Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

If you could provide a specific example, Neo, it would help a lot. Like... beards or something.

Dang thread... and sexuality parts.

Like for example... nope too embarrassing... I can't.

Obviously this is all solved by simply being attracted to the same gender!

Honestly this clears up so many problems.

[Solifuge]

Just in brief, I'm not sure we can generalize attraction like that. Preferences and such are pretty personal. Any two Men who are attracted to other Men are not necessarily going to be attracted to the same things, you know? Same goes for any two hetero folks who share a sex or gender. That's why we have folks who have a preference for big fuzzy men, or pretty feminine men, or other things entirely. Also, as a personal example; when I assess dudes or gals for attractiveness, I tend to share plenty of preferences with my lady and my dude friends, while also having some things that are more me-specific. It's just anecdotal, and I might be an anomaly, but I don't see that pattern in my life, or the lives of folks around me.

I'd suggest it's not so much a trait or a pattern common to all humans, or common to groups based on sex or gender... but rather, it's based on cultural upbringing (what we're taught is Attractive by peer interactions and whatnot), and our personal preferences. If you see shared attraction among groups of guys or gals, that could well be them reinforcing it with eachother. Because of the way society tends to segregate people socially based on sex, during our developmental years (guys are encouraged to hang with guys, gals with gals, and ne'er the twain shall meet), you're going to end up developing pockets of similar opinions, which don't necessarily agree with the opinions of other social micro-groups.

[TempAcc]

The initial segregation of genders causes a few phenomena that have become less common nowadays that boys and girls tend to be less segregated while young. The segregation causes girls and boys to be more curious about their differences, but also more anxious and fearful of the other gender. This isn't bad by itself, as it helps to concretize one's view of their own gender much easier according to some, altough the lack of real interaction with the oppositive gender until puberty hits may make a person more likely to identify the opposite gender with sexual urges only, which in turn aids into objectification of said gender, one could say.

On the other side, lack of initial segregation between boys and girls diminishes the chance of kids feeling anxious around the oppositive gender, allows them to forge stronger bonds and likely diminishes objectification, but one could argue that it also makes forming gender roles harder, and gender roles aren't necessarily a bad thing, given gender roles aren't a human only phenomenon, despite what some believe. Lack of gender identification likely causes a fair bit of problems by itself.

What does all of this mean? Probably nothing, I just wanted to steal the topic to procastinate for a few minutes. I will now go back to hiding under your bed and drinking your beverages.

[Neonivek]

Just in brief, I'm not sure we can generalize attraction like that. Preferences and such are pretty personal. Any two Men who are attracted to other Men are not necessarily going to be attracted to the same things, you know? Same goes for any two hetero folks who share a sex or gender.

It isn't QUITE what I mean... but given that I can't explain what I mean for both my lack of vocabulary and COMPLETE embarrassment to even give examples (and fear of getting it wrong with women) I can't blame you.

UUUUGH!!! me soo much!

---

I mean... if you got a bunch of men and women in the same room...

And you asked them "Which of these men are sexy, and which of these men are not sexy" and showed them a bunch of pictures. Not in terms of "I'd bang them" but in terms of "I recognize that this person is an attractive person" and "This person is unattractive"

The men would be attracted to things women would find unattractive.

As a whole (there are exceptions though apparently very uncommon).

[Grim Portent]

You're referring to the disparity between what each gender views as attractive in their own gender and what the opposite gender views as attractive.

It's been explored in pop culture a bit with how male/female characters are portrayed in most media. I can't find it anywhere, but there's a comic talking about the basic idea:

Guy and a girl are talking about how he thinks batman is designed to be a woman's fantasy as a counterpoint to many female characters being sex symbols, woman says he isn't and draws a version of batman she would be attracted to, guy has no idea why she'd be into it, because it doesn't play into his understanding of what he thinks an attractive man is supposed to look like.

[Rolan7]

Oh neat, I found the thing you're referencing (or something like it) http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/book-13/05-the-death-of-snkrs/falseequivalence/

Edit:  Oooh, 5-year-old Disqus arguments

[Grim Portent]

Oh neat, I found the thing you're referencing (or something like it) http://www.shortpacked.com/2011/comic/book-13/05-the-death-of-snkrs/falseequivalence/

Edit:  Oooh, 5-year-old Disqus arguments

That is exactly the one I was thinking of.

[Helgoland]

These comments. It's the first time in ages that I've seen SJWs out in the wild, as opposed to in the rantings of right-wing forumites.

[Reelya]

https://news.slashdot.org/story/17/03/31/1755217/more-compulsory-math-lessons-do-not-encourage-women-to-pursue-stem-careers-study-finds

The demand for employees in STEM careers (science, technology, engineering and math) is particularly high, as corporations compete to attract skilled professionals in the international market. What is known as "curriculum intensification" is often used around the world to attract more university entrants -- and particularly more women -- to these subjects; that is to say, students have on average more mandatory math courses at a higher level. Scientists from the LEAD Graduate School and Research Network at the University of Tubingen have now studied whether more advanced math lessons at high schools actually encourages women to pursue STEM careers. Their work shows that an increase in advanced math courses during two years before the final school-leaving exams does not automatically create the desired effects. On the contrary: one upper secondary school reform in Germany, where all high school students have to take higher level math courses, has only increased the gender differences regarding their interests in activities related to the STEM fields. The young female students' belief in their own math abilities was lower after the reform than before. The results have now been published in the Journal of Educational Psychology.

I wonder how this plays into all those "learn to code" type programs for younger girls. People often act like if you just implement that kind of thing that it automatically has some benefit, and if you just keep doing more of it then it's bound to get results. That may or may not be true. Everything should be suspect, no program is "good" until you have the actual scientific data in your hands, showing that it actually achieved some outcomes that you wanted.

In the German school study shown above, they found that forcing everyone into AP maths regardless of interest causes a higher gender disparity of outcomes than otherwise. Basically cramming more maths in doesn't seem to be helping whatever the underlying causes are.

It should be kind of obvious that if someone is less maths inclined than someone else (regardless of the cause) that throwing more maths at them isn't a fix-all situation.

[Starver]

It just doesn't add up.

[Reelya]

Another related idea are some studies I came across ages ago, looking at how students internalize the concept of success or failure. Female students were more likely to internalize success/failure: I can/I can't do that (i.e. ability) whereas male students were more lilely to externalize it: I have/haven't done that (i.e. effort). Girls were much more likely to believe in an idea of "innate ability" than boys were, who were more likely to see challenges as something you could overpower with will. You can probably equate some of that with the different types of games which are more popular with men vs women.

And this actually fits with articles I've read about the worldview difference in shonen battle vs magical girl manga/anime. In shonen mangas, if you can't punch through a mountain, you just haven't punched enough and need a training montage of more punching. Whereas in shoujo mangas if you can't beat the monster you just need to tap the "power that was within you all along" and you get an automatic powerup. But they lack the idea of training to overcome the challenge: the powerup is an all or nothing boost in talent.

Yeah, so I'd like to research more about that but there do seem to be measurable differences in how people respond to difficult tasks and related media. But it's a chicken and egg thing. Are the differences in popular shonen vs shoujo there because those resonate with the gender differences in their audiences, or do they create the differences? Both types of media are about empowerment / beating monsters, but different ideas of empowerment resonate with each gender.

[Starver]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-maths-girls-idUSN2242207920070524

(Not the thing I was looking for, and a decade old so may have been countered, but...)

[Neonivek]

Hmmm...

Do you think Male Sexuality is demonized?

I know sexual females are often demonized but not female sexuality, which is considered acceptable (And yes I know the difference between those are... seemingly unimportant).

Maybe I am looking at it the wrong way... I was just watching a lot of feminist videos. One of the older ones involved a woman who dived sort of head first into male sexuality and her opinions were originally that of typical feminist thinking for the time (Remember this was the time period where, for example, Porn was considered anti-feminist) but she later saw it as fulfilling a need or desire that was different yet similar to that of a woman (Porn, for example, fulfilled a man's sexual drive while not requiring intimacy).

There was other things involved... but it got me thinking.

Why is it that men's sexuality is vilified at all?

Is it that both men and women are vilified for their sexuality but men have few advocates? Is it that men sexuality is so pervasive that the fact that women are often victimized is considered a product of male sexuality?

[Cthulhu]

These comments. It's the first time in ages that I've seen SJWs out in the wild, as opposed to in the rantings of right-wing forumites.

They don't show up often outside of their own enclaves.  It's well-known now that the internet lets you close off your episteme, but a less obvious component of that is that most people only engage with easy targets when they do venture out.    People with half an idea what they're talking about never fight on enemy territory, which means starting arguments naturally selects for idiots.  And going into enemy territory and seriously challenging someone is a great way to get blocked or banned.

[PTTG??]

These comments. It's the first time in ages that I've seen SJWs out in the wild, as opposed to in the rantings of right-wing forumites.

Which ones are the SJWs?