- Anthony Jaeger
- Sydney
- Australia
Primary School Teacher, NSW Department of Education and Communications
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Sexism in Ian McGilchrist's talk The Divided Brain.
Throughout McGilchrist's animated talk, himself and RSA animate consistenly use pictures of men to demonstrate the scientific evidence about the brain. There are no female images, faces or bodies drawn for a centerpiece of discussion. Only MALE images are drawn. Surely this makes the scientific evidence less credible or at least questionable. McGhilchrist has demonstrated a gendered leaning towards men as the superior sex.
I wonder how all of the female sex feel about this? And the male sex?
I thought McGilchrist's talk was very interesting, but the lack of insight and leadership involving the widely repressed sex is much more interesting.
This brings Gilchrist's ethical and scientific judgement into question.
Think! Now. Tell me what you just thought :).
Ramzi H
Anthony Jaeger
The world is dominated by men with an overarching masculinity. In this conversation alone, we have seen how men adhering to this dominating overarching masculinity have attempted to gain control by attacking a person. They identify someone as different, subconciously flag them and attack them.
This is the way the world is currently structured and this is why being a girl, being a woman, being of the female gender from the moment they are born, is inherently more difficult than being born a male.
Cold. Simple. Hard to swallow.
Anthony Jaeger
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/the-gender-gap-becoming-a-chasm/story-e6frgcjx-1226183887941
Anthony Jaeger
Here is some evidence for you all:
The results of the "Because I'm a girl report" were launched this year. A summary of their findings were:
"•70 per cent of the 1.5 billion people living below the poverty line are female.
•There are 75 million girls out of primary and lower secondary school.
•A girl in South Sudan is more likely to die in childbirth than finish primary school.
•Girls who give birth before the age of 15 are five times more likely to die in childbirth than women in their 20s. If they are 15-19, they are twice as likely to die.
•An extra year of secondary school boosts a girl’s eventual future wage by 15 to 25 per cent. Many girls in developing countries don’t make it to secondary school as they are pulled out to help support their mothers and the household, or are forced into marriage.
•Girls from poorer countries and living in a rural area are 16 more times less likely to be in school than a boy from a comfortable household living in a town.
•Every day an estimated 3500 girls in the world's poorest regions will marry before their 15th birthdays.
•70,000 adolescent mothers die every year in the developing world because young girls are having children before they are physically ready for parenthood.
•20-50 per cent of girls have experienced violence from a family member.
•Girls are three times more likely to suffer from malnutrition than boys.
•Globally, young women aged 15 to 24 account for 64 per cent of HIV infections among young people.
FROM: http://www.probonoaustralia.com.au/news/2011/11/kevin-rudd-launches-%E2%80%98because-i-am-girl%E2%80%99-report
Thomas Jones 100+
Perhaps you could start by setting an example.
Let's have a look at your arguments (not your "person.")
Calling someone a "Bigmouth" does seem to be an attack on one's person (or parts thereof.)
"Self-gratification and pride is a beautiful thing. You sir are not!" also seems a little personal, as does, "your bias doesn't allow you to see the truth." Not to mention your indictment of McGilchrist and his "ethical and scientific judgement."
Then YOU flit around comparing yourself to flowers - poppies, sunflowers, and so on - in some sort of parody of rhetoric. "You" do that. "We" don't. That we notice seems to offend you. How could we not?
And so on.
I think we get it:
- You think McGilchrist's talk is a prime example of sexism in action.
- Some of us disagree.
- You find that to be tantamount to a tacit endorsement of sexism in general.
- Some of us find your example petty, superficial, and trivial
- Some of us find your arguments strident, emotional and somewhat self-centered.
You keep bringing the reference back to your "person" -- "how you could get so angry at a beautiful tall sunflower like me." Really, dude, what is THAT all about? If you do not want us to notice "your person" please refrain from drawing our attention to it.
As for your topic:
- I agree, sexism is a bad thing.
- It will not help significantly that you "pick your fights" somewhat indiscriminately.
- You start with a minor example of possible sexism (which is not to say it might not have SOME validity.)
- You alienate your audience - quite effectively.
- You then attempt to form alignment or consensus by bringing in "real" examples. (Too late!)
- If feminism were "my cause" I would politely ask you to pick another.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
This is the most ludicrous strawman ever! Just because we don't see the imaginary sexism in Ian McGilchrist's talk, doesn't mean we cannot appreciate what a hard place the world is to be a woman. I had a whole debate on TED about how the modern world has lured itself into believing all sexism in our modern societies is in the past. Of course, it annoyed a few people, but many people responded positively and sometimes there was disagreement, but at least there was conversation. This conversation is all about you and how you think you're the champion of the feminist cause. Your responses are bordering on childish now.
What are you going to do about this attack of the person? Flag the comment? Is that because you're angry you got flagged for calling Travis a bigmouth? Is that hypocrisy I smell? Oh yes it really is.
Caroline Mellor
Nate Ribbens 20+
Maybe most of the men drawn in the presentation are men because the speaker was referencing a field dominated by men through history. That field was dominated by men because yes, in the past women were heavily repressed during the last 2000 years. That was wrong and all, but faulting Mr. McGilchrist for not digging up an equal number of female references to support his points is... for lack of a better term stupid. I'm all for gender equality, but this conversation smells like seeing problems where there are none, thus creating them.
"McGhilchrist has demonstrated a gendered leaning towards men as the superior sex. "
How? Where? In past talks? I missed it if it was in this talk.
If anything as far as cultural associations go, Mr. McGilchrist may have demonstrated a bias to favor females stating "I am passionate about the left side of the brain, but even more passionate about the right." I have seen that the right hemisphere is more commonly associated with the female (openness, imagination, creativity) and the left with the male (focus, narrowness, division).
See what I did there? I made a specific reference to support my argument. Next time you start a semi-slanderous conversation on TED, I advise the same.
There are bigger fish to fry on the women's rights docket than this talk. If you really want to help women's rights, stop starting flame-warz initiated by poorly referenced arguments on TED, and go out and volunteer at a women's shelter. In other words go DO SOMETHING, rather than intellectually masturbate all over a beautifully presented talk (that had little to no focus on gender issues to begin with) so you can feel good about your ethical self.
Comment deleted
Anthony Jaeger
I don't understand how you could get so angry at a beautiful tall sunflower like me. Why do you want to pull the roots out? Why does a beautiful sunflower scare you so? Don't you like the sunshine? Don't you like darkness?
What have I done to deserve your smile? Whoops. Typo. SMITE!
Comment deleted
Thomas Jones 100+
Just out of curiosity, are you playing some kind of a game? You seem to have a whole flower metaphor thing going on and appear to be focussing on the attention you are getting - more so than on the topic of your conversation.
While your asserted cause may be noble, your original argument was weak, at best. And your rebuttals, such as they are, are childish and ineffectual ("Bigmouth strikes again," "...how you could get so angry at a beautiful tall sunflower like me..." and so on.) This must be obvious even to you, and, yet, you seem locked into a particular style of response and appear to be incapable of moderating your own discussion in any meaningful way.
Are you feeling vulnerable? Unappreciated? Attacked? Flower-like? Feminine?
Anthony Jaeger
Thomas Jones 100+
Who said poetry was weak?
Now, SOME poetry is weak, and SOME poetry can be very powerful. Very moving.
Are you attempting to be poetic with your flower metaphor?
Yes, attacking people is seen as a weakness. Why are you doing it?
[See my earlier response.]
Mark Meijer 100+
Anthony Jaeger
Is that disagreeable to you?
Mark Meijer 100+
I did as you asked. Is that disagreeable to you?
Anthony Jaeger
Travis Hochsprung
I'll give you one thing, you have started an extraordinarily interesting thread, based not so much anymore on the sexism argued to be in the presentation, but on you.
At first I thought you were slightly overzealous, but now you are either joking or incredibly self-absorbed. eg. "I do not have a bias. Bias is a prejudice. I am speaking out against prejudice, I am speaking the truth, your bias doesn't allow you to see the truth."
Oh, and I almost forgot, you accused both another commenter and myself of shouting to drown out the sound of other opinions. I can only type so loud.
Comment deleted
Travis Hochsprung
Thomas Jones 100+
QUOTE: "Bigmouth strikes again!"
Might I suggest your emotions are overwhelming your intellect?
Calling someone a "bigmouth" on a public forum is not a particularly endearing quality (unless it's addressed to Glenn Beck ... or so I'm told) and it does not advance your point of view.
Agree or disagree. The size of our mouths are not really relevant.
ken long
Gisela McKay 30+
Anyone want to try to make the case that it wasn't androcentric?
Anthony Jaeger
Mickey Upbas
Any scientific idea that has any appreciable weight has to be able to stand alone from any sort of framing.
Does it offend you that Women were not used in the explanation? Sure, fine.
Does that logically detract from the strength of his argument?
You have not suggested any reason why this is the case. You have only asked how we felt about it.
Misplaced and pointless attack on Gilchrist. Nothing of what you stated in your OP is any reason why his ethical or scientific judgement should be examined.
Anthony Jaeger
Before we go on. Your reaction "Sure, fine" to your OWN question "Does it offend you that Women were not used in the explanation" is an example of how little concern you possess for achieving equality.
Thomas Jones 100+
Actually, you do not know his ethical stance on these issues. You have noticed something that did not conform to your expectations and you have assumed the rest.
You are "attacking" a chimaera of your own devising.
And you seem to be offended that some of us do not share in your interpretation of events: the chimaera is multiplying.
---------
I'd be willing to bet that everyone who has bothered to post, supports an egalitarian, non-sexist culture; not everyone agrees that what you see in McGilchrist's presentation is as meaningful as you think it is. You disagree.
That's about the end of the discussion.
You are not willing to see what you see as anything less than "meaningful" and as an indictment of our culture in general, and McGilchrist, in particular.
Some of us are not willing to read so much into a presentation of a few minutes duration that focussed on what goes on inside a skull not what the body looks like.
I doubt very much you will hammer anyone into submission by calling them a "Bigmouth."
But you CAN keep on trying to see if it works.
Mickey Upbas
To presume that you know anything about his stance on this issue based on the tiny presentation he gave on an unrelated topic is ridiculous.
"Before we go on. Your reaction "Sure, fine" to your OWN question "Does it offend you that Women were not used in the explanation" is an example of how little concern you possess for achieving equality."
No. Its a comment meant to highlight that his use or misuse of diversity in the presentation is irrelevant to the presentation and does not reflect the speaker's views in any meaningful way.
Benjamin Jones
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Benjamin Jones
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Gisela McKay 30+
Maybe at some point someone will introduce you to the ramifications of androcentrism and other such world-view assumptions.
Anthony Jaeger
Benjamin Jones
Gisela McKay 30+
"It's the same concept of the word mankind. Most people know that when we say mankind, we're reffering to women as well."
This is remarkably similar to "you understood" in grammar that somehow transitions into things like newscasters not mentioning a criminal's race unless they are non-white ("White understood" less common now, at least in Canada - extremely common ten+ years ago). This led to a peculiar phenomenon of only out-and-out hearing the race mentioned when the perpetrator was black or Asian.
"Women understood" is inadequate.
It's the habit and intellectual laziness that forms in just assuming that we are covered by what is being stated that results in the bigger issues, and it is precisely the little things that need to be questioned just to keep it in the conscious mind.
Benjamin Jones
Gisela McKay 30+
Those, again, are different concepts.
We will agree to disagree - for instance, I disagree with the conflation of the many concepts that you seem to be fine with.
Benjamin Jones
Anthony Jaeger
You have described feminism as if it is stagnant, not a flourishing movement. You have described me in ways that attempt to discredit me. If we objectively look at it, we have a larger number of people who have decided to gang up on an individual.
Stack their books of knowledge up high and hope they fall on his head.
Wisdom? In a vacuum!
Ethics? What is that?
These are your actions, not just words everyday.
Shame.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Anthony Jaeger
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Thomas Jones 100+
I'm not sure who you mean by "you."
But this is a discussion and if we are not going to focus on the comments one another make, what are we going to focus on - that someone makes them is a necessary corollary.
My sense is you are genuine in your concern about feminism and that your ardour has you seeing transgression virtually "everywhere" - in a graphic presentation accompanying a talk; in a joke about three specific men in bar (the joke only works because of who the men are and what they are famous for.)
In some ways, you might even be "right," however, that you choose to see chauvinism "everywhere," to a large extent, undermines the credibility of ANY observation you might make.
For example, I have noticed there are no women on the Wallabies Rugby team, only men. The women have to play on the Wallaroo team. This, as I am sure you will agree, is blatant sexism.
No?
No.
The "glass ceiling," is sexism. Women being subjugated, is sexism. Female circumcision is sexism.
A lack of female illustrations in a graphic presentation is an oversight, at best. That you see it at all, is admirable, but elevating the oversight to a major transgression is, I suggest, to diminish the greater cause and to unwittingly, compromise your own credibility.
The comment about the joke didn't help your cause either - it ONLY works because of the three, specific individuals who are mentioned by name at the beginning of the joke (Heisenberg, Godel, and Chomsky.) That all three are actually men, is an unfortunate coincidence but not one we can do anything about simply to accommodate a more egalitarian and gender-neutral worldview.
Anthony Jaeger
It's much easier to try and break someone than to build them up. I don't think you want to learn from others but instead want to hear from them that your ideas are right. Who would really accuse someone of having an enormous ego? On what grounds do you have to say that? Self-gratification and pride is a beautiful thing. You sir are not!
Benjamin Jones
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Anthony Jaeger
Maureen McFadden
Cynthia Lepthien
Natalia Sharabidze
P.S. Speaking of sexism: paying attention to things like these and making noise out of nothing is much more alarming ..O_o
Jason Kather 10+
The last I checked, Iain was a Psychiatrist and Writer, not an Artist. I am quite sure the drawings in the video were not made by him. Ian's contribution to the video is the spoken part and I ask that you point to where his words or the way in which he delivers them is "Sexist".
Quote: "Surely this makes the scientific evidence less credible or at least questionable."
How do you come to this conclusion?
Accusations like this are serious. The expression "That bell can't be un-rung" comes to mind. Sexism is a major problem all over the world today, but "crying wolf" is not the way to address the problem.
Gisela McKay 30+
I wouldn't assume a lack of glass ceiling based on those roles - and no, I am not assuming there is one either. I know nothing of their corporate structure, just that having women in those roles is not the sign of a cutting-edge egalitarian organization.
(And for the record, I don't think it taints the science, rather it makes the presentation less "audible" through exclusion.)
Jason Kather 10+
Is the presentation less "audible" for people in wheelchairs, since a wheel-chaired person is not depicted in the drawings? I don't see any Mexicans, Eskimos, or Journalists in the presentation---What does that say about the author and artist? Or does it say absolutely nothing about the author and artist, but does say something about the fact that I not only noticed it, but chose to make an issue out of it?
I agree that my point about about RSA having women in commanding roles in the company doesn't prove anything, but it paints a much clearer picture of the company's policies and views on sexism than the one painted by accusations brought forth in this conversation. I could have referenced RSA's Mission statement, respected people associated with the organization, past presentations, charitable contributions, etc. to build a stronger case for RSA's overall integrity,but I didn't feel the need.
What should we be addressing as the main topic of this conversation? Personal Perceptions, Political Correctness, Marketing Strategies, Human Learning Being Affected by Over-sensitized Sensibilities---These all seem more germane to the reactions of people who question this talk and drawings depicted in congruence with this talk than sexism to me.
Relating this presentation, RSA, and Iain McGilchrist to sexism looks more like a conspiracy theory than actual facts to me. I am not a fan of conspiracy theories.
Gisela McKay 30+
Tealdeer. In scanning, it looked a lot like "as long as it works for me, everyone who complains is just a whiny conspiracy nut."
What does it say that the first *several* versions of Dragon NaturallySpeaking had no idea what to do with women's voices because the engineers tested it only on themselves?
Clearly that's just a conspiracy of the women who wanted to use the software, nothing to do with the fact that overlooking populations actually has ramifications. Nosirree, as long as no harm is intended, there can't actually be outcomes.
That's just one example that I flippantly chose - there are tonnes in health and software. (Anyone remember the HP camera face-tracking software that couldn't track black people? While amusing, it's just another example.)
Jason Kather 10+
This is much of the problem...People apply their own warped perceptions to something before taking time to actually think about it or try to understand.
Was the Speech Software sexist? Was the HP camera racist?
Problems will always exist. My issue is that if we label a problem as the wrong thing, the solutions become impossible to find.
Crackpot Conspiracy Theories exist due to ignorance and people's need to understand something that they don't know enough about. Slander and Lible based on ignorance is not a good thing in my world.
Gisela McKay 30+
My point isn't that any of this is a conspiracy, it's that exclusion has REAL WORLD ramifications and that just simply calling the people who comment on those ramifications 'conspiracy nuts' doesn't make the effect less real.
In other words, what I'm saying is that your dismissive attitude in suggesting that other people are SAYING that it is a conspiracy is the problem.
YOU are the one who couched it using the term and continue to do so. Transparently, you are doing it to dismiss the validity of the point being made (that exclusion has valid, observable, and measurable outcomes), thus I am calling you on the tactics.
(Notice I blamed the "conspiracy" on the women users, not the male engineers - to show how ludicrous calling it a "conspiracy" is.)
Jason Kather 10+
Narration + Animation = Presentation.
They are inherently tied.
Hattie Coppard is totally right in saying that the animation "creates its own message and this is altering rather than supporting what McGilchrist is saying in this talk". This is true. The animation confounds McGilchrist's science. It makes it appear limited in terms of gender AND race. It has a narrow focus."
That he somehow suggests collusion between RSA and the author of the piece is quite evident in this post...If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck---well, you know the rest. The birth of a brand new baby Crackpot Conspiracy Theory! It's a girl! (Would it have been sexist to say that it was a boy?) and...for the record, I did not claim that your examples are Conspiracy Theories, all of my specific accusations of that are for the original poster. I don't agree with your examples, but because I feel they do not apply to what my points are does not make them "Conspiracy Theories". Do you have replies to my actual points?
I never argued that exclusion is a good thing or does not have very negative ramifications. My argument is that this is not a case of damaging exclusion, ignorantly smearing the names of respectable people and organizations is a dangerous thing to do and should be met with disapproval, and that much of what the original poster has accomplished is counter-productive to real feminism.
Also...for the record...My stance is that this post should not be dismissed, but used as an example of what not to do.
Gisela McKay 30+
It's a mindset: "if it works for me, it will work for everyone." And maybe 80% of the time*, that's accurate. But the habit that forms (not even considering a single other perspective) leads to the other examples.
And you dismissed his perspective, not the post.
*Yes, I pulled 80% out of my ass. I have no idea what the number would be.
Thomas Jones 100+
As to bells ringing, the words of John Donne come to mind:
"Never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”
Jason Kather 10+
I tend to look at a much larger picture in forming my opinions.
Travis Hochsprung
This is my last comment.
I never said my comments have more weight than a woman's. You just said that. I said my comments were what I currently see as the truth, not that it is the sole truth. There are many versions of the truth, all valid. Which is to say that this is how I see things, it is not the same way you do, hence I do not mean this personally. I am not attacking your character, as you seem to think I am.
Lastly, women are not oppressed because they menstruate.
Dan Hare
Just playing devil's advocate here...
Anthony Jaeger
It's good to hear a different opinion besides "No there is no sexism, this is ridiculous". Thank you for sharing your open minded thoughts.
Using all female characters would cause outrage amongst the male gender. They would mock and make fun of feminism, because of a supreme lack of empathy, inability to put themselves in another's shoes and attempt to push themselves 'onwards and upwards' in their male-centred worlds. Unless they were more like yourself and could rationally and not emotionally filter the information in front of them.
If all women characters were to be used it would be making a valid statement for the betterment of the rights of women in all spheres :)
Travis Hochsprung
Dan Hare
Our country was founded on Levelism or perhaps you would call it Equalism today as now we believe all "persons are created equal." No one is superior to the other, but each can offer a unique perspective.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Anthony Jaeger
Craig Schnabel
Anthony Jaeger
"How dare there be special laws for indigenous people, that's racist against white people!"
I don't have to say anything else.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
May Morgan Freeman enlighten you: http://youtu.be/GeixtYS-P3s
@Craig: I think Anthony thinks that by sounding like the stereotypical strident feminist, he's all the more convincing. This whole "hmmpff Men" attitude is, if anything, degrading to the feminist cause, it's a dead weight that modern feminism tries to shrug off as it is often used as a straw man against real equal rights feminism. As someone who has taken an active interest in feminism (My TED conversation on the subject is testimony to this), I find that people who take such attitudes aren't in it really for the feminism but for the spectacle, just like what PETA is to animal rights, it's all a knee-jerk reaction to meaningless patterns so that one can flatter themselves in being a 'holier than thou' individual that gets it while everybody else is hopelessly clueless.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Craig Schnabel
And anyway, my comment has nothing to do with laws meant to protect the rights of marginalized people, it has only to do with your own choice of words, which insinuate that most men are incapable of empathy, only seek to push themselves 'onward and upward in their male centered worlds' whatever that means, and are incapable of dealing rationally with information. Why you think men would react this way to an animation that didn't include any men is beyond me, but I certainly wouldn't, and I can't think of a single man I know whom I would expect to either. I am more offended by your generalization than I would ever be by the lack of men depicted in an animation, which is not very, to be clear, but I should at least hope you can see the animosity in your creation of a reaction.
Anthony Jaeger
Simple. As. That.
Use a vacuum cleaner to hide the past instead of sweeping it under the rug.
Craig Schnabel
Indigenous persons have been oppressed for 223 years, which gives them the right to be racist. Therefore, my comment was not sexist.
Instead of an example as vague and cliche as I hate white people, suppose we changed the comment you made to say most white people lacked empathy and rational thinking, and only sought to empower themselves at the cost of others. Certainly that sentiment would be understandable from a person who had been oppressed in such a manner, but it doesn't make it true, nor does it absolve it of it's racism. To quote you directly: "Cultural biases are prejudices and no prejudice should be catered for or given more energy."
If you are going to claim the moral high ground of fighting for equality of the sexes, you can't disparage one of them in the next breath and expect to continue to be taken seriously. Your tone is both dismissive and divisive, and it hurts your case terribly. And I agree with much of your sentiment! How can you hope to win over those who don't?
Laurens Rademakers 50+
Beware, as scientists we have to entertain the possibility that the men in the drawings could actually be female transvestites.
We have to ask the artist :-)
Anthony Jaeger
curtis mcallister
Anthony Jaeger
That is not the case.
Men have a significantly greater portion of the field. Thus that quick-fix style of argument simply doesn't work.
Furthermore, in the RSA animation we aren't just talking about an animation of a man. A dominant masculine gender is prevalent in far more many elements. It's the fact that these elements are repeated and they saturate the presentation. There is no representation of the female gender in the presentation, it's as if it has been made for men, about men.
This is not good science.
curtis mcallister