Board index › Coping in life › Love and Dating

Role Reversed World?

Page 7 of 8 [ 119 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Another_Alien
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 163
Location: UK

02 May 2011, 3:53 pm

Lilya wrote:
http://uwire.com/2010/10/18/study-men-women-have-equal-math-skills/


The individual who conducted that study admits her findings are inconclusive. The difference between the average male and the average female in maths ability is insignificant. However, the difference between the most gifted male mathematicians and the most gifted female mathematicians are significant. There are many more male maths geniuses than female maths geniuses. And its the maths geniuses that design cutting edge technology.

http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/52/2/146

Ironically, your argument that there are no non-physical differences between males and females does women a disservice as you are failing to acknowledge those things at which women excel more frequently than men, e.g. literacy and communication skills.



Another_Alien
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 163
Location: UK

02 May 2011, 3:57 pm

Lilya wrote:
Besides autism, we can discuss about illnesses as well that are related to biological differences of the gender, but to this discussion, they are in no way related.


A bogus argument. Autism isn't an illness. It's simply a result of atypical brain 'wiring'. It's very revealing that you don't want to engage in an intelligent debate about the male-female Autism ratio, i.e. because you can't reconcile this ratio with what you've been taught by the Finnish gender engineers.



Lilya
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,600
Location: Finland

02 May 2011, 4:06 pm

Another_Alien wrote:
Lilya wrote:
http://uwire.com/2010/10/18/study-men-women-have-equal-math-skills/


The individual who conducted that study admits her findings are inconclusive. The difference between the average male and the average female in maths ability is insignificant. However, the difference between the most gifted male mathematicians and the most gifted female mathematicians are significant. There are many more male maths geniuses than female maths geniuses. And its the maths geniuses that design cutting edge technology.

http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/52/2/146

Ironically, your argument that there are no non-physical differences between males and females does women a disservice as you are failing to acknowledge those things at which women excel more frequently than men, e.g. literacy and communication skills.

A bogus argument. Autism isn't an illness. It's simply a result of atypical brain 'wiring'. It's very revealing that you don't want to engage in an intelligent debate about the male-female Autism ratio, i.e. because you can't reconcile this ratio with what you've been taught by the Finnish gender engineers.


A vast number of similar studies exist.

My argument has been from the very beginning that there isn't a trade where women couldn't excel at due to their sex. They indeed do and have excelled.

Autism certainly isn't an illness. Please read the phrase properly. The brain wiring you refer to is very much irrelevant to this conversation and to the question what men and women are able to do.

This conversation is going nowhere if you do not listen nor understand the topic of the conversation.


_________________
It's not the sinful, but the stupid who are our shame - Oscar Wilde


Another_Alien
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 163
Location: UK

02 May 2011, 4:12 pm

Lilya wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
Lilya wrote:
http://uwire.com/2010/10/18/study-men-women-have-equal-math-skills/


The individual who conducted that study admits her findings are inconclusive. The difference between the average male and the average female in maths ability is insignificant. However, the difference between the most gifted male mathematicians and the most gifted female mathematicians are significant. There are many more male maths geniuses than female maths geniuses. And its the maths geniuses that design cutting edge technology.

http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/52/2/146

Ironically, your argument that there are no non-physical differences between males and females does women a disservice as you are failing to acknowledge those things at which women excel more frequently than men, e.g. literacy and communication skills.

A bogus argument. Autism isn't an illness. It's simply a result of atypical brain 'wiring'. It's very revealing that you don't want to engage in an intelligent debate about the male-female Autism ratio, i.e. because you can't reconcile this ratio with what you've been taught by the Finnish gender engineers.


A vast number of similar studies exist.

My argument has been from the very beginning that there isn't a trade where women couldn't excel at due to their sex. They indeed do and have excelled.

Autism certainly isn't an illness. Please read the phrase properly. The brain wiring you refer to is very much irrelevant to this conversation and to the question what men and women are able to do.

This conversation is going nowhere if you do not listen nor understand the topic of the conversation.


I didn't say women couldn't excel at any non-physical profession. Of course they can. I'm saying that both sexes are more likely - on average - to excel at certain professions.

Autism is absolutely NOT irrelevant. The male-female ratio proves that there's generalized differences in male and female brains. If there's generalized differences then gender can't be entirely socially constructed.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

02 May 2011, 4:20 pm

Another_Alien wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
IQ tests are weighted towards testing male areas of strength, for the most part. so men aren't smatter - it's just that the tests are biased. just like whites aren't any smarter than blacks or first nations peoples, but they tend to do better on the tests. sklightly different reasons why, but essentially the tests are not an objective measure of intelligence.

i got to thinking about sports and athletics also. i believe that men are better at some sports because those sports are designed to exploit their strengths... and women are better at sports that are designed to exploit their strengths. for example sports like rhythmic gymnastics, figure skating, dancing, and synchronized swimming. men can jump higher and go faster, but that doesn't help them when grace and flexibility and timing are required.

funny but as a society we tend to look down upon sports where women predominate, just like we look down upon occupations that are dominated by women. it's like we think that these sports and jobs are lesser, even though they require agreat deal of skill too - just different skills.


I agree with you about male/female dominated sports.

However, your IQ argument is a load of rubbish.

The content of IQ tests isn't what matters in this context, it's the vastly different distribution of IQ scores by gender. Even if IQ tests are skewed towards males (and I'm not saying they are) why do males have the highest AND lowest IQs.

do you have any sources, or do you randomly call out "rubbish" when you disagree?

here is a simple google scholar search where you can sort out whether it is rubbish or not. your argument fails as it isn't based on anything but your opinion. there is a great deal of actual research that points to a gender bias.

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en& ... =&as_vis=0

when adjusted for gender bias, or when women are raised to believe they are equally intelligent at maths and sciences (parents and teachers bot hneed to get on board), any discernible differences in test results disappear. interestingly, encouraging girls to play more video games also helps to remove any differences in math performance.

so perhaps, some of the tests have a gender bias, but another major difference might be how we are raising females in our society. neither of these factors has anything to do with biology.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Lilya
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Mar 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,600
Location: Finland

02 May 2011, 4:27 pm

Another_Alien wrote:
Lilya wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
Lilya wrote:
http://uwire.com/2010/10/18/study-men-women-have-equal-math-skills/


The individual who conducted that study admits her findings are inconclusive. The difference between the average male and the average female in maths ability is insignificant. However, the difference between the most gifted male mathematicians and the most gifted female mathematicians are significant. There are many more male maths geniuses than female maths geniuses. And its the maths geniuses that design cutting edge technology.

http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/52/2/146

Ironically, your argument that there are no non-physical differences between males and females does women a disservice as you are failing to acknowledge those things at which women excel more frequently than men, e.g. literacy and communication skills.

A bogus argument. Autism isn't an illness. It's simply a result of atypical brain 'wiring'. It's very revealing that you don't want to engage in an intelligent debate about the male-female Autism ratio, i.e. because you can't reconcile this ratio with what you've been taught by the Finnish gender engineers.


A vast number of similar studies exist.

My argument has been from the very beginning that there isn't a trade where women couldn't excel at due to their sex. They indeed do and have excelled.

Autism certainly isn't an illness. Please read the phrase properly. The brain wiring you refer to is very much irrelevant to this conversation and to the question what men and women are able to do.

This conversation is going nowhere if you do not listen nor understand the topic of the conversation.


I didn't say women couldn't excel at any non-physical profession. Of course they can. I'm saying that both sexes are more likely - on average - to excel at certain professions.

Autism is absolutely NOT irrelevant. The male-female ratio proves that there's generalized differences in male and female brains. If there's generalized differences then gender can't be entirely socially constructed.


In this conversation, autism is irrelevant. Brain wiring you refer to doesn't make a woman less competent. Nor do any similar biological differences.

Either sex can excel in similar trades. The numbers of representatives of either gender in any trade are closely related to culture and socioeconomic structure. As long as a woman CAN do and excel in mathemathics, it is utterly pointless try to discourage her not to pursue her interest due to her sex. There are a vast number of women who were mathematical geniuses in history who fought against the disapprovement of the environment and excelled. Marie Curie, Lise Meitner and Hepatia were such people to name but a few. I very much respect them and would be happy to encourage any woman to pursue a career in mathematics/physics/engineering. Apparently there STILL are men who don't like the idea of women penetrating to the industry. Please do not ask why women are accordingly discouraged.


_________________
It's not the sinful, but the stupid who are our shame - Oscar Wilde


Another_Alien
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 163
Location: UK

02 May 2011, 4:37 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
hyperlexian wrote:
IQ tests are weighted towards testing male areas of strength, for the most part. so men aren't smatter - it's just that the tests are biased. just like whites aren't any smarter than blacks or first nations peoples, but they tend to do better on the tests. sklightly different reasons why, but essentially the tests are not an objective measure of intelligence.

i got to thinking about sports and athletics also. i believe that men are better at some sports because those sports are designed to exploit their strengths... and women are better at sports that are designed to exploit their strengths. for example sports like rhythmic gymnastics, figure skating, dancing, and synchronized swimming. men can jump higher and go faster, but that doesn't help them when grace and flexibility and timing are required.

funny but as a society we tend to look down upon sports where women predominate, just like we look down upon occupations that are dominated by women. it's like we think that these sports and jobs are lesser, even though they require agreat deal of skill too - just different skills.


I agree with you about male/female dominated sports.

However, your IQ argument is a load of rubbish.

The content of IQ tests isn't what matters in this context, it's the vastly different distribution of IQ scores by gender. Even if IQ tests are skewed towards males (and I'm not saying they are) why do males have the highest AND lowest IQs.

do you have any sources, or do you randomly call out "rubbish" when you disagree?

here is a simple google scholar search where you can sort out whether it is rubbish or not. your argument fails as it isn't based on anything but your opinion. there is a great deal of actual research that points to a gender bias.

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en& ... =&as_vis=0

when adjusted for gender bias, or when women are raised to believe they are equally intelligent at maths and sciences (parents and teachers bot hneed to get on board), any discernible differences in test results disappear. interestingly, encouraging girls to play more video games also helps to remove any differences in math performance.

so perhaps, some of the tests have a gender bias, but another major difference might be how we are raising females in our society. neither of these factors has anything to do with biology.


It's unbeliavable how you always demand some source material to back up my argument, yet you often charge in with some unsubstantiated point, e.g. women are better at such-and-such a sport. Someone who was sexist (which I'm not) might say typical woman! :roll:

Anyway:

http://www.iqcomparisonsite.com/SexDifferences.aspx

And if women are better are gymnastics, for example, why are they better? Is it natural ability or culture? If it's natural ability then there must be some non-physical differences between the sexes, which means I'm right. If it's culture then they're not really 'better' which means you're wrong.



Another_Alien
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2009
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 163
Location: UK

02 May 2011, 4:41 pm

Lilya wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
Lilya wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
Lilya wrote:
http://uwire.com/2010/10/18/study-men-women-have-equal-math-skills/


The individual who conducted that study admits her findings are inconclusive. The difference between the average male and the average female in maths ability is insignificant. However, the difference between the most gifted male mathematicians and the most gifted female mathematicians are significant. There are many more male maths geniuses than female maths geniuses. And its the maths geniuses that design cutting edge technology.

http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/52/2/146

Ironically, your argument that there are no non-physical differences between males and females does women a disservice as you are failing to acknowledge those things at which women excel more frequently than men, e.g. literacy and communication skills.

A bogus argument. Autism isn't an illness. It's simply a result of atypical brain 'wiring'. It's very revealing that you don't want to engage in an intelligent debate about the male-female Autism ratio, i.e. because you can't reconcile this ratio with what you've been taught by the Finnish gender engineers.


A vast number of similar studies exist.

My argument has been from the very beginning that there isn't a trade where women couldn't excel at due to their sex. They indeed do and have excelled.

Autism certainly isn't an illness. Please read the phrase properly. The brain wiring you refer to is very much irrelevant to this conversation and to the question what men and women are able to do.

This conversation is going nowhere if you do not listen nor understand the topic of the conversation.


I didn't say women couldn't excel at any non-physical profession. Of course they can. I'm saying that both sexes are more likely - on average - to excel at certain professions.

Autism is absolutely NOT irrelevant. The male-female ratio proves that there's generalized differences in male and female brains. If there's generalized differences then gender can't be entirely socially constructed.


In this conversation, autism is irrelevant. Brain wiring you refer to doesn't make a woman less competent. Nor do any similar biological differences.

Either sex can excel in similar trades. The numbers of representatives of either gender in any trade are closely related to culture and socioeconomic structure. As long as a woman CAN do and excel in mathemathics, it is utterly pointless try to discourage her not to pursue her interest due to her sex. There are a vast number of women who were mathematical geniuses in history who fought against the disapprovement of the environment and excelled. Marie Curie, Lise Meitner and Hepatia were such people to name but a few. I very much respect them and would be happy to encourage any woman to pursue a career in mathematics/physics/engineering. Apparently there STILL are men who don't like the idea of women penetrating to the industry. Please do not ask why women are accordingly discouraged.


Once again, I'm NOT saying women can't do x, y and z, and I'm NOT saying women should be discouraged from anything. We're both agreed on this.

I'm simply making the point that if there are differences in male/female brains - resulting in a large Autistic ratio - then gender cannot be entirely socially constructed.

Do you believe there are any non-physical differences between males and females? If yes, then we agree, so no need to go debating. If no, how do you explain the Autistic ratio.



hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

02 May 2011, 6:03 pm

an increased ability in gymnastics would be based on physical differences, so your argument makes no sense. also having a different brain can be physical difference too. so whatever point you're trying to make about autism doesn't wash.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


trojan51
Deinonychus
Deinonychus

User avatar

Joined: 10 Dec 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 361
Location: Seattle, Washington, United States

02 May 2011, 6:42 pm

hyperlexian wrote:
Another_Alien wrote:
Lilya wrote:
We are not talking about biological differences between the genders (obviously there are certain, you can confirm this by taking a peak in your pants). The differences in brain you mention are, in all these researches, very minor, and there is no difference in the average IQ. There isn't any non-physical task where men would excel better than their female counterparts.


I don't agree with this, to be honest. The general differences in male/female brains is much more significant than you suggest.

Although the average male IQ is the same as the average female IQ male IQ levels vary much more from the average, i.e. there are many more male geniuses than female geniuses, but there also many more males with very low IQs than females with very low IQs. This is a statistical fact, not just an opinion.

Men ARE better on average at maths, and women ARE better on average at communicating (on paper and orally). This explains why women are 'taking over' the media, but men are still dominant in professions with a high maths content, e.g. computer programming and engineering.

So, yes, there are non-physical tasks where men are better than women - on average - and there are tasks where women are better than men - on average.

http://www.megafoundation.org/Genius/Ge ... nition.htm

IQ tests are weighted towards testing male areas of strength, for the most part. so men aren't smatter - it's just that the tests are biased. just like whites aren't any smarter than blacks or first nations peoples, but they tend to do better on the tests. sklightly different reasons why, but essentially the tests are not an objective measure of intelligence.

i got to thinking about sports and athletics also. i believe that men are better at some sports because those sports are designed to exploit their strengths... and women are better at sports that are designed to exploit their strengths. for example sports like rhythmic gymnastics, figure skating, dancing, and synchronized swimming. men can jump higher and go faster, but that doesn't help them when grace and flexibility and timing are required.

funny but as a society we tend to look down upon sports where women predominate, just like we look down upon occupations that are dominated by women. it's like we think that these sports and jobs are lesser, even though they require agreat deal of skill too - just different skills.


Yes my sociology teacher last quarter talked about how feminine things are looked down upon by our society.

Another Alien: My mom has a master's degree in accounting and actually does quite well at it and my dad was a history major in college, being an exception to what you had stated about gender roles earlier. But, my dad did go back to school and get a master's in business management from Stanford.

I have a love for tall and well built women. Especially if she has slender muscular arms and broad shoulders. Theres this girl ive been talking to lately that I like and she's 5'8" and she HAS to be around 160 pounds as she has alot of muscle, yet still acts rather feminine as you would expect a girl to.



Who_Am_I
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Aug 2005
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,632
Location: Australia

02 May 2011, 8:59 pm

MarketAndChurch wrote:
Bethie wrote:
Arguably, "looking good" is far more labor-intensive, physically and emotionally painful, and generally excrutiatingly difficult than maintaining a middle class income. Try living in a society where you're not only undatable but repulsive and mockable if you can't starve yourself thin or aren't willing to rip out your body hair south of your eyelashes and then come back. Those are just basic things. That's not even discussing hairstyling, conditioning, dying, makeup, clothes, tanning, nails, and on, and on, and on. What's more, THOSE THINGS COST MONEY.[/b]


i dunno... I don't think looking good takes that much effort or money, unless you are barely scraping by - like I was two summers ago - then thats a another matter. A concealer can make up for a lot on your face by hiding dark circles under your eyes and getting rid of redness for an even, and shall I say "effortless" look. A lot of people in the city look good, but these days, it's getting even more difficult to tell which ones just have good skin, and which wear concealer. One could get a gym membership for under 25 a month. You could buy two complete outfits from H&M for under $100, or if you can afford more, 2 from Zara for under $300. For about 300 a month(you could probably do it for even less), 75 a week, you can get fit at the gym, have good skin (or at least the perception of it), and wear legit clothes while maintaing a decent level of hygiene and getting your hair done at some place affordable.


Wow. I wish I had enough money that I could afford to waste $75/week at the gym and to spend $100 on an outfit.
I buy my clothes second-hand; I walk for exercise and I drink plenty of water, eat healthily and wear sunscreen. Those things, plus adequate sleep, will do wonders for your looks.


_________________
Music Theory 101: Cadences.
Authentic cadence: V-I
Plagal cadence: IV-I
Deceptive cadence: V- ANYTHING BUT I ! !! !
Beethoven cadence: V-I-V-I-V-V-V-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I
-I-I-I-I-I-I-I-I! I! I! I I I


Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

02 May 2011, 11:01 pm

Gender roles being socially-constructed isn't somehow negated by male/female brain differences.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


hyperlexian
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2010
Age: 52
Gender: Female
Posts: 22,023
Location: with bucephalus

02 May 2011, 11:07 pm

Bethie wrote:
Gender roles being socially-constructed isn't somehow negated by male/female brain differences.

thank you for your to-the-point insightfulness. i couldn't wrap my head around that point.


_________________
on a break, so if you need assistance please contact another moderator from this list:
viewtopic.php?t=391105


Dionysus
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 60
Location: Low Kharak Orbit

03 May 2011, 12:16 am

I think Another Alien's point was that some gender roles are not entirely socially constructed and that there are (some) differences between men and woman beyond physical ones. I don't think he ever said either gender was incapable of certain roles just that more men on average have strengths suited to a given task or role just as more women on average have strengths suited to another.

Also the variability of IQ that was mentioned before is true, Men have a more distributed bell curve but with the same mean score, if this was a result of IQ tests being biased in one direction or the other (which is a huge arguement in itself) then presumably the means for both genders would not be the same.



Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

03 May 2011, 12:35 am

Dionysus wrote:
Men have a more distributed bell curve but with the same mean score, if this was a result of IQ tests being biased in one direction or the other (which is a huge arguement in itself) then presumably the means for both genders would not be the same.


The topic is sex differences, ergo, the assertion was of bias toward one SEX on said tests.


_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.


Dionysus
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 4 Jan 2009
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 60
Location: Low Kharak Orbit

03 May 2011, 1:35 am

So men are overall less intelligent but score the same average because IQ tests are biased?