16 ms·

I don't think anyone is denying physical differences between people with XX and XY chromosomes. I also think it's common knowledge by now that sex influences th

by jb17 13y ago

I don't think anyone is denying physical differences between people with XX and XY chromosomes. I also think it's common knowledge by now that sex influences the development of diseases (which is what the paper is about). What the debate is usually about is inequalities in social power relations and whether these can be attributed to what you call 'social conditioning' or biology. This paper doesn't contribute anything to that question. You seem to suggest that people are completely determined by their biological setup, and that there are no influences from society. I don't think that's right.

AutoCorrect 13y ago
I think what the GP means is that there is a very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement that claim there is NO reason for the differences in men and women, other than the historical repression of women by men. Which couldn't be further from the truth: up until recently, women were very much at the mercy of the groups of men around them (physically), and only recently has the value of women in society dropped to that of men. </dons flamesuit>
- jb17 13y ago
  I don't think I ever encountered that argument, and when I see people arguing against it, it always seems to be a straw man. The argument I've encountered goes more like this: Because there has been historical oppression, we can't easily distinguish the influence of that from biology and should remove the oppression before we come up with biological theories that justify the oppression. That seems reasonable to me.
  - s_baby 13y ago
    Speak for yourself. I personally know a lesbian couple that forces their boy to wear dresses, play with dolls, and talk down anything traditionally "male". I completely agree with your original post but it's hard to deny there's a turd in the feminist kool-aid bowl and no one is willing to pull it out.
    - stcredzero 13y ago
      I wouldn't say no one, but it's also true that the Men's Rights movement has a steep uphill PR struggle ahead of them. In part because of active attacks from parts of the feminist movement, and in part because they actively feed into the conflict. Also, it's a fact of life that men who lose their temper in any he-said-she-said conflict often receive a knee-jerk judgement from those around them, which makes it difficult for onlookers to evaluate their case from first principles. (Such knee-jerk happens to females in other contexts.) We're still subject to many illusions from the same Victorian age mentality that deemed wolves "bad" and that killing them off was an environmental good.
      - yaddayadda 13y ago
        I'm disappointed that there's a "Men's Rights" movement. My mother raised me as a "feminist" and part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender. For example, feminists support a boy who wants to play with dolls or a father wants to be a stay-at-home parent. I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place!
        s_baby 13y ago
        >My mother raised me as a "feminist" and part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender. That's an idealization that's not congruent with the historical culture and behavior of many feminists. Up until the 80's feminism was heteronormative and transphobic. In fact, transphobia is still a huge problem in the community.[1] These are just the more concrete examples. For most of its history feminism has been a straight white upper middle class movement. The perspective of those not fitting this demographic have been marginalized within feminism at some point. >I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place! Masculism was started by a group of feminists who were kicked out of National Organization for Women(N.O.W) for advocating equal custody in divorce. Gender Studies is inclusive in theory but not in practice. 1. https://www.google.com/search?q=feminism+transphobia https://www.google.com/search?q=feminism+transphobia
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    Unfortunately, the line between nature and nurture isn't delineated by mathematical sets, any more then the membership of a particular rock to North or South America. How do we remove something we can't cleanly delineate? The answer is pragmatically, but while holding to our other principles. If you wish to find oppression, after following the money, note who is silencing those who are tolerant and sincerely wish to trade in ideas and the truth.
  - AutoCorrect 13y ago
    It's a complex situation, one we're not going to resolve any time soon, if ever. I believe (and it's just from my observations) that the cultural 'oppression' grew out of very real biological differences. But as our population has grown, the reasoning behind the gender roles has lessened in importance to us for survival as a species. There may yet come a time when the roles are again needed, but for now at least, it's time to relax and let people be who they want to be.
- rayiner 13y ago
  > very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement There's a very vocal subset of any group of people that has extreme opinions. Within the feminist movement, the vitriolic anti-male segment has really shrunk since the 1970's, and if anything there is a much bigger subset today that seek to validate and justify traditional gender roles. In my personal experience, I've encountered a decent number of men who point to innate gender differences to justify the skewed representation of women in engineering. I have also encountered a decent number of feminists who embrace traditional gender roles. I have yet to encounter any feminist of the vitriolic anti-male persuasion, though I read about them in my American Legal History class. In the mainstream media, I've read a few articles along the lines of Susan Patton's regressive letter urging Princeton women to "find a husband" while they had the opportunity to do so at an Ivy League institution, but none of the vitriolic anti-male screeds that people assure me exists.
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago
  > there is a very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement It's also a tiny and unpopular subsection of the feminist movement. They're outnumbered a hundred to one by dudes who like to use them as strawmen. > only recently has the value of women in society dropped to that of men. I don't think that makes any sense. I mean, I literally don't understand what you're trying to say, and none of your assertions seem to be relevant to each other.
  - vacri 13y ago
    They're outnumbered a hundred to one by dudes who like to use them as strawmen. Well said, but I think you've lowballed this figure.
  - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
    It's also a tiny and unpopular subsection of the feminist movement. They're outnumbered a hundred to one by dudes who like to use them as strawmen. Hardly. Virtually every feminist scandal that attracts any attention whatsoever is about postmodern feminists and their oversensitive antics. The most popular feminist media, including Feministing and Jezebel, as well as articles on HuffPost and Slate, deal with postmodern radical ideologies. Academia has also long been dominated by them. Either they're not some "tiny and unpopular subsection" and actually a majority, or the logically vast majority of "reasonable" (depending on your views) feminists are doing precisely jack shit.
    - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
      Are you saying that the only feminists who count are the ones who cause scandals? I don't follow. Is this the same viewpoint that says that all Muslims are terrorists because those are the ones that make the news? (Because "Local Mosque-Goers Are Pleasant Neighbors" doesn't sell newspapers.)
      - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
        No, absolutely not. Obviously sensationalism sells. But the issue here is that your initial assertion of postmodern feminists being a "tiny and unpopular subsection" is a falsehood. As I said, most popular feminist publications today, both in mainstream journalism and in academia, belong to the former school. This includes the feminism in the tech industry, the ideology of which is expressed in resources like the Geek Feminism Wiki, perhaps the crown of everything that is wrong with postmodernism summed up into a single anecdotal wiki with virtually no editorial standards beyond "Does it fit in the echo chamber?". Then, let's face it: when postmodernists and radicals get all the attention, while all the supposed good and moderate feminists receive absolutely none... you have a problem. Your movement is being hijacked. You can underestimate the issue all you want, but the fact is it's the postmodernists who are actually making an influence.
mikegreiling 13y ago
There's a feminist-led campaign on wikipedia to get tripe like this added to articles on human sexual differences: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex_differences_in_human_physiology&diff=544302670&oldid=544291442 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex_differences_in... "The smaller difference in lower body strength may be due to the fact that during childhood, both males and females frequently exercise their leg muscles during activities like running, walking, and playing. Males, however, are socially pressured to enhance their upper body muscles, leading to a wider difference in upper body strength" ---- Thankfully this has since been removed.
- Filligree 13y ago
  Isn't that actually true? Speaking as a male who feels no particular need for higher upper body strength, I've certainly felt pressured at times. Somehow my sister never is.
  - leoedin 13y ago
    While there probably is societal pressures, to suggest that the difference between male and female upper body strength is solely down to physical activity after birth is ludicrous.
  - blacksmith_tb 13y ago
    It's clearly true the social pressure is different, but there is certainly evidence that physiologies are as well, e.g.: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/why-women-cant-do-pull-ups/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/why-women-cant-do-p...
  - hackinthebochs 13y ago
    Testosterone is an independent factor in muscle mass and accounts for the majority in strength difference. Also, muscles in the upper body have a higher androgen receptor count and therefore respond greater to serum testosterone levels and physical stimuli.
    - 13y ago
sliverstorm 13y ago
I don't think anyone is denying physical differences between people with XX and XY chromosomes. What the debate is usually about is inequalities in social power relations and whether these can be attributed to what you call 'social conditioning' or biology. Why is this even a question? We already know: - Powerful men tend to be taller than other men - Women tend to be shorter than men There's an understood physical difference that is more than likely playing to unbalance social power relations.
einhverfr 13y ago
You also have a significant problem, when looking back at the historical record, at defining social inequality. Is this a purely formal analysis? If it is than wage gaps are no issue, but economic liberty is overrated. The industrial economy, even though it produces significant social inequality on a substantial level, is very good at hiding it behind formal equality. But to get to a substantive analysis, one has to look at what people's options in life are. If women can't seek divorce but can murder their husbands with impunity provided that certain cultural fictions remain intact (the case in ancient Athens, see Chris Faraone's "Ancient Greek Love Magic" covering poisonous love potions as a defence against murder, and note too that a purpose of the potions was to abate anger), then the right to divorce is totally subsumed in more substantial, even extreme, options. If one accepts substantial realities as the measure of equality, then women are less equal today politically and economically than they were in 1800.

by jb17 13y ago

AutoCorrect 13y ago

I think what the GP means is that there is a very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement that claim there is NO reason for the differences in men and women, other than the historical repression of women by men. Which couldn't be further from the truth: up until recently, women were very much at the mercy of the groups of men around them (physically), and only recently has the value of women in society dropped to that of men. </dons flamesuit>

jb17 13y ago
I don't think I ever encountered that argument, and when I see people arguing against it, it always seems to be a straw man. The argument I've encountered goes more like this: Because there has been historical oppression, we can't easily distinguish the influence of that from biology and should remove the oppression before we come up with biological theories that justify the oppression. That seems reasonable to me.
- s_baby 13y ago
  Speak for yourself. I personally know a lesbian couple that forces their boy to wear dresses, play with dolls, and talk down anything traditionally "male". I completely agree with your original post but it's hard to deny there's a turd in the feminist kool-aid bowl and no one is willing to pull it out.
  - stcredzero 13y ago
    I wouldn't say no one, but it's also true that the Men's Rights movement has a steep uphill PR struggle ahead of them. In part because of active attacks from parts of the feminist movement, and in part because they actively feed into the conflict. Also, it's a fact of life that men who lose their temper in any he-said-she-said conflict often receive a knee-jerk judgement from those around them, which makes it difficult for onlookers to evaluate their case from first principles. (Such knee-jerk happens to females in other contexts.) We're still subject to many illusions from the same Victorian age mentality that deemed wolves "bad" and that killing them off was an environmental good.
    - yaddayadda 13y ago
      I'm disappointed that there's a "Men's Rights" movement. My mother raised me as a "feminist" and part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender. For example, feminists support a boy who wants to play with dolls or a father wants to be a stay-at-home parent. I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place!
      - s_baby 13y ago
        >My mother raised me as a "feminist" and part of being a "feminist" was not discriminating against anyone because of their gender. That's an idealization that's not congruent with the historical culture and behavior of many feminists. Up until the 80's feminism was heteronormative and transphobic. In fact, transphobia is still a huge problem in the community.[1] These are just the more concrete examples. For most of its history feminism has been a straight white upper middle class movement. The perspective of those not fitting this demographic have been marginalized within feminism at some point. >I hate that the label itself is gendered and I wish it would be changed, but the principles of "feminism" include "Men's Rights". Breaking "Men's Rights" out as a separate topic only muddies the waters, dilutes the efforts for the same goals, and introduces a divide that shouldn't be there in the first place! Masculism was started by a group of feminists who were kicked out of National Organization for Women(N.O.W) for advocating equal custody in divorce. Gender Studies is inclusive in theory but not in practice. 1. https://www.google.com/search?q=feminism+transphobia https://www.google.com/search?q=feminism+transphobia
- stcredzero 13y ago
  Unfortunately, the line between nature and nurture isn't delineated by mathematical sets, any more then the membership of a particular rock to North or South America. How do we remove something we can't cleanly delineate? The answer is pragmatically, but while holding to our other principles. If you wish to find oppression, after following the money, note who is silencing those who are tolerant and sincerely wish to trade in ideas and the truth.
- AutoCorrect 13y ago
  It's a complex situation, one we're not going to resolve any time soon, if ever. I believe (and it's just from my observations) that the cultural 'oppression' grew out of very real biological differences. But as our population has grown, the reasoning behind the gender roles has lessened in importance to us for survival as a species. There may yet come a time when the roles are again needed, but for now at least, it's time to relax and let people be who they want to be.
rayiner 13y ago
> very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement There's a very vocal subset of any group of people that has extreme opinions. Within the feminist movement, the vitriolic anti-male segment has really shrunk since the 1970's, and if anything there is a much bigger subset today that seek to validate and justify traditional gender roles. In my personal experience, I've encountered a decent number of men who point to innate gender differences to justify the skewed representation of women in engineering. I have also encountered a decent number of feminists who embrace traditional gender roles. I have yet to encounter any feminist of the vitriolic anti-male persuasion, though I read about them in my American Legal History class. In the mainstream media, I've read a few articles along the lines of Susan Patton's regressive letter urging Princeton women to "find a husband" while they had the opportunity to do so at an Ivy League institution, but none of the vitriolic anti-male screeds that people assure me exists.
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
> there is a very vocal, very vitriolic subsection of the feminist movement It's also a tiny and unpopular subsection of the feminist movement. They're outnumbered a hundred to one by dudes who like to use them as strawmen. > only recently has the value of women in society dropped to that of men. I don't think that makes any sense. I mean, I literally don't understand what you're trying to say, and none of your assertions seem to be relevant to each other.
- vacri 13y ago
  They're outnumbered a hundred to one by dudes who like to use them as strawmen. Well said, but I think you've lowballed this figure.
- vezzy-fnord 13y ago
  It's also a tiny and unpopular subsection of the feminist movement. They're outnumbered a hundred to one by dudes who like to use them as strawmen. Hardly. Virtually every feminist scandal that attracts any attention whatsoever is about postmodern feminists and their oversensitive antics. The most popular feminist media, including Feministing and Jezebel, as well as articles on HuffPost and Slate, deal with postmodern radical ideologies. Academia has also long been dominated by them. Either they're not some "tiny and unpopular subsection" and actually a majority, or the logically vast majority of "reasonable" (depending on your views) feminists are doing precisely jack shit.
  - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    Are you saying that the only feminists who count are the ones who cause scandals? I don't follow. Is this the same viewpoint that says that all Muslims are terrorists because those are the ones that make the news? (Because "Local Mosque-Goers Are Pleasant Neighbors" doesn't sell newspapers.)
    - vezzy-fnord 13y ago
      No, absolutely not. Obviously sensationalism sells. But the issue here is that your initial assertion of postmodern feminists being a "tiny and unpopular subsection" is a falsehood. As I said, most popular feminist publications today, both in mainstream journalism and in academia, belong to the former school. This includes the feminism in the tech industry, the ideology of which is expressed in resources like the Geek Feminism Wiki, perhaps the crown of everything that is wrong with postmodernism summed up into a single anecdotal wiki with virtually no editorial standards beyond "Does it fit in the echo chamber?". Then, let's face it: when postmodernists and radicals get all the attention, while all the supposed good and moderate feminists receive absolutely none... you have a problem. Your movement is being hijacked. You can underestimate the issue all you want, but the fact is it's the postmodernists who are actually making an influence.

mikegreiling 13y ago

There's a feminist-led campaign on wikipedia to get tripe like this added to articles on human sexual differences: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex_differences_in_human_physiology&diff=544302670&oldid=544291442 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex_differences_in... "The smaller difference in lower body strength may be due to the fact that during childhood, both males and females frequently exercise their leg muscles during activities like running, walking, and playing. Males, however, are socially pressured to enhance their upper body muscles, leading to a wider difference in upper body strength" ---- Thankfully this has since been removed.

Filligree 13y ago
Isn't that actually true? Speaking as a male who feels no particular need for higher upper body strength, I've certainly felt pressured at times. Somehow my sister never is.
- leoedin 13y ago
  While there probably is societal pressures, to suggest that the difference between male and female upper body strength is solely down to physical activity after birth is ludicrous.
- blacksmith_tb 13y ago
  It's clearly true the social pressure is different, but there is certainly evidence that physiologies are as well, e.g.: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/why-women-cant-do-pull-ups/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/25/why-women-cant-do-p...
- hackinthebochs 13y ago
  Testosterone is an independent factor in muscle mass and accounts for the majority in strength difference. Also, muscles in the upper body have a higher androgen receptor count and therefore respond greater to serum testosterone levels and physical stimuli.
  - 13y ago

sliverstorm 13y ago

I don't think anyone is denying physical differences between people with XX and XY chromosomes. What the debate is usually about is inequalities in social power relations and whether these can be attributed to what you call 'social conditioning' or biology. Why is this even a question? We already know: - Powerful men tend to be taller than other men - Women tend to be shorter than men There's an understood physical difference that is more than likely playing to unbalance social power relations.

einhverfr 13y ago

You also have a significant problem, when looking back at the historical record, at defining social inequality. Is this a purely formal analysis? If it is than wage gaps are no issue, but economic liberty is overrated. The industrial economy, even though it produces significant social inequality on a substantial level, is very good at hiding it behind formal equality. But to get to a substantive analysis, one has to look at what people's options in life are. If women can't seek divorce but can murder their husbands with impunity provided that certain cultural fictions remain intact (the case in ancient Athens, see Chris Faraone's "Ancient Greek Love Magic" covering poisonous love potions as a defence against murder, and note too that a purpose of the potions was to abate anger), then the right to divorce is totally subsumed in more substantial, even extreme, options. If one accepts substantial realities as the measure of equality, then women are less equal today politically and economically than they were in 1800.