in the Western World class, so I may be seeing more equality by my nature than there actually was...

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 8:12 AM

The main problem is, despite all the disclaimers that "this doesn't mean women are stupider or weaker than men!" that the studies themselves add in, it is ENTIRELY how a certain segment of the population chooses to interpret them.

Spatial awareness... Like the type you could gain through throwing a ball around?

If it were women doing psychological tests on men and coming up with demeaning results, I would question them as well.

So I would say, if it were women performing the experiments on other women, I would say that they were influenced by the same social biases that the men were.

They sort of permeate our culture. Sometimes I even catch myself submitting to social bias and expectation, because not only is it easier, but my brain doesn't always notice that's what's going on. Our brains have a remarkable tendency to assume, generalize details, and act unconsciously in order to get us through our day and prevent ourselves from being overwhelmed by input.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 8:13 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"What I mentioned were that Men do better in tests for spacial awareness."

But that may be as a result of being roughhoused with as infants and children. Of being encouraged to toss a ball around rather than sit and color.

While you can point to differences, you can't point to them as being genetic.

OTOH, I have pointed out that many differences that were thought to be inborn, have been shown not to be so.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 8:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

I would say that by a VERY early age (4 or 5) expected sex roles are SO well known by children that they find this funny.

When I was a kid, I found it funny that the characters Bugs pulled this s**t on were STUPID enough not to see through it!

What maroons.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 8:21 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"Where I grew up, girls regularly got into fist fights, even with boys."

Well, we didn't get into fist fights, but the girls were just as physical as the boys and played with the boys. We all did a lot of roughhousing together, played kickball, spud, pies, hide-and-go-seek, bike-racing, foot-racing, built snow forts and water-dams, and things I don't even remember. Of the 4 girls in the neighborhood I regularly played with - 2 are scientists ('hard' science - geology, chemistry), one is an artist, and one I don't know about. And then there's me, chemist.

My family was very egalitarian, as was the neighbor's. So, either it was in the water or there was something in the common upbringing that created that result.

And now, I have to go.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 8:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:

But that may be as a result of being roughhoused with as infants and children. Of being encouraged to toss a ball around rather than sit and color.

I had a friend in Karate who was female, and 4'11", and she used her small size to work her way inside the (bigger) guy's defenses. She was awesome, and respected. Her spacial awareness wasn't so good though, because if you were able to keep her at a distance, she found it difficult to judge the path to a strike, so she trained to circumvent this limitation in this particular venue to a point where it actually became her advantage. She had been her older brother's playful punching bag from an early age, btw (which ended with her martial art classes).

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 8:53 AM

The point Rue and I are trying to make Chris, is that the spatial awareness that Citizen pointed out IS training, not something inherent.

Your friend started out with a disadvantage compared to the men because in their lives, it is more likely they engaged in activities that unknowingly and unintentionally improved their spatial awareness. And it is also likely that they were activity encouraged to do so, while for your friend it wasn't such a big deal if she didn't participate.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 9:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The point Rue and I are trying to make Chris, is that the spatial awareness that Citizen pointed out IS training, not something inherent.

I disagree, for instance, my wife can keep a cool head better than I can. In that instance, I have the inherent disadvantage.

Quote:

Your friend started out with a disadvantage compared to the men because in their lives, it is more likely they engaged in activities that unknowingly and unintentionally improved their spatial awareness.

No way, she was a tomboy.

And throwing a ball doesn't give or enhance the ability to look at something and see it in 3D, judge volume, divide it in your head, or anything like that. All it *might* help you with is judging speed & trajectory as it applies to other things.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 9:10 AM

I was a tomboy too, but that doesn't mean I played sports nearly as much as the guys I knew, or when I did, that I paid as much attention to developing the technical skills. I mostly ran... And tackled people. I'm a big fan of the tackling. Fun!

Quote:
I disagree, for instance, my wife can keep a cool head better than I can. In that instance, I have the inherent disadvantage.

You kind of made a jump here from spatial awareness that I'm not following.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 9:19 AM

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
And throwing a ball doesn't give or enhance the ability to look at something and see it in 3D, judge volume, divide it in your head, or anything like that. All it *might* help you with is judging speed & trajectory as it applies to other things.

I disagree. Our brains are "use it or lose it," and this seems to be especially important when we're younger. It's easier to learn languages before the age of seven, for example. So it makes sense that if children more actively use certain areas of the brain, then those will develop better than ones that are more neglected. And, it makes sense to me that manipulating 3-D objects can increase understanding of them and lead to better visualization.

http://tinyurl.com/cqkps4

Edited to add more

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 9:37 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"... doesn't give or enhance the ability to look at something and see it in 3D, judge volume, divide it in your head ..."

One of the jobs I used to do was analyzing asbestos. One way you do it is to look at the sample and estimate volume percent in your head. NOBODY did well at that, nationally. Some samples with 2% asbestos came back as an estimated 30 - 80 % during those round robins (due, it was theorized, to the brain's ability to find patterns and then focus on them). The NIST had to institute a training course along with materials to standardize these eyeball measurements - to train people's brains. The result - training is everything. People who got the training all performed equally well.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 10:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

You kind of made a jump here from spatial awareness that I'm not following.

Just trying to show that males get some inherent disadvantages according to this thinking on the subject.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 10:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Citizen

I gave examples of whole societies who believe men and women are exactly opposite of what we believe them to be - and who would point to the men and women there to prove it. I gave examples of how men and women were thought to be SO different that women couldn't do medicine, or engineering - and then pointed out how, with the right opportunities, it was shown to not be true. I gave examples of how differences in intellectual abilites were thought to be inborn due to differences in class - an idea we find laughable today.

Women are more into color and fashion, into soft and shiny fabrics, into fancy shoes and long hair by genetic difference ?
...

Everywhere where these differences were supposedly inborn, they were shown to not be so.

What you did, Rue, is called a Red Herring. Because a bunch of other totally unrelated issues had this outcome, it proves something about this one?

Erm, nope. The only thing that gets close to a relevant objection are your statements about how many Women became engineers in the USSR. I find it funny how you some how see your largely irrelevant arguments to be a damning final word that I must be ignoring because I haven't held up my hands and admitted you're right and I'm wrong, while claiming my arguments are shaky and irrelevant by, well by ignoring much of them. Fact is, nothing you've come up with thus far proves a damn thing, for all your claiming that I'm talking about little daemons shuffling genes about.

Clearly there are differences between Men and Women. I mean it's as plain as the breast (or lack there of) on your chest. I fail to see how pointing out that Men and Women are different, is such a radical and even sexist position. I fail to see how pointing out one of those differences is belittling to either sex, unless there's a few people here with hang ups of their own, which frankly have bugger all to do with me.

But back with USSR, I'm not sure, because of the totalitarian nature of the regime, and it's willingness to mess with it's citizens for national aims, it's the best case to use. This is the nation who's female athletes could grow moustaches because the state decided to improve them. So as far as I'm concerned even your most rock solid piece of argument, isn't all that solid. Have you any better examples?

Quote:
EVERYTHING you can point to, I can show differences in rearing from an early age ACCORDING TO SEX STEREOTYPES.

Yes, apparently by IGNORING the major point of my argument that REFUTES YOU.

How, pray tell, does this explain away girls exposed to male hormones during development, having more male like mental abilities? They'll be treated like girls, so regardless of the male hormones, if my argument is as baseless as you claim, and yours as water tight as you seem to think, I wonder why you have to completely ignore that part. So you tell me Rue, how does your position account for this data? How does developmental hormones affect an individuals future cultural experiences? Because you know what, I don't think they do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 10:18 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

I'm coming into this discussion a little late, but it's good to see some open and (above all) non-hateful discussion of these things.
Attraction, I think, is both simple and complicated. You know when you're feeling it, and that is very simple. Why you feel it might not be easily explained.
I'm bisexual. I've always been bisexual. I don't know why. Before I knew about sex or had hormones flooding my system, I thought my female friends were pretty, and wanted to give them hugs and kisses. I had fewer male friends, but I thought they were pretty, and wanted to give them hugs and kisses. My family, for the most part, was very huggy, so it seemed a natural thing to me to be affectionate. Of course, it freaked more than a few kids out. There's of course always the 'cootie' angle between little boys and girls, but actually it freaked the girls out more that I would dare to give them a peck on the cheek.
I didn't understand this.
Not only was my family pretty affectionate, they weren't and aren't too concerned with 'normal.' Some of them are, but not the ones I spent most of my time with. There was never any insinuations that attraction to certain people would be considered 'wrong' or 'inappropriate' in any way; I got all such 'teachings' from outside sources, such as my horrified friends, and the couples shown to pair off in Disney movies and such. I started getting the idea that it was more common for men and women to be couples, before I was quite certain what that meant. As I gained further understanding of what it meant, and continued to find girls very pretty, I asked my mother if women were ever in love with women. She told me yes, and that some men were also in love with men. The nuances of transgender weren't explained to me at this point, as that is an entirely different can of worms. I've done some research into gender dysphoria, androgen insensitivity, and such, but they seem mostly unrelated to sexual orientation. A man might want to be a woman, but be attracted to women. Someone with complete androgen insensitivity might have XY chromosomes, appear in all ways female, and be attracted to men. It's just another layer of the complex human animal.
I got off track a little bit, where was I? Yes, my mom basically told me that anyone could be in love with anyone, and it just depended on the people. I still had a vague notion that this wasn't acceptable to a lot of people, though, and the notion grew as I got closer to puberty. I was made to feel uncomfortable about my attraction to women in junior high, and only really talked about it to my mother and my very closest friend. I didn't date much all through high school, though I badly wanted to. I was shy about approaching anyone, no matter who they were, but I was definitely attracted to both men and women.
Since leaving the oppressive atmosphere of high school, I have mostly dated men, because the majority of women I've been attracted to have been straight or otherwise uninterested, while the majority of men I've been attracted to have been more interested. That just the way the chips fall, but it doesn't make me less attracted to women.
There are three major arguments I've gotten into with certain ignorant people.
The first is the 'choice' aspect. "Why don't you just choose to be straight?" Because I'm not. "What happened to you to make you not want to be with men?" Nothing happened to me, and I have been with men, more than I've been with women. It's the people I find attractive, while the plumbing is secondary. All bodies can have their beauty, it's the beauty of the person as a whole that concerns me.
Another is the 'changing orientation' argument. "Well, if you're with a man, doesn't that make you straight?" No, it does not. I'm attracted to the man I'm with, and I'm loyal to the man I'm with, but that doesn't keep me from seeing a pretty girl and going "Day-um!" on occasion. "Well, if your orientation doesn't switch back and forth, how can you be satisfied by only being with a man?" Because I'm satisfied by the person, not the equipment. Not that I don't like sex, I definitely like sex, but good sex with a good connection isn't related to male or female, it's related to the person themselves. I actually broke up with a guy at one point who mused that he must be really terrific to have turned a bi girl straight. I think my nature is fairly monogamous, but that will never mean I'm wholly straight or lesbian.
And finally there's the 'attracted to everyone' argument. "Well, you must have a lot of options, being attracted to everyone." No, I don't. I'm not attracted to anything that moves. Just as someone who is attracted solely to females is not hot for every single female they lay eyes on, neither am I attracted to every person I lay eyes on. And, odds are, a great many of the ladies I'm attracted to are going to identify as straight. I just don't find butch to be attractive, I like pretty. Actually, I like more 'pretty' men, too, though I've been with men I find attractive who are certainly not pretty-boys. Anyway, most feminine, pretty girls are less interested in dating another girl.

This got much longer than I intended, I just meant to give an example of my perspective. Basically, it really is true that you're just born the way you are. Things can be suppressed; I greatly suspect that if I had been raised by more heavy-handed people with a certain outlook on morality, I would have shied away from and ignored much more of my inclinations than I ultimately have. They might have still come out eventually, but they might not have, seeing as how I am usually perfectly happy with my 'normal' heterosexual relationships.
I feel fortunate that I was allowed to be who I was and don't feel any guilt when I see a pretty woman with a gorgeous smile and feel all tingly. The thing I most often have to get past is that there are people who won't fully accept me, and I hope to see less of that as time rolls on.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 10:18 AM

THATWEIRDGIRL

I always thought Bugs was gay.

---
Sometimes I lie awake at night, and I ask, "Where have I gone wrong?" Then a voice says to me, "This is going to take more than one night."
-- Charlie Brown
www.thatcostumegirl.com
www.thatweirdgirl.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 10:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
it makes sense that if children more actively use certain areas of the brain, then those will develop better than ones that are more neglected. And, it makes sense to me that manipulating 3-D objects can increase understanding of them and lead to better visualization.

Then how do you explain me? I was virtually inactive before bullies in Junior High made it a guilt-edged priority to learn martial arts. No sports, no throwing the ball with Dad, the most physical thing I did until I was 11 was bicycling, and that was purely low-speed local stuff.
Yet I tested unusually high on the spacial relations part of the IQ test I took around that time.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 10:27 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
The thing I most often have to get past is that there are people who won't fully accept me, and I hope to see less of that as time rolls on.

WHO won't fully accept you?
I'll kick their intolerant a**es!!!

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 10:31 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
The main problem is, despite all the disclaimers that "this doesn't mean women are stupider or weaker than men!" that the studies themselves add in, it is ENTIRELY how a certain segment of the population chooses to interpret them.

Well yes. One segment seems to be making the leap that it must be about Men belittling Women AGAIN. I could easily have talked about the things that Women prove to be better at and, hang on, I did do that. In fact I clearly said that Men and Women are of equal intelligence, but tend to excel at different areas of intelligence. So really there was no belittling, unless you decide you want to focus just on where I talked about things Men do better, and ignoring what Women do better. Seems to me that I'm not the one focusing on just one side of this issue.

Men and Women are different. I don't see how, objectively, pointing out those differences can possibly be considered belittling to either sex. Should I refrain from pointing out that Men have Penises and Women don't? I mean surely, pointing out that Men can pee standing up, and write their name in the snow, while Women can't, is surely belittling of Women, right?

Quote:
Spatial awareness... Like the type you could gain through throwing a ball around?

No. I explained what I was talking about earlier, it's the ability to mentally manipulate objects in 3D I'm talking about. To see an object from angle, and to accurately guess what it'll look like from another. I fail to see how throwing a ball around will have any bearing on that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 10:33 AM

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
it makes sense that if children more actively use certain areas of the brain, then those will develop better than ones that are more neglected. And, it makes sense to me that manipulating 3-D objects can increase understanding of them and lead to better visualization.

Then how do you explain me? I was virtually inactive before bullies in Junior High made it a guilt-edged priority to learn martial arts. No sports, no throwing the ball with Dad, the most physical thing I did until I was 11 was bicycling, and that was purely low-speed local stuff.
Yet I tested unusually high on the spacial relations part of the IQ test I took around that time.

The laughing Chrisisall

Maybe you did other things that helped with your spatial functioning? Maybe it's pure talent? Maybe you're just an outlier?

::shrugs::

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 10:35 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Ooh, are we playing bingo now? I love bingo!

http://punkassblog.com/2007/10/25/evolutionary-psychology-bingo

No, we're at the "straw man the argument we don't like, and insult the person making it" stage.

So, I'm the undergraduate who can't get laid right? Thanks ever-so, I'll pass your thoughts on to my girlfriend, and she can throw all her headache medicine away, 'kay.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 10:49 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:

Maybe you did other things that helped with your spatial functioning?

Maybe it's hardwired?
I just remembered- when I was 10, I made pistol phasers out of cardboard by drawing out the entire unfolded schematic on a box, cutting it out, folding it into position & taping it together, never having done it before. My friends were impressed how it managed it, I really didn't consider it much back then.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 10:55 AM

PHOENIXROSE

You think you know--what's to come, what you are. You haven't even begun.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
]WHO won't fully accept you?
I'll kick their intolerant a**es!!!

Hee ^_^
Well, there was the guy who proclaimed he had turned me straight. There was the other guy who apparently lived in constant fear that I would leave him for a woman. There was the guy who assumed because he was dating a bi girl, a three-way was automatically on the table. There was... several people I worked with who decided to go off on tangents about pervert gays being scout masters, or those disturbed gay people wanting to get married, or in one case what a travesty it was that a gay man had played Gandalf, or any number of other horrid things they assumed I would agree with because I appeared 'normal' in my behavior, mostly because I make work a pretty impersonal place. Oh, things got very awkward after I gave them a few pieces of my mind. There are plenty of people who haven't wanted to be around me, women who assumed I wanted to jump their bones (I didn't) and were terrified that i would somehow force myself on them, men who thought I either wasn't a real woman or that I was a skank who would do anything, just because I've kissed a few girls in my life. Even my own extended family, who insisted I must be going through a 'phase' because it certainly couldn't have anything to do with them or their genes. The list goes on and on, Chris. Please feel free to kick as many intolerant a**es as you wish to, if you can find them.

[/sig]

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 10:55 AM

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Ooh, are we playing bingo now? I love bingo!

http://punkassblog.com/2007/10/25/evolutionary-psychology-bingo

No, we're at the "straw man the argument we don't like, and insult the person making it" stage.

So, I'm the undergraduate who can't get laid right? Thanks ever-so, I'll pass your thoughts on to my girlfriend, and she can throw all her headache medicine away, 'kay.

Actually, that's the square I really don't like. And, maybe I shouldn't have posted that (especially without explanation), and just said instead, "Evolutionary psychology is bullshit, and so is most of your argument." You want to make up some fairy story about how "men were this way, and women were this way," call that historical fact, and then run with that, fine. You want to dismiss Rue's argument that maybe these so-called inborn traits are actually the result of socialization, okay. But I'm wasn't interested in seriously arguing, so I posted what I thought was a silly little graphic that, nevertheless, made my point about how flawed arguments like yours are. If I intended to insult you, I would have mentioned you by name.

And, seriously, why do you feel the need need to point out that, yes, you do actually have a girlfriend? If you really think I insulted you at such a sophomoric level, why would you think I cared if I was right or not?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by PhoenixRose:
There was the guy who assumed because he was dating a bi girl, a three-way was automatically on the table.

Shame on you for disappointing him!
Seriously, sounds like a lot of idiots to ignore where you live. I live next to Smith College, an exceptionally tolerant area.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:02 AM

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:

Maybe you did other things that helped with your spatial functioning?

Maybe it's hardwired?
I just remembered- when I was 10, I made pistol phasers out of cardboard by drawing out the entire unfolded schematic on a box, cutting it out, folding it into position & taping it together, never having done it before. My friends were impressed how it managed it, I really didn't consider it much back then.

The laughing Chrisisall

Maybe there are things you're not remembering that would have helped you out with that? Maybe it's hardwired just for you, and it would be silly to generalize your situation to half the population? Maybe brain science is still in its baby stages, so it's too early to tell if these types of things can even be hardwired or not? Maybe fully nature or fully nurture is too simplistic a perspective?

Hell if I know.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
Actually, that's the square I really don't like. And, maybe I shouldn't have posted that (especially without explanation), and just said instead, "Evolutionary psychology is bullshit, and so is most of your argument." You want to make up some fairy story about how "men were this way, and women were this way," call that historical fact, and then run with that, fine. You want to dismiss Rue's argument that maybe these so-called inborn traits are actually the result of socialization, okay. But I'm wasn't interested in seriously arguing, so I posted what I thought was a silly little graphic that, nevertheless, made my point about how flawed arguments like yours are. If I intended to insult you, I would have mentioned you by name.

And, seriously, why do you feel the need need to point out that, yes, you do actually have a girlfriend? If you really think I insulted you at such a sophomoric level, why would you think I cared if I was right or not?

Uhuh. So basically your point is you can't argue against what I said, so you thought you'd just strawman my argument, then insult me.

My argument is based off of scientific studies, which not a one of you have managed to refute beyond "they were done by men" and "people wore different clothes in the past!" and other irrelevant nonsense. I only went into our (actually true, no matter what way you cut it) evolutionary past to explain why these differences may have come about, and why they make sense given our evolutionary history. I didn't go into that in order to prove those differences exist, as far as I'm concerned the studies do that. I didn't make up a fairy tale to explain away some sexist comment, as you seem so desperate to fallaciously claim. That you may not be sharp enough to notice the difference between musing on why something came about, and making up fairy tales to support some random statement, is hardly my problem. Personally I don't need a silly graphic to point out how flawed your strawman of my argument is, nor to point out that just because you don't understand my argument, nor bothered to read it, doesn't make it flawed.

I'm sure if my argument was based around "evolutionary psychology" it would be bullshit, but since it isn't, since it's based on scientific studies, and your objections are based on you wanting the studies to say something different, we perhaps can take your objection as little more than fallacious whining.

Tell me, if you weren't interested in insulting me, why are you so pissed that I claim your insult isn't true?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:12 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:

Maybe you did other things that helped with your spatial functioning?

I think I'd remember.
Oh, here's another, I never used instructions when making models as a teen.

Quote:

Maybe it's hardwired just for you, and it would be silly to generalize your situation to half the population?

I resist thinking I'm that special...

Quote:
Maybe brain science is still in its baby stages, so it's too early to tell if these types of things can even be hardwired or not?

I have too much anecdotal evidence to fully go that way.

Quote:
Maybe fully nature or fully nurture is too simplistic a perspective?

It's never only one thing, IMO.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:20 AM

Quote:
Well yes. One segment seems to be making the leap that it must be about Men belittling Women AGAIN. I could easily have talked about the things that Women prove to be better at and, hang on, I did do that. In fact I clearly said that Men and Women are of equal intelligence, but tend to excel at different areas of intelligence. So really there was no belittling, unless you decide you want to focus just on where I talked about things Men do better, and ignoring what Women do better. Seems to me that I'm not the one focusing on just one side of this issue.

I've only responded to what you've said to me. You're having multiple arguments here: I'm only one part of them. I have not brought up the parts where you've said men do something better or women do something better except in regards to what you have said to me.

All I am trying to point out is the potentially damaging nature of these reports. On one side, you have those who might use them to validate their belief in female inferiority. On the other side, you have the women who get up in arms about men hating on them, who then turn into man haters.

What is positive about any of this? How does this promote science or better the understanding of the human race or genders? By having people kick up dust storms and squabble, thus confusing the issue?

Why promote the viewpoints in the studies you have mentioned when they are damaging, and when psychological studies are so untrustworthy in the first place?

Too many variables. I truly do hate psychology, especially how everything gets touted around as the gods honest truth.

Quote:
Men and Women are different. I don't see how, objectively, pointing out those differences can possibly be considered belittling to either sex. Should I refrain from pointing out that Men have Penises and Women don't? I mean surely, pointing out that Men can pee standing up, and write their name in the snow, while Women can't, is surely belittling of Women, right?

...A little bit, yeah, but it depends on the context. Stating the fact isn't belittling, but the mocking nature in how you said that is.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:25 AM

Quote:
My argument is based off of scientific studies, which not a one of you have managed to refute beyond "they were done by men" and "people wore different clothes in the past!" and other irrelevant nonsense. I only went into our (actually true, no matter what way you cut it) evolutionary past to explain why these differences may have come about, and why they make sense given our evolutionary history. I didn't go into that in order to prove those differences exist, as far as I'm concerned the studies do that. I didn't make up a fairy tale to explain away some sexist comment, as you seem so desperate to fallaciously claim. That you may not be sharp enough to notice the difference between musing on why something came about, and making up fairy tales to support some random statement, is hardly my problem. Personally I don't need a silly graphic to point out how flawed your strawman of my argument is, nor to point out that just because you don't understand my argument, nor bothered to read it, doesn't make it flawed.

Studies promoting opposite views to the studies you speak of haven't been performed. How can we refute you with counter-examples then? I'm working with what I have. Specific examples, I don't have. I have logic, which may be flawed, and I have common sense, which may also be flawed. You'll have to forgive the crudeness of my arguments.

Doesn't it speak of a problem that these studies don't exist? Does that lack say anything about the people performing these studies?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:30 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:
I truly do hate psychology, especially how everything gets touted around as the gods honest truth.

Personally, to me, studies are useful as "pointers" only, tools to form hypotheses. I see that some things can be explained using them, like ADD & such. Such studies on men & womens brains have brought some measure of peace to myself & MrsIsall; they have helped us to understand my lack of multi-tasking ability as they apply to passing on that different friends & relatives called while she was out- she can easily random access in her mind all manner of stuff, while my mind works like a train on a track. We have forgiven each other that we are so hindered by being male/female in certain areas.
It used to be "If you cared, you'd......."
Now it's "Okay, that's how your brain works..."

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:34 AM

Re nature versus nurture:

When I was growing up, I had no need to be physically strong. What's more, I admired my skinny arms and legs as pretty and feminine. At some later point in life I discovered sports and got into being strong, and actually tried to put on muscle weight. I was no nut about it, but I did work out, tried to eat plenty of protein, and did pull-ups or whatever when I had the chance. It was always there in the background, this desire to be strong. And I got a bit bulky.

To generalize and follow the pressures of society:

Young girls live in the first state. They don't want more muscle, because they then they wouldn't look "feminine." I know women who refuse to take up skating because they might build thigh muscle. Eek!

Young boys live in the second state. It is considered MALE to be muscular, so boys and young men tend to be more active, eat more, and fill out. Even if it's not the point of their lives, it's always there in the background. It's where they want to go.

Our entire exercise industry is built around this - just look at what is marketed to men versus women: men must build bulk, women must build lean definition. If that was just the natural course that our bodies had no choice but to take, why would it need to be marketed this way? Why would our workouts be different? Why would our diets be different?

My point: Suppose a woman decides that she wants muscle and spends the same amount of time in the gym as the average male athletic type, doing similar workouts, and eats a similar diet. There are some idiots out there who will yammer away about how she is not feminine. This is completely bogus. The yammerheads need to redefine word "feminine" to include her and her choice of lifestyle, I say. Because she's a woman, and that's how she looks. Deal with it.

I believe the same exact thing is behind this myth that men are better at "spatial" thought. Fuck that. It's an absolute myth created by what is and isn't considered "feminine" behavior. I work at a school where academic prowess is the top goal, and these young woman who have always been encouraged to use their heads - for science and engineering if they choose - are every bit as capable as the young men.

And I'm every bit as capable as my male counterpart. In fact, we both have PhDs from a very honorable institution, and we both do "spatial thought" extremely well. And believe me, I'm very much a woman in the more "standard" ways.

So, Citizen, how about you actually post that data you're speaking of so those of us who are good at science can tear it up, hmm?

Because - duh! - of course there are differences between male and female, but when you take it here:

"My general point was that Men and Women are physically and mentally different, and that those differences are by no means irrelevant. They lead to more Women wanting to be nurses, while more Men want to be surgeons."

You are just so very, extremely, beyond belief wrong.

Maybe you need to work on those logic skills, son.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:37 AM

These studies, no offense or anything, but they remind me of racial studies performed in the 1940s. Or homosexual studies.

We focus so much on ability, the minor things that divide us. Who's better at what, who's worse at what. Then, who's BETTER, who's WORSE.

I'd rather sidestep all of that ugliness and say, with conviction, that I think all of us are more alike than we are different.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

My point: Suppose a woman decides that she wants muscle and spends the same amount of time in the gym as the average male athletic type, doing similar workouts, and eats a similar diet.

I find that to be sexy.

I am so lost in this society.....

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:38 AM

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

I'm not pissed, Citizen, I'm amused. You think you can just say "my argument is based off science" and that makes you right. Until 1973, homosexuality was listed in the DSM printed by the AMA. It was a fact that the dinosaurs were cold-blooded... until it was overturned. Science can be wrong, scientists can be wrong, and I don't think we have enough evidence or can leave our biases out of the area of sexual dimorphism well enough yet.

Or, maybe I'm wrong. But, right now, I just don't think that all the science on sexual dimorphism is sound, especially when it comes to the brain, which we still know so little about. And any story about humans that predates written records is a fairy story, and therefore not necessarily right - I don't care if an anthropologist tells the story, or if you do.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Bytemite:

We focus so much on how everyone is so different. Who's better at what, who's worse at what. Then, who's BETTER, who's WORSE.

I think you may be missing the more important (IMO) WHYS that can get answered in such studies.
Just sayin'.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:41 AM

Double double
toil & troubles,
'puter hiccupped
& my post doubles.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:45 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by yinyang:
I'm not pissed, Citizen, I'm amused. You think you can just say "my argument is based off science" and that makes you right.

He can say that as long as he doesn't actually have to talk about the science itself, is what I think.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:45 AM

The why's become subverted, hence the leap following these studies to the unceasing arguments about who is better.

I find it frustrating and needless. It is not illuminating anything.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:45 AM

You were busy trying to get yourself lit on fire. It happens.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
It's never only one thing, IMO.

Okay. That's all I wanted. There's no need for me to continue this discussion.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:48 AM

Chris, meant to ask:

So, it's the weirdness of men attracted to men that got you starting this thread. You discussed how females look so lovely to you, and that's nice and all. But do you ever wonder how woman can be attracted to men when you aren't? Why is it only men attracted to men that is beyond your understanding?

Can you see that there might be an assumption and a bias in that?

ETA: I've had my own thoughts along these lines, is why I ask. Just wanted to hear your own thoughts first.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 11:55 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:
It's an absolute myth created by what is and isn't considered "feminine" behavior.

I just don't understand how studies that show women's dexterity to be generally superior or their spacial perception to be generally inferior to be faked or 'bad science'...are evil sexist male scientists picking test subjects that test poorly to test on the MAIN test that gets published to slant the conclusions to keep women down?
Know what? MY reflexes were inferior to my karate class friend mentioned above, and I worked DAMN hard at improving them. Never got as good as she was, but I DID improve them.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:06 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mal4prez:

So, it's the weirdness of men attracted to men that got you starting this thread.

Not "weirdness," more like the unflavoured-tofu-ness. Just like, why? I feel like the flavour is in the differences.

Quote:
But do you ever wonder how woman can be attracted to men when you aren't?

I just thank God they are, for my sake.

Quote:
Why is it only men attracted to men that is beyond your understanding?

I kinda feel (and don't hold me to this, my beliefs are subject to change here) that since both man and woman are born of woman, that it's more 'natural' for a higher level of same-sex interest to manifest on the part of women, and that women would have a much higher recognized percentage of bisexuality were it not for suppression due to social stigma.

There, totally intuition based, non scientific, and ready to be discarded should conflicting reasonable scientific (or simply logical) data come to my attention.

The laughing Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:07 PM

It's not so much evil scientists, and more not thinking outside the box for their explanations. They're just assuming that their results represent a natural state... When, in our modern world, humanity is in anything BUT a natural state.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
I just don't understand how studies that show women's dexterity to be generally superior or their spacial perception to be generally inferior to be faked or 'bad science'...are evil sexist male scientists picking test subjects that test poorly to test on the MAIN test that gets published to slant the conclusions to keep women down?

Clearly, if there were more pirates, global warming wouldn't be a problem.

Do you see what I'm getting at? It might take superior logic skills to make the connection...

Yes, and now I'm just being a bitch.

Sorry. Situation called for it.

Anyhoo - I'm not trying to say there aren't gender differences. Of course there are. Women tend to be smaller, so if you're looking for the smallest people in the world to do the wiring on Cray supercomputers, you'll hire women. (Which the Cray people did.) If you want to beat the StrongMan champion and thrown more heavy barrels over the high bar, you'll need to be a man. Check.

But when some schmoe waves his hand at some science study (without including any specifics) and says that that this pseudo-science defines MY desires in life, (I must want to be a nurse, not a surgeon, because I have no penis!) you bet I'm gonna tear him a new one.

-----------------------------------------------
hmm-burble-blah, blah-blah-blah, take a left

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:10 PM

There actually have been studies to suggest that all women can become aroused by witnessing any sort of sexual encounter, be it heterosexual or same sex... Whereas men can only be aroused by witnessing an encounter from their stated orientation.

Of course, that's also one of the studies that I find suspect...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 24, 2009 12:13 PM