The gender equality paradox

[Traitorfish]

I am averse to confrontation. I am not enthusiastic about physical exertion. I value empathy over assertiveness.

Working backwards, we can therefore conclude that I have a vagina.

SCIENCE.

 

[Borachio]

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.

Ignoring for the moment the plain biological fact that it is, by definition, the women that physically give birth to children, it's not obvious to me that men don't have an equally strong instinct to produce progeny and to successfully rear them.

So, in the end, all we're left to go on is that women, for the whole of history and for the foreseeable future, are the ones who get pregnant and give birth.

Now, I don't mean to downplay it, but on its own, isn't this the whole difference in the way men and women interact? And is it sufficient to explain the whole idea that therefore men and women's intellects somehow differ fundamentally?

 

[Crezth]

Blah blah blah look how sarcastic and progressive I am!

How tedious! It's a documented fact that men and women look different, from which we may - nay, absolutely must conclude that they think differently too.

I wouldn't expect you to understand, Anglo-liberal.

 

[classical_hero]

I am averse to confrontation. I am not enthusiastic about physical exertion. I value empathy over assertiveness.

Working backwards, we can therefore conclude that I have a vagina.

SCIENCE.

No wonder why you are so different from the rest of us.

 

[luiz]

I am averse to confrontation. I am not enthusiastic about physical exertion. I value empathy over assertiveness.

Working backwards, we can therefore conclude that I have a vagina.

SCIENCE.

Yao Ming is taller than any Dutchman I know.Therefore the Chinese are taller than the Dutch.

TRAITORFISH'S NOTION OF AVERAGES

 

[Crezth]

On average, people are blue-and purple-colored. I'm basing this off of FACT so don't bother trying to oppose the notion.

 

[Borachio]

How tedious! It's a documented fact that men and women look different, from which we may - nay, absolutely must conclude that they think differently too.

I wouldn't expect you to understand, Anglo-liberal.

No. I'm pretty sure you're thinking of Protestants and Catholics, here. They do indeed look radically different. Though, strangely, their thinking is only trivially different.

But men and women? They all look alike to me.

(Or am I thinking of dwarves?)

 

[luiz]

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.

I think by now we have a winner on who can play the dumbest, though it was a tough contest and by now it's not even clear that this particular individual is just playing dumb. If he is he deserves an Oscar or something.

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

 

[Flying Pig]

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?

They also left him with a soft outer coating, a slower running speed than most of his prey, feeble muscles and a pathetic set of claws. So, to be honest, no.

 

[warpus]

Now, I don't mean to downplay it, but on its own, isn't this the whole difference in the way men and women interact? And is it sufficient to explain the whole idea that therefore men and women's intellects somehow differ fundamentally?

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. There are many more biological differences between the genders other than the "women give birth and men don't" one... but what sort of differences in our behaviour are biological in nature and which are cultural in nature, I wouldn't care to guess.. I just think it's "obvious" that there are several biological ones lying underneath all the cultural stuff.

 

[luiz]

They also left him with a soft outer coating, a slower running speed than most of his prey, feeble muscles and a pathetic set of claws. So, to be honest, no.

So in your opinion the fact that human males are on average twice as strong as females, faster and more resistant has absolutely no bearing on the "roles" that each gender ended up having on pre-historical society?

 

[Borachio]

There are many more biological differences between the genders other than the "women give birth and men don't" one...

Well, the most notable other differences are hormonal. How much do these influence behaviour, and more especially, modes of thinking?

I incline to, for modes of thinking, hardly at all. (In the absence of evidence to the contrary.)

 

[Crezth]

I think by now we have a winner on who can play the dumbest, though it was a tough contest and by now it's not even clear that this particular individual is just playing dumb. If he is he deserves an Oscar or something.

I admit I didn't think a Brazilian engineer could be that stupid.

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

 

[Traitorfish]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean here. There are many more biological differences between the genders other than the "women give birth and men don't" one... but what sort of differences in our behaviour are biological in nature and which are cultural in nature, I wouldn't care to guess.. I just think it's "obvious" that there are several biological ones lying underneath all the cultural stuff.

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.

 

[Akka]

I am averse to confrontation. I am not enthusiastic about physical exertion. I value empathy over assertiveness.

Working backwards, we can therefore conclude that I have a vagina.

SCIENCE.

"I'm using a specific example in a subject which only and exclusively treat about statistically significant data, despite this very warning having been made ad nauseam during the whole thread ! I'm still going to ignore all that and just pointlessly troll !"

On the other hand, among your very first posts here was this gem that means that even if it wanted to be sarcastic, was actually pretty much right on point :

That's okay, I'm not interested in discussing this like grown ups either.

Anyway, the utter bad faith, going even quite far past pure trolling, that has plagued about 90 % of the thread, really made it unsalvageable and more of a brain bleach than anything else.

Tip of the hat to the few who managed to have some reasoning beyond "let's play the idiot", the others should just be ashamed of themselves.
I'm out of this cesspool.

 

[Quackers]

Anyway, the utter bad faith, going even quite far past pure trolling, that has plagued about 90 % of the thread, really made it unsalvageable and more of a brain bleach than anything else.

Tip of the hat to the few who managed to have some reasoning beyond "let's play the idiot", the others should just be ashamed of themselves.
I'm out of this cesspool.

A typical Quackers thread than?

Still, in the interests of rebooting this thread maybe we should watch some of the documentary? The presenter visit a couple of scientists who have found differences between the sexes in girls and boys as young as a day old. There are also embarrassing interviews with "gender studies" academics.

 

[Borachio]

I remember that video from a while back, Mr Quackers. Wasn't it you who posted it months ago?

It was quite good.

But it still left unanswered the question of whether there are real differences between the way men and women actually think, and necessarily interact with the world. IIRC.

 

[Traitorfish]

A typical Quackers thread than?

Still, in the interests of rebooting this thread maybe we should watch some of the documentary? The presenter visit a couple of scientists who have found differences between the sexes in girls and boys as young as a day old. There are also embarrassing interviews with "gender studies" academics.

You realise that gender studies is a real thing, right? The inverted commas don't communicate other than thing than disapproval, and nobody is interested in whether you do or do not approve of it.

 

[luiz]

The presenter visit a couple of scientists who have found differences between the sexes in girls and boys as young as a day old. There are also embarrassing interviews with "gender studies" academics.

Yep, differences in behaviors of very young girls and boys is increasingly established:

Social factors undoubtedly account for a part of the differences. But in a study published in 2007 psychologist Raymond Baillargeon of the University of Montreal and his colleagues reveal that as early as the age of 17 months, 5 percent of boys but only 1 percent of girls engage in frequent physical aggression, such as kicking and biting. What is more, this gap does not widen between 17 and 29 months, as might be expected if environmental influences such as socialization by parents were to blame. These findings suggest that biological factors—such as the effects of testosterone on brain function—contribute to sex differences in violent behavior.

Bolstering this hypothesis is the fact that males are the more belligerent sex in virtually all mammalian species that biologists have studied. Even the one marked exception to this trend—the spotted (“laughing”) hyena—may prove the rule. The female hyena, which is more physically aggressive than her male counterpart, has higher testosterone levels than the male does.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-men-the-more-belligerent-sex/?page=2

 

[Quackers]

You realise that gender studies is a real thing, right? The inverted commas don't communicate other than thing than disapproval, and nobody is interested in whether you do or do not approve of it.

Touch a nerve?

The documentary i linked (and the sequels) destroy the gender studies field; at least in Norway.
Everytime he asked whether biology influenced gender roles he was met with pouty looks, claims that it is "uninteresting", unworthy of study etc. When he returned with evidence for biological reasoning they just said the research was bad! Hillarious. It was so compelling the Scandinavian governments shut down the Nordic Gender Institute.