4 ms·

And equal pay won't fix things like each gender having difference qualities they prefer in partners, on average. Nor will it fix things like career choice (stu

And equal pay won't fix things like each gender having difference qualities they prefer in partners, on average. Nor will it fix things like career choice (studies have found that places with less economic freedom have better gender parity in picking careers). It may be possible some of this isn't cultural at all. Every other species on the planet has sexually dimorphic characteristics, so to we shouldn't assume that humans either don't, or even that the ones we do have would have no impact on any factors related to pay (including things like impacting what careers a person finds desirable).

kennywinker 9y ago
You’d be surprised how much is cultural. Core beliefs, emotions, etc. In nature vs. nurture, with humans, comparative anthroplogy is pretty conclusive - there are VERY few things all humans do regaurdless of culture. “what do men do” or “what do women do” is so much more a function of history and how we’ve organized our society (aggricultural / industrial) than a product of in-built characteristics. I’m not saying there are no inherent differences, i’m just saying nobody knows what they are.
- malvosenior 9y ago
  That's not true at all. One of the most obvious differences is physical strength. Pre-industrialization men were required for "heavy lifting". https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/4vcxd0/almost_all_men_are_stronger_than_almost_all_women/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/4vcxd0/alm... The ability to give birth is another obvious difference that has nothing to do with nurture but is directly relevant to the topic at hand.
  - kennywinker 9y ago
    There is a difference between who we are, and what we do. Most people work in jobs that do not require the kind of heavy lifting that depends on a sexual dimorphic advantage. Even in pre-industrial settings... tilling fields, harvesting crops, general farm work can almost entirely be done by men, women, and even children. Yes, there are differences between the average man and the average women physically. Height, muscle mass, etc. but that does not say much about what is a natural role and what is one that is a product of culture. Because we don’t spend, and probably never spent that much of our lives doing very heavy lifting or giving birth.
    - malvosenior 9y ago
      Those were just a few examples off the top of my head, there are many more (I’m unaware of any female hunting societies for example, breast feeding is another obvious one...). Why do you think we evolved sexually dimorphic features if not to help us in specialized roles?
- solidsnack9000 9y ago
  Actually, comparative anthropology has shown that many things are quite common across human societies: * patriliny, * the incest taboo, * relative prevalence of monogamy, even in societies that allow polygyny, * the universality of religion. Much of the "nuts and bolts" of human society are found to be shared cross culturally.
  - kennywinker 9y ago
    You’re describing things that are found in many cultures, not things that are found in all cultures. None of those are universals, except maybe religion, but only because it can be defined so loosely.
    - solidsnack9000 9y ago
      You’re describing things that are found in many cultures, not things that are found in all cultures. What's the importance of that? If we see the same behavior show up in many different, unrelated cultures, all across the globe, it would seem to suggest that there is something fairly deep and structural about it. Maybe some cultures can function with something different, but it's not necessarily up for debate, or something that is likely for any one culture, like our own. With regards to anatomy, you can see a similar situation. Some people are born with six digits on their hands, some without certain organs, some with organs of greatly changed size or shape. These exceptions are a part of nature; but great regularity of structure is a part of nature, too. Variation doesn't necessarily indicate "choice" or "arbitrariness".

kennywinker 9y ago

You’d be surprised how much is cultural. Core beliefs, emotions, etc. In nature vs. nurture, with humans, comparative anthroplogy is pretty conclusive - there are VERY few things all humans do regaurdless of culture. “what do men do” or “what do women do” is so much more a function of history and how we’ve organized our society (aggricultural / industrial) than a product of in-built characteristics. I’m not saying there are no inherent differences, i’m just saying nobody knows what they are.

malvosenior 9y ago
That's not true at all. One of the most obvious differences is physical strength. Pre-industrialization men were required for "heavy lifting". https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/4vcxd0/almost_all_men_are_stronger_than_almost_all_women/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/4vcxd0/alm... The ability to give birth is another obvious difference that has nothing to do with nurture but is directly relevant to the topic at hand.
- kennywinker 9y ago
  There is a difference between who we are, and what we do. Most people work in jobs that do not require the kind of heavy lifting that depends on a sexual dimorphic advantage. Even in pre-industrial settings... tilling fields, harvesting crops, general farm work can almost entirely be done by men, women, and even children. Yes, there are differences between the average man and the average women physically. Height, muscle mass, etc. but that does not say much about what is a natural role and what is one that is a product of culture. Because we don’t spend, and probably never spent that much of our lives doing very heavy lifting or giving birth.
  - malvosenior 9y ago
    Those were just a few examples off the top of my head, there are many more (I’m unaware of any female hunting societies for example, breast feeding is another obvious one...). Why do you think we evolved sexually dimorphic features if not to help us in specialized roles?
solidsnack9000 9y ago
Actually, comparative anthropology has shown that many things are quite common across human societies: * patriliny, * the incest taboo, * relative prevalence of monogamy, even in societies that allow polygyny, * the universality of religion. Much of the "nuts and bolts" of human society are found to be shared cross culturally.
- kennywinker 9y ago
  You’re describing things that are found in many cultures, not things that are found in all cultures. None of those are universals, except maybe religion, but only because it can be defined so loosely.
  - solidsnack9000 9y ago
    You’re describing things that are found in many cultures, not things that are found in all cultures. What's the importance of that? If we see the same behavior show up in many different, unrelated cultures, all across the globe, it would seem to suggest that there is something fairly deep and structural about it. Maybe some cultures can function with something different, but it's not necessarily up for debate, or something that is likely for any one culture, like our own. With regards to anatomy, you can see a similar situation. Some people are born with six digits on their hands, some without certain organs, some with organs of greatly changed size or shape. These exceptions are a part of nature; but great regularity of structure is a part of nature, too. Variation doesn't necessarily indicate "choice" or "arbitrariness".