The Alchemist on 27/6/2012 at 11:47
You all make me sick. You are all fucking retarded. Re: sexism: most of you probably wont procreate so whatever the problem is maybe it'll die out with you.
faetal on 27/6/2012 at 11:52
I'm continually amused when someone takes issue with everyone else and then assumes that the problem is external.
Scots Taffer on 27/6/2012 at 12:16
I genuinely believe that whilst many other discriminatory factors may become socially unacceptable over time (see racism, homophobia etc), a lot of what is considered sexism today will never become one of those things that because too many women continue to play by sexist standards. It's one of these chicken and egg things: do women seek to be pleasing to men because of primal normative drives or is it due to the fact that society instills this need in them from an early age? I don't know the answer, and even if we do form an enlightened opinion about it all, just how does it stack up against the baser instinct stuff about seeking the best mate and all that sort of stuff? Men get into "competition" just like the women, it's distinctly differing forms of competition though and with very different consequences...
Vivian on 27/6/2012 at 12:21
Yeah, but all that shit should be kept to the playground (metaphorical playground. I'm not a pedo), the way straight women flirt with straight men etc etc should have nothing to do with work. Basically, ideally, things like work, rights, etc, stuff that should just apply to humans full stop, should be asexual. I guess what I'm saying is you should be able to call someone on their bullshit if you catch them using sexual thinking or behaviour to make or influence such decisions. Maybe everyone should go to work in a head-to-toe box?
Scots Taffer on 27/6/2012 at 12:23
I didn't realise that's where the discussion was confined to - the workplace - in which case I totally agree.
Vivian on 27/6/2012 at 12:26
Oh shit, yeah. Maybe it isn't. In a more general sense, yeah. You're probably right.
faetal on 27/6/2012 at 13:05
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
I genuinely believe that whilst many other discriminatory factors may become socially unacceptable over time (see racism, homophobia etc), a lot of what is considered sexism today will never become one of those things that because too many women continue to play by sexist standards. It's one of these chicken and egg things: do women seek to be pleasing to men because of primal normative drives or is it due to the fact that society instills this need in them from an early age? I don't know the answer, and even if we do form an enlightened opinion about it all, just how does it stack up against the baser instinct stuff about seeking the best mate and all that sort of stuff? Men get into "competition" just like the women, it's distinctly differing forms of competition though and with very different consequences...
It is a cultural equilibrium, but it can be disrupted by changes in attitudes, brought about by punctuation events. I've studied social theory in quite a lot of depth as it pertains to culture as it is a really interesting subject. It's not as simple as A causes B, it is all about variation around a central point, thought of by consensus as "the norm". While the norm moves about a bit over time, almost in a way similar to Brownian motion, things considered to be extreme are judged as being in contrast to that norm. What happens with cultural shift is either a gradual set of changes, usually caused by some kind of gradient, e.g. a legal framework which allows legal types to make an income from seeking out and trying sexual discrimination / harassment cases cases or by some kind of punctuation event, around which fast changes can form.
In this case, we can view the kickstarter video from the other thread (no matter how good or bad it is, or how nice a person the woman in question is) as a minor punctuation event. Something happens which garners enough attention and captures people's interests enough to get discussions going. The interesting part comes from how the diffusion of language surrounding these events influences group psychology. Most people assume that they have complete control over what they like / dislike / prefer / support etc... but really the truth is a lot more complex and when enough people in cultural space are exchanging opinions and the cultural norm is seen to have shifted, then the naturally perceived setting for "the norm" shifts also. This is a progression, against which suddenly one part of society, consisting of the group observing this punctuation event, seems more progressive than the rest of society. Now, this one group may be a flash in the pan and die out and "the norm" stays where it was, but other times, this progressive group's perspective becomes a punctuation event in itself for stimulating a larger scale re-evaluation of cultural norms.
This is why racism was considered more or less acceptable as recently as within the last century in the US & Europe. In some places, racism is still not quite as taboo as it ought to be. Same story with sexism, it used to be perfectly acceptable for women not to have the vote, but over time, we have been getting closer and closer to equality of opportunity between the sexes. Does this mean some sexism still exists? Of course. Is some of that reinforced by women adhering to stereotypes? Of course. Will that ever completely disappear? Who knows - I doubt it though. Does this mean that things can get no better than they are through re-evaluation of the cultural status quo? Of course not.
demagogue on 27/6/2012 at 13:15
That kind of perspective makes sense to me. I'm anti-essentialist generally -- there's a lot of plasticity in people's beliefs -- but I like to look at the tugs & pushes of cognitive biases & evolutionary psychology & behavioral economics & social psychology, etc, too... I have to run off to work though so can't elaborate now though.
I have been interested in the debate over evolutionary psychology, to what extent behavioral traits are wired by genetics & natural selection, especially gendered traits -- for homework two sides to read are Buller's Adapting Minds (critical of EP) vs Pinker's The Blank Slate (pro-EP).
june gloom on 27/6/2012 at 13:20
Quote Posted by Papy
Apart from the fact that my syntax was horrible, why am I a "bad dog"?
Because every single part of your post is offensive and incorrect.
faetal on 27/6/2012 at 13:27
Nature vs. nurture rages on in the field of psychology. What is looking most likely is that inherited traits can define very few intrinsic behaviours and shape susceptibility to others. Someone more prone to becoming e.g. a narcissist, might not if their environmental conditions don't cross a certain threshold etc... It's a deeply complex topic, which is very interesting, but also impossible to be too conclusive about, hence the idea above about women weeding out sexism by using their vagina as a tool for selection pressure isn't a particularly smart one.
