Posts tagged with gender studies
- chimp and neandertal musculature versus modern human musculature
- and the Wadabi tribesmen dress up in women’s garb and makeup, and starve themselves, before performing beauty dances to please the women. They expend enormous efforts (time and calories) obtaining cosmetics; favourite gift is a mirror.
- Akaa pygmies reproducing with everyone and the typical evo psych concept of sexual jealousy seems to not apply.
- Akaa fathers do more of the parenting than the mums.
- 1:07 — Bedouin Wa-alla sons speak to their fathers ~3 times up to age 18, and transgressions punished by stabbing with a sabre.
She told me her theory that they are normative because US culture is pro-masculine in such a way that everyone has to perform masculinity in some way.
I don’t know if I agree with that thesis or not, but it got me thinking about how a pro-masculine culture might be reflected in the economy, in the utility functions, and what an alternative on that dimension might look like.
So obviously, Estadounidenses work out; "Fitness is a $19 billion industry"; those who don’t are shamed.
But hard-ness might be reflected in utility functions in other ways as well.
- preference of work (“I worked my #rse off to get where I am today”), busy-ness, regimens, organised workspaces, getting things done, goal-setting, achievement
- a preference for doing over not-doing (or maybe doing over being-done-to)
- a preference for hard-force over soft-relaxedness soft causing
- shaming of laziness, softness, sloth, people who are too relaxed or don’t work enough, people who aren’t busy, have no career, have no ambition
- a preference for my-own-space over shared-space
- a preference for working hard, even if it’s to the point of overworking (overworking is actually kind of a compliment)
- a preference for individualism over communalism
- a greater need for personal space (people stand relatively far apart from each other)
- "I wish I could spend more time with my spouse and kids, but I’m too busy running this business empire!”
- "I wish I could take a real vacation, or for longer”
- Confidence, competence, winners, power over gentleness, flabbiness, passiveness, meekness, passivity, sensitivity.
- creative destruction, building things, knocking them down, refurbishing, rebranding, striving for better, striving for more.
What about the alternative—what would a “soft” economy look like? Well, besides performing services and producing goods for each other, people can give utils to each other directly with
- softness toward each other
- Tumblr Likes
- listening to each other
- playing games together (think “childrens’ games” — why are they for children?)
- sitting next to each other
- holding hands
- communicating that “I accept you as you are” or “I care what you think” or “I think you’re awesome”
(and equally they can harm each other with innuendo, bickering, hurrying or harrying each other, glares, invocation of rank/status, backhanded compliments, body language, and other perhaps “feminine” moves).
Somehow I got to think about Odo from Star Trek.
In at least one episode, the others of his shape-shifting race want him to return to live with them so they can all shape-shift into a goo and flow around in each other’s beings and experience each other. Which is one idea of Heaven. But Odo (a hero on a US TV show) wants to keep exploring, penetrating the cosmos to greater lengths. Maybe a “more feminine” economy, though, would look more like that. People touching each other, lazily hanging out,
I think there’s a reason that “California Buddhism”
looks like finding peace on a marathon instead of this:
Look at that fat guy! He’s just sitting there! So, but what do you do? I mean, what do you do, do?
I’m totally convinced that ∃ more connections between mathematics and the humanities than the university culture I once stewed in would suggest.
Probably due to personality differences, but also lack of familiarity with each other’s subject matter, I never saw inter-departmental collaborations and—as I’ll discuss in another post—even the idea of data is seen as a four-letter word in the gender studies department. (Likewise, ethnography and anecdote are four-letter words within the economics field, and statisticians also concern themselves only with structured data.)
Nevertheless I see mathematical shapes all over cultural analysis, and I mean to record them. (However typing up a coherent few paragraphs, let alone adding drawings, takes several orders of magnitude more time than simply thinking a thought.)
After reading her essay crowing that millennials do not see themselves as special, I went on to read more of Phoenix and the Olive Branch, which talks about rehabilitation from “Quiverfull” fundamentalist upbringing—particularly gender issues that arose as a Quiverfull young woman.
(Relevant to the “value of liberal arts" question, Sierra writes that "College literally saved my life"—without the critical thinking skills—not science or programming skills—that she learned at college, her mind and heart and … uterus would have remained ensnared in the “Quiverfull” fundamentalist mindset she grew up in. Just an interesting sidelight.)
Sierra has a very logical way of describing a flaw with sexist views:
Check out this gem from “Reclaiming the Mind”:
You see, when people are truly committed and consistent egalitarians, they have to defend their denial of essential differences. In doing so, they will advocate a education system in the home, church, and society which neutralizes any assumption of differences between the sexes. In doing so, men will not be trained to be “men” since there is really no such thing. Women will not be encouraged to be “women” since there is no such thing. The assumption of differences becomes a way to oppress society and marginalize, in their estimation, one sex for the benefit of the other. Once we neutralize these differences, we will have neutered society and the family due to a denial of God’s design in favor of some misguided attempt to promote a form of equality that is neither possible nor beneficial to either sex.
As a truly committed and consistent egalitarian, yes, yes I do deny “essential” differences. You know why? My essential nature is not “woman.” My essential nature is me. Sierra. It’s who I am. …[M]y best friend[’s] essential nature [is] not identical to mine. It might have similar colors and shapes, but so would mine and my fiance’s. Because people are different. “Men” are not more different from women than they are from other men.
In statistical or mathematical language, I would interpret this as saying "The fact that
gender==Woman is not entirely determinate of everything about me.”
If I were writing a computer program to mimic the kind of sexism Sierra is talking about, it would take one input for
gender and, if the answer is
male, then prompt for further details on the personality, achievements, background, interests, thoughts.
Elsif gender == female, then the only questions worth asking are “
Fat? Hot?" Otherwise,
break; because there is no
Not that the "Being a minority is determinate of everything and only males can show variation” is limited to gender. On Reddit we find:
as if blackness is somehow so determinate of behaviour. Charmed, I’m sure.
In statistics the paradigm is that data go into a model and a couple numbers come out. Some of the numbers parameterise the model. But other numbers tell us how good the explanation is. There are numbers to tell us how well individual parts fit, how well the overall whole fits, and several numbers that are warning indicators for various types of traps that can make the other numbers mess up.
Thinking that everything about a minority is determined by their minority status is a bit like ignoring all the model-fit numbers.
If we explored some data with a large number of linear models, progressing from coarse (few terms) to fine (many terms), we would probably see gender differences as a significant term among coarse models. But those models would also have a low specificity and explanatory power. Then as we added more explanatory terms (finer models), those other explanators—correlates of gender/race, but not gender/race itself—would start to steal explanatory power away from the gender dummy variable.
To give a physical example, 100m sprint times show differences across male/female, but training is more determinate of the sprint time. If we could measure personality and thoughts and the kinds of traits that Sierra might say define her as a person, we would probably be left with very little t-value on the gender dummy.
One more mathematical parallel. The idea that “minorities show no variation; only the privileged group can be variable” is isomorphic to Jim Townsend’s mathematical-psychology model of racism. Substitute “minority” with “other group” and “privileged group” with “self" or "my group" and you have the same model of a negatively curved metric space:
They say unto him, Rabbi, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? This they said, tempting him, … they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
In other words, unless completely perfect, one is imperfect. This is a different sort of measure than is used in assigning blame in a car crash, or in torts.
Those would take the total sum of damage and fractionally assign responsibility to each party. Allow me the licence to define the “Jesus norm” as above.
It would say that one is either responsible or not responsible.
So if I hurt you at all, I’m equally as responsible as everybody else who hurt you for making you whole again.