Slashdot Mirror
US Wins Math Olympiad For First Time In 21 Years
An anonymous reader writes: The U.S. won the International Mathematical Olympiad for the first time in 21 years. Gender diversity is brought up in this NPR article because the eight team members on the U.S. team were all male, but they made a point to mention that of the top 12 people participating in the U.S. Math Olympiad, 2 are female, which is better than last year when there were no females in the top 12. "I will say that it's not really a super-great spectator sport, in the sense that if you are watching them, it will look like they are thinking," Po-Shen Loh, a professor at Carnegie Mellon University and head coach for Team USA says. "Although I will assure you that inside their heads, if you could spectate, that would be quite a sport."
The point is not that 2 were women, but that they won. If you treat people like they're special, they'll think they are.
Why has Slashdot been so focused on counting genitalia lately? Every day there's some story about how there are too many penises, or not enough vaginas, involved with some industry or activity. I mean, earlier today we had a shitty submission about the penis and vagina accountants not liking the numbers they're working with, which I thought would mean no more penis and vagina counting submissions for the rest of the day. But nope! I was wrong! Now we have this submission, which although it mentions mathematics briefly, is far more focused on counting penises and vaginas.
But by the content of their character ?
Really I am sure the diversity police would have been in heaven, if the team had quotas and lost. It's for the greater good after all.
a left-handed MLB pitcher is better. there's nothing wrong with being a rightie. same thing with this M/F thing that /. has.
...is mentioned here the first time at ./ since 1997 (birth of ./), here are the winners since:
2014, 2013, 2011, 2010, 2009, 2008, 2006, 2005, 2004, v2, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997: China
2007, 1999: Russia
2015: U.S.A.
2012: South Korea
2003: Bulgaria
1998: Iran
There are 2 types of people in the world - those who understand decimal and those who don't.
Diversity can go only so far. There are no women playing in the NFL and no men in the LPGA.
In this world you're supposed earn your way to the top. Let people be who the hell they want to be.
And I would have said the same thing if the math team were all females.
I think it's fair to look for the reasons why women are not making the team. I think it's terrible to detract from the team's achievement by saying, 'Yeah, but there were no women' as if that somehow negates their victory or casts a bad light on it.
In looking for reasons why more women are not making the team, please don't tell me it's discrimination, either. If there are societal factors that cause women (as a general thing) not to choose to pursue math, look to those factors.
I suppose, though, that until the team is 6 men and 6 women there will be detractors, regardless of how well the team does. Or maybe that's 7 women and 5 men to make up for past injustices. Isn't that how it's said?
Men and women's brains are wired differently and men are generally better at math. That is scientifically proven fact. Get over it.
"So not by the color of their skin."
"Why is Slashdot so focused on counting penises?"
"Leftie vs. Rightie pitching."
"Diversity can go only so far. There are no women playing in the NFL and no men in the LPGA."
*DOUBLE FACEPALM*
The point, as so many have so persistently failed to grasp, is not simply that there are no female competitors on the US team. It's not simply that the top mathematics students overwhelmingly tend to be male. These are all true, but the point is not that this happens because males are intrinsically better at math. The point is that there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that the brains of females are any less capable of developing mathematical proficiency and talent in this age group (or any age group, for that matter). Pointing to the existing disparity as evidence is a fallacy: once, not too long ago, there were no black baseball players.
Instead, the point is that there exists a systematic, cultural, and longstanding bias against encouraging and fostering scientific and mathematical proficiency in female students, and the purpose of bringing this up in the context of the IMO is to again remind Western countries such as the US, that this imbalance exists not because women just "happen" to be worse at math, but because women are DISCOURAGED from doing math and continue to be discouraged. And to be absolutely clear about this:
1. That does not necessarily mean that men are treated preferentially (in the sense of being given an easier time in STEM fields), but rather that women who attempt to persist in STEM paths tend to face a higher likelihood of varying degrees of sexism and sex discrimination from both peers and instructors that would not happen if they were male. Sometimes it is subtle, sometimes it is overt, but always, it is treatment that would not have happened if they were male.
2. This cultural attitude against women expressing interest in mathematics and science is not exclusive to men. In fact, it is very often women oppressing other women through peer pressure--in particular, the desire to conform to standards of behavior and personal interests that are more aligned with traditionally "feminine" pursuits. If you are a female teenager interested in math who had the remarkable fortune of not having had your parents ever ask you "why would you want to be a math major? Wouldn't that be too hard," or teachers who didn't think that "girls just don't seem to have the persistence and capability to do the kind of abstract thinking required for mathematics," you would no doubt find that your fellow female friends would almost invariably NOT want to be mathematicians or scientists. And that is also a form of bias that perpetuates the lack of females in mathematics.
The way a lot of guys react to gender inequality really fails to understand the basic problem. When someone calls out institutionalized sexism, that is not an indictment of individual male behavior. It is an attempt to call to attention a structural problem that is being perpetuated by continued obstinacy on the part of people (both male and female) who don't want to take the time to think about what it might be like to be in someone else's shoes for a change.
Actually it does. MRI studies show that male brains show a superiority in blood flow to the analytical problem solving parts of the brain when engaged in mathematical thinking over female brains.
it's most websites these days... they've been hijacked by a radical feminist SJW agenda and everything - EVERYTHING - must be, one way or another, about women.
i'm all for equality. who in their right mind is NOT? but if people are selected based on merit and women don't make it in, what is the story?
nobody is seeking to exclude women by policy. so if they don't cut it or if enough of them simply aren't interested, whose problem is that?
i know that this unpleasant movement won't last... it can't... it's too hypocritical and vitriolic. but man, the faster this brand of feminism ceases to be in public discourse, the better all of humanity will be.
I think that a lot of the problem in the work place is not institutionalized sexism, but the problem of high profile incidents that make people be worried about hiring female staff. Take the whole incident where the one woman put two guys on blast for making a stupid joke about the word "Dongle" at a tech conference. When you see high profile cases like that come up, naturally people in an already male dominated field are going to be more defensive and not as open to having females with them in the field for fear of being put on blast in public. Combine that with the worry and fear of sexual harassment lawsuits that can be filed pretty much on a whim and can be a death sentence for someone's career, it creates a barrier for women. I work in a place right now where I've been told to be EXTREMELY careful about the wording I use around the female employees. Our workplace will sooner fire me than hear my side of the story so that they don't get a law suit. And its happened here before. Twice. I thank god I work after hours support and I don't have to deal with the regular staff.
The reason why there are so little women in STEM fields is because they all take Gender Studies courses so they can learn to complain that there are no women in the STEM fields, rather than going into the STEM fields themselves.
entry level evolutionary psychology answers that question.
Women are psychologically uncomfortable with competing with men.
Argue with a women about something that your mutual power or status in the group. Women statistically shut off in these contests. Where as men statistically don't back down even if they have a good chance of getting pasted.
This goes back to our evolutionary roots in that men genetically DIE if they do not obtain status sufficient to obtain breeding rights where as women really just have to play it safe and they pass on their genes.
This encourages men to compete because if they do not compete they lose status, do not get breeding rights, and genetically die. And women both don't need to bother with that, their genetic priorities have nothing to do with their status or contests with males, and challenging males historically was dangerous because they could kill you if you threatened them with genetic death.
Thus in any competitive environment involving males, women do not feel comfortable or even motivated.
The idea from current education theory which has actually contributed to women doing better in a lot of subjects is to remote the competitive environment from subjects. Make things cooperative, turn the emotional intensity down a bit, and try to mellow things out.
This works really well for getting girls to feel comfortable.
The problem if you care is that in male evolutionary psychology, things that are not competed for are not worth anything. The male mind as programmed at a very deep level that it has to obtain status. If status is not being offered in something then it is probably pointless. If not only does it not offer status but it is hard and consumes a lot of time/energy/resources... then from an evolutionary perspective the male mind is programmed to see the entire thing as a threat to his genetic survival. He MUST obtain status and wasting a lot of his time doing something that doesn't get him what he needs means he'll have less time later to focus on that.
Thus you can't really educate girls and boys in the same school without shutting one of the sexes off... statistically.
If you have competition then the girls will shut off. If you don't then the boys will shut off.
This is basic and very very well understood and supported science at this point.
The problem is that its all political because there is this notion... which comes out of marxist theory... that people can be changed by their environments. I don't mean that in the way that you educate someone but I mean TOTALLY changed. As in your human nature can be entirely overridden and in fact the argument from a lot of people is that ALL human nature is a social construct.
So... gender itself is a social construct. A core belief of modern feminism is that there is NO difference between men and women mentally and psychologically. It is entirely a product of cultural and social conditioning. The theory from these people is that if you treat a girl like a boy you can make her identical to the boy mentally and psychologically. Indifferent to all the science that contradicts that.
Boys and girls are neurologically different. The brain structure can be told apart by neurologists rather easily. And psychologically boys and girls aver VERY different beasts.
The problem is that in many cases "science" is not politically correct. The left likes to think it is the party of science and reason. It is only that when science and reason either is convenient for the ideology or does not contradict it. But whenever it does... as science does in this case... they're as likely to be pigheaded on the subject as any bible thumping creationist.
And sadly while we recognize creationists for being what they are and largely exclude them from influencing the education system. We do not exclude marxist ideologues from influencing our education system.
Here some cute pink cheeked marxist dupe is going to contradict me. I welcome it. Come at me.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I already modded but here is my 2 cents, too. Yes, there may be cultural biases against women going into math and hard sciences. If so, then women will be underrepresented in the fields in general. But when you are talking about the best mathematical talent in the country, as we are here, then I would think that if a girl/woman were really this talented (as in, the absolute top tier in the country) then a little cultural bias will not hold her back. Cultural bias will hold back the good but not great talents, but really great mathematicians do it as a calling not a vocation. I've seen a few brilliantly talented women, it's hard for me to believe a little bias would have stopped them. Maybe stopped them from becoming CEO's or some other parasitic position, but not exercising the talent of a true savant.
I was recently having a discussion about someone related to IQ tests (there was an interesting poll (who knew) on Slashdot a while ago) and was discussing Raven's Matrices as an example of a test that I thought was unbiased as it was free of any cultural context and had been reduced to abstraction, but a friend shared a study (PDF link)with me that pointed out that the test did have a built-in gender bias due to reliance on spacial analysis, which men do perform better at.
Given that spacial rotations, manipulation, etc. are an important part of many mathematical fields, it doesn't surprise me that men tend to perform better on average. Also, this does not say that all men are better at math or that women cannot be brilliant mathematicians, merely that if you look at the number of elite mathematicians, that more of them will be male because they are biologically predisposed to be stronger at some of the aspects that make an individual better at math.
Also, you should account for a person's own internalization of their abilities and how it affects their behavior. If women tend not to be as good at math from an early age, many of them will take a disinterested approach to it. This is hardly unique to women as children and people of all ages and genders exhibit this behavior. Because there are areas where women tend to perform better than men (along with any other brain wiring differences that produce different effects in people) they may be more drawn to other areas of study and focus there time there.
The problem is that there is evidence to suggest that men and women are different, but there are some who will not accept that argument. I don't know whether that is because the fall prey to some of the same illogical reason that you point to above and assume that it means women can't do something or if it's just a simple matter of people treating their belief as an article of faith that must be true and therefor anything to the contrary must be false.
While there's certainly no lack of sexism in the world, it's a lot harder to accept that there's some kind of pervasive institutional problem when you have no reason to suspect that you should see roughly equal number of men and women among the ranks of the top mathematicians. Also, given that women earn ~45% of B.S. degree's in mathematics in the U.S. it makes the claims of institutional sexism (at least in this area) even harder to believe. Interestingly enough, women early ~70% of the B.S. degrees in English and foreign languages. Perhaps that is related to the scientific evidence that shows that females perform better than males in terms of verbal abilities.
I don't think you'll find many people who are against providing equal opportunity (or as much as we reasonably can) to everyone, but you can't get there with bad arguments. You end up fighting a problem that doesn't exist or attempting to use a solution that isn't going to work. I think that people are just tired of dealing with other people who don't care to look at the science or will reject it because it doesn't mesh with their existing views. It's a bit like trying to argue with someone who believes in young-earth creationism.
Its actually worse than that. Men aren't predisposed to math. We're predisposed to COMPETE. Where as women are predisposed to sit quietly and watch when males compete.
This is basic evolutionary psychology. What drives women out of anything is an atmosphere of competition. Think about it.
Anything gets competitive... where men start trying really hard... the women sit down. They don't even try. Not because they can't but because they're programmed to not try.
And it gets worse because anything where men are not allowed to compete... to one up each other. To show they are higher status than their peers... men sit down.
In female psychology, competition with males for status has no point and is actually dangerous.
In male psychology, anything without competition is meaningless. And anything that is hard and has no status is a literal threat to your genetic survival as a male.
Thus... if there is competition... women do not compete.
And if there is no competition... men lose all interest. This is why so many subjects and hobbies are dominated by one sex or the other. The males like competitive hobbies. Sure there are the guys that collect stamps or build model trains. But lets not focus on teh ultra betas for a second here. Men in general don't like to do those things. They like to do things that show mastery because at some level it shows they're higher status males than those that did not obtain that mastery.
And if there is competition... women both see no point in it against males because evolutionary they did not compete over the same mates or have the same breeding strategies. And competition with males is actively dangerous for females historically. Compete with a man and you are ultimately threatening him with genetic death. He loses status and he loses breeding rights. Anyone that stands in front a man competing for his genetic survival could get hurt. The only people that would compete with such a man would be other men that would be likewise competing for breeding rights.
Men compete and women sit down and watch.
If there is no competition... no status to be won... men generally don't care.
This is why men and women need to be educated separately at a young age at the very least if not carrying on into college.
Put the women in an environment where the men are challenging each other for who is smarter, faster, wiser, more knowledgable, stronger, more skilled... anything. And they're going to sit down. That is statistically there are female mutants that won't back down. The overwhelming majority will.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
And dicks control all the /. mod points.
Not a single european country.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Instead, the point is that there exists a systematic, cultural, and longstanding bias against encouraging and fostering scientific and mathematical proficiency in female students,
Given that I can't recall any encouraging or fostering of myself for my chosen field of employment, I can't muster up anything beyond apathy for those who complain about the lack of fostering for going into one field or another.
Fuck off fascist. We're wise to your bullshit now. You don't give a fuck about women or their welfare. We know this is a political power play and we know the devastation your kind will wreak on our professions and hobbies if we let you in the door.
This story has been politicized. What should have been a celebration of the United States' winning victory in the Olympiad, and the evidence of year of math outreach paying off, has instead been turned into yet another attempt to kick mud into the faces of math nerds across the country for a crime they never committed. The math community has been pushing math outreach and education for women for YEARS!! DECADES NOW.
You are a liar and a closet cultural reactionary. Girls are encouraged to take an interest in and study math and those efforts were fucking paying off long before you and your SJW Stormtroopers decided to launch your blitzkreig on us.
You internet Nazis have turned women in tech into a third rail topic!!. Years of progress are being undone by your hysteria, stereotyping, shaming tactics, and culture war baiting. You are a cancer on STEM. We cannot even celebrate the MATHEMATICS OLYMPIAD!! without you people smearing your gender wars and identity politics all over a day for nerds, boys and girls both, who just want to geek out and be left alone.
This story summary is beyond disgusting. Beyond offensive. Nothing is sacred on Slashdot anymore. Everything we have, everything we built to be above the rotten stereotypes of mainstream society is being sucked down into septic culture wars by these mendacious hipster fakes!! Math is for everyone. It's above this petty politicization. Slashdot should be above this. But you bastards shitting it all up. Damn you! Damn you all to Hell!!!
It currently shows as entirely unmodded to me.
It looks like (2)... which is what all my posts default to because I have an excellent rating at the moment. :D
I logged out to see if it changed and it still said (2).
Not sure what you're referring to.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I never suggested anything of the kind... you're just taking me out of context. Your post is a strawman.
If you want to debate this with me, then login. Otherwise, I'll just leave you with that and will not respond to further comments from you unless you do login.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Its actually worse than that. Men aren't predisposed to math. We're predisposed to COMPETE. Where as women are predisposed to sit quietly and watch when males compete.
How do you reconcile that with women's sports teams?
Even if you are right for a significant portion of the population. You can't apply that to everyone. There are plenty of women who are darn competitive, and there are plenty of men who aren't.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
And if there is no competition... men lose all interest. This is why so many subjects and hobbies are dominated by one sex or the other. The males like competitive hobbies. Sure there are the guys that collect stamps or build model trains. But lets not focus on teh ultra betas for a second here. Men in general don't like to do those things.
No real (Scots)man-fallacy. If you honestly believe that men never have any interest in cooperating, then you have a lacking understanding of sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.
Although there is some truth in what you say, your sweeping generalizations and absolutes weaken your position.
Even within competition, there must be cooperation. Try being on a Hockey or soccer team, while trying to outcompete your team mates. You'll find that you start getting the ball or puck a whole lot less often because everyone knows they'll never get it back once you have it.
We had a few kids like that on my kid's hockey team. They either learned to cooperate or quit. And we had girls who were as competitive as any. Way too many to be considered exceptions.
Now I don't doubt there are some folks in here who don't play well with others, and with that mind set end up with these men are competitive and women aren't truisms. And as noted, even if a majority are one way or the other, applying those pre-judgements across the board are completely useless.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
China has a much larger advantage by using a large team. I'm surprised the Math Olympiad doesn't have a restriction for max size and minimum size. If one member of the China team feels a little off there's a fair number of competent alternates. The US team only has 6, and that's the primary reason the US looses. I'd qualify it as a form of cheating, but we won even with the disadvantage.
Bullshit.
You're playing a persecution card that no longer exists, but is still happily cited when it's convenient to push feminist agendas.
"Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
you would no doubt find that your fellow [] friends would almost invariably NOT want to be mathematicians or scientists.
Doesn't this happen to all of us?
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
A core belief of modern feminism is that there is NO difference between men and women mentally and psychologically.
Unfortunately, you're right, and while men and women should have equal rights and equal treatment it will never mean that men and women are somehow completely the same. Biology alone should tell us that and pretending otherwise is naive at best.
I find it ironic that people who tell us to celebrate diversity exclude gender diversity. There is nothing wrong with the idea that men and women are different and why shouldn't we celebrate and enjoy that diversity too?
As I made clear, the issue is competition against males.
Women don't mind competing against women. They just shut off when they compete against men. I think I made this very clear.
Stop looking for a sentence to take out of context and try to actually understand what i'm talking about. It is in your own interest... you'll get more out of it.
The issue is evolutionary psychology as I said.
Men are MUST compete to obtain status and thus breeding rights.
Women historically were not in competition with males for status. They might be in competition with women but the nature of that competition was different.
Women furthemore do not NEED to compete to obtain genetic survival. All they need is for some guy to shoot a load of semen into them and bingo... genetic survival obtained. For men, they was harder. First, women are less generous with their reproductive cells than are men. A guy can fire off a multiple times a day and a woman can pop off with success at most about once every 9 months... add couple months in there just to let the plumbing heal. Basically about once a year.
What is more, men don't KNOW they're the parent. Women always know. If it came out of your vagina then its your baby. But the man... he can't know.
Point is, men need the woman to WANT his child. If she doesn't... she might not agree to breed with him in the first place and even if she does she might have many other partners thus statistically reducing his chances.
This is why men don't back down from a challenge and why women frequently fold when a man challenges them... the instincts say "this doesn't matter and this is also dangerous"... because to compete with a man for status in evolutinary psychology means you're competing for breeding status. And for men... low status means genetic death. And historically that is something men can get violent over. In an age before good medicine a good beating could be fatal. Thus women avoid conflicts with men when they compete. They have almost nothing to gain and a great deal to lose. The logic is simple. Disengage.
But for a man, he can't back down. Backing down means submission and lowering your status. This doesn't mean they never back down... or that all women will back down. It means they're inclined to do different things in the same circumstance because their perspective is different.
From the man's perspective... deep in his DNA... he knows that backing down lowers his chances of reproduction. And for the woman... well what is she risking here by backing down? Nothing. But challenging some big fellow that is full of his own genetic imperatives... Not a good idea.
Women competing against women though? Completely different. Being first amongst the females is worth something genetically. The same thing as it is amongst the men? Not even close. But something... and the risk is lower.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I mean, that's not since 1992.
It has nothing to do with capability! It has everything to do with interest. Women are certainly capable of many things, but few are interested in pursuing the same things that men pursue. Get over it. Damn.
Apparently, easy math is easier for some than for others. I always tell kids they can check a subtraction by reversing it with an addition. 1984 + 21 = 2005. Oops, something went wrong! If you do the problem again, you'll find your mistake. 2015 - 21 = 1994.
Required reading for internet skeptics
Russia is very much a European country.
Truisms? Really? Women admit to this quite freely sport. Its not even remotely controversial. Even the most hardcore of the hardcore feminists admit that women have an issue with competing. Its often referred to by euphemisms like "assertiveness". How the girls don't like to stand up in class put their neck out but the boys do. More aggressive... see? And where does all that hesitation from the girls and aggressiveness from the boys come from?
Nowhere? Did we just make it up? Are girls just as aggressive as boys and we've just never noticed it until now? Are you saying the boys are less aggressive than we've been thinking and no one realized it until you brought it up?
See what I'm doing? I'm competing. I'm taking your status for myself... so I can have sex with your sister or something. I don't know... its what my cave man lizard brain is probably thinking. But boy do I get a charge out of that. I really do. Not saying that to be a dick by the way... but to make a point.
I get that charge. The girls don't. I get a charge out of grinding my rivals into the dirt... kicking them while they're down... and then laughing at them. Again... just making a point.
Now am I unusual or remarkable in this? Not that I've seen. I'm batting retards off like flies here every day. Every one of the little twits desperate to take a stripe out of me. And it fills me with primordial glee to slap them around despite the fact that no where is there a woman on the internet that will throw herself at me for it. Sad in a way. But that's genetics for you. Always a few generations behind the times.
Your position is to laugh.
Remember Ellen Poe saying she wasn't going to let people bargain for higher pay because MEN asked for it and women didn't? Competition, sparky.
It isn't some bit of specious witchdoctorism I'm talking about... I'm talking about evolutionary psychology. Its a real subject based on real science. Have arrived at the part of the discussion where I start citing studies or something? Would you read them if I did?
You want to counter that with some anecdote about hockey when growing up? You must be joking.
Here's a primer for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Its a real thing, Bub... Cross my heart and hope to die... stick a needle in my eye. ;-D
Sorry, I just watched an interview with Mark Hamill and he did a bit of the joker... and that always makes me a bit whimsical.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
When you have no other defense, I'm sure pedantry seems like a viable strategy.
It isn't pedantry to point out that the OP doesn't know how science works after he has claimed science as a supporting argument.
Karma: Terrifying (mostly affected by atrocities you've committed)
Geographically... they have territory in Europe... I don't know if I would call them a european country. Eurasian maybe.
Regardless my point was that the English, the French, the Swedes, the Swiss, the Dutch, etc didn't win... I'm going over the scores and they haven't even gotten into the top ten in ages... and yet we're supposed to be the big math dummies? What do you know... stupid country that runs the CPU industry isn't that bad at math. Who would have guessed?
The Eastern europeans actually seem to do better in this thing than the western europeans. That's a funny one.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As I made clear, the issue is competition against males.
Women don't mind competing against women. They just shut off when they compete against men. I think I made this very clear.
No. you said math. I can even look that up for you.
You very expressly wrote:
Its actually worse than that. Men aren't predisposed to math. We're predisposed to COMPETE. Where as women are predisposed to sit quietly and watch when males compete.
So you have the weird temerity to say that as soon as a male is in any competition, all females just drop out? Because that is what it appears you wrote. A woman will not compete against a man. Especially in math?
In general, and in competition against males.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08...
Please to elaborate on this young lady. Looks like a couple males beside her. No doubt those girls just kept the benches warm while the boys went out and COMPETED.
But since you will ignore that, let us go to your math competitive premise, that the women will sit down and watch the men COMPETE.
http://www.thecantoncitizen.co...
http://www.nthurston.k12.wa.us...
? http://www.triblocal.com/naper...
Lots of Girls, competing with boys. On the same teams even.
Bolshy Yarblockos, You are just plain wrong in your assessment.
I think you just put those logical inconsistencies and sweeping generalizations in there in order to get responses in order to argue with people. Then wear them down until they just don't reply, and you think you won the argument.
Either that, or watched All in the family reruns, and decided you were the reincarnation of Archie Bunker.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
The people who read this site aren't the aggressive men who are TEH CEOZ!@#! They're the shy men who don't typically like conflict and the other stereotypical male characteristics. And the PC Police, of which you are a card-carrying member, seem bent on not relieving oppression on everyone, but rather increasing it and changing its target. The War on Boys is real.
The entire SJW narrative is based on a fallacy: that men and women are exactly the same. They aren't, and this is deeply rooted in our biology. A problem with SJWs is that they assume that their opinions are facts.
I usually describe this as: "Do as I say, not as I do." It invariably creates a blind spot for the "invisible" activity, but also undermines the ability of the mind to see the truth in general because the mind has become used to lying to itself so it won't see the things it is not supposed to see. Obviously, at this point, the mind itself cannot detect truth and falsity, because the mind would have to see itself lying. That's almost as much fun as the Who's: "Pinball Wizard" who became deaf, dumb, and blind to hide a family secret.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
Culturally, Russia (well, the dominant culture in it, since it's technically multicultural) is very much Eastern European. It's quite obvious even from history alone, since it was always a major player specifically in the European political games, the elites (including the ruling dynasties) have actively intermarried etc. It had some periods during which it swung somewhat away from its European roots and towards Asian external influences - notably, the late Kievan Rus / early Muscovy period, roughly Mongol invasion to Peter the Great. But overall it always remained closer to Europe in overall feel.
Geographically, vast majority of the population (again, especially that of the dominant culture) is also located in Europe, i.e. west of Urals.
The AC is confusing scientific proof with formal mathematical proof.
Science makes observations of the real world. If those observations make successful predictions, it is real science.
For example, if science can observe an MRI image of brain activity, and correctly determine the gender 99% of the time, this is proof of a difference.
The greater the sample size, the higher the confidence.
You offer NO PROOF for your claim. In fact there is poor anecdotal evidence it is about the gender since it's consistently all male. There is no proof this is caused by "society peer pressure".
Personal opinion (with only anecdotal evidence) is that males are more motivated by math and as such get their talent developed further. I know several boys from my youth (myself included) that went absolutely bananas with math (and computers), studying more just for hobby and personal joy. I've known several girls that were very talented in math, but without the passion. It was just one school topic.
From the same post where you cherry picked that quote to make a really sad attempt at strawmanning me:
"Anything gets competitive... where men start trying really hard... the women sit down. They don't even try. Not because they can't but because they're programmed to not try."
Here's the thing, pudding... I'm a seasoned campaigner... I forget more about rhetoric on the john every day than you'll ever know. I know... Dick measuring... listen to me whip out my big throbbing e-peen and compare sizes. But you see, that's the point again. This is how it goes.
As to girls in little league... a relatively minor subset. And it doesn't help you because its only one place. There are a zillion other examples i can throw at you that would bury your occasional exception. And really none of it matters because the facts aren't even remotely in dispute.
Boys are more aggressive... more competitive... more assertive. And even the "kill all men" feminists agree. You can't fight it, sport. Its just sad.
As to canton, I can't evaluate that without access to their databases. I can't see individual student scoring. All you're showing me is that there are women on the team. When they compete, they're only allowed to send FOUR of the students to the meet. Which means the vast majority of those kids stay home.
So who do did they send and what did they score? Impossible to know isn't it?
As they say in math "show your work". :)
Your link about japanese exchange students didn't touch on competition so I don't know what you're talking about there.
As to the Naperville thing... you didn't actually read any of this did you? That isn't how you win, bucko! You're not going to get the virtual pussy at this rate.
""
Senior Tom Gannon of Downers Grove set the tone early in the day by winning the state championship in the Oral competition with 48 out of a possible 50 points. Later in the day, in a large jam packed auditorium, Tom and Junior Brendan Caseria of Naperville finished 2nd in the State in the Junior-Senior 2-person competition. To wrap up a terrific day, Tom capped it off with an 8th place finish in the Pre-Calculus written competition. The senior team of Rachel Berry of Naperville, Sabrina Lichon of Naperville, Brian Meier of Downers Grove, Robbie Stanley of Warrenville, Jeff Sweeney of Downers Grove and Gannon finished in 4th place, their highest finish ever at the State Math Meet.
""
From your citation.
The champ was Tom Gannon, followed by Brendan Caseria, then tom won something else... and apparently some collection of people with no apparent individual scoring that was the only segment with the females got 4th.
Just saying, bucko... I think this means my pubic hair is slightly glossier than yours.
As to being wrong... okay... Fine... you want me to bury you in science? You asked for it. :-D
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.epjournal.net/wp-co...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
http://www.livescience.com/380...
The point of the citations was not to support my thesis. It was so you understood you weren't arguing against some guy that is more fit for breeding with the internet females than you. The point was rather to show you that you're arguing against an entire field of science and citing some anecdotal refer
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As to Russia having eastern european culture... no question... they're a product of the Eastern Roman empire after all... much as they might think they're something else.
Regardless, I was referring to the western europeans... if you look at the records you'll see eastern europeans actually do fairly well in that competition for some reason. The poles won somewhere in there. So sorry if you took offense for suggesting the Russians weren't Europeans... its hard to think of them that way when they go out of their way to tell us all the time how "different" they are... One tends to just think of them as different after a time. Saves them the trouble of telling us again how all our assumptions about their psychology and motivations and our interests are wrong. :)
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Thanks for taking the time to express what I've thought about the culture in slashdot comments for a long time. I also find the stubbornness and blindness to these issues among commenters strange, given the otherwise clear, open and logical thinking people here seem to strive for.
And yet your post 100% proves mental retardation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
> The point is that there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that the brains of females are any less capable of developing mathematical proficiency and talent
If you want to be literal: no, for that precise point there might be no hard evidence, but there is enough evidence that females don't actually develop it, and that's what counts. I might have all the talent to become the world's #1 short distance runner, but I am not.
As to Russia having eastern european culture... no question... they're a product of the Eastern Roman empire after all... much as they might think they're something else.
They actually don't. They are very much aware of the Byzantine connection and are proud of it. Look up "Third Rome" to see what I mean.
its hard to think of them that way when they go out of their way to tell us all the time how "different" they are... One tends to just think of them as different after a time. Saves them the trouble of telling us again how all our assumptions about their psychology and motivations and our interests are wrong. :)
Yeah. It basically happens every time Russia goes on another period of anti-liberalism, because it's convenient to equate liberalism and Europe (esp. Western Europe) and its offshoots, and then go ranting about the clash of civilizations etc. Third Rome actually kinda sorta plays into this also, because from that perspective Russia is basically the only remaining piece of true Christian Europe, and everyone else are degenerate, distorted remains (well maybe except Serbs). Or, alternatively, temporary occupied and has to be liberated from whatever is the problem (ZOG, American influence etc - whatever is a convenient scapegoat in the circumstances).
Login... ask the question again and all shall be revealed.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I've never met a Russian that knew anything about Byzantium. Russia certainly never learned from their Sires. They're repeating the same error they made with Venice all over again.
This doesn't end well.
As to the notion that they're pure after having the Soviets run their world... It is to laugh, is it not?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I've never met a Russian that knew anything about Byzantium.
You met me for one :)
In truth, though, "Third Rome" is part of the history textbooks. I don't know how it is presented today, but back when I studied history in school it was fairly neutral, but certainly featured quite prominently, largely because it was an important part of the founding myth of the first czars after post-Mongol reunification.
Also, pretty much any devout Eastern Orthodox Russian will know quite a lot about Byzantium for the simple reason that it's where the Russian church tradition originates - even many words for various associated concepts are basically transliterated Greek words. And most of the recognized Fathers of the Church, martyrs and saints are also from that period, and as religious people study their lives, they also learn about the history of that period, at least to the extent relevant to their goal (which includes some customs, government system etc).
There's one other related thing that was appropriated from Byzantium wholesale, and often presented as one of the key features of the "genuine Russian" (as opposed to Western democracy) sociopolitical arrangement by those with a religious bent - symphonia. It meshes very well with the authoritarian state backed by religious ideology that Putin has been building over the past few years, so it has a resurgence of popularity lately.
As to the notion that they're pure after having the Soviets run their world... It is to laugh, is it not?
The traditional Orthodox approach to that was to claim that Soviet rule was basically a kind of divine collective punishment for abandoning "Third Rome", divinely instituted autocracy etc. From that perspective, the rejection of communist ideology after the dissolution of the USSR and the revival of the Church were repentance, and, consequently, the present arrangement derives directly from Imperial Russia (and through it from Muscovy, Byzantium and Rome), skipping the Soviet period altogether.
Of late, though, this is a much less popular view, because it also glosses over WW2, the important part of the USSR/Russia (to most today this is synonymous) national mythology. Especially so as it goes along well with the overall messianic idea of Third Rome - you know, that whole "save the world from pure evil" thing. Consequently, there have been some, shall we say, creative reinterpretations. Since a picture is worth a thousand words, here's a few: 1 2 3. Basically, Stalin is presented as a return to the theocratic-autocratic tradition after the "satanic" rule of the Bolsheviks, with emphasis on his revival of the Church, the return of conservative social mores (e.g. making homosexuality and abortions illegal again), and victory over external foes - all divinely inspired, of course.
In fact, there's now an entire new category of WW2 myths that seek to imbue it with a religious context - for example, there's one about the Battle of Moscow, which claims that when at some point defeat was practically inevitable, Stalin ordered a specific highly venerated Orthodox icon of Mary to be loaded on a plane, and that plane circled Moscow - and after that, the German advance was stopped and ultimately repulsed.
If this all sounds like a very dangerous concoction, that's because it is. Stalinists and Orthodox fanatics were both dangerous each in their own way, but at least they used to fight each other. Now they have mostly found common ground and a common enemy - individual freedom, liberalism in general, and most everything else associated with the Western civilization today.
For example, if science can observe an MRI image of brain activity, and correctly determine the gender 99% of the time, this is proof of a difference.
Ah yes, fMRI.
http://www.wired.com/2009/09/f...
A system with such wildly difficult statistics that a dead fish appears to register an emotional response.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
As to meeting one for the first time... I am truly honored then.
*tips hat*
I've looked for such as you for a long time... I went looking for someone like you on Russian forums... I found little more than deluded children fantasizing about the return of the old USSR. It was not encouraging.
I had actually given up hope of ever finding any one from Russia with your background.This is genuinely interesting for me now.
As to origin, most of the Russians I talked to traced themselves back to Steppe people of the Russian planes rather than old Byzantium.
As to Putin crowning himself Tsar effectively... it has not gone unnoticed. We have been watching the whole thing and we did make the connections that all the old imperial trope are being reinvigorated.
It doesn't matter to me, my people, or our wider civilization beyond worries of aggression and instability in the region. America normally doesn't care what a country does internally so long as they keep it to themselves. What is agitating the US is the action in Georgia and Ukraine. The free press getting destroyed, the political enemies getting shot in the street... we are aware of it but it doesn't bother us. What worries us is if this means we need to go back into cold war mode with Russia... aspects of our society have already done that. The conversion is not total yet but it is trending that way rather quickly. The people that seem to fantasize about the USSR think the US is going to give them a battle. That won't be our way. We'll use trade, sanctions, and diplomacy to starve Russia. As I said... the same mistake Byzantium made with Venice.
As to Stalin's rehabilitation as a cult icon of national strength... Yes. We are aware of that as well. We read reports of Russian textbooks being rewritten to put stalin in a better light. Again, it doesn't bother us so long as it doesn't mean aggression. if it does... things are likely to get very tense in eastern europe.
Here's a question for you, how serious are the Russians' about the Orthodox church? I would have thought that atheism would have been still very strong in Russia. But the way you're talking about it, it sounds like the country is being stirred into a religious fervor. That I had not heard.
Also, why is the Catholic Pope impure in the eyes of this third rome argument? I don't quite understand that.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
This goes back to our evolutionary roots in that men genetically DIE if they do not obtain status sufficient to obtain breeding rights where as women really just have to play it safe and they pass on their genes.
Oh dear, here comes the evopshcy.
It's intellectually dishonest to take behaviour models from one of our closest relative while not taking them also from our other closest relative (bonobos). As I'm sure you're aware the sexual behaviour of bonobos and chimps is very, very different. And if anything we're more similar to bonobos than chimps in this regard as of the three, chimps lack the oxycotin receptors which make sexual bonding work in the other two.
But we're not bonobos either.
Trying to apply simplistic models of sexual behaviour based on other species is an invalid way of reasoning and so will lead you to all sorts of invalid conclusions.
Here some cute pink cheeked marxist dupe is going to contradict me. I welcome it. Come at me.
Attacking the messenger as a means to dismiss the argument is literally the definiton of ad homenim. As such your post is bracketed at the top and bottom with logical fallacies. Great way to start and end, at least it gives a good idea of what one might find in the middle.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Women furthemore do not NEED to compete to obtain genetic survival. All they need is for some guy to shoot a load of semen into them and bingo... genetic survival obtained.
Out of interest, have you ever seen a new born baby? You might notice that if left alone for too long they will simply die. They are literally unable to look after themselves. Genetic survival is so, so much more complex than you are making out.
And for men... low status means genetic death.
No it doesn't, because we're neither chimps nor gorillas, and, frankly it doesn't work that way for them either.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
What do you know... stupid country that runs the CPU industry isn't that bad at math.
Out of interest, which is the biggest selling CPU instruction set?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
As to origin, most of the Russians I talked to traced themselves back to Steppe people of the Russian planes rather than old Byzantium.
In terms of ethnic descent, this is definitely the case. Not just steppes, though, but also forests. Most of what is Central and Northern European part of Russia today was one giant forest ~1000 years ago, with small settlements along the rivers living off the trade with passing ships selling fur, amber and other similar goods for export. Mostly Slavonic, but also a significant Finno-Ugric component.
The Byzantium "descent" is more spiritual in nature, through the acceptance Orthodoxy. Though there's also a partial blood claim specifically for the past ruling dynasties, because several rulers have married Byzantine princesses (most notably, Vladimir the Great, who forcibly converted the entire country to Greek Christianity, stipulated his marriage to the daughter of then-current Eastern Roman Emperor as one of his conditions, acceptance of which was forced basically at swordpoint). But for most people, it's about being the largest Eastern Orthodox country in the world.
Here's a question for you, how serious are the Russians' about the Orthodox church? I would have thought that atheism would have been still very strong in Russia. But the way you're talking about it, it sounds like the country is being stirred into a religious fervor. That I had not heard.
After the collapse of the USSR, there was a fairly significant religious revival movement that was primarily anti-communist in nature. Restoring the old traditions and all that. Most people didn't really become seriously religious, though, being more of a token Christians - you know, baptizing their kids and celebrating the prominent religious holidays (save for "inconvenient" ones like Lent), and occasionally attending Church services, but not really capable of articulating the theology well, and overall treating it more as a part of national identity. Government has contributed to the revival somewhat by transferring some of the original Church property that was confiscated from it under communists back, and in some cases funding new construction efforts, but otherwise not really stepping in. Atheism also remained pretty significant, though - more so than in, say, US today.
However, in the past decade or so, there has been a steady rise in government support of Orthodoxy as preferential religion, and clear attempts to make it into some kind of national ideology. Schools now have "the fundamentals of Orthodox culture" as a class, though it's still opt-in in theory (in practice it varies on the school, and some places put a strong social pressure on students to opt in). Most government-sponsored patriotic organizations for youth etc also emphasize religion. Blasphemy laws have been effectively introduced under the guise of "protecting the religious sentiment". There are still quite a few atheists, but the trend is clearly against them. I see a lot more religious kids online, and even my own generation (I'm 30) seems to be more outwardly religious now than we used to be in our 20s.
This all has accelerated especially with the whole Crimea/Ukraine thing going on - state TV channels during Maidan went to great lengths to point out that many protesters were affiliated with Catholic (often Eastern Rite) or Protestant churches, for example. And the ideological basis for the insurgents in Donbass is heavily rooted in religion and geopolitical messianism - they really think that they're fighting Satan there.
Also, why is the Catholic Pope impure in the eyes of this third rome argument? I don't quite understand that.
It's an Orthodox thing in general. Catholics are considered heretics, originally because they have changed the Nicene Creed slightly - look up "Filioque" if you are interested in theological details - causing the Great Schism between the Western church in Rome, and the Eastern churches associated wi
The arguments are funny. "There should be more women on their team!" vs. "Of the top 12 competitors, 2 were women." Women engaged in math competition are obviously interested in math, and have demonstrated staggering academic achievement in math; when placed next to men who have also demonstrated staggering academic achievement in math, they suck.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
What the hell is sexual bonding?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
This OT but wonders me still: for somebody that dislikes Karl M. you definitely talk a lot about the guy and his works. Looks like an obsession to me.
As for the contradictions: all males are like you say they are i.e. do not care for anything that is not competed for? If women are uncomfortable only when competing with men then it still does not prove they do not compete. I suppose many examples show they actually do only in ways that escapes some troglodytes (that is not a reference to you just to general male audience that populates this site, including me - that seems to be what people in IT usually are).
While there's certainly no lack of sexism in the world, it's a lot harder to accept that there's some kind of pervasive institutional problem when you have no reason to suspect that you should see roughly equal number of men and women among the ranks of the top mathematicians. Also, given that women earn ~45% of B.S. degree's in mathematics in the U.S. it makes the claims of institutional sexism (at least in this area) even harder to believe.
45% of B.S. degrees in mathematics in the states go to women, but 0% of US Mathematics Olympiad team members are female. You even point out that more generally there are fairly equal numbers of men and women in the top ranks of mathematics. So you have not answered the question of why there is this discrepancy. The institutional problem is with institution selecting and training team members.
Interestingly enough, women early ~70% of the B.S. degrees in English and foreign languages. Perhaps that is related to the scientific evidence that shows that females perform better than males in terms of verbal abilities.
I think that is far more likely to be due to social issues, specifically the repression of males who feel pressured to move away from "girly" subjects.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
A core belief of modern feminism is that there is NO difference between men and women mentally and psychologically.
No, it's actually the exact opposite. Read any introductory text on micro-aggressions, it will include examples of denying the psychological differences between men and women as things to avoid.
What feminism does argue against is the notion that because women might be predisposed to avoid conflict slightly more than men, that means they will always be worse at competing.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Instead, the point is that there exists a systematic, cultural, and longstanding bias against encouraging and fostering scientific and mathematical proficiency in female students
Fuck you. Prove it. I am sick of this shit. When I went to school way way way back in the mists of time, girls were encouraged over boys. My own son dealt with this shit too... and yet girls are STILL not at the top of the heap.
Stop abusing boys. You can not force girls to be on top of the heap... and this is nature: There will be a heap. Deal with it asshole. All you are doing is creating misogyny.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
You're getting warm, but what I think primarily keeps women out of STEM is the fearfulness that is engrained into feminine culture. This is probably the result of the same primordial gender roles they can see, and deplore, so easily when they show up in men. Notice how every demonstration against science and its applications are heavily loaded with women? From the anti-nuke folk singers to the anti-vax film stars, these movements have been a few publicity-hogging manginas leading armies of women.
> How do you reconcile that with women's sports teams? There are no men in them.
How do you reconcile that with competitive activities that have both men and women on them?
It's difficult for grown women and men to compete effectively in activities that require strength, as men on average are stronger.
But the idea that women lack a competitive aspect, or that they won't compete in any activity if a man is there, is simply wrong.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"Institutionalized sexism?" How paranoid and delusional do you have to be to literally blame the entire world for your own failures and shortcomings?
Writhe your naked ass to the mindless groove.
Based upon what evidence? What studies have been done to show this? Who does a such a study without having some kind of skin in the game? Why doesn't anyone talk about how male students in high school get labeled as "nerds" if they are good at math? Arguably just as bad when it impacts their ability to date. I was the brightest of my friends and my guy friends never said "he is good at math" they said "he's a nerd!" I continued to do it because I had a passion for it, DESPITE the discouragement. And believe me, when your buddies want you to go out partying and you just want to finish up this last "feature" for your pet project the derision can be significant. Who is to say that your answer is the correct one? There are many possible reasons for the lack of female participation in STEM. Maybe females have a different chemistry that make them *less likely* to be passionate about such things. Maybe they don't like the competitiveness. Maybe they are not generally as good at it, -OR- maybe they are being oppressed in some way. Maybe all of the above. Maybe something completely different. The problem with your answer is that you are looking for someone or something to blame... and rather than looking at the entire problem you are pigeon-holing the entire issue to fit YOUR answer. An answer that has not been proven in any measurable way. Why are you so sure you have the answer? What evidence exists that allows you to be so certain your answer is right? Figure out why males who suffer ridicule and derision for their passions continue to do it and then see why the same model doesn't apply for females. There are many potential reasons for the imbalance of gender in the STEM fields. If you refuse to recognize that your aren't a solution to the problem.
The point is that our team won. I find it absolutely stunning considering that as of second grade, my son's official curriculum still involves counting my N on the number line.
...and your last paragraph is a logical fallacy as well. See if you can guess which one it is!
That's the problem with you SJWs. As long as you yourselves use logical fallacies, all is well and good. The minute someone else uses one, bam invalid argument. I have to hand it to you SJWs, you've got it wrapped up nice and tight. When anyone else does it, it's not OK, and when you do it yourselves, it's OK. That's a pretty sweet position to be in.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I think it's fair to look for the reasons why women are not making the team.
I think it's totally irrelevant. The US has its first win in forever, that's relevant.
We definitely should start an investigation into possible geographic diversity issues, it's unclear if its cultural or if there is some clear bias against Europeans in math contests.
It applies to all humans. Login and we'll talk about it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As to the schism... It appears to be the result of language translation to some extent. The Vatican says that if they used the terms the Orthodox Church uses to describe their teachings they would be heretical but if they used other terms than the y would not be. Apparently the original statements from the Pope at the time had used the wrong terms and this is believed to be a mistranslation.
As to politics... yes... that was what most of the protestant reformation was about as well.
The Vatican kept trying to dictate things to kingdoms. There was a perceived favoritism for some kingdoms especially those close to rome while those farther away tended to be treated badly. This is in large part why the kingdoms farther away from the Vatican were upset with the Vatican.
Similar in a way to what happened with the US and England. The US at the time of the revolution had a large population but no representation in the English Government. By rights, the American colonies should have had about 25 percent of the total votes in the English Parliament... and growing quickly. Instead, the colonies had no formal vote. The issue of course was less the lack of the vote than what that meant for the Colonies. The Crown would do things that were very unpopular in the Colonies and there was nothing the Colonies could really do about it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Login and I'll bury you alive in citations while singing a merry tune.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I await the conclusions of your report. My country is doing fine. :)
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I don't see what the need for babies to be cared for has to do with what we're talking about. Be specific please.
As to low status meaning genetic death... are you claiming that the worst male in a tribe could get laid? Keep in mind, women prefer GOOD genetic material... not shit. They might let you care for their baby but when you're not looking she's going to be having sex with higher status males hoping that her child will be better.
At best you'll get to form an emotional relationship with the child.
Infidelity amoungst women is much higher than most cultures will openly admit and it is not equally distributed.
Women associated with high status males cheat less or not at all. Women associated with low status males cheat frequently.
If you are low status your chances of suffering genetic death are quite high as a male.
It is a big reason men do almost anything. It strongly influences the way men operate. Why go off to war for example? Are you familiar with the White Feather campaign? Basically it involved women handing out feathers to men that hadn't joined the army which signified that they would not sleep with, marry, bare the children of cowards.
Now what are your chances dying in a war? Now compare that to your chances of genetic death if you don't go to war.
Right or wrong, a reason for going to war for males is often the threat of genetic death. You come back from war and the society rewards you with higher status. You don't and the society threatens that they have convinced the females to not breed with you.
It underlies most of the differences in male and female psychology.
It is why men will take dangerous jobs. It is why men will work longer hours. It is why men will seek out difficult and risk high reward tasks for this society.
Men MUST risk to obtain status. And men are born with no sure things in their lives. Women almost always pass on their genetic material. Its pretty much a sure thing. Women neither have to risk nor are conditioned to risk. Men are given no guarantee of anything. They must challenge, compete, risk, venture, master, or die.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It's what happens when you mix up the lube and a tube of cyanoacrylate.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'm not talking about chimps or bonobos... I'm talking about human beings. Quote where I mentioned chimps? Contrary to what YOU said, it is intellectually dishonest on YOUR part to suggest that I did talk about chimp and not bonobos. I talked about neither.
As to ad hominem... I didn't say you were wrong because you were a marxist shit head. I said rather that some marxist shit head would argue the other side because Marxism believes pretty much everything is a social construct. And the reason that you are taught that is because marxism itself is antithetical to human nature. And for marxism to ever work, you must be able to reprogram human nature at a very fundamental level. The fact that marxists have never been able to do that with much success has never stopped you from claiming that you can. And given THAT position, the last people that should be lecturing ANYONE on intellectual honesty are marxists.
So no, it was not ad hominem. I didn't say you were wrong because you've got a stupid ideology. I said rather that because you have a stupid ideology you're going to say stupid things.
But I'm open to hear your argument.
I told you... COME AT ME. Your first argument was to claim I talked about chimps and not bonobos... that was clearly some scripted argument you had stored up that you tried to shoe horn into the discussion. I obviously said nothing about chimps. So rather than play back scripted arguments like a fucking parrot, why don't you actually try to think for the first time in your life and come up with your own argument.
Try it. I know it hurts... you're not used to thinking. Try anyway. I'll be patient with you and very respectful IF you think. I don't need you to agree with me. I do need you to not play back scripted arguments you memorized like a religious radical.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
...and your last paragraph is a logical fallacy as well. See if you can guess which one it is!
The this-post-doesn't-pass-the-bullshit-test-and-I-can't-be-arsed-to-read-an-entire-essay-when-the-premise-is flawed test.
In the real word, if you top and tail a long post with crap, people aren't going to bother wading in on the off chance there's a gem in the middle.
So tell me, Mr SJW, at what point should one simply give up on someone as a nutcase, or doyou believe that one is obliated to read the entire output lest one be socially unjust to the swivel-eyed ranter?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'm not talking about microaggressions. That's basically a progressive censorship campaign that has very little to do with anything. Also these political movements are not always logically self consistent and are very prone to hypocrisy.
Do you want me to show you links to feminist making the argument that gender is a social construct or do you acknowledge that is the prevailing argument?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Your grammar is odd. I'm assuming this is a second language for you. I will be patient.
As to Marx obsessing me... only to the extent that a lot of political and academic theory is rooted in an attempt to validate marxism. Basically, if people stop using marxist dogma to make arguments then I'll stop referencing him.
As to "all"... we're not talking about all. we're talking about genetics which are statistical in nature. All people don't like sweet things for example but most people do because we are genetically programmed to associate sweetness with sugar and sugar with energy dense carbohydrates.
Some people like to eat soap or foam rubber. But those are outliers and not to be confused with genetic tendencies.
As to your point that women don't mind competing against women, I actually said that so we agree there. The issue is that women feel uncomfortable competing against men.
I think you could over come a lot of this with socialization. But you'd have to teach the girls to "man up" and compete against boys even though there would be a part of their psychology warning them that it is dangerous. Historically those instincts might have been valid. Today in our culture they are not. So we could teach girls to overcome their instincts and compete. But you'd have to make an effort there and politically the various groups have decided that masculinity is what needs to be corrected and not femininity. There are many problems with that course of action which I won't get into here. But the underlying problem with doing that is that the world is competitive and training people to not be ready for it simply leaves them unprepared.
As to IT people being cave dwellers... only in so far as they don't spend a lot of time in the Sun. We're quite sophisticated in most ways. We simply do not share the same culture as those that presume to be our cultural superiors.
By the very standards of those same people, they are guilty of cultural imperialism. The presumption that their culture is superior and must be imposed on everyone else. I wouldn't impose the IT culture on them... it would be nice if they were as tolerant and open minded as the IT community as regards tolerance of other cultures. ;-)
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Out of curiosity are you using a US processor and operating system right now? :)
Come now.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Out of curiosity are you using a US processor and operating system right now? :)
A US processor (Celery 900 MHz), and an international OS (Arch Linux). I believe my web browser hails from Chile, though I'm not 100% sure. Naturally being all OSS, it would run fine on ARM.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I don't see what the need for babies to be cared for has to do with what we're talking about. Be specific please.
Are you being facetious? You make a comment about genetic death and I responded including a quote for context. Genetic survival requires your offspring survive, not merely that you have sex.
[status]
Moden hunter gatherer societies mostly seem to live in small, egalitarian bands, and from what little evidnce there is, that's how humans up until the middle peleolithic lived. That is how humans evolved.
There's also this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
which implies very much that there are going to be multiple sexual partners.
Women associated with high status males cheat less or not at all.
[citation needed]
[white feather]
You are generalising a small segment of British history to the entire human race. The white feather campaign doesn't exist any more. Most people I know are not or have never een in the armed forces and yet the appear to have no trouble with women.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I'm not talking about chimps or bonobos... I'm talking about human beings.
Then where did the concept of "breeding rights" come from? We don't do alpha males like chimps or gorillas.
Marxism believes pretty much everything is a social construct.
Groucho never said that, and neither did Karl. The "blah is a social construct" is many things, but Marxist it ain't.
ANYONE on intellectual honesty are marxists.
OK, I get you're obsessed with Marxists, but what's that got to do with simplistic evopsych?
I told you... COME AT ME. Your first argument was to claim I talked about chimps and not bonobos
Well pretty much yeah, though apparently you don't realise it. You're taking the strongly heiraichal groupings seen with chimps and gorillas and claiming humans are the same. "Breeding rights" is a thing with chimps (though of course reality is as always much more complex) not with humans.
Out of interest have you ever actually interacted with a human female?
time in your life and come up with your own argument
DON'T GIVE ME THAT, YOU SNOTTY-FACED HEAP OF PARROT DROPPINGS!
(this is insults, arguments are down the hall)
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The reason is that we're really, really bad at spotting discrimination in general. If we see a gender disparity we don't like, it makes sense to research it to figure out whether it's genetic, some sort of subtle discrimination, or both. Discrimination doesn't have to be conscious.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
And once again we see you lobbing "Marxist" into an argument like it was a hand grenade. If you have a problem with something, explain the problem to us rather than blaming it on the Marx brothers. If there's something you want to argue for, don't preemptively slap an insulting and irrelevant label on those who might disagree with you.
For you in particular, I'd recommend refraining from using that word for a year. Find better ways to express yourself.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Except that nobody was arguing from Marxist dogma, so your explanation of your claim of not being obsessed is invalid.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
People got into real trouble because of the "substance" question, which seems to me to be meaningless. More recently, I visited a Russian Orthodox church back when I was in Sunday School, and the priest told me that one of the remaining reasons for not joining with Western churches was a technicality about the Trinity.
To see politics in action in what was normally considered religious affairs, consider France's actions in the nominally Christian vs. Muslim struggle for the Mediterranean, and its entry into the Thirty Years' War.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
... if i'm not mistaken, part of the problem that feminism is trying to rectify is that historically women have been largely relegated to the role of "prize" for male contestants... so to speak. Is this not true?
does it not track that we are mammalian? does it not track that we are cordates, does it not track that evolutionary competition for the majority of species with two sexes has two males compete in some way for breeding rights with a single female, or for a group of females?
i am all for feminism, but really, it's all getting a bit shrill. Blue is still blue, green is still green. It does very little service to anybody to try to say they aren't.
If we're going by anecdotes, I've heard plenty about guys getting offensive around women and getting away with it.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
That was the case at my previous job. The lady I worked with was way more crude than I was, and that is an accomplishment.
The point I failed to make is you never know who is going to be offended, and if a guy gets offended, they are most likely told to man the fuck up.
You're misunderstanding what I've written. There are not fairly equal numbers of men and women at the top ranks of mathematics as if you look at doctorate degrees awarded, the numbers skew heavily towards men for that particular field. The data about B.S. degrees would seem to indicate that there's no substantial barrier for women who want to go into math in general as if there were, the numbers should be much, much lower. You could perhaps make that argument for engineering fields where the degrees going to women is around 20%, but trying to claim that significant cultural or institutional issues are keeping women out of math doesn't mesh well with the data.
The science suggests that if you have a team composed of the best mathematicians, it will feature more men than women. For what it's worth, the U.S. team has had women on it in previous years so it's not as though they're being excluded entirely. The discrepancy is due to biological differences between male and females that for whatever reason make men perform slightly better at math. If we were talking about power-lifting no one would be trying to claim institutional bias is keeping women out of the upper echelons of those competitions.
Login and ask the same question and I'll answer you.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Of course we have breeding rights amongst humans.
Every culture has a means of assigning breeding privileges to males.
Some of them rely upon the woman deciding who she wants to be with. Others have her family decide this thus giving the power to give away her breeding rights to her parents. And others even have the government dispense breeding rights. And then you have combinations of this... some cultures have the church or the local wise man/woman decide.
And the basis of the decision is typically based on the success of the male, his contribution to the economy, his service to the community... that sort of thing. What do you think wealth and fame are?
For a very clear example of this, look at ISIS... yes, they're exceptional, but mostly in the simplicity and overtness of the system. You make the organization happy and they give you women. Hand them right to you.
All societies do that though in their own way.
And if you do not make the society happy... you either have a much harder time finding a mate or in some cases you're legally forbidden to even have one. More commonly, women tend to be discouraged from associating with you.
Its part of the means of social control you have in any society. Men that don't play by the rules don't get to breed.
As to social constructs from marx, wrong.
First, he argues that class is a social construct. The whole notion of some people being better than others being arbitary. Obviously in some cases it is... but in others it isn't and communist theory doesn't account for people that are naturally in positions of authority, power, or have high status because they are in fact superior to their peers.
And then the whole notion of doing away with the market and changing human self interest is very social constructivist.
No one invented capitalism. It evolved. The argument from marx is that capitalism is just as arbitrary as any system before it and for that to be true... markets, market theory, game theory, etc all have to be social constructs.
As to what this has to do with marxism... marxist theory is heavily involved in current gender and race theory and the primary opponents to the science of evolutionary psychology are the people that say everything is a construct... and the primary push behind that idea is it is required for marxist theory to be credible. If you can't argue that market theory is a social construct then marxist theory because incoherent.
That is why you're taking the stand you are against me here. Think about it. When do you take a hard stand against me without it being in the name of some leftist politics? That's all you do.
The simple fact that you're engaging with me like this suggests it.
Now that IS ad hominem on my part. So I'm not going to stand behind it. I'm just pointing something out to you. Why do you think this issue is so controversial? Why do you get energy poured into this and not something else?
This is an intellectual battlefield that is within spitting distance of invading marxist territory and overrunning the entire body of thought. Marxists must hold me here or lose everything. In truth, they lost generations ago. its little more than ignorance and sophistry that have kept them going since. Old battles have to be refought. The marxists are big believers in retroactive history... or gaslighting. So they tend to erase past defeats from the records unless you hold them to it.
You can see that at work in the cultural marxism thread on Wikipedia. A great thing about wikipedia is that it keeps a record of all changes. So whatever it says... you can see what it used to say. And there is something of that going around all over.
Thus here I am... winning battles that past generations won... all over again.
As to your assertion that I'm talking about chimps, nope. That's your attempt to make a stored argument you have relevant. I said nothing about chimps.
And frankly even if I did, which I did not, chimps are a much closer analogue to
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
So terrible at math that we dominate the high end of most mathematically intensive industries.
Also, I think you mean the Republic of Panama. Correct me if I'm wrong and it does come from chile.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As to being prizes... yes... but women also want to be won. They want to be competed over. The notion that women are victims of that system is not accurate. They can be but generally it serves their needs by organizing the competition that their own biology finds desirable.
Women don't just want ANY guy. They want a good/great/the best guy.
it is important for women and men to understand where they personally stand on the sexual market. How desirable they are and why. And that helps them pick a mate they can actually get.
Something that is unfortunate about the modern hookup culture is that we have this odd mix of two very different and incompatible ways of looking at sex.
The hookup culture puts no value on what happens after the sex. So a low status female for example could have sex with a high status man. Just a fuck as they say. But what we've seen is that many women will misunderstand what happened there and think "I can get a high status male"... and so they hold out for the guy that is as good as the guy that flipped her around backwards so he didn't have to look at her face and has his way whilst probably drunk.
This is a common problem in market economics as well. A misunderstanding as to what something is worth causes buyers, sellers, and producers to under produce, over produce, over value, or under value assets. A lot of economic problems are ultimately due to this.
The biggest culprit here tends to be big national banks that are state sponsored under valuing credit or over valuing some asset that they've determined politically they want people to have.
So credit tends to be issued at well below market interest rates and that causes problems. And we had an issue in the housing market where the value of land or homes was overvalued. Things can be under valued as well. Savings tend to be undervalued by most national banks which is why they like to encourage people to not save. The problem with that is that people without savings tend to operate economically very different from people with savings. So its very short term thinking that tends to backfire badly. A person without savings is going to be much more frugal and conservative in their spending that someone with a big nest egg. People with nest eggs will also invest and start businesses and do a lot of things that you really need to keep an economy healthy. Wiping them out or encouraging them to not build the nest eggs keeps them from doing those things and that ultimately is very damaging to the economy.
Anyway, you see this is mating strategy as well. People need to know what they're worth in the sexual market. You're asking a man or a woman to give you the rest of their lives or at least commit to a child with you. This is a big portion of their life they're giving to the project. And they need to know what they're worth on the market to feel comfortable in the relationship. A woman or man that thinks they're worth more or could do better are going to be more inclined to break the relationship and try to form a new one. That's rational.
And someone that feels they are worth less will feel especially committed to the relationship because they'll feel very lucky and will not want to screw things up because they'll be unlikely to do better.
As to being a mammalian, it is also true that sexual intercourse is almost always initiated by the female. A female cow that doesn't want to have sex with a male bull can avoid it quite easily. She just moves her head so that she faces him or lays down. He's not going to be able to mate with her unless she stands up and points her vagina at him.
Amongst zebra they even wink the vulva as a come on.
As to being for feminism, I think we're all for equal rights and equality before the law. But feminism won all those arguments a long time ago and no one is fighting over that anymore.
What feminism is fighting for now is "more".
We're all equality feminists. But modern feminism isn't about equality. its about female privileges and the expans
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As to what humans need to survive... I am aware... I don't see what babies needing to be cared for has to do with competition between males and females however.
As to multiple partners... yes, however a man having sex with a woman does not mean he is promising to protect her or provide for her.
And a woman sleeping with a man does mean she is interested in carrying his child to term. Genetically.
As you point out, women need help during pregnancy and for years afterwards. The only thing more vulnerable than a pregnant woman is a baby. She can't feed herself. She cannot protect herself. And all things being equal, the people assigned to that role will be men. And if you want a man to sacrifice his time, resources, and risk his life... then giving him some stake in the project is in your self interest.
At the very least you want to give him a strong impression that the child is his. Whether it actually is or not is not important. He needs to believe it. if he does, then he'll sacrifice more deeply... if food gets short and he only has enough food for one of you. You want him to give you his food so he starves while you live. Men are less likely to do this if they either know or believe the child is not theirs.
How does a woman give a man this impression? Having sex with him about nine months before is a good start. This course means the child COULD actually be his. The probability of it being roughly a question of how many other men she slept with at that time. If not so many, then his chances are decent. If everyone in the tribe then the chances are poor and he probably knows it and she is going to have to rely on a milder but more general sacrifice from the male population at large rather than asking for a deep sacrifice from one specific male.
I'm unsure of which of these works better. I only know that a more monogamous arrangement is more common. That suggests that it is either better for the woman or there is some other reason it tends to work out that way.
Obviously, once you get to property rights etc the notion of interference and land rights becomes a problem and that is one of the big reasons societies tend to encourage monogamy... it is just easier to figure out who owns what.
As to british history... I again did no such thing. I think you're having a very hard time actually making up a rational argument on your own. So first you say I was talking about chimps when I clearly wasn't and then you claim I am talking about british history when I am not.
You're doing a very poor job of forming a coherent argument. I don't say this as an insult. You can tell because when I get offensive I include lots of dirty dirty words.
What you are very very very obviously doing is sitting there with a series of prefabricated arguments in front of you that you've memorized and you're trying to match them to what I'm saying. I think I've told you already that I go out of my way to frustrate tactics like that.
If you presume to have an opinion then you're going to have to think for yourself here. If you don't... then it isn't your opinion is it? You're just parroting something someone else programmed into you like a computer.
listening to you argue sounds like this guy that robot from "what are little girls made of?"... you think you're making things up or thinking but you're just responding to programming.
And this is NOT an insult. It is super obvious. You keep trying to force me into an argument you have stored.
The Chimp Bonobo thing was obvious and now this english thing.
Dude. "CAN" you actually... REALLY think for yourself? If you can, then come up with your own thinking. Your own argument. I don't debate programming.
If you could bring me the person that input this programming than I might be willing to debate them. But you can't debate an inanimate object which is all programming really is here. You either have your own mind or you don't actually have an opinion in the first place.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
In regards to the 30 years war, can you be specific? I'm not sure what you're talking about. Its a massive subject and I can't figure out specifically what you're referring to... I see the ottomans allied with some eastern european protestants. That's about it.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Wrong. I explained and justified the reference. Claiming otherwise is intellectually dishonest.
Marxism relies on the theory of social constructivism.
Social constructivism conflicts with evolutionary psychology via nature vs nurture.
For marxism to make any sense, human nature has to be arbitrary. If any human behavior is not arbitrary it will almost certainly conflict with some aspect of marxism because marxism argues in terms of absolutes and touches on every human behavior.
The progressive movements that are pushing for hard AND soft racial and sexual quotas in business, government, the military, and academia are all reliant and related to the same thing political gestalt.
What you want me to do when I get kicked is to only look at the foot. The foot is relevant but I'm going to look at what is attached to the foot as well because maybe it is more effective to throw an upper cut to the nut sack rather than waste my time attacking the foot.
This is a larger political movement and if it becomes an issue then I'm going to address it as a whole rather than fixate on whatever toe it stepped across the line today.
Its easier, its more honest, and its actually more interesting because it bypasses a lot of the sophistry where various people misrepresent their motives, views, and sources of information. By cutting right to the heart of the beast I am dealing with the actual issue at hand here.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The entire social construct subject is an outgrowth of marxism. It is very very central to marxist philosophy.
Don't cite an argument that isn't a third rail for marxists and I won't point out that it is a third rail for marxists.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
does it not track that we are mammalian?
Yep, we're mammals.
does it not track that we are cordates,
We certainly are.
does it not track that evolutionary competition for the majority of species with two sexes has two males compete in some way for breeding rights with a single female, or for a group of females?
Nope, that does not track at all. Since you've broadened the scope to chordates, the available breeding stratgies are truly vast. There may well be some average trends, but there are plenty of whacky outliers, such as anglerfish and clownfish, and span the range from large harems (lions) to life mating (e.g. albatoss, geese, some non avian reptiles as well). And then there's the offspring surival strageies layered on that...
My point is that the range is huge. If you encountered humans as a new, unobserved species, it would make sense to loosely base assumptions on averages for mammals. Given that we're the most observed species on the planet, it makes no sense at all to bring in analogies from animals with clearly different and diverse mating strategies.
It does very little service to anybody to try to say they aren't.
It also does everybody a disservice when people claime we're some sort of weird hybrid of a random seletion of mamals (or chordates) for small segments of our behaviour.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
So terrible at math that we dominate the high end of most mathematically intensive industries.
You said that not me.
Also, I think you mean the Republic of Panama. Correct me if I'm wrong and it does come from chile.
Seems to be Chile.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
As to what humans need to survive... I am aware... I don't see what babies needing to be cared for has to do with competition between males and females however.
You and you alone specifically brought up the topic of "genetic death". That was you specifically, and you claimed that pretty much having sex was enough to avoid it. That is manifestly not true. You're now trying to pretend that the point you made was never made and are hiding in a massive wall of text.
And a woman sleeping with a man does mean she is interested in carrying his child to term.
Hahahahah lolno! That's so far wrong I don't even...
Genetically.
Pro tip: sticking genetically on the end of something doesn't magically make it right. That doesn't in fact make the slightest bit of sense.
As you point out, women need help during pregnancy and for years afterwards. The only thing more vulnerable than a pregnant woman is a baby. She can't feed herself. She cannot protect herself. And all things being equal, the people assigned to that role will be men. And if you want a man to sacrifice his time, resources, and risk his life... then giving him some stake in the project is in your self interest.
"all things being equal" in this case means in your own private world where that specific set of circumstances happens and magically applies to al humans ever. Humans care for each other, especially in tribal groups. Even proto humans are known to have cared for the old and terminally ill (skeletons reveal that the individual in question could not have survived unaided). There can have been no stake there. And that completely doesn't fit your narrative.
As to british history... I again did no such thing.
Do not lie. You brought up the "white feather campaign" which is an event from British history.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Some of them rely upon the woman deciding who she wants to be with.
Just to verify, are you are calling being in a relationship "assigning breeding rights"? And out of interest are you aware that women don't get to unilaterally choose a mate, in the way you're equating the woman deciding with arranged mattiages? This may come as a shock to you, but sometimes men turn down the advances of women.
And the basis of the decision is typically based on the success of the male, his contribution to the economy, his service to the community... that sort of thing. What do you think wealth and fame are?
And yet unwanted teenages pregnancies are higest among the exact demographics you are describing as at the bottom of the pile an unable to breed.
As to social constructs from marx, wrong.
I don't know how think you can go from "class is a social construct" to "gender/everything is a social contract" and back again without me noticing. PS I noticed.
Gender is complex. It has some social aspects and some inherent ones.
When do you take a hard stand against me without it being in the name of some leftist politics?
Now this gets ot the heart of the matter as to why your arguments are so broken and confused. You made unsupported (and frankly worse---outright wrong) claims about how humans behave. You believe now that this is a political issue and so anyone challenging your wrong facts must be partisan. At that point your party-as-religion fervour kicks in and all hope of rationality is lost.
And frankly even if I did, which I did not, chimps are a much closer analogue to humans than are bonobos.
No they aren't. Both chimps and bonobos have aspects in common and different to humans. Neither is a good analog.
Bonobos are a matriarchal species. The women rule it. That is not how humans self organize.
And there's the thing: your arguments are always simplistic to the point of absurdity. You're claiming bonobos are a "much better analogue" based on a single aspect while ignoring the rest. Since you're talking about sexual behaviour you could equally conclude that bonobos are a better model since they mate face to face like humans, and unlike chimps. Chimps also fling poo, which is not something humans or bonobos typically engage in.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Actually, the dirtiest joke I ever heard at work was from a woman.
My point is that there are women who will take offense at anything, and men that will harass women. (This will hold true with any of the eight combinations of genders, but we're talking about this one.) We need some sort of balance here, and we don't have one.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
In the Thirty Years' War, it was pretty much Lutheran vs. Catholic until France came in on the Lutheran side.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
How it relates to Marxism is irrelevant. The idea stands or falls on its own merits, regardless of who said what. If you have reasons against it, state them. Saying that Marx said it, therefore it's false, is an irrelevant ad hominem.
You'd do better by scanning your posts for mentions of Marxism and replacing them by reasons instead of name-calling.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Last I looked, evolutionary psychology was a pretty soft subject, interested primarily in coming up with plausible stories. It may have changed recently, but I wouldn't be impressed by an argument relying on it.
Social constructivism is the idea that behavior changes with different upbringing, right? If so, it's accurate. You can look at what was allowed behavior in medieval times to what is sanctioned nowadays, and there's a big difference. We have created what, as far as I can tell, is the most humane society in history, not by being preachy or moralistic but by changing people's environments for the better.
People are influenced both by nature and nurture, and from what I've seen what influences which characteristic is often not intuitive. Separated identical twin experiments show similarities and differences I wouldn't have guessed. It may be that, by nature, most women are uncomfortable in competitive situations with men, but I'd like to see that studied before I rely on it. It's definitely plausible. If you have pointers to confirming evidence, please let me know. I've learned things before from things people posted on Slashdot, and I'm not averse to further learning.
Then we get to the question of what we do about unexplained disparities between sexes or races or whatever. Personally, I am a white straight cisgendered male from a middle-class background, meaning I'm the exact wrong person to ask about discrimination against women, other races, homosexuals, transsexuals, or the poor. (I'm not a Christian, and do have a little credibility about discrimination against non-Christians.) It's really, really easy not to see discrimination you don't suffer from yourself.
Therefore, I look at things like the ratio of women in IT, and wonder. It's possible that this is a purely natural thing, but we've seen larger ratios of women in other cultures and other times. We've also seen occupations that people claimed were unsuitable for women (like nursing) become female-dominated. For these reasons, I think there may be barriers that are not obvious to a man. I may be wrong, but I want solid evidence that I'm wrong before I shut up. These matters tend to get very complicated and fuzzy.
What I want is equality of opportunity, for both idealistic and economic reasons. Equality of opportunity doesn't imply equality of outcome, but a serious lack of equal opportunity will cause unequal outcomes, and therefore unequal outcomes raise the question of unequal opportunities.
Finally, the problem with addressing it as a larger political movement is that it doesn't address the question at hand. All political movements have good and bad components (although it can be hard to find the good in some). Somebody once put me on a neo-Nazi mailing list, and in the early 2000s I was a bit shocked to find it saying things I agreed with. Marxism was largely a reaction to the evils of capitalism at the time, and pointed out real problems and suggested unworkable solutions. (Since then, we've found that keeping capitalism and addressing the evils themselves works better than anything else we've come up with.) Marxism isn't a bad place to look for potential problems in our society that we might solve to wind up with a better society.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Cultural Marxism
A term that looks like it was derived based on a report by then-CIA operative Cleon Skousen that laid out the "Communist Agenda" in 1958 to take over America. Some of the 45 points are no-longer relevant, but others are strikingly odd in their specificity in describing the SJWs and other liberal (and even "very" Republican) movements to such a prophetic degree. Points such as:
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms."
24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use "united force" to solve economic, political or social problems.
That last one very neatly describes a group that calls themselves "Social Justice Warriors"
I'm not fighting the foot of the elephant. That fucking animal sets its foot in an argument and I'm going for its eyes. I refuse to be predictable and I refuse to be contained. I will look at an argument I find specious... the entire thing... and I'll find the weak part of it and dig my sharp teeth into it and wrench my head backwards and forwards to slice off a chunk... swallow that and come back for more.
that is how you eat an elephant isn't it? One bite at a time. :)
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
... as to breeding rights... Lets say a man makes something for his society and his society rewards him with a billion dollars... will this increase or decrease his breeding options?
If a man is a war hero... does that increase or decrease his breeding options?
If a man is a master at some skill... a musician or a painter or something... increase or decrease?
Now lets say someone is just as intelligent, brave, and skilled... but they use their skills to damage the society. Does this help or harm his breeding options?
you need to think like evolution for a moment. Step out side of your little monkey box and try to think in terms of the gods that made us what we are. Mother nature is a cruel mysterious cunt. If you want to understand her, then you're going to have to think like her for a moment. If you can't then you can't see it. The sail boat will be invisible to you...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
No, I said they're not a better analogue. And really I have a hard time thinking of much those primates do that is relevant to humanity.
Frankly you're just clouding the issue. I wasn't talking about chimps or bonobos.
if you bring them up again, I'll ignore the argument entirely on the assumption that you're arguing in bad faith.
Let me pull that back a bit. You can make an argument about them if you like. But you don't get to say that my argument relied on that association. You do that and its strawmanning and I WILL either ignore or casually reject it and move on.
Address MY argument. Not the argument you WISH I had made instead.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As to you bringing up the carrying for the baby thing... you have not connected it to my argument or used the reference to undermine my position. You're just saying things and then assuming the spaghetti to stick.
So we'll bypass that until you actually make a competent use of the reference.
As to women having sex with men leading to children... this is valid in a pre birth control environment which is relevant to our genetics because our genetics have not adapted to birth control. If they had, we wouldn't find causal sex as interesting because it isn't baby making sex anymore.
If we have birth control for long enough it will change the way human sexuality works. Sexual attraction is related to reproduction. If simply squirting semen into her vagina doesn't give you a chance at off spring then additional conditions will be added into human behavior by evolution. Those that successfully breed will pass on their tendencies and natures to their offspring. Over time that transference will become more complex and powerful. If we deal with birth control for 100 generations for example... that is going to have an influence on our genetics.
As to white feathers... ah, that was what you were referring to... example the same thing can be found in islamic culture, japanese culture, Polynesian culture, etc.
Giving soldiers brides, denying people that do not fight access to women, giving soldiers honors, denying people that do not fight honor... this is very common in human cultures. And it allows the government effectively to influence if not directly control who gets to breed and who does not based on their obedience and service to the state. Do women not love a man in uniform? Notice any single war heroes?
You're an ignorant little cupcake.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
As to you bringing up the carrying for the baby thing...
It was you, not I which brought up "generic death". Survival of offspring has a very strong bearing on that. No you've been thoroughly defeated, instead of admitting it, you are pretending it doesn't count. Coward.
If they had, we wouldn't find causal sex as interesting because it isn't baby making sex anymore.
We eant to have sex: that's a good survival strategy pre birth control since it doesn't require us to want to have childred specifically. he fact that it's interesting withotu babymaking inticates strongly that kids (i.e. genetic reasons) is a consequence and not how our brains are wired to think about sex.
If simply squirting semen into her vagina doesn't give you a chance at off spring then additional conditions will be added into human behavior by evolution.
Siimply squirting semen into a vagina is already not the strategy used for continuing the genetic lineage on the whole.
As to white feathers... ah, that was what you were referring to...
You brought it up, not I. You specifically referred to the white feature campaign. It seems you are a ver dishonest debater. You keep pretending that things you said were in fact not said.
Giving soldiers brides, denying people that do not fight access to women, giving soldiers honors, denying people that do not fight honor... this is very common in human cultures.
The fuck...? What alternative reality do you exist in. I'm moderately well traveled and I've never visited the a country where that is the case.
Notice any single war heroes?
Currently/mostly single or permenantly single? I've known a few of the former. You see the other thing about war is it can lead you to being fucked up 6 ways from sunday with PTSD. There are plenty out there who have never recovered from 'Nam, and frankly they never will.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I like the smooth, subtle change from "rights" to "options". Nice.
One almost wouldn't notice that you actually conceded my point while pretending it was yours all along. I don't know if you're simply incapable or understanding or ineptly trying to hone your sophistry at this point.
you need to think like evolution for a moment.
I, unlike you actually understand evolution.
try to think in terms of the gods that made us
No gods made us.
Mother nature is a cruel mysterious cunt.
No, you are anthropomorphising. Mother nature is if anything completely indifferent. Cruelty implies agency, intelligence and malice.
If you want to understand her, then you're going to have to think like her for a moment.
Well if you believe that, and given that she does not think, well, that puts *you* in a perfect position to understand her! Scoooooooooooooooreeeeeeeeeeee!
Mother nature is not a person. "she" is an anthromorphisation of blind, uncaring, unthinking physical processes.
No, I said they're not a better analogue.
Liar. You said "much better analog".
Address MY argument. Not the argument you WISH I had made instead.
Your argument is based on the false supposition that we form strongly heirichal societies, similar if you will to that the kinds of behaviour exhibited by the type of mammals which feature on TV often exhibit. Your argument has a false premis therefore all conclusions are unsupported.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
As to genetic death, you might as well talk about food then. Your pathetic desperate attempt to have a point on the issue by throwing random shit against the wall to see if it sticks is stupid.
Stop doing it.
As to the sex argument... you had so many typos and grammatical errors in this portion of your post that I couldn't figure out what you were even saying. Correct your post and I'll review it again.
As to squirting semen into vaginas... that is genetically what men are encourage to do and what women are encouraged to get men to fight for... and the fact that it doesn't result in a baby unless the woman permits it to is not accounted for in male psychology or genetics.
The slutty girl that will hop on anyone's bone is still considered worth having sex with by male evolutionary psychology because the system hasn't been updated to account for the fact that she's on the pill/will abort anything.
If it were updated... she'd be uninteresting. You might go for the religious girl that has a moral objection to birth control or you might go for someone else that has such low self esteem that they won't take the pill or abort because they're too lazy or apathetic. Or you might go for the girls that want to hop on the welfare immediately after school and that's easier to do as a teen mother than it is a non teen mother.
You're not thinking of this in terms of successful reproduction and absent that you can't really discuss evolution.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The change was in your mind. Not in mine. Consider bulls competing for a harem of females.
The stronger more powerful bull claims the harem as his right. However, the females in the harem do not need to stay in it or to allow the bull to mate with them. A female will need to stand and allow the male access to her vagina or how can he straddle her?
What is more, such females will often refuse to breed with what they think is an inferior bull. If there are no bulls around and then one is introduced that is very small and sick looking than even if he has no competition he will probably not be permitted to breed.
What is more social status is something that the women do not directly control. It is something controlled by the society and often controlled by powerful people in the society. if I award you high status in my society as someone that is even higher status... such as a king or a chief or whatever... your ability to attract a mate is improved simply because I gave you favor.
Now if I give you negative favor... if I say bad things about you... if I say you're a bad person or you hurt the tribe or you have some deficnecy that makes you a poor human specimen then your breeding opportunities decrease.
You seem unable to think in anything but absolutes. Genetics is not about absolutes but rather tendencies.
Some children are born with webbed hands like a frog. Does that mean that genetically and evolutionary we are under pressure to NOT have webbed hands? No. It just means you get mutants and then there are going to be people with very slightly webbed hands. It doesn't hurt them so evolution doesn't care one way or the other.
You seem to be only able to think black and white terms which renders your entire thought process incompetent for this discussion. Evolution is not black and white especially when you look at an entire species and the phenotypes that are more or less common.
We don't have just one blood type, one hair color, or one set of viral immunities. Certain things are more or less common to the extent they are important. But there aren't really any absolutes.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Stop doing it.,
You brought up the point. I'm not letting it go until you either concede the point or come up with a counter argument which can convince me you're correct.
Or, perhaps you can explain to me why you raised the point if you now think it's irrelevant? I suspect it's only irrelevant to you now because you received an epic smackdown.
that is genetically what men are encourage to do
You are implying that men are genetically encouraged to do only that. Clearly that is not true.
The rest of your argument is yet another attempt to derail with speculation about the future.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Consider bulls competing for a harem of females.
Humans aren't bovines. Our societies are not like herds of cows.
Rights are not the same as opportunities. In the society I live in, the society does not grant me breeding rights as you so claim. I am free to try to find a partner to my liking and if the feelings are recriprocates we're both free to hump like rabbits. There are no breeding rights being granted to me by society.
If I'm a person with good attributes, my opportunities will be greater. And generally, the better one's attributes, the greater the opportunities. That's still not the same as being awarded rights no matter how much you say it is.
If so, I invite you to go and unilaterally assert your right to go and breed. Please invite me to the inevitable trial.
What is more social status is something that the women do not directly control. It is something controlled by the society and often controlled by powerful people in the society. if I award you high status in my society as someone that is even higher status... such as a king or a chief or whatever... your ability to attract a mate is improved simply because I gave you favor.
You are thinking in absolutes. Human society is much, much, much more varied than you choose to beleive, even within one society. Secondly achieving higher status is still not the same as being awarded breeding rights.
But your whole status argument is also vastly oversimplifying how humans interact. We're not one dimensional linear systems.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Can you connect that to your comment to islam please?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
its entirely undeniable... are you pretending that your psychology is not influenced by psychology?
Fear? Anger? Love?
Think that all comes from culture?
Evolution. That doesn't mean culture doesn't have a role but if you think evolution isn't playing a huge role in the way you think then you're basically denying evolution and I'm talking to creationists.
Which is generally speaking what marxists are in the first place which is one of the reasons I have such contempt for them.
They're like creationists that some how have academic credibility for no reason.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
obviously I meant to say "are you pretending that your psychology is not influenced by evolution?"
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
talking to you is like talking to a creationist.
Where do you think FEAR comes from?
Where do you think sexual attraction comes from?
Where do you think ANGER comes from?
Where do you think every single fucking human emotion we've ever had has come from?
Think that's all culture?
Or is it evolution?
And if evolution is strongly influencing all of those things then it plays a major role in our psychology.
That's self evident. Can culture play a role in all this? Obviously. Its foolish to be an absolutist. However, evolution clearly influences our psychology. And we can debate as to the extent it does that but that it does is not disputable.
Now I'm done with you. You're too fucking stupid to have this conversation. You're out of your depth. Fuck off.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Liar.
As to genetically encourage to only do ONE thing... no. genetics is not an absolute. Its tendencies.
Some of our ancestors were rapists. Most of them were not. Some of our ancestors were pedophiles that literally begot you by knocking up a 12 year old.
For these reason you see some men that are inclined to rape or pedophilia. You even see homosexuality which has no genetic value at all so far as anyone can figure out and is just an odd and strangly common mutation considering its lack of value to reproduction.
Regardless... your position is moronic. Anger, fear, lust, laughter, etc are all evolutionary.
It is beyond dispute that the core of our emotional being is evolutionarily deterministic. And as such suggesting that our psycology is not heavily influenced by evolution is idiotic.
What do you think built your brain you stupid little monkey? Evolution built it.
Go join the christian right or the islamists if you want to deny evolution. Fucking stupid marxists.
Go hop in a vat of soylent green.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.