5 ms·

This is one of those articles that could be labelled "worldview changing." I mean this in the sense that to gain knowledge of certain facts and arguments has im

by robertk 17y ago

This is one of those articles that could be labelled "worldview changing." I mean this in the sense that to gain knowledge of certain facts and arguments has immense corollaries for how one understands and interprets the world. Here are two other recent examples I can think of: - Moore's Law and the resulting implications regarding the "singularity" - "Happiness" turns out to not be a Platonic ideal or otherwise specially-valued conception, but simply an ever-present state with slight fluctuations (and then perhaps "getting" happiness refers to obtaining the highest positive fluctuation--which will however stabilize over some time). See the recent TED talk on synthesizing happiness. The key fact in this article, from which all other conclusions naturally seem to follow, is that males as a statistic exhibit much higher traits of extremity (in all aspects) due to the historically much higher probability of a woman being able to obtain a partner and reproduce.

iamelgringo 17y ago
I think the author did have some interesting things to say. His idea of men going to extremes on either end of the productivity scale was interesting. His points that men occupy the top rungs of society as well as are considered expendable are interesting as well. Completely disregarding centuries/millena worth of cultural, historical and legal issues seems a little intellectually dishonest, however. Women have had difficulty for centuries across many cultures in obtaining property rights: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/marriedwomensproperty/a/property_rights.htm http://womenshistory.about.com/od/marriedwomensproperty/a/pr... Women have had to fight to obtain the basic right to vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage Women have also had to fight to obtain the right to higher education, work in certain categories of jobs, etc... Dismissing all the cultural, historical and legal evidence to the contrary, and chalking it all up to evolutionary pressures seems a little dishonest. It's hard to evolve aggressive women, when aggressive women are imprisoned or killed. You still the effects of that in some very conservative muslim countries. I imagine that would have some evolutionary pressure on culling certain aggressive genes in women. In fact, it seems dangerously close to, "well, men evolved to be stronger, therefore, only men should be able to be ['soldiers', 'policemen', 'construction workers', 'etc...'].
- Alex3917 17y ago
  I wouldn't describe that as intellectual dishonesty. He might be wrong, but he's not trying to trick you.
- jibiki 17y ago
  I don't quite understand what you are saying. What phenomenon are you trying to explain, and what is your explanation?
  - iamelgringo 17y ago
    It sounds to me like he's trying to discount the perspective that "men have kept women down" by suggesting an alternative explanation, "It's just genetic selection. i.e. men are more aggressive and care about dominination, women are more likeable and care about having families". I think he is ignoring the fact that men have throughout centuries passed laws that did not allow women to own property, get an education, vote, walk outside their house unveiled etc... Maybe part of the reason that women didn't build boats and sail around the world was because women weren't allowed to own property in many areas of the world, or because women were prohibited from obtaining an education and learning astronomy. If you can't study astronomy, it's hard to sail around the world. If you can't study medicine, it's impossible to be a doctor or improve Obstetrical care. If you can't own property by yourself, it's hard to build a business. It's hard to be a political leader if you can't vote.
    - IsaacSchlueter 17y ago
      Isn't your response just whataboutery? I think part of the author's thesis is that misogyny is handled in numerous other analyses. However, even in situations where allegations of patriarchy are ludicrous, certain trends are still present. It is not necessary to catalog every true example of misogyny in order to argue against some allegations of oppression. Maybe part of the reason that women didn't build boats and sail around the world was because women weren't allowed to own property in many areas of the world, or because women were prohibited from obtaining an education and learning astronomy. Certainly, in some cases. But even in cultures where women are granted the same rights as men, certain lifestyles seem to be much more popular with men than with women; hence far more men among soldiers, death row inmates, and Fortune 500 CEOs. In cases where we notice more men than women reaping a specific reward, we ought to at least consider different preferences owing to biological/evolutionary origins. But I see what you're saying. I would have liked to hear some discussion of the blatant and real misogyny that exists in the world. In fact, I would be fascinated to see an analysis of the situations you bring up, in light of the observed differences in gender attitude and aptitude.
asdlfj2sd 17y ago
It's a good article, but the expendability of the male is an old concept. As is the over representation of males on the extremes. That's why bucks and does are so different and that's why in most animal populations the sex ratio is not 50/50, but heavily favors females, because one male can fertilize many females. I think what's new here, is that we've had pretty good gender equality for a while now and now it's becoming OK to for serious people to defend males. I just don't see the point, as long as we're a species where one male can fertilize many females, the fundamental nature of being a human male won't change. That's life, deal with it.

by robertk 17y ago

iamelgringo 17y ago

I think the author did have some interesting things to say. His idea of men going to extremes on either end of the productivity scale was interesting. His points that men occupy the top rungs of society as well as are considered expendable are interesting as well. Completely disregarding centuries/millena worth of cultural, historical and legal issues seems a little intellectually dishonest, however. Women have had difficulty for centuries across many cultures in obtaining property rights: http://womenshistory.about.com/od/marriedwomensproperty/a/property_rights.htm http://womenshistory.about.com/od/marriedwomensproperty/a/pr... Women have had to fight to obtain the basic right to vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women's_suffrage Women have also had to fight to obtain the right to higher education, work in certain categories of jobs, etc... Dismissing all the cultural, historical and legal evidence to the contrary, and chalking it all up to evolutionary pressures seems a little dishonest. It's hard to evolve aggressive women, when aggressive women are imprisoned or killed. You still the effects of that in some very conservative muslim countries. I imagine that would have some evolutionary pressure on culling certain aggressive genes in women. In fact, it seems dangerously close to, "well, men evolved to be stronger, therefore, only men should be able to be ['soldiers', 'policemen', 'construction workers', 'etc...'].

Alex3917 17y ago
I wouldn't describe that as intellectual dishonesty. He might be wrong, but he's not trying to trick you.
jibiki 17y ago
I don't quite understand what you are saying. What phenomenon are you trying to explain, and what is your explanation?
- iamelgringo 17y ago
  It sounds to me like he's trying to discount the perspective that "men have kept women down" by suggesting an alternative explanation, "It's just genetic selection. i.e. men are more aggressive and care about dominination, women are more likeable and care about having families". I think he is ignoring the fact that men have throughout centuries passed laws that did not allow women to own property, get an education, vote, walk outside their house unveiled etc... Maybe part of the reason that women didn't build boats and sail around the world was because women weren't allowed to own property in many areas of the world, or because women were prohibited from obtaining an education and learning astronomy. If you can't study astronomy, it's hard to sail around the world. If you can't study medicine, it's impossible to be a doctor or improve Obstetrical care. If you can't own property by yourself, it's hard to build a business. It's hard to be a political leader if you can't vote.
  - IsaacSchlueter 17y ago
    Isn't your response just whataboutery? I think part of the author's thesis is that misogyny is handled in numerous other analyses. However, even in situations where allegations of patriarchy are ludicrous, certain trends are still present. It is not necessary to catalog every true example of misogyny in order to argue against some allegations of oppression. Maybe part of the reason that women didn't build boats and sail around the world was because women weren't allowed to own property in many areas of the world, or because women were prohibited from obtaining an education and learning astronomy. Certainly, in some cases. But even in cultures where women are granted the same rights as men, certain lifestyles seem to be much more popular with men than with women; hence far more men among soldiers, death row inmates, and Fortune 500 CEOs. In cases where we notice more men than women reaping a specific reward, we ought to at least consider different preferences owing to biological/evolutionary origins. But I see what you're saying. I would have liked to hear some discussion of the blatant and real misogyny that exists in the world. In fact, I would be fascinated to see an analysis of the situations you bring up, in light of the observed differences in gender attitude and aptitude.

asdlfj2sd 17y ago

It's a good article, but the expendability of the male is an old concept. As is the over representation of males on the extremes. That's why bucks and does are so different and that's why in most animal populations the sex ratio is not 50/50, but heavily favors females, because one male can fertilize many females. I think what's new here, is that we've had pretty good gender equality for a while now and now it's becoming OK to for serious people to defend males. I just don't see the point, as long as we're a species where one male can fertilize many females, the fundamental nature of being a human male won't change. That's life, deal with it.