Moving away from stereotypes

Hope said:

Since you refuse to answer my question I think we will just have to close the discussion.

I am not refusing to answer.

I just have no answer to give because I have no opinion on the matter.

I can present the facts as I understand them to be, but you refuse to accept them because you simply can't see past your sterotypical view that all thought is opinion.

If, in the future, some facts appear that show a previous hypothosis to be false, then I will happily ammend my understanding of the issue.

However, in this case, and this is a subjective opinion, I don't think that very likely (though my mind is open to the possibility).

Fair enough. Since you refuse to answer my question I think we will just have to close the discussion. You insist on seeing your view as right and objective instead of subjective and a personal opinion, as all views essentially are, mine included. This is not to say Truth does not exist objectively - it does. Truth is lived objectively every day when men and women create their own lives within the confines of the environment, and also change the environment to enable them to seek new horizons. We must agree to disagree. But History will ultimately be on the side of gender equality, undoing the supposedly objective view that men and women are prone to different behaviours based on brain structure. The Science you report has no relevance to most peoples' lives, unless policy makers use it to create sexist policy.

Hope said:

You still have not answered my question: In what way do YOU think that women and men, on average, think differently from each other. What is the AVERAGE man and woman like? How do you think a man approaches caring differently to a woman? I am not asking for you to post lots of scientific research, I am asking for YOUR opinion. To just quote others suggests you have no opinion of your own.

And you quote beginnings of sentences to suggest I was responding emotionally. This is called an opinion. You have opinions too, unless you are an automaton

This is what you don't get, Hope.

I DON'T hold a value based opinion on this (and many other topics).

This doesn't make me an automaton.

I simply know, and report, what the science tells us.

And I treat every individual as an individual.

That is how I avoid stereotyping.

He suggests that science, engineering and gadgets necessarily and naturally attract more men than women, although he understands that women do go into these fields, just not as many as men (which is true, but I argue that this is because of societal expectations, not neurology).  You  might say there is no relative difference between counselling (a female role for Cohen) or Science because they both help build a decent society, complementing each other, which is indeed true. But my point is that by seeing Science as a 'male' pursuit in the main, we encourage the erroneous attitude that women on average should not enter Science. A very pernicious attitude considering the fact that Science, particularly hard Science, is still a predominantly male activity.

And Cohen argues the female brain empathizes to a 'superior level', the male brain to systematize at a 'superior level'.  

''Difference does not equate to relative value''. This is true for some types of difference like having blue or brown eyes, liking colour red or blue. But when people like Simon Baron Cohen argue that in humans men naturally ''typically attempt to control the sexual activities of their partners through the use of threat, being willing to threaten your female  mate with aggression presumes a low level of empathizing...hurting another person is not a caring act, if it works, a man increases the liklihood that the child he is providing for is genetically his'', Cohen is equating a negative behaviour as being genetically more commen in men, as opposed to seeing it as something society encourages and therefore can be changed! Taken from The Essential Difference

Goatworshiper: It is true we cannot get round the language barrier. I label myself a Feminist, but I don't agree with everything other Feminists argue; in any case, there are different kinds of Feminism.

Scorpian: Science and politics are inseperable. There is no such thing as pure Science or neutral Science. Science, like economics or History, always serves a particular interest as to why it is important to explore at a particular area.

You still have not answered my question: In what way do YOU think that women and men, on average, think differently from each other. What is the AVERAGE man and woman like? How do you think a man approaches caring differently to a woman? I am not asking for you to post lots of scientific research, I am asking for YOUR opinion. To just quote others suggests you have no opinion of your own.

And you quote beginnings of sentences to suggest I was responding emotionally. This is called an opinion. You have opinions too, unless you are an automaton

Scorpion0x17 said:

But in a derogitory capacity or something that can be used against someone in a negative sense clearly isn't good.

And so, surely, it is a positive thing to self-identify with the term, and to make it our own!

Just as some people of colour have done with 'N word'.

[/quote]

Yup absolutely. 

In some way's Hope has stereotyped/labelled herself a feminist. In some ways this is similar. Through labelling yourself a feminist, people will stereo type strong and militant qualities. PS I'm not saying this to annoy Hope, but just to highlight it's the way you present yourself that is most important.

I dunno, for me if you don't like it fair enough. I have no problem with being labelled an aspie, even tho I think it sound like something kellogs would make. 

No, Hope, I said you were responding emotionally. That much is evident in the language you used:

Hope said:

...I can't stand...

Hope said:

...I would rather...

Hope said:

...I subscribe more to...

Hope said:

...I don't agree with...

and so on. These are statements of emotion. Ergo you are responding emotionally.

That is not the same as saying "you are emotional".

Also, the very fact that you state that my arguments are sexist is exactly what I mean by you stereotyping me!

My arguments, in and of themselves, are not sexist.

You are interpretting them as sexist because you believe them to be typical of sexist thinking.

I've stated it before, and you just don't seem to get the point, even though it's a key part of the points you made in your original post - difference does not equate to relative value.

Or, in other words, simply stating that Men and Women think differently does not equate either positive or negative value to either way of thinking!

Both are positive.

You also state that what I've written "suggests that men are not as good at caring as women" - it does no such thing.

I simply stated that men and women approach the world, and roles such as caring, in different ways.

This does not state, or even imply, any kind of value judegment on which approach is, in any sense, 'better'.

Nor does it even state, or imply, that the way men and women think make them any more suited to any given role, or another!

It just states that they think differently!

You are reading things into my statement which are not there precisely because you hold the stereotypical view that "'men and women think differently' equates to 'sexist viewpoint'".

And, lastly, regarding your what is the point question - 'policy' is policy, and 'science' is science - do not confuse the two - yes politicians use the findings of science to shape policy - but it is not the goal of scientists to make policy - it is the goal of scientists to uncover facts about the world.

How those facts are then used is not part of the scientific process, it is part of the political process.

Scorpian, this is a bit rich coming from someone who called me 'emotional' right at the start of this thread. You don't know me, yet you prejudged me.

I did not call you sexist personally but your argument reeks of sexism because it suggests there is an innate neurological difference between men and women, which suggests that men are not as good at caring as women, on average, being better at active pursuits like hunting.

Also, if you would read what I actually wrote, I do not think all Science or Scientists are sexist. Even Scientists who espouse sexist arguments are not necessarily sexist in their everyday encounters with men or women. Moreover, there are Psychologists (a type of science) who have repudiated neuro reductionism because they see the person in a wider context.  Just go to your Library and read some alternative views, as I myself have done - I have read the Essential Difference by Baron Cohen and it did not convince me one bit.

Secondly, you have not answered a very important question: what is the point of all this research claiming an essential difference if it is not translated into real policy decisions about the education of boys and girls/men and women? Science never stays in the laboratory, it influences politics and decisions.

Goatworshiper said:

But in a derogitory capacity or something that can be used against someone in a negative sense clearly isn't good.

And so, surely, it is a positive thing to self-identify with the term, and to make it our own!

Just as some people of colour have done with 'N word'.

You know what, Hope, one thing, above all else, stands out in what you've written.

And that is that you have made up your mind about the type of person I am, based on one or two things that I've put down, without actually knowing anything about me, and without being willing to entertain the possibility that you may be wrong.

Or, in other words, you have (wrongly) stereotyped me.

You have also (wrongly) stereotyped science and scientists.

If you dislike stereotypes so much, I suggest you take a good look at yourself, and your beliefs, and that you stop using them.

Maybe then you'll see the me, science, and the rest of the world, the way they are, and not your stereotyped view of them.

I hear you. I'd imagine it can be a self fulfilling (SP?) prophecy. I havn't been around long enough to see If I do this. 

I find the label is fine as a noun. But in a derogitory capacity or something that can be used against someone in a negative sense clearly isn't good.

This is not to say we can't learn from each other or can't offer each support: we can and do, all of the time. But group identity, while having a positive aspect, can be damaging if taken to extremes. ''I am an aspie'' does not sit well with me - it suggests an unhelpful demarcation between those with aspergers and people without aspergers, when we should be building bridges.

I think that the label 'Aspergers' acts as a signpost, but beyond that it can be self-reinforcing. You label jam-jars, not people. There is a sense in which, by merging with the label, you lose touch with what is unique about you. This certainly has been a learning experience for me. Around diagnosis, I did almost merge with the label, so glad to have found out why I behave differently from the norm, so glad I was not alone and that others shared similar difficulties. Four years on from diagnosis I have progressed along the path of self-knowledge and now see aspergers as just one part of me, but not the whole of me. Having met many others with AS, I realise how different we are, and how, just because two people both have aspergers, does not mean they can necessarily offer mutual support or get on with other.  We only share a label of conveniance, nothing more.

Top and bottom of this is an aspie is a discriptive tag that attributes a qulity/dissability that you poscess (SP?). Just like having a driving license, having a fitness level etc it just indicates some qualities to the external world should they require such infomation.

I was thinking about this today and i wonder, and it is just a thought:

If you have always had severe problems, breaking free from the stereotype/dissability is liberating. It has got to be. Overcoming it must be so powerful.

If you have had slight niggles, that eventually get worse. Falling into a stereotype may be liberating as it is a way of self exploration and justification for the previously unexplainable. Liberation from self destruction if you will.

I might be wrong, people may see it differently, but thats just an idea I had. One side effects of breaking all stereotypes is that it is harder for people to seek the correct help. 

What do you think women on average can't do that men on average can do? I can hazard a guess: women on average don't understand technology, systems, and are good at caring for others and into all the cuddly feelings stuff. Men can't do emotions, This is the received wisdom, damaging to both men and women. You say both are as valuable as each other, that difference does not matter, but it just so happens that what women are supposed to not be good at are the active pursuits in life: mastery of objects, physical acumen, intellectual endeavor. Caring is important too, but it also is self-denying if carried to extreme, and women have traditionally been encouraged to put on appearances to please others, never themselves; an oppressive state of affairs.  Meanwhile caring, emotional men, are berated as sissies and wimps. Parents reinforce gener sterotypes right from infancy. How many little boys do you see pushing puschairs or wearing pink?

Most people in society are pretty conformist - just believe what they are told by others, see things as neutral, society as static, take on the prejudices of their society etc. I confront this ignorance every day - people spouting out the same tired scientific formulas that they read in the Mail or some 'scientific' journal. You know, I am not against science at all. We would not be where we are without it. I am against religion, mysticism and all superstitions, and understand that science can be a force for good. It all depends who is in control of the machinary, what questions are asked, and how the results of science are put into practice. Science is not just about fact collection - it is the conclusions you draw from the facts and these vary depending on your position and the prevailing attitude of society, which is not always correct. I am not an expert Scientist but I am imaginative enough to step back and ask questions.

You know what Scorpian, I used to think men and women think differently on an innate level too. School, parents, society indoctrinate you with the received wisdom. But I started to think for myself, to ask questions, got involved with Feminism (hugely liberating) and my life changed.

By the way, Science cannot be divorced from Philosophy or ideology. Science, particularly the ends to which it is put, is not neutral. You are seeing things in a very one-dimensional way, and you are oblivious to the factors behind the facts or appearances, because the established facts are the work of the historical practice of humanity