But "Correlation is not causation" means that both are independent. If they are independent, they can happen together or not. Therefore, my sentence is correct, don't you agree?
As they did to me: [citation needed]. There are hardwirings based of biological facts: men are stronger, women have more communication skills, women bear the children. Those have profound impacts on the way a society develops, but roles depend on society (an on biology, to a certain degree of indirection)
That depends on their culture. Some tribal people will associate it with spears, other could do it to magic wands (used by women maybe). Culture always has a heavy hands when it comes to give thing a meaning.
That explanation is pretty far fetched, and it doesn't really even hold up. It would imply that societies were originally overwhelmingly matriarchal,
An this is, as far as we can tell, a fact besides the fact that men were stronger at that times too. This is one of the most acceptable explanation for the shift from matriarchal societies.
That serves to demonstrate that the exercise of power is not necessarily sex related. Still, there have been a lot more patriarchal societies than matriarchal.
There is an explanation for this. At the beginning of human societies, men didn't understood their role on reproduction and though women were gifted with the divine power of creating life. Eventually they figured out that reproduction was a two person project and stopped seeing women as magical creatures only because the babies came out from them.
Anyways, I agree that there is some genetic contribution to the kind of stuff we have been talking about. Still, I believe cultural influence is more important.
You are right. It was not my intention to say it was exclusively cultural. I should had said it was driven mainly by culture. It would be more precise.
He had friends? Her nanny talked to him? Your family talked to him? It is virtually impossible to shield a child from cultural influences besides their parents
Monkeys? Animals are way more genetic hardwired than men. Its like apples and oranges. Dolphins are born swimming, they don't learn how to swim. Monkeys depend on their mother for a couple of years. Most of the things they do it instinct. You can't compare the impact on culture on humans with the impact on a chimp.
Check out my other replies. Those studies were focused on western society and they mix up cultural western behavior with genetics behavior. Its like the classic "people that eat gets more of disease". If you do statistics on a subject you better be sure you are taking all factors into account. Cultural influence is always a factor. The only way to factor it out is do cross cultural studies.
Please, don't take things from granted as if they were science just because they sound good.
I would say the same to you as you argue citing some research that sounds good for you;-)
What those studies had proved is that in western society, gender roles are clear and passed to yougsters very early.
You can't study one culture and make general assumptions. Those researches are on the same level as : "people that eat x get more of y disease". Correlation is not causation.
Both twins were immersed on the same CULTURAL references. This is called bad science. It is very hard to factor out external influences on social studies
If this were true. Gender roles would not vary from one society to another. And we had both matriarchal and patriarchal societies through history, for example.
If the task changes from one society to another, then that's cultural.
What I am questioning is what task is chosen and not that it's different tasks for girls and boys. The what part is cultural and therefore is not a good reference for scientific research.
There is no question regarding roles and sexes in every society, but people learn their sex roles from their society. They are not born with them. The proof for that is the fact that sex roles differ from one culture to another
This is a common misconception. Think about a society were there is no tea or car (somewere in africa). Do you think their children would choose tea set and car toys based on gender?
Slashdot Mirror
Have you asked them? They fuck and that's all. No idea about reproduction...
But "Correlation is not causation" means that both are independent. If they are independent, they can happen together or not. Therefore, my sentence is correct, don't you agree?
Matriarchal culture is one were women has the role of leadership. As far as I know, there is no connection with secret languages or anything like that
I agree! They tend to acquire sharply different sex roles, but WITCH role depends on the society and is not pre-programmed by genetics. ;-)
As they did to me: [citation needed]. There are hardwirings based of biological facts: men are stronger, women have more communication skills, women bear the children. Those have profound impacts on the way a society develops, but roles depend on society (an on biology, to a certain degree of indirection)
That depends on their culture. Some tribal people will associate it with spears, other could do it to magic wands (used by women maybe). Culture always has a heavy hands when it comes to give thing a meaning.
That explanation is pretty far fetched, and it doesn't really even hold up. It would imply that societies were originally overwhelmingly matriarchal,
An this is, as far as we can tell, a fact besides the fact that men were stronger at that times too. This is one of the most acceptable explanation for the shift from matriarchal societies.
Thats the point. You are proving that choice is based on meaning and meaning depends on culture
That serves to demonstrate that the exercise of power is not necessarily sex related. Still, there have been a lot more patriarchal societies than matriarchal.
There is an explanation for this. At the beginning of human societies, men didn't understood their role on reproduction and though women were gifted with the divine power of creating life. Eventually they figured out that reproduction was a two person project and stopped seeing women as magical creatures only because the babies came out from them.
Anyways, I agree that there is some genetic contribution to the kind of stuff we have been talking about. Still, I believe cultural influence is more important.
You are right. It was not my intention to say it was exclusively cultural. I should had said it was driven mainly by culture. It would be more precise.
He had friends? Her nanny talked to him? Your family talked to him? It is virtually impossible to shield a child from cultural influences besides their parents
Agreed. It's the western boy view on the doll subject ;-)
Monkeys? Animals are way more genetic hardwired than men. Its like apples and oranges. Dolphins are born swimming, they don't learn how to swim. Monkeys depend on their mother for a couple of years. Most of the things they do it instinct. You can't compare the impact on culture on humans with the impact on a chimp.
Check out my other replies. Those studies were focused on western society and they mix up cultural western behavior with genetics behavior. Its like the classic "people that eat gets more of disease". If you do statistics on a subject you better be sure you are taking all factors into account. Cultural influence is always a factor. The only way to factor it out is do cross cultural studies.
As they said to me: [citation needed]
BTW, contrary to what boys usually say: action figures are just dolls :-)
The important fact here is that gender roles changes from one society to another. That's the key fact on this subject
Please, don't take things from granted as if they were science just because they sound good.
I would say the same to you as you argue citing some research that sounds good for you ;-)
What those studies had proved is that in western society, gender roles are clear and passed to yougsters very early.
You can't study one culture and make general assumptions. Those researches are on the same level as : "people that eat x get more of y disease". Correlation is not causation.
Both twins were immersed on the same CULTURAL references. This is called bad science. It is very hard to factor out external influences on social studies
If this were true. Gender roles would not vary from one society to another. And we had both matriarchal and patriarchal societies through history, for example.
They watch tv. They get friends. They had teachers. They learn from many sources! Parents are just the first reference.
The choice of playing with dolls, tea sets or cars is GENETIC and not cultural. This have been proved in numerous scientific researches.
There. BROKE it for you.
There. Fix it for you ;-)
If the task changes from one society to another, then that's cultural.
What I am questioning is what task is chosen and not that it's different tasks for girls and boys. The what part is cultural and therefore is not a good reference for scientific research.
There is no question regarding roles and sexes in every society, but people learn their sex roles from their society. They are not born with them. The proof for that is the fact that sex roles differ from one culture to another
one
two
three
This is a common misconception. Think about a society were there is no tea or car (somewere in africa). Do you think their children would choose tea set and car toys based on gender?
The choice of playing with dolls, tea sets or cars is CULTURAL and not genetic. This have been proved in numerous scientific researches.