Do you think the sexes have intrinsic psychological differences that justify treating people differently because of their gender?

rmbarnes · 2009-08-16T11:05:02+00:00

I agree but the differences in how we treat genders should be very minor. The differences are not so big as to require a vast disparity in how men and women are treated.

I've always thought there are two routes we can take. Either complete, 100% gender blind equality, or around 90% equality, with a few differences which use common sense to take into account the physical and mental differences between men and women.

Ok complete gender blind equality. Most people (especially women and even more so the feminists) are going to fucking hate this.

Women included in the draft: Go to war with a country that doesn't go for equality (all males on front line) and you could take a pasting.

Mixed sex prisons : yes, a 8st pretty girl guilty of a minor assault could find herself sharing a cell with an 18st armed robber with few morals. But but... she'll get the shit raped out of her every night! Yes. As will many men in prison. Welcome to equality.

Professional athletes: Imagine the Olympic games where there is no women running in the 100 meters. No female javelin throwers or shot putters. All of this because there is only one unisex event for each displine, and only the top x people in the world get to compete. The 6th fastest male 100m sprinter in the world is faster than the fastest woman. Therefore no woman will qualify for most disciplines in the games. This would extend to all sports. I cna just hear the cries of discrimination now...

SarahC · 2009-08-16T12:07:39+00:00

I'm a trannie so I've got anecdotal info about the way hormones effect people. Swapping sex hormones certainly changed my emotional state, and my interests.

I use to enjoy being really competitive and get a big buz out of online games, and sports. Now, I don't do online gaming anymore, and I'm fairly Meh about sports.

I'm not a massively obsessed programmer anymore either come to think of it.

I'm more social than I was.

BestServedCold · 2009-08-16T10:42:53+00:00

Don't crosspost.

I guess I'd first ask "why not"? I guess I'd then ask why you think you have the right to boss us around.

I also think your question is too broad and too general to be discussed seriously in this format.

It doesn't matter what conclusions you arrive at. Feminists will take advantage of the answer either way. Women are way too empathetic and kind-hearted to be forced into conscription, combat duty, or dangerous or dirty jobs. That's also why they should get to steal our kids because their vaginas grant them magical parenting powers.

See, we're very different.

But you better also pay them an equal wage, even for unequal work. And you better let them have equal numbers of female elected officials even though way fewer than 50% of those who run are female. And you also better let women be 50% of CEOs and boardroom executives even though way fewer than 50% of those qualified are female.

See, we're all the same.

2009-08-16T09:14:59+00:00

I vote No.

Equality – starting from a position of treating everyone exactly the same regardless of their individual characteristics or personal situation – is not only a good idea, but the cornerstone of an ethical society.

And it's much needed from an genetic/evolutionary standpoint as well: all research shows primates are very sensitive when it comes to perceived inequalities or injustices. Even a chimp will refuse being given 10 bananas if it means the other chimp gets to keep 90 out of 100, even if doing that means getting nothing at all (from a purely logical standpoint, he would get more if he just accepted it). However, as the number of bananas both chimps get approaches the median, mutual acceptance becomes much more likely.

And a society that already starts out rewarding certain group of people, for whatever reason, flies directly in the face of that. It will only serve to widen the chasm — and animosity — between the groups.

However, that is the complete opposite from forced parity. As I read someone put once, equality is every horse being put to start the race at the same line; parity is fixing the race so they finish it in a dead heat.

But that's exactly what feminists and the whole minority crew are attempting to do, with their quotas and affirmative actions and whatnot.

Equality means both men and women are free to choose between, say, romance and career. Parity would require them to do so in equal numbers. Of course, they don’t.

Regardless of whether the intrinsic differences are biological or historical, in a free, equal society, no one should get different treatment just because they were born into a group. Once the personal needs and handicaps of an individual have been assessed, however, if he needs a little help to start the race from as close as possible to the others, then by all means, we should grant it.

2009-08-16T15:13:03+00:00

Yes, and no.

There's intrinsic psychological differences in predisposition to mental traits. Which is quite a bit different than certain differences. Hell, even if you do have a trait it doesn't mean you're going to actually act on it. Which is why I give a firm no to treating people differently because of their gender.

Basically, growing up is a matter of learning to use your higher mental functions to overcome negative and irrational instinctive reactions. We have a lot of these based on gender, but anyone who's actually motivated by them is emotionally still a child.

2009-08-16T10:03:29+00:00

Aside from (what should be) the obvious behaviour choice in regards to how people are treated there are differences in how we interact with the opposite gender. That perhaps is the more pointed question you mean to ask and I say in many ways, yes. Our interactions are based on expectations that are manifest in both our physiological, psychological and physical makeup. Very similar in fact to how people respond to others based on their physical appearance. Not only in (their perceived version of) beauty but stature but also their voice tone and inflection, clothing style, how they even look or look at you and even their odor, detectable or not to the conscious mind.

Just my 2¢

syntaxfree2 · 2009-08-16T08:46:37+00:00

Upvoted not because I necessarily agree, but because I'd like to see it discussed – I'm interested in the views of people more "in the know", either from the biological/medical perspective or the feminist/gender-theoretical point of view.

Can you please provide a link to the /r/feminisms discussion, too? It's more active, so there might be more intelligent discussion there.

Oliverotto · 2009-08-16T08:47:31+00:00

Yes.

Men and women's DNA is closer to their male/female chimpanzee counterparts than it is with each others.

The big white elephant in the Men's Rights debate is the fact that equality doesn't even make sense between people who have fundamentally different needs.

imbecile · 2009-08-17T14:03:43+00:00

I found that women are most offended, even hurt, if you just treat her as a human being, ignoring the gender. You must treat women differently, or you invite their wrath. Don't ask this question as if it is an option.

kru5h · 2009-08-16T17:22:52+00:00

Psychological differences:
On average, yes.
Per individual, no.

Different treatment:
I don't treat people differently by their sex, I treat them differently according to their masculinity or femininity. So, I treat a masculine man just like I do a masculine woman, and a feminine man the same way I do a feminine woman.

Gareth321 · 2009-08-17T03:47:14+00:00

Sorry, I'm going to crosspost. The point still stands, and a lot of these members never visit the feminisms subreddit.

Psychological differences in each sex is hard scientific fact. I wrote a decent summary to another user some time ago. This field has been studied ad nauseum over the last century. What science agrees on is that there are true differences in cognition between the sexes [irrespective of nurture]. What is up for debate is the degree to which nurture could effect behaviour. Basic instincts and emotions are called low order behaviour. These are generally considered more influenced by our genes. Examples include anger and aggression, happiness, jealousy etc. More complex thoughts and feelings like love and respect are called high order behaviour, and these are generally considered to be influenced more by nurture.

There are no qualms that both nature and nurture each play large roles in adult behaviour. The structure, size, and density of the male and female brain has large and quantifiable differences irrespective of where and how one is raised. As has been shown since man began studying the brain, these changes in the brain will always have effects on behaviour.

As for the more pressing question, should we treat a person differently based on these differences? I answer only if presented. That means you should get to know the person before judging them. If you're a male who hates emotive people, chances are a lot of women will frustrate you. That doesn't mean you should have a bias towards all women right off the bat. You should probably give them a chance to express themselves first.

2009-08-16T13:48:02+00:00

I would like people who assume that our cause is simply one of 'equality' to really examine what this concept means in practice.

Let's take a simple, concrete example.

Feminists in the UK have recently criminilized the paying for sex. Does this mean that our only concern should be to ensure that women who pay for sex are treated exactly the same as men who pay for sex?

Absolute tripe, and this is the danger of putting all your faith in a simplistic notion of equality. It plays directly into the hands of the feminists who are hell bent on turning half the male gender into criminals.

Laws like these target men. Far more men pay for sex than do women. This has always been the case and likely always will be. Furthermore, there are clearly self-interested sexual motives for women to draft laws like these. But where exactly does equality come into it?

etherspirit · 2009-08-17T05:17:24+00:00

Yes, obviously.

Honztastic · 2009-08-16T22:31:38+00:00

NO ONE CAN BE EQUAL. They are too different.

I'm not saying women should be subjugated or make less for the same amount of work.

I'm saying women behave based on emotions, and that fucks up a lot of stuff. This "If women were in charge, there would be no wars" shit has got to stop.

All this crap about everything being geared towards men is stupid. OF COURSE IT IS. Men set up every institution, pretty much since the dawn of humanity. Men are naturally more agressive, apt to dangerous activity, and have been in a leadership role among people (think tribes) since forever. Of course men are at the top of businesses and things like that. We are more apt to get there. Not that women can't, they're just less likely to do it.

Like baseball, just because there aren't that many black players doesn't make the MLB racist. It means fewer numbers of blacks are either playing or excelling at the sport. No one is complaining that there are too many blacks in football or track even though by the baseball complaint logic they should. The same way men don't complain about too many women in anything. LET IT GO.

Title	Do you think the sexes have intrinsic psychological differences that justify treating people differently because of their gender?
Author	NotPhil
Upvotes	10
Comments	43
Date	August 16, 2009 7:59 AM UTC (16 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/9b2ky/do_you_think_the_sexes_have_intrinsic/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/do-you-think-the-sexes-have-intrinsic.1053287 https://theredarchive.com/post/1053287

Comments