Those who have come from Pz's blog, aka THAT thread

[mozg]

Watson explains why SHE lost interest in science. When she was a kid, she loved science. But, she lost interest in science right about the time high school started, because her teachers were teaching out of textbooks. And, she felt that what she was learning was "rote knowledge." LOL. She says she "lost the thread of what science really is, which is about discovery and learning more about our universe."

So she decided at the ripe old wise age of 14 that she knew better than everyone else about science, and what science 'really is', especially those scientists who actually did sit down and do the work to learn the textbook fundamentals so that they could go out and do new science. Sounds about right for a 14 year-old.

The problem is, Watson has not grown out of it.

EDIT to add: LOL -- another lul at 20 minutes in... Watson "hates big pharma" -- she used to work for a "progressive organization" that was "fighting big Pharma to get Medicare/aid to cover prescription medications..." Uh.... dipshit.... Big Pharma never had any objection to Medicare/Medicaid covering prescription drugs, it meant more money for them because the government started paying for prescription drugs. Duh. "Big Pharma as a conglomerate is vicious and awful, and we need to keep a close eye on it." -- Watson.

It's a page right out of the book of the 'herbalists' and the 'naturalists' and the homeopathy alternative medicine kooks who think that 'Big Pharma' is only in it for the money, but that their vaunted heroes who tell them that all these things are bad and that you'll do better with 'natural supplements' that they conveniently sell right on their website for a profit are not in it to make money.

You know what they call alternative medicine that has been proven to work?

MEDICINE.

Watson clearly doesn't understand the first fucking thing about how the world works, but she sure does know a lot about buying Manic Panic hair dye.

[Coito ergo sum]

LOL - 28 minutes in - Watson explains that men at atheist and skeptic events are no more (or less) misogynistic than the general population, but the community is mostly men and when the boys get together they minimize women's contributions and "make jokes without even thinking about it." Here that guys? Too many guys in a room = misogyny. Nice.

[Audley Strange]

Yes any group of over 5 men should mandatorily have a Matriarchal Amanuensis observing and noting down what they say for potential pre-crime signifiers. All potential criminals will be excoriated through the popular press prior to their trial at the hands of Inquisitor Myers at which they will be given the opportunity to confess their crimes and be offered sacrimental castration, if they choose not to confess, they will be non-persons and executed by being drowned in the collective tears of their victims.

[Ian]

Any group of at least four guys who get together socially and don't make the occasional (non-violent) joke about women ought to turn in their testicles.

Does that mean misogyny is inevitable? Maybe, if one always wants to call it that. But when a group of women get together and the conversation turns to the subject of men, what are some of the words we have for that?

[hadespussercats]

Needs one damn big spoon...

Yeah, but Reese Witherladle just isn't as snappy a name.

[cogwheel]

Needs one damn big spoon...

Yeah, but Reese Witherladle just isn't as snappy a name.

Witherpaddle
Witheroar
Witherspade
Witherdipper

[hadespussercats]

I like to embrace the sameness!

Here's my question, as someone who dabbles in many ways on the spectrum between, for lack of better terms, butch and girly:
We have these terms, also manly, womanly, femme, boyish, etc., etc. We all have a sense of what they mean. Why? Where is that meaning coming from? Can we change those meanings? Ditch them all together? Do we want to?

The meaning comes from where all meanings come from, usage by humans. Manly and womanly exist as terms because "man" means X and woman means Y and if something is more woman-like it's womanly and if it's more man-like it's manly. But, words and language aren't mathematics, so at best the words we use are approximations and generalizations. When does a grain become a pebble, a pebble become a stone, a stone become a boulder?

The reason the words exist is that they're useful, and they're useful because in real life they work to describe a good deal of situations so when someone says "manly" you know pretty much what they mean, and when they say "womanly" you know pretty much what they mean. Sure, some women are more manly and some men more womanly. But, that, too, is part of the reason the terms exist.

I like fixing things around the house. I like using industrial-grade woodworking tools. I enjoy chemistry and physics and biology (as a layperson.) I like pink. I like workboots. So?

so, nothing. That's what you like. Some people describe woodworking as manly, and pink as womanly.

Does any of that actually relate to my gender or my sex? Or my position near the middle of Kinsey's scale?

It only relates to things you like that in our culture are generally associated with manly pursuits or womanly pursuits or neutral pursuits. I've never heard chemistry/physics/biology as "manly" things, but certainly if one says "chemist, physicist or biologist" I think most folks associate that job with men performing them.

Do you know what I mean?

As an aside, when Blind Groper referred to embracing girly pursuits like dressmaking if that's your interest, I felt trivialized. Even though I introduced the term myself. What's so bad about girly? And what's so bad about pink?

I would wonder why you thought he mean it was something bad? Did he say that womanly or girly pursuits were bad? Or, did you assume that by being called girly or womanly, that must mean that they are being denigrated?

CES, why do these phrases "work to describe a good deal of situations so when someone says 'manly' you know pretty much what they mean, and when they say 'womanly' you know pretty much what they mean"? That's my question.

If gender differences don't exist, why are there more women at craft shows and more men at gun shows, as mozg pointed out? And if they do exist, what causes them? Where are they coming from? (Incidentally, this is a good example of the sort of dynamic cogwheel and I have mentioned previously in the thread, that is subtle to describe or explain but far from invisible. It's literally all around us, we're so submerged in it it's hard to even look at it and figure out what's going on.)

As for the last exchange, with Blind Groper, as I reponded to him earlier, my comment was poking fun at myself, but also remarking upon the sense that "girly" as a descriptor is dismissive.

As for pink, there is a sense in certain circles* that pink as a color will make little boys enlightened, but will make girls stupid and dependent on male approval their whole lives. Why? It's just a color.

*- I can find citations aplenty if you need them-- I don't have time at the moment.

[hadespussercats]

But I'm wondering why people like mozg aren't more numerous. And I suspect it's a subtle question of identity politics.

Among female engineers - and I know many - to a woman, they have all said things that are in agreement with some or all of what mozg states. Generally, it's those that aren't in the field, I've found, that are sure that women are being kept down by sexist males who don't want women working with them....

See, that's why you should have looked at my whole post.

Women have pasts-- experiences as children and young adults that lead them towards one interest over another, or to work on one set of skills over another.

So do men. We all have pasts.

A great many people go off and do things that are not in accord with anything they were "led" or even "pushed" to do as a child and young adult.

Like I said, I used to get good grades in math. But aside from basic arithmetic and some geometry and trig I use for pattern-making I haven't done any math in 20 years. So I suck at it now. I have the ability. I just haven't used it, because of the other choices I've made.

Why aren't more girls choosing math and science, and thus growing up to be women who do the same?

I don't know, but most men who take math in school don't use it as adults either. I can tell you that my daughter will learn math. I don't give a fuck if she "chooses" math and science - by the time she graduates high school, she will taken and learned math up through calculus, and all the major sciences. I wasn't aware that in a college-directed high school program there was much of a choice in that regard.

There's choice in how much you apply yourself, whether you strive for the highest levels of study or just to pass your basic requirements.

And then there's what you see around you, what inspires you.

The issues that I'm describing, how notions of gender shape our lives, don't affect only girls and women. They affect boys and men, too.

The fact that we all know people who don't fit those norms is proof that they aren't necessary. So why do they exist?

[hadespussercats]

I just noticed this while making a point on the other thread, Civil War in Skepticism.

Check out this video, and start at about 5:30 or 6 minutes in:

Watson explains why SHE lost interest in science. When she was a kid, she loved science. But, she lost interest in science right about the time high school started, because her teachers were teaching out of textbooks. And, she felt that what she was learning was "rote knowledge." LOL. She says she "lost the thread of what science really is, which is about discovery and learning more about our universe."

Right, honey. But, lots of all this sciencey stuff has already been learned and that's why they have textbooks, and you're going to have to do a LOT of "book-learnin'" if you want to become educated in the sciences. I know it's hard, but you're going to have learn Newtonian phyiscs, for example, and do the math. It's not going to be all about going on field trips and seeing if a bowling ball and a baseball really do hit the ground at the same time when dropped from the same height....

EDIT to add: LOL -- another lul at 20 minutes in... Watson "hates big pharma" -- she used to work for a "progressive organization" that was "fighting big Pharma to get Medicare/aid to cover prescription medications..." Uh.... dipshit.... Big Pharma never had any objection to Medicare/Medicaid covering prescription drugs, it meant more money for them because the government started paying for prescription drugs. Duh. "Big Pharma as a conglomerate is vicious and awful, and we need to keep a close eye on it." -- Watson.

That's her experience. I hope her story isn't enough on it's own to make you turn a deaf ear to some of the dynamics I'd like to discuss.

[Audley Strange]

Perhaps normative behaviour is actually normative. I mean I get what you are saying about tradition and cultural influences. However that doesn't mean the normative IS encultured, it may well be that us slow becoming more accepting over time of the abnormal is the . I'm not saying by any means you are wrong BTW, I think it is an interesting and worthwhile topic for consideration and as I said before I'd like to see if any large scale different cultures (fuck studying outlying neolithic tribes) approach gender issues differently or not.

[Coito ergo sum]

CES, why do these phrases "work to describe a good deal of situations so when someone says 'manly' you know pretty much what they mean, and when they say 'womanly' you know pretty much what they mean"? That's my question.

I thought I just described that. The words are labels for things/actions, etc. Something isn't manly because we call it manly. There are a set of things that in our culture sort of go together, and those things have been called "manly." They could have been called chubbly or wubbly or whatever, but through the evolution of language the word manly came to be as a reference to the set of things that people generally associate with that meaning.

Like, why does the word "lake" work to describe a good deal of the bodies of water we encounter and why do we know pretty much what someone means when they use that word? Because there are things in the world with generally shared characteristics, and humans give names to things. The various things that are bodies of water within a certain size delimitation that is very imprecise, we call those things "lakes." Same process.

If gender differences don't exist,

Clearly, they do exist. Who says they don't?

why are there more women at craft shows and more men at gun shows, as mozg pointed out?

Because there are gender differences, whether biological or environmental or cultural or whatever.

And if they do exist, what causes them?

I suspect a combination of biology and environment.

Where are they coming from? (Incidentally, this is a good example of the sort of dynamic cogwheel and I have mentioned previously in the thread, that is subtle to describe or explain but far from invisible. It's literally all around us, we're so submerged in it it's hard to even look at it and figure out what's going on.)

Maybe. Boys are born with penises, and women not. It's probably highly likely that men will do a lot more peeing standing up, and that peeing standing up would be seen as "manly" and peeing sitting down, not so much. That would be one of the myriad examples, unending examples.

I'm not sure what you're talking about, actually. I haven't said there aren't gender differences. I have said that I don't see them as "problems" to be solved. Maybe that is where some of us differ.

As for the last exchange, with Blind Groper, as I reponded to him earlier, my comment was poking fun at myself, but also remarking upon the sense that "girly" as a descriptor is dismissive.

As for pink, there is a sense in certain circles* that pink as a color will make little boys enlightened, but will make girls stupid and dependent on male approval their whole lives. Why? It's just a color.

*- I can find citations aplenty if you need them-- I don't have time at the moment.

I don't know.

Did you ever see the movie "The Break-Up." I laugh my ass off at that movie, because it seems to me to crystalize some of the most common "differences" between men and women and how we think. I don't know if there is biology to it, although I suspect there is some.

Take the argument over doing the dishes -- Jennifer Aniston wants the dishes done, and Vince Vaughn wants to rest. She gets mad at him, and he asks why she is mad. He then relents and says "o.k., FINE, I'll do the god damn dishes." She then says "no, that's not going to work -- I want you to WANT to do the dishes..." and he responds "why would I want to do dishes?" That scene demonstrates a "gender difference", and I don't know if it is inherent or purely a matter of culture.

Dawwww.....

[Coito ergo sum]

duplicate

[Coito ergo sum]

That's her experience. I hope her story isn't enough on it's own to make you turn a deaf ear to some of the dynamics I'd like to discuss.

I was only commenting there on "her" experience. Note how I stressed that she was talking about how "she" lost interest in science.

Her story,though, makes her sound like an idiot. All those textbooks were too much "rote knowledge" for her? Here experience here is really quite silly. I mean, to learn sciences, you can't do it without a whole boat load of book learnin' and "rote knowledge" and textbooks a mile thick.

Just ask anyone, male or female, who got a degree in a scientific or technical discipline. You have to study. Hard. You don't. Can't. You can't learn science by just participating in the "fun stuff" of going on about how dumb homeopathy and perpetual motion machines are. Any people who want to get into scientific fields are going to have to burn the midnight oil learning what is in those textbooks that turned her off to science.

[Audley Strange]

Yeah it does sound like "huh I'm too important for this learning shit, one day I'll be slightly less of a non-entity by being a professional complainer, who needs brains n shit?"

[Tero]

We usually have a misanthropic corner at the party where we have good drinks and talk science. Just the odd Skepchick joke. How many Skepchicks...