4 ms·

I'm not sure these numbers show anything but that men are more violent (hormones and culture, maybe?) and women are more "attached" to their children (a side ef

by herval 14y ago

I'm not sure these numbers show anything but that men are more violent (hormones and culture, maybe?) and women are more "attached" to their children (a side effect for carrying one on her belly for 9 months, perhaps?)

Cushman 14y ago
And I'm not sure how that's supposed to matter. We are all of us predisposed to live in caves eating roots and nuts and anything we could kill with a pointy rock, but somehow we got past that.
- herval 14y ago
  You referred to these numbers. I totally agree with you now - they don't mean a thing (and we'll never know why you included them here in the first place)
  - Cushman 14y ago
    I included them because they are facts, unlike the idea that men are inherently violent or women inherently nurturing. But sure, keep guessing.
revelation 14y ago
And thats why we don't have equality. Men are violent and bossy, women are nurturing and caring, let's parade tough on crime and the nuclear family.
- rmc 14y ago
  It's funny how some "mass stereyotypes" (like "men violent, women nurturing") tend to take longer to die. Let's look at some other "mass stereyotypes" that are no longer so accepable to say in civil discource: • Women can't do maths (like at all, their brains are tiny and incabable of abstract thought) It's in the nature! • Men can't look after babies, they'd probably hold them by their heads or something! It's in their nature! • Jews are only concerned with money, it's in their nature! • Women lack the mental capabilites for politics and shouldn't be allowed to vote, it's in their nature. • Women are very emotional, and hence are unsuitable for high pressure jobs (high level political leader, CEO, doctor, military commander), they'd just have some sort of emotional break down when the going gets tough, it's in their nature. • etc. etc. (I haven't even touched on non-noble people, black people, LGBT people, catholics, prodestands, muslims, etc. etc.) All of these things have been said about natural differences between various groups, mostly due to what we now realise as massive biases. When one says "men are naturally violent" or "women are naturally caring", the burden is on you to show how this time it's different, rather than it being just another (false) statement born out of bias. All these claims had some sort of evidence behind them. The burden is on you to come up with a standard of evidence that supports your biased claim, but doesn't show that women are incable of high office (say).
  - herval 14y ago
    The "mass stereotypes" you're mentioning here are respectively called "testosterone" and "oxytocin". It could be that, one day, someone is able to prove that there is more to it, but I'm certain that obtusely comparing a hormonal effect with "jews love money" won't help much...
    - rmc 14y ago
      Right so how do you know lack of testosterone (and/or presense of oestrogen) doesn't cause someone to be bad at maths or cause them to have an crying fit during high pressure situations BAN WOMEN CEOS
    - baxrob 14y ago
      No. This argument has been dismantled so many times by so many (yes, often "feminist") scholars ... it pains me a little to recapitulate. Gender is a construct. It is /tethered/, but not mapped, to sex. They are in no way identical, and often, in so many ways, orthogonal. Sex (ie, sex difference) has a finite number of dimensions, and the ones we can identify with confidence are physiological (currently, we understand neither the connection between neural function and behavior, nor the mechanics of culture, in enough detail enough to draw clear conclusions about what might really be "male" vs "female" characteristics in the realm of culture or behavior). Gender, OTOH, has unlimited, fluid dimensions. The prospect of discovering or creating a simple mapping between sex and gender, begets a vain project. [Similar to the project of mapping Jewishness to thrift, ethnicity to ability, sexual orientation to morality, etc.] Moreover, the process of peeling away the layers of what may be constructed / learned, or may be more-or-less dictated by genetics -- to varying degrees depending on an individual and a set of circumstance -- is /exactly/ the process of dismantling gender, which we can also hope will lead to a more equitable distribution of power. So if one is sincerely curious about the underlying realities, keeping at chipping away the presumptions, is the way to go.
    - zerostar07 14y ago
      Historically, a number of great cultures used Eunuchs, or people who weren't allowed to marry in high-ranking offices (the Chinese, Byzantine, Ottomans, and the Church). Apparently, good leadership is not tied to testosterone.
rmc 14y ago
(a side effect for carrying one on her belly for 9 months, perhaps?) The fact that one partner can literally walk away has nothing to do with it?
- herval 14y ago
  Yes, it does - but given one of the creatures is HORMONALLY ATTACHED to the child, which one do you think is more likely to walk away? (Hint: statistical data has the answer...)
randomdata 14y ago
Or do our sexist views make us believe men are more deserving of jail time? A good example is the way we look at a man raping a woman vs. a woman raping a man. The former is the most heinous crime one could commit, but the latter, in the eyes of many, isn't a big deal, if even a positive experience.
- baxrob 14y ago
  Sir, you have confused a term. /Consent/ is the opposite. Look it up.
baxrob 14y ago
herval, a handful of numbers can't show anything conclusively. Volume one of Simone de B's epic "Second Sex" covers your points in depth. Worth reading - some of its 1953 English translation is online at : http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/index.htm http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir...

by herval 14y ago

Cushman 14y ago

And I'm not sure how that's supposed to matter. We are all of us predisposed to live in caves eating roots and nuts and anything we could kill with a pointy rock, but somehow we got past that.

herval 14y ago
You referred to these numbers. I totally agree with you now - they don't mean a thing (and we'll never know why you included them here in the first place)
- Cushman 14y ago
  I included them because they are facts, unlike the idea that men are inherently violent or women inherently nurturing. But sure, keep guessing.

revelation 14y ago

And thats why we don't have equality. Men are violent and bossy, women are nurturing and caring, let's parade tough on crime and the nuclear family.

rmc 14y ago
It's funny how some "mass stereyotypes" (like "men violent, women nurturing") tend to take longer to die. Let's look at some other "mass stereyotypes" that are no longer so accepable to say in civil discource: • Women can't do maths (like at all, their brains are tiny and incabable of abstract thought) It's in the nature! • Men can't look after babies, they'd probably hold them by their heads or something! It's in their nature! • Jews are only concerned with money, it's in their nature! • Women lack the mental capabilites for politics and shouldn't be allowed to vote, it's in their nature. • Women are very emotional, and hence are unsuitable for high pressure jobs (high level political leader, CEO, doctor, military commander), they'd just have some sort of emotional break down when the going gets tough, it's in their nature. • etc. etc. (I haven't even touched on non-noble people, black people, LGBT people, catholics, prodestands, muslims, etc. etc.) All of these things have been said about natural differences between various groups, mostly due to what we now realise as massive biases. When one says "men are naturally violent" or "women are naturally caring", the burden is on you to show how this time it's different, rather than it being just another (false) statement born out of bias. All these claims had some sort of evidence behind them. The burden is on you to come up with a standard of evidence that supports your biased claim, but doesn't show that women are incable of high office (say).
- herval 14y ago
  The "mass stereotypes" you're mentioning here are respectively called "testosterone" and "oxytocin". It could be that, one day, someone is able to prove that there is more to it, but I'm certain that obtusely comparing a hormonal effect with "jews love money" won't help much...
  - rmc 14y ago
    Right so how do you know lack of testosterone (and/or presense of oestrogen) doesn't cause someone to be bad at maths or cause them to have an crying fit during high pressure situations BAN WOMEN CEOS
  - baxrob 14y ago
    No. This argument has been dismantled so many times by so many (yes, often "feminist") scholars ... it pains me a little to recapitulate. Gender is a construct. It is /tethered/, but not mapped, to sex. They are in no way identical, and often, in so many ways, orthogonal. Sex (ie, sex difference) has a finite number of dimensions, and the ones we can identify with confidence are physiological (currently, we understand neither the connection between neural function and behavior, nor the mechanics of culture, in enough detail enough to draw clear conclusions about what might really be "male" vs "female" characteristics in the realm of culture or behavior). Gender, OTOH, has unlimited, fluid dimensions. The prospect of discovering or creating a simple mapping between sex and gender, begets a vain project. [Similar to the project of mapping Jewishness to thrift, ethnicity to ability, sexual orientation to morality, etc.] Moreover, the process of peeling away the layers of what may be constructed / learned, or may be more-or-less dictated by genetics -- to varying degrees depending on an individual and a set of circumstance -- is /exactly/ the process of dismantling gender, which we can also hope will lead to a more equitable distribution of power. So if one is sincerely curious about the underlying realities, keeping at chipping away the presumptions, is the way to go.
  - zerostar07 14y ago
    Historically, a number of great cultures used Eunuchs, or people who weren't allowed to marry in high-ranking offices (the Chinese, Byzantine, Ottomans, and the Church). Apparently, good leadership is not tied to testosterone.

rmc 14y ago

(a side effect for carrying one on her belly for 9 months, perhaps?) The fact that one partner can literally walk away has nothing to do with it?

herval 14y ago
Yes, it does - but given one of the creatures is HORMONALLY ATTACHED to the child, which one do you think is more likely to walk away? (Hint: statistical data has the answer...)

randomdata 14y ago

Or do our sexist views make us believe men are more deserving of jail time? A good example is the way we look at a man raping a woman vs. a woman raping a man. The former is the most heinous crime one could commit, but the latter, in the eyes of many, isn't a big deal, if even a positive experience.

baxrob 14y ago
Sir, you have confused a term. /Consent/ is the opposite. Look it up.

baxrob 14y ago

herval, a handful of numbers can't show anything conclusively. Volume one of Simone de B's epic "Second Sex" covers your points in depth. Worth reading - some of its 1953 English translation is online at : http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/index.htm http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir...