~ archived since 2018 ~

What is your take on the BCC program 'Secrets of the Sexes?'

gopher_glitz · 2014-06-11T06:54:20+00:00

Link the BBC program, vids are on youtube as well. Seems pretty redpill to me, since they contest men and women are different....

gopher_glitz

June 11, 2014

3 upvotes

/r/PurplePillDebate

Archived from /r/PurplePillDebate

r/PurplePillDebate is a neutral community to discuss sex and gender issues, specifically those pertaining to /r/TheBluePill and /r/TheRedPill.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/PurplePillDebate archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	What is your take on the BCC program 'Secrets of the Sexes?'
Author	gopher_glitz
Upvotes	3
Comments	28
Date	June 11, 2014 6:54 AM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/27uwzt/what_is_your_take_on_the_bcc_program_secrets_of/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/what-is-your-take-on-the-bcc-program-secrets-of.285518 https://theredarchive.com/post/285518

Comments

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

I know people who would deny any meaningful difference between men and women exists due to biology, and who would further be offended at the very idea that men could be better at something on average than women (although likely not the reverse).

A part of my job is consulting with clients on their public image. I would always advise against someone bringing up biological differences between the sexes in any kind of public forum. It's so easy to sensationalize a position like that into a patriarchal strawman, that it's just not worth it. And the people who would take offense are some of the loudest, most unreasonable, and most extreme voices, who are willing to use the suffering of women in the past and present, to advance their own agenda.

The reason I feel this is significant, is because there clearly are meaningful differences between the sexes that are based in biology. It may not be clear exactly what they are or how significant they are. It may not be a great thing to focus on for many reasons. But the idea that there are no meaningful differences is an absurd position. And yet somehow that has become the safe place to be in the court of public opinion.

I say all this, because the level of PC bullshit in western culture these days is astronomical. It's almost impossible to account for. And authentic dialogue about these issues has become so impossible in almost every context, that people end up only talking in these small communities where they circlejerk until extreme and often ludicrous opinions emerge, that would never survive a real conversation.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Interesting that you bring up Lawrence Summers in that link. In corporate communications, that example is a common case study for what not to do. I don't mean that he shouldn't have said what he did, although given the academic climate at Ivy League schools it was a huge risk. His problem was that he handled the aftermath poorly, by apologizing rather than rallying support and fighting back. Big mistake, and like rule 1 of crisis communications.

What do you mean by this?

I guess I just mean that the difference is not small enough to be written off. The body is an interconnected system, and very small changes to certain pathways, hormone levels, etc. can have significant impact. Exactly what these gender differences are, and how important they are, I have no idea.

But I think we would have a better idea if people talking about these issues in public were not at the risk of being shamed and attacked for expressing their views. All that does is drive people into more secretive, extreme conversations, which make the problem worse. There is too much conversation policing by people who want to put the responsibility for their feelings onto others.

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Exactly what these gender differences are, and how important they are, I have no idea.

Yeah, I think this is the part I have problem with, because it is an empty space that invites permeation with personal bias. Humans make judgment base on their emotions, they/we think something is right because it feels right. There's gotta be something there, height, size, strength, sexual dimorphism ... right? And then some woman does something obnoxious, and that empty space gets filled with, well, that's because she's a woman.

To be clear I'm not saying I'm above this influence, I am, but my blindspot is somewhere else.

I wrote this, copied here so you don't have to link over.

Why are people fatter today? Is because of genetics? Or is it because they eat too much because of the availability of food? In first world countries the easy access to food especially industrial food is making people fat and people are getting fatter. Genetics?

Let's talk height, which is typically accepted as 80%-90% heritable. And a reminder that heritability is not probability of inheriting height from your parents, it's that 80%-90% of variation in height is due to variation in genes. Men are typically taller than women, agreed? It's genetic, agreed? And yet the average human has grown 10cm in the last 200 years. We are taller than our ancestors have ever been. Your explanation for this from an evolutionary perspective is that the tall gene has been selected for, and the short gene selected against. Tall people have more children, short people have fewer children, or they are more likely to die, or short people can't find mates. Here's a Scientific American article saying it's not due to natural selection. It's due to childhood nutrition, the standard of which has been on the incline correlating to increase in height.

Weight, and height, two distinctly physical characteristics, is incontrovertibly affected by environmental factors which influenced behaviors -- in this case, eating.

I'll add to this with a thought experiment. Let's say with proper childhood nutrition you can exceed average height without proper nutrition by 10cm. Let's say men are typically taller than women and the difference is about 10cm. Let's say you have a culture where the ability to get pregnant and give birth is valued, say a culture has high infant mortality rate or lots of land to populate or whatever. Girl children are given more food than boys because someone made the connection that healthy girl children become healthy mothers of healthy babies. Over time this practice took on cultural significance, holidays, gift-giving, everything is celebrated with food being given to girl children. Over time people quasi-forget why they give food to girl children, it's just something that's accepted as the norm. Boys are given other things, for example more toys or whatever, but rarely food, because that's a girl's gift, boys are hardy and don't need more food.

As a result in 500 years with reinforced customs the women grew to be of equal height as the men. There would be few questions as to why are men and women the same height, and few would notice that girl children are fed better than boys because it's part of the cultural practices. I won't go so far into the experiment to wonder how people would interpret the visual similarities, but the point I'm trying for is this: nobody thought men could get taller, except for the outliers, because they've not been given the customary cultural practices given to girls.

There's where we are with brain differences. Women have not been given the same customary cultural practices given to men in area of education and technical achievement, not until the last 200 years. Where there are differences in cognitive ability, the difference could be mitigated with behavior. There was a RadioLab podcast which addressed this underperformance, it made the case that the underperformance in a specific area manifested itself under stress. A math test administered to women university students when prefaced with "this is to measure <something else than your math abilities>" and anchored with "your peers typically score in the top 10%" has radically different results from a controlled test. This outcome is not limited to women, other tests have been performed with golfers and other athletes.

There's been raging debates on nature and nurture on PPD, with more heat than light. I'm mystified, because I guess I don't care how the difference is come by? I suppose a case could be made that if we understood if something is genetic, autism, schizophrenia, then we can address the cure to the right component. But from what I've seen, all the wanking about EP is not motivated from a compassionate interest in the human condition, but a need to sort and label and in some cases to selfishly manipulate.

So we have no firm evidence that girls are bad at math, but we don't teach girls math and we don't build them workbenches or give them legos. To be clear I'm not saying these things should be pushed on girls, there are very girly girls who have no interest in those things. But there are probably more girls who can be good at math, they just get swept up in the stereotype.

It's funny because TRP once had a thread when Sweden (it's always fucking feminist Sweden) incentivized women going into engineering, I have to find the article. The program did attract more women into engineering and tech, but when it ended, women went back to being housewives or whatever. Conclusion: women don't have an aptitude for engineering and tech and/or they don't want to be in engineering and tech!

I thought that was so boneheaded, because from where I was standing, the conclusion is obviously society does not incentivize women toward engineering and tech, or they reward women MORE for being not(engineering and tech). How much incentive is another fight, certain I'm not saying women should get 2X more money or whatever.

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yeah, I think this is the part I have problem with, because it is an empty space that invites permeation with personal bias. Humans make judgment base on their emotions, they/we think something is right because it feels right.

It's not so much that disagree with this, as I think there is no alternative. A lot of analysis of women on TRP, in my opinion, is transferring traits common to all emotional unstable people onto women as gender. I think this fits into the paradigm you refer to nicely.

But on the other hand, just because people have a hard time with uncertainty, is no cause to reject it. Most of the wacky opinions this 'blank space' allows for, could be easily corrected through dialogue. Since I have participated on this sub, for example, my view of gender dynamics has become much more moderate as well as crystallized. But at a mainstream level, this can't occur because of how offended people get over discourse. Consider how many people on both sides complain about the conversation here. People cannot handle disagreement in a healthy way anymore. But it doesn't have to be like that.

I get what you're saying about height, but there are some issues there. Someone's potential for height is clearly genetic, but without proper nutrition that potential may never be actualized. And I'm not sure about that math comparison. For the past few decades, we have taught everyone math equally, and it's pretty clear that girls are doing better in school than boys. So this idea that we may not have taught as much math to as many girls for as long, and that is supposed to explain their disinterest or lower aptitude for it, doesn't make sense to me.

Upper class girls have historically gotten a better education than lower class boys, and many Indian and East Asian kids. Yet the latter groups perform very well in math and often have an interest in it. That relationship just doesn't seem to be there.

The problem that I have with cultural argument, is that people using it often bring all of these unfounded assumptions into it. Like that because aspects of gender, or observed gendered differences are not hardwired into our genes, they can be controlled and manipulated consciously by society, government, activists, etc. That Swedish women is tech is a great example of this. They assume, "women aren't in tech because of cultural programming, social pressure, and so on, and if we just incentive them a little we can make that difference go away."

For one, it's not clear that a gendered preference like that is bad. And two, it's even less clear to what extent social engineering on a large scale can do about it. Like that program just wasted a bunch of resources training women to do jobs they will never do, and making those programs artificially more competitive, even for women who would have wanted to get into tech without the additional incentives.

Like, if we accept your premise, that rewards for women being housewives are so deeply built into culture that even a small, homogenous, wealthy, and deeply feminist country like Sweden can't overcome them- that suggests to me that culture may be more implacable than we think.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It's too long to get in now, but I'll have to disagree that girls have been taught math and science the same way. They've been through the same curriculum, but they've not been taught the same way. There are lots of influencing factors, I'll name a few: expectation from society, it's not normal or typical for young girls to do well in math, if she does it's the exception not the rule. The resulting attitude is a bit of coddling and/or a bit of tough love, depending on the teacher. Last year at this time I went to a friend's graduation party for their kids. One girl was heading off to school and when it came out that she was going to be a math and/or physics major there was a bit of mixed surprise and something like paternalistic head-patting from some adults. One man said (kind of jokingly) something to the effect of, "Great! You go show those boys how's it's done." That entire sentence contained within it a universe of stereotypes. I don't have time to break it down here but suffice to say that's a lot of attitude to overcome, since if it had been a boy heading toward math and physics, it would be just "Great!" Even I am guilty of this expectation, outside of people I know to be in my field or technical, I don't expect women to have technical conversations. I was sitting there talking to some woman who happened to be doing similar thing as I am, and I found myself kind of surprised, because people like that are a bit hard to run into.

I don't mean to incentivize Swedes women into engineering (or women in general) with things like pay, benefits, hours, none of those tangibles. Rather I think it's the reshaping of expectations and intangible rewards, because I think it's not a problem of aptitude. Assuming someone has an aptitude but their preference to pursue that aptitude is warped by societal expectation, that would be a pity.

Also you're right about class. Class trumps and extends beyond gender, Ada Lovelace was able to do what she did not because she was a woman but because she was born into the privileged and educated class. Sorry, this actually doesn't dovetail into what you were saying, but we'll have to unpack what it means to be an girl born into middle upper class, but if you look at parities, it's usually girl children of middle/upper class parents who are encouraged into gifted programs, Google and IBM tech fairs, the like. More so than girl children born to blue-collar working parents, I mean to say, mostly because their parents already inhabit this world.

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]watamIreading2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]gopher_glitz[S] -1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (22 children) | Copy Link

[–]watamIreading1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

Ah, but I don't think most people have trouble with things like, on average, men are better at some things and on average, women are better at others. The problem is that on average, you can have two and a half children, while no one has half a child. On average most people aren't average. It's not all you should be looking at, since when you look at the actual differences without concentrating on the averages, suddenly in many cases the differences become less obvious. And thus, these things only become sexist when you take the average and make sweeping claims about men and women and then imply that one sex is superior in comparison to the other due to these averages. And forget to use the magical words "on average".

And of course there have to be brain differences, not just between the biological sexes but between individuals as well. Otherwise things like sexual and gender identity could be dealt with psychotherapy, but they can't be, and there's plenty of proof of that. Just that you can't make sweeping assumptions of one sex's mental superiority over the other due to that.

[–]fiat_lux_Red Pillar1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]watamIreading0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]stats1350 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The problem is that attacks on TRP blur the line between what is done and what is believed. Lets say 8 out of 10 American women likes to converse in English, then I will talk to all women in English to increase my chances of having sex with her. I don't "believe" that all women like English speaking people, but I will treat all women as such until proven otherwise.

Generally, you do not know what make any given women what to have sex with you. So you go with the most likely. Of course there are some variables that cannot be worked on. I cannot change to be a 6ft tall black man for example. Of the variables that can be worked on, you chose the most likely combination. nice vs not nice, aggressive vs passive, appealing to emotion vs logic, lead her vs follow her, etc. Of course there are women that prefer different combinations of these traits, so no combination will work on all women. But if you can increase you chances from say 1 in 20 women you meet having sex with you to say 1 in 15, TRP has done its duty.

Before anyone attacks me, by no means am I saying the statistics is true, they exist only as an example.

[–]watamIreading-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Oh, I don't think there's any reason to question that TRP, just like other things with PUA parts, works as a way to get sex, at least to a degree. It does oft seem to lead to the mistaken thought of the person applying PUA stuff to be able to get "any woman", however, which is just a case of not being able to see the forest for the trees; if your stuff is working on the women in clubs, bars and the like, that doesn't mean it works on every woman ever. It only means it works in clubs and bars, where you may have an elevated chance of finding women who're actually looking for casual sex. And possibly only in the locales you have applied your techniques.

Now, that's okay. Generally all the parties in that situation are consensual, and I don't judge people for having sex, regardless of gender. The problem with TRP, however, is that it's very heavily steeped in misogyny. Now, you didn't mention this so maybe you're not very heavily invested in this part of it, but its atmosphere is full of the stuff. From the "sidebar" to the content of its posts, misogyny abound. You don't have to go look for it, it's right there, before thine very eyes. Yes, contempt for women for simply being women is misogyny. Yes, hating women for this and that imagined slight is misogyny. Expecting women to give you sex but not have any sexual partners is... well, just a weird notion I have seen in TRP that I thought I'd add.

This part of TRP reminds me of the old joke from Sledge Hammer: "Women - can't live with them, can't live... with them." In fact, this aspect of TRP very much reminds me of Sledge Hammer, but that show was funny, not scary.

[–]We_Are_LegionAutumn Red2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]watamIreading-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago* (6 children) | Copy Link

I'm willing to bet that you're either misunderstanding what was said or you're simply making it up.

Charming, but no.

First of all, a feminist class is a class either about feminism, gender studies from a feminist prospective, queer theory, or marxist/other philosophical issues informed by feminism. In the school I went to, many classes were cross listed as say, Philosophy and Feminist Studies, or Religion and Feminist Studies, so in addition to the accepted academic definition, there was a formal definition by the school.

Second, the idea of a "standard feminist position" that can be easily be accessed by a lay person is ridiculous. Anyone who has spent time with feminist texts understands how fragmented the movement is. Intellectual feminism is more about combining a certain approach to thinking, advocacy for women, and resistance to late-capitalism/patriarchy that certain stock stances on issues.

In college I took 2 classes that were explicitly feminist. One was about the implications of reproductive technology for women and gender studies (commercial surrogacy, Killing the Black Body, cyborg feminism), the other was about eco-feminism. On top of this, I studied a lot of marxist/post-marxist class theory, and there is significant intersection with feminism. We read Landscape for a Good Women, Borderlands, etc. And then on top of that, a philosophy professor I was close to, because I did a lot of research on Hegel with her, was trained and did her PhD dissertation with Judith Butler.

The class I took about technology and reproduction had a mix of students interested in feminism, and just random people. At one point a student tried to argue that gender wasn't a performance, but was rooted in biology and differences between men and women were due to that. The professor politely but firmly stated that she found the idea of gender being determined by biology offensive. I cannot tell you how many conversations with I had students majoring in feminist studies who felt the same way. They weren't crazy or rude, they just felt strongly that science/biology had no place in a discussion about gender or sexuality.

[–]mrsamsa0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Charming, but no.

Just being honest. It's the way these conversations tend to go with people making odd claims about feminism.

Second, the idea of a "standard feminist position" that can be easily be accessed by a lay person is ridiculous.

Nobody has suggested that a lay person should have access to this information though. We're talking about feminists.

Anyone who has spent time with feminist texts understands how fragmented the movement is.

Which is irrelevant, as the point is that the position is common across most/all of feminism and is the dominant stance on the issue.

At one point a student tried to argue that gender wasn't a performance, but was rooted in biology and differences between men and women were due to that. The professor politely but firmly stated that she found the idea of gender being determined by biology offensive. I cannot tell you how many conversations with I had students majoring in feminist studies felt the same way. They weren't crazy or rude, they just felt strongly that science/biology had no place in a discussion about gender or sexuality.

This is what I thought, you've misunderstood them. The idea of gender as a performance is a reference to gender as a social construct, which is obviously the consensus view in all relevant scientific fields. We know for a fact that biology doesn't determine gender because gender roles and how we perceive them is fairly fluid and can change across times, contexts, cultures, etc.

Importantly, I don't think you'll meet anyone alive today who accepts the idea of gender as a social construct who believes that biology plays no role in the development of sex. That's not what it means. The point is just that sex and gender are (unarguably) not interchangeable and so these biological and environmental factors that contribute towards our gender are funneled through societal norms.

I think any scientist would be 'offended' by the idea that gender was determined by biology, as it contradicts all known facts.

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Which is irrelevant, as the point is that the position is common across most/all of feminism and is the dominant stance on the issue.

It's not irrelevant. Feminists generally consider the fragmentation of the movement to a defining feature of feminism.

This is what I thought, you've misunderstood them. The idea of gender as a performance is a reference to gender as a social construct, which is obviously the consensus view in all relevant scientific fields.

I'm aware of what gender as performance means. I'm also aware of the sex/gender distinction. Before continuing, the idea of 'scientific consensus' isn't meaningless, but it's not that significant either. For the past 50+ years, the scientific consensus was the eating fat made you fat and lead to heart attacks, and that people should eat a lot of processed carbs. We now know all of this to be empirically false.

We know for a fact that biology doesn't determine gender because gender roles and how we perceive them is fairly fluid and can change across times, contexts, cultures, etc.

This is a gross oversimplification, as well as a strawman. It's not a question of whether or not gender is completely determined by biology, or completely determined by culture. There is a middle ground. And if it is your argument that 'science' in general has ruled on this issue definitively, which seems suspect as it really not even a scientific question, you are going to need to provide sources/arguments sufficient to demonstrate both the consensus and accepted view on the relationship between sex and gender.

Importantly, I don't think you'll meet anyone alive today who accepts the idea of gender as a social construct who believes that biology plays no role in the development of sex. That's not what it means. The point is just that sex and gender are (unarguably) not interchangeable and so these biological and environmental factors that contribute towards our gender are funneled through societal norms.

Again, you think I don't understand the sex/gender distinction. I do. They may not be completely interchangeable (and I have never argued they are), but the question of what the relationship is between them is much more complicated than just "there is no relationship".

I think any scientist would be 'offended' by the idea that gender was determined by biology, as it contradicts all known facts.

You haven't even met a representative sample size of scientists.

If you think there is no relationship between sex and gender, or men and women, beyond what culture can condition, and you are so convinced of your own correctness that you believe the very institution of science stands behind you, there isn't much for us to talk about. My only claim was that in the classes I took on feminism, arguing for biological differences being meaningful in some way, would have been considered offensive. I was there, and it would have been. Someone in another post brought up what happened to Lawrence Summers at Harvard, which is an example of my original point writ large.

[–]mrsamsa-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It's not irrelevant. Feminists generally consider the fragmentation of the movement to a defining feature of feminism.

It is irrelevant, as I explained above.

Before continuing, the idea of 'scientific consensus' isn't meaningless, but it's not that significant either.

It's our best evidence. If you're arguing against the consensus then yes, they can be wrong, but you need a fuckload of evidence behind your claims.

This is a gross oversimplification, as well as a strawman. It's not a question of whether or not gender is completely determined by biology, or completely determined by culture.

There's no strawman, that is the position your professor was reacting to. "Determined" has a very specific meaning and that's the word you used.

There is a middle ground.

Indeed there is, it's known as the social construct idea of gender.

And if it is your argument that 'science' in general has ruled on this issue definitively, which seems suspect as it really not even a scientific question,

...Of course it is.

you are going to need to provide sources/arguments sufficient to demonstrate both the consensus and accepted view on the relationship between sex and gender.

I'll present any sociology, psychology, gender studies, etc textbook which make a clear distinction between sex and gender. If you're aware of any resources which suggest they are the same thing (as that's the only way to really counter the social constructionist position) then I'll happily reassess my position.

They may not be completely interchangeable (and I have never argued they are)

The use of the word "determined" means that you did.

but the question of what the relationship is between them is much more complicated than just "there is no relationship".

Which nobody has argued. Particularly not the social constructionists, whose position is predicated on the fact that biology is relevant to the development of gender.

You haven't even met a representative sample size of scientists.

That's debatable. I've met a huge amount and the only question would be how "representative" it is. At all the conferences I've ever attended, all the journals and papers I've ever read, all the textbooks I've proof read, etc, I've never seen anyone even consider doubting it.

As I say above though, I'm happy to be corrected.

If you think there is no relationship between sex and gender

Not at all. I accept the standard position in science of gender as a social construct, so obviously I accept that there is a relationship between the two.

My only claim was that in the classes I took on feminism, arguing for biological differences being meaningful in some way, would have been considered offensive.

And as I think has been demonstrated, this was most likely a misunderstanding. Perhaps due to your inadvertent use of the word "determined".

Someone in another post brought up what happened to Lawrence Summers at Harvard, which is an example of my original point writ large.

I don't see how? Summers made pseudoscientific claims based on shaky sexist premises and he was rightly punished for it. Come on now. If you're trying to use Summers to demonstrate your case then I think it's obvious that I'm right.

[–]hyperrrealLoves fun1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

It is irrelevant, as I explained above.

No you said this:

the point is that the position is common across most/all of feminism and is the dominant stance on the issue.

As we are about to see, a standard feminist position on sex/gender is difficult to determine

There's no strawman, that is the position your professor was reacting to. "Determined" has a very specific meaning and that's the word you used.

First, my original point is still correct. She was offended. She didn't respond by making an argument about scientific consensus. And this is post on reddit. I'm not defending a dissertation. My language may end up being slightly imprecise, because of the nature of the medium, and the speed at which I am writing.

Indeed there is, it's known as the social construct idea of gender.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, but since you don't appear to be doing the same, social construct theory =! performativity. In Gender Trouble, Butler is arguing against the sex/gender binary itself, by making the case that they are both constructed. She is explicit in her view that no identity (conditioned or otherwise) exists behind the speech acts/behavior that we view as 'gender'. These acts themselves form the illusion of stable gender identity.

Butler is even against the subject/object distinction, which she views as an artificially created hegemony that needs to be subverted. The very idea of ourselves as subjects, she argues, is conditioned through repetition of signification. So social construct theory is incredibly problematic, and in her view no better than biological absolutism. They both exist in the same kind of thinking, which she and other serious feminists attempt to subvert.

Most academic feminism, and Butler specifically, draws heavily on phenomenology, Lacanian psychoanalysis, Heidegger and Latour's work on the problem of the 'environment'. Basically, it's part of a conversation which is deeply critical and mistrustful of science, and the way in which it endlessly and pathologically quantifies the world around us.

And social construct theory is more of a beginning of another investigation than a definitive answer.

Of course it is.

It's not science until it is a part of a physical experiment with a hypothesis, etc. Until then it is firmly pseudo-science.

I'll present any sociology, psychology, gender studies, etc textbook which make a clear distinction between sex and gender. If you're aware of any resources which suggest they are the same thing (as that's the only way to really counter the social constructionist position) then I'll happily reassess my position.

I'm not asking you to reassess your position. We can obviously make the distinction at a conceptual level. You seemed to be claiming that there is scientific proof, from experimental data that supports a true consensus on the sex/gender relationship. If there isn't, it's pseudo-science.

I just did a little research, and there does not seem to be universal agreement on what extent gender is driven by biology, and to what extent it is driven by culture.

The use of the word "determined" means that you did.

No it means that's how I remember that student trying to express himself.

Which nobody has argued. Particularly not the social constructionists, whose position is predicated on the fact that biology is relevant to the development of gender.

Many feminists do argue this as I point out above. Their argument goes waaay beyond social construction into territory you don't seem familiar with.

That's debatable. I've met a huge amount and the only question would be how "representative" it is. At all the conferences I've ever attended, all the journals and papers I've ever read, all the textbooks I've proof read, etc, I've never seen anyone even consider doubting it.

Well then I'm sure you know enough about science to know that's not representative. But I don't want to come off as saying your anecdotal experience isn't worthwhile, I'm sure it is.

Not at all. I accept the standard position in science of gender as a social construct, so obviously I accept that there is a relationship between the two.

Not only is this an incredibly vague position, but it's not clarifying the relationship between sex and gender much.

And as I think has been demonstrated, this was most likely a misunderstanding. Perhaps due to your inadvertent use of the word "determined".

Yes. The student in question was having trouble expressing himself to begin with, and I can't remember his exact phrasing as this was years ago.

I don't see how? Summers made pseudoscientific claims based on shaky sexist premises and he was rightly punished for it. Come on now. If you're trying to use Summers to demonstrate your case then I think it's obvious that I'm right.

Again, any discussion of science is by definition pseudo-science. There really isn't anything for you to be right about. For the purposes of this argument, it's irrelevant how accurate Summers' claims were. Feminists were offended because of what he was claiming, not because the science behind it was flawed.

You may know a lot of scientists, but I'm guessing based on your misunderstanding of Butler, that you don't know many academic feminists. They do not care about science. I believe it was Irigaray (although I may be confusing her with de Beauvoir) who argued that science itself is patriarchal because it privileges the understanding of solids (which are phallic) over the understanding of fluids (which are flowing and feminine).

[–]mrsamsa0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First, my original point is still correct. She was offended. She didn't respond by making an argument about scientific consensus. And this is post on reddit. I'm not defending a dissertation. My language may end up being slightly imprecise, because of the nature of the medium, and the speed at which I am writing.

I don't see how any of this is relevant.

I gave you the benefit of the doubt before, but since you don't appear to be doing the same, social construct theory =! performativity.

No shit. But questioning gender as performance in the context of whether biology plays a role in terms of the development of gender is a question about gender a social construct.

In Gender Trouble, Butler is arguing against the sex/gender binary itself, by making the case that they are both constructed. She is explicit in her view that no identity (conditioned or otherwise) exists behind the speech acts/behavior that we view as 'gender'. These acts themselves form the illusion of stable gender identity.

Not quite. She is making the case that when we talk of essential cores we are ignoring the fact that they exist in our cultures and language, thus carry with it normative assumptions and heterosexism. As she herself mentions, the problem isn't that there is no way to describe basic biological concepts like sex, the problem is that these categories are not purely descriptive.

And social construct theory is more of a beginning of another investigation than a definitive answer.

It's both. We know that gender is not identical with sex, so in that sense social construct theory is true. The further issue is simply figuring out how and why this is the case.

It's not science until it is a part of a physical experiment with a hypothesis, etc. Until then it is firmly pseudo-science.

Whoa, back the fuck up a second. There are a few major problems with that tiny sentence there.

Firstly, no, something doesn't need to be part of a physical experiment to be scientific. Scientific concepts are our descriptions of the world, based on our reasoning and evidence, which categorise the world we're attempting to study. For example, "species" and "life" are scientific concepts. They are rigorously defined, constantly used by scientists in their work, and a lot of scientific investigation in the area of biology and elsewhere would be impossible without them.

Secondly, the world isn't split into "science or pseudoscience". If we did agree that something wasn't scientific, that wouldn't make it pseudoscientific. Mathematical concepts, logic, ethics, art, etc, are all decidedly non-scientific things but they aren't "pseudoscience".

I'm not asking you to reassess your position. We can obviously make the distinction at a conceptual level. You seemed to be claiming that there is scientific proof, from experimental data that supports a true consensus on the sex/gender relationship. If there isn't, it's pseudo-science.

It's impossible to have scientific "proof" for anything given that science doesn't deal in proofs. The point is that there is a scientific consensus on the validity of a distinction between sex and gender (i.e. social construct theory of gender).

I just did a little research, and there does not seem to be universal agreement on what extent gender is driven by biology, and to what extent it is driven by culture.

There doesn't need to be but for me to be wrong you'd need to find a significant group of scientists arguing that gender is entirely biologically determined or that gender is a meaningless category as it is synonymous with sex.

No it means that's how I remember that student trying to express himself.

And I imagine the word, or at least the meaning of the word, was probably accurately portrayed with that word.

Many feminists do argue this as I point out above. Their argument goes waaay beyond social construction into territory you don't seem familiar with.

You've misrepresented Butler but it's irrelevant since Butler's position (as you describe it) is not the mainstream one.

Well then I'm sure you know enough about science to know that's not representative. But I don't want to come off as saying your anecdotal experience isn't worthwhile, I'm sure it is.

Anecdotes aren't important but the point is more that given the vast range of scientists that I've interacted with or their work that I've read, it would be incredibly surprising if the true consensus opinion was the polar opposite of what I'd gathered.

Not only is this an incredibly vague position, but it's not clarifying the relationship between sex and gender much.

It's vague because it doesn't need detail for this discussion. It doesn't clarify the relationship between the two because the relationship is irrelevant. Unless they are denying the role that biology plays (which I've demonstrated not to be the case), then they would have no grounds for claiming gender differences are sexist.

This is why you'll practically never see a feminist arguing that.

Again, any discussion of science is by definition pseudo-science. There really isn't anything for you to be right about.

....What? No, it just means it's non-scientific. Not pseudoscientific. And you can be right or wrong about non-scientific things, for example, the right answer to 1+1 is 2.

For the purposes of this argument, it's irrelevant how accurate Summers' claims were. Feminists were offended because of what he was claiming, not because the science behind it was flawed.

..No, the problem was that a man who was in a high level scientific position was promoting pseudoscience.

You may know a lot of scientists, but I'm guessing based on your misunderstanding of Butler

What? You don't even know my understanding of Butler as we've never discussed her!

that you don't know many academic feminists. They do not care about science.

I have a feeling that I've met infinitely more than you (I assume that's how maths works when you've probably met zero by the sounds of it).

I believe it was Irigaray (although I may be confusing her with de Beauvoir) who argued that science itself is patriarchal because it privileges the understanding of solids (which are phallic) over the understanding of fluids (which are flowing and feminine).

That's the popular misreading of Irigaray's work yes. In reality, the popular quotemine presented in Sokal's book is just that: a quotemine. Irigaray's point in "To Speak is Never Neutral", as a psycholinguist, was that the language we use can carry sexed implications.

Her point was that even in objective fields like physics, the sex and gender of the researchers can subtly influence the kind of research directions and conclusions that they reach. Arguably she didn't phrase her position in the best way but it's obviously an uncontroversial position in science these days.

[–]hyperrreal3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't see how any of this is relevant.

It might be the only relevant part of this conversation. You started this by saying I made up the experience I referenced, or that I must have misunderstood the situation, or the position of the professor in some way. Neither of those things is true.

That is the end of what I am invested in defending. You came into this discussion, carrying a bunch of assumptions which have proved to be false.

No shit. But questioning gender as performance in the context of whether biology plays a role in terms of the development of gender is a question about gender a social construct.

Now this I don't see as relevant. What your pointing at here is entry level. The distinction between gender as performance and gender as a social construct is huge.

Not quite. She is making the case that when we talk of essential cores we are ignoring the fact that they exist in our cultures and language, thus carry with it normative assumptions and heterosexism. As she herself mentions, the problem isn't that there is no way to describe basic biological concepts like sex, the problem is that these categories are not purely descriptive.

Again this is entry level analysis. Have you even read the book? Obviously she wouldn't dispute that it's possible describe sex in biological terms. That categories cannot be only descriptive is the tip of the iceberg, and not her primary contribution to feminist theory.

But don't take my word for it. Let's go straight to the source. Gender Trouble Page 6-7

"And what is "sex" anyway? Is it natural, anatomical, chromosomal, or hormonal, and how is a feminist critic to assess scientific discourses which purport to establish such "facts" for us?...Are the obtensibly natural facts of sex discursively produced by various scientific discourses in the service of political and social interests?...perhaps this construct called sex is as culturally constructed as gender; indeed, perhaps it was always already gender, with the consequence that the distinction between sex and gender is no distinction at all"

"…gender is not to culture as sex is to nature; gender is also the discursive/cultural means by which ‘sexed nature’ or ‘a natural sex’ is produced and established as ‘prediscursive’, prior to culture, a politically neutral surface on which culture acts.”

It's both. We know that gender is not identical with sex, so in that sense social construct theory is true. The further issue is simply figuring out how and why this is the case.

The incredible irony here, is that Butler is arguing they are the same thing in their essence.

They are rigorously defined, constantly used by scientists in their work, and a lot of scientific investigation in the area of biology and elsewhere would be impossible without them.

Sure but the key phrase here is "in their work." If they did not aid in empirical investigation, they wouldn't be scientific concepts.

Secondly, the world isn't split into "science or pseudoscience". If we did agree that something wasn't scientific, that wouldn't make it pseudoscientific. Mathematical concepts, logic, ethics, art, etc, are all decidedly non-scientific things but they aren't "pseudoscience".

Never claimed it was divided that way.

It's impossible to have scientific "proof" for anything given that science doesn't deal in proofs. The point is that there is a scientific consensus on the validity of a distinction between sex and gender (i.e. social construct theory of gender).

Right 'proof' was badly phrased on my part. And I don't disagree, that from the framework you are using, a valid distinction exists between sex and gender. The issue, is that not all feminist theorists agree.

It's vague because it doesn't need detail for this discussion. It doesn't clarify the relationship between the two because the relationship is irrelevant. Unless they are denying the role that biology plays (which I've demonstrated not to be the case), then they would have no grounds for claiming gender differences are sexist.

You have not demonstrated that. See the quotes from Gender Trouble for Butler's argument straight from the horses mouth.

There doesn't need to be but for me to be wrong you'd need to find a significant group of scientists arguing that gender is entirely biologically determined or that gender is a meaningless category as it is synonymous with sex.

Irrelevant not my argument.

You've misrepresented Butler but it's irrelevant since Butler's position (as you describe it) is not the mainstream one.

See the analysis at the top of this post. Is Butler mainstream? No. She's way too smart for that. She is, however, among the most respected and influential feminist thinkers, and just philosophers in general. And the class I was in, was not about "mainstream feminism" aka feminism watered down for mass consumption.

Although now that I think about it, tumblr feminism is pretty huge now, and most of their conversation is based on misreadings of Butler and other post-structuralists.

What? You don't even know my understanding of Butler as we've never discussed her!

Lol we are discussing her now. And it turns out I was right.

..No, the problem was that a man who was in a high level scientific position was promoting pseudoscience.

I'm not going to argue with you about whether his claims were pseudo-science or not. We are already so far afield. It is my belief that if Summers had made a bunch pseudoscientific statements in support of women and pop-feminist ideals, he would have been lauded by the same people you got him forced out of Harvard. Much like when that Physics professor got a phenomenology/continental studies journal to publish a completely BS essay about how quantum physics supported post-structuralism (or something similar). They didn't even have another scientist review his piece.

I have a feeling that I've met infinitely more than you (I assume that's how maths works when you've probably met zero by the sounds of it).

Sure sure, adorable.

Irigaray's point in "To Speak is Never Neutral", as a psycholinguist, was that the language we use can carry sexed implications. Her point was that even in objective fields like physics, the sex and gender of the researchers can subtly influence the kind of research directions and conclusions that they reach. Arguably she didn't phrase her position in the best way but it's obviously an uncontroversial position in science these days.

Wrong source. I was referring to her in The "Mechanics" of Fluids which is in This Sex Which is Not One.

Let's just go direct to the source on this one too:

"So we shall have to turn back to "science" in order to ask it some questions. Ask, for example, about its historical lag in elaborating a "theory" of fluids, and about the ensuing aporia even in mathematical formalization....

What is left uninterpreted in the economy of fluids-the resistances brought to bear upon solids, for example-is in the end given over to God...

What consequences does this have for "science" and psychoanalytic practice?

And if anyone objects that the question, put this way, relies too heavily on metaphor~, it is easy to reply that the question in fact impugns the privilege granted to metaphor (a quasi solid) over metonymy (which is much more closely allied to fluids). Or-suspending the status of truth accorded to these essentially metalinguistic "categories" and "dichotomous oppositions" to reply that in any event all language is (also) metaphorical and that, by denying this, language fails to recognize the -"sub-ject" of the unconscious and precludes inquiry into the subjection, still in force, of that subject to a symbolization that grants precedence to solid"

The essay as a whole is so dense and confusing that the exact interpretation is anyone's guess. Not her best moment. Regardless, she is speaking about how an unconscious preference for the phallus over the feminine form, has lead to a privileging of 'solids' by science.

But whatever the interpretation, it doesn't the change the real academic conflict between marxism/feminism and really just 'radical' thought in general, and the scientific community. This idea that the professor in my class, and the women who heard Lawrence Summers speak, had this intense emotional reaction to bad science is preposterous. They were offended by the kind of claims those men made, and by the fact that it was men making them. It has nothing to do with their scientific validity.

[–]nicethingyoucanthaveRed Pill Male0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrsamsa-1 points0 points1 point 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link