Don’t know how reliable the cites are, but even the fact that you have a party in your governing coalition wherein one of the central leaders is a self identified marxist who favour bloody revolution, is something that speaks spades. What the fuck were you thinking?!
And when you add to that the other things I already cited, about them wanting to cuddle up to Cuban dictator Fidel Castro and boycott Israel. etc. Apparently a central part of The Socialist Left five year plan is also that the USA is the greatest threat to world. You say you hope for more, is this what you hope for? - a marxist revolution, abolition of private property, moving towards Cuba and isolating and boycotting Israel.
Spider Woman, no offence, but throughout this discussion you have presented your arguments with the preface “I believe” and concluded them with “my opinion”. I completely respect that and appreciate the identification of statements of opinion, but I’ve been using a different approach more suitable to Great Debates, which is to raise factual arguments based on empirical solid ground.
Without getting too bogged down in this particular example, my intention was to show that, contrary to popular opinion and a lot of feminist theory, it is possible to control for the effects of environment and genetics in human behaviour. I also pointed out a couple times that if patriarchal societies are a human universal - and all cultures and societies, even isolated ones, are indeed patriarchal - then it makes sense to claim that patriarchy is determined biologically rather than culturally (though it can be aggravated or mitigated by different cultures). If patriarchy were determined culturally, then we would expect some variations: societies that are matriarchal, or societies where the sexes are equally treated. Doesn’t seem to happen. If a matriarchal society did exist under natural and sustained conditions, it would be very useful to study, but I am not aware of any.
That renders your objections to twin studies invalid because to all intents and purposes patriarchal societies are the biological racial default. Trying to cope with our natures and find long-lasting solutions are the objectives of feminism – except for extremist silliness such as claiming stridently that gender behaviour is entirely acquired, a claim for which there is no evidence. Or, rather, there is no evidence that stands up to scrutiny, since a lot of extremist and/or feminist scientists - including the famous Margaret Mead - have carried out some dubious science to validate their beliefs and wishful thinking on gender roles.
Not a problem but I am not sure I understand. Men are on average physically superior to women, being taller, bigger, stronger, faster, more resistant to pain, and with greater muscle mass to provide power and protection. Men also have different mental and behavioural make-up from women. Men are much more likely to behave aggressively, engage in combat, desire casual sex, crave high status, and go to prison. Men tend to be better at tasks that require spatial cognition or mathematical calculation, whereas women tend to be better communicators. On average, the bell curve for IQ is flatter for men than it is for women, meaning that (though extremes at both sexes can be as intelligent or as stupid as the other), women on average are more clustered around the median, and men are a bit more spread out.
Does any of this make one sex “superior”? Not in my book, and not by any logic that I can see. What does superior mean anyway? How do you define “better” without first determining what someone should be better at? Men are better at almost every sport, which is why men and women compete separately. There are undeniable and important biological differences that appear to be consistent across all cultures and societies. It is not that they are the result of patriarchal conditioning – to claim that, I think you would first need to prove that patriarchy is a creation of society rather than, as it appears to be (by dint of its universality), biologically determined.
That’s true. And power (status, the competition for status, and the spoils of status) is considered more important by men than it is by women. That is clearly one of the factors that render patriarchy the apparent human default.
None of this means that patriarchy is “good”, even if it does appear to be “natural”. We have to remember that our brains and bodies evolved to deal with a Pleistocene landscape, and haven’t changed much since then. Men struggled for authority, the best mates, status, energy, and shelter; they fought, hunted, and expressed their physical superiority because that was their drive distilled by evolution; not only did men engage in risky activities, but they were actually designed to seek risk and enjoy it more, on average, than women. Physically weaker and less coordinated (for the hunt) women were care-givers, gatherers, and so forth, which are comparatively low-risk. This is primarily because one single act of copulation can result in a mandatory investment of several years and a lot of energy for a woman, and none whatsoever for a man. A male throughout our history and prehistory could sire hundreds of offspring every year, a female has always been limited to one single uterine load.
But we don’t live in the Pleistocene anymore, in spite of the fact that we are physically identical to our ancestors. We have gone from a position in which our genes were shaped by the environment (adaptation, natural selection, evolution, etc.), to a position where our genes now shape the environment.
If I am hungry do I grab my weapons and step out of my 30th floor apartment to track the dogs and birds that live in the city? If someone challenges my status at work do I smash his face in until he yields to assert my superiority and demonstrate my fitness to lead? If my current mate steps outside, need she worry about being sexually assaulted by a mateless man of lower status than I? Obviously not, we have modified our behaviour and regulated actions such as hunting in urban areas, brutally assaulting peers, and raping women – even though such behaviour is entirely “natural” for us.
There is no reason why the same can’t be done for select feminist arguments and in fact many societies are dedicated to doing exactly that. Denying human nature, however, will not accomplish much and is even likely to roll back progress already made. That is why it is foolish to force (or attempt to condition) women to study in fields like mathematics, engineering, and computer science, which typically attract comparatively few female students. Women should always have the choice to be mathematicians, engineers, or computer scientists if they wish, but if women on average make much better teachers and lawyers, why the heck would anyone attempt to instill a preference for fields that women may (on average) be less suited to than men? That’s completely unproductive and un-competitive.
That’s the problem with what Christina Hoff Sommers called Gender Feminism. You can’t change gender roles without changing human biology and rewiring people, so instead these feminists exert a lot of effort in the next best thing: trying to demonstrate (to the world as much as themselves) that gender roles are acquired and can be abolished (which simply does not appear to be the case). A much more logical course of action is to protect all persons, including women from men (who, as we know, have hardwired tendencies to dominate and receive status) and to make sure that women are given the same opportunities and rights that men have. Just because on average men make good engineers and women do not does absolutely not mean that women cannot be or should not be good engineers (just as it doesn’t mean that men can’t be teachers!). Feminism should be about the ability to make a choice, not a hare-brained crusade to completely deny human nature and sexual differences. If there were less gender feminists broadcasting cagal, and more equity feminists actually lobbying for realistic, non-invasive/non-coercive solutions, the phrase “bra-burning feminist” probably wouldn’t be used quite so derogatorily.
By the way, one other factor in that phrase that can generate hostility is that a modern symbol of femininity (the brassiere) is being destroyed. This can suggest the message that “feminine” is undesirable, that we should not distinguish at all between women and men, and so forth. These messages are unreasonable in the extreme and it doesn’t surprise me that they elicit hostile responses from both men and women.
Considering AHunter3’s comparison of patriarchy to a military dictatorship (post 108), instituted for the duration of some emergency, it seems to me to have been a very efficient dictatorship. We owe it pretty much all mathematics bar a vague awareness of how to count; all arts, crafts and manufacturing capability more advanced than flint knapping or basket weaving; the scientific method itself, let alone all of the science and technology that arose from it; mass literacy and numeracy; and a truly amazing amount of infrastructure and an excess of material wealth sufficient to allow for the pursuit of all kinds of esoteric ends. (We can argue that a more feminised society would have got there sooner, but we have a lack of positive evidence, plus - if the golden age of equality in our antiquity be granted - many millennia of what seems to have been stagnation as a counter-example.)
Personally I’d be inclined to let it continue running the planet for now, so that we get the space elevator built before the next big asteroid hits.
It’d be interesting if there were a grain of truth in The Locusts (Larry Niven and Stephen Barnes) - that humanity’s biological destiny was to revert to peaceful semi-intelligent gender-equal hunter-gatherers after a couple of dozen centuries of male aggression and competitiveness has spurred a technological race culminating in the ability to move our species off this rock.
Unless I provide a cite for my “facts,” I was taught to present it as opinion. And that is suitable for Great Debates. Whatever you present as “fact,” you need to show a source. Otherwise it is just your opinion.
According to Wikipedia, whether or not matriarchies existed in the past is unclear, but some do exist today:
Then can you cite some twin studies which control for environment that unequivocably show which gender differences are hard-wired and which are environmental? My objection to twin studies is not that they are ineffective for study of human behavior, but that I didn’t see how they would apply to this subject. I would like to see some sites of twin studies that show which differences in male and female behavior is hard-wired. Can you provide links?
You yourself use the term “physically superior” to describe the physical difference between men and women. Who is to say that superior does not mean smaller? Bigger and stronger is considered better because our society has patriarchal values, strength and power. Why is greater power always a good thing? I notice you didn’t mention that women live longer. Also, could you provide cites for that “more resistant to pain” thing? I believe that is fitting for Great Debates.
And yet in your previous paragraph, you used the term “superior” strength. I believe we are culturally conditioned to believe that success is more power, more money, more strength than the other guy, even though this is more a masculine value (yes, from hard-wiring). I am not out to prove that patriarchy is not biological. But there is no hard evidence at this time to show that all behavior of both genders is hard-wired.
I’ll agree with the default thing; men are, in my opinion, probably in power because it is biologically important to them to win power, and it is not important to women.
Other factors may have had more import for agrarian societies.
[quote]
But we don’t live in the Pleistocene anymore, in spite of the fact that we are physically identical to our ancestors. We have gone from a position in which our genes were shaped by the environment (adaptation, natural selection, evolution, etc.), to a position where our genes now shape the environment.
[quote]
I agree.
And I believe our behavior can be further modified.
Who is forcing anyone? Here is St. Cloud, one student at each high school got perfect scores on the ACT, one male, one female. The female also aced the SAT. Her father is a math professor at St. Cloud State University. Who is to say how much of her prowess is from heredity or how much is from environment? Who is to say in a different society, that we wouldn’t have more females interested in math/science?
[quote]
That’s the problem with what Christina Hoff Sommers called Gender Feminism. You can’t change gender roles without changing human biology and rewiring people, so instead these feminists exert a lot of effort in the next best thing: trying to demonstrate (to the world as much as themselves) that gender roles are acquired and can be abolished (which simply does not appear to be the case). A much more logical course of action is to protect all persons, including women from men (who, as we know, have hardwired tendencies to dominate and receive status) and to make sure that women are given the same opportunities and rights that men have. Just because on average men make good engineers and women do not does absolutely not mean that women cannot be or should not be good engineers (just as it doesn’t mean that men can’t be teachers!). Feminism should be about the ability to make a choice, not a hare-brained crusade to completely deny human nature and sexual differences.
I do not want to change gender roles, but I do not believe they are as hardwired as you seem to think they are. I believe that our patriarchal environment shapes us in ways of which we may not even be aware. And I believe Madison Avenue buys right into this by portraying advertisements which show, for the most part, women doing the cooking, cleaning, and laundry.
Women burned bras in the sixties to make a point and to draw attention to that fact that women were not treated equitably and fairly. It seems that some young women (and I know a few) have become defensive about being stay-at-home moms, and reject feminism completely. One even called me a man-hater because I expect that women should be treated fairly. These women completely misunderstand feminism.
The purpose of it, in my opinion, was to give people more latitude in the roles that they chose, not prevent them from filling them.
Last I heard, women had a higher pain threshold. Also, women are physically superior to men in various ways. They have a more aggressive and effective immune system ( testosterone depresses it ), tend to have more flexible joints, IIRC have more g force tolerance/lower oxygen requirements, greater endurance, longer life span, and are much more resistant to cold and starvation. A better way of putting it would be that men are more high performance than women; like a sports car vrs a Volvo. Sports cars are faster - when they aren’t in the shop.
The point is that I am more interested in what knowledge exists in this field than I am in opinions. I already pointed out I respect your right to state opinions on this matter, but frankly that is of limited value to a discussion that relies on factual information.
First, I note that the entry you quoted is poorly written, with some parts where it is quite hard to glean the authors’ meaning. Second, the data presented are somewhat dubious. Take a look at this other Wikipedia entry:
Let us dispense with the previously cited work of the World Congresses on Matriarchal Studies, which appear to be exercises in idiocy. I think that between the two Wikipedia articles the one I cited appears to be of rather better quality and rather more consistent with reality. The important factor here, which is likely to account for part of the difference in the articles, seems to be the definition of matriarchy. There are matrilineal societies, but matriarchal or gynocratic societies simply do not appear to be as common as your entry would suggest (or, in fact, to be in very much evidence!).
Earlier I alluded to Margaret Mead, but I was confused and meant the work of feminist anthropologist Maria Lepowsky. You can read all about that fascinating (and embarrassing) episode here: A Gender-Equal Paradise in the South Pacific?
I can certainly cite studies, but twin studies were an example of how you can control for environmental and societal effects on behaviour (you said there were no controls for genetics vs environment). Twin studies have been going on for decades, in multiple settings, and with many subjects, which make them ideal experiments.
Not for the most part, because I am working on this stuff mostly from print and paper, however here is a summary of many such research efforts.
1. Most of human sex differences are also well represented in many of the thousands of species that make up the class mammalia (including, of course, other primates). And we know that these differences are certainly not acquired from culture in animals but appear to be innate. Such differences include: a greater range (distance travelleved) for males; a higher female than male investment (energy and time) in offspring; aggressive male competition for mates; females pick mates from among a number of suitors, males rape females, etc., etc., as already argued. CITES:
Daly, M., & Wilson, M. 1983. Sex, Evolution, and Behaviour (2nd Ed.). Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth
Geary, D. C. 1998. Male, Female: The evolution of human sex differences. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association
Hauser, M. D. 2000. Wild Minds: What animals really think New York: Henry Holt
… and many others, too many to list for my tired digits. But we are not talking about novel discoveries here, it’s common sense and basic science.
2. A study examined male children who were born without penis. The boys were castrated and raised as girls. This is the ideal experiment to determine whether gender roles come from society: if they do then the boys should turn into ersatz girls with little trouble. The subjects were not aware that they were genetically male, and yet (without fail) every single one of them engaged in play behaviour typical of male children, showed elevated levels of aggression consistent with the biology of male children, and expressed male interests and attitudes. Remarkably, over 50% of the children spontaneously identified themselves as male, starting from as young as 5 years. CITE:
Reiner, W. G. 2000. Cloacal exstrophy. Paper presented at the Lawson Wilkins Pediatric Endocrine Society, Boston.
3. An analysis of 172 studies involving 28,000 boys and girls found that in the US parents do not treat male and female children significantly differently (in terms of encouragement, love, nurturing, discipline, clarity of communication, etc.). The major difference is that boys are discouraged from playing with dolls, mostly out of fear that they will become homosexual: yet whether parents allowed or prohibited doll play seems to have no effect on sexual identity and sexuality; boys who later grew up into homosexual men had a greater tendency to play with dolls as children. The children of homosexual couples were not significantly different in terms of gender roles from children of heterosexual couples, which invalidates the claim that masculinity and femininity are acquired from parents. CITES:
Barkley, R. A., Ullman, D. G., Otto, L., & Brecht, J. M. 1977. The effects of sex typing and sex appropriateness of modeled behaviour on children’s imitation. Child Development, 48
Harris, J. R. 1998. The nurture assumption: Why children turn out the way they do. New York: Free Press
Lytton, H., & Romney, D. M. 1991. Parents’ differential socialization of boys and girls: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 109
Maccoby, E. E., & Jacklin, C. N. 1987. The psychology of sex differences. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Unoiversity Press
As you can see the evidence points squarely to hardwiring for significant gender differences and identity. (Note: much of this information was summarized from Pinker, S. 2002. The Blank Slate)
Well!! Let me clarify then. “Physically superior” is intended as “physically dominant”, meaning the organism you’d pick to come out on top in a physical confrontation or contest. That means greater muscle mass, greater strength and speed, higher aggression, better ability to sustain pain and damage, and so forth, coupled with a behavioural make-up that is more suited to violent conflict. Longevity is not a factor in this equation. Greater size is important because size is an extremely relevant determiner in conflict resolution - why do virtually all animals (including humans) “puff” themselves up to appear larger when trying to intimidate an opponent in pre-combat rituals? I don’t really notice many creatures that make themselves smaller (i.e., inferior) to cope with conflict, unless it is part of an escape strategy.
Of course it is fitting, ye need only ask and ye shall receive. As far as I can tell, the idea that women tolerate pain better than men is based on the fact that women bear children, and that childbirth is painful. This “knowledge” was adopted by all sorts of sugar feminists who thought pain tolerance would somehow make women “equal” to or “better” than men (my question to all those militants is, since the evidence shows the precise opposite of your precious belief, what now? “Inferiority”?).
Scientists who have looked into pain and sex difference with a modicum of professional detachment and objectivity determined that men have higher pain tolerance than women, which is precisely what you would expect from the sex that is better suited to fighting, hunting, ranging, and sustaining injury on a regular basis. Der Trihs, this is intended for you too, and I will address your simplistic analogy of men and women as cars later if I have the time.
Women Feel More Pain Than Men, Research Shows (this is the press release issued by the University of Bath, which conducted the study. I wanted to provide a proper bibliographical entry, but I can’t seem to locate the actual study).
It appears there are specific physiological (hormonal) strategies that the female body employs in order to cope with the pain and stress of childbirth, however all other things being equal, men will tolerate non-sex specific pain stimuli (like birthing) significantly better than women.
How is this a response to my prose, or an attack on the consistency of my statements?I pointed out important, hardwired sex differences and challenged you to show how patriarchy has its genesis in society vs biology.
Well of course not if you categorically say all behaviour. For example, high heels and make-up are (largely) female cultural phenomena (even though they are ultimately driven by biology - high heels lengthen and tighten legs and thrust out chest and buttocks, and make-up emphasizes erogenous zones, improves apparent skin quality, and so forth). But more fundamental and universal differences between male and female children are acquired by dint of genes, not society or culture – see previous discussion. All the evidence suggests that significantly different sex-based innate behaviour does exist and is hardwired. That’s why male children tend to be more aggressive than girls and are more likely to engage in rough and tumble play, for example. It’s not a cultural issue in the least.
Assuming that this is all there is to it, would the above not make patriarchy a biological expression, something for which we are genetically predisposed?
We have not evolved since well before we discovered agriculture. We are biologically and mentally identical to our Pleistocene ancestors, who were not agrarians but hunter-gatherers. We are, biologically speaking, glorified hunter-gatherer cavemen. The rise of agrarian systems has little or nothing to do with the prehistoric legacy hardwired within us. And the idea stated by Ahunter3 that ancient societies were matriarchal by default is another myth for which no evidence exists. I’m glad Malacandra spotted that one, I had missed it.
Well, the plural of anecdote (or opinion for that matter) is not evidence. You are again advancing the notion that specific gender differences (in this case in cognitive skills) are environmental rather than biological, when there is still no evidence in sight to support that claim. Remember the fact, repeated enough times by now I should think, that women and men are (on average) unequal in specific skills and abilities? Here is a good summary that mentions some of the important names in this field of inquiry, and even touches upon my earlier oblique reference to the poor Harvard Professsor who caught so much crap for calmly and non-belligerently stating what the evidence suggested:
The 20-year study cited is particularly interesting: Lubinsky, D., & Benbow, C. 1992. Gender differences in abilities and preferences among the gifted; implications for the math-science pipeline. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 1, 61-66.
And your evidence for this is…? Because so far I have heard opinion provided as counter to my rather more factual approach. You have provided little in the way of evidence.
Your conspiracy theory is rather far-fetched, but I won’t address it until you support your other claims with evidence and then build up from there. I have shown that gender is hardwired; true, not all behaviour is - for example, the earlier example of high heels and make-up – but certainly the fundamental differences already discussed are innate, natural. And I see every indication that universal male dominance is not cultural in origin but rather biological (though, as I said earlier, different cultures do aggravate or mitigate its expression).
I merely pointed out why the symbol of bra-burning could be interpreted with hostility, that’s all. I don’t know what you told those women, but it is possible that they understood feminism better than you gave them credit for, and that you came across as an advocate of gender feminism. Gender feminism is a frequently strident and invasive system of belief without much in the way of support, which therefore - as I argued and cited a few times in previous posts - often invites contemtuous dismissal.
If a woman wants to stay at home and care for kids, sensible and informed feminism has absolutely nothing to preach to her. This is that woman’s choice (provided that she has a choice and is not coerced). On the other hand, extremist, gender, and belief-based feminism tends to get in women’s faces if they do not conform to twisted caricatures of the “modern woman” as masculinized (or neutered) and aggressive career-driven individual. A woman wants a career, good for her. She wants to stay home and focus on what her biology is ideally suited for, good for her too. She wants both, ditto.
This myth already addressed in previous post. Now, to repay the favour.
Sure, if you change the meaning of my argument. But I was not speaking in general terms, as already explained I was being quite specific.
Indeed it seems that way. I thought about mentioning the more fine-tuned immune system of women in previous posts, but (as I said above) life expectancy and resistance to disease are hardly factors in why men dominate women or in the study of gender behaviour, now are they?
Cite?
Cite?
Cite?
Cute. But, like most arguments by analogy, the above is not a good way of putting it because it misrepresents and dumbs down the original argument. Very simply stated, each sex is superbly well adapted to face the challenges that it faces - men for male challenges, women for female challenges. This pissing contest of who is “better”, men or women, is a colossal waste of time. As I already said days ago, “better at what?” Think division of labour and performance in specific tasks, not generalized grandstanding over which sex is “better”.
Women are far better at nurturing children and are more attentive to their cries. Males are better at defending their territory (and, consequently, mates and offspring). Males are faster and stronger and tougher because they evolved to engage in violent competition. Females have superior verbal skills, males are more willing to take risks. And so forth, we could play this ping pong for weeks, but if there is no thesis to provide a framework the exercise has no point. In a biological sense there is no “superior” or “better” sex, only challenges and adaptations to those challenges.
Abe, I think there is something you are missing in your argument. You are saying that men and women are different, and neither is better than the other. We have just evolved different skill sets. I agree with you on that point, and that this “should” not make one better than the other. However, many feminists (myself included) would point out that even if these skills are equal in evolutionary value, they are very very different in economic value in the society we all live in.
Yes, the world does, and indeed it should not be derogatory towards women. But the fact is that it usually works out this way. For instance, certain occupations (for whatever reasons, probably related to the reasons you have outlined) become more closely associated with men: engineering, big business, science, tech, etc. Other occupations become more closely associated with women (teaching, nursing, administrative support, caregiving, cleaning etc). The “male” jobs are almost always paid better and of higher status than “female” jobs with equivalent training.
Economies almost never handle division of labour the way evolution does: some types of labour are usually valued (economically) more highly than others, even if they are (evolutionarily) equal in value.
And people who nurture children (teachers, nurses, mothers (whether stay-at-home or otherwise)) are hugely undervalued, and often materially suffer for their career.
High-powered business executives, and other such people who devote their energy to being faster and stronger and tougher at the expense of being nurturing, are very highly rewarded for it.
That’s simply wrong. We’ve evolved a variety of disease resistances, we’ve adaptions to harsh environments, such as cold resistance for Inuit, starvation resistance for people in famine prone environments, altitude adaptions for people in the Alps and Himalayas. For that matter, look at the variety of appearances we’ve aquired; sexual selection is evolution two. Finally, I have trouble believing that warfare has had no effect; killing all those young men before they have kids must have some effect.
Here’s a cite for my comment on cold and starvation. I got contradictory results on endurance and g forces; as far as I can tell there is no consensus.
While you didn’t say “by default” as I claimed you did (sorry), you made an essentially very similar statement. As I argued, there is no evidence that non-patriarchal societies have existed in the past, much less that “human society” was non-patriarchal prior to the emergence of agrarian civilization and changed (metaphorically) overnight.
Cowgirl, I do not pretend to have the answers to the income gap. I didn’t address the issue of economics because it wasn’t relevant to the particular discussion I addressed. In fact, I didn’t even bring up variance in renumeration for division of labour at any point! I began by pointing out how gender feminism is a an extremist fantasy system that irritates many reasonable people (not to mention many feminists), then I ended up in a defence of the Nature argument. I just laid down some groundwork to explain why males dominate all societies as they do (by extension they dominate economically too, which is in keeping with the Nature position), and I refuted the idea that the genesis of patriarchy resides in the environment.
You seem to say that the female side of division of labour is poorly rewarded, but from what I understand women are paid less than men on average whether in a “traditionally” masculine or feminine job. There are a number of reasons proposed for this - the same ones that got Professor Summers of Harvard University in a lot of trouble (unjustly, since they made perfect sense and were backed by studies). He is quoted briefly in my previos post: “He [Summers] offered the following hypotheses: most women may be less willing to sacrifice prime childbearing years to the intense workload; they may be discouraged by discrimination; or biological differences may be a factor.”
While I don’t know what the solution to the income gap is, I doubt, as Rune acerbically pointed out, that it consists of a welfare system, because that simply drags down the whole economy and is ultimately harmful to all involved, men and women. I freely admit this is not an issue I have pondered in quite as much detail as the scientific arguments I presented.
Abe, in debate, people form opinions based on the facts available to them and then defend those opinions. If what you assert were fact, then we would not be having this conversation. I base my beliefs and opinions on the facts as I know them. I do hope you are not stating that your opinions are fact. If everything being discussed were known fact, there would be no debate.
Let me try to explain one last time about the twin studies. I know how twin studies are used. I know there are some ways of controlling for environment in the study of human behavior. My whole point in questioning why you would bring them up is that there is no way for controlling for environmental influence specific to gender studies because patriarchy prevails everywhere. If you cannot provide an instance of how twin studies can provide data to support your assertions while controlling for environmental influence, bringing up twin studies would seem to be a red herring.
Let’s try to get back to what seems to be the main issue the two of us are discussing; whether or not gender differences are hard-wired (at least I hope that is what we are discussing). I agree with you that some differences are hard-wired, and that patriarchy is the biological default.
I agree that males probably are hard-wired to want dominance more than women want it. I do not believe that females are hard-wired to be submissive.
As for a conspiracy theory about Madison Avenue, there is no conspiracy, it is blatant. Try watching commercials on television. Why portray women doing all the domestic chores when many couples both hold full-time jobs? What message does this send children who watch these commercials?
The discussion was about men and women who both work full-time, and the man comes home and sits in front of the television or reads the newspaper while the woman cooks, cleans, and does the laundry. I live in a very conservative area, and that happens a lot around here.
If men focused on what their biology ideally suited them for, we would not live in a monogamous society. However, civilization has given us more options. Our use of tools and language have given us advantages that lower primates do not have.
Here is an interesting article on gender differences and a ABC News special. From this link:
I know there are gender differences in behavior. I believe that some of those differences are hard-wired. But whether these differences are enough to make one gender unsuitable for certain careers is not known, it is opinion.
I have trouble believing you have just given me a fallacy of lack of imagination in the way of a response. But seriously, I don’t see how what you say above is supposed to invalidate my statement that we have not evolved since the Pleistocene. There is no evidence that we have. Homo Sapiens Sapiens has been anatomically modern for (it appears) approximately 160,000 to 195,000 years. That number has occasionally been argued to be somewhat lower - 130,000 years ago, for instance. Since the Pleistocene ended 10,000 years ago, my statement appears to be quite correct, even if anatomically modern humans (us) arose only 50,000 years ago (which is far too recent a date for the fossil record).
Thanks for the cite on cold survival. I actually expected you to point out long-distance low-temperature swimmers, of which there are somewhat too few to prove a point. Archaeological examination of travellers is also somewhat problematic, because it is difficult to establish controls; it’s conceivable (for example) that male mortality was increased as a result of men helping women (consider the “women and children first” rule). Nontheless I provisionally accept this cite.
There’s a substantial difference between what you stated that I had said:
and what I did say, which included, in the same post:
To elide the difference between “wasn’t patriarchal” and “were matriarchal by default” is akin to misrepresenting you as having said that patriarchy is evil due to you have said this:
Perhaps it was unintentional on your part, so shall I consider it more a case of intellectual sloppiness than intellectual dishonesty?
Try reviewing this thread. Keep in mind that we’re talking about the absence of patriarchal power structure, not the presence of matriarchal power structure, OK? My claim that patriarchy is coterminous with agrarian civilization is not exactly unsupported fringe stuff.
Since I have been reporting well established articles of science, and diligently providing cites here, I really don’t understand why you are lecturing me. Secondly: yes, what I stated is that whereas I based my arguments on facts and presented these facts and the opinions and arguments based thereon, you appear to be providing contrarian equivocatory opinion with a dearth of facts.
Have you read what I have posted about twin studies and all the other studies? Yet again: I responded to your statement that it was not possible to control for the effect of environment vs nature. Twin studies are one of the finest illustrations of the effect of nature on behaviour. The End. For specific arguments in terms of specific hardwired behaviour I provided other support that you have thus far not addressed. But, it emerges in your latest post, you now seem to agree with the material or at least general thesis.
That is precisely what I have been arguing, and unless memory fails me you disagreed a number of times on those very issues without clear evidentiary support. Or not clear to me, at least.
And who said they are? And why do you not believe that females are innately submissive? Not that I do, but women do appear to be biologically predisposed to be more submissive than men in the sense that they have less of a drive to dominate and accumulate status.
Please, elaborate and support an argument based on this issue. “Try watching a commercial on TV” is not an argument, it’s not part of a debate, it’s nothing. It is always easy to blame the media (or whoever) for the woes of society, it is somewhat less easy to build a solid case against them. And consider that portraying women engaged in domestic chores (if such portrayal is indeed as prevalent as you claim) might just be due to the fact that it actually happens in reality - on average, women stay at home more than men do - and that advertisements are targeted at specific segments of the population. And what message is sent to children who watch these commercials? Does the message (if it exists) have an effect?
Fair enough, I really don’t know. The philosophically relevant item seems to me that those women have the choice. That was my point all along. If they have no choice and they get angry at you for pointing out as much, then yes, their irritation would appear to be an emotional defence/rationalization mechanism.
This is a point that requires special care. Consider that there may be natural factors that cause men and women to form monogamous bonds, and that monogamous bonds do not necessarily preclude casual sex with others, nor do they eliminate the hardwired urge for casual sex. And, indeed, the existence of relatively high infidelity supports this point. A look at many other mammals yields similar results: some males and some females will engage in casual sex with non-sanctioned mates, even if they are in some form of bond (or are part of a harem, or whatever). Just like humans. Again, nature, seems to be taking its course. And it may not be such a bad thing: studies have found that swingers view their marriages as stronger, happier and more exciting - perhaps because they are free to engage their casual sex drive instead of building up frustration and/or guilt? I don’t know, but I thought it was interesting.
What advantages, and how do these advantages impact on what men (or women) are ideally suited for, being (in your preceding sentence) sex with multiple partners?
Your two links do not actually say a whole lot about the science. The first one whines a fair bit about lack of information and representation. The bit you cited complains about some experts not invited to a TV programme, and it has the following crowning idiocy in the conclusion:
Utterly foolish, vulgarly so in fact. Loathsome. Please tell me I need not sully myself by addressing this intellectually bankrupt line of cagal.
The second article has some nurture “experts” hand waving or perhaps equivocating. Either way, they are also short on facts.
I never argued that any sex was “unsuitable” for any particular career – I argued that a particular sex was more suited for particular careers, and that both sexes should have the choice of what career to undertake, or whether they would prefer to stay home (that goes for men too: equal rights of choice after all). Do you disagree or maintain that this is a non-factual opinion?
Sorry, but I have to agree with Spider Woman. You can’t measure the effects of factor x on variable y unless you can measure/observe variable y in the absence of factor x as well as in its presence. All the twin studies in the world won’t tell you jack shit about if both twins in each study are observed under patriarchal conditions.
What is also true is that for some characteristic x which really is innate, you can only describe it in terms of how it manifests itself in the context in which you are able to observe it. That which we think of as “dominant aggressive behavior” might be the expression of something that would be expressed very differently in an environment less structurally inclined to reward dominance and aggression.
You know, sometimes a straightforward answer goes rather a longer way than winding around and around while attempting to work insults into prose. For example, I answered with a clear apology at having misread you. Read it again: it’s the word spelled s-o-r-r-y. Which brings me to this:
Come on, this is one of the the oldest, basest, most over-used, fallacious, and unoriginal lines on the SDMB. It says more about you than it does me, for crying out loud. But, to answer your question, please consider it an honest mistake resulting from trying to keep track of multiple theses while gathering quite a lot of evidence and preparing counter-arguments.
Speaking of evidence, I asked you for support for this statement you made: “Human society wasn’t patriarchal for hundreds of thousands of years. We became patriarchal when we adopted agriculture roughly 10,000 years ago. Agricultural patriarchal civilizations proved more successful than hunter-gatherer non-patriarchal civilizations and displaced them.”
I replied that we have no indication that “non-patriarchal societies have existed in the past, much less that “human society” was non-patriarchal prior to the emergence of agrarian civilization and changed (metaphorically) overnight.”
Your reply to a request for evidence consisted of this:
It would be really easy to reply with a snide false dichotomy about reluctance to back up assertions. But instead I will ask you again to please provide evidence for the statement I challenged. I am aware of some conjecture in this field, but I am not aware that your assertion was based on accepted evidence.
