or Connect
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Numbers,.... Male vs Female HeadFiers?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Numbers,.... Male vs Female HeadFiers? - Page 7

post #91 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by music_man View Post
 

this has nothing to do with hearing ability. there are biological differences between males and females. more over it is ones culture and upbringing. the same misnomer could be applied to race and ethnicity. it really is just peoples culture and upbringing that affects these preferences. 

 

Where I live ( post-soviet countries) social determinism ( the theory that social interactions and constructs alone determine individual behavior as opposed to biological or objective factors) doesn't really have much influence. It seems that social determinism is somehow intensively taught and propagated in the Western society because I very frequently come across with conclusions based on social determinism on English sites. 

 

To say the truth I absolutely don't understand how can you dramatically change/reshape instincts of a person exclusively by cultural and social factors.  


Edited by mutabor - 12/15/13 at 2:55pm
post #92 of 121

I don't know where you are in the world. take for instance countries where people are oppressed. these places will not subscribe to the argument I presented. the truth is people are a product of their surroundings regardless of where they reside. whether that is acknowledged. humans are humans regardless of where they dwell. learned behavior is a fact. not withstanding biological differences. I don't see how anyone can propose to refute this. unless they have some other agenda. as with the aforementioned parts of the world. of course learned behavior is not the sole definition of an individual. it has a large influence especially in ones formative years. hence inherent differences between males and females. again, this is not the only factor but perhaps explains why we do not see more females here. 

post #93 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post
 

 

Where I live ( post-soviet countries) social determinism ( the theory that social interactions and constructs alone determine individual behavior as opposed to biological or objective factors) doesn't really have much influence. It seems that social determinism is somehow intensively taught and propagated in the Western society because I very frequently come across with conclusions based on social determinism on English sites. 

 

To say the truth I absolutely don't understand how can you dramatically change/reshape instincts of a person exclusively by cultural and social factors.  

 

That's ironic, considering that it's easy to read Marx as a social determinist, which might be why social determinists have been accused of being accused of being "cultural Marxists." (It's not inconceivable that the KGB funded them as they funded the "peace movement." CIA tended to fund the opposite sort, traditionalist versions of modernism.)

post #94 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claritas View Post
 

 

That's ironic, considering that it's easy to read Marx as a social determinist, which might be why social determinists have been accused of being accused of being "cultural Marxists." 

 

I also thought about Marx. Communist propaganda didn't really reach the minds of soviet people. For some weird reasons Marxism has survived better in the West. 


Edited by mutabor - 12/15/13 at 4:20pm
post #95 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by mutabor View Post

 

Where I live ( post-soviet countries) social determinism ( the theory that social interactions and constructs alone determine individual behavior as opposed to biological or objective factors) doesn't really have much influence. It seems that social determinism is somehow intensively taught and propagated in the Western society because I very frequently come across with conclusions based on social determinism on English sites. 

 

To say the truth I absolutely don't understand how can you dramatically change/reshape instincts of a person exclusively by cultural and social factors.  

 

I don't think outside of some kooky fundamentalist academics that anyone actually subscribes to the view that behaviour is purely socially determined or that you can radically alter a person's behaviour exclusively by cultural or social factors. No one literally believes in a tabula rasa theory of behaviour where everyone is born a blank slate - we recognise innate differences, otherwise everyone would believe themselves capable of becoming olympic athletes or concert pianists or memorists. 

 

Nor does any (functional) society really subscribe to the idea that everything is biologically determined. Otherwise, why would parents bother raising their children or send them to school? I would assume that faith in the ability of teachers to influence their students, parents their children, people their peers, still holds true even in post-Soviet countries.

 

Where I think Western society might differ is the recognition that even if people are not born blank slates, it may be more appropriate to err on the side of caution. Treat them more like blank slates in order to avoid the kinds of presumptions that lead to institutionalised discrimination. 

 

There have been many instances in history, particularly Western history, where biological determinism has lead to some pretty terrible outcomes. Everything from slavery in the US, the Holocaust in Germany, the stolen Generations here in Australia - were all enabled to some extent by some pseudo scientific idea that some people are just born different (read: inferior) than others, and therefore certain instutitions and actions are right and proper because they simply reflect the natural order.

 

So it would be understandable if as a culture we were adverse to the idea of biological determinism so as to not repeat mistakes from the past.

 

The common misunderstanding of feminism (and why people with a shallow reading of the whole issue dismiss feminists as hypocrites) is the idea that feminists believe that men and women are literally biologically equal. Of course they aren't. Anyone with half a brain can recognise that men and women are not biologically the same. 

 

What feminists advocate is recognition of cases when we use these differences to justify institutional inequalities that really have nothing to do with the biological differences between the male and female sexes - or at the very least, the awareness in society that we our preconception of what a man is and what a woman often limits our understanding of issues of sex and gender.

 

An easy enough case in point is findings that suggest that girls on average underperform in maths tests when put in maths classes with boys. This may be because women are biologically weaker in maths test performance, but it may be because of the cultural expectation that girls perform worse, or from more recently findings, differences in how girls react to competitive environments: http://www.stanford.edu/~niederle/NV.JEP.pdf

 

You can imagine that an underrepresentation of females in science and engineering fields might lead to society as a whole suffering when we suppress the ability of half the population. This kind of discrimination runs both ways - the expectation that men are more aggressive and violent might lead to increases in their rates of incarceration for violent crimes for instance.

 

Considering that our institutions today are based on thousands and thousands of years of assumptions - some of which may have some merit, but many of which do not - you may need a blank slate just to actually test which differences are salient, and which ones are the fairy tales. It's only recently that we know how to design social science experiments to even gather this kind of data, and it is in part the galvanisation of feminists that even prompts interest in studying and understanding these matters.

 

Note that when I use the phrase 'institutionalised', I do not subscribe to the idea that there was an active effort on all men's parts to set up a patriarchal society that discriminates against women. I do not think outside of radical militant feminists that feminists at a whole believe in this conspiratorial interpretation of history, and judging the movement based on people who do subscribe to this idea is like judging organised religion based on the Westboro Baptist Church. 

 

But I can believe in the idea that layers and layers of successive false assumptions can calcify into institutions that behave as though there WERE a conscious effort to establish a patriarchy.

 

Now, for a rational and balanced discussion of where men actually DO seem to differ biologically from women, this is a discussion worth listening to:

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2011/11/baumeister_on_g.html

 

Quote:
Roy Baumeister of Florida State University and the author of Is There Anything Good About Men talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about the differences between men and women in cultural and economic areas. Baumeister argues that men aren't superior to women nor are women superior to men. Rather there are some things men are better at while women excel at a different set of tasks and that these tradeoffs are a product of evolution and cultural pressure. He argues that evolutionary pressure has created different distributions of talent for men and women in a wide variety of areas. He argues that other differences in outcomes are not due to innate ability differences but rather come from different tastes or preferences.
post #96 of 121

I see an interesting discussion going on here.

 

All the pros and cons of the feminist movement aside, I just don't see the point of aiming for an 'ideal' proportion in all fields.

 

Its more important to give everyone a choice. Let them choose their own path in life.

 

If women choosing arts and humanities over STEM is a matter of social conditioning, or nurture, then warping the social system to level the ratios in the STEM fields is also social manipulation.

 

Another factor is whether these social cues are picked up by women themselves, how much do women influence each other in relation to an external influence, and how much of it is forced as compared to preferred.

The answer is not so simple. There are economic interests at stake here. A significantly large proportion of our industry creates products for women.

 

Consider a totally gender neutral culture. No differentiation in clothes, no differentiation in products, no differentiation in any aspects of life (restrooms etc.)

Would we want that homogeneity?

Then we would have questions of 'gender identity' and 'personal identity'.

 

Why do we assume our biological differences end with our bodies? If the brain can be influenced by biology, and is presented with the same social stimulus, we cannot say the response will be the same.

 

So we want to be different, and don't want to be different at the same time? Or we wish to be different in some areas and not in others? Do we get to pick and choose?

How do we define the precise relationship between these elements? And how these points of differentiation in one gender affect the other?

 

There's an internal conflict we need to resolve first.

post #97 of 121

I did not mean to say that ones culture solely dictates their outcome. the truth is daughters tend to be raised differently than sons. I meant that in this respect it may apply to the lack of females on this forum. I did not mean what I stated as a wide and far generalization. simply in regard to the topic at hand. which of course crosses over to other interests among men and woman. in this regard I do feel there are perceived differences. certainly other factors are at work here but I think this may be the answer to the initial question. this thread has gone in many directions, covering many conventions. honestly this is just my thought on this specific matter. it could in fact be biology or a myriad of other means. as I stated this conversation here is vastly skewed being all men thus far. if one were to actually survey woman on the subject at hand we may then have some actual incite into this matter. I did not mean everyone is a product of their upbringing. sure, it does have an influence often times. I just figured in this specific instance it may be the overwhelming force at work here. truthfully I do not know I was just speculating. as, quite frankly everyone else is. really we are grasping at straws on this subject. there have been many good ideas and references in this thread. however they do not answer the question as to why there are not more female members here. headphones to me seem to be gender neutral but apparently they are not. I just don't think a gathering of men can answer this question without any input from woman.

post #98 of 121

Most biological determinists are willing to meet social determinists half way, contending that nature accounts for about half the influence. If we suppose that's right, then we would need to apprehend both sorts of reasons.

post #99 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by music_man View Post
however they do not answer the question as to why there are not more female members here. headphones to me seem to be gender neutral but apparently they are not. I just don't think a gathering of men can answer this question without any input from woman.

 

Women in general don't have many hobbies. This is not a statement, but an observation. Audiophilia seems to be one of those hobbies.

I'm pretty sure you'll find all kinds of hobby forums having a similar male:female ratio.

post #100 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Claritas View Post
 

Most biological determinists are willing to meet social determinists half way, contending that nature accounts for about half the influence. If we suppose that's right, then we would need to apprehend both sorts of reasons.

 

That maybe true, but then which parts do we agree on? The ones that benefit us? What about those that work against our favor?

 

This is exactly where the problem lies.

post #101 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by proton007 View Post

Women in general don't have many hobbies. This is not a statement, but an observation. Audiophilia seems to be one of those hobbies.
I'm pretty sure you'll find all kinds of hobby forums having a similar male:female ratio.

You have never been to a quilting club meeting, or a garden club meeting, or a pilates class, or a Weight Watcher's meeting...
Edited by billybob_jcv - 12/15/13 at 8:24pm
post #102 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post


You have never been to a quilting club meeting, or a garden club meeting, or a pilates class, or a Weight Watcher's meeting...

 

Canoeing, Kayaking, Sailing, Archery, Horseback Riding, Cycling, Tennis, Swimming. Or perhaps I just know a disproportionate amount of women who have hobbies and are active.
 
We may be looking at this the wrong way round. Perhaps what is it about headfiers that drives women away?:wink_face:
post #103 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutnicks View Post
 

 

 

Majority of women in those activities? Most of them are sports.

Thats why I said its just an observation.

 

It definitely has to be something about the members of a hobby if there aren't enough women involved. :biggrin: 

 

(EDIT: Now I understand why so many women take part in the activities you listed :wink_face:)


Edited by proton007 - 12/15/13 at 9:43pm
post #104 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by billybob_jcv View Post


You have never been to a quilting club meeting, or a garden club meeting, or a pilates class, or a Weight Watcher's meeting...

 

Yep. Never been to any of those.

post #105 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by a_recording View Post
 

The common misunderstanding of feminism (and why people with a shallow reading of the whole issue dismiss feminists as hypocrites) is the idea that feminists believe that men and women are literally biologically equal. Of course they aren't. Anyone with half a brain can recognise that men and women are not biologically the same. 

 

What feminists advocate is recognition of cases when we use these differences to justify institutional inequalities that really have nothing to do with the biological differences between the male and female sexes 

 

I'm afraid you underestimate the power of ideas to develop in radical direction and create problems for humanity. Socialists also started with social equality and later we saw how their movement "for" turned into "against" with appallingly harmful results. There is evidence that feminism sends powerful harmful signals in many directions. And no, this is not the case of only militant radical feminists as you want to believe - erroneous feminist ideas are spreading widely. For example, demonizing of masculinity is clearly evident, demonizing of patriarchal societies and their heritage etc.

 

In my personal case I see an inherent wrongness in ideology of feminism and I address it. For example, that socialist/communist ideas appeared correct at the first glance and evoked positive knee-jerk approval doesn't mean that ideology behind is right. You suggest me to accept socialism only on the grounds that it is an answer to institutional inequality. In the same manner you can spread atheism only on the grounds that it is an antidote to oppression of religion. What I say is that systematic fight against religion or patriarchy or hierarchy again and again as history proves turns just exactly into the same oppression only from the different side. For example, South-African anti-apartheid movement turned into genocide against whites. I see that feminism from mere social movement has turned into wide spread systematic ideology. You call my approach as common misunderstanding of feminism but I don't think so.

 

You also avoid to see negative impact of women emancipation on different aspects of social and individual life. You want to see only a positive side of a coin.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by a_recording View Post
 

You can imagine that an underrepresentation of females in science and engineering fields might lead to society as a whole suffering when we suppress the ability of half the population. This kind of discrimination runs both ways - the expectation that men are more aggressive and violent might lead to increases in their rates of incarceration for violent crimes for instance.

 

 

The same was anticipated when socialists claimed that liberation of proletariat and peasants ( the majority of population) would open up potential of a nation in art, science etc. It didn't happen. Quantity doesn't turn into quality.  


Edited by mutabor - 12/16/13 at 6:39am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Misc.-Category Forums › Members' Lounge (General Discussion) › Numbers,.... Male vs Female HeadFiers?