Welp, I’m all convinced and stuff now
The ongoing dispute about sexism in the secular community has been settled at last by one incredibly insightful post.
Atheism is a ‘guy thing,’ I would say, like needlepoint is a ‘girl thing.’
We don’t have to consider why the sexes fall (or are pushed) into these particular roles; they just are. And with that simple argument, we’re done. By golly, we ought to make the guy who said it some kind of leader of the atheist movement. We wouldn’t want to have him wasting his time on things like needlepoint, you know.
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 5:43 pm
“for whatever reason”, eh? total mystery, eh?
god, I fucking hate this bullshit. it’s not “for whatever reason”, you asswipe. It’s because of the toxic, sexist shit in gamer culture.
Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish:
December 13th, 2012 at 5:44 pm
Well, this person demonstrates about as much insight as that of Justin Vacula – and he’s a leader in the atheist movement, isn’t he?
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 5:45 pm
I also note that Vacula bases this on voice interactions, as if those were representative of WoW gamers. Because there are totes no reasons why women stay out of voice chat, specifically? Because these reasons have never been noted anywhere on the internet?
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 5:46 pm
er. that’s because it is a comment by Vacula
Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish:
December 13th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Heh. Next time I’ll read the linked article first. But that’s kind of funny in itself…
Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish:
December 13th, 2012 at 5:52 pm
…because Vacula’s a meme now.
“That’s as stupid as something Vacula would say.”
ACTUALLY VACULA
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 5:52 pm
:Thinks about Rosey Grier.:
Yep, totes a girl thing.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 13th, 2012 at 5:52 pm
Gee, tell that to the Redhead’s uncle who served in ‘Nam.
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 13th, 2012 at 5:53 pm
I thought it was “Vacuous”.
Miriam, Professional Fun-Ruiner:
December 13th, 2012 at 5:57 pm
I don’t even know how to do needlepoint. Does that make me a guy? Can I do atheism instead now?
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 5:59 pm
Miriam:
Afraid not, because a majority of needlepointers are men.
glodson:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
I guess I should undo all those stitches I sewed. I didn’t know it was a girl thing.
I guess I need to read up on the manly handbook. I guess all the women I’ve gamed with didn’t get the memo about games, and all the women atheists are just ignorant about what a woman’s thing is.
Or perhaps he’s just ignorant and stupid.
Nepenthe:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:01 pm
My embroidery has never called me a stupid bitch (though it’s been insinuated a few time when I egregiously miscount). Food for thought.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:04 pm
Nepenthe:
Nor has mine, but I don’t needlepoint. ;)
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:05 pm
another annoying thing: all these fucking douchebisquits whining about how Shermer’s comment was “taken out of context”, only to go ahead and try to defend his comment by taking it out of context and pretending that wasn’t an answer to why there are fewer women in the top tiers of skepticism/atheism.
They keep on insisting that the “it’s a guy thing” was merely noting that there are more men than women in visible/leadership positions; in context though, that makes no sense, because “there are more men than women” doesn’t work as an answer to “why are there more men than women”. OTOH, “well, guys just want it more” does work as an answer to that, even if it’s obviously bull.
IOW, you can’t make the “well, it’s a guy thing because more men do it” defense without taking the statement out of context
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
Apparently someone has never heard of Rosey Grier’s needlepoint for men.
Nepenthe:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:08 pm
@Caine,
Embroidery, it’s crewel.
Ophelia Benson:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
You couldn’t make it up.
whiskytangofoxtrot:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:09 pm
We need to put a site together consisting of pictures and videos of male athiests doing needlepoint.
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:10 pm
Dammit, Caine! I wanted to be first with that one!
*pouts*
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:12 pm
To the core, Nepenthe, to the core.
Carlie, I sorry! I didn’t bring up his book though, you did.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
Well, I don’t needlepoint, but I am a gamer*. On the other hand, I am literally breastfeeding my child right now.
I don’t know where that leaves me in the grand scheme of things.
*Even without the rampant sexism, I wouldn’t touch WoW with a 10 foot pole. Hell, even 6 or 7 years ago (when it was still cool and not slightly pathetic), I was totes disinterested. And now I’ll just go back to playing AC3 to avoid the flamewar I’ve inevitably caused.
bcmystery:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:21 pm
I used to do lots of needlepoint while watching football, but I never knew about Rosey Grier’s needlepoint. This fills me with self-doubt and confusion. What does it mean? Am I anti-male, as one MRA half wit called me on the Twitters today? Am I a mangina? Can anyone explain it to me?
/em brain asplodes.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:23 pm
bcmystery:
Why it means you are a Manly Man™, of course, able to enjoy watching males in tight pants engage in ritual warfare while employing the art of plying a sharp, pointy thing.
AJ Milne:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
(Lawling @ ‘ACTUALLY VACULA’…)
There should be a quiz: ‘Vacula or just Vacula-esque*?’
(*/Alternate title: ‘Vacula or Now So Terminally Embarrassed To Have Been Mistaken For Vacula They’ve Since Sold Their House, Changed Their Name, and Moved to an Isolated Shack Somewhere In The Australian Outback?’)
bcmystery:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:28 pm
Thank you, Caine. This holiday break, I hope to learn to knit (seriously) and now I know doing so won’t jeopardize my testicles (um, not so seriously).
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:36 pm
The reason why the secular movement doesn’t have much chicks because 1) the secular movement (in america) are represented by a bunch of really fat ugly dudes (see OP), 2) the movement is analytical and girls have, on average, less analytical skills than guys and 3) the movement opposes some societal cultures and females, on average, have less desire than men to fight against these societal cultures. (they are more into ‘to tend and befriend’)
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
There’s a PLUM chance for some MRA action back on the older thread…
consciousness razor:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:37 pm
Preference for needlepoint may be due to hunters’ use of pointy objects on the Pleistocene savannah. Men of course used these valuable pointy objects as gifts for their potential berry-gathering mates, perhaps covering them in pink berry juice to make them noticeable. These gifts gradually reduced in size from spears to needles, as those were less costly and larger penis sizes reduced the need for compensation.
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:40 pm
Caine, I was just so excited to have something to contribute. :D Ooo, ooo, pick me, pick me, I have something to say! [/Horshack]
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:43 pm
bcmystery:
Mister is thinking about taking up knitting. I can’t knit to save my life.
ahmetduran:
Fuck me. You don’t hang out here much, do ya?
CR:
Perfection. You should now seek publication.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Ichthyic:
Ugh. After pages of his idiocy in the Douche defends douching thread and the Never Forget thread, I’ve had all the plum I can take.
congenital cynic:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
My wife, who is most definitely a female, and an atheist, might disagree that it’s a guy thing. And though she is an artist and does many art and craft things, she has never done needlepoint. But I have. My grandmother taught me how to do needlepoint when I was a child, and I did quite a bit of it back then. Haven’t done it in nearly 40 years, but I did it, and I was most assuredly a guy (a rugby playing girl chasing guy). I just valued skills. Almost any skills, and at that age I was going to take instruction in as many as I could. Now, as an older man in my 50s, I appreciate all of my youthful learning experiences. The needlepoint, the time my other grandmother taught me how to knit, the woodworking that my father’s friend taught me, the stuff I learned in shop class, the stuff I learned in scouts, the stuff I learned later on about industrial weaving, the stuff one of my distant past girlfriends taught me about sewing, and etc. None of it seemed to me to be linked to one’s sex. As a kid of about 10 years of age I was fascinated by the guy at the local harness shop who sewed leather things. Why would I not want to learn to sew? It wasn’t feminine, it was power.
Comments like the one on which this post was made are quite literally “thoughtless”. Made without thought. Probably by someone who is not at all thoughtful. And that’s why you flag it as stupid.
On a less personal level, why would someone think that lack of belief in a god or gods was linked to one’s sex? That’s just stupid. Women may not think in exactly the same way we do, as in they weigh in things that we might not (though maybe we should) and they don’t weigh in some of things we do (and some of those things they leave out might be better left out by us), but they still live in this world, and they still face the same existential questions we do, and they can still conclude that there is no god. I fail to see how the question of the existence of god is in any way tied to the sex of a person.
Naked Bunny with a Whip:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:45 pm
I think you’re safe from flames, Audley. You didn’t assert that video games can’t be art, or that they run better on a Mac. Enjoy your evening. I’m gonna go to some quests with my kick-ass and very patient wife. :-)
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
I can’t tell whether 27 posts is a high or low number for the first turdpile.
consciousness razor:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:50 pm
That was the publication. Now I think PZ owes me some money.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
CR:
I hear John Scalzi has a tactic on that front.
consciousness razor:
December 13th, 2012 at 6:52 pm
Maybe a Leica Rangefinder would do.
Rey Fox:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:00 pm
That’s fascinating, ahmet. I assume you gathered this information from extensive interaction with actual women? Please tell us more about your research methods.
AJ Milne:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:00 pm
(Blinks…)
__ VACULA-ESQUE …
or …
__ ACTUALLY VACULA?
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:01 pm
[quote]why would someone think that lack of belief in a god or gods was linked to one’s sex? That’s just stupid. [/quote]
Not sure if serious, do you even science ? Women are more into religion/spirituality than men, and especially when they grow older.
Khantron, the alien that only loves:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Tell that to Arya Stark, those who met Needle’s point were boys and men.
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:03 pm
I think Chris just did a post on that, with some very subtle picture attached…
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:03 pm
I think a more pertinent question is “Do you even think, ahmetduran?”
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
So, I guess GoT has succeeded in obtaining internet meme status?
good, good.
michaeld:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
@Ahmetduran
But is that an inborn thing or is it that the societal costs of leaving religion are higher for women then for men?
Seize:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
OH OH I THINK IT’S THE FORMER – DO I GET A PRIZE?
Mister is thinking about taking up knitting. I can’t knit to save my life.
Upon assessment, the number of circumstances in which one might be able to knit to save one’s life is quite high. Warm clothes. Goods for trade. Tea cozies. Funny how aggressively adhering to gender stereotypes for no goddamn reason might actually lower a person’s fitness.
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
some joke about plums to prunes is tickling my brain right now, but it just doesn’t want to make itself known.
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:06 pm
Is it live, or is it Memorex?
Maybe she’s born with it, maybe it’s Maybelline.
He doesn’t know it, but we secretly replaced his normal coffee with Asshole™ crystals.
consciousness razor:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:07 pm
Not sure if absurd shitmonger. Do you even science?
I’m a penis haver, and I do not even science. That is fact.
Fuck, why am I talking like this?
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
Carlie:
:snortle: We must save this one.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
@Rey fox: I admit these are just working hypotheses, but there are plenty of suggestive evidence for my 3 claims. 1) atheists are a fringe nerd group in america and most of them are active on the internet and I assume that most of them are below average in their physical attractivity…these are not attributes that attract women. Think of the atheist community like the metal/juggalo community, there are almost to none hot girls. 2) You don’t see much girls involved in math, analytical philosophy, even in experimental psychology. I assume that this is because they don’t like to argue endlessly like males do. 3) to tend a befriend is an actual concept in the scientific literature, look it up. My third point is closely related to my second point, that women don’t go out and fight, it’s not in their nature to act that way.
Keep in mind that I always mean this ‘on average’ and always relative to the boys.
Also, how the phuck do I quote here ?
Seize:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:15 pm
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:16 pm
i dunno, but it made me laugh all the same.
I can haz moar?
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:17 pm
like that.
what?
OH…
[blockquote] text [/blockquote]
change the square brackets to angle (<) brackets
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Are you plum tuckered out?
consciousness razor:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:17 pm
By all means, let’s see this evidence.
Oh, so you don’t assume all those other things, meaning you have evidence for them? Where is it?
So you assume all of this, meaning you have no evidence?
How is the fact that there is such a concept evidence that it applies for atheists? No evidence, then, just more assumptions?
Don’t bother. Just get the fuck out of here.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
In my mind eye, I picture all of the women of the horde slowly circling him like hyenas on the prowl. Somewhere, hysterical laughter cackles through the night…
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:18 pm
on the basis of what? your own stupid-ass anti-nerd prejudices?
you’re right. no below-average-looking dude ever gets laid, and never has girlfriends. also, nerds are never female or gay.
lol.
and this assumption is based on what? your own stupid-ass sexist prejudices?
Incidentally, I see plenty of girls involved in all of the above; not many women though, because by the time they’re adults many women decide they don’t feel like spending their entire careers swimming in the toxic sludge that is the culture in all of the above fields in academia.
lol. this doesn’t even work as a stupid-ass naturalist argument, since stereotypes like “mother defending her young” abound. And it certainly doesn’t work in reality, where women are fighting every day for various social issues
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:20 pm
remember our friend the “sociologist” who got all deeply confused because there were aggressive women on pharyngula?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:21 pm
<blockquote>Text to be quoted</blockquote> comes out as
Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:23 pm
ahmetduran wrote:
What the actual fuck?
michaeld:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:24 pm
@58 Caerie
I was thinking Lionesses….
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:25 pm
Citation needed.
Your subjective opinion matters how? Who in the fuckety fuck cares what you find hot?
You assume wrong. So wrong it would take much too long to define just how much wrongness this entails. You know, just because you’re an idiot doesn’t mean you get to extrapolate that onto everyone else.
As I asked upthread, you don’t hang out here much, do ya? You’re a fucking idiot.
michaeld:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
@62 wowbagger
He seems to mean tend AND befriend.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:27 pm
Jadehawk:
Pffft, there are no women on Pharyngula. Just us guys arguing.
PZ Myers:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
I do now hereby declare open season on ahmetduran…but only for the ladies. Gentlemen, sit back and let the women demonstrate their fighting ferocity and analytical technique.
This might be fun.
Rey Fox:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
*points to comment #52* See what you get with honey, folks?
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:29 pm
*Hides behind the Pullet Patrol, who LAUGH*
Rey Fox:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:30 pm
Way ahead of ya, PedZed.
Gregory Greenwood:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
ahmetduran @ 27;
Most of the women here do not like being referred to via patronising terms such as ‘chicks’.
And why would that be? Is it not possible that the over-representation of men within the more high profile arms of skepticism and atheism is the result of the movement not being particularly welcoming to women, as opposed to any fault on the part of atheist and skeptcal women themselves? And that as such the onus is on all of us to work to move atheism and skepticism away from being an out of touch, glorified boys club?
Wow – you really need a citation to back up that claim…
Again, citations are your friend. Also, I take it that you are new to these parts? If you expect all the women here to be shrinking violets too afraid to call you out, you are going to be in for a very rude awakening indeed.
@ 41;
First off, once again you seem to be lacking a very important citation here. If you don’t comprehensively back up these extreme claims of yours then no one in these parts is going to take you seriously.
Secondly – even if there is statistically significant difference between the genders in this regard that is well supported by evidence – the pertinent question would be why is religion/spirituality more widespread among women? Are we supposed to believe that it is some immutable aspect of biology, or is it a product of cultural tropes and mores that propagate the meme that men are somehow better suited to hard scientific pursuits, and women to more fuzzy and ill defined ‘spriritual’ matters, based upon some bogus claims of gender essentialism? This is an important distinction, because the former would be a product of largely inescapable physiology, whereas the latter is the product of discriminatory and sexist attitudes in society that can, with sufficient effort applied, be changed.
AJ Milne:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
YES! The tell, of course, if had been ACTUALLY VACULA, the phrase ‘A woman’s place is at the loom’ would have figured prominently…
Your prize, naturally, is a voucher for an online dating service…
… because, obviously, you’re a) online and b) reading an atheist site, and therefore c) a lovelorn and undesireable male…
… offer void if you’re an atheist woman. In this case, you get a date with a hot atheist guy*. Because, seriously, why else would women be into any of this stuff? Obviously, the only reason they’d be here would be to meet guys, amirite?
… Oh. Wait. Our bad. No can do. Apparently, there are no hot atheist guys… So… Umm…
(/Here. I guess you just get the voucher, either way.)
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:32 pm
I don’t know of any study that rated the physical attractiveness of atheists, lol.
So you assume all of this, meaning you have no evidence?
It applies to all females, not atheists in general. Don’t forget that the outcome variable we are trying to explain is: why aren’t there many women involved in the secural movement. That women liken to ‘tend and befriend’ when under stress (‘argumenting and going against’ can be seen as quite stressfull) might be a valid explanation
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Now i’ve just quoted myself, d’oh. I’ll get the hang of it sooner or later :D
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Rey:
Seems you got a phucking* river of bullshit.
*I always find it interesting when someone is intent on spewing poisonous shit all over the place, on the basis of what they feel is right, but balk at typing fuck.
Gregory Greenwood:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:34 pm
Gah! I didn’t see PZ’s post @ 67 until after I hit submit.
Apologies, ladies – ahmetduran is all yours.
Try not to scatter pieces of him over too much of the thread…
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:34 pm
And where is yours. MRA types are very short on citations…..
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:34 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tend_and_befriend
AJ Milne:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:35 pm
(Now giggling delightedly in anticipation at #67…
…and listen, in my defense, #72 was in the pipe before I saw that. Spectator mode officially on.)
Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:35 pm
Dang, reflexive action PZ. Sorry.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:36 pm
ahmetduran:
I wouldn’t get all comfortable, your stay is likely to be short-lived.
:hopes this isn’t another raj kumar:
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
we all hate skepchick now ?
Strong reading comprehension PZ, I said that females, on average, are less analytic compared to guy.
Like females, on average have less testosterone, than males do but it’s easy enough to find a couple of girls who outperform the majority of guy’s test levels.
consciousness razor:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:37 pm
Yep.
Really, we do not even science*, just argue endlessly and aggressively. That’s required for atheism, in fact**: endless aggressive arguing… by nerds in America, on the internet, with penises.
*After much sciencing, this was recently discovered to be a verb.
**Not intended to be a factual statement.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:39 pm
[blockquote] I wouldn’t get all comfortable, your stay is likely to be short-lived.[/blockquote]
Oh why :( Gonna get banned ?
Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:39 pm
Oh, ahmetduran. I hope you’ve got access to a generous supply of ice; you’re going to need it once the Pharyngula women-folk have kicked the everloving shit out of you while we watch and laugh.
Gregory Greenwood:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:39 pm
*Dons splatter-proof gear, settles into comfy spectator chair *
Let the games begin.
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:41 pm
not even. by the silly-ass gendered “tend and befriend” model (as opposed to the realistic one, that remembers that ALL humans are social animals and prefer backup in a fight), non-believing women should be more likely, not less likely, to become engaged in the atheist movement. add to this that there’s no reason to assume this supposed men=fight-or-flight, women=tend-and-befirend schism, if true, wouldn’t be trained behavior, and we’re back to plain old sexism.
noelplum99:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:43 pm
Icthyic @28
Is this some kind of troll ‘call to arms’ going on here? I think this comment just about sume up what this blog is about, or at least the commenters half of it.
Jim
brazenlucidity:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:43 pm
My grandpa was a farmer down in Iowa, grew up doing blacksmith work with his dad, was a legendarily strong guy and tough as nails. He also loved to tat. I wish he were still around to give his two cents about that needlepoint comment.
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:44 pm
most of the women here are not skepchicks, and have in fact on occasion been critical of that particular name, yes.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
I think this is a valid point and partly explains why there aren’t many women involved. It happens a lot when a tight group of males make sex-specific derogatory remarks. I see it alot in the gaming community and the bodybuilding community (and both communities are full of males). So this explanation might be true, although I don’t believe it explains every variance of the variable we are trying to explain. Making things girlfiriendly or suitable for women is a welcoming approach.
Gregory Greenwood:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:45 pm
Why do I get the impression that watching ahmetduran debate the ladies of Pharyngula will be somewhat akin to watching an incompetent hunter who thinks he is trapping rabbits, while remaining oblivious to the pride of lionesses that have surrounded him…?
totalretard:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
Damn! Am I going to have to give up needlepoint now?
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
Two years ago I would have said this level of stupid ignunce was impossible to be real.
I know better now. Which is why I want to eat broken glass with my eyeballs.
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:47 pm
well, you’ve asserted that, but you’ve certainly not demonstrated it, nor demonstrated that this supposed difference is sufficient to explain the degree and pattern of gender disparity in atheism (or in STEM fields, for that matter).
not that this has anything to do with the original shermer quote, since it doesn’t take analytical thinking to go on tv or to conferences and talk your ass off.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
However, it isn’t a valid explanation. So far, all you’ve done is present your subjective opinions about various things and catered to your particular biases.
Why do you have such a deep need to place women into a lesser human being category?
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:49 pm
Might be, but this is not what I am trying to argue. You are already talking about non-believing women whereas I want to explain why there aren’t many more women secular and why they don’t jump on the secular movement bandwagon. ‘To tend and befriend’ (and other possible explanations) tries to explain why there aren’t many women in the secular movement in the first place.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Made my day.
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:51 pm
Oh, really. So why is the stereotype that women are nagging harpies who pick fights with their menfolk all the time?
Have you ever set foot in a church? All talk of the man being the “spiritual head of the family” aside, guess who gets all of the responsibility (and blame) for the family going to church regularly and being raised right? You guessed it, the mom. Who puts that burden on them? The male pastor. Women are judged much more harshly if their family isn’t devout enough than men are. It’s the same situation as how clean the house is: doesn’t matter if the man in the house is there all the time, it’s the woman in the house who is called slovenly if the place isn’t spic and span. Yes, women are more “into” religion than men, because they are forced to be that way in order to have any social status/capital in their environment.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:51 pm
ahmetduran, if we don’t see a sign of intelligence soon, we’re all likely to get bored and wander off, leaving you to talk to yourself.
noelplum99:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:52 pm
Wowbagger @85
Whatever you think of this Ahmetduran person, is this really the way to go about things? I realise you don’t mean the term as a physical threat but the aggression is still there.
I would call you out if you addressed a creationist like that but this blog is like an online enactment of Lord of the Flies: Myers appears to have abjurated his responsibilities to provide any level of control over you all and you have turned into a hate mob. You need a responsible adult in here, rather than someone who spoils you letting you get your own way all the time.
Never seen anything like this place in all my travels of the net.
Jim
Rey Fox:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:52 pm
FRIENDSHIP
Rey Fox:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:53 pm
Ah, hell.
FRIENDSHIP
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
This refers to my personal and motivational integrity, not really discussing the subject at hand. It happens be the case that the dependent variable we are trying to explain is already ‘girl unfriendly’ (not many females in the secular movement), so I’m invoking all kinds of explanations and yes, they are perceived as girl unfriendly (but I frankly do not care, since if it’s true, than it is true, right ?).
If we were trying to explain another dependent variable that was ‘guy unfriendly’, I would invoke same kinds of reasoning as I did here. I’m not biased against one sex, even tough it appears that way.
Grumpy Cat:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:54 pm
Jadehawk:
Grumpy Cat says: u mad bro?
meow
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:55 pm
Carlie:
In a rigidly patriarchal based environment, such as fundamentalist/evangelist families and church, it’s very often the only way a woman can express any sort of control and/or power. Of course, the rigidly patriarchal part of that gets automagically dumped and ignored by oblivious sexists.
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
No, it really doesn’t. Why do you think it does?
#93 – that username is not looked kindly upon. Please do not use it here. The mores of this place include not using terms that are derogatory based on characteristics not under a person’s voluntary control.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
How does that explain anything? What does “tending and befriending” have to do with not being part of a community?
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
and you’re in this thread because?
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:56 pm
Apologies for quoting my Twitter self, but:
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:57 pm
Grumpy Cat, we have filled our quota of idiots for this thread. Try the next one over.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:57 pm
True, I need to nuance it a bit more. Men argue endlessly about analytic subjects, women argue endlesly about ….non-analytic subjects.
in b4 people ask for evidence: 1) suggestive evidence in the fact that men dominate philosophy. 2) suggestive evidence that women nag on males provided by whomever I quoted :D
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:58 pm
Obviously, you’ve never seen the Slymepit.
Or Reddit.
Or youtube.
Or the comment section of any online newspaper.
Or yahoo comments.
I could go on.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Oh, we totes believe you’re sincerely concerned.
Liar. It’s all over the slymepit and you’re rolling in it, you pig.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 7:59 pm
Caerie:
Of course it’s all part of being social animals, which does include men. I’m amused by ahmetduran’s insistence this is a ‘girl thing’.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
Because the discours between the secular movement and religion is agressive. This aggressiveness is not compatible with the nature of women.
consciousness razor:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:00 pm
That’s a nice endorsement. Thanks for stopping by.
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
your writing is horrible. do you even understand that there’s a difference between secular and atheist, and that secular movements and organizations are actually full of religious believers (see: ACLU)? do you also understand that there’s a difference between “more secular women” and “more women in the secular movement”?
tend-and-befriend doesn’t explain that either. if you really meant “secular movement”, then there’s no barrier social barrier to women participating, since plenty of liberal congregations are part of the movement to keep religion and state separate. if you meant atheist movement, then losing one’s religious faith has nothing to do with the specific type of stress-responses.
again: the tend-and-befriend idea doesn’t work, because it neither explains why women would be less likely to lose faith, nor why women who’ve lost faith wouldn’t be more likely to befriend other atheists as part of the tend-and-befriend strategy.
in any case, the fact that social activism is actually full of women (some movements even being female-dominated) pretty much invalidates any claims that women don’t “fight” social structures because they prefer to make friends than fight (which isn’t even what fight-or-flight vs tend-and-befriend means)
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
YOU HAVE PROVIDED ZERO SUPPORT FOR THIS STATEMENT.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:01 pm
I was taught that girls exhibit it more then guys do.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:02 pm
And neither is your face.
F [disappearing]:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:02 pm
Just Vacuous rears its ugly head again?
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:02 pm
Oh, pray tell, what is the nature of women? Be sure to cite your sources.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Caine:
Obviously, men do not form communities. They don’t sit around online talking to one another and inventing memes to communicate through like “in b4″ and “do you even [blank]????” They have no desire to befriend one another.
And women definitely aren’t capable of grasping all of this highly analytic man talk.
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
I assume I can’t count high enough to calculate the total number of assumptions in this assumption, even though I’m a guy, and so must assume I am good at maths.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
1. The parallel to girls is not “guys,” it’s “boys”.
2. It’s than.
3. You were taught incorrectly, and that’s left you ignorant. Do you want to learn to do better?
mildlymagnificent:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
I recall seeing a few requests for citations above. Just to be quite clear for those not paying attention, citation does not have the same meaning as ‘recitation’ or repetition of stuff I thought of while I was on the internet. CITATIONS definitely needed. Right here. Right now, preferably.
“….. might be a valid explanation.” is a fine conversational speculation when leaning against the kitchen fridge at 3 am after a dinner party. But not here, certainly not in this group. I’m fast coming to the conclusion that you have no references or citations in mind – and that you’re so unfamiliar with these concepts that you have little practice in looking in the right place to find them.
Find them. Or if you now find yourself out of your depth, several people here will happily give you some pointers to good sources or appropriate writers. If you ask reasonably politely.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:03 pm
Not sure if serious. I explicitly stated that men dominate philosophy (and mathmatics + science in another post). These domains are characterized by analytical skills This can be seen as suggestive evidence for that.
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
by.
who.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
As women are currently arguing quite well that your “theories” are not just incorrect but incredibly stupid, does that make you a non-analytic subject? Or do you expect us to break out in a breathy discussion of shoes and the colour pink?
F [disappearing]:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:04 pm
ahmetduran
I think you’ve found the aggressive women. What say you now?
AJ Milne:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
… ’tis. I think it would look lovely in the sidebar, dust-jacket-review-style.
Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Sorry, next time I’ll anticipate the quote-mining tendencies of dishonest asshole trolls before I post something I’d otherwise consider impossible to interpret as figurative speech.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
ahmetduran:
I see. So, it’s never once occurred to you that you were taught wrong? That’s some serious analytical thinking you’re demonstrating.
noelplum99:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
Carlie @113
I have seen a LOT of YouTube. I will say it again: I have never seen a place like this on the net.
As for the slymepit. Well, I have had a browse through there a couple of times but as I haven’t seen a dissenting voice post on there – so again, no, I have never seen anything like this anywhere on the net.
If you would like to link me to a page on the slymepit where they are similarly savaging a dissenting voice then please do so. I will gladly admit it, but as it stands **citation needed** as you folks love to say.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
I’m trying to respond for the first comment I get, that being pretty random. You ask for the article the concept it used ? Why not just type it in google scholar ?
I think this one is free
http://www.updegrafflab.org/files/5713/3886/8266/TKLGGU-00.pdf
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:06 pm
assumes conclusion.
this guy sounds familiar…. wasn’t there some pseudo evo psych racist/sexist “scientist” that recently got a column in some famous magazine? What was his name…
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:07 pm
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
anyway, aside from not actually being true, this is once again completely irrelevant to the problem at hand, which is that supposedly holding speeches at conferences, writing books, making TV appearances, etc. are somehow “guy things”. these have fuck-all to do with analytical thinking or analytical argument
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
So, it’s never once occurred to you that you were taught wrong?
Ofcourse i can be taught wrong, but I have no reason to believe so :/ Why would I believe I was taught wrong, because you said so ?
And I never claimed I have good analytical skills. (I sure do hope so, lulz)
Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Sorry, my #133 should end with ‘…impossible to interpret as anything other than figurative speech.’
Oh, and there should be a hypcritical somewhere amongst ‘dishonest asshole trolls’ as well.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:08 pm
Caerie:
This would be why professional sports never took off, no interest.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:09 pm
Would you say the same thing about race? The “domination” of white people in these fields is “suggestive evidence” of their superior analytical skills?
By the way, have you read Delusions of Gender?
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:10 pm
Oh, I get it. someone forgot to give you your parting gifts of some pearls to clutch and a fainting couch.
yeah, the budget’s gotten a bit tight… fiscal cliff and all.
sure you understand old boy!
now run along like a good lad.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:10 pm
It’s called the burden of proof. You make a claim; you back it up. It’s not our job to provide citations for you.
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:11 pm
you were taught a falsehood. men are not more likely to be loners or introverts. male homosocial interaction is not in any way rarer than female homosocial interaction.
also, “girls” is the equivalent of “boys”, not of “guys”.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:12 pm
hehe, claiming ‘girls are less aggressive relative to boys’ doesn’t mean there aren’t any aggressive girls. So i’m not really that surprised :p
rorschach:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:12 pm
I think ahmetduran has a bright future ahead of him here.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
Ahmetduran,
I responded to your post on the Shermer thread, but I will also respond here. Quite apart from the question of whether any differences are inate or learned, there is also the question of whether it is possible to really say anything meaningful about differences between the sexes in terms of complicated characteristics such as intelligence, personality, etc. This is because an attempt to make a statement about differences is an attempt to compare two different distributions–and the more complex and meaningful the characteristic you are discussing the more complicated–e.g. multivariate–the distributions become. Moreover, the distributions are fairly broad and overlapping, and most meaningful characteristics are hard to measure, leading to significant systematic errors in our understanding of the distributions as well. The result is that any such attempt is more a confession of innumeracy than it is a real explanation.
Beware of just-so stories. They satisfy your curiosity with out increasing your understanding. They are empty intellectual calories.
loopyj:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:13 pm
How is needlepoint a ‘girl thing’? Is a needlepoint needle wielded by our fallopian tubes? I always thought needlepoint was done with hands, and hands are not exclusive to female biology, the same way that a brain that can think and reason and conclude that there’s no evidence to support the idea of supernatural creator being isn’t exclusive to male biology.
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:14 pm
Oh my goodness. You have no concept of the difference between correlation and causation, do you?
noel – it’s not dissent that’s being savaged, it’s absolutely mindless dissent backed up by nothing more than one’s own opinion. Yes, anyone making claims without evidence will be heckled until they either put up or shut up. Do you think the way to truth and understanding is through baseless assertion?
DLC:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
Nobody I know of ever yelled “Tits or GTFO” in needlepoint chat.
mildlymagnificent:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:15 pm
Which particular ‘this’ and which particular ‘that’ are you talking about?
(I’ll go no further with this just now. I at least have enough self-respect to not want to go where there is too little evidence to support the weight of an argument. Hint: That means I really don’t know what you think you’re talking about here.)
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:17 pm
Christ onna stick. And you had the nerve to ask if we “even science”. You not only seem incapable of thought, you certainly demonstrate no knowledge of any scientific discipline nor a philosophical one. Burden of Proof.
As I’m not sure of your ability to click a link, I’ll help you out a bit:
The philosophical burden of proof or onus (probandi) is the obligation on a party in an epistemic dispute to provide sufficient warrant for their position.
When debating any issue, there is an implicit burden of proof on the person asserting a claim. “If this responsibility or burden of proof is shifted to a critic, the fallacy of appealing to ignorance is committed”. This burden does not necessarily require a mathematical or strictly logical proof, although many strong arguments do rise to this level (such as in logical syllogisms). Rather, the evidential standard required for a given claim is determined by convention or community standards, with regard to the context of the claim in question.
Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:17 pm
rorschach wrote:
With the (lack of) insight, knowledge and critical thinking skills he’s demonstrated so far he’s bound to get recruited to the slymepit before too long; he’s got exactly the qualities they look for.
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
the discourse between every social activism movement and the dominant culture is aggressive, and yet women are common in many, and dominate some of these movements. The feminist movement itself is evidence against the claim that social activism is too aggressive for women.
these domains are also characterized by toxic sexism, and that sexism explains the degree and patterns of gender-variance in academia alot better than some unevidenced inherent lack of analytical reasoning skills
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
On the issue of needlepoint being a girl thing–two words:
Rosie Greer. The dude ate raw steaks, ferdogssake!
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:18 pm
lol.
This is not what I said. Ofcourse low-status males (due to their appearance for instance) will attract girls and vice versa, but attraction is also not random. It’s very much possible that the high quality males are already taken, so girls just choose the lesser one. (I’m guessing that mere proximity has a huge influence on who you choose to mate with for instance).
Having said that, having a high status person in your group can certainly help to market your group better for the public at large. This is why you have lot of (sexy) celebrity endorsements for whatever product or service.
It is sad to say that the secular movement if full of below average looking males (and females) and this might not help to attract the public (including females).
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:19 pm
Appropriate needlepoint
SC (Salty Current), OM:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:20 pm
Look, stop this. It assumes different distributions of some supposedly unified characteristics, whether they’re allegedly broad or overlapping or whatever. It’s bullshit. Don’t play into it.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:21 pm
But the feminist movement in itself mainly attracts the low-quality females, not really powerful with women in general.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:23 pm
Fixed that for you.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:24 pm
loopyj:
You’d think. I was reflecting on this just the other day, that almost all of the supposedly domestic lady type activities overlap with “analytical thinking.”
Just to name a few: Household budgeting, cooking, baking, sewing = algebra, chemistry, microbiology, geometry…
We are all human beings. We all have brains.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:25 pm
Oh, just STFU. This plays into an absurd and pathetic notion of masculinity, which is itself already an absurd and pathetic notion.
SC (Salty Current), OM:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:26 pm
Troll.
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
Man, you just used a nuclear powered steam shovel to dig that hole.
bye.
mandrellian:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
DO YOU EVEN INTERNET?
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:27 pm
jesus but you’re dense.
1)there’s no actual evidence that “nerds” are on average worse looking than non-nerds
2)you’re hilariously shallow if you equate pretty boys with “high quality males”
3)you’re also idiotically sexist if you think women will go for looks over brains regularly enough to prefer pretty non-nerds to your hypothetical ugly nerds.
your prejudices are not actually arguments, you know.
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:28 pm
HAHAHAHAHAHA
“low quality females”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
are you at all capable of expressing yourself with things that aren’t stereotypes
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
…I’m tellin’ ya, this guy sounds just like that sloppy racist/sexist scientist that PZ was shredding about a month back.
damnit, what was his name?
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:29 pm
Oh, give us your ranking rubric.
You know you want to.
consciousness razor:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:31 pm
I’m pretty sure he doesn’t know that.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:32 pm
Secondly – even if there is statistically significant difference between the genders in this regard that is well supported by evidence – the pertinent question would be why is religion/spirituality more widespread among women? Are we supposed to believe that it is some immutable aspect of biology, or is it a product of cultural tropes and mores that propagate the meme that men are somehow better suited to hard scientific pursuits, and women to more fuzzy and ill defined ‘spriritual’ matters, based upon some bogus claims of gender essentialism? This is an important distinction, because the former would be a product of largely inescapable physiology, whereas the latter is the product of discriminatory and sexist attitudes in society that can, with sufficient effort applied, be changed.
1. I can deliver this, pretty well documented also:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/019188699500135S
The data indicate that the well attested finding that women are more religious than men
This article looks more at the personality level of why women seek religion, but I think you will find plenty of references for the ‘well attested’ fact that women are more into religion than males do.
Btw, another explanation why there aren’t many women in the secular movement is simply because women are more into religion :D
2. There is a clear gender difference, this is what’s stated in the OP and what the debate is all about. There aren’t many girls in the secular movement. Why ? My explanations are more into the psychological attributes of women. Ofcourse, you can also ask the question on: what causes these psychological attributes of women ? (but I don’t talk about that, ofcourse the answer is probably always an interaction between genes and environment, like every other psychological variables).
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
Well, you’re in the wrong place.
Just what is it you’re saying here? Your writing is fucking atrocious. Take the time to type in complete sentences with correct structure.
So, you think feminism is made up of ‘low quality’ females, eh? Do tell us, cupcake, what a ‘low quality’ female is – one who perhaps isn’t at the beck and call of a handy dandy husband who has her suitably squashed into submission?
Feminism is quite powerful for women. It’s empowering and women fight for equality daily and often do so in an aggressive manner. Golly, that just doesn’t fit with your idiotic views, does it? What a shame.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
So can we menz comment about the sexist fuckwit?
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:33 pm
damnit, what was his name?
That evo psycho japanese guy, satoshi kanazawa ?
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
Why do I get logged out when I am actively commenting?
Did you even notice that some of us gave you specific hypotheses on why religion may be more prevalent among women that have nothing to do with anything you just wrote? Seriously, it’s really not interesting to try to argue with you if you ignore everything that’s written to you.
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
I can’t stop laughing at the idea that the feminist movement is ineffective
we no longer have coverture
women can go to universities
we have women’s suffrage
we have birth control
we have legal abortion
we have the lilly ledbetter act
we have BC classified as preventive medicine
rape is actually illegal now, even marital rape
no fault divorce is a thing now
etc ad nauseam
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:35 pm
SC, that was precisely my point. The variables are ill-defined, ill-measured and extremely complicated if they exist at all. The distributions the researchers define are broad and overlapping. Anyone who tries to make a definitive statement given such a muddled situation doesn’t understand statistics.
mandrellian:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Define a “low-quality female”.
Please.
No, really, please continue…
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:39 pm
Jadehawk:
We can even vote! It would seem that ahmetduran is yet another special cupcake who thinks feminism is a new phenomenon.
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:40 pm
someone should do a spoof using Leonard Nimoy as Spock, imitating the scene with Samuel L Jackson in Pulp Fiction…
“Logic! DO YOU SPEAK IT?”
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:40 pm
Low quality as in ‘not physically attractive’. Most girls are pre-occupied with how they look, it’s a pretty important feature in their life. A women is often judged for her appearance. if you lack physical attractiveness as a women, you pretty much dun goofed in life and will probably marry a guy with equal low physical attractiveness or even lower. So in this sense, the feminist movement is a fringe movement among women (although most women will reap the benefits of feminism, no doubt about that. i’m guessing most decent to attractive women won’t explicitly state that they are feminists, but will implictly more than happy to reap the benefits of whatever feminism is providing).
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
ahmetduran,
OK, let’s have some fun. Michelle Obama is a feminist. Does she fall into your definition of “low-quality female?” If so, how and why?
I’m going to go get some popcorn. Be right back.
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:41 pm
dude, no, that doesn’t work. again:
1)the secular movement is not the same thing as the atheist movement. the ACLU was founded by christians, but it’s nonetheless a very essential part of the secular movement
2)you’re once again skipping a step, conflating being atheist with being in a movement
3)”fewer women are atheists” and “more women are religious” are not explanations for each other, they’re kind of necessary co-existing conditions.they in no way address the “why”
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
ahmetduran – why do you keep insisting on using the term “girls” when referring to women?
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Carlie:
Ooooooo, now I want a “fuck you, pay me” needlepoint!
Ahmetduran:
what is this I don’t even
Look, if you think women don’t argue, why don’t you come over next Thanksgiving so my sisters can tear you to shreds.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:42 pm
Jadehawk:
God, this one alone is huge.
How the fuck are women no longer property without women effectively and aggressively fighting for rights?
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:43 pm
ahmetduran: “i’m guessing most decent to attractive women won’t explicitly state that they are feminists,”
So you are guessing because no woman will actually talk to you?
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:43 pm
LOL perfect that you, of all people, would be the first to answer my question!
obviously Kanazawa is fresh in your mind…
w00dview:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
I have the feeling that ahmetduran got all his information about women from this short PSA:
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Audley: “Look, if you think women don’t argue, why don’t you come over next Thanksgiving so my sisters can tear you to shreds.”
Can I come and watch?
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:44 pm
Oh Audley, ahmetduran thinks women argue. Endlessly, even. Just not about analytical issues. Or issues which require analytical thinking. That’s simply beyond the ability of girls.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:45 pm
How hard is it to grasp the concept of ‘average’ and ‘relative’ ?
It’s like i’m saying: men have more testosterone than females do and you make the argument: well I know a girl who has more test, so your argument is invalid!
:/
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
Did I rustle some jimmies here ? Be honest with me.
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:46 pm
yes, this is exactly what ahmetduran reminds me of:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/09/10/satoshi-kanazawa-is-back/
are you sure you aren’t deliberately TRYING to dress yourself as Kanazawa as you plough on with your nuclear powered steamshovel?
Grumpy Cat:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:47 pm
#130
Grumpy Cat says: fixed it 4 u. That middle part was nothing but shit.
Oh, and spelling ‘colour’ that way, its indicative of a douche in love with the smell of her own farts.
Meow?
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 8:47 pm
Not to toot my own horn, but two different people called me attractive today (and neither one of them I know particularly well) and I’m a feminist.
DID I JUST BLOW YOUR MIND, AHMETDURAN?
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:47 pm
Caerie:
Oh, I imagine Menzdidit. Or the ugly, low-quality wimmin. Or something.
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
were you trying to look like an idiot for effect? this of course, just being a rephrasing of the question I posed in 195.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
Can you provide statistics illustrating the objective attractiveness levels of feminists?
Because you’ll need an actual average you can point to for this argument.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
“”"Oh Audley, ahmetduran thinks women argue. Endlessly, even. Just not about analytical issues. Or issues which require analytical thinking. That’s simply beyond the ability of girls.”"
That’s not what I said.
I said that girls were, on average, less analytical than men.
And I provided suggestive evidence for the lack of girls (again, on average compared to men) in domains such as science, philosophy and mathmatics.
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
argumentum ad culorum
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
lameass troll says what?
*sigh*
Chris must have gone to sleep; there should be more bunnies in this thread, too.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:49 pm
ahmetduran: “How hard is it to grasp the concept of ‘average’ and ‘relative’ ?”
How hard is it for you to grasp that the “average” does not define the distribution, and that making definitive statements about ill defined, difficult-to-measure concepts characterized by broad, overlapping distributions makes you an idiot?
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 8:50 pm
A_ray:
Watch? Hell, you can join in!
Caine:
Of course. We argue about fashion or somesuch. *eyeroll*
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:50 pm
do you actually know what: “Assumes the conclusion” actually means?
consciousness razor:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
I’m still trying to grasp how you pull all of your data out of your ass.
jnorris:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
To Caine, Fleur du mal @ #7:
My thought exactly, Rosey Grier.
Lofty:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:51 pm
Weapons grade ignorance displayed by ahmetduran. Keep up the good job of educating the fool, oh Hordelings.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
I can’t, I don’t know of any study that rated feminists attractiveness. You don’t think it’s clear as a whistle ? Come on, even the feminists won’t agree with you here :D
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
D00d. You’re kidding, right? We do this for fun.
Which is not evidence at all, which you don’t seem to understand. Historically, women have been legally and socially barred from those domains. It has been only in very recent decades that women were allowed to enter those fields, and they still face a large amount of outright hostility as well as unconscious negative bias in those fields.
michaeld:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:52 pm
@Ichthyic
Bunnies?? ears twitch. You rang? http://i1008.photobucket.com/albums/af203/middlefingermom/0a0MFM-SomeBunniesLoveYou.jpg ^.^
Also Colour is the proper way to spell it silly american :P
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
boring stereotype is boring and also of course not true. also, your shallowness is once again duly noted.
1)stop referring to women as “girls”
2)”most girls”, eh?
3)you realize that women being judged on their appearance is a form of sexism, right?
dude. that wasn’t even true back when women were chattel. besides, last i checked, most metrics of success don’t actually require women to look good, since women can be rich/have happy lives/have great careers, etc. even when they don’t fit your particular beauty standard
not all people are shallow fucks like you, actually. nor is your taste universal. consequently, sometimes there are great disparities in “looks” in couples, because 1)maybe looks weren’t what they married for, and 2)maybe their beauty standard is different, and they actually find each other highly physically attractive
lol. not only does that not follow, since 1)plenty of feminist are married, pretty, otherwise successful, 2)this doesn’t even follow from the previous statement, since success in one’s private life has fuck-all to do with whether a movement one belongs to is successful or not, or with whether it’s “fringe” or more mainstream
if the feminist movement actually is capable of providing benefits, and even women who won’t admit that they’re feminists are feminists, then by definition it’s not “fringe”.
this is all very fucking hilarious though, because the atheist movement is far more “fringey” than the feminist movement.
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
assumes.
conclusion.
asswipe.
rorschach:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Seriously, what is this shit? Status? Quality? I don’t even….Stop posting, ahmetduran, and go and educate yourself. Or learn English. Or both.
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
oh honey.
you’re a chew-toy. this is what I do when I’m procrastinating
Rodney Nelson:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
I’m having my own Samuel L. Jackson moment.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 8:54 pm
Jeez, I may actually have to put the tablet away and pull out the laptop for this one. Ahmetduran, you are too stupid for words.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:55 pm
No I don’t. Pls 1) enlighten me and 2) make it concrete by linking it to what i specifically said.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
All ahmetduran: PIDOOMA
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
Anyone else get the feeling that ahmetduran would actually buy tiger repellent upon being shown that, indeed, there are no tigers present after spraying the repellent around the room?
mikee:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:56 pm
ahmetduran,
Have you ever considered trying to make an argument based on fact instead of using just one biased assumption after another, based on your strange perception of the world? Personally, I have seen lots of attractive men at atheist events I have been to, but then perhaps your view of an attractive man is different from mine?
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:57 pm
That’s not funny. Another phenomena that girls lack: humor.
(in b4, where’s the data!!!)
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 8:58 pm
well, you can always google it, right?
you do realize that unless you’re deliberately trolling, you ARE as dumb as a box of hammers?
just thought you should be aware of that, since many dumb people also suffer from Dunning Kruger syndrome.
…you can look that one up too.
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:00 pm
no dear. you pointed to a few fields, all of which are full of toxic sexism, and assumed that they support your conclusion instead.
no. but then, I’m capable of thought that comes in forms other than regurgitation of tedious stereotypes
that deeply idiotic statement was of course proven wrong before you even posted it
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
Oh, wait, I get it. ahmetduran is a random phrase generator taken from Larry the Cable Guy, Jeff Dunham, and old Married With Children scripts.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
It seems that ahmetduran is a low quality boy.
Boy, what do you say to that?
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
actually, that’s hilarious, and the fact that you don’t think it’s funny means sexists lack humor.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:01 pm
I’m starting to suspect that ahmetduran actually learned English from r/mensrights
Lofty:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
Blimey. How much more clueless can you get? Just because you don’t recognise the humor doesn’t mean normally intelligent people don’t.
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
Shorter ahmetduran: “WOMEN. Am I rite, guys?”
*crickets*
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
Carlie:
I expect that if ahmetduran was taught (by a top quality
boymale, natch) that pissing on all the walls exactly 2 feet up from the floor was a sure-fire tiger repellent, he’d start peeing all over the place.Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:02 pm
We’re so pretty
Oh so pretty…Vacula!
And we don’t care!
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
yeah, pretty much
Rodney Nelson:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
I really have to wonder if ahmetduran can walk and chew gum simultaneously.
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:03 pm
Still waiting for a single link to a single study that supports anything he says.
Still waiting for an explanation why he keeps using “girls” to refer to women.
Still waiting for any comment that isn’t a 40-year old sitcom punchline.
Lofty:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:04 pm
@ Ichythic:
Hey don’t diss my hammers.They know which finger they are aiming for.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Yes it is, cupcake. Especially when you don’t seem to realize your chewtoy status.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
consciousness razor:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
What? Do you not even science?
Let’s give an example:
-Question: Why aren’t there more women in the atheist movement?
-Premise: There aren’t many women in the atheist movement.
-Premise (optional): Arbitrary sexist/racist/fuckwitted/turdjuggling nonsense I pulled out of my ass. [Completely arbitrary. Could be anything at all.]
-Premise (optional): More arbitrary nonsense.
-Conclusion: That is why there aren’t many women in the atheist movement.
That’s how “analytical thinking” works, or so I’m told.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Is this Zombie Christopher Hitchens?
w00dview:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:06 pm
Not being raised to use american spelling makes you automatically narcissistic? News to me.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
i’ve provided 2 studies for some of my claims. Some I can’t provide for, in which I have only suggestive evidence (but these I can’t back up, like the lower frequency of women in math sciences, indicating their lack of analytical abilities)
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:08 pm
Oh, the “feminist are ugly” shit? Pure R*sh L*mb**gh.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Lol, not aware.
Tethys:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
I want to savage ahmetduran, but everything he says it so full of sexist assumptions that I’m not sure where to begin. I feel my brain cells dying off in protest at reading his toxic bs.
Oh FFS, we’re people, not a wolf pack you fool.
Jessa:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:09 pm
Why am I not surprised that ahmetduran has the following as his “favorite quote”?
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:10 pm
w00dview:
Well, it’s not as if our chewtoy has top quality wits, he’s working with bad equipment.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:11 pm
ahmetduran must be a girl. Show a distinct lack of analytical thinking.
(The regulars know that I am dealing with bitter sarcasm here. Just wanted to point out that I normally do not engage in this kind of talk.)
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
what is this i don’t even
1)”is seen as negative” =! “lacks any attraction”
2)why the everglorious fuck would you think that “sexual value” is a determinant in women’s deconversion and/or decision to joing an atheist movement?
3)even if the former were actually true, why would you assume that women would then be less likely to join a movement given that joining the atheist movement might well increase the chances of finding a likeminded partner?
4)why the odd assumption that lowering “sexual value” because you belong to a hatet group only applies to women, or is more important to women than to men?
5)you do know that “sexual value” is entirely subjective, right? To an atheist, very religious people are rather unattractive, and consequently having low “sexual value” with a group you’re not attracted to cannot possibly matter?
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
Oh the stupid. An abyss of stupid.
Thanks for braving that particular pit for this gem of distilled idiocy, Jessa.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
You are not a particularly self aware boy.
Rey Fox:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
I didn’t know it was Non Sequitur Night. I guess I should wear a coat.
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:13 pm
no, I’m tellin’ ya, he’s like the only student that ever managed to graduate Kanazawa’s course in gender and race bias.
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:14 pm
you don’t have any such thing. I’ve explained this several times.
pHred:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:15 pm
It’s like watching a slow motion trainwreak. I would suggest leaving the basement and joining the 21st century but the shock would probably be too much. Like the guy at a job interview today kissing up to the other man in the room oblivious to the fact that the two women in the room were respectively the owner of the company and the person who would have been his supervior – not that he had any chance at that point.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:17 pm
This wouldn’t have anything to do with searches by religious people looking for negative results, right?
Fuckwitted is much too kind a descriptor of your so-called thought processes.
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:18 pm
Welp, I’m all convinced and stuff now.
here’s my research proving that racists are ugly too!
2.7 million hits on google can’t be wrong, right?
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Fixed that for you, Cupcake.
mildlymagnificent:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Dumb as a box of hammers, and all the charm of a sticky doorknob.
For pity’s sake.
This was old when people were screeching at us street marchers and writing highly indignant letters to the editor about the dreaded ‘loss of femininity’ 40 years ago when I was one of those ‘harpies’. I’d never needed a pair of overalls or safety pin earrings, a business suit and a head held high were quite enough to make us ugly back then.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:20 pm
Does someone want to explain to the boy the idea of confirmation bias.
Also, explain that a google search is not science.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
Hey everybody, guess what? I typed in “why are lesbians so” into Google, and 3 out of the top 4 searches were negative.
This is why women aren’t lesbians.
Checkmate, feminists!!!!
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:22 pm
that was old 100 years ago. and still equally untrue
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Janine:
Hitch may have been a ginormous douche, but at least the man could write elegantly.
(Oh god, a keyboard! I haven’t used one in months!)
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
Caerie, we dykes are just driving away other women because of that.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:24 pm
mildlymagnificent:
Indeed. Apparently, ahmetduran is so fucking stupid he hasn’t figured out everyone bothering to chew on his meager offerings is a feminist.
Ichthyic:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:25 pm
no.
it would be like trying to convince my cat to breathe water and live in my aquarium.
carlie:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:26 pm
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
They don’t support your claims.
Study 1: discusses social network maintenance as a stress response. You gave no hypothesis as to how this may be linked to which social groups women become a part of; in fact, one could just as easily hypothesize that the stress of being outside the norm with respect to religious beliefs would make women MORE likely to be heavily involved in atheism activism.
Study 2: Good lord, where to start. It begins by acknowledging that the original work on the subject was narrow and biased in studying only 358 people, all of whom were undergraduate students, so then goes on to use as a study group…less than half that number of undergraduate students. The results and conclusions are, together, less than a page long. It did not explain anything about what they meant by a “masculine” v. “feminine” outlook, and, most importantly for you, the result of comparing sex to religous outlook was nonsignificant.
That is what we mean by “pulled out of your ass”. Your opinion is not evidence.
Grumpy Cat:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:28 pm
Grumpy Cat says….watching The First 48 is a refreshing glimpse at vibrancy in all its violent glory.
This may be sexiss as fuck, but check this out…the killer is never the one with a vagina. So is killing people ‘a guy thing’?
Mee-oww
Tom Foss:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:29 pm
Not sure if Ahmetduran is trolling or just the world’s most inept PUA. Either way, nice piñata. Couple of points:
*Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because…
*Do you even English? (“phenomena” doesn’t mean what you think it does; also, it’s plural)
*Why do you assume that attractiveness is objective?
*Why do you assume that attractiveness is relevant?
And so forth. What a winner.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:30 pm
It’s generally true that a ‘hated’/'negatively perceived’ group doesn’t really attract other people. Yep, really crazy out of the world idea.
There is no need to be upset. Sexual value for girls is a strong determinant for all kinds of behaviors. Do u even psychology ?
Like minded people attract eachother as you say and ‘hated groups’ are not attractive. So I speculate that the effect of the outgroup is stronger than the effect of a like minded individual.
To give an analogy: it would be the case that a white female would easily come across a like minded black male. But since the black male is in an out-group, there is less contact between white females and black males, so you would expect that they don’t become partners( altough they would be like minded).
I think the effects are strongER for women than for men, indeed.
I don’t think sexual value is entirely subjective, otherwise you would see a lot more diversification on what is considered to be sexy and attractive.
I think that militant atheists very much dislike the very religious types, but the majority of people (who hold moderate atheist/religious positions) do mix well. (correlations are moderate).
Didn’t understand your last question/point
Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:31 pm
Oh, we’re considering hits from a Google search to be a citation now? That’s going to go well. Let’s give it a try:
‘cats are better than dogs’ – 69,100,000 results
‘dogs are better than cats’ – 53,000,000 results
Well, there you have it; indisputable evidence that cats are better than dogs. Quod erat demonsdumbass.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 9:33 pm
Have I ever mentioned how much I love it when assholes link to their facebook accounts? Too bad more of it isn’t in English, but the “KONY 2012″ pic showing Morgan Freeman is pretty priceless.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Oh really?
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
Tom:
ahmetduran: It’s the only thing that’s relevant, dude. There’s high quality guys, ya know, who look for high quality girls and then they get busy and stuff – he does analytical thinking and she shops for fashion stuff to make herself look serious good for the guy. Everything else is all low-quality girls and the low-quality guys they settle for. /ahmetduran
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
No I don’t. English is not my native tongue and it’s far from perfect, but I can only improve myself if I speak, read and type english regularly.
Let me put it this way. It’s not totally objective (otherwise you would see a lot more random body types, males and girls aspiring all kinds of different body types, etc) but there’s also a good deal of variation, albeit in the minority (girls who wants to be extreme obese or skinny and their male counterparts who are attracted to these people)
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
I meant: “it’s not totally subjective….”
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
“I am a dragon” – 400,000,000 results
You can’t argue with that, people. Google says.
Tom Foss:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:35 pm
Oh, he’s Belgian. Now I feel bad for insulting his grasp of the English language.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:37 pm
Well, if you say it like that…..haha
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:38 pm
Tom Foss, do not feel bad. All this would be just as jaw droppingly stupid and self absorbed in plain english.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:39 pm
If it’s not sarcastic, than thank you! :D
Tethys:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
My sexual value wants to roundhouse you right in the psychology, you raving fuck-knuckle.
Tom Foss:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Now I feel really bad. He’s entered an intellectual knife-fight wielding a pickled herring.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
ahmetduran:
Apparently, attractiveness only counts if you live up to the current western ideal. Past eras when a full body type (or alternately a “boy like” body type) was considered attractive for women apparently never existed.
(I mean, seriously. Has anyone ever seen a thin fertility goddess idol?)
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
Tom Foss, even if the boy spoke in flawless english, he still is using a whole lot of stupid assumptions.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:43 pm
So you don’t know a single thing about cultural diversity or history either. Great, so far, you’re batting 100% on the Ignorant Fuckwit scale.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:45 pm
I don’t quite understand this. Some google hits are relevant, others are not.
If you ask for studies demonstrating the attractiveness of atheists, I don’t think there are any. Just because the studies haven’t been involved, doesn’t mean you can’t make educated guesses.
I have zero evidence that soccerplayers run faster than the general population, but I do have lots of conceptual reasons on why it’s very much the case that soccerplayers do indeed run faster than the general population.
Btw, what do you guys think that there aren’t many women in the secular community as opposed to mine? I’ve read one potential good explanation here (that the community itself wasn’t making it that inviting for women).
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 9:47 pm
Goddamn, you’re an idiot. Hint: it was.
Please please please tell me you are either too stupid to know the difference between Joseph Kony and Morgan Freeman or you were attempting a “witty” all black people look alike! joke.
(Where the fuck did my Comic Sans go?)
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:48 pm
What are you even implying here…you are scaring me now. You imply that there’s a society where there are girls with huge noses who are seen as sexy ? Mind=truly blown.
Pls reference me.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:49 pm
brb detecting sarcasm on the internet
brb asking if I really know the difference
You a derr ?
Grumpy Cat:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Grumpy Cat says…what’s the difference between a truckload of bowling balls and a truckload of dead atheists?
Wait for it….
Wait for it……..
Sweet release is almost here….
Wait….
You can unload a truckload of dead atheists with a pitch fork.
I said meow, sir!
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:52 pm
Boy, truly you are as dishonest as you are stupid.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
Audley:
PZ hasn’t fixed the q tags yet. The only way to get it is to blockquote cite= “creationist” /blockquote
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
fucking internet ate my comment
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 9:53 pm
How do you know there isn’t one? Dumbass.
IIRC, the only universal attractive trait is clear skin.
(Although if anyone knows differently, let me know. I’m going off of a sociology class I took a decade ago).
Gregory Greenwood:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
*Picks his way carefully through the thread, trying not to step in the gory remains of
ahmetduran’s sexism and presuppositionalist blather*
I think that this has clearly established that women can indeed argue analytically.
Ahmetduran… not so much.
Ichthyic @ 224;
The Hammer Anti-Defamation League (HADL) want to talk to you. They are very angry about the way that you impugned the intelligence and language skills of innocent boxes of hammers the world over.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Gender difference in mathematical skills (no idea why I’m getting asked for this, since it’s common knowledge and easy to look for yourself.)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022096599925328
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
I think our chewtoy is ragged, limp and out of squeaks.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
Thanks, Caine.
mandrellian:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:55 pm
How hard is it to grasp the concept of “subjective” and “irrelevant”?
And “ignorant backwards anachronistic bullshit”?
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:56 pm
That’s ok, since I have never claimed that girls can’t argue analytically
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:58 pm
The boy could only dream to be as cool as this hammer.
And I am not talking about Captain…
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 9:58 pm
Women and computers…..
(that’s a joke, no need to be upset)
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:01 pm
Boy, when you are talking about females teenaged and older, they are called women.
Why is this so fucking difficult for you.
Why am I even asking this,?
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:02 pm
Wowbagger:
I’m not certain I like the idea of giving that douchebag an even bigger head. He’s already full of himself and his greatness.
****
Caine:
Of course, since “it’s a guy thing”.
Wait. I’m a guy. I don’t do needlepoint. I don’t think I could *find* the point of a needle. Am I not a guy? ::checks huge package:: Nope. Still a guy.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Why can’t you stick to the subject ?
What’s your working hypothesis on the reason why there aren’t many females in the secular community ?
(in b4 because of sexist pigs like you)
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:03 pm
Boy, you are not doing yourself any favors with that “joke”.
Please, try not to attempt what you cannot comprehend.
So do nothing.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:04 pm
Boy, you are the one using sexist language.
Pointing it out does not make me sexist.
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:09 pm
”is seen as negative” =! “lacks any attraction” =! “doesn’t really attract”
FFS, those are three completely different degrees of attraction. not even being a Belgian is an excuse for this degree of sloppiness in language.
I do in fact, probably more than you. Except of course you probably don’t mean real psychology, you mean EP quackery.
Either way, “all kinds of” is not actually evidence for a specific case, nor is it evidence for this being true for women more than men.
this is idiotic.one’s attractiveness to an out-group is supposed to be more important than attractiveness to the in-group? Also, I’m fucking sick of your streeotype-based speculation. your prejudices are not valid arguments.
this also is idiotic. if they’re likeminded, then they are likely members of similar groups and communities with large geographic dispersion; you know, like the atheist movement.
also, atheists are not out-group to other atheists.
based on what? more of your prejudices?
there is extreme diversity in what is attractive. once you get out of conformist mainstream culture, there’s an incredibly broad range of kinks, fetishes, physical preferences, etc. and the mainstream is culturally determined and also changes from time-period to time-period, as well as by culture.
shocking.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 10:09 pm
You made the claim, you have to back it up. This is 101 level shit we’re dealing with here and “common knowledge” counts for fuck all.
Anyway, I’m not paying $20 for the entire paper, but from the abstract it doesn’t look like that it deals with why there are differences in performance on the tests– whether or not the difference came about from societal pressures and not because women inherently can’t math.
Nice try, but no dice.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
Gee. At this level of wit, I expect the chewtoy will finish out the night putting all of his arguments in the form of Scumbag Steve macros.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:10 pm
I was referencing to myself with ‘sexist pig’. Never mind.
I don’t consider my hypothesis as sexist since it can’t be sexist if they were true.
Women lack testosterone. Is that sexist ?
Women lack muscle. Is that sexist ?
Women are better at verbal reasoning than men. Sexist towards men ?
Men are better in spatial processing. Sexist ?
These are not sexist statements, these are simply true (or empirically demonstrated).
So, claiming:
women lack analytical skills cannot be sexist (only the motivation to come up with such hypothesis can be deemed as sexist).
I use women’s lack of analytical skills as a causal influence on why there aren’t many girls in the community (among other hypothesis like women’s lack of a ‘confrontational, argumentative’ attitude).
Ps: i’m talking about averages here! Pls don’t respond with garbage anecdotes as: i’m a girl and i love debating!
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 10:13 pm
Cleaning up my crappy editing (I’m tired, sue me):
should be:
Fixed.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 10:14 pm
LOL, ahmetduran complaining about “garbage”.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:15 pm
If you are really interested, I can send it to you (or you can ask someone else if you want).
The question is not WHY females suck at math, that’s a topic for another discussion. I’m not really interested in that. However, it’s a given that females, on average, suck at math. (whatever the reasons may be ok, let’s say it’s societal pressure if that floats your boat).
I use that variable (females lack of math skills) and I use that as a hypothesis to explain why you don’t see females in secular communities.
Please think this trough. I’m NOT dealing with the reasons why females suck at math, I use that as a given to explain another variable
Rawnaeris, FREEZE PEACHES:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:15 pm
So by ahmetduran’s standards, I don’t exist. That’s good to know, I’ll just not show up to work tomorrow.
Oh. Wait. My mistake. I do fucking exist.
And I have a job where I go around telling people what it is they’ve performed incorrectly in their manufacturing processes.
Oh, and I’m a gamer, and I’ll argue with a brick wall, just ask my very desireable husband.
–
You’ve never ventured into the nether reaches of internet porn if you think all values of beauty are equal.
—
What the fuck is up with the chewtoys lately? They sure squeak nice, but they taste horrible.
Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:17 pm
ahmetduran wrote:
An average gathered from how many respondents? How? Under what conditions? When? From which locations? By whom?
Trying to peddle your ignorant, biased, assumed conclusions as ‘but I’m just looking at averages’ is bullshit, and obviously so. Numbers need a context to be considered an argument, and you’re aren’t able to provide one.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:18 pm
Rawnaeris:
It’s the brain atrophy.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:18 pm
Do I even need to say a fucking word here?
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:20 pm
drop dead, honeycakes.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:21 pm
Garbage in
Garbage out
You are not intelligent enough to even begin to understand how wrong you are.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 10:22 pm
For fuck’s sake.
Of course it matters why women don’t perform as well, you fucking piece of shit. If it’s societal pressures causing women to under perform, then maybe it means WOMEN DON’T ACTUALLY SUCK AT MATH. Which invalidates pretty much every fucking idiotic thing you’ve said.
I hope you sit on your balls, you worthless sheen of pond scum.
mouthyb:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:22 pm
Seriously, how far back should anyone have to start in teaching the ranking of evidence and the scientific method before having a fucking conversation? At what point do these fuckers feel a little shame for being so obviously ass-ignorant and proud of it?
A little anecdata: I’m a feminist, have been for years. I currently have a fiance and a fuckbuddy, and my little black book is cheerfully the size of a paperback. It’s AMAZING how many people like and respect feminists, no matter what these men seem to think. Apparently, feeling empowered enough to ask for sex and talk openly about it is attractive, as is paying your own damn bills and having a life of your own.
I’m also an analyst, and not an armchair analyst. I get paid for it. And I’m working my way not just through a PhD, but also through the core requirements for a CS undergrad degree.
Want to hear something funny? I notice women around me all the time who are also being paid to analyze massive data sets in public health, or who go to places like Juarez to gather data on drug violence. I’m surrounded by women with Masters in Economics, Political Science and Sociology, who do things like analyze human trafficking data for international law enforcement. You want to talk dangerous? Try attempting to outsmart pimps and track down (and help rescue) trafficked women and children. Or running around Juarez after dark, with the current round of drug cartel violence, to talk to families about their inability to send their children to school. Or investigating the Maquiladora killings in Mexican border towns. One of my friends at this university just designed an interfrometer which is several orders of magnitude more sensitive than the best ones on the market, in the process of her PhD on fusion.
We are risk-takers, and analysts. We are scientists, programmers, mathematicians and statisticians. I submit to you trolls that women are there. You just don’t notice them because you don’t want to. Or, for some really toxic shit, you classify them as not ‘real’ women.
And, FYI, I disagreed so vehemently with one of my professors (who was proselytizing instead of teaching) that we very nearly had to step outside. I am well known for my aggression and debate skills, as well as for my unwillingness to tolerate bullshit. And I ain’t even that out of the ordinary.
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:22 pm
considering the aesthetic value of piercings, scarification, facial tattoos, etc, I wouldn’t even go that far.
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:23 pm
but it isn’t a given, you fucking moron
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
Audley:
I hate to be the one to inform you this: You are not a real woman. Hand over your gender ID card. No more pink for you.
****
I’m late to the party.
Can someone translate this:
****
Tell you what, run off and figure it out. Come back when you figure that out (can you also find out how to “science”?).
****
@93:
Your ‘nym is not fucking cool. Go somewhere else.
Gregory Greenwood:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
ahmetduran @ 271;
Different cultures do show substantial variation when it comes to concepts of beauty and physical attractiveness, and exhibited even greater variation before modern transport and telecommunications technologies allowed such easy cultural exchange bertween societies.
Take for example the Japenese Geisha and the associated traditions of foot binding, or the trend in the Victorian era toward women with very pale complexions (a far cry from more modernistic aesthetics of attractiveness) that lead to the popularisation of thick, lead-based makeup akin to face paint (that unfortunately had a highly deleterious impact on the health of those who used it, this being before the toxicity of lead was known).
Also, as noted above by another commenter, there are many ancient cultures whose religious observance involved the worship of fertility godesses through the use of scultures and paintings that were intended to embody the femine ideal of the time, and such artwork often tends toward rather more of a full figure than would normally be considered the height of physical attractiveness as such things are typically defined by modern, Western standards of beauty.
Concepts of beauty also vary substantially in those cultures where religion mandates that women wear burkhas or other apparel in public that covers most of the body, with a focus on the eyes being commonplace, given that these are often the only features that are clealry visible.
Even within the Western concept of beauty there is significant variance; some people find very tall women – such as the stereotypocal ‘six foot Swedish blonde’ – to be their ideal of beauty, whereas others consider petitness to be esserntial, and find taller women intimidating or consider them too ‘gangly’ to fit their personal aesthetic. Some favour curvaceousness, whereas others consider a very slender figure to be the ideal.
And of course, all this completely ignores the very many people who place intellectual and emotional attributes above physical attractiveness as a factor in choosing a partner.
A single, universal, objective standard of beauty simply doesn’t exist. The idea is by its very nature enculturated, and varies between societies and over time.
rorschach:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:24 pm
I have to say this is quite a fun way to spend the afternoon. The gift that keeps on giving. I haven’t laughed so much in a long time. The best thing is, I reckon ahmetduran is actually genuine.
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:25 pm
fuck this shit. I’m off to watch the Hobbit
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Because of the boy’s extensively researched arguments, I know you are lying about being an analyst. It is not possible for a girl to do that.
Besides, you are just taking away a job from a better qualified and more analytical man.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
Strong reading comprehension.
Lol, u real mad
Stop trying to be funny. srs
Jesus christ dude. Average! Mean! Gausian curve
What the hell is wrong with america’s education ? You are like the 10th person making that mistake
Not every girl is bad in math
Some girls outperform males
Some girls can even be at the top
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:26 pm
It is not a given, which makes every single fucking “conclusion” of yours to be incorrect.
You know what is a given? You being a fuckwitted, sexist idiot. That’s a given.
mouthyb:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Oh, and also a gamer. I own all the gaming systems of my childhood, and boxes of games. I also own a really nice rig for PC gaming.
Jadehawk:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:27 pm
oh god. this dude has a masters in psychology, and yet completely fucking sucks at it. this is tragic.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 10:27 pm
Gracias. Jadehawk. Although I took “clear skin” to mean “lack of pimples” and not body mods, like I said it was a decade ago and I could very well be wrong about all of it.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:28 pm
Jadehawk:
*Jealous* We can’t make opening night (tomorrow here), so we probably won’t see it until Monday.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:29 pm
Yes it is. There is no need to be upset about that.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:29 pm
I am sorry, I forgot to include mouthb’s moniker in my snark. I hope it makes more sense.
Stephanie Zvan:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:29 pm
Oh, dear. I’ve run the numbers, and this is absolutely correct.
That average slight difference that is found, sometimes, in some cultures, in the performance of women and men at math completely explains why no more than two atheist women could be found in all of Los Angeles to appear in a discussion of atheism. That’s because, with the population of Los Angeles being about 4 million people, and atheists coming in at around 8% in the U.S., that gives us about 300,000 atheists.
All 300,000 (except for two) end up being men because of the math they are asked to do when they deconvert. It’s how averages work.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 10:31 pm
Tony:
Awe, shucks.
Pteryxx:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Study debunks myths about gender and math performance
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=4956998&page=1
Social equality frees women to match men
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
Stephanie:
I was not asked to do math upon deconversion.
*sulks at being left out*
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
1) not true, cause I had other working hypothesis using other variables.
2) pls provide evidence that states otherwise
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 10:33 pm
You.
Haven’t.
Demonstrated.
This.
You’ve asserted it. Over and over. That doesn’t make it true, asshole.
Your alma mater should demand your degree back.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:33 pm
Now I wonder how Stephanie’s post is going to be taken by a certain chewtoy…
ingemar:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:33 pm
I don’t visit this site often, and do so only when I need a good laugh. After reading the comments here it would be impolite if I did not thank Herr Fuhrer Myers and his goose-stepping brown-shirted minions for providing such fine entertainment. :)
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Wrong, you condescending idiot. The way you are using the words, “girl” are not analytical until you want to deny saying this by crying “means” and “averages”.
You do not argue in good faith, boy.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
Audley:
Given the amount of things chewtoy admitted to not knowing or understanding, such as Burden of Proof, his alma mater should sue him for making them look incompetent.
Pteryxx:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Oops… guess I should have made up some mocking snark instead of actually bringing evidence to a chewtoy session. Um, it was a temporary burst of excess testosterone making me all sciencey. <_< Unless looking for evidence isn't a Guy Thing after all…
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:36 pm
Thank you, ingemar, for giving me enough reason to never take anything you say seriously.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
Pteryxx:
We have determined that looking for and citing actual evidence is not a ahmetduran thing. At all.
michaeld:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:38 pm
at ingemar:
Cause you know who else argued on the internet? HITLER!?
Really, Nazis comaprissons? I hope that was meant as some sort of stupid complementary joke?
Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:38 pm
ahmetduran wrote:
LOL. What is it about Belgians that they all assume everyone on the internet is American?
[here's a hint: there are many, many non-Americans in the world]
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:39 pm
First study is about the myths of the causual variables, not the gap itself. read carefully: “in particular, the idea that girls and women have less ability due to a difference in biology.”
i’m not claiming anything about what causes these gender gap, i’m only caliming that there IS a gender gap.
Yes, I have heard about social equality as a moderator variable. However, meta-analysys show that the effect still persists. yes, some studies show that women fare better, but this is expected as a statistical anomaly or fail usage of samples.
Third study is same as second study, saying that the gap is closing.
Heard nothing new and challenging, pls try again. Also, I would like to have the real articles linked instead of the media reporting it. I can say that the media did a find job reporting it here, since i’m already familiar with those data, but for the next time, just link me up with the article itself.
Rawnaeris, FREEZE PEACHES:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:40 pm
Dammit. Why do these threads always occur when I should be asleep?
–
Again correlatin is not causation. Pls cum bak whn u understand ths.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:40 pm
Browncoats, dear. Browncoats.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Bah. I shouldn’t have stopped playing Assassin’s Creed. I don’t know why I thought banging my head against the wall would be an exciting use of my time.
Rawnaeris, FREEZE PEACHES:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:42 pm
And there’s my offering to Tpyos tonight. Make that correlation.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Wowbagger:
I don’t know that all Belgians do this, however, in the case of our chewtoy, I’d guess idiocy based on stupid stereotypes. Seems to be the basic fuel ahmetduran runs on.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:42 pm
Caine, is time for us to pull out our She-Wolves Of The SS act?
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:43 pm
Go to google scholar.
Type in ‘gender gap in math’
go cry
http://rer.sagepub.com/content/59/2/185.short
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15430
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:44 pm
Janine:
Hahahahahaha, oh, hell yeah.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:45 pm
lol, whut, i never claimed such a thing.
Pteryxx:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
And when there is no gender gap, the evidence must be wrong because assumptions. Right.
Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:46 pm
Shorter ahmetduran – “Okay, so there are some studies that show that men aren’t better than women at maths, but I’m choosing to ignore them because, uh, chicks are dumb LOL!”
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
ahmetduran:
I’m not doing your fucking research for you. You made the claim, you have to back that shit up.
Did you read your own links? From the first one:
Once again, the paper doesn’t appear to address why there are sex differences. But seeing as they are decreasing one can reasonably assume that there aren’t inherent intellectual differences between men and women, otherwise the data would remain static, wouldn’t it?
Jesus fucking Christ.
Stephanie Zvan:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:48 pm
Ignored apparently. Or may he’s just taking some extra time to figure it out. After all, math is a boy thing.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:50 pm
Stephanie:
I expect it confused the hell out of him.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 10:51 pm
And the second link:
How do you account for there being no gender gap in math in some countries?
Did you read your own links?
Wowbagger, Antipodean Dervish:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:52 pm
Caine wrote:
Oh, I don’t think Belgians on the whole are as clueless as ahmetduran – they can’t possibly be – I was indulging in some tu quoque for giggles.
rorschach:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:54 pm
Ah this is just priceless. Did you actually read those studies that you just linked to?
Pssst: They do not support your assertion.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:55 pm
Wowbagger:
Oh good, yet another term our idiot chewtoy won’t grok. He doesn’t seem to understand the concept of fallacies at all. Such an idiot.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:56 pm
Dont’cha understand. It does not need to be factual. It is a given so that a point can be made.
Pteryxx:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:56 pm
‘Gender gap shows up, gender gap goes away. Can’t explain that.’
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:57 pm
ahmetduran is compleat “I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe!”
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:58 pm
Pteryxx:
:falls over laughing:
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 13th, 2012 at 10:59 pm
noelplum99:
Have you ever thought you could be wrong about your opinion of Pharyngula?
To answer one of the probable follow up questions from you, yes, I have.
I have no problem with the tone of this blog.
I have no problem with the feminist stance of this blog.
I have no problem with the blunt nature of this blog.
I do not think anyone here is dogmatic.
With specificity, what issues do you have with Pharyngula?
I think you simply do not understand patriarchy, sexism, or kyriarchy. I think you place too much emphasis on tone, rather than the message. I think you are too quick to insult without any substance to your arguments. I think you are so attached to your worldview and dislike of PZ that you can’t fathom what any of the regulars say. You automatically discount anything we say.
And yes, given your past, I discount much of what you say. I will admit that. However, if you made the attempt to present a reasoned argument…one that is not dishonest (no, there is *no* reason to deny women the right to serve in any capacity in the military), I have no problem considering it. But you come into every discussion with a set of a priori assumptions and treat them as if they are true.
Then you whine about tone.
In short, I find most of your comments at best tedious and troll like. At worst, I find your opinions to be sexist and not worth anyone’s time.
Despite all of what I’ve said, there is part of me that wishes you would “get it”.
I don’t enjoy being brusque and rude. I’m naturally a nice guy who would prefer to get along with people. However, I’m sick of people like you that treat the subject of sexism and misogyny as if they aren’t a big deal. I’m sick of people like you who dismiss the opinions of women. I’m sick of people like you who mansplain.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:00 pm
Caine, I am not sure if the boy will understand Futurama references.
(This is said by the person linking to a Nick Cave song and making a Dr Horrible joke.)
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:01 pm
Tony:
Jim graduated to douchesplaining some time ago. Now he’s currently engaged in gaysplaining.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Janine:
I don’t care. Ahmetduran doesn’t seem to understand anything.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:03 pm
Audley:
Gaming is for guys
Knitting is for girls.
Stick with what you know.
Stop trying to shatter gender stereotypes.
Sheesh. I can’t believe I have to mansplain to you.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(the regulars know I’m joking).
Gregory Greenwood:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:04 pm
ahmetduran @ 316;
The trouble here is that you are trying to assert that women ‘suck’ at maths, and therefore are less analytical, and therefore less liklely to become part of the atheist/skeptical community – the entire house of cards falls unless you can demonstrate that women are inferior at mathematics and other analytical sklls due to some immutable physiological aspect of their womanhood, and not because of a social structure that discriminates against them, denys them opportunities to develop those skills and advance in those fields, and generally does all it can to blunt the potential of women in any area outside the established gender roles that society tries to pidgeonhole them into.
Let me try another tack – if we look back to the era before popular enfranchisement in the UK when voting rights required a property qualification, the argument was often made by those among the landed classes that held power that the working classes simply could not be trusted with the vote, because they were too poor, too ‘morally disolute’, too irrational and too intellectually inferior to wield the vote responsibly*. The landed classes pointed to their own higher levels of education and wealth, and tried to argue that this proved their innate superiority over the working classes – that their greater wealth, success and education was not the result of access to greater opportunities and political power denied to the poorer members of society, but was a product of some ineffable quality of themselves that rendered them superior to ‘lesser’ subjects of the Crown.
The reality was, of course, very different – the system was fundamentally rigged against the working classes. Their lack of enfranchisement ensured that they had no voice in the government of the nation, and so concentrated all the power, wealth and opportunity for personal advancement in the hands of the elite few. The impression of superiority projected by the landed classes that were entitled to vote was an illusion maintained by a discriminatory, inequitable social system, and not the product of some fundamental, inescapable inferiority bred into the bones of the poor.
By the same token, many fields of endeavour that demonstrate rationality and analytical thinking – such as scientific and mathematical disciplines – are also riven with sexist assumptions, as is the atheist and skeptical community itself – this system is rigged against women in much the same way as the land qualification voting system was rigged against the working classes, and until the stranglehold of patriarchal attitudes on these fields is broken, women will continue to face anything but a level playing field, and the erroneous belief that women are inherently inferior at analytical and rational thinking will endure as a side effect of an iniquitous social structure.
———————————————————————————————————————-
* Of course, after the enfranchisemnt of working class men, many of these same men who had encountered that attitude that they lacked the mental faculties to exercise the vote responsibly due to their class turned around and used these self same arguments against the enfranchisement of women, claiming that they lacked the mental faculties to exerise the vote responsibly due to their sex.
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
mouthyb:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Janine: I’m even cooler than a boy. My penises come in different sizes, colors, ball sizes and with vibration. I’m bound to be a better analyst because of it.
/sarcasm
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:04 pm
Caine @380:
Do what? the holy PLUM fhuck?! [deliberate]
I was going to leave the bar soon. Think I’m staying a bit now!
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:07 pm
MouthyB, I see that you can pick the tool the fits the job.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:09 pm
ahmet:
Ok, I’m totally bouncing all around this thread, but I just came upon this and had to share this Very Special Snowflake Message:
FUck yoU
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:09 pm
Tony:
Plum decided to defend someone going by the nym slowmotionsomething using butthurt, faggot and Nancy in general and specifically against SG in the Shermer thread.
Pteryxx:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:10 pm
mouthyb: that’s it… I’m naming my dildo Citation
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Tony:
*sigh* You’re right. Did you know that Xbox (and I assume PS3) controllers only work for men? When women claim to be gamers, we’re really saying that we watch our boyfriends play. Tee hee.*
Speaking of ridiculous explanations: ahmetduran, did you flounce? ‘Cos if you did, I’m gonna feed my kid and go the hell to bed.
*To be fair, I have been half watching Mr Darkheart play Dishonored but 1) I’m in the room and 2) I suck at any first person game and it looks hella cool.
Stephanie Zvan:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:13 pm
Caine, I do believe you may be right about him being confused. He seems to be thinking so hard he’s forgotten how to type.
mouthyb:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:14 pm
Pteryxx: Best. Timed. O’Reilly. Quote. Ever.
mouthyb:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:16 pm
Ptyerxx: My favorite one is called the Validator.
mouthyb:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:17 pm
As in, is my argument valid now? *thud*
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:18 pm
Stephanie:
Why that would be a Saturnalia miracle! Quick, everyone pray* to Krampus!**
*This involves drinking one to many shots of peppermint schnapps.
**Yes, I know I’m mixing things up.
Pteryxx:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:20 pm
*melts* …Mine’s as in ‘Citation Needed’! STAT
strange gods before me ॐ rational skeptic seeking truth for friendship, possibly more:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:21 pm
Fuckin’ not happy. I am just not accustomed to this shit online.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:25 pm
mandrellian @179:
Ok, I’m trying to catch up-in order-but I’m worried here. A low quality female? I can’t even muster any kind of amusing joke to make fun of this. It’s that fucking pathetic that someone would say something this awful.
****
ahmet:
See, from my perspective, you’re “low quality” and it has nothing to do with what you look like. It’s all about who you are as a person: a piece of shit.
The quality of an individual has nothing to do with her/his attractiveness.
God Fucking Dammit.
How do you know this?
Have you consulted the vast majority of women on this planet?
I know many men-GAY MEN-who are pre occupied with their looks. I know STRAIGHT MEN who are preoccupied with their looks. I know WOMEN who are NOT preoccupied with their looks. You have no point here. Just STFU.
****
Audley:
That would be awesome.
That way your asshole sister can treat someone who *is* an asshole like shit.
****
Caine @192:
The only true thing women argue about is which woman Jack, Nick or Victor will marry next on Young & The Restless…
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:25 pm
SG:
There’s no reason you should be. That sort of shit is bad enough, but I think it’s even worse here, because we simply aren’t used to that sort of business with one another.
I haven’t said anything because it’s obvious this ‘slowmotion’ person is the type who will gleefully escalate such rancid behaviour at any protest.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:30 pm
Ok.
I’m at carlie’s comment @211.
Taking a break to move to another thread.
I just need to ask:
What the ever loving PHUCK is “suggestive evidence” (which is not something carlie said, btw; she is one I *want* in the commune)?
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 13th, 2012 at 11:40 pm
It’s been fun, but it seems like we broke ahmetduran. Pity.
‘Night, all!
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:42 pm
G’night, Audley. I’m out too, have much work in front of me tomorrow. Kisses to the Darkling.
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:52 pm
Do you even science ? It happens frequently that some effects are not found or reversed, hence why meta-analysis are important.
I’m starting to think that most of you guys didn’t have a basic methodology training…I thought i was talking with academics here :/
ahmetduran:
December 13th, 2012 at 11:54 pm
Lol, how so, i’m just warming up(srs) I’m preparing for my class right now, but after that, i’ll reiterate what I sad earlier and tackle the common misconceptions. Pepper thy angus
bybelknap:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:04 am
OK, I can’t speak to Vacula’s douchebaggery inre sexism etc. but I can say that he came to my cafe, under the auspices of the local freethought group – to which I had extended a 20% discount AND used a coupon, which clearly stated it couldn’t be combined with any other offers. I mean, wtf? I’m not going to argue with someone, anyone, who is going to try to combine offers. It isn’t in my nature. If you want to be a douche and schmeek a couple of bucks off me because you’re too fucking cheap, so what? Oh, and he wanted lunch after lunch was over. I’m trying to prep for dinner, and Douchie Doucherson sits down during off hours with two others and wants double discounts on a meal I’m not at all ready to deliver, while I’m scrambling to get ready for actual paying customers at dinner.
Yeah, douchebaggery in one life area can often mean heinous fuckery in another.
Just sayin.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:04 am
Suggestive evidence is evidence that point to a direction of a particular theory, but it’s not unequivocal evidence (another theory can easily explain the evidence as well).
I said that the low frequency of females in math sciences is ‘suggestive evidence’ for their lack of analytical skills. But it can also be the case that there is a discrimination in math sciences towards men. So it’s not that women don’t a lack of analytical skills, but because they are discriminated against that explains their low frequency. I have to rule out every other possible explanation (almost next to impossible), so I can safely use the word ‘unequivocal evidence’.
cashforyourscars:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:07 am
Ugh, fine. Drag me out of silence, why don’t you. I have three things to complain about. (I’d have more, but the fantastic ladies here seem to have the issues that are *actually* important covered.) The first two are in regards to ahmetduran:
1. “Do you even [noun or verb]?” Silly as it is, I usually enjoy this joke setup. Please stop pooping on it. At the very least, please understand that relying on one joke (particularly one spawned by an internet meme), multiple times in a thread, particularly when said meme is not contributing to the discourse in any way, is…unoriginal at best.
2. What’s with the “In b4 [a legitimate question regarding the total crap I just spewed]“? That’s like saying, “Lol I figured out the logical flaw in my argument before you even read it, so it doesn’t count!”
3. I think Grumpy Cat is adorable, so I’m a bit peeved that some silly douchekibble has been acting shitty under her name and image.
Oh, and since I can’t get up the nerve to comment except every once in a while, I guess I’ll go ahead and see if someone can help me: what’s the deal with some of these new commenters? For some reason, every time I read something from Ian Brown or Anthony K, I get this bizarre urge to…get in some kind of line? I’m not sure if I can hold out much longer. Bizarre, eh?
Khantron, the alien that only loves:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:16 am
I don’t think anyone mentioned it but the “feminists are ugly” thing that Satoshi Kanazawa here was going on about upthread is a straight-up Rush Limbaugh-dittohead talking point.
It’s amazing how many atheists just can’t rid themselves of the trappings of conservative Christianity. You know how there are Christians that always go on about atheists that are only atheists to look cool? They’re probably right in cases like this, or the slymepit, ’cause critical thinking sure didn’t do it.
Amphiox:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:17 am
What is most interesting is that ahmet would look at a series of studies that show, at best, a small difference in means, with massively overlapping deviations, and then from that choose to use the value-laden term “suck” to describe the finding.
That’s kind of like saying Peyton Manning sucks at quarterbacking because he has a head to head losing record against teams coached by Bill Belichuk.
This, methinks, in common parlance, is what one could call a “tell”.
What is only slightly less interesting is that ahmet would look at the same set of data, with small differences in means and vastly larger ranges of overlapping deviations, and choose to use the value-laden term “a given” to describe that finding.
Because if there is one thing a set of small differences in means with vastly larger ranges of overlapping deviations is not, is “a given”.
And that too, in layperson’s parlance, is a “tell”. Of something entirely different, but perhaps equally illuminating pertaining to the question of just what kind of person ahmetduran is.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:19 am
Resurfacing long enough to *pouncehug* cashforyourscars. I’ve missed you! It’s wonderful to read you, as always. As for that bizarre urge…you hafta watch out for that Brownian motion, it’ll get you every time. Or so I hear.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 12:20 am
Okay, ahmet. How about you address the fact that the last two studies you linked to don’t even remotely support your opinion that “girls suck at math”.
I am actually going to bed, but I’ll be back in an hour or two when the Darkling wakes up.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:21 am
100% correct. Thank you for at least portraying my arguments precisely.
No, No and another No. It doesn’t affect one bit whether women fail math because of culture or biology.
Let’s assume that women fail math because of societies pressure:
The argument stills holds. Because society pressures women into sucking at math (an index for less analytical skills), this in turn leads them to shy away from groups who are highly into analytical skills.
Now let’s assume that women fail math because of their biology:
Because biology designed women to fail at math (an index for less analytical skills), this in turn leads them to shy away from groups who are highly into analytical skills
This might be very much the case as I have admitted (the point you are making was allready made, don’t know if it was you or someone else).
I certainly believe that the individuals of the community has also their role to play. Yours is as much as a working hypothesis as mine. I don’t reject it before hand, claim it to be a sexist, racist or dimwitted.
I also made the point earlier that although your hypothesis might be right, I don’t believe it explains all the variance. (that is highly unlikely in these kinds of phenomena, it’s always multi-determined). That means that one explanation is not enough. You need more. So you are going to need to make an exhaustive list of potential explanations and test them one by one.
I tried to list 3 potential explanations, but these backfired because people claim it was ‘sexist’. But I don’t think it can be classified as sexist if they are true. (if they happen to be true, then we can develop adequate interventions. You can’t make interventions when your diagnoses is inadequate)
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:24 am
A ‘small’ effect in meta-analysis can have strong real world implications. Don’t get fooled by the word ‘small’, the problem is big enough in the real world to make adequate interventions (luckily, this is already the case, despite the ‘small’ effects)
Khantron, the alien that only loves:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:26 am
What does math have to do with atheism anyway? It’s not like figuring out god doesn’t exist is that hard intellectually. It’s more about being able to go against social pressures and women face orders of magnitude more social pressure than men.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:28 am
Look, alice eagly agrees with me (and she’s a feminist)
http://faculty.smu.edu/chrisl/courses/psyc5351/articles/sex%20differences.pdf
(hmm, i can’t use the search machine, but eagly explains well here how small effects can have important effects in society at large)
If you can use the search machine: search for: small effect sizes
Stephanie Zvan:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:28 am
Not really. Not unless there’s some very high-level math test required to be an atheist–as has been pointed out already in comments you’ve ignored.
Amphiox:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:29 am
It is interesting to note that ahmet, when faced with the binary choice of two possible explanations for an observed outcome (the validity of which being in dispute, but we’ll grant that for the time being), should choose, voluntarily, to use the value-laden term “suggestive” to describe the evidence in favor of one option but not the other.
The use of the word “suggestive” would only be valid if ahmet favors that one explanation over the other, even if only by a small margin. Because if neither explanation can be favored over the other, then the finding of a difference does not, in any way relevant to the use of any human language ever devised, act as “suggestive” evidence for either explanation.
Therefore, ahmetduran, perhaps you could enlighten us as to the reasons by which you have concluded that the first explanation is sufficiently more likely than the second as to justify your choice of the use of the value-laden term “suggestive”.
The science term “unequivocal evidence” when translated into layperson talk, can match up closely in meaning to “a given”.
The science term “suggestive evidence”, when translated into layperson talk, can match up to fairly broad subset of terms, NONE of which, in any human language ever devised, match up even remotely closely with “a given”.
So, ahmetduran, I take it you are walking back your initial statement “it’s A GIVEN that females, on average, suck at math”?
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:29 am
Khantron:
Janine did – she asterisked all the vowels in Limbaugh’s name, so you may have missed it.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:30 am
I feel like Pharyngula is on Troll overload tonight…
rorschach:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:31 am
Groups like the skeptic or atheist movements? LOL.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:32 am
It was a longshot.
My reasoning was:
- secular community is analytical
- girls not so analytical (as indexed by math)
- less girls in secular community
Can be true, can be false, it’s just an idea.
Similar idea would be:
- secular community = atheist
- girls not so atheist
- less girls in secular community
etc
I’m off to school now. Thanks for not derogating my name in the last couple of posts. feelsgoodman
Khantron, the alien that only loves:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:33 am
@Caine
Ah, maybe I should have read the comments. Instead of trusting ctrl f.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:33 am
Stephanie:
Indeed. I await ahmetduran’s cunning response to your initial post.
*taps foot*
tarynhart:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:36 am
Atheism is a guy thing? Yes, because religion has been so damn great for women.
I don’t know when I declared myself an atheist, and there were a lot of events along the way, but the first event that sticks out for me was reading St. Paul when I was in 7th grade. The shit he said about women? My reaction was basically: “Fuck that!” And for me, that was it – I could never take the bible or christianity seriously again. I wasn’t an atheist at that moment or a feminist at that moment, but that single event put me on the road to becoming both an atheist and a feminist.
The atheist community – to be distinguished from atheism – is clearly male dominated. And although I am an atheist, I don’t really participate in the atheist community because – sad to say – it’s hostile to women. But atheism is by no means a guy thing.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:39 am
I think there’s a correlation (or maybe a causual influence on that, I remember an experiment on that) between analytical thinking and disbelief in god.
Math is the operational definition for ‘analytical’. It’s just an ‘index for’. Interpretation would be: high score on math INDICATES a high analytical skills and this in turn INDICATES a disbelief in God. Will now search for the experiments. If I don’t post under 5 minutes, then i’ll post it later on and really off to school now, hehe
Amphiox:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:41 am
CAN and DOES are not synonyms. To move from CAN to DOES requires additional evidence, thus far not forthcoming.
I note with interest, however, how ahmetduran has deliberately avoided the point of my post in his reply.
Let us grant for the moment his unevidenced assertion that there is a “strong” real world implication.* ahmet has taken this assumption of “strong” real world implication, and chosen, freely, to use the value-laden term “suck” to describe it.
And his choice to use that word “suck” is a tell.
And his decision to evade responding to that point about his use of the word “suck” is also a tell.
I will point out that the lifetime head to head match-up between Peyton Manning and Tom Brady is 8-4 in Brady’s favor. That’s not even a “small” difference. But if a particular football fan takes a look at that observation, and then chooses to use describe that as evidence that Peyton Manning “sucks” at quarterbacking, that constitutes a revealing “tell” about just what kind of football fan that particular fan is.
* and indeed it DOES have a strong real world implication, that implication being that the real world is filled with barriers that discourage females from excelling in math
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:42 am
Well, I found the media reporting on it, these are very new experiments and highly popular, so I bet you guys have heard of it. If needed, i’ll search for the article itself.
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn21749-analytical-thinking-erodes-belief-in-god.html
If I remember correctly, these were experiments, so there was a causual link between analytical thinking and disbelief in god(!). Oh man, religious people’s jimmies were rustled hard, haha.
Also, if females are more religious then men, then this indicates that they have lower analytical skills. It all falls in place just perfectly :D
Stephanie Zvan:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:43 am
Also because, according to you at least, “girls” do better at verbal reasoning. So, of course, math must be the salient measure.
Stephanie Zvan:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:46 am
If B requires A, then people with less B have less A.
Boy, I hope that school offers a logic class.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:46 am
@Amphiox: i’m not deliberately ignoring your posts (or anyone for that matter). This style of posting is new to me. I promise I will answer to your posts.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:46 am
It still seems to have escaped your notice that the majority of people refuting your nonsense are women, while you have amply demonstrated in this thread that you, ahmetduran, have no analytical skills whatsoever.
As to “shying away from groups who are ‘highly into analytical skills’ (what does this mean, into them as a hobby?), more bullshit. Women continue to go into fields which have been traditionally male in high numbers, such as engineering. The primary problem is one I brought up earlier, which you ignored – chilly climate. (I assume you don’t know what that means, either. Look it up.)
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:49 am
Stephanie:
Oh, Snap!
Amphiox:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:53 am
Whoo boy howdy.
ahmetduran needs to go take a look a PZ’s most recent set of posts about the problems with evolutionary psychology, and read them thoroughly. Because THIS little gem is basically the exact sequence of fallacious thinking that infests and ruins that particular field, simply translated to a slightly different subject.
Firstly, math is NOT the “operational definition” for “analytical”. It is the other way around. Math is one of many diverse subsets that can arise out of the base that is “analytical”. If the first link in your chain of logic is a fallacy, the rest can be safely ignored.
Now, even granting that first link, just for charity, the next bit, “high score in math indicates high analytical skill and this in turn indicates a disbelief in God” itself requires the presentation of evidence in favor. I mean sheesh. Issac Newton possessed high analytical skill, and Isaac Newton believed in God. So did Thomas Aquinas.
And thirdly, even if we grant the second link for the sake of charity, and accept the whole conjecture, that “high analytical skill indicates a disbelief in God”, all that tells us is that we should expect a significant number of math whizzes to be atheists. And if we grant, for charity, the idea that more math whizzes are men than women, then this chain of logic would explain why a certain subset of men tend to be atheists. But it DOES NOT say anything at all about whether or why there are fewer women atheists. The chain of logic is precisely backwards.
Perhaps I shall have to henceforth refer to ahmet as duranahmet, to hammer home this point.
Amphiox:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:57 am
I did not say you were deliberately ignoring my posts. After all you ANSWERED my post. What I am saying is that you ignored the CONTENT of my post which you answered, and instead decided to distract by quaffing off on an irrelevant tangent.
And it has to be deliberate because obviously you READ the post, or else you would not have chosen of your own free will to respond to it.
And the exact MANNER in which you ignored the CONTENT of my post, and the exact MANNER in which you tried to distract with irrelevant tangencies, constitutes a “tell” concerning the type of person you are.
Amphiox:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:04 am
If girls do better at verbal reasoning, it stands to reason that girls would be more likely to notice that gaping verbal inconsistency between the events described in Genesis 1 and the same events described in Genesis 2.
And they would be more likely than analytical number-crunching word-adverse boys to notice and recognize all the other self-contradictory aspects of the bible and every other sacred text of every other religion.
And this, it stands to reason, should lead females to atheism more easily than males.
And thus the task of poor duranahmet, backwards logician, becomes even harder. To justify his little hypothesis of “math = analytical = atheism = MEN!” he’s going to have to QUANTIFY this effect, as well as the confounding, opposing factor of “words = reading = bible FAIL = atheism = WOMEN!”, and present the hard math (presumably duranahmet is male so this shouldn’t be a problem for his analytical numerophilic brain) that demonstrates that the first effect outweighs the second.
Amphiox:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:10 am
Heh. You know what has been one of religion’s favorite formative tactics? A new up-and-coming religion takes a close look at how shittily the current dominant religion treats its women, and sets itself up as treating women just a teensy bit less shittily, reaping in a windfall of female converts who then go on to indoctrinate their babies, until critical mass is reached and it supplants the old religion.
This is what Christianity did to Roman Paganism, and what medieval Islam did to medieval Christianity.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:13 am
Amphiox:
Simplified version for amhetduran: It’s been obvious to everyone in this thread that you ignore every single thing which refutes your pet notions and opinions. You are only looking for confirmation of your own bias. This is a well known phenomenon: Confirmation bias.
I have little hope ahmetduran will actually click the link, read and understand, as he managed to utterly ignore my earlier post on the Burden of Proof, after which he kept asking why people expected him to provide citations.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:32 am
@347:
You just compared PZ to Hitler.
Wow.
You are vile.
latsot:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:48 am
It’s nice to have a sole arbiter of what’s acceptable, isn’t it? Thanks, Justin. Keep it up. We all totally appreciate it. I mean *obviously* gaming is for men and sewing is for women, but I’m a bit confused about cooking. Can you fucking set us straight on that activity, you self-important wanker?
Alethea H. "Crocoduck" Kuiper-Belt:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:01 am
*FIST BUMP* for mouthyb.
I am one of those women who is being paid to analyze massive data sets in public health. Interestingly, my workplace is full of women like me, with degrees in one or more of mathematics, statistics, computer science or medicine. Even our board of management, made up of experts in health and welfare statistics, research and policy is mostly women.
Gosh, it looks like boys are crap at math!
(Or, perhaps, that women know a good environment when we find one and are reluctant to leave for other jobs possibly full of assholes like chewtoy boy.)
Jafafa Hots:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:14 am
Oh for fuck’s sake.
It just keeps getting worse and worse. Like waves of zombies.
Are the Koch Brothers funding these people or some shit?
Agent Silversmith, Honey Powered:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:34 am
Hi Ahmetduran. From what you’ve said, it’s obvious that you’re less capable of absorbing new information than a busted slug.
You snugly hold your conclusion about women’s analytical inferiority dovetailing with religious susceptibility like a lovely little bitmap, which just can’t have a pixel out of place. So to defend it, you provide miscitations and assertions mined straight from a cavity beneath your coccyx. Real evidence doesn’t give a fuck what you want to believe. It might support you, but then again it might force you to forget your cherished conclusions, and if you have a shred of intellectual honesty, you’ll do it.
At best, your New Scientist link suggested that focused analytical thinking might soften people’s supernatural assumptions round the edges. In reality, religious people who are good analytical thinkers refrain from analyzing their core theistic beliefs, or use their skills to support their positions. Evidence that would actually support the claim that women have an intrinsically inferior analytical capacity needs to be in the granite-hard category, e.g, detailed neurological maps providing rigorous data with airtight conclusions. Got that? Or anything that even pretends to be that?
tarynhart:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:08 am
Amphimox:
There was more to my comment: I’m not just non-religious; I’m an atheist. But, for me, becoming an atheist started with a rejection of Christianity.
However, as an atheist I don’t really have a community because – at this point – atheism isn’t more welcoming to women than say the Episcopal Church. In fact, I would say, it’s much, much less welcoming.
Nepenthe:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:13 am
Anecdotally, more of the math math people I know are theists than the merely good at math people I know. Mathematical platonism and all that. Seems like once you get to a certain point of abstraction, one’s brain melts and all bets are off. So glad I’m partially recovered.
*sigh* This is a kind of boring one, imo. The troll I mean. Seems to be obsessed with jimmies and rustling them. Are those testicles or nasty wax sugar candies? Either way, not things I’m interested in rustling or having rustled.
Night all.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:18 am
Nepenthe,
Math joke: I don’t understand why people have trouble imagining a five-dimensional space. Just imagine an n-dimensional space where n=5.
:D
Nepenthe:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:21 am
@Beatrice
Now we’re talking!
How about the old classics:
What’s purple and commutes?
An abelian grape.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:29 am
:)
I have to go out in a couple of minutes, so I won’t be able to joke more now, though. Damn, this looks much more fun than talking to the stereotype boy above.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 4:00 am
So ahmet doesn’t have an answer for me? I’m shocked. Really.
Fred Salvador - The Public Sucks; Fuck Hope:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:13 am
It’s not just religions which do this; political ideologies do it too. “Ni saoirse go saoirse na mban”, right? At least until the movement achieves it’s aims, at which point the “saoirse na mban” rhetoric is dropped in favour of asking (that is, “requiring”) the women who played active roles in the revolution return to heel – leading, almost a century later, to medical staff in a “developed” nation watching a woman die in agony because some bloke in Rome doesn’t like the idea of abortion.
That, really, is why feminism is an organic, logically inescapable part of any movement which seeks to change the social status quo (like, for instance, a movement which seeks to rehabilitate the masses’ dependence on their opiate), and why people who justify outmoded views using demented, deterministic pish like this:
…must necessarily be excluded from any such movement. It’s nothing personal; your thinking is simply dimetrically opposed to what the movement is trying to achieve.
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:18 am
what a wasted education:
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-1-103.pdf
http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0021276
liar. these are your words: “girls have, on average, less analytical skills” and “females suck at math”. Even with the rudimentary English you’re working with here it should be obvious that these are not neutral statements about the existence of a gender gap.
of course you have. all your bullshit claims about male dominance in philosophy etc. indicating analytical inferiority of women is precisely that. and it’s also assuming your conclusion.
says the cupcake who’s done nothing but run on stereotypes, correlation-causation confusion, and assuming conclusions.
no dear, it isn’t, because it doesn’t explain the pattern of the gap.
which atheism isn’t, by the way. and talking at conferences, on tv, and writing books doesn’t take that kind of analytical thinking.
Anyway, your goalpost-shifting has been duly noted. used to be “girls have less analytical skills”, now it’s “shy away from groups highly into analytical skills”. two completely different things.
oh sure. there’s also class, race, and individual ppreferences to consider. none of which are relevant to the topic, and none of which warrant your claims about women’s skills.
they aren’t true.
amazing. two false premises. therefore conclusion invalid.
honeybunch, how many more times do I need to explain to you that secular is not the same as atheist?
there are so many unwarranted assumptions packed into this, I don’t even know where to start.
there it is again, the correlation-causation confusion.
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:35 am
what a wasted education:
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-1-103.pdf
http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0021276
liar. these are your words: “girls have, on average, less analytical skills” and “females suck at math”. Even with the rudimentary English you’re working with here it should be obvious that these are not neutral statements about the existence of a gender gap.
of course you have. all your bullshit claims about male dominance in philosophy etc. indicating analytical inferiority of women is precisely that. and it’s also assuming your conclusion.
says the cupcake who’s done nothing but run on stereotypes, correlation-causation confusion, and assuming conclusions.
no dear, it isn’t, because it doesn’t explain the pattern of the gap.
which atheism isn’t, by the way. and talking at conferences, on tv, and writing books doesn’t take that kind of analytical thinking.
Anyway, your goalpost-shifting has been duly noted. used to be “girls have less analytical skills”, now it’s “shy away from groups highly into analytical skills”. two completely different things.
oh sure. there’s also class, race, and individual ppreferences to consider. none of which are relevant to the topic, and none of which warrant your claims about women’s skills.
they aren’t true.
amazing. two false premises. therefore conclusion invalid.
how many more times do I need to explain to you that secular is not the same as atheist?
there are so many unwarranted assumptions packed into this, I don’t even know where to start.
there it is again, the correlation-causation confusion.
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:35 am
what a wasted education:
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-1-103.pdf
http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0021276
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:36 am
liar. these are your words: “girls have, on average, less analytical skills” and “females suck at math”. Even with the rudimentary English you’re working with here it should be obvious that these are not neutral statements about the existence of a gender gap.
of course you have. all your bullshit claims about male dominance in philosophy etc. indicating analytical inferiority of women is precisely that. and it’s also assuming your conclusion.
says the cupcake who’s done nothing but run on stereotypes, correlation-causation confusion, and assuming conclusions.
no dear, it isn’t, because it doesn’t explain the pattern of the gap.
which atheism isn’t, by the way. and talking at conferences, on tv, and writing books doesn’t take that kind of analytical thinking.
Anyway, your goalpost-shifting has been duly noted. used to be “girls have less analytical skills”, now it’s “shy away from groups highly into analytical skills”. two completely different things.
oh sure. there’s also class, race, and individual ppreferences to consider. none of which are relevant to the topic, and none of which warrant your claims about women’s skills.
they aren’t true.
amazing. two false premises. therefore conclusion invalid.
how many more times do I need to explain to you that secular is not the same as atheist?
there are so many unwarranted assumptions packed into this, I don’t even know where to start.
there it is again, the correlation-causation confusion.
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:36 am
what a wasted education:
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-1-103.pdf
http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0021276
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:37 am
what a wasted education:
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-1-103.pdf
http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0021276
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:37 am
what a wasted education:
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-1-103.pdf
http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0021276
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:38 am
what a wasted education:
http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0021276
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:40 am
what a wasted education:
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-1-103.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21038941
Louis:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:48 am
Okay, I am having coffee, taking my brain off the hook a little this morning before going back to lab and so on, and I have just read as far as comment #41. I don’t know if things have developed from there, but the coffee shot out of my nose. If this is not a Pharyngula meme yet, it should be. I for one will be asking many, many trolls and muppets, and hell, even lovely regulars, DO YOU EVEN SCIENCE? That’s as good as a demand for a Leica Rangefinder.
Excuse me, but a LOL is very apposite here.
Louis
Gen, Uppity Ingrate.:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:50 am
Gosh Alethea, don’t you know that this PROOVES that at the least there’s no more sexism and misogyny in the world or, more likely, that there really IS a matriarchy conspiracy meant to… I dunno, steal guys’ sperms and stuff and hideously yet secretly torture doods for some strange but ineffable reason?
PROOF, I TELL YA.
carlie:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:53 am
Says the guy who has still not provided one shred of evidence for anything he’s said.
ahmet, you have not addressed at all the fact that every study you’ve linked to does not support any of your assertions. Please explain why you thought each of your links supports what you’ve asserted.
All you’re doing is throwing out crap and claiming it supports you, and when people actually take the time to look them up and read them and explain to you why they don’t, you just go right on the next.
That’s a Gish gallop. You really have to address what you yourself have claimed and why you’re misreading papers so badly. So far, all you’ve shown is that you have stereotypically dumb ideas on what “women” as a monolithic group are like, shown absolutely no evidence for anything you’ve claimed is true, and no indication that you understand the scientific method or statistics or causation v. correlation.
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 4:55 am
*sigh*
and this guy supposedly has a focus in theory and research. completely wasted education. completely incapable of thinking outside his stereotypes.
rq:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:00 am
Must be a matriarchal conspiracy. I remember taking calculus in first year, the ‘hardest math’, and I tutored some of the guys in class (and I wasn’t even math major, I took the course because why-the-hell-not)… Moi and another girl. My marks weren’t as high, but that’s because I rush through tests and make silly mistakes (is that a lack of analytical skills?), but everyone I tutored got higher marks than I did. Must be their analytical skills kicking in at the last minute, once faced with the possibility of women taking over the world with their non-analytical math skills.
Or something.
Also, DO YOU EVEN SCIENCE? is one of the best questions ever.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:15 am
Jadehawk:
I’m sure he’ll go far in the field of pink berry gathering research and vervet responses to spears and baskets.
Louis:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:38 am
Sorry but I am now at #194, I went off to do some, you know, really real science, “rustling jimmies”? I call troll. Deliberate, pointless, troll.
Not that that changes the need to counter his sexist shit, whether or not he believes it, but this person is obviously just here to annoy.
Louis
Louis:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:42 am
Ahhh I see from further reading, full chew toy status has been granted.
How could I ever have doubted you…well I didn’t actually doubt you, I am live commenting this comment thread. It’s so meta it’s metameta. It’s the new thing all the cool kids are doing.
Louis
Louis:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:56 am
I has an unimpressed. This was a poor chew toy.
Louis
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:56 am
Louis:
It’s certainly, um, interesting.
carlie:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:19 am
Ah, we needed some Louis in this thread. :) (and all the threads)
With my feminine powers of, um, social cohesion and such, I predict that ahmetduran will never, ever tell us why he tried to cite papers that didn’t really support him. Doing so would require actually discussing the substance of those papers, which I’m pretty sure he either never read or ever comprehended.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:28 am
Carlie:
As those papers didn’t consist of “hey, yeah, we looked at some girls and guys and you know what, the chicks sucked at math and the guys were down with analytical stuff”, I know he didn’t comprehend one thing.
John Morales:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:43 am
[meta]
ahmetduran essays a retort to Jadehawk
Heh.
(Would-be poseur that can’t pose amuses)
Rawnaeris, FREEZE PEACHES:
December 14th, 2012 at 7:08 am
I’m mildly surprised ahmetduran came back.
–
Louis, thanks for the *snortle*, you have made my morning.
AJ Milne:
December 14th, 2012 at 7:10 am
Louis/#456
It’s got that quality, it has.
There are some loose ends left, tho’…
As in: clearly, ‘science’ is now acceptable as an intransitive verb. But can it also be transitive?
Can we also say, for example, ‘that troll up there, looks to me like they just scienced him up pretty good?’
(/Or even: ‘Son, you might want to sit down. That kinda sciencing, it can leave you a mite piqued.’)
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 14th, 2012 at 7:32 am
I for one am waiting to SCIENCE until i get my FINISHED.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 14th, 2012 at 7:38 am
The chewing gum and non-sequitor memes that hold ahmetduran together didn’t give out while I was sleeping?
I’m curious if this is how he always speaks, or if this is just how he thinks serious analytical menz are supposed to converse. It does give me amusing mental images of someone wandering through a university, shouting various random gibberish he saw hilariously repeated online.
(In b4 Zet die plaat af!!!!)
Joe Magarac:
December 14th, 2012 at 7:56 am
Relax.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:01 am
Do fuck off like a good chap, “Joe”. Ta.
pentatomid:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:01 am
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie
Huh? Why the BDW quote? Did I miss something?
Also, am I the only one who doesn’t get the ‘in b4′ stuff?
Louis:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:02 am
Yeah but DO YOU EVEN SCIENCE?!!!!!!
Louis
(Too soon?)
pentatomid:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:03 am
Hey, Louis, wanna science? Huh? Huh?
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:05 am
Louis:
Yes. It has a very old feel to it already.
Louis:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:06 am
AJ Milne,
I was thinking of it as more a Samuel L Jackson “English, motherfucker. Do you even speak it?”.
It was the (presumed) tone of unearned outrage and condescension from the chew toy, combined with a badly phrased bit of English,* that made me laugh. Best to leave it intransitive I think, preserve the joy!
Louis
*Granted not chew toy’s first language apparently, so I should be a little nicer I guess. I’m claiming innocence…relatively speaking…since there is an existing internet meme along these lines.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:07 am
Caerie:
*snortle*
He does seem to be overly attached to chanspeak. Explains a lot.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:08 am
pentatomid:
Considering the first use of “in b4″ here:
I would say it means “I will write this here preemptively…”"
Although, this:
baffles me.
The Mellow Monkey: Caerie:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:09 am
pentatomid, I was just mimicking the random conglomeration of catchphrases we’ve been faced with. No meaning beyond that.
Much like ahmetduran’s arguments.
rq:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:11 am
Most of what he said baffled me. *shrug*
pentatomid:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:11 am
Beatrice,
The ‘because of sexist pigs like you’ line was what confused me.
Louis:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:13 am
Caine,
BOOOOOOO! Don’t you and your gang of Feminazi She-Harpies castrate my MAN-ATTEMPT at a perfectly good meme.
SAMMICH!!!!!!
Louis
P.S. Pentatomid, oh now you’ll make me blush…never on a first date! Second date, I’ll go to the lab and back, all the way. I’ll use Scifinder. I’ll develop a novel synthesis of something. Oh yeah. I’ll deprotonate a molecule using a sterically hindered base to improve regioselectivity. I’ll deprotonate all night long. I’ll attempt to manipulate your transition state to give a favourable ratio of products in a good yield. You bet I will.
pentatomid:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:14 am
Caerie,
Oh, ok. Thanks.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:16 am
Beatrice:
Easy – he was attempting a preemptive “a problem with fewer women in a secular movement is sexism, etc.” statement after one of his repeated sexist assertions.
Amphiox:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:20 am
A small historical factoid that might blow duranahmet’s logophobic brain. The word “computer” did not always refer to a machine, but a person. A person whose job it was to do nothing but math. Pretty much ALL the major analytical work of the first half of the 20th century in science, industry, and business, was conducted by armies of these computers, with naught but pen and paper and slide rule and their own grey matter, for barely more than minimum wage. Look at any scientific publication that required any significant amount of math, and the “analysis” portion more than likely was written with the services of one of these computers, who more often than not went uncredited.
The vast majority of these computers were women.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:21 am
Caine,
Oh. OH. Thanks.
A pair of quotation marks could have made that readable.
He was such a bad toy, I don’t even regret missing the action.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:26 am
Beatrice:
I have a feeling that he’ll be back and carrying on with the same tired shit. This may be my fault, for hoping he wouldn’t be another raj kumar.
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:30 am
bybelknap @ 405:
What an asshole. I’m sorry you had such an unpleasant experience. Given his general behaviour online, I can’t say I’m surprised.
rq:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:35 am
Amphiox @484
Do you have a link/book for recommended reading on that subject? I would love to add it to my Winterfest-reading-wish-list…
(Is it somewhat analogous to those cracking codes via crossword-puzzle-audition in WWII?)
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:41 am
I know I’m late here but
This is the science he was asking for?
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:44 am
Rev. BDC:
Apparently, it’s the science he practices.
Emrysmyrddin:
December 14th, 2012 at 8:55 am
I feel that he needs to practice moar.
.
I don’t mean here.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 9:07 am
Still no answer? Jesus.
Now would have been the perfect time for ahmet to pop back– I’ve got a Darkling dozing in her swing and I’m still working on my morning coffee. I’ve got shit to do later, is what I’m sayin’.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:09 am
Nothing that requires analytical thinking, I hope. Wouldn’t want to have your lady brainz screw that up. Just cook your man a lunch and let him do the thinking.
pHred:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:11 am
Emrysmyrddin:
I am extremely glad you clarified that comment. This is starting to compare to listening to an elementary school student play violin – yes they need to practice, but it does not have to be in earshot the entire time.
a_ray_in_dilbert_space:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:21 am
Amphiox@484
YES! That is an excellent point that hasn’t been brought out nearly enough. When I think of all that mathematical talent–how many Emmy Noethers did we miss out on?
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 9:24 am
Beatrice:
Oh no, of course not! I’ll just be over here changin’ diapers and makin’ sammiches ‘cos that’s about all my laydee brainz can handle. Tee hee!
mouthyb:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:33 am
I see our special little fella has left the premises. If he has training in methodology, he needs to go get his money back from the school. Or apologize to all his profs for wasting their time.
glodson:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:47 am
I go to bed, get up, and see a thread on sexism has exploded. And the only new thing I have to take away from all this is that I’m missing chances to use the word science more. I am going to make an effort to change that.
pHred:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:47 am
Based on my grading thus far I would suggest that the apology is to his profs is in order. Once someone that dense has decided something is true™ it is utter hell to try and wedge it back out again.
I offer as proof the stuff that comes out of my students mouths after we spend a few weeks talking about paleothermometry, current temperature trends, thickness of ice sheets, carbon dioxide measurements etc. etc. And they still answer questions with “I believe” or something about “the ozone hole.” It is like beating my head against a wall.
mouthyb:
December 14th, 2012 at 9:57 am
pHred: Oh yeah. I’ve been teaching Sociology classes. I spend all semester discussing major social movements in US history, and the minute we pass the 1980s, three quarters of the people in the class shut down.
And then I ask them questions about the relationship in the US between the Puritan work ethic and our collective scorn of welfare, and half the class can’t remember the lecture and another quarter remember the lecture and hate the ideas (and ain’t changing their mind for me.) Fortunately, this is a senior and junior level class, so I at least tend to get students who are a little better at reading comprehension.
But god help me when I introduce stats and methodology. I won’t even let them write papers anymore because of what happens when I get them.
They do take essay style exams, and those are bad enough.
Rey Fox:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:02 am
I guess any time PZ calls out someone else in skeptiverse for their lazy thinking with regards to sexism*, he’s going to stir up the old boys club.
* Hay did you guise see that? I just called Shermer a misogynist because of ONE OFF THE CUFF REMARK HE MADE ONE TIME!!11
mouthyb:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:06 am
Besides, apparently maintenance on the troof is easier than trying to learn.
Tony ∞The Queer Shoop∞:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:08 am
Rey Fox:
Baiting the pitters like that…good job!
pHred:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:17 am
@mouthyb
The very thought of giving essay exams to my intro class makes my mind go blank with fear. Some of them can’t even make a coherent sentence on a 3×5 card after you have presented the sentence to them in technicolor. Seriously – one of the questions on the exit slip the last week of class was “What is the date, time and location of the final exam?” – which was still written on the blackboard. Some of them still managed to get it wrong!
Improbable Joe:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:21 am
I’m sick to tears of all this pseudo-religious ahistorical libertarian Just World fallacy-based sexism. There’s no reason to act as though individuals exist outside of a culture with a long history of bigotry and violence against people who aren’t upper-class white Christian* men. If you honestly deal with cultural issues, you don’t fall into the ignorant notion that the way things are is the way things have to be. If you reject illogical libertarian dogma, you can grasp that the world doesn’t magically just put everyone and everything where it should be as long as no one interferes with the way things are.
“It’s a guy thing” doesn’t tell you anything, and is a profoundly stupid comment to make, let alone attempt to defend. The fact that people calling themselves skeptics, people who feel entitled to leadership positions no less, are incapable of forming an argument greater than one step away from “girls have cooties, and if you do girls stuff you’ll get girl cooties too!”? Yeah, there’s less and less reason to take the skeptical”movement” seriously every day.
hillaryrettig:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:24 am
if you’re going to be an ahole, at least be succinct.
hillaryrettig:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:25 am
http://www.amazon.com/Rosey-Griers-Needlepoint-Men-Grier/dp/0802704212
johncryan:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:28 am
Rosie Grier, former member of the Los Angelos Ram’s “Fearsome Foursome”, would like a word with you…
mouthyb:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:28 am
pHred: I used to teach comp and make them hate me. (Their projects in class were to rewrite the same three essays until they resembled the standard for college writing.) The class was 2/3 beating down objections to having to edit and create college-worthy writing. And let me tell you, I’ve been called everything you can imagine in the classroom for it, to my face.
I’ve also been that student in early math classes, for which I’m really sorry. For me it was equal parts fear of catastrophic failure and mismatch between the knowledge I possessed and the knowledge the prof assumed I possessed.
Fortunately, my trig teacher told me that math wasn’t for me (or women.) I was so annoyed I took more math classes because no way was someone going to bar me from learning something. :D
sharculese:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:30 am
But what about white dudes’ feeeeeeeeelings?
mouthyb:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:34 am
sharculese: They are delicate little flowers, aren’t they? The slightest hint of rejection can ruin a man for life, forcing them to hate all women and potentially go on killing sprees.
Any man who believes that to be true wouldn’t last a day as a woman.
*spits*
Rey Fox:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:35 am
This latest crop of idjits seems constitutionally incapable of seeing beyond their own noses.
Amphiox:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:39 am
re rq @488;
I’m on my smartphone and since my testosterone poisoned word deficient man-brain hasn’t figured out how to do cut’n'paste in iOS, I can’t provide the exact link, but if you google “human computer” the Wikipedia article that comes up high on the search list is an enlightening place to start. You may notice that the profession started closed to women in the 17th century, then flipped to become dominated by women (paid at half the rate of men, of course) in the early 20th, then vanished once the electronic version arrived for the second half of the 20th. And yes, they were a big part of the WWII code breaking efforts.
Back in those halcyon days, computer, along with secretary, was one of the few socially acceptable vocations a young, intelligent, well educated woman could have during that formative period when it was acceptable for her to actually earn a wage, after leaving pappy and before landing hubby.
The corollary to this of course is that electronic nerd culture was basically born shafting women and continues in that grand tradition to this day. (Ironic though it may be that the very first cohort of programmers were drawn from the pool of human computers and were almost all women, back to Babbage’s assistant Ada Lovelace.)
Improbable Joe:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:41 am
Dammit sharculese, thanks for reminding me!
*I says “There’s no reason to act as though individuals exist outside of a culture with a long history of bigotry and violence against people who aren’t upper-class white Christian* men” but I also note that upper-class white ATHEIST men have no problem recognizing and opposing Christian privilege… you know, the one kind they don’t have. Amazing though that all the other privileges are non-existent to them even when pointed out to them, the same way they at least pretend to understand that sexism is wrong when Christians and especially when Muslims do it.
bargearse:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:51 am
Aphiox @484 & 513
That little factoid has made wading though this thread worthwhile. Thankyou
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 10:52 am
With gusto!
♪ FEE-FEES! nothing more than FEE-FEES! ♪
Mattir:
December 14th, 2012 at 10:55 am
Getting back to the original Vaculous Remark™, I’m a woman person and teach a variety of Girly™ needlecraft. Of late, I have taught a whole lot more teenage boys than girls how to knit. Something about being able to have a socially acceptable fidget in classes, lectures, and other situations that require sitting still and one that yields hats and scarves (that can be given to girls – even better!). The gender-role transgression thing actually seems to be part of the appeal, particularly since I often give them some semi-rude, pre-formulated, and non-gendered insults with which to respond to gendered bullying.
The reason why I, as an atheist woman, don’t want to be more active in much of the secular/atheist movement is exemplified by Justin Vacula himself, as the type specimen for the bullying, gender-policing sorts who expend to much effort to shout women down and harrass them out of public roles in atheist organizations.
Emrysmyrddin:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:00 am
This. They can’t see the problem because they are the problem.
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:05 am
I don’t think the problem is in reading comprehension. it’s the next step up that seems to have a scratch, because the needle always jumps directly from “there’s still some difference in results, in some studies” to “women aren’t analytical”, completely missing all the steps that go between those two statements.
and he’s still not explained how holding speeches, writing books, and making tv appearances is supposed to require analytical thinking, rather than the stereotypically female verbal aptitude
Mattir:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:13 am
Also, I think “Vaculous” is a great adjective.
jennyjfwlucy:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:26 am
Oh, Mattir, would you share those retorts with me? I would be so grateful.
bargearse:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:32 am
Could I please get a definition of vaculous because I really want to work that into my everyday life
badgersdaughter:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:33 am
Mattir, as someone who has been a crafts teacher in the past and who has talked a few men (husbands and sons of my primary customers) into doing quilting, crochet, and even (since I personally hate it) cross-stitch… please also share your remarks with me! Thank you :)
nms:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:36 am
It’s analytical thinking when a man does it, because men are analytical thinkers.
Mattir:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:40 am
The insults generally involve some form of “I don’t know about you, dude, but my peen doesn’t fall off or grow back inside or start doing stuff it never did before just because I (knit)(grow my hair long)(other gender-policed activity).
Closely related to the line DaughterSpawn uses sometimes – “I don’t know about you, but they boys I want to date don’t think the fun parts of girls are nicely shaven calves.” (She doesn’t shave her legs, and it’s astonishing how upsetting this is for gender policing 16 year old Boy Scouts. The senior staff at her camp, on the other hand, once overheard such a comment and threatened to hang the gender policer up by his intestines if he made one more remark about her leg hair. )
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:48 am
Pepper thy anguses bishes, it’s rustle time!
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:51 am
FSM spare us from cupcakes who don’t know most of the internet isn’t 4chan
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 11:53 am
Is that English?
So, ahmet. Would you like to address why you thought those two studies that you linked to supported your position that “girls suck at math”?
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:54 am
Must be recess time in kindergarten.
mouthyb:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:55 am
Jadehawk: But if they pretend it’s all 4chan /b/ boards, they never have to think. Not thinking is very important to them.
How dare we rob them of their freeze peaches!
mouthyb:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:55 am
Also, in b4 stupid freeze peaches comments.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:57 am
First a short reiteration:
Dependent variable (to be explained): why chicks don’t flock at the skeptic/nerd community
Independent variables that me and others invoked to explain the dependent variable:
1) girls have less analytical skills than men
2) girls are less argumentative and agressive than men
3) girls aren’t attracted to the nerd community
4) nerd community discriminates against girls
5!!) New argument, step right in folks: girls have less…ABSTRACT skills than men (in b4 feminists head explode of anger).
Most of you guys likened explanation 4. Me too, but since this phenomena is multi-determined, we need more independent variables. I liken them all as potentially possible. Most of you guys don’t like explanations 1-3 (and probably also would not like nr 5) because, lettuce be reality, truth hurts :)
Most of you guys reacted will ill founded arguments like: “herp derp i’m a gurll and I love math” ==> fail anecdotal evidence is fail.
#Deal with it
#Come at me bro
#bishes ain’t chit but hoes and tricks (okay, this is getting silly now, i’ll just stop with the nonsense and get with the real discussion)
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:58 am
oh that’s easy, they want to stay away from your useless bigot ass.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 11:59 am
I was going to respond, but Illuminata wins everything.
Time to pack it in and go home, everyone.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:59 am
ahmetduran,
STOP calling grown up women girls.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:59 am
I’m going to page one now and respond to the guy/girl with the red avatar first. (and possibly others)
mouthyb:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
ahmetduran: I’m pretty sure that I speak for most of the thread when I say we’ve been waiting for you to stop being silly and have an actual discussion for the last 24 odd hours.
As far as evidence, help yourself to the feminism and social justice links in the right sidebar by PZed’s picture. Ain’t no one required to educate you.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:00 pm
STOP using any variant of the word “bitch”
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:01 pm
lOl I can’t help but mock this useless bigot boy. He says bitches ain’t shit, and it’s true because . . . .. uh . . . . .his mom says he’s cool .
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
darling, you wouldn’t know truth if it spit in your face. none of the shit you pulled out of your ass has any actual evidence for existing, unlike sexism; you can only deduce it from the data you’re trying to explain, which is assuming your conclusions and using circular reasoning.
and in any case, even if there were any evidence for any of that shit, it would not be capable of explaining the specific pattern of gender variance we observe, whereas intersectional discrimination can.
you won’t, of course. you’ll continue pulling shit out of your ass instead showing how your assumptions are actually based on the data. your education has failed you, massively.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:02 pm
Important note: If I missed any responses, pls indicate which post nr to look at, I will look at them ASAP.
Okay, thx, live love laugh
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
ahmetduran,
You fool, you have nothing but anecdotes and stereotypes.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:03 pm
How convenient for you
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:04 pm
it’s guy/gal, and girl/boy. learn to fucking English, it’s not that hard.
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
yes, amazingly, it’s quite “convenient” for me that reality supports my argument.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
1) The studies you’ve linked to directly refute your assumption that women have less math skills* than men, so you actually haven’t proven anything.
2) You haven’t backed this up with anything but your stupid ass opinion.
3) Which nerd community?
4) Which nerd community?
5) How do you know women have less “abstract” skills than men? What exactly are these “abstract” skills?
Care to try again?
*Math skills =/= analytical skills, but whatevs. Not surprised that you use the two terms interchangeably.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:05 pm
Translation: Yep, ahmetduran is a pants-pissing coward who can’t come up with a single shred of evidence that supports his bigotry. So he’ll just keep on with the painfully unfunny, unclever puns.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 12:08 pm
Does anyone else feel a sudden rush of pity for those poor TAs/professors that had to grade this slob’s papers?
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
at this point, I feel worse for any poor undergrads stuck with this defect for a TA/tutor
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
ahmetduran,
English isn’t your first language, fine. It’s not mine either. Or second, for that matter. So when people advise you about something language related do take notice.
Don’t call grown women girls. I’m right now giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you are not doing it to be a dismissive asshole but from ignorance. Correct it.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
Fair enough, I’ll change my wording:
It’s a given(aka well established fact) that females, as opposed to males, fail at math by a small degree.
Good enough ?
(and this in turn explains, only in part, potentially, why females don’t flock to the skeptic society since the society, assuming, has at least an analytical root (if not, this argument flies out the window)
nms:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
6) ahmetduran
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Let’s just agree to feel bad for everyone involved in this asshole’s education.
mouthyb:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:11 pm
Audley: I’m having sympathy pains right now.
sharculese:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
There’s a peculiar thing among MRAs where they all have this urge to be linguistic and rhetorical tryhards with an almost pathological hostility to plain speech.
See e.g. anything written by johntheother.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
LOLwut?
Your argument is that women are slightly worse at math than men, therefore we avoid everything with an “analytical root”? DOES NOT FOLLOW.
mouthyb:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:13 pm
And, frankly, atheist groups do NOT typically have analytic roots. There are any number of people attracted to atheism because they think it allows them to look down on the religious, not because they’ve engaged in a process of serious self-reflection and consistent analysis.
mouthyb:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:14 pm
sharculese: It’s whut cause big wurds sound smrt.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:15 pm
It’s not important whether I call it girls, females, chicks, sloots, bishes. or men, boys, male, alpha, etc.
If particular concepts are irrelevant, i’ll just use my own wording. (instead of ‘fail’ at math, I use ‘suck’. They are simply synonyms, euphemisms and pejoratives. I really really really (yeah really!) prefer to use my own wordings, so no deal!
Ask politely and maybe I’ll reconsider
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
For fuck’s sake. Are you 12?
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:16 pm
Werll, at least all the crayon doodles covering the page would be funny.
Pteryxx:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:17 pm
Well heck, I didn’t swear at this jackass *enough*.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
I posted an article here where there was a causual links between analytical thinking and atheism.
The guy/girl with red avatar also responded on that, so I’ll show you and him/her simultaneously that they ARE linked.
But indeed, if it’s the case that atheist groups are not by any means analytical in one way or another, than obviously my argument of ‘girls = less analytical’ doesn’t hold anymore.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:18 pm
Throw yourself off a really high building. but don’t use safety equipment – that shit’s for weak silly chicks. is that nice enough, useless bigot?
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Seriously, that was probably the politest comment that shithead got on this page.
mouthyb:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:22 pm
Ahmetduran: Dear tentac’ly overlord, man! If I were you, I’d be mortified to be known as this ass ignorant to a community of academics.
nms:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:23 pm
So women are less involved in atheist communities because they are less analytical than men, and we know that they are less analytical than men because they are less involved in atheist communities.
Seems sound.
mouthyb:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
ahmetduran: I should say that my personal criteria for analytical types requires them critically examine not just things outside themselves, but things inside them selves. It also entails a strong drive to be accurate and equitable.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:25 pm
Also because, according to you at least, “girls” do better at verbal reasoning. So, of course, math must be the salient measure.
I don’t quite follow this reasoning.
Girls are indeed better at verbal ability (i’m sorry, it was not verbal reasoning, but verbal ability) as opposed to boys. (suddenly nobody asks for a study to back this up, they happily accept it :) )
Math is indeed the salient measure BECAUSE we are talking about analytical stuff. Math is a part of that. Verbal ability is, to my knowledge, not an index of analytical skills.
‘Verbal ability’ is typically measured in the psychological literature as in: name up every word that begins with ‘a’. Females fare better at this kind of tasks than boys do.
I don’t know how I would interpret these findings and relate it to explain the dependent variable.
Amphiox:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:26 pm
It is telling once again, that duranahmet, when deciding to present an alternative to his deliberate use of the value-laden term “suck”, should choose, of his own free will, the value-laden term “fail”.
It is also telling that he recognizes that a term can be a pejorative, but when presented with the option of thinking of an alternative to a perjorative, he willfully chooses ANOTHER PEJORATIVE.
I say again. Peyton Manning is 5-8 head to head against Tom Brady. If someone willfully chooses to use describe Peyton Manning as “failing” at being a quarterback, and cites this statistic as a reason, what that does tell us about what kind of football fan that person is?
I guess it is a demonstration fo duranahmet’s testosterone addled language-deficient man-brain that he apparently does not comprehend that CHOICE OF SYNONYM MATTERS, because synonyms have overlapping BUT NOT EXACTLY MATCHING meanings and connotations. There is nothing “simple” about the choice of synonyms to use.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:27 pm
Nope.
more like:
Women less involved because they are less analytical.
We know they are less analytical because 1) they don’t do science 2) no philosophy 3) no math
No circular reasoning ;)
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:29 pm
Why are you ignoring, you bedwetting bigot? I thought you wanted proof that women are aggressive!
oh wait – that would mean you were capable of analytical thinking, which you are clearly not
you’re a chick, aren’t you!
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Stop saying ‘girl’ that way.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
@red avatar person: pls use a another sport as example, i’m not familiar with american football(?). Soccer will do.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:30 pm
Yes we do. Also, math is science.
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
not even. again: http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-1-103.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21038941
there it is again, the skipping to the conclusions that simply don’t follow. (and I notice that now it’s “skeptical society”; not atheism, and not secularism.) even if there were a significant, consistent difference in math scores, it wouldn’t follow that this difference is skill based (see: stereotype threat); even if there were an actual skill-based difference in math, if wouldn’t follow that this would translate to more broader, non-numerical forms of analytical thinking. even if math were the same as analytical thinking, it wouldn’t follow that this would have anything to do with atheism/skepticism, since there is a broad range of skills, abilities, and social determinants that correlate with atheism/skepticism, and that are useful in being/becoming a skeptic/atheist.
incorrect. learn to communicate like a non-sexist.
your wording is incorrect English, and sexist.
then don’t be surprised if you’re considered a subliterate sexist idiot for it.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:31 pm
ahmetduran,
Do you acknowledge that you are using girl as a pejorative?
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 12:32 pm
Wut? I don’t believe that you’ve ever taking a psych course. You should really stop lying on your facebook page.
And, no, no one agrees with your “verbal reasoning” statement, they were going along with you for the sake of argument– Jadehawk asked MANY MANY times why someone with higher verbal reasoning skills would be prevented from writing books and making speeches.
You can’t even keep your opinions consistent.
mouthyb:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:33 pm
Okay, well I have to leave the conversation to go take graduate statistics final (soon to be done with the first year and a half of graduate statistics). I’ll check by later this afternoon for response.
ahmetduran: So which is it: trying to float between points of view to avoid having to own any errors or just so damn bad at reading for comprehension that you don’t know you’re all over the place?
My money is on a mix of the two. Protip: if you want to have a discussion, you also have to be open to changing your mind in the presence of better information.
You’ve been given an excess of evidence and pointed to even more, you intellectual coward.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
Please refer to your post.
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:34 pm
I certainly have no interest in joining in a community that is composed of guys who are convinced that women, on average, “fail” or “suck” at math, and therefore they are less capable/interested in analytical thinking, and therefore that’s why there aren’t very many women around in the first place. Talk about a self-fulfilling prophesy.
Life’s too short to waste hanging out with jokers who aren’t as smart as they think they are, and compensate for their intellectual shortcomings by inventing elaborate fantasies about why at least men are better, on average, than women, at least, at math.
Rev. BigDumbChimp:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:35 pm
Don’t think he cares.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Dude, do a search for my name. I’ll help you out: the relevant posts are on the first page.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
Rev.
But it’s so nice to get “yes, I’m an unrepentant asshole” in writing and signed.
bargearse:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:36 pm
ahmetduran@571
You’ve got to be shitting me. You’ve been making my head spin since your first post
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:38 pm
Pls refer to her post!
I’ll try to explain to this supposedly discrepancy.
Women have higher verbal abilities. That’s nice. What do they do with it ? No, they don’t discuss endlessly about god. More like what make up to wear, what to cook, if their newly bought dresses look nice and discuss their time of the month.
You understand what i’m getting at ?
Verbal ability isn’t a precondition for: i’m good at speaking, so I can speak for whatever stuff. What kind of bullchit reasoning is this, lmao. This reasoning did came from a women, so THATS very telling :D
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
ahmetduran,
Why don’t you take yourself and your sexist jokes and fuck off?
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:39 pm
Arguments: zero
Again:
womennot involved because less analytical
Less analytical evidence: women fail at math
Pls refer the circular reasoning.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
Lol, I’ve been called a lot of things here (chewing cupcake of whatever), but it’s only sexist when men do it I suppose.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:41 pm
ahmetduran,
We have read tons of bullshit from you and not one of use came to the conclusion “ahmetduran is talking shit, he’s a man, men are incapable of talking anything but shit”.
You take a comment by a woman, interpret it wrongly but whatever, and suddenly it’s got something to do with all women!? And you say you are not basing all your opinions on this on stereotypes?
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
I like that ahmetduran is *such* a coward. Nothing screams “My misogyny is the direct result of my low self-esteem” louder than cowardice.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Bah.
Post number 367 from the first page:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/13/welp-im-all-convinced-and-stuff-now/comment-page-1/#comment-512254
And 370:
http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2012/12/13/welp-im-all-convinced-and-stuff-now/comment-page-1/#comment-512258
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
Narrow it down broskie. Lots of posts there
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:42 pm
ahmetduran,
Cupcake or whatever is sexist now? Fuck off.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:43 pm
I can’t find the post of the red avatar girl that critiqued the experimental paradigm that linked analytical thinking with disbelief in god :( feelsbadman
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Stop telling people to do work for you.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
LOl wow you are an extreme dipshit, aren’t you. You’ve done nothing but puke sexism all over this thread. And, while everyone is mocking your cowardly, unintelligent, bigotted ass, NO ONE has said anything to you remotely sexist towards men.
You’re a disgusting liar, a pathetic bigot and a ridiculous coward. I’m starting to pity you.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Yes. You have never actually met a real woman and had a conversation with her.
(No, your Real Doll doesn’t count.)
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
I did narrow it down asshole. I know you’re extremely fucking stupid, but do try to keep up.
Also, there are only men on the internet, amIright?
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
yes, i’m very much offended by don’t. [skepchick]Girls, pls don’t do that.[/skepchick]
Btw, what about my totally new explanations, you guys seem to be ignoring that
Men are better at abstract stuff then women.
Suggestive evidence: philosophy, math, hard science don’t attract females.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
She’s got a puncture anyway.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Narrow it down means post nr, not page 1 ya white knight phaggot
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Stop using ‘girls’ that way
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Wait, do you not know how to do an search on the page you’re looking at, ahmet?
LOLLOLLOL!
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
Poor dumbass cupcake doesn’t understand what the word “evidence” means! that’s the problem here.
Dumbass cupcake thinks it means ‘whatever i personally feel like is true’.
Poor thing!
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
your reading comprehension sucks.
rr:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:48 pm
ahmetduran:
Would you consider writing something intelligent?
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Why is your anecdote evidence, but mine is shit?
Signed,
an applied mathematician
Pteryxx:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
…You’re on a blog network full of atheist bloggers and commenters who blog and comment about atheism, and many of them are women. FFS.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:49 pm
Pls google what ‘averages’ mean and then come back.
I don’t claim no single girl discuss endlessly about god, I claim that girls discuss far less about god than men do.
Anecdotal evidence is weak as phuck. Seriously, do you even science ?
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
And, I’ve been called a “faggot”. You really have no shame, do you, ahmet?
Here’s a clue: scroll the fuck up to 592– I copy and pasted everything for you, you useless crusty asshole.
artemispapadimitriou:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:50 pm
This comment
makes me think that ahmetduran is just an internet troll wasting out time. Nobody can be this clueless for real, can they? This sounds like he never even met an actual woman in real life.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Stop using ‘girls’ that way.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:51 pm
Lol another one that don’t know what ‘on average’ means
Dat dere american education I presume.
Get a brain morans!
nms:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
After a scholastic re-reading of your posts, I’ll agree: you aren’t making a circular argument, you’re just begging the question.
Maybe red avatar girl will help you look.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
And back the fuck off with variations of “faggot” RIGHT FUCKING NOW DOUCHE.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
All you gave us are anecdotes and stereotypes.
Seriously, you tell people that they don’t know science, while your genius explanation is “yo bro, everyone knows chicks don’t dig math”
Pteryxx:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
Apparently ahmetduran’s great and powerful analytical abilities can’t distinguish between “none” and “less than”.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:55 pm
ahmetduran thinks he’s the only European who managed to figure out how internet works. Shame he still hasn’t figured out words and the fact that they have meanings.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
A misogynist AND a homophobe. Almost a trifeca bigot. C’mon Dumbass cupcake, bust out the racism now. Go for the Useless Sack of Rotten Fetid Monkey Vomit Award for today!
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:56 pm
Pteryxx:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:57 pm
Correction: he can’t distinguish between “none”, “less than”, “average”, and “statistically insignificant”.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
pHred:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Ugh – it’s clearly rabid. Can’t read, can’t write, can’t reason, can’t use HTML and thinks average means the most common things I find in my basement hideout.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:58 pm
Pteryxx,
None, less than, all … the words all refer to quantity so it’s all more or less the same, right? He chooses whichever word he feels like using in a particular sentence.
Gregory Greenwood:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
ahmetduran @ 589;
How is the term ‘cupcake’, in the context of an insult, sexist all of a sudden? It was created to be a specifically non-gendered term of contempt, so I would be very interested to learn how it has suddenly acquired a sexist connotation.
Also, accusing other people of sexism when you have written such things as the following @ 586;
Is rather ridiculous – here you make grossly patronising assumptions about what ‘women’ as a generalised group talk about that seem to have been imported directly from the most misogynistic phase of the 1950s. Where is your basis for this belittling attitude toward womens’ capacity for conversation? I somehow doubt there are many scientifically credible studies purporting to demonstrate that ‘most’ women like to talk about cookery, fashion, make up and their menstrual cycles to the exclusion of more ‘analytical’ topics, so I wonder where you get this belief from, other than your own confirmation bias about the supposed intellectual inferiority of women.
And there is a term for an attitude that assumes that women are less capable based solely upon their gender. Now what was it…
Oh yes – sexism.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 12:59 pm
You need to be more specific and relate it to mr post nr.
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:00 pm
ahmetduran,
STOP using any variation of the word faggot, you homophobic shitbag.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
You need to shut your fucking mouth, ahmet.
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
“they” don’t, actually. fucking earn to read for comprehension.
evidence or it didn’t happen.
if “that” is supposed to be atheism and/or skepticism, I want to see the mathematical formula one needs to master to deconvert, disbelieve in UFOs or bigfoot, etc.
I pity anyone who’s ever had to grade a paper of yours, then.
yeah, that’s evident.
superdense.
you don’t know any such thing, you infer it from the data you’re trying to explain. that’s circular, since the logic goes “lower scores in math/philosophy/science are explained because women have lesser analytical ability; the evidence that women have have less analytical skill is that they have lower scores in math/philosophy/science”
using that sort of logic, I could show that it’s actually because boys are telepathic and can read professor’s minds. the evidence for that is in the scores, you know. [/sarc]
your unsubstantiated prejudices are not a valid argument
irrelevant, since that’s not what makes something sexist.
your failure to read does not constitute ignoring of your arguments on our part.
more assumption of conclusions.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Itt: arguments are deflected under the rug of sexism.
Feminists gonna feminists.
@gregory greenwood: I explain what I meant in that post of mine, just see a couple of posts up (now I understand why people don’t refer to numbers, it’s a tedious job to scroll back and forth)
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
ahmetduran,
If you don’t want to be accused of sexism stop using every sexist argument in the book.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 1:05 pm
Yo, shitbag. Comment 592. Chop chop.
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:07 pm
indeed. whatever coherence d00d might have ever possessed has disintegrated, and I doubt he’d be any more coherent in dutch
throwaway:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:08 pm
I have suggestive evidence that any person that spends an inordinately large proportion of their time on the subset of the internet associated loosely with the *chans (such as 4ch/MISC/reddit) end up as blathering, meme-spouting sexist idiots.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:08 pm
<blockquoteevidence or it didn’t happen.
You want evidence for the claim that ‘math = analytical’.
You just went full retard
Lol, is that how you perceive the link between analytical and disbelief in god ? My god, you females and math are something.
Let me try to explain. Math is an index for analytical skills. This means that if you score high on any particular math test implicates that you have an highly analytical brain (compared to people who score low on math tests and thus are presumed to have a low analytical brain). Now, we also happen to know that an analytical brain is more likely to disbelief in god. Magic word is MORE LIKELY. (so pls don’t say: herp derp newton was analytical and believed in god derp)
At least thank you for responding rationally on the subject, you at least try :)
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:09 pm
liar, or dumber than a bag of rocks? or simply in denial of the fact that his “arguments” have been deconstructed in their pathetic, measily entirety?
Amphiox:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:10 pm
Just for fun, I will also point out now that mathematics is a form of language, and that written language is a form of mathematical code, and that the parsing of written language is an exercise in the analysis of informational code.
Therefore, IF it is true that females are superior at verbal reasoning, while males are superior at say, visuo-spatial reasoning, it does not follow from any of that that the potential of female performance in math should necessarily be precluded from ever being equal to or superior to, that of males.
As with most complex behaviors, math does not constitute a single cognitive skill of domain of function, but of several. Perhaps it will turn out that females on average do math “differently” with a different weighting to the varying cognitive domains that make up math, than males on average. It does not follow from that that one gender or the other is biologically or even sociologically predetermined to do better than the other.
There is more than one way to skin a cat. Or read a map. Or write a sonnet. Or derive a proof.
nms:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
I think ahmetduran is a computational linguist’s lab project which escaped into the wild.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:11 pm
PZ Myers:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Let me know when you people are all done shredding ahmetduran. Now that he’s throwing around bigoted insults, I’m ready to ban him any time.
But if you’re having fun ripping him up, I don’t want to ruin the game.
(My head will be down in papers for a while…I’ll check back when I come up for air.)
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
ahmetduran,
STOP using ableist remarks.
Shithead is going through the list of everything that is unacceptable here. I doubt it’s coincidental. He’s deliberately trolling.
nms:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:13 pm
Is spouting stupid reddit memes a bannable offense?
If not, shouldn’t it be?
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
no darling, that’s what the link between math and disbelief would have to be.
the fact that analytical thinking is the main correlation with atheism is the next step in the chain of your fractal wrongness.
based on what evidence?
incorrect. scoring higher on a test measures your ability to score higher on that test. only after eliminating other variables can such a test measure actual skills.
we don’t, actually. we have a correlation, which is actually far more likely to be caused by class differences and differences in educational status rather than “analytical brain” BS. also, your silly essentialism is noted.
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Ah yed, can’t back up an argument so it was all for the lulz. How original.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Hehe, reminds me of the episode of the simpsons were Lisa get’s a female friendly version of math. Good times.
That’s pretty much the feminist strategy indeed. When girls fail at math, they just want to change the math.
When females don’t get selected for a business environment, they’ll just change the environment and fit right in that way.
Amphiox:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:14 pm
Still doing the reversal fallacy I see. You do realize, duranahmet, don’t you, that verbal REASONING is ALSO an “index” for analytical skills?
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
Yes, I follow genderstudies (aka women studies), so I know a thing or two about vagina shenanigans
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:15 pm
go ahead. he’s worthless, but SIWOTI is interfering with the project I absolutely must finish by 5pm.
Mattir:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
So, cupcake, how do you account for official atheist groups like (gasp) SecularWoman or conferences like Women in Skepticism or social network groups like Atheist and Agnostic Crafters (Ravelry, a huge group) or Crafting without Religion (FB, way way smaller).
For that matter, how do you account for the perception that knitting, crochet, needlepoint, weaving, and the like are female-gendered activities in our culture, despite the fact that they are chock full of (gasp) mathematics? (Indeed, crochet can be used to model hyperbolic geometry despite the fact that mathematicians used to say that accurate construction of hyperbolic models was impossible.)
Even as skeptical a sciencey-man-man as Richard Feynman recognized this in a 1966 speech to science teachers. (Dated language, but excellent analysis of the importance of the vocabulary we use to describe mathematical and scientific concepts.)
throwaway:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:16 pm
At least the association between you and sexism is directly observable and not in question. Your “theories”, not so much.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
She attends her first-period math class, taught by the new principal, but instead of usual number-crunching, she starts speaking about feelings and smell in math. While the other girls enjoy it, Lisa asks whether they will get down to doing problems, to which the principal replies that problems are how boys look at math.
If you don’t know this episode, then you haven’t lived life
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
He’s boring, PZ. Ban away.
Amphiox:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:17 pm
So what? If such a change results in females doing better at math, thus DOUBLING the potential pool of mathematical skill that humanity can draw upon to solve its collective problems, or performing better in the business environment, thus DOUBLING the potential pool of economic ability for humanity to draw upon, how is this not anything but a good thing?
Is it not the RESULT that matters? You babble on and on about differences between average math scores between men and women, but what about the AGGREGATE AVERAGE math scores for all humans? Don’t you want to RAISE it? Doesn’t everyone win when it goes up?
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:18 pm
a what now? god, this d00d is a toxic bag of bigoted shit; ableism, sexism, homophobia, toxic masculinity. pretty much the only things missing are transphobia and racism
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Don’t worry, I’m sure those are next on the list.
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
and this is the fuckweasel who’s been whining about “anecdotes” for 2 pages now?
Audley Z. Darkheart (liar, scoundrel, college dropout):
December 14th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
Give him time, Jadehawk.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:20 pm
So, cupcake, how do you account for official atheist groups like (gasp) SecularWoman or conferences like Women in Skepticism or social network groups like Atheist and Agnostic Crafters (Ravelry, a huge group) or Crafting without Religion (FB, way way smaller).
Lol, dumb post is dumb. It’s already hotly debated why there aren’t much females in the nerd community.
Even tough females have those kind of groups (who says they didn’t), the RATIO between females in those communities and POTENTIAL females is weak.
You guys are dumb as chit, srs.
ahmetduran:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Okay, i’m out for now.
Don’t hate me cause you girls were born ugly. It’s in my nature to select for attractive girls.
Y’all mad ?
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:21 pm
like a creationist. it’s almost as if I hadn’t linked to one large study and a meta-study debunking the “girls suck at math” BS, and it’s as if I hadn’t deconstructed his faulty reasoning. st00pid cupcake
Amphiox:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:22 pm
Poor, poor duranahmet.
His description of that classic episode is a stunning indicator of he completely missed the point of the joke in that episode.
A human being so deficient in verbal reasoning skills that he cannot properly comprehend and thus properly enjoy the humor of The Simpsons is a man who leads a dull, bleak life, and who doesn’t even have the cognitive werewithal to realize what he is missing.
Damn that Y chromosome!
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:23 pm
lol. boy is such a failure. “oh YEAH?! well, you’re ugly” is totes brilliant argumentation
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
The best argumentation we can get from ahmetduran.
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:24 pm
Low quality trolling.
Mattir:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:27 pm
Select away, douchebag – anything that keeps you away from the women here is a good thing. For that matter, I bet we could make a fortune if we could bottle and sell some of that keep-away potion to women who don’t trigger your feminist-low-value-ugly detection system…
pHred:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:29 pm
I’m with Jadehawk – please ban him – this has disintegrated exactly like he is working through a checklist to see what he can get away with. There is no merit now. This is just ugly and smelling up the joint.
Besides, I should be grading not watching this mess. : )
PZ Myers:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:30 pm
Ahmetduran has been sent to that place where all worn-out squeaky toys end their days.
Amphiox:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:33 pm
duranahmet, expert at backwards logic, apparently thinks that it is an appropriately analytical thing to do to make judgments on the physical appearance of people it knows only through words.
Josh, Exasperated SpokesGay:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:34 pm
My name is Talky Tina, and I think I could even hate ahmet.
Tethys:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:35 pm
ahmetduran is a chew toy with the squeaker gone, go ahead and ban his rancid ass anytime PZ.
Mattir
And who discovered that you can model hyperbolic space with crochet? :gasp: A woman named Daina Taimina
So from this example it is easy to deduce that when women are not prevented from working in areas that are traditionallly male, huge scientific gains are made by looking at a problem with a new perspective.
/checkmate sexist assholes
Pteryxx:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
More writeups on Kane and Mertz, 2011, from the American Mathematical Society: (full pdf linked from Starts with a Bang):
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/01/06/surprise-surprise-gender-equal/
It gets better:
Quoted from a writeup in i09: http://io9.com/5867401/
Beatrice:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:42 pm
Good riddance.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:45 pm
I think I totally called on the recess at kindergarten. He can’t spell, can’t type a coherent sentence, uses passe interent memes and is scraping the bottom of the barrell, bigotrywise.
its also pretty clear that he’s delighting in so much female attention. Must be pretty starved for it IRL, though I just *can’t* imagine why.
Ban the bigot, plz.
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:47 pm
And Pteryxx does in one comment what the hilariously incompetent bigot couldn’t do in many – evidence.
*holds up Bigot Smasher crown for Pteryxx *
Amphiox:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:48 pm
oooh, I can’t resist anymore. Especially now that the chewtoy distraction is gone.
I’m going to present my own crazy ridiculous conspiracy theory concerning the dearth of females in the skeptic/atheist movement.
See people, it is because, contrary to popular belief, the skeptic/atheist movement isn’t about rational thinking. Not at all. Actually, at its base and heart, it is an expression of male primate dominance behavior. (And hyperskepticism the more primal, distilled, extreme version of the same)
Humans are social creatures, who exchange information between each other. Judging the reliability of said exchanged information is an intellectual exercise, when done in private and in one’s own mind, with a view towards using that information for one’s own purposes.
That, however, is not actually what the skeptic/atheist movement is about. The movement is actually about publicly communicating skepticism of popular claims.
See, when an individual makes a fact claim in public, that individual is in fact making a claim of authority on that subject, and through that authority is attempting to secure status within the community to which the communication is made. To accept that claim is to accept that authority, to acquiese to that status, to submit.
To reject that claim is instead a challenge to that authority, and an attempt to take the status associated with that authority for oneself.
Gorillas beat their chests and hoot. Humans make blog posts and youtube videos.
And that is why these so-called skeptics are so adverse to letting a woman have a forum, and to shutting up and listening to her. To them the act of listening is an act of submission. And these prancing male primates simply cannot bear to even appear to admit to having a lower social status than a female of the same species.
Which is also why there are so many males and so few females in the movement. Because the movement is a forum for male dominance behaviour, and female primates on average are more biologically inclined to watch such displays from the sidelines than to get into the arena themselves.
Janine: Hallucinating Liar:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:53 pm
What are the chances that the boy ends up teaching? How many women are going to have to deal with that boy in an academic or professional situation? How many women is this boy going to help to discourage?
The boy is a disgusting large shitstain.
Zigbot:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
It’s funny how it’s always the men who have nothing going for them intellectually that will obsess over these slight statistical differences, isn’t it? And always only the categories where men as a class have been found to have an edge, and always with an insistence that the results can’t mean anything other than “men are better than women” and a refusal to acknowledge counter-data, even if it comes from the same studies they cite. It’s a very mysterious phenomenon. As a simple woman, I can only conclude that it must have something to do with how great at “analytical reasoning” they are.
pHred:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:58 pm
@Amphiox
Oh lordy – I suddenly have an image in my head from a conference I presented at a few months ago where some guy was trying to get into an argument with me about Rietveld refinement of a crystalline lattice structure, which I had already explained was not relevant to the question at hand (he was actually agreeing with me, but from some reason was doing it belligerently and at the top of his lungs)
And now – bam – I see him suddenly as a Gorilla throwing leaves over his head and beating his chest. Thanks – now it is going to be all I can do not to burst out laughing at this ilk at the next meeting.
BTW – I am female, look younger than my actual age (which is a serious disadvantage!) and have long strawberry red hair. Wrong tribe for these guys completely.
Pteryxx:
December 14th, 2012 at 1:59 pm
Thanks, Illuminata. *sits in crown like a nest*
Pteryxx:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:05 pm
pHred:
Reminds me of what Joan Roughgarden recounts (the MTF biologist who challenged Darwinian sexual selection):
http://www.theage.com.au/national/how-the-sex-bias-prevails-20100514-v4mv.html
opposablethumbs:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:08 pm
Wow. ahmetduran started out looking merely (very) obtuse; now he’s really got his eyes on the prize – does he win Most Pathetic or Most Likely to Compare Unfavourably With Something I Scraped off the Sole of my Shoe?
Come on, ahmetduran, let’s have your opinions on race and socio-economic status. You already demonstrated that you are sexist and a homophobe, so you haven’t got far to go to complete the set. Hey, why are there fewer poor people than well-off people prominent in the atheist and secularist movements? Guess poor people just suck at maths, amirite? And why are most of the big-name atheists white? Guess non-whites just suck at analytical thinking, yeah?
vaiyt:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:12 pm
What a beautiful story! Here, let me tell one as well.
It starts with: “When Mr. Bilbo Baggins of Bag End announced that he would shortly be celebrating his eleventy-first birthday with a party of special magnificence, there was much talk and excitement in Hobbiton…”
Illuminata, Genie in the Beer Bottle:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:13 pm
I have a hard time believing any of his claimed credentials were true. He put on the façade of an educated educator in a desperate attempt to give his misogynistic horseshit the façade of credibility.
And, when that completely and utterly failed, (ignorance + incompetence = failure) his true colors came out – straight up bigot trolling.
At best, he’s a highschooler on xmas break.
sharculese:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:19 pm
@Pteryxx:
Is Joan Roughgarden’s science any good? I’ve read Evolution’s Rainbow (my brother had it from a philosophy of science course) and I thought it was interesting, but I’m not qualified to judge the quality of her arguments.
Stephanie Zvan:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
Actually, child, it’s been you who has repeatedly demonstrated that he doesn’t understand “on average”. I note that you still haven’t responded to my first post in this thread that demonstrates how ridiculous your claim that something has happened because of average differences is. So here, instead, I’ll explain it in more concrete terms and with less snark. Judging by your attempts at humor, you’re not actually very good with snark.
I will assume, only for the sake of argument and despite the fact that tests of reasoning do in fact contain verbal components, that math is exactly equal to analysis. I will also assume, only for the sake of argument, that we are dealing with a population in which there is a slight difference between men and women in average ability at math. I will finally assume, only for the sake of argument, that there is a precise relationship between analysis (as captured by math performance) and atheism or skepticism or whatever topic you want to change it to when other people point out that your assumptions are full of shit.
So, picture to yourself two nearly overlapping normal distributions, with the center of each to either side of a score of 100. Since we’re assuming that analysis equals math, we might as well they both equal IQ, and besides, people know what that distribution looks like. The center of one (for the men) is about five points to the right of the center of the other (for women).
Now you draw a vertical line toward the right of that set of distributions, set so that to the right of it is 8% of the overall population from both distributions combined. On this distribution, that score is right about 122.
This means that on the right of this line are your atheists, as determined by their math scores. Note that about 6% of the women in your sample are still in this group. More men than that, yes, but women are still about a third of the people in that 8%.
Even granting you every single one of your dubious claims, if you understand averages, you understand that there still should have been one woman out of three on that stage. On average.
pHred:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:21 pm
@Pteryxx
I don’t know whether to thank you for that link or just start banging my head on the table. It is so pervasive too. This reminds me of the “service trap” too that female academic get sucked into as well. Pre-tenure (and post-tenure too if they make it) they get stuck with all sorts of scut work (act as meeting secretary, type up final reports, serve on this pointless committee, blah, blah … ) because clearly that is something women do – the men have more important research to be working on.
ARGH! HULK SMASH!!!!
I have to do my grading !!!!
Improbable Joe:
December 14th, 2012 at 2:50 pm
Amphiox, can I play too?
Contrary to popular belief, the skeptic/atheist movement isn’t about rational thinking. Not at all. At its heart it is a kissing cousin to the Republican political “southern strategy,” but broadened and applied more towards social status and class hierarchy. It is a way for upper-class educated white men, and the chill girls who manage to sneak through, to maintain their feeling of superiority over the people over whom they have always enjoyed higher status… while usually staying off the radar of a culture that increasingly rejects their regressive ideals. It is no coincidence that so much of the skeptic/atheist movement labels itself as libertarian.
Here’s probably the most famous quote about the southern strategy, from Lee Atwater:
In a very similar way, skeptics/atheists can go after people who they used to call “poor white trash” by saying “fundamentalist evangelical Christians.” They don’t need to say “camel jockey” when “Muslim extremists” is socially acceptable. They can claim the superiority of “equity feminism” when what they mean is “bitches ain’t shit.” Satan help you if you disagree with them and don’t have 17 doctorates, because only people with advanced degrees are allowed to have opinions on any subject. And so on, for every situation where maintaining both the privilege and esteem-boosting effects of being an upper-class educated white man lording it over others is on the schedule.
They don’t care why women and non-whites and working-class people aren’t a higher percentage of their movement, because they don’t WANT any of “those sort of people” around in the first place. Well, maybe a couple of them to set up chairs and make the coffee and clean up afterwards, but you only need a few at each meeting, right?
rq:
December 14th, 2012 at 3:55 pm
Amphiox @513
Thank you very much for that information/heads up. It has, as was mentioned, made this thread worthwhile (or at least, as much of it as I have read).
Funny these cultural shifts. One gets the distinct feeling that we have, in fact, been moving somewhat backwards, rather than forwards, in the field of women’s rights.
mildlymagnificent:
December 14th, 2012 at 5:27 pm
An image just popped into my mind from yeeeaars ago. Sitting at a meeting discussing business stuff and one woman was crocheting/knitting strange little thingies. Turns out she’d found this was the best way to give her students understandable DNA models. Too long ago now to remember any details – basically my mind was overwhelmed at the size of the task making all these little gadgets for a whole year 12 biology group.
margareth:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:27 pm
Umm…, I’m a girl atheist, but I don’t do needlepoint.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:39 pm
she lost the plot years ago, but her original work on endosymbiosis was seminal.
seriously, you can very safely ignore her proclamations regarding evolutionary theory.
Ichthyic:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:47 pm
that, right there, is why nobody should have ever bothered with this shitstain to begin with; it was patently obvious from early on that he is mostly informed by what he views as “popular culture”, in this case, the Simpsons.
I agree with those thinking it a high school student. at best.
*pinches self to remember not to waste time on morons*
mouthyb:
December 14th, 2012 at 6:57 pm
I see our chew toy has been banned. Done with the last exam.
And now for the drinking. I’ve enjoyed watching the flensing, as always. Thank you all.
Jadehawk:
December 14th, 2012 at 7:02 pm
a misunderstanding of the Simpsons, no less.
would mean his facebook site is fake, too. not unheard of of course, but it seems more parsimonious that he’s simply Belgium’s answer to creationists with PhDs
Caine, Fleur du mal:
December 14th, 2012 at 7:17 pm
Ichthyic:
I tend to stay away from such assumptions, given the amount of times they have been made about many of us. It’s hardly a rarity for an adult to display such immaturity.
Nepenthe:
December 14th, 2012 at 7:33 pm
Good. Needlepoint is basically the lowest form of textile art.
/trolling
margareth:
December 14th, 2012 at 11:12 pm
Nah. That would be hooking rugs.
A. Noyd:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:02 am
Amphiox (#638)
Indeed. I’d love to know* how the Belgian waffler figures verbal ability requires less analytical competence than math does. Because I’m pretty sure spending last quarter in Classical Japanese using two languages to parse out and determine the meaning of an essay in a third, dead language took a hell of a lot of analysis, even though the only math involved was converting dates between calendar systems. But what do I know?
………
*not really
Tom Foss:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:59 am
Ahmet made it clear to me how easy it’d be to come up with a Reddit/4chan version of an Eliza-style chat bot. And like Ahmet, it would repeatedly fail he Turing test.
Nepenthe:
December 15th, 2012 at 1:19 am
… Hooking rugs doesn’t even count as a textile art!
*grumpy to be outdone*
John Morales:
December 15th, 2012 at 2:16 am
Rooking hugs.
shaenongarrity:
December 15th, 2012 at 5:11 am
For the record, this was the part where I just started laughing:
Oh, really. So why is the stereotype that women are nagging harpies who pick fights with their menfolk all the time?
True, I need to nuance it a bit more. Men argue endlessly about analytic subjects, women argue endlesly about ….non-analytic subjects.
Because when it’s pointed out to him that the two stereotypes he’s pushing as Science Truth (women are bitchy shrews vs. women are passive dolts) are mutually exclusive, of course, of course he can’t pick just one, so he twists himself into knots trying to find a magical way for both to be true. It’s like when creationists decided Adam and Eve rode dinosaurs.
What is it with misogynists and calling women “females”? That’s like the number-one misogynist tell.
dontpanic:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:44 pm
Those of you ‘dissing rug hooking better be joking/trolling. My grandmother was a hooker — out and proud. Took it up at age 50 and did it for another 50 years. If you have a problem with hooking I think you’d better have a word with xmas-tree cat here: protecting the rug at all costs
Nepenthe:
December 15th, 2012 at 12:46 pm
Dontpanic
I too was a hooker in my misguided childhood, but I got better. :-p
John Morales:
December 15th, 2012 at 7:09 pm
shaenongarrity,
Indeed.
(A close second is using ‘women’ when they mean ‘woman’)