The gender equality paradox

[Traitorfish]

Touch a nerve?

If but you had! At least then I'd get to feel the surge of righteous indignation. Mostly what I'm feeling is weary obligation, because I've had this conversation-slash-argument a dozen times before, and it never gets more fruitful or less boring.

 

[Crezth]

If but you had! At least then I'd get to feel the surge of righteous indignation. Mostly what I'm feeling is weary obligation, because I've had this conversation-slash-argument a dozen times before, and it never gets more fruitful or less boring.

Well, women and men are different, Traitorfish. I mean they look different. That tells you all you need to know - what's to "study?"

 

[Borachio]

Only some of them look different.

The ones that look exactly the same are indistinguishable from each other.

 

[Traitorfish]

Made all the more complicated when you consider that some women are biologically male, and some men are biologically female. Not to mention that some people defy these sorts traditional categories altogether.

It's almost as if, and stop me if you think I'm going a bit crazy, we're not looking at a single, binary variable, but something altogether more complicated and multi-layered.

 

[luiz]

Gender studies could be a thing, but as it exists in most places it's a fraud. It starts with a conclusion (that genders are entirely a social construct) and then tries to explain the world based on that premise (which happens to be false). Starting with a conclusion is of course always the recipe for bad science. And in fact a lot of the prominent "gender students" plainly reject science. Studies show that men are twice as strong? Must be white male studies! Studies show that baby boys and girls have markedly different behaviors? Penis-science!

Here's a good article (in German I'm afraid) about the fraud that gender studies are, and also some nice references to a lot of studies pointing to biological causes of behavioral differences between men and women (and boys and girls):

http://www.zeit.de/2013/24/genderforschung-kulturelle-unterschiede/seite-1

 

[luiz]

And for the 10000th time, showing physical and behavioral differences between men and women tells us nothing about individuals, only about populations.

So if someone here wants to disprove those differences by claiming that some women are actually quite strong, or that he is a male but has a behavior typically associated with females, the only thing he is proving is that he is an idiot.

Moderator Action: Please don't ignore mod warning. Also don't attack other users. Five day ban for this and another post.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Disgustipated]

Gender studies could be a thing, but as it exists in most places it's a fraud. It starts with a conclusion (that genders are entirely a social construct) and then tries to explain the world based on that premise (which happens to be false). Starting with a conclusion is of course always the recipe for bad science. And in fact a lot of the prominent "gender students" plainly reject science. Studies show that men are twice as strong? Must be white male studies! Studies show that baby boys and girls have markedly different behaviors? Penis-science!

Here's a good article (in German I'm afraid) about the fraud that gender studies are, and also some nice references to a lot of studies pointing to biological causes of behavioral differences between men and women (and boys and girls):

http://www.zeit.de/2013/24/genderforschung-kulturelle-unterschiede/seite-1

Sounds like they are fringe groups and should be ignored. There are crazies of every spectrum. There is no reason to get our feathers all ruffled from these people. Whatever crazy thoughts these people have in their head doesn't affect me in the slightest. It's like that crazy candidate who said women cannot be raped or whatever. Every political group (and make no mistake, these feminists do have a political agenda) has its own crazies.

 

[Borachio]

Here's a good article (in German I'm afraid) about the fraud that gender studies are, and also some nice references to a lot of studies pointing to biological causes of behavioral differences between men and women (and boys and girls):

http://www.zeit.de/2013/24/genderforschung-kulturelle-unterschiede/seite-1

I do understand that there are behavioural differences between boys and girls which have a biological cause. For example, it's entirely credible that boys are more boisterous than girls.

What I don't quite understand is how these early differences are translated into behavioural differences between men and women. Because I've really not seen much difference between how the men and women of my acquaintance in fact behave.

And, more importantly, I've not seen any evidence that they think in different ways. Which is, iirc, the initial point of the debate here.

 

[luiz]

Sounds like they are fringe groups and should be ignored. There are crazies of every spectrum. There is no reason to get our feathers all ruffled from these people. Whatever crazy thoughts these people have in their head doesn't affect me in the slightest. It's like that crazy candidate who said women cannot be raped or whatever. Every political group (and make no mistake, these feminists do have a political agenda) has its own crazies.

True, it's not something that affects me in the slightest. But in many countries taxpayer money is being spent on this anti-scientific nonsense, money that could be spent on serious subjects actually useful for the taxpayer. In the article I posted, for instance, it is mentioned that since 1997 paleontology lost 21 professorships in Germany, while gender studies gained 30. There are already 171 gender studies chairs in the country, far outnumbering that of many serious fields!

And it's not as fringe as you think. In the gender studies milieu, that sort of extreme obscurantism is the norm, not the exception. You can watch the OP video to have an idea of the nonsense spouted in Norway; you can search the web for Richard Dawkins exposing some of the absurdities spouted by these people in the UK, or Steven Pinker talking about the US. It is widespread.

 

[luiz]

I do understand that there are behavioural differences between boys and girls which have a biological cause. For example, it's entirely credible that boys are more boisterous than girls.

What I don't quite understand is how these early differences are translated into behavioural differences between men and women. Because I've really not seen much difference between how the men and women of my acquaintance in fact behave.

And, more importantly, I've not seen any evidence that they think in different ways. Which is, iirc, the initial point of the debate here.

The studies show that many discrepant behaviors seen between very young boys and girls (babies indeed) do not change as they grow older, as one would expect if nurture was the primary factor. The very different aggressiveness levels, for instance, persist for the whole life (see the rate of men convicted for violent crimes and compare it to that of women, the ratio is simply huge).

As for you not seeing a lot of difference on how men and women of your acquaintance behave, that is just an anecdote, and a bizarre one at that. Even the most rabid feminist will admit there are vast differences in behavior, but she will blame it all on society instead of the mix of nature and nurture we know to be responsible.

 

[Disgustipated]

True, it's not something that affects me in the slightest. But in many countries taxpayer money is being spent on this anti-scientific nonsense, money that could be spent on serious subjects actually useful for the taxpayer. In the article I posted, for instance, it is mentioned that since 1997 paleontology lost 21 professorships in Germany, while gender studies gained 30. There are already 171 gender studies chairs in the country, far outnumbering that of many serious fields!

And it's not as fringe as you think. In the gender studies milieu, that sort of extreme obscurantism is the norm, not the exception. You can watch the OP video to have an idea of the nonsense spouted in Norway; you can search the web for Richard Dawkins exposing some of the absurdities spouted by these people in the UK, or Steven Pinker talking about the US. It is widespread.

Ahh don't worry. The Muslims will take over Europe and set you all straight with explaining the differences between men and women.

I don't see it as much a problem in the U.S. Maybe in Universities. But once they reach the real world, they will realize gender studies is absolutely useless. Most average Americans can clearly see the differences in genders. We may not talk about it out of political correctness, but it's plain as day to see. We still have different Olympic events for men and women, and The Oscars have different categories between men and women.

Because I've really not seen much difference between how the men and women of my acquaintance in fact behave.

Wow. Are you saying men and women in your acquaintance act the same? I will agree that ultimately humans have the same needs (survival, mating). But that the sexes have different methods towards achieving those goals.

 

[Borachio]

I'm really not sure how much weight you can put on conviction rates. There are just so many confounding factors involved, I really don't know why you'd single out testosterone levels as the single major cause of male incarceration.

A more interesting question, assuming your premise is correct for the moment, would be why there are so few men incarcerated?

Still, maybe this is all beside the point. Since you dismiss my anecdotal evidence with such facility, let's turn to your experience. How does the behaviour of men and women of your acquaintance differ? And how does their thinking strike you as different?

 

[warpus]

It's obvious that the biological differences have a profound cultural significance, but it's not at all obvious that the former "underlies" the latter. There's a very strong case to be made for the reverse, that the significance of biology is in the way it is apprehended by culture, and while the brute materiality of biology places certain terms on the possibilities of that apprehension, culture is relatively free within those terms.

The way I used the term "Underlies" I meant that the biological influences are at a less abstract level that affects behaviour than culture.

That's probably not true in all cases, but it's a probably "good enough" way to look at it.

Our biology was still there before we developed complex social groups and culture, right? If you go back far enough our culture was very minimal, as our ancestors tended to the basic necessities of life required for survival. The better we got at survival and the less time you had to put into surviving directly, the more culture sprug up. Then much later with agriculture and specialization much more complex social groups started spriging up, which lead to an even more complexity in culture.

That's sort of what I meant - the biology is always there, if changing. The cultural and social influences are built on top of that.

I do understand that there are behavioural differences between boys and girls which have a biological cause. For example, it's entirely credible that boys are more boisterous than girls.

What I don't quite understand is how these early differences are translated into behavioural differences between men and women. Because I've really not seen much difference between how the men and women of my acquaintance in fact behave.

And, more importantly, I've not seen any evidence that they think in different ways. Which is, iirc, the initial point of the debate here.

When's the last time you heard one of your bros say: "Tonight.. I just want to dance"

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm really not sure how much weight you can put on conviction rates. There are just so many confounding factors involved, I really don't know why you'd single out testosterone levels as the single major cause of male incarceration.

A more interesting question, assuming your premise is correct for the moment, would be why there are so few men incarcerated?

Still, maybe this is all beside the point. Since you dismiss my anecdotal evidence with such facility, let's turn to your experience. How does the behaviour of men and women of your acquaintance differ? And how does their thinking strike you as different?

You pose an interesting question. Why are so few men incarcerated. First of all, testosterone differs wildly between men. And I know I'm again straying out of political correctness bounds, but black men on average (not every one) have higher testosterone than white men. There's a reason they excel as athletes over whites (even winning this year's Superbowl). But even between the same race, some whites will be horndogs and chase after every women, some will not like women at all, and just like "nerdy" pursuits. There's a huge range of human behavior.

As for my acquaintances, some of this will be generalization. Obviously not everyone is like this, but for the most part I have seen women care more about social situations, and social status. Not that this isn't important to men as well, they just have different ways of achieving social status. Men do it with sports or wealth. Where as women will do it by their economic status, or the man they are with.

Men do tend to be willing to work "dirty" jobs to make more money, where as women are happy working as a cashier making 9 or 10 an hour.

Women place more importance in their appearance. Yes I'll admit this is a cultural thing, and not genetic. Times are changing, and more men are placing more importance on their appearance. But there are still very stark differences.

Women I know don't care for technology at all, except in entertainment value (smart phones and such). They seem less willing to learn how it all works.

And finally, women have trouble parallel parking, and backing their car into parking spots.

 

[luiz]

I'm really not sure how much weight you can put on conviction rates. There are just so many confounding factors involved, I really don't know why you'd single out testosterone levels as the single major cause of male incarceration.

A more interesting question, assuming your premise is correct for the moment, would be why there are so few men incarcerated?

Still, maybe this is all beside the point. Since you dismiss my anecdotal evidence with such facility, let's turn to your experience. How does the behaviour of men and women of your acquaintance differ? And how does their thinking strike you as different?

You misunderstand. The incarceration rates on themselves would mean very little, as it could be argued that men become more violent because of the way they're nurtured. BUT:

a) The 5-1 difference in aggressive behavior observed in male and female babies is roughly reflected on the incarceration rate for violent crimes;
b) The gender ratio of people incarcerated for violent crimes has not changed over the 20th Century, even as the approach to raising boys and girls, and indeed women's rights, changed dramatically.

All of that strongly indicate that men are biologically more violent than women. We know that men are more violent, this is an observable fact. What is (or rather was, as this debate has been settled) up for debate was the causes of this discrepancy.

As for your question about my personal experience... well, they broadly reflect that which nearly everyone will tell you is the case, even rabid feminists. The men I know are more competitive, physically aggressive, assertive, etc, while the women tend to be more caring, anxious, "socially aggressive" (that is, more prone to trying to ostracize people they dislike and talking ill about others), etc.

 

[Borachio]

When's the last time you heard one of your bros say: "Tonight.. I just want to dance"

Do you know, I don't think I've heard anyone say it?

I've had a woman say something similar though, if I've understood what you mean correctly. But that was very shortly before she decided she was happier with someone else. Or to be more exact, shortly before she told me so. She'd no doubt decided sometime before. But, blow me down, with hindsight I realized I should have known anyway.

 

[Disgustipated]

You misunderstand. The incarceration rates on themselves would mean very little, as it could be argued that men become more violent because of the way they're nurtured. BUT:

a) The 5-1 difference in aggressive behavior observed in male and female babies is roughly reflected on the incarceration rate for violent crimes;
b) The gender ratio of people incarcerated for violent crimes has not changed over the 20th Century, even as the approach to raising boys and girls, and indeed women's rights, changed dramatically.

All of that strongly indicate that men are biologically more violent than women. We know that men are more violent, this is an observable fact. What is (or rather was, as this debate has been settled) up for debate was the causes of this discrepancy.

As for your question about my personal experience... well, they broadly reflect that which nearly everyone will tell you is the case, even rabid feminists. The men I know are more competitive, physically aggressive, assertive, etc, while the women tend to be more caring, anxious, "socially aggressive" (that is, more prone to trying to ostracize people they dislike and talking ill about others), etc.

The way to prove this is to show incarceration rates of eunuchs. I am willing to bet an eunuch lacks most aggressive behaviours. There just hasn't been a large enough sample size for analysis.

 

[luiz]

The way to prove this is to show incarceration rates of eunuchs. I am willing to bet an eunuch lacks most aggressive behaviours. There just hasn't been a large enough sample size for analysis.

It is known that eunuchs are less aggressive. The link between testosterone and aggressiveness, although not linear by any means, is quite clear and established.

Which is why the people claiming that there are no difference in behaviors due to nature must deny the validity of science. Biology is a white male science, apparently.

 

[Borachio]

Didn't I read somewhere, a long long time ago, that testosterone levels amongst the most aggressive football hooligans* are actually lower than average?

* predominately male.

 

[luiz]

Didn't I read somewhere, a long long time ago, that testosterone levels amongst the most aggressive football hooligans* are actually lower than average?

* predominately male.

I doubt it.