Men’s Human Rights Ireland

iptba

tsiehta wrote: »

Well, the key point is really not whether differences exist on average, but rather, whether or not these differences are biologically inherent. If they are, then cases of apparent discrimination, whether it's men being over-represented in politics, or women being disproportionately awarded child custody in court cases, can be dismissed as being just the way things are.

I'm just wholly unconvinced that most differences between the sexes are indeed biologically inherent.

One can have a nuanced approach: not discriminate per se, but at the same time not expect 50:50 parity (or close to it) in whole areas/large sample sizes.

Expecting 50:50 ratios doesn't account for socialised differences either. Expecting 50:50 ratios is leading to some discrimination (so called positive discrimination).

And we only tend to see "positive discrimination policies" benefiting one gender. So-called equality measures don't tend to be gender-neutral: equality bodies and researchers tend to focus much, much more on helping women/discriminating against men than vice versa.

tsiehta

Positive discrimination is a whole other topic. I agree with it in some cases, and think it's window dressing which detracts from the real underlying issues in others.

I don't think we should be immediately expecting 50:50 ratios overnight, or ever. However, I don't think it's an unreasonable to look at a 90:10 or 80:20 ratio and conclude that something is wrong.

Pawwed Rig

tsiehta wrote: »

I don't think we should be immediately expecting 50:50 ratios overnight, or ever. However, I don't think it's an unreasonable to look at a 90:10 or 80:20 ratio and conclude that something is wrong.

I agree with you completely but think a better idea would be to address the underlying causes rather than shoehorn people into positions where they may no be suitable. For example addressing the paedophile hysteria might encourage more young men into teaching profession. Similarly addressing the assumption that women are primarily child carers by making maternity leave and custody more equal will free up women to be more proactive in the workplace.

Playboy

tsiehta wrote: »

I'm just wholly unconvinced that most differences between the sexes are indeed biologically inherent.

I think it's an area that needs to be explored a lot more and one that is too easily dismissed. I recently became a father to a little boy (6 months old) and I'm amazed at the differences between boys and girls of the same age. Boys from what I can see are much more active and look to explore and interact with their environment whereas girls are very passive and observant. It seems to be an accepted fact that this difference exists amongst parents and the children are too young to be impacted by cultural stereotypes.

Given the huge impact hormones can have on behavior and the very obvious hormonal differences between men and women I don't see why we are not more accepting of differences in aptitude and desire for certain jobs/roles between men and women.

iptba

Playboy wrote: »

I think it's an area that needs to be explored a lot more and one that is too easily dismissed. I recently became a father to a little boy (6 months old) and I'm amazed at the differences between boys and girls of the same age. Boys from what I can see are much more active and look to explore and interact with their environment whereas girls are very passive and observant. It seems to be an accepted fact that this difference exists amongst parents and the children are too young to be impacted by cultural stereotypes.

Given the huge impact hormones can have on behavior and the very obvious hormonal differences between men and women I don't see why we are not more accepting of differences in aptitude and desire for certain jobs/roles between men and women.

The social sciences have a history of making models of humans based on what they'd like to happen. Adoption and twin studies show IQ has a significant inheritance factor yet oftentimes IQ and the like is discussed as if it is purely down to societal factors.

tsiehta

Playboy wrote: »

I think it's an area that needs to be explored a lot more and one that is too easily dismissed. I recently became a father to a little boy (6 months old) and I'm amazed at the differences between boys and girls of the same age. Boys from what I can see are much more active and look to explore and interact with their environment whereas girls are very passive and observant. It seems to be an accepted fact that this difference exists amongst parents and the children are too young to be impacted by cultural stereotypes.

Given the huge impact hormones can have on behavior and the very obvious hormonal differences between men and women I don't see why we are not more accepting of differences in aptitude and desire for certain jobs/roles between men and women.

I don't think there's such a thing as being too young to be impacted by culture.

In any case, I accept that it's very complicated. Of course hormonal and other biologically dimorphic differences are going to be factors. However, we cannot discount socialization entirely. In fact, this doesn't even rule out the possibility that socialization might be the most important, overriding factor in differences between the genders.

You say that given that hormones impact behaviour, why can't be be more accepting of differences between men and women. To that I would say that given socialization impacts behaviour, why would we automatically accept that all differences are purely biologically inherent?

Oftentimes, claims that differences are biologically inherent are used in order to justify apparent inequality. A lot of the time they're also poorly supported theories. This is why I'm personally very cautious when it comes to differences being explained by biological differences between the genders. It doesn't mean I think men and women are exactly the same, blank canvases which are entirely moulded by societal influences.

Playboy

tsiehta wrote: »

I don't think there's such a thing as being too young to be impacted by culture.

In any case, I accept that it's very complicated. Of course hormonal and other biologically dimorphic differences are going to be factors. However, we cannot discount socialization entirely. In fact, this doesn't even rule out the possibility that socialization might be the most important, overriding factor in differences between the genders.

You say that given that hormones impact behaviour, why can't be be more accepting of differences between men and women. To that I would say that given socialization impacts behaviour, why would we automatically accept that all differences are purely biologically inherent?

Oftentimes, claims that differences are biologically inherent are used in order to justify apparent inequality. A lot of the time they're also poorly supported theories. This is why I'm personally very cautious when it comes to differences being explained by biological differences between the genders. It doesn't mean I think men and women are exactly the same, blank canvases which are entirely moulded by societal influences.

I think 6 months or less is too young to be impacted by cultural stereotypes. A baby that young is behaving purely on instinct, they do not have the ability to absorb, understand and play back any cultural definition of what they should be as they dont really even have a concept of 'self' at this stage.

I dont disagree with the rest of your post. I think you are right in saying that for too long biology has been used as a convenient excuse for confining genders to particular roles. However I think we are at risk of going in the opposite direction by completing ignoring biology as an explanation for differences between genders when it comes to roles performed in society.

From what I can gather the debate (nature vs nurture) had started to heavily drift in favour of nature in recent years with genetics and hormones increasingly shown to be much stronger determinants and predictors of future behavior than environment. When you see the impact a change in hormonal balance can have on an individual either through illness or through choice (as part of gender reassignment or bodybuilding) then it looks quite obvious to me that hormones can not easily be dismissed when trying to understand the behavioral differences between genders.

To an extent Men and Women evolved to perform different roles that allowed us to thrive successfully as a species. In recent history we have the advantage of no longer being constrained by those gender roles but we cannot dismiss the millions of years of adaption as only basic differences in strength and sexual reproduction. I remember reading something on the Paleo diet and I think it was quite a powerful example when thinking about the span of human development in relation to a 'modern' society.

"think of a 100-yard football field. The first 99.5 yards are how long Homo-Sapiens spent as hunter-gatherers. As they became REALLY good at hunting and gathering our bodies adapted to that lifestyle over thousands of years. That last half-yard represents our species after the agricultural revolution, where our diet has shifted (but our genetics haven’t)"

For a very long time men went out and hunted and women looked after children and it would be silly if we thought that we are not shaped in our desires, needs, motivations, aptitudes etc by that huge span of our existence as a species.