Equality of Men and Women?

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Huh? Are you suggesting there's an inherent difference in the way men and women perceive the world? What are you on?

Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting it's a huge difference, but there is some. Sure it could be cultural, but culture can't explain all of it, as much of the results are consistant in various cultures.

If the only way men and women can be treated equally is to pretend there are no differences beyond the obvious physical traits, than society has not progressed at all.

[WanderingKnight]

Sure it could be cultural, but culture can't explain all of it, as much of the results are consistant in various cultures.

And those results are...?

If the only way men and women can be treated equally is to pretend there are no differences beyond the obvious physical traits, than society has not progressed at all.

Huh? How come? I think it has progressed a lot if it comes to that. It's a huge step forward if we can abolish cultural structures and focus on the true substance of the human intellect and on the freeing of the mind and of the individual.

It could be because of cultural construction, yes. but it might not, and the "cultural construction" might've been built around natural differences.

This is actually more complex, but in reality, due to our position as subjects, and of the progress of science, it's really hard to talk about a higher comprehension of nature in the past than now. I don't know how this structuring of society came about, but I'm sure that, given the proper circumstances, it could have evolved in an infinite amount of ways, with an equally infinite amount of roles for each gender. Or even none at all.

And, at any rate, mankind progresses. Until we achieve a perfect, stable society, trying to stick with a relic from the past is harmful at best.

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Yes, that's exactly what I'm suggesting. I'm not suggesting it's a huge difference, but there is some. Sure it could be cultural, but culture can't explain all of it, as much of the results are consistant in various cultures.

If the only way men and women can be treated equally is to pretend there are no differences at all beyond the obvious physical traits, than society has not progressed at all.

I have to agree with you there. Regardless of progression (forget the past inequities and concentrate on now) of social rights, ect, there are usually clear differences between men and women. The sexes (though I'm not so naive as to believe that is a singular factor in determining perspective) definitely see things differently.

The same thing could be said of race as well (though let's not get into that here). Equality and different are not mutually exclusive, so to speak.

I think innominate explained this concept quite clearly:

Originally Posted by innominate

Here let me clarify:
Men and women may possess separate capabilities, but these may not just be due to gender differences. As long as two (one male one female) who offer the same set of skills under similar circumstances receives equal treatment, rights and opportunities, then it's theoretical gender equality.

Whatever men and women are good at, is entirely up to them. They should simply receive the treatment they deserve under the meritocratic system.

Statistically, however, we see that there are more men working in, let's say, the government sector, and more women working in the service sector. Considering all other factors equal, we come to a generalization that women are better at certain jobs than men.

However, we cannot use this to stereotype all men and women and propound that all men should take on jobs men are good at and females vice versa.

In other words, while we recognise gender differences, we should not use it as a yardstick to assess an individual's capabilities.

Now can we quick arguing semantics and get to some kind of agreement here? Geez, it's going back and forth and no one's gaining any ground anywhere. It's like watching WWI, only more boring and with even less purpose....

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Huh? How come? I think it has progressed a lot if it comes to that. It's a huge step forward if we can abolish cultural structures and focus on the true substance of the human intellect and on the freeing of the mind and of the individual.

Sorry to be a downer, but that's simply not possible, as much as I (or anyone else for that manner) wishes it could be. No matter how we progress, it would require a complete and utter elimination of any and all stereotypes and preconceptions of the very workings of culture and gender roles.

I mean, look at the English language for example. Amongst many others, it is considered grammatically correct to automatically default to the male gender in the case of uncertainty of the subject's gender. It is not the only one. Spanish does it as well, for example. There's no way that a system could be enacted worldwide to not only change the very language we speak, but also the way we think. Neither of those would be easy at all, assuming it would even be possible in the first place. Unless we all started speaking Latin and only spoke in neuter.

Truth be told, one cannot escape from preconceived mindsets that one has heard throughout one's life. And, inevitably, we will pass this on to later generations, whether intentionally or not. The change must be gradual, and the maturation of the human race as a whole will have to be carefully monitored to make it perfectly "equal", which seems to be a term no one can agree on, anyway.

And to tell you all what I truly think, I don't think the world is ready or able to cast aside stereotypes and generalizations. It makes the way we think easier, and more or less simpler. Why would normal people cast aside their long-held beliefs for a better society? Definitely not in in any country I can name, and definitely not uniformly (if we're talking about large groups of people).

Well, I'm out of things to say for now, so you can debate my ideas, or support them. I'm all ears.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

And those results are...?

Males typically have better spatial reasoning, females are usually more able to understand things relating to emotions and language. Further, studies have shown males and females use different areas of the brain when presented to the same stimuli. While they generally come to similar resolutions of the stimuli, they get there differently.

Huh? How come? I think it has progressed a lot if it comes to that. It's a huge step forward if we can abolish cultural structures and focus on the true substance of the human intellect and on the freeing of the mind and of the individual.

If simply admitting a difference exists leads to discrimination, that means the problem is still there and society is simply in denial of it. If so than any progress made is an illusion, while the underlying causes are still prevalent.

And, at any rate, mankind progresses. Until we achieve a perfect, stable society, trying to stick with a relic from the past is harmful at best.

The only way to achive a perfect, stable society is to eliminate humans from the equation. As long as people are people, we will have an unstable, imperfect society, no matter how many relics from the past we have.

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

females are usually more able to understand things relating to emotions and language.

I can vouch for this. My English teacher (as ADHD as he is) went off on a complete tangent and explained a book where women ran society and had created their own language, very systematic and was able convey a lot of information through key sounds or context in the language, rather than through words themselves. Or something like that. This book was, of course, written by a woman. But for the life of me, I can't remember what the book was named nor the author. I think it was a science fiction novel, but I can't be sure.

Argh, my memory fails me yet again.

[4Tran]

Originally Posted by Spectacular_Insanity

I can vouch for this. My English teacher (as ADHD as he is) went off on a complete tangent and explained a book where women ran society and had created their own language, very systematic and was able convey a lot of information through key sounds or context in the language, rather than through words themselves. Or something like that. This book was, of course, written by a woman. But for the life of me, I can't remember what the book was named nor the author. I think it was a science fiction novel, but I can't be sure.

You're probably thinking of the Native Tongue series by Suzette Haden Elgin. I wouldn't really use this book as evidence for much since Elgin is a Ph.D in linguistics, and her work is as much of a polemic as it is a serious study into the differences between men and women.

[Spectacular_Insanity]

Originally Posted by 4Tran

You're probably thinking of the Native Tongue series by Suzette Haden Elgin. I wouldn't really use this book as evidence for much since Elgin is a Ph.D in linguistics, and her work is as much of a polemic as it is a serious study into the differences between men and women.

Ah, well, I suppose I have to concede your point there. But I felt that it might be pertinent to the discussion on hand. Oh well.

[WanderingKnight]

Males typically have better spatial reasoning, females are usually more able to understand things relating to emotions and language. Further, studies have shown males and females use different areas of the brain when presented to the same stimuli. While they generally come to similar resolutions of the stimuli, they get there differently.

First of all, it would be good to provide some backing. And secondly, as I explained before, these types of tests depend a lot on the person doing the tests and the background he or she has. A sociologist will take a certain approach, a psychologist will take another one. I, for one, lean more on the sociologist side, who will probably tell you that any difference perceived that way is probably a result of the cultural influence.

The only way to achive a perfect, stable society is to eliminate humans from the equation. As long as people are people, we will have an unstable, imperfect society, no matter how many relics from the past we have.

And as long as people keep on thinking like that, you're completely correct. But the fact that we don't know everything yet does not allow us to make an absolute judgment on it. All 'proof' on humans being incapable of being stable is based on the fact that it hasn't happened yet. And that's not a real justification.

People, if we feel we won't be making any absolute progress, then we will never make any progress at all



At any rate, whatever, this subject has deviated out of the control of any of us. Neither of us can provide actual backing to what we want to say, all we can do is theorize, and it serves of little to bomb thoughts down. I'm an optimist by heart, so I feel humanity can reach a perfectly stable status. And I have no doubt that such status is based on a) the disappearance of relationships of power (not at all related to this thread) and b) the disappearance of the preconceptions of society (which does concern this thread). With this, you can either agree or disagree, and there's not a single way around it.

[aohige]

Sorry to be a downer, but that's simply not possible, as much as I (or anyone else for that manner) wishes it could be. No matter how we progress, it would require a complete and utter elimination of any and all stereotypes and preconceptions of the very workings of culture and gender roles.

Progress is only achieved by trying.
Even if the ultimate goal is not attainable, it can and will make progress towards it.

Fundamentally, we humans haven't changed since 2000 years ago, but society is a diffrent story.
Although we share many of the same problems as 2000 years ago, there are clear, and obvious progress.

Yes, you're right, we will NEVER achieve those goals.
But that does not mean we should go brain-dead and stop trying.

[Phantom-Takaya]

I agree. Trying to do better is all we can do as time passes by. I know I'm practically repeating what aohinge said, but if we never tried, we'd still stuck with the same thing from the very beginning.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

First of all, it would be good to provide some backing. And secondly, as I explained before, these types of tests depend a lot on the person doing the tests and the background he or she has. A sociologist will take a certain approach, a psychologist will take another one. I, for one, lean more on the sociologist side, who will probably tell you that any difference perceived that way is probably a result of the cultural influence.

If you want to claim bias on tests that don't support your opinion, then there's nothing I can do. I'll post a link anyway though.

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/m...ro-homens.html

Personally I find it puzzling how one could believe the hormones responsible for the physical differences would not have an effect on the brain and by extention cognitive abilities.

And as long as people keep on thinking like that, you're completely correct. But the fact that we don't know everything yet does not allow us to make an absolute judgment on it. All 'proof' on humans being incapable of being stable is based on the fact that it hasn't happened yet. And that's not a real justification.

People, if we feel we won't be making any absolute progress, then we will never make any progress at all

Humans are dynamic individuals with their own interests which may or may not coincide with those of society as a whole. As long as this is true you cannot have a completely stable society. If you remove that you're removing one of the things that makes us human. As long as you have humans, you have conflict and change. As long as you have conflict and change you have instability.

At any rate, whatever, this subject has deviated out of the control of any of us. Neither of us can provide actual backing to what we want to say, all we can do is theorize, and it serves of little to bomb thoughts down. I'm an optimist by heart, so I feel humanity can reach a perfectly stable status. And I have no doubt that such status is based on a) the disappearance of relationships of power (not at all related to this thread) and b) the disappearance of the preconceptions of society (which does concern this thread). With this, you can either agree or disagree, and there's not a single way around it.

Regardless of whether those ideas would lead to stability, I'm not sure a movement toward stability could even be considered progress. But as you say that's a topic for another thread

[arias]

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Personally I find it puzzling how one could believe the hormones responsible for the physical differences would not have an effect on the brain and by extention cognitive abilities.

It's all darn tricky. I don't know how many of you talking in this thread is even remotely qualified to talk about hormones and its effects on the brain. But some of the empirical stuff here in the thread is relatively accurate as far as I'm concerned.. Just a point of interest, as statistically found:

Each consecutive male child in the family has an increased chance of being homosexual. I think it rises 2% per consecutive child, or something to that effect. It's been linked to changes in the mother's body that affects the hormones provided to the fetus.

[Vexx]

An individual person's personality, IQ, and reasoning are affected by the daily flux of hormones (points to any available teenager). This affects both women and men throughout their lives. Whether there are any statistical or aggregrate inferences one can draw from that is problematic.

Of course, that's why its useful to do studies

[WanderingKnight]

If you want to claim bias on tests that don't support your opinion, then there's nothing I can do. I'll post a link anyway though.

http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/m...ro-homens.html

Personally I find it puzzling how one could believe the hormones responsible for the physical differences would not have an effect on the brain and by extention cognitive abilities.

This is to prove that there isn't a definite position on the matter, not even in science:

This article states just the contrary.

From the first article you posted:

One of the most interesting differences appear in the way men and women estimate time, judge speed of things, carry out mental mathematical calculations, orient in space and visualize objects in three dimensions, etc. In all these tasks, women and men are strikingly different, as they are too in the way their brains process language. This may account, scientists say, for the fact that there are many more male mathematicians, airplane pilots, bush guides, mechanical engineers, architects and race car drivers than female ones.

From the second article:

Measures of gender differences in such areas as verbal, mathematical, and spatial abilities have changed over time showing virtually no differences at the present time. While contestations remain in the research over explanations for the source of any differences in performance, the far greater explanatory power lies in differential access and support. Studies show that social and cultural assumptions and stereotypes about differences in women's and men's abilities are the cause of noticeable differences in their interests and performance. Not surprisingly, therefore, such assumptions also have a larger impact on judgments about people's potential job performance and success.

See? There isn't a single position on the matter, and depending on who makes the study and the focus of his or her philosophy, the outcome is going to be very different.

[OutPhase]

Originally Posted by Thewanderer

Why not?

And gender roles are not idiotic at all.

Yes they are. Gender roles are nothing more that glorified stereotyping that says "girls should do this and guys should do that because of their gender". That would be like having racial rolls. "Whites should do this, blacks should do that, Asian are to do this, Mexicans that, etc., etc."

That would be silly.

And Razer, you're misunderstanding the rest of my points...

I hope to God I am at this point.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

This is to prove that there isn't a definite position on the matter, not even in science:

This article states just the contrary.

From the first article you posted:



From the second article:



See? There isn't a single position on the matter, and depending on who makes the study and the focus of his or her philosophy, the outcome is going to be very different.
[/size][/size][/size][/size][/font]

The danger lies not in collecting the data.... the stumble is often when they start *interpreting* the data

Those sacks of neural clusters we call "the brain" are uniquely wired for every person. There's some general architecture similiarities across the species but neurons are opportunistic little buggers that are always re-organizing to meet the needs of the moment. The wiring itself is often deeply affected by the instantaneous hormonal state of the individual (the endocrine system being a mostly separate system, eh?) which varies daily for both men and women, though women have that lunar cycle function to contend with.

Hell, the only reason there are "men" is that the fetus gets swamped with a rush of hormones early in the gestation in response to the sex chromosome that burns out certain functions (yeah, I'm armwaving a bit here)... then the rest of their brain gets burned out during puberty and that second rush of hormones

In any study, you're going to find two bell curves (one for each sex) that substantially overlap... enough so that drawing sweeping generalizations is just setting oneself up to look stupid.

[Lexander]

Originally Posted by Thewanderer

I'm not necessarily saying women are better off doing it, but I do think it's wrong to disregard that particular tradition like it's morally wrong or something. I do however disagree with the fact that women were generally forced into it in the past though.

I get this sense like you think we're all out there brainwashing women into doing all these terrible things.

Traditional gender roles take away choice ... and that's what people find morally wrong. It's the whole idea that women should want to do something even though they are doing something completely different.

It's extremely hard to understand ... because on one hand you are all for choice ... but on the over hand you are against what happens as a result of having those kind of choices(you decide that they made all the wrong choices).

It's just seems like you feel better qualified to decide what's best for women than women.

[aohige]

Originally Posted by Lexander

I get this sense like you think we're all out there brainwashing women into doing all these terrible things.

But I AM out here planning to brainwash women into doing terrible things.
And when I'm successful, I'll have the biggest harem in the history of men....and women.

[WanderingKnight]

The danger lies not in collecting the data.... the stumble is often when they start *interpreting* the data

That's exactly my point. Even though we can collect data we all agree to be objective, it's when we start interpreting that data when our subjectivity as individuals arise. Sadly, the scientist role model can't be easily applied to either psychologists or sociologists. There is a diametrical opposition between both standings, and it's really hard to reconcile them.

I, for one, side more with the sociologists than with the psychologists. It definitely depends on your interpretation of life, of your philosophy. Psychologists, in general, don't believe in a complete separation of mind and matter. *I*, due to my generally optimistic nature, do (in fact, I firmly believe the Internet has been the first step into achieving this objective). At any rate, all of this ranting touches the topic only tangentially, so I think I'd be better off cutting it short before I go overboard in a rhetorical spree that will do nothing but bore your ears and probably get this thread closed