[yummyfajitas]

Here is a question I don't quite understand. We are supposed to "get pissed" because some children are allowed/encouraged to play with a simpler lego toy that emphasizes fashion and beauty.

Is it wrong to allow/encourage a child to develop an interest in fashion and beauty?

I wish the authors of articles like this would state exactly what moral principle they believe is violated.

[lomegor]

Would you be OK if Lego targeted toy for black kids so they can learn how to plough the fields?

The situation here is similar. It's not exactly wrong that a company decides to sell two different kinds of toy. What's wrong is the cultural mindset that dictates that girls should be more interested in fashion and beauty than engineering (for example).

The moral principle being violated is that men and women are equal. That girls and boy can grow to be whatever they like. Because when you build different toys for girls and boys, you are clearly stating otherwise.

[Dylanlacey]

I liked that they did research on play styles. That was really cool, I'd be curious to read all their findings.

But the themes they chose seem to be more informed by stereotypes. Vet Surgery! Hairdressing Salon! Horseies! Surely for true role-playing they should be giving alternative roles. Default offices are great play spaces. You can play with secretarial works OR CEO stuff. What's wrong with Computer labs or Retail? They're all fairly genderless, flexible environments, but instead the sets seem to be firmly targeting the stereotypes. I half expect the bigger set to be a castle, or maybe a day-care.

Perhaps we've (the social we) selected stereotypes that express themselves naturally, or are re-enforced strongly, or perhaps the designers took the research as a challenge but added all the themes themselves. Maybe, too, they're exactly what will be most popular even in a social vacuum, but surely catering to a more general level is the best place for a toy to be? No-one should be prevented from role-playing stereotypes if they want, but neither should they be forced to make greater allowances if they want to violate them.

(Violate. Huh. It's telling that that's the word often used to describe not complying with stereotypes.)

[yummyfajitas]

I think building and marketing lego farming equipment is moral. I don't think a moral act becomes immoral because it is done to a person from a particular demographic.

"Cultural mindset" isn't an action, it's a concept that lives at an abstraction level well above morality. What specific action is being taken that you believe is immoral?

It's hard for me to see how the moral principle that men and women are equal [1] is being violated here. Any child is free to play with any lego (as the article demonstrates) and the company selling them has no control over what the children do 18 years later or even what toy they use now.

[1] I assume you mean equality under the law. But if you mean some different sort of equality it would help to state which.

[edit: not sure why you are being downmodded. I don't think your explanation was complete, but it's certainly helpful.]

[lomegor]

It's not that doing action to a person of certain demographics makes the action immoral. What makes it immoral is the idea behind those actions. For example, there's no problem in saying all people are stupid, but saying all black people are stupid IS immoral, and doing actions based on that thought is also immoral. In that way, the "plough the fields" was a reference to black people being slaves and by selling Legos in that way, you are propagating the almost dead idea that black people should be slaves.

I was not referring to men and women being equal to the law, but being equal as humans. Black people and white people are biologically different too, but no one says that black people eat fried chicken because their brains are different. So, until a scientific study proves that women's brain account for them liking dolls instead of Lego, I will still think that's society that makes them that way. In fact, I think many sociological studies have proven that differences between men and women are different between different cultures, but I have not seen one article that stated that women tend to like accessories because of their brain.

[yummyfajitas]

...but saying all black people are stupid IS immoral...

Supposing hypothetically that this were true, would it still be immoral?

So, until a scientific study proves that women's brain account for them liking dolls instead of Lego, I will still think that's society that makes them that way.

So it's immoral to make decisions based on people's actions if those actions are not proven to be driven by brain chemistry?

Suppose a scientific study said Lego would make more money by selling pink cars to girls and aliens to boys, with no reason given. Would acting on this be immoral?

Or, suppose there were no study, but Lego merely tried out 20 different product lines. Of those product lines, the pink cars sold very well (purchased mostly by girls) and so did the aliens (mostly purchased by boys). Would it be immoral for Lego to continue a sales strategy based on these two successful lines?

[lomegor]

Maybe I did not express myself correctly. First of all, if it was true that black people are stupid then it wouldn't be immoral.

What I meant is that it's immoral to make decisions based on ideas you have of people that have not been proven. (It does not matter if it's driven by brain chemistry.)

Doing those things is not immoral per se, but if you do it by thinking that those things are natural to the gender, the become immoral.

In this case I think it's quite complex, like you point out with your questions. I do not think that Lego's action are immoral because of their ideals, but because they are propagating stereotypes and sexism that worsens, at least in my opinion, the lives of many men and women in this society. For example, because there are still separating women with pink and dolls, and men with blue and robots, girls who like robots may be bullied, as well as men who likes dolls.

[yummyfajitas]

What I meant is that it's immoral to make decisions based on ideas you have of people that have not been proven.

In that case, it sounds like most startup founders are immoral by your definition. The vast majority of startups make decisions based on ideas they have about people which are not proven, i.e. "people would like to rent out their home to strangers".

...but if you do it by thinking that those things are natural to the gender, the become immoral.

What if you don't know whether those things are natural to the gender or learned, but make decisions based solely on predicted (or demonstrated) consumer behavior? I.e., "these pink cars sell really well, mostly to girls, I have no idea why. Lets make more and market them widely."

Or what if you are just testing hypothesis? "Lets try out pink cars, aliens, babies, pirates and zombies, and then see what sells." Would that be immoral? It certainly lacks the certainty you seem to want, but it is how many businesses make decisions.

[factorial]

Did it ever strike you that men and women are not actually the same? I know, this line of reasoning is not popular among the gender studies-infested crowd, but it's just biology. There are dolls because girls like to play with dolls, and not because we force them to play with them. There are differences between male and female brains, and this is why they prefer different activities. Read up on science before making your absurd statements.

Yes, girls and boys can grow up to become whoever they like, but most girls just don't like technology, just as most guys have little interest in playing with dolls. Blame biology but not society.

[DanBC]

> but most girls just don't like technology

I'm sympathetic to the idea that there are differences between girls and boys which drive behaviour. Hormones in adolescence are the clearest example to me.

But then, I used to think that "Girls just don't like chess." It turns out that this very much depends on the age of the girls. Why do numbers of male and female chess players start equal, and then drop off as people get older? It's not related to skill either.

The BBC Radio Four 'popular statistics' programme "More or Less" has a short segment. (They also ask "Are CEOs worth it?" and come to the conclusion that payment for CEOs isn't associated with performance of the company).

(http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01h7cf2#synopsis)

I don't know if this is downloadable outside the UK. I very much hope so.

> just as most guys have little interest in playing with dolls.

GI Joe / Action Man?

[factorial]

Do they really start out equal? I've played chess for a few years, and all I know is that it gets quite competitive rather soon. Probably you are referring to scholastic chess where teachers plunk down chess sets in front of their pupils and teach them the basics. Sure, pushing wood around is fun for a while, but there will be the point where you need a lot of tenacity to continue.

The issue about CEO compensation has absolutely nothing to do with this argument.

[DanBC]

Yes, they start out equal. This is discussing competitive chess from real chess organisations from the ages of about 8 through to late teens early twenties.

[swa14]

"most girls just don't like technology"

The "just" in that line needs a [citation needed], and a pretty good one at that.

"There are differences between male and female brains, and this is why they prefer different activities."

That might be true, but unless it's shown that these differences lie in the mental faculties that govern the skills for math and engineering, these differences are moot.

"Read up on science before making your absurd statements."

Not to sound too smarmy, but it should be easy for you, all read up on the relevant science, to cough up the relevant citations then eh ?

"just as most guys have little interest in playing with dolls."

We just call them 'robots'

"Blame biology but not society." The larger point is not to assign blame, but to improve the situation if possible.

[factorial]

Easy: Look at the gender balance in engineering, and you'll find that there are not many women. Conclusion: Women don't like engineering as much as, say, political science, medicine, or communications.

Re.: brain differences: it's called spatio-relational reasoning. Another issue is, and this is a highly non-pc one, that the female IQ distribution doesn't reach the same highs (and lows) as male IQ distribution. This isn't some arcane knowledge I am referring to, so I'll leave it up to you to fire up your search engine of choice and type in a relevant combination of nouns and adjectives to unearth the answers to your concerns yourself.

[swa14]

"Easy: Look at the gender balance in engineering, and you'll find that there are not many women."

True but irrelevant. It's the "just" in "most girls just don't like technology" I object to, like it's an innate aversion against technology that can't be overcome.

"Another issue is, and this is a highly non-pc one, that the female IQ distribution doesn't reach the same highs (and lows) as male IQ distribution."

Irrespective of being true or not, engineers, for example, would mostly be placed in the higher ranges. If any difference in the distribution of intelligence could account for the gender imbalance in technical occupations, the difference would be markedly less than would be expected from a potentially deviating IQ distribution.

Regarding "brain differences: it's called spatio-relational reasoning."

Seeing how there are, in absolute numbers, even if not in relative numbers, many women who excel in highly technical occupations and environments, this does not account for any differences, unless it could be shown that this particular subset of women have a different "male spatio-relational reasoning" part of the brain, as opposed to other women.

I do not agree or disagree that biology might have part in a difference in interest in technology in men and women. The point is to identify which part if any. And even if it is ultimately shown that there are biological limits to technology adoption by women in the high ranges of (say) 75%, that still means there are 25% who might be persuaded to become involved in technology by a change in societal behaviour instead of being "sucked into" what at this time is a stereotypical profession for a gender.

[factorial]

Yes, most girls JUST don't like to go into IT. Two years ago feminists said that girls are "too smart" to go into IT. Now that it's one of the few fields that are booming, they have to be in IT.

Also, did it ever strike you as slightly odd that there was never a woman speaking for herself who came forward and said something like, "Geez, I really would have loved to study advanced algorithms, and functional programming, and later on work in Big Data." The women seem perfectly content with their choices. It's only feminists (of both sexes) who think that they have to speak up for some allegedly silent majority of women who are kept out of technology for whatever reason. If they want to get into the field, they can acquire all the knowledge they want. It's available online, and for free. Let me tell you something: I am a man, and there never was a day when someone rang my door, shoved some programming tutorials into my face and told me, "Go, and work through that." No, instead I had to sit down and find my own sources, and people I could learn from. All of this is hard work.

Oh, and let me tell you another non-pc truth that is so unpalatable for you: technology and sciences are, even for most guys, not necessarily a ton of fun, and if we had the option of simply looking good and marrying a millionaire, we might be less inclined to go work hard as well. Or why do you think there are so few hot women in tech? Surely Elin Nordegren would have had no use for a CS degree.

[yummyfajitas]

You are confusing positive and normative. The question I asked, and which lomegor was responding to, was a normative one - how should the world be and what moral assumptions are made to derive this conclusion.

You are discussing a positive question, namely why individuals might have certain preferences.

[factorial]

Yes, and discussing a positive question might reveal that discussing how the world should be according to some people is a futile concept as it denies biology.

[lomegor]

I thought that we had already beaten biology in many aspects. In fact, biology has changed because of how we act. As we began to use tools, evolution-wise, we began to develop more traits relating to using tools.

If you think that we should only do or act as biology dictates us, and that trying to change biology doesn't lead us anywhere, you should probably stay away from medical research and sociological studies. Those are two areas where although biology is important, changes in them are also important too.

[factorial]

So, do you know accept that there is a biological difference between men and women? It seems that you do. But now you claim that we have to "beat biology" to eliminate the differences. Bravo! You are twisting and turning, pulling random arguments out of your hat as you see fit. What is your background? I would be more than surprised if it was technical.

What about this angle: given that men are apparently quite superior to women when it comes to abstract thinking, then why don't we do our best to improve male performance even more? By the time women will have caught up (if ever), we've probably lost a few centuries of progress. This concept is called "opportunity costs." I am not sure it's taught in Gender Studies.

Note that I'm playing devil's advocate to make you realize how incredibly shady your argument is.

[lomegor]

Really? I haven't seen a study that have proven this. Please, citation needed. In fact, most of the studies that have been mentioned here point to the difference in IQ and math related skills. But none of them, and I repeat, none, have shown that likes and dislikes are cause by this difference in biology.

[yummyfajitas]

Here is one that shows gender affects risk preferences, and identifies testosterone as a correlated factor (even within genders).

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/luigi.zingales/papers/resear...