Feminism reborn - It's not changed, it's just different

[Kolantero]

Uh huh. If there's no evidence in favour of your belief, it's not because your belief is wrong, it's because the evidence is being suppressed by people with an 'agenda'. Sounds hauntingly familiar... like, it's the cry of basically every conservative position that has no scientific support.

Ah, great. This again. Is it some sort of get-out-of-jail card for "progressives" to claim that the other person is seeing conspiracies?

Where have I claimed "suppression"? Where have I claimed that there are "evidence", I even underlined "might" and "possibly"

Yes the current trends of gender academic studies go against any notion of "difference" between genders, therefor they would be unlikely to conduct studies to check if there are differences. That's not "suppression of the opposite opinion", they (vast majority of gender researchers) just disagree with it, they don't suppress it. That's their agenda. Do you know how I know? Because they have no problem saying themselves that this is their (current) agenda (yes, they use that word themselves). If you don't believe me, go find one and ask him. Even better, maybe ask on the forum, someone is bound to have done some Gender studies. Ask them: "What is the current position of the vast majority of gender researchers concerning the idea of inherent differences between genders?" Then tell them how they are "conspiracy theorists" since that's what you are clearly implying here.

Yes. That position is taking as a default assumption that there is no gender difference. That's the context. You're arguing that this position is invalid, and that it's 'more ridiculous' to adopt that position than to adopt the position that there is a gender difference (which is the position you're commending in the post I was answering). If you are claiming that this is not an argument for making gender differences the default assumption, it looks like you're splitting hairs, quite honestly. You might want to argue that you're actually saying that we shouldn't take either as the 'default assumption', but you've nailed your colours to the mast by ranking one as less credible than the other, so that won't fly.

I say option A is ridiculous and that option B is more ridiculous. And from that you exclude the possibility that I would be in favor of option C ("None of the above") and infer that I am in favor of option A which I said that it was ridiculous.

[sologdin]

what would be the point of option C, if not to ratify option A?

[Kolantero]

This is incorrect. There is a wealth of evidence for all kinds of differences between sexes, both in terms of averages and deviations, in pretty much every measurable trait ever studied. This very much includes cognitive skills.

Yeah, I was only speaking about Gender studies. Anyway could you point me towards such fields/studies?

Gender studies is academically a completely isolated and heavily politicised niche area entrenched in postmodernist and constructivist epistemologies that nobody takes seriously, and that isn’t even interested in interacting with the rest of the scientific world.

Don’t judge the scientific evidence by the inane and transparent nonsense peddled by the most embarrassing parts of the social sciences. Don’t make the mistake of using your energy on pseudoscience; debating feminism (who have a valid political agenda) with the assumption that they want their claims evaluated as scientific is misguided. Postmodernism explicitly rejects that viewpoint; academic feminism is a (politically valid and efficient) exercise in coalition building, not truth finding.

Well they certainly try to pass their views as scientific, at least implicitly. But yeah these are my thoughts pretty much, I just couldn't put them clearly. I knew there was some connection with post-modernist BS.

So stop wasting your time, and that of the academic feminists.If you want to read about sex differences, there’s a wealth of stunning, interesting, and academically solid stuff out there. It just isn’t produced by, nor relevant to, the social science department. Their agenda is explicitly something else; not because it’s broken, but by design.

I'm probably wasting my time but I definitely don't waste their time in any way, I just read some of that stuff when I was checking feminism. Anyway, aside from gender research, I haven't seen much of that kind of practices from my very small experience in social sciences.

[mormont]

Ah, great. This again. Is it some sort of get-out-of-jail card for "progressives" to claim that the other person is seeing conspiracies?

Where have I claimed a "conspiracy"? Where have I claimed "suppression"? Where have I claimed that there are "evidence", I even underlined "might" and "possibly"

Why are you putting the word "conspiracy" in quotes? Neither I nor you had used it until that point, so who are you quoting?

Nobody claimed a 'conspiracy'. However, you did suggest that evidence would be suppressed:

Not that we are likely to ever find out or get any evidence if that's true since it goes against the trends in current academic studies, at least in gender research since it doesn't fit with current feminist agenda.

That is a plain and simple interpretation of what you said.

Yes the current trends of gender academic studies go against any notion of "difference" between genders, therefor they would be unlikely to conduct studies to check if there are differences. That's not "suppression of the opposite opinion", they (vast majority of gender researchers) just disagree with it, they don't suppress it.

Honestly? You think that research into gender differences simply isn't being carried out? At all? By anyone, anywhere? This not only beggars credibility, but shows no understanding of how academia even works. It's a ludicrous assertion. The suppression interpretation was probably doing you more favours.

I say option A is ridiculous and that option B is more ridiculous. And from that you exclude the possibility that I would be in favor of option C ("None of the above") and infer that I am in favor of option A which I said that it was ridiculous.

It is simply absurd to claim that you have no default assumption. For one thing, there is no 'none of the above' here: either there is a gender difference, or there is not. If women are underrepresented amongst writers, either that is down to gender difference, or it is not. Both explanations can't be dismissed as 'ridiculous' because at least one of them must be true. If you seriously think they're both 'ridiculous', you've got a problem with logic.

[Kolantero]

Bolded. That was not what you said though.

Yes, that's not what I said on my original post, that was a comment on what you said.

You stated the opposite:

No they are not opposites. Assuming X because you lack any evidence for the contrary and considering X as an undisputed fact without evidence are not the same.

However, logically and rationally, we can assume as a default state that tasks can be handled equally since this is true for a vast majority of tasks. Only very few and distinct tasks favour one gender over another: those where men's increased muscle mass come into play and for women you have clear tasks like breastfeeding and giving birth which men can't do.

However, in our modern (or as some claim, post-modern) society very few tasks need a huge amount of muscle mass to complete. A huge majority of jobs can be carried out by either gender, hence it makes more sense that the default (unless otherwise obvious) should be that the genders can handle the tasks equally well. It's no an insurmountable task to figure out which tasks demand a much bigger muscle mass, or that giving birth means a woman has to do it.

Only very few tasks favor one gender as far as we can tell. Anyway other than that I agree.

There is nothing inherent in the task of writing a novel that indicates men should be better at it than women. Which was what you agreed to in the first place, btw. Although as you state, there may be cultural biases when it comes to authoring books. I am unsure if children's books have biases. I tend to either by recommendations or topics. And sometimes just by what the kid wants herself so we can get the hell outta the store without having a massive argument (I tend to be lenient about "book spoiling" as opposed to sweets, toys or other things.) I do know JK Rowling did not use her entire name on purpose as to not reveal herself to be female when she wrote the Harry Potter books. However, that is some time ago, and Rowling's success could possibly have helped in crushing some cultural prejudices about female authors.

I don't have a clue what is going on concerning gender bias in books publishing but I would be really surprised if children's book weren't published more easily from women (obviously talking about recent ages). Otherwise it might be an indication against all that "women stereotyped as caregivers" feminists complain about. There were plenty of successful authors before Rowling in different areas so its not like women authors are a new thing. I'm not even aware of any particular gender prejudices against authors in particular, although cultural stereotypes in general would probably creep in there.

[Kolantero]

Honestly? You think that research into gender differences simply isn't being carried out? At all? By anyone, anywhere? This not only beggars credibility, but shows no understanding of how academia even works. It's a ludicrous assertion. The suppression interpretation was probably doing you more favours.

I specifically said "vast majority" and in "a specific field" (Gender studies). Obviously I don't know about every single field out there. Now I am not an expert on how academia works but when an opinion is supported by a very small minority (again in that specific field) then that means much less research, much less funding, much less chance of recognition of a specific work etc.

It is simply absurd to claim that you have no default assumption. For one thing, there is no 'none of the above' here: either there is a gender difference, or there is not. . If women are underrepresented amongst writers, either that is down to gender difference, or it is not. Both explanations can't be dismissed as 'ridiculous' because at least one of them must be true. If you seriously think they're both 'ridiculous', you've got a problem with logic.

My position is that you cannot take for granted either assumption. Taking either of the assumptions for granted without evidence is ridiculous. What part of that is "illogical"?

I already said what my default assumption (in most contexts) would be in post 374

[Seli]

...

No they are not opposites. Assuming X because you lack any evidence for the contrary and considering X as an undisputed fact without evidence are not the same...

Eh, yes they are opposites.

There is no indication there should be a difference. So the logical position is to expect the same result, not to expect a difference.

Especially since we know there are a lot of contributing factors that make 'all things being equal' a near impossibility.

[Guest Raidne]

Don’t make the mistake of using your energy on pseudoscience; debating feminism (who have a valid political agenda) with the assumption that they want their claims evaluated as scientific is misguided. Postmodernism explicitly rejects that viewpoint; academic feminism is a (politically valid and efficient) exercise in coalition building, not truth finding.

I have a nitpick here regarding the conflation of "postmodern" with "academic feminism." I had many "feminism" courses in college and law school. Some were post-modern. Those were certainly as you describe "academic feminism" - right down to the coalition-building (though I wouldn't neglect the "consciousness-raising" aspect either) - and, as you say, those courses served a purpose that was not scientific, but primarily political - not only in the larger societal science, but in the sense of empowering the women in that class to aggressively pursue the rest of their academic goals, etc.

However, the course that I thought of when I read Kolantero's post was my Psychology of Women course. The professor called herself a feminist. However, this course was not post-modern. We studied brain differences between the sexes (localized vs. globalized advantages, etc.) and learned many other things that you have posted about on this board from time to time. We also reviewed psychological methods and study design and the biases that studies on sex differences can be subject to. Again - we did not learn that all studies on sex differences are biased - we learned how to avoid those design flaws, and discussed the larger question of whether "difference" should always be the testable hypothesis. Does anyone ever set out to test a hypothesis of sameness? Would it make any difference in the outcome?

This is what I thought of when I read Kolantero's post. Ironically, the suggestion was in line with throwing off the status quo, using difference as the starting point, and actually testing for sameness. As a scientific matter, this is an interesting question. But then I reread the post and realized that he carried this presumption of difference into the realm of occupational skills and qualifications, apparently without any limitation in application. That is a different matter entirely. In the United States, you can be "sexist" in hiring if you prove that sex, or the difference related to sex, is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). What Kolantero advocates would set up the reverse presumption - you can discriminate all you want, all the time, and the plaintiff would have to show that sex was not a relevant characteristic. So no, you can't assume, for all applications, that difference is the status quo.

That is precisely the kind of thing that the post-modern academic feminists you were speaking of suspect whenever someone pushing "difference" starts going on about political correctness suppressing science, etc., and it's why you have to wade knee-deep through political objections before you can present any scientific findings that conclusively show any kind of difference between the sexes.

[Guest Raidne]

It is simply absurd to claim that you have no default assumption. For one thing, there is no 'none of the above' here: either there is a gender difference, or there is not. If women are underrepresented amongst writers, either that is down to gender difference, or it is not.

I don't think it's really that simple. What if women in a particular culture, or cross-culturallly, as a result of a political position of weakeness, have adopted a strategy of operating with the power of group consensus, requiring a preference for consensus-building, and, as a result of that, have grown to place negative value on adversarial behaviors? What if adversarial behaviors are related to competitive traits and behaviors? What if in suppressing competitive traits and behaviors to the extent that they are associated with consensus-breaking, adversarial behaviors, less women have managed to come out on top in the highly competitive world of publishing?

Is that due to gender difference? Or isn't it? IMO, gender difference was a necessary condition there, but it wasn't operating in a vacuum.

I should ask if, in the UK, there is the same sex/gender distinction also, because I might be misunderstanding you. In the above example, "sex" was only a causal factor to the extent that anyone was ever discriminated against on the basis of it.

[sologdin]

I have a nitpick here regarding the conflation of "postmodern" with "academic feminism." I had many "feminism" courses in college and law school. Some were post-modern. Those were certainly as you describe "academic feminism

yeah, not all academics are judith butler. far from it.

[Lyanna Stark]

Yes, that's not what I said on my original post, that was a comment on what you said.

Clearly you failed to state that clearly, since Raidne and Mormont seemed to interpret it similarly to myself.

I don't have a clue what is going on concerning gender bias in books publishing but I would be really surprised if children's book weren't published more easily from women (obviously talking about recent ages). Otherwise it might be an indication against all that "women stereotyped as caregivers" feminists complain about. There were plenty of successful authors before Rowling in different areas so its not like women authors are a new thing. I'm not even aware of any particular gender prejudices against authors in particular, although cultural stereotypes in general would probably creep in there.

That "feminist complain about"? :lol:

Oh goodness yes, if we could just stop whining, wouldn't the world be a better place?

Rowling herself has stated that the reason she had her initials instead of her real very female sounding name was to appear more "gender neutral" and possibly male. Make of that what you will, I guess. Perhaps she was just wrong-headed, or perhaps her publisher was, and they had absolutely no discernible reason to make that decision, and it was just made out of thin air.

[mormont]

I specifically said "vast majority" and in "a specific field" (Gender studies). Obviously I don't know about every single field out there. Now I am not an expert on how academia works but when an opinion is supported by a very small minority (again in that specific field) then that means much less research, much less funding, much less chance of recognition of a specific work etc.

Actually you didn't specifically say those things, though you did say something like them. I mention this only because you do seem to have a habit of putting things in quotation marks that are not actually direct quotes. It's a bad habit, because it leads to a lack of clarity over what was actually said.

OK, so now this:

Not that we are likely to ever find out or get any evidence if that's true since it goes against the trends in current academic studies, at least in gender research since it doesn't fit with current feminist agenda.

Actually means:

The vast majority of research in the field of gender studies specifically is done from the basis of assuming no gender differences as the default.

Which is a long way from being the same IMO, but you might regard it as such.

I don't think it's really that simple

No, I agree, which is why I say 'at least one' of the hypotheses must be true: it's possible that a certain amount of the variance can be explained by innate gender differences while the rest is explainable as a combination of other factors. Nevertheless, to say that it's 'ridiculous' that the difference is due to innate gender differences and 'even more ridiculous' that it's not would be logically nonsensical: yet this appears to be the position Kolantero wants to adopt.

If what he really meant was, 'we should remain agnostic until we have firm evidence' then he made an awful mess of saying something very simple: partly because he wanted to have his cake and eat it too - he wanted to claim agnosticism while at the same time suggesting that the no-gender-differences explanation was less credible - and partly because he chose to do it while commending a post that suggested the innate-gender-difference position was a likely explanation.

I should ask if, in the UK, there is the same sex/gender distinction also, because I might be misunderstanding you. In the above example, "sex" was only a causal factor to the extent that anyone was ever discriminated against on the basis of it.

It's an interesting area. For a long time the terms were used pretty much interchangeably, but technically sex discrimination was the only type formally recognised. The newest legislation makes it an offence to discriminate on the basis of gender reassignment, and to cut a long story short, basically also makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of gender rather than simply sex. I tend to default to 'gender' rather than 'sex' when talking about discrimination because 90% of the time, that's actually what is the cause of the discriminatory behaviour.

[sologdin]

current feminist agenda.

what in the world is that, anyway? likely that most liberal feminists, which is the rightwing of feminism, accept the basic proposition regarding civil, political, and social egalitarianism. but as those battles have been largely been won de jure, they aren't likely to be the current agenda.

likely also that "gender studies" specifically assumes this kind of egalitarianism in its study of masculinity and LGBTQ, both areas of current interest for academics.

this kind of criticism is like intoning now against the current democratic agenda in reference to the nefarious pursuit for universal suffrage.

[Guest Raidne]

I tend to stick to sex when talking about alleged "innate" differences since, issues of brain sex discussed earlier inthis thread nnotwithstanding, nothing about gender is "innate" in the biological sense. But I'd agree that there is a lot morw gender discrimination than sex discrimination. Over here, the rub is that the former is essentially legal. The Price Waterhouse case is a distant memory and cases premised on a woman punished for acting like a man and vice versa are pretty much losers.

[mormont]

I tend to stick to sex when talking about alleged "innate" differences since, issues of brain sex discussed earlier inthis thread nnotwithstanding, nothing about gender is "innate" in the biological sense.

Makes sense.

But I'd agree that there is a lot morw gender discrimination than sex discrimination. Over here, the rub is that the former is essentially legal. The Price Waterhouse case is a distant memory and cases premised on a woman punished for acting like a man and vice versa are pretty much losers.

I'd say that such a case would be very viable under the current UK legislation. The way it works is that it would be a breach to discriminate on the perception that a protected characteristic was held, even if both parties knew that it wasn't held: ie, if I harass a colleague because I think he displays stereotypically gay behaviour, I am discriminating on the basis of sexuality, even if I know he isn't actually gay. On that basis, it should be pretty easy to say that if I harass a female colleague because she acts 'like a man', I've committed a discriminatory act.

[IheartTesla]

We also reviewed psychological methods and study design and the biases that studies on sex differences can be subject to. Again - we did not learn that all studies on sex differences are biased - we learned how to avoid those design flaws, and discussed the larger question of whether "difference" should always be the testable hypothesis. Does anyone ever set out to test a hypothesis of sameness? Would it make any difference in the outcome?

I dont know if this is what your professor was talking about, but when comparing groups you can start with any null hypothesis you want. This would include a hypothesis of sameness if you want. There should be numerous statistical software where you can plug in data when comparing groups and get the desired statistical likelihood of two groups being 'the same'.

Or if you want to design something to test out a hypothesis, that should be possible too. Now I dont know if all the studies out there do this at all, but the tools are readily available and fairly easy to use.

[Kolantero]

Actually you didn't specifically say those things, though you did say something like them. I mention this only because you do seem to have a habit of putting things in quotation marks that are not actually direct quotes. It's a bad habit, because it leads to a lack of clarity over what was actually said.

Post 384 contains both, specifically:

"That's not "suppression of the opposite opinion", they (vast majority of gender researchers) just disagree with it, they don't suppress it. That's their agenda. Do you know how I know? Because they have no problem saying themselves that this is their (current) agenda (yes, they use that word themselves). If you don't believe me, go find one and ask him. Even better, maybe ask on the forum, someone is bound to have done some Gender studies."

[Kolantero]

Clearly you failed to state that clearly, since Raidne and Mormont seemed to interpret it similarly to myself.

Well, you know what they say, the majority is right.

That "feminist complain about"? :lol:

Oh goodness yes, if we could just stop whining, wouldn't the world be a better place?

You know, if I actually wanted to say "whine about" I would write that instead of "complain about". Maybe you are used to talk in implications (some would even say it's a woman's trait but hey that'be sexist) but if I wanted to imply that feminists are whiners (which they are actually) I would just say so, like I did more than once in this forum.

Rowling herself has stated that the reason she had her initials instead of her real very female sounding name was to appear more "gender neutral" and possibly male. Make of that what you will, I guess. Perhaps she was just wrong-headed, or perhaps her publisher was, and they had absolutely no discernible reason to make that decision, and it was just made out of thin air.

And this is supposed to prove what since I already admitted that i have no idea what is going on with authors and gender and that whatever I said were nothing more than guesses? Furthermore, how does gender-neutral proves anything? It doesn't necessarily means than male>female names, it just means that (maybe) gender-neutral > female names (IF we take for granted that it was done to help the sales.)

Not to mention that it might not even have much to do with sales, since Rowling wrote recently a mystery book under a male pseudoname, even though with here own (famous) name she could have sold much more (it was leaked).