There is nothing wrong with recognizing differences. If until the end of time there are more male engineers than female and more female kindergarten school teachers than male, there is nothing wrong with that.
It’s when the choices that either sex makes are viewed in a discriminatory way.
It is, as you say, that people deserve to be treated with respect. But it’s time we make an effort that men are not awarded more respect than women, simply because they are filling what is considered a man’s role in society.
The point is that we have a history of thinking things are biologically required when they aren’t. I’ve seen exactly as much scientific data to support the claims in this thread as the racial scientists had for theirs.
Maybe I should have stipulated that I didn’t believe the two situations were equivalent.
That’s what I’m saying. Are they? I’m not the one who said they are.
Can’t you see the problem with this way of arguing?
You’ve taken a finding- women are better at noticing details- and then back-engineered the cutest sounding story you could find to explain it. Just because you can say “Oh, yeah, that seems sensible” doesn’t in any way mean that it was true.
If it was the opposite, and men were better at noticing details, you could come up with an equally cute explanation. Maybe you’d say “Oh, obviously men needed to be able to pick out camouflaged prey from the bush as they were hunting.” or “Men needed to be able to find their way back to camp.”
Something making a neat story does not make it a reality.
Not the “cutest”; simply the most plausible one that fits the facts. That difference comes from somewhere; and being a biological difference, that “somewhere” is going to be evolution.
I’ve always had a different take on the term. No denying there’s at least a bit of inherent vulgarity, or it wouldn’t be shortened to “whipped” or “PW” in “polite” conversation. But to me it implies not a shame in ceding any control but in too much control, and “pussy” is not meant as demeaning synecdoche for the woman herself, but rather something she owns and can, should she wish, deny access to. Follow the (implied to be overbearing) rules, or no more pussy.
Is it still sexist? Maybe, but it’s based on a power dynamic that exists in reality. In most heterosexual relationships, I doubt that the man’s threat to “cut off” the woman sexually if displeased carries quite the same weight.
Honestly, I can’t even fathom a relationship like that. I’m aware they exist, but, you know, if there’s one thing people hate, it’s being stereotyped.
I’ve always been really laid back about what my husband does with his friends. If he wants to go out until 3am and party, I really don’t care. In fact, I usually actively encourage him to do so, because I like time to myself and think he should have some too. But he doesn’t like partying, so whenever he turned his friends down to stay in with me, they called him ‘‘pussy-whipped’’–not in a nasty way, but teasing way. I found that insulting and a complete misrepresentation of our relationship. Both of us have separated for entire summers to do our own thing. Our relationship just isn’t one of manipulation and control.
These were really sexist men though… living with them was just a barrage of gender-based insults. The one that stands out the strongest is when I cleaned the kitchen and one of the guys remarked, ‘‘Wow… you might not make such a terrible mother after all.’’
I grew up hanging out with boys, I am aware that making fun of girly things is part of their culture and they don’t mean anything by it. But as a woman, I can’t help but be aware of the mentality that spawned this terminology in the first place.
To be honest, language as a general rule doesn’t bother me that much… I am guilty myself of using terminology with sexist overtones–I almost commented last night in The Pit about not having the balls to do something… then I changed it to ‘‘courage’’ – courage sounds totally lame compared to balls. I might twinge if I hear this coming out of the mouth of someone who clearly means it in a sexist way, but I’m far more concerned about inequality of wealth, rape, sexual abuse, and domestic violence than I am about jokes people make.
What else could it be? You have to test carefully to even find it, since men normally unconsciously compensate; they go to extra effort if they know that a task involves noticing details. To the best of the knowledge of science, the difference is biological.
So what you’re saying is, there’s this discrepancy that effects everyone, but it’s small and almost no-one can see it. Couldn’t that just be confirmation bias?
It’s not that small; as I said, you don’t normally see it because men normally compensate for it. There’s been more than one study that has shown this; I see no reason to doubt it.
I disagree with your “pet theory.” I think it is fairly well established that hunting was not a daily occurrence in most tribal societies. (Yes, there are exceptions, but they are not the rule.) Most of the food was gathered, only a small fraction of it was hunted. The reason that men developed upper arm strength, aggression, etc., was for war. Men fight for property, power, money, but above all, they fight to get women. War is a common aspect to every human society, and it is mostly perpetrated by men. This is not to say that women are special or good, just that men needed to fight to propagate their genes, so fight they did. I really wish people would stop perpetrating the “men hunted, women tended the nest” myth because it’s so obviously false. Besides, aside from the fact that women and men gathered (rather than hunted) most of their food, the hunt/nest divide appears to ignore the fact that societies had a great deal more work to do than those two actions. Women had a great deal more to do than just breast feed their babies, and implying that they just sat by the fire while their man provided for the family is just 1950s nostalgia, it has nothing to do with reality.
By the by, women hunted too, though typically smaller game or fish.
Your second point, that women and men differ more between the ears than they do in physical characteristics, is also not quite true. Yes, men and women do have some gender differences in the brain, but those difference are small compared to the variance within each gender. Defining gender roles based on those small differences doesn’t make sense because it is ignoring the variance within each gender. (Defining gender roles in this way is convenient for societies, particularly as societies became large, and this is more likely why such gender roles became prominent. Again, not so much biology as you’d like to think.)
The third point you make about the pilots is also not quite true. Yes, you’re right, probably the “old boy’s network” had nothing to do with women not becoming pilots. But you can bet social expectations had everything to do with it. There was a study done (which I can find if need be) where men and women took a test to see how many bombs they could drop. Women tended to drop fewer bombs…but only when they knew that they were being watched. When playing anonymously, women played just as aggressively, if not more so, than the men. Our culture does not like the idea of a woman sitting in the cockpit, flying a large vessel with dozens or hundreds of people inside, not because she’s lacking spatial skills, but because it’s not in keeping with society’s expectation of that gender. Note, I’m not arguing that there aren’t gender differences in spatial skills, but they are not large enough for you to use them as a cure-all explanation.
It’s easy to argue that biology is the cause of female oppression, and gosh-darn, if it’s biology then I guess there’s nothing we can do about it except make some “superficial” changes. tdn, I think you’re giving biology a little too much credit here, and not nearly enough credit to society. I think **olives ** is on the right track, gender roles come more from society than biology. Gender roles are part of societal expectations that formed as the human population grew, and the primary goal of those expectations is to keep order by keeping people in their place.