The gender equality paradox

[SS-18 ICBM]

therefore it's no stretch to assume there probably are behavioral differences as well

Yeah, see, that's the problem. You can't automatically extrapolate from physical differences to behavioural differences. Evidence that there are physical differences does not disprove the null hypothesis of no differences in male and female behaviour.

 

[Birdjaguar]

luiz: ancient warfare scholar.

I guess all it takes to be an engineer in Brazil is to say "yeah I'm TOTALLY sure that metal can make a bridge stay up ," though I guess that'd be why the only structure of any note in Brazil is a big soapstone statue of Christ.

Still declaring victory. Adding to that tally: one sick burn.

The day you actually meet a woman other than your mom, or actually do some exercise other than picking up your wallet to buy a burger, come back and we'll conclude this talk.

Moderator Action: Hey guys, let's stop with the personal attacks. Thanks.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Crezth]

The day you actually meet a woman other than your mom, or actually do some exercise other than picking up your wallet to buy a burger, come back and we'll conclude this talk.

Dude, I was born in the United States of America. Listen, I know the Brazilian "army" (lol) is an exclusive organization, but please - get on my level.

This is not a personal attack btw. I'm just saying the Brazilian boy scouts army isn't all it's cracked up to be. Apparently they don't even make some of their soldiers do exercises! hahaha!

 

[Flying Pig]

Yeah, see, that's the problem. You can't automatically extrapolate from physical differences to behavioural differences. Evidence that there are physical differences does not disprove the null hypothesis of no differences in male and female behaviour.

More importantly, even assuming that some probably exist, it doesn't prove that they're not totally wiped out by cultural conditioning, or that they coincide with the stereotypes which our culture creates.

 

[warpus]

Yeah, see, that's the problem. You can't automatically extrapolate from physical differences to behavioural differences. Evidence that there are physical differences does not disprove the null hypothesis of no differences in male and female behaviour.

There are people who think that there aren't behavioural differences between men and women? That seems to me to be a very silly position. Isn't it sort of obvious that we have differing biology, internal chemistry, and so on, leading to slightly different ways of viewing the world?

What do psychologists have to say about this? It must have been studied.

 

[luiz]

Would not the overlap concept apply to behavioral "differences" - maybe even moreso? Perhaps the average woman is less obtuse that some of you outliers here.

Nobody is calling them obtuse (but you). And of course there would be overlaps. I think we all stated as much many times. We're talking about averages.

Talking about outliers and overlap would only make sense if we were arguing that no women shares the behaviors typically associated with men. That's not what we've been arguing.

Yeah, see, that's the problem. You can't automatically extrapolate from physical differences to behavioural differences. Evidence that there are physical differences does not disprove the null hypothesis of no differences in male and female behaviour.

I agree it's not proof, but I reject that the null hypothesis is that there are no behavioral differences. It makes far more sense to assume there are. Why?

Well, the fact that men and women are so physically different (males have in average twice the upper body strength, are faster, more resistant, etc) means that we evolved in a way to do different stuff. We specialized in different stuff. Seems obvious, and is reinforced by what we know of pre-history, that males were responsible for fighting and hunting. It only makes sense that males developed a more aggressive and thrill-seeking behavior to match these responsibilities. It could also be argued, though this is a bit more tenuous, that the fact that nearly all advanced cultures, many of which developed totally independently of each other, had certain "gender roles" that although by no means identical shared many similarities, suggests a "natural" cause for them. You can't blame "Judeo-Christian Patriarchy" (as some radical feminists do) for the gender roles of females in medieval Japan or Ancient Greece.

Unnecessary disclaimer: I'm talking about averages.

 

[Akka]

There are people who think that there aren't behavioural differences between men and women? That seems to me to be a very silly position. Isn't it sort of obvious that we have differing biology, internal chemistry, and so on, leading to slightly different ways of viewing the world?

Of course it is a completely stupid position, and of course it is obvious.
But this thread has become kind of a contest about who can play the dumbest and find way to claim that nothing prove that grass is green.

 

[Borachio]

Seems to me that everyone has a slightly different way of viewing the world.

It seems less obvious to me that the female viewpoint is any different from the male one, though.

What exactly are male and female viewpoints?

It should be really easy to say, if it's so obvious to everyone. Beyond a bit of handwaving about nurturing and being muscular.

Is it, you know, that Men are from Mars, and Women are from Venus? Because, honestly, that book didn't have me convinced.

I've talked, and interacted, with both men and women on several occasions, and, really, I don't see much to differentiate them. (Except that I tend to find women more sexually attractive, of course.) Still, I must admit I'm remarkably unobservant and perhaps some things just pass me by.

 

[warpus]

Seems to me that everyone has a slightly different way of viewing the world.

It seems less obvious to me that the female viewpoint is any different from the male one, though.

One example: women tend to have a very strong childbearing and rearing instinct. This of course does not apply to ALL women, but it's a generic statement that for the most part touches on most women. Men? We have similar instincts, but they are different in terms of context and intensity.

There are many more examples like that - surely it leads to a slightly different way of viewing the world. How to explain "how a woman sees the world?" It's impossible, you're right, every individual sees things for the most part in their own little way. It's hard to generalize on that level and give a specific answer.

 

[Flying Pig]

Yes, but if our culture decided that men ought to be homemakers and women ought to be bloody, bold and resolute, would we see the same instincts in a few centuries?

 

[luiz]

Yes, but if our culture decided that men ought to be homemakers and women ought to be bloody, bold and resolute, would we see the same instincts in a few centuries?

The question is, why would culture evolve in way to make a gender that is on average only half as strong, slower and less resistant be bloody and bold? Isn't there a reason why in pretty much every culture men are more "bloody and bold"?

 

[warpus]

Yes, but if our culture decided that men ought to be homemakers and women ought to be bloody, bold and resolute, would we see the same instincts in a few centuries?

I doubt it, as that instinct is biological in nature, rather than cultural. I'd think, anyway.

 

[Flying Pig]

The question is, why would culture evolve in way to make a gender that is on average only half as strong, slower and less resistant be bloody and bold? Isn't there a reason why in pretty much every culture men are more "bloody and bold"?

Today, it's assumed that women will be better than men at communicating and manipulating language. Yet for most of history, female writers were almost non-existent. Stereotypes are hardly fixed. We nowadays assume that women make good secretaries and men make good computer programmers. 300 years ago, all secretaries were men, and 60 years ago, most programmers were women.

I doubt it, as that instinct is biological in nature, rather than cultural. I'd think, anyway.

Well, that's the point of contention. It's easy to have a gut instinct, but not easy to work out how to separate it out. It seems to me self-evident that genetics have some bearing on one's personality; if they can so totally change your physical appearance, they can surely influence how your mind works. However, we put ourselves through so much conditioning in our lives that by the time we're aware of it, it's impossible to tell which parts are genetic and which are environmental. Nationality, class, gender, education, family, religion, friends, work - all of these things change who we are completely. So many parts of my character are so obviously caused by one or more of those that I can't even attempt to tell you how I would have turned out born in a totally different context. It's the same with the differences caused by one's sex, I think.

 

[luiz]

Today, it's assumed that women will be better than men at communicating and manipulating language. Yet for most of history, female writers were almost non-existent. Stereotypes are hardly fixed. We nowadays assume that women make good secretaries and men make good computer programmers. 300 years ago, all secretaries were men, and 60 years ago, most programmers were women.

Those may well be cultural constructs. But the overall and far longer and universal distinction of men being the warriors and women doing "home" chores seems to match our actual physical differences.

As I said, why exactly would a culture develop in which women are expected to be more "bloody and bold" than men?

 

[Flying Pig]

In war? It probably wouldn't. But what if we had decided that stock-selling, as a desk job involving no physical or mechanical labour, was 'women's work'?

 

[luiz]

In war? It probably wouldn't. But what if we had decided that stock-selling, as a desk job involving no physical or mechanical labour, was 'women's work'?

Sure, there's no great impediment there I'd say. I strongly suspect men have more of the thrill-seeking and risk-tolerating behavior that thrives on the stock market, though.

 

[Flying Pig]

Indeed, but whether that's down to nature or a culture which tells men to be brave, to seek out adventures and to idolise heroes who strive against great odds, and which tells women to stay at home, to be content with stability and to have role models who are defined by their looks is at least debatable.

 

[Crezth]

Sure, there's no great impediment there I'd say. I strongly suspect men have more of the thrill-seeking and risk-tolerating behavior that thrives on the stock market, though.

Based on nothing whatsoever, thanks for your expert opinion!

So this thread is "luiz talks out of his ass about crap he doesn't know about," for those of you keeping score at home.

 

[luiz]

Indeed, but whether that's down to nature or a culture which tells men to be brave, to seek out adventures and to idolise heroes who strive against great odds, and which tells women to stay at home, to be content with stability and to have role models who are defined by their looks is at least debatable.

Sure, but wouldn't you agree that the same evolutionary forces that made men physically more apt for warring and hunting would make him behaviorally more comfortable with those activities?

 

[Crezth]

Sure, but wouldn't you agree that the same evolutionary forces that made men physically more apt for warring and hunting would make him behaviorally more comfortable with those activities?

Oh yes, evolutionary biology. Please, tell us more about how we know all of the evolutionary reasons for human biology.