Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 07:37 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
If the physical differences between men and women are so great as to be visible at 100 yards, then why would it be implausible that there are differences that are not visible, e.g. psychological?


Devil's Advocate:

I dare say that you could recognize the difference between a black man and a white man at at least 100 yards, but does that somehow reinforce the notion that there are invisible difference between the races?

But all you're noticing in that case is one difference - skin pigmentation - unlike what you're seeing in the case of gender. I am saying that if there are so many big, noticeable differences between the genders, one cannot reasonably claim that it is implausible that there are also differences below the surface.


There are "big, noticible" differences between black men and white men at 100 yards, that are probably more striking than those between white men and white women at the same distance.

The logical assumption of differences between man and woman flow from genetic and hormonal differences that are not easily discerned visually, but are, nevertheless, undeniable.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 07:42 pm
Re: The Feminist Paradox
FreeDuck wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
It seems to me that in order for there to be a perspective that is identifiable as feminine, the feminine life experience must be so common among all of its members that it generates a shared and consistent way of viewing the world. I have no doubt that there are elements of living one's life as a female that are shared by all females, and to that extent that may very be a legitimate Feminine Perspective, the way there is a legitimate Double Amputee Perspective. However, such perspectives provide insight on only a limited number of topics for which the shared sense of "otherness" can result in a different view.

While a Double Amputee perspective on such subjects as public transportation, conformity within society and pain might very likely provide insight, the Double Amputee perspective on classical music, agricultural policy, or dealing with North Korea is unlikely to provide any valuable insight at all. To assume that Double Amputees share a common view on all possible subjects because of their shared condition would be grossly insulting to them.

So too the so-called Feminine Perspective.

The introduction of a distinction between brain wiring and shared experience goes only a very little way to resolve the paradox that is generated by Feminists who demand that women be given a voice on all topics simply because they are women.


I agree. I confess that I'm not terribly informed about what feminists are demanding, but assuming you are correct then I agree.

I could get into the whole argument about what Summers said and whether it's true, but I don't think that's what you really started this thread for, so I won't. I will say that when he said what he said, it would have been very easy to refute it with reasonable argument. To show that the differences between male and female in the sciences was a matter of career choice and biological paths in life more than a matter of women's brains being wired in such a way that they are unable to reach the same levels as men. It's possible that there were other women in the room who did this that we've not heard about, but it is very disappointing that at least one woman reacted in the absolutely most ridiculously stereotypically feminine way possible. I think that's what the author was getting at too.


Indeed.

Unfortunately, the vocal feminist response to the Summers presentation is the, de facto, offical feminist response. If there is a uniquely feminist rjection of his assertion which is not fueled by passion, as opposed to reason, I would appreciate being pointed in the right direction to find it.
0 Replies
 
Ceili
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 09:06 pm
In canadian universities, there are now more women students in comparison to men - especially in the sciences and engineering. Fewer men are enrolling each year and at this rate men will be essentially gone by 2067. Canadian educators are so worried by the decline they have begun to study and devise new programs to entice them back.

So...a harvard professors perspective may well be wrong.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 09:11 pm
No the Harvard professor (who happened to also be President of Harvard) was noting the trend at Harvard and other prestigious universities, all tilted heavily in favor of men.

Engineering wasn't mentioned though it does include some heavy math. Are women dominant in the advanced math and hard sciences in Canada, Ceili?
0 Replies
 
Chrissee
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 09:48 pm
panzade wrote:
Tsk tsk.
After reading some great posts from you Chrissee I was disappointed at your groin shot. I could easily turn your attention to women's math prowess in calculating bra sizes and 1/4 pounds but, what's the point.?
We know that females have an ability for math in grade school and they outperform boys in High School. The question is : why don't they keep up in college?


It was a joke!
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 12 Mar, 2005 10:13 pm
Oh Geez Chrissee. You left off the smiley. You have to put a smiley on or....trust me on this.....some here really don't get the joke. Smile

(I think Panzade was just teasing you though.)
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 12:39 pm
no. I hate to admit it but I thought she was serious. Mea Culpa...
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 01:06 pm
Well then, you took your lick like a man, Panzade. You so seldom make that kind of error, I have to figure you were distracted or it was during an alien abduction or something though. Smile
0 Replies
 
panzade
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 03:55 pm
Much too kind Foxy
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Sun 13 Mar, 2005 03:58 pm
Not exactly "invisible." It shows up in strange ways. The sheet wearing KKK is a good example. Wink
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 07:49 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
If the physical differences between men and women are so great as to be visible at 100 yards, then why would it be implausible that there are differences that are not visible, e.g. psychological?


Devil's Advocate:

I dare say that you could recognize the difference between a black man and a white man at at least 100 yards, but does that somehow reinforce the notion that there are invisible difference between the races?

But all you're noticing in that case is one difference - skin pigmentation - unlike what you're seeing in the case of gender. I am saying that if there are so many big, noticeable differences between the genders, one cannot reasonably claim that it is implausible that there are also differences below the surface.


There are "big, noticible" differences between black men and white men at 100 yards, that are probably more striking than those between white men and white women at the same distance.

I shouldn't think so. The only difference visible at a distance between blacks and whites that I can think of is skin pigment. Minor facial differences are certainly not visible at a distance. On the other hand, there are numerous large, visible differences between men and women, including even the way they move. Any argument that it is not even plausible that there could be inherent psychological differences between the genders is silly.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 08:57 am
panzade wrote:
We know that females have an ability for math in grade school and they outperform boys in High School. The question is : why don't they keep up in college?


I don't have the stats on hand but I believe that women do keep up in college but just don't pursue higher degrees in math and sciences as frequently as men do. It's my opinion that looking at the time line would be an eye-opener. Most (but not all) graduate from college in their early twenties. If a woman wants any semblance of a career before she has children (if she wants them), she needs to start it then. Spending 4 more years in college is only a career move if she wants to stay in academia. I'd be interested to study women who have pursued careers in higher math and see whether 1) they had children at all or 2) their careers took an unconventional path. Obviously I have my own opinion about whether women are naturally good at math that is directly opposite to Foxfyre's. The danger I can see is that if we believe that women in general are unable to perform at the levels that men are in math and science then we drastically reduce the pool of talent from which to draw excellent minds that have much to contribute.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 09:02 am
Brandon wrote
Quote:
I shouldn't think so. The only difference visible at a distance between blacks and whites that I can think of is skin pigment. Minor facial differences are certainly not visible at a distance. On the other hand, there are numerous large, visible differences between men and women, including even the way they move. Any argument that it is not even plausible that there could be inherent psychological differences between the genders is silly.


Actually, unless they are naked, I think visible differences between the sexes are more intentional than actual via dress, hairstyles, makeup, Both men and women have successfully managed to pass for the opposite sex.

Riding the cusp of the cultural revolution of the 60's, by the 70's there was a wave of militant feminism. It was during this era that N.O.W. was chartered and the image of the infamous 'femi-nazi' (definition: women who hate men and/or who believe men should be subjugated in favor of women to correct past inequities, etc.) was born. Everything was uni-sex and sexual harrassment was redefined to mean just about anything women didn't like. Gender titles were dropped: (Mr., Mrs., Miss, Ms, ect.) Gender designations were dropped from employment applications.

Many men wore their hair long and many women discarded all makeup and wore masculine clothes. Usually you could be fairly confident in distinguishing between male and female by a subtle difference in the way they walked but not always. There were occasions when I honestly could not tell whether a person was male or female.

And you didn't dare ask.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 09:50 am
The idea that all behavioral differences between the sexes are environmental strikes me as very unlikely.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 09:54 am
Brandon9000 wrote:
The idea that all behavioral differences between the sexes are environmental strikes me as very unlikely.


Yeah? Me too. But so does the idea that women aren't "wired" in such a way as to be able to comprehend complex mathematical concepts.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 10:08 am
I agree too, though I tend to believe men and women are indeed wired differently. And also the point is, I think, that there the probability of genetic differences affecting both choice and ability between the sexes is provable in some instances, is probable in others, is suspect in still others.

Finn was playing 'devil's advocate' before with the suggestion, but I think there a probability of similar genetic differences between different races, ethnic groups, and, in some cases, cultures.

I used the example before of a disparity between blacks and whites in many sports such as football, basketball, numerous track and field events, etc. It is obvious to anybody that a higher percentage of black people are going to have superior ability in those activities than will other races.

Conversely, I have come to believe that the Asian mind has a superior ability for certain kinds of analytical reasoning in mathematics and this cannot be completely attributed to cultural conditioning. But you will find few Asians in the NFL, the NBA, etc. and that of course is because genetics dictate less height and lower weight in Asian people.

And I think it is just fine to be intellectually honest about differences between races, cultures, ethnic groups, and genders, and it is appropriate to also study these when empirical evidence is inconclusive.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 01:10 pm
Foxfyre wrote:
I used the example before of a disparity between blacks and whites in many sports such as football, basketball, numerous track and field events, etc. It is obvious to anybody that a higher percentage of black people are going to have superior ability in those activities than will other races.

I hate to post off topic, but this is interesting. Does this rule apply to black people from Africa, as well as black people from America? I suspect that if white people had been brought as slaves to Africa centuries ago, they would excell in sports too.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 01:49 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
I used the example before of a disparity between blacks and whites in many sports such as football, basketball, numerous track and field events, etc. It is obvious to anybody that a higher percentage of black people are going to have superior ability in those activities than will other races.

I hate to post off topic, but this is interesting. Does this rule apply to black people from Africa, as well as black people from America? I suspect that if white people had been brought as slaves to Africa centuries ago, they would excell in sports too.


That's an interesting take. There is the whole matter of breeding slaves for strength in this country.

Isn't there a difference between the assumed athletic ability of blacks in Africa and those in the US? What accounts for that if the differences are strictly racial? Why don't African teams win all the international competitions in soccer, basketball, etc...?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 02:04 pm
Was it in the 70's or 80's that Jimmy the Greek commented on this very thing. During a discussion about the high number of exemplary black athletes, he speculated that this was at least partially due to selective breeding during the time of slavery and this has resulted in larger, stronger, faster descendents of those slaves.

This theory of course was considered so politically incorrect by the PC police that Jimmy was run off television, out of sports, and was never heard from again. The thing is, Jimmy may very well have been right; however the Ugandan runners are legendary in the U.S. Olympics and I'm sure there are other top notch athletes from African countries as well.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Mar, 2005 02:07 pm
Well, there are top notch athletes from all countries. But if it were truly a genetic predisposition toward athletic ability one might expect blacks to be over-represented in the circle of olympic champions.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 08/02/2021 at 10:41:54