5 ms·

No feminist would have ever written an article like this. It is strongly biased and doesn't support women's struggle to reach the same status men have in any se

No feminist would have ever written an article like this. It is strongly biased and doesn't support women's struggle to reach the same status men have in any serious way. The problem (according to feminist doctrine, not sure I subscribe to it myself) is exactly that most of the people on top are men. Since the population is split 50-50% between men and women you should expect the same balance to exist at the top. In some very modern societies (Sweden, for example) this is, in fact, the case. I'm not sure what it is you're tired of, exactly. Except for those few cases where the rights of men are compromised in the name of feminism, how could you sensibly object to a school of though that wants to gain equality for women?

telemachos 17y ago
One slight (odd) detail: the human population isn't split 50-50. Normally, I believe that male births slightly outnumber female births (105 or 106 males for every 100 females according to a source I'll cite in a minute.) However, there are complications. First, for a long time, the actual number of females in the world doesn't match the 105/6 to 100 number above. This has been described by Amartya Sen as the "missing women" problem. (That is, quite a lot more women should be on the planet than are.) Second, I've seen some more recent articles suggesting that the larger number of male births is shrinking. I don't know enough to say much about that. I'm very much in agreement with your overall sentiment and arguments though. (There should be more women in positions of power. Who could argue with equality and why would they do so?) Here's a link to a Sen article about missing women: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/gender/Sen100M.html http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/gender/Sen100M.html
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  """(There should be more women in positions of power. Who could argue with equality and why would they do so?)""" Saying there ought to be more women in positions of power isn't equalitarian, it's sexist against men. There ought to be an equal way for anyone to get to said positions of power, but not to force the answer to come out any particular way all the time. Who would argue against equality? Someone who doesn't think men and women are the same ( but without one being better or worse ) - see the below link for a discussion about how and why men and women are different - if men are better at wide and shallow relationships and business thrives on wide and shallow relationships then it's less surprising if men and business go together, and it's not a conspiracy by men against women necessarily. Equal pay for equal work? Yes. Equal chance to apply for jobs and the best fit gets it without gender prejudice? Yes. Forcing a 50:50 split to give a public image of equality? Maybe not. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/ http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anyt...
  - telemachos 17y ago
    I did not mean equality of outcomes should somehow be regulated. I didn't say nearly enough to clarify my position, so that's my fault. However, nothing I did say suggested or implied any kind of quota or regulation. That is your assumption - perhaps reasonably based on past experience. When I say "There should be more women in positions of power," I mean that even if we assume a great deal of biological, inescapable, gender-based differences in psychology and physiology, the number of women in positions of power seems staggeringly low (and staggeringly low across time and space). Given that, and given what I know about history, I believe that another factor is at work here: sexism. I also seem to be in the minority here insofar as I find most evolutionary arguments that attempt to explain modern-day human psychology to be entirely wrong-headed. I wont try to have that debate here, but for an idea of why I believe this, see this article by Jerry Fodor (nb: the link is to a pdf): http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/Fodor/Fodor_Against_Darwinism.pdf http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/Fodor/Fodor_Against_Darwini... Another link with specific reference to something by Tierney: http://slate.msn.com/id/2124503/ http://slate.msn.com/id/2124503/
- yummyfajitas 17y ago
  Who could argue with equality and why would they do so? There are two types of equality. Equality of treatment and equality of outcomes. You can't have both unless women are statistically identical to men (which they aren't).
  - telemachos 17y ago
    I wasn't asking for both. I would be very happy if the world were moving towards equality of treatment. That's my focus. (Full disclosure: I work at an all-girls school, and I also have a wife, mother and sister. So perhaps I'm biased in favor of getting those people equality of treatment.)
- defen 17y ago
  > There should be more women in positions of power. Who could argue with equality and why would they do so? Isn't that statement predicated on the assumption that men and women, in a general statistical sense, have equivalent ambitions and abilities as men?
  - telemachos 17y ago
    > Isn't that statement predicated on the assumption that men and women, in a general statistical sense, have equivalent ambitions and abilities as men? Yes. Nobody has ever given me sufficient reason to believe otherwise. (The only argument I've ever heard that has any pull is simply the one that points to the world as it is. That is, someone will say "Women's ambitions and abilities must be different from those of men. Look at how few women are presidents." But of course that argument begs the question.)
    - yummyfajitas 17y ago
      The current scientific consensus is that there are average overall differences in specific abilities and men have a wider spread in intelligence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence Incidentally, even if there were no information showing that abilities/ambitions were different, it would not be reasonable to assume they were the same until proven otherwise.
      - foldr 17y ago
        > it would not be reasonable to assume they were the same until proven otherwise. I would have thought that would be the default assumption if there is no evidence to the contrary. Why do you think it's unreasonable?
        yummyfajitas 17y ago
        In general, two random numbers are not equal. In this specific case, I see no apriori reason to assume it.
jamesbritt 17y ago
"Since the population is split 50-50% between men and women you should expect the same balance to exist at the top. " Why? If getting to the top were pure chance, then sure. Otherwise you are assuming that men and women are, in all ways relevant to getting to the top, identical, and that's not established. "[H]ow could you sensibly object to a school of though that wants to gain equality for women?" Because people have widely varying ideas on what "equal" means.
ubernostrum 17y ago
Except there's a flaw here: if you only consider one end of the power/status continuum you don't get the whole picture. Men outnumber women at both extremes, which suggests that traditional theories of gender discrimination are, at the very least, missing something. "Men discriminate against women to get to the top" doesn't explain why so many men and so few women end up at the bottom, and so is insufficient.

telemachos 17y ago

One slight (odd) detail: the human population isn't split 50-50. Normally, I believe that male births slightly outnumber female births (105 or 106 males for every 100 females according to a source I'll cite in a minute.) However, there are complications. First, for a long time, the actual number of females in the world doesn't match the 105/6 to 100 number above. This has been described by Amartya Sen as the "missing women" problem. (That is, quite a lot more women should be on the planet than are.) Second, I've seen some more recent articles suggesting that the larger number of male births is shrinking. I don't know enough to say much about that. I'm very much in agreement with your overall sentiment and arguments though. (There should be more women in positions of power. Who could argue with equality and why would they do so?) Here's a link to a Sen article about missing women: http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/gender/Sen100M.html http://ucatlas.ucsc.edu/gender/Sen100M.html

jodrellblank 17y ago
"""(There should be more women in positions of power. Who could argue with equality and why would they do so?)""" Saying there ought to be more women in positions of power isn't equalitarian, it's sexist against men. There ought to be an equal way for anyone to get to said positions of power, but not to force the answer to come out any particular way all the time. Who would argue against equality? Someone who doesn't think men and women are the same ( but without one being better or worse ) - see the below link for a discussion about how and why men and women are different - if men are better at wide and shallow relationships and business thrives on wide and shallow relationships then it's less surprising if men and business go together, and it's not a conspiracy by men against women necessarily. Equal pay for equal work? Yes. Equal chance to apply for jobs and the best fit gets it without gender prejudice? Yes. Forcing a 50:50 split to give a public image of equality? Maybe not. http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anything-good-about-men-and-other-tricky-questions/ http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/08/20/is-there-anyt...
- telemachos 17y ago
  I did not mean equality of outcomes should somehow be regulated. I didn't say nearly enough to clarify my position, so that's my fault. However, nothing I did say suggested or implied any kind of quota or regulation. That is your assumption - perhaps reasonably based on past experience. When I say "There should be more women in positions of power," I mean that even if we assume a great deal of biological, inescapable, gender-based differences in psychology and physiology, the number of women in positions of power seems staggeringly low (and staggeringly low across time and space). Given that, and given what I know about history, I believe that another factor is at work here: sexism. I also seem to be in the minority here insofar as I find most evolutionary arguments that attempt to explain modern-day human psychology to be entirely wrong-headed. I wont try to have that debate here, but for an idea of why I believe this, see this article by Jerry Fodor (nb: the link is to a pdf): http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/Fodor/Fodor_Against_Darwinism.pdf http://ruccs.rutgers.edu/faculty/Fodor/Fodor_Against_Darwini... Another link with specific reference to something by Tierney: http://slate.msn.com/id/2124503/ http://slate.msn.com/id/2124503/
yummyfajitas 17y ago
Who could argue with equality and why would they do so? There are two types of equality. Equality of treatment and equality of outcomes. You can't have both unless women are statistically identical to men (which they aren't).
- telemachos 17y ago
  I wasn't asking for both. I would be very happy if the world were moving towards equality of treatment. That's my focus. (Full disclosure: I work at an all-girls school, and I also have a wife, mother and sister. So perhaps I'm biased in favor of getting those people equality of treatment.)
defen 17y ago
> There should be more women in positions of power. Who could argue with equality and why would they do so? Isn't that statement predicated on the assumption that men and women, in a general statistical sense, have equivalent ambitions and abilities as men?
- telemachos 17y ago
  > Isn't that statement predicated on the assumption that men and women, in a general statistical sense, have equivalent ambitions and abilities as men? Yes. Nobody has ever given me sufficient reason to believe otherwise. (The only argument I've ever heard that has any pull is simply the one that points to the world as it is. That is, someone will say "Women's ambitions and abilities must be different from those of men. Look at how few women are presidents." But of course that argument begs the question.)
  - yummyfajitas 17y ago
    The current scientific consensus is that there are average overall differences in specific abilities and men have a wider spread in intelligence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_intelligence Incidentally, even if there were no information showing that abilities/ambitions were different, it would not be reasonable to assume they were the same until proven otherwise.
    - foldr 17y ago
      > it would not be reasonable to assume they were the same until proven otherwise. I would have thought that would be the default assumption if there is no evidence to the contrary. Why do you think it's unreasonable?
      - yummyfajitas 17y ago
        In general, two random numbers are not equal. In this specific case, I see no apriori reason to assume it.

jamesbritt 17y ago

"Since the population is split 50-50% between men and women you should expect the same balance to exist at the top. " Why? If getting to the top were pure chance, then sure. Otherwise you are assuming that men and women are, in all ways relevant to getting to the top, identical, and that's not established. "[H]ow could you sensibly object to a school of though that wants to gain equality for women?" Because people have widely varying ideas on what "equal" means.

ubernostrum 17y ago

Except there's a flaw here: if you only consider one end of the power/status continuum you don't get the whole picture. Men outnumber women at both extremes, which suggests that traditional theories of gender discrimination are, at the very least, missing something. "Men discriminate against women to get to the top" doesn't explain why so many men and so few women end up at the bottom, and so is insufficient.