Login    Register
User Information
Username:
Password:
We are a free and open
community, all are welcome.
Click here to Register
Sponsored
Who is online

In total there are 51 users online :: 5 registered, 0 hidden and 46 guests


Most users ever online was 218 on Wed Dec 07, 2016 6:58 pm

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot] based on users active over the past 5 minutes

The Team
Administrators
Global Moderators
global_moderators.png CS

"Offtopic-posts-topic" NSFW

All non-spudgun related discussion goes here such as projects, theories, serious questions, etc. All "off-topic" posts (aka useless posting, determined by moderators) will be removed.
Sponsored 
  • Author
    Message

Unread postAuthor: velocity3x » Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:53 pm

MrCrowley wrote:.......there are also plenty of capable women behind the scenes who really have their sh|t together and don't share many of the generalisations discussed on this forum.


Mr C,
You are absolute correct, but not nearly as many as men. Men and women have had different rolls, goals and ambitions from the beginning of time. We are programed that way. While still living in caves, it was man who went out to kill the big ass monster for dinner, while the woman prepared it into a tasty casserole back in the cave. I'm quite sure even then, there were women who could kill a big ass monster as well as any man. However, there were far more men with the ability and desire than women. Men were programed to be the ambitious, aggressive, curious, "Get 'er Done" types. While women......not so much. The role of women is important. I make jokes about the role of women in society and they are just that...jokes. I don't discriminate against women, however, I don't over-estimate the role of women either.


Speaking in generalities is nothing more than SPEAKING IN GENERAL TERMS because no data is available or exists. Unless one can provide hard data, numbers, etc., all we can do is speak in General Terms. So, speaking in General Terms, I feel that there ARE women capable of doing science related or many other jobs job as well if not better than a man. However, the number of women are substantially less than that of men. Generally speaking, I don't feel that this condition exists because "women have been denied the education or right to compete". General Speaking, I think women were not programed to go out and kill a big ass monster. General Speaking, I feel nature programed "most women" to be nuturers. Without the gentler soul of women, man would have probably erased himself from the earth long ago. A women that watches E!, Prepares tasty casseroles from big ass monsters and enjoys being a woman is a good thing too! The world would be pretty bad off if every woman was like Rosie Odonnell.
  • 0

User avatar
velocity3x
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 827
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:09 pm
Location: Yuma, Arizona
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Wed Nov 14, 2012 6:25 pm

We are programed that way. While still living in caves, it was man who went out to kill the big ass monster for dinner, while the woman prepared it into a tasty casserole back in the cave
But that's all conjecture, especially the second part. Remember, this is more or less what I study at university, I'm familiar with a fair amount of literature on the subject and it's not as straightforward as the media will have you believe.

As I mentioned to JSR, women can actually gather more food than men, as a whole, in many hunter-gatherer societies. This is due to the factors that influence the availability of meat sources such as population, climate, environment, and animal behaviour. It is also due to parental factors as infants will usually be taken along with their mothers while foraging but older children not. This requires mothers to forage for things that expend a minimal amount of energy and is safe for their offspring. Gathering fruits, nuts, vegetables and whatnot usually falls in to this category.

While meat sources are far more efficient and valuable than other sources of food, they can be more difficult and dangerous to acquire so you end up with many early societies relying on vegetation, fruit and seafood (depending on location) for the majority of the year. There's also a significant difference depending on season, fecundity, number of children, and age of children. Women wont do the same jobs as each other, their jobs will vary depending on specific circumstances. During the dry season, you might see nearly every women out foraging for food and due to this increased energy expenditure, you see reduced rates in fertility and such. Also, during the dry season you may see the differences in the sexual division of labour reduce significantly.

Check out Hurtado et al., 1985 (Female subsistence strategies among Ache hunter-gatherers of eastern Paraguay). I don't think I've read that one before but it seems to give an a brief summary of related literature. I'm familiar with the work of three of the four authors as those three formed a fair portion of a research justification I did earlier this year on the long-term effects of month of birth in societies exposed to extreme seasonal conditions (not my ideal research area but I got a really good grade for it).

Some of the big players in anthropology and related biological areas are still divided on things like the exact role of religion and its origins; how much is social and how much is biological. If some is biological, was it selected for or was it a consequence of prior neural and cognitive adaptations? You can't just conclude "we are programmed that way" because it makes sense to you or maybe you read it somewhere. Things aren't that easy to ascertain in anthropology. There are three ways to go about investigating this: palaeoanthropology (and related genetics), comparative anthropology and ethnography. The first one, you need to find evidence of these adaptations or "programming" either in the fossil record or DNA. Funnily enough, fossils of human skulls actually tell us a fair amount about the brain and researchers have been able to make inferences from these fossils. I think one of the main areas is the evolution of the neocortex whether fossils show evidence of Broca's area and Wernicke's area. The second one, you have to make assumptions based on a related species; often chimpanzees or bonobos. The thing lay-people forget with this kind of research is that chimpanzees are just as evolved as us, 4 million years ago they didn't look anything like they did today. So there's caution when interpreting findings of modern-day chimps to draw conclusions about our 4 million year old ancestors that weren't any closer related to chimps than we are today. The third way is ethnography. Find a society that lives similar to how we did a couple thousand years ago and make inferences from their social patterns and structure. A lot of assumptions involved with this one too, so interpret with caution.

Whenever you see an article in news about cave people or our ancestors, it's probably wrong in more than one way. Rarely are there findings interesting enough to the general population, so the media likes to have a bit of fun by having journalist-educated people interpret scientific journal articles and make wild interpretations. I see all sorts of nonsense related to human evolution published by major news companies.

Men and women have had different rolls, goals and ambitions from the beginning of time.
True, this would go pretty far back to some of the first organisms billions of years ago. However, you commonly see the roles of males and females reversed. I think it's birds that have their chromosomes opposite to ours (ZW system) and you're probably aware of pregnant male seahorses as well. Other species have the roles reversed where males will look after the young. I've already talked about the extreme social differences between bonobos and chimpanzees. We seem to be more related to bonobos yet their social structure is different to ours (ours being more similar to chimpanzees). So you can't sit there and assume that our roles have been innate since Sahelanthropus tchadensis ~6mya. Even if they were innate in Sahelanthropus, our brain has gone through significant evolution over the last ~1.5 million years. Earlier than that, there may have been significant behavioural and social changes brought about by dental evolution and bipedal evolution. Both could completely change the social dynamics of our ancestor species.

However, there were far more men with the ability and desire than women.
As I stated at the beginning of this reply, desire may have little to do with it. It's more about the sexual division of labour and the roles of individuals in a society. I believe that article I linked even mentioned the rare occasion women would tag along and hunt. This might only be a rare occasion because women generally have a different role to fulfil rather than a lack of desire. Today, desire may have a lot to do with it and roles are less important. Whether it is innate or not is definitely debatable. Research has shown that, overtime, people (men and women) can get used to nasty things like blood, guts, excrement, and vomit. When women have children their tolerance for this things tends to increase.

Men were programed to be the ambitious, aggressive, curious, "Get 'er Done" types. While women......not so much.
I'm sure you can find a few journal articles out their to support your view but this view definitely isn't established as the norm. There will be people on both sides of the fence, perhaps more on one side than the other. Ambition is hard to investigate. To establish whether it is programmed, you can't exactly use modern samples. You have to interpret it through behaviour, which is in turn largely inferred from physical evidence (bones, tools, etc). Lots of assumptions to rely on with that one. Depending on what you mean with aggressive, you certainly could argue that one convincingly. However, as for curious and 'get 'er done types', I would refer to what I said about ambition.

I make jokes about the role of women in society and they are just that...jokes. I don't discriminate against women, however, I don't over-estimate the role of women either.
Yeah I do want to stress that I'm not someone who goes around calling people a misogynist. Plenty of women openly claim they hate men yet misandry doesn't even come close to having the social stigma that misogyny does. That is definitely a bit unfair for us guys so I'm not too bothered if someone says they really don't like women or like to make jokes about them. There's always room for comedy, nothing funnier than someone being 'offended' :D

SPEAKING IN GENERAL TERMS because no data is available or exists
Yeah I'll grant you that for most of the things you said in that second paragraph but the thing about 'programming', as covered in my above arguments, is something that actually has plenty of research and interest in fields of biology, psychology and anthropology.
  • 0

User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Unread postAuthor: velocity3x » Wed Nov 14, 2012 9:28 pm

Mr C,
Thanks for the informative reply. I realize much effort went into it. I certainly wish you well in your studies. Honestly, the subject of women is all to much for me to consider. As for me, I'd be happy if only to understand why women can't seem to use their turn signals, but that'll probably never happen :lol:
  • 0

User avatar
velocity3x
Brigadier General
Brigadier General
 
Posts: 827
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 3:09 pm
Location: Yuma, Arizona
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 7

Unread postAuthor: PaperNinja » Wed Nov 14, 2012 10:45 pm

^
|

The polite man's TL;DR :D
  • 0

User avatar
PaperNinja
Sergeant Major
Sergeant Major
 
Posts: 190
Joined: Sun Jun 17, 2012 7:51 pm
Location: Droneland
Reputation: 0

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Thu Nov 15, 2012 1:36 am

Insomniac wrote:Perhaps I can continue your spudgun analogy, but twist it in my direction.

I really love spudguns, but as biology would have it, only women can produce them, no exceptions. If I want one, I only have to enter a stable spudgun-building relationship with a lady, and she'll make it for me. Which is great, because it leaves me free to do other stuff.


Free to work your ass off in order to provide for her and your spudgun ( :roll: :D ) - that sounds like a rather warped idea of freedom.

I don't like the idea of a free ride either. The way I'm seeing it, however, is that a husband gets a 'free ride' through his wife's pregnancy, when it comes to employment. Unless she gets sick or something, he's not greatly inconvenienced. Women are trapped into the process of pregnancy in a way men are not, if we assume a given couple wants children.


Don't you think that in fact the father would be lumped with the burden of providing for his family? What is harder, caring for a gurgling shít machine or having to spend 8 hours plus every day in soul destroying employment that sucks your very being out of you, and seeing the fruits of your labour consumed in an instant without a hint of gratitude?

I might have heightened the drama a little, but the point is that I feel you're being far too kind to the so called fairer sex.

While women don't dominate the sciences on a whole, they may do on a smaller scale. Plenty of women run labs at universities and in the private sector. They may also dominate a department's senior staff or graduate list.

I don't think it's fair to grab the typical type of woman who watches E! and use them to generalise how a women-dominated science would turn out. The women scientists I know don't give a crap about curtains or E!, they don't have the time in their lives to give a crap about that stuff. I imagine there are plenty of male demographics that would do equally as bad as some women when running a lab.


I think your opinion will change when you move from the academic setting to the employment setting. In terms of my own experiences about the rather progressive and open minded group I work for, here's some data I can share that has helped to shape my world view:

- the grunt manufacturing and maintenance staff are entirely male. Two female plant operators were employed in the past, one was fired for lying about reactor temperatures even when faced with recorded data proving she was wrong, the other left because she couldn't handle the physical burden of the job.

- in the laboratory, the quality control and assurance staff is almost exclusively female, along with a couple of *cough* effeminate males and one decent guy who is brilliant at keeping the whole range of lab instruments running. This particular individual wasn't sent on a particular course and has the same background as his peers, his capabilities are entriely self taught. There isn't a single woman who has a technical interest in the mechanical workings of the instruments they use, they are competent in their operation but the minute something breaks down, work stops until a man fixes it.

- research and development and technical services staff is mostly male. There are women in high positions but their role is more about managing people than actual science, when it comes to designing experiments and carrying them out it's usually down to the males.

- the now multi-millionaire who founded the growing international group starting off making small batches in his garage is male.

One other thing about work, men have an unconscious impulse to help women. This is one of the objections to having female soldiers on the front line. In a less dangerous setting, I have myself been in situations where I helped a female colleague who was having difficulty with her work and in the process my own work suffered.

Esther Vilar's introduction makes the point quite well I think:

The lemon-coloured MG skids across the road and the woman driver brings it to a somewhat uncertain halt. She gets out and finds her left front tyre flat. Without wasting a moment she prepares to fix it: she looks towards the passing cars as if expecting someone. Recognising this standard international sign of woman in distress ("weak female let down my by male technology"), a station wagon draws up. The driver sees what is wrong at a glance and says comfortingly, "Don't worry. We'll fix that in a jiffy."

To prove his determination, he asks for her jack. He does not ask if she is capable of changing the tyre herself because he knows - she is about thirty, smartly dressed and made-up - that she is not.

Since she cannot find a jack, he fetches his own, together with his other tools. Five minutes later the job is done and the punctured tyre properly stowed. His hands are covered with grease. She offers him an embroidered handkerchief, which he politely refuses. He has a rag for such occasions in his tool box.

The woman thanks him profusely, apologising for her "typically feminine" helplessness. She might have been there till dusk, she says, had he not stopped. He makes no reply and, as she gets back into the car, gallantly shuts the door for her. Through the wound-down window he advises her to have her tyre patched at once and she promises to get her petrol station attendant to see to it that very evening. Then she drives off.

As the man collects his tools and goes back to his own car, he wishes he could wash his hands. His shoes - he has been standing in the mud while changing the tyre - are not as clean as they should be (he is a salesman). What is more he will have to hurry to keep his next appointment. As he starts the engine he thinks, "Women! One's more stupid than the next". He wonders what she would have done if he had not been there to help. He puts his foot on the accelerator and drives off - faster than usual. There is the delay to make up. After a while he starts to hum to himself.

In a way, he is happy.

Almost any man would have behaved in the same way - and so would most women. Without thinking, simply because men are men and women are so different from them, a woman will make use of a man whenever there is the opportunity. What else could the woman have done when her car broke down? She has been taught to get a man help. Thanks to his knowledge, he was able to change the tyre quickly - and at no cost to herself. True, he ruined his clothes, put his business in jeopardy and endangered his own life by driving too fast afterwards. Had he found something else wrong with her car, however, he would have repaired that, too. That is what his knowledge of cars is for! Why should a woman learn to change a flat tyre when the opposite sex (half the world's population) is able and willing to do it for her?


About female scientists, Stephanie Kwolek is often held up as an example of female capability because she invented Kevlar. If it wasn't for the efforts of this guy though, I doubt anyone would ever have heard of her.

It's relatively easy to find exceptional female scientists today, but when you put them in the context of the education, tools and resources at their disposal it does diminish their achievement somewhat. Same goes for all of us of course, getting lauded for some shitty blog ignoring the unbelievable technological achievement of having it on the internet accessible throughout the globe is a terrible feature of modern times.

I feel the same way about people watching live football on TV. How can you think "oooh, men in shorts kicking a ball" and not "OH MY FREAKING GOD I AM WATCHING ALMOST REAL TIME HIGH DEFINITION IMAGES OF AN EVENT HAPPENING THOUSANDS OF MILES FROM MY CURRENT LOCATION!!!!!"

conversation with every woman I know wrote:"I heard you bought a quad bike"

"Yep"

"what colour is it?"

*facepalm*


About that article:

WOLF ATTACKS RUSSIAN WOMAN


The emphasis should be noted. I have to say that a lot of my objections are to women in the Western culture I was raised in, I find myself infinitely more comfortable in the company of females from more "traditional" backgrounds.
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: MrCrowley » Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:14 am

The emphasis should be noted. I have to say that a lot of my objections are to women in the Western culture I was raised in, I find myself infinitely more comfortable in the company of females from more "traditional" backgrounds.
Was just for a bit of a laugh :D
  • 0

User avatar
MrCrowley
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 10207
Joined: Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:42 pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
Country: New Zealand (nz)
Reputation: 4

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Sat Nov 17, 2012 6:29 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-b2YNErwxw[/youtube]

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!

NSFW if you work in France.
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Sponsored

Sponsor
 


Unread postAuthor: POLAND_SPUD » Sat Nov 17, 2012 7:50 am

Seriously JSR where do you find your vids... nahh wait I don't wanna know
  • 0

Children are the future

unless we stop them now
User avatar
POLAND_SPUD
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5405
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:43 pm
Country: Israel (il)
Reputation: 10

Unread postAuthor: Gippeto » Sat Nov 17, 2012 8:06 pm

I was in ecstasy with a huge smile on my face as the wife moved forwards,
then backwards, forward, then backwards again ....
back and forth ... back and forth ... in and out ... in and out.

Her heart was pounding ... her face was flushed ...
then she moaned, softly at first, then began to groan louder.
Finally, totally exhausted, she let out an almighty scream and shouted .......







"OK, OK! I CAN'T park the f*cking car!
You do it, you SMUG bastard!"
  • 0

"It could be that the purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others" – unknown

Liberalism is a mental disorder, reality is it's cure.
User avatar
Gippeto
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:14 am
Location: The Great White North...Canada eh!
Reputation: 11

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Sun Nov 18, 2012 2:54 am

Gippeto, have you discovered sickipedia :D
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

Unread postAuthor: Gippeto » Sun Nov 18, 2012 10:09 am

Never heard of it...was posted on another forum...damn near fell out of my chair laughing.
  • 0

"It could be that the purpose of your life is to serve as a warning to others" – unknown

Liberalism is a mental disorder, reality is it's cure.
User avatar
Gippeto
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 2393
Joined: Sat Jan 19, 2008 10:14 am
Location: The Great White North...Canada eh!
Reputation: 11

Unread postAuthor: jrrdw » Sun Nov 18, 2012 1:22 pm

You bunch of terd burgerling murderers! :roll:
  • 0

When life gives you lemons...throw them back they suck!
User avatar
jrrdw
Donating Moderator
Donating Moderator
 
Posts: 6539
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:11 pm
Location: Maryland
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 25

Unread postAuthor: POLAND_SPUD » Mon Nov 19, 2012 9:48 am

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJNR2EpS0jw&feature=g-all-f[/youtube]damn so catchy!

Given that spudguns are not mentioned in it I guess public opinion on our hobby must have improved
  • 0

Children are the future

unless we stop them now
User avatar
POLAND_SPUD
Chief of Staff
Chief of Staff
 
Posts: 5405
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:43 pm
Country: Israel (il)
Reputation: 10

Unread postAuthor: jrrdw » Mon Nov 19, 2012 12:23 pm

Dumb ways to die #11: Tap dance on a landmine.
  • 0

When life gives you lemons...throw them back they suck!
User avatar
jrrdw
Donating Moderator
Donating Moderator
 
Posts: 6539
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 5:11 pm
Location: Maryland
Country: United States (us)
Reputation: 25

Unread postAuthor: jackssmirkingrevenge » Mon Nov 19, 2012 2:12 pm

Hehehe brilliant!

POLAND_SPUD wrote:Given that spudguns are not mentioned in it I guess public opinion on our hobby must have improved


Well, statistically I doubt more than a couple of people are killed by spudguns every year.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog ... wales-2009

644 people in 2009 in the UK died falling down stairs. That surely has to be stupider than shooting yourself with a spudgun.

I'm much rather die in a projectile-launching related incident. If I don't manage that, there's always the hope of the euthanasia rollercoaster ;)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lSEXmhldXQE[/youtube]
  • 0

User avatar
jackssmirkingrevenge
Donating Member
Donating Member
 
Posts: 24225
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2007 11:28 pm
Country: Holy See (Vatican City State) (va)
Reputation: 66

PreviousNext

Return to Non-Spudgun Related Discussion

Who is online

Registered users: Bing [Bot], Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], MSNbot Media, Yahoo [Bot]

Reputation System ©'