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.
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
married man
single woman
single man
married woman
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
That is pretty sad with regard to those men who require extra or specific stimulation. Probably too much beer drinking.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Men were making all the laws. Just because the men in power repressed male peasants doesn’t mean they didn’t repress women.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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,
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.
And comlpetely pointless and unenlightening. Being on fire allowed the house to remain on fire. What’s the pont of a statement like this?
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.
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?
Strawman. Elderly men and prepubescent boys were never mentioned.
Except we’ve already had several citations of where they were allowed to do so. I can provide more if you like.
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.
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.
Cite please.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
And this would be based on what exactly?
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.
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
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.
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.”
**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.
[I had said]“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.
[I had said]“This is exactly the language that has always been used to justify inequalities.” [Gaspode has deleted the specific examples I offered]
"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.
[I had said]“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.” *
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.)
“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 said:]“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: “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 had said]:“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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
No. i’m assuming you mean “like in quality, nature, or status”.
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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 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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Ahh what a beautiful strawman. Could you please quote where exactly I have said that it is either nature or nurtuire that determines personalities?
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.
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.
Well I can provide you with any number of cites demonstrating personality traits in animals so that’s not in much dispute.
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:
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.
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
: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.
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.
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?
Well we seem to be in wholehearted agreement on this at least.
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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
[I had said]:"Reproductive function needn’t have anything to do with [social, economic and political power].
Gaspode: "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]
[I had said] “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 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.
[I had said]:“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:“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).
[I had said]:"[Sex = sex organs, but…] “Gender” = masculine/feminine and is far more fluid. We have all kinds of androgynous gender possibilities…"
Gaspode: "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 wrote]:“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’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?
[In reply to my own sarcasm, Gaspode wrote:
*“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?
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
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.
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.
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.
Well I’ll agree to that definition for the sake of argument.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well I’d never argue against that assertion.
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 extrapolated 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.”
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.
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”?
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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’.
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?
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.”
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Which demonstrates that my use of the word gender to denote male/female is wrong how exactly?
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.
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.
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.
Yep, like I give a rats. :rolleyes:
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
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.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
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
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.
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.
uh huh. And you’d be able to quote where I said that wouldn’t you Biggirl? It’s not a strawman at all.
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.
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.
** 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 don’t insult the individual with whom you disagree.
Well considering neither of us have any actual evidence then we’ll have to agree to disagree.
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.
How can I argue the logic without pointing out that such ‘logic’ is obviously based on ignorance?
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.
If I remember correctly you said your husband looked better than George Bush, the supreme alpha in America and fairly handsome looking I think.
.) 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.
