Feminism and natural sex differences

I'm off to bed anyway, have fun

claig

We're never going to agree on empathy because you just don't get the point. I understand what empathy means, and why it might be more valuable than blips and sounds. I also understand that 'driving' is different to 'flying a plane'. It's just that basically the object of the process is more important, not the complexity and nature of the stimulii. So, if women are better at empathising, then they are also better at all other cognate tasks.

But ISNT makes the point far better-what you are claiming is that women are innately basically better at doing all the things that should make them run the world, but aren't doing so becasue they innately don't wish to. Which works well as a natural explanation of the status quo, but makes little sense otherwise.

Nobody is saying that 'male' roles should be valued more highly. But the flipside of that is that women should just accept that what they do is great, accept their lot in life, emapathise with Hubby after a day naturally directing folk, and persuade him to give them a little extra housekeeping, because that role is valuable too.

But the basic problem is the back formation and contradiction. You argument runs 'men and women do these things, this is because they are programmed to do so', what we need to do is to accept this but view them equally. But if naturalised back formation from a simplified present is an argument, why can't we just accept that men's roles are ntaurally going to be valued more highly than women's because they currently are?

I am boggled at the idea that the fact that women apparently choose to do english literature over sciences, is good for them, as this means that they have the keys to enormous wealth in their hands.

Funny how women still earn less than men, despite women having all the advantages in their studies that way, isn't it.

at that last piece of guesswork on your part, do you actually know how much xenia earns, and how much a top aeronautical engineer earns?

And you don't think that's anything to do with the fact that boys are pointed in the direction of "doing" toys, construction toys, things to do with helicopters, aeroplanes and trains.

While girls are pointed in the direction of role playing, grooming activities, and given dollies. Most famously, dollies which say "math is hard" when you press their tummies.

All of that is coincidental to the subjects that people pursue when they get older?

It used to be the case that medicine was a "male" discipline, what with all the sums and science. Women didn't do it. Now they do. Is this because women's fundamental natures have changed in the last 60 years or so?

Is it inconceivable that in another 60 years we might see women entering the field of aeronautical engineering in large numbers?

I also think that this is fortunate if you are interested in money, because I am sure that Xenia earns far more than any aeronautical engineer, whether male or female.

'Claig do you believe that women do not study aeronautical engineering because they do not wish to do so, or because they are not capable of doing to?'

because more women do not wish to do so.

'The assumption that women are not interested in the more mathematical sciences. It's depressing.'

I didn't say that all women are not interested in mathematical sciences. But I think that more men are interested in those things than women. I don't think it is depressing, because I don't think that mathematical sciences are the be all and end all of human achievement. I don't find difference depressing. I think that difference and diversity is great. I find uniformity depressing.

Claig do you believe that women do not study aeronautical engineering because they do not wish to do so, or because they are not capable of doing to?

'What is the skill of empathy please? Does it mean listening and looking at someone and understanding what you think they are feeling? If so, the only difference between that and numerous other processes is the 'someone' rather than 'lots of sounds and blips'. That's stating the obvious, not misisng it.'

empathy is that unique human skill of understanding and putting yourself in another's shoes that a mechanical robot created by the artifical intelligence scientists will never be able to replicate. It is a unique human skill and women are better at it than men. That is why it is such a valuable skill, because the world is made up of people, not visual stimuli, and interacting with people is the most important skill.

Couldn't disagree with you more claig, both of your posts.

The assumption that women are not interested in the more mathematical sciences. It's depressing.

'You truly believe that women are not interested in money, power and status?'

no, I didn't say that. But on the whole, I believe that there are more men interested in those things to a greater degree than women. Not all men, most men aren't.

I didn't say that there was no sexism. There is pressure to conform to stereotypes. There are still barriers of opportunity.

'Do we therefore conclude that the reason that women "choose" different subjects at school and university, and go on to earn less than men, and not rise to the top of their professions as much as their male counterparts, is basically because they;re a bit thick?'

it has nothing to do with being thick. I think youa re equating clever with male. I believe there are differences between the sexes and even in some of the things that they are mpre interested in, but this doesn't make any sex thick. Many more young women choose to study English literature than men. I think that is because they are interested more in English literature than a subject like aeronautical engineering. Most men are also not interested in aeronautical engineering, but I think there will be more that are interested in that than women are. I don't think that is due to social conditioning.

I think that the capitalist system determines who earns the most money, and I think that if you are interested in money, then you should take Xenia's advice and follow her example and choose to enter professions that pay the most. I don't think that these high paying roles are more valuable or better than other less well paid jobs.

I don't think the capitalist system cares what gender you are as long as you can earn for it. JK Rowling earns more than probably every male author, because she created books that sell in their millions. That is what is rewarded by the capitalist system.

"This might sound like a totally odd question, but why is it important to get men into "women's jobs"?"

Cos to remove the distinction between 'men's' and 'women's' jobs they all need to be open to all. By concentrating on 'women' into 'men's' the distinction remains. You still have jobs that are separated by gender. They should all be gender neutral and you don't do that by having 'men's jobs with the addition of women' and 'women's jobs'.

It's like how some people are happy for girls to wear 'boys' clothes, but then aren't happy for boys to wear 'girls' clothes. That means girls are indulged as being like boys, but the distinction remains.

If women are just indulged as being 'allowed' to do what men do, but the distinction is still there, then it is very easy to 'send women back to the kitchen' (as there is an attempt to do so now).

I also think that patriarchy shits on men too. So what about the man that wants to be a primary school teacher, a nurse, a social worker etc? They should be able to be who they want to too. Getting rid of patriarchy does not just benefit women. But this isn't my biggest priority, as patriarchy shits on women more.

Claig

What is the skill of empathy please? Does it mean listening and looking at someone and understanding what you think they are feeling? If so, the only difference between that and numerous other processes is the 'someone' rather than 'lots of sounds and blips'. That's stating the obvious, not misisng it.

That women are trained and forced to respond to some stimulii better in order to survive I have no problem with. That this might make them generally better empaths, likewise. But making up distinct processes, especially ones that others use to justify certain roles, that's different.

You truly believe that women are not interested in money, power and status?

x-posts

"Women can choose to study physics or computer science or aeronautical engineering if they want to. "

In theory, they can, yes..... but.....

So basically you say that there is no pressure on children to conform to gender stereotypes, and girls and boys are not pointed in different directions from birth?

That there is no sexism and everyone is genuinely free, with an understanding of the full range of choices available to them, and the ability to exercise those choices?

Do we therefore conclude that the reason that women "choose" different subjects at school and university, and go on to earn less than men, and not rise to the top of their professions as much as their male counterparts, is basically because they;re a bit thick? And they're happier at home doing housework, with their high boredom thresholds, and looking after children, with their innate nurturing capacity, and they're happy to do all this for free, because they aren't interested in money? And that they are happy to leave all the difficult stuff like running the world to the men, because they have the attributes for that?

'You say that "the drunk raising his fist is not the type of communication that is required for business. To influence people, manage staff and win customers, a much more understanding human empathetic communication is required, and women on the whole are better at that." But the majority of business leaders, CEOs, top managers, top earners etc are men. How can that be explained?'

Because top jobs are about power and status and I believe that on the whole men are more interested in those things than women. I think the same is true of politics. I think that the people who succeed in these spheres are often the most single-minded, driven and ruthless individuals, and I think that less women are innately like that than men.

Claig it would be interesting to hear what you think about the world of paid employment, and men and women, and the gender pay gap, and all of that stuff, rather than disecting other people's posts!

Do you think that men and women are "naturally" predisposed to different types of work? What do you think about the fact that traditional "women's" work is low status and low pay compared to "men's work"?

'You're missing the context here, which is that supposedly innate differences are used to justify the patterns in soceity-women are good at this so they do it and should keep doing it.'

When people say 'women are better communicators', I think they are right. But they don't mean that they are better at ranting and raving than a drunk man. They mean that they are better able to communicate with other people, to negotiate, empathise and win them over in a complex human interaction.

I think that there are innate differences, unlike those that pretend there aren't. But who uses these differences to justify the patterns in society? There are laws against discrimination. Women can choose to study physics or computer science or aeronautical engineering if they want to.

'They point out that what you are talking about in reading 'body langauge' is a stimulus-a series of visual clues, not a separate ability.'
I think these experimental psychologists are talking rubbish. It sounds like they have been to politically correct school and lost their common sense. Yes, body language is a series of visual stimuli, but these stimuli have significance and meaning, and women are better at attaching the correct meanings to these stimuli because over time they have gained the experience and are innately more skilled at reading the meaning correctly.

'Women should naturally be better at making sense of all complex visual stimulii if they are better at doing so for body langauage.'

mo, becuase the key thing about body language is that it is about human beings and therefore requires the skill of empathy. Reading radar blips on a screen is far more simple and mechanical and doesn't require the complex intuition and empathy which women have in greater abundance than men.
These pyschologists are missing the holistic view and are concentrating on the mechanical nuts and bolts of body language stimuli and equating them with radar blips. That suits their world view that everything is equal (including radar blips and visual signs of human emotion), but I think they are missing the obvious.

I don't think the army is like a nurturing mother. I have heard soldiers in platoons talk and they talk of their comrades as brothers. They will die for their team, their squadron and their comrades, just as soldiers in the second world war were prepared to die for their leader, which in the case of the Nazis wasn't a mother figure.

claig a couple of points in your posts stand out for me.

You say that "the drunk raising his fist is not the type of communication that is required for business. To influence people, manage staff and win customers, a much more understanding human empathetic communication is required, and women on the whole are better at that." But the majority of business leaders, CEOs, top managers, top earners etc are men. How can that be explained?

And then later "because politics is essentially about power, and men are often attracted to these roles". Do you believe that women aren't interested in power? I have never heard that before.

Either culture dictates both or neither

The football manager would be the triple whammy: women should be better at interpreting all visual patterns within some rules if good at body language-hence be able to read a game instinctively. They should be better able to understand players becasue they're so damn empathetic. And to earn repsect becasue they're such good communicators and business managers.

But they're not football managers-becasue they don't learn that set of skills and would lack respect on account of being women, and most would not wnat to be football managaers.

But the second is a description based on society, the first on supposed natural difference.

And that's the point-you can't claim womens hould do 'x' because naturally suited, but then accept them not doing 'y' which has the same skill set because 'culture' dictates otherwise.

claig

You're missing the context here, which is that supposedly innate differences are used to justify the patterns in soceity-women are good at this so they do it and should keep doing it. If you move from that and just go 'women enjoy this, men enjoy that ' then you're in a completely different discussion, and one no neuroscientist or geneticist would touch. Nobody believes that there is a natural disposition to put things in cupboards, cupboards not having existed long enough in evolutionary terms.

Three things you say aren't trite like that. The communication example is not about types of communciation, but about a post which said 'women are better communicators'. if 'better at this sort of thing' was meant that wasn't what was said. On body language Experimental Psycologists hate any supposed difference which is stimulus specific and explained naturally. They point out that what you are talking about in reading 'body langauge' is a stimulus-a series of visual clues, not a separate ability. Hence, since we know of no visual why men can't 'see' body langauge we can't separate it from other equally complex visual stimulii. Women should naturally be better at making sense of all complex visual stimulii if they are better at doing so for body langauage.
Unless, as I said, you believe in telepathy, which would be a separate process.

And on 'nurturing' I was basing my comment son a recent study looking at how wounded soldiers talked of their NCOs, mothers, fathers, comrades, officers and friends. It showed a remarkable coincidence of language, (down to 'willing to die for me')in descriptions of NCOs and mothers. Whilst I doubt they refer to their NCOs as 'nurturing' they think they do what 'nurturing' mothers do. Which, coming form an army background and watching my father talk about 'his' men rings true for me too.

Oh WoD missed your question. Why is it important to get men into "women's jobs". I would say because lots of men would like to do those jobs but in today's society they don't feel they are an option. That is changing slowly in some areas (the idea of a male nurse was enough to raise eyebrows only about 20 years ago). And with the current set-up where women's work is undervalued, if it's no longer exclusively women's work, the status and pay might rise.