<p>After reading this conversation, I have come to the realization that men have no skill in debating or even expressing simple thoughts. They should go back to tending to their farms and hunting, and leave the intellectual tasks to the women.</p>
<p>Yeah, Kant, Hume, Goethe, Aristotle, Wittgenstein, Russell, Whitehead, Einstein and all... they were pretty good farmers and hunters [rolleyes].</p>
<p>
[quote]
You can breed for desirable traits in well under 10,000 years.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sure, if you are a finch. However, for humans, there is no evidence of brain evolution within the last 10,000 years, thus negating your "homemaking" hypothesis. Modern day humans, known as homo sapiens sapiens, broke from their predecessors--homo habilus, homo erectus, etc.--around
200,000 years ago in carrying the modern-day physical characteristics of humans.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.massey.ac.nz/%7Ealock/hbook/brain.htm:%5B/url%5D">http://www.massey.ac.nz/~alock/hbook/brain.htm:</a>
[quote]
Recent biochemical data suggest that modern humans, Homo sapiens sapiens, arose in Africa c.200 000 years ago. This fits in well with the available fossil evidence from Africa and the Near East, where human skeletal material with completely modern features is known from an earlier date than elsewhere.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let's try this again. You're trying to make a point about physical evolution, being caused by random genetic mutations which then get spread because it's advantageous and blah blah blah. Which applies to the entire species, not just one gender. The last big one affecting human cranial structure was about 10,000 years ago.</p>
<p>My point has nothing to do with massive changes in the physical brain structure of the human species. Do you honestly think that left-brain thinkers have a massively different brain composition than right-brain thinkers? The point is that there could be some kind of sex-linked trait that affect how a person uses their brain and sees the world, and that throughout the history of society we would be promoting different modes of thought for the different genders.</p>
<p>farm hunt farm hunt...gather</p>
<p>that's all you need to know so get to it!</p>
<p>
[quote]
The last big one affecting human cranial structure was about 10,000 years ago.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No. Try reading again. It was 200,000 years ago. The first stages of civilization and the division of labor emerged 10,000 years ago. </p>
<p>
[quote]
The point is that there could be some kind of sex-linked trait that affect how a person uses their brain and sees the world, and that throughout the history of society we would be promoting different modes of thought for the different genders.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sex-linked, perhaps, in that there is a correlation. But a correlation is certainly not sufficient for establishing a causal relation. For instance, you could point to the fact that women utilize the parts of their brain associated with abstract reasoning less often then men with an MRI scanner. But you still haven't tackled the reason for why this is. Could they have not been trained to use these parts of the brain less often? It seems possible. When a baby is born, for the most part, they are trained how to use their brain instead of being innately predisposed to perform certain mental functions. Language is the most salient example. If you never exposed a child to language, it would develop no language skills and the language devices of the brain -- Broca's area, Wernicke's area, etc. -- would be underwired.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Let's try this again.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Let's not. Perhaps your reasoning skills were not nurtured enough, perhaps you just lack the innate capacity. Whatever the reason, you are clearly not apt to debate this any further.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You don't see advertizing for guys to become "education" majors. I don't know of any scholarships specifically for guys in female dominated majors.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Going back to the original topic... This raises a good point. Gender equality is not just about opening opportunities for women; it is about abandoning traditional gender roles, period. Men should not feel shameful for taking up education, nursing, dance, or any traditional "girly majors," just as women should not feel discouraged by the types of silly arguments presented on this board while pursuing engineering, physics, and philosophy. If a boy wants to be a nurse, dance, and wear lingerie and high heels -- then good for him. And if a girl wants to be a brain surgeon (as my female cousin is currently at Berkeley for), circuit, then good for her.</p>
<p>How did me misreading that line change any of what I said?</p>
<p>Just because your explanation is possible doesn't mean it's right or the only possible cause. So far you've yet to make a point beyond what I already agree with.</p>
<p>Also, my argumentative skills probably aren't as good because I spend most of my time using logic, not rhetoric. I value the actual point being made over the rhetoric used to prove it. Arguing a crap point real well doesn't make it less of a crap point. If I wanted to spend my time arguing about stuff that's unknowable, I'd be doing philosophy instead of mathematics (barring any sudden urge to go into set theory).</p>
<p>
[quote]
How did me misreading that line change any of what I said?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You reasoned that homemaking duties for women, which only emerged around 10,000 years ago, could have triggered some biological divide between men and women in terms of abstract reasoning. However, the fact that the cranium has undergone no significant evolution in over 200,000 years—190,00 years before the division of labor—really puts your hypothesis in an implausible light. Ask any anthropologist if the brain has undergone any significant evolution in the past 10,000 years, and you should find a no after no. Now, I'm not arguing that there is nothing in our entire evolutionary history that could be responsible for a biological divide between the sexes, even a mental divide, but the point was that, even if there were, being a wife and homemaker probably isn't one of them. </p>
<p>
[quote]
Just because your explanation is possible doesn't mean it's right or the only possible cause.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Read my posts again. Did I ever posit anything of the sort? No, I did not.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I spend most of my time using logic, not rhetoric.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Please do not apply the word “logic” to your statements ever again. I, and several others on this board, have already pointed out the logical fallacies in the nature argument.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Arguing a crap point real well doesn't make it less of a crap point.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here's a tip: instead of simply calling my points “crap,” you might want to give us a convincing reason why they are crap. </p>
<p>
[quote]
If I wanted to spend my time arguing about stuff that's unknowable, I'd be doing philosophy instead of mathematics.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Perhaps you should do some philosophy. You might learn how to look at the world through an unbiased lens.</p>
<p>Again, not arguing for biological divide. I'm arguing for the possibility of sex-linked traits. You're acting like the relative small difference in gender seen in math/science would have to be caused by some type of fundamental biological difference on the scale of the difference betweens humans and chimps.</p>
<p>"Read my posts again. Did I ever posit anything of the sort? No, I did not."</p>
<p>"Evidence such as this stands in stark constrast to the petty American notion that women are doomed to be sweet little eye candy. You start to see that, well, maybe it was just the way these American girls have been raised after all."</p>
<p>"Please do not apply the word “logic” to your statements ever again."
I was refering to the fact that I do math/science, not my statements.</p>
<p>"Here's a tip: instead of simply calling my points “crap,” you might want to give us a convincing reason why they are crap."
I was making a general statement about rhetoric. If you think your points are crap, then so be it.</p>
<p>"Perhaps you should do some philosophy. You might learn how to look at the world through an unbiased lens."
I have, just not as my main course of study. My point about the worthlessness with rhetoric is that you can look at the world through almost any lens and make a convincing argument about it. That doesn't really establish much about either point. Think of it as a murder trial. A good lawyer is able to establish reasonable doubt in the jury's mind, even if their client is guilty.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Again, not arguing for biological divide. I'm arguing for the possibility of sex-linked traits.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're going to have to explain what you mean by "sex-linked traits" then. Linked as in there is a mere correlation? As in, higher analytic reasoning performance is correlated with males? Or, as in superior analytic reasoning skills are a biological trait most often unique to males? Much in the same way that breasts are biologically linked to women. You seem to be presenting the latter, and that is exactly the hypothesis that I have been evaluating.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're acting like the relative small difference in gender seen in math/science would have to be caused by some type of fundamental biological difference on the scale of the difference betweens humans and chimps.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not at all. But there is not even evidence for an evolution in mental capacities over the past 10,000 years that could account for the disparities we see.</p>
<p>Study evolution and you will learn that 10,000 years really is nothing. Remember that evolution works by natural selection; those with an advantage survive, passing on their genes to later generations as other types die-out. I'm sorry, but having superior "homemaking" and "wifing" genes does seem to be a plausible reason for being naturally selected -- especially when over a period of only 10,000 years. Simply because this was a social demand for women starting around this time does not imply that it was in any way a determination of their survival. You might try to argue that sexual selection could have played the small factor, that women were selected for their showing greater wifing and homemaking potential. But not only would you be extremely hard-pressed to provide any empirical evidence to support this, one could just as easily figure the contrary: that marriages were political, males would take whomever they would get due to small populations, they went for the hips and boobs instead of the character of women, the possiblities are endless. </p>
<p>I just want you to realize that men outperforming women in certain fields of analytic reasoning alone does not offer credible evidence into biological causes. Consider this argument: It is a fact that there are relatively very few Asians doing analytic philosophy in America, and many of those in it do not last, therefore it is plausible that they are biologically inept for doing philosophy. Now of course, and I do hope you agree, this argument is simply ludicrous; despite the Asian demographic showing remarkable logical reasoning skills, they are pulled-away from the field by cultural pressures. The argument concerning women and math/science takes the same faulty form, my dear.</p>
<p>
[quote]
My point about the worthlessness
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Haha, and yet you yourself have attempted to utilize the art of rhetoric this entire time.</p>
<p>
[quote]
you can look at the world through almost any lens and make a convincing argument about it
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That is not called worthlessness. That is called an invaluable resource for truth. Why, if you did not make a case for every possible conclusion, one might be led to believe faulty arguments based on mere intuition such as the ones you've endorsed here, which also pose a dangerous threat to attaining a rational, ethical, and just way of being. In any case, there are some necessary truths that no rhetoric can attempt to refute.</p>
<p>Frustrating? Yes, perhaps it is. But hey, what can I say, dilsky? The truth often is frustrating.</p>
<p>"Frustrating? Yes, perhaps it is. But hey, what can I say, dilsky? The truth often is frustrating."</p>
<p>And so is stupidity, which is what this argument has turned into.</p>
<p>/leaves thread, knowing you'll call me the stupid one.</p>
<p>After reading this argument about innate differences and the like, as the only girl physics major in her class I am only going to say this once.</p>
<p>If there is a difference between men and women when it comes to the sicences, there are still enough obstacles facing women that can easily account for the gender ratio. Unless you're saying that the different outlook and sexual harassment that's still prevelant shouldn't be an effect...</p>
<p>why would i pick a chick major when women get paid less than men...maybe women should pick more lucrative careers</p>
<p>dilksy, I've agreed with you up until your last post. Don't use those kinds of debate tactics. There is a graceful way to debate, and a graceful way to end it. Don't be flinty and try to get the last word.</p>
<p>nightfire.eagle? Hilarious. That's guy logic. Simple, sexist, crude, but true.</p>
<p>
[quote]
If there is a difference between men and women when it comes to the sicences, there are still enough obstacles facing women that can easily account for the gender ratio. Unless you're saying that the different outlook and sexual harassment that's still prevelant shouldn't be an effect...
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. I'm not sure how much innate differences account for the gender ratio. I did a lot of research on this last semester for a paper, and I still haven't come to a conclusion, as the evidence doesn't point clearly one way or the other. However, even if men overall are more prone to go into the math and science fields, there are still some exceptional women, and these are discriminated against, and this discrimination increases the farther up the ladder they get. These obstacles need to be taken care of.</p>
<p>That said, I'm for full gender equality. Men shouldn't be discouraged from going into more "feminine majors." Education especially. IMO, we need more male teachers, and I'd promote giving scholarships to men who were interested in education.</p>
<p>
[quote]
What I find interesting is that you don't really find a lot of schools that have significantly more women than men, but you do find a whole lot of schools with significantly more men than women (I go to one)
[/quote]
Actually, statistically speaking, a majority of schools have more females than males. In quite a few of these, it's 60% female. (I could find the source if you really wanted it). I go to a school that is 38:62 males to females. Though, some of my classes (like computer science or Calc 3), are overwhelmingly male-dominated. Interestingly enough, my physics class is more balanced, but when you take into consideration the overall ratio of males to females, it's still definitely more a male-dominated field.</p>
<p>i'll tell you the same thing, i told that Romanian guy that asked if American women were hot. </p>
<p>Chicks are baby chickens.
Women are not objects.</p>
<p>"The unchallenged assumption is that, if girls are suffering in school, then boys are not. Yet research, statistics, and our own experiance as school psychologists and with boys and men in private therapy contradict this."--Raising Cain, Dan Kindlon and Michael Thompson.
There are difficulties on both sides. At my school, there are obstacles for boys (for example, girls are more praised and appreciated because they tend, by nature or by nurture, to behave in a way that is more accepted in a public middle school), and there are obstacles for girls (for example, in the advanced maths class of kids from all over the district that I'm in, two-thirds are boys). The problem is neither boys nor girls, but the school system itself.</p>
<p>afffirmative action at its finest. </p>
<p>and yes, I completely agree with you. Help everyone/encourage everyone to outstep the "boundaries" or help no one whatsoever.</p>