SpudFiles

Let's remember that the point of this argument was that women don't actually have it as hard as you would like us to believe.

MrCrowley wrote:1. That's our fault, women weren't the ones in power when deciding that.

The point is that their sacrifice is not expected on the battlefield, and women who lose their menfolk in battle often get a lot more support than the soldiers themselves who have been scarred both mentally and physically.

2. Same as above.

Same response as above

3. Probably applies to the above as well. Also, men were traditionally seen to be the ones who work while the lady stays at home with the kids. This is men telling men that men should work and women should not.

Again it's the genetic fallacy, no matter who "decided" that men should work more and longer than women, it still is female privilege. Also, now that women have the vote and form the majority of the population, technically in a democracy they make the rules!

4. I've mentioned this earlier in my other replies. I think we have a genuine disadvantage but I'd prefer our position than that of the girls who have to endure the consequences. If you want a child, find the right girl or pay one.

It would be interest to see how easy it would be for a single man to adopt.

5. This was written awhile ago so I will let it slide. Times have changed since it was written. Furthermore, this relates to: #1-3

Times have changed? How many families exist where the man stays at home while the wife is employed?

6. This is just a rehash of previous statements addressed above.

OK

7. This, again, can be answered by a patriarchal society. If men are supposed to be the ones supporting women, it's more likely for a man to fail and become poor as there are no women to support him. This is a result of the working man tradition.

If men earn more than women but are actually poorer, then they have the short end of the stick.

8. I don't even know what to say. It's simply not true. If a woman cannot support her children, or the man can show he can support them far better, the man has a good chance of ending up with them. While there is a slight bias towards women in child custody cases, it's not as ridiculous as it is made out to be in this statement of the author. Men can get part-time custody without trouble. I would also say that it is another benefited afforded to women for having to deal with pregnancy/abortions.

Interesting article about kiwi custody: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/artic ... d=10457584

A female conspiracy that seduces men in to making decisions that lead to inequality favouring women doesn't sound right to me. I don't see how it is favourable when there are more inequalities that favour men.

I'm sorry, I don't see these inequalities in favour of men. Who benefits from marriage, really?

But the market depends so heavily on impressions and judgements. A mere rumour can cause stocks to crash so I wouldn't rely on capitalism for an example of rational thought and critical thinking. Airlines may be more likely to hire men-at a higher cost-than women solely because of the opinions of passengers. Thus, markets rely on consumers too and we all know how stupid people can be.

Technology needs to work, it's not about faith or opinion. A car either runs or it doesn't, and when you take it to the mechanic you don't give a damn who fixes it as long as it comes back to you in working order, and you pay the lowest price possible for that repair. Where are the more economical female mechanics?

One also has to consider the setback from women joining the work force as a norm far later than men and when men are already in established and dominant positions. We had those positions for such a long time that it was once thought ludicrous for a women to have that same job: "how can a woman be a XXXX, only men have ever been successful as a XXXX in the past!".

Why does position XXXX exist?

You could for example blame the men for the fact that there aren't enough women employed aviation industry. Such a shame after the Wright sisters were such prominent pioneers in the field.

On the whole, I think inequality favouring women is a result of our (men) idiocy/egos/traditions and so is inequality favouring men. There may be a small amount of manipulation by women where they exploit some advantages but I can't blame them for doing so because they are still, on the whole, more likely to be disadvantaged than us and they're only exploiting our idiocy.

I would love to have this conversation with you in ten years

I don't think everything can be equal, nor should be, due to our behavioural differences, but there is still a lot of irrational thought that goes around regarding what women can and can't, should and shouldn't, do. Hell, I even understand the thing about female pilots being less trusted. I know it's irrational to think that, but it still persists to a degree.

I don't think women deserve quite as much pity as you're expressing for their plight. If they want equality, they should harden the f*** up.

I also can't really be bothered arguing about equality, I'd prefer to spend my time arguing about other crap on the internet, but I just wanted to make the point that men still have it pretty f-cking good even though women get to decide things related to reproduction.

I think that the passage of time and a couple of long term relationships will lead you to a different view, good luck

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:The solution is to remove the ridiculous compensation culture that is rotting the West from the inside.

Indeed!! Compensation is the domain of Insurance companys......not govt.

The loss of life in the twin towers at 9/11 was horrendous, but no way were the victims familys entitled to ANY compensation (Millions) that the govt paid out. Life insurance coverage was a matter for each victim to decide......not Govt.

Due to Hurricane Sandy, the Govt is now considering rebuilding/ relocating/ reimbursing people for the loss of homes that the home owner elected to build in a dangerous area. The govt should furnish mass, basic emergency supplies, EMT, temporary shelter and food ....no more. Financial recovery should be left to the individual.

Govt has gone way to far pretending to be "Big Daddy".

jackssmirkingrevenge wrote:I don't think women deserve quite as much pity as you're expressing for their plight. If they want equality, they should harden the f*** up.

In the 60's, women began burning their bras. Their new found idol was Helen Ready....."I am Woman, hear me roar." Their mantra became "All for one and one for all". Yet, when one of their "Sisters" begins to pull ahead of the pack, rather than cheer her on....they'll rip and tear at her like a bunch of crazed hormonal Hyenas. Basically, women are a mass of random thoughts and conflicting impulses. They are their own (and each others ) worst enemy.
_________________
A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a sympathiser or trying to suck up to women. I just think there are some issues that haven't been addressed in some countries (U.S., Australia) as well as others (Scandinavia). The U.S. is particularly bad because of the public opinion on things like abortion and contraception that can make its way in to laws in individual states. Again, it's usually men who end up writing/passing these laws and their ignorance of women issues (as so keenly displayed by representatives of the Romney campaign this year) doesn't seem to be of much concern to most people. That's the problem you get when you try and make a law based on a public opinion that isn't factual or correct.

I'd make similar arguments for the inequality of peoples who are not white. Just because a Pacific Islander, for example, might steal my car when I park it in the street, doesn't mean that I should change my opinion of their entire ethnicity or stop believing they deserve equal opportunity. Same goes for a bad relationship with a girl.

I just think it's about time we stop generalising entire ethnicities/peoples/genders based on the experiences with a few. I've surely had more bad experiences with white men than any other group of peoples. Moreover, we used to generalise entire groups of peoples. That didn't exactly work out over the last few thousand years. Think of 50 years ago when African Americans weren't seen to be the same as white people for a number of fictional reasons. I have no reason to believe that the same generalisations about women don't fall under a similar category. Sure, there are generalisations about men too, but they're not necessarily correct either. We may feel the effect of them less being in a more dominant position where your employer or government official is probably more likely to be male than female.

Basically, women are a mass of random thoughts and conflicting impulses

This is sort of what I'm talking about above. There are equally as bad generalisations about men that women say, but they are less likely to affect our lives. The same with the civil rights movement 50 years ago; it doesn't matter what a black person thinks of white people as white people were in the dominant position. It's similar to countries that have been colonised, the dominant force can write the history and represent the weaker force however they see fit.

First of all, such generalisations need to be backed by science for them to be factual. Second, such generalisations actually need to be significant: it doesn't matter if women are actually a mass of random thoughts and conflicting impulses if they can still do their jobs, and function, properly (which appears to be the case).

Girls mature quicker than boys, they tend to do better in school than boys for many subjects, and they can be equally adept at all the professions men are. There are differences that lead to more girls being in one type of profession than another (medicine vs. engineering), but there are women in engineering who are just as good as men in engineering. There's nothing to suggest that a woman would have a harder time being President, for example, than a man due to her biology.

Like I've already said, this isn't about gender for me. It's about being factual and generalisations are rarely factual. Thus, I'd make similar arguments for an argument based on ethnicity. This is why I don't say I'm a feminist. I'm not particularly interested in women's rights, I'm interested in dispelling myth and fiction that still persists in much of society. I'm not really interested in quantifying inequality either, which gender has an advantage where and in what circumstances. I think it will largely sort itself out when public opinion changes and false stereotypes dismissed.

it doesn't matter what a black person thinks of white people as white people were in the dominant position. It's similar to countries that have been colonised, the dominant force can write the history and represent the weaker force however they see fit.

the point here is that we aren't really in dominant position and we have never been...


jsr is 100% right here >>>

I would love to have this conversation with you in ten years

If anything, women are the ones in power, you ever see a guy who is super whipped?

Girls mature quicker than boys, they tend to do better in school than boys for many subjects, and they can be equally adept at all the professions men are. There are differences that lead to more girls being in one type of profession than another (medicine vs. engineering), but there are women in engineering who are just as good as men in engineering. There's nothing to suggest that a woman would have a harder time being President, for example, than a man due to her biology.

There is not a single active female member on this forum, and that's not a coincidence. Men and women are interested in different things, and it is just as much about biology as it is about culture.

Second, such generalisations actually need to be significant: it doesn't matter if women are actually a mass of random thoughts and conflicting impulses if they can still do their jobs, and function, properly (which appears to be the case).

Most of my younger years were fraught with frustration at my interactions with the opposite sex because I constantly tried to rationalise everything. The moment I realised that both genders operate on different levels and not everything a woman says has to make sense was the biggest epiphany I've ever had. Believing otherwise is a sure road to insanity.

In my experience, these "generalisations" aren't unfair stereotypes, but a good assumption to operate on. Stereotypes though exist for a reason, it's an evolutionary mechanism which helps you err on the side of caution. If faced with a sabre tooth tiger, the caveman who assumed it was going to attack him like all tigers before it was much more likely to pass on his genes than the one who wondered if unlike all other tigers, this one might be different and he should try to communicate with it. If a stereotype persists, its because there is a ring of truth to it.

I'm not saying men are better than women - the fact is that society evolved the way it is because it works, apparently rational and curious men need an emotional and nurturing counterpart in order for civilisation to work. Pretending we are not different is however not helping anyone.

MrC, I'm probably being unfair because at your age I would have agreed with you. Once you've lived or worked with the opposite gender long term however, I think you'll find your views will be substantially modified.

There is not a single active female member on this forum, and that's not a coincidence. Men and women are interested in different things, and it is just as much about biology as it is about culture.

No complaint from me there. My point wasn't that females were discriminated against in engineering, my point was that they can be just as good as males in engineering even though there are far less women working in the field.

There was a university study earlier this year that focused on why women were under-represented in U.S. politics. Many of the reasons were to do with the way women perceived politics and their ability in politics. While this may seem like just another 'cultural difference', it is ultimately a cultural difference that has been shaped by previous male-dominated culture. A 'catch-up' period, or lag, would still be expected as it was only 40, 50, 60 years ago that women were more severely under-represented in politics. I think in 1978, there were only one or two women in the Senate.

It's all to easy to say "well women aren't suited to be politicians, they would rather be housewives/nurses/midwives because it's their biology and culture" when it's more likely that this is just the way that society has sculpted the ideals and ambitions of women. This makes sense in light of the dramatic differences in the roles of women from other cultures. We'd expect more similarities between cultures if behaviour and personality of women was innate. I address this again later in this reply as I'm not necessarily arguing that women should be equally represented in politics. If it is the case that, on average, less women than men genuinely want to be politicians (almost impossible to say for certain due to confounding factors such as cultural bias), there is still a responsibility of us men to accept the imbalance of power and to make sure we don't abuse this imbalance.

I may as well address the caveman argument, just in case it arises. While it is true that men have been the hunters for much of human history, in most instances it is the women who have been found to provide the most sustenance for small groups of hunter-gatherers. Furthermore, men were obviously designated the role of hunters because women had to be there to look after young off-spring. This is no longer the case yet the ideology persisted right up until the last quarter of the 20th century.

Most of my younger years were fraught with frustration at my interactions with the opposite sex because I constantly tried to rationalise everything. The moment I realised that both genders operate on different levels and not everything a woman says has to make sense was the biggest epiphany I've ever had. Believing otherwise is a sure road to insanity.

I would agree, but this operates both ways. It is my argument that our generalisations about women are more harmful than theirs about men because we are in a more dominant position. Again, I would use the recent election as an example in relation to the statements made by Republicans on rape. We end up with male politicians saying stupid things like women dressing seductively are 'asking for it', whereas a woman in that position would say the problem lies with the behaviour of men, not women. The male generalisation is more harmful not only because it is more likely to be false but because males dominate politics and have more 'power'.

In my experience, these "generalisations" aren't unfair stereotypes, but a good assumption to operate on, like assuming that if you swim in a pool with a hungry shark, it will probably attack you.

In the example you gave, I don't have a problem with generalisations like that. I agree that both men and women operate on different 'levels' but that the confusion goes both ways, not just in the direction of men confused about the behaviour of women. The generalisations I refer to are the more harmful ones that assume women are not naturally suited for different tasks or things like that. The key lies with the validity of the premise as there are some generalisations that are true about the ability of women (and men) doing different tasks. False generalisations about men and women exist, maybe in equal numbers, but the false generalisations about women are more likely to have a negative effect because males tend to dominate the more powerful positions in society (such as politics). If there was evidence to suggest that only men should be politicians, then I wouldn't argue about inequality in politics but that men have a privileged position that allows us to be more resistant to negative generalisations. This is an extension of my previous musings on power imbalance.

Stereotypes though exist for a reason, it's an evolutionary mechanism which helps you err on the side of caution. If faced with a sabre tooth tiger, the caveman who assumed it was going to attack him like all tigers before it was much more likely to pass on his genes than the one who wondered if unlike all other tigers, this one might be different and he should try to communicate with it. If a stereotype persists, its because there is a ring of truth to it.

False stereotypes wouldn't necessarily be harmful to an individual's (or group, if you're a supporter of group selection) fitness and there's a few scholars (IIRC from class) who argue the benefits of stereotyping in cultures due to the fact that they are usually not accurate. Stereotypes help create a characterisable difference between "us" and "them" and, regardless of their accuracy, will be useful in reinforcing group cohesion. Also, If you need to convince your group that war with a neighbouring peoples is just, false stereotyping has its benefits. But I think it's main function is argued to be in group cohesion as previously mentioned. This is important as many practices of ancient cultures rely heavily on co-operation and would fall apart without a high level of co-operation. A co-operative group is more likely to succeed than a less co-operative group. Moreover, false stereotyping doesn't need to rely on the assumptions of group selection (which is quite controversial in biology) as stereotyping only needs to increase fitness at an individual level for it to also be useful in other ways at a group level.

I do agree that a stereotype generally has to come from somewhere, but that somewhere may not be representative of a group on the whole. It would be similar to someone drawing conclusions about a population based on a sample that is not representative of the population; which happens in statistics far too often.

I'm not saying men are better than women - the fact is that society evolved the way it is because it works, apparently rational and curious men need an emotional and nurturing counterpart in order for civilisation to work. Pretending we are not different is however not helping anyone.

Yeah, like I said in an earlier post, I'm not someone who thinks men and women should be equal in every respect. I think I said something along the lines of inequalities will always exist, and should always exist, but it is about balancing out the inequalities where their shouldn't be inequalities.

The inequalities in politics, for example, could be argued are due to the innate preferences of men and women where women prefer not to be involved in politics. However, it would be hard to argue that whilst ignoring the male-dominated culture that has shaped these preferences over the last few hundred years. Back in the 50s, it wasn't women telling men that they didn't want to work, it was years of men telling women that they shouldn't be working but should be home with the kids. Eventually, you end up with women believing that they shouldn't be ambitious and career-seeking. I mentioned earlier that it may be true that women are less ambitious and less concerned about careers than men (when controlled for the previous experiences, culture and history of humanity) but we have to rely on the validity of the premise as that is the most important part of an argument. The likelihood that male-dominated culture has shaped the perceptions and behaviour of women is surely higher than the premise that it is all innate. The fact that it is impossible to control for the past experiences and culture of humanity makes the likelihood so much higher for the former premise.

Based on some of what you've said, I think I need to make this clear: I don't think men and women should be equal in every respect because I know there are biological and behavioural differences that prevent this. When I argue against innateness, I'm arguing against generalisations that claim innateness when it has yet to be proven. There are obvious differences between the two genders that will naturally lead to inequality, some of these differences are surely innate while others may have been affected by our past history and culture. For many differences, however, it is nearly impossible or too early to tell whether they are innate or not. I think the chances of some of these differences being innate (e.g. females being less likely to run for office than males) is small and it is more likely to invoke our past history and culture as the factor that explains this observation the best.

What I also argue is that the balance of power tips in our favour and, regardless of whether this can or should be corrected, it needs to be recognised because the consequences of this mean that the actions of men can be more harmful to women than the actions of women can be to men. My example of this was generalisations. Relating back to my arguments about colonisation, those with the power have historically been the ones who influence the history and the representation of the less-powerful group. Examples of this include most of the Pacific, Africa, India, China, New Zealand, Australia and the Americas. Obviously, Europe isn't in that list because it has usually been the colonisers. These European countries have also usually been mostly white with males dominating the powerful positions.

MrC, I'm probably being unfair because at your age I would have agreed with you. Once you've lived or worked with the opposite gender long term however, I think you'll find your views will be substantially modified.

If I end up in academia, I'm not so sure. Largely due to the fact that the science that deals with this kind of stuff is a field closely related to what I study. Thus, I think I'm less likely to make generalisations that rely on weak or circumstantial evidence because I would criticise a journal article that did the same. While I'm more interested in osteology and palaeoanthropology than evolutionary psychology or behavioural ecology, I still learn about the latter two subjects and will be closely associated with the lecturers who are academics in those fields if I continue on to post-graduate study.

By the way, I take none of this personally. I see it as an opportunity to further my reasoning and arguing skills and verbal or written discussion also helps to better formulate ideas that you usually keep to yourself. I'm sure we've had heaps of discussions about differences in what we all believe but I've either forgotten everyone's personal position or don't hold it against them. I'm sure some people are getting sick of this already so I'm ready to agree to disagree whenever

MrCrowley wrote:My point wasn't that females were discriminated against in engineering, my point was that they can be just as good as males in engineering even though there are far less women working in the field.

They can be just as good when injected into the established engineering industry, which was entirely developed by men.

It's all to easy to say "well women aren't suited to be politicians, they would rather be housewives/nurses/midwives because it's their biology and culture" when it's more likely that this is just the way that society has sculpted the ideals and ambitions of women. This makes sense in light of the dramatic differences in the roles of women from other cultures. We'd expect more similarities between cultures if behaviour and personality of women was innate. I address this again later in this reply as I'm not necessarily arguing that women should be equally represented in politics. If it is the case that, on average, less women than men genuinely want to be politicians (almost impossible to say for certain due to confounding factors such as cultural bias), there is still a responsibility of us men to accept the imbalance of power and to make sure we don't abuse this imbalance.

Women represent more than half of most populations. In a democracy, if they wanted to vote for female candidates who will address this apparent imbalance of power, they can do so easily and legitimately.

As velocity pointed out though:

Yet, when one of their "Sisters" begins to pull ahead of the pack, rather than cheer her on....they'll rip and tear at her like a bunch of crazed hormonal Hyenas. Basically, women are a mass of random thoughts and conflicting impulses. They are their own (and each others ) worst enemy.

This can be seen on all levels from a small office to federal government.

I may as well address the caveman argument, just in case it arises. While it is true that men have been the hunters for much of human history, in most instances it is the women who have been found to provide the most sustenance for small groups of hunter-gatherers. Furthermore, men were obviously designated the role of hunters because women had to be there to look after young off-spring. This is no longer the case yet the ideology persisted right up until the last quarter of the 20th century.

Darwinism shows what works. I'm sure there were societies with conspicuous female domination, but they're not the ones that survived the test of time.

One of the things that worries me vaguely is that the West might eventually become so femminised and soft that in spite of the technological advantage, it will not be able to resist a conflict with a more "backwards" civilisation.

I would agree, but this operates both ways. It is my argument that our generalisations about women are more harmful than theirs about men because we are in a more dominant position.

I think you're being naive. A man might be physically stronger, but can and is manipulated by women emotionally in order to serve her purpose.

We end up with male politicians saying stupid things like women dressing seductively are 'asking for it', whereas a woman in that position would say the problem lies with the behaviour of men, not women. The male generalisation is more harmful not only because it is more likely to be false but because males dominate politics and have more 'power'.

Why is a male generalisation more likely to be incorrect? Why should a woman who wears a tight low cut top then rolls her eyes at the men gawking at her bosom be tolerated? I don't think you would be fairly treated in a society run on female double standards.

If there was evidence to suggest that only men should be politicians, then I wouldn't argue about inequality in politics but that men have a privileged position that allows us to be more resistant to negative generalisations. This is an extension of my previous musings on power imbalance.

Power should be in the hands to those who can wield it best, this is exactly why talk of quotas is horrifying. Women are free to enter politics in most Western democracies, and citizens are free to vote for them.

I do agree that a stereotype generally has to come from somewhere, but that somewhere may not be representative of a group on the whole. It would be similar to someone drawing conclusions about a population based on a sample that is not representative of the population; which happens in statistics far too often.

My conclusions are based on the data I have gathered over the past 30 years, and are the views I hold now are radically different to those which I held a decade ago. On this topics, my view is that most of the stereotypes are more than justified.

Yeah, like I said in an earlier post, I'm not someone who thinks men and women should be equal in every respect. I think I said something along the lines of inequalities will always exist, and should always exist, but it is about balancing out the inequalities where their shouldn't be inequalities.

Who decides which inequalities should and shouldn't be? Should the rich be more priviliged than the poor?

The inequalities in politics, for example, could be argued are due to the innate preferences of men and women where women prefer not to be involved in politics.

That's an extremely patronising view, you're sort of saying that the poor dears don't have the will to govern themselves so men should do it for them and be sensitive to their needs and desires.

The likelihood that male-dominated culture has shaped the perceptions and behaviour of women is surely higher than the premise that it is all innate. The fact that it is impossible to control for the past experiences and culture of humanity makes the likelihood so much higher for the former premise.

You really have it in for your own gender. Why did male dominated culture emerge in the first place anyway? Do you really think that if you raised a group of say 10 male and 10 female babies in cultural isolation, they would become a society any different in structure from the one we are familiar with?

When I argue against innateness, I'm arguing against generalisations that claim innateness when it has yet to be proven. There are obvious differences between the two genders that will naturally lead to inequality, some of these differences are surely innate while others may have been affected by our past history and culture. For many differences, however, it is nearly impossible or too early to tell whether they are innate or not. I think the chances of some of these differences being innate (e.g. females being less likely to run for office than males) is small and it is more likely to invoke our past history and culture as the factor that explains this observation the best.

I would argue that there have been enough years of diverse human civilisation all over the globe to illustrate that these traits are biological, not cultural. Again, I think you're being too kind with the "fairer" sex.

Obviously, Europe isn't in that list because it has usually been the colonisers. These European countries have also usually been mostly white with males dominating the powerful positions.

Brilliant, isn't it

If I end up in academia, I'm not so sure. Largely due to the fact that the science that deals with this kind of stuff is a field closely related to what I study. Thus, I think I'm less likely to make generalisations that rely on weak or circumstantial evidence because I would criticise a journal article that did the same. While I'm more interested in osteology and palaeoanthropology than evolutionary psychology or behavioural ecology, I still learn about the latter two subjects and will be closely associated with the lecturers who are academics in those fields if I continue on to post-graduate study.

I would say that your data is incomplete

Seriously, I think the biggest difference in opinion here is that you seem to think that just because an average man could beat an average woman to a pulp, all the power lies with our gender. This couldn't be further from the truth in my view. If a nagging wife mentally tortures a man for 20 years after which he finally snaps and lashes out at her, who gets prosecuted? Sticks and stones you might say, but they're not the dainty angels you're making them out to be. To be honest, the fact that you constantly state that men should defend them in spite of themselves is quite a bit more sexist that many of my views.

I'm sure some people are getting sick of this already so I'm ready to agree to disagree whenever

A discussion forum where everyone agreed would be quite a dull one

One of the things that worries me vaguely is that the West might eventually become so femminised and soft that in spite of the technological advantage, it will not be able to resist a conflict with a more "backwards" civilisation.

I worry about this too but more due to the short falls of democracy. Look what Nazi Germany, the USSR and China have accomplished in the last hundred years in terms of rapid growth and development. Granted, post-Nazi Germany grew to be (one of?) the world's strongest economy in something like a little over a decade and Japan hasn't done so badly at turning around a sinking ship. The U.S. pre-WW2 isn't a bad example either, they really pulled their finger out and got mass-production down to a t. However, the latter three examples are all examples of countries either in a state of war or post-war. Things tend to get done a bit quicker during those times I would imagine. But as I said before, I don't think there's anything viable to replace Democracy at the moment.

That's an extremely patronising view, you're sort of saying that the poor dears don't have the will to govern themselves so men should do it for them and be sensitive to their needs and desires.

It's the view of other people, not me. I 'spose I'm using a false dichotomy: women either innately don't want to be politicians as much as men or that it's down to culture from the last few thousand years. My view is the latter as the former seems more unlikely, naive, and harder to prove.

Why did male dominated culture emerge in the first place anyway? Do you really think that if you raised a group of say 10 male and 10 female babies in cultural isolation, they would become a society any different in structure from the one we are familiar with?

But those circumstances are a bit more natural to the world we live in now. In that case, women would be required to be the child-carers for years after giving birth. Today, a woman can go back to work after 2 months and the help of a nanny.

I actually thought of something pretty funny that I'm surprised I haven't mentioned before in this discussion: bonobos (Pan paniscus). Unlike with chimpanzees, bonobos are much more friendly, don't practice cannibalism or infanticide, and the females are the dominant gender. They sort out their 'differences' using sex, they literally have sex all the time and females use this 'power' of theirs to keep the males in line. IIRC, the females form social groups but the males do not, they are kept out of the loop and more dependent on the female. This is in stark contrast to chimpanzee social behaviour. We are slightly more genetically closer to Bonobo's than chimpanzees and they are used as an example of non-human primate complex social behaviour more similar to that of human's.

Considering we are for more socially complex, it's difficult to say if the parallels between chimpanzees and bonobos would be present in our species if women were to be the dominate gender.

I would argue that there have been enough years of diverse human civilisation all over the globe to illustrate that these traits are biological, not cultural.

There are some weird cultures out there man

There'd be enough differences between the role of Chinese women and the role of Western women to make me think that a fair amount of it isn't biological.

I think the biggest difference in opinion here is that you seem to think that just because an average man could beat an average woman to a pulp, all the power lies with our gender

I haven't really talked about physical domination or power but instead social power. Social power like being the majority in politics worldwide by a pretty large margin (world average is ~20% of politicians are women).

If a nagging wife mentally tortures a man for 20 years after which he finally snaps and lashes out at her, who gets prosecuted?

It's not a crime to nag and no one is forced to get married

Sorry I kind of cherry-picked your arguments but I'm a bit busy this morning.

MrCrowley wrote:

If a nagging wife mentally tortures a man for 20 years after which he finally snaps and lashes out at her, who gets prosecuted?

It's not a crime to nag and no one is forced to get married

On the flip side of that scenario....
If a nagging man mentally tortures a wife for 20 years after which she finally dowses him with gasoline while he's sleeping and set his arse ablaze, does she receive the full force of the law? Usually not because she's considered to be a "poor, battered woman". Why does "It's not a crime to nag and no one is forced to get married" apply in a case where a man is the victim? In many cases, women are considered victims when in reality, they are actually the perpetrators. Women have long been a "protected species" and not held fully accountable for many of their actions and decisions.

The following is not an indorsement or condemnation of the death penality. It does point out the imbalance in the legal system and the "leniency" toward women in society:

"In addition, the actual execution of convicted females is rare."
http://www.infoplease.com/us/statistics ... h-row.html

Pished 'n swished in Glasgae


A woman goes to the Doctor in Glasgae, worried about her husband's temper
and threatening manner.

The Doc asks: "What's the problem, Janet?

The woman says: "Weeell Doctor Cameron, I dinae know what to do. Every time
ma hubbie comes home drunk, he threatens to slap me aroon'."

The Doctor says: "Aye, well... I have a real good cure for that. When your
husband arrives home intoxicated, just take a wee glass of water and start
swishing it in your mouth. Just swish and swish but don't swallow it until
he goes to bed and is sound asleep."

Two weeks later she comes back to the doctor looking fresh and reborn.
She says: "Doctor that was brilliant! Evrae time ma hubbie came
home drunk, I swished with water. I swished an' swished, and he didnae
touch me even once!

Tell me Doc...wha's the secret? How's the water do that?"

The Doctor says: "Janet hen, it's really nae big secret. The water does
bugger all - it's keeping your mouth shut that does the trick..."

On the flip side of that scenario....

I'm talking about inequality in opportunity; discrimination in the job market or politics or industry because of gender. I'm not trying to argue for equality between genders in the likelihood of getting away with murder.

The argument "if women want equality, they better learn how to take a hit because us guys punch each other all the time for no reason" is not what feminism is striving for. Nor is it what equality is about. Intrasexual selection is to blame; we may be fighting over females but it doesn't make it their fault. It doesn't mean that they should have to display the same innate behaviour either. This is what I'm talking about when I say innate differences will remain and give the impression of inequality, while it is a form of inequality it is unrelated to discrimination that affects people in their day-to-day lives.

As for women getting away with murdering their husbands when there hasn't been physical abuse, you'll have to link me to some statistics that shows this is actually a problem and not a rare occurrence (I'm sure it does happen from time to time).

Moreover, this is less likely to be a problem for the average man whereas missing out on job opportunities because you're female would occur far more frequently.

I have another example of innate inequality but this time it is to do with reproduction and it favours men. How many children can the average woman have? Not many. You know what limits how many children men can have? Our life span. Assuming that woman have access to all the men they want and men have access to all the woman they want, men will father more children by several orders of magnitude.

Nagging isn't a valid example of 'inequality', women don't have some super power that allows them to nag us in to submission. We are free to leave a marriage or find a new mate. Furthermore, I'm sure if you asked girls they would say our behaviour would be equally frustrating to them. Our lack of desire to connect emotionally on a frequent basis may drive them insane also.

Remember that we need to make distinctions between innate inequality and cultural inequality. Men having much higher suicide rates than women (thus, 'inequality') is likely due to our biology and not culture. What makes this a reasonable assumption? The fact that it is a worldwide phenomenon that is comparable between cultures.

Who decides which inequalities should and shouldn't be? Should the rich be more priviliged than the poor?

Well the rich are naturally more privileged than the poor due to the fact that they are rich. As for deciding inequality, it comes about the same way all other inequality has been addressed. Deciding what inequality to fight is done by analysing equal opportunity. In the paraphrased words of Kevin Rudd, everyone should get a fair go.

They can be just as good when injected into the established engineering industry, which was entirely developed by men

It's worth while to consider that, historically, women usually did not attend school at the same rates as boys (not out of choice, I might add), men of privilege (rich/status/class) were encouraged to take up the sciences, politics, military, philosophy, literature etc while women didn't have the same opportunities or encouragement. Land and wealth has historically been passed down to males as well, females had to marry in to it and then they were expected to bear children.

Women don't 'owe' men for the engineering industry, with the likes of scientists such as Marie Curie who knows how much further we may be in the field of engineering if women had equal opportunity.

I think this debate is arguing different things. Some of these arguments about things women do that piss you off. I'm trying to argue about equal opportunity and the more dominant position us males have in society. But when I say males are dominant, you guys are thinking about in the bedroom where women get to 'control' sex. I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about in society. Who cares if women get to control sex, just find another girl who wants what you've got

Women getting to 'control' sex isn't inequality either. We can do the same if we so pleased, we just happen to have a lower tolerance and patience for that kind of thing. It's no use in blaming women if their behaviour is innately different to ours.

It does point out the imbalance in the legal system and the "leniency" toward women in society:

An improvement on 500 years ago when we used to burn them as witches. I think this leniency is present but it's as much to do with innate behaviour and biology of men and women as it is do to with manipulation or exploitation by women.

Power should be in the hands to those who can wield it best, this is exactly why talk of quotas is horrifying. Women are free to enter politics in most Western democracies, and citizens are free to vote for them.

Indeed, but this is why I argued about whether there was an innate behaviour that meant women were less likely to be politicians or whether it was due to culture. I think it is more reasonable assume that it is due to culture. Thus, quotas may not be a bad thing in some cases. If the underlying reason was innate, then I would argue against quotas just as you would. Arguing that women lack political ambition due to innate behaviour is a bit tricky as it would be impossible to control for other factors (culture, history) and the analysis would require the use of a proxy variable. As well all know, correlation =/ causation.

Why is a male generalisation more likely to be incorrect? Why should a woman who wears a tight low cut top then rolls her eyes at the men gawking at her bosom be tolerated? I don't think you would be fairly treated in a society run on female double standards.

I meant that that specific generalisation about women was more likely to be incorrect than the alternative hypothesis (that rape is more to do with the behaviour of men than what women choose to wear). I think you know you set up a strawman in your second sentence there. I didn't argue anything about women complaining when men stare. I was arguing that what women wear is not to blame for them being raped. Even if they are naked, in no way should that justify them being raped. If a women is naked, are they more likely to be raped? Probably, but that doesn't mean the rape is justified any more than if they were fully clothed.

MrCrowley wrote:

On the flip side of that scenario....

I'm talking about inequality in opportunity; discrimination in the job market or politics or industry because of gender.

How's this for "Gender Discrimination"?

In 1985, I bid on and won a govt contract in California. Govt contracts always contain certain conditions (Afermative Action) that must be met by the successful bidder. One of those conditions was that I must award work amounting to a minimum 3% of the total prime contract amount to a WBE (Woman owned Business Enterprise) subcontractor. The govt supplied me with a list of all WBE subcontractors (listed by speciality) in the country. Of the countless thousands of names, I found only one WBE listed with a speciality I could use. She would rent some "Caution" signs to my company for 30 days. I received a quote from the woman of $1,900.00 for the sign rental. Because my contract was for the amount of $1,200,000.00, when my contract was complete, I sent my WBE subcontractor a check for $36,000.00 (for sign rental) in order to be in compliance with the contract and law. This didn't hurt me....it hurt the tax payers! I guarantee that a man will NEVER receive that kind of "Bonus" for being a man. I can appreciate your position. I'm not even arguing against your position, but in life beyond academia, you may fine that women may not be the victims which academics portray them to be. They seem to have a great many opportunities that are unavailable to men. BTW this happens all the time....all in the name of "protecting women".

It does point out the imbalance in the legal system and the "leniency" toward women in society:

An improvement on 500 years ago when we used to burn them as witches. I think this leniency is present but it's as much to do with innate behaviour and biology of men and women as it is do to with manipulation or exploitation by women.

At this point, I almost disagree. People should not have preferential treatment because some characteristic of theirs was discriminated against years ago.

As a sidenote, our legal system (in the US, at least) drastically favors females in certain cases. A man hits a woman; it's abuse. A woman hits a man, its self defense. A man gets a woman drunk and takes advantage of her: it's rape. A woman gets a man drunk and takes advantage of him (possible): not rape, or she changes his mind and it might be. Two people get drunk and make poor choices: Possibly rape on the part of the male.

Babies are part of a woman's body, so she can make the choices, even though half its DNA is from the male.

On a (mostly) unrelated note, I think it should be a 10-20 year prison sentence for tampering with birth control. People have bragged about poking holes in condoms at stores. **** sadists!

At this point, I almost disagree. People should not have preferential treatment because some characteristic of theirs was discriminated against years ago.

Yeah I agree, I wasn't condoning that. I was just using it as an example to show that women haven't always had bias in the courts.

@velocity,
I had no idea you guys have quotas like that for women. I don't think we have it here in NZ and I don't think it's something that should be enforced. Even though women are under-represented in some industries, but are theoretically capable of performing just as well as men in that industry, I don't think less-qualified women should be chosen over more-qualified men to fill a quota. All I agree with is that if you have two people, a man and a woman, of equal qualifications and experience, the man shouldn't be chosen over the woman because of her gender. How do you select one of the two when they have equal qualifications and experience? Well I guess that can be left down to impressions and personality and other conveniences.