The gender equality paradox

Ah see, we found the knot in your otherwise pretty good cord. It's a pretty big knot. The correct default puts the burden of proof on you. You can articulate that you have an avenue you find compelling, one strong enough to tell others you find it compelling, and personally strong enough for you to live your life accordingly.

But if you articulate that, indeed, what looks to me like a (big) leap of confirmation bias faith is the truth until proven otherwise, you've both logically and behaviorally stepped into the very realms you've recognized other folk in recent threads as dubiously doing.
Sorry, but I think you got this reversed.

My point is simply the that considering the fact the typical biological differences between men and women are matching the typical behavioural patterns we see in the overwhelming majority of the world, these behaviour tends to stem from nature.
(I hope we can all be reasonable about it and skip the lengthy list of biological/social/psychological features that fit a hunter-gatherer society with the male providers and female reproducers ?)
(I also hope that the "it's about general trends" statistical caveat is well understood and we can avoid the pointless outliers examples that are irrelevant to the larger picture)

It's more of a simple observation. You're the ones saying that this observation is wrong and it's more due to culture. You're the ones going against the simplest explanation, and as such having the burden of proof.
 
That's always got me. Every thesis can be expressed negatively and one's "opponent" can always try and put the burden of proof onto the other.

It's the null hypothesis thingy. It really doesn't seem to matter which one you pick.
 
Sorry, but I think you got this reversed.

My point is simply the that considering the fact the typical biological differences between men and women are matching the typical behavioural patterns we see in the overwhelming majority of the world, these behaviour tends to stem from nature.
(I hope we can all be reasonable about it and skip the lengthy list of biological/social/psychological features that fit a hunter-gatherer society with the male providers and female reproducers ?)
(I also hope that the "it's about general trends" statistical caveat is well understood and we can avoid the pointless outliers examples that are irrelevant to the larger picture)

It's more of a simple observation. You're the ones saying that this observation is wrong and it's more due to culture. You're the ones going against the simplest explanation, and as such having the burden of proof.
Let me rephrase. I'm not saying "it's culture, not biology, until proven otherwise". I'm saying that if you default to biology to make positive claims of cause-effect, you're taking a leap of faith and the burden of proof is on you.

  • We know that very discrepant sex-gender differences are caused by culture. This includes male-female levels of aggression and competitiveness.
  • We know there are sex-gender differences in biology.

However, it does not follow that those sex-gender differences in biology have anything to do with any widespread post-agriculture sex-gender behavior differences beyond historical accidents or, more tenuous, send-off points.
 
I'm talking about how (on a tendencies/statistical/large numbers level), biological differences fits and explain behavioural expectations.
First proves how it's wrong, only then you can talk about "prejudices".
The world is secretly controlled by a cabal of Jewish bankers. Prove me wrong, then we can talk about "prejudices".
 
Because it's not secret! Zing!

JUST KIDDING :mad:
 
  • We know that very discrepant sex-gender differences are caused by culture. This includes male-female levels of aggression and competitiveness.

Do we know this? I wasn't aware that anyone had proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
 
Do we know this? I wasn't aware that anyone had proven this beyond a shadow of a doubt.
That culture has the empirically demonstrated power to result in gender behavior discrepencies that totally re-assign who is competitive in that culture? Yes, that is something we know.

Do we state that differences in competitiveness are divorced from biological differences? I wouldn't make that claim. But I wouldn't make the claim that differences in competitiveness in our and many other cultures are meaningfully caused by biological differences either.

So of the matrix
Bio vs socio,
meaningful cause vs not meaningful cause,

we know that assuming "bio differences drive this thing" is too strong a claim to be compelling.
we know that assuming "bio doesn't drive this thing" is also too strong a claim.
we know that "culture doesn't drive this thing" is flying in the face of evidence, so denying it is a poor default.

That only leads "likely to be driven by culture, and may or may not also by genetic bias."
 
The world is secretly controlled by a cabal of Jewish bankers. Prove me wrong, then we can talk about "prejudices".
You are wrong, because the world is controlled by Jay Z through the Illuminati. 99 problems but a cabal of Jewish bankers ain't one.
 
I don't get it. In the first part you say that women couldn't do your job because the level of lead were too high. In the second part you say that the level of lead in the blood was more than acceptable for both men and women. So to me it sounds like women can do your job.

The risk is too great and that why either company or government regulations mean they aren't allowed to do that job especially if the female is wanting to have babies some time later. While the levels never have exceeded the critical levels, it is just a risk not worth taking.
 
That's always got me. Every thesis can be expressed negatively and one's "opponent" can always try and put the burden of proof onto the other.

It's the null hypothesis thingy. It really doesn't seem to matter which one you pick.

Null hypotheses usually state that there are no differences.
 
That only leads "likely to be driven by culture, and may or may not also by genetic bias."
Actually, I'd lean much more toward :
"driven by genetic, but can be altered by culture"
Let me rephrase. I'm not saying "it's culture, not biology, until proven otherwise". I'm saying that if you default to biology to make positive claims of cause-effect, you're taking a leap of faith and the burden of proof is on you.
There is a certain number of proven biological facts and a certain number of obvious ones (like statistically higher aggressivity and strength in males), and both the typical cultural expectations and the logical requirements of a hunter-gatherer society fit these biological fact.

What is the leap of faith about saying these facts are the main reason for these expectations and why should the burden of proof be on the simplest explanation ?
The world is secretly controlled by a cabal of Jewish bankers. Prove me wrong, then we can talk about "prejudices".
I don't see how your absurd answer is in any way linked or relevant to my point.
 
Null hypotheses usually state that there are no differences.

So which would you test? The null hypothesis that there is no cultural influence, or the null hypothesis that there is no genetic influence?
 
Okay akka, fine. But then the difference really lies in that you find the genetic difference default narrative to be a compelling foundation. I on the other hand begin my position understanding what data we can safely attribute to culture vs genetics. Knowing that we have discovered a lot of culture influences that clearly dominate genetic differences for specific things, we we know how cultural mechanisms function on a social level. But we simply don't know the extent that genetic differences in men and women lead to not-cultural differences, because most asserted differences attributed to genetics have glaring confounding cultural variables.

So to recap:
cultures' affect to drive behavioral differences between sexes has been demonstrated to work regardless of genetic elements.
genetic differences have been much harder to isolate or prove, and almost always have confounding cultural differences that are logically as persuasive.

So there's clearly a superior starting point if you want to be scientific, which is to not assume genetic differences unless proven otherwise. Meanwhile, don't assume cultural differences either. Suspect them. That's different. If you have a hunch about genetic differences, by all means pursue the knowledge. But asserting genetic differences does not hold the same objective weight given the extent of present understanding.
 
We gotta ask ourselves, though, if culture in societies as disparate as Western Europe and Japan (and really any "advanced culture" I can think of) developed some similar (though by no means identical) "gender roles", shouldn't we at least seriously suspect biological differences played a role in their development?

Which is not to say they are "correct". I for one would never argue that we ought to revert to hunter-gatherer status and assume that we are forced to live "as evolution intended". Modern society allows people to take all sorts of roles they couldn't before, and of course this is specially true for women (women can be effective soldiers today, obviously they couldn't in the past).

OTOH, I don't see equality as a supreme good either. If men and women have some different capabilities and preferences, what's wrong with that? There's no point in trying to make the genders equal. In fact personally I would very much dislike a world where women behave as competitively and aggressively as men, among other stuff.
 
I think the trick lies in making sure there is equal opportunity, eh luiz? That there may be no innate harm in women deciding to spend more time on child rearing, and perhaps even some good if women and men both actualize happiness out of what they are doing - but it remains important to maintain a society that allows access to non-gender-normative actions in a free, fair, and non-shocking manner. And since society as well as biology can reinforce gender stereotypes, attempting to ensure this opportunity is one of those forever ongoing activities?
 
I think the trick lies in making sure there is equal opportunity, eh luiz? That there may be no innate harm in women deciding to spend more time on child rearing, and perhaps even some good if women and men both actualize happiness out of what they are doing - but it remains important to maintain a society that allows access to non-gender-normative actions in a free, fair, and non-shocking manner. And since society as well as biology can reinforce gender stereotypes, attempting to ensure this opportunity is one of those forever ongoing activities?

Sure, it's a good things we've come this far. I'm just saying I don't see the point in actually pushing women to behave "as men" as part of some liberation struggle. And personally, I prefer women who behave "as women" as defined by our gender-normative (my God what a horrible term) Western culture. I don't want to date myself. Which is not say I want a stay-at-home wife, or a servant, or any of that crap that feminists usually accuse men of wanting. A normal girl raised in modern Brazil (or many other modern western countries) suits me fine. If she's more aggressive, more competitive and more "masculine" (as defined by our culture) than me, I'm not interested, and I'd be very sad if that was ever common. Just a personal sidenote with obviously no implication in any argument.
 
Sorry Hygro, but I just find your reasoning to be an extreme stretch. It just doesn't seem to balance equally the vast amount of information we have, and simply attempt to put all the weight in the one part where there is some doubt while glossing over the countless details that would pull the other way.
We gotta ask ourselves, though, if culture in societies as disparate as Western Europe and Japan (and really any "advanced culture" I can think of) developed some similar (though by no means identical) "gender roles", shouldn't we at least seriously suspect biological differences played a role in their development?
Exactly.
 
So which would you test? The null hypothesis that there is no cultural influence, or the null hypothesis that there is no genetic influence?

The only way the two can be really untangled is a controlled experiment. Which would be highly unethical to do on children. You know what...I don't know if this is a question that can be answered any time soon. I'll begin to ponder it as soon as the genetics of neuroscience is much clearer.
 
Top Bottom