Why are women repressed?

[HairyPotter]

For most of its history, the U.S. Constitution, a document crafted exclusively by men, has denied women the right to vote. Women hold a very small portion of the top positions in government and industry. Most religions relegate women to a subservient role/status. Women are lumped with "other minorities" in government programs designed discourage discrimination.

Why is this the case? Why do men subjugate women?

[Biggirl]

Women are repressed probably because they have been opressed.



Now for the non-smartass answer: Men traditionally and through history have been in charge. This is because women, until very recently, have been dependant on men for biological reasons. It is still so, but much less so. That is why things are changing.

The image of women being weak and dependant is changing. The more this changes the greater women's power in society.





That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

[december]

Originally posted by Biggirl
Now for the non-smartass answer: Men traditionally and through history have been in charge. This is because women, until very recently, have been dependant on men for biological reasons. It is still so, but much less so. That is why things are changing.

The image of women being weak and dependant is changing. The more this changes the greater women's power in society. That's my story and I'm sticking with it. I would tend to agree with Biggirl. Also, as a guess, physical strength and belligerancy were factors.

[HairyPotter]

I understand that physical strenght and the associated dependence for survival are the mechanism utilized to attain dominance, but why the persistent need for dominance? Men have been dependent on women for the survival of the species; why hasn't that dependence resulted in an equal partnership?

[Biggirl]

Because once you attain dominance, you don't want to let it go. Over the centuries men (and women too, for that matter) believed that women were the weaker sex. Women's dependence was codified into our belief systems and societal mores.

Once a group has attained a position of dominance they will not give it up willing. It is in our nature to believe that the dominant group deserves to be there. There is a strong instinct to keep the status quo, especially if basic needs are being met throughout the society.

And the truth is women are dependent because of our biology. As long as we bear the children, we need the support of society as a whole to insure our children's (and our own) survival.

I think the thing that has taken so long to sink into the collective mind is that this is not a function of women's weakness, but an accident of biology.

[tracer]

Biggirl wrote:

Over the centuries men (and women too, for that matter) believed that women were the weaker sex.
This belief didn't just take hold in a vacuum, of course. Humans, like some other species on the planet, exhibit characteristics of sexual dimorphism; that is, the average adult body size of one sex is larger than the average adult body size of the other sex.

In species where the males tend to be much larger than the females, we usually see "alpha male" behavior -- one male, the biggest and strongest, gets exclusive mating access to all the females in his tribe. He is called the Alpha Male. Gorillas and Elephant Seals are examples of this. The average adult male gorilla weighs twice as much as the average adult female gorilla, but only the biggest male gorilla (or the one that wins all the fights, at least) gets access to the harem. The rest of the males in the tribe are out of luck, or have to "sneak in" their nooky when the Alpha Male isn't looking.

Humans exhibit a mild degree of sexual dimorphism. The average man weighs about 15% more than the average woman. Men also have an easier time developing muscle mass than women do. This would imply, by evolutionary psychology (http://www.king.igs.net/~rogersk/mono.htm), that human males should compete for mates to some degree, and even perhaps have occasional instances of polygamy. And this is, in fact, the case -- many "primitive" societies allow a man to have more than one wife, but vanishingly few societies allow a woman to have more than one husband.

An interesting consequence of this sexual dimorphism was that it meant men tended to make better warriors and better big-game hunters than women did. Prehistoric humans didn't have guns or bows-and-arrows to help them hunt or make war, so victory usually fell to whoever could hit the hardest or throw a spear the farthest -- in other words, whoever had the most musclepower.

[tracer]

Incidentally, there are some species where the sexual dimorphism is reversed from the way it is in humans and gorillas; that is, where the adult females are larger than the adult males. Most spider species have bigger females than males, and one species of saltwater fish, Ceratias holboelki, has females that weigh up to half a million times as much as the males.

[Danimal]

Originally posted by HairyPotter
For most of its history, the U.S. Constitution, a document crafted exclusively by men, has denied women the right to vote.

The Constitution never denied women the right to vote. State laws did that; an amendment to the Constitution overturned those state laws.

The rest of your question is more valid, but the other Dopers have already given better responses than I could. I particularly assent to tracer's points about how men, like other male mammals, can obtain a genetic reward if they try to monopolize females and treat them as property.

[waterj2]

Also, back in caveman days and for quite some time afterwards, due to high rates of miscarriage and infant morality, propagation of the species depended on women spending a fair amount of time knocked up, or nursing. During which periods they were more or less out of the running for the "who runs society" competition. Even as pumping out babies repeatedly and nursing them was required less often, men had pretty much built a society where they ran things, and the women stayed at home.

[Tamerlane]

tracer: My favorite are Spotted Hyenas ( Crocuta crocuta ). Female Spotted Hyenas kick ass :) .

http://sailfish.exis.net/~spook/hyenatxt.html

- Tamerlane

[The Flying Dutchman]

Tamerlane Perhaps, but I once watched a program on lions, and the only function of the male lion other than studding was killing hyenas to protect the weaker female lion. For this protection, male lions do not have to hunt or do any other work.

Your cite mentions hyenas rarely attack lions, but this television program showed a female getting isolated from the pride by crafty female hyenas and getting taken down. Later the program showed a male lion chasing and taking down an alpha female hyena. If I remember correctly it may have been in response.

[clairobscur]

Originally posted by HairyPotter
why the persistent need for dominance?

Possibly because the the need for dominance (not especially dominance over women) is hardwired is men's brain.

Possibly because when you're dominant, there would be no benefit (at the contrary) in giving up this status

Possibly both

[clairobscur]

Originally posted by tracer
Biggirl wrote:
And this is, in fact, the case -- many "primitive" societies allow a man to have more than one wife, but vanishingly few societies allow a woman to have more than one husband.


Though the rarity of polyandry could be explained also because in this instance, it's impossible to know who is the father (while in a polygamous marriage, the father and mother are both known).

[Gaspode]

Two points:

1)We can't overlook the fact that there are genuine and pronounced psychological differences between men and women.
One of the primary effects of increased testosterone levels is an increase in agressiveness and assertivenes. Men are inherently more assertive and agressive than women, and since in so many fields being agressive and assertive are vital to an ability to perform the job men are naturally going to perform better.
Of course you can argue forever about whether agressiveness and assertiveness in something like politics is essential because politics is male dominated, or whether it is male domiiated because of the relative value of those characteristics. The fact remains however that as the system stands men have an inherent advantage over women. This isn't a case of subjegating women, it's a case of women being disadvanatged by a system, which isn't the same thing at all.



2)Men have one major responsibility which until very recently women were essentially unable unable to fulfill. That responsibility has been to lay down their lives for their society in times of war and even today women have a limited capacity to fulfil this function. With or without choice men are ordered to die to defend their societies. This is a pretty scary prospect and a very serious responsibility with the ultimate penalty for carrying it through. I suspect that a large part of the reason women have been left out of the governmental process is that they are percieved as having no personal stake in this ultimate political tactic. If men are going to die then they at least want to feel that the decisions are being made by others who know what is at stake. There is also a perception that if you're going to be asked to shoulder a responsibility like that then there has to be some additional rights that go along with it.

[incitatus]

I've also heard agriculture blamed for the difference in the status of men and women. Since farming requires manual labor which men are better equipped for, the women were relegated to second-class citizens because they could not produce. If you look at some hunter-gatherer societies you notice that men and women are a bit more equal. Perhaps agriculture is the wedge that drove us farther apart...

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally posted by HairyPotter


Why is this the case? Why do men subjugate women? [/B]

All my years of experience have led me to believe that the "subjugation" of women is largely a myth. Only in extreme cases like Afghanistan does this hold true, but this is only accomplished by organized force. When I look around at all the women I know in my life, No one is being subjugated. In fact it seems to me that men are far more subjugated than women. Men operate on the illusion that they are under control, and by and large the women see no reason to disillusion them.

With regard to agriculture, you'll find it is the women who do the manual labour in primitive societies where the men hunt. The men risk their lives hunting and protecting, and their lives are more expendable.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Elephants and orcas come to mind as two high order species that need very little protection and hence the mature males have no role at all in the heirarchy of their society other than being available when the females want them for sex.

It seems that today with computers and automation the role of the male as a protector has diminished in our society and perhaps the breakdown of the family (many children without fathers) has been the result.

[AHunter3]

I can't give you a particularly meaningful one-paragraph version of my answer to the question.

So here's a rather garbled and difficult-to-follow one-paragraph version of my answer to the question.


Women are repressed because roughly 9-11 thousand years ago, (and significantly later in some spots; essentially the time frame in which hunting/gathering gave way to agriculture), it was socially useful and convenient to tie sex and reproduction to the ability and willingness to work hard--in a way that they had ever been tied before-- because agriculture tended to be a lot more labor-intensive than hunting and gathering. They probably started with tying reproduction to labor, but in order to establish that "tie" for males, controlling access to sex became implicated, and once it did, it probably proved advantageous to use and manipulate sex drive (much the same way that advertisers find it useful to link it to the purchase of products). Agrarian societies at their most stable tended towards pyramidical distributions: many young people, few adult, very few elderly; and, similarly, many people today, few yesterday, very few in existence way back when (i.e., constantly geometrically-expanding population). The control structure tended to benefit the old men and to manipulate the young men and the women, and is therefore called "patriarchy".

Details--including why "repression" (instead of just "oppression"), why it means anything other than "the strong oppressed the weak because they could & so they did", and what "power" and "control" are all about in the first place--are discussed on my web site and in particular in this paper (http://home.earthlink.net/~ahunter/RFvSoc/toc.html).

[dentarthurdent]

The funny thing about social change is that it takes time. We tend to view the world microscopically or microchronically if you will. With a perspective based primarily in our own lifespan,it is naturally difficult to see the great strides this society has taken toward equality.

Granted, we have a long way to go but look what has been accomplished in this less-than-perfect society in the past century. Women have the right to vote, own property, hold political office, speak their minds about any subject they wish, and with a few exceptions hold any job they are qualified for. These are rights which were unheard of in previous centuries. Obviously there are people who resist these changes and attempt to keep their power but I believe that is based not on some belief in the inferiority of women but rather a fear of losing their own power and position.

As for subjugation, I see few modern societies which actively subjugate women. Afghanistan being the most visible. In the case of Afghanistan and many of the islamic societies, the cause is religious dogma.

IMHO I believe that the natural tendency toward greater agression and the role of the male in the hunter-gatherer society was the basis for the primarily patriarchal societies we grew into.

[Gaspode]

A Hunter3, while your explanation seems to go some way to perhaps explaining control, I can't see hhow it explains women losing control.

It seems to me that if access to sex was the controlling factor then women would have all control, since they ultimatly have the lower sex drive. Almost Anyone in a heterosexual relationship will confirm that the use of sex as a coercive tool is primarily a female privilege.

If you are suggesting that men controlled harems of women and doled them out as a reward for hard work, then this seems to rather conflict with the idea that agriculturalism disempowered women, since females would already have been under the control of men for this scenario to occur.

I haven't read your papaer yet, but perhaps you could clarify this for me first off.

[GENE STONER]

I dont believe women in the U.S. are repressed. If one looks at all the countries of the world today, there are few countries which treat its women better than the U.S. or European countries.
Also, most women tend to be more naturally submissive. Its hardwired into mens brains to protect women.

[Mandelstam]

In reverse order, here are a few quite debatable--if not utterly dubious--statements I've so far read on this thread.

GENE STONER "Also, most women tend to be more naturally submissive. Its hardwired into mens brains to protect women."

Even if it's true that "most" women are "more submissive," (whatever precisely that might mean) why conclude that this is a question of nature and hardwiring?

Gaspode: "Almost Anyone in a heterosexual relationship will confirm that the use of sex as a coercive tool is primarily a female privilege."

I somehow doubt that. Straight female Dopers, please comment. Do you or do you not a) "use sex as a coercive tool" and b) consider such use your privilege as a female? Speaking purely for myself, I have never used sex as a means of coercion. (I have also, btw, known many women who have more interest in sex than their male partner.)

denthardurt "As for subjugation, I see few modern societies which actively subjugate women."

grienspace "All my years of experience have led me to believe that the "subjugation" of women is largely a myth."

I think to make these statements meaningful you'd have to define what you mean by "subjugation," wouldn't you?

gaspode "2)Men have one major responsibility which until very recently women were essentially unable unable to fulfill. That responsibility has been to lay down their lives for their society in times of war and even today women have a limited capacity to fulfil this function. With or without choice men are ordered to die to defend their societies."

So are you implying that women's readiness to die in battle (not to mention as firefighters, police officers, etc.) will win them greater socio-economic and political equality? If so, are you predicting that as more women express readiness for this they will automatically achieve equality with men?

"I suspect that a large part of the reason women have been left out of the governmental process is that they are percieved as having no personal stake in this ultimate political tactic."

If you're talking about war that's absurd. Historically women have sometimes fought beside men; and even when they didn't they were always in a position to be enslaved, killed or raped in the event of war.

Also, I find it odd that it one part of your post you insist that women aren't subjugated, while now you're attempted to find historical explanations for why they are. Which is it?

"There is also a perception that if you're going to be asked to shoulder a responsibility like that then there has to be some additional rights that go along with it."

Well then women in a traditional society might have easily argued that they deserved political rights since they were asked to shoulder the responsibility for childcare and homecare. (I'm not of course suggesting that such arguments would have been heeded; I'm simply suggesting that your logic is selective and doesn't hold up.)

tracer "In species where the males tend to be much larger than the females, we usually see "alpha male" behavior -- one male, the biggest and strongest, gets exclusive mating access to all the females in his tribe. He is called the Alpha Male. Gorillas and Elephant Seals are examples of this. The average adult male gorilla weighs twice as much as the average adult female gorilla, but only the biggest male gorilla (or the one that wins all the fights..."[etc.]

There are other SDSM posters better qualified than I to speak to the dubiousness of evolutionary pscyhology. I'll just limit myself to one obvious point. You and I are not gorillas. We are speaking, producing, inventing, imaginative animals, and our psychologies are far more complex than any reductive analogy to primates can possibly account for. For that matter, we are not primitive humans either. Physical strength is nowhere near the most important factor in determining our social (and sexual) success. (Proviso: there may be an exception to this rule if you are running for governor in the state of Minnesota.)

biggirl, before I cite you I just want to say that I totally agreed with and enjoyed reading the bulk of yoru posts. But here is a point of disagreement:

"And the truth is women are dependent because of our biology. As long as we bear the children, we need the support of society as a whole to insure our children's (and our own) survival."

I think you're drawing lines in the sand here. All people require the support of society for their survival, and men, whether they acknowledge it or not, are as invested in the survival of children as women. You seem to assume that because women give birth to children, and because children need protection, that women (rather than children) need protection. In actuality women don't need any more protection than men need; and all men and women began as children--in need of protection.

[dentarthurdent]

denthardurt "As for subjugation, I see few modern societies which actively subjugate women."

grienspace "All my years of experience have led me to believe that the "subjugation" of women is largely a myth."

I think to make these statements meaningful you'd have to define what you mean by "subjugation," wouldn't you?


sub-ju-gate
tr.v. sub-ju-gat-ed, sub-ju-gat-ing, sub-ju-gates
1. To bring under control; conquer. See Synonyms at defeat.
2. To make subservient; enslave.

sub-ser-vi-ent (sb-sûrv-nt)
adj.
1. Subordinate in capacity or function.
2. Obsequious; servile.
3. Useful as a means or an instrument; serving to promote an end.

As I said, I see few modern societies which actively subjugate women.

Obviously, throughout the course of history there have been groups who have subjugated women.
I don't deny that fact, I merely state that in most modern societies, any "subjugation" of women is not an active practice(ie the Taliban Regime) but rather a passive result of those in power wishing to remain so(ie the glass ceiling).

[delphica]

Originally posted by Gaspode

It seems to me that if access to sex was the controlling factor then women would have all control, since they ultimatly have the lower sex drive. Almost Anyone in a heterosexual relationship will confirm that the use of sex as a coercive tool is primarily a female privilege.


Since we are talking about some of the historical reasons that men have had control, I'd like to point out that as recently as the second half of this century, in many states a man could not be put on trial for raping his wife. That crime didn't exist, because consent was considered part of marriage. At various points in history, men have had access to sex on demand, particularly when insured by a marriage contract.


originally posted by dentarthurdent
biggirl, before I cite you I just want to say that I totally agreed with and enjoyed reading the bulk of yoru posts. But here is a point of disagreement:

"And the truth is women are dependent because of our biology. As long as we bear the children, we need the support of society as a whole to insure our children's (and our own) survival."

I think you're drawing lines in the sand here. All people require the support of society for their survival, and men, whether they acknowledge it or not, are as invested in the survival of children as women. You seem to assume that because women give birth to children, and because children need protection, that women (rather than children) need protection. In actuality women don't need any more protection than men need; and all men and women began as children--in need of protection.

I'm not sure if this is what Biggirl meant, but a woman who is 8 months pregnant may need some more protection than the average person. Back in ancient times, this might mean protection from the rabid mammoth storming the camp, and now, it means maternity leave and medical care. In an extreme scenario, where all men and women have equal obligations to fight in the armed forces, the pregnant woman is going to be exempt. But I do agree with you that the reason she is exempt is because everyone in society, both men and women, are invested in survival of children.

[delphica]

And this site http://www.vaw.umn.edu/Vawnet/mrape.htm
provides a brief history of rape within marriage.

[Lost In Reality]

Pertaining to the religious aspect of this debate, I have always learned that many of the older polytheistic religions had given gender to their gods. The earth goddess usually portraying characteristics of a creator was female in most cases. In order to distinguish themselves and prove that these older religions were wrong they gave god more manly characteristics and gave women minimal positions within the religious communities. That is what I learned way back when.

Lost In Reality
_______________
Not Having A Quote Since 1985

[GENE STONER]

This may come as a surpise to the nonthinking among us, but married women are at less of a risk of physical violence than either single women or women with boyfriends.

[Gaspode]

Mandelstam,
So are you implying that women's readiness to die in battle (not to mention as firefighters, police officers, etc.) will win them greater socio-economic and political equality? If so, are you predicting that as more women express readiness for this they will automatically achieve equality with men?
I'm actually not implying anything. I'm simply stating the fact that men have traditionally held a very serious responsibility that women could not effectively bear. I'm surmising that if someone in a primitive society is goimg to die as the result of someone elses decisions, he's going to want such decisions made by someone with a vested interest in the outcome of those decisions and ideally someone who will suffer as much as he.

As for whether women will achieve equality with men if they are ever able to participate as equals on the battlefield I don't know. It's highly speculative that this will ever happen. There are physiological reasons why women are still unsuited for many of the more dangerous combat posts, and I doubt any society will conscript women for frontline posts. You'll note that what I was discussing was an obligatory responsibility to die in war. Not simply a desire or willingness to do so, so conscription for military duty is necessary to achieve equality in this sense. Added to this there are numerous reasons why men and women will never be equal, no matter how much we may desire it, so if you want me to give this any more detailed an answer you'll have to define equality, since true equality IMHO is impossible no matter what.


I suspect that a large part of the reason women have been left out of the governmental process is that they are percieved as having no personal stake in this ultimate political tactic.
If you're talking about war that's absurd. Historically women have sometimes fought beside men; and even when they didn't they were always in a position to be enslaved, killed or raped in the event of war.

Yes, you know that and I know that, but if you read what I actually wrote you will note that I said women were 'percieved as having no personal stake". That's been the perception as far as i can gather from historical writings. Of course it's BS, if for no other reason than that seeing your son or husband killed is pretty damn personal, but that doesn't render the perception any less real.

Also, I find it odd that it one part of your post you insist that women aren't subjugated
Well having re-read the post I'll be blowed if I can find where I said that/ Are you sure you'r not confusing me with someone else? Could you quote the bit where I said this?

Well then women in a traditional society might have easily argued that they deserved political rights since they were asked to shoulder the responsibility for childcare and homecare. (I'm not of course suggesting that such arguments would have been heeded; I'm simply suggesting that your logic is selective and doesn't hold up.)
You really need to look carefully for that word 'perception'. Something can easily be percieved to be so without being logically surportable. People percieve that there is a God and that the Earth is flat, doesn't mean it has to be logical. Perceptions are like that. In an ideal world maybe they wouldn't be, but in this one to suggest that if something doesn't hold up logically then it can't have ever been percieved as having been so is extremely naive.


Delphica,

I'm well aware of the various rape-in-marriage laws etc. This doesn't change the question, in fact it reinforces it. If a man in a marriage has access to sex on demand then there is absolutely no way of useing the witholding of sex as a coercive tool on that man, which is what I assume Ahunter was trying to imply. It seems to be an all or none response: if a man is married, or if rape is legal he has unlimited access to sex so it can't be used as a subjugation method against his unwilling partner any more than any other form of assault. It's not sex that is the coercive factor, it is the threat of violence, which could take any number of forms. If he's unmarried or rape is legal then control of sexual favours seems more likely to empower women.

[HairyPotter]

Originally posted by Gaspode
Delphica,

I'm well aware of the various rape-in-marriage laws etc. This doesn't change the question, in fact it reinforces it. If a man in a marriage has access to sex on demand then there is absolutely no way of useing the witholding of sex as a coercive tool on that man, which is what I assume Ahunter was trying to imply. It seems to be an all or none response: if a man is married, or if rape is legal he has unlimited access to sex so it can't be used as a subjugation method against his unwilling partner any more than any other form of assault. It's not sex that is the coercive factor, it is the threat of violence, which could take any number of forms. If he's unmarried or rape is legal then control of sexual favours seems more likely to empower women. [/B]

I'm kinda lost regarding your statements here, Gaspode. How is the threat of violence by a man to obtain sex from an unwilling partner empowering to women?

[Gaspode]

Originally posted by HairyPotter
If he's unmarried or rape is legal then control of sexual favours seems more likely to empower women.

I'm kinda lost regarding your statements here, Gaspode. How is the threat of violence by a man to obtain sex from an unwilling partner empowering to women? [/B]

Typo. That should have read "If he's unmarried or rape is illegal then control of sexual favours seems more likely to empower women.
Make more sense now?

[tracer]

grienspace wrote:

I once watched a program on lions, and the only function of the male lion other than studding was killing hyenas to protect the weaker female lion.
This is primarily because of the way lions hunt. They sneak up on their prey in the tall savannah grass. Male lions, with that big, gaudy mane of theirs, are too big to sneak up on anything. Thus, the females are stuck doing all the hunting.

But that big, shaggy mane, and the male lion's roar, and its larger body size relative to the female, serve the exact same function that such differences do in gorillas and elephant seals: they scare off other males which might otherwise get mating access to "their" females. Although the males don't hunt, there is still an "alpha male" in every pride.

The upright stance of humans means that neither males nor females would have been able to hunt by sneaking up on their prey in the tall savannah grass. Instead, they have to hunt by getting as close as they can to their prey without scaring it off, and then throwing things at it -- rocks, in the old days, and spears when we got around to inventing spears. This mode of hunting would have favored strength over stealth, and so would have been more within the realm of the larger, stronger males.

[Biggirl]

Women bear the brunt of childrearing in our society and in almost all societies. We must carry them for nine months. From the days of the hunter-gatherer until this very moment, this puts women in the position dependence on men and society. This is not because women are weaker, it is just the way our mammalian biolgy works.

After women give birth, they are, by and large, responsible for the upbringing of the young. It doesn't have to be this way but it is. As long as men have only a secondary role in the raising of our children, then the burden falls directly onto the shoulders of women. It is still this way even in the most "modern" of our societies.


This fighting wars thing is just the codification of women's percieved weakness. If asked or allowed, women could have --and often did when given the chance-- fight in wars. Women were never allowed to do so. This was a responsiblity that men chose to shoulder on their own. It's disingenuous to say men laid claim to control because they fought in wars when men were the ones who insisted that women couldn't fight wars.


Mr. Stoner, I would like to know what makes you believe women are "hardwired to be more submissive". I think that you are confusing "not as aggressive" with "more submissive". Not the same thing at all.

[OttoDaFe]

Originally posted by Biggirl
If asked or allowed, women could have --and often did when given the chance-- fight in wars. Women were never allowed to do so.

Is it just me, or is there a contradiction in the above?

In many of the ancient Celtic tribes, it was customary for a woman who was married to a warrior to fight alongside (or more accurately, back-to-back with) her husband. Both nude, both frequently smeared with woad. Must have been quite a sight. The Romans were said to have a motto that covered this situation: "If you meet a Celtic warrior, you're in trouble; if you meet his wife, you're dead." (Extremely loose translation.)

But even here, the woman had an additional duty: if the tribe were defeated, she was supposed to return home and kill her children--since they believed in reincarnation, it was considered better to let them come back again than to condemn them to a life of slavery.

[Mandelstam]

Biggirl and others: We need to make a serious distinction here between historical arguments (why women in ancient societies were subjugated, oppressed, or what have you), and the the kinds of factors that continue to leave women at a serious socio-economic advantage today. Yes, historically, women's biological child-bearing function naturalized their subservient role. But the medical and social conditions surrounding childbirth and childcare have changed dramatically since that time. So we have to be careful not to naturalize existing inequalities based on reproductive differences that no longer need add up to much.

Hence, Delphica though s/he makes total sense on a lot of points could use, IMO, some additional thinking when s/he writes: "I'm not sure if this is what Biggirl meant, but a woman who is 8 months pregnant may need some more protection than the average person."

To be sure, she may (though the last time I was eight months pregant I was so frantically preparing for the big day while moving house that I've never gotten more accomplished in my entire life). On the other hand, a man recovering from dental surgery, or a man with a serious heart condition, or a man past his physical prime probably needs as much or more special "protection" as a pregnant woman. Yet we wouldn't justify sexual inequality on these grounds nor expect men with manageable heart conditions to take a socio-economic backseat to men without them. For that matter, many women never have children; and many professional women who do have children are no more encumbered for the bearing and raising of these children than their male counterparts. Again, my point is simply that these cliches about anatomy determining destiny are way out of date. Women and men are so much more than their respective reproductive functions. These cliches simply don't hold up to scrutiny in our times.

denhart, Thank you for your definition of "subjection." It helps to know precisely what's being discussed. Yes, to "subject" women in these terms in (for argument's sake) the US today would be simply illegal. That said, the OP asked us about "repression." Biggirl took Hairy to mean "oppression" (another word that could use defining) and perhaps he did. But though he may not have meant it in quite this way, I think the term "repression" actually does describe well the way in which women are shaped by the inequalities that remain in our society. That is, they are encouraged and often coerced into conforming to double standards; and they are repeatedly told that "nature" intends them possess the feminine qualities that justify the double standard. (What precisely those qualities are can depend but a host of them are on display in this thread: less sexual, more submissive, more dependent, more emotional, etc.) IMO these groundless stereotypes and dubious evolutionary arguments distort the reality of our times: to wit, there is no biological reason why women today--on average--cannot enjoy full socio-economic and political equality with men.

Gaspode on dying in battle etc.: "I'm simply stating the fact that men have traditionally held a very serious responsibility that women could not effectively bear."

Yes, indeed. And women have held a very serious responsibility (child-bearing) that no man on earth has ever been able to pull off. So your logic doesn't hold up. You are trying to trace an effect (men's historical social, economic and political advantages) to a single cause (their historical responsibility for defending the realm). And I'm simply trying to show you that that justification is so selective and outdated that anyone who raises the point should himself be able to acknowledge its present-day irrelevancies.

Let me put it to you this way: in feudal times the warrior class justified their elite status in precisely these terms; peasants didn't bear arms and die in battle, warriors did. Modern battle (since, say, the 18th) century is conducted on a mass scale and coincides with demands for democracy for, at least, adult males. So so far your reasoning holds up. But it doesn't follow that decades after the last military draft, with a volunteer army that includes women, with weapons that make physical strength an irrelevant detail, and with the last war having included women in active service, that defense of the realm should continue to be any kind of justification for inequality between the sexes. In other words, according to the logic of your own argument, sexual inequality is no longer justified since women are now able and willing to help defend the realm.

Gaspode continues: "Added to this there are numerous reasons why men and women will never be equal, no matter how
much we may desire it, so if you want me to give this any more detailed an answer you'll have to define equality,
since true equality IMHO is impossible no matter what."

This is exactly the language that has always been used to justify inequalities. "Peasants lack the rational capacities govern themselves." "Natives are racially inferior and need to be ruled by civilized foreigners." "Slaves are naturally inferior to their masters." I can show you hundreds of examples of medical authorities in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries "proving" that women were intellectually unfit to be lawyers and doctors. Now the same proposition would be considered absurd.

Think about it Gaspode: what are these "numerous reasons" why men and women will "never" be equal? So far as I can tell, the basic differences are these: 1)reproductive organs; 2) reproductive function; 3) certain concomitant hormonal differences that may--and I emphasize may--stem directly from the former, or may be exacerbated by socialization itself. To move from the abstract to the concrete where, Gaspode, do you and I reflect the "numerous reasons" why sexual inequality must always persist? I'm willing to bet that differences in upbringing (including class, education, professional training etc.) count for a great deal more in determining who we are than does the single fact of your having testacles and my having a uterus and ovaries. Indeed, depending on your age and other factors, I might make as good or better a soldier than you do whether (as the case may be) a rank-and-file soldier following orders, or an officer to giving them.

As to the definition of equality, I agree it is complex and arguable. But I'll settle (in countries such as the US) for relative socio-economic equality, and the political authority that comes with it. And, as far as this thread goes, I'll settle for people being judged on their individual merits without the careless tossing around of evolutionary fallacies, pseudo-historical historical assertions, and sloppy assumptions about the presentday.

[Dangerosa]

First off, this female doper does not and has never used sex to manipulate. Such a suggestion is offensive. Sometimes, much to my husbands disappointment, I'm "not in the mood," but its not because I want flowers or jewelery or him to treat me differently. And I've been in relationships where my interest in sex was greater than his.

Secondly, the perception that women have lesser sex drives than men is very common in our culture. It is not necessarily true of all cultures, or of all points in our history. FGM is practiced in part to keep the wicked and uncontrollable sexual urges of women in check. Our own Eve and Lilith point to a version of women who tempt and are less than chaste.

My personal favorite theory is that you know who mom is, but dad is a matter of speculation. To reduce the level of speculation, keep your women under control. This has been taken to extremes not seen in the West in the Middle East and Far East, where women have been functionally imprisioned, but is seldom seen in the modern West (although not unknown, I've known more than one women who is almost always in the company of her husband or other women - and risk physical abuse if seen unchaperoned with a man that is not her husband, father or brother).

[The Flying Dutchman]

As others have stated, women in general have a great deal of power by the control of sex. A man can easily be reduced to a blubbering idiot by a woman.

As in the animal kingdom in many cases although it is the male who shows the proactive aggressive behavior in search of sex, it is the female who signals and chooses who when and where.

Men in our advanced society free of legal and social constraints on women are well aware that we've gotten signals from members of the opposite sex initiating the relationships that we have successfully "conquered"

Now if the most powerfull male in society was always preferred by females, and if the females were willing to share him, then history might not have required the subjugation of women. However harmony requires law and order, and the heirarchy of protectors(males) require perks bestowed by the alpha male (governing authority/dominant religion) guaranteeing sexual access regardless of attractiveness.

Now some people may point to the phenomenon of rape. This involves a very small percentage of men who clearly have limited access, either by lack of attractiveness or by lack of cultural support. If one excludes marital rape, I would suggest the incidence of rape (sexual assault) has climbed markedly in western society, and I suspect non-existant in Afghanistan.

An excellent example of a woman in control is Dangerosa. Her husband it appears feels he must bring flowers or jewelery or change his technique to please her and gain more access. Sooner or later he will realize as Dangerosa has pointed out that she just has less interest in him sexually, and that he can't do anything about it.
The fact that other men have been more attractive to her can only be destabilizing to the relationship.This no doubt is very common in marital relationships and most likely one of the reasons why society has placed controls like marriage vows either civilly or through religion to stabilize relationships and hence stabilize society.

[clairobscur]

Originally posted by Mandelstam
Yes, historically, women's biological child-bearing function naturalized their subservient role. But the medical and social conditions surrounding childbirth and childcare have changed dramatically since that time[/B]

One could argue that the condition of women have changed dramatically too, at the same time....


[To be sure, she may [be pregnant]On the other hand, a man recovering from dental surgery, or a man with a serious heart condition, or a man past his physical prime probably needs as much or more special "protection" as a pregnant woman. ]

Yes. But if you analyze this argument from an historical point of view, not only the women could be in the same situation than the men (heart condition, old age,etc...), but also they often were pregnant during most of their adult live, bringing baby after baby, most of them not surviving past childhood. They weren't pregnant only once or twice in a long life, like now.

Yes, indeed, it's out of date. But an explaination based on out of date situations can still be valid. Habbits and customs are deeply rooted, and don't change over the night when their cause dissapear, especially since the actual cause is usually unknown by the people who follow the custom (being replaced by something like : "God said it should be so"). The original question was : *why* are they repressed, not *should* they be repressed.

[clairobscur]

Originally posted by OttoDaFe

In many of the ancient Celtic tribes, it was customary for a woman who was married to a warrior to fight alongside (or more accurately, back-to-back with) her husband. Both nude, both frequently smeared with woad.
[/B]

Well...I've some (very limited, I must admit) interest in the celtic world and history, and I never heard of such a custom. Do you have some source?

Concerning the "killing baby" thing,it makes some sense, and possibly it happened occasionnally, but I never read that this conduct was *expected* from women (or whoever else). Also, given the deep lack of knowledge we had about the religion and customs of celts, I bet that no one could seriously give such a definitive explanation "because they believed in reincarnation, etc..." for such a custom (assuming that it actually existed)

Please note that I know that it's *very likely* that celts believed in some form of reincarnation. But stating "they did so because they believed in reincarnation" is a huge step, and would require some historical evidences of a relationship between the alleged custom and the supposed belief. Otherwise, a future historian, after a nuclear holocaust which has destroyed all documents could say as well : "americans launched the nuclear race because they believed in god and in an afterlife, so they weren't afraid of a war"

[HairyPotter]

Originally posted by clairobscur
Originally posted by Mandelstam
To be sure, she may [be pregnant]On the other hand, a man recovering from dental surgery, or a man with a serious heart condition, or a man past his physical prime probably needs as much or more special "protection" as a pregnant woman. ]

Yes. But if you analyze this argument from an historical point of view, not only the women could be in the same situation than the men (heart condition, old age,etc...), but also they often were pregnant during most of their adult live, bringing baby after baby, most of them not surviving past childhood. They weren't pregnant only once or twice in a long life, like now.

Yes, indeed, it's out of date. But an explaination based on out of date situations can still be valid. Habbits and customs are deeply rooted, and don't change over the night when their cause dissapear, especially since the actual cause is usually unknown by the people who follow the custom (being replaced by something like : "God said it should be so"). The original question was : *why* are they repressed, not *should* they be repressed.

My particular interest is in why women are still repressed today. An obvious answer is, because those in power are reluctant to yield power to others; however, it seems ludicrous to shun an alliance with capable individuals based on gender. It may have made perfect sense to delegate power to the physically strongest in times past, but our modern society provides a tremendous number of opportunities for which gener has absolutely no relevance. Why, in spite of this change, women continue to experience lower compensation for comparable work, and substantially fewer professional opportunities? How much of the problem is due to men clinging to past customs, as opposed to women doing the same?

Politics appears to be dominated by aggresive individuals capable of allying themselves with sources of money and power to achieve their objectives. Does such an environment place women at a disadvantage?

As is the case with any thread, the topic will shift with the postings, and many interesting and frustrating viewpoints will be presented. I am only inserting my comments here to express what I, personally, was looking for in starting this thread.

[AHunter3]

Gaspode:

A Hunter3, while your explanation seems to go some way to perhaps explaining control, I can't see how it explains women losing control.

It seems to me that if access to sex was the controlling factor then women would have all control, since they ultimately have the lower sex drive.

Excellent question!

OK, if you can see how the patriarchal arrangement didn't precisely empower ALL men (even if they may have ended up with more freedom than women tended to have), perhaps you'll agree that, during the process of getting into this arrangement (whatever the specifics of that may have been), it may have appeared as a mixed bag to the women rather than them agreeing "OK, sure, we'll let the boys run things and have power over us". Therefore female participation in and consent to at least the initial circumstances of the arrangement.

I would imagine (and I believe anthropological studies tend to support this) that in hunter-gatherer economies women who are pregnant and have several children are nowhere near as handicapped when it comes to them continuing to be able to obtain the necessaries. As I said above, concerning the transition to agriculture, you're talking about a massive increase in the amount of labor per person. Food is tight so people don't just feed kids (or other people), you're expected to take care of yourself and your own. The proposition to women was not merely "We want to control the young men so we're gonna control chicks and give the guys access to you only if they bust their butts working in the fields" -- as you so rightly ask, why would the women go along with that?

Instead, I think the proposition to women was "Hey, things are different now; when you get pregnant and/or have a bunch of children to feed and take care of, it's really hard to handle that on your own. So...here's the deal, chicks--don't put out until a guy who is demonstratedly capable of doing enough labor in the fields to feed himself AND you AND any kids y'all might have declares in front of the Old Patriarch that he'll do exactly that. Then, once one of them does, he's supposed to share the food with you. It's no more unfair to him than it is to you. Deal?"

[Mandelstam]

grienspace : "As others have stated, women in general have a great deal of power by the control of sex."

Grienspace, this is total nonsense. In what sense do I, as a woman, "control" sex. If I have the hots for my next door neighbor can I order him to fulfill my wishes on the spot? Better still, will Antonio Banderas be delivered into my living room right now so I can assert some of my vast sexual control over men right now?

"A man can easily be reduced to a blubbering idiot by a woman."

This cuts both ways. Haven't you ever seen a woman making a fool out of herself b/c she's infatuated by a particular man? Yeesh, grienspace, if I didn't know better I'd think you'd never met a woman in your life.

"As in the animal kingdom in many cases although it is the male who shows the proactive aggressive behavior in search of sex, it is the female who signals and chooses who when and where."

I think you need to forget about the animal kingdom for a minute and inhabit human society. If I go to a singles bar, I can "signal" all I want but if the man's not interested he's not going to be told when and where. Perhaps you forget that the basic sexual act requires an erection on the man's part. You could call that erection part of the way that he "chooses when and where." What's amazing to me is how little you seem to have ever considered what heterosexual relations are like from a woman's point of view. Believe it or not, we're often attracted to a particular guy; and, when we are, we pursue him if we've got the chance. We don't wait around for some other guy's "proactivity."

[deletions] "Now if the most powerfull male in society was always preferred by females, and if the females were willing to share him, then history might not have required the subjugation of women. However harmony requires law and order, and the heirarchy of protectors(males) require perks bestowed by the alpha male (governing authority/dominant religion) guaranteeing sexual access regardless of attractiveness."

Oh, I get it. So the reason that all of the women in the world aren't panting for George Bush and Bill Gates is that these crafty alphas have realized its in their best interests to parcel us gals out to less "attractive" men. Gee, and I thought that I chose my husband b/c he was way smarter than George and looks a whole lot better in his skivvies than Bill. Thanks for straightening me out on that one grien.

[deletions][/i]"An excellent example of a woman in control is Dangerosa. Her husband it appears feels he must bring flowers or jewelery or change his technique to please her and gain more access. Sooner or later he will realize as Dangerosa has pointed out that she just has less interest in him sexually, and that he can't do anything about it."[/i]

Yeesh, grienspace. Dangerosa can clearly take care of herself but you've entirely misread her post.

She specifically said that when she's not in the mood she's just not in the mood; she's not seeking to manipulate her husband in some way. And she specifically said that she's been in relationships where she was more in the mood than the guy. (So have I and many others I know.)

You and Gaspode seem obsessed with the idea that women experience less sexual desire than men. As I can only assume that you're extrapolating from your own personal experiences, you have my sympathies. But, unlucky though you may be, that doesn't mean that you're right.

It's a fact that before the age of mass democracies, women were often described as being more lustful than men (viz. Eve). And medical authorities in these pre-modern times believed that women had to have orgasms in order to conceive. (Read Thomas Laqueur on this subject). Beliefs about sexuality, in other words, are relative to the times. Sadly, you two and some others seemed to have missed out on some of the best news feminist awareness had in store for you! Women actually like sex, guys, and it's not because we want you to foot the bill for out babies.

[AHunter3]

Hairy Potter:
My particular interest is in why women are still repressed today. An obvious answer is, because those in power are reluctant to yield power to others; however, it seems ludicrous to shun an alliance with capable individuals based on gender. It may have made perfect sense to delegate power to the physically strongest in times past, but our modern society provides a tremendous number of opportunities for which gener has absolutely no relevance.

The attitudes and the social institutions supported by them take time to change. This is, however, a world in the process of becoming post-patriarchal. (This is also relevant for those who seem to deny that women are repressed or oppressed--things look equitable to them in part because things have gotten so much better and because they don't look at history when they look around. However, things haven't finished changing, especially outside of the "western" world).

[dude]

Men have small and fragile egos and it made them happy to try keep women down.

Also because women were not educated they were not seen as entitled to vote, women had little work opportunities and so on... it was mainly cultural. A selfish, sexist cultural idea that saw women as second class.

BUT

hey... its all different now... girls go out to work and get drunk in bars etc... women are free

You may as well ask 'why were black people put in chains and denied the vote'.

[mswas]

Originally posted by HairyPotter
For most of its history, the U.S. Constitution, a document crafted exclusively by men, has denied women the right to vote. Women hold a very small portion of the top positions in government and industry. Most religions relegate women to a subservient role/status. Women are lumped with "other minorities" in government programs designed discourage discrimination.

Why is this the case? Why do men subjugate women?

I would say, it's because they allow it. Did you notice that the moment a large minority of women stood up to stop allowing it, it kind of fell to the wayside? Originally we were a hunter gatherer society. The hunter's, the men for physical reasons, probably determined migration patterns, because, (drumroll) they were the hunters. Therefore they became the leaders. I think most questions of this nature have pretty simple answers. Now that physical prowess has little to nothing to do with how you succeed in society, women have a much more prominent role. As women become more successful the salary differences will disappear as well. I have worked with a lot of women my own age who made more money than I did, my boss now is a woman, my boss at my last job was a woman and I have worked under women at many jobs.

Right now it's just a legacy of good old boys clubs that kind of have a paternal tinge to them that still holds women down. It's kind of like legacy software issues.

People's behavior is determined by it's will to survive and the way it sees best fit to do that, and roles were created because of who best fit the roles, as I illustrated earlier, the hunters determined migration patterns because they would come back and tell the village that the bison/mammoths/marmots/lemmings whatever were moving on and became de facto leaders because their word determined the migration. It also probably has to do with what attributes were looked upon as desirable and dominant, and when it was strength it was probably men who got the job.

Are women or men superior? I guess it depends on teh man and the woman you are talking about at the time.

Erek

[AHunter3]

Men have small and fragile egos and it made them happy to try keep women down.

:rolleyes:

Also because women were not educated they were not seen as entitled to vote, women had little work opportunities and so on

I think that's attributing the effect to the cause. Women were oppressed, which took the form, over time, of essentially barring them from "public" life: no ownership of property, no right to enter into contractual agreements, in essence no legal status except as the property of father or husband (much like children, in other words). As a subcategory of this, they did not receive the right to vote when men, in general, did; they were not allowed to attend educational institutions under the same circumstances or by any means as early in history as men could. In employment, they were in many cases barred from consideration altogether, in most other places could be paid less than men for equal or comparable labor, and at any rate did not until fairly recently have legal possession of their own salaries anyhow. (that which they earned was legally possessed by husband or father).

In most cases women did not have the right to choose where they would live. They could not legally speak in public. In many places and times they could not exist in public, period, unless accompanied by father brother or husband. They could not leave--in many times and places, they did not have the legal privilege of leaving a father even if of adult age, without his express permission, nor the right to leave a husband. Marriage required the father's permission, not the woman's permission, i.e., she could be married against her will. She could be beaten, physically, coerced, raped, and in some circumstances killed, legally, by her husband. In most cases she had no legal standing to seek redress against anything he did.

There are many women alive today who were born into a world in which American and British women could not vote. (Iranian, Saudi Arabian, and Afghani women can only dream of voting today). There are probably a great many women on this board who can describe to you from personal experience what it was like to be unable to get credit in your own name simply because of being female; to be blatantly passed over for promotion or paid less for performing the same duties, told to their faces "You don't get other than this because you ain't a man with a family to support"; to be denied opportunities available to men on the FORMAL grounds that women weren't allowed.

hey... its all different now... girls go out to work and get drunk in bars etc... women are free

Not yet. Things are substantially different in most of the western nations, especially when it comes to formal discrimination, but attitudes and unofficial discrimination still exists. On the "results" side, the more even playing field has only started to have real effects, leaving men still in charge of most of the organizations that possess major decision-making authority and in charge of most of the money. Girls do go out to work (and still get paid a bit less for equal or comparable work, promoted less often, and treated differently for behaving the same way etc), they do go to bars afterwards and get drunk (and occasionally raped on the pinball machines by men who declare that this meant they were 'asking for it'), and are becoming freer every day (despite the fervent attempts of well-financed conservative powers that would like to reverse this trend).

Not yet, but it is happening all around us.

[tracer]

Mandelstam wrote:

Yeesh, grienspace, if I didn't know better I'd think you'd never met a woman in your life.
Not one that put out, anyway. :D

<ducking and running>

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally posted by Mandelstam
If I have the hots for my next door neighbor can I order him to fulfill my wishes on the spot?

Mandelstam, if your lust for your neighbour is serious, them I'm fairly certain you will succeed in seducing him. All it took for Lewinski, not exactly attractive looking, was to show her bare ass to the President of the United States, and she had him, nearly destroying the man and his career and plunging the nation into a political crisis that captured the attention of the entire world. Ever hear of a smart powerful woman risking her career for a man?
(the above statement in no way absolves Clinton)

Haven't you ever seen a woman making a fool out of herself b/c she's infatuated by a particular man?

For love perhaps, but not for sex. That in no way implies that a woman cannot be aggressively pursuing sex, but they don't go silly over it and risk their futures for sex. Men also can go silly for love.


I think you need to forget about the animal kingdom for a minute and inhabit human society. If I go to a singles bar, I can "signal" all I want but if the man's not interested he's not going to be told when and where. Perhaps you forget that the basic sexual act requires an erection on the man's part. You could call that erection part of the way that he "chooses when and where." What's amazing to me is how little you seem to have ever considered what heterosexual relations are like from a woman's point of view.
Mandelstam, please don't be discouraged. Many men apparently have erectile difficulties when under the influence, a common occurence when dating and particularly singles bars. Any woman secure in her womanhood can certainly overcome that problem or enjoy alternatives to copulation. And apparently you must be subtle about your aggressiveness. I just watch a program on male porn stars and they all find Viagra indespensible to a good performance when under the gun or in this case the camera.


Believe it or not, we're often attracted to a particular guy; and, when we are, we pursue him if we've got the chance. We don't wait around for some other guy's "proactivity."

And that is my point exactly. Men who pursue women are wasting their time if they don't get signals. In the end, it's you who chooses.



Gee, and I thought that I chose my husband b/c he was way smarter than George and looks a whole lot better in his skivvies than Bill. Thanks for straightening me out on that one grien.

Aw Man, may I call you Man? You are making my point exactly. It wasn't anyone else making your choice for you was it? You are liberated aren't you? I'm sure your husband is a bit of an alpha as well, and as you say good looking and a bit of a catch. Several hundred years ago you would be severely encouraged by your mother to marry someone who suggested upward mobility regardless of physical attractiveness or love. If your family was anywhere near the top of the heirarchy they would be pushing you up there with a coming out "Ball" featuring the top bachelors of the best families, all near the top of the local power structure.




Yeesh, grienspace. Dangerosa can clearly take care of herself but you've entirely misread her post.

She specifically said that when she's not in the mood she's just not in the mood; she's not seeking to manipulate her husband in some way. And she specifically said that she's been in relationships where she was more in the mood than the guy. (So have I and many others I know.)
Thankyou for clearing that up. I misread her statement as indicating she had more sexual desire for several other men than her husband, and I wasn't impressed. Not the sort of thing a love partner would reveal to the world. Breach of trust and all. Sorry Dangerosa



Women actually like sex, guys, and it's not because we want you to foot the bill for out babies.


Man, I fully believe women like sex, and can achieve orgasmic experiences far beyond those of the average man, but they don't generally rape men, and don't generally spend the day dreaming about getting laid or drooling over pornographic material of naked members of the opposite sex, masturbating three or four times a day while wondering how your classmate mannaged to get laid by the most beautiful cheerleader in the school who won't even acknowledge you. I would have taken anything I could get back then. Any girl could get laid, but not any guy. Women are far more discriminating when it comes to sex and therin lies the control. Women don't even have to deliberately excercise the control, its just there. Us married men have to make a conscientious effort to remember birthdays, anniversaries, say I love you and take out the garbage and put down the toilet seat, all the while hoping she's in the mood tonight. All women have to do is be themselves.

tracer All I can say is that I do have a couple of children, but thankyou for helping me make my point. It is not inconcievable that you are correct !

[mswas]

Originally posted by grienspace
[B] Now some people may point to the phenomenon of rape. This involves a very small percentage of men who clearly have limited access, either by lack of attractiveness or by lack of cultural support. If one excludes marital rape, I would suggest the incidence of rape (sexual assault) has climbed markedly in western society, and I suspect non-existant in Afghanistan.


I am sure this has nothing to do with the fact that western societies don't blame the victim, whereas many arab societies do. Read about the rape victims in Yugoslavia and how they are afraid to tell their husband because they get beaten and thrown out for letting themselves be defiled.

A hundred years ago, women were afraid to report a rape as they would not be eligible for marriage if they were not a virgin.

Also, look at the high instances of rape by Japanese soldiers in World War II. This was a society that completely dominated women.

I think your hypothesis is pretty asinine. Just because rape isn't reported as a statistic doesn't make it less prevalent. There are a million examples. Look at parts of Africa where gang rape is considered a sport by young men, and the young women just accept it as your child might just accept getting hit in the head by the bully while playing Dodge ball.

Erek

[Lemur866]

Hmmmmm....I should think the answers would be pretty clear. Why WERE women repressed? Well, sexual dimorphism and mammalian reproduction answer that question. And we have many women still alive in the United States whose right to vote was recognized during their lifetime. And so repression of women in the present is due to repression of women in the recent past, which was due to repression of women in the distant past, which was due to biology.

Sexual dimorphism and mammalian reproduction ensure that men will typically be more aggressive than women. Because of the way that female mammals carry the developing fetus in their bodies, females mammals must invest much more energy in reproduction than male mammals. And the male mammals usually mate with the females and then contribute absolutely nothing to the care of the offspring.

Sometimes the offspring might get some protection from the males, but that is a mere side effect. The males sometimes protect the rest of the group from danger, but mostly the males "protect" the females from mating with other males.

There is a differential in cost-benefit in sex between male mammals and female mammals. A female can mate with many males, but she can only produce one litter at a time. And the females don't get any more reproductive success if they mate multiple times. But, a male who mates with multiple females can greatly increase his reproductive fitness.

And so, in mammals, we have the phenomenon of male-male competition for access to females. A male who chases off all other males and mates with all the females achieves a reproductive jackpot. A female who chases away all the other females and mates with all the males only gets a slight reduction in competition for resources. So, often males become larger than females...not so they can hunt, not so they can scare away predators, not so they can provide better, not so they can defend the species, but because they must compete with other males for access to the females. And so we have the familiar spectacle of male sheep smacking heads together, male deer wrestling, male horses fighting, and on and on.

And males don't just have increased size. They have increased aggressiveness. There is no reason for the females to fight...or rather, the payoff is much much less. But an agressive male that can dominate the other males is more likely to have more offspring. So, males are more aggressive than neccesary for survival. In fact, this extra aggressiveness would appear counterproductive if we look strictly at survival. But of course what counts is not survival but reproduction. If being aggressive means that you might get killed but have a chance of a large reproductive payoff, while being non-aggressive means that you will survive to a ripe old age but never reproduce, then the species will become filled with aggressive males.

And of course humans are no exception. Male humans are more aggressive than female humans. And so we have the familiar spectacle of forced marriage, bride price, sexual double standards etc.

Now, some may argue that all this mammalian reproduction stuff shouldn't matter, since we have the capability to be rational. Yes, we are rational. But while we have the capability to use reason to achieve our goals, we are not as capable of using reason to chose our goals. Our goals are largely handed to us by 4 billion years of evolution.

If we choose goals that go against human/mammal nature, then those goals will be difficult to achieve. If we choose goals that are harmonious with human/mammal nature, then those goals will be easier to achieve.

And so, here we are. Men are stronger and more aggressive than women. That is always going to have some sort of affect on our society. So...if becoming a political or business leader requires some sort of aggressive competition then we should not be surprised if we find that business and political leaders don't have a 50-50 gender ratio.

But that doesn't imply that this is repressive or cultural conditioning. Even if both genders are treated exactly the same, the different physical nature of the sexes means that you are going to get different results. The only way to ensure equal results is to treat the sexes differently.

But, what does all this rambling come down to? Just because we understand where repression of women comes from doesn't mean that we should tolerate it. But is our goal a 50-50 gender ratio in all jobs, at all times? Or is it merely the freedom of any individual to choose which job they prefer?

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally posted by mswas

Read about the rape victims in Yugoslavia and how they are afraid to tell their husband because they get beaten and thrown out for letting themselves be defiled.

A hundred years ago, women were afraid to report a rape as they would not be eligible for marriage if they were not a virgin.

Also, look at the high instances of rape by Japanese soldiers in World War II. This was a society that completely dominated women.

I think your hypothesis is pretty asinine. Just because rape isn't reported as a statistic doesn't make it less prevalent. There are a million examples. Look at parts of Africa where gang rape is considered a sport by young men, and the young women just accept it as your child might just accept getting hit in the head by the bully while playing Dodge ball.

Erek

I suggest that your examples of rape in times of war have nothing to do with sex, but power and intended to demoralize the male members of the enemy or part of a deliberate scheme of ethnic cleansing. The African example I'm not aware of, but I suggest that there is a lot of turmoil there, and stability of the culture has not yet been ahieved in many cases resulting in this anti-social behavior.

My reference to theincrease of rape refers to Western societies. As women are by and large no longer considered chattels of men, some men are less likely to attache a sense of transgression to the act of rape. This coupled with the breakdown of religious influence in our society, and a legion of men "who've never met a woman that put out for them" has probably increased the potential for rape in all levels of our society.

In Afghanistan, I'm sure the ugliest male could petition the authorities to provide him with a wife, but woe be to him who is caught taking someone elses daughter.

[Gaspode]

Sayeth Biggirl
This fighting wars thing is just the codification of women's percieved weakness. If asked or allowed, women could have --and often did when given the chance-- fight in wars. Women were never allowed to do so. This was a responsiblity that men chose to shoulder on their own. It's disingenuous to say men laid claim to control because they fought in wars when men were the ones who insisted that women couldn't fight wars.

No this wasn't a responsibility men chose to shoulder on their own. Conscription has been a aprt of virtually every agrarian society since the beginning. Most men never wanted to fight, they were forced to by their societies. 'Men' didn't decide to shoulder this responsibility, it was foisted upon them because men are effective fighters whereas women are not. Size, strength, speed, stamina and agression all favour men in battle. Of course the willingness of women to be forced to fight in wars can be easily demonstrated by the number of campaigns launched by equality activists to make compulsory military service legally applicable to both gendres. How many campaigns for that particular equality have there been again?


Mandelstam

You are trying to trace an effect (men's historical social, economic and political advantages) to a single cause (their historical responsibility for defending the realm).
No I'm not. I brought up two relevant points. Nothing more nothing less. Implying there is one cause for such a complex phenomenon is as ridiculous as ruling out any cause because it doesn't provide the sole answer.

And I'm simply trying to show you that that justification is so selective and outdated that anyone who raises the point should himself be able to acknowledge its present-day irrelevancies.
You obviously still don't understand what 'percieved' means. Go look it up in a dictionary. I never, ever, ever, at any stage, in any way or in any form suggested that this is a justification.

put it to you this way: in feudal times the warrior class justified their elite status in precisely these terms; peasants didn't bear arms and die in battle, warriors did.
Can you actually give me one example of a medieval society where the peasants weren't regularly conscripted, and where this justification was used?


weapons that make physical strength an irrelevant detail, and with the last war having included women in active service, that defense of the realm should continue to be any kind of justification for inequality between the sexes.
1)Physical strength, stamina etc. are still a major factors in the backbone of military forces: the infantry. Women in the Australian Army are not expected to undertake the same training as men and I suspect the same is true of the US. Simply having missile weapons does not negate the need fr carrying large loads, sprinting across open ground, carrying wounded so0ldiers etc. This aside hygeine for female soldiers is a major problem. It's been discovered time and again that women operating in muddy trenches and foxholes with no sanitation for more than a month at a time not surprisingly come down with a range of debilitating diseases. Yes for short skirmishes this is perhaps a minor concern, but wars aren't predicatble and because of this no woman is actually A1 fitness wise.

2)You clearly need to look up 'perception' and 'percieved' in a dictionary. Do it and then try to understand that just because something is illogical does not mean that it cannot be percieved. A faked moon landing is illogical, yet people still percieve it that way. It's not that hard to grasp really.


according to the logic of your own argument, sexual inequality is no longer justified since women are now able and willing to help defend the realm.
1)Women are still largely unable and apparently unwilling to defend the realm. But that's another debate.
2)Who cares if this is the case now. It wasn't in the past, and the past shapes the present. As upsetting as that may be for you it's unfortunately true.
3)And most important: What logic and what argument? For Gods' sakes go and look up 'perception' in a dictionary and then tell me where it requires logic or argument in any form.


This is exactly the language that has always been used to justify inequalities.
Can I have a cite for that? Really that's a pretty bold statement.

Think about it Gaspode: what are these "numerous reasons" why men and women will "never" be equal?
Well you got one of them. Reproductive function. This is a pretty major difference and one that ensures that the genders can't be equal.

There is little doubt that hormonal differences are affected by social environment. That's pretty well established. And? Men have far, far, far highre testosterione level and far, far, far lower eostrogen levels. These hormones have indisputable and marked effects on physiology and psychology. That is also a fact. For these reason men and women aren't equal. To suggest that "hormonal differences that may--and I emphasize may" stem from differences in reproductive physiology is as bizarre as saying the moon may be made of rock. That hormonal diffeneces are the result of differences in gonadal structure isn't open for debate. I'd love to see the cite that casts even the slightest doubt over the fact that hormonal differences stem from physical diffences in the reproductive systems. Please provide such.

There are also indisputable gender differences in the brain structure of new born infants. Numerous studies have shown behavioural differences between infanbts of different genders. Males and females are psychologically different, not as a result of society but as a result of genetics.

To move from the abstract to the concrete where, Gaspode, do you and I reflect the "numerous reasons" why sexual inequality must always persist?
Well assuming you're female, you'll never be able to be the parent to 400 children in your lifetime. I will never be able to give birth. I will never be able to breatfeed. We are unequal.
Probability says that you will never be able to bench press 200 kilos naturally. Probability syas you are shorter than my 6 feet. Probability syas you are carrying more body fat than my current 5%. Probability says that you are not as agressive as I am and all other factors being equal never will be.We are unequal.
This isn't really open for debate, men and women are inherently different and unequal in terms of height, strength, repiratory rate, lung capacity, aggressiveness, propensity for various medical disorders, rate and pattern of hair growth, skin thickness, pain tolerance. I could go on, but these are all scientific facts, not speculation.

I suggest that you go pick up a basic human physiology text and do some reading if you need to ask how men and women are necessarily and inevitably unequal.


I'm willing to bet that differences in upbringing (including class, education, professional training etc.) count for a great deal more in determining who we are than does the single fact of your having testacles and my having a uterus and ovaries.
Well that's comletely untestable. What I can say is that in all cultures, in all families and across all times right down the fossil records males have been larger, faster, stronger and heavier. We know from all extant societies and all historical societies that men have been more agressive. We can prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that androgens lead to increased assertiveness and agression. We know beyond any shadow of a doubt that males posess orders of magnitude more androgens. We know that there are physiological differences between the brains of males and females at birth. We know that in all existing simian populations their are gross behavioural differences between males and females, and that this is particularly pronounced amongst other apes. We know that imbalances in androgens and eostrogens bring about marked personality changes. To suggest that despite all this evidence nurture rather than nature dictates human behaviour is about as valid as sayng that their is a gentic basis for race. It's an argument from ignorance. It can never be proven one way or the other, but all the evidence is against such an hypothesis. Environment indisputably exerts some controlling influence, but to suggest that amongst humans, uniquely, gender isn't a prime controller of personality is bizzare.


Indeed, depending on your age and other factors, I might make as good or better a soldier than you do whether (as the case may be) a rank-and-file soldier following orders, or an officer to giving them.
Yes of course. And a chimpazee will make a better soldier than a quadraplegic with a comlete inability to communicate. But the vast majority of humans make better soldiers than the vast majority of chimps, and the fact remains that the vast majority of men are stronger, faster, fitter and more agressive than the vast majority of women. Those factors remain vitally important for soldiers.

But I'll settle (in countries such as the US) for relative socio-economic equality, and the political authority that comes with it. .
Well then in Australia at least we don't have that. Although women are legally required to be paid the same as any male filling the same [position they are exempt from carrying out numerous tasks, even if the position requires it. As things stand unless you are a fedrel employee males cannot legally be the victim of sexual discrimination in this state. Women are not required to sit jury duty, they cannot be conscipted in times of war. There are health centres taht one can only attend if female, yet no health centres that are closed to females. There is a governement department of womens affairs, yet no department of mens affairs. Women gain custody of children in separtion cases 80% of the time. there are womens shelters with special laws that make it illegal fro men to enter, yet no corresponding mens shelters that women can't eneter. It seems then that if that is your definition of equality, and repression and subjugation is being treated unequally then in Australia at least it is not women but men who are repressed.



AHunter3
Food is tight so people don't just feed kids (or other people), you're expected to take care of yourself and your own.
I've got to challenge that. I can't think of even one agricultural society where the products of agriculture weren't distributed amongst all members, particularly in times of crisis. Can you actually provide an example of where this may have occured?

I can agree wholeheartedly with most of the logic presented, but where exactly did women become more repressed than men? Men and women both want children. If they don't neither are obliged in your scenario to marry and hence both retain total and utter independence. If they do marry then both are expected to work to raise thse children. Seems to me like a perfectly equitable partnership. How exactly do you see such an arrangement as repressing women more than men?

On the "results" side, the more even playing field has only started to have real effects, leaving men still in charge of most of the organizations that possess major decision-making authority and in charge of most of the money.
Well this is a debate in itself, but in Austalia women work on average something like seven years less than men. yet unemployment rates are slightly higher amongst men than women. Since being in charge of an organisation with authority is more likely to come with age and experience, it's hardly suprising men, who have the most experience, hold most of these positions. I could easily attribute this to a choice by women not to work.

Girls do go out to work (and still get paid a bit less for equal or comparable work, promoted less often, and treated differently for behaving the same way etc)
Well in this country they get paid the same amount for doing slightly less work. I'd have to see the statistics to see whether the lack of promotions can be attributed to women working less. I'll agree the genders are treated differently WRT behaviour, but I know from experience that cuts both ways. I'd never get away with behaviour that's acceptable for women.

they do go to bars afterwards and get drunk (and occasionally raped on the pinball machines by men who declare that this meant they were 'asking for it'), and are becoming freer every day (despite the fervent attempts of well-financed conservative powers that would like to reverse this trend).
Well as much I may sympathise, that's hardly suitable for GD. Men are orders of magnitude more likely to get assaulted at bars, and charges are far less likely to be laid in cases of assaults against males, whether the offender be male or female. Men also get raped in bars. And I doubt very much if you could provide any evidence that "well-financed conservative powers would like to reverse this trend". That at least sounds like pure speculation.

Dude,
Men have small and fragile egos and it made them happy to try keep women down.
Could you provide a cite that demonstrates that men have smaller and more fragile egos than women, and anothe that proves that keeping women down makes the majority of men happy? Or are you talking through your arse?

[Collounsbury]

To follow up greeny, I believe his contextualization is right on the money. I think the poster in question, Erek is refering to problems found in urban southern Africa which were widely reported on in the west recently. Instability and poverty.

[delphica]

Originally posted by Mandelstam

Hence, Delphica though s/he makes total sense on a lot of points could use, IMO, some additional thinking when s/he writes: "I'm not sure if this is what Biggirl meant, but a woman who is 8 months pregnant may need some more protection than the average person."

To be sure, she may (though the last time I was eight months pregant I was so frantically preparing for the big day while moving house that I've never gotten more accomplished in my entire life). On the other hand, a man recovering from dental surgery, or a man with a serious heart condition, or a man past his physical prime probably needs as much or more special "protection" as a pregnant woman. Yet we wouldn't justify sexual inequality on these grounds nor expect men with manageable heart conditions to take a socio-economic backseat to men without them. For that matter, many women never have children; and many professional women who do have children are no more encumbered for the bearing and raising of these children than their male counterparts. Again, my point is simply that these cliches about anatomy determining destiny are way out of date. Women and men are so much more than their respective reproductive functions. These cliches simply don't hold up to scrutiny in our times.


I absolutely agree with the pooints Mandelstam made in her post. To clarify my comment a little further, I very much wanted to stress that some pregnant women may need additional "protection," but certainly not that all pregnant women are in need of special consideration. By protection, in the present day, I mean things such as maternity leave, or special assignment depending on the job in question. Unlike a person (male or female) with a heart condition, pregnancy is not an illness. However, it is a temporary condition that may call for some consideration. There are some jobs that require strict physical standards that a pregnant woman might not meet while she is pregnant. That a pregnant woman might request reassignment while pregnant, take a maternity leave and then return to her job after the birth of the child is a form of societal protection, and a necessary one, IMHO.

[Lemur866]

Gaspode, I believe that your belief that conscription was a common phenomenon is ahistorical.

Just do some reading about feudal europe. The serfs weren't conscripted, they were forbidden to bear weapons. I think you are generalizing from how modern states are organized. Most societies haven't had enough surplus to be able to conscript the whole male population for war until the modern industrial states of the 19th and 20th centuries. Even during the 19th century European armies tended to be small professional forces rather than mass conscript armies.

But, there have been many societies where every adult male was also supposed to be something of a warrior as well. But those societies typically didn't have the sort of strog central government that could support conscription. Rather, each individual man would decide for himself who to follow, when to fight, and where to go. Which is why I would call these people warriors rather than soldiers.

While males have always done more fighting than females, I think widespread conscription has been extremely rare throughout history.

[mswas]

Originally posted by grienspace


My reference to theincrease of rape refers to Western societies. As women are by and large no longer considered chattels of men, some men are less likely to attache a sense of transgression to the act of rape. This coupled with the breakdown of religious influence in our society, and a legion of men "who've never met a woman that put out for them" has probably increased the potential for rape in all levels of our society.

In Afghanistan, I'm sure the ugliest male could petition the authorities to provide him with a wife, but woe be to him who is caught taking someone elses daughter.

I think you are right that my war references do not apply. However I still do not agree with you. I think that it's not so much that rape is less prevalent there, that it is less reported, and less looked down upon, therefore, "no harm no foul" and nothing to talk about. I think that in western societies rape isn't more prevalent that it is more widely reported and that's the major difference. I think that we have less rapes now but more are reported, whereas in other countries that have a more subservient view of women, they don't care and probably don't report it.

Erek

[shell]

Why repression? Maybe because there is something to be gained from it-status, wealth, power, control-those kind of things. Consider how men may benefit from the repression of women (or vice versa). Also consider how difficult it is to change a historically male-dominated society, both men and women would need to adjust some pretty deep-seated behaviors and beliefs. For example, why do women in western culture still tend to take their husband's surname? Are women still subconciously viewed or view themselves as property?

On the other hand, why would women accept this social inequality? Obviously many don't, but it might help to think about what happens to women who take on (traditionally) male roles. Most assertive women I know are not particularily well-liked by their peers, they tend to be both feared and resented by men and women alike.
It seems to me that there is overwhelming societal pressure for women to assume a submissive role.

[Mandelstam]

grienspace:"Mandelstam, if your lust for your neighbour is serious, them I'm fairly certain you will succeed in seducing him. All it took for Lewinski, not exactly attractive looking, was to show her bare ass to the President of the United States, and she had him, nearly destroying the man and his career and plunging the nation into a political crisis that captured the attention of the entire world."

grien, I believe you've answered me sincerely and I'm going to try very hard not to sound like smartass as I reply. But here, on the basis of Bill Clinton--a man who has a history of being attracted to a wide variety of women, particularly younger women--you are concluding that any woman will succeed in seducing any man that she happens to fancy. And yet, in the very same breath your ready to say that Monica Lewinsky, a pretty twenty-three year old who's a bit overweight (by today's emaciated standards) is "not exactly attractive looking." I'm sorry, but it doesn't add up. Why don't you check out a newsgroup where middle-aged and older women discuss the difficulty of meeting men. I am in my mid-30s and I know many single women my age who are already freaked out about not being able to attract men.

"Ever hear of a smart powerful woman risking her career for a man?"

Yes--lots. Wasn't there a female senator who was found to be having an extra-marital affair with some other guy during the Clinton/Lewinsky nonsense? Didn't Joan Collins and Cher both end up being taken in by the much younger men they married/dated? Ever heard the term "gigolo"?

[On women making fools of themselves for men]
"For love perhaps, but not for sex. That in no way implies that a woman cannot be aggressively pursuing sex, but they don't go silly over it and risk their futures for sex."

Grien, these are lines in the sand; at best differences of degree. Are you suggesting that in the sixth grade I "loved" the host of teen idols and rock stars whose photos I collected? As to risking their futures for sex--women do that all the time. I know a woman at a high managerial level who had to leave her job b/c she was discovered (by her secretary) receiving oral sex from a male co-worker. Both parties were married; and the relationship wasn't serious. (Interestingly, both felt that she was the one who had to find the new job as it was felt to be more humiliating for her than for him. What does that tell you about the effects of the double standard?)

[On men's "signalling" with interest/erection]

Mandelstam, please don't be discouraged. Many men apparently have erectile difficulties when under the influence, a common occurence when dating and particularly singles bars.

<laughs> Grienspace, for the record, I'm in a happy, monogamous relationship and neither my husband nor I drink very much.

"Any woman secure in her womanhood can certainly overcome that problem or enjoy alternatives to copulation."

Well that's a good point. Again, putting my personal feelings aside, a great many women don't feel secure in their womanhood; they feel hugely depressed if a man, even their own husband, seems to need extra encouragement. And it's partly all this BS about likening humans to the animal kingdom that makes them think that it would be inappropriate or embarassing for them to take the lead. (For myself, I've never met a man who didn't like more of an aggressive stance; but that's not my point.)

"And apparently you must be subtle about your aggressiveness. I just watch a program on male porn stars and they all find Viagra indespensible to a good performance when under the gun or in this case the camera."

Well since Viagra was only invented a few years ago, I have to find that a bit of an exaggeration.

: "Believe it or not, we're often attracted to a particular guy; and, when we are, we pursue him if we've got the chance. We don't wait around for some other guy's "proactivity." "

Grien replied: [i]"And that is my point exactly. Men who pursue women are wasting their time if they don't get signals. In the end, it's you who chooses."

Doesn't this sound to you as though both choose. After all, if both parties haven't chosen, than by definition someone has been coerced. You seem to believe that men are so hardwired to crave sex of any kind that they're powerless to refuse any sexual offer from any living person with a vagina. Doesn't that seem a bit overstated?

[On my husband; smarter than George and cuter than Bill]

"Aw Man, may I call you Man?"

<bows>

"You are making my point exactly. It wasn't anyone else making your choice for you was it? You are liberated aren't you? I'm sure your husband is a bit of an alpha as well, and as you say good looking and a bit of a catch. Several hundred years ago you would be severely encouraged by your mother to marry someone who suggested upward mobility regardless of physical attractiveness or love. If your family was anywhere near the top of the heirarchy they would be pushing you up there with a coming out "Ball" featuring the top bachelors of the best families, all near the top of the local power structure."

This is totally garbled. First, yes my husband was my choice but it does not follow that I chose him because he's "a bit of an alpha." (How do you even know that I'm alpha material?) Second, my mother actually did encourage me to marry someone more financially secure than my husband was when I met him. My mother just likes money a lot more than I do. That hasn't changed very much over the years. Third, you are confusing matters of class (e.g., debutante balls and the like for the very wealthy) with matters of sex and gender (whether women choose whom they choose for biological reasons, or for social reasons). Nowhere have I suggested that social and cultural attitudes don't affect people's choices: just the opposite. It's biological assumptions that I'm questioning here.

: "Women actually like sex..."

[i]"Man, I fully believe women like sex, and can achieve orgasmic experiences far beyond those of the average man, but they don't generally rape men,

True--but a) it's rather difficult for a woman to force a man to have intercourse; b) there's the strength factor involved in such an act and c) socialization is a factor here too...

and don't generally spend the day dreaming about getting laid or drooling over pornographic material of naked members of the opposite sex, masturbating three or four times a day while wondering how your classmate mannaged to get laid by the most beautiful cheerleader in the school who won't even acknowledge you.

Honestly, grienspace, how do you know what women lay dreaming about or what they think about or look at when they masturbate (much less how often they masturbate)? Have you done a study on female masturbation? Do you think when we masturbate we think about figure skating, or shopping, or interior decorating? Or do you think when we masturbate we think about "love"? Let me tell you, G., that when I was teenager I wasn't thinking about any of the above when I masturbated; and if the thoughts and fantasies I had were available in magazines I'd have been interested in seeing them. Do you think straight women aren't turned on by the sight of a man's body raring to go? Are you aware of the fact that such photographs are illegal? Has it never struck you that the status quo thrives on teen age boys looking at titty pictures; but that the idea of marketing Long Dong Silver to fourteen-year-old girls would be enough to start a civil war?!

"I would have taken anything I could get back then. Any girl could get laid, but not any guy. Women are far more discriminating when it comes to sex and therin lies the control. Women don't even have to deliberately excercise the control, its just there."

I'm going to let another female Doper intercede here. I've already said enough about my own personal experiences. But this seems to me like a clear-cut case of the "grass is always greener."

"Us married men have to make a conscientious effort to remember birthdays, anniversaries, say I love you and take out the garbage and put down the toilet seat, all the while hoping she's in the mood tonight. All women have to do is be themselves."

SAY WHAT???? Grienspace, I know women whose guys won't even look at them unless they're willing to wear a certain kind of garment, or do "X" particular act, or promise to lose 15 pounds, or rent "Y" kind of video, etc. etc. Whatever your own personal experiences, the world is full of straight women who are not getting enough sex from their husbands/boyfriends, or who have to go through all kinds of contortions to get it, as well as women who have no husband/boyfriend at all. And if the only reason you say happy birthday and "I love you" to your wife is in the hopes that she's in the mood, it's time for you to get a divorce.
Seriously, G. I have to remind my husband to take out the garbage too; but it's never been a factor in the quality or quantity of our sex life. I wonder what Mrs. G. would think of this thread if she read it. I can't speak for her level of sexual interest, but I can't help but think that you've helped to make the bed you're lying in ;)

[Biggirl]

Originally posted by Gaspode

No this wasn't a responsibility men chose to shoulder on their own. Conscription has been a aprt of virtually every agrarian society since the beginning.

Who is doing the conscripting? Why weren't women conscripted also? It wasn't the women who made these rules. Women weren't allowed to vote, much less make laws.

Originally posted by Gaspode
Most men never wanted to fight, they were forced to by their societies.

I'd have to disagree. Most men are more than willing to fight for their county. As women would have been had they been allowed to fight.

Originally posted by Gaspode
'Men' didn't decide to shoulder this responsibility, it was foisted upon them because men are effective fighters whereas women are not. Size, strength, speed, stamina and agression all favour men in battle.

This is certainly true during our hunter-gatherer existance, but once wars had gone past the stone throwing stage, this reasoning applied less and less. But by then society already decided women couldn't fight in wars.
Women could fight in wars. Men kept them out.

Originally posted by Gaspode
Of course the willingness of women to be forced to fight in wars can be easily demonstrated by the number of campaigns launched by equality activists to make compulsory military service legally applicable to both gendres. How many campaigns for that particular equality have there been again?

Here in the United States, women have been fighting for the right to fight and die in combat. They have been denied this right again and again by the men who run the military.

[HairyPotter]

[i]Originally posted by grienspace

I suggest that your examples of rape in times of war have nothing to do with sex, but power and intended to demoralize the male members of the enemy or part of a deliberate scheme of ethnic cleansing. The African example I'm not aware of, but I suggest that there is a lot of turmoil there, and stability of the culture has not yet been ahieved in many cases resulting in this anti-social behavior.

My reference to theincrease of rape refers to Western societies. As women are by and large no longer considered chattels of men, some men are less likely to attache a sense of transgression to the act of rape. This coupled with the breakdown of religious influence in our society, and a legion of men "who've never met a woman that put out for them" has probably increased the potential for rape in all levels of our society.

In Afghanistan, I'm sure the ugliest male could petition the authorities to provide him with a wife, but woe be to him who is caught taking someone elses daughter.

Rape is a violent act of agression and control that involves the humiliation of a victim via forced sexual contact. Rape has nothing to do with forcing a woman to have sex, because the man is unable to obtain a sexual partner any other way. In rape, the forced sex is sought as a means of controlling, humiliating, and overpowering a victim.

[Gaspode]

Originally posted by Lemur866
Gaspode, I believe that your belief that conscription was a common phenomenon is ahistorical.

Just do some reading about feudal europe. The serfs weren't conscripted, they were forbidden to bear weapons.

Lemur I'll stick by my statement that conscription has been a part of virtually every Agragraian scisiety since the beginning. Greeks, Romans, saxons, Japanese and Europeans all practised some form of conscription. The history of conscription is such that I can't think of any society where regular ongoing conscription was commonplace, and this is no more true now, but the potential for conscription exists and existed.

Even in medieval Europe the right to summon local militias to defend his territory was a right of the medieval lord. These militias were comprised of serfs. You're quite right in saying that serfs were forbidden from bearing hand weapons (staves and crooks were exempted from these bans in most nations), but militias were either simply expected to provide arms for themselves and became essentially 'cannon fodder' if the enemy closed, or on rare occasions weapons were provided, to be returned afterwards. The use of the bow however was widely practised in England, and at one juncture every male was required by law to practice with the bow a set number of hours per month. This wasn't being enforced so they could join the army if they felt like it.


Biggirl,

Who is doing the conscripting? Why weren't women conscripted also? It wasn't the women who made these rules. Women weren't allowed to vote, much less make laws.
Umm, a brief history lesson. Men weren't making the laws eithhr throughout most of history. The majority of people weren't allowed to vote. Lawmaking was reserved for the privileged few. You're now running on circular logic. Men made the laws because men had control, men had control because men made the laws. This assumes women are already repressed. the OP asks why women are repressed. Stating that it is so hardly goes any way towarsd answering the question does it.


I'd have to disagree. Most men are more than willing to fight for their county. As women would have been had they been allowed to fight.
Then please explain to use why, if most men want to fight for their countries, any politician in modern times has felt the need to legistlate for conscription. Surely if fighting is something most men want to do this would hardly be necessary.
Do you actually have any cites to support you assertion that "Most men are more than willing to fight for their county"? The fact that legistalation has been found to be necessary to enforce it seems to contradict your assertion.


once wars had gone past the stone throwing stage, this reasoning applied less and less. But by then society already decided women couldn't fight in wars. Women could fight in wars. Men kept them out.
Unless you are an exeptionally strong woman you couldn't even swing a broadsword for more than a about a minute. Unless you are an olympic athlete I doubt you could even draw a longbow (I'm a fairly big man and I have difficulty doing it more than once or twice). To suggest that medieval weapons didn't require strength or stamina is so ridiculous to anyone with any knowledge of weapons use that it hardly warrants comment. Of course women could fight in wars. Cripped men caould fight in wars. They'v never been allowed to even when they wanted to because they are more of a burden than a help.

Here in the United States, women have been fighting for the right to fight and die in combat. They have been denied this right again and again by the men who run the military.
And here we see a classic strawman. I never mentioned the right to fight in combat if they desire. I'm asking for examples of campaigns where women have demanded that, in the name of equality, they be forced to fight and die, whether they like it or not. To be imprisoned if they refuse. Got any examples of thse campaigns Biggirl? A person's right to fight is like Negro's right to have her skin whitened. There's a big difference between the government giving them the right to do so, and the government forcing them to do so against their will.

[ethicsrcritical]

First of all, we live in a physical Universe where "Might makes right." In other words, in the absence of any other law, the person who can beat the sh*_t out of you WILL have their way. Pretty simple.

It works not only physically, but economically. (Which is just a sophisticated form of physical superiority...as wealth can BUY phsycial superiority. Proof of which is American military superiority over countries with many times the male population of our own.)

It has never mattered, nor will it ever matter that females are as, or more, intelligent than men. It has never mattered, nor will it ever matter that females are as, or more, innovative and creative than men.

The reigning paradigm in any culture at any time has been established by who holds the power over time, talent and treasure. And, sadly, like any animal kingdom, it has always been held by those willing to use the most physical force to gain their objectives. And this still, and always will, include the human species. And this still, and always, will mean that men will have control of our species.

Ask any man: if a more muscular, weightier and fitter physical specimen challenges you to physically fight, especially if he has the same determination you have, would you not concede that he may likely win and that it would behoove you to walk away? If so, that is where ALL women find themselves.

We live peacably with men only at their sufference.

To 'evolve' men must admit that any love and tenderness and intimacy they have known in their lives, and that has been and still is valuable to them, has come from the influence of the women on all of the males in their lives. From fathers to grandfathers to brothers and friends. And having admited this, they must decide whether they value this above the accumulation of property and kingdoms and treasure.

Until that time, we will get men congratulating themselves on the 'winning' of wars...where each side has decimated the daily lives of women and children who only wanted to see their children learn what love is with the help of the fathers of their children.

Physical superiority will always 'win' in this world.

If, tomorrow, men (in Congress or other legislative bodies in this world) decided that, once again, women could not vote, could not own property, could not go to school, what could women possibly do to combat these ideas? Nothing.

We would be helpless. Once again.

I hope you "New Age" women realize this.

If you feel bold, if you feel powerful, let me remind you that it is only sufferance which has given you this feeling.

If a man wants to beat the shit out of you, he will. If the society of other men deem this acceptable, your beating means nothing. (As it does in other parts of the world.)

I do not say we have fallen back this far, that is laughable. I just say, it is up to 'them' how much further we progress.

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally posted by Mandelstam

grien, I believe you've answered me sincerely and I'm going to try very hard not to sound like smartass as I reply. But here, on the basis of Bill Clinton--a man who has a history of being attracted to a wide variety of women, particularly younger women--you are concluding that any woman will succeed in seducing any man that she happens to fancy. And yet, in the very same breath your ready to say that Monica Lewinsky, a pretty twenty-three year old who's a bit overweight (by today's emaciated standards) is "not exactly attractive looking." I'm sorry, but it doesn't add up. Why don't you check out a newsgroup where middle-aged and older women discuss the difficulty of meeting men. I am in my mid-30s and I know many single women my age who are already freaked out about not being able to attract men.


Man, let me start out by saying that I thoroughly enjoyed reading your response. It was honest and enlightening.
To be honest I found Monica to be quite attractive myself, but I watch Jay Leno every night and the vibe I get is that no one else does. Of course there is that other woman who deemed it necessary to get her nose redone. Both women it is suggested provide fodder for questioning Bill Clinton's taste.
With regard to middle-aged and older women, I would suggest the paranoia is about attracting men for the purpose of establishing a full and decent relationship. Women have standards, and they are not easily met by male counterparts age wise. My father in law, a widower 77 years old is very popular amongst the ladies. He has looked after himself physically by working out and running, and mentally by constantly taking college courses, and socially by constantly attending dances. his hygiene is impecable and his conversation is entertaining. He's having a ball and refuses to settle down.
What a contrast to the typical middle-aged and older male drinking beer and belching in front of the TV watching football all day on one of the two days a week he gets to spend with his family. Probably none of the women you are referring to would settle for that.

I once read about a study that came to the following conclusion. It was years ago, I can't provide a cite but here it goes. In order from the happiest to the most miserable
1. married man
2. single woman
3. single man
4. married woman

Ever heard the term "gigolo"?

I saw the movie "American Gigolo" years ago, and have always suspected that gigolos servicing women sexually just like the stories in Penthouse forum which I haven't read in twenty years is fiction. Gigolos certainly exist, and are the subject of numerous studies of prostitution in the inner city but this is a gay phenomenon.

Are you suggesting that in the sixth grade I "loved" the host of teen idols and rock stars whose photos I collected?
No, but are you suggesting you were sexually aroused by them. I recall having a photo of Bridget Bardot in a bikini on the wall, as well as Marilyn Monroe, but never used them for masturbation. (I must confess though that I had a dream of making love to MM underwater under an upturned kitchen table floating in a pool.)



Doesn't this sound to you as though both choose. After all, if both parties haven't chosen, than by definition someone has been coerced. You seem to believe that men are so hardwired to crave sex of any kind that they're powerless to refuse any sexual offer from any living person with a vagina. Doesn't that seem a bit overstated?

Overstated? Perhaps. But let me refer back to the basic biology of mammalian sex. Males ensure the survival of their genes by the shotgun approach. Impregnate enough females and you are sure to achieve your objective. Monagamy is fairly recent in our history and has not had any biological impact.
Women on the other hand better choose healthy strong males to ensure a limited quantity of viable offspring. A dalliance with an inferior male might tie up her limited window of opportunity for two whole years resulting in a child with less than a fair chance for survival.
We are human however and we can overcome our basic instincts and we accomplish that through our culture.

First, yes my husband was my choice but it does not follow that I chose him because he's "a bit of an alpha." (How do you even know that I'm alpha material?)
I can read it in your lines :) If I remember correctly you said your husband looked better than George Bush, the supreme alpha in America and fairly handsome looking I think.


About photos of erect penes
Are you aware of the fact that such photographs are illegal? Has it never struck you that the status quo thrives on teen age boys looking at titty pictures; but that the idea of marketing Long Dong Silver to fourteen-year-old girls would be enough to start a civil war?

In Canada, many magazine outlets carry magazines displaying pictures of copulation and felatio. There are many gay magazines as well where the sight of two men going at it would be double exciting for a woman if you are correct.


I know women whose guys won't even look at them unless they're willing to wear a certain kind of garment, or do "X" particular act, or promise to lose 15 pounds, or rent "Y" kind of video, etc. etc. Whatever your own personal experiences, the world is full of straight women who are not getting enough sex from their husbands/boyfriends, or who have to go through all kinds of contortions to get it, as well as women who have no husband/boyfriend at all.
That is pretty sad with regard to those men who require extra or specific stimulation. Probably too much beer drinking.

Seriously, G. I have to remind my husband to take out the garbage too; but it's never been a factor in the quality or quantity of our sex life. I wonder what Mrs. G. would think of this thread if she read it. I can't speak for her level of sexual interest, but I can't help but think that you've helped to make the bed you're lying in ;)


Seriously Man Mrs G and I have a great relationship.
Its just that I want it more frequently.Every night. Lest I sound like I'm bragging, let me say that I'm average looking and endowed. I have never, never turned down an offer of sex in my life. With regard to Mrs G with whom I've had a relationship lasting a quarter of a century,no one, but no one can turn me on like she can. I seriously wonder sometimes if I can get it up for another woman anymore.

[HairyPotter]

Originally posted by ethicsrcritical
First of all, we live in a physical Universe where "Might makes right." In other words, in the absence of any other law, the person who can beat the sh*_t out of you WILL have their way. Pretty simple.

Text omitted


If, tomorrow, men (in Congress or other legislative bodies in this world) decided that, once again, women could not vote, could not own property, could not go to school, what could women possibly do to combat these ideas? Nothing.

We would be helpless. Once again.

I hope you "New Age" women realize this.

If you feel bold, if you feel powerful, let me remind you that it is only sufferance which has given you this feeling.

If a man wants to beat the shit out of you, he will. If the society of other men deem this acceptable, your beating means nothing. (As it does in other parts of the world.)

I do not say we have fallen back this far, that is laughable. I just say, it is up to 'them' how much further we progress.

ethicsrcritical,
I agree with many parts of your assessment of the role and response to power in today's world. Regarding your statements relative to women's rights in relation to government and social convention in the U.S., I must disagree on a few key points.

Determined passive resistance resulted in new and powerful rights being granted to women and minorities in our society. While pockets of resistance to these rights are prevalent in the U.S., I believe that these rights will be maintained and expanded. I believe that this will be the case as long as the U.S. Federal Government continues to follow the model of a Democratic Republic.

Certainly in practice, we are not a true Democracy. Money has replaced physical prowess as the force that rules society, as you have acknowledged. But a substantial group of citizens can still educate the masses and thereby impact the legislation enacted by government. Local groups can impact the implementation and enforcement of legislation. Thus, while the path to impacting government and social policy in the U.S. is a difficult one, I believe that substantial groups of determined individuals can still strongly influence government and society. As long as we continue to model ourselves after a Democratic Republic, I believe that there will be no going back in regards to the rights that have been yielded to women and minorities. These groups fought hard to win these rigts, using non-violent means, and these groups can employ the same tactics in the future to maintain and expand these rights.

[Dangerosa]

Originally posted by grienspace

I saw the movie "American Gigolo" years ago, and have always suspected that gigolos servicing women sexually just like the stories in Penthouse forum which I haven't read in twenty years is fiction. Gigolos certainly exist, and are the subject of numerous studies of prostitution in the inner city but this is a gay phenomenon.
[/B]

First, thanks for the apology. I couldn't figure out why you were laying into me.

Two, while perhaps the majority of male prostitutes service men, there is certainly a market for male prostitutes that service women. Middle age, overweight women want to have sex with hot young men just like middle age overweight men want to have sex with hot young women. I've been to male strip clubs - filled with screaming women.

While women may not have ever beat down your door to have a one night stand with you, that is not true for all men. I have an extremely attractive male friend who can get laid at pretty much the drop of a hat. I have an overweight, too tall, large nosed, bad complexioned girlfriend who hasn't been so lucky.

I'm a pretty attractive women. At 24 I was stunning. At 24 I got turned down by two different men. Both single. Both looking for a bigger committment! Generalizations are useful, but they don't always hold true.

[Gaudere]

This aside hygeine for female soldiers is a major problem. It's been discovered time and again that women operating in muddy trenches and foxholes with no sanitation for more than a month at a time not surprisingly come down with a range of debilitating diseases.Cite? The only reference I have ever seen to this was a remark by Newt Gingritch. As I do not exactly consider him an authority on women's bodies, I'd like to see some verified support for the belief that female soldiers are more prone to dehabilitating muddy-ditch-borne diseases than male soldiers. Thanks.

[Biggirl]

Originally posted by Gaspode

Umm, a brief history lesson. Men weren't making the laws eithhr throughout most of history. The majority of people weren't allowed to vote. Lawmaking was reserved for the privileged few.

Men were making all the laws. Just because the men in power repressed male peasants doesn't mean they didn't repress women.

Originally posted by Gaspode
You're now running on circular logic. Men made the laws because men had control, men had control because men made the laws. This assumes women are already repressed. the OP asks why women are repressed. Stating that it is so hardly goes any way towarsd answering the question does it.

I don't understand why it is so hard to see that having control enabled men to make the laws. They made laws that enabled them to continue to hold on to power. Not so much circular as self-sustaining.



Originally posted by Gaspode
Then please explain to use why, if most men want to fight for their countries, any politician in modern times has felt the need to legistlate for conscription. Surely if fighting is something most men want to do this would hardly be necessary.
Do you actually have any cites to support you assertion that "Most men are more than willing to fight for their county"? The fact that legistalation has been found to be necessary to enforce it seems to contradict your assertion.


I need cites to show that men thought fighting wars was a noble thing to do? I need specific examples in history when there was glory in fighting wars? Think about the Greeks and the Romans before you start giving out brief history lessons.

Originally posted by Gaspode
Unless you are an exeptionally strong woman you couldn't even swing a broadsword for more than a about a minute. Unless you are an olympic athlete I doubt you could even draw a longbow (I'm a fairly big man and I have difficulty doing it more than once or twice). To suggest that medieval weapons didn't require strength or stamina is so ridiculous to anyone with any knowledge of weapons use that it hardly warrants comment. Of course women could fight in wars. Cripped men caould fight in wars. They'v never been allowed to even when they wanted to because they are more of a burden than a help.

Crippled men were allowed to fight wars. As were elderly men and pre-pubescent boys. Women were not allowed to fight in wars. It is not inconceivable to make weapons for women's use, even back during the broadsword days, what was inconceivable was that the idea that women should brandish swords.

We do not now have a patriarchal society because only men fought in wars. Only men could fight in wars because of the patriarchal society.


Originally posted by Gaspode
And here we see a classic strawman. I never mentioned the right to fight in combat if they desire. I'm asking for examples of campaigns where women have demanded that, in the name of equality, they be forced to fight and die, whether they like it or not.

One good strawman deserves another.

[dude]

We seem to accept that it was normal for women to be repressed but were their not amazon women who were the leaders and warriors ?

I do agree that if you are going to have equality it should be all the way, their is no argument ( ask the russians ) why women can not serve on the front line.

After all, they get bombed without discrimination.


The historical abuse of women as 2nd class citizens is nothing more than a disgrace BUT we can not make good the sins of the past, all we can do is try and make things RIGHT today.

[AHunter3]

Gaspode in response to my posts:


Food is tight so people don't just feed kids (or other people), you're expected to take care of yourself and your own.
I've got to challenge that. I can't think of even one agricultural society where the products of agriculture weren't distributed amongst all members, particularly in times of crisis. Can you actually provide an example of where this may have occured?

Fooey, I'm several years out of academia and it astonishing to me that this would be considered a claim sufficiently in doubt as to require references. OK, I'll get to the library's anthropology section as soon as my schedule permits. May I get away with saying at least, at this point, that the image of the poor "fatherless" unfortunate child with little to eat is a rather old one, whereas "lucky bastard" is seldom understood as a pair of terms in which the latter is the reason for the former?

I can agree wholeheartedly with most of the logic presented, but where exactly did women become more repressed than men?

You are asking, I assume, how my (admittedly superficial) explanation for why women put up with patriarchal origins glides smoothly into a situation where women are oppressed (& repressed) --? You are NOT, I presume, implying that the claim that women have historically been oppressed is in some fashion in need of substantiation.

OK, so you've got this system arising into being, not markedly or obviously unequal between sexes at the outset, in which men are asked/expected to support wives and children if they are to have sex with them; women are asked and expected to provide sexual access only in that context; and by this pattern an expectation of difference in performance of agrarian labor arises. Women MAY work much as men do but it is anticipated that they will be pregnant often, and encumbered with young children requiring care, and that this will make them comparatively unproductive...and in need of the benefits of a man's sharing his own share with her.

Differences in power arise as the exchange of commodities such as food become marked by exchange of currency...we aren't sure of the details about how the money system grew out of barter and symbolic worth and media of exchange and all that, but the point is that to whatever extent women were "free from" a portion of that activity in exchange for their duties and burdens as mothers, they were to that same extent separated from the locus of activity in which surplus, profit, and advantageous trade arose. Going into patriarchy, this disparity most likely wasn't overt or didn't even exist in a meaningful way: the guys work their butts off in the field and if the crops are good you eat more food, end of story, no one necessarily formulating the idea of trading the surplus or amassing wealth from it for a long time. Were this not true, I suspect the women would have demanded that their activities as mothers be traded off in some fashion far more lucrative to them than merely "your husband's share of the harvest shall be shared with you". But the service economy was millennia away.

Note also that male activity in early agricultural settings was more conducive to being the location of shared labor yielding a product subsequently redistributed--a situation that would include bosses, subservients, differential "wages" for different positions, and so forth--than the circumstances of the women. I suppose women COULD organize child care as a collective complete with a hierachy and a division of labor, but they could hardly parcel out the 'harvest' in quite the same fashion!

So women became oppressed in part because they were out of the early loop within which the structures of male power arose, and in part because the original bargain made desirable commodities of them, a dynamic that would tend, psychologically, to lead the men who labored to earn the right of access into thinking of the women as part of their wages, their possessions.

[Gaspode]

Gaudere,
The only cite I can find regarding the predisposition of women towards disease comes from an article published in "The Courier Mail" about six months ago when this debate was raging in Australia. The brief article refers to Brian Mitchell, author of "Women in the Military" referring to field trials undertaken by 'a number of European armed forces' - "Field trials of soldiers in simulated combat situations found that a lack of hygeine had a major impact on the combat effectiveness of female units. Over 40% of female subjects were withdrawn prior to completion of the trial for medical reasons.... primarily elevated temperatures and abnormal abdominal pain" Various other statements to the effect that lack of hygeine is a major problem for female soldiers were thrown around by other sources. If I get the chance I'll go down the local library and dig them out.


Biggirl,
Men were making all the laws. Just because the men in power repressed male peasants doesn't mean they didn't repress women.

But this assumes women were already repressed. How does the fact that women continued to be repressed after such repressiion was already established go any way towards answering the OP? You're aying that women are repressed because women were repressed. While that may be true it's so bloody obvious that stating it is pointlesss. You might just as well say that the house is burning down because it was burning down. That hardly answers the question of why.


I don't understand why it is so hard to see that having control enabled men to make the laws. They made laws that enabled them to continue to hold on to power. Not so much circular as self-sustaining.
And comlpetely pointless and unenlightening. Being on fire allowed the house to remain on fire. What's the pont of a statement like this?

Originally posted by Gaspode
Then please explain to use why, if most men want to fight for their countries, any politician in modern times has felt the need to legistlate for conscription. Surely if fighting is something most men want to do this would hardly be necessary.
Do you actually have any cites to support you assertion that "Most men are more than willing to fight for their county"? The fact that legistalation has been found to be necessary to enforce it seems to contradict your assertion.

I need cites to show that men thought fighting wars was a noble thing to do? I need specific examples in history when there was glory in fighting wars? Think about the Greeks and the Romans before you start giving out brief history lessons.
Sigh. Another strawman.

No Biggirl. You don't need "specific examples in history when there was glory in fighting wars? ". History demonstrates quite clearly that both men and women found glory in war.

What you do need is some evidence that "Most men are more than willing to fight for their county" and that "men (that is all men) thought fighting wars was a noble thing to do". The simple fact that legislation was necessary to force men to fight demonstrates that such was not the case. In this country conscription legislation has been almost universally unpopular. To make a statement like "Most men are more than willing to fight for their county" runs counter to the only evidence we have so far, and that is that it was necessary to legally force men to enlist and threaten them with imprisonment if they failed to do so. Do you actually have any evidence, or even logical basis for, the asetion that "Most men are more than willing to fight for their county"? Figures showing the percentage of the eligible male population who enlisted for say WWI, WWII and Vietnam prior to conscription would be a good start.

Crippled men were allowed to fight wars.
Ahh a strawmna. I could stretch myself to believe that crippled men have fought in wars. Can you please show me a cite for where crippled men were ever regularly assigned normal combatant roles in warfare? By that I mean mor regularly than women?


As were elderly men and pre-pubescent boys.
Strawman. Elderly men and prepubescent boys were never mentioned.


Women were not allowed to fight in wars.
Except we've already had several citations of where they were allowed to do so. I can provide more if you like.


It is not inconceivable to make weapons for women's use, even back during the broadsword days,
True enough, just as it is not inconcievable to make weapons for use by three year old children, or for use by chimpazees. This does not mean that any of the above would be effective comabatants. A longbow capable of being drawn by women would be comletely useless aginst most armour and have extremely limited range.

what was inconceivable was that the idea that women should brandish swords.
Except that in feudal Japan, and quite a few other cites already given, women were expected to utilise weapons. Women can go out and get killed beyond any shadow of a doubt. They could also doubtless inflict casualties, but the massive superiority men have over women in combat means that women are not effective fighters. Ineffective fighters are waste of time and resources and a hinderance in combat.

We do not now have a patriarchal society because only men fought in wars. Only men could fight in wars because of the patriarchal society.
Cite please.


And here we see a classic strawman. I never mentioned the right to fight in combat if they desire. I'm asking for examples of campaigns where women have demanded that, in the name of equality, they be forced to fight and die, whether they like it or not.
One good strawman deserves another.
What strawman of mine are you referring to? Could you please make yourself clearer so I can either clarify or at least defend myself. Simply casting vague aspersions on my argument only promotes ignorance.

And you still haven't adressed my question. How many campaigns have there been by feminists for the right to be forced to kill and die against their will, in military service? Since you have stated that enforced conscription to the armed forces was "a responsiblity that men chose to shoulder on their own" you must have some historical information to suuport that assertion.



ethicsrcritical
To 'evolve' men must admit that any love and tenderness and intimacy they have known in their lives, and that has been and still is valuable to them, has come from the influence of the women on all of the males in their lives. From fathers to grandfathers to brothers and friends.
Do you actually have anything to back that up? Anything at all. Is there anything you can provide that will make it more plausible than my saying "To 'evolve' men must admit that any love and tenderness and intimacy they have known in their lives, and that has been and still is valuable to them, has come from the influence of the Invisible Pink Unicorn on all of the males in their lives. From fathers to grandfathers to brothers and friends."

Is strongly suspect you can't and that it is a baseless assertion.


Ask any man: if a more muscular, weightier and fitter physical specimen challenges you to physically fight, especially if he has the same determination you have, would you not concede that he may likely win and that it would behoove you to walk away?
Well for this man the answer is no. If the challenge is issued by anyone of any size purely for the sake of a challenge then I wouldn't fight. If the challenge is issued in the form of a threat to me or family, my freedom etc. then I will fight to the death. Is that the situation women find themselves in? Has your experience of men really been that they will all fight for no good reason, and that they will fight for that which they hold important only if they know they will win? If your experience has really led you to this belief then I pity you.

Until that time, we will get men congratulating themselves on the 'winning' of wars...where each side has decimated the daily lives of women and children who only wanted to see their children learn what love is with the help of the fathers of their children.
And can you actually provide me with one example of one war in history that was popularly supported by men, but not by women? I can give numerous examples where women were the prime factor in encouraging men to enlist for wars. Ever hear of the 'White Feather'? This statement is utter shit. Women rather clearly enjoy and support war as much as if not more than men.

If, tomorrow, men (in Congress or other legislative bodies in this world) decided that, once again, women could not vote, could not own property, could not go to school, what could women possibly do to combat these ideas
And if the short people in congress decided to make us tall people into slaves, what could we do about it? How about if they decided to enslave negroes agian, what could they do about it. Ths seems nothing more than paranoid fantasy driven by a lack of represenattion, and no more specific to women then to blue eyed people. Or are you actually saying that women are completely incapable of fighting back even in the modern world.

If you feel bold, if you feel powerful, let me remind you that it is only sufferance which has given you this feeling.
And this would be based on what exactly?

If a man wants to beat the shit out of you, he will. If the society of other men deem this acceptable, your beating means nothing. (As it does in other parts of the world.)
What, you mean like they way men in parts of Australia can't be the victim of sexual assault by women, and can't be sexually discrimitaed against?
Wake up and smell the roses ethicsrcritical. The world ain't fair to men and it ain't fair to women. Live with it, fight it, but please don't bitch about it without some supporting evidence. At least not here.

I just say, it is up to 'them' how much further we progress.
My goodness. What a pathetic attitude that is. You honestly beleive your entire life, destiny and future is in the hands of others and that you are incapable of fighting to improve your lot. That sort of 'Poor-bugger-me' attitude always makes me want to cry. It's truly depressing to see someone who feels so completely powerless that they won't even consider the possibility of fighting the system. Ethicscritical I'm glad that all the peolpe I know, male and female, are at least prepared to fight and work to advance their condition. You are apparently beaten already.

dude
were their not amazon women who were the leaders and warriors ?
No there were not. The Amazons were a legend and nothing more. Have their been women who have fought and led in battle? Wihtout a doubt, but the are very much the exception. There is a case of a man amed only with rocks killing several enemy soldiers, much better then the kill ratio of soldiers with firearms. That doesn't mean that armies should equip their soldiers with rocks. It's all down to what is the most effective on average, under normal circumstances, and guns and men perform better in combat than women.

their is no argument ( ask the russians ) why women can not serve on the front line.
Well actually ther is a lot of argument. I suggest you do a Google search on 'women combat front line' to see just how much argument there is as to why women can't serve on the front line. This thread alone gives quite a bit of argument on "why women can not serve on the front line."

[Mandelstam]

Gaspode
"Implying there is one cause for such a complex phenomenon is...ridiculous..."

Excellent, Gaspode. Now kindly practice what you preach. Because the way you are droning on about the importance of physical strength in pre-modern times is--if you'll pardon the expression--creating the perception that you attach undue importance to its relvance to the OP.

"You obviously still don't understand what 'percieved' means. Go look it up in a dictionary. "

No, I'm afraid that you don't understand the implication of your own remarks. Whatever you may have meant to say about the effects of certain perceptions in ancient times, you have gone on to hold repeatedly that the reality of women's physical inferiority is something that you hold to be a permanent bar to equality. Now speaking for myself, I have defined the desired end of equality--in response to your questioning me on the subject--as relative socio-economic equality including concomitant political power. If this were ancient Sparta your recurrent points about the respective military abilities of men and women might actually have some special relevance to the topic at hand. As it stands, I'm not at all sure what you're on about.

I had said: in feudal times the warrior class justified their elite status in precisely these terms; peasants didn't bear arms and die in battle, warriors did.

Gaspode:Can you actually give me one example of a medieval society where the peasants weren't regularly conscripted, and where this justification was used?

Are you seriously questioning that the warrior class (i.e., knights, samurai and their ilk) weren't seen as an elite and justified as being so on the grounds of their exclusive bearing of armor, horses, etc.? As to conscription of peasants, I don't claim to know how widespread the practice was or wasn't. Were peasants "conscripted" to go off and fight in the crusades? I rather doubt it. But I know a medieval historian and I'll see what I can find out for you.

More important, whatever may have been the practice as to what you choose to call (anachronistically) "conscription," I can assure you that the ideology of a feudal society is entirely founded on a small elite's possession of a) land and b) arms (and probably "c" literacy).

Gaspode repeateth: "2)You clearly need to look up 'perception' and 'percieved' in a dictionary. Do it and then try to understand that just because something is illogical does not mean that it cannot be percieved."

Dear Gaspode: once again, why harp on perception, as though you are merely insisting that benighted folks way back when "perceived" women to be too weak to seek equality with men? You yourself are extenuating that very perception in your own arguments--when you might easily be arguing, instead, how irrelevant physical strength has become.

Case in point: are the richest and most powerful people in society today the most physically powerful? Of course, not. And they haven't been for centuries! Thomas Hobbes made this point in Leviathan back in the sixteenth century.

"according to the logic of your own argument, sexual inequality is no longer justified since women are now able and willing to help defend the realm."

"1)Women are still largely unable and apparently unwilling to defend the realm. But that's another debate"

True, but it beautifully illustrates that you are asserting your own presentday opinions, in addition to commenting on the "perceptions" of ancient societies.

"2)Who cares if this is the case now. It wasn't in the past, and the past shapes the present. As upsetting as that may be for you it's unfortunately true."

<laughs> As a matter of fact I'm married to a historian and the work that I do requires quite a lot of thinking about how the past shapes the present. But thank you anyway for your astute observation. The past does indeed shape the present; but physical strength has long ceased to be a primary determinant of social, economic or political power. And individual military ability is another totally marginal factor. If it were otherwise, the most powerful men would be those who were physically strongest and best in battle. Hence, your argument that presentday inequalities stem from these historical differences--real or (ahem) perceived--just doesn't stand up. Make no mistake: I do not say that there are no historical reasons to explain presentday inequalities between the sexes; I merely say that your historical explanation is a turkey.

"This is exactly the language that has always been used to justify inequalities." [Gaspode has deleted the specific examples I offered]

[i]"Can I have a cite for that? Really that's a pretty bold statement.

On peasants' lack of rational capacity you can look at just about any non-controversial description of the status quo written prior to the French Revolution. On slaves being inferior to their masters, check out any pro-South argument, before during and after the American civil war. On colonizers having a duty to civilize the colonized, check out that old imperialist standby, Kipling's "white man's burden" or any other treatment of the subject written during most of the nineteenth century. And if you really are interested in reading on women's being intellectually ill-equipped to be lawyers and doctors, check out W.R. Greg, "Why are Women Redundant" (1857). Needless to say it's not on the web.

"Think about it Gaspode: what are these "numerous reasons" why men and women will "never" be equal?"

[i]"Well you got one of them. Reproductive function. This is a pretty major difference and one that ensures that the genders can't be equal."

Ah, I see. Well you seem to think that by "equal" I mean "identical." However, I do not. I have said at least once on this thread (and in response to your question) that by equal I mean relative socio-economic equality and the political power that comes with it. Reproductive function needn't have anything to do with that.

"To suggest that "hormonal differences that may--and I emphasize may" stem from differences in reproductive physiology is as bizarre as saying the moon may be made of rock."

Indeed! Which is why I'm glad I didn't say that. Read what I said over, including the clause you left out, and see if you still want to debate me on this point.

"I'd love to see the cite that casts even the slightest doubt over the fact that hormonal differences stem from physical diffences in the reproductive systems. Please provide such."

Actually, I've read numerous arguments that make clear that it's difficult beyond a certain point to explain whether these differences stem from physical factors or environmental/social ones. So, for example, studies have found that professional women have higher levels of testosterone than female homemakers. Is that because they always had higher levels of testosterone (i.e. b/c of some genetic difference)? Or is it because something about their upbringing that caused them to choose professional life also caused them to produce more testosterone. Nobody knows.

For myself, however, I think way too much is made of hormones. For example, there is no evidence that the most powerful/successful men are those with the most testosterone. If there were, we could all shoot up testosterone and be hairy and powerful together. In fact teenaged boys have more testosterone on average than anyone; and who wants to be a teenaged boy? (especially after hearing grienspace's account of the subject ;) .) Still, it does rather surprise me how some people to fetishize the importance of testosterone which, like the physical existence of testacles, seems to operate like a kind of talisman for them.

"Males and females are psychologically different, not as a result of society but as a result of genetics."

Oh poppycock. Males and females are psychologically different (on average) for social as well as biological reasons. Only extremists and fools argue otherwise. (I haven't decided yet which best describes you...)

[I had asked:]"To move from the abstract to the concrete where, Gaspode, do you and I reflect the "numerous reasons" why sexual inequality must always persist?"

Gaspode
"Well assuming you're female, you'll never be able to be the parent to 400 children in your lifetime. I will never be able to give birth. I will never be able to breatfeed. We are unequal."

No--as, I've said, we are non-identical. But this cannot satisfactorily explain social,economic or political inequality. (We should bear in mind, of course, that we don't actually know those things about each other. It may well be the case, for example, that I have enjoyed more socio-economic privileges than you. We are individuals and it's only on average that women tend to be worse off then men in these ways.)

[i]"Probability says that you will never be able to bench press 200 kilos naturally. Probability syas you are shorter than my 6 feet. Probability syas you are carrying more body fat than my current 5%."

Yeesh, Gaspode. And common sense says that none of these things make much difference at all when it comes to socio-economic difference. An apt question might be, if, say, we were two co-workers with similar abilities and educational backgrounds--which one of us is more likely, statistically, to be promoted into the highest echelons.

I should add that I strongly feel that men are also disadvantaged by a gender-divided society. They're made to conform to rigid stereotypes; they're emotionally stunted, and deprived of crucial aspects of their creative and human development. I'm not one to see the world in terms of bad-old men vs. weak-exploited-old women--at least not in the US (or Australia).

"Probability says that you are not as agressive as I am."

<laughs> I think the jury's out on that one!

"I suggest that you go pick up a basic human physiology text and do some reading if you need to ask how men and women are necessarily and inevitably unequal."

And I suggest you remove your head from glutes and pay attention to what's been said about the terms of argument. You've made one point over and over and over again. Women are physically weaker than men; they have different reproductive functions. This has a hormonal complement. And that mind-numbing mantra gives you a peculiar tunnel vision, beautifully exhibited by the following...

"I'm willing to bet that differences in upbringing (including class, education, professional training etc.) count for a great deal more in determining who we are than does the single fact of your having testacles and my having a uterus and ovaries."

Gaspode first evades: [i]"Well that's comletely untestable."

And then returns to harping on his favorite theme...

"What I can say is that in all cultures, in all families and across all times right down the fossil records males have been larger, faster, stronger and heavier. ...."

Yawn, yawn, yawn. Do fossil records also show that men have always been more repetitive?

"To suggest that despite all this evidence nurture rather than nature dictates human behaviour is...[ignorant]. It can never be proven one way or the other, but all the evidence is against such an hypothesis."

I love the paradoxical logic in the last sentence! Since I can't prove what I don't know, I'll dismiss its validity entirely. Beautiful! But here's the thing (once again): why does it have to be absolute--nurture or nature--when common sense dictates that it's both?! Doesn't it strike you that if you were an infant and I became your mother that you'd probably end up being a different person than who are you right now? Indeed, since you love animal analogies, haven't you notice that some people train their dogs to be obedient and docile, while others end up being trained by their dogs. Is this a function of dog testosterone?

"Environment indisputably exerts some controlling influence, but to suggest that amongst humans, uniquely, gender isn't a prime controller of personality is bizzare."

Humans "uniquely"? So gorillas and goldfish are more influenced by, say, the impact of advertising and school role models than are humans? Or are you suggesting that animals have "personalities" the way that humans do.

Interestingly, the word "gender" was specifically drawn from out of the language of grammar (where it denoted masculine and feminine verbs, etc.) in order to serve as a contrast to the word "sex." That is, "sex"=anatomy (penis/vagina). "Gender" = masculine/feminine and is far more fluid. We have all kinds of androgynous gender possibilities which the less Neanderthal amongst us generally quite value. So it's rather ironic to see you skewing gender to stand for the ineffaceable determinism that you attach to gonads.

:[i]"Indeed, depending on your age and other factors, I might make as good or better a soldier than you do whether (as the case may be) a rank-and-file soldier following orders, or an officer to giving them."

Gaspode responds: "Yes of course. And a chimpazee will make a better soldier than a quadraplegic with a comlete inability to communicate. But the vast majority of humans make better soldiers than the vast majority of chimps,

(An absurd analogy in which women Gaspode resorts to likening women to chimpanzees and quadrapalegics...)

and the fact remains that the vast majority of men are stronger, faster, fitter and more agressive than the vast majority of women. Those factors remain vitally important for soldiers.

I think we really need to define this word aggressive (two "g"s by the way). I mention this b/c you seem to treat it as a silver bullet. That is, whenever you realize that your physical-strength argument is rather thin, you leap to buttress it with "aggressive"; a kind of catchall term for "better." However, "aggressive" can mean a lot of things: it's not a one-size-fits-all charactersitic.

Dear Gaspode, I'm terribly sorry if your testacles and six-foot tall bod don't count as much for me as they do for you. I sincerely hope you enjoy them to the fullest. You'll have to forgive me if I am more prone to factor in intelligence, creativity, professional acumen, critical thinking, problem-solving ability, imaginativeness, originality, analytical power, etc. And I don't see how these qualities--many of which are crucial to socio-economic success--are tied to cojones or the lack thereof.

Gaspode on Australia deleted.

This may surprise you, but I actually agree that some of these things shouldn't be. In general, I don't think there should be preferential treatment on the basis of sex (unless there's a very specific reason for it).

"It seems then that if that is your definition of equality, and repression and subjugation is being treated unequally then in Australia at least it is not women but men who are repressed."

Actually I believe that men are also repressed. That is, I believe that when women are treated as non-equals, it hurts men as well as women. (John Stuart Mill made this kind of argument almost 150 years ago in "The Subjection of Women").

You, for example, shouldn't have to go around obsessing about your physical prowess and the importance of your testosterone. You shouldn't have to liken your personality to that of animals. And you shouldn't have to liken women to apes just to feel reasonably secure about yourself. I'm sure nature intended for you to be a much more multi-dimensional person than that, with a far deeper understanding of human complexity. It's society that has turned you into a gibbering monomaniac; I'm sure there's nothing at all wrong with your genes. Have you considered suing?

[Gaspode]

Whatever you may have meant to say about the effects of certain perceptions in ancient times, you have gone on to hold repeatedly that the reality of women's physical inferiority is something that you hold to be a permanent bar to equality.
Quite true, I do hold that belief because it is a fact. Men and women are unequal in height, in strength, in capacity to do work, in capacity to bear children, in capacity to fight etc. That does not mean however that I percieve this as meaning women should be repressed on these grounds. This is what you were implying and this is what I was objecting to. Obviously equality as defined by the dictionary is out of the question. Equality as you leter defined it is another question, and as I pointed out in some cases such equality appears to have been gained and in fact surpassed.

If this were ancient Sparta your recurrent points about the respective military abilities of men and women might actually have some special relevance to the topic at hand. As it stands, I'm not at all sure what you're on about.
What I'm on about is fighting ignorance. Some people heer appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that the sole reason men fight is becasue they enjoy it, and that a woman could use a medieval longbow as effectively as a man. It's actually a side issue to the current debate, but one which I'm adressing in the interests of fighting ignorance. Since you agree that in primitive societies such as sparta men and women couldn't hold equal responsibilities then you and I have no dispute on that point.



Are you seriously questioning that the warrior class (i.e., knights, samurai and their ilk) weren't seen as an elite and justified as being so on the grounds of their exclusive bearing of armor, horses, etc.?
No I'm not. I'm challenging your assertion that "the warrior class justified their elite status in precisely these terms; peasants didn't bear arms and die in battle". Since I can provide evidence that the peasants did bear arms and did die in battle the statemnet seems to require re-writing. I agree with your statement that it was "justified as being so on the grounds of their exclusive bearing of armor, horses, etc". This does however change the entire emphasis of your argument. It is no longer laying down one's life in battle that is being used as justification since all classes do that. Now it is the possesion of property and wealth that defines the elitism of the nobility. That is a very, very different thing, and there is no physical objective reason why women can't possess material wealth.

Were peasants "conscripted" to go off and fight in the crusades
No, they weren't to the best of my knowledge. That does not mean however that they were not used to defend against invaders. They were utilised for that purpose.

what you choose to call (anachronistically) "conscription
Can you please explain why conscription is an anachtonistic term for compulsory military service? what would be a better term? (I'm being serious heer).

I can assure you that the ideology of a feudal society is entirely founded on a small elite's possession of a) land and b) arms (and probably "c" literacy).
Oh I agree entirely. But again there is no objective reason I can see why a woman shouldn't be as wealthy and educated as a man. This being so there is no way of suggesting that women were subjugated because they were not of the elite.

once again, why harp on perception, as though you are merely insisting that benighted folks way back when "perceived" women to be too weak to seek equality with men? You yourself are extenuating that very perception in your own arguments--when you might easily be arguing, instead, how irrelevant physical strength has become.
1) In my first post, which you disputed and which led to this debate, that was my sole intention.
2)I am in no way extenuating that perception. I am presenting facts which rather clearly demonstarted women and men are not and can not be equals.
3)Physical strength has not become irrelevant. I don't know what you do for a living, but I work in what is considered by many to be a fairly 'cerebral' field. Despite this I have never held a job where a physical strength was not important, or where any woman I've worked with could do my job. How exactly do you figure that physical strength is irrelevant when the job requires hauling 30 kilos of steel posts and a driver through 200 metres of scrub. Or using a 25 kg driver to collect soil cores? Even when I worked in a QC lab none of the women were capable of collecting the 20kg drums used for mill stream samples. How excatly can you say physical strength is irrelevant in the real world?

Case in point: are the richest and most powerful people in society today the most physically powerful? Of course, not.
I agree with you wholeheartedly. Are the richest peole in the world today the hardest working? Of course not. Are they the most intelligent? Of course not. Are they the best looking? Of course not. By extending this argument to its logical conclusion nothing at all is important to success so it must all be down to random chance. What the argument overlooks is that like all organisms humans are a spectrum. All other things being equalised however physically fit people will earn more than the physically handicapped, the intelligent more than the stupid, the attractive more than the ugly and even the tall more than the short. Quite simply the more assets you have the more opportunities you have and the more likely to succeed. This should be fairly self-evident. Men can be objectively demonstrated to possess assets that women don't. While I don't dispute for a second that women possess assets that men don't, those assets don't seem to translate into an ability to suceed in a wide range of fields in quite the same way that assets like strength and stamina do. If you have evidence otherwise I'd be very interested in hearing it.


True, but it beautifully illustrates that you are asserting your own presentday opinions, in addition to commenting on the "perceptions" of ancient societies.
No, what it beautifully demonstrates is that I'm not prepared to allow ignorant, unfounded or illogical statements like yours to pass unchallenged on these boards. This applies even if it is a deliberate bait, as you appear to be implying this was. My refuting it illustrates beautifully my commitment to fighting ignorance. No more.

physical strength has long ceased to be a primary determinant of ... power. Hence, your argument that presentday inequalities stem from these historical differences--real or (ahem) perceived--just doesn't stand up.
Well I agree with the first part, but the second seems like a huge assertion. How exactly do you conclude that because physical power is no longer of prime importance this proves that past physical prowess didn't set up present conditions? Isn't that like saying that water transport is no longer a primary determinant of population distribution, hence an argument that present day city locations are a reflection of the historical importance of water transport just doesn't stand up. Past situations clearly can and do continue to affect the present even when there is no longer a pressing need for them to do so.

Ah, I see. Well you seem to think that by "equal" I mean "identical."
No. i'm assuming you mean "like in quality, nature, or status".


I have said at least once on this thread (and in response to your question) that by equal I mean relative socio-economic equality and the political power that comes with it. Reproductive function needn't have anything to do with that.
Well that's debateable at best. Since labour is a very important part of any society and every theory of economics I've seen, reproductive function would have to have no effect on capacity for labor to have socioeconomic quality . Are you saying that this is true?



To suggest that "hormonal differences that may--and I emphasize may" stem from differences in reproductive physiology is as bizarre as saying the moon may be made of rock."
Indeed! Which is why I'm glad I didn't say that. Read what I said over, including the clause you left out, and see if you still want to debate me on this point.

I certainly do. You siad that " certain concomitant hormonal differences that may--and I emphasize may--stem directly from the former (reproductive organs) or may be excacerbated by environmental factors." There's no room for a may here. Hormonal diffrences undoubtedly stem from the reproductive organs. Saying that "hormonal differences may stem from differences in reproductive physiology is as bizarre as saying the moon may be made of rock. This isn't something that's open to interpretation, it's as close to fact as anything can be.


for example, studies have found that professional women have higher levels of testosterone than female homemakers.
That is comletely irrelevant to the subject at hand which was whether "hormonal differences stem from physical diffences in the reproductive systems." Until you can provide any evidence whatsoever that professional women have hormonal makeups that can't be differentiated from men the statement stands. the fact that environment effects hormones is not under dispute. What is under dispute is your assertion that hormonal differences only maystem directly reproductive organs. there is no dispute heer, differences stem from gonadal differences. these levels may be modified by environment but they indisputably stem from gonadal differences and are overwhelmingly determined by them. To say otehrwise is to ignore all scientific evidence. The 'certain point' beyond which you suggets that it is impossible to determine is actually outside the normal range of testosterones for males. It is only difficult to determine the cause of different testosterone levels in members of the one gender, making your citation irrelevant. Or are you implying that you have evidence to suggest that environmental factors may actually cause female testosterone levels to equal men's?

For myself, however, I think way too much is made of hormones. For example, there is no evidence that the most powerful/successful men are those with the most testosterone.
Agreed, but as I said above there is no evidence that the most powerful/successful people are those who are most attractive, nor evidence that the most powerful/successful people are those with the most intelligence, nor evidence that the most powerful/successful people are those with the most peolpe effective personalities. Despite this we all accept that an ability to handle people and an eductaion are important in success. And of course they are. The problem with your argument is that you are assuming that one factor is prime, and their is no evidence of this. What we can assume is that the more assets you have the more opportunities you will be able to take advantage of. Agression and assertiveness are definite assets and men possess more of those traits. I don't know that way too much is made of hormones, since they recieve far less attention than education, people skills, physical fitness or even physical appearance. What I will say is that hormones, having such a major defining role on personality, have a role to play in determning success. If success is dependant on agression and assertiveness as it is in so mny feilds then those whose hormones promote this have an advanatge.

Still, it does rather surprise me how some people to fetishize the importance of testosterone which, like the physical existence of testacles, seems to operate like a kind of talisman for them
Well I'm glad that I've never met anyone like that. Just as I'm glad I've never met anyone who believes that hormones don't exert a profound influence on personality, or anyone who believes that men and women are invariably capable of doing the same work.

Oh poppycock. Males and females are psychologically different (on average) for social as well as biological reasons. Only extremists and fools argue otherwise. (I haven't decided yet which best describes you...)

I have one word for you: Context. Males and females are psychologically different, not as a result of society but as a result of genetics. That is not hte same as saying that males and females are psychologically different, not as a result of society but solely as a result of genetics. I'll stand by that statement. There is indisputable evidence that male and female psychologicall differences are not the result of environment, but can be traced to genetic differences. To say otherwise is poppycock and I will require a cite to support your assertion.


No--as, I've said, we are non-identical. But this cannot satisfactorily explain social,economic or political inequality.

No, as I said we are not equal. we are not "like in quality, nature, or status" if we cannot both be fathers. That's simple enough. As for whether the ability to breastfeed can explain economic or social inequality I could quite easily suggest taht since a breastfeeding woman, pregnant women, and women giving birth can't perform many types of work, and work is the prime means of obtaining wealth, then such could quite easily explain inequality. How hard is that to figure out.


Yeesh, Gaspode. And common sense says that none of these things make much difference at all when it comes to socio-economic difference. An apt question might be, if, say, we were two co-workers with similar abilities and educational backgrounds--which one of us is more likely, statistically, to be promoted into the highest echelons.
Where exactly do you work? For that matter what planet do you live on? I've never in my entire life seen a job where physical strength and stamina didn't matter to at least some degree, and in all the jobs of held it has been critical to doing the job. If " say, we were two co-workers with similar abilities and educational backgrounds" and promotion was based entirely upon productivity, then I should be statisticallly more likely to get promoted. I find it very hard to believe that you could drive a soil core 1.5 metres into clay and then pull it out. Do you see now why on average physical prowess allows men to outperform women, even in fields like science?

I should add that I strongly feel that men are also disadvantaged by a gender-divided society. They're made to conform to rigid stereotypes; they're emotionally stunted, and deprived of crucial aspects of their creative and human development. I'm not one to see the world in terms of bad-old men vs. weak-exploited-old women--at least not in the US (or Australia).
Of course, just as women are made to conform to rigid stereotypes and are deprived of experience and are allowed to be illogical, and deprived of crucial aspects of their creative and human development.

You've made one point over and over and over again. Women are physically weaker than men; they have different reproductive functions. This has a hormonal complement.
and could that be because, despite the fact that this is indisputable scientific fact you keep blindly asserting that such differences can't account for differences in personality or social success?

Gaspode first evades: "Well that's comletely untestable."
No, thta's not an evasion. It's a staement of fact. This is GD isn't it. Allstaements made are supposed to be somehow supportable. You make an assertion that is completely untestable, I call it such and then go on to provide significant evidence that contradicts it, and you accuse me of evasion. I can't imagine how I could be less evasive. I call bullshit. You said you were willing to place a wager on something that can never be known. That's bullshit. How's that for confronting it head on and not be ing evasive? My position should be clear now.

Yawn, yawn, yawn. Do fossil records also show that men have always been more repetitive?
Ah yes, an ad hominem. I love these in an argument, particularly when, as in this case they are the sole reposnse to a fact. It really shows the weakness of your argument.

It can never be proven one way or the other, but all the evidence is against such an hypothesis.
I love the paradoxical logic in the last sentence! Since I can't prove what I don't know, I'll dismiss its validity entirely.

Huh? I quite clearly said if since something can't be proved, but it runs counter all the known evidence then I'll dismiss its validity entirely. I can't prove that their isn't a tiny pink, invisible, unicorn in my lounge room eitehr. But since such a hypothesis runs counter to all the known evidence I'll dismiss it out of hand. that's not paradoxical logic, it is sound reasoning based on identifying an argument from ignorance. Your argument has no more supporting evidence and as much evidence against it as the unicorn. They are both not only arguments fom ignorance, but actually run counter to the known facts.


But here's the thing (once again): why does it have to be absolute--nurture or nature--when common sense dictates that it's both?!
Ahh what a beautiful strawman. Could you please quote where exactly I have said that it is either nature or nurtuire that determines personalities?

Indeed, since you love animal analogies, haven't you notice that some people train their dogs to be obedient and docile, while others end up being trained by their dogs. Is this a function of dog testosterone?
Very much so actually. Evan though dog physiology differs from human male dogs are far more assertive and aggressive than bitchs. The more dominat the dog the more likely she/he is to end up dominating his owner. Of course people can (usually) overcome this, but all things being equall dogs are far more likely to become dominat members of their human pack than bitches. Just as all things being equal men are more likely to be successful in the workplace.

Humans "uniquely"? So gorillas and goldfish are more influenced by, say, the impact of advertising and school role models than are humans?
Huh? No I'm not suggetsing that. I'm suggesting that Gorillas are more influenced by nightime temperature and the disposition of the dominat silverback, but that the prime controller of personality is gender, and that humans are not unique just because the stimuli we respond to are different fom the stimuli a goldfish responds to. It would run counter to all logic and evidence to suggest that in evry other primate gender is the prime controller of behavioural and personality differences, and yet this is not true for humans. If you can't provide any evidence then this simply becomes another argument from ignorance that once again runs counter to the facts we do have.


Or are you suggesting that animals have "personalities" the way that humans do.
Well I can provide you with any number of cites demonstrating personality traits in animals so that's not in much dispute.

"Gender" = masculine/feminine and is far more fluid. We have all kinds of androgynous gender possibilities which the less Neanderthal amongst us generally quite value. So it's rather ironic to see you skewing gender to stand for the ineffaceable determinism that you attach to gonads.
Uh, yeah sure. Merriam-webster of course says "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex". But you believe what you want o believe and I'll use gender to mean the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex. :rolleyes:


An absurd analogy in which women Gaspode resorts to likening women to chimpanzees and quadrapalegics...)
Ahh, no, if that was the way you chose to view it then women would be chimpazees and men quadraplegics, otherwise it wuldn't be an analogy it would be a metaphor. But again I say, don't let common sense slow down a good emotive argument.

I think we really need to define this word aggressive
ag.gres.sive a: tending toward or exhibiting aggression b : marked by combative readiness
ag.gres.sion a forceful action or procedure (as an unprovoked attack) especially when intended to dominate or master

Dear Gaspode, I'm terribly sorry if your testacles and six-foot tall bod don't count as much for me as they do for you.
:rolleyes:
And I'm sorry your ovaries and thorough reading of feminist literature don't enable you to make a cogent argument that will stand in GD even if it such arguments impress those who alraedy agree with you. But that's how life is.


I sincerely hope you enjoy them to the fullest. You'll have to forgive me if I am more prone to factor in intelligence, creativity, professional acumen, critical thinking, problem-solving ability, imaginativeness, originality, analytical power, etc. And I don't see how these qualities--many of which are crucial to socio-economic success--are tied to cojones or the lack thereof.

More :rolleyes:
I sincerely hope you enjoy them to the fullest. You'll have to forgive me if I am more prone to factor in logic, diligence, work ethic, an ability to comprehend, the avoidance of ad hominems, posssesion of all the facts prior to staing an opinion, open mindedness, rationality, etc.


And I don't see how these qualities--many of which are crucial to socio-economic success--are tied to cojones or the lack thereof.
Ahh I just love strawmen. Valuing , creativity, professional acumen and critical thinking as you have stated above you will of course provide a quate showing that tis is an attack on my argument, not just a parody of it. You will, won't you? You will then go on to explain how the fact that you value non-physical attributes somehow means that the workplace values these things.
Then you will explain how having all these things and physical superiority could possibly fail to give men a socio-economic advantage over women.

You'll do all this becsaue you value critical thinking and are posting here to fight ignorance. Right?


This may surprise you, but I actually agree that some of these things shouldn't be. In general, I don't think there should be preferential treatment on the basis of sex (unless there's a very specific reason for it).
Well we seem to be in wholehearted agreement on this at least.

Actually I believe that men are also repressed. That is, I believe that when women are treated as non-equals, it hurts men as well as women.
Also. It seems to me that men are primarily being repressed, if you want to call not being treated equally under the law repression.

:rolleyes:
You, for example, shouldn't have to go around feeling threatened by the indusputable physical superiority of males. You shouldn't have to suggest that it's unfair that nature made us unequal. And you shouldn't have to assume women are being likened to apes just because you believe women are stupid as monkeys as well as weak. I'm sure nature intended for you to be a much more confident and self-assured person than that, with at least a basic capacity to accept the obvious. It's society that has turned you into an emotional, irrational barbie-clone with no capacity for logical thought; I'm not at all sure there's nothing wrong with your genes. Have you considered getting an education and maybe taking a course in logic?

I've said it before and I'll say it agian: I always love seeing ad hominems in Great Debates. There is nothing that proves how lacking someone's argument is quite as succinctly as the use of ad hominems.

[Gaudere]

[Moderator Hat ON]

Mandelstam, Gaspode, chill out a bit. You're both edging pretty close to the line.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Biggirl]

Originally posted by Gaspode

But this assumes women were already repressed. How does the fact that women continued to be repressed after such repressiion was already established go any way towards answering the OP? You're aying that women are repressed because women were repressed. While that may be true it's so bloody obvious that stating it is pointlesss. You might just as well say that the house is burning down because it was burning down. That hardly answers the question of why.

Perhaps you should read AHunter's posts. They show exactly why and how patriachal societies arose. You keep asking why women are repressed now when that question was answered on page one of this thread.


Originally posted by Gaspode
Being on fire allowed the house to remain on fire. What's the pont of a statement like this?

A long, long time ago our species found it advantageous for the females to stay close to home while the males went out to do all the things that could not be done at home. One million years later, Gaspode postulates that the reason women are repressed is because they can't fight in wars. Who is setting this house on fire?

Originally posted by Gaspode

No Biggirl. You don't need "specific examples in history when there was glory in fighting wars? ". History demonstrates quite clearly that both men and women found glory in war.


Originally posted by Gaspode
What you do need is some evidence that "Most men are more than willing to fight for their county" and that "men (that is all men) thought fighting wars was a noble thing to do".

What is your point here? You conceed that fighting in war has been considered an honor and bestows glory on the men who did it, but you want cites on each individual man to see if he, himself, wanted to go to war? And I'm being pointless?


snip lots of stuff about how the men in power created laws to control men with less power

Originally posted by Gaspode
I suggest you do a Google search on 'women combat front line' to see just how much argument there is as to why women can't serve on the front line. This thread alone gives quite a bit of argument on "why women can not serve on the front line."

Ah, now I see. The reason women are repressed today is because Gaspode and Google believe women cannot serve on the front line. The millenia or so of treating women like chattle is the natural order of things because men fight wars and women shouldn't. Thank you for showing me the light.

[Mandelstam]

I fear, Gaspode that we are both trying the patience of our fellow readers with such long posts, so I've edited out some of the give-and-take. If you would like to re-raise an issue I passed over, however, feel free.

"Obviously equality as defined by the dictionary is out of the question. Equality as you leter defined it is another question... "

It is conventional to speak of "equality" between individuals in terms of formal rights and substantive opportunities (social, economic, political). Any lawyer, political theorist, intellectual historian--what have you--will tell you this.

"Can you please explain why conscription is an anachtonistic term for compulsory military service? what would be a better term?"

I think conscription is an anachronistic term to apply to the war practices of feudal times, b/c I'm guessing that the term wasn't in use prior to the age of mass warfare. If someone with online access to the Oxford English Dictionary wants to check, it will answer the question for us.

[On the justification of feudal elites...]
"[T]here is no objective reason I can see why a woman shouldn't be as wealthy and educated as a man. This being so there is no way of suggesting that women were subjugated because they were not of the elite."

Actually in the first sentence, without meaning to, you've encapsulated my position on this entire argument: i.e. no "objective" biological condition precludes modern women from attaining the wealth and education that generally coincide with socio-economic and political power. I don't understand the second sentence, however. The question of "subjugation" in feudal times is bound to be very complicated: most people lacked political and legal rights. Doubtless in 9 out of 10 cases you were better off being a female aristocrat than a male serf. Is that what you're trying to say?

"I am presenting facts which rather clearly demonstarted women and men are not and can not be equals."

Again, if we can't agree that the "equality" we're debating about is defined in social, economic and political terms, then I have no further interest in this debate. In those terms, needless to say, I entirely disagree with your assertion.

"Physical strength has not become irrelevant. I don't know what you do for a living, but I work in what is considered by many to be a fairly 'cerebral' field. Despite this I have never held a job where a physical strength was not important, or where any woman I've worked with could do my job. How exactly do you figure that physical strength is irrelevant when the job requires hauling 30 kilos of steel posts and a driver through 200 metres of scrub. Or using a 25 kg driver to collect soil cores? Even when I worked in a QC lab none of the women were capable of collecting the 20kg drums used for mill stream samples. How excatly can you say physical strength is irrelevant in the real world?"

I don't say it's absolutely irrelevant. And I certainly don't say that it's easy to succeed without basic good health. What I do say is that differences in physical strength (such as the average difference between healthy men and women) are largely irrelevant to social, economic and political success. Obviously if you're a professional athlete that's not true. Here are just a few socially important jobs for which degree of physical strength is not especially relevant (if relevant at all): President of the US, CEO of General Motors, head of a research lab, financial analyst for Goldman Sachs, college professor, brain surgeon, ambassador to Sri Lanka, computer programmer, scriptwriter, trade union activist, school principal, building inspector, philosopher/intellectual, editor of the New York Times. I could go on. Further, I find it very hard to believe that the job you describe--in which "cerebral" qualifications are mixed with demanding physical requirements--is very typical. Since hiring someone with a specialized skill is very expensive (e.g. computer programmer, surgeon, etc.) and hiring someone to lift heavy objects is comparatively cheap (usually available at minimum wage), few employers will find it economical to employ the same individual for these very different functions. (That said, as you well know, many women are willing and able to endure rigorous physical training in order to meet minimum physical requirements that, on average, the typical woman doesn't meet. So, on a case-by-case basis, a woman may be well suited to succeed in your example of steel-drum-hauling/brain-power-burning employment

[most powerful people today aren't the strongest]
Are the richest peole in the world today the hardest working? Of course not. Are they the most intelligent? Of course not. Are they the best looking? Of course not. By extending this argument to its logical conclusion nothing at all is important to success so it must all be down to random chance."

You make a good point here, Gaspode, but you overplay it. Most socially powerful positions do require unusual intelligence and strong educational credentials (just as lucrative positions in the entertainment world require unusually good looks). George Bush is certainly not the most intelligent man in the world. My guess is that he has average intelligence (which, for a US president, is or ought to be, pretty disappointing). Yet the guy still got an advanced degree at Harvard and in every other respect had all of the socio-economic privileges that help to make certain that people of his background remain powerful. Clinton, by contrast, is an example of someone who used exceptional individual abilities (whether you like the guy or not, and I don't particularly) to raise himself from obscurity. If you wanted to be extremely simplistic about it, you could offer them as respective examples of the "nurture" vs. "nature" route to one very influential job. But here is the point: there are many women in the United States who have as many abilities as Clinton, and as prestigious a social and educational backgrond as Bush. But the chances of such a woman becoming a US president, compared to chances of an equivalent man, are clearly less. And the reason is that the stereotypes that you hold so dear (in which women's professional limitations are extrapolated from their physical limitations) prejudice voters, including female voters.

"No, what it beautifully demonstrates is that I'm not prepared to allow ignorant, unfounded or illogical statements like yours to pass unchallenged on these boards."

Okay, in the spirit of Gaudere's warning, let's get something straight right now. I've been saracastic to you as well so this cuts both ways. I am many things but I am not ignorant; I never make positive statements in the absence of some legitatimate foundation; and I have a reputation, inside and out of my professional work, for extreme lucidity and logical-mindedness. Your inability to recognize that does you no credit.

"How exactly do you conclude that because physical power is no longer of prime importance this proves that past physical prowess didn't set up present conditions?"

Because I think that physical power hasn't been a primary determinant for about 500 years. As a result, I don't think that its residue particularly important (especially when compared to more up-to-date factors such as the distribution of wealth, education, technological skills, access to political power, etc.) I do agree that an impression persists that female physique implies female inferiority. You and I might agree on this might were it not for the fact that you seem not only to recognize the impression but also to justify the impression.


:"Reproductive function needn't have anything to do with [social, economic and political power].

Gaspode: [i]"Well that's debateable at best. Since labour is a very important part of any society and every theory of economics I've seen, reproductive function would have to have no effect on capacity for labor to have socioeconomic quality . Are you saying that this is true?

I am saying that in today's world there is no biological reason why a woman's child-bearing capacities need prevent her from enjoying relative socio-economic and political equality with her male peers. (The term "relative" is inserted to provide a certain leeway for individual choices; for example, some people, often women, don't think of salary as a primary determinant in career choice. That a brilliant and well-educated woman may be, on average, more likely than an equivalent man to choose a less lucrative career in public service than a more lucrative career in financial management, certainly bespeaks the impact of persistent gender patterns, among other things. But as both positions may confer a large degree of individual autonomy and social empowerment, I would not want to make income the ultimate arbiter of prosperity.)

[On hormones]
"studies have found that professional women have higher levels of testosterone than female homemakers" [and no one knows whether cause is genetic or environmental]

"That is comletely irrelevant..."

I find it very interesting that you find this fascinating topic "completely irrelevant." As I said, I think hormones are way overrated. Still, to anyone even remotely interested in age-old nature/nurture questions, I would think this research would be of paramount interest. Since we both agree that testosterone is not in itself a straightforward determinant of success--(if it were, male teenagers would be the most powerful group on the planet)--relative differences of this kind would seem to be very important. And if socialization/environment impacts relative differences, then many avenues of potential inquiry are opened up for folks like you who place great emphasis on hormones.

"Agression and assertiveness are definite assets and men possess more of those traits."

Two complications here. 1) Assertiveness is not a direct function of testoterone level (if it were, and if we could agree on a simple and positive definition of assertiveness, we would be able to predict success from testosterone level). 2) Assertiveness and aggression, insofar as it they are useful rather than counterproductive attributes, are complex human qualities. They are much harder to measure than physical strength. Some people are way too aggressive for their own good. That goes for women as well as men as far as I'm concerned.

"...I'm glad I've never met anyone who believes that hormones don't exert a profound influence on personality, or anyone who believes that men and women are invariably capable of doing the same work."

I don't believe that hormones exert a "profound" influence on personality. Personality is a truly complex human variable. I've seen my own hormones fluctuate due to pregnancy and birth control and my personality remained relatively intact. I've known men who took testosterone supplements because of illness; they felt a bit more energetic but their personality was unchanged. I know many men and women whose personalities are very similar. As to men and women "invariably" being capable of the same work... I don't find that a very controversial position. Granted, few women will be able to do jobs that require the utmost physical exertion of which men are capable. But how many jobs are there in this post-industrial and information-driven age that require this extreme?

"Males and females are psychologically different, not as a result of society but as a result of genetics. That is not hte same as saying that males and females are psychologically different, not as a result of society but [i]solely as a result of genetics."

Actually, the difference between the two statements is fairly slight. In the first case you're suggesting that the impact of socialization is neglible if at all existent. In the second case you're explicity excluding all social impact. Both statements, IMO, are incorrect. Both statements would be rejected by the great majority of psychologists today. I make the latter assertion based on broad familiarity with the basic assumptions of psychology as it taught and practiced today. Perhaps a psychologist Doper can weigh in to support my claim.

"There is indisputable evidence that male and female psychologicall differences are not the result of environment, but can be traced to genetic differences. To say otherwise is poppycock and I will require a cite to support your assertion."

The evidence is everywhere you look. "Psychology" comprehends an enormous number of variables, all difficult to quantify. As to cites, you yourself have admitted how difficult it is to document where biological factors end and cultural factors begin. Perhaps, however, an analogy to race will help to open your mind on this subject. Somewhere in one of your posts you said that there is no genetic basis for race. I agree. Why is it then that American men of African descent (I put women aside to simplify the analogy) are so overwhelmingly disadvantaged (in socio-economic and political terms) relative to their European-descended peers? If one excludes the genetic basis for race, it follows that social factors (everything from material privation and educational access to on-the-job prejudce) accounts for the difference. Why is it so difficult for you to imagine that comparable factors are at play when women who have the same educational background as their male counterparts are not doing as well within fields in which physical strength is not a factor?


"As for whether the ability to breastfeed can explain economic or social inequality I could quite easily suggest taht since a breastfeeding woman, pregnant women, and women giving birth can't perform many types of work, and work is the prime means of obtaining wealth, then such could quite easily explain inequality. How hard is that to figure out."

How statistically relevant is that? Studies on inequalities can and often do control for the impact of time lost for maternity leave. They still find evidence of inequalities: even amongst women who never have children. Besides, how many lucrative and socially important jobs are dangerous for a breastfeeding or pregnant women? Your harping on these factors is, from the point of view of a professional woman, quite naive. My husband and I are both professionals and we are both parents. During my pregnancy I lost no more time from work than in any other year. We took turns taking some family leave from work to spend time with our son during his first year. After that point he was in daycare and we both resumed full-time work. Admittedly, not all men would assume equal responsibility for childcare as my husband has done. But that's a social question not a biological one.

:"An apt question might be, if, say, we were two co-workers with similar abilities and educational backgrounds--which one of us is more likely, statistically, to be promoted into the highest echelons."

Gaspode: "Where exactly do you work? For that matter what planet do you live on? I've never in my entire life seen a job where physical strength and stamina didn't matter to at least some degree, and in all the jobs of held it has been critical to doing the job. If " say, we were two co-workers with similar abilities and educational backgrounds" and promotion was based entirely upon productivity, then I should be statisticallly more likely to get promoted. I find it very hard to believe that you could drive a soil core 1.5 metres into clay and then pull it out. "

And I find it hard to believe that you believe that drilling ability is crucial to "productivity" in most highly skilled jobs.

"Do you see now why on average physical prowess allows men to outperform women, even in fields like science?"

Frankly, no. But I'd like to hear what other Dopers have to say about your opinions on this subject.

[On the importance of nurture, conditioning, what have you]
[I said]:"[S]ince you love animal analogies, haven't you notice that some people train their dogs to be obedient and docile, while others end up being trained by their dogs. Is this a function of dog testosterone?"

Gaspode:[i]"Very much so actually. Evan though dog physiology differs from human male dogs are far more assertive and aggressive than bitchs. The more dominat the dog the more likely she/he is to end up dominating his owner. Of course people can (usually) overcome this, but all things being equall dogs are far more likely to become dominat members of their human pack than bitches. Just as all things being equal men are more likely to be successful in the workplace."

Once again, I appeal to another Doper to take a whack at explaining the manifold deficiencies of this line of reasoning.

"It would run counter to all logic and evidence to suggest that in evry other primate gender is the prime controller of behavioural and personality differences, and yet this is not true for humans. If you can't provide any evidence then this simply becomes another argument from ignorance that once again runs counter to the facts we do have."

True or False: 1) Two construction workers (one female, the other male) will always exhibit more personality differences than two men (one a construction worker, one a supreme court justice). 2) Women raised in thirteenth-century Japan would have more in common with women living in present-day Sweden than they would with males living in thirteenth-century Japan.

If you answered false to either of the above than you have agreed that sex is not the primary controller of personality difference. Speaking from my own experience, when it comes to "personality", I'd give social class and educational background the highest priority; I'd give ethnicity and nationality a certain amount of weight; I'd sometimes give age quite a bit of weight; I'd give family upbringing a great deal of weight. To be sure, gender would also operate as an important variable as well, depending on the person; but insofar as it did, I'd leave open the question of how much the influence in question depended on a biological variable (say, estrogen level), and how much on a cultural variable (say, how much the person in question was raised to believe that conforming to gender norms was important).

:"[Sex = sex organs, but...] "Gender" = masculine/feminine and is far more fluid. We have all kinds of androgynous gender possibilities..."

Gaspode: [i]"Uh, yeah sure. Merriam-webster of course says "the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex".

Yeah, so? Think about it, Gaspode. Merriam-Webster isn't saying that those traits are "typically" associated with that sex on purely biological grounds. Behavior, culture and psychology are not, in other words, determined exclusively or even primarily by biology--however much you believe otherwise. The specific meanings attached to "masculine" and "feminine" vary widely across time and place. As recently as five years ago androgyny was much more encouraged in mainstream American culture than it is today. That's why it's helpful to make a distinction between "sex" (straightforward) and "gender" (not straightforward). In my own case, the sex is female--no question there. But the "gender" is complicated. I sometimes behave in the "typical" feminine fashion; and I sometimes do not.

:"I sincerely hope you enjoy [your testicles/testosterone/six-foot-height] to the fullest. You'll have to forgive me if I am more prone to factor in intelligence, creativity, professional acumen, critical thinking, problem-solving ability, imaginativeness, originality, analytical power, etc. And I don't see how these qualities--many of which are crucial to socio-economic success--are tied to cojones or the lack thereof."

Gaspode:You'll have to forgive me if I am more prone to factor in logic, diligence, work ethic, an ability to comprehend, the avoidance of ad hominems, posssesion of all the facts prior to staing an opinion, open mindedness, rationality, etc.

So are you suggesting that women are illogical? That they're incapable of diligence? That they have no work ethic? That they can't be open-minded? If you were simply saying that [i]I'm like this, so be it. But when I named that long list of qualities that I factor in, I wasn't at all suggesting that you lacked these qualities. I was suggesting that these important qualities aren't tied to reproductive physiology. Got it?

"You...shouldn't have to go around feeling threatened by the indusputable physical superiority of males. You shouldn't have to suggest that it's unfair that nature made us unequal. And you shouldn't have to assume women are being likened to apes just because you believe women are stupid as monkeys as well as weak. I'm sure nature intended for you to be a much more confident and self-assured person than that, with at least a basic capacity to accept the obvious."

The thing is that none of these things apply to me, as I'm sure you'll be willing to admit. I'm not threatened by the physical superiority of males: I often find it useful. I don't believe that nature made us unequal, so I don't think it's unfair. You did liken women to apes (actually chimpanzees), whether you want to admit it or not. Stupidity is not a particularly gender-related trait. Finally, I'm a pretty confident person.

"It's society that has turned you into an emotional, irrational barbie-clone with no capacity for logical thought; I'm not at all sure there's nothing wrong with your genes. Have you considered getting an education and maybe taking a course in logic?"

It would actually be obnoxious at this point for me to list the number of courses I have taken in logic, and the number of degrees I've earned. As I said earlier, this kind of tack does you no credit. But I admit my own sarcasm has brought out the worst in you. As to "irrational barbie-clones"--yes, society does do that to a lot of women; and it tries to do it to all of us. So perhaps we've found a basis of agreement here?

[The Flying Dutchman]

Originally posted by Gaudere
[Moderator Hat ON]

Mandelstam, Gaspode, chill out a bit. You're both edging pretty close to the line.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

This warning is a clear example of the repression of women. I've been allowed to participate in much more heated arguments in GD with Loonie countless times. Society can't stand to see a woman intellectually kick the shit out of a man :D

[HairyPotter]

Originally posted by Mandelstam
I fear, Gaspode that we are both trying the patience of our fellow readers with such long posts, so I've edited out some of the give-and-take. If you would like to re-raise an issue I passed over, however, feel free.

I, for one, have found the Gaspode-Mandelstam exchange very enjoyable. Agreement is seldom terribly interesting, but disagreement can be both entertaining and educational. My hats off to both of you for having the courage and ambition to so thoroughly express your perspectives. While I am trying very hard to avoid sarcasm myself (it gets me into lots of trouble), I found the playful manner in which it was dispensed in these exchanges to be delightful.

Thanks!

[Gaspode]

I think conscription is an anachronistic term to apply to the war practices of feudal times, b/c I'm guessing that the term wasn't in use prior to the age of mass warfare.
Well that's about as silly as saying that referring to a sixth century staghound as a dog is anachronistic because the word didn't exist in the sixth century. The modern English word for this process is conscription, it fits the definition perfectly. It's only anachronistic because the English language has changed. Anyhoo.

Actually in the first sentence, without meaning to, you've encapsulated my position on this entire argument: i.e. no "objective" biological condition precludes modern women from attaining the wealth and education that generally coincide with socio-economic and political power. I don't understand the second sentence, however. The question of "subjugation" in feudal times is bound to be very complicated: most people lacked political and legal rights. Doubtless in 9 out of 10 cases you were better off being a female aristocrat than a male serf. Is that what you're trying to say?
Not really. I'm simply pointing out that your statement that "the warrior class justified their elite status in precisely these terms; peasants didn't bear arms and die in battle" is quite obviously erroneous, and as such all your arguments or rebuttals stemming from it is also erroneous. Neither more nor less than that.


Again, if we can't agree that the "equality" we're debating about is defined in social, economic and political terms, then I have no further interest in this debate. In those terms, needless to say, I entirely disagree with your assertion.
Well I'll agree to that definition for the sake of argument.

Here are just a few socially important jobs for which degree of physical strength is not especially relevant (if relevant at all): President of the US, CEO of General Motors, head of a research lab, financial analyst for Goldman Sachs, college professor, brain surgeon, ambassador to Sri Lanka, computer programmer, scriptwriter, trade union activist, school principal, building inspector, philosopher/intellectual, editor of the New York Times.
And I'd agree with that statement wholeheartedly. What you ar eoverlooking is that no-one (at least in my experience) graduates form university and gets a job as "President of the US, CEO of General Motors, head of a research lab, financial analyst for Goldman Sachs, college professor, brain surgeon, ambassador to Sri Lanka,activist, school principal". All those positions are the result of promotion from entry level positions. And unfortunately in the real world entry level positions are often physically demanding. To take one example that I'm familiar with: head of a reasearch lab. I work in a research department (we won't call it a lab, since we do precious little of our own lab work). The head of my department conducted his Ph. D in the sert country of Sw Queensland, walking 30kms a day, carrying and driving in bundles of steel posts. That job could not have been done by the vast majority of females. As a result of being able to do that job he was gained another job doing baiscally what I am doing now. You will agree I hope that my job requires a fair degree of strength and stamina. As a result of doing my job he was promoted again nd so forth. It's true that now he has no use for physical attributes, but one of the assets that allowed him to take advantage of the opportunities that led to his promotion has been his physical strength. Had he been born a woman with exactly the same genetic makeup, but with a X rather than Y chromosome he would not have been able to take advantage of those opportunies and as such would have had greater difficulty obtaining the same economic success. Similarly the computer programmers I know all started out working in construction and delivery shops, installing and delivering servers etc. I could give you examples of any number of jobs where, while they may not require physical strength at the uper levels, certainly give a considerable advantage to those wo possess it a the entry level. What this demonstrates is that physical stength means that men have greater opportunities for economic success than women.


Further, I find it very hard to believe that the job you describe--in which "cerebral" qualifications are mixed with demanding physical requirements--is very typical.
Then you haven't had much experience in the real world. I would suggest that in practice this is the rule rather than the exception.

Since hiring someone with a specialized skill is very expensive (e.g. computer programmer, surgeon, etc.) and hiring someone to lift heavy objects is comparatively cheap (usually available at minimum wage), few employers will find it economical to employ the same individual for these very different functions.
What you're overlooking is that many jobs require heavy lifting for say 1 hour/day at unpredictable or irregular times . You can't economically afford to hire someone fro just 20 minutes , but the heavy lifting remains an essential part of the job.

(That said, as you well know, many women are willing and able to endure rigorous physical training in order to meet minimum physical requirements that, on average, the typical woman doesn't meet. So, on a case-by-case basis, a woman may be well suited to succeed in your example of steel-drum-hauling/brain-power-burning employment
And I never said otherwise. What you're overlooking is that most graduates, male or female, won't train themselves to well beyond the norm for their gender just on the off chance that a job will become available that requiers that degree of fitness. Even if a woman demonstrated willingness and ability to do the job then we can reasonably assume 8 months training to get the average woman to that level of fitness. This effectively means only men can get the job unless the employer is prepared to suffer economic loss while waiting for the woman's fitness to work up. Quite simply this demonstrates the huge economic advantage conferred on males by their superior strength. To suggest that strength doesn't give a man an economic advantage in this field seems exceedingly strange.

Most socially powerful positions do require unusual intelligence and strong educational credentials (just as lucrative positions in the entertainment world require unusually good looks).
Well I might agree with that, but this is irrelevant to what we were discussing. What you said was that the wealthiest people weren't the most physically powerful, implying that physical strength had no bearing on wealth. What I demonstrated was that the wealthiest peolpe don't seem to hold any particular single asset in spades. My entire point was to demonstrate that just because any given asset isn't held in large quantiites by the rich, that doesn't mean that it isn't an important deciding factor in economic success. As such you can't discount the importnace of strength in earning money just because the wealthiest aren' t the strongest.


But here is the point: there are many women in the United States who have as many abilities as Clinton, and as prestigious a social and educational backgrond as Bush. But the chances of such a woman becoming a US president, compared to chances of an equivalent man, are clearly less.
Well I'd never argue against that assertion.

And the reason is that the stereotypes that you hold so dear (in which women's professional limitations are extrapolated from their physical limitations) prejudice voters, including female voters.
That however is simply an assertion.
Firstly it's a strawman. You have failed to adress this every other time I've requested you to, but I'm going to ask you yet again. Please quote exactly wheer I have ever at any stage, anywhere in this thread stated that "women's professional limitations are extrapolated from their physical limitations". I have never said this, I have never implied this. It is a strawman and no more. If you can't understand the difference between women's proffessional limitations being linked to there physical limitations women's professional limitations are [/i]extrapolated[/i] from their physical limitations then you sorely do need a lesson in logic or English comprehension. Please don't attributre to me things that I have never said.

Secondly that is a completely untestable and unprovaebale asssertion. Can you actually support that statement any better than I can support the statement "And the reason is that the inherent laziness and timidity of women prejudice voters, including female voters."? They are both smply assertions based on opinion and one is every bit as silly and unprovebale as the other. You have eetry right to an opinion, but please don't state your opinions as facts in GD.


"No, what it beautifully demonstrates is that I'm not prepared to allow ignorant, unfounded or illogical statements like yours to pass unchallenged on these boards."

Okay, in the spirit of Gaudere's warning, let's get something straight right now. I've been saracastic to you as well so this cuts both ways. I am many things but I am not ignorant; I never make positive statements in the absence of some legitatimate foundation; and I have a reputation, inside and out of my professional work, for extreme lucidity and logical-mindedness. Your inability to recognize that does you no credit.
Yeah, and I'm never mean to people and I have a reputation at work as a nice bloke. I'm widely regaded as being far cleverer than you. Why can't you see that? Why? Why? :rolleyes:

Mandelstram I really couldn't give a rats arse at this juncture whether you are ignorant or otherwise. You must learn in a debate to distinguish betweeen someone saying that your argument or statement is "ignorant, unfounded or illogical" and saying that you are ignorant. The spirit of the Mods warning was not to suggest that i shouldn;t call you argument ignorant, because in that particular instance it was, is and remainas so. I never called you ignorant, but you statement certainly was ignorant. Let's examine it again shall we. You said "women are now able and willing to help defend the realm." I responded that "Women are still largely unable and apparently unwilling to defend the realm.", a point which you conceded. The fact remains that your staement was either ignorant, illogical or unfounded.

Because I think that physical power hasn't been a primary determinant for about 500 years. As a result, I don't think that its residue particularly important (especially when compared to more up-to-date factors such as the distribution of wealth, education, technological skills, access to political power, etc.)
I think that water transport hasn't been a primary determinant for about 100 years. As a result, I don't think that its residue particularly important (especially when compared to more up-to-date factors such as the distribution of wealth, education, technological skills, access to political power, etc.). Big deal. I can beleive what I like, but it's still illogical and counter to all evidence to suggest that past factors that were important have no bearing on the present.
Is that really all that your argument comes down to: "I think"?

I do agree that an impression persists that female physique implies female inferiority. You and I might agree on this might were it not for the fact that you seem not only to recognize the impression but also to justify the impression.
The impression doesn't need justifying, it's a fact.
I will ask you a very simple question mandelstram. Were my position to become vacant tommorrrow does the female physique preclude the majority of women from filling the position?
If the answer is no then how the hell can you suggest that in this one case at least the female physique does not make women "of less value' economically to my employer?
If a female is "of less value" to my employer than how the hell can you suggest that she can possibly have economic equality in this one case? She can't be paid more for doing less work because tha isn't economically equal. So how can she gain economic equality in this instance exactly?

If the answer to the initial question is yes please be prepared with cites that suggest the average Ausralian woman can clear lift 80kg.


I am saying that in today's world there is no biological reason why a woman's child-bearing capacities need prevent her from enjoying relative socio-economic and political equality with her male peers.
The rpoblem with that is that all things being equal, if a man and woman both decide to have a child only one is going to be prevented from working by that decision. Since work is the prime force behind economic sucess I am saying that there is a very valid biological reason why a woman's child-bearing capacities need prevent her from enjoying relative socio-economic equality with her male peers.


[quite]I find it very interesting that you find this fascinating topic "completely irrelevant."[/quote]
relly. I also find the angular momentum of the moon, the political situation in Bolivia, the palaeantological digs in Schechuan and the means of special effects production in "JPII" to be both fascinating and irrlevant. Do you find that interesting? Just because something is fascinating does not mean it has any releveance to the debate at hand.


As I said, I think hormones are way overrated.
Yes and I think that the IPU exists. Both beliefs however run counter to all scientific data, all expeimental evidednc and are completely illogical and groundless. You have presented here a classic argument from ignorance.


Still, to anyone even remotely interested in age-old nature/nurture questions, I would think this research would be of paramount interest.
and indeed I'm sure it is. It is not howver of any interest when used to support your assertion that hormonal differences between male and femlae may not be due to gonadla differences. Because even in the study cited I'm certain that the men still had testosterone levels orders of magnitude higher than women and as such this research is completely and utterly irrlevant. I'll ask you again, do yu honestly believe that environmental factors could ever drive a womans testosterone levels up highre than a man's

we both agree that testosterone is not in itself a straightforward determinant of success relative differences of this kind would seem to be very important.
No they wouldn't because you made the statement that hormonal differences between men and women may- and I stress may- be the result of gonadal differences. This is an ignorant statement. There is absolutley no doubt whatsever that the hormonal differences between men and women are the result of gonadal differences. To suggest otherwise flies in the face of all scientific knowledge. The article only possibly provides evidence that intra-gender hormonal levels may be determined by environment. It in no way even suggests that inter-gender differences are the result of anything other than gonadal differences.
Please tell me you can understand the difference between these two concepts?

And if socialization/environment impacts relative differences, then many avenues of potential inquiry are opened up for folks like you who place great emphasis on hormones.
Yes, and if the moon was made of green cheese then we could bring it to Earth and feed the starving millions. Of course the moon isn't made of green cheese any more than environment implacts relative differences. The relative difference in testosterone levls between men and wmen is inxcess of 10 fold. I will bet pounds to pence that the research refererred to (but not actually cited) never found even a 3 fold increase in female testosterone. Quite clearly environmental differnces impact the relative difences within genders, but not between genders. really the concept isn't that hard. To use an analogy you are saying that because environmental factors can be demonstrated to improve internal combustion engine performance that casts doubt over the assumption that jets faster than prop planes due to engine differences.


Assertiveness is not a direct function of testoterone level
Your quite right, of course no-one has ever said any such thing so this becomes yet another strawman.
Similarly strength is not a direct function of muscle mass, height is not a direct function of bone length, hunger is not a direct function of time since eating. Nothing in human biology/psychology is a direct function of anything else. Other factors always come into play. What we can say is that there is an extremely tight correlation between height and bone length, strength and muscle mass and assertiveness and testosterone. That isn't specualtion, it's scientific fact. Cites will be provided if you care to dispute.


if it were, and if we could agree on a simple and positive definition of assertiveness, we would be able to predict success from testosterone level
My god, how completely illogical. "Aggression isn't a function of testosterone level because if it were we could use it to predict success."Ho many logical fallacies in that one statement?
Even if aggression were a direct linear function of testosterone levels you can't then go on to assume that success must be a direct linear function of agression. That's completely illogical. It's the same as saying that weight can't be a function of height because if it were we could use height to predict Sumo champions.
Your whole argument is flawed because it hinges on the assumption that aggression is the sole contributing factor to success, and that is patently not true. You can't logically assume any correlation between aggression and success, any more than you can between attractiveness, strength, intelligence, education, diplomacy or any of a range of other skills. Yet it's universally accepted that all of those factors contribute to success.
That argument is probably the most logically flawed I've seen all year.

Assertiveness and aggression, insofar as it they are useful rather than counterproductive attributes, are complex human qualities. They are much harder to measure than physical strength. Some people are way too aggressive for their own good. That goes for women as well as men as far as I'm concerned.
Oh of course, just as some peolpe are undoubtedly too logical, too educated, too tall, too strong, too attractive etc. to be eligible for many positions. That doesn't detract in any way from the fact that all those things are assets in their own right.

I don't believe that hormones exert a "profound" influence on personality. Personality is a truly complex human variable. I've seen my own hormones fluctuate due to pregnancy and birth control and my personality remained relatively intact.
Which is well on par with saying that my Grandpa smoked seven packs a day until he was 110 and therefore smoking doesn't have a profound effect on lung cancer. That hormones have a profound effect on prsonality isn't really open for debate in the scientific community. It's accepted fact.
If you doubt me then do a quick google search on 'steroids psychological'.


I've known men who took testosterone supplements because of illness; they felt a bit more energetic but their personality was unchanged.know many men and women whose personalities are very similar.
And again I say, Grandpa smoked seven packs a day until he was 110 and therefore smoking doesn't have a profound effect on lung cancer. You do know how invalid an argument from anecdote is don't you? Can you actually produce any scientific evidecne suggesting that hormones don't have a profound effect on personality, or is your entire argument based on asssetion?

I As to men and women "invariably" being capable of the same work... I don't find that a very controversial position. Granted, few women will be able to do jobs that require the utmost physical exertion of which men are capable.
So men and women can't invariably do the same jobs. Fine, that's settled.
Now will you accept that the majority of women are in fact incapable of performing the type of physical work that the majority of men are? (And be pre-warned, I do have figures on the relaive strengths and aerobic scope of the average man and woman).

"Males and females are psychologically different, not as a result of society but as a result of genetics. That is not hte same as saying that males and females are psychologically different, not as a result of society but solely as a result of genetics."

Actually, the difference between the two statements is fairly slight. In the first case you're suggesting that the impact of socialization is neglible if at all existent.
No I'm not, I'm saying that indisputably male and female psychology differs as a result of genetics. that's not even open for debate in the scientific community. The statement, IMO, is completely and indisputably correct. That statements would be accepted by the great majority of psychologists today. I make the latter assertion based on broad familiarity with the basic assumptions of psychology as it taught and practiced today.
Gee it's easy to argue from authority when the authority is your own. Comletely illogical of course, but easy. :cool:



There is indisputable evidence that male and female psychologicall differences are not the result of environment, but can be traced to genetic differences. To say otherwise is poppycock and I will require a cite to support your assertion.
The evidence is everywhere you look.
And that folks is the sum total of her evidence. Sorry but I don't think too many peolpe around these parts are going to be convinced by "the evidence of creation is everywhere you look" arguments. Such an argument is completely illogical and baseless.

Why is it then that American men of African descent (I put women aside to simplify the analogy) are so overwhelmingly disadvantaged (in socio-economic and political terms) relative to their European-descended peers?
Well i would argue that it is because thay were disadvantaged by society in the past. But by your own argument from ignorance since skin colour hasn't been a primary determinant for about 150 years I don't think that its residue particularly important (especially when compared to more up-to-date factors such as the distribution of wealth, education, technological skills, access to political power, etc.)


Why is it so difficult for you to imagine that comparable factors are at play when women who have the same educational background as their male counterparts are not doing as well within fields in which physical strength is not a factor?
I love a good strawman.
Where have I ever said that I don't acept this. You appear to be assuming that "There is indisputable evidence that male and female psychologicall differences are not the result of environment, but can be traced to genetic differences" in fact means "There is indisputable evidence that male and female psychologicall differences are not the result of environment, but can be traced solely to genetic differences"
You can continue to perpetuate this strawman, but I'm going to ignore it from now on.

Studies on inequalities can and often do control for the impact of time lost for maternity leave.
But during such leave a woman can't be geting paid so she is immediatly economically disadvantaged isn't she? Or is she getting paid while not working, in which case she is economically advantaged? Either way economic equality isn't possible.

They still find evidence of inequalities: even amongst women who never have children.
The issue at hand here is how reproductive physiology could lead to economic inequality. I've demonstrated how this is so. The fact that this obviously can't be applied to unreproductive women is a strawman thorugh and through. All other factors being equal if a male and a female decide to have children, reproductive physiology will necessarily lead to economic inequality. You implied that this wasn't the case.

Besides, how many lucrative and socially important jobs are dangerous for a breastfeeding or pregnant women?
It doesn't matter. You implied that reproductive physiology could never lead to economic inequalities. If only 1% of breastfeeding women are prevented from working then we have economic inequality due to reproductive physiology don't we?
And again you make the logical fallacy of assuming that there is no connection between lucrative and socially important jobs and lower paying and socially irrelevenat jobs. I can quite easily demonstrate that this isn't the case, and if women are disadvantaged at the lower paying and socially irrelevant entry level, then such disadvantage must carry on through the pyramid to the lucrative and socially important jobs.

Your harping on these factors is, from the point of view of a professional woman, quite naive.
And your assumption that access to lucrative and socially important jobs is unrelated to an ability to perform lower paying and socially irrelevant entry level jobs is extremely naive to anyone who has experience of the real world, male or famale, working or not. Do you really believe that as many promotional opportunities are available for those unable to perform their jobs as there are for those who aren't?


My husband and I are both professionals and we are both parents. During my pregnancy I lost no more time from work than in any other year.... yadda, yadda, yadda
And again I have to say that my Grandpa smoked seventeen packs a day until he died hearty and hale at the age of 112. that demonstrates that smoking doesn't have any effect on the equality of lung function.
You can see your logical fallacy here can't you mandelstram? Because you were able to do it doesn't meant that a Jillaroo working at Winton could do it, or a railway navvy in Colorado, or a coal-miner confined underground for 4 hours at a time, or an airline pilot subject to regular depressurisation, or a swimming instructor, or an ecologist working out of a vehicle in the Amazon basin and sleeping under the stars, or an IT consultant flying 5000 kms/week. You are one case, but all things being equal reproductive physilogy will necessarily place women at an economic difference to men, just as all thing being equal smoking will diminish your helath and increase your chnace of heart disease.

An apt question might be, if, say, we were two co-workers with similar abilities and educational backgrounds--which one of us is more likely, statistically, to be promoted into the highest echelons."
And I find it hard to believe that you believe that drilling ability is crucial to "productivity" in most highly skilled jobs.
And I find it hard to believe you would come up with that strawman. You asked, if we were co-workers, who would be more statistically likely to be promoted. I replied that it would be me, not inherently because I am male but because I can do the job and you can't. You were attempting to imply that the inequality male:female promotion was a result of inherent gender bias and not based on relative performance capabilities of men and women. I have demonstrated how such an assumption isn't valid.

Now as for your staement concerning the importance of strength in high skilled jobs I will say again that that is based on an illogical assumption that access to high-skilled jobs is unrelated to ability to perform low-tech jobs. I will also state that I have never in my life worked in a highly skilled position that did not require physical strength, nor have I ever known anyone else who did. I'm sure they exist but my experience leads me to conclude they are the exception rather than the rule. Doctors are required to lift heavy patients. Surveyors need to be able to move bundles of survey markers, cut roads etc. My freind who works in It occasionally finds himself dangling by one arm while trying to affix a cable. the fact that more opportunities for highly skilled jobs are available to the stronger people means that there is an inherent inequality between men and women.

"Do you see now why on average physical prowess allows men to outperform women, even in fields like science?"
Frankly, no. But I'd like to hear what other Dopers have to say about your opinions on this subject.
So you don't understand how for an ecologist cutting a track with a chainsaw physical prowess will allow him to outperform a woman incapable of operating the saw for more than a few minutes? How about a vet moving a 250kg seal carcass onto tarp to weigh it? Or a botanist doing destructive sampling of rainforest logs?
How much simpler can I make it. He can do the job, she can't. I'm sure you'd have to conclude that's outperforming.

Once again, I appeal to another Doper to take a whack at explaining the manifold deficiencies of this line of reasoning.
So you made a statement with insufficient information to support it, and instead of adressing the issue you plead for help.
Well it certainly shows the strength of your position.

True or False: 1) Two construction workers (one female, the other male) will always exhibit more personality differences than two men (one a construction worker, one a supreme court justice).
Can't know. Please provide any cites supporting your position, including what you were basing personality similarities on. I know of dozens of different personality scales, descriptions etc. and on most of them I've got no reason to believe your above answer is true.

Women raised in thirteenth-century Japan would have more in common with women living in present-day Sweden than they would with males living in thirteenth-century Japan.
Again, can't know. Please provide any cites supporting your position, including what you were basing the phrase 'in common' on. I know of dozens of different personality scales, descriptions etc. and on most of them I've got no reason to believe your above answer is true.

If you answered false to either of the above than you have agreed that sex is not the primary controller of personality difference.
Well isn't it a good thing I didn't. the problem heer is you have another argument from assertion. there's no facts to support your position, it's just base don your opinion.


Speaking from my own experience, when it comes to "personality", I'd give venusian mind control and the grace of the IPU the highest priority; I'd give hair colour and height a certain amount of weight; I'd sometimes give frequency of teeth brushing quite a bit of weight; I'd give phase of the moon a great deal of weight. To be sure, star sign would also operate as an important variable as well, depending on the person; but insofar as it did, I'd leave open the question of how much the influence in question depended on an astronomical variable (say, position of Mars), and how much on a occult variable (say, how much the person in question was raised to believe in witches).
And the fact that the above statement is as thoroughly supported by facts as Mandelstrams original from which it was parodied demonstrates just how much of an argument from assertion her position is. There are absolutely no facts here, just assertion that it is so.

Think about it, Gaspode. Merriam-Webster isn't saying that those traits are "typically" associated with that sex on purely biological grounds.
Which demonstrates that my use of the word gender to denote male/female is wrong how exactly?


Behavior, culture and psychology are not, in other words, determined exclusively or even primarily by biology--however much you believe otherwise.
And in order to prove that isn't a strawman i'll give you the opportunity to quote me where I said that I did believe that "behavior, culture and psychology are determined exclusively or even primarily by biology". As much fun as I'm sure your having with these sly little jibes they're not really advancing the debate and serve only to demonstrate the logical fallacies in your argument. Please argue against my position as stated.

So are you suggesting that women are illogical?
Well considering that the statement in question is parody of yourself I think you should answer first. You do know what a parody is don't you? Do you know what an ad hominem is? Do you understand why when you attempt one in GD it gets a mocking response? Do you realise how silly it is to expect a sensible answer when it's directed at a parody.
My Gods, when even sarcasm flies right by their isn't much hope.


The thing is that none of these things apply to me

You don't say. I really thought you were having never met you. :rolleyes:
It's actually rather sad that you apparantly don't understand it when I parody your own words.

Finally, I'm a pretty confident person.
Yep, like I give a rats. :rolleyes:

As I said earlier, this kind of tack does you no credit.
Well bearing in mind that this tack was only a paraphrasing of your own statement I wonder where that leaves your own esteemed self. If you're so sensitive of criticism then don't post comments far more worthy of the Pit.


AHunter3
Fooey, I'm several years out of academia and it astonishing to me that this would be considered a claim sufficiently in doubt as to require references.
Well the reason why I find it so hard to beleive is because I know of provision of communal resources in Middle Eastern, North American Indian, SE Asian, Indian, Polish and British agricultural communitites. I can only recall ever seeing refernces to parentless children being abandoned in post-industrialisation setting :eg Dickens. While I don't doubt that single parent fanilies weren't well off in agricultural communities I just feel your statement that the attitude was one of "look after me and mine and everyone else can go to hell" is grossly overstated. I'm quite prepared to be proved wrong but it would run counter to all I have learned so far.

BTW lucky bastard probably doesn't have quite the origins you seem to think. In Australia and parts of the UK bastard is considered a term of rough affection. You'll equally hear references to tough bastard, happy bastard, rich bastard etc. It's got nothing to do with the actual definition of bastard, it's just a non-insult.

You are asking, I assume, how my (admittedly superficial) explanation for why women put up with patriarchal origins glides smoothly into a situation where women are oppressed (& repressed)
Couldn't have said it better myself.

to whatever extent women were "free from" a portion of that activity in exchange for their duties and burdens as mothers, they were to that same extent separated from the locus of activity in which surplus, profit, and advantageous trade arose
Well that seems to make snse, except that I can think of numerous agrarian societies where the bulk of the commerce was left in the hands of the women. This was I assume because while the men were working a pregnant woman could still contribute by negotiationg prices etc. It seems even from the quran and the bible that whatever trade was going on was atbleast as much the domain of women as men. How exactly do you propose that men came to control mercantile affairs (which they obviously did). Surely right from the first deal a woman could have done as good a deal as a man and as such needn't have been left out of the loop. Although I still agree with your hypothesis it just seems like you'r saying that 'men took control of the money'. obviously this was true eventually and obviously this gave considerable power to men, but it just pushes the question back one more level without actually adressing why this was so.

It's also interesting to note that you assume that men did most of the field work, when eveything I've seen suggests that women did as much or more of this work while the men humted or performed heavy or skilled labour.

Biggirl
Perhaps you should read AHunter's posts. They show exactly why and how patriachal societies arose. You keep asking why women are repressed now when that question was answered on page one of this thread.
I have read Ahunters posts and i still question them for the same reason I am questioning yours. You both appear to be pushing the question. In the case of Ahunter the quetsion is being pushed back so at least wheer getting somewhere. In your case you are pushing it around in circles.
Oh yeah. The fact that an answer you like was posted on the first page doesn't meant that it was the answer. That's why this is a debate.

A long, long time ago our species found it advantageous for the females to stay close to home while the males went out to do all the things that could not be done at home.
Well now lets see. That isn't true of hunter/gatherers because the women travelled at least as afr as if not further than the men. It's not true of early agriculturalists because as Ahunter says both men and women worked the fields. So that only becomestrue of agricultural societies wheer women were already in a position of economic dependence. Again I have to say that you are arguing around in circles. Women are repressed because they lack fincancial control, they lack financial control because they stay at home, yet they only stay at home because they lack financial control. You're not actually answering the question here.


One million years later, Gaspode postulates that the reason women are repressed is because they can't fight in wars.

uh huh. And you'd be able to quote where I said that wouldn't you Biggirl? It's not a strawman at all.


What is your point here? You conceed that fighting in war has been considered an honor and bestows glory on the men who did it, but you want cites on each individual man to see if he, himself, wanted to go to war?
No, I want cites that show that your statements that "most men are more than willing to fight for their county" and that "men (that is all men) thought fighting wars was a noble thing to do" are not, in fact, as ignorant, illogical, counter factual and irrelevant as they appear. That's all. Not surprisingly it appears you can't. As such we can all validly ignore your enire argumnt, which seems to hinge on this point.

Ah, now I see. The reason women are repressed today is because Gaspode and Google believe women cannot serve on the front line. The millenia or so of treating women like chattle is the natural order of things because men fight wars and women shouldn't. Thank you for showing me the light.
Ahh, I love a good strawman.
In point of fact the passage you are responding to here was directed explicitly at someone who made the rather outrageous comment that there was no debate about wheteher women could fight on the front lines as well as men. But don't let the facts get in the way Biggirl. Since you apparently have no actual facts to support your argument resort to logical fallacies instead. :rolleyes:

I honestly don't think that Cecil himself could show you the light.


And to Hairy potter,
Thanks, glad to see we're keeping someone entertained. :)

[HairyPotter]

Originally posted by Gaspode
[quote]I think conscription is an anachronistic term to apply to the war practices of feudal times, b/c I'm guessing that the term wasn't in use prior to the age of mass warfare.

Deleted

Further, I find it very hard to believe that the job you describe--in which "cerebral" qualifications are mixed with demanding physical requirements--is very typical.
Then you haven't had much experience in the real world. I would suggest that in practice this is the rule rather than the exception.

I have worked for as a Systems Engineer in a wide variety of areas, such as machine tool advanced control R&D, expendable luanch vehicle performance analyses, industrial process control, information technology, and industrial information management systems. Over my career, I have performed work in a wide array of roles, and worked with individuals at all levels within the companies involved. A tiny percentage of the jobs I performed, or witnessed others performing, required physical prowess beyond that of an "average" woman. Some entry-level positions require physically demanding work, but the majority of positions I am aware of do not. Based on this experience, I have to dispute your assertion that physically demanding jobes are the rule, as opposed to the exception, in the developed world.

I wish also to state that your rebuttal, Gaspode, went beyond rational discussion and contained a number of offensive remarks. You repeatedly referred to Mandelstam's remarks as "ignorant" or "illogical". You remarked that Mandelstam lacked the ability to interpret the English language. I believe that these remarks should be strongly discouraged in the GD OP. Argue the logic, present facts or thoughts that counter arguments with which you disagree, but [b]don't[b] insult the individual with whom you disagree.

[dentarthurdent]

http://www.theonion.com/onion3731/girls_no_good_at_genocide.html

[ducking for cover]
Don't shoot! it was just satire....:)
[/ducking for cover]

[Gaspode]

Based on this experience, I have to dispute your assertion that physically demanding jobes are the rule, as opposed to the exception, in the developed world.
Well considering neither of us have any actual evidence then we'll have to agree to disagree.

You repeatedly referred to Mandelstam's remarks as "ignorant" or "illogical".
And I will continue to do so. This board is dedicated to fighting ignorance, and if a statement is ignorant I will identify it as such. I will say again, there is a wrodl of difference between calling a person ignorant and drawing attention to the fact that their argument is ignorant.


Argue the logic,
How can I argue the logic without pointing out that such 'logic' is obviously based on ignorance?

present facts or thoughts that counter arguments with which you disagree, but [b]don't[b] insult the individual with whom you disagree.
And I will say again, you need to learn to distinguish between drawing attention to the obvious logical and factual deficiencies of a poster's arguments and assertions, and drawing attention to the poster's obvious deficiencies. If the Mods have a problem with my style I have no doubt whatsoever they will inform me. If you have a problem please take it to The Pit, here such comments rightly belong.

[Biggirl]

Originally posted by Gaspode
One million years later, Gaspode postulates that the reason women are
repressed is because they can't fight in wars.

uh huh. And you'd be able to quote where I said that wouldn't you Biggirl?
It's not a strawman at all.
Why yes I could.

Originally posted by Gaspode in response to the OP: Why are women
repressed.
Men have one major responsibility which until very recently women were
essentially unable unable to fulfill. That responsibility has been to lay
down their lives for their society in times of war and even today women have
a limited capacity to fulfil this function.





Originally posted by Gaspode

Ah, now I see. The reason women are repressed today is because Gaspode
and Google believe women cannot serve on the front line. The millenia or so
of treating women like chattle is the natural order of things because men
fight wars and women shouldn't. Thank you for showing me the light.

Ahh, I love a good strawman.
In point of fact the passage you are responding to here was directed
explicitly at someone who made the rather outrageous comment that there was
no debate about wheteher women could fight on the front lines as well as
men. But don't let the facts get in the way Biggirl. Since you apparently
have no actual facts to support your argument resort to logical fallacies
instead. :rolleyes:


You have explicitly stated that women are not the desicion makers in our
society because men have to fight wars.

If men are going to die then they at least want to feel that the
decisions are being made by others who know what is at stake. There is also
a perception that if you're going to be asked to shoulder a responsibility
like that then there has to be some additional rights that go along with
it.

You then explicitly state that you do not believe women can, even now, be
effective soldiers.
There are physiological reasons why women are still unsuited for many
of the more dangerous combat posts, and I doubt any society will conscript
women for frontline posts.

By the way, the Israeli Army does this now, so you can erase that doubt.

You have implied that sexual dimorphism makes women unfit to for advancement
in the workplace

. Men are inherently more assertive and agressive than women, and
since in so many fields being agressive and assertive are vital to an
ability to perform the job men are naturally going to perform better.


You have treated the biological differences between men and women as some
kind of point system in which supposedly male attributes get a plus and all
other qualities are a push. Men are inherently more assertive and agressive than women, and since in so many fields being agressive and assertive are vital to an ability to perform the job men are naturally going to perform better. Yes of course. And a chimpazee will make a better soldier than a quadraplegic with a comlete inability to communicate. But the vast majority of humans make better soldiers than the vast majority of chimps, and the fact remains that the vast majority of men are stronger, faster, fitter and more agressive than the vast majority of womenI suggest that you go pick up a basic human physiology text and do some reading if you need to ask how men and women are necessarily and inevitably unequal.Do you see now why on average physical prowess allows men to outperform women, even in fields like science?
As if different means the same as unequal.



You have repeatedly called every point you did not feel like dealing with "a strawman".
In response to my post about present day discrimination in the US military.
And here we see a classic strawman.

In response to me when I pointed out that crippled men did fight in wars when Gaspode explicitly said they didn't Ahh a strawmna.

In response to Mandelstam's point that it does not have to be a choice between nuture or nature
Ahh what a beautiful strawman.


In response to Mandelstam's very relevant point that strength should not be the deciding factor in men's socio-economic advantage over women Ahh I just love strawmen


I could continue, but I think the pattern has been established.



It doesn't seem as if you realize people can actually read what you write and interpret what you are saying. Well, of course not, because everyone who disagrees with you is illogical, illiterate and in need of a few lessons in
history and physiology. All of this "might makes right" presupposes that the biggest factor in being an excellent soldier is strength. So it should follow that all the best soldiers are the strongest ones, right? And the best scientists and the best surgeons and the best lawyers and the best politicians are all the strongests ones from their graduating class.

This tremendous leap in logic cannot be questioned. Anyone who questions it is ignorant. You have come to these conclusions through your extensive reading of history books, phsyology and military law and you are beyond fallicy.

Originally posted by Gaspode
No, I want cites that show that your statements that "most men are more than willing to fight for their county" and that "men (that is all men) thought fighting wars was a noble thing to do" are not, in fact, as ignorant, illogical, counter factual and irrelevant as they appear. That's all. Not surprisingly it appears you can't. As such we can all validly ignore your enire argumnt, which seems to hinge on this point.
No, my arguement does not hinge on this point, but this is the only point you are willing to address. And since you are waiting for me to come up with cites that show how men have been willing to fight and die for their country throughout history, I suppose you'll have time to look up all the cites that say that most men did not want to fight and die for their country.
No, don't bother looking. I've had about enough of you.

[HairyPotter]

Originally posted by Gaspode
Based on this experience, I have to dispute your assertion that physically demanding jobes are the rule, as opposed to the exception, in the developed world.
Well considering neither of us have any actual evidence then we'll have to agree to disagree.

You repeatedly referred to Mandelstam's remarks as "ignorant" or "illogical".
And I will continue to do so. This board is dedicated to fighting ignorance, and if a statement is ignorant I will identify it as such. I will say again, there is a wrodl of difference between calling a person ignorant and drawing attention to the fact that their argument is ignorant.


Argue the logic,
How can I argue the logic without pointing out that such 'logic' is obviously based on ignorance?

present facts or thoughts that counter arguments with which you disagree, but [b]don't[b] insult the individual with whom you disagree.
And I will say again, you need to learn to distinguish between drawing attention to the obvious logical and factual deficiencies of a poster's arguments and assertions, and drawing attention to the poster's obvious deficiencies. If the Mods have a problem with my style I have no doubt whatsoever they will inform me. If you have a problem please take it to The Pit, here such comments rightly belong.

Gaspode,

If anyone should move to The Pit, it is yourself. A three-year-old can proclaim any argument "illogical" or "ignorant". I guess that one might logically conclude that an intellectual core sample collector, capable of tremendous physical prowess is capable of equally stunning rhetorical arguments. You are obviously on a crusade to defend your tiny, provincial little reality. I wish you happiness in your narrow little world. Thank God, I am in a profession where base workmen only come in occasionally to move heavy objects or deal with simple mechanical HVAC systems.

By the way, what color is the sky in your world, Gaspode?

[Gaspode]

[/quote]Thank God, I am in a profession where base workmen only come in occasionally to move heavy objects or deal with simple mechanical HVAC systems.[/quote]
ANd I am equally thankful that I live in a world where a persons occupation doesn't define there entire worth and being. I really can't stand elitists who assume that anyone who does a manual job is 'base'.

[Mandelstam]

Greetings all...

["conscription" in feudal times anachronistic]
Gaspode:"Well that's about as silly as..."

No, Gaspode it isn't silly. History is clearly not your strong point. I'm suggesting that the word would have not existed at the time b/c the concept it conveyed would have had no meaning. I'm guessing that the concept of conscription depends on a more advanced notion of the rights of individuals than existed in fedual times.

"Here are just a few socially important jobs for which degree of physical strength is not especially relevant (if relevant at all): President of the US, CEO of General Motors, head of a research lab, financial analyst for Goldman Sachs, college professor, brain surgeon, ambassador to Sri Lanka, computer programmer, scriptwriter, trade union activist, school principal, building inspector, philosopher/intellectual, editor of the New York Times.

Gaspode: "...What you ar eoverlooking is that no-one (at least in my experience) graduates form university and gets a job as "President of the US [etc.]... All those positions are the result of promotion from entry level positions. And unfortunately in the real world entry level positions are often physically demanding..."

Well clearly in your case that's so. Most politicians, however, begin as lawyers. (Bush was the owner of the Texas Rangers, now owned by a woman, I believe.) Most CEOs start by getting MBAs (some hefty textbooks there), and go on to be entry-level managers (hard lugging that laptop around, admittedly). College professors get their PhDs which can, admittedly involve dealing with heavy stuff like pocket calculators and dissertations. Brain surgeons? Well there's that scalpel they'll have to wield all through med school. Philosphers. Phew! There's a heavy load. Ever tried to lift a copy of The Phenomenolgy of Mind at the same time as The Critique of Pure Reason?

Perhaps you get my point. You're assertion that "in the real world," the entry level stages to these important jobs would involve physical demands beyond the scope of average women is ludicrous.

I will add that when I was in grad school I worked part-time in a record store. At the entry level, this job involved lugging around boxes of CDs; a task I performed less well than most of my male peers. Yet I was promoted faster than any of them, and soon was an assistant manager. The reason? I could alphabetize ;).

"...[T]he computer programmers I know all started out working in construction and delivery shops, installing and delivering servers etc.

Really? Most of the computer programmers I know (and I know a lot were hired right out of college at around $50,000/year. A few who didn't have a BSCS to begin with worked in tech support, testing, or sales. I did know one person who worked in maintenance for a large university, a job that involved installing hardware on a daily basis. She is now a very well-paid programmer for a telephone company. Oh and female construction workers? No shortage of those in any of the four major US cities I've lived in in the last 15 years.

..."What this demonstrates is that physical stength means that men have greater opportunities for economic success than women."

Some "greater opportunities," yes. Sufficient to explain existing socio-economic inequalities? No, I very much doubt that.

"Quite simply this demonstrates the huge economic advantage conferred on males by their superior strength. To suggest that strength doesn't give a man an economic advantage in this field seems exceedingly strange."

What is the field we're talking about here. So far we have your own experience doing research. I can't think of a single highly-skilled "field" (outside of athletics) in which substantial physical strength is, across the board, a required or even desirable feature. Can you?

"[The reason a woman isn't as likely as a male peer to be elected president is that] the stereotypes that you hold so dear (in which women's professional limitations are extrapolated from their physical limitations) prejudice voters, including female voters."

[i]"Please quote exactly wheer I have ever at any stage, anywhere in this thread stated that "women's professional limitations are extrapolated from their physical limitations". I have never said this, I have never implied this.

Well, as a matter of fact you say much the same thing in your latest post. Voila...

I wrote:
"I do agree that an impression persists that female physique implies female inferiority. You and I might agree on this might were it not for the fact that you seem not only to recognize the impression but also to justify the impression."

You replied:
"The impression doesn't need justifying, it's a fact."

To be sure, "extrapolate from" and "imply" are not wholly identical, but they're pretty close. And when I wrote "female inferiority" I meant in the professional workplace. But even if you took me to mean simply "inferiority" without the professional context, you would still be perpetuating a stereotype. You would be maintaining that inferior strength makes an inferior person and that is stereotypical thinking in the extreme.

"Secondly that is a completely untestable and unprovaebale asssertion. Can you actually support that statement any better than I can support the statement "And the reason is that the inherent laziness and timidity of women prejudice voters, including female voters"?

Can I "prove" that people (including) women are biased against women? Absolutely. Numerous studies have confirmed it. Do I attribute that bias more to women's physique than, say, to a perception that women are lazy or timid? Not at all. I see the bias to stem from a large number of factors: some actual (physique) other fabricated (women's alleged irrationality). Recall, I'm not the one here who's hung up on the issue of physical strength.

"...You said "women are now able and willing to help defend the realm." I responded that "Women are still largely unable and apparently unwilling to defend the realm.", a point which you conceded.

For the record, I did not "concede" that point. I conceded that it was--as you had suggested--a separate issue. However, I prefer to let Biggirl reply to questions of women in the military.

: [i]"...[P]hysical power hasn't been a primary determinant for about 500 years. As a result, I don't think that its residue [is]particularly important...."

Gaspode: "...I can beleive what I like, but it's still illogical and counter to all evidence to suggest that past factors that were important have no bearing on the present. Is that really all that your argument comes down to: "I think"? [emphasis added]

First of all, I am a trained historian with a doctorate from a top history department, publications, and experience teaching at the university level. Prior to leaving academia I used to sometimes volunteer in local schools talking to six and seven-year-olds about the importance of history. I do not exaggerate when I say that most of those children had a much better grasp of history than you do.

Historians Gaspode "think." They look at the evidence, they think about it, and they offer an interpretation of what happened and why. History is hardly ever black and white. Sometimes they disagree with another historian's interpretation and the two historians then have a debate about what they "think."

Based on my own knowledge of Western history--which is pretty substantial--I do not "think" that physical strength remains an important criterion for professional success. Only a specialized labor historian, or possibly a sociologist of labor will have the kind of data at hand that would satisfy you on this score. However, I am offering an educated guess when I say that I do not believe that the residue of the strength factor from pre-industrial times accounts for presentday socio-economic inequalities. As I said before, I do believe there are historical reasons--many of them--but I don't believe yours is a strong one. Feel free to disagree with me, by all means, but do not tell me that "it's...illogical and counter to all evidence to suggest that past factors that were important have no bearing on the present." I did not say they had "no" bearing; I simply think that what bearing these factors have is, by now, small. There are too many other more important historical factors: e.g., the sexual division of labor (which relegated women to non-compensated housework); and the long history of paying women less for the same job as men.

Now right about you might be leaping to your keyboard to say "But the women deserved less b/c they were less strong."

In fact, the practice of paying women (and children) less than men took off with the introduction of factories which--thanks to machinery--enabled women (and often children) to be as productive as men. The reason women were paid less was simple: employers could get away with it. They could justify it by saying that women didn't have to support families, but men did. In the early twentienth century the civil service paid female officials less than male on the very same grounds. (Now I hope you're not going to tell me that pushing paper was too taxing for women.)

More important, apart from the fact that you seem to enjoy banging your head against the wall, I'm not sure why you're making such a fuss about this historical question. By your account, access to high-level employment requires superior physical strength in the present day. So the main thrust of your argument is not reliant upon historical causality.

(Good thing too, since you'd make a god-awful historian.)

""Were my position to become vacant tommorrrow does the female physique preclude the majority of women from filling the position? If the answer is no then how the hell can you suggest that in this one case at least the female physique does not make women "of less value' economically to my employer? If a female is "of less value" to my employer than how the hell can you suggest that she can possibly have economic equality in this one case? She can't be paid more for doing less work because tha isn't economically equal. So how can she gain economic equality in this instance exactly?"

I think we can add statistical relevance to the growing list of concepts that you can't get your head around. Doubtless there is one case--doubtless there are any number of cases--where a high degree of physical strength would be preferable for a high-paying job. But how statistically relevant do you imagine this to be? So far we know of your job. You take it to be typical of scientific research but HairyPotter does not. The examples you have offered outside of your own employment are absurd.

For example, you tell us below that doctors must be able to lift bodies. First of all, I have seen female nurses who are 5' tall lift dozens of bodies as they care for bedridden patients. They know how to do it. Second, what a ridiculous example since women have made huge strides in the medical profession and now compose more than 50% of those in US medical schools. Now, higher up the ladder we get disproportionately fewer women doctors promoted to department chiefs, etc. Now surely this "glass ceiling" phenomenon doesn't stem from differences in physical strength none of which prevented large numbers of women becoming doctors in the first place.

The funny thing is that your garden variety sexist will say: well, the women aren't as good at management b/c they're too emotional ; or the women were too busy with their domestic and parental duties (which is sometimes true, but not a biological necessity); or the women weren't as well qualified. Few would even bother with strength arguments when it comes to professional labor. So I'll give you credit for a) having a somewhat novel take on the matter and b) going to preposterous lengths to try to prove it.

"...[A]ll things being equal, if a man and woman both decide to have a child only one is going to be prevented from working by that decision. Since work is the prime force behind economic sucess I am saying that there is a very valid biological reason why a woman's child-bearing capacities need prevent her from enjoying relative socio-economic equality with her male peers."

Why need either parent be prevented from working? Have you ever heard of daycare? Many parents return to work within 3-4 weeks of a child's being born. That's no more than a good vacation leave. In my case, as I said, my husband and I were able to alternate leave time. As I said, the fact that fewer fathers take leave than mothers is not a biological necessity. It's a social and cultural choice.

[I wrote]:
"...I think hormones are way overrated."

Gaspode replied: [i]"Yes and I think that the IPU exists. Both beliefs however run counter to all scientific data, all expeimental evidednc and are completely illogical and groundless. You have presented here a classic argument from ignorance.

It is "counter to all scientific data" to assert that hormones are way overrated? On the contrary, there is widespread debate about the comparative influence of "nature" (including hormones) and "nurture". How is it "illogical" and "groundless" to weigh in on one side of the debate? You have presented a classic example of your own irrationality.

"I'll ask you again, do yu honestly believe that environmental factors could ever drive a womans testosterone levels up highre than a man's"

To be honest, it's never occured to me to consider the question since it strikes me as a moot point. I don't consider testosterone to be that important: I consider it something that impacts energy level and sex drive. If a man or a woman is, say, very unself-confident I don't believe that injections of testosterone would be very helpful (unless perhaps as a placebo). I believe that such people would benefit from psychotherapy--even other kinds of drugs--more than they would from testosterone. That is my belief, since you ask. If you've got evidence that shows that testosterone therapy of some kind helped people to gain self-confidence on a permanent basis (with the placebo factor controlled for), please do let me know. I'd be very interested.

No they wouldn't because you made the statement that hormonal differences between men and women may- and I stress may- be the result of gonadal differences. This is an ignorant statement. There is absolutley no doubt whatsever that the hormonal differences between men and women are the result of gonadal differences.

Duh, Gaspode. This is now the second time that I've told you that the clause you left out changes my meaning. I never meant to suggest that hormones aren't related to gonads. I merely meant that we don't know how much hormonal differences are impacted by environemntal factors. Let's not repeat ourselves.

"Quite clearly environmental differnces impact the relative difences within genders, but not between genders. really the concept isn't that hard. To use an analogy you are saying that because environmental factors can be demonstrated to improve internal combustion engine performance that casts doubt over the assumption that jets faster than prop planes due to engine differences.

Uh uh. Men are not to jets as women are to prop planes. That is a difference in kind. The difference in testosterone levels is a difference in degree. Anyway, point wasn't that you should be interested in research on professional women's testosterone level b/c it might mean that environment could bump them up to typical male levels. My point is that you might find it intellectually thought-provoking given your strong interest in the effects of hormones on psychology. I clearly gave you more credit than you deserve.

"Even if aggression were a direct linear function of testosterone levels you can't then go on to assume that success must be a direct linear function of agression."

Precisely. Now please read both of the hypotheticals I included and see if you still want to debate me on this matter.

"That argument is probably the most logically flawed I've seen all year."

Alas, that's only because you misunderstood it. Try to read more carefully and to pant a little less ;).

:[i]"I don't believe that hormones exert a "profound" influence on personality. Personality is a truly complex human variable. I've seen my own hormones fluctuate due to pregnancy and birth control and my personality remained relatively intact."

"Which is well on par with saying that my Grandpa smoked seven packs a day until he was 110 and therefore smoking doesn't have a profound effect on lung cancer."

It is not, you silly child. Very few women experience a personality change from either birth control pills or pregnancy. What evidence do you have to the contrary?

:[i]"I've known men who took testosterone supplements because of illness; they felt a bit more energetic but their personality was unchanged. I know many men and women whose personalities are very similar."

Gaspode"You do know how invalid an argument from anecdote is don't you? Can you actually produce any scientific evidecne suggesting that hormones don't have a profound effect on personality, or is your entire argument based on asssetion?

What you do not seem to realize is that the emphasis here is on the words "profound" and "personality." Any researcher who wants to make the claim so dear to you will have to quantify or at least define these highly subjective terms. Most scientists don't use subjective words like "profound"; they prefer to say "statistically significant". As to personality, as I've attempted repeatedly to explain to you, that is very complex. You are talking about a word that denotes the entirety of a person's individuality. In my view hormones have an effect on that; but--as I've already said--I see family upbringing, class, ethnicity, education and even genetic factors not related to hormones as other determinants of personality. Depending on the individual, gender may or may not be a major determinant in personality. Also, gender is itself not determined exclusively by hormones.

Everything I have just said is widely accepted by psychologists, sociologists and medical practioners. The real debate is one of degree: how much nurture, how much nature. Undoubtedly I lean towards the nurture end of the scale. This is not a debate that you and I can resolve. But it will help us to disagree more constructively if you will cease to call me "ignorant" and "illogical" simply because I hold a not-very-controversial position that differs from your own.

(Please understand: I don't feel insulted when you describe my arguments as "ignorant" and "illogical." I merely feel that, in so doing, you exemplify your own ignorance and irrationality. I would prefer that we both speak wisely and logically.)

[i]"I As to men and women "invariably" being capable of the same work... I don't find that a very controversial position. Granted, few women will be able to do jobs that require the utmost physical exertion of which men are capable."

"So men and women can't invariably do the same jobs. Fine, that's settled."

I'm beginning to think that excessive investment in this topic has addled your brains. For the word "invariably" to hold in the latter statement it only has to apply to some men and some women. It can't have to apply to all women because, as you know, there are some men who are weaker than an average woman. As I said, "few women will be able to do jobs that requre the utmost physical exertion of which men are capable." It's as simple as that.

"Now will you accept that the majority of women are in fact incapable of performing the type of physical work that the majority of men are?"

I've never denied it (as you've just demonstrated). (That said, it would make more sense if you wrote "incapable of performing certain types of physical work...) Remember, I'm not trying to prove that women aren't less physically strong than men on average. Please pay attention!

"The evidence [of the influence of nurture/environment]is everywhere you look."

And that folks is the sum total of her evidence.
...Such an argument is completely illogical and baseless.

Gaspode, I don't know anyone who disputes the effect of environment on personality. Do you dispute it? If you really do I'll rehearse some examples (beginning, perhaps, with Pavlov's dog). Once again: it's an old debate. Nurture/vs. nature. Nature vs. nurture. Only extremists hold that it's either/or. And you've repeatedly said you are not an extremist. So why are you asking me to provide evidence that nurture affects human psychology?

[analogy to African American men.]

"Well i would argue that it is because thay were disadvantaged by society in the past. But by your own argument from ignorance since skin colour hasn't been a primary determinant for about 150 years I don't think that its residue particularly important (especially when compared to more up-to-date factors such as the distribution of wealth, education, technological skills, access to political power, etc.)"

Skin color hasn't been a "primary determinant" of a person's social expectations for 150 years? How absurd. Look, it's fine with me if we drop this analogy b/c I don't really want to get into a debate with you about whether or not the social disadvantage experienced by blacks is a thing of the past.


"Studies on inequalities can and often do control for the impact of time lost for maternity leave."

[i]But during such leave a woman can't be geting paid so she is immediatly economically disadvantaged isn't she? Or is she getting paid while not working, in which case she is economically advantaged?

Dear, Gaspode. That's what the words "control for the impact" means. For a man who's consantly invoking (though never providing) scientific research, you show very little understanding about how social-scientific research is conducted.

"All other factors being equal if a male and a female decide to have children, reproductive physiology will necessarily lead to economic inequality."

No--not necessarily. That's a social choice, not a biological inevitability. Women don't have to lose any time from work because of children: whether b/c they don't have them, or b/c when they do have them they share responsibilities with their partners and use daycare. The actual number of days required to recover from normal childbirth is not great.

[i]"Besides, how many lucrative and socially important jobs are dangerous for a breastfeeding or pregnant women?"

It doesn't matter. You implied that reproductive physiology could never lead to economic inequalities.

Of course I didn't! What I said (and quite explicitly)is that it need not; not that it could not. Of course it could because right now it often does. My point is that it isn't a biological necessity; it's a social choice. And social choices can be changed--just the way the practice of disenfranchising women, or excluding them from the professions has changed. (I am truly beginning to lose my patience with your poor reading comprehension and retention. I must constantly repeat myself only to be misunderstood by you again and again.)

"And again you make the logical fallacy of assuming that there is no connection between lucrative and socially important jobs and lower paying and socially irrelevenat jobs. I can quite easily demonstrate that this isn't the case..."

By all means do. But not, I hope, by describing your own job for the fourth time.


[i]"You can see your logical fallacy here can't you mandelstram? Because you were able to do it doesn't meant that a Jillaroo working at Winton could do it...

Actually she could do it. I think you mean that she's not likely to be able to. But the reason isn't biological. The reason is socio-cultural (e.g., uncooperative husband, no daycare available, believes she should be home with the kids) and socio-cultural factors can change There is no logical fallacy here; just another misunderstanding on your part.

You are one case, but all things being equal reproductive physilogy will necessarily place women at an economic difference to men...

I've highlighted the word that, by now, ought to help you to see your own logical fallacy.

"You asked, if we were co-workers, who would be more statistically likely to be promoted. I replied that it would be me, not inherently because I am male but because I can do the job and you can't. "

Excuse me. In my hypothetical example "we" were not "co-workers". I was describing two people with similar educational backgrounds. I was not discusing your workplace. And I am very certain that you and I don't have similar educational backgrounds. Please read more carefully before you post!

"I will also state that I have never in my life worked in a highly skilled position that did not require physical strength, nor have I ever known anyone else who did. I'm sure they exist but my experience leads me to conclude they are the exception rather than the rule. Doctors are required to lift heavy patients. Surveyors need to be able to move bundles of survey markers, cut roads etc. My freind who works in It occasionally finds himself dangling by one arm while trying to affix a cable. the fact that more opportunities for highly skilled jobs are available to the stronger people means that there is an inherent inequality between men and women."

Just thought I'd leave this hear because I mentioned the "doctor" example up above (and it's so deliciously preposterous).

Once again, I appeal to another Doper to take a whack at explaining the manifold deficiencies of this line of reasoning.

Gaspode "So you made a statement with insufficient information to support it, and instead of adressing the issue you plead for help.
Well it certainly shows the strength of your position."

Actually what it shows is that your posts take too long to answer; primarily because you read very poorly, you're mind is closed, and you lack understanding of basic concepts necessary to this debate. I'd like others to take a turn at debunking some of your howlers b/c it puts me in an awkward position to have to read through hundreds of lines of nonsense (with the odd intersting statement thrown in) and show at such painstaking length why it is nonsense. I am aware that others know--even though you yourself don't see it--that I am a very educated person who has the upper hand in a debate that involves intellectual, rhetorical and critical resources that you do not have at your command. As I see it, you are obsessed by the importance of sexual difference and, particularly, by the advantages of male physique (such as they are). I am aware that is very difficult for you to be so continually bested by a woman who you cannot see or touch; by a woman who is far beyond the impact of your physical attributes (such as they are). You are a man who believes that men have the advantage b/c of their superior strength and higher testosterone level. And yet you are trapped in a forum--the internet--in which verbal and intellectual ability is all. In addition, you assume that you are more aggressive than most women and you find in me a woman who is very aggressive: a veritable doberman. I recognize how difficult this must be for you: even humiliating insofar as others notice it and comment. In deference to Gaudere, and as a sign of respect for you, I toned down my rhetoric a notch in the hopes that we might debate one another more constructively. So far from doing likewise you became more belligerent and, at the same time, more tedious and irrational. (At one point in what I've deleted you insert some satirical remarks of your own into quotations. This is disrespectful to others who might be joining the thread late. It's also childish and pathetic). I have not wanted to humiliate you, or goad you, or rub your face in your ignorance, but--to be frank--you deserve what you've gotten.

Thanks to all of you who have read this far.

{fixed code. --Gaudere}

[Edited by Gaudere on 09-07-2001 at 08:48 AM]

[HairyPotter]

Originally posted by Gaspode
Thank God, I am in a profession where base workmen only come in occasionally to move heavy objects or deal with simple mechanical HVAC systems.[/quote]
ANd I am equally thankful that I live in a world where a persons occupation doesn't define there entire worth and being. I really can't stand elitists who assume that anyone who does a manual job is 'base'. [/QUOTE]

Gaspode,
I apologize for the above remark. I agree with you that it is very wrong to assess any individual based on their occupation. I spoke in anger, which was a very foolish thing to do.

[Dangerosa]

I found Gaspode's analysis of my profession interesting to say the least. I'm a systems analyst (not a programmer, though, a network analyst). I'm female.

About 99.8% of my job I do just fine, and always have. About .2% of the time the job involves heavy lifting (moving servers or other equipment around) and I ask for help. So do the guys I work with - few people can lift 90 lbs of server over their head by themselves to rack it. My "ask for help" level is perhaps a little lower than theirs, but in fifteen years in this profession, I've never received anything other than helpfulness. This lack of strength doesn't seem to have held me back, as I'm the technical lead in my position. Occationally, being smaller has helped get the job done - squeezing into a tight spot to pull cable, fitting my little hands into a tight server.

Several years ago I worked with a man who was in a wheelchair. .2% of the job we simply had to make accomodations for - other people did the lifting. No one minded, and it wasn't holding him back.

I consulted for years, occationally in environments where their was no IS staff to help me lift. The accountants, lawyers and secretaries can help lift just fine.

Also, almost no one I've worked with started with physical jobs that would be challenging for a women. I do work with a guy who started in desktop support, but the heaviest thing you lift there is a monitor - I don't know many women who have problems with doing desktop (I've done a little desktop in my career, and never was pushed beyond my capabilities). The vast majority of my co-workers have always been deskjockeys - they got their college degrees in CS - or they moved into IS after working in engineering or finance or business administration. And I did work with one guy who was a construction worker before switching fields - he switched fields when he pulled his back and needed something that wasn't physically challenging.

[Mandelstam]

So sorry about the italics in my last long post; I had no time for "previewing." Gaudere would it be too much of a hassle for you to find the missing slash or otherwise edit it? If it is, no matter.

[BlackKnight]

Originally posted by Biggirl
... I suppose you'll have time to look up all the cites that say that most men did not want to fight and die for their country.
No, don't bother looking. I've had about enough of you.
I know this was not addressed to me, but I have something to say in response to it.

How hard is it to imagine people not wanting to die? How hard is it to imagine people not wanting to be maimed? Men may have prefered fighting in wars to the alternative of getting overrun by a rival group and having their homes, families, etc. destroyed, but the idea that the majority of men wanted to fight strikes me as obviously false.

My own short answer to the OP:
Women have been repressed in the same way and for the same reasons that men have been repressed (in a general sense). The way societies were originally formed was due to what was neccessary for survival. Since there are general physical differences between men and women, certain divisions of labor formed. Gender roles formed from the expectation of a person fulfilling the traditional division of labor. This became ingrained. Even long, long after such divisions of labor became obsolete for survival, they remained powerful and only over much time have they faded. However, they have not completely faded and are in fact still quite strong in some areas.

To sum up: Gender roles were originally based on survival for the society, but became obsolete quickly. Having to live in a society where one is restricted by those roles is a form of repression.

[Biggirl]

In my overheated exchange with Gaspode I hope I didn't give the impression that I thought men enjoyed going to war or that they were eager to get themselves killed (unless your name was Patton, then maybe you did enjoy it).

The black men who petitioned to fight during the Civil War were not happy at the prospect of being killed or maimed. The men who showed up in droves at the recruiting stations after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor were not excited about the chance that they could very well die on a sandy bar out in the middle of the ocean.

Well, the Vikings thought it would be cool to die in a battle, but I'm sure even they as individuals were not jumping in front of axes to make sure they'd end up in Valhalla.

My point --and I had one back on page one-- was that this was glory and honor denied women way back when and not something the men had to do in exchange for being the dominate gender.

[Gaspode]

I'm guessing that the concept of conscription depends on a more advanced notion of the rights of individuals than existed in fedual times.
Well as I have said, my dictionary says that conscription is compulsory enrollment of persons especially for military service. That's the only concept of conscription I'm addressing.

You're assertion that "in the real world," the entry level stages to these important jobs would involve physical demands beyond the scope of average women is ludicrous.
Well I never said that was the case for those jobs. My point was that perfromance at a lower level is critical for access to high paid jobs. As such simply saying that high paid jobs don't require physical prowess isn't particularly valid in an argument about whether physical prowess has a necessray impact on economic success. We have to be able to determine whether physical prowess affects access to such high paid jobs, not just look at those jobs in isoloation from the holders entire career and work history. Would you agree that that is so?

....a task I performed less well than most of my male peers. Yet I was promoted faster than any of them, and soon was an assistant manager. The reason? I could alphabetize .
I've never at any stage suggested that strength is the primary factor in success. Clearly intelligence plays a role, as it did here. What I have been saying is that all other factors being equal, men have an advantage because of there physique. Answer me this please Mandlstram: Had there been a male working at that store who was as adept at alphabetisation as yourself, and equally good at all other tasks, would it have been fairer to promote him or yourself, assuming that you will perform one task "less well than" him and all other tsaks to exactly the same level?

"...[T]he computer programmers I know all started out working in construction and delivery shops, installing and delivering servers etc.

I did know one person who worked in maintenance for a large university, a job that involved installing hardware on a daily basis. She is now a very well-paid programmer for a telephone company. Oh and female construction workers? No shortage of those in any of the four major US cities I've lived in in the last 15 years.
None of which is under dispute. The entire point here is simply this: Just because high paid jobs require minimal physical prowess this does not allow us to conclude that physical prowess is not a factor in obtaining high paid jobs. Would you agree with this staement or not.

What this demonstrates is that physical stength means that men have greater opportunities for economic success than women.
Some "greater opportunities," yes. Sufficient to explain existing socio-economic inequalities? No, I very much doubt that.
Well you may be surprised to hear this but I agree with you wholeheartedly on that point. I couldn't have written it better myself. You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that I believe that all social inequalities between men and women are attributebale to physical differnces. I don't belive that and have never believed that. My reason for persuing this line of argumnet has been simply to get you to concede exactly what you have done here :that physical strength means that men have geater opportunities for economic success then women due to physical differences. If you concede that men have greater economic opportunities then they are immediately not economically equal aren't they? After all isn't opportunity a major part of socio-economic equality? If women don't have equal opportunities then they aren't really equal are they? Or doesn't your definition of "relative socio-economic equality, and the political authority that comes with it" encompass equality of opportunity?
Quite simply this demonstrates the huge economic advantage conferred on males by their superior strength. To suggest that strength doesn't give a man an economic advantage in this field seems exceedingly strange."

What is the field we're talking about here.
The field for which you said that women were "willing and able to endure rigorous physical training in order to meet minimum physical requirements" to enter. I assumed it was a braod generalisation encompassing field ecology amongst other "steel-drum-hauling/brain-power-burning employment".

So far we have your own experience doing research. I can't think of a single highly-skilled "field" (outside of athletics) in which substantial physical strength is, across the board, a required or even desirable feature. Can you?
No I can't, and I've never said that such a field existed. What I have been saying is that many skilled fields will give more opportunities to men because of their physique. Since you seem to have conceded this point there's not much point arguing it.

To be sure, "extrapolate from" and "imply" are not wholly identical, but they're pretty close.
No they're not close. Extrapolate suggests extending an hypothesis, assumption etc. into an area that has never been tested and to which there is no evidence for believeng it is applicable. To imply simply means an indirect indication.
The difference between saying that "the female physique indirectly indicates female inferiority" and "female physique assumes female inferiority in untested feilds where there is no reason to believe physique is an applicable indicator" is a pretty massive one to me.

But even if you took me to mean simply "inferiority" without the professional context, you would still be perpetuating a stereotype. You would be maintaining that inferior strength makes an inferior person and that is stereotypical thinking in the extreme.
No, I would be maintaining that strength of less value makes a person of less value. Surely that's self evident. If strength has value and group A has more strength than group B then, all other factors being equal, isn't group B of more value? If that value be economic so much the better, because we can now put a dollar figure on that value. Remember that we're not talking about individual women and men here, we're talking about women and men as groups. No one is saying that inferior strength makes an inferior person in any respect except economic value. Professinal doen't need to enter into it because your standard for equality was "relative socio-economic equality". If we don't have economic equality then would you agree we don't have equality?

Let me put it this way. We have two brands of pallet jacks: A and B. Each brand produces a range of models with various capabilities, but every function that a model of brand B can perform can be performed just as well by just as many models of brand A. The more a pallet jack can lift the higher its economic value. Brand A models lift 500kg on average, Brand B models lift 1 tonne on average. Which brand is economically superior? The only way that I can see Brand A being of equal economic value is if on average brand A could perform some task that on average Brand B couldn't. However I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that the average woman can perform any tasks the average man can't, while it is obvious that the average man can perform tasks the average woman can't. Ergo men as a group have a higher economic value than women as a group due to physical superiority.

"Secondly that is a completely untestable and unprovaebale asssertion. Can you actually support that statement any better than I can support the statement "And the reason is that the inherent laziness and timidity of women prejudice voters, including female voters"? Can I "prove" that people (including) women are biased against women?Absolutely. Numerous studies have confirmed it. Do I attribute that bias more to women's physique than, say, to a perception that women are lazy or timid? Not at all. I see the bias to stem from a large number of factors: some actual (physique) other fabricated (women's alleged irrationality). Recall, I'm not the one here who's hung up on the issue of physical strength.
Yes but I can prove that people are biased against women as well. We both agree that such bias stems from a range of factors. The sad fact remains however that your assertion that the reason a woman can't become president is because "the stereotypes that I hold so dear prejudice voters, including female voters" is baseless. It is no more supportable than an assertion that "it is illuminati mind control drugs that prejudice voters, including female voters". This is therfore a baseless argument from assertion and can be ignored. I'm not here to dispute the range of factors that cause bias, I'm simply pointing out that you are guilty of advancing an argument based upon a logical fallacy: to whit an argument from assertion. USch an argument can and will be ignored.

First of all, I am a trained historian with a doctorate from ....blah blah blah.
Logical fallacy number two in this thread. ARgument fom authority. Argument from your own authority worse yet. And you wonder why I say your argument is illogical.
I do not exaggerate when I say that most of those children had a much better grasp of history than you do.
And I regularly work with slimes, fungi and slimy things forund under rotting logs, and I do not exaggerate when I say that most of those organisms had a much better grasp of history than you do.
You see why ad hominems do absolutely nothing for a debate.
Logical fallacy number three in this thread. Ad hominem

Historians Gaspode "think." They look at the evidence, they think about it, and they offer an interpretation of what happened and why. History is hardly ever black and white. Sometimes they disagree with another historian's interpretation and the two historians then have a debate about what they "think."
What, like we're doing now? Or aren't I allowed to debate history because I don't have the right authority?
Based on my own knowledge of Western history--which is pretty substantial
Logical fallacy number four in this thread. More argument from authority. ANd agian argument from one's own authority. Mandelstam you should realise that if I were willing to accept what you say based solely on my respect for your authority we wouldn't be having this debate. I don't have that degree of respect. I do howver have respect fro logic or facts. Ither of those will wash in GD. Arguments from one's own authority are as illogical as saying "I'm a really bright bloke so you should believe me."

do not tell me that "it's...illogical and counter to all evidence to suggest that past factors that were important have no bearing on the present." I did not say they had "no" bearing; I simply think that what bearing these factors have is, by now, small.
Well if we read the actual post that led me to say that you will note that what you actually said was "your argument that presentday inequalities stem from these historical differences--real or (ahem) perceived--just doesn't stand up."
Considering I have never at any stage said that factors other than historical had ""no" bearing" on the present situation logically you must have been concluding that my argument that presentday inequalities stem in part from historical differences doesn't have any bearing. If historical differences had any bearing in any part whatsoever on present day inequalities my argument that presentday inequalities stem in part from these historical differences would stand up, would it not?
Do you understand now why I called you argument illogical and counter to all the evidence. Methinks you have made one huge mofo assumption that I was suggetsing that historical differences were the sole driver. I of course never even came close to implying any such thing. You made an invalid and illogical assumption counter to all the evidence. As such I feel perfectly justified in criticising your assertion as being illogical and counter to all evidence.

There are too many other more important historical factors: e.g., the sexual division of labor (which relegated women to non-compensated housework); and the long history of paying women less for the same job as men.
And as soon as you point out somewhere where I said that such factors were not important I'll rescind my statement that your argument was illogical and counterfactual. By saying "an argument that presentday inequalities stem from these historical differences just doesn't stand up" and then saying "I simply think that what bearing these factors have is, by now, smal" you are requiring either that I have argued that inequalities do not stem from any other factors. If you can't provide evidence that I argued such a case then your argument runs contrary to the fats and is illogical.
In fact, the practice of paying women (and children) less than men took off with the introduction of factories which--thanks to machinery--enabled women (and often children) to be as productive as men. The reason women were paid less was simple: employers could get away with it. They could justify it by saying that women didn't have to support families, but men did. In the early twentienth century the civil service paid female officials less than male on the very same grounds. (Now I hope you're not going to tell me that pushing paper was too taxing for women.)
Nope, I agree with you one hundred percent. None of this of course detracts from the fat that as a group men have more economic opportunities than women simply because as a group men can do tasks that women can't, whereas as a group the reverse is not true.

More important, apart from the fact that you seem to enjoy banging your head against the wall, I'm not sure why you're making such a fuss about this historical question.
More importantly I'm going to ask you to provide a quote that demonstrates that I ever disputed this historical question. If you can't I'm going to label this a blatant strawman and designate it:
Logical fallacy number four in this thread

By your account, access to high-level employment requires superior physical strength in the present day. So the main thrust of your argument is not reliant upon historical causality.
Correct, but you decided to present your illogical and counterfactual assertion that "an argument that presentday inequalities stem from these historical differences just doesn't stand up" in response to my statement that "I suspect that a large part of the reason women have been left out of the governmental process is that they are percieved as having no personal stake in this ultimate political tactic".
This has no relationship whatsoever to conditions in factories. Mandelstam you're getting your wires crossed. You're attempting to merge two almost completely separate arguments into one stream. There is one argument in which I am attempting answer your question "what are these "numerous reasons" why men and women will "never" be equal?" to ehich the above information may be of tangential interest. The other concerns the perception that women are percieved as having no personal stake in warfare and hence a lesser right to political power. It was your illogical and counterfactual respose to the latter which you were atempting to justify here. Don't confuse the two. That's simply illogical and not a valid debating tactic.

(Good thing too, since you'd make a god-awful historian.)
Good thing too since you'd make a god awful mess of any argument based on logic and fact as opposed to ad hominem, argument from authority and argument from assertion.
Logical fallacy number five in this thread. Ad hominem

But how statistically relevant do you imagine this to be?
How staistically relevant does it need to be before I can declare that men and women are not equal? P>.005? P>.01? P>.5? Do you actually have any facts to hand that support any of those probabilities? Did we decide at any stage that in order for me to say that men and women will never be equal I would have to prove impossible inequality for >50% of the sample population? If not then I'm afraid you're simply quiblling over nothing. If you accept that the subject group 'men' have an inherent economic advantage over the subjecct group 'women' as a result of physical strength then they are unavoidably unequal and I am quite justified in saying that there is a physiological reason why men and women will never be equal. You can't simply make an assumption of significane that will be acceptable without informing me what it is.
Logical fallacy number five in this thread. Audiatur et altera pars


You take it to be typical of scientific research
And unless you can actually provide a quote that demonstrates that I said that I take my job to be typical of scientific reseacrh, as opposed to simply an arbitrary example, then I'm going to label that:
Logical fallacy number six in this thread. Strawman.

First of all, I have seen female nurses who are 5' tall lift dozens of bodies as they care for bedridden patients.
Which proves only that some nurses can lift bodies, not that lifting bodies isn't a requirement of medicine or that men have an advantage in doing so, which is what I was arguing.
Unsupportabale anecdotal argument and therfore: Logical fallacy number seven in this thread.

Second, what a ridiculous example since women have made huge strides in the medical profession and now compose more than 50% of those in US medical schools.
All I asserted was that strength could be an advantage in medicine due to the need to lift heavy bodies. Mandelstam is now suggetsing that this implies not simply that men will have an advantage as doctors, but that men will have an advantage in gaining access ot medical school. This ignores any implication about relative dropout rates during course and placement for males and females post graduation. Nothing should be implied about entry to university based on strength, and as such this is clearly:
Logical fallacy number seven in this thread. Non Causa Pro Causa. (or a strawman if it was done deliberately, either way).

Now, higher up the ladder we get disproportionately fewer women doctors promoted to department chiefs, etc. Now surely this "glass ceiling" phenomenon doesn't stem from differences in physical strength none of which prevented large numbers of women becoming doctors in the first place.
Now Mandelstam is attempting to argue that admission to medical school from either senior high or graduate studies (I'm not sure how the US system works) can validly be used as an indicator of success in the actual workplace. Since women have no problem gaining Uni placement, but fail to achieve workplace success this implies that there must be factors other than stregth at issue here. Now this may well be true but quite obviously:
1)Just because other factors also come into play does not prevent strength from being a factor as well. Mandelstam's argument hinges on strength and sexual discrimination being mutually exclsuive, when of course there is no reason one woman can't be passed over for promotion due to one factor, and another owman for another. The validity of this argument hinges entirely on the question having only two outcomes: either sexual discrimination or strength based incompetence. If I can answer truthfully that both are at play then clearly strength still gives men an advantage over women in some cases. Therfore we can label this :Logical fallacy number eight in this thread: Bifurcation.

2)Mandelstam is stating that women don't enjoy the same success as men in the wokplace. This could be eitehr because they lack strength, which is more important after graduation than during training or because, or because of a glass ceiling presumably based on unjustified discrimination. However Mandelstam has implied that since women had no trouble gaining Uni entrance then this implies that it must be unjustified discrimination. Of course just passing university exams and internship does not mean you have the strength necessary to take up a position in a rural area where you may be the only doctor for 400kms. We have no reason to assume that such an implication is justified so we have :
Logical fallacy number nine in this thread. Non Causa Pro Causa

The funny thing is that your garden variety sexist will say: well, the women aren't as good at management b/c they're too emotional ; or the women were too busy with their domestic and parental duties (which is sometimes true, but not a biological necessity); or the women weren't as well qualified. Few would even bother with strength arguments when it comes to professional labor. So I'll give you credit for a) having a somewhat novel take on the matter and b) going to preposterous lengths to try to prove it.
The funny thing is that your garden variety illogical, revisionist feminist will say: well, women should be compensated while havin children 'cause it's beautiful and natural, or women can be just as valuable as a man, their employer just needs to spend lots of money buying them the equipment needed. So I'll give you credit for a) having a somewhat novel take on the matter and b) going to preposterous lengths to try to prove it.
See the trouble here Mandelstam is that sexist, no matter how you spin it, is an insult. This is an argument directed rather obviously at me and not my argument and by doing this you have committed :
Logical fallacy number ten in this thread. Ad hominem

Why need either parent be prevented from working?
Well I'd say it's because if you're say a bungee jumping instrucor, or an airline pilot, or a control officer working for the plague locust commision you won't be allowed to work while pregant. that would probably slow you down somewhat.

Have you ever heard of daycare? Many parents return to work within 3-4 weeks of a child's being born
. I have never heard of a man having to take six weeks off work after his child was born, but I have heard of several womn who had to. Quite simply some women are going to be unable to return to work within 3-4 weeks of a birth. Some women are flat on tehir back for the entire 9 months. That doesn't happen to men. Therefore women as a group will be placed at an economic disadvantage due to giving birth that men will not. Again, just because most parents do something, just because you did it, that doesn't mean that everyone is able to do it. You are attempting yet another argument from anecdote and as such I can safely lay down:
Logical fallacy number eleven in this thread.
there is widespread debate about the comparative influence of "nature" (including hormones) and "nurture". How is it "illogical" and "groundless" to weigh in on one side of the debate?
Because there is also widespraed debate about whether we landed on the moon, whether the Erath is flat etc. It is illogical to weigh in on one side of a debate when you have no logic to support your position. It is groundless when you have no grounds for your position. 'I think' is not grounds for weighing into the moon landing hoax on the affirmative. Such a stance would be illogical and groundless.
There is no debate in scientific circles that hormones are a prime controller of personality. If you wish to say that hormones are overrated then you're going to have to define who they are overrated by. If you're implying it's me then I will happilly dig out the cites that hormones are, as I clearly stated, a prime controller of personality. If you wish to dispute this based on anything more than an argumentum ad numerum you'll be expected to show some evidence that hormones are not a prime controller of personality.

To be honest, it's never occured to me to consider the question since it strikes me as a moot point. I don't consider testosterone to be that important:
Then the study you quoted, and your subsequent attempts to engender debate over the study, are irrelevant. they do not cast any dount whatsoever over the fact that the primary cause of hormonal differences between men and women is gonadal differences.

This is now the second time that I've told you that the clause you left out changes my meaning.
No it doesn't. You stated that hormonal differences between men and women may be the result of gonadal differences or may be the result of environmental factors. This argument is simply false and made in complete contradictio to the facts. Intergender hormonal differences are the result of gonadal differences, intra-gender the result of environmental. There is no evidence that all the environmental factors in the world will make the hormaonla differences between men and women vanish. None at all, and as such the hormaonal diferences are the result of gonadal differences and not environamental differences. There is no way you can say that hormonal differences may be the result of gonadal differences because that's not open to debate, you can't say they may be the result of environmental influences because there's absolutely no chance that that is true. Both clauses are false and ignorant and the resultant compound sentence is false and ignorant.

I merely meant that we don't know how much hormonal differences are impacted by environemntal factors.
A fact that I pointed out very eraly on. This doesn't change the act that the statement you posted was false and ignorant.
Men are not to jets as women are to prop planes. That is a difference in kind. The difference in testosterone levels is a difference in degree.
Fine you want to get picky I'll resubmit.
And if socialization/environment impacts relative differences, then many avenues of potential inquiry are opened up for folks like you who place great emphasis on hormones.
Yes, and if the moon was made of green cheese then we could bring it to Earth and feed the starving millions. Of course the moon isn't made of green cheese any more than environment implacts relative differences. The relative difference in testosterone levls between men and wmen is inxcess of 10 fold. I will bet pounds to pence that the research refererred to (but not actually cited) never found even a 3 fold increase in female testosterone. Quite clearly environmental differnces impact the relative difences within genders, but not between genders. Really the concept isn't that hard. To use an analogy you are saying that because environmental factors can be demonstrated to improve internal combustion engine performance, that casts doubt over the assumption that engines running on high octane fuels are better than engines run on low octane fuel due to fuel differences. There's only a difference of degree of octane rating between those fuels.

My point is that you might find it intellectually thought-provoking given your strong interest in the effects of hormones on psychology.
So you introduced that particular peice of evidence, not because it had any relevance at all to the issue at hand, since you now say you knew it didn't but because you wanted me to think on it. To muddy the waters to such a degree in a factual debate for no reason other than you assumed ignorance on my part of such research is offensive and appears to demonstrate how little factual backing you have. Since you have admitted that you have introduced irrelevant material to the issue being discussed and in so doing diverted attention away from the points made, towards a different conclusion I thinnk I can justifiably tag :
Logical fallacy number twelve in this thread. The old favourite the Red Herring.
I clearly gave you more credit than you deserve.
NO, I had in fact read either the paper you referenced, or one that stated very much the same thing, some months ago. Rather than giving me undue credit you in fact assumed ignorance and presumed to educate me on a topic in which I have never professed any interest. At no stage did I raise the issue of intra-gener hormonal differences prior to your introduction of that particular red herring.
And now to further detract from our blunder you insinuate taht I am not worthy of an assumption that I might find somehting intellectually thought-provoking. Badly disguised insults directed at me ratehr than my arguments remain insults, and so I can declare:
Logical fallacy number thirteen in this thread. ANother ad hominem.

Precisely. Now please read both of the hypotheticals I included and see if you still want to debate me on this matter.
I will if you will phrase the argument based on sound logic. Your statement that "Assertiveness is not a direct function of testoterone level because if it were, and if we could agree on a simple and positive definition of assertiveness, we would be able to predict success from testosterone level" is so logically flawed on so many levels that it wcouldn't be a debate. It can only be dismissed out of hand as invalid.

Try to read more carefully and to pant a little less
Well that's rather obviously adressed at me and not my argument so we'll go for:
Logical fallacy number fourteen in this thread. Yet another ad hominem..

It is not, you silly child.
Logical fallacy number fifteen in this thread. Ad hominem. Not even worth commenting on any more.

Very few women experience a personality change from either birth control pills or pregnancy.
I have stated quite clearly that hormones exert a profound effect on personality based on personality, Mandelstam has said this isn't illogical because very few women experience personality change from either birth control pills or pregnacy. So if I said that smoking exerted a profound effect on lung cancer, and Mandelstam said that very few women got lung cancer from smoking one cigarette, that would be logically valid, wouldn't it folks? No Mandelstam you can't get away with this in GD. Just because hormones have a profound influence on personality, this does not in any way imply that the hormones in oral contraceptives, in the doses found in oral contraceptives, administered in the manner of oral contraceptives, will engender a personality change. This is yet another Non Causa Pro Causa ans such brings us to Logical fallacy number sixteen in this thread.

What evidence do you have to the contrary?
I never at any stage implied that the hormones in oral contraceptives, in the doses found in oral contraceptives, administered in the manner of oral contraceptives, will exert a profound effect on personality. Never. Not even close. As such I think we can conclude that this is
Logical fallacy number seventeen in this thread. A strawman.

Most scientists don't use subjective words like "profound"; they prefer to say "statistically significant".
I beg to differ. A quick search of current contents found the word profound over 5000 times, just in abstracts and titles. You really want to pursue this one?
Any researcher who wants to make the claim so dear to you will have to quantify or at least define these highly subjective terms.
Fine, if we have no agreed definition then I can validly say that hormones have a profound influence on the personality without fear of valid contradiction, since by your own argument any contradiction will be subjective. Fine by me. Hormones have a profound influnce on personality.

In my view hormones have an effect on that; but--as I've already said--I see family upbringing, class, ethnicity, education and even genetic factors not related to hormones as other determinants of personality.
Well we have no arguments there. Just don't try to say that hormones aren't a prime controller of personality.
Depending on the individual, gender may or may not be a major determinant in personality.
Well that's undoubtedly true. We can state however that all scientific evidence points to gender as a prime determinant of intra-gender personality differences.
But it will help us to disagree more constructively if you will cease to call me "ignorant" and "illogical" simply because I hold a not-very-controversial position that differs from your own.
And again if you can find one example, aside from my parodying of your own sarcastic comments, of where I called illogical or ignorant then I will remove this from its current position as :
Logical fallacy number eighteen in this thread. A strawman.
Remember you can't use situations where I called your argument illogical. That's a no-no.

I merely feel that, in so doing, you exemplify your own ignorance and irrationality.
An attack directed squarely at myself and not my argument.
Logical fallacy number nineteen in this thread. Ad hominem.

I'm beginning to think that excessive investment in this topic has addled your brains.
Logical fallacy number twenty in this thread. Ad hominem.

For the word "invariably" to hold in the latter statement it only has to apply to some men and some women. It can't have to apply to all women because, as you know, there are some men who are weaker than an average woman. As I said, "few women will be able to do jobs that requre the utmost physical exertion of which men are capable." It's as simple as that.
So again I say, great. We can say that men and women can't invariably do the same jobs. That's all I wanted you to conceed.

Now will you accept that the majority of women are in fact incapable of performing the type of physical work that the majority of men are?"

I've never denied it.
Great, now we're getting somewhere. So the majority of women are incapable of doing the type of physical work that the majority of men are. Now will you accept that such physical work has an economic value? (ie the types of physical work that the majority of men can carry out that the majority of women are unable to.)


Remember, I'm not trying to prove that women aren't less physically strong than men on average.
I think you're missing the point. You're not trying to prove anything AFAIK. I'm trying to answer your query for the physiological raesons why men and women can't be economically equal.

Gaspode, I don't know anyone who disputes the effect of environment on personality. Do you dispute it?
Nope. But you still haven't figured out the difference between "There is indisputable evidence that male and female psychologicall differences are not the result of environment, but can be traced to genetic differences" and "There is indisputable evidence that male and female psychologicall differences are not the result of environment, but can be traced solely to genetic differences, have you? Go look at the quote agin in context.

So why are you asking me to provide evidence that nurture affects human psychology?
I'm not.

Dear, Gaspode. That's what the words "control for the impact" means. For a man who's consantly invoking (though never providing) scientific research, you show very little understanding about how social-scientific research is conducted.
So please cite some of thesepapers so I see how they control for something that complex. Do they simply assume the woman is earning nothing, because that's not true, she's earning money without working for it. Do they assume factor in the money and call it earnings, because that's not right, it's not earnings. Do they actually take a group of identical tets subjects and randomly force some to live with no money during maternity leave and give otehrs money. But that wouldn't work because both groups are economically unequal to men then. DO they take a group of men and women, and force the men not to work for an eual period of time as the women. The trouble here is the control will have to include gender differences, since that's what your controlling against. I'd love to see how they managed this.
Please provide a cite so I can actually understand this. Or maybe just explain how they managed to get women on maternity leave to get either money for not working, which men never had, or no money while on leave, which doesn't affect men.

All other factors being equal if a male and a female decide to have children, reproductive physiology will necessarily lead to economic inequality.
No--not necessarily. That's a social choice, not a biological inevitability.Women don't have to lose any time from work because of children:
OK, lets see now. A female airline pilot can't fly more than x months into pregnanvy. A female pest controller is expressely forbidden from using certain chemicals. I believ female radigraphers are also forbidden from doing their jobs. That's three women that have to lose time from work. Added to this there are conditions that preclude a woman from working at alld during pregnancy.

whether b/c they don't have them
No, sorry that's an invalid response simpy because the statement you're attempting to rebut clearly states "if a male and a female decide to have children".
I think we can chalk that up as Logical fallacy number twenty-one in this thread.

or b/c when they do have them they share responsibilities with their partners and use daycare. The actual number of days required to recover from normal childbirth is not great.
1)You can't use daycare prior to giving birth.
2)Even if the number of days is not great, it exists. There is a time period wherein a woman cannot work. I suspect the time period is even gretaer the ore physically demanding the job, and I know the time period varies considerably depending on the woman.

You implied that reproductive physiology could never lead to economic inequalities. Of course I didn't! What I said (and quite explicitly)is that it need not; not that it could not. Of course it could because right now it often does. My point is that it isn't a biological necessity; it's a social choice.
Let me see if I've got your reasoning straight here. You admit that breastfeeding limits a womans ability to perform certain jobs for non-social reasons. You admit breastfeeding never limits a mans ability to perform any jobs. You acknowledge that equality in performing jobs is a major factor in economic equality. You then say that all reasons why breastfeeding limits economic equality is for social reasons. Am I right?
And social choices can be changed[quote]
So what are you implying, that no matter how dangerous to the child, a mother should be allowed to work in her job while breastfeeding if she wants to? That's the only social choice that can be changed here. The danger to the child is a biological one that can't be changed.

[quote]And again you make the logical fallacy of assuming that there is no connection between lucrative and socially important jobs and . I can quite easily demonstrate that this isn't the case...
By all means do. But not, I hope, by describing your own job for the fourth time.
And what would be wrong with that exactly. It's a valid demonstartion of how there is a connection between lucrative and socially important jobs and lower paying and socially irrelevenat jobs.
Aside from that do you really want me to explain how Bill Gates became rich and influential becasue he was good at his job as a programmer, or how the head of the the US was elected due to his record as a soldier? DO you really believe that there is no connection between lucrative and socially important jobs and lower paying and socially irrelevenat jobs? Are you suggesting that people simply walk into the lucrative and socially important jobs irrespective of their performance in previous lower paying and socially irrelevenat jobs? Or do you believe that peolpe walk into lucrative and socially important jobs without ever having previous lower paying and socially irrelevenat jobs? You've got to believe one of those, otherwise there's an obvious connection betwen the two. SO tell me which version you believe to be true and I'll demonstrate how this isn't the case.

"You can see your logical fallacy here can't you mandelstram? Because you were able to do it doesn't meant that a Jillaroo working at Winton could do it...
Actually she could do it. I think you mean that she's not likely to be able to. But the reason isn't biological. The reason is socio-cultural (e.g., uncooperative husband, no daycare available, believes she should be home with the kids)
No, she couldn't do it. You can't carry a baby on a horse in 45O heat with no shade while you're breastfeeding. If you're saying that socio-cultural factors should change to fit with her then you are invalidating your own argument. That would require people spending money to make the changes, and that would mean that the woman is recieving more economic benefits than a man in the same situation. So that's out because that's not equal. If you're assuming an ideal world great, but I'm discussing the real world where childcare on a station at Winton costs in excess of $450 a week, and someones got to foot that. Who's it going to ne Mandelstam?

and socio-cultural factors can change
Yes, and I can get a yacht. But it ain't gonna happen without somone spending money, either me or someone else. If I spend money then I'm economically disadvantaged by owning a yacht. If someone else spends money then I'm economically advanatged by owning a yacht. EIther way I sure as hell ain't gonna be economically neutral. SImilarly with our Jillaroo. If she spendss money on childcare while breastfeeding then she's economically disadvantaged by breastfeeding. If someone else spends money then she's gaining an economic advantage by breastfeeding. It sure can't work out neutral. Someone has to pay for that woman to breastfeed.

"You asked, if we were co-workers, who would be more statistically likely to be promoted. I replied that it would be me, not inherently because I am male but because I can do the job and you can't. "

In my hypothetical example "we" were not "co-workers".
To quote your exact words :"If " say, we were two co-workers"
And we have: Logical fallacy number twenty-two in this thread.


Actually what it shows is that your posts take too long to answer; primarily because you read very poorly, you're mind is closed, and you lack understanding of basic concepts necessary to this debate.
Sigh. Logical fallacy number twenty-three in this thread. Ad hominem

I am aware that others know--even though you yourself don't see it--that I am a very educated person who has the upper hand in a debate that involves intellectual, rhetorical and critical resources that you do not have at your command.
And oh so modest, right?
Logical fallacy number twenty-four in this thread. Argument from own authority.

I am aware that is very difficult for you to be so continually bested by a woman who you cannot see or touch; by a woman who is far beyond the impact of your physical attributes (such as they are).
I am aware that is very difficult for you to be so continually forced to confront the reality that your self-worth is based on an how sexually attractive you can make yourself appear to me: a man who is far beyond the impact of your physical attributes (such as they are). :rolleyes:
Logical fallacy number twenty-five in this thread. Ad hominem.

You are a man who believes that men have the advantage b/c of their superior strength and higher testosterone level.
You are a woman who believes that women must be supported by society for their personal gain, even at the expense of personla freedom.
Logical fallacy number twenty-six in this thread. Strawman.

In addition, you assume that you are more aggressive than most women and you find in me a woman who is very aggressive: a veritable doberman.
In addition, you are desperate to believ taht you are more intelligent than most men and you find in me a man who can show your flawed and irrational argument up for what it is: a veritable Descartes.
Well I certainly see that you have a very high opinion of yourself.
I recognize how difficult this must be for you: even humiliating insofar as others notice it and comment.
I recognize how difficult this must be for you: even humiliating insofar as others notice it and comment
Logical fallacy number twenty-seven: Argumentum ad numerum

So far from doing likewise you became more belligerent and, at the same time, more tedious and irrational. (At one point in what I've deleted you insert some satirical remarks of your own into quotations. This is disrespectful to others who might be joining the thread late. It's also childish and pathetic). I have not wanted to humiliate you, or goad you, or rub your face in your ignorance, but--to be frank--you deserve what you've gotten.
Logical fallacy number twenty-eight: Ad hominem
And there we have it folks. No less than twenty eight clear logical fallacies and an entire paragraph devoted to ad hominem and skiting I htink we may have a new winner.
And that is the extent of Mandelstam's argument.

Oh yeah, I sure got what I desereved. Won't take this one on again. Fair shaking in my boots now. Everyone's gonna think I'm so foolish for not seeing those. :rolleyes:

[BlackKnight]

Damn Gaspode, if you're going to eviscerate someone's argument like that at least clean up afterwards!



Ewww, there's some fallacy on my shoe. ;)

[Mandelstam]

Gaspode, It occurs to me that all of the key points of difference between ourselves--the "Great Debate" as it were--have already been introduced, clarified, and clarified again. What is left is an internal debate about who is or isn't arguing effectively. Since I suspect others are growing weary of it, and since we ourselves undoubtedly can spend our time more usefully, I'm going to have to pass over a lot. (Once again, feel free to re-raise anything you specifically wish to me to answer to.)

BTW--Thanks, Gaudere for editing the italics in my last.

G:"We have to be able to determine whether physical prowess affects access to such high paid jobs, not just look at those jobs in isoloation from the holders entire career and work history. Would you agree that that is so?"

I agree that it would be very interesting to look at what data is available on the subject. But I expect such data will confirm what I have already suggested: that access to highly paid and socially important labor tends to follow a pattern in which university degrees lead to managerial-level employment so that need for physical prowess is the exception rather than the rule.

"Answer me this please Mandlstram: Had there been a male working at that store who was as adept at alphabetisation as yourself, and equally good at all other tasks, would it have been fairer to promote him or yourself, assuming that you will perform one task "less well than" him and all other tsaks to exactly the same level?

The thing is that once I was promoted there wasn't the need to do any lifting at all. I did orders, handled customer complaints, supervised other employees, etc. So perhaps had there been a male who was in every other respect equal to me in job performance the "fair" solution would have been to flip a coin, or try to promote us both at some point.

"The entire point here is simply this: Just because high paid jobs require minimal physical prowess this does not allow us to conclude that physical prowess is not a factor in obtaining high paid jobs. Would you agree with this staement or not."

I would agree that it might very occasionally be a factor, but I believe that it is not sufficiently often a factor to be statistically significant. And I believe that other factors--most of which are non-biological in nature--have much greater impact on presentday socio-economic inequalities. This is the basic disagreement between us.

"[Superior physical strength entails] some "greater opportunities," yes. Sufficient to explain existing socio-economic inequalities? No, I very much doubt that."

G"My reason for persuing this line of argumnet has been simply to get you to concede exactly what you have done here :that physical strength means that men have geater opportunities for economic success then women due to physical differences."

As you well know, I "conceded" that point long ago. But, to repeat myself, these "greater opportunities" are not, I believe, statistically significant. However I would welcome to the opportunity to view precise data on the matter.

"If you concede that men have greater economic opportunities then they are immediately not economically equal aren't they?"

No, Gaspode. Once again, you think too simple-mindedly about a complicated question. You need a suitable definition of "economically equal." In a post-industrial and information-driven economy the most desirable jobs are gained through the acquisition of specialized skills. The possession of a BSCS, a J.D., an MBA, a BS Engineering and--to a large degree--a plain-old BA is always going to be more economically valuable than a factor of physical strength (unless we're talking about athletics or entertaiment). Therefore a woman who has one of those degrees, will almost always have "greater economic opportunities" than a man who does not. [/b]That is why I believe that in today's society the average difference in physical strength between the average man and the average woman does not have a significant impact on existing socio-economic and political equalities.[/b] To repeat myself: this is the point we differ on. I see very little reason to belabor it further in the absence of additional evidence.

"What I have been saying is that many skilled fields will give more opportunities to men because of their physique." [emphasis added]

I do realize that but, (so far) no one other than you has adduced any examples; and Dangerosa has suggested that your tech-related example was off the mark. You may, therefore, want to re-think this particular aspect of your position.

G"I would be maintaining that strength of less value makes a person of less value. Surely that's self evident."

It is not in the least "self-evident" and I repeat that it is stereotypical thinking in the extreme. Let me put this a different way. The "value" of a person, even when defined as economic value is not reducible to a single determinant. Now let us assume--for the purpose of argument--that an MBA confers access to the highest paid employment in a given society. In that instance "strength of less value" would be irrelevant to the question of a person's economic value, unless the person in question (be they man or woman) lacked the basic physical health to carry out the job.

In the real world physical strength would take its place alongside a large number of work-related variables: appropriate education/skills would probably rank highest. More general factors would probably include intelligence, communication skills, problem-solving ability, honesty, ability to get along with peers. So unless you can prove that it's physical strength that, on average, provides access to the greatest number of well-paid jobs (or even the greatest number of jobs in toto), you can't assume that "strength of less value makes a person of less [economic] value."

I repeat, this is the main point of difference between us. Hence, unless evidence to this effect comes in, you'd be better off putting another shrimp on the barbie right now than belaboring this point ;)


"We both agree that such bias stems from a range of factors. The sad fact remains however that your assertion that the reason a woman can't become president"...

I never said a woman can't become president. Just as Margaret Thatcher became prime minister of England, I do believe it's possible for there to be a female US president.

...is because "the stereotypes that I hold so dear prejudice voters, including female voters" is baseless. It is no more supportable than an assertion that "it is illuminati mind control drugs that prejudice voters, including female voters".

Poppycock. You seem to assume that I meant that perceptions about physical strength are the only kind of prejudice that might contribute to voter prejudice. I neither meant it nor said it.

[On my background in history]
"Logical fallacy number two in this thread. ARgument fom authority."

Say what? Gaspode if you were a trained sociologist, an economist, a geneticist, a labor historian, an economic historian, a psychologist--it would have bearing on this debate. (It would also make you a much more reliable combatant, but that's besides the point).

I told you I had been trained as a historian and that I had taught history at the university level, because part of our debate involved what comprises a good historical argument. Of course, you are free to believe that you are more fit to judge a good historical argument than any number of trained historians. But there is no "logical fallacy" in my pointing out the fact to you.

"History is hardly ever black and white. Sometimes [historians] disagree with another historian's interpretation and the two historians then have a debate about what they "think.""

"What, like we're doing now? Or aren't I allowed to debate history because I don't have the right authority?"

Of course not. Although you have conviently forgotten the point, you had said that what "I think" about history was not fit for this forum. I was defending the appropriateness of arguments about what "I think," not suggesting that the SDMB exclude all non-historians.

"Well if we read the actual post that led me to say that you will note that what you actually said was "your argument that presentday inequalities stem from these historical differences--real or (ahem) perceived--just doesn't stand up."

That's right. And I hold by that. It doesn't "stand up." Because it's insufficient. Got it? Remember that "these" historical differences refers to physical strength factors.

"Do you understand now why I called you argument illogical and counter to all the evidence."

I "understand" that you are too bellicose and stubborn to open your mind. Make no mistake: as a historical argument your argument was weak and remains weak.

: "There are too many other more important historical factors: e.g., the sexual division of labor (which relegated women to non-compensated housework); and the long history of paying women less for the same job as men."

"And as soon as you point out somewhere where I said that such factors were not important I'll rescind my statement that your argument was illogical and counterfactual."

Okay: here is something you need to know about historical arguments. Any historical argument is weak if it asserts a particular proposition, "A is responsible for Z," when, (as you concede is the case in our present example) A is merely one of several variables responsible for Z. Had you said, "I believe that the residual effect of men's superior strength is one of a number of factors that contribute to presentday inequalities" I would have been happy to acknowledge your point and limit my remarks to the relative importance of this and other factors. As it was presented, however, your argument was, as I said, a turkey. A non-starter. A dud.

I would add that a more reasonable person would be happy to acknowledge that he had actually gained something from this interchange. (Or is it your position that have long contemplated and read up on the subject of the sexual division of labor only forgot to mention it at that particular moment?)

[women paid less for same work after introduction of factory production]
G:"This [debate about historical causation] has no relationship whatsoever to conditions in factories."

Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that debates about the historical foundations of socio-economic inequalities in a post-industrial economy have "no relationship whatsoever" to the socio-economic equalities that emerged during the industrial revolution?

If I am correct, you have just illustrated why no one is likely ever to mistake you for a trained historian.

:"But how statistically relevant do you imagine this to be?

"How staistically relevant does it need to be before I can declare that men and women are not equal? P>.005? P>.01? P>.5?"

Under the right cicrumstances, I might settle for any of those. Remember, we're not speaking of "identical" when we say "equal."

"Do you actually have any facts to hand that support any of those probabilities?"

No, but then neither do you. Again, why pretend that this is a logical face-off when we are both making surmises about complex sociological processes?

[nurses can lift bodies]
"Which proves only that some nurses can lift bodies, not that lifting bodies isn't a requirement of medicine or that men have an advantage in doing so, which is what I was arguing."

Well the problem here is that the majority of nurses are female. Hence, insofar as lifting bodies is a requirement of nursing, it's clear that there is no shortage of women able to do it. (If you've ever watched them work you'd observe that they have an ingenious technique of lifting patients involving the use of sheets and the elevation of the hospital bed.) There is simply no male advantage here, would you but open your eyes to admit it. It's probably true that a nurse with a back injury wouldn't be able to perform this task, but that would apply equally to male and female nurses.

"Unsupportabale anecdotal argument and therfore: Logical fallacy number seven in this thread."

Clunk! To point out that nurses lift bodies as they care for bedridden patients is an "unsupportable anecdotal argument"? Do you assume, in the absence of my "anecdote," that bedridden bodies levitate? That a special hunky male staff is hired to help hapless female nurses lift bedridden bodies? That the great majority of nurses are male? That nurses don't lift bedredden bodies but just leave them there to get bedsores?

Also, for your edification, there's nothing logically fallacious about offering anecdotal evidence so long as one isn't pretending it isn't anecdotal evidence.

[Women have made huge strides in the medical profession and now compose more than 50% of those in US medical schools]

"All I asserted was that strength could be an advantage in medicine due to the need to lift heavy bodies."

And all I have countered is that it clearly isn't since it hasn't prevented increasingly large numbers of women from entering medical school and becoming doctors.

"This ignores any implication about relative dropout rates during course and placement for males and females post graduation. Nothing should be implied about entry to university based on strength, and as such this is clearly"

Let me get this straight. Do you think that relative drop rates in medical school (assuming they show that women drop out at a higher rate--I don't know off hand) would be caused by female medical students finding the lifting of patients too onerous for them?

[glass ceiling in medicine]
G:"Just because other factors also come into play does not prevent strength from being a factor as well. Mandelstam's argument hinges on strength and sexual discrimination being mutually exclsuive,

Correction. No argument of mine is "hinged" on the "mutual exclusivity" of strength and sexual discrimination. And if your point is simply that "strength" is "a factor," I have repeatedly explained that I agree it is "a factor," albeit it a probably insignificant one.

"when of course there is no reason one woman can't be passed over for promotion due to one factor, and another owman for another."

Of course not! Congratulations for beginning, at last, to think in complex terms. However, if you can think of even one reason of why a female doctor in good health in a teaching hospital would be passed over for a promotion because she lacked an average man's physical strength, then I will tip my hat to you.

We may perhaps make a good historian out of you yet!

"Mandelstam is stating that women don't enjoy the same success as men in the wokplace. This could be eitehr because they lack strength, which is more important after graduation than during training or because, or because of a glass ceiling presumably based on unjustified discrimination. However Mandelstam has implied that since women had no trouble gaining Uni entrance then this implies that it must be unjustified discrimination. Of course just passing university exams and internship does not mean you have the strength necessary to take up a position in a rural area where you may be the only doctor for 400kms."

First, a rural doctor is not even relevant here b/c he or she is unlikely to be "promoted" within a hospital or university bureaucracy--that is the kind of place that exists in towns and cities. Second, why assume that a female doctor would lack the strength to be the only doctor in a rural area? Third, how many doctors world-wide are working under those conditions? As so often, your examples (such as they are) are based on peculiar exceptions that apply to exceeding few people.

It might interest you to know, btw, that fewer men are applying to medical school than ever before. Some have surmised that that's because in the post-HMO medical world, men are less interested in becoming doctors. In other words, as the medical profession becomes less prestigious, less autonomous, and potentially less well-compensated, fewer men seek it out. To me, this demonstrates just how deeply socio-cultural constructions of gender run. Men are more likely than women, on the average, to make a professional choice based on the expectations of the prestige and wealth it will provide.

{NOTE: It occurred to me as I wrote this that my figure about more than 50% might not be true of all med schools. This was something I read in the {i]New York Times a while back. I ought to have said simply that the number of women was often approaching that figure and sometimes even exceeding it. Apologies.}

["garden variety sexist"'s response to glass ceiling phenomenon not usually based on strength arguments]

The funny thing is that your garden variety illogical, revisionist feminist will say: well, women should be compensated while havin children 'cause it's beautiful and natural,

ROTFL! For the record, I know of no feminist who has made that argument. But it's delightful to hear you attempt to impersonate a feminist ;). Move over Gloria...

"or women can be just as valuable as a man, their employer just needs to spend lots of money buying them the equipment needed."

Such as? Please provide an example of a) a case where special equipment was requested to enable a woman to be "just as valuable as a man"; and b) evidence that a self-identified feminist supported the case. If you succeed in finding one, please offer an analysis--I'll settle for a guess--of how widespread you think the phenomenon in question would be. (I suspect you may be confusing arguments made on behalf of the physically handicapped with arguments made on behalf of women. Also, depending on what you read, there's a lot of "misinformation" put out there disseminated by Rush Limbaugh-loving type folks about what "feminists" allegedly say or do. A lot of it turns out to be completely decontextualized or even fabricated. So do beware about what passes for "garden variety" feminism, even when you're in a less sarcastic frame of mind.)

"See the trouble here Mandelstam is that sexist, no matter how you spin it, is an insult. This is an argument directed rather obviously at me and not my argument and by
doing this you have committed

Not necessarily: sexist arguments are often made by people who don't perceive themselves to be sexists. You may be such a person. That said, I didn't call you a sexist. But I can understand how in the context of this, at times, vehement debate you might misconstrue some aspect of argument as a personal insult. For the record, I don't find you particularly "sexist"--I think what you are is "masculinist." Is that an insult too in your view?

M: "Why need either parent[/b] be prevented from working?[emphasis]

"Well I'd say it's because if you're say a bungee jumping instrucor, or an airline pilot, or a control officer working for the plague locust commision you won't be allowed to work while pregant. that would probably slow you down somewhat."

Well actually, pregnant women aren't "parents" (unless they've already had another child). That is, I was speaking of the childcare implications of your question, not the pregancy issues. But since you raised the example, let's go with "airline pilot." Let's say--for argument's sake--that 80% of all female airline pilots take pregnancy/family leave for 9 months during two separate periods during a career that stems, on average, between age 30 and age 55. Now given that airlines have a pool of pilots, and given that a certain percentage of male pilots will also take some kind of health or family-related leave, why assume that maternity leave creates a situation where either a) female pilots are economically non-viable for airlines, or b) female pilots are not as good at piloting than their male peers? If, as the case may be, you do not assume either of those things, please tell me what you do assume when you raise the subject of maternity leave.

If your point is simply that such women would "suffer" from the loss of a certain amount of compensation during leave-time, I submit to you that I, for one, would not consider this to be an example of socio-economic "inequality." I would view this as a decision made, in the usual instance, by a family to forego a limited amount of income on a temporary basis.

"I have never heard of a man having to take six weeks off work after his child was born...

Really? I personally know more than a dozen men who took a month or more of leave time after their children were born. Perhaps you mean men forced to take leave because of a medical necessity of some kind.

For argument's sake, let's just assume that all women take six weeks off of work after having a child and all men take no leave whatsoever. If the average woman has two children her lifetime (and the average professional woman in the US probably has slightly less than that statistically), we're talking about a total of 12 weeks' maternity leave in an entire lifetime.
What precisely would you infer from data of that kind were it to be actual?

"Some women are flat on tehir back for the entire 9 months."

Oh, absolutely. Just as a small number of men are flat on their backs for all kinds of health or accident-related reasons. Again, I don't imagine that this phenomenon is statistically relevant, but if you have evidence to the contrary, I'll peruse it with interest.

"Therefore women as a group will be placed at an economic disadvantage due to giving birth that men will not."

To some degree, yes. Just as to some degree, men will be placed at an economic disadvantage because of their higher rates of cardiac illness, no? I'd love to see data for both of these. That is, we could probably find that US women lost $X in lost income due to childbirth, while US men lost $X to cardiac-related problems. However, when social scientists speak of socio-economic disadvantage, they can and often do control for the temporary impact of maternity leave. What they're really interested in--at least the ones I'm familiar with--are relatives rates of pay for the same kind of job; and relative rates of promotion with the same field. Now you might say that a woman who takes too much maternity leave is going to lose her competitiveness with her peers (male and female) who do not take too much leave. I would agree. However, I would add that there is no biological necessity here. There ways for professional women to arrange their childbearing and parenting demands so as to keep their professional viability intact. Whether women choose not to exercise these options or whether they lack the resources to exercise these options, the options exist. My point once again: we're dealing with a social and cultural phenemonon, not a biological necessity.

M:"There is widespread debate about the comparative influence of "nature" (including hormones) and "nurture". How is it "illogical" and "groundless" to weigh in on one side of the debate?"

"Because there is also widespraed debate about whether we landed on the moon, whether the Erath is flat etc. It is illogical to weigh in on one side of a debate when you have no logic to support your position. It is groundless when you have no grounds for your position. 'I think' is not grounds for weighing into the moon landing hoax on the affirmative. Such a stance would be illogical and groundless."

Tut, tut, Gaspode. Here and there you've provided some evidence of critical thinking. This is sadly beneath you. Do you dispute that there is "widespread debate about the comparative influence of "nature" (including hormones) and "nurture"?"

"There is no debate in scientific circles that hormones are a prime controller of personality."

First, that is not the same debate as the (age-old) debate about the comparative effects of nature and nurture. Second, what is meant by "prime controller"? If it only means "significant factor," I agree that you'd find a lot of consensus within the scientific community (depending on how "personality" is defined). Questions of degree--of how how significant a factor hormones present--do, however, exist inside and out of the hard sciences and social sciences.

" "If socialization/environment impacts relative differences, then many avenues of potential inquiry are opened up for folks like you who place great emphasis on hormones.

"Yes, and if the moon was made of green cheese then we could bring it to Earth and feed the starving millions.

I leave this in merely to illustrate what an actual logical fallacy looks like. You have agreed, several times, that environment has an impact on hormones. Since we know you know the moon is not made of green cheese--for as every Aussie knows it's made of Vegemite--you have just formulated a fatuous, purposeless and just plain old stupid analogy.

Once again, our differences, great as they are, aren't as great as you make them out. Isn't there something else you'd rather be doing?

"I had in fact read either the paper you referenced, or one that stated very much the same thing, some months ago."

How very fortuitous! Do please tell me where since, if it's available on the Internet, I would very much like to look at it myself. If, on the other hand, you read it in a scholarly journal or magazine, please tell me the title of the journal. At some point I will go to the library and look at it. I like to keep a little folder with such things.

G"I have stated quite clearly that hormones exert a profound effect on personality based on personality, Mandelstam has said this isn't illogical because very few women experience personality change from either birth control pills or pregnacy."

I said no such thing. You might think I said it "isn't logical and perhaps you have made a typo. In either case you misunderstand my position: I do not mean to suggest the "illogic" of the hormonal determinist position, but to suggest its insufficient complexity for so vast a concept as human personality.

"Just because hormones have a profound influence on personality, this does not in any way imply that the hormones in oral contraceptives, in the doses found in oral contraceptives, administered in the manner of oral contraceptives, will engender a personality change."

If your point is that it would take a higher dose to change personality, why not just say so and dispense with all this posturing? But do then please tell me, just how high muxg the dose must be? For argument's sake--if I upped my testerone intake to the level of an average man my age--would my personality change in your view? I ask this quite sincerely. And what if we artifically lowered your testosterone level? Would you suddenly begin--ummm--getting pedicures and crying at the movies?

:[i]"Most scientists don't use subjective words like "profound"; they prefer to say "statistically significant".

"I beg to differ. A quick search of current contents found the word profound over 5000 times, just in abstracts and titles. You really want to pursue this one?"

By all means. Please tell us what the quantifiable definition of "profound" was taken to be. As these would be researchers using the scientific method, some sort of clearly objective evidence would be attached to the word "profound." Perhaps this is the very information we need to take us outside of this unfortunate impasse.

"Fine, if we have no agreed definition then I can validly say that hormones have a profound influence on the personality without fear of valid contradiction, since by your own argument any contradiction will be subjective. Fine by me. Hormones have a profound influnce on personality."

Tsk, tsk. One of your sillier replies. You have yet either to define personality or to quantify "profound," much less to provide some scientific researcher's views on the matter. Feel free, therefore, to say whatever you like, but if you're going to invoke the authority of the entire scientific community, be prepared to tell us how that community defines the terms you are invoking in their name.

Otherwise, fire up that barbie ;)

"Great, now we're getting somewhere. So the majority of women are incapable of doing the type of physical work that the majority of men are. Now will you accept that such physical work has an economic value?"

Once again, the economic value of men's superior strength is, in modern times, negligible. The higher one goes up the ladder, the more negligible it becomes. Hence, I believe that if we had full-scale data at our disposal, we would find the economic effects of the strength advantage to be statistically irrelevant or, at best, minimal.

Having already spent more than an hour on this reply, and with many more claims on my time I will just note in passing.

Breastfeeding is not a biological necessity.

Bill Gates's success has nothing to do with his strength, so what do you expect to gain by mentioning him?

You allege that changing cultural biases against women might cost money. Even if I agreed with you, (which I might on a case-by-case basis) it would not invalidate the premise that inequalities that are caused by cultural bias, are, by their very nature, not biologically inevitable. To wit, to say that a social change might cost money is not to say that the status quo is biologically inevitable.

We might wish debate, in some other thread, whether or not it would be wise for employers or societes to devote resources to overcoming cultural bias. But that's an entirely separate issue.

"If she spendss money on childcare while breastfeeding then she's economically disadvantaged by breastfeeding."

I'm just curious, where is the father of this child in this picture? Doesn't he have any interest in his wife's economic productivity? And if he doesn't, isn't it a purely cultural choice if he chooses not to participate in childrearing activities that might boost his wife's earning power (putting aside how nice it might be for his child)!

To quote your exact words :"If " say, we were two co-workers"

<sigh> What I meant in the exchange that I've deleted as that the "we" was a hypothetical you and me, not the "we" that would entail my doing your ecological field work (or whatever it is) or your doing my work (which I've not actually specified).

"And oh so modest, right?

Gaspode dear, after reading this thread, I doubt that anyone would describe either of us as "modest." Let's just say that I'm as proud of my educational achievements as you are of your low body fat ;).

"I am aware that is very difficult for you to be so continually forced to confront the reality that your self-worth is based on an how sexually attractive you can make yourself appear to me"

Do you really think that? That is, do you think that I experience my self-worth as based on your sexual attraction to me. (

ind you, it is quite possible that you're hugely getting off on "battling" with a "feminazi." I have come across men like that on the Internet. However, you don't strike me as having that ulterior motive. So let's simply say that your views on my sexual attractiveness have not even crossed my mind, much less provided a "basis" for my self-worth. Yeesh, is every 6-foot-tall Aussie with a todger as impressed with his own importance to women as you are?

"You are a woman who believes that women must be supported by society for their personal gain, even at the expense of personla freedom."

From where in my (rather numerous remarks) do you extrapolate that?

"In addition, you are desperate to believ taht you are more intelligent than most men...

Well, given what I'd said to you, I think this is a fair retort. However, for what it's worth, I do want to assure you a) that I'm always very pleased to find a well-educated person on the SDSM and elsewhere and b) that I never take any particular pleasure in being more educated or more intelligent than a man (or anyone else for that matter). I like men very much. I have a lot of male friends, a lovely male husband (actually my second), a delightful male child, and a swell Dad.

"and you find in me a man who can show your flawed and irrational argument up for what it is"

Ummmmm. Let's say, in the spirit of good debate, that you did make a few interesting points.

"a veritable Descartes"

Well done! May I please call you Rene in the future?

"Well I certainly see that you have a very high opinion of yourself."

Very much so. But a much higher opinion of those who earn my respect. (You have a ways to go, though the Descartes retort scored big time for you.)

"Oh yeah, I sure got what I desereved. Won't take this one on again. Fair shaking in my boots now."

Gaspode, don't think me so blockish that I believed that you'd be [i]intimidated by what I said. I knew you'd come back swinging. What else would you do with all of that testosterone? ;) However, I did feel pressed into saying things that, had you accepted the olive branch I'd extended after Gaudere's appeal, I would not have said.

I don't expect or even seek to silence you, and I doubt that I can persuade you to see things as I do; but I do hope to open your mind a little.

[HairyPotter]

Mandelstam,

I'm curious. Why did you spend so much time and energy "debating" with Gaspode?

[Mandelstam]

Hairy, That is a fair question, but none one that I can easily answer in this forum. I still think of myself as a newcomer on these boards though I've been here, on and off, for nearly a year now. There are some incredibly learned, even brilliant posters here, whose posts are a great pleasure to read. (I would name them but they are surprisingly modest folk and it might embarass them.) I have often learned a lot by watching them cross swords with other posters (some of whom were belligerent, close-minded and perverse).

These days I rarely get involved in a thread unless I have a strong position to take, and a secure foundation of prior knowledge. Debating with someone who, consciously or not, is being a jerk is surprisingly engrossing (though I often fear, pretty boring for other readers beyond a certain point). It takes a certain kind of mental discipline to remain unemotional; and it is fascinating to see how much mental effort--how much genuine intelligence--some people will expend on making tortuous arguments to defend their existing beliefs against the onslaught of a different perspective. Also, it's surprising how much you clarify your thoughts when in the midst of replying to capricious and even absurd counterarguments. I'm not sure whether any of this adds up to a worthwhile activity, but it's the best I can do right now to explain my motivations.

[Gaudere]

Mandelstam:


...you silly child...I'm beginning to think that excessive investment in this topic has addled
your brains...

[Moderator Hat ON]

Mandelstam, these remarks were not wise to make in light of my request that you and Gaspode take it down a notch. Since I have not seen equally insulting remarks on Gaspode's part (feel free to email me with examples if you believe otherwise and I will consider them), I am considering you the one more at blame here. Tone it down! Collunsbury and greinspace's race debates are beginning to appear like models of decorum compared to this thread.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Edited by Gaudere on 09-09-2001 at 11:13 PM]

[tracer]

Oh, I dunno -- "silly child" doesn't sound terribly inflammatory, accusing Gaspode of having invested excessively in this topic does seem a tad hypocritical (considering the lengths of Mandelstam's responses) but not nasty, and saying it "addled [Gaspode's] brains" is a lot tamer than some of the well-deserved recent comments about Seethruart in his Apollo anomalies thread.

[Mandelstam]

Gaudere, I confess, I was surprised at your last intervention. You are far more familiar with the tone of vehement debates, so I do not suggest that you're wrong in singling this one out as unusually heated. And, although this is the first thread in which a moderator has addressed me, I don't pretend to wear kid gloves. That said, I made a legitimate effort to tone down my rhetoric, and I didn't get a response in kind. Some people might feel that if a poster is deliberately twisting words, and misunderstanding his or her interlocutor in what appears to be a willful fashion, that they might expect to face the possibility of such behavior being called "silly," or "addled." However, if you do not, fair enough. Similarly, if you think my subsequent decorum in replying to Gaspode's most recent and very lengthy critique of my logic and ignorance was not sufficient, then so be that. I can only say that I'm surprised that you saw fit to flag "silly child," but not to remark on Gaspode's having put words that were not mine into quotations (as though I had said them) in the same post that provoked the "silly child" response. Perhaps you missed it: I hardly expect you to scrutinize such very long posts. It struck me as a very inappropriate thing to do, and I'm sure it influenced my decision to speak as I did.

You are probably right, however, that I wasn't wise to say "silly"; although I suspect the even greater wisdom would have been to drop the rope entirely once it became clear that I was being asked to continually clarify the same points over and over again, to restate my meaning, and to defend myself against egregious charges of ignorance and illogic.

All that said, I promise on my honor as an ex-girl scout not to refer to any poster in GD, including the, um, Descartes Down Under, as "silly," et.al.

And I would add, that I do appreciate the moderating function on these boards very much.

[Gaspode]

What is left is an internal debate about who is or isn't arguing effectively.
Sigh, no Mandelstam. This isn't an issue of who is arguing effectively.Your entire position in this debate is completed unsupported, illogical and quite frankly stupid. Your 'argument' is completely illogical and I have induspitably demonstrated that it is hinged on a series of logical fallacies: argument from assertion, argument from authority, argument from ignorance and so forth. In short your argument is invalid. While you have demonstarted considerable passion (read bile, venom and anger) in this thread what you have failed to demonstrate is any valid reasinoing or facts behind your assertions. As someone else has said, I have eviscerated your argument and exposed the guts of your position for what it is: a collection of rantings and silly and overemotional tripe withmore than a little evidence of neurosis where this issue is concerned. You can't simply sweep that away by saying that we're debating effective arguiment. What I have conclusively demonstarted is that your argument is as ignorant, baseless and unsupported as I originally stated.

I agree that it would be very interesting to look at what data is available on the subject. But I expect such data will confirm what I have already suggested: that access to highly paid and socially important labor tends to follow a pattern in which university degrees lead to managerial-level employment so that need for physical prowess is the exception rather than the rule.
Argument from assretion. Logically invalid.

"Answer me this please Mandlstram: Had there been a male working at that store who was as adept at alphabetisation as yourself, and equally good at all other tasks, would it have been fairer to promote him or yourself, assuming that you will perform one task "less well than" him and all other tsaks to exactly the same level?
The thing is that once I was promoted there wasn't the need to do any lifting at all. I did orders, handled customer complaints, supervised other employees, etc. So perhaps had there been a male who was in every other respect equal to me in job performance the "fair" solution would have been to flip a coin, or try to promote us both at some point.
Ahh, so despite the fact that he was, by your own admission, able to fill the previous position better then you, and despite the fact that by your own admission he would have done more work then you, that would have been fair. What a bizarre view of fair you have. WOuld ou at least be willing to concede that if your manager had decided to promote the male because he had demonstreted himself as being more capable that such a reason would not have been perfectly valid?

"The entire point here is simply this: Just because high paid jobs require minimal physical prowess this does not allow us to conclude that physical prowess is not a factor in obtaining high paid jobs. Would you agree with this staement or not."

I would agree that it (physical prowess) might very occasionally be a factor, but I believe that it is not sufficiently often a factor to be statistically significant. And I believe that other factors--most of which are non-biological in nature--have much greater impact on presentday socio-economic inequalities. This is the basic disagreement between us.
And in this little gem Mandelsam again demonstrates the outcome of all those logic classes she was too humble to admit she took. :rolleyes:
1)The basic disagrement between us is not whether non-biologial factors "have much greater impact on presentday socio-economic inequalities" than biological ones. That is a strawan (And do I really need to explain to someone who took so many logic classes why a strawman is logically invalid?) No Mandelstam the basic disagreement between us is that you decided to challenge a factual and logically self-evident. The statement in question was: "Added to this there are numerous reasons why men and women will never be equal, no matter how much we may desire it." Instead of simply conceding this you decided to challenge with: "Gaspode: what are these "numerous reasons" why men and women will "never" be equal? So far as I can tell, the basic differences are..." and then went on to suggest that intra-gender hormonal diffrences may be the rsult of environment."
Since you have now conceded that physical prowess is a factor in determining equality (equality as defined by yourself I might add) then I think we can safely say that my point stands as a valid one.

2)You cannot challenge a blanket statement with nothing more than assertion, and then at a later juncture decide that you will impose acceptable levels of staistical significance. This is excatly what you have done here. As I pointed out above, this is a logical fallacy referred to as "Audiatur et altera pars ". For someone who claims to have taken so many logic classes you demonstrate a remarkable degree of ignorance concerning what constitutes valid logic.

Now having completed the polite part of the debate I will now demonstrate that I too can indulge in Mandelsatm debatetm when I feel no need to show my opponent any respect.
Mandelstam you display in this one paragraph gross ignorance and willful stupidity simultaneously. The basic disagreement between us is that you, in what was clearly and overwrought and emotional state decided to challenge a factual and logically self-evident statement made by your intellectual betters. It is not whether biological factors are more or less important than environamental ones in determining socio-economic success . Instead of simply conceding the truth gracefully and learnimng form it you, being ignorant and emotional, decided to challenge with what may actually be the single most ignorant statement I've ever seen ever posted.
Mandelstam I will repeat, there are numerous reasons why men and women will never be equal, no matter how much we may desire it. You won't like it I know. I'm sure that it injures your frail sense of feminine self-worth almost to the point of destroying it. As much as the pain that I am undobtedly causing your ego bothers me I feel compelled to force you to admit the facts, to yourself and those around you. These boards are dedicated to fighting ignorance. By forcing you, albeit against your will and against your best (if rather pathetic) arguments, to concede that there are reasons why men and women will never be equal I have done just little bit in the fight against ignorance.

Now you can enjoy the fact that your emotional baggage has led you to demonstrate to all here exactly how illogical both yourself and you ludicrous position in this argument are.

Gee wasn't that fun. I too can be rude without in any way progressing the debate or addressing my opponents arguments. Of course I never actually descended to the level of 'silly child', but hell that's not too hard. Lets have a vote shall we folks. Should I keep hammering Mandelstam in the same manner in which she has been hammering me, or should I leave that sort of garbage to The Pit?
Don't bother answering. I'm being facetious. While I'm quite willing to use that sort of attack against an opponents argument and position you will notice that I have never used such attacks against Mandelstam herself except when paraphrasing her own comments to reinforce the stupidity of utilising ad hominems in a debate. And I've no intention of starting now. Now if only e could get Mandelstam to see the difference between an attack on her ignorant, stupid, illogical, emotive flawed, ugly argument, and an attack on own good self.

Sufficient to explain existing socio-economic inequalities? No, I very much doubt that."
Already identified as a strawman in a previous post. I have never even insinuated that physical differences can explain existing socio-economic differences. I have in fact requested Mandelstam to identify where I have done more than once. Instead of doing so she simply repeats the same old strawman. Mandelstam this isn't an argument against my position, it's an argument against something you want desparately to believe is my position. That unfortunately is a strawman and cannot be used to support your ignorant and counter-factual position because it is logically invalid

As you well know, I "conceded" that point (that physical strength means that men have geater opportunities for economic success then women due to physical differences) long ago
Then you will have no problem showing me where exactly you did this will you. Pease give me a quote.

But, to repeat myself, these "greater opportunities" are not, I believe, statistically significant.
And to repeat myself : That is what we around here call audiatur et altera pars ". It's a logical fallacy to attempt to add qualifiers to an arument after you have presented your position. Your whole argument on this line stems from your disagreement with the fact that there are numerous reasons why men and women cannot be equal, and your ignorant suggetsion that intra-gender hormonal differences may be environmentally induced. You have now been forced to concede that physiological differences do in fact result in an inability for both genders to be equal. You can't at this late stage attempt to add qualifiers to your ignorant, counterfactual and irrational reasoning. My statement stands. There are numerous reasons why men and women will never be equal, no matter how much you may desire it. face the facts Mandelstam, or present your illogical arguments from ignorance and assertion in IMHO wher they belong, or find another board. Just don't expect logical fallacies and ignorant opinions to be treated gently when presented in GD.
Your above statement is logically invalid.

However I would welcome to the opportunity to view precise data on the matter.
Implying that neither of us have any precise data and therefore you can challenge my staements extrapolated from induspitable facts is an argument from ignorance. It is nor more valid than saying that there is no precise evidence of evolution, only statements based on extrapolated facts, therefore you can challenge the theory of evolution.
This is an argument from ignorance and is logically invalid

"If you concede that men have greater economic opportunities then they are immediately not economically equal aren't they?"

You need a suitable definition of "economically equal."
No, you defined equality to suit yourself by saying that it encompassed socioeconomic equality. Now that you find yourself backed into a corner by your own illogical commenst you can't attempt to futher redifine both our positions by defining economically equal in a way not in agreement with an English dictionary. This is yet another argument audiatur et altera pars. It simply demonstrates that you are finding your posiion untenable and wish to change it by altering definitions. While I will happily allow you to concede the point I will not allow you to redifine both our positions in this way.
This is not a logically valid process

I believe that in today's society the average difference in physical strength between the average man and the average woman does not have a significant impact on existing socio-economic and political equalities. To repeat myself: this is the point we differ on. I see very little reason to belabor it further in the absence of additional evidence.
1)"I believe that"... in the absence of any evidence whatsoever is simply an argument from assertion. This is not logically valid.
2)You have been making an argument asserting that my statement that there are numerous reasons for inevitable inequalities betwen men and women is incorrect. I never at any stage made any comments on the significance of such comments. You cannot therefore attempt at this late stage to bring levels of significance into the debate. I made it quite clear to you in my above post Mandelstam that this is argument audiatur et altera pars. You can't change the rules after you're argument has already been gutted.
This is not logically valid

I do realize that but, (so far) no one other than you hasadduced any examples; and Dangerosa has suggested that your tech-related example was off the mark. You may, therefore, want to re-think this particular aspect of your position.
And as someone who has succesfully completed so many logic classes, you will be well aware that the fact that no-one besides myself has done something does not logically invalidate such an action, or the implication of such an action. By saying what you have here you are attempting an argumentum ad numerum.
This demonstrates nothing and is not logically valid.

I would be maintaining that strength of less value makes a person of less value. Surely that's self evident. Now let us assume--for the purpose of argument--that an MBA confers access to the highest paid employment in a given society. In that instance "strength of less value" would be irrelevant to the question of a person's economic value, unless the person in question (be they man or woman) lacked the basic physical health to carry out the job.
Well no obvious logical fallacies here, but horrendously illogical nonetheless.

1)For strength of less value to be irrelevant to all MBAs' worths then such strength would need to have no value itself. If it had value to some MBA's then it would be relevant to the value of those members. That is indusputable and can be demonstrated using logical truth tables. If such strength is of no value to all MBAs' then it can't be of less value for some members. That is also indiputable. Your entire paragraph above is gibbereish and nothing more.
You have already all but conceded that male strength has a higher value in some positions. I was attempting to get you to concede that strength of higher value makes a person of higher value. You can't logically counter this by describing an example where neither high nor low strength has any value. All you're doing here is arguing the induspitable equivalence of zero. I was hoping you wouldn't be so illogical or disingenuous as to do this, but since you obviously are I will be forced to corner you.

Mandelstam, you have alraedy conceded that as a group men have a higher strength than women. Do you concede that there exist positions in this world where high strength is of economic value? And do you concede that if strength is of value, then having a strength of less value makes a person of less value?
Please answer, and if either answer is no explain your logic.

In the real world physical strength would take its place alongside a large number of work-related variables: appropriate education/skills would probably rank highest. More general factors would probably include intelligence, communication skills, problem-solving ability, honesty, ability to get along with peers. So unless you can prove that it's physical strength that, on average, provides access to the greatest number of well-paid jobs (or even the greatest number of jobs in toto), you can't assume that "strength of less value makes a person of less [economic] value.
Now here we do have several logical fallacies.
1)The fact that physiacl strength is but one of a number of factors is irrelevent. Immediately following the very sentence that Mandelstam quated above is this sentence :"If strength has value and group A has more strength than group B then, [/i]all other factors being equal[/i], isn't group B of more value. In a most disingenuous manner Mandelstam has clipped this, and now posts a statement implying that I was talking about strength being the most important on average. I was never talking about strength being more important, simply being of value, such that if all the factors Mandelstam listed above were equal, having "strength of less [economic] value makes a person of less [economic] value"
Mandelstam this is the most blatant strawman you have posted to date. I can't believe you did this. But since you insist on forcing me to tie you into pretzels and make you tap out, rather than conceding graciously I will ask you outright. Having conceded that "the majority of women are in fact incapable of performing the type of physical work that the majority of men are", do you concede that physical work has an economic value? If you concede that we can move onto the next stage in this arument where I demonstrate that since the majority of women are in fact incapable of performing tasks of economic value that the majority men are, then it reasonable to conclude that all else being equal the majority of men are of greater economic value than the majority of women. If Mandelstam concedes this I will then go on to state that unless she can demonstrate that all other factors are not in fact equal her suggestion that there is not a valid biological reason why men and women can't be economically superior is yet another argument from ignorance.

2)I don't need to prove "that it's physical strength that, on average, provides access to the greatest number of well-paid jobs". That's irrelevant unless mandelstam can demonstrate a trait possesed by women that is as indisputable as male strength and as indisputably of economic benefit that could offset the ecomomic advantage of strength. While men and women remain equal in every other factor that Mandelstam has listed above we can discount them because, as I stated in my last post (which Mandelsta again clipped) "we're not talking about individual women and men here, we're talking about women and men as groups". If group A has, AS A GROUP, a factor of higher economic value than group B, AS A GROUP, then group A has a higher value than group B. Mandelstam refused to answer this question last time, so I'll pose it again. : "We have two brands of pallet jacks: A and B. Each brand produces a range of models with various capabilities, but every function that a model of brand B can perform can be performed just as well by just as many models of brand A. The more a pallet jack can lift the higher its economic value. Brand A models lift 500kg on average, Brand B models lift 1 tonne on average. Which brand is economically superior?"

I repeat, this is the main point of difference between us.
ANd I repeat, it's not. The main point of difference is your absurd, ignorant and illogical insistence that there are not any valid biological reasons why men and women can't be equal. If you concede that men have a higher potential economic value than women because of biological factors, then they can't have an equal potential economic value despite biological differences. Your argument then becomes one that states taht despite proven potential economic differences due to biological factors, these needn't translate into real economic differences. If you want to argue that you're going to have to explain why, otherwise you're left with an argument from ignorance.

I never said a woman can't become president.
Point conceded. yopu did in fact say a woman isn't as likely as likely to be elected president. I apologise for misrepresenting you.

You seem to assume that I meant that perceptions about physical strength are the only kind of prejudice that might contribute to voter prejudice. I neither meant it nor said it.
No I never made any such assumption. I will say again. Your statement that :The chances of such a woman becoming a US president are less because the stereotypes that I hold so dear (in which women's professional limitations are extrapolated from their physical limitations) prejudice voters, including female voters. is an ignorant, baseless, illogical argument from assertion. I will ask you again can you actually support that statement any better than I can support the statement "And the reason is that the illuminati put fluoride in the water and influence voters that way, including female voters"?

Gaspode if you were a trained sociologist, an economist, a geneticist, a labor historian, an economic historian, a psychologist--it would have bearing on this debate.
No it wouldn't. Only the facts and logic have bearing in a debate, particularly on these boards. That is why your argument from your own authority is a logical fallacy.
The only thing your self-induced and unsupported skiting might give is some reason for an impartial observer to believe your opinions are informed. However I am your opponent and as I said, I have no respect for your authority, if I did I wouldn't be arguing.
Since much of this debate is on biological matters I am as much an authority on this debate as yourself, and my argument is not ignorant and based on logocal fallacies. I would not expect you to accept my authority when I say that you're argument that intra-gender hormonal diffrences might be due to environment is counter-factual and evidence. If you really want to dispute that I'll provide any number of cites. As it stands it appears you have conceded that such a atement was in fact ignorant.
Argument from some other respected historians authority is valid (though only until called into question by another historian), argument from your own authority is not.

I told you I had been trained as a historian and that I had taught history at the university level, because part of our debate involved what comprises a good historical argument.
No. Never at any stage did we debate what made a god historical argument. Nor do I intend to debate what makes a good drunken argument, or a good racist argument. We have only been and I intend to only be debating why your argument is not a valid logical one. I have no idea what constitutes a good historical argument, but I assumed that it would have to be logical and not based almost entirely upon logical fallacies as yours has been. If this is not the truth then it is sad, but the standard rule in GS is that an argument should be in English, should be logical, and should be supported with eitehr reason or fact. Those are the only grounds I will debate you on since you did not declare beforehand that we were engaging under any other rules. Your argument, even if it is a good historical one, is absolutley pathetic logically. It has no ound reasoning behind it, it's full of appeals to the people, ad hominems, strawmen, false implications, faulty assumptions, argumets from ignorance, arguments from assertion, red herrings etc. If that maketh a good historical argument then so be it, but as you have said, I'd make a shitty historian because I prefer facts, reason and logic to emotion, vitriol and opinion. You'll find most everyone on these boards does.

Of course, you are free to believe that you are more fit to judge a good historical argument than any number of trained historians. But there is no "logical fallacy" in my pointing out the fact to you.
ANd as i have said above, until you trot out those other number of trained historians it is alogical fallacy. ANd by the way, by attempting at this late stage to redefine this as being an historical argument, rather than a logocal debate, you are guilty of yet another argument udiatur et altera pars.
This is not logically valid.

I was defending the appropriateness of arguments about what "I think," not suggesting that the SDMB exclude all non-historians.
You can argue all day long about how appropraite what you think is. What you can't do in a logical argument is attempt to argue from what you think that something else is appropriate. That is an argument from assertion and as anyone who has ever taken classes in logic would know that is not logically valid[/i]. Really Mandelstam if your whole argument comes down to what you think we can quit now. While I've torn your entire argument to shreds logically and factually I can never demolish what you think. As such argument is pointless because I can equally argue that I think, as a biologist, that there are numerous biological reasons why men and women can never be equal, and indeed I have been doing so. You will need to accept my authority and I yours. If that's what you want to do Mandelstam then I suggest you take what you think back to IMHO where it belong. What you post heer has to be supportable with more than just opinion and if it isn't then I will simply tera it to shreds on logical grounds yet again, leaving your tattred argument clinging to nothing more than "I think" as the gales of logical debate tear over it and around it and the razor pointed facts shred it completely.

Well if we read the actual post that led me to say that you will note that what you actually said was "your argument that presentday inequalities stem from these historical differences--real or (ahem) perceived--just doesn't stand up.
That's right. And I hold by that. It doesn't "stand up." Because it's insufficient. Got it? Remember that "these" historical differences refers to physical strength factors.
Well it had to come folks. Having presented a fully reasoned critique of Mandelstam's statement, including pointing out the logical fallacies therein and proving that it was logically invalid to attempt to to use the fact thathistorical reasons were "insufficient" as grounds Mandelstam now simply reiterates the exact same line that I demolished in my last post, adding no new information at all. I can only possibly refute this by posting exactly what I did last time, and I'm not going to do that. I sense the beginnings of an Argument ad nauseam people, and that is not logically valid

I "understand" that you are too bellicose and stubborn to open your mind.
I've said it before and i'll say it agin. i love it when someone in GD has absolutley no comeback aside from ana d hominem. I've pointed out over a dozen logical flaws in Mandelstams argument all supported by facts and sound reason and her response: Becasue I refuse to agree with her I'm stubborn and closed minded. Yep there's a strong argument if ever I saw one. :rolleyes:
Make no mistake: as a historical argument your argument was weak and remains weak.
ANd i repeat, I'm not making an historical argument, I'm making a logical argument. If historical arguments aren't based on fact and logic then I suggest you find a history board to debate on. Around here the normal form is to debate based on facts and logic.

: "There are too many other more important historical factors: e.g., the sexual division of labor (which relegated women to non-compensated housework); and the long history of paying women less for the same job as men."

"And as soon as you point out somewhere where I said that such factors were not important I'll rescind my statement that your argument was illogical and counterfactual."

Okay: here is something you need to know about historical arguments. Any historical argument is weak if ....
OK, here is somehting you should know about GD. This is a board dedictaed to fighting ignorance. We've found that logic reason and facts are the best weapons we've got and as such debates in GD run on logic and are run on logic, reason and facts. I couldn't care less if 'historical arguments' allow for a weakening of the rules of logic to make up for a lack of facts. I don't, the SDMB doesn't. Your argument may be strong historically, it's certainly a pearler for a drunken party, but it's weak as piss logically, as you would know since you have taken all those classes in logic. Conversely mine may be a weak historical argument, but it's running rings around you based on logic and fact. Far more importantly my argument is eliminating ignorance, not contributing to it.
A tip. Next time you're debating by rules taht aren't known to everyone, as you are doing here, make it known. Otherwise we're going to just assume you're attempring to debate our our turf, and our turf is logic, fact and reason, not opinion, WAGs and unsupportable opinion. It'll save you alot of time and unpleasantness.

I would add that a more reasonable person would be happy to acknowledge that he had actually gained something from this interchange.
Had you presented more than one fact that wasn't old knowledge to me then that might be so. As it is all you have presented is opinion and erroneous logic. If you are in fact a history lecturer at a university I suspect you must have some factual knowledge to share, and when you do so I have no doubt I will gain from it. But I have nothing to gain from logical fallacies, unsupported opinion, emotive arguments and personal insults other than a fuller understanding of the human mind.


This [debate about historical causation] has no relationship whatsoever to conditions in factories.
Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that debates about the historical foundations of socio-economic inequalities in a post-industrial economy have "no relationship whatsoever" to the socio-economic equalities that emerged during the industrial revolution? If I am correct, you have just illustrated why no one is likely ever to mistake you for a trained historian.
I've accepted by this that your argument Is largely based on strawmen, but please don't further insult me and other readers by misquoting me. People, the above quote attributed to me originally read "you decided to present your... assertion... in response to my statement that "I suspect that a large part of the reason women have been left out of the governmental process is that they are percieved as having no personal stake in this ultimate political tactic". This has no relationship whatsoever to conditions in factories." Kind of changes the meaning a little doesn't it. far from being "This [debate about historical causation] has no relationship whatsoever to conditions in factories." as Mandelstram has me saying, it actually reads "This [debate about the influence of military contribution] has no relationship whatsoever to conditions in factories. Unless Mandelstam wishes to suggest that she thought that " this ultimate political tactic" was in fact historical causation. :rolleyes:
Mandelstam with this statement you have gone from being simply illogical and disingenuous as you have been in the past, to being outright dishonest. I have no intention of attempting to engage a dirty opponent, we'll both end up looking worse for it. [i]DONT DO THIS AGAIN.

How staistically relevant does it need to be before I can declare that men and women are not equal? P>.005? P>.01? P>.5?"
Under the right cicrumstances, I might settle for any of those. Remember, we're not speaking of "identical" when we say "equal."
And the beginnings of another argument ad nauseum. Mandelstam I will say one last time. We at no stage decided that in order for me to say that men and women will never be equal I would have to prove impossible inequality for any given percentage of the sample population. If you accept that the subject group 'men' have an inherent economic advantage over the subjecct group 'women' as a result of physical strength then they are unavoidably unequal and I am quite justified in saying that there is a physiological reason why men and women will never be equal. Not just not identical, but unequal. I can as validly say that there are physiological reasons men and women can't be equal economically as I can that they can't be equal in height. Subject group men have an inherent economic advantage over the subject group 'women' as a result of physiology, just as they have inherent height advantage over the subject group 'women' as a result of physiology. I can as validly say taht men and women are unequal economically as I can say they are unequal height wise. Levels of significance were never intrinsic to my argument and as such you can't simply make an assumption of significance that will be acceptable after you have been forced to concede the point. That is an argument audiatur et altera pars. And that is not logically valid. My argument stands because your rebuttal is not able to be logically supported. Try another rebuttal or concede the point. No other alternatives are available.

Do you actually have any facts to hand that support any of those probabilities?"
No, but then neither do you. Again, why pretend that this is a logical face-off when we are both making surmises about complex sociological processes?
Because the diffrence is that when I stated that there are numerous reasons why men and women couldn't be equal I knew that I could provide examples, facts and logic to support it, and that no facts existed to contradict that statement. I have provided examples, I will provide facts (if anyone really needs cites to prove that men are stronger than women), I have presented my reasoned argument which you have failed to rebut or find fault with. By saying "No, but then neither do you" you indulging in one of the most blatant arguments from ignorance I've seen. You are saying that your position must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. What is known is that men do have greater strength than women, and that there is an economic advantage to strength. We can reason that such inequality in economic asset distribution leads to an inequality in economic success (as I have done). For you to imply otherwise you will need to present evidence or reasoned argument that inequality in economic asset distribution won't lead to an inequality in economic success. The absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that this is not the case didn't occur. I am not making surmises. I am presenting facts and logical argument which you are unable to logically refute. You are simply stsing that because I can't prove your assertion untrue, they must be true. That, Mandelsatm is an argumentum ad ignorantiam, as one who has studied logic undoubtedly knows, and that is not logically valid.

Which proves only that some nurses can lift bodies, not that lifting bodies isn't a requirement of medicine or that men have an advantage in doing so, which is what I was arguing.
Well the problem here is that the majority of nurses are female. Hence, insofar as lifting bodies is a requirement of nursing, it's clear that there is no shortage of women able to do it. There is simply no male advantage here, would you but open your eyes to admit it.
Again, this is as logically invalid as your original unsupported anecdote. The problem is that you are saying that men have no advantage in medicine because nurses can lift bodies. I'm surprised that someone who has studied logic doesn't know that such is not logically valid. People with chainsaws can cut down trees, but I have seen people with axes cut down trees. That does not in any way mean that people with chainsaws don't have an advantage in cutting down trees, nor does it invalidate an argument that having a chainsaw is an economic advantage.
I can't believe I've had to explain to a university lecturer, in mind numbing detail, why unsupported anecdotal evidence is not logically valid and can't be used as a rebuttal in an argument.

To point out that nurses lift bodies as they care for bedridden patients is an "unsupportable anecdotal argument"? Do you assume, in the absence of my "anecdote," that bedridden bodies levitate? That a special hunky male staff is hired to help hapless female nurses lift bedridden bodies? That the great majority of nurses are male? That nurses don't lift bedredden bodies but just leave them there to get bedsores?
No Mandelstam, I assume that you have the sense to understand that the fact that anecdotally female staff lift patients does not support an asssertion that strength is an advanatge in the medical profession. Just as the fact that anecdotally a amn has survived a rattlesnake bite with no ill effects does not dupport an assertion that rattlesnakes are harmless. You are making an implication from an anecdote, as opposed to making an implication from a controlled study.

Also, for your edification, there's nothing logically fallacious about offering anecdotal evidence so long as one isn't pretending it isn't anecdotal evidence.
Yes, we all knew that. What is logically invalid, as I pointed out above in tedious detail, is making implications from such anecdotes.

Women have made huge strides in the medical profession and now compose more than 50% of those in US medical schools
"All I asserted was that strength could be an advantage in medicine due to the need to lift heavy bodies.
And all I have countered is that it clearly isn't since it hasn't prevented increasingly large numbers of women from entering medical school and becoming doctors.
Yet another argumentum ad nauseum in the making.
Mandelstam I will say one last time. All I asserted was that strength could be an advantage in medicine due to the need to lift heavy bodies. Above you are now suggesting that this implies not simply that men will have an advantage as doctors, but that men will have an advantage in gaining access to and passing medical school. This ignores any implication about relative dropout rates during course and placement for males and females post graduation. You can't imply that strength clearly isn't an advanatge in medicine just because it hasn't prevented increasingly large numbers of women from entering medical school and becoming doctors. All you can imply from that is that a lack of strength need not prevent someone from entering medical school. Nothing should be implied about entry to university based on strength, and as such this is clearly reasoning Non Causa Pro Causa. We all know that that is logically invalid.. It's the equivalent of saying that large numbers of shorter people play basketball, so height isn't an advanatge in basketball. What a load of rubbish. Of course height is an advanatge in basket ball, but people of lesser height still make it to the majors. Name any attribute you like that is an advanatge (not a necessity) in any field and I'll garauntee I'll find numbers of peolpe who overcame that disadvanatge and succeded in spite of it. That's why it's called an advanatge and not a necessity. You can't just repeat the same illogical and invalid assertion again and expect it to pass Mandelstam.

Let me get this straight. Do you think that relative drop rates in medical school (assuming they show that women drop out at a higher rate--I don't know off hand) would be caused by female medical students finding the lifting of patients too onerous for them?
That is completely irrlevant. All I was doing was demonstrating that you implication is completely illogical and based on fallacy and pointing out factors that haven't been taken into account in your raesoning. I've done that spectacularly well. Going into what I think on this matter is a red herring and nothing more. If you can demonstrate that all alternative imlpications are wrong then you won't have an logically invalid Non Causa Pro Causa argument. But until then this doesn't warrant discussion.

Now surely this "glass ceiling" phenomenon doesn't stem from differences in physical strength none of which prevented large numbers of women becoming doctors in the first place.Just because other factors also come into play does not prevent strength from being a factor as well. Mandelstam's argument hinges on strength and sexual discrimination being mutually exclsuiveCorrection. No argument of mine is "hinged" on the "mutual exclusivity" of strength and sexual discrimination.I have repeatedly explained that I agree it is "a factor," albeit it a probably insignificant one.
Then your statement becomes irrelevant. I assumed you were trying to argue your point with your statement. If you were simply stating a fact then that's fine.
If we agree that strength is a factor then we can validly state that: This "glass ceiling" phenomenon doesn't stem from differences in physical strength exclusively, but it is agreed it stems in part from differences in physical strength, with men being less effected by the glass cieling to at least some degree due to superior strength. Would you agree with that statement Mandelstam?


However, if you can think of even one reason of why a female doctor in good health in a teaching hospital would be passed over for a promotion because she lacked an average man's physical strength, then I will tip my hat to you.
I won't even try. The fact remains that the strength difference between men and women in the inevitable result of physiology. You have conceded that strength plays a part in men gaining promotion. You have conceded that promotion plays a part in equality. Therfore there are inevetaible physiological reasons why men and women will never be equal. Seems I can claim to have won right here, unless yo care to dispute any of that.

We may perhaps make a good historian out of you yet!
Nope, to get me to base an argument on faulty implications and assertion arther than logic, which is apparently what is required of a historian, you'd need to lobotomise me.

First, a rural doctor is not even relevant here b/c he or she is unlikely to be "promoted" within a hospital or university bureaucracy--that is the kind of place that exists in towns and cities.
Yeah, and I don't think in complex terms.
Mandelsatm I have a freind. She is a vet. She did OK at uni but not great. She took a job as a vets assistant in a small mining town. He was mightily impressed with her work ability and allowed her to do further study, as a result of which she was accepted for postgrad work, as a result of which she is now assistant lecturer at UQ. Granted in this case strength wasn't a afactor, but to suggest that performance rural positions can't lead to greater promotional opportunities is very narrow minded. And as long as we agree taht strength affects performance then strength affects promotion, promotion affects salary and as such strength affects economic success.

Second, why assume that a female doctor would lack the strength to be the only doctor in a rural area?
Well in this part of the world at least rural hospitals are notoriously short-staffed. The doctors are required to lift people bodily because quite often there is no one to help them (and have complained bittelry about this practice amongst others).

Third, how many doctors world-wide are working under those conditions? As so often, your examples (such as they are) are based on peculiar exceptions that apply to exceeding few people.
And I will say again, so long as they apply to any people my statement that there are reasons why men and women can't be equal is true. I don't know how many people it applies to. Neitehr do you. What I can say is that it is invalid and illogical to rule out physiological differences altogether as a cause of inequality between men and women. If we can agree on that then we can start on another thread where we debate the relative importance of such (or we could just stick bamboo splinters under each others fingernails. I suspect it would have much the same result.). To date you have been strongly implying that my statement that there are reasons why men and women cannot be equal is incorrect. What all these examples demonstrate is that it is correct. We may well dispute the degree to which it affects the world, but we have to acknowledge that it does have an affect.

It might interest you to know, btw, that fewer men are applying to medical school than ever before. Some have surmised that that's because in the post-HMO medical world, men are less interested in becoming doctors. In other words, as the medical profession becomes less prestigious, less autonomous, and potentially less well-compensated, fewer men seek it out. To me, this demonstrates just how deeply socio-cultural constructions of gender run. Men are more likely than women, on the average, to make a professional choice based on the expectations of the prestige and wealth it will provide.
And if I knew what HMO was that could even make sense to me. :confused:
BTW I agree that this may well be the case, but that in itself may well be a physiological effect (although damn near impossible to prove) and one that advanatge women.

{NOTE: It occurred to me as I wrote this that my figure about more than 50% might not be true of all med schools. This was something I read in the {i]New York Times a while back. I ought to have said simply that the number of women was often approaching that figure and sometimes even exceeding it. Apologies.}
The actual figures don't matter. WHat matters is that the implications you made were logically invalid.

ROTFL! For the record, I know of no feminist who has made that argument. But it's delightful to hear you attempt to impersonate a feminist
No I wasn't attempting to impersonate a feminist, I was attempting to belittle their belief. Damn. Have to work harder at saracsm and bathos.

Please provide an example of a) a case where special equipment was requested to enable a woman to be "just as valuable as a man";
Considering this came from you misunderstanding my attempted rudeness it hardly bears comment, but in Australia at laest this is common practice in the public service. Strength differences are specifically not valid grounds for refusing employment. Instead there's a special fund specifically to allow for the purchase of equipment/pay additional salaries for female employees to compensate for strength differences. I'll see if I can dig out the legislation when I get to work tomorrow,a long with a few examples.

evidence that a self-identified feminist supported the case.
Well that actually shoukldn't be too hard but I won't make any promises.
If you succeed in finding one, please offer an analysis--I'll settle for a guess--of how widespread you think the phenomenon in question would be.
Well if i can find the legislation it should be fairly clear how widespread the phenomenon is.

Also, depending on what you read, there's a lot of "misinformation" put out there disseminated by Rush Limbaugh-loving type folks about what "feminists" allegedly say or do.
And again if I knew who Rush Limbaugh was I'd understand that.

Not necessarily: sexist arguments are often made by people who don't perceive themselves to be sexists. You may be such a person. That said, I didn't call you a sexist. But I can understand how in the context of this, at times, vehement debate you might misconstrue some aspect of argument as a personal insult. For the record, I don't find you particularly "sexist"--I think what you are is "masculinist." Is that an insult too in your view?
1)Yes it is necessarily. Not all child molesters percieve themselves as child molesers eitehr. Child molester is still an adhominem because it has no bearing on the validity of a persons argument.
2)Yeah sure you didn't call me a sexist. Just like you didn't call me a silly child or addle brained. Now the average goat-felcher would confess that they had called me a sexist, so I'll congratualte you on denying that you called me sexist. But I'm not calling you a goat-felcher. :rolleyes:

3)Masculinist? I didn't even copnsider the possibility that the word existed until just now. But no, I don't think I am. The same as I'm not a white supremacist, or a communist or any other -ist. I just believe that beliefs should be based on logic and that every member of society should have the same opportunites with no favouritism for anyone, irrespective of race, creed, age or gender. (With the few necessary caveats for compasion, minors etc.)

why assume that maternity leave creates a situation where either a) female pilots are economically non-viable for airlines, or b) female pilots are not as good at piloting than their male peers? If, as the case may be, you do not assume either of those things, please tell me what you do assume when you raise the subject of maternity leave.
What I assume is that if a woman is not getting paid while on maternity leave she is at an economic disadvantage. If she is getting paid she is at an economic advantage. Please tell me what you fail to understand here.

If your point is simply that such women would "suffer" from the loss of a certain amount of compensation during leave-time, I submit to you that I, for one, would not consider this to be an example of socio-economic "inequality." I would view this as a decision made, in the usual instance, by a family to forego a limited amount of income on a temporary basis.
Yes, but we're not talking about families here. We're talking about men and women. we have to keep them sparate for this argument to make any sense at all. We can't even assume a family becasue many people have childrens with no family to speak of. A woman will not be economically equal to a man while a child is gestating. Whether this is a decision, or a fair trade for the reward or otherwise the difference remains and as such equality is impossible due to reproductive differences.


I have never heard of a man having to take six weeks off work after his child was born...
Really? I personally know more than a dozen men who took a month or more of leave time after their children were born. Perhaps you mean men forced to take leave because of a medical necessity of some kind.
Nope I didn't mean that, I stated it explicitely. See the word 'having' in my sentence. When used in that context having tranforms the verb into an imperative.

For argument's sake, let's just assume that all women take six weeks off of work after having a child and all men take no leave whatsoever. If the average woman has two children her lifetime (and the average professional woman in the US probably has slightly less than that statistically), we're talking about a total of 12 weeks' maternity leave in an entire lifetime.
What precisely would you infer from data of that kind were it to be actual?
Excatly what I stated at the outset. That differnces in reproductive physiology mean that men and women can never be equal.

Oh, absolutely. Just as a small number of men are flat on their backs for all kinds of health or accident-related reasons. Again, I don't imagine that this phenomenon is statistically relevant, but if you have evidence to the contrary, I'll peruse it with interest.
And again I remind you that it is invalid to introduce staistical significance at this stage of the argument. You had a gripe with me saying that reproductive physiology necessitates inequality between men and women. If any percentage of women are disadvanatged then the stement id true and you can't dismiss physiological raesons aout of hand. We can argue about significance later.
Secondly we are discussing only reproductive physiology here. Unless you have some sort of evidence that men spend more time than women flat on their backs due to reproductive reasons your argument is completely invalid.

"Therefore women as a group will be placed at an economic disadvantage due to giving birth that men will not."
To some degree, yes. Just as to some degree, men will be placed at an economic disadvantage because of their higher rates of cardiac illness, no?
Oh absolutely. You're arguing my case for me. These are two examples of why men and women can never be economically equal due to physiological reasons. Now unless you can demonstrate that male helath problems exactly counter female one group or the other must have an advantage. I don't care if it's males or females. the important point is that I can validly support my assertion that there are numerous reasons why men and women cannot be equal. You have been arguing attempting to prevent me proving this and now I have done so despite your best efforts I can rest my case. The importance of such inequality in determining the real world is simply impossible to prove and will be based on subjective data at best. What we can't do is say with any validity that there is no physiological raeson why men and women aren't equal. What we have to say is that thare is a demonstrable physiological reason and argue it from there.

However, when social scientists speak of socio-economic disadvantage, they can and often do control for the temporary impact of maternity leave. What they're really interested in--at least the ones I'm familiar with--are relatives rates of pay for the same kind of job; and relative rates of promotion with the same field.
But you can't do that, because paid maternity leave is an economic inequivalence all its own. As soon as we have unpaid maternity leave then it is an economic disadvanatge all its own. We can't validly just add dor subtract the difference bewteen normal wages and what is earned during amternity and work it out that way. that isn't socio-economic equality, it's at best an attempt to standardise figures. Added to this of course we've come full circle. I could easily argue that at least in some cases pregnacy or the risk thereof is an economic burden on the employer. If employers are forced not to discriminate based on pregnacy then they are being asked to shoulder a socio-economic responsibility they don't have to shoulder for men. If they are allowed to discriminate based on pregnancy then women will be overlooked for promotion based on pregnancy or risk of pregnacy in a manner that really can't be controlled for but which will affect their economic success. Both are purely social it's true, but there's only two solutions I can see and both will immediately lead to inequality between men and women based on reproductive physiology. In the real worl equality becomes unavchievable.

Do you dispute that there is "widespread debate about the comparative influence of "nature" (including hormones) and "nurture"?"
Nope, do you disputethat there is "widespread debate about the moon landing being a hoax, or the biological validity of race, or whetehr the Earth is flat?" Just because there is widespread debate that deosn't mean that weighing in on one side without fats or logical argument is any less ignorant and stupid.

First, that is not the same debate as the (age-old) debate about the comparative effects of nature and nurture. Second, what is meant by "prime controller"? If it only means "significant factor," I agree that you'd find a lot of consensus within the scientific community

1)There is no age-old debate about the effects of nature or nurture on inter-gender hormonal differences. There is absolutely no question that the ten-fold increase in testosterone in men vs. women in entirely the result of nature. No amount of environmental factors will vause womens testosterone levels to recah mens (well ignoring surgery, drugs etc. Not exactly normal environmant for men and women as a group.)
2) Right so I'm justified in saying hormones are a prime controller of personality. Good oh.


If socialization/environment impacts relative differences, then many avenues of potential inquiry are opened up for folks like you who place great emphasis on hormones.
"Yes, and if the moon was made of green cheese then we could bring it to Earth and feed the starving millions.
I leave this in merely to illustrate what an actual logical fallacy looks like. You have agreed, several times, that environment has an impact on hormones.
Yes. what you are apparently having difficulty getting your mind around is that environment does not impact relative inter-gender differences. You can't say "socialization/environment impacts relative differences" any more than you can say the moon is made of green cheese. Relative differnces are entirely down to physiology. It wouldn't matter what environamental conditioons you made humans live under the relative diffrences would remain as they are now, with men having around 10 times more testosterone than women.

Once again, our differences, great as they are, aren't as great as you make them out. Isn't there something else you'd rather be doing?
Our differnces are huge. You can't keep asserting that environamental factors may account for inter-gender hormonal differences or that socialization/environment impacts relative differences. There's no evidence for that and scads of evidence against it. It's simply illogical, counterfactual and ignorant and on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance I won't let that go.
And no there isn't something else I'd rather be doing because fighting ignorance is very high on my 'to do' list.

How very fortuitous! Do please tell me where since, if it's available on the Internet, I would very much like to look at it myself. If, on the other hand, you read it in a scholarly journal or magazine, please tell me the title of the journal. At some point I will go to the library and look at it. I like to keep a little folder with such things.
No worries. Blackwell's got an online copy, but again you'll have to wait until I get to work, my subscription don't work from my home machime.

I do not mean to suggest the "illogic" of the hormonal determinist position, but to suggest its insufficient complexity for so vast a concept as human personality.
Nonetheless homones exert a profound influence on personality, and attempting to invalidtae that with statements like "I don't believe that hormones exert a "profound" influence on personality. I've seen my own hormones fluctuate due to pregnancy and birth control and my personality remained relatively intact" and "Very few women experience a personality change from either birth control pills or pregnancy." is not logically valid. It's a false implication. Hormones exerting control on personality does not in any way necessitate birth control and pregnacy changing personality. It's a Non Causa Pro Causa argument and logically invalid as such.

For argument's sake--if I upped my testerone intake to the level of an average man my age--would my personality change in your view?
Indisputably. I'm sure a Google search on the effects of illegal testosterone use by female body builders will answer that question for you. Agression and increased sex drive would be the first personality changes you'd experience.

I ask this quite sincerely. And what if we artifically lowered your testosterone level? Would you suddenly begin--ummm--getting pedicures and crying at the movies?
Well I don't know about that, but a loss of agression and sex drive would be expected. Crying at movies I don't know. You have to remember that many of these personality differences are due to hormonally induced changes in brain physiology. These changes probably aren't reversible but they are still the result of hormones.

Most scientists don't use subjective words like "profound"; they prefer to say "statistically significant".
"I beg to differ. A quick search of current contents found the word profound over 5000 times, just in abstracts and titles. You really want to pursue this one?"
By all means. Please tell us what the quantifiable definition of "profound" was taken to be. As these would be researchers using the scientific method, some sort of clearly objective evidence would be attached to the word "profound." Perhaps this is the very information we need to take us outside of this unfortunate impasse.
Sigh.
Just because something is used in a scientific paper doesn't mean that it must be quantifiable. Us scientists also frequently use words like frequently, rarely and extreme as well. They're just english words, they're not magical or anything. I suggest you read a couple of papers and you'll be suprised to see that they contain all sorts of comparitives that are never quantified. Just because profound is used in the sentences "The high-cholesterol diets reduced the amount of low density lipoprotein receptor mRNA by 30% and produced a more profound reduction in mRNAs " and "Lesions including all these structures produce the most profound amnesia and lesions including subsets produce substantial but less profound amnesia" that doesn't mean that we can use that information here. Profound is an english word Mandelstam, and is used routinely in scientific papers to mean nothing more than the dictionary definition.

You have yet either to define personality
You never asked. Another tip, around here it's assumed the dictionary definition that fits the context of use is what is being used. But since you apparently don't have a dictionary"the complex of characteristics that distinguishes an individual or a nation or group".
or to quantify "profound
Profound doesn't need to be quantified to be a legitimate word. Profound means :extending far below the surface b : coming from, reaching to, or situated at a depth. ie not superficial. So the effects of hormones on peronality extend far below the superficial and reach to great depths. Happy now. My gods. I can't believe I'm being forced to play semantics with a uni lecturer.

much less to provide some scientific researcher's views on the matter.
And again mot of my texts and on-line resources are at work. If you require cites that the effects of hormones on peronality extend far below the superficial and reach to great depths I'll happily provide same once i get into work.
Feel free, therefore, to say whatever you like, but if you're going to invoke the authority of the entire scientific community, be prepared to tell us how that community defines the terms you are invoking in their name.
The community defines it exactly as the dictionary does.

Hence, I believe that if we had full-scale data at our disposal, we would find the economic effects of the strength advantage to be statistically irrelevant or, at best, minimal.
But you can't say statistically irrelevant because you challenged a blanket assertion on my part. If you accept that the subject group 'men' have an inherent economic advantage over the subjecct group 'women' as a result of physical strength then they are unavoidably unequal and I am quite justified in saying that there is a physiological reason why men and women will never be equal. You can't simply make an assumption of what significance that will be acceptable without informing me what it is. That's that logical fallacy of Audiatur et altera pars again.

Breastfeeding is not a biological necessity.
Never said it was. Strawman.

Bill Gates's success has nothing to do with his strength, so what do you expect to gain by mentioning him?
Because you perpetuated the logical fallacy that there was no connection between lucrative and socially important jobs and lower paying and socially irrelevenat jobs. I stated I could quite easily demonstrate that this isn't the case. Bill Gates is a great demonstartion since his success is clearly linked to his lower paying and socially irrelevenat job earlier in his career. As such the assumtion you continuously made in your line of 'reasoning' that there was no connection between lucrative and socially important jobs and lower paying and socially irrelevenat jobs is quite spectacularly proven to be ignorant and counterfactual.

To wit, to say that a social change might cost money is not to say that the status quo is biologically inevitable.
Strawman. I never said that the status quo is biologically inevitable I said that inequality is biologically ineveitable. No matter who is disadvantaged inequality is inequality. To say that social change will cost money is to say that inequality is biologically inevitable.

If she spendss money on childcare while breastfeeding then she's economically disadvantaged by breastfeeding.
I'm just curious, where is the father of this child in this picture? Doesn't he have any interest in his wife's economic productivity? And if he doesn't, isn't it a purely cultural choice if he chooses not to participate in childrearing activities that might boost his wife's earning power
Nope, because if a man and a woman are both married and have a child then the woman and her husband are both disadvanatged. However if a man and a woman have a child outside any formal union then the woman will be disadvanatged and the man will not. You can't assume a family structure of any sort here. Cultural choice or no all other factors being equal women are disadvanataged and men are not because of the biological processes necessary for each to become a parent.

Gaspode dear, after reading this thread, I doubt that anyone would describe either of us as "modest." Let's just say that I'm as proud of my educational achievements as you are of your low body fat.
What the hell makes you think I have low body fat? Where in the world have I said that? You are obviously attempting yet another strawman.

Do you really think that? That is, do you think that I experience my self-worth as based on your sexual attraction to me.
Come in spinner.
If you can't stand the heat my dear, get out of the kitchen. If you're so easy to make bite, don't bait. :)

It is quite possible that you're obtaining some personality validation because an logically and emotionally superior man considers you to be actually worth arguing with and is not dismissing you out of hand. I have come across women like that on the internet and in real life. However, you don't strike me as having that ulterior motive. So let's simply say that any views on your worth haven't even crossed my mind. I am only here to dispel ignorance within your argument. Yeesh, is every educated Seppo chick with an inferiority complex as obsessed with her value to men as you are?
Mandelstam, don't think me so blockish that I believed that you'd be able to get enough of me. I knew you'd come back swinging to provoke a response. How else would you validate your existence?

However, I did feel pressed into saying things that, had you accepted the olive branch I'd extended after Gaudere's appeal, I would not have said.
Yeah, like I give shit.
You've been warned by the mods, now here this. You've had but a taste of what I'm capable of in this thread, and your reactions to my comments in my previous thread have given me a pretty good idea of what buttons to press. If you don't keep it clean from here on in and address your insults at my argument instead of at me I will cheerfully take this to the pit and let you have both barrells.

I don't expect or even seek to silence you, and I doubt that I can persuade you to see things as I do; but I will not allow you to propagate ignorance in this forum.

[Mandelstam]

Gaspode:In the interests of preserving my time and that of other readers, I've decided to limit myself to three direct responses to your posts, however long or enticing they may be ;).

I continue to maintain that if all the internal arguments were set aside, there is really very little "Great Debate" left to elucidate. However, I believe that a little clarification is in order at this point, perhaps to allow others to get involved.

As I see it there are three overlapping debates recurring in our exchanges, all inspired by Hairy's OP.

I. The first debate concerns the relative importance of the difference in strength between average men and average women (hereafter, "the strength factor") in accounting for existing socio-economic and political inequalities between the sexes. At one point this debate consisted partly in discussing the historical determinants of these inequalities. Most recently, Gaspode has denied his interest in historical arguments. For the record, I am happy to put aside historical arguments unless some compelling reason arises for reintroducing them. Hence, the debate now concerns the degree to which the strength factor is responsible for existing socio-economic and political inequalities. Needless to say, I maintain that the factor has a negligible impact on on these inequalities, whereas Gaspode maintains that the impact is large.

The second debate, which is related to the first, concerns the degree to which hormones determine "personality." Gaspode maintains that hormones are a "prime controller" of "personality." I maintain that hormones are certainly a factor in determining human behavior, but I question the extent to which they determine a) "personality" and b) gender identification. I am well aware that average hormonal differences between men and women have a primarily physiological basis, but I remain curious about as yet unanswered questions as to the impact of environment on hormones. More importantly, I maintain a) that "personality" is too complex a concept to be meaningfully determined by any single variable, biological or otherwise; and 2) that, in particular, gender (that is to say, an individual's relative conformity to "masculine" and "feminine" norms) is largely determined by nurture (upbringing, class, education, cultural influence, etc.) I further maintain that if Gaspode wishes to invoke the authority of the scientific community on the question of the "profound" influence of hormones on "personality" that he must provide some examples and/or otherwise elaborate on how members of that community quantify "profound" influence and define "personality."

The third debate, which derives directly fromt the latter, concerns the extent to which existing socio-economic and political equalities are caused neither by hormones, nor by the strength factor but by non-biological, or socio-cultural factors.

Now, almost at random I proceed to replying directly to three of Gaspode's statements.

1) Gaspode writes: "Mandelstam I will repeat, there are numerous reasons why men and women will never be equal, no matter how much we may desire it."

Fair enough. And I will repeat that as we have agreed that our debate concerns the achievement of socio-economic and political equality between men and women on average I a) hold this achievement to be possible; b) believe that the extent to which this goal remains unfulfilled is not biologically inevitable (i.e. overdetermined by the ineradicable effects of physique, reproductive function, hormones or any other physiological factor); and c) believe that if socio-cultural practices changed in the right direction (as, overall, they have in the last millenium) that relative socio-economic and political equality on average would be eventually achieved.

2)[on economic equality]
I explained to Gaspode that he could not assume that because men were on average stronger than women, that men were on average more economically valuable than women. To do so, I explained, was to oversimplify the question of economic value (and therefore economic equality) both of which are multiply determined. To illustrate my argument I offered the following:

"Now let us assume--for the purpose of argument--that an MBA confers access to the highest paid employment in a given society. In that instance "strength of less value" would be irrelevant to the question of a person's economic value, unless the person in question (be they man or woman) lacked the basic physical health to carry out the job."

Gaspode replied:

"For strength of less value to be irrelevant to all MBAs' worths then such strength would need to have no value itself.

Incorrect deduction. The ability to perform brain surgery or to act the part of Hamlet as well as Sir Lawrence Olivier is of extremely high economic value. But these coveted abilities are, nevertheless, irrelevant to the performance of normal MBA business duties.

"If it had value to some MBA's then it would be relevant to the value of those members.

Again we come back to the same issue. You infer that insofar as strength is a requirement that it will give the edge to men. I reply that I cannot think of a single case where extra-female strength would be a requirement (or even a significant optional attribute) of MBAs' employment, whether at the entry level or as a CEO. This is not a logical dispute but a disagreement about a basic sociological fact that, without data, we can only surmise. The question is straightforward: how often are MBAs required to perform job-related tasks that the average healthy woman cannot perform? I surmise almost never; you surmise often enough to make a substantial impact on socio-economic inequality.

"You have already all but conceded that male strength has a higher value in some positions.

I have "conceded" that I believe that in a "minimal" "neglible" and "statistically insignificant" number of cases, male strength might be of some value to the highly-skilled professional work we've been discussing. (In the future, when you invoke me on this point, kindly include these important qualifiers.)

[My original example had continued]:

"In the real world physical strength would take its place alongside a large number of work-related variables: appropriate education/skills would probably rank highest. More general factors would probably include intelligence, communication skills, problem-solving ability, honesty, ability to get along with peers. So unless you can prove that it's physical strength that, on average, provides access to the greatest number of well-paid jobs (or even the greatest number of jobs in toto), you can't assume that "strength of less value makes a person of less [economic] value."

Gaspode countered, (after much extraneous huffing and puffing), that the "fact that physiacl strength is but one of a number of factors is irrelevent" because he had wanted to discuss a case where "all other factors [but strength are] equal."

Gaspode, you have correctly noticed that I created an example in which strength was not privileged as the unique and solitary difference between men and women, with all other factors being equal. Such an analysis would be of heuristic value only since, in the real world, all other factors would not be equal. People are far too complex for that. Heuristic thinking can, of course, be of interest. For example, it might also be interesting to query a hypothetical case in which all other factors were equal but race was the difference. Or a case where all others factors were equal but nationality was the focal difference.

Now clearly, Gaspode, you would like me to provide you with a heuristic analysis in which I single out the strength factor as the only difference, assuming that all other work-related factors are equal.

<bows> At your service :)

I now assume a population of 700 male and female MBAs who, in every respect other than physical strength have equal work-related abilities. I now assume that each of those 700 MBAs takes on an entry level managerial position in banking. As banking duties do not require any special qualites of physical strength, I surmise that the difference in performance due to the strength factor will be zero.

I now take the same hypothetical population into finance, into hotel management, into marketing, into advertising, into the public sector, into electronics, into retail. In all of these cases, I surmise that the difference in performance between them due to the strength factor will be either zero or some neglible figure caused by exceedingly unusual factors.

3)[on the extension of threats in GD]
"You've had but a taste of what I'm capable of in this thread, and your reactions to my comments in my previous thread have given me a pretty good idea of what buttons to press.... [etc.]"

Believe me, I have had much more than a taste of what you're capable of, Gaspode. I have had a veritable smorgasbord of what you're capable of. I have gorged on your capabilities, almost to the point of involuntary upchuck.

From all of this Gaspode-tasting, I have concluded the following: There is no question in my mind that that you are by far more well-equipped than I am to devote endless time to unconstructively belaboring this debate via specious arguments, ludicrous logical critique, shifting of terms, misrpresentation of arguments, etc. etc. What this proves to me is either a) that you argue in bad faith (purposely to wear down my patience) or b) that you are incapable of sustained rational argument on so complex a topic. For what it's worth, I guess more "a" than "b"--which I hope you'll take as a kind of compliment.

So as to "what buttons to press"--yes, I do find your repetitions boring, your poorly proofread replies irritating, and your pretense to good faith logical analysis risible. I do, in other words, think that you're wasting my time. For that reason, if you take this thread to the Pit I will not follow you. The reason isn't I fear the experience of your "letting me have it" with "both barrells," but rather that I am already all too familiar with this experience.

As I see it, this is only worthwhile if we stick to the issues. For what it's worth, I think we have three interesting and overlapping debates going here. I would love to hear what others have to say. I'm very interested in your producing the citations that you have available at work, which I hope will put us on a more constructive tack. And I myself have some thoughts on "personality" as it is defined within the social sciences. However, my afternoon internet break is at a close, and I have already responded directly to three comments of yours.

[Gaudere]

[Moderator Hat ON]

Gaspode, you, now, are stepping close to the line. I am getting very tired of wading through an extremely lengthy thread chock-full of the implied insults and subtle slurs and rampant self-aggradization evidenced so clearly in both your posts. I do not think much ignorance is being fought here, since I doubt many readers will get much out of this mind-numbingly repetitive pissing match. I am strongly considering locking this thread out of sheer ennui. I'll leave it open for a little bit longer, but I do not think this thread is long for this world unless the posts reach a level of decorum that no longer requires me to to spend a freakin' half hour on carefully reading each one.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Gaspode]

Needless to say, I maintain that the factor has a negligible impact on on these inequalities, whereas Gaspode maintains that the impact is large.
No Mandelstam. You implied very strongly that there was no reason why strength need lead to economic inequality. Since you've already conceded that you were wrong in this there's no need to attempt to alter your stance to suggest that you implied that it was neglible rather than completely sociological. To quote you: "what are these "numerous reasons" why men and women will "never" be equal? So far as I can tell, the basic differences are these: 1)reproductive organs; 2) reproductive function; 3) certain concomitant hormonal differences." Since you asked a question of me I started to explain that strength was one of those factors. I've proven that now so I can let it rest.


The second debate, which is related to the first, concerns the degree to which hormones determine "personality." Gaspode maintains that hormones are a "prime controller" of "personality." I maintain that hormones are certainly a factor in determining human behavior, but I question the extent to which they determine a) "personality" and b) gender identification.

I am well aware that average hormonal differences between men and women have a primarily physiological basis
Which seems in direct contradiction with "hormonal differences that may--and I emphasize may--stem directly from the former, or may be exacerbated by socialization itself." and "socialization/environment impacts relative differences". Relative differences are physiological.

More importantly, I maintain a) that "personality" is too complex a concept to be meaningfully determined by any single variable, biological or otherwise
Which has never at any stage been disputed. Infact this has been stated by myself more then once in this thread.

I further maintain that if Gaspode wishes to invoke the authority of the scientific community on the question of the "profound" influence of hormones on "personality" that he must provide some examples and/or otherwise elaborate on how members of that community quantify "profound" influence and define "personality."
And Mandelsatm is again being dieingenuous because I explained in my last post that memebers of the scientific community don't need to quantify "profound and provided examples of their not doing so. The same post also gave a definition of personality. Both questions have been answered in full.

The third debate, which derives directly fromt the latter, concerns the extent to which existing socio-economic and political equalities are caused neither by hormones, nor by the strength factor but by non-biological, or socio-cultural factors.
Well I never really engaged such a debate. You made the ignorant assertion that there were no valid reasons why males and females could never be equal. You never at any stage mentioned exyent etc. So long as you concede that there are some reasons why equality is impossible then I've won the point.

And I will repeat that as we have agreed that our debate concerns the achievement of socio-economic and political equality between men and women on average I a) hold this achievement to be possible; b) believe that the extent to which this goal remains unfulfilled is not biologically inevitable (i.e. overdetermined by the ineradicable effects of physique, reproductive function, hormones or any other physiological factor); and c) believe that if socio-cultural practices changed in the right direction (as, overall, they have in the last millenium) that relative socio-economic and political equality on average would be eventually achieved.
Pure argument from assertion folks. This is simply a restatemnt of Mandelstams original position. I have provided reasoning, facts and examples which have forced Mandelstam to concede that this cannot be so, and yet rather than follow those argument through she has decided to simply retstate the same of thoroughly debunked rubbish. ANyone who is interested can re-read my previous p[osts where I case this particular ignorant belief of Mandelstams around, back it into a corner despite her best attempts to weasel out of it, and force her to concede that it isn't true. Ther'e no point in my goingthrough that excercise again since she has already conceded that "that physical strength means that men have greater opportunities for economic success then women due to physical differences" and that the strength difference between men and women is an inevitable one. The point has already been won and lost and Mandelstam is now seerting that the point she has been forced to concede is still valid. You can't fight that kind of ignorance people.

For strength of less value to be irrelevant to all MBAs' worths then such strength would need to have no value itself.
Incorrect deduction. The ability to perform brain surgery or to act the part of Hamlet as well as Sir Lawrence Olivier is of extremely high economic value. But these coveted abilities are, nevertheless, irrelevant to the performance of normal MBA business duties.
Yes, but the reason you brought up your MBA example was to weasel away from answering my question. The actual exchange ran:
G: If strength has value and group A has more strength than group B then, all other factors being equal, isn't group B of more value?
M:The "value" of a person, even when defined as economic value is not reducible to a single determinant. Now let us assume--for the purpose of argument--that an MBA confers access to the highest paid employment in a given society. In that instance "strength of less value" would be irrelevant to the question of a person's economic value.

Mandelstam the problem is that instead of answering my question which had the clearly stated proviso " If strength has value" you tried to weasel out of it with an example of two groups where strength had no value. I've already proven that this is logically invalid and is based on an equivalence of zero. Such factors as you mention above are only irrelevant to the performance of normal MBA business duties because they have no value to the performance of normal MBA business duties. They would not be irrelevant if they had value and as such your example is logically unsound.
I have asked Mandelstam the above question two different ways no less than three times now, and instead of ansering each time she has instead provided an example of where strength does not have value. This is the reason why this debate has been like wrestling a pig in mud. Evry single concession has to be wrung out against disingenuous and dishonest attempts at weaseling away from the stance she actually holds.

You infer that insofar as strength is a requirement that it will give the edge to men. I reply that I cannot think of a single case where extra-female strength would be a requirement (or even a significant optional attribute) of MBAs' employment.
No Mandelstam, I don't infer that, it is a condition imposed by the question. Now please answer it. If strength has value and group A has more strength than group B then, all other factors being equal, isn't group B of more value? You've already conceded that male strength has economic value in some positions.

I created an example in which strength was not privileged as the unique and solitary difference between men and women, with all other factors being equal. Such an analysis would be of heuristic value only since, in the real world, all other factors would not be equal.
Then you have failed to address my question, a condition of which was that all other factors were asummed to be equal.

For example, it might also be interesting to query a hypothetical case in which all other factors were equal but race was the difference.
Except that we have indisputable evidence that physiology poduces major differences between genders strength, height and reproductive physiology. We have no evidence that race has any such effects and as such what we are discussing here is an argument from facts, while such an argument applied to race is an argument from ignorance.

Or a case where all others factors were equal but nationality was the focal difference.
Yes I'm sure that would be interesting, but it has no bearing on the reasons why males and females aren't equal.

Now clearly, Gaspode, you would like me to provide you with a heuristic analysis in which I single out the strength factor as the only difference, assuming that all other work-related factors are equal.
No, I wouldn't. That's a strawman. I never requested any such thing. I just want you to answer the freakin' question. If strength has value and group A has more strength than group B then, all other factors being equal, isn't group B of more value?

I surmise that the difference in performance between them due to the strength factor will be either zero or some neglible figure caused by exceedingly unusual factors.
Which proves that strength has no value, which proves that you are not answering my quetsion with his example. Now please answer my question. If strength has value and group A has more strength than group B then, all other factors being equal, isn't group B of more value?

However, my afternoon internet break is at a close, and I have already responded directly to three comments of yours.
And failed to answer any of my direct questions, despite stating in your previous post t"Once again, feel free to re-raise anything you specifically wish to me to answer to." Well I did that several times, yet I have recieved only weaseling, and no answers.

[HairyPotter]

Originally posted by Gaudere
Mandelstam:


...you silly child...I'm beginning to think that excessive investment in this topic has addled
your brains...

[Moderator Hat ON]

Mandelstam, these remarks were not wise to make in light of my request that you and Gaspode take it down a notch. Since I have not seen equally insulting remarks on Gaspode's part (feel free to email me with examples if you believe otherwise and I will consider them), I am considering you the one more at blame here. Tone it down! Collunsbury and greinspace's race debates are beginning to appear like models of decorum compared to this thread.

[Moderator Hat OFF]

[Edited by Gaudere on 09-09-2001 at 11:13 PM]

Gaudere,

I find the nature of your interventions quite remarkable. Gaspode, the sexist barbarian has repeatedly used words, such as "stupid", "ignorant", "illogical", "groundless", and "logical fallacy" to refer to statements raised by Mandelstam. However, until the most recent deluge of hostile drivel from Gaspode, you chose to ignore his obnoxious and insulting replies.

When Mandelstam made the "addled your brains" comment, a critique I believe even Mr. Rogers of Public Television fame wouldn't find offensive, you put on the old monitor hat and called her on it. Perhaps I'm biased toward intelligent, open minds, but I can't help but feel that even an objective observer would consider these interventions lopsided, relative to the level of offenses being ladled out.

Being a monitor is a difficult responsibility. I'm sure you always encounter individuals who second-guess your interventions. I respect your dedication to this important responsibility and I certainly don't intend to make your job more difficult. I would encourage you, however, to reflect on the exchanges that have taken place between Mandelstram and Gaspode. The topic of this OP concerned the repression of women, and it looks pretty bad to see a man behaving badly treated less harshly than a woman showing this man that wit can triumph hansomely over brawn.

[AHunter3]

Am I correctly reading pages 2 and 3 if I summarize them by saying that the original question of why and how women came to be oppressed (or "repressed", if you will) has led to a discussion of whether or not discrimination in hiring practices is an indication of sexist bias or is instead a reasonable acknowledgement of different (usually physical strength) capabilities?

Is it being asserted here, by anyone, that a general different in physical strength between the sexes means that the oppression of women is (and historically has been) a nonexistent phenomenon?

Is anyone attempting to make the case that prehistoric hiring practices led to universal male hegemony and that patriarchy is a sort of physiologically-centered meritocracy?

Does there exist, within any claim being currently put forth here, the notion that a systematic and categorical disempowerment of women per se has not been a factor within human social organization, and that instead any appearance of same can be attributed to the results of localized ongoing competition for opportunities and social power which, generally speaking, women have not done well at?

Or is this all a tangential argument about whether or not the municipal Fire Department oughta make women applicants do lotsa pushups?

[Biggirl]

Yes AHunter, Gaspode believes that men's physical strength and um-- superior hormonal make-up (the idea that only men can fight wars and so should make all the decisions seems to have been dropped.) makes it inevitable that men dominate.

[AHunter3]

Put Joe, Tom, Sue, Mike, Elaine, and Patricia in the sandbox and I suppose someone will make the argument that Joe Tom and Mike will monopolize the best sand shovels and buckets simply because they can.

There's a lot wrong with that assertion but even granting it temporary validity for the sake of argument, it doesn't explain a situation in which the Rules of the Sandbox, observed and accepted for as long as toddlers have come to play there, state that girls are not ALLOWED to use the sand shovels and buckets.

Rules and social structures that systematically disenfranchise women, FAR from being explained by pointing towards men's greater upper-body strength or other (alleged) built-in advantages over women, would in fact be UNNECESSARY AND REDUNDANT if this built-in superiority of men were to result in the winners of competitive struggle being male.

Furthermore, individuals who have a trait in common do not intrinsically make a political bond of that trait in order to strugge against people who differ in that regard. Brunettes do not attempt to subjugate redheads and make of them an oppressed minority despite having the numbers to make it plausible.

[AHunter3]

Put Joe, Tom, Sue, Mike, Elaine, and Patricia in the sandbox and I suppose someone will make the argument that Joe Tom and Mike will monopolize the best sand shovels and buckets simply because they can.

There's a lot wrong with that assertion but even granting it temporary validity for the sake of argument, it doesn't explain a situation in which the Rules of the Sandbox, observed and accepted for as long as toddlers have come to play there, state that girls are not ALLOWED to use the sand shovels and buckets.

Rules and social structures that systematically disenfranchise women, FAR from being explained by pointing towards men's greater upper-body strength or other (alleged) built-in advantages over women, would in fact be UNNECESSARY AND REDUNDANT if this built-in superiority of men were to result in the winners of competitive struggle being male.

Furthermore, individuals who have a trait in common do not intrinsically make a political bond of that trait in order to strugge against people who differ in that regard. Brunettes do not attempt to subjugate redheads and make of them an oppressed minority despite having the numbers to make it plausible.

[HairyPotter]

Originally posted by AHunter3
Am I correctly reading pages 2 and 3 if I summarize them by saying that the original question of why and how women came to be oppressed (or "repressed", if you will) has led to a discussion of whether or not discrimination in hiring practices is an indication of sexist bias or is instead a reasonable acknowledgement of different (usually physical strength) capabilities?

Is it being asserted here, by anyone, that a general different in physical strength between the sexes means that the oppression of women is (and historically has been) a nonexistent phenomenon?

Is anyone attempting to make the case that prehistoric hiring practices led to universal male hegemony and that patriarchy is a sort of physiologically-centered meritocracy?

Does there exist, within any claim being currently put forth here, the notion that a systematic and categorical disempowerment of women per se has not been a factor within human social organization, and that instead any appearance of same can be attributed to the results of localized ongoing competition for opportunities and social power which, generally speaking, women have not done well at?

Or is this all a tangential argument about whether or not the municipal Fire Department oughta make women applicants do lotsa pushups?

Actually, I believe that what has been going on strongly resembles everyone in the sandbox throwing sand at one another. Naturally, the skill levels and styles differ a bit, but it all boils down to ending up with the least sand in your hair.

I'll have to remember the phrase "physiologically-centered meritocracy". If I substituted "phsylogocial", it would make for a catchy statement during performance reviews at work.

[HairyPotter]

Make that "psychological". The manual spell-checker has failed me again.

[Mandelstam]

I confess, it seems almost surreal to return to this thread after today's events.

But I did want to say, thanks, AHunter for the very eloquent summary, and thanks Hairy for bringing Mr. Rogers into GD (can the king and the little choo choo join as well?). Biggirl, I agree with you (but I suspect Gaspode will want to speak for himself.

Gaspode, for what it's worth I'll take another whack at explaining myself to you by replying to your very first statement (and nothing more).

You quoted me as saying:
"Needless to say, I maintain that the [strength] factor has a negligible impact on these inequalities, whereas Gaspode maintains that the impact is large."

You replied:
"No Mandelstam. You implied very strongly that there was no reason why strength need lead to economic inequality.

Now, I have read these statements several times at this point, and I've come to the conclusion that you may not understand a certain figure of speech that I've used and which you have paraphrased. When I say that there is "no reason why" differences between the sexes "need lead to economic inequality" what I mean is that they do not have to. That is, I can imagine a society in which men and women are biologically constituted exactly as they are now, but where these differences (including strength differences)do not do not result in significant socio-economic or political equality. However, to say that is not to say that in the presentday world, these differences aren't contributing to socio-economic and political inequalities.

Now you and I have been mainly arguing about the impact of the strength factor. As you and I both agreed, one way that the strength factor might be contributing to inequality is through bias against women based on inferences extrapolated from it ("if she's weaker she must be ____er"). In my arguments, however, I have made an important distinction between this and other kinds of prejudice (which are socio-cultural) and actual disadvantage at the workplace due to differences in strength. Now, what I have said over and over again is that--particularly at the highest skilled levels of employment--I take this actual disadvantage to apply only "minimally," "negligibly, "insignificantly," etc. Nor do I believe that the strength factor significantly inhibits women from entering these highly skilled kinds of work.
Rather, I believe that existing socio-economic and political inequalities are caused largely by socio-cultural factors--by things that can change. Those things include everything from prejudice, to childrearing patterns, to gender norms, etc.

So to restate: Differences between the sexes (including differences in strength) "need not" result in socio-economic and political inequalities--although at the present time, for various reason, they often do. However, the role played by the strength factor, particularly at the highest and most skilled levels is, IMO, negigible.

I hope this can help you to understand what appears to you to be inconsistencies in my arguments; and also why I believe that the main difference between us (at least on this particular flank of the debate) comes down to an empirical question: how great is the impact.

[Lady Reid]

I don't believe that women are repressed. I believe women are frightened to be anything other than what men allow them to be. There was time when most civilizations on this planet were matriarchial. Woman were viewed as the wisdom keepers, the weavers of a culture's pattern and thread. Women were known as fierce warriors and led other women and men into battle to protect the common good. Women were looked to to heal the sick, comfort the dying and help ease the passage into the afterlife. Most of these early cultures were polytheistic, believing in gods and goddesses.

Then with the increase in popularity of the Christian church, mainly Catholisism, the tide began to turn. Men began to take control of the society. Cultures became more warlike, more aggressive. Women were religated to the weaker roles of child care and maidservant. Female midwives and healers were denounced as witches and burned alive. Women began to fear men, and through generations of anti-female propaganda, women began to believe these lies about themselves.

So today we stand before you, a strange mixture of inner strength, and humbled self-image. I believe we've always known what we were capable of, but preferred to keep it to ourselves. To let men think that they were in ultimate control. Sometimes it's easier to walk over a sleeping dog than snatch a bone from a growling beast.

Don't get me wrong, I like men. I understand how things went down. And to quote my mother, "People can only do to you what you let them do to you." Just don't be suprised when we take up shield and helm once again. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and it's been a long time coming.

[HairyPotter]

Originally posted by Lady Reid
I don't believe that women are repressed. I believe women are frightened to be anything other than what men allow them to be. There was time when most civilizations on this planet were matriarchial. Woman were viewed as the wisdom keepers, the weavers of a culture's pattern and thread. Women were known as fierce warriors and led other women and men into battle to protect the common good. Women were looked to to heal the sick, comfort the dying and help ease the passage into the afterlife. Most of these early cultures were polytheistic, believing in gods and goddesses.

Snip...Snip

So today we stand before you, a strange mixture of inner strength, and humbled self-image. I believe we've always known what we were capable of, but preferred to keep it to ourselves. To let men think that they were in ultimate control. Sometimes it's easier to walk over a sleeping dog than snatch a bone from a growling beast.

Don't get me wrong, I like men. I understand how things went down. And to quote my mother, "People can only do to you what you let them do to you." Just don't be suprised when we take up shield and helm once again. Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned and it's been a long time coming.

While I don't agree that most early cultures were matriarchal, I do agree that goddess worship was prevalent not very long ago. I also agree that your "sleeping dog" analogy applies, in part, to women's repressed, submissive stance in recent times.

I look forward to the day when women "take up shield and helm once again". I sincerely believe that the world community would be far healthier if intelligent, strong, sensible, compassionate, nurturing, and spiritually-developed women were in charge. I believe that in many respects artists and women are the "keepers" of civilization.

[AHunter3]

...like toes forced into pointy-tipped high heel shoes, truncated, minimized, reduced to so much less than they could be?

It IS a different question than the macro-political one. Even though it IS also still political itself, because, to borrow a phrase, "the personal is political"...

a) Intimidation, as has already been mentioned. Or appeasement. I'm sure it is a factor but it would not carry much on its own. But sure, some of the time women shrink because of fear.

b) Tradeoffs -- there are a variety of ways of understanding what it means to be a Woman, many of which construct a lot of covert power into acquiescence towards the role. Usually the imagery involves greater maturity, more day-to-day responsibility in the private (home) realm, and a more than a bit of condescension towards males and the things males claim for and believe about themselves. The key point here is NOT that women tend to believe that they have more power this way than they could have any other way, but that many tend to believe that they have more power this way than they could have through noisy futile resistance. A really good feminist perspective (that doesn't deny such powers) can be found in Elizabeth Janeway's Man's World Woman's Place.

c) Seduction -- Sexual feelings often become attached to things that aren't intrinsically sexy simply because we experience those things in conjunction with sexuality and sexual possibility. (Female underwear is just nylon and other materials; men who have panty fetishes do so because women wear these items and the occasions for men seeing them are often sexual occasions). If you are female and possessed of heterosexual appetite, the entire dynamics of your general experiences with men can become eroticized, including the power inequities.

d) Negative examples -- I think this is an area where things are getting better, but for a long time there was a scarcity of positive, admirable images of women who were powerful in any way other than as described in "Tradeoffs" above.

[ethicsrcritical]

I'll say it again....

(And lets be equitable.)

They with the most 'power' win.
Sorry...as long as that means physical (muscle or weapons) men will always win.

If that be the Truth...there it is.

No matter how many thousands of men are taking care of children while their wives are earning money...about the time he chooses to hang with the vast majority of his brethren...he wins. One way or another.

Look now at violence.

This is what males are willing to do for whatever cause.

Is this not ridiculous?
Is this not anathema to your children?

And yet, this is what they do.

Germany, Italy, Spain, Britain....

Choose any war, any cause...there is always some reason why they MUST kill women and children and disrupt life in some region.

Isn't it always something to do with money, possessions and power?

Read history.

[AHunter3]

I'll say it again....

(And lets be equitable.)

They with the most 'power' win.

Saying it again doesn't make you more correct than you were the first time you said it.

Most power is an abstraction, a social construct.

If Joe knocks you down, straddles your body, and pins you, that is NOT an abstraction, you really can't make any decision that gets you up off that floor. Notice that Joe's freedom of movement is necessarily considerably restrained at this point, too, though.

If Joe instead knocks down Tom who is standing next to you, straddles Tom, and beats Tom to a bloody pulp, and subsequently tells you to lie down and remain motionless or he'll do the same to you, Joe is exerting power over you, but now it is a social construct; you are acquiescing in a transaction in which you are DECIDING not to get up off that floor--reasonably so as long as Joe is nearby, more questionably as Joe proceeds to go to other things farther and farther away from you without telling you you can get up. (If you choose to be an unmodified undiluted radical, you can hop up every single time Joe gets off your chest up until you are no longer physically capable of rising.)

If Joe convinces Tom, through some combination of threats and rewards and brilliant motivational rhetoric, that Tom should watch you and help enforce Joe's command that you remain lying down on the floor, Joe's power over you is even more of an abstraction, and more significantly more of a social construct.

Now conceptualize power differently for a moment: not "over", but "to". Whatever the hell it is that Joe is trying to accomplish through coercion could in almost every conceivable case be accomplished through some other mechanisms that would obtain your (and Tom's) compliance and coopereation, and if those other means are less expensive to Joe, therefore depleting his resources less, Joe has more power pursuing that course of action. (Admittedly, if what Joe wants is something that no one else wants, Joe may be stuck with coercion as his only option. I am not saying that coercion can be eliminated from human attempts to get one's way, but that a social system based on it is far from inevitable, and that power over other people is not the best, ultimate, or most effective form that power can take).

[chuckster]

I'd like to point out that in the eyes of Western societies before the sexual revolution, say before 1900, women were not repressed but treated with respect. For example, men held doors open for women, rose at the table whenever a woman got up, walked on the outside of the street so whenever people threw waste water out of an upstairs window the water would land on HIM and not HER. Whether it is right or wrong by our standards, men did not see themselves as repressing women but rather as sacrificing their comfort and health to protect them. Likewise, women did not see themselves as active participants outside the home, but mostly left outside duties to their husbands. It is only in the last hundred or so years that large numbers of women have been seeking status in society equal to men.