Another person for different but equal. Please read this and help me work out the major points about why he is wrong. I've already pulled apart the section on why men improved childbirth but my brain is too tired to tackle the other sections.
Well, the more female ancestors thing could be due to dying in childbirth, then the man remarries. 2 women breed with only one man. That man gets to breed more because he didn't get killed in eg battle or a pit disaster. Having set up competitive economic inequality, only the rich can afford to breed and the women are confined to only breeding. The theory of patriarchy as a conspiracy is simplistic - it's a system not a conspiracy, like capitalism. His thing about culture doing whatever is foolish; people within culture act, not abstract 'culture'
He says feminists get it wrong because they only look at who's on top, not the fact that more men than women are in prison/homeless/etc (so more men are on the bottom too). The flaw in his argument is he seems to think that the feminist argument that men (I would say patriarchy) oppress women is incompatible with the argument that men also oppress other men. It's not, and there's no reason it should be. Furthermore, the fact more men are homeless/in prison also suggests that there are fewer subordinate but socially acceptable roles for men. Therefore, if there is a pyramid of social roles, men compete for the top spots but do not fit into the subordinate-but-contributing roles in the middle. As a result, society needs women in a subordinate position, but not men.
He says many men die in battle. He ignores the huge and awful number of women who still die in childbirth. This is incredibly crass. Childbirth is necessary to our continued existence as a species; someone has yet to prove that war is.
He assumes IQ is a totally fair an unbiased way of assessing intelligence. He is incorrect. The way that women fit into the not-brilliant-but-not awful category is comparable to his first point above.
He talks about education and attainment in tests, which are socially conditioned issues. He then makes a false comparison of these ressults (which reflect differnces between men and women) to facts of biology (which reflect differences between people of difference races). This is , well., a false comparison.
He claims workaholics are mostly men. Yes, I'm sure they are, because women who work ridiculously long hours doing childcare plus jobs aren't well-documented, are they? Oh, no, wait, they are. They're just not valued.
Sorry, at this point I stopped reading because it became clear to me he is an idiot.
There is a tremendous amount of confusion around physical sex/social gender; individuals and systems; he seems to have no theory of inequality within a socirty being inherent to that society; could go on but thereh's no real point
i dont think he understands male verus female bell curves. yes XY of mens genes means they are more likely to have mutations than women because women have XX so two copies of the same information....
... so a man is more likely than a women to be as clever as einstein. or have genetic problems. but these extreme parts of the curve are tiny. if you look at the vast middle area, the differences between men & women are far smaller, if the exist at all, than the differences between two randomly selected individuals in almost all cases.