5 ms·

It's partly that, but it's partly what the GP comment says: the prevalent idea that true equality of the sexes is for women to become exact copies of men. Since

It's partly that, but it's partly what the GP comment says: the prevalent idea that true equality of the sexes is for women to become exact copies of men. Since women and men are not exact copies, this causes problems.

throwaway6734 6y ago
Imo it's because there's less social resistance for women to take on the roles of men. Until men that take on the former roles of women are viewed equivalently in the dating market, it's going to be a much harder slog
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- JPKab 6y ago
  Women across all income demographics desire men who make as much or more than them. It's a fundamental preference that OKCupid identified a long time ago. As a man, I don't fault this. The risk to a man of reproducing with a woman who isn't great at making money isn't as high, at a fundamental level, as it is for women. A man isn't incapacitated in any way by the act of reproducing. Nor is he prevented or blocked out of reproducing with others, at an evolutionary level. A woman is at great risk for mating with a man who isn't a good provider. If he abandons her, she's stuck. This was the reality for our ancestors, and those preferences are baked into our genes. The opportunity cost of mating with a loser was horrific for women. In case anyone thinks that preference is cultural, it's not. It exists across every culture on the planet, not unlike the biological attraction men have to women who display physical features that are indicative of high fertility. Biology is brutal and doesn't care about fairness or morality.
  - jxramos 6y ago
    > Biology is brutal and doesn't care about fairness or morality. I still try to meditate on the evolutionary advances for sexual vs asexual reproduction to begin with. There's got to be a huge advantage of the separation of the sexes that is hard to fathom just because it's everywhere. Is it a springboard of genetic diversity that optimizes in ways we can't imagine otherwise? The 'compared to what' is always something I wanted to contemplate. Like why did organisms split into near copies of each other with male and female? Why had one developed that carried the womb and the other not? Was it just simple reproductive concurrency? The separation being the better evolutionary choice is so mysterious to me.
    - barrkel 6y ago
      If you have advantageous mutations in two parallel family trees, sexual reproduction permits them to join into a single tree while asexual (splitting) doesn't. There's a similar effect for eliminating harmful mutations that coincide with beneficial mutations. It's more complex in practice for bacteria - there can be DNA transmitted horizontally - but bacteria usually win out by sheer numbers.
      - Viliam1234 6y ago
        Another advantage is that a population that doesn't consist of clones is more resistant to diseases. With regards to "why separate sexes? why two?", the technical reason is mitochondria, the "cells" within our cells: you don't want the copies from one parent to fight with copies from another parent. The standard solution for the multicellular organisms is that only one parent provides mitochondria, the other does not. There were attempts with more than two sexes, turned out to be too complicated.
        jxramos 6y ago
        Whoa, does this suggest something very sensitive, unstable, and delicate about mitochondria that their preservation must be highly conservative otherwise it could not be a steadily observed thing? How exactly would a fight ensue for the coding of a mitochondria? Are those organelles even created by ribosomes? How exactly are those things synthesized anyways?
        Viliam1234 6y ago
        Unlike everything else in the cell, mitochondria are not created by the cell nucleus. They are semi-autonomous "cells in the cell". Like, that is their assumed evolutionary origin: a parasite that miraculously became a symbiont. The "outer cell" provides protection and food, the "inner cell" specializes on energy production. So what happens when a cell wants to become two is that the cell nucleus will (command to) synthesize another copy of all other stuff, but mitochondria just create their own copies by splitting in two. Now what would happen in sexual reproduction if each gamete would bring their own mitochondria? The "outer cell" would benefit from them living together peacefully, but if a mitochondrion would attack its competitors instead, it would be an evolutionary advantage. Even if it would reduce the probability of the whole cell surviving, as long as the chance of the cell surviving is greater than 50%, it is profitable for a mitochondrion to attack its competitors, because it will leave twice as many descendants if it wins. This would lead to arms race between mitochondria, and the cell would pay the costs. Except, there is this neat trick when the cell creates two types of gametes: those with mitochondria (i.e. female) and those without (i.e. male). Then there is no internal battle after joining. A few plants tried it with more than two sexes, where the rule was generally "any two individuals from different sexes can reproduce", and for each combination of sexes they knew which one provides the mitochondria and which does not. But most of nature settled on two sexes.
  - spenczar5 6y ago
    > In case anyone thinks that preference is cultural, it's not. It exists across every culture on the planet Could you provide a cite for this? It's an extraordinary claim. It doesn't match with my understanding of some historical cultures.
    - shard 6y ago
      Could you specify which cultures you are referring to?
    - thwarted 6y ago
      > It's an extraordinary claim. The claim that the being who ends up exerting significant effort and time to reproduction (effort that immediately and directly eats into the non-reproductive economic output) is looking for a mate with enough spare (earning/capital) capacity to support themselves and a family is extraordinary?
      - spenczar5 6y ago
        The claim that I think is "extraordinary" is that a focus on specifically income is found in "every culture on the planet." Is this really true of the Sentinelese, an indigenous culture in the Indian ocean? Maybe if we define "income" in some funny way. There's a long history of "big man" cultures in anthropology, wherein authority and persuasion are more important that direct "income." But, then, "income" is so tied to the modern capitalist framework that it's hard to even talk about this sort of thing, which is really my main point.
        JPKab 6y ago
        "Income" is just a proxy for providing resources. It's simply unreasonable to assume that the Sentinelese men who are best at procuring food/resources/etc aren't more desirable than their peers. Social status is likely a factor as well. Authority is often derived in tribal cultures from being the best hunter/warrior, or being the son of the best fighter if the tribe has a monarchal structure of leadership transfer. Not that any of us know, because the Sentanalese will kill us on site as trespassers if we show up on their islands.
in_cahoots 6y ago
This is a common misconception. Equality means that both sexes have options. It means offering (but not forcing) men to take paternity leave, so that the family can bond as a unit. It means offering flexible work options for everyone. I’ve not met many women who want to work the stereotypical 60+ hour weeks with a stay-at-home partner that comes with being ‘successful’. We want to raise families and have careers on our terms. But the modern workplace and economy isn’t set up that way, in the US at least.
kaitai 6y ago
But no one is an exact copy of anybody. I am a woman who never ever wanted to be a stay-at-home mom, and I'm not, and that's great. I have a husband who did a 4-day week to spend three days with his kid, and that's great. Does that make him a woman or me a man? No, that's ridiculous. Does me having a STEM career make me a man? No, also ridiculous. This "equality means everyone is the same" thing is ridiculously straw-man-y. You know what leads to equity, rather than equality, and actually addresses some of the structural concerns the GP raises? Health care that allows for healthy pregnancies; time off that allows for healthy pregnancies and babyhood and recovery; and time off for all caretakers, whatever their gender may be. My husband used FMLA to care for his kid and now will use it to care for his parents. Give people support and they will do what is best for their families. All this worry about who is an exact copy of who is in general a desire to start an ideological fight in order to avoid taking any substantive action that will help anyone.

throwaway6734 6y ago

Imo it's because there's less social resistance for women to take on the roles of men. Until men that take on the former roles of women are viewed equivalently in the dating market, it's going to be a much harder slog

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
JPKab 6y ago
Women across all income demographics desire men who make as much or more than them. It's a fundamental preference that OKCupid identified a long time ago. As a man, I don't fault this. The risk to a man of reproducing with a woman who isn't great at making money isn't as high, at a fundamental level, as it is for women. A man isn't incapacitated in any way by the act of reproducing. Nor is he prevented or blocked out of reproducing with others, at an evolutionary level. A woman is at great risk for mating with a man who isn't a good provider. If he abandons her, she's stuck. This was the reality for our ancestors, and those preferences are baked into our genes. The opportunity cost of mating with a loser was horrific for women. In case anyone thinks that preference is cultural, it's not. It exists across every culture on the planet, not unlike the biological attraction men have to women who display physical features that are indicative of high fertility. Biology is brutal and doesn't care about fairness or morality.
- jxramos 6y ago
  > Biology is brutal and doesn't care about fairness or morality. I still try to meditate on the evolutionary advances for sexual vs asexual reproduction to begin with. There's got to be a huge advantage of the separation of the sexes that is hard to fathom just because it's everywhere. Is it a springboard of genetic diversity that optimizes in ways we can't imagine otherwise? The 'compared to what' is always something I wanted to contemplate. Like why did organisms split into near copies of each other with male and female? Why had one developed that carried the womb and the other not? Was it just simple reproductive concurrency? The separation being the better evolutionary choice is so mysterious to me.
  - barrkel 6y ago
    If you have advantageous mutations in two parallel family trees, sexual reproduction permits them to join into a single tree while asexual (splitting) doesn't. There's a similar effect for eliminating harmful mutations that coincide with beneficial mutations. It's more complex in practice for bacteria - there can be DNA transmitted horizontally - but bacteria usually win out by sheer numbers.
    - Viliam1234 6y ago
      Another advantage is that a population that doesn't consist of clones is more resistant to diseases. With regards to "why separate sexes? why two?", the technical reason is mitochondria, the "cells" within our cells: you don't want the copies from one parent to fight with copies from another parent. The standard solution for the multicellular organisms is that only one parent provides mitochondria, the other does not. There were attempts with more than two sexes, turned out to be too complicated.
      - jxramos 6y ago
        Whoa, does this suggest something very sensitive, unstable, and delicate about mitochondria that their preservation must be highly conservative otherwise it could not be a steadily observed thing? How exactly would a fight ensue for the coding of a mitochondria? Are those organelles even created by ribosomes? How exactly are those things synthesized anyways?
        Viliam1234 6y ago
        Unlike everything else in the cell, mitochondria are not created by the cell nucleus. They are semi-autonomous "cells in the cell". Like, that is their assumed evolutionary origin: a parasite that miraculously became a symbiont. The "outer cell" provides protection and food, the "inner cell" specializes on energy production. So what happens when a cell wants to become two is that the cell nucleus will (command to) synthesize another copy of all other stuff, but mitochondria just create their own copies by splitting in two. Now what would happen in sexual reproduction if each gamete would bring their own mitochondria? The "outer cell" would benefit from them living together peacefully, but if a mitochondrion would attack its competitors instead, it would be an evolutionary advantage. Even if it would reduce the probability of the whole cell surviving, as long as the chance of the cell surviving is greater than 50%, it is profitable for a mitochondrion to attack its competitors, because it will leave twice as many descendants if it wins. This would lead to arms race between mitochondria, and the cell would pay the costs. Except, there is this neat trick when the cell creates two types of gametes: those with mitochondria (i.e. female) and those without (i.e. male). Then there is no internal battle after joining. A few plants tried it with more than two sexes, where the rule was generally "any two individuals from different sexes can reproduce", and for each combination of sexes they knew which one provides the mitochondria and which does not. But most of nature settled on two sexes.
- spenczar5 6y ago
  > In case anyone thinks that preference is cultural, it's not. It exists across every culture on the planet Could you provide a cite for this? It's an extraordinary claim. It doesn't match with my understanding of some historical cultures.
  - shard 6y ago
    Could you specify which cultures you are referring to?
  - thwarted 6y ago
    > It's an extraordinary claim. The claim that the being who ends up exerting significant effort and time to reproduction (effort that immediately and directly eats into the non-reproductive economic output) is looking for a mate with enough spare (earning/capital) capacity to support themselves and a family is extraordinary?
    - spenczar5 6y ago
      The claim that I think is "extraordinary" is that a focus on specifically income is found in "every culture on the planet." Is this really true of the Sentinelese, an indigenous culture in the Indian ocean? Maybe if we define "income" in some funny way. There's a long history of "big man" cultures in anthropology, wherein authority and persuasion are more important that direct "income." But, then, "income" is so tied to the modern capitalist framework that it's hard to even talk about this sort of thing, which is really my main point.
      - JPKab 6y ago
        "Income" is just a proxy for providing resources. It's simply unreasonable to assume that the Sentinelese men who are best at procuring food/resources/etc aren't more desirable than their peers. Social status is likely a factor as well. Authority is often derived in tribal cultures from being the best hunter/warrior, or being the son of the best fighter if the tribe has a monarchal structure of leadership transfer. Not that any of us know, because the Sentanalese will kill us on site as trespassers if we show up on their islands.

in_cahoots 6y ago

This is a common misconception. Equality means that both sexes have options. It means offering (but not forcing) men to take paternity leave, so that the family can bond as a unit. It means offering flexible work options for everyone. I’ve not met many women who want to work the stereotypical 60+ hour weeks with a stay-at-home partner that comes with being ‘successful’. We want to raise families and have careers on our terms. But the modern workplace and economy isn’t set up that way, in the US at least.

kaitai 6y ago

But no one is an exact copy of anybody. I am a woman who never ever wanted to be a stay-at-home mom, and I'm not, and that's great. I have a husband who did a 4-day week to spend three days with his kid, and that's great. Does that make him a woman or me a man? No, that's ridiculous. Does me having a STEM career make me a man? No, also ridiculous. This "equality means everyone is the same" thing is ridiculously straw-man-y. You know what leads to equity, rather than equality, and actually addresses some of the structural concerns the GP raises? Health care that allows for healthy pregnancies; time off that allows for healthy pregnancies and babyhood and recovery; and time off for all caretakers, whatever their gender may be. My husband used FMLA to care for his kid and now will use it to care for his parents. Give people support and they will do what is best for their families. All this worry about who is an exact copy of who is in general a desire to start an ideological fight in order to avoid taking any substantive action that will help anyone.