The universal standard force governing human life and social activity is custom. We are creatures of habit, and naturally - like all things in nature - we attempt to live via a path of least resistance. This is pretty much the root-level behaviourism that governs all social structures, group psychology, and culture (including the perpetuation of religious belief). It becomes custom; 'second nature', whatever you want to call it. Gender rolls probably in early primitive/tribal societies had an organisational role: the basic dualism of hunter-gatherers and home-makers. They've persisted since then because, well, our evolutionary biology and psychology hasn't really changed all that much since those times.
Are you a feminist?
- Thread starter Six7th
- Start date
The universal standard force governing human life and social activity is custom. We are creatures of habit, and naturally - like all things in nature - we attempt to live via a path of least resistance. This is pretty much the root-level behaviourism that governs all social structures, group psychology, and culture (including the perpetuation of religious belief). It becomes custom; 'second nature', whatever you want to call it. Gender rolls probably in early primitive/tribal societies had an organisational role: the basic dualism of hunter-gatherers and home-makers. They've persisted since then because, well, our evolutionary biology and psychology hasn't really changed all that much since those times.
Yes, but again the question is why? Why have men always been in the hunter-gatherer role, and women in the home-makers role? Is it "just because" or is it because - much as some people would have you believe otherwise - there are actually physical (and mental) differences between men and women which mean we are better suited to our respective roles?
How much of why it started though is relevant to a modern world and shouldn't we be trying to get rid of what are now effectively arbitary restrictions based on how we used to live? Women no longer have to spend the majority of their productive life pregnant or caring for children. Men no longer have to spend most of their productive life out hunting for food. So should we allow the restrictions born of those biological differences carry on in the mordern world?
The vast majority of them are there for the sake of it in a modern world though. There are enough women stronger than enough men to make exceptions rather common for example.
Which has minimal impact on career choice today. So why should we enforce restrictions that no longer matter? Why should there still be a stigma attached to male nurses or female engineers or male primary school techers or female IT workers? What about their physiology actually stops them from doing the job just as well as the opposite gender?
But the differences are pretty much minimal in a modern country and are certainly not relevant in an awful lot of fields still seen as "mans work" or "womens work".
I'm not, what I am arguing is that, on the whole, the differences don't actually matter. Certainly not as much as some posters are making out.
Well of course there are physiological differences between the sexes - and men probably were more adept at hunting and gathering than woman, who were of course by their very biology the child-bearers and thus probably the child raisers (though this is not always the case, it must be said). That doesn't justify the patriarchal societies that have tended to prevail in the West though, this sort of 'biological determinism', shall we say; the attitude that "men are better at some things and women are better than others". In fact since we developed the primitive technologies of agriculture and slowly refined our other technologies (i.e. stone, bronze, iron), the reliance on gender differences has become less-and-less over time. There is certainly no biological grounds for gender inequality in, say, Ancient Greece. The reason patriarchy has prevailed in Western civilization for so long is largely because our societies are organised around the structuring principle of owning property/land... and men seemed to hijack this right for many centuries. On top of this we developed a culture (largely based on religion over everything else) that had as one of its central tenets a story of woman causing the fall of Man, etc. which further acted to normalize the so-called 'difference of the sexes' (I must add that I believe in a Marxist conception of culture, i.e. culture being born as a superstructural element to the basic economic condition of the time; thus a religion that gives man all the rights to property [including over a woman] is unsurprising). This closed off women from equality and status. The attitude that there are 'fundamental' differences between the sexes has a grain of historical truth, but to be honest it only really has a validity in primitive cultures. And in primitive cultures, men were not always the most valued members of the society - often times women were the nexus from which all activity and authority derived.
Last edited:
Fair enough, in which case I've gotten the wrong end of the stick, as I was under the mistaken impression you were arguing the differences didn't actually exist!
I still feel however that some careers are better suited to women/men respectively, for example jobs involving logical and technical thought do tend to be better suited to how the male brain works, and conversely jobs dealing with care and emotion are better suited to how the female brain works.
Again, this is by no means black and white, and of course you get women who can rebuild an engine in 4 hours but can't change a nappy, and men who don't know the difference between a spanner and a hammer, but could quite happily tell you about complementary colours or work as a carer. That doesn't mean that <generally speaking> the differences don't matter. Of course I don't know how much of the difference in thought process is genetic and how much is socially enforced, but that doesn't mean the differences are irrelevant.
(http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...-female-brain-i-why-do-men-try-figure-out-t-0)
Ah, I see now. Your position is religious. As your position is a matter of faith there's no way to argue against it.
I'll reply anyway in case someone else reads it.
'male' and 'female' are not entities. It is not true that all male people are the same, nor is it true that they are all part of a group mind. It is not true that all female people are the same, nor is it true that they are all part of a group mind.
'male' and 'female' are adjectives describing what kind of primary sexual organs a living thing has.
Once you go past anything directly and provably related to sexual organs, you've gone past what is male and female and at best you're into what is masculine and feminine to varying degrees (and nearly all of that changes from time to time and place to place because it's a symptom of social differences, not a cause of them).
"black" and "white" are also different and it's also possible for one to make generalisations based on those natural classifications. There are people who think that skin colour determines character, abilities, etc. I disagree with them too, for the same reason since it's the same way of thinking.
If you believe that, why are you so determined to suppress it in order to promote the sameness that you favour?However everyone is an individual with different capabilities and interests.
Last edited:
Higher percentage of white matter in their brain making them more adept at language/communication based tasks?
Higher percentage of grey matter meaning they perform better at mathematical/spacial tasks.
of course this is not 100% for every man and every woman but statistically over all it is skewed that way.
Of course another way to look at it could be, if both sexes are equal in their capabilities, why did men end up oppressing women?
If both were of equal strength then that would not have happened.
Also treating both sexes the same does no benefit to either, for example in education when it was largely end test based the boys outperformed the girls but when coursework was introduced girls quickly over took the boys, and they were deemed to be "falling behind".
If on average both learn differently then over all they would be better served if educated differently.
Last edited:
Please... all this talk of men having 'more grey matter' and being better suited to 'technical and logical' thought is pseudo-science of the worst kind (i.e. spurious science being used to legitimate social prejudices). Modern views of the brain and its functions adopt a trend towards plasticity, viewing the brain as a very malleable and adaptable thing. You are relying on old biological determinisms - men are better at logical processes, period - which are not really true. If you raised and educated a woman like a man - i.e. gender reversal - there is no reason why she could not be just as adept an engineer, to pick an example.
Also the reason men oppressed women in the first place probably was a basic physical overpowering. However this becoming codified and normalized in the ownership of property and hence 'patriarchal' society has little to do with women being 'in their rightful place' as some sort of inferiors to men. And again, I must keep reminding you: not all primitive societies had men as the rulers. It was not always the case that men overpowered women and became the rulers. Very often women were worshipped as demi-Gods, and treated as total authority figures over men.
My opinion as to why women tend to be better teachers/carers is one of behaviorism, not biological determinism. Women are probably better teachers because their traditional (read: man-made) role in society has been the maternal home-maker role. Thus their gender role is better suited to these tasks. There is nothing inherently biological in this. Again, some primitive cultures had men as the ones that reared the children.
Also the reason men oppressed women in the first place probably was a basic physical overpowering. However this becoming codified and normalized in the ownership of property and hence 'patriarchal' society has little to do with women being 'in their rightful place' as some sort of inferiors to men. And again, I must keep reminding you: not all primitive societies had men as the rulers. It was not always the case that men overpowered women and became the rulers. Very often women were worshipped as demi-Gods, and treated as total authority figures over men.
My opinion as to why women tend to be better teachers/carers is one of behaviorism, not biological determinism. Women are probably better teachers because their traditional (read: man-made) role in society has been the maternal home-maker role. Thus their gender role is better suited to these tasks. There is nothing inherently biological in this. Again, some primitive cultures had men as the ones that reared the children.
Last edited:
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
LOL i am not religious, I was using the creator as non literal term only.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Whilst there are physiological differences between the way men and women think, I think there is probably more variation within the gender than inter-gender and therefore I doubt whether it actually makes a difference in the real world. Also, jobs require a variety of skills, some one person may be better at due to having a skill which is perhaps an advantage from their gender but then may be slightly worse in another. In a holistic view, it's difficult to see how gender actually give advantage/disadvantage to most real work jobs that are skilled.
Surely this just proves that men are generally physically stronger than women and therefore more suited to roles which require greater physical strength?
If men and women have the potential to reach the same level of performance in all things, why are many sports still segregated into men and women?
Yes, I agree, for, as you've said most jobs. But not all. I'm under no illusions that a man may be as good a teacher as a woman, or a woman as good a mechanic as a man. However in certain roles, which are very specialist and so focus on a very narrow spectrum of brain function the differences do become apparent.
These basic differences in physical strength are not a basis for social inequality, though. I don't think feminists really have much problem with men and women having different Olympic 100m sprints.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Male and female are not entities ? That makes no sense. I never said that all males are the same or that all females are the same. I don't think anyone was making that argument. I never said anything about a group mind.
Male and female are both nouns and adjective depending on the context. There are far more physiological and psychological differences between males and females than just their sexual organs.
Certain generalizations can be made based on the sex of a person. This is not cultural or tradition based, it is because males and females are fundamentally different.
What is cultural is the move towards homosexuality and so called gender swapping. This is completely unnatural and can be directly attributed to the environment and experiences of the individual. There is also an argument however for a chemical in balance of the brain leading to increases in femininity in males and masculinity in females. But this is seen as a deviation from the norm and does not mean in anyway that due to this deviation from the norm, that this chemical imbalance some how proves that men and women are the same apart from their sexual organs.
Last edited:
Going to have to agree with this. What differences there are just aren't significant enough to discriminate upon for the vast majority of roles.
The only 'b' word you should ever call a girl is 'beautiful'.
Bitches love to be called beautiful.
On a serious note - I don't think men and women are equal. Men are far more level headed than women (on average - there is obvious crossovers etc...).
There is no getting away from it - biological fact - but 1 week out of 4 most women go pretty insane.
Bitches love to be called beautiful.
On a serious note - I don't think men and women are equal. Men are far more level headed than women (on average - there is obvious crossovers etc...).
There is no getting away from it - biological fact - but 1 week out of 4 most women go pretty insane.
. . .
Mental health problems in young men is actually statistically far higher in incidence than young women.
As are suicide statistics pretty much across the board.
"Men are level headed".
I didn't say all were, I said on average. It is a fact, if every woman that is biologically capable of having children goes all hormonal wack job 1 week in 4 then the averages are massively in the males favor for level headedness*
*real word! FACT.
I think it stems predominantly from the realities of procreation in small tribes of hunter-gatherers, i.e. how humans lived for almost all of the existence of humans. Any given woman's contribution to breeding was in effect a rarer resource than any given man's, which made men less valuable in that sense. Taking into account the duration of pregnancy and the reduced fertility resulting from breastfeeding, you're looking at about 2 years per child for women in those circumstances. In 2 years, a man could realistically be the biological father to at least a dozen children. If a few women died, the future of the tribe was in doubt. If a few men died, it wasn't. So dangerous things were done by men - hunting, war, eating unknown plants to see if they're poisonous, etc - and women were protected much more than men. Protection and restriction go hand in hand. The most protected people are prisoners in solitary confinement 24/7.
I think recorded history bears this out - when a motivation is given for restrictions on women, it's usually protection at least to some extent. Mary Somerville will serve as an example again. Her parents didn't restrict her education to oppress her because they were agents of the patriarchal conspiracy to oppress women, blah blah blah. They did it to protect her. It's clear from her own writing and from theirs that they were genuinely trying to protect her from what they genuinely thought was a serious threat to her health (physical and mental).
There's a hypothesis which is interesting but untestable. If at some point before recorded history societies were predominantly matriarchal (as they might have been and some people claim they were), then it's plausible that the inequalities resulted in masculism, a men's rights movement that passed itself off as a sexual equality movement. That would be an obvious lie, but it's worked for feminism recently so it's plausible that it worked for masculism back then. Obviously, a completely successful sex-group advocacy ideology will inevitably result in people of that sex dominating society and widespread disadvantages for people of the other sex - that's what any such ideology is for. In other words - same thing, different sex.