There are several issues in which men see oppression of women completely backwards, seeing it as oppression of men. A main area they point to is the idea of men sacrificing themselves for their families, for women and children. A recent example of this is in Haiti where women and children were evacuated ahead of men. However the root cause of this ideology is sexism, sexism against women. This is further seen in the persisting "boys club" which is the military. These positionings of gender however stem from the idea of women being more vulnerable than men, being less able to take care of themselves and handle bad situations. This isn't some sexist ideology directed towards mens lives being less valuable. It is a direct result of women being viewed as inferior.
It is unfortunate in my eyes that the MRA crowd are unable to see the bigger picture. A lack of acceptance of how society is really structured in terms of gender means the struggle they launch is doomed to failure. One must identify the problem first, then it can be addressed.
It must also be noted that society was not always split this way, in the evolution of humans the human society was formerly more cohesive. There weren't always these lines drawn where women should have children and men should die in war. The difference in the physique of females and males was not always so pronounced either.
Women are seen as inferior, this is a fact. This fact needs to be challenged. Terming something "female privilege" is just a denial of the facts. It hinders progress that should be made. The MRA ideology is of course purely reactionary, purely emotional. Their questions are sound. "why aren't women incarcerated for the same lengths of time as men for the same crimes?". To answer this question it would make more sense to me to examine the whens and whys. Higher rates of male imprisonment definitely didn't coincide with the rise of feminism, with any of the waves. In fact I would argue feminism increased rates of female imprisonment. These inconsistencies between gender incraceration was of course caused by the underlying sexism towards women that has long been a part of our culture. Their terming it "the pussy pass" is just degrading towards women.
They rightly point out that without men it would be hard for women to have a functioning society. Well the reverse is also true, without women a society would be damn hard for men. Instead of following this to the logical conclusion of solidarity between the genders, they force more dividers between the genders. There is a greater issue at stake here and it involves the working class not men or women. Not gays or straights. Not blacks or whites. Anger with an unfair system is justified, anger with all women because of the legal system or because of a social paradigm is not. Please direct your anger wisely.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You post like you speak for the whole of a homogenous group called "women". Laughable. While you find it offensive that women are treated as inferior and in need of "protection". Many women happily behave like weak little butterflies when in a situation they cannot handle, hoping a man will help out of his social obligation towards women and children.
ReplyDeleteWhat exactly do you mean to say in this post? Aside from faux-outrage and a straw man attack?
That you claim to be open to criticism is a joke. You deny that women have any privilege whatsoever in western society? Every single one of your posts could be summed up as "Wah I am a victim, men should stop complaining because any problems they have are not as important". Why have you not even bothered to check the prison population statistics to back up your claims? Intellectually dishonest and lazy.
In what way have I attempted to speak for all women?
ReplyDelete"While you find it offensive that women are treated as inferior and in need of protection. Many women happily behave like weak little butterflies"
Well yes they do, that is a symptom of oppression though. Women are treated as inferior so they act that way. This is something that has been shown in scientific testing btw, why haven't you looked at that? Just intellectually dishonest and lazy hmmm? This men versus women thing you and others have in your head is so, well incorrect really. Oppression doesn't mean women do not ever conform to the stereotypes it just means they are pushed into them when there is no rational basis for doing so.
Dear anonymous I think it is you who is intellectually dishonest, you want to see the western world as a "matriarchy" right? While you can't provide any examples of how this is so. Your example of the prison population is complicated. You would have to address the differing areas seperately. For example men do rape a lot more than women do so there are going to be a lot more convicted male rapists. It does not show that women have any power at all. A lot of corporate crimes such as embezzlement would also be committed by men as they are typically in a higher position and better able to do that.
Although the prison system I think is more indicative of the plight of the working class then of either gender. Most people in there are poor. That is what they have in common. Anti-male sexism? Well that just doesn't exist. If it isn't institutional and social it is meaningless. If you want a response to your claims of chivalry well you can look at a post I wrote on that matter previously.
You come on here and throw the same boring wild accusations at me, and you got nothing. Try again.
Playing the devils advocate here, but perhaps women are viewed as inferior because they inevitably are inferior. Other than child birth / rearing (which is entirely a matter of biology) can you name any area of human endeavor in which men are not superior to women?
ReplyDeleteIt has been shown scientifically that there is no phsyiological difference between men and women. It has been shown for instance that men are not naturally superior at science and maths as is claimed. Can you name areas where men are superior to women?
ReplyDeleteBesides physical strength, which is largely useless now as a survival mechanism. It is largely only useful in using against other men. Seems fairly pointless. Particularly in a society that values intelligence rather than strength. (which is entirely a matter of biology).
You are wrong - in fact there are significant differences between the brains of men and women and more are being found all the time. (See here for an article about it: http://www.news-medical.net/news/2008/03/01/35810.aspx)
ReplyDeleteAlso, brain function is as much a question of chemistry as it is about physical structure and there are major differences in the brain chemistry of men and women.
As to your question, look to the greatest exponents of any field of human endeavor, and you will find men at the head of the pack. Science, art, philosophy, politics, engineering, music, literature, medicine, etc. To be honest I can't think of a single field in which men are not superior.
Lol I thought you would put forth that tired old cliche. Fact is women haven't always had the same access to education and career paths (and still don't) as men. How can you expect a woman to be an expert biologist if she simply hasn't learnt much about biology.
ReplyDeleteYour bias and lack of integrity is too obvious. I doubt you are capable of giving me an interesting or challenging conversation. Please come up with something where you can demonstrate men are "superior" and also demonstrate that it is relevant to gender equality or leave. Any more of these vague poorly thought out assertions will simply be deleted from my blog. Good day
Men are obviously physically superior (greater size, strength, resilience...) This is relevant to gender equality in areas as diverse as the military, law enforcement, fire fighting, most sports, all tasks involving hard physical labour, surviving natural disasters and violence. These areas involve activities such as lifting and bearing heavy loads and overpowering other people. Women’s physical inferiority prevents them competing well against men in these fields and they are consequently underrepresented.
ReplyDeleteApart from strength there’s plenty of evidence that men are more aggressive and competitive and less risk averse than women (plus a lot of other differences) AND there’s a lot of evidence that all this is significantly contributed to by brain structure, hormones and other physiological differences. This has consequences for things like career choice, promotion frequency and incarceration frequency and duration.
Even if you assume men and women are otherwise completely equivalent, women still become pregnant, give birth and suffer period symptoms, all of which can reduce their lifetime competitiveness and all of which men do not have to deal with. How can you expect women to not fall behind?
Problems in access to education or career progression do not explain lacking expertise in the relevant group. Most fields have had women holding PhDs in significant numbers for decades and at PhD level most learning is self directed. By the time they can make contributions that would identify them as leaders in their fields the expertise of these women has been their own responsibility for years.
A more likely contributing factor is that when women make significant contributions they aren’t properly recognised.
Note: claiming that ‘it has been shown scientifically that there is no phsyiological difference between men and women’ reveals your lack of knowledge on this topic. I suggest you spend less time insulting other people and doubting their capacities and more time doubting your own.
Hmmmm. I wonder why you would change an intellectual debate into a personal attack? Not so open to criticism after all?
ReplyDeleteIn response:
Firstly I think I have demonstrated that men are superior by correctly pointing out that it is men who overwhelmingly outnumber women in the major achievements of human history.
Secondly, your argument about woman’s lack of access to education may hold true in the sciences, but falls a little short in the arts. In addition, women have had pretty good access to education in the last 30 years or so, but if you look (as an example) at Nobel Laureates in just the last 10 years you'll find men outnumber women by about 10 to 1.
Finally, I'm bewildered by your second paragraph. Of course I'm biased - I am debating a point so how could I not be biased in its favor? That's what a debate is. And my "lack of integrity"? What's that about? Have I lied or been dishonest in any of my posts? You suggest that I am not challenging, but you seem unable to actually address the points I make accept by insulting me or dismissing them with frivolous distain.
The real question now is: Do you have the intellectual integrity to approve this post? I have my doubts.
David I wasn't accusing you of bias I was accusing you of bigotry, big difference there.
ReplyDeleteyou come to my blog and call me inferior and expect me not to get a bit annoyed? Now thats stupid.
To david and anonymous. The points you raise are largely irrelevant. Men and women are different, yes. Doesn't mean we can't have equality though.
Further more if you think I am uneducated on matters of brain structure then provide me with some studies. Merely saying "You are wrong" is really not convincing.
David I will caution you in future not to bring your passive aggressive crap to my blog, in reference to your last statement. If this is involved in any further postings I will not approve them.
Finally, I have studied brain structure, and all the evidence is pointing towards there being no psyiological reasons for this "men are better at science" claim. Perhaps It is you who have not considered the evidence, too happy to consider yourself as superior and justify your bigotry it seems.
"...David I wasn't accusing you of bias I was accusing you of bigotry, big difference there..."
ReplyDeleteVery big difference - I must have been confused by your use of the word "bias".
"...you come to my blog and call me inferior and expect me not to get a bit annoyed? Now thats stupid..."
As I said in my opening post, I am "playing the devils advocate" - arguing a point for the sake of argument, not from some strongly held personal position - no need to get personal.
...To david and anonymous. The points you raise are largely irrelevant. Men and women are different, yes. Doesn't mean we can't have equality though..."
We seem to be discussing the relative superiority of the genders. Our points are pretty relevant to that and I am defiantly NOT saying that men and women should not be treated equally.
"...Further more if you think I am uneducated on matters of brain structure then provide me with some studies. Merely saying "You are wrong" is really not convincing..."
I gave you a link to an article that cited a number of studies but it seems you didn't read it.
"...David I will caution you in future not to bring your passive aggressive crap to my blog..."
Again, no need to get personal. I am not attacking you personally. I am challenging your assertion that "Women are treated as inferior so they act that way" with a counter proposal that "Women are treated as inferior because history has shown us that by and large, they are." This is NOT the same as saying "I am better than you", and yes, I know that as an argument it has a number of flaws.
Seriously, and no offense intended, but if you write a blog called "A Feminist Open to Criticism what did you expect?"
I'm finding it difficult to understand why someone would give their life to save that of someone they felt as inferior. The events of the titanic seem to demonstrate, quite clearly, that you are wrong. When the titanic was sinking, the 3rd class (male) passengers, who were seen as inferior to the second and first class, were left, in large part, to fend for themselves and die. Particularly true of the male 3rd Class passengers. However, the women, whom you claim men felt were inferior, were given preferential treatment, rather then being abandoned. in fact, more men from first class alone gave their lives then all the women combined (regardless of class). If men thought women were inferior, they would have left them to die with the third class.
ReplyDeleteMen have historically seen women as weaker, but that does not equate to inferior. In fact, a premium has always been placed on women's lives over men's, and still is today. how often is a man considered a coward for not stepping up and shielding a women in a dangerous situation (such as a mugging)?
I understand why you see this as sexist towards men. However I would like to make two points. One gender roles are restrictive for both genders even though it is based on oppression of women. Men suffering negative consequences isn't indicative of sexism towards men, just that their gender role can be harmful. In the case of women being seeing as less capable than men and men being seen as stronger it is still sexism towards women.
ReplyDeleteSecondly in regards to your titanic example I would approach this more accurately from a marxist perspective whereby the poor men and women did die on titanic and while it is true rich women were given priority this was mainly an issue of wealth. Reducing it to just an issue of gender is ignoring the bigger picture.
Thirdly I don't think the same situation on titanic would occur today or a ariety of reasons, none of which are that relevant to get into.
Ok perhaps I phrased the bias/discriminatio/bigotry point badly, so what though? I think we cleared it up.
ReplyDeleteI read the article you sent me, I wanted the research though, someone posting a news article about something is hardly compelling. You can portray research in whatever way you like. Although if you pay attention to those kind of sources as authoritative, I am understanding why you would have such a skewed view of the world.
Also from what the article outlined it doesn't seem to necessarily state that these differences are inherent and not socially based, which is the point you need to prove.
We are discussing relative superiority of men and women? Well I don't think differences in gender show any such thing. Again you need to show me how they do.
It is not my intention to get personal but I don't like passive aggressive rubbish on my blog, it interferes with debate and really tends to make me view you as not particularly worth my time.
Lastly, I expect criticism and to a large extent expect bigotry as well. Doesn't mean I enjoy or encourage it though. As you have been unable to give me any evidence to demonstrate women's alleged inferiority, to me you are just another bigot with nothing better to do then attack.
The existence of a gender role, regardless of whether it's beneficial, is sexists, and I'd hardly call a sacrifice of life a benefit. even today, men are expected to take risks of life and limb to provide and protect others... women, not so much. 95% of workplace deaths are men. 20 million Male soldiers dead, and just as many wounded, in WW1. 25 million dead and as many wounded in WW1. Again, a premium is placed on women's lives. hardly an indication of feeling they are inferior.
ReplyDeleteAs for the titanic example... I repeat. more men died from first class alone then all the women combined. IE, more rich men died then poor women. More poor women survived then rich men. IE, even third class women were given a premium over the elite men. and for many, this was by choice. There is no possible way anyone would do that for someone they felt was inferior. This in no way proves anything about the oppression of women, but it does demonstrate that any oppression that may have existed, wasn't a matter of inferiority. It also demonstrates that men are also "confined" (AKA oppressed) by gender roles (or do you think many of those men wanted to die?).
As for whether it would happen again today... find me the name of 10 female fire fighters, paramedics and/or police women that died in the 9/11 twin towers attack. there are women emergency service people in new york. feminists demanded it. But find me 10 that died.
Like I said whether or not it is beneficial.
ReplyDeleteYou don't seem to display any understanding of gender roles.
September 11 now? You think the war in iraq is justified probably. This pro war ideology is why men are dying in war. Stop war. Then no more war related deaths will occur.
Since you keep bringing up the war example I suppose you are kind of forcing me to address it in more detail then I particularly wanted on a blog about gender equality.
ReplyDeleteLet's say for the sake of argument that men are oppressed and this can be seen in the miltary. So what do you about it? Make it so as many women die as men? Is that equality? Equality in suffering? To me it doesn't make a difference if 20 men die in war tomorrow or if it is ten men and ten women that die. It doesn't help anybody.
In terms of viewing the world as oppression against women I would address issues such as equal pay, this would make peoples lives in general better.
All you can do in terms of viewing the world the way you do is try to make women and men suffer equally. That is not making things better for anyone. It is a ridiculous, useless and potentially harmful political ideology.
A political stance has to have a useful aim or it is impotent. Which is how I view the MRA, they are impotent.
Sept 11 has nothing to do with war, but it does, again, demonstrate a perception that women's lives are of more value then men. As such, it completely disarm's your claim:
ReplyDelete"This isn't some sexist ideology directed towards mens lives being less valuable. It is a direct result of women being viewed as inferior."
men wouldn't repeatedly sacrifice their own lives (even in civilian, non war situations such as the titanic and twin towers)while keeping women out of harm as best they can, if they felt women were inferior. Plain and simple. That kind of thinking makes no sense.
I need to ask, why don't you think equality in suffering isn't a reasonable expectation? feminists have insisted on breaking down their gender roles and demanding the benefits of equality, while maintaining the gender roles that negatively impact men and leave them with the responsibilities. How is that equality, that's supremacy. What I want to see if men and women sharing the responsibilities and enjoying the benefits equally... but that will never happen so long as the male gender role is maintained and society continues to accept the 95% male workplace death rates are acceptable, while the female gender role is extinguished and policies (such as affirmative action) grants them advantages in acquiring the benefits. I have to wonder why you think men should continue to suffer the horrendous death rates alone? is it because you feel it's better men then women? wouldn't that be admitting that men continue to be subject to the traditional gender role, while women have escaped theirs?
As to the wage gap: http://blog.american.com/?p=22704
And I'm not trying to make a stance, I am trying to demonstrate, your stance of "Women are seen as inferior, this is a fact. This fact needs to be challenged." is incorrect, and unfairly damning of men. Many of your arguments stem for this perception. Gender roles exist(ed), they confined both men and women's actions, what they could and couldn't do. This may have traditionally impacted women in their day to day lives more then men, but it didn't stem from some view of women being inferior. you need to realize that, and once you do, perhaps you won't demonstrate so much ager towards men, perhaps you may even become truly open to criticizes.
First, from genetics it is expected that men will show greater variance in any trait influenced by genes on the X chromosome (same system that makes men more likely to be colour-blind or haemophiliacs). There are many genes on X that influence neurological function so just from this it is expected that men will be overrepresented among both the mentally retarded and the gifted.
ReplyDeleteSee
“X-linked genes and mental functioning” (Skuse, 2005, Human Molecular Genetics, vol 14, special issue 1, pR27-32)
http://hmg.oxfordjournals.org/content/14/suppl_1/R27.abstract
“A role for the X chromosome in sex differences in variability in general intelligence?” (Johnson, 2009, Perspectives on Psychological Science, vol 4, no. 6, p598-611)
http://pps.sagepub.com/content/4/6/598.abstract
Second, sex-typical brain structure and behaviour are both heavily influenced by prenatal exposure to sex hormones.
See
“Sexual differentiation of the vertebrate nervous system” (Morris, 2004, Nature Neuroscience, vol 7, p1034-9)
http://www.nature.com/neuro/journal/v7/n10/full/nn1325.html
“Prenatal exposure to sex steroid hormones and behavioural/cognitive outcomes” (Manson, 2008, Metabolism, vol 57, sup 2, pS16-21)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18803959
“Men and women are different, yes. Doesn't mean we can't have equality though.”
“...it doesn't seem to necessarily state that these differences are inherent and not socially based, which is the point you need to prove”
Feminists generally want ‘equality of outcome’ and take inequalities between men and women in anything (toys, prisons, Nobel laureates, income...) as evidence of sexism that needs to be challenged.
Differences arising from genetics and pre- and postnatal hormone exposure are innate and relevant to most areas – intelligence, behaviour and physique are all affected and all important in your options and success in life.
No doubt there are social factors but even with equal treatment/opportunity there is still some outcome inequality expected and it’s harmful to act as if there’s not.
One, can you please address any of the points I made.
ReplyDeleteTwo I don't think men should suffer alone, I don't think they should suffer at all. Just like I wouldn't support men getting less pay so women can have more. Equality needs to be about maing lives better or it is not something I will pursue.
Three, I am not angry with men, please indicate evidence for this claim
Four, you would have to give me an australian study, since I am in fact australian and referring to the wage gap here.
I don't think equality of outcome is necessary for equality. Although in the mean time while women still find it harder than men to have the higher positions in society due to social factors and also economic factors I support efforts to neutralise these issues.
ReplyDeleteBasically I think you are arguing against a stance I don't have.
“Equality needs to be about maing lives better or it is not something I will pursue”
ReplyDeleteThat’s a strange notion. Seems very similar to ‘equality of outcome’ to me, and given that at least some of the socioeconomic factors will be caused and contributed to by innate differences, trying to entirely neutralise those looks the same...
“These inconsistencies between gender incraceration was of course caused by the underlying sexism towards women that has long been a part of our culture.”
“We are discussing relative superiority of men and women? Well I don't think differences in gender show any such thing. Again you need to show me how they do.”
... and statements like these indicate you’re unconvinced of the importance of the differences and don’t see any explanation for unequal outcomes apart from sexism. So I am confused as to what your stance actually is.
Something I would like to ask specifically-
Does anyone actually think that a culture where men don’t conform to the warrior/protector gender roles would be better for it?
When it comes to physical danger it’s better that a man faces it than a woman does simply because he’s more likely to survive it – superior physique means it’s his bruises and concussion versus her broken bones and smashed skull.
It’s unfair to men as it increases the rate at which they are injured and killed, but desirable as it reduces injury and death rates overall.
Firstly I thought by equality of outcome you meant 50/50 split in terms of politicians and CEO's and whoever else.
ReplyDeleteSecondly bashing someones face in isn't really necessary for surival in society either now or in the past.
your assertions are just not based in fact sorry.
Finally, can you address anything I said?
Could you also name yourself something when you comment, I am a little confused about whether it is the same anonymous person or different ones, makes it hard to follow
ReplyDeleteFirstly I thought by equality of outcome you meant 50/50 split in terms of politicians and CEO's and whoever else.
ReplyDeleteAgain, why do only the top, high status jobs count? equality of outcome "should" result in a 50/50 split on all jobs, but no feminist wants to talk about that. Just in studies of intelligencer and performance, women hold a fairly steady middle ground, where men's variations rocket high and low. Current employment devisions tend to mimic this, with most mid level jobs being held by women, with most high end jobs and almost all low end jobs being held by men. The problem with equality of outcome, is it attempts to artificially equalize women with the top teir jobs, despite all the men who are at the bottom. This makes for a rather significant imbalance.
As women who trulely want equality move into the workforce, you should see a shift in both directions, both high and low (and you are, there are many women soldiers willing to fight, there are women truck drivers and construction workers, etc). Artificially "balancing" the top half of the workforce by gender is only an example of discrimination, and it is so because women place a premium on their lives over men, (based on traditional gender roles, the thing they claim they are trying to break free of), and expect the men to continue doing the low end work, because it's dangerous. But to ignore this low end is dishonest. To expect men to do it because men are supposed to do the dangerous, dirty work, is sexist, and to claim that it can be ignored while looking only at the top teir jobs expecting parity by gender is hypocritical. And your refusal to acknowledge that these dangerous jobs need to be done, and instead hope for a world were lives don't need to be at risk, demonstrates a blind spot you clearly don't want to see.
As for not hating men... Making an accusation that men think women are inferior is a pretty hateful accusation to make. As I noted already, it ignores the sacrifices men HAVE made for women, and insults their character. the quantity of men that treat women poorly is by far a tiny portion of the population, and yet, it is treated as the norm... and worst yet, acted upon as if it was the norm. So while "you hate men", may have been an exaggerated assumption, there is clearly quite a bit of hostility, and it is not far out of line to make the connection. This also comes through in your hostility towards MRA's, treating all as the same movement... not acknowledging that, some of the more radical MRA's are no different from the radical feminists, except bomb threats aren't actually being issued, or worst, the killing of peoples dogs if they speak up against you (look up Erin Pizzey). There are extremists in both camps, but you only see the best of the women and the worst of the men, and again, that is a pretty hateful stance to take.
Regardless, I'll leave it at this. After all I've argued, I need to know, do you still hold to the opinion that:
"Women are seen as inferior, this is a fact."(4th paragraph opening line)?
I don't think there should be equality in outcome either in high jobs or low jobs, I don't know why you keep asserting this
ReplyDeleteI never said men view women as inferior, I said society.
Yes radical feminists are as gross as MRA
Please make some sort of point against me that applies
"...I read the article you sent me, I wanted the research though, someone posting a news article about something is hardly compelling. You can portray research in whatever way you like...”
ReplyDeleteThe article is from a reasonably respected source, cites specific studies and is pretty unequivocal - "Discoveries by scientists over the past 10 years have elucidated biological sex differences in brain structure, chemistry and function" I hardly think that is a question of skewed presentation.
However, if you want original research how about this:
"Using magnetic resonance imaging, we assessed gray matter volumes in several cortical regions in 17 women and 43 men. Women had 23.2% (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex) and 12.8% (superior temporal gyrus) greater gray matter percentages (corrected for overall brain size and age) than men in a language-related cortical region, but not in a more visuospatially related cortical region. These data seem to establish sexually dimorphic structural differences in the cerebral cortex, consistent with ptior cerebral blood flow reports."
This is from the abstract of this study: Structural differences in the cerebral cortex of healthy female and male subjects: a magnetic resonance imaging study. By Thomas E. Schlaepfer, Gordon J. Harris, Allen Y. Tien, Luon Peng, Seong Lee and Godfrey D. Pearlson
It took less than 5 minutes to find on using Google and clearly demonstrates that there are structural differences between male and female brains. In addition, as has already been pointed out to you, brain function is also a matter of neurochemistry which is clearly different in men and women.
“...Although if you pay attention to those kind of sources as authoritative, I am understanding why you would have such a skewed view of the world...”
So you only get your information from research papers?
“...Also from what the article outlined it doesn't seem to necessarily state that these differences are inherent and not socially based, which is the point you need to prove...”
Consider it proven
“...We are discussing relative superiority of men and women? Well I don't think differences in gender show any such thing. Again you need to show me how they do...”
I have done so by pointing out twice that men are the highest achievers in every field of human endeavor and countered your suggestion that this is due to men’s better access to education.
“...Lastly, I expect criticism and to a large extent expect bigotry as well. Doesn't mean I enjoy or encourage it though. As you have been unable to give me any evidence to demonstrate women's alleged inferiority, to me you are just another bigot with nothing better to do then attack...”
Again, it’s not an attack, its challenging your worldview, not you personally; its only bigotry if it’s not true; and evidence is only valuable if you are prepared to evaluate it in a reasonable way. So far you haven't shown any sign of doing so.
Interesting about the brain stuff. I will look more into it later.
ReplyDeleteI don't only get my information from research papers, but I do require much in the way of support before I will necessarily accept anything as true. News paper articles, well they have been fairly reliable in being unreliable in the past, so I don't pay that much attention to the details.
In terms of the information about the brain that you have provided me with, I still don't see how that necessarily proves it is innate.
I don't accept your "counter" to men being in the highest fields as compeling. May have to agree to disagree on that one. There is also I think a problem with only looking at the very top fields and concluding it means men are necessarily smarter than women.
In terms of what you have "proven" on my blog, I still see it as ridiculous bigotry. So convincing me it is anything other than an attack is not likely.
Perhaps I can suggest some reading for you that will be compeling against this argument that men are higher positions because of some innate skill set.
ReplyDeleteDelusions of Gender-Cordelia Fine
I have only read bits of it myself, but I think it addresses some of the issues you raise quite well.
I thought maybe I should clarify my position on this issue. I don't see how you can conclude there is something innate about brain differences by scanning. I mean I am sure we are all aware that environmental factors causes changes in the brain. So to prove to me that it is innate you have to do more then show me brain scans. Otherwise it is just an assumption. I don't work in assumptions
ReplyDelete"... it is just an assumption. I don't work in assumptions..."
ReplyDeleteYes you do. You assume that there are no differences between men and women despite being given powerful evidence to the contrary. You assume this because to do otherwise would require you to completely re evaluate your position vis a vis gender roles.
By the same token, you ignore the effect of neurochemestry on brain function.
You are not really open to criticism at all. You have decided your position and you cling to it as a matter of faith, much like someone with strong religious beliefs. Your position is based, not on evidence, but rather on what you perceive to be a lack of evidence.
Any in depth, rational evaluation of the scientific evidence will reveal to you that there are subtle, but innate differences in the brains of men and women and that, coupled with their different brain chemistry, explains why men and women have different motivations, different worldviews, different ambitions, different abilities, etc.
Seriously, which is the simpler proposition - that subtle differences in brain structure and chemistry account for the subtle differences we can observe in the genders abilities and motivations; or that socialization has, across all of human history and in every known culture, brought about almost identical gender outcomes, AND has resulted in not insignificant differences in brain structure and function?
These differences by the way, are not evidence that men are inherently better than women despite my devils advocate arguments to the contrary. They are however an explanation for why men have eclipsed women in almost every aspect of human achievement - when comparing men's and women's intelligence (of various sorts) the male bell curve is slightly wider. This means there are proportionally more male genius's (and morons) than in the females and this is why men are over represented among the high achievers.
"Yes you do. You assume that there are no differences between men and women despite being given powerful evidence to the contrary. You assume this because to do otherwise would require you to completely re evaluate your position vis a vis gender roles."
ReplyDeleteNope. I accept that there are differences between men and women, I just don't see evidence that they are innate. I also did until recently completely accept that there were unquestionable innate differences between men and women (recently as in the last few months). I decided there was not sufficient evidence to make that assumption so I have discarded it and am now attempting to learn what is really happening. This required me to change my world view, that you assert I am afraid of changing. Unfounded accusations appear to be an MRA speciality.
"You are not really open to criticism at all. You have decided your position and you cling to it as a matter of faith, much like someone with strong religious beliefs Your position is based, not on evidence, but rather on what you perceive to be a lack of evidence."
Yes, just like i don't believe god claims because there is lack of evidence, I don't believe your claims because I have not seen evidence of them. This is the opposite of a faith based or religious stance.
"Any in depth, rational evaluation of the scientific evidence will reveal to you that there are subtle, but innate differences in the brains of men and women..."
Good, you should have no trouble demonstrating this to me then.
"Seriously, which is the simpler proposition - that subtle differences in brain structure and chemistry account for the subtle differences we can observe in the genders abilities and motivations; or that socialization has, across all of human history and in every known culture, brought about almost identical gender outcomes..."
I do not agree with your premise that all known cultures have resulted in "almost identical gender outcomes". This shows your lack of knowledge about human history. Please do some reading there.
"They are however an explanation for why men have eclipsed women in almost every aspect of human achievement - when comparing men's and women's intelligence..."
They are an explanation yes, but I don't accept that this is the correct explanation.
Playing devils advocate is unnecessary. I have no interest in wasting my time discussing a view that you do not have.
There is more evidence that they are inate than that they are not. Hence your position is dogmatic, not evidential.
ReplyDeleteand yet you have provided me with zero evidence that this is the case.
ReplyDeleteWhat a waste of time this blog is when people spend their time in assassinating my character rather than actually discussing the issues.
You are too busy tryin to accuse me of several different things at once to actually present a case.
Given the evidence (see comment - December 3, 2010 1:04 PM - in particular) I also don’t understand how you could doubt the reality of innate differences except by ignoring the facts, so I would like you to explain exactly why you don’t believe the differences are innate and which particular points you believe are lacking evidence or are flawed.
ReplyDeleteStarting with genetics-
1- Males and females are genetically different (both different genomes and gene expressions).
2- Genetic differences are innate.
3- There are genes on the X chromosome related to neurological function.
4- Genetic differences contribute to differences in trait distributions/bell curves.
5- 3 and 4 combine to give greater variance in cognitive function in men than in women (which predicts that men will outnumber women at the extremes of intellectual ability).
Particularly if you accept 1-3, explain why you reject 4-5.
And on neurochemistry-
6- Males and females are biochemically (hormonally) different.
7- Hormonal differences can be detected prenatally and are therefore innate.
8- Prenatal hormone exposure has a permanent effect on brain structure, function and behaviour.
9- Hormonal differences later in life are also innate.
10- Hormone exposure in adults has at least a temporary effect on brain function and behaviour.
(NamedAnon is all previous Anons except the first)
From what I have read from medical journals the scientists state that there is no possibility that hormonal differences can result in the differences in gender that you are attributing to something "innate".
ReplyDeleteAlso it was suggested to me that since all known human societys resulted in almost identical outcomes that this was indicative of something innate about gender roles. Given the fact that this statement is demonstrably false, would that not be indicative that there is in fact nothing innate at all about gender roles? That they are in fact social constructs. Makes more sense to me, given the evidence.
ReplyDelete"...From what I have read from medical journals the scientists state that there is no possibility that hormonal differences can result in the differences in gender that you are attributing to something "innate"..."
ReplyDeleteReferences please.
"...Also it was suggested to me that since all known human societys resulted in almost identical outcomes that this was indicative of something innate about gender roles. Given the fact that this statement is demonstrably false..."
So demonstrate it as such.
I'll grant that there are variations but it is true that in virtually every known culture in any period of history, male / female societal roles are pretty much consistent.
As to evidence for innate differences. The very fact that they exist is evidence of their "innateness". To suggest they are somehow created in the brain by socialization in the absence of any evidence to support that hypothesis is no different from saying that they were created in the brain by mischievous alien space monkeys equipped with brain changing ray guns.
"References please."
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately I can no longer access the university databases, so my sources of information are no longer available to me. I will try to find some alternative sources a bit later.
"I'll grant that there are variations but it is true that in virtually every known culture in any period of history, male / female societal roles are pretty much consistent."
There have been patriarchys, matriarchys and more equal cultures. I am unsure of how you are asserting that as similar results. If you want me to find sources on that to support it, I don't care enough to try to convince you probably, it isn't particularly important, I may look later in the day if I have time. However I think you can do a little research if you are interested in intellectual honesty. Like I did when you challenged my views.
"As to evidence for innate differences. The very fact that they exist is evidence of their "innateness"
Nope, it has been shown that the environment can cause changes in the brain.
"To suggest they are somehow created in the brain by socialization in the absence of any evidence to support that hypothesis is no different from saying that they were created in the brain by mischievous alien space monkeys equipped with brain changing ray guns. "
Exactly how I feel about you asserting it is due to innate differences without providing evidence. However I did not assert that it was necessarily due to environmental factors, I merely said provide me proof that it is necessarily innate or I will not jump on that conclusion either. I am ok with a "I don't know at this stage" answer.
Apologies if you got this comment twice - I had a computer glitch while posting and I'm not sure if you got it or not.
ReplyDeleteLike most feminists, your arguments are long on rhetoric, but short on substance. You are quick to demand evidence but slow to provide it. You are full of “It has been shown scientifically …” and “from what I have read from medical journals the scientists state …” and “this statement is demonstrably false…” but you provide zero evidence to back up your position. You complain that you find the evidence I (and anon) provide “not compelling” but again you provide none at all to counter it with.
Your position is not even internally consistent. You state that as recently as in the last few months you have changed your viewpoint from accepting that the differences in brain structure are innate because there is no evidence to support that viewpoint, whereupon you changed to another viewpoint that also has no evidence to support it.
My position is simple: there are differences in brain structure and chemistry that explain the observable differences in male and female abilities and motivations. The evidence for this is:
1. The differences are there. The simplest explanation for them is that they are natural phenomena. Occam’s razor tells us the simplest explanation is most likely to be correct.
2. We can observe innate differences in other anatomical structures so there is no reason to think there cannot be innate differences in the brain too.
3. Men and women have different brain chemistry – this is measureable. Brain chemistry is known to affect brain function and to influence its structure See the study cited below.
4. There is evidence that these observable structural differences begin to develop prenatally. For example, in her paper Estradiol and the Developing Brain, MARGARET M. McCARTHY (Departments of Physiology and Psychiatry, University of Maryland Baltimore School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland) says “The notion that steroids act early in development to dictate adult sexual behavior and brain morphology is now one of the most well-accepted tenets in behavioral neuroendocrinology”. Later she goes on to say “In other words, the brain sex of a female is converted to that of a male by administration of exogenous steroids during a critical perinatal window”. You can see the study in full here:http://physrev.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/88/1/91#B._The_Organizational/Activational_Hypothesis_of_Brain_Sex_Differentiation
5. In different cultures, gender roles are very similar despite very different socialization. E.G. The Musuo people in China – a matrilineal society that still exhibit very “traditional” gender roles. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosuo#Role_of_women
6. In virtually every culture in the history of humanity, gender roles have been preserved. i.e. males hunt, defend and go to war; females raise children and look after the home.
7. Many lower order social animals exhibit similar gender roles – males hunt and defend; females nurture young.
8. David Reimer, who was given a sex change operation as a baby and who was raised as a girl, exhibited overtly male characteristics all his life. He was not aware of his true gender until adulthood. When he did find out he had the operation reversed.
9. Gender differences are observable in very young children.
10. Despite having equal access to education over the last 3 decades or more, women are still significantly underrepresented in the high achiever end of the bell curve, suggesting an innate ability in high achieving men that women don’t have.
In the course of this debate, your position has gone from [paraphrasing] “Science has proven that there are no physical differences between the brains of men and women” to “there are difference, but they are not innate” to “I don’t know at this stage and I’m ok with that”. How about putting forward something concrete? Like actually defining what your position is for example.
The reason I am slow to show you evidence is that I don't think I can convince you. Some people are just stuck in their bigotry so I am just not going to waste my time. If I thought there ws a chance to persuade you I would put more effort in. It is not my job however to convinve every bigot to stop being a bigot.
ReplyDelete"you have changed your viewpoint from accepting that the differences in brain structure are innate because there is no evidence to support that viewpoint, whereupon you changed to another viewpoint that also has no evidence to support it."
My position is not concrete.
"How about putting forward something concrete? Like actually defining what your position is for example. "
My position on what?
Although I would say that even if something is innate (genetic?) the environment still has to be right for that "innate" outcome to be reached. Such as schizophrenics, they have the genetic proclivity towards developing schizophrenia, but they may never do so.
ReplyDeleteI think people often seem to mistake genetic/innate with predestined. This just isn't the case at all.
If it is the case that men have an "innate" proclivity towards being a provider, if the environment isn't right for this to spring forth it just won't be an issue.
Another reason I am trying to disengage from the conversation a little, I think it is largely irrelevant. Thank you for your input though.
“…The reason I am slow to show you evidence is that I don't think I can convince you. Some people are just stuck in their bigotry so I am just not going to waste my time. If I thought there ws a chance to persuade you I would put more effort in. It is not my job however to convince every bigot to stop being a bigot…”
ReplyDeletePerhaps you can’t convince me because you are unconvincing. It seems to me more likely (and I suspect your other readers will agree with me) that the reason you do not supply any evidence to support your arguments is because you have none to supply.
You yourself, in an earlier post said “I do require much in the way of support before I will necessarily accept anything as true”. So when you demand evidence before you will change your mind it is perfectly reasonable, but when I do the same its bigotry? Bigot means “someone not open to new ideas or ideas other than their own”. When you actually present me with some new ideas you will be in a position to judge how open to them I am, but until then please keep the insults to yourself.
“…My position is not concrete…”
No, and that is exactly my point. You have spent the last 3 day’s worth of comments rejecting my position on the innateness of differing male / female brain morphology, but you never actually offer anything by way of rebuttal. Or is “I don’t know” the best you’ve got?
“…Although I would say that even if something is innate (genetic?) the environment still has to be right for that "innate" outcome to be reached. Such as schizophrenics, they have the genetic proclivity towards developing schizophrenia, but they may never do so…”
I don’t think anyone is suggesting that environment does not have an influence, just not as strong an influence as genetics.
“…If it is the case that men have an "innate" proclivity towards being a provider, if the environment isn't right for this to spring forth it just won't be an issue…”
The example I gave of David Reimer would tend to contradict that suggestion – it demonstrates that male characteristics will come to the fore even in the absence of a supportive environment. Indeed they will come to the fore even in distinctly unfavorable environments.
“…Another reason I am trying to disengage from the conversation a little, I think it is largely irrelevant…”
I’m surprised you think it irrelevant – that male and female brains are identical other than for changes brought about by socialization has always seemed to me to be the cornerstone of feminism.
“…Thank you for your input though…”
You’re welcome.
"Bigot means “someone not open to new ideas or ideas other than their own."
ReplyDeleteNo bigot means, basing prejudice on unjustifiable reasons. Which you covered quite well when you asserted that women are inferior.
"No, and that is exactly my point. You have spent the last 3 day’s worth of comments rejecting my position on the innateness of differing male / female brain morphology, but you never actually offer anything by way of rebuttal. Or is “I don’t know” the best you’ve got?"
Why do I need a concrete opinion to reject yours? I don't know if a god exists but I reject all claims of god I have encountered. Why does it need to be a rebuttal? Why can't we just talk? Why with the conflict all the time? I don't see what is wrong with not knowing something. There are some things I know and many I don't. Learning is necessary.
"I don’t think anyone is suggesting that environment does not have an influence, just not as strong an influence as genetics."
I disagree, I think if you accept my assertion as true then the environment must be seen as the deciding force.
David Reimer was interesting. However there are many reasons why this could be. For instance a good portion of people who don't go through sex changes at such an early stage also feel like men (or conversely women) not in keeping with their body. Given that this is one occassion of one person I am not going to take it as definitive proof of anything. While I am sure it can be indicative of something.
I would also assert that it appears to me as though most people with transgender proclivities simply want to adopt the gender roles of the other gender rather then the gender itself.
"I’m surprised you think it irrelevant – that male and female brains are identical other than for changes brought about by socialization has always seemed to me to be the cornerstone of feminism."
I don't seem to adhere to much of the "tenets" of feminism. I am not really one for dogma.
to clarify on a point. So I hopefully don't have to express myself on this yet again...
ReplyDelete"Perhaps you can’t convince me because you are unconvincing. It seems to me more likely (and I suspect your other readers will agree with me) that the reason you do not supply any evidence to support your arguments is because you have none to supply."
"You yourself, in an earlier post said “I do require much in the way of support before I will necessarily accept anything as true”. So when you demand evidence before you will change your mind it is perfectly reasonable"
One, yet again I just don't care if you are unconvinced.
Two, again I will state (as you have agreed) that I don't have a concrete position. So what am I changing my mind about really? The fact that I don't know enough about biology and neurology to make a strict statement either way? Well I will change my mind on that when I have done much more reading. Please don't bring this point up again. I am so sick of having to respond to it. It won't make it through to this page.
Although thank you for drawing my attention to a gap in my knowledge. I will look into it more at some stage.
ReplyDeleteAt this stage though I would ask you to address what I stated in the original post :P
“…No bigot means, basing prejudice on unjustifiable reasons. Which you covered quite well when you asserted that women are inferior…”
ReplyDeleteWhich as we have already discussed was a “devil’s advocate” argument, identified as such right from the get go and confirmed as such during the course of the debate…”
“…Why do I need a concrete opinion to reject yours? I don't know if a god exists but I reject all claims of god I have encountered. Why does it need to be a rebuttal? Why can't we just talk? Why with the conflict all the time? I don't see what is wrong with not knowing something…”
Well it’s difficult to have a debate with someone who doesn’t actually have an opinion on the topic at hand don’t you think?
“…I disagree, I think if you accept my assertion as true then the environment must be seen as the deciding force…”
Why must it?
“…David Reimer was interesting. However there are many reasons why this could be. For instance a good portion of people who don't go through sex changes at such an early stage also feel like men (or conversely women) not in keeping with their body. Given that this is one occassion of one person I am not going to take it as definitive proof of anything. While I am sure it can be indicative of something…”
Born male, raised as female, displayed male characteristics in spite of his socialization. Seems simple to me. Or perhaps it was those pesky space monkeys again.
“…I would also assert that it appears to me as though most people with transgender proclivities simply want to adopt the gender roles of the other gender rather then the gender itself…”
Irrelevant – David Reimer was not transgendered.
“I don't seem to adhere to much of the "tenets" of feminism. I am not really one for dogma”
Fantastic – you’re a feminist with a difference. If you don’t believe in the central tenets of feminism, why don’t you tell us what you do believe in?
"Which as we have already discussed was a “devil’s advocate” argument, identified as such right from the get go and confirmed as such during the course of the debate…”
ReplyDeleteI assumed you are a MRA also. I have never encountered a MRA that I don't view as sexist. If you are not in fact a MRA then I will withdraw that.
"Well it’s difficult to have a debate with someone who doesn’t actually have an opinion on the topic at hand don’t you think? "
Well feel free to find something I have firm opinions on. I have been quite up front about them throughout my blog.
"Why must it?"
As the environment has to be correct in order to reach the genes potential, for good or bad.
"Irrelevant – David Reimer was not transgendered."
Not in the conventional sense no. I see it as relevant however as it shows how people may view themselves in terms of gender and why. Which is the question in the case of this individual.
"Fantastic – you’re a feminist with a difference. If you don’t believe in the central tenets of feminism, why don’t you tell us what you do believe in? "
I believe in equality. I believe in freedom of expression. I believe in doing what is right. I believe in bettering myself. Other then that you may look through my blog or ask me questions.
“…I assumed you are a MRA also. I have never encountered a MRA that I don't view as sexist. If you are not in fact a MRA then I will withdraw that…”
ReplyDeleteThen I’ll consider it withdrawn
“…As the environment has to be correct in order to reach the genes potential, for good or bad...”
Says who?
“…Not in the conventional sense no. I see it as relevant however as it shows how people may view themselves in terms of gender and why. Which is the question in the case of this individual…”
I still fail to see the relevance. David was born male and viewed himself as a male despite his socialization TG’s are the opposite
“…I believe in equality. I believe in freedom of expression. I believe in doing what is right. I believe in bettering myself. Other then that you may look through my blog or ask me questions...“
Wow, we have so much in common.
"“…As the environment has to be correct in order to reach the genes potential, for good or bad...”
ReplyDeleteI was under the impression this was the premise we agreed upon. However I would prefer to leave this conversation there at least for now. I think otherwise we will go in circles.
"Wow, we have so much in common. "
Sarcasm? Found anything on my blog to debate about?
No sarcasm intended, and I'll have a look around.
ReplyDeleteI have lots of answers for your previous questions now. I have been doing some reading. Firstly what I said before still stands you need to prove the difference is inherent. You then have to prove that the difference in brain structure results in the difference of mind, that would lead to such things like males being better at science.
ReplyDeleteSecondly there is good evidence (a lot of research) to show that despite women having good access to education these days that the stereotypes actively keep them away from stereotypically masculine careers. It does this in a couple of ways. Firstly when women are told they can't do something (can be applied to men as well) because it is a male "thing" in exams for those subjects they get stressed and underperform. Whereas the men overperform. You can see how this may create a bit of a bias when society (including yourself) works towards telling women they should stay out of science because they aren't good at it(genetically). This is the most logical explanation for the fact that men still dominate science fields and women still dominate humanities. Change doesn't happen over night
So then provide me research that shows INHERENT differences that likely is an indication of men's superiority that doesn't have extremely flawed methodology which doesn't even factor in social forces.
I really doubt you can, but I wait with bated breath.
This answers your question "can you name any area of human endeavor in which men are not superior to women?".
As I would say it hasn't been proven that men are superior (inherently) in any area.
If you want the relevant research look up a book called "delusions of gender" it has hundreds of references that support what I am saying. However at a later date I will probably put up a list of the most relevant and sound sources.
No, I don’t have to prove anything. I have given you a hypothesis - that there are inherent differences between male and female brains and that these explain observable differences in behavior and aptitude. I have given you a great deal of supporting evidence to back up the hypothesis. It is now up to you to try and falsify it.
ReplyDelete…Secondly there is good evidence (a lot of research) to show that despite women having good access to education these days that the stereotypes actively keep them away from stereotypically masculine careers. It does this in a couple of ways. Firstly when women are told they can't do something (can be applied to men as well) because it is a male "thing" in exams for those subjects they get stressed and underperform. Whereas the men overperform. You can see how this may create a bit of a bias when society (including yourself) works towards telling women they should stay out of science because they aren't good at it(genetically)…
And yet you seem unable to ever actually produce any of this research.
..This is the most logical explanation for the fact that men still dominate science fields and women still dominate humanities. Change doesn't happen over night…
No, the simplest and most logical explanation is that there are inherent differences – the suggestion that it is purely a societal issue is far more complex a solution as is fails to explain all the facets of the observable facts.
…So then provide me research that shows INHERENT differences that likely is an indication of men's superiority that doesn't have extremely flawed methodology which doesn't even factor in social forces…
As I have said over and over again, there are observable differences in the physical structures of male and female brains; there are observable differences in male and female behaviors and aptitudes. There is no need to invoke societal conditioning as an explanation for these differences and if you do propose that this is the case, then the burden of proof lies with you.
Read a book called "delusions of gender" there are thousands of sources in there. Quite a few about how stereotypes effect academic success and career paths. I would give you the direct sources but I don't have the book here with me atm.
ReplyDeleteThis PROVES that stereotypes can account for the fact there still aren't as many women in high end jobs. It also PROVES it is necessary to provoke societal conditioning.
It also PROVES that neuroscience can at this stage not make conclusions about inherent differences.
You are unwilling to even question your assumption that men and women may not be as "inherently" different as you like to think.
As for D & G, if you don't want to view it as positive portrayal of rape then fine, but I sure do.
I will leave you with a paraphrase of my currently famous feminist. When women have been increasingly taking over jobs in the sciences for the past few decades why assume that we have now reached the end of their potential?
I prefer to read books then do my research online, so if you are unwilling to read the book, that is your issue and enjoy your sexism.
I will give you an analogy to try to show you how absurd and sexist your position is...
ReplyDeleteThere are more men in gaol then women. This is because men are inherently more aggressive and criminal then women. This can be seen science because testosterone causes aggression. There is no need to look at societal causes for this. Men are just bad.
If I said that seriously would you think I was sexist? Now look at the fact you said pretty much the exact same thing about women except in regards to their intelligence. I cannot assume anything else, you are sexist.
"...There are more men in gaol then women. This is because men are inherently more aggressive and criminal then women. This can be seen science because testosterone causes aggression. There is no need to look at societal causes for this. Men are just bad..."
ReplyDeleteThank you for illustrating my point so succinctly. There ARE more men in gaol because men ARE inherently more aggressive and criminal than women, and this IS bourne out by the science. Societal causes DO have a role to play, but they are not the PRIMARY factor.
Men ARE more successful in pretty much every area of human endeavor because they ARE inherently more driven to succeed, have greater aptitude, have greater ambition, take more risks, etc. Societal causes DO have a role to play, but they are not the PRIMARY factor.
The only part of your comment that I disagree with is "...Men are just bad..." just as I would disagree with a statement "Women are just stupid". I don't believe this to be true and have never said so. What I have said, ad nauseum, is that at the extreme end of the intelligence bell curve, there are more male geniuses than female ones.
"Thank you for illustrating my point so succinctly. There ARE more men in gaol because men ARE inherently more aggressive and criminal than women"
ReplyDeleteExcellent, then you will agree that there is no such thing as a FRA. All men have a deep running potential to be rapists, so a FRA is a pre-emptive strike.
"Societal causes DO have a role to play, but they are not the PRIMARY factor"
Please provide evidence for this.
"Men ARE more successful in pretty much every area of human endeavor because they ARE inherently more driven to succeed, have greater aptitude, have greater ambition, take more risks..."
Please provide evidence for this. You are merely extrapolating things from data, you have no idea if you are applying it the right way or not.
"the extreme end of the intelligence bell curve, there are more male geniuses than female ones. "
Please provide evidence of this. I want it to be every country in the world. At every point in history. I want hte study in question to have good methodology.
I would ask you to desist in making baseless assertions on my blog in future.
If next time you respond you don't provide evidence for all your assertions and haven't investigated my side of the debate when I gave you the source then I will not be allowing your comment. Although I would say good riddance to another misogynist.
A socialist open to criticism said: "There are more men in gaol then women. This is because men are inherently more aggressive and criminal then women. This can be seen science because testosterone causes aggression. There is no need to look at societal causes for this. Men are just bad."
ReplyDeleteThis makes no sense if anything there should be less men than women as male aggression is typically directed towards other males.
LOL at the "men are just bad" and you feminists claim you just want to be equality.
I think your being a bit dishonest and i am beginning to think you are doing it on purpose.
"LOL at the "men are just bad" and you feminists claim you just want to be equality."
ReplyDeleteAre you so ridiculously thick that you can't recognise over the top hyperbole (aka sarcasm!) when you see it?
I guess so :)