~ archived since 2018 ~

Sexual dimorphism

2013-09-24T21:11:05+00:00

It seems this is a topic that has been coming up, whether explicitly or implicitly, more and more lately. It is also pretty important in terms of looking at...

[deleted]

September 24, 2013

4 upvotes

/r/PurplePillDebate

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Sexual dimorphism
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	4
Comments	70
Date	September 24, 2013 9:11 PM UTC (12 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/1n20ug/sexual_dimorphism/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/sexual-dimorphism.286746 https://theredarchive.com/post/286746

Comments

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (66 children) | Copy Link

[–]MorphologicalMayhem1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (65 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points7 points 12 years ago (64 children) | Copy Link

Well, as I do mean to imply, I could certainly be wrong, because I can't recall ever having had an explicit discussion on this, with this level of focus.

I guess I just sort of assumed that feminists would cry-foul over any sort of discourse that didn't end with the notion that men and women are equal, because any kind of intrinsic inequality would be used as a justification to harm and disenfranchise someone, probably women.

So... I don't really know how I feel about sexual dimorphism, because even wearing my Catholic hat, the Church recognizes that woman and men are imbued with the same fundamental and inalienable human dignity.

As such, sexual dimorphism alone cannot, should not, be used to justify taking anything away from anybody.

But beyond that... where to?

While women's experience of warfare, for instance, is generally limited, it seems that female bodies have a much harder time coping with the rigors of combat than their male counter-parts. If this were ultimately supported by science, should we restrict females to non-combat roles? I'm not sure I'm willing to argue in favor of that, which gives me a possible fact without direction.

For another instance, it's generally agreed that something about testosterone makes men more aggressive. Is this enough to justify mandatory male arrest policies in domestic violence situations, even if the man is very obviously not the aggressor, and indeed, has even been wounded by a violent woman? Another possible fact, without direction.

As such, I hope you can see why I'm worried that any discussion of sexual dimorphism will only result in a whole plethora of facts without any conclusion, or solution.

Would it be useful to have a discussion about where we want to go with this? I think it's a discussion that we probably should have.

[–]MorphologicalMayhem2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (61 children) | Copy Link

Generally when people talk about sexual dimorphism they are talking about the fact that men tend to be bigger/have more muscle mass. Or that their larynx is lower in the throat (causing the lower voice, and making them more likely to choke.) Also the subtle brain differences. All of these are honestly fairly minor and don't have much bearing on actual generalizations.

Take the combat example. It may be that the majority of women can't do as well as men in combat situations. But there are some that can. Therefore, the option should be open. When it comes to domestic violence, of course we shouldn't assume the man is the aggressor when the evidence is to the contrary. Just because men tend to be more aggressive doesn't mean they always are.

I think talking about sexual dimorphism is generally fairly useless, unless it is to prove that it is fairly useless. There are applications, such as teaching guys as they are growing up that they can accidentally hurt their female friends or family members (I never thought about it until I was talking to a friend of mine about this and he said he accidentally broke his cousin's rib when they were rough-housing when he was around 13). We should acknowledge the differences but they are not significant or universal enough to be used as justification for any sort strict gender roles.

I think that most people will agree that people don't have to be the exact same to be equal. Especially when the differences among the genders are always greater than the differences between.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (60 children) | Copy Link

[–]MorphologicalMayhem4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (59 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (58 children) | Copy Link

[–]MorphologicalMayhem1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 12 years ago (38 children) | Copy Link

The only case I can think of where it is relevant is combat.

And medicine. And engineering. And sports. And a whole host of other issues.

Here's the thing, I'm not sure that equality for the sake of equality should prevail. Maybe, but I'm not sure. A man can't become pregnant and have a child without medical intervention which doesn't exist in a state of nature. He can kick, he can scream, but he simply can't get pregnant. We're a sexually reproductive species, nevermind the sexual dimorphism for a moment.

How shall we proceed in light of these facts? I don't know that either.

More, I reject the notion that it doesn't matter much to equality. I think that notion is dellusional.

But that doesn't really help. Assuming that I'm right, that still puts us in the middle of a minefield, because equality of opportunity is an objectively laudable goal.

[–]MorphologicalMayhem2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (37 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SongTamRiver3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SongTamRiver3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Intersting. I guess I could be wrong about that one.

Why is this a thing in the west then?

From the article:

Additionally, societies promoting gender equality, such as Sweden (12), Norway (13), and traditional Kibbutzim in Israel, retain standard gender differences in spatial abilities (14) just like most societies studied (15).

More,

Men take 36.4% less time than women among the patrilineal society (ordinary least squares, P < 0.001, n = 468) but are no faster among the matrilineal society (OLS, P = 0.252, n = 811).

What I'm pointing at here is, that males in the matrilinear society don't get slower. They're "merely equal" so to speak. And actually, I'm not sure that finding is quite correct. According to the chart, the males in the matrilinear society were still slightly faster, just not by much.

If culture is the explination, then why aren't males correspondingly slower in a culture which doesn't favor them?

The study even says something to this overall effect:

It is worth mentioning that our results do not provide evidence against the role of nature.

So... null data here?

[–]SongTamRiver1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SongTamRiver2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SongTamRiver2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SongTamRiver3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're ruling out "nurture" types of effects on these skills without actually giving it much thought.

I have given it much thought, and it's you who is again failing to see that the "nurture" effect of this is the other way round.

Can women's spatial scores be increased by video games, probably, but nature is making the difference, not the upbringing in the first place, which then accentuates the effect. So boys eat more, grow stronger and more likely indulge in activities that further enhance the gender difference in strength than what an equal upbringing mandated by the post-feminist society would have. If nurture can modulate nature, then nature can have the same effect too.

The problem with same with the mathematical ability is that girls fall behind despite being heavily advantaged during their schooling to be better at it.

http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1inr08/i_believe_that_men_and_women_are_different/cb6j9hh

So there is an innate difference, and it should be larger than what it is.

[–]SongTamRiver4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

which links to a blog post, which links to an actual peer-reviewed study?

The blog belongs to one of the authors and lists their findings.

Why not just link to the study?

They don't state the difference in time spent on homework aka upbringing for relevance with this thread's reasoning. I saw that study after I had made the same conclusion from the study that I critiqued(Culture, Gender, and Math) in that comment. The other part of that comment was pointing out that despite such conclusions apparent from their own study, their conclusion was "gender equality makes girls better at maths, and even better at reading".

Amusingly the standard they used for gender equality had no bearing on PISA 2006 results. (they used PISA 2003, see La Griffe du Lion)

And I had summarized these things more pithily in another comment, but I have copy pasted this one far too many times to go searching for that one.

edit: So gender-equality studies from the 'we can make them equal if only environment was more girl friendly' camp should be take with a grain of salt, for example the 'video games make women better at spatial skills' is kinda a lot of studies being published when that's the case and not otherwise. I have read some where both sexes make progress and even one where a researcher in the field was surprised as to why he only found improvements for men.

[–]SongTamRiver3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SongTamRiver2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Sorry it took hours to respond! Family stuff and all that.

Some parts of the discussion section I thought were interesting and possibly relevant:

First of all, the previously held assumption that countries’ positive equality policies are particularly good for girls’ mathematics achievement is inconsistent with the finding that both sexes have higher mathematics achievement in countries with these policies. One possibility is that the relation between equality policies and achievement is due to overall living standards and not these policies per se.

Girls’ achievement clearly improves as living standards improve, but the gains are slightly higher for boys: Across- and within-nations, not only is the sex difference in reading smaller at the high end in countries with higher living standards, high-achieving boys have higher scores than high-achieving girls in mathematics. One possibility is that the greater variation in boys’ than girls’ cognitive ability combined with a sex difference in sensitivity to living conditions contributes to the pattern of performance across the continuum. One predicted result is that improvements in living conditions will benefit boys’ achievement across the continuum more than girls’ achievement, whereas deteriorating conditions will adversely affect boys more than girls.

The finding that countries with higher living standards showed larger sex differences in mathematics is similar to that found for spatial cognition and matches the conclusion of Fryer and Levitt’s study of the sex difference in mathematics in U.S. children mentioned earlier. Lippa and colleagues found that sex differences on tasks measuring spatial abilities were larger in higher-developed countries. Halpern suggests that this finding might be an example of the “Matthew effect”: When there are small differences between boys and girls at a young age, these differences will grow the more resources are targeted at improving children’s skills in the areas in which there is a difference. Nevertheless, a simple “Matthew effect” itself does not explain and seems inconsistent with the finding that the sex difference in mathematics is larger at the high end of the performance continuum while the sex difference in reading is smaller at the high end of the performance continuum (one would expect that both these effects would be larger at the high end).

All in all, I think this study shows that the relationship between sex, environment, and academic performance is quite complex. It's difficult to know causality, but the fact that they found greater differences in mathematics in richer countries is fascinating to me. The thing is, while they said they were comparing the performance differences to gender equality, they basically used living standards as a stand-in. Further, I think we both know that there isn't gender equality in how our kids are raised, in what traits are emphasized when it comes to young boys and girls. I don't think you can take this study and use it to back all the things you've claimed, since the reasons for the disparities are so little understood.

One more thing: I'm a bit confused about your "should" statement: "So there is an innate difference, and it should be larger than what it is." Could you expound on that for me? Especially in light of what you said earlier in your comment ("nature is making the difference, not the upbringing in the first place, which then accentuates the effect"). It doesn't seem like all the environmental factors can be accounted for, at least not with the study you brought into the discussion. Personally, I'd like to see something with younger kids, before they've gone through years of schooling.

Just to be perfectly clear, I think the problem of boys' reading disadvantage should be taken at least as seriously as that of girls' math disadvantage. The caveat, though, is that no one's going to use the reading disparity to say that men are less intelligent, logical or rational than women, so it's not as hot a topic.

[–]namae_nanka0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just to be perfectly clear, I think the problem of boys' reading disadvantage should be taken at least as seriously as that of girls' math disadvantage.

Yeah, reading is a basic skill that you need for everything including maths, the gender gap in reading is far more serious than maths.

The caveat, though, is that no one's going to use the reading disparity to say that men are less intelligent, logical or rational than women, so it's not as hot a topic.

It's not a hot topic because boys are at the receiving end of it. Girls and boys both think boys are less intelligent due to this disparity, at least for the early part of schooling.

Personally, I'd like to see something with younger kids, before they've gone through years of schooling.

haha what kinda sexual dimorphism can you extrapolate from prepubescent boys and girls when girls are taller and heavier? And it doesn't matter if the years of schooling are much more favorable to girls and yet boys still get better scores in maths.

All in all, I think this study shows that the relationship between sex, environment, and academic performance is quite complex.

Of course,

It's difficult to know causality

you need to know how to read in order to do maths and not the other way round, so if the maths gap and reading gap are correlated with each other, it isn't hard to figure out which way the causality runs.

Further, I think we both know that there isn't gender equality in how our kids are raised

And there never will be, however girls do far better in school and don't think they are worse at maths till puberty kicks in and then boys pull away, and then girls start to believe in male superiority.

I don't think you can take this study and use it to back all the things you've claimed, since the reasons for the disparities are so little understood.

It was a footnote, the study under consideration was Sapienza et al 2008, for whom cultural gender equality uber alles!

The effects of nature are intermingled with nurture and it's a fool's errand to go about trying to untangle it completely(though highly beneficial for the blank-slate ideology feminist utopia). However if nurture favors one sex overwhelmingly, yet the other sex still does better at the trait, then it's easy to see that the latter is better at it due to nature, and if the nurture was equal then it would be better still.

Girls do more maths homework, they also read more; so an equal nurture position would imply that boys close the reading gap and increase the maths gap.

Especially in light of what you said earlier in your comment ("nature is making the difference, not the upbringing in the first place, which then accentuates the effect")

A different thing altogether, those who are better at something are more likely to do it and get even better. So a nurture inequality has been created, yet nature is responsible for it.

I could have posted links but I've already spent more time on this than intended.

[–]SongTamRiver3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

haha what kinda sexual dimorphism can you extrapolate from prepubescent boys and girls when girls are taller and heavier?

What? I'm talking about the influence of parents, toys, and culture. I thought I was making it clear that my position was that the disparity is not 100% due to genetics? I want to see the effects of early childhood indoctrination on the different sexes.

Girls and boys both think boys are less intelligent due to this disparity, at least for the early part of schooling.

Okay, do you have evidence of this? It isn't something that is generally thought among adults, so I'd like to see some proof that kids think it. And like I said, "at least as seriously" ... it's a heavy claim that people are disregarding something this huge just because it's boys that are being disadvantaged. For one thing, it's a disparity that's far more recent than the other. You think that has nothing to do with it?

you need to know how to read in order to do maths and not the other way round, so if the maths gap and reading gap are correlated with each other, it isn't hard to figure out which way the causality runs.

That's not the causality I was talking about.

The effects of nature are intermingled with nurture and it's a fool's errand to go about trying to untangle it completely(though highly beneficial for the blank-slate ideology feminist utopia). However if nurture favors one sex overwhelmingly, yet the other sex still does better at the trait, then it's easy to see that the latter is better at it due to nature, and if the nurture was equal then it would be better still.

I agree SO MUCH with the first part of that first sentence. I just think you're ignoring a huge part of the "nurture" aspect.

[–]namae_nanka-1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SongTamRiver2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SongTamRiver2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I already read that shit.

You didn't. Again from the 2 months old comment I linked-

More importantly let me walk you through a boulder of evidence given in favor of culture affecting girls' maths scores.(and subsequently STEM field participation) The study in question, Sapienza et al 2008

Google it for:

That's a hypothetical that's possible but absolutely meaningless without more information .

The information about maths homework is from the above study itself. That girls have better reading skills is also there. The grading disparity in school is well-known.

as well as completely off topic

LOL this is the topic but you couldn't be bothered to get it.

Girls have a humongous cultural advantage but boys still get better maths score. If they were on a level playing field, the maths gap would be even larger.

[–]SongTamRiver3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Finally. Thank you for not just copy-pasting. You're right, I didn't get that it was a metaphor. It seemed completely out of left field, talking about size differences in men and women instead of this cognitive difference. And now that you've finally made your point clear, I have to say that I think it's a disingenuous metaphor.

You seem to be rooting all of your beliefs on this topic in this one study, but unlike growth and size, we don't fully understand what is causing the cognitive differences. None of the theories discussed in the study completely explain the relationship between the math disparity and the reading disparity (which is what was actually under study), and while you think you've got it figured out better than the academics responsible for the study do, I think that you shouldn't leap to conclusions like you've done. (A) We don't have studies about younger children, (B) Yeah, it's not an even playing field, but while you're focused on the disadvantages of one side, I'm thinking about the disadvantages of both. YES, there are disadvantages for boys. I know that our school systems are doing boys, specifically those that are non-white and impoverished, a disservice. But you're ignoring early-childhood gender role indoctrination that predisposes boys towards STEM and girls away from it. And we don't know how it all interacts: disadvantages to both sexes, genetic differences ... we don't have a great enough body of knowledge in the area to claim anything with the certainty that you've claimed.

I have said over and over again that the disparity is due in part to an innate difference. Thank you for finally saying what you mean and providing a meaningful topic of debate, but there's no need to be so condescending and dismissive, especially when you refused for so long to make your point clear.

[–]namae_nanka1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You seem to be rooting all of your beliefs on this topic in this one study

Not at all, it was merely an example of how 'gender-equality in maths could happen if only culture was gender equal' study comes about. Here is another, though again through an earlier comment:

http://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/1mdfzf/i_dont_believe_that_sexism_is_the_cause_of_sex/ccanmyv

and while you think you've got it figured out better than the academics responsible for the study do

If you read the above post and googled you might change your view.

I'm thinking about the disadvantages of both.

Girls might have their disadvantages, but it doesn't matter if the net disadvantages go to boys.

But you're ignoring early-childhood gender role indoctrination that predisposes boys towards STEM and girls away from it.

I'm merely calling BS on that. Getting more girls in STEM will be better accomplished if boys had better reading skills so that they had as many options as girls do. Girls do get better grades even on maths, it's the tests they suffer on.

we don't have a great enough body of knowledge in the area

are you kidding? It's rather huge, it's the most studied gender disparity afaik and I'm quite fed up of it.

[–]SongTamRiver4 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Girls might have their disadvantages, but it doesn't matter if the net disadvantages go to boys

Honestly, I'm not sure what you're arguing at this point? Oppression olympics? I already said that boys reading disadvantage should be given at least equal weight to girls' math disadvantage. But I do disagree with your claim that girls have more options than men do due to reading. I don't think it's due to reading that women are more heavily concentrated in liberal arts and non-STEM fields. I think it's due to preference and gender roles. But I don't have any studies to back it up, that's just opinion. To meet your opinion. Men who choose to major in stereotypically feminine majors do well - it's just getting them to choose those majors that presents the problem.

Even in your response to me, you dismiss early childhood influences. Seriously, do you think nothing formative happens in a person's life until they begin school?

But just to emphasize this once more: The problems associated both with young boys and grade school and upper education and men are in no way lesser to me than if they were happening with women and girls.

[–]namae_nanka1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

But I do disagree with your claim that girls have more options than men do due to reading.

See (c)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19254079

Even in your response to me, you dismiss early childhood influences. Seriously, do you think nothing formative happens in a person's life until they begin school?

Even if it did, it doesn't change the fact that girls get better grades in maths even if they start getting lower test scores after middle school. A decade of schooling where they get better grades in maths vs. toys before starting school, surely you can't argue that the latter is more important.

And it isn't merely my opinion: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1gqhna/british_study_shows_children_are_brainwashed_into/can7324

For one thing, it's a disparity that's far more recent than the other. You think that has nothing to do with it?

It's not recent, the grading disparity has always been there as has been the reading gap.

What is worth remembering is that boys used to be the group considered shortchanged by the schools. The idea that the schools shortchanged boys was part of the common wisdom through the 1970s. As Brophy (1985) reminds us:

"Claims that one sex or the other is not being taught effectively in our schools have been frequent and often impassioned. From early in the century (Ayres, 1909) through about 1970 (Sexton, 1969; Austin, Clark, & Fitchett, 1971), criticism was usually focused on the treatment of boys, especially at the elementary level. Critics noted that boys received lower grades in all subjects and lower achievement test scores in reading and language arts. They insisted that these sex differences occurred because the schools were 'too feminine' or the 'overwhelmingly female' teachers were unable to meet boys' learning needs effectively

http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/10_Oct/1000boy3.htm#The Myth That Schools Shortchange

So even back then the maths advantage that men had would've been lower than what you'd expect with equal nurture. I do think that girls with good maths ability had a disadvantage due to the overwhelming majority of boys at the same ability level and thus the sex typing of advanced and gifted maths classes, but on the whole girls were better off even in maths. The current opposite view of schools doing up boys exists because of studies like Lucy Sells girls' maths panic in 70s and the girls' self-esteem panic in the 90s.

edit:

Girls believe they are cleverer, better behaved and try harder than boys from the age of four, research suggests. By the age of eight, boys had also adopted these perceptions, the study from the University of Kent found.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11151143

[–]fhqwhgads_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]namae_nanka1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_ 1 points1 points1 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]0 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again, I think he's merely thinking about the complexities involved in creating a standard which would allow women who are willing and able into front-line roles, while still excluding those who wouldn't be able to perform.

Exactly. How do I systematically bar a certain group of people from pursuing the career they desire, even if it's supported by science?

That wouldn't be lawful. But how do I go about ignoring the science? Where does the science fit? I don't like different standards for men and women in combat, and it's been observed that precious few women can meet the phyisical standards of men. That, in my eyes, doesn't justify systematic discrimination.

What I am saying is, I don't know. I don't have the answer, and I'm not sure I know how go about developing an answer that I will find satisfactory.

I think I get to claim this is a dilemma that I don't presently know how to resolve.

I've observed several instances of fhqwhgads_, and others, reading into my comments things which I had no intention of implying.

I'd try to illustrate that this is happening, but how do I go about that without causing too much offense?

In any case, at everybody, please read my comments carefully. I'm careful about word choice, very willing to moderate my views, and always happy to clarify, or just to talk about what I said.

Please, stop assuming that I said, or implied things which I did not.

[–]fhqwhgads_1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think you're very selectively reading his posts, focusing on that specific phrase, and missing the actual point he's trying to make.

He's thinking about the issue of biological differences between the sexes, and trying to follow them to a logical conclusion. For instance, one of the specific medical issues he raised was the occurrence of stress fractures, injuries born out of a prolonged exposure to hard conditions.

If it turns out to, indeed, be true that women are significantly more prone to something like that when placed into a front-line combat role, what would you do with that information?

In /u/bornagaincatholic's view, you can't use it categorically exclude women from combat.

On the flipside, are you then allowing people into front-line situations, where other lives depend on their performance, when they may be prone to catastrophic injury in a critical situation?

Does this present a dilemma? How can this dilemma be resolved?

He's just asking questions, attempting to think deeply about the issue. Fairly reasonable ones, in my opinion. He's not making an argument, he's even admitting that he just doesn't know.

[–]fhqwhgads_1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]fhqwhgads_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Now that I'm home from work, I wanted to take a minute to add to the cocky humor I replied with earlier, and sincerely say thanks for the compliment.

I typically upvote your comments. And while I certainly don't think I'm any more intelligent than anyone else on this sub, I get you, I think, in a way a lot of people on the sub don't.

I dunno. Maybe it's because I'm closer to 30 than 20, these days (which is not the sense I get of most here, though I could be wrong). Maybe we just have similar communication styles, or something. Maybe it's 'cause I was raised as a dirty papist, myself.

But whatever the reason, even when I don't agree with your opinion, I can tell that it's usually well-measured, and I can see how you got there. You put real effort into discussing things here, and your occasional spats with /u/mrsamsa aside (you guys just don't see eye to eye), don't really lapse into personal attacks.

I dont think /u/fhqwhgads_ or any of the others misrepresent you on purpose, I just think sometimes your experiences and theirs are different, and it means you occasionally have difficulty understanding each other.

So, when I saw a chance to hop in and try to bridge the gap a little bit, I figured I would take it.

[–][deleted]1 point 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No. I'm saying that I don't have a good way to resolve the imperative to allow equal opportunity, with scientific evidence.

I'm willing to allow for the possibility that females should be systematically barred, but I'm not any more convinced of that either.

This direction of conversation precisely illustrates my point, and I think also provides evidence for it.

I think that fhqwhgads_ would profess to be a feminist.

Here, I point out that this a scientific fact and there might be implications for this fact. Then I fall allover myself trying to say that I'm not sure I can make a final decision one way or another.

Worse, I said initially that someone would percieve this as the thin-edge of the wedge.

And here we have fhqwgads_, who appears to be doing exactly that.

you yourself are saying that you're not convinced...

After this:

I just sort of assumed that feminists would cry-foul over any sort of discourse that didn't end with the notion that men and women are equal, because any kind of intrinsic inequality would be used as a justification to harm and disenfranchise someone, probably women.

Did a feminist not just do pretty much exactly this?

[–]fhqwhgads_2 points 12 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Should we restrict females to non-combat roles?

and

Is this enough to justify mandatory male arrest policies in domestic violence situations?

Well, let's assume for the sake of argument that both of those things are true. And 100% dictated by biology, and unlikely to change anytime soon.

I think both of these things highlight the necessity to retain an ability to discern answers on a case by case basis.

Sexual dimorphism is a fact. That is, it is merely the description for the observation of a trend. There's no arguing it. What can be argued are things like, the specifics of how we (as humans) are a dimorphic species, why we became that way, and how it influences our physiology and our behavior.

All of those things can be useful, when applied correctly. For instance, it could help us to understand why there may always be less women in front-line combat roles, without creating the blanket restriction that women aren't allowed to participate in this manner.

It could help us understand why men may always be a bit more prone to dangerous domestic violence, without letting us just "accept it as the way things are" and without creating the blanket solution that men should always be arrested.

However, I think TRP is absolutely, abhorrently ineffective at allowing for such precise judgments. (To be fair, this isn't limited to TRP).

[–]Paranoidexboyfriend1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mazzyTuff1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_4 points5 points6 points 12 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]mazzyTuff1 point2 points3 points 12 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]angatar_2 points3 points4 points 12 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link