6 ms·

What I dislike about these kinds of "evolutionary" arguments is that they tend to assume that the differences between the genders are genetic, even when there's

What I dislike about these kinds of "evolutionary" arguments is that they tend to assume that the differences between the genders are genetic, even when there's no evidence for that. Even as late as the Victorian ages, several of the traits we now think of as immutable part of being male or female were swapped around. For the Victorians, blue was for girls and pink was for boys, and all women had the potential to become insatiable, incurable beasts for sex, one reason it was so important to keep chaste. This model of sexuality fit what the people experienced in their daily lives, just as ours does to us, and they had their studies that revealed women who enjoyed sex far more than was proper. Compare the here-and-now with every other culture in the history of the planet, and most of our "innate" traits turn out not to be. It makes it very difficult to take the "innate" people seriously. I don't think it's that surprising that so many women are opposed to the idea that we're essentially designed to live out our whole lives hidden in the private sphere. Especially when you consider the 1950s, when (white, middle-to-upper class) women were "free" to do just that. They were miserable. I know I would have been miserable too. There's a reason the Feminine Mystique exists, and the 50s housewife who drowns herself in a bottle of booze is a cliche. For most people, that's just not enough to make a fulfilling life by itself. Even women today who are SAHMs have other things going on than taking care of their household, husband, and kids. He implies that it's somehow detrimental to our survival if women like me are free to create lives that don't make us deeply unhappy. If this arrangement had been as cooperative and nice as the author claims, how does feminism fit in? If we were happy inside the home, why did women look up and think, "I want to be a CEO" in the first place? Why did they not all look up and say, "I'm glad I don't have to do that, it looks stressful"? Given that it was their job to take care of the CEOs and other assorted businessmen after they came home stressed from work, it's not as though they didn't realize the drawbacks. Vacuuming is just not meaningful work. Guys, if you lived in a time where your choices were to latch onto a woman for financial support or pick a low-paying unskilled job, because everyone believed you were genetically incapable of doing anything better, would that be OK with you? Or would you find it personally offensive? What if they said you were incapable of making art, and labelled any creative work made by men as not art in order to reinforce that? (In the case of women, that's tapestries, embroideries, and pottery, for a start.) What if our default model of "real" sex was stuff women liked more than men (random, probably inaccurate example: doll up for us, dance for us, an hour of groping, grinding, and oral, PIV at the end optional), and "all men were frigid" because for some reason they found it less interesting than women? Come on. Women are people, like you; empathy applies. The old ways were awful.

run4yourlives 15y ago
Did you read the article? The author gives several examples that completely counter your underlying argument. It isn't about ability, it's about motivation.
- mitcheme 15y ago
  Again, so if women lack those motivations, where did feminism come from?
  - run4yourlives 15y ago
    You are clearly missing the point. It's not that every woman lacks motivation, it's that the trend for woman is to lack a particular motivation to do a certain thing, which - the author points out - is exactly the same behaviour men exhibit. It just happens to be that this tendency, coupled with differing social behaviours and expectations, is what has produced the current situation.
  - mitcheme 15y ago
    It would be nice if someone would actually address this instead of just downvoting. I knew my comment wouldn't be popular when I made it, but I was hoping to get some actual answers out of the deal.
  - nocipher 15y ago
    Feminism was born out of women recognizing a discrepancy between what women attained and what men attained. It's not that suddenly women became motivated to reach higher level of achievement but merely that they noticed that men had more than them and decided such inequality was unacceptable.
  - cefarix 15y ago
    Feminism arose for the same reasons that any social movement arises: a part of society feels that they are being unfairly treated as second-class citizens. What exactly does it mean to be a second-class citizen? Whether it is getting paid less, or not having the same job opportunities, in the end it boils down to this: a second-class citizen feels that they are not given the same honor and dignity as a normal citizen. So feminism arose because a significant amount of women believed that they did not have the honor and dignity that they deserved. So why did they not have honor and dignity? Had it always been this way in American society? It had not always been this way in American society. But the industrial revolution led to changes in society, and those changes changed the cultural values of American society. Cultural values such as what kind of person is honorable and dignified. People with outlandish amounts of wealth came to be honorable and dignified. Eccentric/genius/rich/crazy type people became honorable and dignified. It was "cool" to be rich, to own a big oil company, to do ridiculous things with your wealth, to invent cool gadgets (and to a lesser extent, research - Einstein became famous, as did Edison, Tesla, etc). As American culture shifted its values, people who did not take outlandish risks or were not rich, lost their honor and dignity. The group that was most affected throughout all parts of society were women, who tended not to take risks or behave in outlandish ways, and who tended to be stay-at-home moms and grandmothers. And when the cultural values changed, not only did women perceive themselves as being "stuck" in less honorable positions because of their gender - but men began to think the same about women. Men also began to think that, "Well, a woman stays in her house all day and cooks and looks after kids and is a wife, well then she must be looked down upon as a second-class citizen because she doesn't get the same honor and dignity and respect." When all of society - men and women - began to look at women as being in less dignified positions and jobs, not because they were women, but because of what they did (and they did what they did because they were women - they bear children), then women reacted to that and the feminist movement was born. Unfortunately, the feminist movement has not helped the situation, because society still values the rich, powerful, eccentric, outlandish risk-taking person more than a person who just does his or her job in a quiet but fulfilling manner. As a result, the feminist movement has tended to push women into behaving like men, and women are still not satisfied, and the resulting changes in society have left men feeling unhappy to the point where men feel that they are second-class citizens. Until American societies returns the dignity back to women for being women - not for trying to be like men - this problem will persist.

run4yourlives 15y ago

Did you read the article? The author gives several examples that completely counter your underlying argument. It isn't about ability, it's about motivation.

mitcheme 15y ago
Again, so if women lack those motivations, where did feminism come from?
- run4yourlives 15y ago
  You are clearly missing the point. It's not that every woman lacks motivation, it's that the trend for woman is to lack a particular motivation to do a certain thing, which - the author points out - is exactly the same behaviour men exhibit. It just happens to be that this tendency, coupled with differing social behaviours and expectations, is what has produced the current situation.
- mitcheme 15y ago
  It would be nice if someone would actually address this instead of just downvoting. I knew my comment wouldn't be popular when I made it, but I was hoping to get some actual answers out of the deal.
- nocipher 15y ago
  Feminism was born out of women recognizing a discrepancy between what women attained and what men attained. It's not that suddenly women became motivated to reach higher level of achievement but merely that they noticed that men had more than them and decided such inequality was unacceptable.
- cefarix 15y ago
  Feminism arose for the same reasons that any social movement arises: a part of society feels that they are being unfairly treated as second-class citizens. What exactly does it mean to be a second-class citizen? Whether it is getting paid less, or not having the same job opportunities, in the end it boils down to this: a second-class citizen feels that they are not given the same honor and dignity as a normal citizen. So feminism arose because a significant amount of women believed that they did not have the honor and dignity that they deserved. So why did they not have honor and dignity? Had it always been this way in American society? It had not always been this way in American society. But the industrial revolution led to changes in society, and those changes changed the cultural values of American society. Cultural values such as what kind of person is honorable and dignified. People with outlandish amounts of wealth came to be honorable and dignified. Eccentric/genius/rich/crazy type people became honorable and dignified. It was "cool" to be rich, to own a big oil company, to do ridiculous things with your wealth, to invent cool gadgets (and to a lesser extent, research - Einstein became famous, as did Edison, Tesla, etc). As American culture shifted its values, people who did not take outlandish risks or were not rich, lost their honor and dignity. The group that was most affected throughout all parts of society were women, who tended not to take risks or behave in outlandish ways, and who tended to be stay-at-home moms and grandmothers. And when the cultural values changed, not only did women perceive themselves as being "stuck" in less honorable positions because of their gender - but men began to think the same about women. Men also began to think that, "Well, a woman stays in her house all day and cooks and looks after kids and is a wife, well then she must be looked down upon as a second-class citizen because she doesn't get the same honor and dignity and respect." When all of society - men and women - began to look at women as being in less dignified positions and jobs, not because they were women, but because of what they did (and they did what they did because they were women - they bear children), then women reacted to that and the feminist movement was born. Unfortunately, the feminist movement has not helped the situation, because society still values the rich, powerful, eccentric, outlandish risk-taking person more than a person who just does his or her job in a quiet but fulfilling manner. As a result, the feminist movement has tended to push women into behaving like men, and women are still not satisfied, and the resulting changes in society have left men feeling unhappy to the point where men feel that they are second-class citizens. Until American societies returns the dignity back to women for being women - not for trying to be like men - this problem will persist.