Gaspode, It occurs to me that all of the key points of difference between ourselves–the “Great Debate” as it were–have already been introduced, clarified, and clarified again. What is left is an internal debate about who is or isn’t arguing effectively. Since I suspect others are growing weary of it, and since we ourselves undoubtedly can spend our time more usefully, I’m going to have to pass over a lot. (Once again, feel free to re-raise anything you specifically wish to me to answer to.)
BTW–Thanks, Gaudere for editing the italics in my last.
G:"We have to be able to determine whether physical prowess affects access to such high paid jobs, not just look at those jobs in isoloation from the holders entire career and work history. Would you agree that that is so?"
I agree that it would be very interesting to look at what data is available on the subject. But I expect such data will confirm what I have already suggested: that access to highly paid and socially important labor tends to follow a pattern in which university degrees lead to managerial-level employment so that need for physical prowess is the exception rather than the rule.
"Answer me this please Mandlstram: Had there been a male working at that store who was as adept at alphabetisation as yourself, and equally good at all other tasks, would it have been fairer to promote him or yourself, assuming that you will perform one task “less well than” him and all other tsaks to exactly the same level?
The thing is that once I was promoted there wasn’t the need to do any lifting at all. I did orders, handled customer complaints, supervised other employees, etc. So perhaps had there been a male who was in every other respect equal to me in job performance the “fair” solution would have been to flip a coin, or try to promote us both at some point.
“The entire point here is simply this: Just because high paid jobs require minimal physical prowess this does not allow us to conclude that physical prowess is not a factor in obtaining high paid jobs. Would you agree with this staement or not.”
I would agree that it might very occasionally be a factor, but I believe that it is not sufficiently often a factor to be statistically significant. And I believe that other factors–most of which are non-biological in nature–have much greater impact on presentday socio-economic inequalities. This is the basic disagreement between us.
[I had said]"[Superior physical strength entails] some “greater opportunities,” yes. Sufficient to explain existing socio-economic inequalities? No, I very much doubt that."
G"My reason for persuing this line of argumnet has been simply to get you to concede exactly what you have done here :that physical strength means that men have geater opportunities for economic success then women due to physical differences."
As you well know, I “conceded” that point long ago. But, to repeat myself, these “greater opportunities” are not, I believe, statistically significant. However I would welcome to the opportunity to view precise data on the matter.
“If you concede that men have greater economic opportunities then they are immediately not economically equal aren’t they?”
No, Gaspode. Once again, you think too simple-mindedly about a complicated question. You need a suitable definition of “economically equal.” In a post-industrial and information-driven economy the most desirable jobs are gained through the acquisition of specialized skills. The possession of a BSCS, a J.D., an MBA, a BS Engineering and–to a large degree–a plain-old BA is always going to be more economically valuable than a factor of physical strength (unless we’re talking about athletics or entertaiment). Therefore a woman who has one of those degrees, will almost always have “greater economic opportunities” than a man who does not. That is why I believe that in today’s society the average difference in physical strength between the average man and the average woman does not have a significant impact on existing socio-economic and political equalities. To repeat myself: this is the point we differ on. I see very little reason to belabor it further in the absence of additional evidence.
“What I have been saying is that many skilled fields will give more opportunities to men because of their physique.” [emphasis added]
I do realize that but, (so far) no one other than you has adduced any examples; and Dangerosa has suggested that your tech-related example was off the mark. You may, therefore, want to re-think this particular aspect of your position.
G*“I would be maintaining that strength of less value makes a person of less value. Surely that’s self evident.”*
It is not in the least “self-evident” and I repeat that it is stereotypical thinking in the extreme. Let me put this a different way. The “value” of a person, even when defined as economic value is not reducible to a single determinant. Now let us assume–for the purpose of argument–that an MBA confers access to the highest paid employment in a given society. In that instance “strength of less value” would be irrelevant to the question of a person’s economic value, unless the person in question (be they man or woman) lacked the basic physical health to carry out the job.
In the real world physical strength would take its place alongside a large number of work-related variables: appropriate education/skills would probably rank highest. More general factors would probably include intelligence, communication skills, problem-solving ability, honesty, ability to get along with peers. So unless you can prove that it’s physical strength that, on average, provides access to the greatest number of well-paid jobs (or even the greatest number of jobs in toto), you can’t assume that "strength of less value makes a person of less [economic] value."
I repeat, this is the main point of difference between us. Hence, unless evidence to this effect comes in, you’d be better off putting another shrimp on the barbie right now than belaboring this point 
[bias against women]
“We both agree that such bias stems from a range of factors. The sad fact remains however that your assertion that the reason a woman can’t become president”…
I never said a woman can’t become president. Just as Margaret Thatcher became prime minister of England, I do believe it’s possible for there to be a female US president.
…is because “the stereotypes that I hold so dear prejudice voters, including female voters” is baseless. It is no more supportable than an assertion that “it is illuminati mind control drugs that prejudice voters, including female voters”.
Poppycock. You seem to assume that I meant that perceptions about physical strength are the only kind of prejudice that might contribute to voter prejudice. I neither meant it nor said it.
[On my background in history]
“Logical fallacy number two in this thread. ARgument fom authority.”
Say what? Gaspode if you were a trained sociologist, an economist, a geneticist, a labor historian, an economic historian, a psychologist–it would have bearing on this debate. (It would also make you a much more reliable combatant, but that’s besides the point).
I told you I had been trained as a historian and that I had taught history at the university level, because part of our debate involved what comprises a good historical argument. Of course, you are free to believe that you are more fit to judge a good historical argument than any number of trained historians. But there is no “logical fallacy” in my pointing out the fact to you.
[I had said]“History is hardly ever black and white. Sometimes [historians] disagree with another historian’s interpretation and the two historians then have a debate about what they “think.””
“What, like we’re doing now? Or aren’t I allowed to debate history because I don’t have the right authority?”
Of course not. Although you have conviently forgotten the point, you had said that what “I think” about history was not fit for this forum. I was defending the appropriateness of arguments about what “I think,” not suggesting that the SDMB exclude all non-historians.
"Well if we read the actual post that led me to say that you will note that what you actually said was “your argument that presentday inequalities stem from these historical differences–real or (ahem) perceived–just doesn’t stand up.”
That’s right. And I hold by that. It doesn’t “stand up.” Because it’s insufficient. Got it? Remember that “these” historical differences refers to physical strength factors.
“Do you understand now why I called you argument illogical and counter to all the evidence.”
I “understand” that you are too bellicose and stubborn to open your mind. Make no mistake: as a historical argument your argument was weak and remains weak.
[I had said]: “There are too many other more important historical factors: e.g., the sexual division of labor (which relegated women to non-compensated housework); and the long history of paying women less for the same job as men.”
“And as soon as you point out somewhere where I said that such factors were not important I’ll rescind my statement that your argument was illogical and counterfactual.”
Okay: here is something you need to know about historical arguments. Any historical argument is weak if it asserts a particular proposition, “A is responsible for Z,” when, (as you concede is the case in our present example) A is merely one of several variables responsible for Z. Had you said, “I believe that the residual effect of men’s superior strength is one of a number of factors that contribute to presentday inequalities” I would have been happy to acknowledge your point and limit my remarks to the relative importance of this and other factors. As it was presented, however, your argument was, as I said, a turkey. A non-starter. A dud.
I would add that a more reasonable person would be happy to acknowledge that he had actually gained something from this interchange. (Or is it your position that have long contemplated and read up on the subject of the sexual division of labor only forgot to mention it at that particular moment?)
[women paid less for same work after introduction of factory production]
G:"This [debate about historical causation] has no relationship whatsoever to conditions in factories."
Let me get this straight. You are suggesting that debates about the historical foundations of socio-economic inequalities in a post-industrial economy have “no relationship whatsoever” to the socio-economic equalities that emerged during the industrial revolution?
If I am correct, you have just illustrated why no one is likely ever to mistake you for a trained historian.
[I had said]:"But how statistically relevant do you imagine this to be?
"How staistically relevant does it need to be before I can declare that men and women are not equal? P>.005? P>.01? P>.5?"
Under the right cicrumstances, I might settle for any of those. Remember, we’re not speaking of “identical” when we say “equal.”
*“Do you actually have any facts to hand that support any of those probabilities?” *
No, but then neither do you. Again, why pretend that this is a logical face-off when we are both making surmises about complex sociological processes?
[nurses can lift bodies]
“Which proves only that some nurses can lift bodies, not that lifting bodies isn’t a requirement of medicine or that men have an advantage in doing so, which is what I was arguing.”
Well the problem here is that the majority of nurses are female. Hence, insofar as lifting bodies is a requirement of nursing, it’s clear that there is no shortage of women able to do it. (If you’ve ever watched them work you’d observe that they have an ingenious technique of lifting patients involving the use of sheets and the elevation of the hospital bed.) There is simply no male advantage here, would you but open your eyes to admit it. It’s probably true that a nurse with a back injury wouldn’t be able to perform this task, but that would apply equally to male and female nurses.
“Unsupportabale anecdotal argument and therfore: Logical fallacy number seven in this thread.”
Clunk! To point out that nurses lift bodies as they care for bedridden patients is an “unsupportable anecdotal argument”? Do you assume, in the absence of my “anecdote,” that bedridden bodies levitate? That a special hunky male staff is hired to help hapless female nurses lift bedridden bodies? That the great majority of nurses are male? That nurses don’t lift bedredden bodies but just leave them there to get bedsores?
Also, for your edification, there’s nothing logically fallacious about offering anecdotal evidence so long as one isn’t pretending it isn’t anecdotal evidence.
[Women have made huge strides in the medical profession and now compose more than 50% of those in US medical schools]
“All I asserted was that strength could be an advantage in medicine due to the need to lift heavy bodies.”
And all I have countered is that it clearly isn’t since it hasn’t prevented increasingly large numbers of women from entering medical school and becoming doctors.
“This ignores any implication about relative dropout rates during course and placement for males and females post graduation. Nothing should be implied about entry to university based on strength, and as such this is clearly”
Let me get this straight. Do you think that relative drop rates in medical school (assuming they show that women drop out at a higher rate–I don’t know off hand) would be caused by female medical students finding the lifting of patients too onerous for them?
[glass ceiling in medicine]
G:"Just because other factors also come into play does not prevent strength from being a factor as well. Mandelstam’s argument hinges on strength and sexual discrimination being mutually exclsuive,
Correction. No argument of mine is “hinged” on the “mutual exclusivity” of strength and sexual discrimination. And if your point is simply that “strength” is “a factor,” I have repeatedly explained that I agree it is “a factor,” albeit it a probably insignificant one.
“when of course there is no reason one woman can’t be passed over for promotion due to one factor, and another owman for another.”
Of course not! Congratulations for beginning, at last, to think in complex terms. However, if you can think of even one reason of why a female doctor in good health in a teaching hospital would be passed over for a promotion because she lacked an average man’s physical strength, then I will tip my hat to you.
We may perhaps make a good historian out of you yet!
“Mandelstam is stating that women don’t enjoy the same success as men in the wokplace. This could be eitehr because they lack strength, which is more important after graduation than during training or because, or because of a glass ceiling presumably based on unjustified discrimination. However Mandelstam has implied that since women had no trouble gaining Uni entrance then this implies that it must be unjustified discrimination. Of course just passing university exams and internship does not mean you have the strength necessary to take up a position in a rural area where you may be the only doctor for 400kms.”
First, a rural doctor is not even relevant here b/c he or she is unlikely to be “promoted” within a hospital or university bureaucracy–that is the kind of place that exists in towns and cities. Second, why assume that a female doctor would lack the strength to be the only doctor in a rural area? Third, how many doctors world-wide are working under those conditions? As so often, your examples (such as they are) are based on peculiar exceptions that apply to exceeding few people.
It might interest you to know, btw, that fewer men are applying to medical school than ever before. Some have surmised that that’s because in the post-HMO medical world, men are less interested in becoming doctors. In other words, as the medical profession becomes less prestigious, less autonomous, and potentially less well-compensated, fewer men seek it out. To me, this demonstrates just how deeply socio-cultural constructions of gender run. Men are more likely than women, on the average, to make a professional choice based on the expectations of the prestige and wealth it will provide.
{NOTE: It occurred to me as I wrote this that my figure about more than 50% might not be true of all med schools. This was something I read in the {i]New York Times* a while back. I ought to have said simply that the number of women was often approaching that figure and sometimes even exceeding it. Apologies.}
[“garden variety sexist”'s response to glass ceiling phenomenon not usually based on strength arguments]
*The funny thing is that your garden variety illogical, revisionist feminist will say: well, women should be compensated while havin children 'cause it’s beautiful and natural, *
ROTFL! For the record, I know of no feminist who has made that argument. But it’s delightful to hear you attempt to impersonate a feminist ;). Move over Gloria…
“or women can be just as valuable as a man, their employer just needs to spend lots of money buying them the equipment needed.”
Such as? Please provide an example of a) a case where special equipment was requested to enable a woman to be “just as valuable as a man”; and b) evidence that a self-identified feminist supported the case. If you succeed in finding one, please offer an analysis–I’ll settle for a guess–of how widespread you think the phenomenon in question would be. (I suspect you may be confusing arguments made on behalf of the physically handicapped with arguments made on behalf of women. Also, depending on what you read, there’s a lot of “misinformation” put out there disseminated by Rush Limbaugh-loving type folks about what “feminists” allegedly say or do. A lot of it turns out to be completely decontextualized or even fabricated. So do beware about what passes for “garden variety” feminism, even when you’re in a less sarcastic frame of mind.)
"See the trouble here Mandelstam is that sexist, no matter how you spin it, is an insult. This is an argument directed rather obviously at me and not my argument and by
doing this you have committed
Not necessarily: sexist arguments are often made by people who don’t perceive themselves to be sexists. You may be such a person. That said, I didn’t call you a sexist. But I can understand how in the context of this, at times, vehement debate you might misconstrue some aspect of argument as a personal insult. For the record, I don’t find you particularly “sexist”–I think what you are is “masculinist.” Is that an insult too in your view?
M: "Why need either parent be prevented from working?[emphasis]
“Well I’d say it’s because if you’re say a bungee jumping instrucor, or an airline pilot, or a control officer working for the plague locust commision you won’t be allowed to work while pregant. that would probably slow you down somewhat.”
Well actually, pregnant women aren’t “parents” (unless they’ve already had another child). That is, I was speaking of the childcare implications of your question, not the pregancy issues. But since you raised the example, let’s go with “airline pilot.” Let’s say–for argument’s sake–that 80% of all female airline pilots take pregnancy/family leave for 9 months during two separate periods during a career that stems, on average, between age 30 and age 55. Now given that airlines have a pool of pilots, and given that a certain percentage of male pilots will also take some kind of health or family-related leave, why assume that maternity leave creates a situation where either a) female pilots are economically non-viable for airlines, or b) female pilots are not as good at piloting than their male peers? If, as the case may be, you do not assume either of those things, please tell me what you do assume when you raise the subject of maternity leave.
If your point is simply that such women would “suffer” from the loss of a certain amount of compensation during leave-time, I submit to you that I, for one, would not consider this to be an example of socio-economic “inequality.” I would view this as a decision made, in the usual instance, by a family to forego a limited amount of income on a temporary basis.
"I have never heard of a man having to take six weeks off work after his child was born…
Really? I personally know more than a dozen men who took a month or more of leave time after their children were born. Perhaps you mean men forced to take leave because of a medical necessity of some kind.
For argument’s sake, let’s just assume that all women take six weeks off of work after having a child and all men take no leave whatsoever. If the average woman has two children her lifetime (and the average professional woman in the US probably has slightly less than that statistically), we’re talking about a total of 12 weeks’ maternity leave in an entire lifetime.
What precisely would you infer from data of that kind were it to be actual?
“Some women are flat on tehir back for the entire 9 months.”
Oh, absolutely. Just as a small number of men are flat on their backs for all kinds of health or accident-related reasons. Again, I don’t imagine that this phenomenon is statistically relevant, but if you have evidence to the contrary, I’ll peruse it with interest.
“Therefore women as a group will be placed at an economic disadvantage due to giving birth that men will not.”
To some degree, yes. Just as to some degree, men will be placed at an economic disadvantage because of their higher rates of cardiac illness, no? I’d love to see data for both of these. That is, we could probably find that US women lost $X in lost income due to childbirth, while US men lost $X to cardiac-related problems. However, when social scientists speak of socio-economic disadvantage, they can and often do control for the temporary impact of maternity leave. What they’re really interested in–at least the ones I’m familiar with–are relatives rates of pay for the same kind of job; and relative rates of promotion with the same field. Now you might say that a woman who takes too much maternity leave is going to lose her competitiveness with her peers (male and female) who do not take too much leave. I would agree. However, I would add that there is no biological necessity here. There ways for professional women to arrange their childbearing and parenting demands so as to keep their professional viability intact. Whether women choose not to exercise these options or whether they lack the resources to exercise these options, the options exist. My point once again: we’re dealing with a social and cultural phenemonon, not a biological necessity.
M:“There is widespread debate about the comparative influence of “nature” (including hormones) and “nurture”. How is it “illogical” and “groundless” to weigh in on one side of the debate?”
“Because there is also widespraed debate about whether we landed on the moon, whether the Erath is flat etc. It is illogical to weigh in on one side of a debate when you have no logic to support your position. It is groundless when you have no grounds for your position. ‘I think’ is not grounds for weighing into the moon landing hoax on the affirmative. Such a stance would be illogical and groundless.”
Tut, tut, Gaspode. Here and there you’ve provided some evidence of critical thinking. This is sadly beneath you. Do you dispute that there is “widespread debate about the comparative influence of “nature” (including hormones) and “nurture”?”
“There is no debate in scientific circles that hormones are a prime controller of personality.”
First, that is not the same debate as the (age-old) debate about the comparative effects of nature and nurture. Second, what is meant by “prime controller”? If it only means “significant factor,” I agree that you’d find a lot of consensus within the scientific community (depending on how “personality” is defined). Questions of degree–of how how significant a factor hormones present–do, however, exist inside and out of the hard sciences and social sciences.
[I wrote]" "If socialization/environment impacts relative differences, then many avenues of potential inquiry are opened up for folks like you who place great emphasis on hormones.
"Yes, and if the moon was made of green cheese then we could bring it to Earth and feed the starving millions.
I leave this in merely to illustrate what an actual logical fallacy looks like. You have agreed, several times, that environment has an impact on hormones. Since we know you know the moon is not made of green cheese–for as every Aussie knows it’s made of Vegemite–you have just formulated a fatuous, purposeless and just plain old stupid analogy.
Once again, our differences, great as they are, aren’t as great as you make them out. Isn’t there something else you’d rather be doing?
“I had in fact read either the paper you referenced, or one that stated very much the same thing, some months ago.”
How very fortuitous! Do please tell me where since, if it’s available on the Internet, I would very much like to look at it myself. If, on the other hand, you read it in a scholarly journal or magazine, please tell me the title of the journal. At some point I will go to the library and look at it. I like to keep a little folder with such things.
G*“I have stated quite clearly that hormones exert a profound effect on personality based on personality, Mandelstam has said this isn’t illogical because very few women experience personality change from either birth control pills or pregnacy.”*
I said no such thing. You might think I said it "isn’t logical and perhaps you have made a typo. In either case you misunderstand my position: I do not mean to suggest the “illogic” of the hormonal determinist position, but to suggest its insufficient complexity for so vast a concept as human personality.
“Just because hormones have a profound influence on personality, this does not in any way imply that the hormones in oral contraceptives, in the doses found in oral contraceptives, administered in the manner of oral contraceptives, will engender a personality change.”
If your point is that it would take a higher dose to change personality, why not just say so and dispense with all this posturing? But do then please tell me, just how high muxg the dose must be? For argument’s sake–if I upped my testerone intake to the level of an average man my age–would my personality change in your view? I ask this quite sincerely. And what if we artifically lowered your testosterone level? Would you suddenly begin–ummm–getting pedicures and crying at the movies?
[I wrote]:"Most scientists don’t use subjective words like “profound”; they prefer to say “statistically significant”.
“I beg to differ. A quick search of current contents found the word profound over 5000 times, just in abstracts and titles. You really want to pursue this one?”
By all means. Please tell us what the quantifiable definition of “profound” was taken to be. As these would be researchers using the scientific method, some sort of clearly objective evidence would be attached to the word “profound.” Perhaps this is the very information we need to take us outside of this unfortunate impasse.
“Fine, if we have no agreed definition then I can validly say that hormones have a profound influence on the personality without fear of valid contradiction, since by your own argument any contradiction will be subjective. Fine by me. Hormones have a profound influnce on personality.”
Tsk, tsk. One of your sillier replies. You have yet either to define personality or to quantify “profound,” much less to provide some scientific researcher’s views on the matter. Feel free, therefore, to say whatever you like, but if you’re going to invoke the authority of the entire scientific community, be prepared to tell us how that community defines the terms you are invoking in their name.
Otherwise, fire up that barbie
*“Great, now we’re getting somewhere. So the majority of women are incapable of doing the type of physical work that the majority of men are. Now will you accept that such physical work has an economic value?” *
Once again, the economic value of men’s superior strength is, in modern times, negligible. The higher one goes up the ladder, the more negligible it becomes. Hence, I believe that if we had full-scale data at our disposal, we would find the economic effects of the strength advantage to be statistically irrelevant or, at best, minimal.
Having already spent more than an hour on this reply, and with many more claims on my time I will just note in passing.
Breastfeeding is not a biological necessity.
Bill Gates’s success has nothing to do with his strength, so what do you expect to gain by mentioning him?
You allege that changing cultural biases against women might cost money. Even if I agreed with you, (which I might on a case-by-case basis) it would not invalidate the premise that inequalities that are caused by cultural bias, are, by their very nature, not biologically inevitable. To wit, to say that a social change might cost money is not to say that the status quo is biologically inevitable.
We might wish debate, in some other thread, whether or not it would be wise for employers or societes to devote resources to overcoming cultural bias. But that’s an entirely separate issue.
“If she spendss money on childcare while breastfeeding then she’s economically disadvantaged by breastfeeding.”
I’m just curious, where is the father of this child in this picture? Doesn’t he have any interest in his wife’s economic productivity? And if he doesn’t, isn’t it a purely cultural choice if he chooses not to participate in childrearing activities that might boost his wife’s earning power (putting aside how nice it might be for his child)!
To quote your exact words :“If " say, we were two co-workers”
<sigh> What I meant in the exchange that I’ve deleted as that the “we” was a hypothetical you and me, not the “we” that would entail my doing your ecological field work (or whatever it is) or your doing my work (which I’ve not actually specified).
"And oh so modest, right?
Gaspode dear, after reading this thread, I doubt that anyone would describe either of us as “modest.” Let’s just say that I’m as proud of my educational achievements as you are of your low body fat ;).
“I am aware that is very difficult for you to be so continually forced to confront the reality that your self-worth is based on an how sexually attractive you can make yourself appear to me”
Do you really think that? That is, do you think that I experience my self-worth as based on your sexual attraction to me. (
ind you, it is quite possible that you’re hugely getting off on “battling” with a “feminazi.” I have come across men like that on the Internet. However, you don’t strike me as having that ulterior motive. So let’s simply say that your views on my sexual attractiveness have not even crossed my mind, much less provided a “basis” for my self-worth. Yeesh, is every 6-foot-tall Aussie with a todger as impressed with his own importance to women as you are?
“You are a woman who believes that women must be supported by society for their personal gain, even at the expense of personla freedom.”
From where in my (rather numerous remarks) do you extrapolate that?
"In addition, you are desperate to believ taht you are more intelligent than most men…
Well, given what I’d said to you, I think this is a fair retort. However, for what it’s worth, I do want to assure you a) that I’m always very pleased to find a well-educated person on the SDSM and elsewhere and b) that I never take any particular pleasure in being more educated or more intelligent than a man (or anyone else for that matter). I like men very much. I have a lot of male friends, a lovely male husband (actually my second), a delightful male child, and a swell Dad.
“and you find in me a man who can show your flawed and irrational argument up for what it is”
Ummmmm. Let’s say, in the spirit of good debate, that you did make a few interesting points.
“a veritable Descartes”
Well done! May I please call you Rene in the future?
“Well I certainly see that you have a very high opinion of yourself.”
Very much so. But a much higher opinion of those who earn my respect. (You have a ways to go, though the Descartes retort scored big time for you.)
*“Oh yeah, I sure got what I desereved. Won’t take this one on again. Fair shaking in my boots now.”
Gaspode, don’t think me so blockish that I believed that you’d be intimidated by what I said. I knew you’d come back swinging. What else would you do with all of that testosterone? However, I did feel pressed into saying things that, had you accepted the olive branch I’d extended after Gaudere’s appeal, I would not have said.
I don’t expect or even seek to silence you, and I doubt that I can persuade you to see things as I do; but I do hope to open your mind a little.
