12 ms·

When those gender roles are all but constant across countless independently developed cultures existent over tens of thousands of years, with distribution of vi

When those gender roles are all but constant across countless independently developed cultures existent over tens of thousands of years, with distribution of visible physical traits to match them, it's pretty safe to assume that they're baked into our DNA and not some random whim of western culture. Imagine how long a tribe with male caretakers and female warriors (who it cannot be argued are not on average significantly smaller and weaker than men) would survive against a tribe of male warriors and female caretakers. There are species with much less divergence in biology between males and females. We would not have evolved to have such divergence if it were not useful for our fitness to have distinct fighter/protector and caretaker roles. Indeed as K-strategists that take a very long time to mature, having dedicated caretakers was an extremely useful evolution.

shkkmo 11y ago
That is a bad assumption that will mislead you. The gender roles are not baked into our DNA. There are 'baked-in' DNA traits, that have emergently caused cultures to adopt those gender roles in their historical contexts. 'Baked-id' DNA traits are now emergently leading to the abandonment of gender roles in the context of western cultures & economies. Please re-evaluate your assumptions because they are wrong.
- defen 11y ago
  What do you make of studies that show monkeys and humans have a similar gender-biased breakdown of toy preferences and juvenile activities?
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    My first guess would be that those studies are probably poorly executed. If they were indeed properly double-blinded and used good statistical analysis, I would find that to be and extremely interesting result that would warrant further investigation.
    - stray 11y ago
      http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29418230 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29418230
      - shkkmo 11y ago
        Is that supposed to be a citation? Try as I might I can't seem to find any further details on this study, which seems like it was conducted as part of a TV program rather than as a research paper. For more information about the discussion of research into gender-based neuroscience, here is an actual article: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110830 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
        clevernickname 11y ago
        Here's another citation of an "actual article" for you, fam. The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness: https://www.nber.org/papers/w14969 https://www.nber.org/papers/w14969
        stray 11y ago
        Get off your high horse - I just pointed you toward where I had seen something about it.
- clevernickname 11y ago
  >The gender roles are not baked into out DNA. Men are larger and stronger than women, women are flooded with hormones during pregnancy that force a bond between them and their children. That is literally your biology encouraging a role. >There are 'baked-in' DNA traits, that have emergently caused cultures to adopt those gender roles in their historical contexts. Evolution is random chance leading to mutations that improve fitness. Cultures didn't wake up one day, notice that the men were stronger than the women and the women had stronger bonds with their children, and allocate people accordingly. The divergence in traits happened naturally over millennia, because specializing the genders for different roles resulted in improved fitness over keeping them identical, and thus, more likely to survive and produce offspring. >'Baked-id' DNA traits are now emergently leading to the abandonment of gender roles in the context of western cultures & economies. A liberal swing in culture is trying to encourage people to abandon their traditional gender roles, is upset when the majority of people want to stick to relatively traditional roles, and is confused when the people that do buck the traditional roles usually end up unhappy about it (working mothers sad because they don't get to spend enough time with kids, kids developing poorly because they didn't get to bond enough with their parents, etc). You probably think I'm advocating the 50s status quo of men working all day and never seeing their children, women not being allowed into the workplace, and children spending the majority of their time being indoctrinated by the state; far from it, and that's not even a traditional lifestyle in any sense of the phrase. I would much prefer a lifestyle in which fathers and mothers can both work and spend time with their children, as was the norm prior to the industrial revolution. But passing judgement on modern lifestyles wasn't my point. All I'm saying is that biology has a great influence on the roles people take up, and you can try to fight it all you want, but if you try to claim that the influence isn't there and it's all just a whim of culture, then you are engaging in the exact same kind of willfully ignorant anti-scientific thinking that people ridicule flat earthers and climate change deniers for. You have chosen your hypothesis and your conclusion and will ignore any evidence or train of thought that might lead you astray from it. The only difference is that the pendulum of liberal vs. conservative values has not yet swung back far enough for society to call you out on it.
  - shkkmo 11y ago
    > Men are larger and stronger than women, women are flooded with hormones during pregnancy that force a bond between them and their children. Strength/size is a physical trait, not a gender role. Hormone release is a physical process, not a gender role. >"A liberal swing in culture is trying to encourage people to abandon their traditional gender roles" If you think that gender roles haven't changed repeatedly undergone significant change multiple times in the last several hundred year, you are living in a fantasy world. > "people that do buck the traditional roles usually end up unhappy about it" False. Please go do some research and re-evaluate your assumptions. > "All I'm saying is that biology has a great influence on the roles people take up," No, you claimed that gender roles are baked into our DNA. Biology has a great influence on everything, including people's choices of gender roles. > "You have chosen your hypothesis and your conclusion and will ignore any evidence or train of thought that might lead you astray from it. " Please provide said evidence, because it sounds like you are talking about yourself.
dang 11y ago
This turn into generic gender-war predictably degenerated into yet another tedious spat. Perhaps elsewhere on the Internet there is a spot where people haven't had enough of such discussions yet, but HN isn't one. Note the guidelines: "Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11220975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11220975 and marked it off-topic.
- clevernickname 11y ago
  I was just wondering why my score suddenly dropped 10~ points, and now I understand. It was cute to refresh the thread a few times and see the downvotes slowly accumulate as you read each post. A flamewar? Someone was arguing against basic biology in the name of anti-scientific dogma and I defended it. When you agree with one side of a "gender war" topic, it's ok, a statement of the obvious. When you disagree, it's a "flame war," a "tedious spat." I look forward to being either passive aggressively chastised, or hellbanned. EDIT, because I can't post anymore because rate limiting is one of the many shadow moderation techniques of the HN staff: If you compare the votes for me vs. the votes for the person I'm arguing against, it's clear that someone out there agrees with what I'm saying and doesn't see it as a "tedious spat." (or at least, the votes before your brigade descended upon it, which were quite positive in my favor)[1]. You should reconsider if you are actually serving your community neutrally, or just projecting your own views upon it. As one would expect of someone that moderates an online forum for a living. [1] Why blame a downvote brigade? Because why else would people suddenly mass downvote all of my posts in a thread that you had just detached and "marked off-topic," that they shouldn't have been able to see? Why would I care? I don't, I just enjoy laughing at you and your desperate attempts to control the narrative. PS: I'd like to argue constructively with pron downthread, but I can't, as I'm ratelimited (and probably shadowbanned) for wrongthink.
- FD3SA 11y ago
  New HN rules: Citing science as a defense against the current cultural paradigm is inciting a flamewar. How the mighty have fallen. I actively steer young entrepreneurs away from YC and HN, as it has become incredibly in tune with the echo chamber of the radical political ideologies of our time. I don't understand how this behavior encourages clear and logical thinking or produces successful entrepreneurs. I would appreciate a response on this topic dang, as I am sincerely amazed by your response to the parent's comment. EDIT: In case anyone wants to start asking for citations, it is equivalent to asking for citations regarding the heliocentric model of the solar system. R/K selection theory, sexual dimorphism, and sex specialization are such well understood topics as to be assumed common knowledge among any educated biologists. It only speaks to the individual's naivete when they bring up the citation requirement. Citations are used for new and ground breaking research, not for common scientific knowledge that has been in the mainstream for a hundred years. I am constantly amazed by the sheer ignorance of the HN crowd on this extremely well understood science.

shkkmo 11y ago

That is a bad assumption that will mislead you. The gender roles are not baked into our DNA. There are 'baked-in' DNA traits, that have emergently caused cultures to adopt those gender roles in their historical contexts. 'Baked-id' DNA traits are now emergently leading to the abandonment of gender roles in the context of western cultures & economies. Please re-evaluate your assumptions because they are wrong.

defen 11y ago
What do you make of studies that show monkeys and humans have a similar gender-biased breakdown of toy preferences and juvenile activities?
- shkkmo 11y ago
  My first guess would be that those studies are probably poorly executed. If they were indeed properly double-blinded and used good statistical analysis, I would find that to be and extremely interesting result that would warrant further investigation.
  - stray 11y ago
    http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29418230 http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29418230
    - shkkmo 11y ago
      Is that supposed to be a citation? Try as I might I can't seem to find any further details on this study, which seems like it was conducted as part of a TV program rather than as a research paper. For more information about the discussion of research into gender-based neuroscience, here is an actual article: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0110830 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
      - clevernickname 11y ago
        Here's another citation of an "actual article" for you, fam. The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness: https://www.nber.org/papers/w14969 https://www.nber.org/papers/w14969
      - stray 11y ago
        Get off your high horse - I just pointed you toward where I had seen something about it.
clevernickname 11y ago
>The gender roles are not baked into out DNA. Men are larger and stronger than women, women are flooded with hormones during pregnancy that force a bond between them and their children. That is literally your biology encouraging a role. >There are 'baked-in' DNA traits, that have emergently caused cultures to adopt those gender roles in their historical contexts. Evolution is random chance leading to mutations that improve fitness. Cultures didn't wake up one day, notice that the men were stronger than the women and the women had stronger bonds with their children, and allocate people accordingly. The divergence in traits happened naturally over millennia, because specializing the genders for different roles resulted in improved fitness over keeping them identical, and thus, more likely to survive and produce offspring. >'Baked-id' DNA traits are now emergently leading to the abandonment of gender roles in the context of western cultures & economies. A liberal swing in culture is trying to encourage people to abandon their traditional gender roles, is upset when the majority of people want to stick to relatively traditional roles, and is confused when the people that do buck the traditional roles usually end up unhappy about it (working mothers sad because they don't get to spend enough time with kids, kids developing poorly because they didn't get to bond enough with their parents, etc). You probably think I'm advocating the 50s status quo of men working all day and never seeing their children, women not being allowed into the workplace, and children spending the majority of their time being indoctrinated by the state; far from it, and that's not even a traditional lifestyle in any sense of the phrase. I would much prefer a lifestyle in which fathers and mothers can both work and spend time with their children, as was the norm prior to the industrial revolution. But passing judgement on modern lifestyles wasn't my point. All I'm saying is that biology has a great influence on the roles people take up, and you can try to fight it all you want, but if you try to claim that the influence isn't there and it's all just a whim of culture, then you are engaging in the exact same kind of willfully ignorant anti-scientific thinking that people ridicule flat earthers and climate change deniers for. You have chosen your hypothesis and your conclusion and will ignore any evidence or train of thought that might lead you astray from it. The only difference is that the pendulum of liberal vs. conservative values has not yet swung back far enough for society to call you out on it.
- shkkmo 11y ago
  > Men are larger and stronger than women, women are flooded with hormones during pregnancy that force a bond between them and their children. Strength/size is a physical trait, not a gender role. Hormone release is a physical process, not a gender role. >"A liberal swing in culture is trying to encourage people to abandon their traditional gender roles" If you think that gender roles haven't changed repeatedly undergone significant change multiple times in the last several hundred year, you are living in a fantasy world. > "people that do buck the traditional roles usually end up unhappy about it" False. Please go do some research and re-evaluate your assumptions. > "All I'm saying is that biology has a great influence on the roles people take up," No, you claimed that gender roles are baked into our DNA. Biology has a great influence on everything, including people's choices of gender roles. > "You have chosen your hypothesis and your conclusion and will ignore any evidence or train of thought that might lead you astray from it. " Please provide said evidence, because it sounds like you are talking about yourself.

dang 11y ago

This turn into generic gender-war predictably degenerated into yet another tedious spat. Perhaps elsewhere on the Internet there is a spot where people haven't had enough of such discussions yet, but HN isn't one. Note the guidelines: "Please avoid introducing classic flamewar topics unless you have something genuinely new to say about them." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11220975 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11220975 and marked it off-topic.

clevernickname 11y ago
I was just wondering why my score suddenly dropped 10~ points, and now I understand. It was cute to refresh the thread a few times and see the downvotes slowly accumulate as you read each post. A flamewar? Someone was arguing against basic biology in the name of anti-scientific dogma and I defended it. When you agree with one side of a "gender war" topic, it's ok, a statement of the obvious. When you disagree, it's a "flame war," a "tedious spat." I look forward to being either passive aggressively chastised, or hellbanned. EDIT, because I can't post anymore because rate limiting is one of the many shadow moderation techniques of the HN staff: If you compare the votes for me vs. the votes for the person I'm arguing against, it's clear that someone out there agrees with what I'm saying and doesn't see it as a "tedious spat." (or at least, the votes before your brigade descended upon it, which were quite positive in my favor)[1]. You should reconsider if you are actually serving your community neutrally, or just projecting your own views upon it. As one would expect of someone that moderates an online forum for a living. [1] Why blame a downvote brigade? Because why else would people suddenly mass downvote all of my posts in a thread that you had just detached and "marked off-topic," that they shouldn't have been able to see? Why would I care? I don't, I just enjoy laughing at you and your desperate attempts to control the narrative. PS: I'd like to argue constructively with pron downthread, but I can't, as I'm ratelimited (and probably shadowbanned) for wrongthink.
FD3SA 11y ago
New HN rules: Citing science as a defense against the current cultural paradigm is inciting a flamewar. How the mighty have fallen. I actively steer young entrepreneurs away from YC and HN, as it has become incredibly in tune with the echo chamber of the radical political ideologies of our time. I don't understand how this behavior encourages clear and logical thinking or produces successful entrepreneurs. I would appreciate a response on this topic dang, as I am sincerely amazed by your response to the parent's comment. EDIT: In case anyone wants to start asking for citations, it is equivalent to asking for citations regarding the heliocentric model of the solar system. R/K selection theory, sexual dimorphism, and sex specialization are such well understood topics as to be assumed common knowledge among any educated biologists. It only speaks to the individual's naivete when they bring up the citation requirement. Citations are used for new and ground breaking research, not for common scientific knowledge that has been in the mainstream for a hundred years. I am constantly amazed by the sheer ignorance of the HN crowd on this extremely well understood science.