3 ms·

I see that with present technology, mothers need a few month vacation per child at the end of pregnancy and for physical recovery after. This is a fairly minor

by curi 19y ago

I see that with present technology, mothers need a few month vacation per child at the end of pregnancy and for physical recovery after. This is a fairly minor thing, and it is no reason a culture must assign people wildly different roles and personalities. You'll probably say the mother will want time to raise her kid. But that could equally well be true of the father -- can't you imagine a culture where fathers are expected to stay home more and raise children, and mothers aren't? There's nothing impossible about that. Or it could be treated equally.

Tichy 19y ago
Sorry, I was a bit tired - the discussion is not about culture affecting the roles of men and women. Of course it does - we have different cultures on earth with different role models. The discussion was about men and women being different, and I still maintain that is true. Also, I don't think pregnancy is a minor thing. 9 months is 1-2% of the working life time of a women. Besides, other effects might come to play. There is currently another thread about it on news.yc: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20wwln-freak-t.html?_r=1&ex=1358485200&en=0d05099c03c97375&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20wwln-freak-t.ht... I think effects like that are more likely to be the cause for inequality than repression.
- curi 19y ago
  You don't need 9 months off -- you can work through a large portion of a pregnancy. Further, for example, you can pay someone else to be pregnant for you. That doesn't cost enough relative to a serious career to make a major difference. And that price can be split with your husband.
  - Tichy 19y ago
    As I said, technological advances might tip the scales - making somebody else carry the child for you was not an option for women a few decades ago. Anyway, isn't the whole discussion completely moot? If you don't accept anything else, then what about physical strength? Can you accept that differences in physical strength can cause differences in behavior, and certainly differences in career choices? I must apologize, but I am tired now, and we have been talking circles for a while now. Let's let it rest (I'll read your answers, if you give any, but I don't intend to reply).
    - curi 19y ago
      Having someone else bear a child for you was an option, millennia ago. It's really not very complicated how to do this: they get pregnant, then give you the child when it is born. That you overlook this demonstrate the power of culture. Doing what I described violates taboos, so it's hard to imagine.
      - rms 19y ago
        People still do it with surrogate mothers...
      - Tichy 19y ago
        I was talking about the pregnancy itself. Btw., there are other costs for the mother besides missing a few weeks of work: there could be medical problems, the mother might even die. So it is still more costly to have babies for women than it is for men. I seem to remember that women also have a higher risk for infection through many STDs. However, I think we might not disagree as much as you may think: of course, in theory, since the mind can control the body, it is conceivable to create any kind of culture. Maybe we could teach our children to only walk on legs and feet, so you could rightfully claim that "walking upright is just a cultural thing". The "richer" human societies are, the more wasteful cultural habits like that we could afford. I am not sure that society can be reprogrammed in an arbitrary way, though. First of all, it still needs to survive, and it must be able to compete with other societies, even other animals. I think you have to take into consideration WHY culture evolved into it's current state - it has an evolutionary history. I read your statements as such that you think that it was a random whim of nature to give us our current culture. If you are convinced that men and women are equal, then there must have been a 50:50 chance for gender roles being exactly reversed. Do you agree thus far? My claim is merely that it was not random, but that there was a bias due to the differences of men and women, which makes certain cultural habits more effective than others. As you say in your previous post, and I said somewhere else, inventions might tip the scales, and other cultural models could become viable.
        curi 19y ago
        It's strange you would think I had said our current culture is the random whim of nature. I actually think it is a mix of the good ideas and mistakes of people not nature. My comments the entire time have been human-centric in where they attribute causes. Why does our culture have major gender roles that permeate people's personalities, today? It's not because it made logical sense in the past. Whether it did or not then, it does not now. And hasn't for some time. And this has been pointed out on a number of occasions. A particularly well-stated case was made by William Godwin in the 1790s. What happened? People did not listen. They let their biases and closed-mindedness and unreasonableness get in the way of progress. That is the reason gender roles remain entrenched. If people were more thoughtful during the last few hundred years, then we wouldn't have recognizable gender roles today. That's the sort of cause I consider important and meaningful to explaining the present day situation. Another fact of the situation is that parents teach gender roles to their children, whether the children like it or not, and without regard for whether it is helpful or hurtful, useful or not, makes sense or not, etc In a culture which does this, it isn't reasonable to say the gender roles exist because they are correct: the mechanism which perpetuates them does not depend on them being correct, and people are unwilling to change it so that it does.

by curi 19y ago

Tichy 19y ago

Sorry, I was a bit tired - the discussion is not about culture affecting the roles of men and women. Of course it does - we have different cultures on earth with different role models. The discussion was about men and women being different, and I still maintain that is true. Also, I don't think pregnancy is a minor thing. 9 months is 1-2% of the working life time of a women. Besides, other effects might come to play. There is currently another thread about it on news.yc: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20wwln-freak-t.html?_r=1&ex=1358485200&en=0d05099c03c97375&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all&oref=slogin http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20wwln-freak-t.ht... I think effects like that are more likely to be the cause for inequality than repression.

curi 19y ago
You don't need 9 months off -- you can work through a large portion of a pregnancy. Further, for example, you can pay someone else to be pregnant for you. That doesn't cost enough relative to a serious career to make a major difference. And that price can be split with your husband.
- Tichy 19y ago
  As I said, technological advances might tip the scales - making somebody else carry the child for you was not an option for women a few decades ago. Anyway, isn't the whole discussion completely moot? If you don't accept anything else, then what about physical strength? Can you accept that differences in physical strength can cause differences in behavior, and certainly differences in career choices? I must apologize, but I am tired now, and we have been talking circles for a while now. Let's let it rest (I'll read your answers, if you give any, but I don't intend to reply).
  - curi 19y ago
    Having someone else bear a child for you was an option, millennia ago. It's really not very complicated how to do this: they get pregnant, then give you the child when it is born. That you overlook this demonstrate the power of culture. Doing what I described violates taboos, so it's hard to imagine.
    - rms 19y ago
      People still do it with surrogate mothers...
    - Tichy 19y ago
      I was talking about the pregnancy itself. Btw., there are other costs for the mother besides missing a few weeks of work: there could be medical problems, the mother might even die. So it is still more costly to have babies for women than it is for men. I seem to remember that women also have a higher risk for infection through many STDs. However, I think we might not disagree as much as you may think: of course, in theory, since the mind can control the body, it is conceivable to create any kind of culture. Maybe we could teach our children to only walk on legs and feet, so you could rightfully claim that "walking upright is just a cultural thing". The "richer" human societies are, the more wasteful cultural habits like that we could afford. I am not sure that society can be reprogrammed in an arbitrary way, though. First of all, it still needs to survive, and it must be able to compete with other societies, even other animals. I think you have to take into consideration WHY culture evolved into it's current state - it has an evolutionary history. I read your statements as such that you think that it was a random whim of nature to give us our current culture. If you are convinced that men and women are equal, then there must have been a 50:50 chance for gender roles being exactly reversed. Do you agree thus far? My claim is merely that it was not random, but that there was a bias due to the differences of men and women, which makes certain cultural habits more effective than others. As you say in your previous post, and I said somewhere else, inventions might tip the scales, and other cultural models could become viable.
      - curi 19y ago
        It's strange you would think I had said our current culture is the random whim of nature. I actually think it is a mix of the good ideas and mistakes of people not nature. My comments the entire time have been human-centric in where they attribute causes. Why does our culture have major gender roles that permeate people's personalities, today? It's not because it made logical sense in the past. Whether it did or not then, it does not now. And hasn't for some time. And this has been pointed out on a number of occasions. A particularly well-stated case was made by William Godwin in the 1790s. What happened? People did not listen. They let their biases and closed-mindedness and unreasonableness get in the way of progress. That is the reason gender roles remain entrenched. If people were more thoughtful during the last few hundred years, then we wouldn't have recognizable gender roles today. That's the sort of cause I consider important and meaningful to explaining the present day situation. Another fact of the situation is that parents teach gender roles to their children, whether the children like it or not, and without regard for whether it is helpful or hurtful, useful or not, makes sense or not, etc In a culture which does this, it isn't reasonable to say the gender roles exist because they are correct: the mechanism which perpetuates them does not depend on them being correct, and people are unwilling to change it so that it does.