Announcement

Join us on Discord: https://discord.gg/nf43FxS
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,725|4959|eXtreme to the maX
Children have done playfighting forever, what is BF2 about? why are/were players predominantly male?
#FreeBritney
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+445|2572

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Isn't cowboys and indians practically extinct at this point? I would think it was kept on life support by TVs and movies before going the way of the dodo.

Whatever evolutionary masculine and feminine tendencies there are should be kept separate from rapidly shifting cultural norms and imposed/encouraged behaviors.
Cowboys and Indians is now Terrorist vs Marine
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,881|5625|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

what is BF2 about? why are/were players predominantly male?
That's probably out of date too. One of my college classes frequently LAN partied. Two of the people who didn't usually participate were men. The women did, and were evil in Unreal Tournament.

https://www.theverge.com/2015/12/15/102 … mes-gender
The discrepancy between who people assume plays video games and those who actually do is likely to do with gendered assumptions about gaming reinforced by marketing and culture. Games like Call of Duty, Madden, and The Legend of Zelda consciously target boys and men while leaving girls and women out, creating the expectation that the medium itself is an explicitly male one.

That strategy bears out for men ages 18-29, with 77 percent of respondents saying they play games and a full 33 percent identifying as gamers. That compares to 57 percent of women playing games and just 9 percent of female gamers in the same age group. However, Pew did also find that people's relationship to gaming changes as they age. Thirty-eight percent of women over the age of 50 play video games, as compared to 29 percent of men.
Really does seem like a far cry from video games being exclusively macho play-fighting that only males take part in or whatever.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+445|2572
Most boomer males have football brains. Boomer women play crazy birds with the grand children.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,881|5625|USA

My grandma played Wolfenstein 3d like exclusively, when she played at all.
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+445|2572
Maybe your grandma was still salty about the Battle of the Bulge.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,881|5625|USA

I think she just liked the evolution over games like pong or pacman. Also played Doom for a bit but I think the head bob kind of put her off.
uziq
Member
+388|2305

Dilbert_X wrote:

Children have done playfighting forever, what is BF2 about? why are/were players predominantly male?
wow your analytical skills were almost peeking through for a second back there, then you blew it.

if children up until the victorian era were essentially treated as sex-less neuters in dresses until the age of 7-8, i very much doubt that little boys have therefore been hyper-masculinized and 'macho' since 'forever'.

why do boys play more computer games than girls? that's not exactly true anymore, and that's because the gaming industry has made big steps to clean up its image and de-objectify women's roles in gaming. up until very recently the only female role models, or even interesting characters, in videogames were 'look at my big tits and suspender-holster' lara croft. not exactly inspiring. girls were only involved in the gaming subculture insofar as they were woman as seen through a male gaze.

it's all to do with the way we are socialized, old boy.

statements of 'instinct' are ahistorical clap-trap. you can justify just about anything as being 'instinct', and it quickly falls apart when you consider there's 100 different social groups doing things 1000 different ways, all arguably on 'instinct'. vague, diffuse, pseudo-scientific rubbish. you can justify just about anything on an evolutionary basis via a posteriori argument. you've even gone so far before as to make analogies between human societies and ants ffs. then you act surprised when i make a parodically bad comparison to birds. 'b-b-b--but we're not birds!'

statements of the 'hard-wired' differences between boys and girls have been seriously overstated. it is in fact your ilk who consistently extrapolate huge generalizations from tiny data-sets.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00677-x

As Rippon shows, the hunt for proof of women’s inferiority has more recently elided into the hunt for proof of male–female ‘complementarity’. So, this line goes, women are not really less intelligent than men, just ‘different’ in a way that happens to coincide with biblical teachings and the status quo of gender roles. Thus, women’s brains are said to be wired for empathy and intuition, whereas male brains are supposed to be optimized for reason and action.

This was how researchers at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia framed a highly touted 2014 MRI study that seared into the public imagination a picture of men’s and women’s brains as diametrically opposed subway maps: the connections in women are mostly between hemispheres, and those in men within them (M. Ingalhalikar et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 111, 823–828; 2014). However, the map omits the vast majority of connections that did not differ between the study’s adolescent participants; nor did it control for puberty-related maturation or, once again, for brain size, all of which reduces apparent male–female difference.
an individual's hormone balance determines their personality and everyday behaviour more than some atavistic call of 'instinct'. how do you explain tomboys? effeminate men? if all men have an 'instinct' to go out and kill and all women have an 'instinct' to bake pies and wear lipstick?

you have a pretty strange concept of 'human instinct' when it only seems to apply to one specific society in a particular timeframe, and even then excludes 20 or 30% of its population. i didn't realize biological drives and instincts were so optional.

Last edited by uziq (2021-01-22 03:01:38)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,725|4959|eXtreme to the maX
children up until the victorian era were essentially treated as sex-less neuters
Except they weren't treated as 'sexless neuters' at all, its just children's clothing was unisex and was reused from one child to the next, there's no significance to it.
Male and female babies get the same nappies and soap, doesn't mean everyone is gender fluid.

there's 100 different social groups doing things 1000 different ways
Um no there aren't.
#FreeBritney
uziq
Member
+388|2305
you do realize that children's toys and games were only aggressively marketed at 'polarized' male+female concepts from the mid-20th century onwards, right? it's almost coeval with the invention of the 'teenager' as a category, too. these things did not exist pre-modernity.

blue and pink are not timelessly associated with 'male' and 'female' for all time. we constructed these things.

The march toward gender-specific clothes was neither linear nor rapid. Pink and blue arrived, along with other pastels, as colors for babies in the mid-19th century, yet the two colors were not promoted as gender signifiers until just before World War I—and even then, it took time for popular culture to sort things out.

For example, a June 1918 article from the trade publication Earnshaw's Infants' Department said, “The generally accepted rule is pink for the boys, and blue for the girls. The reason is that pink, being a more decided and stronger color, is more suitable for the boy, while blue, which is more delicate and dainty, is prettier for the girl.” Other sources said blue was flattering for blonds, pink for brunettes; or blue was for blue-eyed babies, pink for brown-eyed babies, according to Paoletti.

In 1927, Time magazine printed a chart showing sex-appropriate colors for girls and boys according to leading U.S. stores. In Boston, Filene’s told parents to dress boys in pink. So did Best & Co. in New York City, Halle’s in Cleveland and Marshall Field in Chicago.

Today’s color dictate wasn’t established until the 1940s, as a result of Americans’ preferences as interpreted by manufacturers and retailers. “It could have gone the other way,” Paoletti says.

So the baby boomers were raised in gender-specific clothing. Boys dressed like their fathers, girls like their mothers. Girls had to wear dresses to school, though unadorned styles and tomboy play clothes were acceptable.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-cul … k-1370097/

pre-pubescent children in pre-modern times, in the west at least, were not divided into groups 'playing home-makers and cowboys and indians'. girls do not have an 'instinct' for 'wearing dresses and putting on make-up'. both genders have dressed and exhibited themselves in that way throughout history, depending on how their adults/parents decided to socialize them.

obviously adulthood and the shaping into patriarchal gender roles happened much earlier back then, relative to now, with children being sent to work or into education depending on their future-adult roles and responsibilities much earlier. but insofar as they were 'children', free to play and without responsibilities, they were not sharply distinguished in the same way.

Another important factor has been the rise of consumerism among children in recent decades. According to child development experts, children are just becoming conscious of their gender between ages 3 and 4, and they do not realize it’s permanent until age 6 or 7. At the same time, however, they are the subjects of sophisticated and pervasive advertising that tends to reinforce social conventions. “So they think, for example, that what makes someone female is having long hair and a dress,’’ says Paoletti. “They are so interested—and they are so adamant in their likes and dislikes.”
you are putting the cart before the horse in your analysis. you see a phenomenon, describe it, and then attribute it quickly to a timeless 'instinct'. it's no good to just describe the status quo and 'norms' we have today and say they have been this way 'forever': they patently have NOT. and clearly a large amount of 'brain shaping' occurs in a social context and is not merely a universal species 'instinct' exhibiting itself.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Um no there aren't.
er, yes, there really are. children are raised and socialized very differently in different cultures. how can you possibly appeal to a generic species 'instinct' when there is so much diversity in this subject?

read a book.

Last edited by uziq (2021-01-22 05:06:54)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+445|2572
Who would think that the last DST argument by Uzique would be regarding child psychology?
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,725|4959|eXtreme to the maX
Who would think that the last DST argument by Uzique would be wrong?
#FreeBritney
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,881|5625|USA

Though young children are steered away from toys, activities, and behaviors not fitting gendered stereotypes in their cultures, and towards ones expected of them.

Standards come and go. There probably isn't anything in the human genome dictating whether you should specifically play with Barbies or Transformers, or wear a pink or blue shirt.
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,725|4959|eXtreme to the maX
Left alone children tend to revert to type, girls make little dolls, boys make pretend weapons and fight each other.
#FreeBritney
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,881|5625|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

Left alone children tend to revert to type, girls make little dolls, boys make pretend weapons and fight each other.
They'll also play with whatever toys are on hand, or more modernly on their smartphones. Your data pool is also probably tainted by adult and marketing interference, by peer influence, and by what older kids do or are shown to do. Kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy in a way, though changing from time period to time period and location to location. What's the difference between a doll and an action figure anyway? Girls will mash their toys together to simulate a battle they saw on TV as well.

No other animal on the planet stresses about skirts or slacks for females or males, and humans aren't even consistent at it.

For obvious reasons, it probably isn't very ethical to subject children to an entire developing lifetime of isolation just to study their behaviors. You wouldn't get normal results from that anyway. It's pretty safe to say that there is no evolutionary predicate establishing 1950s western norms to the entirety of human history. It's a pretty troll argument in all.
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,881|5625|USA

In 2021 there are spats and whole articles about whether boys should be allowed to play with dolls. If boys didn't play with dolls, there would be no platform for this debate. One of the sides says it encourages them to become carers. Another complains that it's making them transgender (?), accompanied by "spooky" pictures of boys holding big plush dolls or something to ironically elicit a negative emotional reaction. The first sounds way more plausible to me.
Larssen
Member
+60|740
Re: the issue of gender specific colours/toys and history: the division between boys and girls in their gender roles were much more pronounced in the past than now. In many cultures all the way back to antiquity the role of women was focused on being the guardian of the home, be it housemaking or taking care of affairs in absence of the man. Not to mention their place in society or access to education. Though this and the importance of the role women had varies wildly across time and place, in general it should be obvious that women and boys were from an early age raised in starkly different roles. 'Back in the day' that role-oriented education usually already started at about 8-12 years old. Be it initiation in a trade or starting serious work, in which the more physically demanding tasks were always assigned to boys first. Furthermore, clothing was also definitely gender specific for much of history ... in line with the strongly established gender roles.

Having said all that and now looking at the criticism of gender roles wrt toys, colours, clothing today - I think what's often missed is that raising a kid in a tolerant and flexible way is not or should not be mutually exclusive with raising them in gender specific ways that fit with the culture of times. I also think that, for the kids' sake, it's easier to navigate growing up if they're given clear paths and role models that provide some predictable expectations and more or less fit with their surroundings rather than pressing all adult-conceived critical philosophy wrt genderism on them. Kids are very much focused on fitting in. Parents feeding children mostly contrary ideas and practices while shouldering the burden of choice over who they are entirely on their kids from the get-go seems like a great way to have them  bullied and sabotage the parent-child relationship down the line.

Again though, doesn't mean the kids should be raised in an intolerant manner or that they should be non-accepting of their own differences when it comes to for example sexual preference or if they're trans. With those exceptions though, we should acknowledge that they're rare and that it may be confusing/shocking/depressing to figure that out individually and as a family. And that in a society divided according to identity groups you're bound to experience some pushback or discrimination if you're in a room where you're obviously different...

Edit: I feel like I went off a tangent here but in the spirit of the above I suppose I just wanted to dump an opinion.

Last edited by Larssen (2021-01-25 04:14:35)

unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+1,881|5625|USA

The kid should probably be taken into consideration. If they don't want to play with army toys or dolls, of course they shouldn't be pushed into it. But I don't think it's that rare that, for example, a little boy might want something like a jumbo doll to carry around. I don't think they'll necessarily grow up gay or trans or whatever because of that or their pink shirt or because they were encouraged to interact with their little sister. I would hazard they'd have a better chance to grow up a balanced, hetero family man with a more stable idea of what it means to "fit in," and, not having been abandoned in some rut of hanging onto the extremely toxic whims and demands of their peers to the letter, some measure of independence from that herd thought.

Stupidly grand sweep for one paragraph, but w/e.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2021 Jeff Minard