Feminist Philosophy

[Thunder]

As the guy in the original article was saying, when a woman cries as a result of critiquing by her male boss/colleague, the man that just made her cry will attempt to change his behavior to make her not cry. It's deeply instinctual behavior, because yay evolution. Fucking empathy is a bitch sometimes. That's why the logical conclusion is to simply let women do science with women, and men do science with men. Each are more likely to understand and communicate with their own kind better. It's a game of likelihoods, not about being absolutely correct and fair to each individual.

I don't doubt most men would pander to women like that but.. the evolution thing, do you have a source or something? Even if you can't remember it, was it actually something you've read or just inferred? Genuinely interested

[Blubbartron]

This is totally false and has no basis in reality. There is far more to whom gets along with whom than their gender. If this is your goal then this is a stupid way to go about it. Why not just do extremely intense long psychological evaluations to fit people together who will work well together? I also still have not seen a compelling reason from you on why this is an issue that needs to be singled out just in the field of science. This is an issue no matter where you go or what your job is. You always have to deal with interpersonal issues when working with other people. Don't want to deal with interpersonal issues? Then work alone. You are trying to mitigate the condition of being human.

I believe I mentioned before that we make these generalizations because it's pragmatic to do so. It saves time/energy that can't be justified spending in an effort to be absolutely fair to everyone without noticeable benefit. Also, this isn't merely a matter of "interpersonal problems". I would wager that two scientists that hate each other will produce better quality results than two people that really like each other. It was certainly true in my experience as a developer. The people that I really disliked, I went over their shit with a fine-toothed comb to find absolutely everything they did wrong (because I suspected there would be a lot). Whether it be because of relationships or because of instinctual empathy, treating people with kid gloves diminishes the thoroughness of critiques. Less thorough critiques = shittier results.

[zoobernut]

I believe I mentioned before that we make these generalizations because it's pragmatic to do so. It saves time/energy that can't be justified spending in an effort to be absolutely fair to everyone without noticeable benefit. Also, this isn't merely a matter of "interpersonal problems". I would wager that two scientists that hate each other will produce better quality results than two people that really like each other. It was certainly true in my experience as a developer. The people that I really disliked, I went over their shit with a fine-toothed comb to find absolutely everything they did wrong (because I suspected there would be a lot). Whether it be because of relationships or because of instinctual empathy, treating people with kid gloves diminishes the thoroughness of critiques. Less thorough critiques = shittier results.

Jobs are generally self correcting though. Less thorough critiques = shittier results = people getting let go or labs losing funding. You don't need to start separating people based on gender because again it has nothing to do with gender.

[Blubbartron]

I don't doubt most men would pander to women like that but.. the evolution thing, do you have a source or something? Even if you can't remember it, was it actually something you've read or just inferred? Genuinely interested

I had heard it before, though I couldn't remember where. Did a little searching and NPR has something saying effectively the same thing.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...ryId=129329054

"Crying seems to elicit compassion and guilt," Bering says, "and that itself may be an evolved mechanism to save relationships in distress."

[archibaldcrane]

Can we talk about how ridiculous and unrealistic it would be to double expenditures in equipment and space to accommodate the guys who can't keep their shit together around women?

[Blubbartron]

Jobs are generally self correcting though. Less thorough critiques = shittier results = people getting let go or labs losing funding. You don't need to start separating people based on gender because again it has nothing to do with gender.

From a capitalistic perspective, yes, you're right. I don't think that's beneficial to science/humanity, however. Especially since people who are effectively "failing out" due to being part of that particular group wouldn't be likely to continue their career in science, even if as an individual they're quite capable. I don't think the separating the sexes idea would be a perfect solution by any means, but some pragmatic solutions are better than others.

[Byrthnoth]

His statement was outrageous and it was right for him to resign. If anything, labs should be coed purely to force grad students to interact with the opposite sex.

[Enkidu]

It's hard to force a tenured PI with funding to take students they don't want to take. And I'm not sure it's in the best interest of the student to be forced into an unwelcome environment.

This isn't even a gender thing either, just in general. Some PI's only accept Chinese students, for example (Chinese PI's are the worst). It's not written anywhere and, much like this guy, they'd be crucified if they said it in public, but it's the way things are.

[zoobernut]

From a capitalistic perspective, yes, you're right. I don't think that's beneficial to science/humanity, however. Especially since people who are effectively "failing out" due to being part of that particular group wouldn't be likely to continue their career in science, even if as an individual they're quite capable. I don't think the separating the sexes idea would be a perfect solution by any means, but some pragmatic solutions are better than others.

You have a very unrealistic view of how the world really works and no this isn't a huge issue nor is it something that needs fixing. Why do you keep insisting that this has anything to do with gender. It has everything to do with personality which has some connection to gender but not all. You and the dude who started this conversation are completely ignoring all of the other factors that go into interpersonal relationships and work dynamics that are far more compelling than gender. You are taking the intellectually devoid easy way out on a very complex issue. It doesn't work to just separate people by gender because what do you do when you have guys that can't work effectively together or woman who can't work together?

Then you are stuck in the same situation you are now. Better to take gender out of the equation and evaluate each individual person as everyone is so unique and different in how they work with others and handle situations.

[NynJa]

His statement was outrageous and it was right for him to resign. If anything, labs should be coed purely to force grad students to interact with the opposite sex.

Which will lead to more problems like this: nerdy guys who never interacted with girls being forced to and wind up saying stupid shit like what this guy said. SJWs do what they do best: force others to pander to their requests to "make the world a better place".

[Blubbartron]

You have a very unrealistic view of how the world really works and no this isn't a huge issue nor is it something that needs fixing. Why do you keep insisting that this has anything to do with gender. It has everything to do with personality which has some connection to gender but not all. You and the dude who started this conversation are completely ignoring all of the other factors that go into interpersonal relationships and work dynamics that are far more compelling than gender. You are taking the intellectually devoid easy way out on a very complex issue. It doesn't work to just separate people by gender because what do you do when you have guys that can't work effectively together or woman who can't work together?

Then you are stuck in the same situation you are now. Better to take gender out of the equation and evaluate each individual person as everyone is so unique and different in how they work with others and handle situations.

I acknowledge that it's very complex, and that using generalizations to make policy decisions is an "easy way out" of sorts. That's kind of the definition of pragmatism. The idea is to make things as good as possible as easily as possible, prioritizing ease over amount of good achieved. I agree that in a perfect utopia everyone would work together well and you'd never have interpersonal problems that interfere with work, but that goal is not at all achievable in the near future. It may not be possible ever, unless we evolve so much as to no longer be classified as homo sapiens. But that doesn't mean we should ignore ideas that could conceivably make things better now. How much better would this idea make things? I don't know. It may or may not even be a noticeable amount. But I'm not going to write off an idea as "omgawd sexism" if it has a logical backing to it.

[Tyrath]

Which will lead to more problems like this: nerdy guys who never interacted with girls being forced to and wind up saying stupid shit like what this guy said. SJWs do what they do best: force others to pander to their requests to "make the world a better place".

Its hardly being a SJW to be able to expect people to work around the opposite sex. Come on now.

[zoobernut]

I acknowledge that it's very complex, and that using generalizations to make policy decisions is an "easy way out" of sorts. That's kind of the definition of pragmatism. The idea is to make things as good as possible as easily as possible, prioritizing ease over amount of good achieved. I agree that in a perfect utopia everyone would work together well and you'd never have interpersonal problems that interfere with work, but that goal is not at all achievable in the near future. It may not be possible ever, unless we evolve so much as to no longer be classified as homo sapiens. But that doesn't mean we should ignore ideas that could conceivably make things better now. How much better would this idea make things? I don't know. It may or may not even be a noticeable amount. But I'm not going to write off an idea as "omgawd sexism" if it has a logical backing to it.

There is no logical backing to it though that is what I am getting at. This is like worrying about a tiny leak in the Titanic while a giant hole is gushing water on the other side. If segregating people based on their gender was pragmatic it would have happened already. Businesses are smart and while people don't like to admit it but a lot of social justice doesn't get anywhere unless there are economic benefits and businesses would be doing this if it was the easiest way. That is a pretty cynical outlook but I think in our overly capitalistic world money talks.

These kinds of things are not new ideas this dude didn't just come up with the idea. Things like this have been tried before and we learned that it is not very efficient to judge someones work ethic by their skin color or gender.

I think it is pretty safe to say that this would not be a pragmatic approach. It is a messy approach rife with issues and it wouldn't get around the even stronger personality traits that are not attached to gender.

I am not expecting there to be a utopia where everyone works together I am saying there is no utopia it is not possible therefore people should do their best to work around the interpersonal shit and get over it. If you can't then you can find a different job.

[BerenTebogo]

I am simultaneously amazed and disappointed at how, once again, a very clearly black and white issue to anyone who actually has experience in the field and isn't talking out of their ass has become 100% not discussing further. The input from the numerous people who actually can testify to the subject at hand are being drowned out by hyperbolic supposition that would make even the most Plow-like of posters blush, so what's the point?

Edit: Before anyone brings up their supposed background in science, this level and frequency of baseless supposition makes you suck at science. Regardless of what credentials you may or may not have.

[zoobernut]

I am simultaneously amazed and disappointed at how, once again, a very clearly black and white issue to anyone who actually has experience in the field and isn't talking out of their ass has become 100% not discussing further. The input from the numerous people who actually can testify to the subject at hand are being drowned out by hyperbolic supposition that would make even the most Plow-like of posters blush, so what's the point?

I appreciated your posts and agree with them. I don't think your posts and others who have experience in research science were being drowned out. They definitely add to the discussion.

I hope I wasn't posting hyperbolic supposition, it wasn't my intention.

[BerenTebogo]

I appreciated your posts and agree with them. I don't think your posts and others who have experience in research science were being drowned out. They definitely add to the discussion.

I hope I wasn't posting hyperbolic supposition, it wasn't my intention.

Nah you're good. It's the usual crowd.

[archibaldcrane]

Which will lead to more problems like this: nerdy guys who never interacted with girls being forced to and wind up saying stupid shit like what this guy said. SJWs do what they do best: force others to pander to their requests to "make the world a better place".

Allowing women to have jobs is now "pandering".

Man its really a sad place you people have gone to. I don't know why you want to live your lives like that.

[GoggleHead]

Tonight I had someone tell me that asexuality was a choice. What the fuck?

[Koul]

Tonight I had someone tell me that asexuality was a choice. What the fuck?

The correct answer is asexuality doesn't exist and whoever says they are just hasn't found the correct person with "the touch" for them. I'm half-baiting

[Blubbartron]

I am simultaneously amazed and disappointed at how, once again, a very clearly black and white issue to anyone who actually has experience in the field and isn't talking out of their ass has become 100% not discussing further. The input from the numerous people who actually can testify to the subject at hand are being drowned out by hyperbolic supposition that would make even the most Plow-like of posters blush, so what's the point?

Edit: Before anyone brings up their supposed background in science, this level and frequency of baseless supposition makes you suck at science. Regardless of what credentials you may or may not have.

Honestly Sath, you're not contributing much at all other than "anyone who doesn't share my opinion is stupid." You aren't making any kind of argument. Furthermore, as far as I'm aware, you're the only person in here making a ruckus about what an evil bastard the Nobel prize winning researcher is, and how clearly anyone who doesn't share your opinion is bad at science, while maintaining a claim to authority based on experience in the field. If experience in the field matters (which I agree it does), I'm siding with the dude that's been researching for 40 years or so, and has a fucking Nobel prize under his belt. Call me when you do.

edit: I reread some of the last few pages, and it seems there were a couple people I overlooked. Easy to do with one-off comments that chime in "I've never seen anyone cry." Another was kind of bizarre with the claim in the opposite direction that relationships between coworkers is actually a positive thing. I don't think any business, let alone a scientific research lab, would agree with this. No relationships between closely working colleagues is like HR rule #1, and for good reason. You're still the only person that's super uppity about the whole thing though.