Hjernevask

Hjernevask (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Awareness -> Hjernevask (10/17/2016 11:13:00 PM)
In 2010, Norwegian comedian Harald Eia created and presented Hjernevask (Brainwash) - a seven part science documentary series. It commences its inquiry through the simple observation that despite Norway being considered the most egalitarian society in the world with the highest level of gender equality, the labour market is distributed along classic gender lines - a phenomenon known as the Nordic Gender Equality Paradox. From there, the program compares and contrasts the biological nature-nurture view of gender choices with that of the cultural determinism so beloved of our friendly neighbourhood man-hating feminists. In the wake of the series, the Nordic Council of Ministers restructured The Nordic Gender Institute (NIKK) - an event that is no doubt purely coincidental. What is interesting to me is that when confronted with the science-based findings of the nature-nurture researchers, the big believers in cultural determinism come up looking like religious zealots. Their rebuttal to experiments which conflict with their beliefs is to reassert those beliefs. They don't actually have any science to justify their theories. This is episode 1: https://vimeo.com/19707588 The difference between the scientists and the gender theorists is striking, to say the least.

thompsonx -> RE: Hjernevask (10/18/2016 3:55:27 AM)
ORIGINAL: Awareness It commences its inquiry through the simple observation that despite Norway being considered the most egalitarian society in the world with the highest level of gender equality, What is your bassis for this opinion?

Awareness -> RE: Hjernevask (10/18/2016 8:39:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Awareness It commences its inquiry through the simple observation that despite Norway being considered the most egalitarian society in the world with the highest level of gender equality, What is your bassis for this opinion? Google it, fuckwad.

mnottertail -> RE: Hjernevask (10/18/2016 8:42:50 AM)
I am unclear how it is less egalitarian because of the 'traditional gender roles', I don't think that is a necessary and sufficient condition of egalitarian. Mayhaps some other word.

Awareness -> RE: Hjernevask (10/18/2016 8:53:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I am unclear how it is less egalitarian because of the 'traditional gender roles', I don't think that is a necessary and sufficient condition of egalitarian. Mayhaps some other word. Well I don't think that's true, but feminists do. And we're not talking about gender roles but gender distributions in the labour market. For example, despite Norway's position at the top of the gender equality index, nurses are predominantly women (90%+) whereas engineers are predominantly men (90%+). This gender-based split is regarded as problematic because engineering pays better and thus contributes to the .... chuckle "gender wage gap". The contention of gender theorists is that culture socialises men and women when it comes to their job choices, whereas actual science demonstrates otherwise. What is startling in the context of the program is that gender theorists are just that. They have no science to back up their beliefs.

mnottertail -> RE: Hjernevask (10/18/2016 9:02:51 AM)
Oh, I watched it, and I understand Norwegian (at least litte gran) and saw the boy saying girl thing, girl thing, and the interpretation sort of cleaning it up some. Of course there is some difference in the genders (the academics disallowing it notwithstanding, but they certainly were not Naziesque about it, Norwegians just aint that way), women pee with the seat down, men with the seat up, but if necessary down because they dont give a fuck. The both have the opportunity to do exactly the same thing, and that is egalitarian. The fact that the majority do not choose to do so without let or hindrance is not telling, or an issue, just a fact. Here nobody is forcing. Although women in my view would vastly prefer men to pee with the seat up and then put it down.

MrRodgers -> RE: Hjernevask (10/18/2016 12:54:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail I am unclear how it is less egalitarian because of the 'traditional gender roles', I don't think that is a necessary and sufficient condition of egalitarian. Mayhaps some other word. Well I don't think that's true, but feminists do. And we're not talking about gender roles but gender distributions in the labour market. For example, despite Norway's position at the top of the gender equality index, nurses are predominantly women (90%+) whereas engineers are predominantly men (90%+). This gender-based split is regarded as problematic because engineering pays better and thus contributes to the .... chuckle "gender wage gap". The contention of gender theorists is that culture socialises men and women when it comes to their job choices, whereas actual science demonstrates otherwise. What is startling in the context of the program is that gender theorists are just that. They have no science to back up their beliefs. Using your examples, I would need a corresponding study on the men who enter nursing school and the women who enter engineering school, why...and why not. Plus I need the theorists to define 'socialises.' If that means that the families et al that make up societies, condition their people (off spring) to make those choices, then that's their problem and certainly govt. has no role in changing it. Society itself must.

mnottertail -> RE: Hjernevask (10/18/2016 12:56:34 PM)
well, to be fair they did speak on it sommat in the vid.

Awareness -> RE: Hjernevask (10/18/2016 1:03:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Using your examples, I would need a corresponding study on the men who enter nursing school and the women who enter engineering school, why...and why not. Plus I need the theorists to define 'socialises.' If that means that the families et al that make up societies, condition their people (off spring) to make those choices, then that's their problem and certainly govt. has no role in changing it. Society itself must. I'd suggest watching the episode. Scientists have done experiments with babies a single day old - way before socialisation and cultural programming could be effective - and still find gender-based tendencies. The gender theorists are strangely absent any scientific foundation for their contention.

tweakabelle -> RE: Hjernevask (10/18/2016 1:19:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness The gender theorists are strangely absent any scientific foundation for their contention. It takes a special kind of stupid to parade their ignorance so loudly and publicly. FYI no one has ever demonstrated a causal relationship between any genetic heritage and human behaviour. So there is no scientific basis for your false and discredited claim that gender is biologically determined. Nor can there be any scientific basis for that claim until such a relationship is proved to exist. Your claims are as stupid and ill-informed as you are. Please take your ignorance somewhere where it is appreciated ...

Awareness -> RE: Hjernevask (10/18/2016 2:41:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness The gender theorists are strangely absent any scientific foundation for their contention. It takes a special kind of stupid to parade their ignorance so loudly and publicly. FYI no one has ever demonstrated a causal relationship between any genetic heritage and human behaviour. So there is no scientific basis for your false and discredited claim that gender is biologically determined. Nor can there be any scientific basis for that claim until such a relationship is proved to exist. Your claims are as stupid and ill-informed as you are. Please take your ignorance somewhere where it is appreciated ... You do not know what you're talking about. There's a causal relationship between pre-natal testosterone levels, the speed of speech development and choices involving male and female toys. Gender theorists have zero evidence supporting their case. Probably because they're ideological zealots, not scientists.

tweakabelle -> RE: Hjernevask (10/18/2016 9:34:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness The gender theorists are strangely absent any scientific foundation for their contention. It takes a special kind of stupid to parade their ignorance so loudly and publicly. FYI no one has ever demonstrated a causal relationship between any genetic heritage and human behaviour. So there is no scientific basis for your false and discredited claim that gender is biologically determined. Nor can there be any scientific basis for that claim until such a relationship is proved to exist. Your claims are as stupid and ill-informed as you are. Please take your ignorance somewhere where it is appreciated ... You do not know what you're talking about. My PhD thesis was on gender and how it's constructed in the West. I teach gender at a tertiary level. Sorry but I do know what I am talking about. Unlike you ...who clearly doesn't know much about gender quote: There's a causal relationship between pre-natal testosterone levels, the speed of speech development and choices involving male and female toys. Gender theorists have zero evidence supporting their case. Probably because they're ideological zealots, not scientists. A child's choices of gendered toys are biologically determined???? Do you have any idea how stupid you sound? Or how impossible to either establish or prove this inane claim is? It is utterly moronic. You are not worth wasting any further time on.

Kirata -> RE: Hjernevask (10/19/2016 4:10:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle A child's choices of gendered toys are biologically determined???? Do you have any idea how stupid you sound? Or how impossible to either establish or prove this inane claim is? It is utterly moronic. Infants prefer toys typed to their gender Hormones explain why girls like dolls & boys like trucks Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children K.

thompsonx -> RE: Hjernevask (10/19/2016 4:38:16 AM)
ORIGINAL: Awareness ORIGINAL: thompsonx It commences its inquiry through the simple observation that despite Norway being considered the most egalitarian society in the world with the highest level of gender equality, What is your bassis for this opinion? Google it, fuckwad. I am unsure how One is to google your opinion fruckwad. I did however google gender equality and it indicates that you are being more than a little disingenuous...that is a grown up word for you being a liar. How about it you lying fuckwad, are you going to show us your validation for your opinions or will you continue to stamp your feet like a petulant child who can't get his way?

tweakabelle -> RE: Hjernevask (10/19/2016 4:55:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle A child's choices of gendered toys are biologically determined???? Do you have any idea how stupid you sound? Or how impossible to either establish or prove this inane claim is? It is utterly moronic. Infants prefer toys typed to their gender Hormones explain why girls like dolls & boys like trucks Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children K. Mr K, as a courtesy, I looked at the first link. Here is the first sentence of the summary; "Children as young as 9 months-old prefer to play with toys specific to their own gender, according to a new study. " https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160715114739.htm The study reports that children after at least 9 months of socialisation as one gender or another might exhibit a bias towards toys "specific" to their own gender (whatever that might mean). Socialisation into a gender begins at birth - the most common first statement about an infant after birth is "It's a girl/boy". And once that is established, everyone treats the infant according to the rules of gender so assigned 24/7/365. So these children making allegedly biologically mandated choices have in fact been socialised into one or other gender for at least 9 months, which thoroughly and absolutely corrupts any evidence of (and therefore claims of) biological gender determination. The claim is so far fetched and absurd it fails to withstand even a minute's scrutiny by someone with a sound grasp of the issues. So I am afraid that the first of your links is not evidence to support theories of biological gender determination. I didn't bother looking at the other two links as experience tells me that they will almost certainly contain similar faults. Every time I have examined a study making claims of this nature (and I have examined hundreds) I have found faults similar to those outlined above. So for me it's a waste of time unless there's something really exceptional and I don't have the impression that any of your links contain anything exceptional. However I hope that this little critique might offer you a little insight into the difficulties of establishing and proving claims of biological gender determination. They are immense and have so far proved beyond human capacity. There are very good reasons for believing that establishing and/or proving biological gender determination theories will remain beyond the bounds of human capacity and proof for an eternity.

thompsonx -> RE: Hjernevask (10/19/2016 4:57:55 AM)
ORIGINAL: Awareness Well I don't think that's true, What you think(that you actually think has yet to be validated) is hardly relevant in a discussion in which you claim scientific proof shows thus and such. but feminists do. Yet you show no proof that this is the position of "feminist" And we're not talking about gender roles but gender distributions in the labour market. Not so. Your initial premis was gender equality not gender distribution in the labor market. For example, despite Norway's position at the top of the gender equality index, Depending on just which site one views norway is not at the top. It is close to the top but not the top as you would like to have us believe. Is that because other countries have results that contradict your opinions? Here you speak of gender equality where above you say you are not. Doesn't it hurt your mouth when you talk out of both sides at the same time? nurses are predominantly women (90%+) whereas engineers are predominantly men (90%+). This gender-based split is regarded as problematic because engineering pays better and thus contributes to the .... chuckle "gender wage gap". Only in your ignorant, unsubstantiated opinion. Isn't "gender wage gap" the difference in wages within the same occupational speciality? The contention of gender theorists is that culture socialises men and women when it comes to their job choices, whereas actual science demonstrates otherwise. Thus far you have failed to cite this "science.

PeonForHer -> RE: Hjernevask (10/19/2016 5:10:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Awareness quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx ORIGINAL: Awareness It commences its inquiry through the simple observation that despite Norway being considered the most egalitarian society in the world with the highest level of gender equality, What is your bassis for this opinion? Google it, fuckwad. Yes, that's how a typical discussion amongst scientists would go. Bravo, Awareness! Who could now doubt your adherence to the value of dispassionate scientific enquiry? [:)]

thompsonx -> RE: Hjernevask (10/19/2016 5:21:21 AM)
ORIGINAL: Kirata Infants prefer toys typed to their gender Hormones explain why girls like dolls & boys like trucks Sex differences in rhesus monkey toy preferences parallel those of children K. I spent/wasted the time to read both. I found the same issues as did tweek with the first. I found the second was conducted on a sample of 34. That the findings used the words may,could and possibly through out and offered no evidence of is,does or proves. This is not science. It is what scientist call opinion.

thompsonx -> RE: Hjernevask (10/19/2016 6:16:45 AM)
ORIGINAL: Awareness I'd suggest watching the episode. Scientists have done experiments with babies a single day old - way before socialisation and cultural programming could be effective - and still find gender-based tendencies. The gender theorists are strangely absent any scientific foundation for their contention. Roflmfao

crazyml -> RE: Hjernevask (10/19/2016 7:22:38 AM)
It's true that Norway is one of the most gender equal societies in the world. They're to be congratulated on it. It's not true that "feminists" deny the role of nature in people's behaviour - there is ample evidence to support the fact that our genes have a significant impact on things like intelligence, and that our gender (and the hormonal balance that a given gender creates) has a significant impact on our behaviours, and just as you'd have to be a stupid and ill-informed little stain of a person to argue that genes and gender are only determinants it would also be absurd to deny the role that genes and gender play, alongside the powerful influences of parenting, peer groups and social norms. But, it's important to look at the wider picture; for example some rather ill-informed halfwits will assert that men are better drivers than women. They're ignorant and full of shit of course. But, there's always an ignorant little stain out there who will pick up on a couple of facts and make up all sorts of shit about them. But while it does seem that men have a tendency to exhibit greater spatial awareness, they let themselves down by having way more accidents. That said, it's interesting to understand what traits make women better and safer drivers, and whether - on balance - these are traits that us blokes should at least consider. There are always different ways to spin a debate, and no doubt, had your "comedian cum scientist" wanted to, he could have found a bevvy of drooling mad-eyed evolutionary psychology loons to mock.

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875