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

A forum to talk about other sites and things you've found in the jungle that is the internet.

Please take a moment to read the rationalia guidelines: http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3449
Post Reply
User avatar
mozg
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:25 am
About me: There's not much to tell.
Location: US And A
Contact:

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

Post by mozg » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:22 pm

hadespussercats wrote:If gender differences don't exist, why are there more women at craft shows and more men at gun shows, as mozg pointed out?
People tend to go to the kind of events that interest them, which is why you won't see me at the craft show. I have no idea why (in general) men are less interested in decoupage and women are less interested in reloading.
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.)
But not having an iron-clad explanation for it is not the same thing as proof that it's sexism.
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 is 'macho', which is used to dismiss something as the pursuit of a brainless, knuckle dragging, juice head.
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 have a friend (female) who doesn't like pink. Never had anything pink in her house, no pink clothes, nothing. This friend had a daughter and by the time the daughter was two years old, the kid had a clear preference for pink clothes, pink hair ties, pink shoes, pink toys and everything as princessy as possible. She didn't go to day care, wasn't exposed to much television, and was not given primarily 'girl' toys to play with, but if there were multiple options of toys she would gravitate like a damn rare earth magnet to the pinkest and frilliest toy in the selection.
'Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! ..But He loves you.' - George Carlin

User avatar
hadespussercats
I've come for your pants.
Posts: 18586
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:27 am
About me: Looks pretty good, coming out of the back of his neck like that.
Location: Gotham
Contact:

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

Post by hadespussercats » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:24 pm

ces wrote: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.
Ah, forget it. These questions were directed to everyone, not just you, so...
I'll just see if there's anyone who see some ideas they want to kick around with me.


By the by, I think having good rote memorization skills is pretty crucial to learning. But then, I always enjoyed the challenge of memorization.
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.

Listen. No one listens. Meow.

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 21022
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

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

Post by laklak » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:29 pm

I also lost interest in text bookish stuff at around the age of 14, which was about the age that I discovered tits and ass.

Oh, and beer. And marijuana. Damn, it was a very good year.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
cogwheel
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:08 pm
About me: "Are you the first person ever to post their first ever post directly into NSFW?"
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

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

Post by cogwheel » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:30 pm

hadespussercats wrote:By the by, I think having good rote memorization skills is pretty crucial to learning. But then, I always enjoyed the challenge of memorization.
I'm sure it was more crucial before Google. I absolutely love that I can outsource my rote memorization to the internet in the same way I can outsource rote calculation to a calculator and rote computation to a computer.

User avatar
Audley Strange
"I blame the victim"
Posts: 7485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:00 pm
Contact:

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

Post by Audley Strange » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:30 pm

ignore please.
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man

User avatar
hadespussercats
I've come for your pants.
Posts: 18586
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:27 am
About me: Looks pretty good, coming out of the back of his neck like that.
Location: Gotham
Contact:

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

Post by hadespussercats » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:32 pm

mozg wrote:
hadespussercats wrote:If gender differences don't exist, why are there more women at craft shows and more men at gun shows, as mozg pointed out?
People tend to go to the kind of events that interest them, which is why you won't see me at the craft show. I have no idea why (in general) men are less interested in decoupage and women are less interested in reloading.
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.)
But not having an iron-clad explanation for it is not the same thing as proof that it's sexism.
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 is 'macho', which is used to dismiss something as the pursuit of a brainless, knuckle dragging, juice head.
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 have a friend (female) who doesn't like pink. Never had anything pink in her house, no pink clothes, nothing. This friend had a daughter and by the time the daughter was two years old, the kid had a clear preference for pink clothes, pink hair ties, pink shoes, pink toys and everything as princessy as possible. She didn't go to day care, wasn't exposed to much television, and was not given primarily 'girl' toys to play with, but if there were multiple options of toys she would gravitate like a damn rare earth magnet to the pinkest and frilliest toy in the selection.
I think you might have missed a point I made earlier to Coito, about how these gender norms influence boys and men as much as girls and women.

I have a picture book my mother-in-law gave me, that I refuse to read to Sprog because the big joke in the end is that Daddy burns the spaghetti and has to order in pizza. Why would I want to teach my son that men are bumbling fools in the kitchen? Who does that help? Besides, his dad like to cook.

This shit is weird.

But as for preferences, yeah, isn't it possible your friend's daughter was born loving pink? Where the hell would something like that come from? Where is the "I like pink" gene? And if there is one, does it travel with other genes? Or is it some other kind of functionality entirely-- eyesight, or taste, or when she first got her first pink thing?

My nephew loved cars before he could talk. Actually, his first word was "Volvo." Where the hell did that come from? Can you really be taught to like cars before you're a year old?

But then, why couldn't you be? You learn to do all this other amazing crap in that time.

I don't know. But I find it all really interesting.
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.

Listen. No one listens. Meow.

User avatar
hadespussercats
I've come for your pants.
Posts: 18586
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:27 am
About me: Looks pretty good, coming out of the back of his neck like that.
Location: Gotham
Contact:

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

Post by hadespussercats » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:36 pm

cogwheel wrote:
hadespussercats wrote:By the by, I think having good rote memorization skills is pretty crucial to learning. But then, I always enjoyed the challenge of memorization.
I'm sure it was more crucial before Google. I absolutely love that I can outsource my rote memorization to the internet in the same way I can outsource rote calculation to a calculator and rote computation to a computer.
I sometimes wonder if Google is making us dumb. I used to be able to amaze my friends with the stuff I could pull out the back of my head. Now people don't even try (including me.) They just look it up.

I wonder what will happen when we're all hooked on to the Interweb with our minds. Cuz that's gonna happen.
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.

Listen. No one listens. Meow.

User avatar
lordpasternack
Divine Knob Twiddler
Posts: 6459
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 10:05 am
About me: I have remarkable elbows.
Contact:

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

Post by lordpasternack » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:37 pm

Ian wrote: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?
To be honest, I'm a bit dismayed to read this. A man needs to hand in his testicles if he fails to jest about women? Really? That's actually kinda sad… 'Real Men' tell stupid jokes about women!

And for what it's worth - I really DON'T make jokes about men with any kind of regularity. And yes, some of the things I hear other women saying about men are petty and stupid, and sometimes embarrassing and shameful - especially to me, being raised as I was with just my dad and elder brother in the house - and until fairly recently being an aunt only to two nephews. (The reunion with my half-brother gained me a half-niece last year, with another born this year.)
Then they for sudden joy did weep,
And I for sorrow sung,
That such a king should play bo-peep,
And go the fools among.
Prithee, nuncle, keep a schoolmaster that can teach
thy fool to lie: I would fain learn to lie.

User avatar
laklak
Posts: 21022
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 1:07 pm
About me: My preferred pronoun is "Massah"
Location: Tannhauser Gate
Contact:

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

Post by laklak » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:40 pm

Men regularly discuss women when gathering together to enjoy a little "man time". You know, hitting animals on the heads with sticks, beating drums, having knuckle-dragging competitions. That sort of thing.

Oh shit, I've violated the First Rule of Man Time.
Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.

User avatar
mozg
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:25 am
About me: There's not much to tell.
Location: US And A
Contact:

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

Post by mozg » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:46 pm

hadespussercats wrote:I think you might have missed a point I made earlier to Coito, about how these gender norms influence boys and men as much as girls and women.
It is exceedingly rare that anyone even discusses the idea that this might have any negative impact upon men unless it's within the scope of getting men to do more housework, at least as far as I have observed.

It's never 'are we harming them by teaching them that they need to catch bullets for women and work 80+ hours a week to bring home the huge paycheck?' It's always that after they get done with the 80 hour week they're not also doing laundry.
I have a picture book my mother-in-law gave me, that I refuse to read to Sprog because the big joke in the end is that Daddy burns the spaghetti and has to order in pizza. Why would I want to teach my son that men are bumbling fools in the kitchen? Who does that help? Besides, his dad like to cook.
That message is everywhere though. Television, movies, books, and the Internet are full of bumbling males who have to be helped along in even the simplest tasks by the all-knowing wise wife and mother. Much of the time, the kids join her in ridiculing the idiot male.
I don't know. But I find it all really interesting.
She's also extremely interested in animals and will actually explain to people at the zoo about the animals. She's now five, still loves pink, and her goal is to be a zoologist.

Her two year old brother is all about trains and wearing her shoes. He couldn't care less about the hundreds of zoo animal toys in the house.

Who knows why they like what they like? Not me.
'Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man -- living in the sky -- who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do.. And if you do any of these ten things, he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry forever and ever 'til the end of time! ..But He loves you.' - George Carlin

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

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

Post by Rum » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:47 pm

lordpasternack wrote:
Ian wrote: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?
To be honest, I'm a bit dismayed to read this. A man needs to hand in his testicles if he fails to jest about women? Really? That's actually kinda sad… 'Real Men' tell stupid jokes about women!

And for what it's worth - I really DON'T make jokes about men with any kind of regularity. And yes, some of the things I hear other women saying about men are petty and stupid, and sometimes embarrassing and shameful - especially to me, being raised as I was with just my dad and elder brother in the house - and until fairly recently being an aunt only to two nephews. (The reunion with my half-brother gained me a half-niece last year, with another born this year.)
I don't agree with Ian, so maybe there's hope for your opinion of us guys yet. The men I knew socially most of my working life were for the most part liberal, politically correct types who trained in professions where 'equality' and non-discrimination are central values to their professions (social work, teaching and therapy related stuff, not to mention the need to be non-judgmental and far handed as a manager). Jokes about women as a class of people were rare in that sort of group. Their testicles remained in place as far as I could tell..

Actually though, as long as it isn't a reflection structural misogyny and sexism I don't see the harm.

I have heard groups of women in pubs and what not joking about me in graphic detail in ways men would blanch at by the way! Is that OK because the oppressed cannot by definition also be an oppressor? Not so sure..

User avatar
cogwheel
Posts: 287
Joined: Fri Jul 10, 2009 2:08 pm
About me: "Are you the first person ever to post their first ever post directly into NSFW?"
Location: Santa Rosa, CA
Contact:

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

Post by cogwheel » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:48 pm

hadespussercats wrote:
cogwheel wrote:
hadespussercats wrote:By the by, I think having good rote memorization skills is pretty crucial to learning. But then, I always enjoyed the challenge of memorization.
I'm sure it was more crucial before Google. I absolutely love that I can outsource my rote memorization to the internet in the same way I can outsource rote calculation to a calculator and rote computation to a computer.
I sometimes wonder if Google is making us dumb. I used to be able to amaze my friends with the stuff I could pull out the back of my head. Now people don't even try (including me.) They just look it up.
"Dumb" isn't the opposite of "Being able to memorize"

Using my brain for connecting abstract concepts, investigating things, wondering about things, solving problems, philosophizing, etc are MUCH more fulfilling uses of my limited brain capacity than stuffing it up with things "to pull out the back of [my] head." Not that I don't have a bunch of random crap I've memorized over the years, I just don't see any virtue in focusing on memorization.

I don't mean to devalue your own experience/pride in memorizing things. To be sure, it's a great skill that many people can put to effective use. I just don't like the idea of being held to the same standard. I don't like equivocating limited memory with being dumb. Or maybe I'm just defending my forgetful ego...

User avatar
Ian
Mr Incredible
Posts: 16975
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 6:42 pm
Location: Washington DC

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

Post by Ian » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:50 pm

lordpasternack wrote:
Ian wrote: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?
To be honest, I'm a bit dismayed to read this. A man needs to hand in his testicles if he fails to jest about women? Really? That's actually kinda sad… 'Real Men' tell stupid jokes about women!

And for what it's worth - I really DON'T make jokes about men with any kind of regularity. And yes, some of the things I hear other women saying about men are petty and stupid, and sometimes embarrassing and shameful - especially to me, being raised as I was with just my dad and elder brother in the house - and until fairly recently being an aunt only to two nephews. (The reunion with my half-brother gained me a half-niece last year, with another born this year.)
I meant it quite jovially. It's a way of saying that making a quip or even a joke about the opposite sex is a perfectly normal thing and does not imply any degree of bigotry, including misogyny.

User avatar
FBM
Ratz' first Gritizen.
Posts: 45327
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2009 12:43 pm
About me: Skeptic. "Because it does not contend
It is therefore beyond reproach"
Contact:

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

Post by FBM » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:51 pm

A'ite. Let me try it this way.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 150215.htm
How Our Brains See Men as People and Women as Body Parts: Both Genders Process Images of Men, Women Differently

ScienceDaily (July 25, 2012) — When casting our eyes upon an object, our brains either perceive it in its entirety or as a collection of its parts. Consider, for instance, photo mosaics consisting of hundreds of tiny pictures that when arranged a certain way form a larger overall image: In fact, it takes two separate mental functions to see the mosaic from both perspectives.

A new study suggests that these two distinct cognitive processes also are in play with our basic physical perceptions of men and women -- and, importantly, provides clues as to why women are often the targets of sexual objectification.

The research, published in the European Journal of Social Psychology, found in a series of experiments that participants processed images of men and women in very different ways. When presented with images of men, perceivers tended to rely more on "global" cognitive processing, the mental method in which a person is perceived as a whole. Meanwhile, images of women were more often the subject of "local" cognitive processing, or the objectifying perception of something as an assemblage of its various parts.

The study is the first to link such cognitive processes to objectification theory, said Sarah Gervais, assistant professor of psychology at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln and the study's lead author.

"Local processing underlies the way we think about objects: houses, cars and so on. But global processing should prevent us from that when it comes to people," Gervais said. "We don't break people down to their parts -- except when it comes to women, which is really striking. Women were perceived in the same ways that objects are viewed."

In the study, participants were randomly presented with dozens of images of fully clothed, average-looking men and women. Each person was shown from head to knee, standing, with eyes focused on the camera.

After a brief pause, participants then saw two new images on their screen: One was unmodified and contained the original image, while the other was a slightly modified version of the original image that comprised a sexual body part. Participants then quickly indicated which of the two images they had previously seen.

The results were consistent: Women's sexual body parts were more easily recognized when presented in isolation than when they were presented in the context of their entire bodies. But men's sexual body parts were recognized better when presented in the context of their entire bodies than they were in isolation.

"We always hear that women are reduced to their sexual body parts; you hear about examples in the media all the time. This research takes it a step further and finds that this perception spills over to everyday women, too," Gervais said. "The subjects in the study's images were everyday, ordinary men and women … the fact that people are looking at ordinary men and women and remembering women's body parts better than their entire bodies was very interesting."

Also notable is that the gender of participants doing the observing had no effect on the outcome. The participant pool was evenly divided between men and women, who processed each gender's bodies similarly: Regardless of their gender, perceivers saw men more "globally" and women more "locally."

"We can't just pin this on the men. Women are perceiving women this way, too," Gervais said. "It could be related to different motives. Men might be doing it because they're interested in potential mates, while women may do it as more of a comparison with themselves. But what we do know is that they're both doing it."

Would there be an antidote to a perceiver's basic cognitive processes that lead women to be reduced and objectified? Researchers said some of the study's results suggested so. When the experiment was adjusted to create a condition where it was easier for participants to employ "global" processing, the sexual body part recognition bias appeared to be alleviated. Women were more easily recognizable in the context of their whole bodies instead of their various sexual body parts.

Because the research presents the first direct evidence of the basic "global" vs. "local" framework, the authors said it could provide a theoretical path forward for more specific objectification work.

"Our findings suggest people fundamentally process women and men differently, but we are also showing that a very simple manipulation counteracts this effect, and perceivers can be prompted to see women globally, just as they do men," Gervais said. "Based on these findings, there are several new avenues to explore."
"A philosopher is a blind man in a dark room looking for a black cat that isn't there. A theologian is the man who finds it." ~ H. L. Mencken

"We ain't a sharp species. We kill each other over arguments about what happens when you die, then fail to see the fucking irony in that."

"It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions in favor of vegetarianism while the wolf remains of a different opinion."

User avatar
hadespussercats
I've come for your pants.
Posts: 18586
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:27 am
About me: Looks pretty good, coming out of the back of his neck like that.
Location: Gotham
Contact:

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

Post by hadespussercats » Thu Jul 26, 2012 3:52 pm

cogwheel wrote:
hadespussercats wrote:
cogwheel wrote:
hadespussercats wrote:By the by, I think having good rote memorization skills is pretty crucial to learning. But then, I always enjoyed the challenge of memorization.
I'm sure it was more crucial before Google. I absolutely love that I can outsource my rote memorization to the internet in the same way I can outsource rote calculation to a calculator and rote computation to a computer.
I sometimes wonder if Google is making us dumb. I used to be able to amaze my friends with the stuff I could pull out the back of my head. Now people don't even try (including me.) They just look it up.
"Dumb" isn't the opposite of "Being able to memorize"

Using our brains for connecting abstract concepts, investigating things, wondering about things, solving problems, philosophizing, etc are MUCH better uses of my limited brain capacity than filling it up with "stuff to pull out the back of your head." Not that I don't have a bunch of random crap I've memorized over the years, I just don't see any virtue in focusing on memorization.

I don't mean to devalue your own experience/pride in memorizing things. To be sure, it's a great skill that many people can put to effective use. I just don't like the idea of being held to the same standard. I don't like equivocating limited memory with being dumb. Or maybe I'm just defending my forgetful ego...
I'm worried about my own dumbing-down on a lot of fronts-- which I'm hoping is just because I have a little kid (but I'm not sanguine about that.)

All the typical crap-- forgetting words, forgetting why I'm in the room I'm in, forgetting to finish a task I started...

Incidentally, I agree with you-- other types of thinking skills are more important than memorization. But the brain is a whole organ, and I suspect that memorizing things is like doing sit-ups-- not that exciting, but if you do them every day you get stronger, walk straighter...

Maybe not. ;)
The green careening planet
spins blindly in the dark
so close to annihilation.

Listen. No one listens. Meow.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests