Is the skeptical "movement" sexist? - Page 2

Miss_Kitt · 28th February 2013, 04:28 PM

Earthborn, I haven't seen anyone saying or implying that culture has no impact, or that biology is the sole source of gender differences; only that biology is in play. Of course culture has an impact; and, equally of course, biology has an impact.

Golden retrievers are generally friendlier, louder, and more energetic than German Shepherds (though of course any particular shepherd may be more or less friendly than any given golden). This broad statement is true, and demonstrably so; yet the way a dog is raised and handled also influences its personality and behavior. The genetic differences between the two breeds of dogs are not larger than those separating males and females within Homo Sapiens. Why does it seem so unlikely to you that a similar impact is not present for people?

Just wondering, MK

kellyb · 28th February 2013, 05:05 PM

Until pretty recently, people's exposure to "skepticism" was usually some old white guy on some TV show (usually one with a terrible sort of "false balance") trying to debunk UFOs, telepathy, etc. The mental image of "a scientist" has been male, too.

I think it's just the residual effect of really deeply embedded sexism of the past and not active hostility to women at present within the skeptic community (At least not any moreso than exists in wider society).

Skepticism might be more of a guy thing currently, but it's cultural and not (much, at least) biological. (And I do think there are innate gender differences. A difference in desire to really understand how the world works is NOT a biological difference, though.)

Puppycow · 28th February 2013, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Soapy Sam

(My wife's reason is "Because it's perfectly obvious that nonsense is nonsense, so I don't know why you spend hours on the internet rabbitting on about something any five year old already understands.")
Yes, dear. Coming , dear.

If only that were that were true. I wish that everyone over the age of 5 had enough sense to realize that nonsense is nonsense.

kellyb · 28th February 2013, 08:10 PM

Originally Posted by Puppycow

If only that were that were true. I wish that everyone over the age of 5 had enough sense to realize that nonsense is nonsense.

Almost no 5 yo's see nonsense as nonsense. A vast majority of adults have issues with recognizing it, as well, a lot of times.

I think humans are wired to believe what 1)we're taught to believe, and 2)what people around us believe.

Cognition is goofy like that. It's a pretty universal human flaw that I'd guess has evolutionary/survival/whatever benefits.

JohnG · 28th February 2013, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger

Funny story, back when I was in college. The Health Sciences building had a couple little cubbies for breaks and two of them had TVs. Walking by one there were almost exclusively women watching a soap opera. It's embarrassing. Then I walked by another that was all men except one women. They had a football game on.

I found it interesting that at the time I thought the women were stupider. Now I'm not so sure a sports game is any less mindless than a soap opera. I still find college women's interest in soap operas an embarrassment.

Fortunately most college educated women aren't like that.

I spent my teens pretty obsessed with soaps and I was bored senseless by televised football. Now it may not be the wildest of coincidences that my teenage years were spent in a household with three sisters and our mother. Where nature and nurture factors into all of that I don't pretend to know. One thing I'll say though is that it is a common tendency in humans to believe that which comforts us and to reject out of hand that which bewilders/embarrasses/depresses/angers/offends us. I've lived long enough to recognize that reality is an equal opportunity offender; there are unflattering truths that we all have to face about not insignificant populations within those various subgroups (gender/age/race/nationality/class/etc.) we fall within.

When it comes to where we each perceive ourselves in the gender discussion continuum I note that most of us, whether we realize it or not, fall into a trap where we believe our subjective (and often quite transitory) position in that continuum is the "just right" Goldilocks zone. It reminds me of an observation of George Carlin's:

“Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?”

Lots of people who have weighed in on the issue of gender equality (including Rebecca Watson herself) seem to fancy themselves the "just right" voice of reason, and anyone who doesn't hold similar opinions are knuckle-dragging chauvinists, craven apologists or humorless radicals. Maybe the dirty little secret of most of these kinds of discussions is that nearly everyone, no matter where they fall in the continuum have valid points to make?

Stereotypes, whether they be in regards to gender, race, age or whatever are at the best of times mere simpleminded rules of thumb and at worst symptoms of humanity's essential perniciously tribalistic "we rule, they drool" impulses. That fact in itself doesn't mean that the stereotypes are always conceived out of whole cloth, though. While it's morally and intellectually important to debunk baseless stereotypes, it is just as important to try to decode the nature and nurture reasons why, say, males tend to like to watch sports while females more often than not would rather watch a soap opera, rather than making some (ultimately arbitrary) value judgement on whether an interest in sports is more or less "better" than an interest in soaps. I'd argue that a healthy civilization needs people who are interested in all sorts of things and that while these tendencies aren't strictly driven by nature it isn't inherently inappropriate to look into the possibility that nature plays a not insignificant role in informing these tendencies.

Correa Neto · 1st March 2013, 04:03 AM

Originally Posted by Earthborn

...snip...

Or it could have something to do with culture.

Sorry for the snippage, but I suppose that's a key sentence. The actual questions should be "Are societies and cultures sexist?" and "Are people sexist"? If the societies and cultures are sexist, then the people belonging to them probably...

Sure, one could expect critical thinkers not to be sexist, but then there's something else- the backgrounds of these people. We have different backgrounds and this is valid for groups of individuals and individuals. What one considers as abusive, sexist, may not be considered as being so by another. Note the standards may even change according to the situation, environment, occasion, etc. Sure, there are limits to relativism and I bet we all can find common grounds for defining abusive behavior.

This put, remember - we all **** up things sometimes. A given misbehavior doesn't necessarily mean an individual or the social group of that individual is sexist or tenders some other sort of bigotry, prejudice, whaetever; it might just mean that individual made a mistake.

devnull · 1st March 2013, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by Miss_Kitt

Also, having had kids of my own and watched babies developing--not just my own, but numerous babies and toddlers in many 'play groups' and 'Mommy/Baby classes' and the like, I have to say: They're different.

Oh man, are they ever. I have 2 daughters and a son. I am amazed at the difference between my daughters and their male classmates. Girls are so much more......... intelligent..... at the same age.

5 year old girls are thoughtful, clever and creative. 5 year old boys are raging dumbasses. Girls will carefully organise a game, only to have a boy run through the middle of it, screaming.

Many times I have sat and watched the kids at play (kindy, preschool, or just at the park) and I am always *amazed* at the differences.

shuttlt · 1st March 2013, 05:18 AM

Originally Posted by devnull

5 year old girls are thoughtful, clever and creative. 5 year old boys are raging dumbasses. Girls will carefully organise a game, only to have a boy run through the middle of it, screaming.

You should meet my five year old son. He's a smart little kid, when he isn't being wrestled to the floor by his little sister.

John Jones · 2nd March 2013, 03:46 PM

All I know is that my twin girls are smart, and my anecdotes trump yours.

So there.

devnull · 2nd March 2013, 09:04 PM

Originally Posted by shuttlt

You should meet my five year old son. He's a smart little kid, when he isn't being wrestled to the floor by his little sister.

The heroin during pregnancy wasnt such a great idea then?

Earthborn · 10th March 2013, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by Miss_Kitt

Why does it seem so unlikely to you that a similar impact is not present for people?

I have a teensy bit of a background in behavioural biology, so it does not seem so unlikely to me as you might think. I don't even make that much of a distinction between learnt behaviour (including culture) and biology, since learning is biological function.

I am however familiar with how difficult it can be to determine how much influence genetics has on behaviour, and none of the "boys and girls are different" studies even attempts to do what is necessary to make that determination.

The study of behaviour also has a long history of underestimating environmental influences and declaring things "innate" with very little evidence.

John Jones · 11th March 2013, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Earthborn

I have a teensy bit of a background in behavioural biology, [...]

Well isn't that precious? You have a teensy bit of condescension every so often too.

s_pepys · 12th March 2013, 03:12 AM

Originally Posted by Earthborn

I have a teensy bit of a background in behavioural biology, so it does not seem so unlikely to me as you might think. I don't even make that much of a distinction between learnt behaviour (including culture) and biology, since learning is biological function.

I am however familiar with how difficult it can be to determine how much influence genetics has on behaviour, and none of the "boys and girls are different" studies even attempts to do what is necessary to make that determination.

The study of behaviour also has a long history of underestimating environmental influences and declaring things "innate" with very little evidence.

let me guess. you paid to go on a short one day course held by some new age type who didnt go into detail about his/her credentials? close?

Earthborn · 12th March 2013, 11:49 AM

Originally Posted by John Jones

Well isn't that precious? You have a teensy bit of condescension every so often too.

Really? Is calling poor research for what it is now considered condescending on the JREF forum?

Originally Posted by s_pepys

let me guess. you paid to go on a short one day course held by some new age type who didnt go into detail about his/her credentials? close?

Not close at all. It was a several month course at the Open University, by people with relevant credentials. I don't want to pretend I have a PhD in the field, but that doesn't make my views woo. Also, I did not pay for the course in full; the government sometimes pays for government accredited education.

Behavioural biology as a science is as far away from New Age as one can get. It is a very mechanistic "materialist"/"reductionist" study of behaviour of animals (including humans).

John Jones · 12th March 2013, 06:46 PM

Originally Posted by Earthborn

Really? Is calling poor research for what it is now considered condescending on the JREF forum?

[...].

Not as far as I can see. I just call condescension when I see it, hon.

And yes, I was being ironic in case you were going to ask.

John Jones · 12th March 2013, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Earthborn

Really? Is calling poor research for what it is now considered condescending on the JREF forum?

Not close at all. It was a several month course at the Open University, by people with relevant credentials. I don't want to pretend I have a PhD in the field, but that doesn't make my views woo. Also, I did not pay for the course in full; the government sometimes pays for government accredited education.

Behavioural biology as a science is as far away from New Age as one can get. It is a very mechanistic "materialist"/"reductionist" study of behaviour of animals (including humans).

People with differing opinions doubting yours. Isn't that precious?

28th February 2013, 04:28 PM	#41
Miss_Kitt Zombie Horse of Homeopathy Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Lesser Seattle Posts: 3,632	Earthborn, I haven't seen anyone saying or implying that culture has no impact, or that biology is the sole source of gender differences; only that biology is in play. Of course culture has an impact; and, equally of course, biology has an impact. Golden retrievers are generally friendlier, louder, and more energetic than German Shepherds (though of course any particular shepherd may be more or less friendly than any given golden). This broad statement is true, and demonstrably so; yet the way a dog is raised and handled also influences its personality and behavior. The genetic differences between the two breeds of dogs are not larger than those separating males and females within Homo Sapiens. Why does it seem so unlikely to you that a similar impact is not present for people? Just wondering, MK
	__________________ It's much better to live an honest life than a delusional one -- desertgal Magic thinking is a lead personal floatation device. It looks really reassuring, but it will drag you down--whatthebutlersaw

28th February 2013, 05:05 PM	#42
kellyb Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Tennessee. Ain't you jealous? Posts: 4,417	Until pretty recently, people's exposure to "skepticism" was usually some old white guy on some TV show (usually one with a terrible sort of "false balance") trying to debunk UFOs, telepathy, etc. The mental image of "a scientist" has been male, too. I think it's just the residual effect of really deeply embedded sexism of the past and not active hostility to women at present within the skeptic community (At least not any moreso than exists in wider society). Skepticism might be more of a guy thing currently, but it's cultural and not (much, at least) biological. (And I do think there are innate gender differences. A difference in desire to really understand how the world works is NOT a biological difference, though.)
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell

28th February 2013, 06:14 PM	#43
Puppycow Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Japan Posts: 15,792	Originally Posted by Soapy Sam (My wife's reason is "Because it's perfectly obvious that nonsense is nonsense, so I don't know why you spend hours on the internet rabbitting on about something any five year old already understands.") Yes, dear. Coming , dear. If only that were that were true. I wish that everyone over the age of 5 had enough sense to realize that nonsense is nonsense.
	__________________ “Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three.” ― Joseph Heller, Catch-22

28th February 2013, 08:10 PM	#44
kellyb Illuminator Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Tennessee. Ain't you jealous? Posts: 4,417	Originally Posted by Puppycow If only that were that were true. I wish that everyone over the age of 5 had enough sense to realize that nonsense is nonsense. Almost no 5 yo's see nonsense as nonsense. A vast majority of adults have issues with recognizing it, as well, a lot of times. I think humans are wired to believe what 1)we're taught to believe, and 2)what people around us believe. Cognition is goofy like that. It's a pretty universal human flaw that I'd guess has evolutionary/survival/whatever benefits.
	__________________ The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts ~ Bertrand Russell

28th February 2013, 10:05 PM	#45
JohnG Pedantic Bore Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Abandon All Hope Posts: 4,398	Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger Funny story, back when I was in college. The Health Sciences building had a couple little cubbies for breaks and two of them had TVs. Walking by one there were almost exclusively women watching a soap opera. It's embarrassing. Then I walked by another that was all men except one women. They had a football game on. I found it interesting that at the time I thought the women were stupider. Now I'm not so sure a sports game is any less mindless than a soap opera. I still find college women's interest in soap operas an embarrassment. Fortunately most college educated women aren't like that. I spent my teens pretty obsessed with soaps and I was bored senseless by televised football. Now it may not be the wildest of coincidences that my teenage years were spent in a household with three sisters and our mother. Where nature and nurture factors into all of that I don't pretend to know. One thing I'll say though is that it is a common tendency in humans to believe that which comforts us and to reject out of hand that which bewilders/embarrasses/depresses/angers/offends us. I've lived long enough to recognize that reality is an equal opportunity offender; there are unflattering truths that we all have to face about not insignificant populations within those various subgroups (gender/age/race/nationality/class/etc.) we fall within. When it comes to where we each perceive ourselves in the gender discussion continuum I note that most of us, whether we realize it or not, fall into a trap where we believe our subjective (and often quite transitory) position in that continuum is the "just right" Goldilocks zone. It reminds me of an observation of George Carlin's: “Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?” Lots of people who have weighed in on the issue of gender equality (including Rebecca Watson herself) seem to fancy themselves the "just right" voice of reason, and anyone who doesn't hold similar opinions are knuckle-dragging chauvinists, craven apologists or humorless radicals. Maybe the dirty little secret of most of these kinds of discussions is that nearly everyone, no matter where they fall in the continuum have valid points to make? Stereotypes, whether they be in regards to gender, race, age or whatever are at the best of times mere simpleminded rules of thumb and at worst symptoms of humanity's essential perniciously tribalistic "we rule, they drool" impulses. That fact in itself doesn't mean that the stereotypes are always conceived out of whole cloth, though. While it's morally and intellectually important to debunk baseless stereotypes, it is just as important to try to decode the nature and nurture reasons why, say, males tend to like to watch sports while females more often than not would rather watch a soap opera, rather than making some (ultimately arbitrary) value judgement on whether an interest in sports is more or less "better" than an interest in soaps. I'd argue that a healthy civilization needs people who are interested in all sorts of things and that while these tendencies aren't strictly driven by nature it isn't inherently inappropriate to look into the possibility that nature plays a not insignificant role in informing these tendencies.
	__________________ Do not weep. Do not wax indignant. Understand. - Baruch Spinoza You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant. -Harlan Ellison

1st March 2013, 04:03 AM	#46
Correa Neto Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Hunting rocks somewhere in Brazil Posts: 7,189	Originally Posted by Earthborn ...snip... Or it could have something to do with culture. Sorry for the snippage, but I suppose that's a key sentence. The actual questions should be "Are societies and cultures sexist?" and "Are people sexist"? If the societies and cultures are sexist, then the people belonging to them probably... Sure, one could expect critical thinkers not to be sexist, but then there's something else- the backgrounds of these people. We have different backgrounds and this is valid for groups of individuals and individuals. What one considers as abusive, sexist, may not be considered as being so by another. Note the standards may even change according to the situation, environment, occasion, etc. Sure, there are limits to relativism and I bet we all can find common grounds for defining abusive behavior. This put, remember - we all **** up things sometimes. A given misbehavior doesn't necessarily mean an individual or the social group of that individual is sexist or tenders some other sort of bigotry, prejudice, whaetever; it might just mean that individual made a mistake.
	__________________ Racism, sexism, ignorance, homophobia, intolerance, extremism, authoritarianism, environmental disasters, politically correct crap, violence at sport stadiums, slavery, poverty, wars, people who disagree with me: Together we can find the cure Oh, and together we can find a cure to religion too…

1st March 2013, 04:17 AM	#47
devnull Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 4,533	Originally Posted by Miss_Kitt Also, having had kids of my own and watched babies developing--not just my own, but numerous babies and toddlers in many 'play groups' and 'Mommy/Baby classes' and the like, I have to say: They're different. Oh man, are they ever. I have 2 daughters and a son. I am amazed at the difference between my daughters and their male classmates. Girls are so much more......... intelligent..... at the same age. 5 year old girls are thoughtful, clever and creative. 5 year old boys are raging dumbasses. Girls will carefully organise a game, only to have a boy run through the middle of it, screaming. Many times I have sat and watched the kids at play (kindy, preschool, or just at the park) and I am always amazed at the differences.
	__________________ no, i don't think i need to read naturalistic literature more accurately, to be convinced its true. - Gibhor

1st March 2013, 05:18 AM	#48
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,936	Originally Posted by devnull 5 year old girls are thoughtful, clever and creative. 5 year old boys are raging dumbasses. Girls will carefully organise a game, only to have a boy run through the middle of it, screaming. You should meet my five year old son. He's a smart little kid, when he isn't being wrestled to the floor by his little sister.
shuttlt Illuminator Join Date: Aug 2008 Posts: 3,936

2nd March 2013, 03:46 PM	#49
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,724	All I know is that my twin girls are smart, and my anecdotes trump yours. So there.
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,724

2nd March 2013, 09:04 PM	#50
devnull Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Perth, Western Australia Posts: 4,533	Originally Posted by shuttlt You should meet my five year old son. He's a smart little kid, when he isn't being wrestled to the floor by his little sister. The heroin during pregnancy wasnt such a great idea then?
	__________________ no, i don't think i need to read naturalistic literature more accurately, to be convinced its true. - Gibhor

10th March 2013, 01:25 PM	#51
Earthborn Terrestrial Intelligence Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Terra Firma Posts: 5,649	Originally Posted by Miss_Kitt Why does it seem so unlikely to you that a similar impact is not present for people? I have a teensy bit of a background in behavioural biology, so it does not seem so unlikely to me as you might think. I don't even make that much of a distinction between learnt behaviour (including culture) and biology, since learning is biological function. I am however familiar with how difficult it can be to determine how much influence genetics has on behaviour, and none of the "boys and girls are different" studies even attempts to do what is necessary to make that determination. The study of behaviour also has a long history of underestimating environmental influences and declaring things "innate" with very little evidence.
	__________________ Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli

11th March 2013, 06:30 PM	#52
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,724	Originally Posted by Earthborn I have a teensy bit of a background in behavioural biology, [...] Well isn't that precious? You have a teensy bit of condescension every so often too.
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,724

12th March 2013, 03:12 AM	#53
s_pepys Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 553	Originally Posted by Earthborn I have a teensy bit of a background in behavioural biology, so it does not seem so unlikely to me as you might think. I don't even make that much of a distinction between learnt behaviour (including culture) and biology, since learning is biological function. I am however familiar with how difficult it can be to determine how much influence genetics has on behaviour, and none of the "boys and girls are different" studies even attempts to do what is necessary to make that determination. The study of behaviour also has a long history of underestimating environmental influences and declaring things "innate" with very little evidence. let me guess. you paid to go on a short one day course held by some new age type who didnt go into detail about his/her credentials? close?
s_pepys Muse Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 553

12th March 2013, 11:49 AM	#54
Earthborn Terrestrial Intelligence Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Terra Firma Posts: 5,649	Originally Posted by John Jones Well isn't that precious? You have a teensy bit of condescension every so often too. Really? Is calling poor research for what it is now considered condescending on the JREF forum? Originally Posted by s_pepys let me guess. you paid to go on a short one day course held by some new age type who didnt go into detail about his/her credentials? close? Not close at all. It was a several month course at the Open University, by people with relevant credentials. I don't want to pretend I have a PhD in the field, but that doesn't make my views woo. Also, I did not pay for the course in full; the government sometimes pays for government accredited education. Behavioural biology as a science is as far away from New Age as one can get. It is a very mechanistic "materialist"/"reductionist" study of behaviour of animals (including humans).
	__________________ Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli

12th March 2013, 06:46 PM	#55
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,724	Originally Posted by Earthborn Really? Is calling poor research for what it is now considered condescending on the JREF forum? [...]. Not as far as I can see. I just call condescension when I see it, hon. And yes, I was being ironic in case you were going to ask.
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,724

12th March 2013, 06:50 PM	#56
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,724	Originally Posted by Earthborn Really? Is calling poor research for what it is now considered condescending on the JREF forum? Not close at all. It was a several month course at the Open University, by people with relevant credentials. I don't want to pretend I have a PhD in the field, but that doesn't make my views woo. Also, I did not pay for the course in full; the government sometimes pays for government accredited education. Behavioural biology as a science is as far away from New Age as one can get. It is a very mechanistic "materialist"/"reductionist" study of behaviour of animals (including humans). People with differing opinions doubting yours. Isn't that precious?
John Jones Illuminator Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 3,724