[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 29 KB, 400x279, 12312312323.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1581342 No.1581342 [Reply] [Original]

Just pulled this from >>>/sci/2597223 .

This is what I hate about women in academia. For all their talk about equality, and for all their talk about being intellectually able, when it comes down to rigorous discussion and debate women seem to think that men should just concede to women and not pull them up when they talk shit.

Your type of attitude is the reason most men don't take women seriously at university. It is also the reason most women do psychology or English lit over physics or philosophy. In psychology or English you can say any old bullshit and all you need to do is preface it with "but this is just my opinion".

You perfidious little sluts then have the audacity to say that physics, science and philosophy are unapproachable, and inaccessible because they are male-dominated (and hence aggressive). Protip: The problem isn't that they are male-orientated, the problem is that they are rigorous disciplines that require you to say things, and say things 'correctly' and in accordance with standard convention.

You can't preface a scientific paper with "oh but this is just my opinion, so don't criticise me please". This is not how the real world works, so stop being a fucking stupid cunt who thinks that she is above the standard conventions of rigour and because she has a vagina and a bananrama greatest hits cd.

>> No.1581347

I should of greentxt'd that shit.

>> No.1581345

that's racist

>> No.1581358

>This is not how the real world works, so stop being a fucking stupid cunt who thinks that she is above the standard conventions of rigour and because she has a vagina and a bananrama greatest hits cd.

This is pretty much spot on.

>> No.1581368

>In psychology or English you can say any old bullshit and all you need to do is preface it with "but this is just my opinion"
That's some pretty low-level psychology you have there, though I understand psychology is approached pretty differently in different countries. Especially in places where neuropsychology and actual scientific research are valued, you can't just go spouting unfounded "opinions" or speculations, though I understand if you're in some shitty university that doesn't approach psychology as a science you can get away with things like that.

The OP post is full of generalisations. I understand this kind of behaviour is probably more common among women because they're often raised to think like that, but there are men who think like that and women who approach their research critically and with discipline. In any case, equality is the best remedy for this kind of crap: don't accept shitty behaviour just because someone is a woman or a man, but don't expect someone to be a worthless person becuase of their gender either.

>> No.1581370

Women don't do hard sciences because they ARE male-dominated.

Physics is just an off-shoot of the enlightenment tradition that felt that it needed to predict and control the universe.

>> No.1581374

>>1581370
>>1581370
>>1581370

Let me map your your reasoning here.

European conflict = Men = Enlightenment = Science.

Therefore science is done by males AND is a product of the enlightenment, which is imperialistic.

10/10. Google 'genetic fallacy' because you just committed on a three-tier basis.

>> No.1581375

>>1581368

This is pretty weak post. Stats suggest that women do primarily do psychology. Whereas the same stats suggest women do not do engineering, physics, philosophy etc.. etc..

>> No.1581376

>>1581368
Even in the soft, non-science subjects your opinion is worthless and must be backed up by sources.

>> No.1581380

Oh hey, was just thinking about something similar today.

If you set aside the whole "male gender roles are evil because they oppress us" thing, I think theres an argument to be made that many "Male" roles are associated with leadership or hegemonic power positions. It's not consensual or egalitarian decision-making by any means, but most of the "strong man who never sheds a tear" bullshit really has to do with not losing face in a group context.

on the flip side, many female gendered activities are really very submissive. If you don't hold a hegemonic power position, the easiest way maintain societal capital is compliment the preexisting social order. Cooking, sewing, cleaning, etc all fits into this almost dot-on.

So, even though it's fair to lobby for change to male constructs, it is also very important to discard many elements of female gender constructs as well.

Just some thoughts. And surprise, I'm a male. So sue me

>> No.1581382

>>1581380
>So, even though it's fair to lobby for change to male constructs, it is also very important to discard many elements of female gender constructs as well.
You are know aware that this is exactly what's being done.

>> No.1581391

>>1581382
Eh, I haven't studied the history of womens liberation

>> No.1581399

>>1581380

Women participate in their own domination by reinforcing gender stereotypes. The example in OP is that women expect NOT to be treated the same way as men in academic contexts.

Simply saying that 'men' follow some kind of power-related social construction and women play a different social construction doesn't exactly obviate what OP says.

For example, disciplines are not gendered. Math is not a male discourse, but rather math is a fucking academic discipline. The fact that women don't enrol in math, isn't proof that math is masculine, it is just proof that women in our society don't like math.

But the onus isn't on the discipline to change in order to be more accessible to women, it is on women to become more open to math. And one way to do this, is to argue and debate with men, without expecting to be exempt from said debate, but virtue of having a vagina.

>> No.1581411

>>1581399

sshh stop making so many valid points, this is /lit/ and we are politically correct morons with limited reasoning capabilities. If you keep this up you will wake up the tripfags who will try to argue with you for status.

>> No.1581419

One reason misogyny still persists is because a lot of women are misogynists themselves. Misogynists in the sense that they want (and may even think all women need) a softer world, that they are less capable of handling the real, rough world than men. Girls, when growing up, often aren't taught to compete, defend themselves and endure pain and disappointment, but are shielded from these things instead. As a result, many women aren't as tough as adults should be, and feel they need others to protect them and shield themselves from the disappointments they never learnt to endure.

The other ugly side of the equation are boys and men with sensitive personalities who are forced to face the harsh world too early and without help, often ridiculed and told to "man up" when it's too much for them to handle alone. These men often end up lonely because they can't live up to the stereotype of an initiative and dominant man that the media forces upon the male gender. And because we used to live in a patriarchal society, few people notice misandry and the problems of men, which often stem from the very same reasons as misogyny...

>> No.1581432

>>1581380
To the best of my knowledge the dismantling of "feminine" stereotypes often takes precedence over "smashing the patriarchy", at least among most sane feminists.

The reinforcement of gender roles starts virtually at birth and the way a person is socialized does far more to hold them back than their chromosomes -- and gender roles are likewise stifling for men as well as women, though men's roles seem to offer them more mobility in society. In reality the men who are standing in the doorway of the engineering department going 'NO GURLZ ALLOWED' are extremely few and far between, and clearly that's not why women are underrepresented in the hard sciences -- and it's not because their silly ladybrains can't distinguish between fact and opinion either.

It's not enough to simply say that boys and girls can be firefighters or homemakers as they wish; people need to be raised in a way that bears this out, and the culture they grew up in factors heavily into their notion of gender roles. (Which is why feminists get so batty over ads like the one in the OP -- not that any girl will necessarily look at that ad and go "Oh, I must be about as physically capable as a baby, let me drop out of competitive sports," but that it's symptomatic of a larger problem -and- when messages like that are everywhere, it does sink in.)

>> No.1581436

Women have smaller brains. Women can't do science or math because they're dumb as fuck. Women are worse at sport. All great people have been men (in the arts as well as sciences and mathematics, I always lol when I hear people say women are more creative / "right brained" than men). Women are just shittier than men. Deal with it.

>> No.1581437

>>1581411
>this is /lit/ and we are politically correct morons

Nothing in that post would count as politically incorrect.

>> No.1581452

>>1581419
Pretty much this exactly. *All* gender-related stereotypes need to be flushed, or at least given a thorough examination to weed out fact from myth ("women have less upper-body strength compared to men" vs. "a woman should never have to lift anything heavy".)

I'm also inclined to completely agree that many women reinforce misogyny almost daily, often overtly and directly in statements that would be appallingly politically incorrect coming from a man. Realistically speaking women are not slaves and they're seldom held in place by force; but for a person to spontaneously reject a large sum of the cultural messages they've absorbed and suddenly go against the grain is not easy.

>> No.1581472

>>1581432

So women are unrepresented in the hard science because they are socialised not to like science?

Explain philosophy then. Why are women unrepresented in philosophy. By far in first year, women outnumber men, but by third year men by far outnumber women.

Now from what I can see 'women' enrol in philosophy expecting it to be something speculative and psuedo-academic (like psychology) and then find out by 2nd year that philosophy is actually like engineering in that it is slightly more nerdy, and slightly more mathematical then they expected.

>> No.1581479

>>1581342
That post was stupid and out of context.

The post he was responding to was a women who was saying if your trying to impress a woman with your intelligence dont be a dick about it and belittle her.

She wasnt saying you cant correct women she was saying avoid doing it if you want in their pants.

>>>/r9k/

>> No.1581486

>>1581342

Sexist and a giant generalization. Clearly you've simply had a few bad experiences with members of the opposite sex.

>> No.1581489

>>>/r9k/

>> No.1581535

>>1581472
Not just science, but most analytical pursuits in general. Seems pretty accurate to assume they'd go into philosophy expecting something more introspective and directly related to everyday human experience, and be turned off to find it to be so much like engineering. Women are raised to be much more sensitive to emotions (their own as well as others') and more perceptive about human social interaction than general -- they gravitate towards softer sciences (sociology, psychology, etc) because it's more familiar to them.

>> No.1581547

>>1581479
>>1581479

I'm amazed at your inability to engage in ideas abstractly.
The context in which a comment is made is irrelevant. The content is what is at issue, not the context in which it was delivered.

>> No.1581550

>I always lol when I hear people say women are more creative / "right brained" than men)

i hear this too, and it is such bullshit.

>> No.1581559

>>1581547
Youre autistic.

Read the thread he linked to in /sci/, the post is a response to another post.

By your logic:
>Person A:Well though out statement
>Person B:Long Winded rant with almost no relation to the original statement
>Person A: What does that have to do with the conversation?
>Person B(you): SHUT UP CONTEXT DOESNT MATTER CONTENT MATTERS

Full retard.

>> No.1581569

>>1581547
>I'm amazed at your inability to engage in ideas abstractly.

>Courage Wolf !penisASZp2
>!penisASZp2
>self-hating tripfag

>engage in ideas abstractly.

>> No.1581573

>>1581472
Though you could say that girls are also socialised against many aspects of hard science, it isn't exactly as simple as "don't do maths or philosophy, you are a girl"; for example, women are rewarded for vanity, socialisation and conformity, while innovation, intelligence and scientific ambition are considered nice, but are not really encouraged. As hard science has little to do with the former three and a lot to do with the things that society doesn't value in women, many may feel discouraged to go into hard sciences or stay there. Also this: >>1581419

>> No.1581578

>>1581559

You don't analyse arguments on the basis of their origin, or their 'initial' context, you judge arguments on their own merit.

This is just basic reasoning 101. In fact you can your specific argumentative fallacy if you want.

>> No.1581590

>In psychology or English you can say any old bullshit and all you need to do is preface it with "but this is just my opinion".

This statement shows about a 5th grade level understanding of the idea of "reading comprehension." Baseless opinions are just as retarded in liberal arts as baseless hypotheses are in the sciences.

>> No.1581592

>>1581573

It could just be that women lack the intelligence required to engage in science. For example we know for a fact that men have poor multi-tasking skills (there are half a dozen studies on this), whereas women by comparison are much better at multi-tasking. We also know that men have better spatial intelligence than women.

So I don't see why you are all ignoring the possibility of a biological explanation for under-representation in science. It might just turn out that women lack what it takes to do the type of reasoning involved in science.

>> No.1581597

>>1581590

>Baseless opinions are just as retarded in liberal arts as baseless hypotheses are in the sciences.

Do you really believe this?

>> No.1581598

>>1581578
Except I never made any attempt to "analyze" the post. I just pointed out that it had nothing to do with the conversation at hand. It barely even had anything to do with the thread as a whole.

Then you started going >hurr durr context doesnt matter at all for anything ever.

>> No.1581604

>>1581598

>Except I never made any attempt to "analyze" the post.

Then what the fuck are you here for?

>> No.1581606

>>1581604
that is really the million dollar question for a maroon like courage wolf

>> No.1581615

>>1581604
>Commenting on the OP
>Hurr what the fuck are you here for

>> No.1581758

>>1581592
I know women and men perform differently on different sorts of cognitive tests, but how this proves that they are *born* less intelligent (or less able) than men isn't clear. Are men stupider because they're unable to multitask well? You can't rule out biology but I find it far more likely that the social pressures on women from a very young age are primarily responsible for their absence in the hard sciences.

If we could create "blank slate" human beings who were completely separate from cultural influence, and observe their development, then we could argue about chromosomes determining intellectual aptitudes. And given how radically different the notions of "feminine/masculine behavior" are in some other cultures, it seems much more likely that nurture and not nature is going to be found responsible for the current divisions between the sexes.