Feminist Philosophy

[Kuya]

As I've been trying to get across to people in this thread, unsuccessfully, it's really not a question of the morality of segregation or interpersonal bullshit. It's a pragmatic goal to produce better results, more efficiently, because scientific progress is the key to humanity's future. With that in mind, we try to minimize disruptions in the workplace. Disruptions aren't generally acceptable, ever, but they do happen, so we deal with them because we have to. But if we didn't have to deal with them, because they didn't happen in the first place, that's obviously better. Is that explained well enough?

You said that homosexual or bisexual interpersonal relationships in the lab and the problems they might cause aren't as big an issue because they aren't as prevalent (because homosexuals and bisexuals are less common).

Do you have a number for this or is your argument purely hypothetical?

[zoobernut]

As I've been trying to get across to people in this thread, unsuccessfully, it's really not a question of the morality of segregation or interpersonal bullshit. It's a pragmatic goal to produce better results, more efficiently, because scientific progress is the key to humanity's future. With that in mind, we try to minimize disruptions in the workplace. Disruptions aren't generally acceptable, ever, but they do happen, so we deal with them because we have to. But if we didn't have to deal with them, because they didn't happen in the first place, that's obviously better. Is that explained well enough?

No we get that you think that it is a pragmatic efficient approach. I disagree with you. I think it is a distinctly non-pragmatic approach. It relies on stereotypes and theories and generalizations of the work environment which are the opposite of pragmatic. It also isn't an efficient approach. It overlooks a lot of other issues and wouldn't really fix interpersonal issues that pop up.

[Kuya]

Also, please compare the rate of disruptions in the scientific workplace due to opposite sex relationships in the lab, and compare it to same sex relationships and the disruptions they might cause, blurb.

Obviously, you must have some data to back up your positive assertion, no?

The questions you must asnswer, assuming you even have the data are:

1. Do opposite sex disruptiosn occur more frequently in the lab than same sex disruptions?

2. What is the acceptable rate of disruptions in the lab due to interpersonal relationships that we may set as a cut off point?

3. Do opposite sex or same sex relationships in the lab exceed or remain below this cut off point?

4. Would segregating labs increase the rate of same sex disruptions in the lab?

Come back when you answer these questions, blurb.

[Kuya]

it's about ethics in game journalism kuya

Perhaps we should rename this subforum, the ethics in games journalism subforum.

[Blubbartron]

You said that homosexual or bisexual interpersonal relationships in the lab and the problems they might cause aren't as big an issue because they aren't as prevalent (because homosexuals and bisexuals are less common).

Do you have a number for this or is your argument purely hypothetical?

Do I have an exact number of how many fewer relationships would happen in labs if labs were either all male or all female? No, of course not. The data simply isn't available. But that doesn't mean we can't logically reach the conclusion that, because homosexuals and bisexuals make up much less of the population than heterosexuals, that there would certainly be fewer relationships in such labs. You would have to really struggle to argue against something as basic as that.

Regardless, you really need to read what I was saying 3-4 pages ago. It's an issue of pragmatism. I'm not foolish enough to think that it's possible to eliminate all distractions in the lab environment, but I'm also not foolish enough to write off a simple solution that would most certainly lessen distractions purely because "sexism".

[Tyrath]

Related article

http://www.iflscience.com/editors-bl...lysexy-twitter

[Kuya]

Do I have an exact number of how many fewer relationships would happen in labs if labs were either all male or all female? No, of course not. The data simply isn't available. But that doesn't mean we can't logically reach the conclusion that, because homosexuals and bisexuals make up much less of the population than heterosexuals, that there would certainly be fewer relationships in such labs. You would have to really struggle to argue against something as basic as that.

Regardless, you really need to read what I was saying 3-4 pages ago. It's an issue of pragmatism. I'm not foolish enough to think that it's possible to eliminate all distractions in the lab environment, but I'm also not foolish enough to write off a simple solution that would most certainly lessen distractions purely because "sexism".

In science, you don't simply rely on the assumption that if something sounds logical, then it might perhaps be true. Oftentimes, our perception of how the world works is completely wrong until we put it to the test.

Fortunately, science is full of hard working men and women working together to find the truth.

[zoobernut]

Do I have an exact number of how many fewer relationships would happen in labs if labs were either all male or all female? No, of course not. The data simply isn't available. But that doesn't mean we can't logically reach the conclusion that, because homosexuals and bisexuals make up much less of the population than heterosexuals, that there would certainly be fewer relationships in such labs. You would have to really struggle to argue against something as basic as that.

Regardless, you really need to read what I was saying 3-4 pages ago. It's an issue of pragmatism. I'm not foolish enough to think that it's possible to eliminate all distractions in the lab environment, but I'm also not foolish enough to write off a simple solution that would most certainly lessen distractions purely because "sexism".

You are making a lot of assumptions and basing your idea on theoretical numbers both of which make your argument distinctly not pragmatic.

You won't see interoffice relationships between heterosexual males and females 100% of the time and it won't result in sexual tension 100% of the time. You are talking a small percentage here of the total number of working scientists out there. This is not an efficient way to conduct business.

[Blubbartron]

Yeah, I'm just gonna give up. I've had enough of trying to have conversations with people that have zero desire to do anything other than join in the circlejerk of "haha dude's so sexist." I'll never understand how peoples' brains go out the window just because something is accused of being racist/sexist/whatever. Have fun.

[zoobernut]

Yeah, I'm just gonna give up. I've had enough of trying to have conversations with people that have zero desire to do anything other than join in the circlejerk of "haha dude's so sexist." I'll never understand how peoples' brains go out the window just because something is accused of being racist/sexist/whatever. Have fun.

Because you can't cite any evidence or formulate a compelling argument our brains go out the window? All you did was say that segregating labs would be pragmatic and efficient which would lead to better science over and over again for several pages. Anecdotal evidence from people who work in labs is better than you blindly defending the dude without any real reason.

[kuronosan]

As I've been trying to get across to people in this thread, unsuccessfully, it's really not a question of the morality of segregation or interpersonal bullshit. It's a pragmatic goal to produce better results, more efficiently, because scientific progress is the key to humanity's future. With that in mind, we try to minimize disruptions in the workplace. Disruptions aren't generally acceptable, ever, but they do happen, so we deal with them because we have to. But if we didn't have to deal with them, because they didn't happen in the first place, that's obviously better. Is that explained well enough?

Except disruption in a scientific laboratory is an inevitability and keeping things segregated for ANY reason rather than teaching people to work around those differences to increase efficiency is a bad, bad idea.

You'd know that if you worked in a lab.

[Thunder]

This has generally been a non-controversial issue anywhere else i've been. The guy is a sexist.

I'm not surprised that there are people here actually defending the stereotyping of women and then suggestion that segregated labs are the answer. And i'm sad that i'm not surprised that this kind of position is normal here.

How is it possible that the politics subforum actually got even worse?

lol don't be such a drama queen, I think 2 people have been supporting him? maybe 1.5 depending on how you call it

subforum's fine bro, welax

[Kuya]

You're right. This time, it's been pretty tame.

[Byrthnoth]

I can't believe anyone here is discussing sexual segregation as if it were a viable idea.

I don't want to come here and tell you that 22 year old people entering academia are super mature and regularly make smart decisions (after all, they're entering academia), but they aren't children either. What I can tell you is that:
1) My floor would be empty without the women.
2) There was only one couple formed from my entering year class, and the male broke it off and left the university to go work on some happy fun farm or something. (Seriously, in Iowa)
3) I don't know anyone who has dated within their own lab. There have been a few cases of drunken lab incest that everyone woke up from, acknowledged, and walked off because they were adults.
4) Two people in my entering class were married when they joined the program, and 8/10 of our PhDs have graduated married (none to someone from neuroscience). Two of them had kids in grad school.
5) I've had no experiences that support the idea that the women of academia are somehow less able to withstand criticism.
6) Why the fuck do I even have to defend this? The premise is just so stupid.

I don't understand how anyone can support this as an idea that even has the potential to be beneficial.

[Thunder]

I can't believe anyone here is discussing sexual segregation as if it were a viable idea.

I don't want to come here and tell you that 22 year old people entering academia are super mature and regularly make smart decisions (after all, they're entering academia), but they aren't children either. What I can tell you is that:
1) My floor would be empty without the women.
2) There was only one couple formed from my entering year class, and the male broke it off and left the university to go work on some happy fun farm or something. (Seriously, in Iowa)
3) I don't know anyone who has dated within their own lab. There have been a few cases of drunken lab incest that everyone woke up from, acknowledged, and walked off because they were adults.
4) Two people in my entering class were married when they joined the program, and 8/10 of our PhDs have graduated married (none to someone from neuroscience). Two of them had kids in grad school.
5) I've had no experiences that support the idea that the women of academia are somehow less able to withstand criticism.
6) Why the fuck do I even have to defend this? The premise is just so stupid.

I don't understand how anyone can support this as an idea that even has the potential to be beneficial.

your first post on the matter had a point more important than all 6 of those

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.

that improves their ability to work on future science adventures. Bending to the needs of the guys out there that can't work with women will just hurt them in the long run to improve their science in the short run. Eventually they'll have to work with others, especially if you want to do big things in science (you'll probably have to collaborate with other cultures/morals/genders/etc)

[Ksandra]

Let me get this straight:

In the transgender thread blubber saw no reason why we have separate bathrooms, but wants separate labs.

So,

Fully clothed people working at a job in the same space = ICKY
Sharing our bloody mess with the world = OK

Makes sense.

[kuronosan]

That's a little different.

[mallister]

Perhaps we should rename this subforum, the ethics in games journalism subforum.

This is the best post from here in forever.

[Thunder]

Let me get this straight:

In the transgender thread blubber saw no reason why we have separate bathrooms, but wants separate labs.

So,

Fully clothed people working at a job in the same space = ICKY
Sharing our bloody mess with the world = OK

Makes sense.

I think you misunderstood blubb's point(s)

Maybe he can clarify, but afaik he's concerned about the scientific progress some % of men/women out there who can't deal with the opposite sex well

In his world it's better for those individual's contributions to science if they were in single sex labs.. which, if it's something they prefer he's got a lot of leg to stand on

Even if we disregard every social aspect of this and focus on the contributions to science solely (so ignoring sexism and what it does to impede women's progress around the world) he's wrong (imo) because those students never learn how to deal with the opposite sex properly which will EVENTUALLY hurt them... which hurts their science

His comments aren't a commentary on male-female relationships as a whole OR that ALL labs that have both women and men are less effective than unisex labs. Just that some would work better unisex

[Jefe]

BG tries it: science.

Anyway, for some reason I thought feminism and philosophy contradicted each other.