Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
SC seagoat
Trad climber
Santa Cruz, Moab, A sailboat, or some time zone
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2017 - 03:39pm PT
|
^^^^
Susan
|
|
DanaB
climber
CT
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2017 - 04:11pm PT
|
Roy, I apologize for not responding sooner. Too complicated to explain, but I can't provide a link to the articles on gender differences and addiction. However, there does seem to be a fair amount of open access stuff on the topic. Pretty interesting stuff.
Best,
Dana
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2017 - 04:25pm PT
|
I don't "intend to put women in their place", cat
Biology does that perfectly
Ok then. Your place is to die about five years before women do. Enjoy!
|
|
DanaB
climber
CT
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2017 - 04:29pm PT
|
It's become obvious why Kevin was able to do ground-up first ascents of run-out, challenging face climbs.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2017 - 05:52pm PT
|
Thank you for getting back to me, Dana B.
I understood from your original post that you said you were somehow not quite qualified to be openly published on the matter as an authority.
Yours,
Roy
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 16, 2017 - 06:30pm PT
|
Jeepers, people!
I go way for several hours with Lisa for a picnic, and come back to a six (+ or -) way food fight.
Anyhow, there is a book we were pulling from which is on topic and quite brilliant.
The Sports Gene: inside the science of extraordinary athletic performance. David Epstein.
There's lots of insight in these pages, some of it getting into the differences between female and male athletes.
|
|
DanaB
climber
CT
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2017 - 12:04am PT
|
Actually, it was a comment about the composure and presence of mind you've got during this forum discussion - qualities also necessary for doing the ground-up game.
|
|
nah000
climber
now/here
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2017 - 12:20am PT
|
0. personal challenge time: can i keep this under 5 pages in length?
[spoiler: probably not... but i'm going to give it the ole college try anyway...]
1. story time:
embarrassingly, a couple years ago i walked into our office and started to tell my business partner about a subcontract i was negotiating. and i said to him something along the lines of "yeah, i jewed him down a couple thousand"... or some such.
he looked at me with a raised eyebrow and a rising tone in his voice: "what did you just say?" [and so that you know, this came from a guy that generally doesn't have a pc bone in his body...]
immediately, i realized something i'd never thought about prior and was like... riiiiiiiiight: jewed comes from jew! and relies on a bull shIt stereotype...
and that my friends is how a middle aged, raised as a redneck in a rural area with not a single actual jewish person in sight, learned to stop saying "jew" as a synonym for "negotiate”.
tl;dr: sure it's entirely possible to say sexist [or in this example racist things] without intending them as sexist [or in this case racist].
2. analysis time:
of five links posted here by The Warbler, assumably intended to demonstrate his science and fact based approach to his verbiage.
of the first study he wrote: "Here's another narrow study ". of the "second" study he wrote "Oh, and another:". after the "third" he wrote "and". before the "fourth" there is the suggestive "ummmm". and finally prior to the fifth we've got "I'll continue to narrow this down"
alrighty. this is probably going to take some time with five studies to look into...
and heeeere we go...
study number one:
the first article from the huffington post [a reputable science based journal /s] was based on this study.
assuming i haven't made any mistakes, that study was based on 42 females [21 placebo administered and 21 testosterone administered] and showed that there was an average of 6.8% decrease in learning time for the testosterone group with the testosterone group having a range of +/- 49.5% between the maximum and minimum results for the individuals. thus the testosterone administration shifted the average over about 1/15th the size of the width of the distribution.
in plainer english this means that the variance of the individual abilities was roughly 15X greater than the average difference that the administration of testosterone made.
study number "two":
second article mr. warbler cites comes from the daily mail [another highly regarded reporter of scientific study - again for the dense: /s].
oh wait, upon some clicking, this links back to exactly the same study as found just above... ok onward.
study number "three":
now we've got a wired article. [well, this is at least a step up in the reputability department - i'm done linking though]
dangit... same fookin study.
study number "four":
and now national geographic.
seriously? the same study again? jeez... i'd hate to take a close look into TW's resume if this is how closely he fact checks.
and finally study number five:
oh thank fUcking christ. i'll spare you the suspense: this one is actually a second study.
this one is again about spatial skills which one of the researcher says and i directly quote her words is "the largest cognitive sex difference known.”
ok. good. this should really speak to the The Warbler's points.
well, i was hoping to look into this one deeper, but none of the sources appear to be on line. the questions i would have looked to have answered would have been: what are exactly the average differences between the men and the women?; and what exactly are the distributions surrounding those averages?
unfortunately i don't have immediate access to the study so i can't break this down numerically. fortunately the article says exactly what i would expect if i were actually able to cite the numbers. and again i quote: "Many women have significantly stronger spatial ability than many men".
so again in plainer english: the male and female distributions have more than significant overlaps and being male or female is no real indicator of relative [male vs female] individual ability.
but it doesn't end there. unfortunately again there are no numbers cited regarding actual before and after tests, so i can't concretely demonstrate how significant it was... but interestingly enough if women went through a 15 [count them that is fifteen] hour spatial cognition development course their engineering retention rates increase 20-30% or said in another way: “If you start with 100 women, you’d expect 50 to graduate as engineers,” Sorby says. “If we give them this intervention, 80 will graduate from engineering.”
higher up in the article it also discusses how studies have shown that [and again i copy/pasta]: “boy” toys reinforce skills that are proven brain boosters. Playing with Legos and blocks, taking a shop class in high school and time spent playing 3-D computer games have all been shown to boost scores on mental rotation tests.
so to sum: the article doesn't cite readily accessible studies and does not give numbers. but it says enough to conclude that at least with regard to spatial skills [which again happen to be "the largest cognitive sex difference known.”]:
1. there are significant ability overlaps between individual men and women.
2. that fifteen hours of study greatly increases the skill regarding this ability
3. that "boys" toys [legos, blocks, 3d computer games] have all been shown to boost scores on mental rotation tests.
so to sum even more: the largest cognitive sex difference is highly influenced by learned ability and many "boys" toys have been shown to aid said learning, yet still there is significant overlap between individual male and female abilities with regards to this area.
tl;dr: the warbler cares about science like a stereotypical pimp cares about his stereotypical hoes. [hahahaha...]
3. hypothetical time:
The Warbler is distracted by the fact that racism is regarding race, which in general does not predict significant average innate physical and cognitive variances and sexism is regarding sex, which, simply put, sometimes does predict relatively small innate average differences.
while, the points i was making could be understood regardless, i get how TW’s correct point above could be distracting. so let’s switch to something more apples to apples.
and since TW likes to keep things charged by calling well meaning and sincere people “honey”, finding out what the gender of his respondents are, etc. i think it’s only fair if we talk about framing carpenters… the goose and the gander and all that…
alright.
so here are some facts. while i don’t have scientific studies, i’ve tried to make them so exaggerated that they aren’t needed as i can’t imagine anyone, even TW, arguing with these:
1. the best of the best [say top 0.00001%] middle aged [35-45 y.o.] framing carpenters are capable of being more productive over a long 14 hour day than the best of the best [again say top 0.00001%] near retirement [55-65 y.o.] framing carpenters.
2. there are near retirement framing carpenters who are capable of producing as much or more over a long 14 hour day than 98% of middle aged framing carpenters
this can be correctly stated as "the most elite middle aged framing carpenters can be more productive than the most elite near retirement framing carpenters over a 14 hr day."
but TW, would, assuming he uses the same verbiage he uses with regards to sex, say “middle aged framing carpenters are more productive than near retirement framing carpenters” even though that obviously completely contradicts the also correct point 2.
and is obviously ageist claptrap.
the point should be entirely clear but just in case: although there are differences between the elite of the elite, relative to the overall individual distribution they are minor and so the making of blanket statements about the sexes, with regards to the male vs female conversation, results in sexist bull crappy.
tl;dr: words matter and saying that there are average differences, or that there are differences at the most elite level is worlds apart from stating that there are wholesale categorical differences. the latter is not just politically incorrect and sexist, it is on a linguistic level just plain incorrect... more importantly it is an insidious method of and oft used attempt at psychological control.
4. beating a dead horse time:
The Warbler also doesn’t like sport climbing comparisons. those aren’t really what he’s talking about, he’s talking about “adventure climbing”. ok, fair enough.
i only used sport climbing because it has relatively harder numbers attached to it... but if TW wants to get esoteric i’m happy to oblige.
so how do we compare “adventure” climbers? and what adventure?
i mostly know about alpinism, so i’m going to stick with that one, and since there is no objective comparison of alpinist routes we are going to have to go subjective. well... here goes nothin…
if someone held a gun to my head and said you’re climbing a new route on the north face of north twin tomorrow or the trigger is getting pulled… but! you get to choose one “famous” currently active climber to rope gun for you…
well, upon reflection, the first seven names that would come out of my mouth would be male… but the eigth would be female.
the point again: there are about 3.7 billion males in the world and for the sake of the argument i would conservatively argue that in this moment at least one of the top twenty all round ice and rock "adventure climbing" alpinists is a female.
which means, assuming i’m close to correct, that that female is a better alpinist than 3.7 billion males and using my numbers is better than all but 0.00000054% of the male population. or is better than 99.999946% of males.
tl;dr: if we are rounding, the top female alpinist is better than 100%, 100.0% and all of the way to 100.000% of males, yet The Warbler believes those people arguing that saying “male alpinists are better than female alpinists.” is incorrect, is due only to their trying to avoid being politically incorrect… rather than it just being that stating it that way is incorrect.
5. summation time:
the conversation on this board has never been about whether or not there are average or elite sex differences.
if warbler and his followers are looking for that argument they should head over to the huffington post comment sections as the theoretical radicals who might believe that there are no sex differences are more likely to be found hanging out there.
things are snarky, because well meaning, thorough, insightful and infinitely more patient people than myself [Ed Hartouni and cat t. to name two] have repeatedly over the course of a good six or so threads at this point, attempted to point out how some of TW’s verbiage is harmful and straight up mistaken...
yet he continues to bob and weave like a drunk mohammad ali hoping people will forget that on this board those debating him are debating sexist language and rather continues to pretend like the conversation is about our denial of average or elite sex differences.
again: average sex differences exist, we aren’t denying them and at this point to continue arguing as such is just flat out disingenuous.
and while saying sexist things without intent does happen, at a certain point to continue to say something that is just straight up incorrect is to be sexist, whether or not that is your intent.
all of the above is EXACTLY why third wave feminism is needed.
it’s great that women got the vote and property rights.
it’s great that women have, in general, no legal constraints at this point stopping their progress.
that doesn’t mean that feminism’s job is done.
now we have to look at the residue that is left behind.
with race that includes statues put up after the fact during times of continued racial controls as conscious and unconscious reminders of who was still in power…
with sex it is often insidious linguistic constructs.
6. motivation time:
what is seriously wrong with you nah000 that you write multi page screeds on the internet to [mostly] people you've never met? and duuude... with so much occasional vitriol?
this question is brought to you by the angel on my right shoulder, who is ultimately being inspired by something that Largo wrote in one of these threads that was discussing feminism/gender/etc. while i'm not going to go back and quote directly and so will butcher, he said something to the effect that people who are throwing some of this highly charged verbiage around would be well served to explain why it is personally so important to them...
which is why i appreciated TW’s last longer missive. it helped remind me that the world he lives in, the people he surrounds himself with, and most importantly the world that he grew up in, is far, far different than the world i live in. this is not a judgement. and it’s not to dismiss his world.
it’s just a fact. and i sincerely appreciated his approach to that piece of writing.
and so when i read Largo’s point i thought: hmmm... this is actually a very good point. while not necessarily all are in a position where they can be transparent as to where some of the emotion and charge is rooted in, i am. and it’s stuck in the back of my mind since then.
so again here we go… off the top of my head there are three primary reasons:
1. i’ve been involved in two academic/professional streams in my life. the first was a hard science that sixty years ago would have in all likelihood been at least 90% male. the second was more practical arts based but it too would have been 90% male sixty years ago. in both of the programs i was in, the ratio of males to females was pretty close to 50/50. the short of this is that i’ve known quite a few close and not so close cis female friends who have had to deal with sexist residue both academically but also sometimes professionally. while the world is entirely different than it was 60 years ago, there is no question based on what i’ve seen at close second hand that at least in some areas, the residues persist, even if the legal constructs are gone.
2. my circle also includes a bunch of binary trans, non-binary, and just straight up gender queer folk. i’ve seen second hand how damaging the insidious nature of highly binary constructed language results in for folk who understand and experience the world in different ways than our north american, traditionally european derived highly binarily gendered culture and political structures, has been.
3. but most importantly and the reason why i have a lot of snark sometimes, is that i’ve also seen the effects of number two first hand. it can for some be, and was for myself, like being pecked to death by ducks. i’ve survived and in some ways it made me stronger at the same time that i’m still healing from a bunch of it... that's because the regular denial of who i am via the conscious and unconscious enforcement of traditional, stereotyped and categorical constructs was also something that very nearly killed me. [first spiritually, then later physically]
7. and finally... aside time:
tarbusier, tarbusier, tarbusier…
you might have wandered into the wrong side of town my friend.
a mediator? if you’re serious, from my perspective, you’d need to do two things. first, read all of the threads that this whole conversation and some of the accumulated vitriol is rooted in… there are probably only a half a dozen.
and you’d need to report back with what your other half has to say regarding the quotes i set out and what i view as sexist bull crappy and what TW views as decontextualized things he stands behind.
because so far, from my perspective, you look like an onlooker that has happened onto the middle of a gun fight and is making generalizing statements and summations about a situation you’ve only seen half of…
i could be wrong.
8. most importantly:
peace.
|
|
Marlow
Sport climber
OSLO
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2017 - 12:23am PT
|
In lack of statistics this thread is doomed to end up judgemental ...
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2017 - 02:24am PT
|
Nah000:
In point #7 you are responding to what was [well-intended] Zinfandel inspired babble on my part, so I took it down in short order, [~five hours before your #7 post], but clearly not soon enough!
Your [initial] assessment [of my reference to the tenets of mediation & conflict resolution] indicates I was misunderstood, [as I wasn't even remotely suggesting I would mediate this thing], mea culpa, cheers.
[edits]
Concerning this:
because so far, from my perspective, you look like an onlooker that has happened onto the middle of a gun fight and is making generalizing statements and summations about a situation you’ve only seen half of…
Could be. I can take a hit. I've read only this thread and one of the others (Davita Gurian dust up).
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2017 - 07:58am PT
|
Cat said:
I find it frightening to share such tales, because I don't want anyone to judge her based on a single anecdote from me. It is strange to realize that when the real person no longer exists, our unreliable accounts of them become the only reality. I hope I have not portrayed her as some caricature of competitiveness; she was a complex person, and I really admired that she possessed both exceedingly strong convictions and an eager willingness to understand the views of others. No worries: your reportage about your dear, lost friend only increases our appreciation of her humanity. And your own.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 17, 2017 - 02:43pm PT
|
^^^
That's a killer video!
Of all the people in that short, the one I most relate to is the young girl with the yellow popsicle.
Naďve, sensitive, easily amused, somewhat surprised by the whole dustup. That's me.
.................
Say, anyone notice we lost a whole batch of posts at some point today?
That sh#t ain't right. (...or maybe someone thought it was, ha ha)
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2017 - 09:14am PT
|
^^^
That's an interesting perspective put forth by the author, Kitten Holiday.
Also from the above article:
It’s an ugly world. I don’t think a man’s physicality is always bad, just as I don’t believe a woman’s sexuality is bad but I do believe both can be used with ill intentions and cause great harm. Acknowledging this danger is essential to avoid perpetuating it. If we can disassemble this myth by deconstructing where the premises on which feminism are founded we might be able to reverse some of the toxic animosity between men and women and strengthen our bonds to work for a complementary equality where we can all thrive and be fulfilled.
While Nah000 has stated that I may look like an onlooker who has happened onto the middle of a gun fight and am making generalizing statements and summations about a situation I have only seen half of, which likely has some validity, here's another generalizing statement:
Why are people debating this so fervently? I'm saying it's because, deep down, and right there on the surface, the good people here on the forum, whatever their position, actually care about the disposition and outcome of gender relations in climbing. So though we may have conflicting perspectives, and though they may clash brilliantly, we all share that common interest, one of deeply caring.
|
|
Tarbuster
climber
right here, right now
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2017 - 09:14am PT
|
Cat,
September 18, now one year from the loss of your dear friend, Maria ...
I hope that you get out into the fresh air today, and smell the song of the world, feeling your mind and body moving in harmony with living things, and that the memory of Maria, no doubt mixed with those unfathomable depths of sadness and loss, also rejuvenates you with the feeling of her steady companionship, recalling and rekindling your communion with the gift of her life.
Sincerely,
Roy
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2017 - 10:22am PT
|
Now, what if that 2017 top selling image had a woman that was way overweight in it.
Would it still have made it the top selling image in 2017 ?
There's a lot more than meets the eye in these kinds of observations ......
|
|
c wilmot
climber
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2017 - 10:26am PT
|
The change from women lounging naked (or perhaps laughing alone with salad) to women demonstrating physical or professional prowess was driven in part by the Lean In collection, which Getty developed in 2014 with Sheryl Sandberg’s nonprofit to seed media with more modern, diverse and empowering images of women. The collection, now with 14,000 photos, has the unofficial tagline, “You can’t be what you can’t see.”
Things change when powerful people socially engineer our society...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2017 - 10:27am PT
|
Yes ^^^^
Both for the good and the bad .....
|
|
yanqui
climber
Balcarce, Argentina
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2017 - 12:02pm PT
|
c wilmot thinks women are powerful people!
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2017 - 12:10pm PT
|
I like both pics.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!