4 ms·

Sorry, same sort of normative ideas + Reductio ad absurdum = what you said. Clearly, there are cultural differences. However, name one country that’s military

Sorry, same sort of normative ideas + Reductio ad absurdum = what you said. Clearly, there are cultural differences. However, name one country that’s military is made up of significantly more women than men. Far more women in the US go to college today than men do, go back 50 years and the ratios was very different. So clearly cultural norms change, yet there is less cultural diversity than you would expect if biology was not significant. Edit: Another vary important thing to realize is that these biological traits are not universal. For example there is a huge amount of individual diversity in the amount of hormones produced at various stages of development. Some of these produce noticeable external changes and other impact the brain far more than the rest of the body. Multiply those differences with different developmental experences and the average says very little about the individual.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
rmc 15y ago
There has been loads of cultural change, even in the USA. For example, it's no longer accepted that all women really want is to have kids & raise a family. (There are several instances of this in Mad Men, from Betty Draper's psych issues at the start) This change is due to 'second wave feminisim', have a look at this book which covers it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feminine_Mystique http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feminine_Mystique . To think that all that has is the ratios in university is ignoring attitudes, which did change. Yes, women are not the largest ratio of militaries, however the attitude to women in military has change. Today people would balk at the idea of putting 5 years in the military, we think they should be protected, and being in the military would harm them. This used to be the attitude to women in the military. Attitudes have changed.
- onemoreact 15y ago
  While many behaviors have changed quickly in the US I think a lot of those behaviors are based around the same assumptions. You could say 200 years ago in the US many women covered their legs because of taboo's, but dig a little deeper and that taboo ties into female legs are attractive. Now days women often dress to show off their legs and 'she has great legs' is not uncommon complement because female legs are attractive. So they might be opposite behaviors, but IMO it's the same idea that leads to Muslim women completely covering themselves. You can even study things like cheating by looking at genetic information and find culture often has less impact on behavior than you might expect. Consider, people still cheat when they risk death to do so.
  - rmc 15y ago
    Lots of assumptions have changed. Here are some assumptions that have changed: "No women can do maths or science". "Women do not want to do very complicated scientific research". "Women are unable to fight in a military and will get very scared and turn into bubbering heaps the first sign of danger". "Women cannot be CEOs because they will just quit as soon as they have a baby". "A woman's life can be fulfilled by raising children & home making"
    - jcromartie 15y ago
      > "A woman's life can be fulfilled by raising children & home making" This feels like a cheap shot from old-school feminists. That assumption hasn't changed, it's just not the only option. A woman's life can be fulfilled by taking care of a family.
      - rmc 15y ago
        No, that used to be what lots of people thought (incl. women). Now, we all admit that some women can lead full satisfying lives through their careers. We tell women & girls that they can have careers, not just families.
lukeschlather 15y ago
The lack of women in the military is purely a result of sound military strategy. Suppose two idealized states in a perpetual state of war, where they have frequent engagements in which both sides lose 50% of their soldiers in each generation. The state that uses no women as soldiers whatsoever will eventually win. This is because of biology, but it is not because of any sort of hardwired instincts. It's just that 200 men and 200 women can on average have the same number of children as 100 men and 200 women, but the reverse is not true. 200 men and 100 women can have roughly the same number of children as 50 men and 100 women.
- onemoreact 15y ago
  I think my original point still stands even if you were correct because I am arguing the biological basis for many behaviors. However you’re missing the basic concept that the country that used both women and men could simply create a larger army and crush the other country. The reason this did not work historically was more to do with men’s larger size and muscle mass than reproductive issues. If you can fire an arrow and extra 20 feet you can kill someone before they can attack back. If can lift a heaver weapon with a longer range you are far more likely to win in melee combat. Such minor advantages are far less important in gathering food so sending a largely male army off to combat is simply more efficient prior to the use of fire arms. (There is some evidence that women do better in modern firefights so you could see a reversal of this trend fairly soon.) PS: Population sizes are far closer linked to the ability to gather food and avoid disease than the ability to reproduce. In theory more women = more baby’s but you could also see 4x population growth in 30 years which does not happen.
- rmc 15y ago
  Militaries do not think like this. They do not plan like this. If they did, they would only allow gay men in the military. In fact the opposite happens. Your theory doesn't match reality.
  - lukeschlather 15y ago
    I'm not talking about the modern military. I'm talking about the constraints under which humans evolved. I'm also simply looking at it from the assumption that all the players are rational actors, and the rational choice is to maximize chances of victory in warfare. I think the modern world is much more complex, and the rational choice in general (possibly even in antiquity) is to avoid violence if at all possible and find mutually beneficial solutions to resource scarcity.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

rmc 15y ago

There has been loads of cultural change, even in the USA. For example, it's no longer accepted that all women really want is to have kids & raise a family. (There are several instances of this in Mad Men, from Betty Draper's psych issues at the start) This change is due to 'second wave feminisim', have a look at this book which covers it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feminine_Mystique http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Feminine_Mystique . To think that all that has is the ratios in university is ignoring attitudes, which did change. Yes, women are not the largest ratio of militaries, however the attitude to women in military has change. Today people would balk at the idea of putting 5 years in the military, we think they should be protected, and being in the military would harm them. This used to be the attitude to women in the military. Attitudes have changed.

onemoreact 15y ago
While many behaviors have changed quickly in the US I think a lot of those behaviors are based around the same assumptions. You could say 200 years ago in the US many women covered their legs because of taboo's, but dig a little deeper and that taboo ties into female legs are attractive. Now days women often dress to show off their legs and 'she has great legs' is not uncommon complement because female legs are attractive. So they might be opposite behaviors, but IMO it's the same idea that leads to Muslim women completely covering themselves. You can even study things like cheating by looking at genetic information and find culture often has less impact on behavior than you might expect. Consider, people still cheat when they risk death to do so.
- rmc 15y ago
  Lots of assumptions have changed. Here are some assumptions that have changed: "No women can do maths or science". "Women do not want to do very complicated scientific research". "Women are unable to fight in a military and will get very scared and turn into bubbering heaps the first sign of danger". "Women cannot be CEOs because they will just quit as soon as they have a baby". "A woman's life can be fulfilled by raising children & home making"
  - jcromartie 15y ago
    > "A woman's life can be fulfilled by raising children & home making" This feels like a cheap shot from old-school feminists. That assumption hasn't changed, it's just not the only option. A woman's life can be fulfilled by taking care of a family.
    - rmc 15y ago
      No, that used to be what lots of people thought (incl. women). Now, we all admit that some women can lead full satisfying lives through their careers. We tell women & girls that they can have careers, not just families.

lukeschlather 15y ago

The lack of women in the military is purely a result of sound military strategy. Suppose two idealized states in a perpetual state of war, where they have frequent engagements in which both sides lose 50% of their soldiers in each generation. The state that uses no women as soldiers whatsoever will eventually win. This is because of biology, but it is not because of any sort of hardwired instincts. It's just that 200 men and 200 women can on average have the same number of children as 100 men and 200 women, but the reverse is not true. 200 men and 100 women can have roughly the same number of children as 50 men and 100 women.

onemoreact 15y ago
I think my original point still stands even if you were correct because I am arguing the biological basis for many behaviors. However you’re missing the basic concept that the country that used both women and men could simply create a larger army and crush the other country. The reason this did not work historically was more to do with men’s larger size and muscle mass than reproductive issues. If you can fire an arrow and extra 20 feet you can kill someone before they can attack back. If can lift a heaver weapon with a longer range you are far more likely to win in melee combat. Such minor advantages are far less important in gathering food so sending a largely male army off to combat is simply more efficient prior to the use of fire arms. (There is some evidence that women do better in modern firefights so you could see a reversal of this trend fairly soon.) PS: Population sizes are far closer linked to the ability to gather food and avoid disease than the ability to reproduce. In theory more women = more baby’s but you could also see 4x population growth in 30 years which does not happen.
rmc 15y ago
Militaries do not think like this. They do not plan like this. If they did, they would only allow gay men in the military. In fact the opposite happens. Your theory doesn't match reality.
- lukeschlather 15y ago
  I'm not talking about the modern military. I'm talking about the constraints under which humans evolved. I'm also simply looking at it from the assumption that all the players are rational actors, and the rational choice is to maximize chances of victory in warfare. I think the modern world is much more complex, and the rational choice in general (possibly even in antiquity) is to avoid violence if at all possible and find mutually beneficial solutions to resource scarcity.