2 ms·

Actually, gender behaviour differences are noted in non-human primate infants also. For example (and I can find the study if you're interested), male baby monke

by avazhi 5y ago

Actually, gender behaviour differences are noted in non-human primate infants also. For example (and I can find the study if you're interested), male baby monkeys prefer toy firetrucks to dolls, and they don't display motherly (viz., feeding, caressing, etc) behaviour towards the toys, whereas female infant monkeys prefer dolls (even human dolls) to toy firetrucks, and they do display these behaviours. At least when I was taught this in uni (2017) this finding/conclusion was sound enough to be in textbooks, and had been replicated and was considered paradigmatic of innate biological gender differences. There is also plenty of evidence that testosterone has effects on male aggression, caring instincts, bonding, etc. Pretending that gender hormonal differences don't exert massive effects on interests and social behaviours is not tenable, IMO. No doubt more men than currently do would would go into childcare if the wages suddenly became $200/hour, but that doesn't mean they'd be as good as it as women are on average, nor would it reflect a change in their natural desires/motivations. Good day.

giraffe_lady 5y ago
I'm not pretending these differences don't exist or don't affect individual behavior. I'm saying using them to justify inequality in our society as innate or inevitable is fucked up. A lot of behaviors can be accurately described as "innate" and "biological" but nonetheless the entire project of "having a society" depends on us not acting on them regularly. But there is a very big leap between identifying inclinations in primate infants and determining that the unjust structures of our society are caused purely by that. Especially when there are so many other easily observable factors in that inequality right now. That aside, why even focus on it when there are more powerful incentives already at play? Let's get the wages evened out then see what people do, rather than decide in advance what we think they will do.
- avazhi 5y ago
  I guess where we don't see eye to eye is in the existence of 'unjust structures' in society. My own view is that all advanced cultures today, not just the West, are the result of organic developments that have occurred over millennia and have basically been subjected to social natural selection. That includes their legal systems. I'm an American living in Australia and I've worked within both legal systems. While neither is perfect, and there are sometimes glaring problems (Djockovic v The Minister for Immigration comes to mind), I wouldn't consider either to be pillars of inequality. I think any inequalities that do exist are there for a reason, and trying to exert top-down control over them isn't necessarily wise or even possible. Take blacks and the black crime rate, for example. It's known that blacks are busted for, and convicted of, marijuana possession at rates exponentially higher than other races. Instead of concluding that perhaps blacks have some genetic predisposition for weed, or that they have cognitive differences that affect their judgment and self-control - either of which isn't an obviously unreasonable conclusion IMO - in many US states it's now been determined that, apparently, the laws themselves (viz., the laws the criminalise marijuana possession) are racist. Or take college admissions - because blacks are, on average, 1 standard deviation less intelligent than literally every other race, and hence do substantially worse on standardised tests, SURPRISE, they don't get into Ivy League universities, become lawyers and doctors and engineers, etc. But instead of considering that maybe, just possibly, there's a genetic difference - or a difference caused by them having been enslaved for a few generations - society has now apparently concluded that in fact it's the standardised tests that are racist, or the admissions process itself. Frankly I find all this laughably asinine, and if that's what you mean by the 'unjust structures of our society' then I'll have to disagree with you. Even if you want to blame their current problems on slavery, don't you think it's reasonable to call the slavery itself racist, and not today's current laws? Regarding the gender pay gap, my understanding is that men literally work more hours than women per capita, therefore, logically, they do on average get paid more in lifetime earnings. Adding to that point, let's look at 'women's sports'. I've seen it said that WNBA players, for example, should as a matter of 'equality' be paid the same as men's NBA players. But men's players are compensated according to the market, and the market is based almost exclusively on the public's desire and willingness to pay to see men's NBA players play. People, apparently, do not want to see physically inferior females who are weaker, slower, less coordinated, etc., play basketball, and apparently people refuse to value the experience as highly as they do men's basketball. And if you find that objectionable, just look at how many females and female Olympians were outraged at the idea of having men who'd had surgery/hormone therapy compete against them in the Olympics. They know, just as I do, that there is a massive physical gap between the genders. As an aside, query whether those differences carry over into the cognitive domain (I think they do - as a start, men have 10% larger brains, and completely different proportions of important regions like Broca's area, the anterior cingulate, area 10, etc). What if they did, and men happened to be better at things that people find more valuable. Is that unjust? Curious to know your thoughts on this, specifically whether you think 'sexism' is to blame for that market situation. I bring that example up because, quite literally, it is one of those intractable problems (women being physically inferior to men) that we can do nothing about except accept and move on. Not every apparent inequality is a problem, IMO, nor can we fix them all. Take care.
  - giraffe_lady 5y ago
    Wait I can't find the comment now but didn't you start this thread by claiming you're a liberal? And then three comments in you're busting out the calipers and white hood? I'm not interested sorry.
    - avazhi 5y ago
      https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30899867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30899867 Definitely not busting out 'the white hood', but if you want to caricature me in that way I can't stop you, obviously. What I claimed was that I hold a number of views that are socially 'liberal' in the American sense, noting that liberal means something different in the rest of the world, including Australia (where I live). Not sure how old you are, but at some age you'll realise that in real life the political beliefs people hold often don't conform precisely with those of any particular political party. Such is life, regardless of their political bent.

by avazhi 5y ago

giraffe_lady 5y ago

I'm not pretending these differences don't exist or don't affect individual behavior. I'm saying using them to justify inequality in our society as innate or inevitable is fucked up. A lot of behaviors can be accurately described as "innate" and "biological" but nonetheless the entire project of "having a society" depends on us not acting on them regularly. But there is a very big leap between identifying inclinations in primate infants and determining that the unjust structures of our society are caused purely by that. Especially when there are so many other easily observable factors in that inequality right now. That aside, why even focus on it when there are more powerful incentives already at play? Let's get the wages evened out then see what people do, rather than decide in advance what we think they will do.

avazhi 5y ago
I guess where we don't see eye to eye is in the existence of 'unjust structures' in society. My own view is that all advanced cultures today, not just the West, are the result of organic developments that have occurred over millennia and have basically been subjected to social natural selection. That includes their legal systems. I'm an American living in Australia and I've worked within both legal systems. While neither is perfect, and there are sometimes glaring problems (Djockovic v The Minister for Immigration comes to mind), I wouldn't consider either to be pillars of inequality. I think any inequalities that do exist are there for a reason, and trying to exert top-down control over them isn't necessarily wise or even possible. Take blacks and the black crime rate, for example. It's known that blacks are busted for, and convicted of, marijuana possession at rates exponentially higher than other races. Instead of concluding that perhaps blacks have some genetic predisposition for weed, or that they have cognitive differences that affect their judgment and self-control - either of which isn't an obviously unreasonable conclusion IMO - in many US states it's now been determined that, apparently, the laws themselves (viz., the laws the criminalise marijuana possession) are racist. Or take college admissions - because blacks are, on average, 1 standard deviation less intelligent than literally every other race, and hence do substantially worse on standardised tests, SURPRISE, they don't get into Ivy League universities, become lawyers and doctors and engineers, etc. But instead of considering that maybe, just possibly, there's a genetic difference - or a difference caused by them having been enslaved for a few generations - society has now apparently concluded that in fact it's the standardised tests that are racist, or the admissions process itself. Frankly I find all this laughably asinine, and if that's what you mean by the 'unjust structures of our society' then I'll have to disagree with you. Even if you want to blame their current problems on slavery, don't you think it's reasonable to call the slavery itself racist, and not today's current laws? Regarding the gender pay gap, my understanding is that men literally work more hours than women per capita, therefore, logically, they do on average get paid more in lifetime earnings. Adding to that point, let's look at 'women's sports'. I've seen it said that WNBA players, for example, should as a matter of 'equality' be paid the same as men's NBA players. But men's players are compensated according to the market, and the market is based almost exclusively on the public's desire and willingness to pay to see men's NBA players play. People, apparently, do not want to see physically inferior females who are weaker, slower, less coordinated, etc., play basketball, and apparently people refuse to value the experience as highly as they do men's basketball. And if you find that objectionable, just look at how many females and female Olympians were outraged at the idea of having men who'd had surgery/hormone therapy compete against them in the Olympics. They know, just as I do, that there is a massive physical gap between the genders. As an aside, query whether those differences carry over into the cognitive domain (I think they do - as a start, men have 10% larger brains, and completely different proportions of important regions like Broca's area, the anterior cingulate, area 10, etc). What if they did, and men happened to be better at things that people find more valuable. Is that unjust? Curious to know your thoughts on this, specifically whether you think 'sexism' is to blame for that market situation. I bring that example up because, quite literally, it is one of those intractable problems (women being physically inferior to men) that we can do nothing about except accept and move on. Not every apparent inequality is a problem, IMO, nor can we fix them all. Take care.
- giraffe_lady 5y ago
  Wait I can't find the comment now but didn't you start this thread by claiming you're a liberal? And then three comments in you're busting out the calipers and white hood? I'm not interested sorry.
  - avazhi 5y ago
    https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30899867 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30899867 Definitely not busting out 'the white hood', but if you want to caricature me in that way I can't stop you, obviously. What I claimed was that I hold a number of views that are socially 'liberal' in the American sense, noting that liberal means something different in the rest of the world, including Australia (where I live). Not sure how old you are, but at some age you'll realise that in real life the political beliefs people hold often don't conform precisely with those of any particular political party. Such is life, regardless of their political bent.