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.
“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.
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?
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?
er. that’s because it is a comment by Vacula
Heh. Next time I’ll read the linked article first. But that’s kind of funny in itself…
…because Vacula’s a meme now.
“That’s as stupid as something Vacula would say.”
ACTUALLY VACULA
:Thinks about Rosey Grier.:
Yep, totes a girl thing.
Gee, tell that to the Redhead’s uncle who served in ‘Nam.
I thought it was “Vacuous”.
I don’t even know how to do needlepoint. Does that make me a guy? Can I do atheism instead now?
Miriam:
Afraid not, because a majority of needlepointers are men.
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.
My embroidery has never called me a stupid bitch (though it’s been insinuated a few time when I egregiously miscount). Food for thought.
Nepenthe:
Nor has mine, but I don’t needlepoint. ;)
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
Apparently someone has never heard of Rosey Grier’s needlepoint for men.
@Caine,
Embroidery, it’s crewel.
You couldn’t make it up.
We need to put a site together consisting of pictures and videos of male athiests doing needlepoint.
Dammit, Caine! I wanted to be first with that one!
*pouts*
To the core, Nepenthe, to the core.
Carlie, I sorry! I didn’t bring up his book though, you did.
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.
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.
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.
(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?’)
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).
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’)
There’s a PLUM chance for some MRA action back on the older thread…
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.
Caine, I was just so excited to have something to contribute. :D Ooo, ooo, pick me, pick me, I have something to say! [/Horshack]
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.
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.
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.
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. :-)
I can’t tell whether 27 posts is a high or low number for the first turdpile.
That was the publication. Now I think PZ owes me some money.
CR:
I hear John Scalzi has a tactic on that front.
Maybe a Leica Rangefinder would do.
That’s fascinating, ahmet. I assume you gathered this information from extensive interaction with actual women? Please tell us more about your research methods.
(Blinks…)
__ VACULA-ESQUE …
or …
__ ACTUALLY VACULA?
[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.
Tell that to Arya Stark, those who met Needle’s point were boys and men.
I think Chris just did a post on that, with some very subtle picture attached…
I think a more pertinent question is “Do you even think, ahmetduran?”
So, I guess GoT has succeeded in obtaining internet meme status?
good, good.
@Ahmetduran
But is that an inborn thing or is it that the societal costs of leaving religion are higher for women then for men?
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.
some joke about plums to prunes is tickling my brain right now, but it just doesn’t want to make itself known.
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.
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?
Carlie:
:snortle: We must save this one.
@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 ?
i dunno, but it made me laugh all the same.
I can haz moar?
like that.
what?
OH…
[blockquote] text [/blockquote]
change the square brackets to angle (<) brackets
Are you plum tuckered out?
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.
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…
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
remember our friend the “sociologist” who got all deeply confused because there were aggressive women on pharyngula?
<blockquote>Text to be quoted</blockquote> comes out as
ahmetduran wrote:
What the actual fuck?
@58 Caerie
I was thinking Lionesses….
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.
@62 wowbagger
He seems to mean tend AND befriend.
Jadehawk:
Pffft, there are no women on Pharyngula. Just us guys arguing.
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.
*points to comment #52* See what you get with honey, folks?
*Hides behind the Pullet Patrol, who LAUGH*
Way ahead of ya, PedZed.
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.
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.)
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
Now i’ve just quoted myself, d’oh. I’ll get the hang of it sooner or later :D
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.
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…
And where is yours. MRA types are very short on citations…..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tend_and_befriend
(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.)
Dang, reflexive action PZ. Sorry.
ahmetduran:
I wouldn’t get all comfortable, your stay is likely to be short-lived.
:hopes this isn’t another raj kumar:
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.
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.
[blockquote] I wouldn’t get all comfortable, your stay is likely to be short-lived.[/blockquote]
Oh why :( Gonna get banned ?
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.
*Dons splatter-proof gear, settles into comfy spectator chair *
Let the games begin.
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.
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
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.
most of the women here are not skepchicks, and have in fact on occasion been critical of that particular name, yes.
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.
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…?
Damn! Am I going to have to give up needlepoint now?
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.
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.
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?
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.
Made my day.
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.
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.
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
FRIENDSHIP
Ah, hell.
FRIENDSHIP
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.
Jadehawk:
Grumpy Cat says: u mad bro?
meow
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.
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.
How does that explain anything? What does “tending and befriending” have to do with not being part of a community?
and you’re in this thread because?
Apologies for quoting my Twitter self, but:
Grumpy Cat, we have filled our quota of idiots for this thread. Try the next one over.
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
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.
Oh, we totes believe you’re sincerely concerned.
Liar. It’s all over the slymepit and you’re rolling in it, you pig.
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’.
Because the discours between the secular movement and religion is agressive. This aggressiveness is not compatible with the nature of women.
That’s a nice endorsement. Thanks for stopping by.
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)
YOU HAVE PROVIDED ZERO SUPPORT FOR THIS STATEMENT.
I was taught that girls exhibit it more then guys do.
And neither is your face.
Just Vacuous rears its ugly head again?
Oh, pray tell, what is the nature of women? Be sure to cite your sources.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
by.
who.
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?
ahmetduran
I think you’ve found the aggressive women. What say you now?
… ’tis. I think it would look lovely in the sidebar, dust-jacket-review-style.
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.
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.
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.
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
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…
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
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)
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.
Caerie:
This would be why professional sports never took off, no interest.
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?
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.
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.
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”.
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
I think ahmetduran has a bright future ahead of him here.
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.
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.
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?
Nobody I know of ever yelled “Tits or GTFO” in needlepoint chat.
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.)
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.
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.
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
On the issue of needlepoint being a girl thing–two words:
Rosie Greer. The dude ate raw steaks, ferdogssake!
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).
Appropriate needlepoint
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.
But the feminist movement in itself mainly attracts the low-quality females, not really powerful with women in general.
Fixed that for you.
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.
Oh, just STFU. This plays into an absurd and pathetic notion of masculinity, which is itself already an absurd and pathetic notion.
Troll.
Man, you just used a nuclear powered steam shovel to dig that hole.
bye.
DO YOU EVEN INTERNET?
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.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
“low quality females”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
are you at all capable of expressing yourself with things that aren’t stereotypes
…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?
Oh, give us your ranking rubric.
You know you want to.
I’m pretty sure he doesn’t know that.
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).
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.
So can we menz comment about the sexist fuckwit?
damnit, what was his name?
That evo psycho japanese guy, satoshi kanazawa ?
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.
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
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.
Define a “low-quality female”.
Please.
No, really, please continue…
Jadehawk:
We can even vote! It would seem that ahmetduran is yet another special cupcake who thinks feminism is a new phenomenon.
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?”
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).
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.
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”
ahmetduran – why do you keep insisting on using the term “girls” when referring to women?
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.
Jadehawk:
God, this one alone is huge.
How the fuck are women no longer property without women effectively and aggressively fighting for rights?
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?
LOL perfect that you, of all people, would be the first to answer my question!
obviously Kanazawa is fresh in your mind…
I have the feeling that ahmetduran got all his information about women from this short PSA:
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?
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.
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!
:/
Did I rustle some jimmies here ? Be honest with me.
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?
#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?
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?
Caerie:
Oh, I imagine Menzdidit. Or the ugly, low-quality wimmin. Or something.
were you trying to look like an idiot for effect? this of course, just being a rephrasing of the question I posed in 195.
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.
“””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.
argumentum ad culorum
lameass troll says what?
*sigh*
Chris must have gone to sleep; there should be more bunnies in this thread, too.
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?
A_ray:
Watch? Hell, you can join in!
Caine:
Of course. We argue about fashion or somesuch. *eyeroll*
do you actually know what: “Assumes the conclusion” actually means?
I’m still trying to grasp how you pull all of your data out of your ass.
To Caine, Fleur du mal @ #7:
My thought exactly, Rosey Grier.
Weapons grade ignorance displayed by ahmetduran. Keep up the good job of educating the fool, oh Hordelings.
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
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.
@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
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.
assumes.
conclusion.
asswipe.
Seriously, what is this shit? Status? Quality? I don’t even….Stop posting, ahmetduran, and go and educate yourself. Or learn English. Or both.
oh honey.
you’re a chew-toy. this is what I do when I’m procrastinating
I’m having my own Samuel L. Jackson moment.
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.
No I don’t. Pls 1) enlighten me and 2) make it concrete by linking it to what i specifically said.
All ahmetduran: PIDOOMA
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?
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?
That’s not funny. Another phenomena that girls lack: humor.
(in b4, where’s the data!!!)
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.
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
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.
It seems that ahmetduran is a low quality boy.
Boy, what do you say to that?
actually, that’s hilarious, and the fact that you don’t think it’s funny means sexists lack humor.
I’m starting to suspect that ahmetduran actually learned English from r/mensrights
Blimey. How much more clueless can you get? Just because you don’t recognise the humor doesn’t mean normally intelligent people don’t.
Shorter ahmetduran: “WOMEN. Am I rite, guys?”
*crickets*
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.We’re so pretty
Oh so pretty…Vacula!
And we don’t care!
yeah, pretty much
I really have to wonder if ahmetduran can walk and chew gum simultaneously.
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.
@ Ichythic:
Hey don’t diss my hammers.They know which finger they are aiming for.
Yes it is, cupcake. Especially when you don’t seem to realize your chewtoy status.
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.
Is this Zombie Christopher Hitchens?
Not being raised to use american spelling makes you automatically narcissistic? News to me.
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)
Oh, the “feminist are ugly” shit? Pure R*sh L*mb**gh.
Lol, not aware.
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.
Why am I not surprised that ahmetduran has the following as his “favorite quote”?
w00dview:
Well, it’s not as if our chewtoy has top quality wits, he’s working with bad equipment.
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.)
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?
Oh the stupid. An abyss of stupid.
Thanks for braving that particular pit for this gem of distilled idiocy, Jessa.
You are not a particularly self aware boy.
I didn’t know it was Non Sequitur Night. I guess I should wear a coat.
no, I’m tellin’ ya, he’s like the only student that ever managed to graduate Kanazawa’s course in gender and race bias.
you don’t have any such thing. I’ve explained this several times.
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.
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.
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?
Fixed that for you, Cupcake.
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.
Does someone want to explain to the boy the idea of confirmation bias.
Also, explain that a google search is not science.
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!!!!
that was old 100 years ago. and still equally untrue
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!)
Caerie, we dykes are just driving away other women because of that.
mildlymagnificent:
Indeed. Apparently, ahmetduran is so fucking stupid he hasn’t figured out everyone bothering to chew on his meager offerings is a feminist.
no.
it would be like trying to convince my cat to breathe water and live in my aquarium.
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 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
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.
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
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.
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.
Oh really?
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
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)
I meant: “it’s not totally subjective….”
“I am a dragon” – 400,000,000 results
You can’t argue with that, people. Google says.
Oh, he’s Belgian. Now I feel bad for insulting his grasp of the English language.
Well, if you say it like that…..haha
Tom Foss, do not feel bad. All this would be just as jaw droppingly stupid and self absorbed in plain english.
If it’s not sarcastic, than thank you! :D
My sexual value wants to roundhouse you right in the psychology, you raving fuck-knuckle.
Now I feel really bad. He’s entered an intellectual knife-fight wielding a pickled herring.
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?)
Tom Foss, even if the boy spoke in flawless english, he still is using a whole lot of stupid assumptions.
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.
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).
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?)
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.
brb detecting sarcasm on the internet
brb asking if I really know the difference
You a derr ?
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!
Boy, truly you are as dishonest as you are stupid.
Audley:
PZ hasn’t fixed the q tags yet. The only way to get it is to blockquote cite= “creationist” /blockquote
fucking internet ate my comment
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).
*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.
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
I think our chewtoy is ragged, limp and out of squeaks.
Thanks, Caine.
How hard is it to grasp the concept of “subjective” and “irrelevant”?
And “ignorant backwards anachronistic bullshit”?
That’s ok, since I have never claimed that girls can’t argue analytically
The boy could only dream to be as cool as this hammer.
And I am not talking about Captain…
Women and computers…..
(that’s a joke, no need to be upset)
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,?
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.
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)
Boy, you are not doing yourself any favors with that “joke”.
Please, try not to attempt what you cannot comprehend.
So do nothing.
Boy, you are the one using sexist language.
Pointing it out does not make me sexist.
”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.
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.
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.
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!
Cleaning up my crappy editing (I’m tired, sue me):
should be:
Fixed.
LOL, ahmetduran complaining about “garbage”.
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
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.
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.
Rawnaeris:
It’s the brain atrophy.
Do I even need to say a fucking word here?
drop dead, honeycakes.
Garbage in
Garbage out
You are not intelligent enough to even begin to understand how wrong you are.
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.
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.
considering the aesthetic value of piercings, scarification, facial tattoos, etc, I wouldn’t even go that far.
but it isn’t a given, you fucking moron
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.
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.
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.
fuck this shit. I’m off to watch the Hobbit
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.
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
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.
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.
oh god. this dude has a masters in psychology, and yet completely fucking sucks at it. this is tragic.
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.
Jadehawk:
*Jealous* We can’t make opening night (tomorrow here), so we probably won’t see it until Monday.
Yes it is. There is no need to be upset about that.
I am sorry, I forgot to include mouthb’s moniker in my snark. I hope it makes more sense.
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.
Tony:
Awe, shucks.
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
Stephanie:
I was not asked to do math upon deconversion.
*sulks at being left out*
1) not true, cause I had other working hypothesis using other variables.
2) pls provide evidence that states otherwise
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.
Now I wonder how Stephanie’s post is going to be taken by a certain chewtoy…
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. :)
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.
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.
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…
Thank you, ingemar, for giving me enough reason to never take anything you say seriously.
Pteryxx:
We have determined that looking for and citing actual evidence is not a ahmetduran thing. At all.
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?
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]
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.
Dammit. Why do these threads always occur when I should be asleep?
—
Again correlatin is not causation. Pls cum bak whn u understand ths.
Browncoats, dear. Browncoats.
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.
And there’s my offering to Tpyos tonight. Make that correlation.
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.
Caine, is time for us to pull out our She-Wolves Of The SS act?
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
Janine:
Hahahahahaha, oh, hell yeah.
lol, whut, i never claimed such a thing.
And when there is no gender gap, the evidence must be wrong because assumptions. Right.
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!”
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.
Ignored apparently. Or may he’s just taking some extra time to figure it out. After all, math is a boy thing.
Stephanie:
I expect it confused the hell out of him.
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?
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.
Ah this is just priceless. Did you actually read those studies that you just linked to?
Pssst: They do not support your assertion.
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.
Dont’cha understand. It does not need to be factual. It is a given so that a point can be made.
‘Gender gap shows up, gender gap goes away. Can’t explain that.’
ahmetduran is compleat “I choose to believe what I was programmed to believe!”
Pteryxx:
:falls over laughing:
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.
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.)
Tony:
Jim graduated to douchesplaining some time ago. Now he’s currently engaged in gaysplaining.
Janine:
I don’t care. Ahmetduran doesn’t seem to understand anything.
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).
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.
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
Caine @380:
Do what? the holy PLUM fhuck?! [deliberate]
I was going to leave the bar soon. Think I’m staying a bit now!
MouthyB, I see that you can pick the tool the fits the job.
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
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.
mouthyb: that’s it… I’m naming my dildo Citation
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.
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.
Pteryxx: Best. Timed. O’Reilly. Quote. Ever.
Ptyerxx: My favorite one is called the Validator.
As in, is my argument valid now? *thud*
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.
*melts* …Mine’s as in ‘Citation Needed’! STAT
Fuckin’ not happy. I am just not accustomed to this shit online.
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…
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.
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)?
It’s been fun, but it seems like we broke ahmetduran. Pity.
‘Night, all!
G’night, Audley. I’m out too, have much work in front of me tomorrow. Kisses to the Darkling.
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 :/
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
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.
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’.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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)
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)
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.
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
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.
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”?
Khantron:
Janine did – she asterisked all the vowels in Limbaugh’s name, so you may have missed it.
I feel like Pharyngula is on Troll overload tonight…
Groups like the skeptic or atheist movements? LOL.
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
@Caine
Ah, maybe I should have read the comments. Instead of trusting ctrl f.
Stephanie:
Indeed. I await ahmetduran’s cunning response to your initial post.
*taps foot*
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.
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
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
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
Also because, according to you at least, “girls” do better at verbal reasoning. So, of course, math must be the salient measure.
If B requires A, then people with less B have less A.
Boy, I hope that school offers a logic class.
@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.
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.)
Stephanie:
Oh, Snap!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@347:
You just compared PZ to Hitler.
Wow.
You are vile.
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?
*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.)
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?
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?
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.
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.
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
@Beatrice
Now we’re talking!
How about the old classics:
What’s purple and commutes?
An abelian grape.
:)
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.
So ahmet doesn’t have an answer for me? I’m shocked. Really.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
what a wasted education:
http://psycnet.apa.org/?&fa=main.doiLanding&doi=10.1037/a0021276
what a wasted education:
http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/bul-136-1-103.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21038941
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
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.
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.
*sigh*
and this guy supposedly has a focus in theory and research. completely wasted education. completely incapable of thinking outside his stereotypes.
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.
Jadehawk:
I’m sure he’ll go far in the field of pink berry gathering research and vervet responses to spears and baskets.
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
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
I has an unimpressed. This was a poor chew toy.
Louis
Louis:
It’s certainly, um, interesting.
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.
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.
[meta]
ahmetduran essays a retort to Jadehawk
Heh.
(Would-be poseur that can’t pose amuses)
I’m mildly surprised ahmetduran came back.
—
Louis, thanks for the *snortle*, you have made my morning.
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.’)
I for one am waiting to SCIENCE until i get my FINISHED.
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!!!!)
Relax.
Do fuck off like a good chap, “Joe”. Ta.
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?
Yeah but DO YOU EVEN SCIENCE?!!!!!!
Louis
(Too soon?)
Hey, Louis, wanna science? Huh? Huh?
Louis:
Yes. It has a very old feel to it already.
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.
Caerie:
*snortle*
He does seem to be overly attached to chanspeak. Explains a lot.
pentatomid:
Considering the first use of “in b4” here:
I would say it means “I will write this here preemptively…””
Although, this:
baffles me.
pentatomid, I was just mimicking the random conglomeration of catchphrases we’ve been faced with. No meaning beyond that.
Much like ahmetduran’s arguments.
Most of what he said baffled me. *shrug*
Beatrice,
The ‘because of sexist pigs like you’ line was what confused me.
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.
Caerie,
Oh, ok. Thanks.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?)
I know I’m late here but
This is the science he was asking for?
Rev. BDC:
Apparently, it’s the science he practices.
I feel that he needs to practice moar.
.
I don’t mean here.
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’.
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.