Your running story is slightly out of whack. Your talking about athletics, i'm talking about your average joe and jane. The same goes for your racial genetic differences arguments.
So do you trully believe that these genetic differences should be criteron for selection and performance evaluation of "Normal" mundane jobs? How relevant is it that I have a more promenent nose, or skin which is more efficent at producing vitamin E, Or that I have a differnt shape to my chromosome? Your talking about evolutionary genetic stratagies that have evolved over millions of years due to survival enviromental conditions. How usefull have these traits been to the human species since societys began a mere 10 thousand years ago? Not at all. Because these enviromental needs don't exist in civilisation. Any evolution taking place in this time had been a normalisation of these traits accross all races, you could argue that any pronounced racial advantage long ago disapeared, as the survial of a member of our species generally depends not on how fast, strong, or resistant to the sun you are. We live in a homogenised enviroment, where extremes are mild in comparison to evolution where death makes selection. Your not arguing or Darwinistic Evolution your Arguing for Larmarkian Evolution. Which has no grounding. As for mate selection you could argue that this has been the main basis or transfer of genetic material over the last 10000 years, and that this MUST be related to desirable physical traits... But this line of reasoning falls short, attractiveness is very definately a socially constructed individual understanding.
As for the thinking differently That's bollocks, that's tied into the constructed social roles argument.
However you can go out and find ample evidence of gender related differences in attitudes and cognitions, sure... note Gender as the word not SEX.
All you have to do to neutralise the effects of biological sex (in nearly ALL reasearch) is add a measure of feminity-masculinity (or Measure of Gender self identity) to your study.... What you find when you take this into account (as a co-variate, or through regression... your choice) is that differences relating to actual SEX are normally non-significant. i.e It's not Sex that's determining these differences it's self perceptions of the traits involved with societys labeling of sex. I.e it's a construct which is overlayed any natural biological expression (OK there are a few differences , but these are definately not related to as you put it "thinking differnt" nor are they related to any sort of higher level appreciation.) And further what few differences have been found (most noteably spatial rotation, and field search tasks, the only two scientifically SOUND, sex related cognitive differences) have become less pronounced over the last century.
We are educated... Stupid Four corner cube space is only way...
You still havn't grasped the core argument here. (in terms of sucess) You qualifying everything circularly, the reaons we have these categorys which define sucess in terms of domination/aggression, is because of the categorys that we prescribe... I won't argue that these traits do matter... that's not what i'm saying, what i'm saying is that they only matter because that's how the world has become contructed, and that's why leveling the field in terms of these representations is important. They do matter, but they shouldn't, and don't have to, you don't need psyical power to be any of the categories defined.. there are plenty of other than male genders occupying these roles... why it continues to be so little is the self forfilling prophesy of the sterotypes you show in your littany.
Right... I agree, too much time and effort is spent trying to enforce censorship on public and artistic works, it's lame and stupid, not to mention immoral.
What i'm saying you sum up here Even naming guidelines are ridiculous. If someone who invents a new item wants to call it the pussy-cunt device, fine. Don't buy it. Guidelines create a stigma where none need exist. Invent something more useful and call it something "nice."
Your representation of pussy-cunt ain't good, your probably wouldn't be happy if somthing using the pussy-cunt terminology (even if in some other feild it meant somthing different) was to become something you had to use in your life.
Now master/slave is the same, for most people it's a harmless technical term. But because IT pretty much is ibiquious now, (as apposed to 10 years ago), it's only a matter o time before someone (who might have been a slave) get's exposued to this terminology (be it through work/ learning about pc's). It's not that we should try and change or censor these things, it's about educating people on the differences.
I don't want to bite on the N-word, but the arguments are simular here.
So you are agreeing with my argument lines then? =-P . Obviously the representation of this word even you can understand as offensive to some. So if this is the case, probably not a good choice. You obviously are aware of it. Good, that's all i'm saying here, you would make a good person to write formal documentation/produce standards, because you are aware of the conflicting representations of the word, and probably not select it in favour of maybe, principle for instance.
But your in support of the law because your applying it to publicly it to normal conversation, i.e censorship of public language.
I'm not denying genetics, I am however denying that the concepts of Feminine and Masculine are involved with genetics. These categorys are developed through social interaction and stereotypes during childhood. And through media. Read Ann, Weatherall(2002) Gender and Language for lots of neat studys with adults and children, demonstrating this.
Do you really think physical power actually makes any difference in most professional occupations today? Or are you just baiting me?. Sports and the real world are different. As far as your examples of 'hard labour' these types of menial tasks are normally facilitated by machines, making physical power negligible factor. I understand that there are a few examples where this is not the case... These are the Exception not the rule. Your argument based on physical power only exemplifies that beating your chest and running around whacking the other memebers of the 'group' still is considered a survival statagie(Hmmm, Bush and American escalation of war jokes goes here).
Well what about for business? Intimidation is a big factor in getting the job done and getting your company what it needs when meeting with clients/peers. How do you intimidate? With pure looks and posture. Does a feminly posture intimidate? Hell no! Even take a man and make him a little feminine... I'd laugh at him in the business place.
ARG!!! How can you say your not proving my arguments for me!. Your saying that the traits involved with being succesfull are Masculine... Moreso than this your go on to imply that Feminine traits are involved with lack of sucess!!. All that these traits are involved with (I have lots of studys about this one) is that individuals who value masculine traits over feminine, tend to be, More aggresive, subject to pathological thought, support Authoritarian groups, support those groups in power, and support notions of Social Dominance(most of these are independent of biological SEX). There is nothing about success involved with these traits, appart from the fact that by social dominant groups tend to act in their groups intrests, and actively go against others(I have written a These on Open source comminitys/peer production models, and traditional corporate firm/market production methods, using some of these arguemtns). It is a fallacie that these 'traits' lead to productivity/success, in fact any success comes because of the structures involved in place already by the socially dominant group to ensure easier access by those who fit thier categorys. This isn't theory it's real world application. think about it or a minute and your might see the relevance of all this before blindly positing again.
As for your differences, Sure genetically they exist, but biology and evolutionary psychology, can't jump to causal inferences from the simple modeling of genetics, as they examine the situation in place and then go and look for the gene/genetic expression. I.E Bad science! And besides, there is a great deal of research showing that how we view and interact with other is independant of our biological sex. Think Transgendered, or girls or are brought up as boys, for the most part the Social (and that's what I'm talking about, social interactions) part of their lives are complete independant of their sex.
I agree with you mostly. As for your theory... It sounds circular. These words become bad because of the association they gain over time. It's not that the words bad it's that the people use the word in a bad way,(To differntiate to the point of discrimination) thus the simple words social representation becomes linked to discriminatory practices.
It just makes sense to think about the choice of words, so that you don't pick somthing which already has a context where it's representation isn't good. It's just being polite. I agree that it's stupid to censor at a public level, and this side of me says... Stupid american fuck ups... But the academic side of me goes... Hmm, in theorys that's a good guideline for naming conventions, don't use words which have other contextual meanings... It's that simple. It would have taken 5 seconds for the people who developed the terminology Male/Female as an industry standard to insteed use in/out...
Yup sorry I screwed around what I meant about the HT bus. I merged my AGP memory pipeline and Memory bandwidth too close. However the HT bus does limit a number of things not just AGP. (Inter cpu comms for one).
I'm not talking about sanatizing speech in the public arena, tho i'm talking about doing it at a standards level. I think my example of the world trade center is equally applicable because of media coverage it's instantly accessible, theirfore it's a pretty good source domain to understand somthing else. Just like the concrete notions of reproduction. (For a great analysis on Metaphors for Conceptions and Reproduction Read, Wagner, Et al, 1995, European Journal of Social Psyc).
The Impact on society comes from the clash of these representations tho. When one group dosn't understand or confusing the others representation. Which is exactly whats going on here.
Genderifics, are the same. One groups representation diverges from another and we have conflict. This is a reason for neutral terms which is often overlooked, in favour of the more salient argument you present.
Whatever. The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis has been largely discredited by now
I wan't even talking about linguistic relativity. I was talking about about social construction. In fact if you do some more research into the whole struclist/creationalist/post-structuralist debate, you will find that post-structuralim is the dominant theory now, and it inherits the creationist notion. It's not that the use of the language creates the reality(Sapir-whorf) it that language changes depending on it's representation. It's just about being polite. (I doub't you curse blaphemes in front of your religious granny, so why shouldn't the same appreciation of others interpretation apply to the engineering sciences, I doubt you would openly use the term master/slave in front of someone you know who has been directly effected by the practice. )
I am arguing that standards bodies should take into account that the terms they are using may at some point propagate into contexts where the "other" meaning of these terms is the more dominant. This argument has more to do with sausaure and foucault than it ever did with whorf.
Besides, how difficult is it to use a term without mutliple meanings to describe these simple relationships. I agree the M/F does appeal to conrete notions and understandings inherint in most peoples experiential knowledge. But so does in/out, as for Master/slave it's not as a powerfull problem, but the fact that it has arised does say somthing.
I think what this law is actually trying to do is make standards organisations consider implications language choices may have down the line. I don't think doing this at this level is effective tho, and Banning never works, they should be perhaps Publishing guidelines about naming conventions, but banning, NO.
Hrmph, I think that they should encorage standards through publication of guidelines. Banning anything is stupid, let alone language. See my other thread for thoughts
I've worked at Weta, and I know for a fact that the wired article isn't right. Hopefully I'm not breaking NDA, but I can tell you that the minimum number of frames for a shot aint 240 (less) and the longest aint 2 days (more).
I agree with the equivilence label... However currently despite what you might think there is very little equivilence in terms of Pay/Employment oportunity/Social treatment (In terms of discrimination)... Thus while agreeing with your equivilency reformulation, I don't beleive that there is much evidence to support that it exists gender wise, and for that matter sexual orientation wise evenmore so.
Hmm, I'm not sure that it's a troll. There is a valid argument hidding under that bridge. It was to demonstrate the relevance. I'm sorry if I offended anyone.
Can I make a suggestion. I'm not a supporter of psychoanalysis for one. I am however interested in how society has come to represent psychoanalysis, as it's terms pervade the ways which we understand the world...
I'm not going to bite your antisemitist conspiracy.
Go Read (M Billig, - Freudian Repression, 1999) It a discourse analytic view of freud's teachings. Michael Billigs arguemtns are about how the notions of psychoanalytic theory are constructed through talk. Hopefully you will find it enlightening.
I think alot of these types of decisions are brought about by the scientific notion of increased performance through Open processes. In fact this is the driving argument behind open source
The fact that your actions are able to be scrutinised by peers, would in theory lead to better quality work. I do however understand that everyone is different when it comes to productivity. And that employees should have the right to decide how thier work enviroments are arranged to some degree.
Sir you demostrate the discrimination that I am discribing, you have turned gender into a tool for making causal inferances. Your a slave if you will to the language. (no pun intended)
I agree. Here Context is the key. The problem is that being inside the technical circle we understand the differences in this context. Unfortunately not all groups can make this conection, therefore it's just a simple matter of politeness.
Would you use religious swear words in front of your 90 year old religous gran? It's not that you actually disrespect or mean it literally, but you respect your grannys views.
Same deal... It's really stupid at this level tho... Higher level standards is where it should be done
The problem here is that, those acclimated, rational individuals... are making the choices. . (Social Dominance Theory is somewhat evolutionary, but then your line of thought suggests that this choice is reasonable (If we accept the above premises).
I agree this does seem stupid, and it should have been a much higer level standards decision.
Hmm I'm guessing your support for centralised state government... Would you also have that same government comprised of memebers using the same logic?... Why don't we just Elect Bush to head of the Council of UN then? All the other countries and peoples who oppose war MUST just be cacophanys of voices.
Hmmm... I don't believe in the paranormal. I did write an article all about the structure of individuals beleifs, and how to measure it tho if that's what your refering too?
how shall I put it, *young*. Call it into question. Often.
I do, often =-).
BTW i'm a Guy not a girl. =-P, not that that matters in this context.
I appreciate your sentiments, but male/females are treated differerent, and language is setup to keep it that way. If industries wish to become trully Equal oportunity employeers. Then putting in place policys to rid itself of such language is just a natural progression.
Corrolary: Find me one University which does not have a High level policy about use of genderific terms of address.... Very few.
Slashdot Mirror
So do you trully believe that these genetic differences should be criteron for selection and performance evaluation of "Normal" mundane jobs? How relevant is it that I have a more promenent nose, or skin which is more efficent at producing vitamin E, Or that I have a differnt shape to my chromosome? Your talking about evolutionary genetic stratagies that have evolved over millions of years due to survival enviromental conditions. How usefull have these traits been to the human species since societys began a mere 10 thousand years ago? Not at all. Because these enviromental needs don't exist in civilisation. Any evolution taking place in this time had been a normalisation of these traits accross all races, you could argue that any pronounced racial advantage long ago disapeared, as the survial of a member of our species generally depends not on how fast, strong, or resistant to the sun you are. We live in a homogenised enviroment, where extremes are mild in comparison to evolution where death makes selection. Your not arguing or Darwinistic Evolution your Arguing for Larmarkian Evolution. Which has no grounding. As for mate selection you could argue that this has been the main basis or transfer of genetic material over the last 10000 years, and that this MUST be related to desirable physical traits... But this line of reasoning falls short, attractiveness is very definately a socially constructed individual understanding.
As for the thinking differently That's bollocks, that's tied into the constructed social roles argument.
However you can go out and find ample evidence of gender related differences in attitudes and cognitions, sure... note Gender as the word not SEX.
All you have to do to neutralise the effects of biological sex (in nearly ALL reasearch) is add a measure of feminity-masculinity (or Measure of Gender self identity) to your study.... What you find when you take this into account (as a co-variate, or through regression... your choice) is that differences relating to actual SEX are normally non-significant. i.e It's not Sex that's determining these differences it's self perceptions of the traits involved with societys labeling of sex. I.e it's a construct which is overlayed any natural biological expression (OK there are a few differences , but these are definately not related to as you put it "thinking differnt" nor are they related to any sort of higher level appreciation.) And further what few differences have been found (most noteably spatial rotation, and field search tasks, the only two scientifically SOUND, sex related cognitive differences) have become less pronounced over the last century.
We are educated... Stupid Four corner cube space is only way...
that's the differences part... =-P I thought it was obvious that it had to be both ways....
What i'm saying you sum up here
Even naming guidelines are ridiculous. If someone who invents a new item wants to call it the pussy-cunt device, fine. Don't buy it. Guidelines create a stigma where none need exist. Invent something more useful and call it something "nice."
Your representation of pussy-cunt ain't good, your probably wouldn't be happy if somthing using the pussy-cunt terminology (even if in some other feild it meant somthing different) was to become something you had to use in your life.
Now master/slave is the same, for most people it's a harmless technical term. But because IT pretty much is ibiquious now, (as apposed to 10 years ago), it's only a matter o time before someone (who might have been a slave) get's exposued to this terminology (be it through work/ learning about pc's). It's not that we should try and change or censor these things, it's about educating people on the differences.
I don't want to bite on the N-word, but the arguments are simular here.
But your in support of the law because your applying it to publicly it to normal conversation, i.e censorship of public language.
That ain't what i'm saying....
I'm not denying genetics, I am however denying that the concepts of Feminine and Masculine are involved with genetics. These categorys are developed through social interaction and stereotypes during childhood. And through media. Read Ann, Weatherall(2002) Gender and Language for lots of neat studys with adults and children, demonstrating this.
Well what about for business? Intimidation is a big factor in getting the job done and getting your company what it needs when meeting with clients/peers. How do you intimidate? With pure looks and posture. Does a feminly posture intimidate? Hell no! Even take a man and make him a little feminine... I'd laugh at him in the business place.
ARG!!! How can you say your not proving my arguments for me!. Your saying that the traits involved with being succesfull are Masculine... Moreso than this your go on to imply that Feminine traits are involved with lack of sucess!!. All that these traits are involved with (I have lots of studys about this one) is that individuals who value masculine traits over feminine, tend to be, More aggresive, subject to pathological thought, support Authoritarian groups, support those groups in power, and support notions of Social Dominance(most of these are independent of biological SEX). There is nothing about success involved with these traits, appart from the fact that by social dominant groups tend to act in their groups intrests, and actively go against others(I have written a These on Open source comminitys/peer production models, and traditional corporate firm/market production methods, using some of these arguemtns). It is a fallacie that these 'traits' lead to productivity/success, in fact any success comes because of the structures involved in place already by the socially dominant group to ensure easier access by those who fit thier categorys. This isn't theory it's real world application. think about it or a minute and your might see the relevance of all this before blindly positing again.
As for your differences, Sure genetically they exist, but biology and evolutionary psychology, can't jump to causal inferences from the simple modeling of genetics, as they examine the situation in place and then go and look for the gene/genetic expression. I.E Bad science! And besides, there is a great deal of research showing that how we view and interact with other is independant of our biological sex. Think Transgendered, or girls or are brought up as boys, for the most part the Social (and that's what I'm talking about, social interactions) part of their lives are complete independant of their sex.
=-)
It just makes sense to think about the choice of words, so that you don't pick somthing which already has a context where it's representation isn't good. It's just being polite. I agree that it's stupid to censor at a public level, and this side of me says... Stupid american fuck ups... But the academic side of me goes... Hmm, in theorys that's a good guideline for naming conventions, don't use words which have other contextual meanings... It's that simple. It would have taken 5 seconds for the people who developed the terminology Male/Female as an industry standard to insteed use in/out...
Nice spotting.
The Impact on society comes from the clash of these representations tho. When one group dosn't understand or confusing the others representation. Which is exactly whats going on here.
Genderifics, are the same. One groups representation diverges from another and we have conflict. This is a reason for neutral terms which is often overlooked, in favour of the more salient argument you present.
I wan't even talking about linguistic relativity. I was talking about about social construction. In fact if you do some more research into the whole struclist/creationalist/post-structuralist debate, you will find that post-structuralim is the dominant theory now, and it inherits the creationist notion. It's not that the use of the language creates the reality(Sapir-whorf) it that language changes depending on it's representation. It's just about being polite. (I doub't you curse blaphemes in front of your religious granny, so why shouldn't the same appreciation of others interpretation apply to the engineering sciences, I doubt you would openly use the term master/slave in front of someone you know who has been directly effected by the practice. )
I am arguing that standards bodies should take into account that the terms they are using may at some point propagate into contexts where the "other" meaning of these terms is the more dominant. This argument has more to do with sausaure and foucault than it ever did with whorf.
Besides, how difficult is it to use a term without mutliple meanings to describe these simple relationships. I agree the M/F does appeal to conrete notions and understandings inherint in most peoples experiential knowledge. But so does in/out, as for Master/slave it's not as a powerfull problem, but the fact that it has arised does say somthing.
I think what this law is actually trying to do is make standards organisations consider implications language choices may have down the line. I don't think doing this at this level is effective tho, and Banning never works, they should be perhaps Publishing guidelines about naming conventions, but banning, NO.
Hrmph, I think that they should encorage standards through publication of guidelines. Banning anything is stupid, let alone language. See my other thread for thoughts
Just take the specs with a pinch of salt.
I agree with the equivilence label... However currently despite what you might think there is very little equivilence in terms of Pay/Employment oportunity/Social treatment (In terms of discrimination)... Thus while agreeing with your equivilency reformulation, I don't beleive that there is much evidence to support that it exists gender wise, and for that matter sexual orientation wise evenmore so.
Hmm, I'm not sure that it's a troll. There is a valid argument hidding under that bridge. It was to demonstrate the relevance. I'm sorry if I offended anyone.
Nor am I 18. (My spelling is does leave much to be desired I will admit )
You should also read about Realistic Conflict theory and Social Identity theory. (Tajfel and Turner, 1979) They are directly related.
Cheers.
I'm not going to bite your antisemitist conspiracy.
Go Read (M Billig, - Freudian Repression, 1999) It a discourse analytic view of freud's teachings. Michael Billigs arguemtns are about how the notions of psychoanalytic theory are constructed through talk. Hopefully you will find it enlightening.
Kind regards
Your proving my point about gender inferances through language. I'm not a girl =-)
The fact that your actions are able to be scrutinised by peers, would in theory lead to better quality work. I do however understand that everyone is different when it comes to productivity. And that employees should have the right to decide how thier work enviroments are arranged to some degree.
note the recurvie argument by cateogirisng you as SIR.... =-PPP
BTW i'm male not female.
Kind regards
Would you use religious swear words in front of your 90 year old religous gran? It's not that you actually disrespect or mean it literally, but you respect your grannys views.
Same deal... It's really stupid at this level tho... Higher level standards is where it should be done
I agree this does seem stupid, and it should have been a much higer level standards decision.
Hmm I'm guessing your support for centralised state government... Would you also have that same government comprised of memebers using the same logic?... Why don't we just Elect Bush to head of the Council of UN then? All the other countries and peoples who oppose war MUST just be cacophanys of voices.
how shall I put it, *young*. Call it into question. Often. I do, often =-).
BTW i'm a Guy not a girl. =-P, not that that matters in this context.
I appreciate your sentiments, but male/females are treated differerent, and language is setup to keep it that way. If industries wish to become trully Equal oportunity employeers. Then putting in place policys to rid itself of such language is just a natural progression.
Corrolary: Find me one University which does not have a High level policy about use of genderific terms of address. ...
Very few.
=-)