11 ms·

I don't agree it is sexism. It is the simple fact that our species is sexually dimorphic. This guarantees that there will be asymmetry between the genders regar

I don't agree it is sexism. It is the simple fact that our species is sexually dimorphic. This guarantees that there will be asymmetry between the genders regardless of the social engineering that is attempted. There is about 4 billion years of evolution and the thinking that it can be socially engineered away is a folly. > Sexism also harms men. Yes it does. But this is not one of those circumstances. However that is a completely different conversation.

wilg 7y ago
Bad take! There's no distinction between "biology" and "social engineering". Our biology underpins us having these discussions. Our biology underpins our society. Our biology underpins our thinking that things can be better. Our biology encourages us to improve our own quality of life and that of others in ever larger social groups. Everything we do is true to our biology.
- uncle_j 7y ago
  There is an obvious distinction between people trying to socially arrange society and our biology. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous.
  - wilg 7y ago
    You're suggesting we should arrange society a specific way because of some connection to "biology". I am saying that the arrangements you seem to be for are no more rooted in biology than the arrangements you seem to be against.
    - uncle_j 7y ago
      > You're suggesting we should arrange society a specific way because of some connection to "biology". Nope. I didn't say that. > There is about 4 billion years of evolution and the thinking that it can be socially engineered away is a folly. I didn't make any statement on how to arrange society. I simply stated that I believe they would all eventually fail.
      - wilg 7y ago
        You called the expectation of men to be breadwinners a natural consequence of sexual dimorphism, and said it was folly to "engineer" it away. That is a statement about how you think society should be arranged and why. Also, if you believe _all_ arrangements of society will eventually fall, then wouldn't that make any arrangement acceptable to you? Including the one you were dismissing?
        uncle_j 7y ago
        > You called the expectation of men to be breadwinners a natural consequence of sexual dimorphism, and said it was folly to "engineer" it away. That is a statement about how you think society should be arranged and why. No it isn't. It is a statement of what I believe to be the truth. All the evidence and arguments around the topic I have seen and heard seem to lead in that direction. If you disagree with that conclusion that is fine. However it doesn't mean that I believe that things should arranged in such a manner. > Also, if you believe _all_ arrangements of society will eventually fall, then wouldn't that make any arrangement acceptable to you? Including the one you were dismissing? I don't know. I wasn't saying anything about that. I was simply disagree that it is sexism. I don't buy into this the notion of "unconscious sexism".
        wilg 7y ago
        Maybe we are talking past each other because we have different definitions here. How do you define sexism (in this context, for you)?
  - Faark 7y ago
    Woman give birth, men cannot breastfeed. That are indeed biology. Kids being picked up from school predominately by woman is a social arrangement, the kind we hopefully at least try to change if we consider there to be better options. But yes, many kinds of social arrangements come up naturally and woman taking care of house and kids seems to be one of them. Another one is "the powerful rule over the weak"... something we nowadays generally think should be kept in check to the benefit of society and thus spend effort doing so. But spending effort to keep pre-defined gender roles in check must be somehow bad?
    - uncle_j 7y ago
      > Kids being picked up from school predominately by woman is a social arrangement, the kind we hopefully at least try to change if we consider there to be better options. Define "Better". Why should we be trying to change it? Why should we be meddling with other people's lives? People aren't being harmed here. > But spending effort to keep pre-defined gender roles in check must be somehow bad? Both men and women at least in the western world enjoy the same rights and discrimination by gender is not only frowned upon but can be brought before a court. I seems to me that they are already kept in check.
      - Faark 7y ago
        > I seems to me that they are already kept in check. To a degree, yes. But are you really trying to pretend it's already perfect? Though you seem to not believe in systemic injustice, so I doubt we will be able to find a shared consensus. Custody is a more widely known example were us men fight an uphill battle. Obviously not everyone is unsatisfied with societies default roles, but I'd certainly consider this a harm, if I ever end up in such a situation. Again, it could be worse. And I'm not trying to meddle in your life. If you and your SO want to live by traditional roles, that's great. But I don't want those thrust on (and thus being meddled with) my life. And I don't want to live in a society that doesn't even try to improve anymore.
        uncle_j 7y ago
        > To a degree, yes. But are you really trying to pretend it's already perfect? Perfect is the enemy of Good. > Again, it could be worse. And I'm not trying to meddle in your life. If you and your SO want to live by traditional roles, that's great. But I don't want those thrust on (and thus being meddled with) my life. And I don't want to live in a society that doesn't even try to improve anymore. Everyone is trying to pin an opinion to me here because I am just questioning the underlying assumptions. I don't really have one other than "You can't have it all" unless you are extremely wealthy or extremely gifted. > But I don't want those thrust on (and thus being meddled with) my life. And I don't want to live in a society that doesn't even try to improve anymore. Neither do I. However there will never be a utopia. I find it actually pretty immature to think that you can make everything perfect, there are trade offs to everything.
n4r9 7y ago
How is it not one of those circumstances? Men find it extremely difficult to make a career as a nursery teacher, for example, because nursery schools and parents of young children don't trust men as a nurturing caregiver. It's a clear cut example of how a sexist view of men - biologically inspired or otherwise - is harmful to men.
- uncle_j 7y ago
  That isn't sexism. There is a far higher likelihood that a sex offender is a man rather than a woman. While unfair it isn't unfounded fear and parents are naturally protective of their children.
  - n4r9 7y ago
    That doesn't justify that sort of systematic pressure. An African American is much more likely to be a [edit: convicted] murderer than a white American, but that doesn't make it ok to cross the road whenever you see one.
    - uncle_j 7y ago
      > That doesn't justify that sort of systematic pressure. If I were a parent I would be trying to mitigate the risk to my child. As I previously stated it is unfair but not unfounded. It cannot be sexism if it is based in fact. > An African American is much more likely to be a murderer than a white American, but that doesn't make it ok to cross the road whenever you see one. * I don't live in the US, I am from the UK. The term African American doesn't really mean much here. * If there was a young guy dressed in sports gear and appeared to be somewhat of a lout, no matter what the colour of his skin I would cross the road. It is unfair. Sure. But when I was a younger man (I am almost 40 now), I used to be followed about and stopped by police and security because I was simple 1) Male 2) Under 25. People are simply mitigating the amount of risk to themselves, business and family.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
        >> It cannot be sexism if it is based in fact. As usual, it's not the facts that are in dispute here, but their interpretation.
erikpukinskis 7y ago
Which aspect of sexual dimorphism causes men to disrespect other men who care for children?
- uncle_j 7y ago
  It isn't seen as "real" work by other men. Men have been the bread winners for almost all of human history and thus other men don't think they are doing their bit.
- username90 7y ago
  The competitive aspect? Males in plenty of species compete for status and low status males are getting chased away from the pack, so evidently genes are expressive enough to encode gender norms.
  - rixed 7y ago
    You probably believe that your views about genders is coming from observations of "males in plenty of species", but have you considered that maybe your views about "plenty of species" could come from your views on genders?
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
    How is competition between males a consequence of sexual dimorphism? Note that males in species with low sexual dimorphism compete for mates as fiercely as males in species with high sexual dimorphism. Also note that the human species has very low sexual dimorphism relative to other species. E.g. our females are not many times the size of males, as they are in Black Widow spiders, our males don't have different colours of body coverage, like many species of birds do, etc etc. And of course many humans can easily pass for the other sex by changing their hair-style and clothing as evidenced by numerous cases in history where females passed as males by cutting their hair short and wearing pantaloons etc.

wilg 7y ago

Bad take! There's no distinction between "biology" and "social engineering". Our biology underpins us having these discussions. Our biology underpins our society. Our biology underpins our thinking that things can be better. Our biology encourages us to improve our own quality of life and that of others in ever larger social groups. Everything we do is true to our biology.

uncle_j 7y ago
There is an obvious distinction between people trying to socially arrange society and our biology. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous.
- wilg 7y ago
  You're suggesting we should arrange society a specific way because of some connection to "biology". I am saying that the arrangements you seem to be for are no more rooted in biology than the arrangements you seem to be against.
  - uncle_j 7y ago
    > You're suggesting we should arrange society a specific way because of some connection to "biology". Nope. I didn't say that. > There is about 4 billion years of evolution and the thinking that it can be socially engineered away is a folly. I didn't make any statement on how to arrange society. I simply stated that I believe they would all eventually fail.
    - wilg 7y ago
      You called the expectation of men to be breadwinners a natural consequence of sexual dimorphism, and said it was folly to "engineer" it away. That is a statement about how you think society should be arranged and why. Also, if you believe _all_ arrangements of society will eventually fall, then wouldn't that make any arrangement acceptable to you? Including the one you were dismissing?
      - uncle_j 7y ago
        > You called the expectation of men to be breadwinners a natural consequence of sexual dimorphism, and said it was folly to "engineer" it away. That is a statement about how you think society should be arranged and why. No it isn't. It is a statement of what I believe to be the truth. All the evidence and arguments around the topic I have seen and heard seem to lead in that direction. If you disagree with that conclusion that is fine. However it doesn't mean that I believe that things should arranged in such a manner. > Also, if you believe _all_ arrangements of society will eventually fall, then wouldn't that make any arrangement acceptable to you? Including the one you were dismissing? I don't know. I wasn't saying anything about that. I was simply disagree that it is sexism. I don't buy into this the notion of "unconscious sexism".
        wilg 7y ago
        Maybe we are talking past each other because we have different definitions here. How do you define sexism (in this context, for you)?
- Faark 7y ago
  Woman give birth, men cannot breastfeed. That are indeed biology. Kids being picked up from school predominately by woman is a social arrangement, the kind we hopefully at least try to change if we consider there to be better options. But yes, many kinds of social arrangements come up naturally and woman taking care of house and kids seems to be one of them. Another one is "the powerful rule over the weak"... something we nowadays generally think should be kept in check to the benefit of society and thus spend effort doing so. But spending effort to keep pre-defined gender roles in check must be somehow bad?
  - uncle_j 7y ago
    > Kids being picked up from school predominately by woman is a social arrangement, the kind we hopefully at least try to change if we consider there to be better options. Define "Better". Why should we be trying to change it? Why should we be meddling with other people's lives? People aren't being harmed here. > But spending effort to keep pre-defined gender roles in check must be somehow bad? Both men and women at least in the western world enjoy the same rights and discrimination by gender is not only frowned upon but can be brought before a court. I seems to me that they are already kept in check.
    - Faark 7y ago
      > I seems to me that they are already kept in check. To a degree, yes. But are you really trying to pretend it's already perfect? Though you seem to not believe in systemic injustice, so I doubt we will be able to find a shared consensus. Custody is a more widely known example were us men fight an uphill battle. Obviously not everyone is unsatisfied with societies default roles, but I'd certainly consider this a harm, if I ever end up in such a situation. Again, it could be worse. And I'm not trying to meddle in your life. If you and your SO want to live by traditional roles, that's great. But I don't want those thrust on (and thus being meddled with) my life. And I don't want to live in a society that doesn't even try to improve anymore.
      - uncle_j 7y ago
        > To a degree, yes. But are you really trying to pretend it's already perfect? Perfect is the enemy of Good. > Again, it could be worse. And I'm not trying to meddle in your life. If you and your SO want to live by traditional roles, that's great. But I don't want those thrust on (and thus being meddled with) my life. And I don't want to live in a society that doesn't even try to improve anymore. Everyone is trying to pin an opinion to me here because I am just questioning the underlying assumptions. I don't really have one other than "You can't have it all" unless you are extremely wealthy or extremely gifted. > But I don't want those thrust on (and thus being meddled with) my life. And I don't want to live in a society that doesn't even try to improve anymore. Neither do I. However there will never be a utopia. I find it actually pretty immature to think that you can make everything perfect, there are trade offs to everything.

n4r9 7y ago

How is it not one of those circumstances? Men find it extremely difficult to make a career as a nursery teacher, for example, because nursery schools and parents of young children don't trust men as a nurturing caregiver. It's a clear cut example of how a sexist view of men - biologically inspired or otherwise - is harmful to men.

uncle_j 7y ago
That isn't sexism. There is a far higher likelihood that a sex offender is a man rather than a woman. While unfair it isn't unfounded fear and parents are naturally protective of their children.
- n4r9 7y ago
  That doesn't justify that sort of systematic pressure. An African American is much more likely to be a [edit: convicted] murderer than a white American, but that doesn't make it ok to cross the road whenever you see one.
  - uncle_j 7y ago
    > That doesn't justify that sort of systematic pressure. If I were a parent I would be trying to mitigate the risk to my child. As I previously stated it is unfair but not unfounded. It cannot be sexism if it is based in fact. > An African American is much more likely to be a murderer than a white American, but that doesn't make it ok to cross the road whenever you see one. * I don't live in the US, I am from the UK. The term African American doesn't really mean much here. * If there was a young guy dressed in sports gear and appeared to be somewhat of a lout, no matter what the colour of his skin I would cross the road. It is unfair. Sure. But when I was a younger man (I am almost 40 now), I used to be followed about and stopped by police and security because I was simple 1) Male 2) Under 25. People are simply mitigating the amount of risk to themselves, business and family.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
      >> It cannot be sexism if it is based in fact. As usual, it's not the facts that are in dispute here, but their interpretation.

erikpukinskis 7y ago

Which aspect of sexual dimorphism causes men to disrespect other men who care for children?

uncle_j 7y ago
It isn't seen as "real" work by other men. Men have been the bread winners for almost all of human history and thus other men don't think they are doing their bit.
username90 7y ago
The competitive aspect? Males in plenty of species compete for status and low status males are getting chased away from the pack, so evidently genes are expressive enough to encode gender norms.
- rixed 7y ago
  You probably believe that your views about genders is coming from observations of "males in plenty of species", but have you considered that maybe your views about "plenty of species" could come from your views on genders?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
  How is competition between males a consequence of sexual dimorphism? Note that males in species with low sexual dimorphism compete for mates as fiercely as males in species with high sexual dimorphism. Also note that the human species has very low sexual dimorphism relative to other species. E.g. our females are not many times the size of males, as they are in Black Widow spiders, our males don't have different colours of body coverage, like many species of birds do, etc etc. And of course many humans can easily pass for the other sex by changing their hair-style and clothing as evidenced by numerous cases in history where females passed as males by cutting their hair short and wearing pantaloons etc.