Yes, Ada; I can't believe I forgot to mention her name.Do you mean Ada Lovelace?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace
She who the language Ada is named after?
Yes, Ada; I can't believe I forgot to mention her name.Do you mean Ada Lovelace?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace
She who the language Ada is named after?
There seems to be a lot of evidence that suggests testosterone levels have a pretty significant impact on developmental and behavioral patterns, both physical and social. Small children may not have a ton of testosterone in either gender, but prior to birth and starting again at puberty, the differences tend to be pretty stark. I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that there may be some differences in the bell curve for activities and propensities of people depending on their chemical/hormonal gender.
Your hormone system is so advanced that if you devoted your consciousness to experiencing and acting based on hormonal impulses you would still act with intelligence.
Yeah, because men and women are so totally alike and have absolutely no biological differences at all, that wouldn't influence them in any way even if they would exist...There's no obvious reason why boys would be more likely to act that way, and girls less so, outside of a cultural context that encourages them to do so.
The push is that the very underlying differences that lead to women lower testosterone and men higher testosterone may also make those differences lead an equal outcome. Or an even more unequal outcome. Or a hard to compare sideways outcome.I think we're probably doing that, literally, almost all the time! Don't you think that's what our intelligence actually is, such that it is? That people with hormonal disorders and differences tend to have different types of intelligence? Or did I very much miss the push of that statement?
Not TF's point. His point is that even though you acknowledge physical differences, there is little reason to connect those differences to our cultural prejudices.Yeah, because men and women are so totally alike and have absolutely no biological differences at all, that wouldn't influence them in any way even if they would exist...
I know for a fact that women couldn't do my job
I find it impossible to believe that anything other than a tiny minority of computer-owning boys ever take the thing apart, and equally impossible to believe that boys don't primarily use their computers for socialising. I think this is sexism applied backwards - we observe that most computer scientists are men, we seek to find an explanation which preserves our natural inclination that this is entirely fair, and come up with something like this. Given the same level of encouragement from birth to be interested in technical subjects, I think it's a fair bet that a boy and a girl are equally likely to become interested in computing.
That's what I understood, and I still think it's a ridiculous notion.Not TF's point. His point is that even though you acknowledge physical differences, there is little reason to connect those differences to our cultural prejudices.
Today, we continue to assume that the programmers are largely anti-social and that anti-socialness is a male trait. As long as these assumptions persist, says Ensmenger, the programming workforce will continue to be male-dominated. Although the stereotype of the anti-social programmer was created in the 1960s, it is now self-perpetuating. Employers seek to hire new recruits who fit the existing mold. Young people self-select into careers where they believe they will fit infor example, women currently comprise 18% of computer science undergraduate majors, down from 37% in 1985.
By uncovering the history of women programmers, Ensmenger seeks not only to remind us of womens forgotten contributions to the computing field. More broadly, he is interested in the process of how and why the field became predominantly male. The fact that stereotypes embedded in advertisements and hiring practices had such a profound effect on masculinizing this profession, says Ensmenger, also sheds light on what can be done to reverse the trend, making programming and other computer professions more open to women.
I don't know how anyone "feels like a man or a woman".How can you feel like a man or a woman if the "inner world" is supposed to be the same?
Glaringly, not really. But the second part, the "logical consequences" well yes, quite reasonably so. But such logical consequences as so far divorced from evolutionary starting points there is not a lot of reason to ascribe these consequences as natural biological sex biases. We know that women-driven societies can produce highly competitive women -- as competitive as men in men-driven societies! -- while the men are not so competitive. Might men still be biologically more competitively driven? Perhaps, but culture is the stronger factor for sure.That's what I understood, and I still think it's a ridiculous notion.
Not that all of these prejudices are justified, of course, but the "core" ones tend to be near-universal, and either glaringly based on biological differences, or simply logical (if not always justified) consequences of said biological differences.
Goddamn it Borachio how do you do it.Why is defecation considered gender-specific?
Well, which ones are these?That's what I understood, and I still think it's a ridiculous notion.
Not that all of these prejudices are justified, of course, but the "core" ones tend to be near-universal, and either glaringly based on biological differences, or simply logical (if not always justified) consequences of said biological differences.
True, there is a number of consequences that are due to cyclical feedback (typically : men tends to vie for and get power, hence power is in the hands of men, hence after a number of generations they conclude that women are not fit for high-responsabilities/powerful positions, and they transmit this PoV to their descendants) and though they are a logical consequence, they are only indirectly related to evolutionary reasons.Glaringly, not really. But the second part, the "logical consequences" well yes, quite reasonably so. But such logical consequences as so far divorced from evolutionary starting points there is not a lot of reason to ascribe these consequences as natural biological sex biases.
I find one very good reason to believe in it : it tends to describe reality better than any alternatives I was shown until now.There's plenty of reason to suspect it. There's no reason to believe in it.
I'm talking about how (on a tendencies/statistical/large numbers level), biological differences fits and explain behavioural expectations."Confirms my prejudices" and "describes reality" are often easily confused; are you absolutely sure that you've filtered the one from the other?
I'm talking about how (on a tendencies/statistical/large numbers level), biological differences fits and explain behavioural expectations.
First proves how it's wrong, only then you can talk about "prejudices".
I don't know how anyone "feels like a man or a woman".
The biggest gulf, for me, is between my experience - as myself - and the entire rest of the world.
Gender issues are as minor, in comparison, as hair-colouring.
Still, that's perhaps easy for me to say. I've never really felt disadvantaged because of the choices I've had to make with regard to public lavatories. Why is defecation considered gender-specific?