Gender equality

Studies have shown that women are just as proficient in mathematics, science, and other STEM related fields, as men are. So there is no "intelligence-based" reason as to why women don't have equal, or near-equal representation in STEM industries as men. Beyond this, there are likely multi-variant explanations as to why women lack reasonable representation in STEM, ranging from overt gender discrimination and historical exclusion (e.g. "old boy's club"), subtle societal expectations including the concept of the patriarchal breadwinner, or that the woman should "manage the household" rather than pursue a long-term, meaningful career. I don't think there are any meaningful "trait differences" between men and women that adequately explain this asymmetry.

Since this is in the political philosophy section we might first ask, what kind, and to what extent, can we provide equality for anyone or anything? If what causes of these differences is beyond the scope of the discussion then I don’t see how that can be.

Reply to Monitor How would you respond to your own question?

I don’t think it has been demonstrated in any modern society that people can provide equality to the satisfaction of those who feel affected by its absence. We certainly can’t legislate it. It is hopefully our goal, but the causes remain far upstream.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

It's not whether they are proficient at it, its whether they are interested in it

An excellent point. Some of the gender gap may be explained by different career preferences between men and women.

One thing to keep in mind, when talking about things like career preferences, is also how those preferences were cultivated in the first place. If it is not seen to be a feminine ideal to be a STEM worker, how likely is it that those preferences will come to be in the first place?

So one must be careful about the status of 'explanation' here. Perhaps X and Y might explain certain things. But that X and Y serve as an explanation at all can itself be something open to critique.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

Is something being a masculine or feminine ideal inherently a bad thing?

Not at all.

[Delete] @Baden

I think history is quite a big influence. I mentioned elsewhere that my mother had to give up her job at the bank when she married. It was normal policy before WW2, and considered moral and appropriate that married women should stay at home and look after the house, the husband, and the children. Women were not expected to be in the workplace in any great number at all. Even a working class man could earn enough to keep a family in an acceptable level of poverty.

After the war, there was a labour shortage in the UK, and attitudes magically began to change. These days 'housewife' hardly counts as an occupation at all, it is the same as being unemployed. But the change is not complete. The good life is still gendered, by which I mean that the image of a good woman is still slanted in most people's (both sexes) minds towards caring, nurturing, serving, beautifying, as compared to the hard working, strong persistent competitive good man. Action man and decorative Barbie. It takes more than a generation for society to adapt its morality to the economic requirements that arise in that single generation, and the result is a generation brought up confused and conflicted morally; old fashioned conservative notions fighting modern radical - dare I say 'postmodern'? - ideals both of which seem self-evidently right to their adherents.

Meanwhile, the economy seems to be changing its needs again, such that it needs neither men nor women, and the appropriate good life to that economy is a short one with no offspring. All hail the pessimists, the anti-natalists the singularity apostles, harbingers of the post human economy.

[Delete] @Baden

Reply to René Descartes Well we all like to start with agreeable premises, don't we. My agreeable premise enables me to explain why other people's agreeable premises, such as these:-

Quoting Purple Pond

We all know that men and women are different.

Quoting René Descartes

There should be equality,

... are somewhat conflictual. We are in the process of changing human nurture to conform with the new needs of the economy. Housewifery has been industrialised through white goods, ready meals, nurseries, and old folks homes, and your morality reflects this, but Purple Pond articulates the lag that remains in social attitudes.

These discussions regarding gender differences and gender equality are really confusing to me.

Based upon standard depictions of (supposedly) masculine and feminine traits, I'm apparently not very manly. I realized that while watching the now famous Jordan Peterson interview that's been the topic of much discussion lately.

Quick examples: I'd rather spend time with my family (and friends, and books, etc.) than slave away at a job 80+ hours a week; I'm not much interested in chasing after the social status and recognition that allegedly inspires manly men to achieve monetary success and career advancement; I would rather engage in cooperative endeavors with others than battle them in a confrontation of egos perceived as a zero-sum game; I'm more interested in the humanities than the sciences; etc.

So I found myself preferring the feminine in these dichotomies as presented by the likes of Peterson. Rather than question my manhood (not that I really care to defend it either) I started questioning the guiding assumptions at work concerning what the term implies.

In addition to the supposedly feminine preferences I mentioned above, I can be extremely assertive when the situation calls for it, I will not shy away from a violent confrontation if I feel myself or those I care about to be threatened or even blatantly disrespected, etc. Not trying to sound like a tough guy but I do think those silly personal examples call the rigid stereotypes and sharp contrasts into question.

Also, not to be overly concerned about what others think of you seems much more manly than being enslaved to their opinions, and that latter phenomena seems to drive much of the behavior typically perceived as a characteristic of masculinity. Likewise, to engage others in ways that are more friendly than adversarial may be perceived as a sign of confidence and strength rather than timidity and weakness. Etc.

In fact, I'd imagine that one who feels genuinely secure in his manhood may have an increased openness to other, more "feminine" traits, whereas a lack of confidence in your prowess as a man may lead to the opposite. "Real" men being much less concerned about things normally associated with manhood, like power and status and assertiveness, than insecure men?

There may be and almost surely is a natural component to these gender traits - I admit my ignorance of the relevant studies here - but I do feel like they're socially constructed to a certain (maybe even a large) extent, and also highly exaggerated. I wouldn't say they're completely arbitrary, but they're surely not beyond being challenged either. Maybe even inverted.

The tacit assumption seems to be that the masculine is superior to the feminine: working a lot in order to make money and impress people is superior to choosing other values to order your life, being assertive and combative is superior to being polite and amiable, etc.

I obviously reject these hierarchies, and would even suggest that authentic manliness may involve such seemingly unmanly things as embodying a poetic and "meditative" way of being (so to speak) over the more masculine attributes underlying the autonomous, egotistical, and "calculative" values that have come to dominate our modern world.

Maybe there's a way of integrating these different aspects of ourselves into a more inclusive and harmonious whole. Something akin to what Nietzsche intimated with his hypothetical "higher" man: a Caesar with the soul of Christ.

Apologies for the largely rambling and irrelevant digression here (a quick and obvious example of my non-confrontational feminine nature) but I just wanted to express in some awkward way how much I disagree with the way this conversation is normally pitched in an either/or way.

One can be like me - a straight male with an active sex drive, a love of sports, etc. - while also being (to repeat) generally non-confrontational, non career-oriented, not obsessed with money and status...

Why would women even want to be the "equals" of modern men as long as definitions and indicators of success remain the same is something I find strange. We should all aim beyond that IMHO.

Quoting Purple Pond

Perhaps some instances of gender inequality can be explained by an irrational discrimination which has nothing to do with the actual traits of women (misogyny for instance).

Perhaps some instances of women protesting against men can be explained by an irrational discrimination which has nothing to do with the actual traits of men (misandry for instance).

Enough parroting from me. The point is that it is purely an ideological battle. Do women really want an equality? Do women really want to be represented even in low-paid hard physical labour fields? No.

They, as anyone else - this goes for all people - follow their own self interest. That has nothing to do with equality or inequality in our society. As long as they gain political and economic power for themselves, they are happy. There is no reason for excluding 'women' from using such tactics that are commonly used in all sorts of ideological battles.

Check news from International Women's Day and tell me it is not a piece of propaganda.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

It's not whether they are proficient at it, its whether they are interested in it.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

I think this sums up a large part of the problem. The request for equality appears to only go as far as it is concerned with the high paying jobs (managerial positions, government positions etc).

There isnt much argument or incentive to get women to do, as you rightly point out, low paid hard physical labour positions.

Bingo, :up: :up: :up:

Reply to Buxtebuddha Actually, that's true! :O Where are the 50-50% female coal miners? :rofl:

It's a problem for 90% of CEOs to be men, but it's not a problem for 90% of coal mine workers to be men :rofl:

By the way, relating to what @StreetlightX was saying, neither men nor women are encouraged to be coal mine workers - our culture doesn't do that. So why is it then that mostly men end up being coal mine workers? I would say the difference in physical strength, which is to a certain extent biological, certainly plays a role. In addition to that there could be the culturally mediated attitude which discourages women from taking risks in terms of their health - though it's not only cultural, it's also biological, since the mother must keep the children she caries in her womb safe, if she dies, the children die too - but if the man dies, the children can still survive.

Quoting Agustino

Actually, that's true! :O Where are the 50-50% female coal miners?

There's actually quite a high percentage of female coal miners, especially in the Appalachian US. This is more to do with the availability of jobs, however. Given a wider selection of careers, coal mining women would likely not mine coal in as high a number as they do now.

And since I should probably contribute more to this thread, I'll say this: the error many people make when considering gender equality is failing to recognize the role that equity plays in the "conversation." If there are a hundred coal miners in West Virginian town X, and 70 of them are men, 30 of them women, the disproportional or unequal number of workers does not mean that there exists an inequity in the workplace. The failure to consider equity in relation to equality is what, in my opinion, has spawned such systems as affirmative action, for example.

Reply to Mr Phil O'Sophy No, obviously they couldn't be put merely down to societal rules.

The interesting thing that many postmodernist thinkers don't take into account is to ask themselves why gendered roles were distributed as they were distributed in society to begin with? They always start at a later point, once the structure is already in place, and then proceed to identify that the structure is (now) socially enforced. The interesting question is why did this particular social structure become socially enforced in the first place? The answer must be something that predates the social structure and hence social organisation in the first place, hence the answer must be in some potentialities allowed by biology.

For example, the asymmetrical distribution of physical strength between men and women has allowed, at certain times in the past, oppression to occur. Clearly, the stronger party can always oppress the weaker one if it so decides. We organise our societies in such a way that we try to prevent the stronger party from using its superior power to oppress the weaker. One of the reasons why we organise ourselves in societies is to protect the weaker. But just because we do that, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be aware that there are some foundational differences.

Quoting Buxtebuddha

There's actually quite a high percentage of female coal miners

https://www.miningreview.com/infographic-women-in-the-mining-industry-what-the-stats-say/

Only 9% of workers in the mining industry are women.

Reply to Mr Phil O'Sophy I don't think we tested, but we have a few active female members.

Let's say TPF has 50 or so very active members. Out of those, probably 10 or so are women. So that would be like 20%. That would be my guess. But it's mostly men on philosophy forums generally.

Quoting Coldlight

They, as anyone else - this goes for all people - follow their own self interest.

What is the relationship between self interest and social interest?

It is my view that there can be a difference between self interest and social interest only in societies which are internally divided. In truth, they are not even societies, but rather conglomerates of different societies. The society of men, the society of women, the society of rich, the society of poor, etc. They are only under the illusion of being a society, because in truth, they aren't a unity but a multiplicity.

But if the society is a unity, then each individual part feels the sadness & the happiness of the others as if it were its own. Much like if your toe is hurting, then your whole body is hurting and your whole body is concerned about your toe and will fight for it to do something about the pain. That's because you are a unity.

So in a similar manner, the state of our society only reflects our lack of unity & harmony. Imagine, for example, that you owned a company that controlled 100% of all the world's economy - there were no other companies. What would you do then, because everything is already yours, there is nothing more that you can take? Well, clearly, your interest would be to maintain harmony and ensure that everyone is kept happy - that's what makes things the simplest for you and keeps you in power. So you'd structure production to achieve this goal - that would be your interest. Your interest only becomes twisted if, for example, you depend on a handful of people to maintain power, so you form a unity together with them, against everyone else.

So our current social system and mode of economic organisation can only exist on the background of an external enemy. But this is not a strong society. Neither are companies organised along these competitive lines strong companies.

John D. Rockefeller who was one of the richest men historically ran away from competition like from the devil - for him, it was all about cooperation. He became the richest man, and Standard Oil owned 90% of the oil market (until the government broke him up - for no reason really), precisely because he co-opted everyone else who was in the oil business and organised them to work together - prior to Rockefeller, the oil industry was cut-throat competition, and everyone was struggling to make any money in it. Then they all started making money, and because of efficiencies in production due to economies of scale, oil actually became cheaper than ever.

And it's not just Rockefeller, pretty much every smart businessman realised this. Even Peter Thiel talks about it in Zero to One - (aiming for your business to be a monopoly - which is really the same as saying a community).

Reply to Agustino Before I read your post, I had done a quick GooSearch for the percentage of women in mining, and I looked at the same site you posted. Did you notice that was "MINING REVIEW Africa? Not that Africans don't count.

Here's a quote from a report by the Colorado School of Mines which is applicable to the US:

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, about 13 percent of the mining industry is now female compared with less than 6 percent at the time of Gibbs’ graduation. At Mines, 17 percent of mining engineering degrees in 2013 were awarded to women compared with 6 percent in 1998. And, interestingly, the new head of the Department of Mining Engineering, Priscilla Nelson, who took over the reins in January, is the first woman ever to head the department.

These are all steps in the right direction, says Jessica Kogel, a senior manager at Imerys with close ties to Mines. But she and others say the industry should do more to take advantage of the attributes women leaders can bring to a company. A new report published by PricewaterhouseCoopers in collaboration with Women in Mining (UK), ‘Mining for Talent 2014,’ states that mining ranks dead last among global industries when it comes to women in leadership positions. Among the world’s top 500 mining companies, only 7.2 percent of directorships are held by women. Among the top 100, women make up just 10.3 percent of boards of directors.

There is still some underground mining in the US, but most of (like in coal, iron ore) is open pit and the hard labor is done by machines operated by people who are dwarfed by the equipment.

Quoting Agustino

to maintain harmony and ensure that everyone is kept happy - that's what makes things the simplest for you and keeps you in power.

Do you really think that ensuring everyone is kept happy is the simplest thing to do? From my experience, keeping even several people happy at the same time can be very difficult. Of course, if you control 100% of the world economy... You can just define happiness as drinking Agu Cola; and if you don't like Agu Cola, well, maybe it is time for you to consider another planet.

Quoting Agustino

John D. Rockefeller who was one of the richest men historically ran away from competition like from the devil - for him, it was all about cooperation. He became the richest man, and Standard Oil owned 90% of the oil market (until the government broke him up - for no reason really), precisely because he co-opted everyone else who was in the oil business and organised them to work together - prior to Rockefeller, the oil industry was cut-throat competition, and everyone was struggling to make any money in it. Then they all started making money, and because of efficiencies in production due to economies of scale, oil actually became cheaper than ever.

Rockefeller's "cooperation" was achieved through a web of deception, devious transactions, and crude power. Of course Standard Oil was profitable -- if you control 90% of the business, you jolly well ought to be profitable. And Standard Oil and its descendants (like Exxon Mobil, et al) have remained profitable. Oil companies were, are, and will be profitable because the world's economy came to be organized on a foundation of plentiful, cheap oil.

Quoting Agustino

In truth, they are not even societies, but rather conglomerates of different societies. The society of men, the society of women, the society of rich, the society of poor, etc. They are only under the illusion of being a society, because in truth, they aren't a unity but a multiplicity.

Some observers think we do live in a parallel society, as you described. That might be an extreme interpretation of reality, but there is certainly some parallel-ness in US society. Many black people almost live in a different state than white people. Poor people have very little in common with rich people (in many, not all, respects). POMO "intellectuals" often seem to inhabit a different universe, let alone a parallel track in this society.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Rockefeller's "cooperation" was achieved through a web of deception, devious transactions, and crude power.

No, very likely this wasn't the case, despite Ida Tarbell's account, which was more vilification than truth. Ron Chernow's biography is more accurate.

How do we know this? Because a lot of the producers who sold out to Rockefeller remained in the business working for Standard Oil, and many of them became very rich, millionaires. So going from starving oil producer to millionaire is quite an improvement I would think, no?

Reply to Purple Pond

@Erik mentions a controversial interview with Jordan Peterson that discusses this issue. Here is a link to that interview in case you haven't seen it. @Mr Phil O'Sophy posted it in his "Jordan Peterson’s Argument in standard form.." discussion.

https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54

I found it interesting.

Reply to Bitter Crank Still very similar percentage points, 9% vs 13%.

Nevertheless, I did think that data may be for Africa, but I'm actually not sure. NSW Minerals Council is an Australian organisation, dealing mostly with mining in Australia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NSW_Minerals_Council

Reply to Purple Pond A writer in Quillette proposed that the discussion of transgenderism ought to be based on actual biology, rather than the more political foundation we see.

I would say the same thing about gender, in general, but I can not imagine a discussion occurring about male/female similarities and differences (based on biology, for one, social roles, for two, psychological characteristics for three) that didn't end up in the usual shooting match.

I think there is such a thing as "human nature" which is a stable piece of our reality--but it isn't the whole thing. But even claiming that "human nature" exists, native to our species, and isn't socially determined might cause a riot on campus. Stating the idea that men and women have different interests inherent in their gender is just an intolerable act to the social constructionists.

Quoting Agustino

It is my view that there can be a difference between self interest and social interest only in societies which are internally divided. In truth, they are not even societies, but rather conglomerates of different societies. The society of men, the society of women, the society of rich, the society of poor, etc. They are only under the illusion of being a society, because in truth, they aren't a unity but a multiplicity.

I would agree with this. The difference in interest comes largely when there is an ideological difference among groups in a society. That'a when it becomes nuclear, and there is effectively no society, as you point out.

I think what this reveals is that it has become a norm, at least in Western countries, to think that everyone has to have an opinion, and that everyone should seek to have their problems resolved by blaming someone else - institutions, education, economic system etc. Therefore hardly anyone feels responsible for anything. "If I have a problem, it's certainly because they discriminate against me." That's the line of lazy, irresponsible thinking that sadly dominates Western society.

Secondly, there is very little if any real authority. That is a general problem of democracy. All of a sudden everyone is an expert on politics, and able to judge what the president is doing. It's not that their concerns are not justified, it's that again, in a democratic regime, the leader has no reason to take as much responsibility, it's just a few years, after all. This also provokes virtually anyone else to think that they are as smart as representatives of governmental establishment. What a ridiculous, utterly dilussional approach. Most people are not and never will be leaders. See how 'leadership' us often used so loosely that it gives the general public the illusion of control, and with it comes an abbhorrently high number of all sorts of 'movements' that seeks to lead a certain group to think differently, which only destroys the unity. Why would anyone fight against themselves? Does the liver fight against the lungs? Of course not.

Quoting Bitter Crank

Stating the idea that men and women have different interests inherent in their gender is just an intolerable act to the social constructionists.

I don't disagree with you, but the different interest/different temperament argument is often, generally, used to avoid serious discussion. "You know how women are. Snicker, snicker. " I refer you back to a discussion from about 9 months ago.

Quoting Thinker

What does being submissive mean? For the purpose of this discussion I define submissive as being deferential. What that means is when one person defers to another in decision making and/or behavior. Being obsequious would be an extreme example of submissiveness. Most submissive behavior – in my opinion – goes unnoticed because it is considered normal. I think it is important to come to terms with these concepts; because it reveals a lot about how we understand ourselves. Additionally what we think of others – both male and female. What do you think – how do you behave?

Two of the major protagonists were TimeLine and Agustino. It turned pretty ugly. I think it gives a good lesson in the disrespect for women felt and expressed by some members of this forum, not to mention society at large.

Quoting Coldlight

I think what this reveals is that it has become a norm, at least in Western countries, to think that everyone has to have an opinion, and that everyone should seek to have their problems resolved by blaming someone else - institutions, education, economic system etc. Therefore hardly anyone feels responsible for anything. "If I have a problem, it's certainly because they discriminate against me." That's the line of lazy, irresponsible thinking that sadly dominates Western society.

Yes, I agree.

Quoting Coldlight

Secondly, there is very little if any real authority. That is a general problem of democracy. All of a sudden everyone is an expert on politics, and able to judge what the president is doing. It's not that their concerns are not justified, it's that again, in a democratic regime, the leader has no reason to take as much responsibility, it's just a few years, after all.

I also agree here. Democracies also have another problem - those in charge of the community (the leaders) are more worried about holding onto power, than taking care of administrative duties. Indeed, holding on to power becomes the primary concern, and sometimes the only one.

Quoting T Clark

I think it gives a good lesson in the disrespect for women felt and expressed by some members of this forum

I don't see any of the comments there from me as disrespectful to women. And I also don't think women are disrespected in (Western) society at large. Though in the Eastern countries, they probably are disrespected (still).

Quoting Agustino

I also agree here. Democracies also have another problem - those in charge of the community (the leaders) are more worried about holding onto power, than taking care of administrative duties. Indeed, holding on to power becomes the primary concern, and sometimes the only one.

The problem is also that the life in a society (or what's left of the society really) is often portrayed as a constant competition going to the point of an almost violent conflict of interests and ideologies. I find that everyone has a right for an opinion only if they keep it to themselves. If anyone decides to voice their opinion and use it publicly, they should take responsibility and bear the consequences. To take it further - the problem is not when someone says something, but when they propagandise it and try to sway public opinion on the other side.

To relate this back to the Gender Equality discussion, it largely seems that it is just something that has been inflated out of proportion, and now all of a sudden men are bad and women are entitled to a different treatment.

Beyond this obvious problem, I think there's something more crippling. It is the fact that some men (there's probably no formed group) retaliate by using the same rhetoric. So, they try to strike back with "No, actually, you discriminate against me!" This means they get converted to a superficially created way of confrontation. They step into the frame which makes the Gender Equality movement win in that debate because they dictate the rules of it.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

In what way? I’d would disagree that they are inherently disrespectful just because they organise their Societies in a different way. I think they put more emphasis on respect than the West. That doesn’t mean people can’t be disrespectful, but it’s certainly, from my opinion, much more respect focused.

The more educated people put more emphasis on respect than in the West. I am from Eastern Europe btw.

However, the masses of quite frankly stupid and uneducated people don't. Women are frequently treated like a piece of meat, are expected to be subservient to men in the workforce, etc. For example, I was at a notary last week, and he started swearing (with everyone there) at his secretary, then threatened to fire her, reminded her she has a child and is responsible for him, etc. That's definitely not decent treatment, and if it was a man instead of a woman he wouldn't have dared to do that.

And there are worse things than that. Back when I lived at the countryside, one of the neighbours there cut his wife with the sword because she refused to have sex with him, so my family had to call the police and then help her get out of that relationship. There's lots of stuff like that, including physical violence here.

Women though are also different and adapted to this. Which is why you get many women who end up trying to use the man for his money, and will leave him when they find someone who is better off. Happens in the poorest and the richest classes equally. There is a lot of conflict between the sexes I would say.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

It depends as what your setting as the goal post for disrespect. If your morals are quite conservative, (like mine are) then the majority of youths (any many who are not so youthful) these days (male and female) contribute to the disrespect of the opposite gender (and their own) all the time.

Well, I am also a conservative.

Quoting Coldlight

The problem is also that the life in a society (or what's left of the society really) is often portrayed as a constant competition going to the point of an almost violent conflict of interests and ideologies. I find that everyone has a right for an opinion only if they keep it to themselves. If anyone decides to voice their opinion and use it publicly, they should take responsibility and bear the consequences. To take it further - the problem is not when someone says something, but when they propagandise it and try to sway public opinion on the other side.

Yes, "public opinion" seems to have become a way to arbitrate between what is right and wrong, and what is true and false in the West. If you watch students working together (for example), you'll see that the moment they reach an impasse, they will say "let's vote", instead of "let's try to think more clearly about what the truth is". And then the result of the vote is taken as truth, and the opposition is silenced. In the West, the opinion of the masses is the standard of truth. And this bastardization of truth seems to come part and parcel with democracy.

Quoting Coldlight

It is the fact that some men (there's probably no formed group) retaliate by using the same rhetoric. So, they try to strike back with "No, actually, you discriminate against me!" This means they get converted to a superficially created way of confrontation.

Yes, I would agree. Some respond to ressentiment in the same spirit that they were attacked, and hence, paradoxically, propagate the same spirit further.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

where is this? when you refer to the east where are you referring to exactly? like the entire east side of the world map? Igor Just where you happen to be?

Quoting Agustino

I am from Eastern Europe btw.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

I’ve seen female bosses talk like crap to their employees, i’ve seen male bosses talk like crap to their employees.

Yes, but there usually are some limits in many Western countries.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

And I don’t see how education has anything to do with it (if you’re referring to intellectual education) I think it’s more about being taught good etiquette, which is something available regardless of how educated you are.

It absolutely does, if you're not educated in the sense that I'm talking about (which is moral education), then you will almost inevitably behave like a brute.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

I’ve witnessed some of the poorest places (and least educated) to be some of the most respectful and courteous places i’ve visited.

Yes, towards visitors, since visitors have money, and they have what to take.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

I find most children/teenagers from poor countries to be unquantifiably more polite than western pupils in school getting a full education.

Hmmm - like you mean going to punch the teacher, or throwing stuff while they lecture at the board, etc.? Is that "more polite"? How about going to exams where people literarily talk to each other and give each other the answers, while the instructors repeat "no talking" while doing nothing to actually stop the cheating?

Most people from the less developed countries tend to treat Americans, British, etc. like gods - why? Because they were taught since childhood to bow the head.

Quoting Purple Pond

whether or not there should be gender equality.

I don't understand the question.

It sounds like a question, but when one looks more closely at it, it dissolves into a purple haze.

To understand the question, we first need to know:

(1) what is meant by 'gender equality'; and

(2) what does the should imply? eg legislation? If so, exactly what sort of legislation, making what compulsions on whom? If not legislation then what? What exactly is the proposed action if one concludes that there 'should' be 'gender equality'.

Quoting andrewk

questino

:rofl:

Reply to Mr Phil O'Sophy It means POst MOdern.

Quoting Purple Pond

We all know that men and women are different.

And we all know that short people and tall people are different.

Quoting Purple Pond

Men are usually more masculine and women are usually more feminine.

Short people are usually shorter. Tall people are usually taller.

Quoting Purple Pond

This is not to say that perceptions of what consists of masculinity and femininity can't change.

This is not to say that perceptions of what consists of short and tall can't change. 6' used to be considered a big man in basketball, I believe.

Quoting Purple Pond

In the STEM field, for example, men are grossly overrepresented in jobs related to science, technology, engineering, and math.

Is "grossly" objective? What would be non-"grossly "? 51/49? 52/48? 60/40?

Quoting Purple Pond

But why is there such a gap? Are women being oppressed?

How long have those jobs existed?

How long have enough of them existed for the average person to aspire to fill them?

How long have significant numbers of girls and women wanted such jobs?

Do you know how many times I have heard women say that their fathers pushed them real hard to prepare for STEM fields? It is [B]far more[/B] times than I have heard any saying that their mothers steered them in that direction.

One of my favorite athletes, Erin Stern, says that it was her father who encouraged her to try sports in high school, if I recall correctly. Now she is one of the biggest success stories in the relatively new sport of women's bodybuilding, and a role model for future generations of female athletes and women outside of competitive sports who simply want to have the best body they can.

Do you know who a [I]Sports Illustrated[/I] article for the 40th anniversary of Title IX said it was who used the law to allow girls and women to have equal opportunities in sports? Fathers. It was fathers using Title IX to sue school boards, divisions of parks and recreation, etc. on behalf of their daughters that created a lot of opportunities previously available only to boys and men.

My guess is that girls' future in STEM fields starts in the home, not in the attitudes of the teachers doing the teaching, managers doing the hiring, CEOs making the policies, etc.

Quoting Purple Pond

Perhaps in other cases there is a reason beyond the discrimination, may be in certain areas male traits are more desirable such as competitiveness and assertiveness. Can you think of other reasons why there is gender inequality?

I do not believe it is any of that.

Again, I would say that mentors, role models, encouragement, demands/expectations, etc.--especially in the home/family--are the biggest predictor.

Quoting Purple Pond

I personally haven't decided on whether or not there should be gender equality. I don't know how much male and female trait differences matter. What do you think?

In the U.S. and, as far as I know, the rest of the post-Industrial world we have decided that every person, regardless of his/her sex, should have the same opportunities. How could you--or anybody--doubt that that is the right thing to do, let alone oppose it?

Doubting the wisdom of, or directly opposing, equal opportunities for girls and women because of their biology makes as much sense as doubting the wisdom of or directly opposing equal opportunities for short people because of their biology.

Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO

In the U.S. and, as far as I know, the rest of the post-Industrial world we have decided that every person, regardless of his/her sex, should have the same opportunities. How could you--or anybody--doubt that that is the right thing to do, let alone oppose it?

How do you define same opportunities? There is only so many jobs, so many opportunities, so many chances. How can you ever claim that there is a same opportunity for anyone? That has nothing to do with any characteristics of an individual. If the two of us apply for the same job, do we have the same opportunity? Absolutely not. One of us might and will be more favoured. So for one of us it might be a waste of time, and for the other one a new job. That is, if you are willing to look beyond the obvious fact that we will go through the same process of interview, tests etc.

Quoting WISDOMfromPO-MO

Doubting the wisdom of, or directly opposing, equal opportunities for girls and women because of their biology makes as much sense as doubting the wisdom of or directly opposing equal opportunities for short people because of their biology.

Nonsense. Unless you define what equal opportunity really means, you're just using it as a buzzword to seemingly strengthen your argument.

By the way, who opposes opportunities for women? I've never witnessed anything like it. Media keep thrashing some incredibly evil, never-seen-by-anyone misogynist. Then the media are full of articles about women. The Guardians main page on International Women's Day was just disgusting. I am really tempted to think that in 50 years it may be displayed as propaganda of our times. There was zero objectivity and zero dialogue.

Just visit the academia - all of a sudden, loads of propaganda and advertising about women in academia, women writers, women entrepreneurs etc.

Quoting T Clark

Two of the major protagonists were TimeLine and Agustino. It turned pretty ugly. I think it gives a good lesson in the disrespect for women felt and expressed by some members of this forum, not to mention society at large.

Yes, I remember that particular philosorumble.

When we talk about differences between men and women, gays and straights. smart people and stupid people and a whole batch of other features, it is important to make refined distinctions. By 'refined' I mean carefully drawn and carefully limited, too. When we talk about strength differences between men and women, for instance, one can say that men provide specimens with more strength than any woman will present, but many men and women have about the same amount of strength. Sure, on average men may be stronger than women, but it's still true that a lot of men and women are about equally strong.

Or one can say that gay men and straight men have different object choices, but that gay men and straight men without long term partners might be about equally promiscuous. "Why don't straight men have as much sex as gay men? Because straight women won't let them." Gay men who are in long-term relationships also put a brake on each other's sexual adventures. Sigh.

Smart people sometimes do very stupid things and stupid people have been known to do some very smart things. But, on average, stupid people tend to be more stupid than smart people (an opinion that is supported by extensive research and millennia of human experience).

Quoting Agustino

For example, I was at a notary last week, and he started swearing (with everyone there) at his secretary, then threatened to fire her, reminded her she has a child and is responsible for him, etc. That's definitely not decent treatment, and if it was a man instead of a woman he wouldn't have dared to do that.

So, what did your fellow Rotarians do about this example of atrocious behavior (on the part of their fellow Rotarian?)

Quoting Agustino

Back when I lived at the countryside, one of the neighbours there cut his wife with the sword because she refused to have sex with him

Were your neighbors Slavic? Slavs seem to get hot under the collar (it's an expression, not a diagnosis of localized neck fever) over fairly casual slights. Unlike the rest of humanity who are always extremely thoughtful about what they get angry about.

Quoting Agustino

No, very likely this wasn't the case, despite Ida Tarbell's account, which was more vilification than truth. Ron Chernow's biography is more accurate.

I should probably read Chernow. Chernow's bio gets good reviews, but that doesn't mean that JDR was not a ruthless capitalist. His son, JDR Jr., the one who supervised the Rockefeller fortune after JDR died, and built Rockefeller Center, seemed to feel that his father's history was something of a burden to bear.

But I wouldn't expect you and me to have have the same view of Rockefeller or Carnegie, or various other tycoons. You and I admire different traits -- which only makes sense, given who you are and who I am.

Quoting Agustino

How do we know this? Because a lot of the producers who sold out to Rockefeller remained in the business working for Standard Oil, and many of them became very rich, millionaires. So going from starving oil producer to millionaire is quite an improvement I would think, no?

No doubt it is better to become a millionaire on the coat tails of the guy who swindled you out of your business than to be bitter and resentful for eternity. However... that doesn't make the swindler a nice guy in a white hat.

Quoting Coldlight

How do you define same opportunities?

Speaking of STEM, this is not rocket science.

One's desire, determination, preparation, skill, abilities, aptitude, sacrifice, hard work etc. should determine what opportunities are available to him/her. One's sex/gender should not play a role in determining what opportunities are available to him/her.

Forget about theory for a second. Just thinking about it in practical/pragmatic terms, if a girl has the potential to someday discover the cure for cancer, why would you want to deny her opportunities to realize that potential because of her sex/gender?

Why would anybody want to deny anybody any opportunity to realize his/her full potential?

Seeing people succeed and realize their dreams makes me smile.

What kind of person would be opposed to any person realizing his/her dreams and full potential? The only answer I can think of is a person who is so insecure, jealous, envious, bitter, narcissistic etc. that he/she needs others to fail before he/she can feel good about his/her own self.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

or a member of an American Indian people in Northern California...

Oh, there actually is a POMO Indian tribe in California. Amazing. I thought you were joking. They must find incomprehensible white PoMo English majors a very annoying group, considering the misuse of their most honorable name.

Quoting Bitter Crank

So, what did your fellow Rotarians do about this example of atrocious behavior (on the part of their fellow Rotarian?)

Hmm, I'm not a member of that club.

As for the people present, nobody did anything, you can't really tell another person how to run his business. What would you have done?

Quoting Bitter Crank

Were your neighbors Slavic? Slavs seem to get hot under the collar (it's an expression, not a diagnosis of localized neck fever) over fairly casual slights. Unlike the rest of humanity who are always extremely thoughtful about what they get angry about.

Yes, partly so. Everyone from the Balkans tends to get hot under the collar over casual stuff :rofl:

Quoting Bitter Crank

His son, JDR Jr., the one who supervised the Rockefeller fortune after JDR died, and built Rockefeller Center, seemed to feel that his father's history was something of a burden to bear.

As I told you before, I have read very little about the descendants of JDR Sr.

Quoting Bitter Crank

But I wouldn't expect you and me to have have the same view of Rockefeller or Carnegie, or various other tycoons.

Carnegie & Vanderbilt are different than, say, Rockefeller and Henry Ford. The former were ruthless, and did engage in immoral practices. So we might have the same view about them.

Quoting Bitter Crank

No doubt it is better to become a millionaire on the coat tails of the guy who swindled you out of your business than to be bitter and resentful for eternity. However... that doesn't make the swindler a nice guy in a white hat.

This is arguable. Even in court, if there are no damages (but quite the contrary), you usually hardly have a case in economic matters. If your ego was insulted, well, tough luck - you still made more money than you would have otherwise out of it. The truth is that Rockefeller helped stabilise the oil industry & create a reliable & stable output which allowed for further technical development. He was also a very devout Christian his whole life, and always tithed 10% of his income to the Church.

Quoting Agustino

Hmm, I'm not a member of that club.

Rotary International does good work, and it's a good networking organization. I would think you would find it beneficial to belong.

Quoting Agustino

Yes, partly so. Everyone from the Balkans tends to get hot under the collar over casual stuff :rofl:

There have been several prominent examples of Balkanites getting hot under their collective casual collars and then getting totally out of hand -- like some archduke merely taking a drive through Sarajevo one fine day, or more recently Yugoslavia disintegrating, and then some dissatisfaction with Kosovo, et al...

Quoting Bitter Crank

There have been several prominent examples of Balkanites getting hot under their collective casual collars and then getting totally out of hand -- like some archduke merely taking a drive through Sarajevo one fine day, or more recently Yugoslavia disintegrating, and then some dissatisfaction with Kosovo, et al...

:lol:

Quoting Bitter Crank

Rotary International does good work, and it's a good networking organization. I would think you would find it beneficial to belong.

Maybe - I know a lawyer who is a member there. Thanks for the suggestion.

I've been spending some time on a mothers/feminist forum, trying to come to better understanding of gender equality and the complete tangled mess of the different view points I see in this world. I highly recommend reading over their views for added insights to this discussion: their forum doesn't seem to be far-left in view, but rather just a very female view.

One thread they have going that seems particularly interesting to me lately is an ANTI-EQUALITY bill, or more precisely, an exemption wish list for women. ie) Girl Guides, bathrooms, prisons, gyms, etc.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YMTB26EMURyu08BTTbDZLKdNm7NSRoda/view
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3185398-Biological-SEX-MATTERS-How-many-mumsnetters-say-aye-to-this-campaign

When push comes to shove, honest women will admit there are biological differences between men and women. Please see the above document and their public vote for evidence. This really stands out when the topic of transgender picks up; women don't trust any sort of man at all it seems. I can attest to the fact that as a man, I cannot go to the beach or playground with a camera in hand, nor can I be left unsupervised when with other people's children around. This does not apply to a lady though. Sexism at it's finest**

I tend to agree with a lot of what women are stating actually though, however I am utterly confused by what is politically acceptable and not anymore. **There are a lot of double standards and double think, so I am left perpetually confused.

For example, no 8-year old boy (or trans) is going to rape an 8-year old girl if the boy is allowed into girl guides. Girls are allowed into boy scouts without concern to make that evident. I get very confused though to hear that when Girl Guides needs to allow in boys, this becomes unacceptable from feminists however.

Their explanation for this:

1. Learning, education and development
Some children and adults thrive more in single-sexed education and recreational
activities. This includes single-sex schools, Girl Guides and women and girls in STEM subjects.

2. Sanctuary, privacy and recovery
Single-sex spaces mean participants can be confident they will be free from
potential harassment, voyeurism, intrusion, domination or embarrassment

Before I can state where my opinion on the matter of gender equity lands, I think I need to understand all the views. So far, that is proving impossible as the complexity is far beyond my abilities to juggle while trying to side step cognitive biases. I tend to find the safest answer then is to look around at how things are now, what works and what doesn't, and not try to leap to conclusions about what an ideal resolution would be instead.

Quoting Mr Phil O'Sophy

That doesn’t mean you’re not manly. Jordan Peterson never made a claim to the extent you’re suggesting there. When talking about men that work 80+ hours a week he was referring to an extreme minority of males willing to commit themselves to such things.

Yeah I could be overstating the case, but, going off recollection, a connection was made between traits such as that and male psychology. The opposites of course implying the standard female disposition. Not all men embody these characteristics, which is a claim he didn't make, but they are nevertheless seen as "natural" signs of (extreme?) masculinity which are then used to explain the gender pay gap.

The point I was trying to make, I think, is that these traits seem more likely the results of historically and socially conditioned ideals than natural expressions of gender differences. Think about it: What would ancient or medievals have to say about a human being who spent the bulk of his time thinking about and chasing after money as a means to success and recognition?

I don't think that behavior would be perceived as very masculine in other contexts - nor necessarily feminine - but as a slavish and debased form of existence unworthy of dignified men who were the cultural exemplars of their time(s) and place(s). That's why I think the linking of a willingness to work absurdly long hours with some unconditioned notion of masculinity seemed arbitrary.

So Peterson seems to take one contingent manifestation of manliness and then uses this to extrapolate on what he understands to be natural characteristics - ahistorical and decontextualized - separating the drives and aspirations of men and women. This in turn is used to justify (in part) the discrepancy in pay between the sexes. Generally speaking and exceptions notwithstanding, the impression is given that women are much less interested in pursuing the things that men who become CEOs are, and this can be traced to the natural disposition of their sex.

I'm open to the idea that men are more prone to pursue "immaterial" things like recognition from peers in a Hegelian battle for prestige (or Fukuyama's "desire for recognition"), although I'm skeptical of this too. Women seem just as desirous of gaining the respect and admiration of others as men - I see little difference in that ostensibly "natural" desire; only in the way it expresses itself. That obviously appears to be changing and women are no longer content with things that in previous eras may have conferred social status and respect.

Anyhow, my first post here was really bad, embarrassingly so after re-reading, and I don't think this one clears it up much. My basic contention, if it can be called that, is that ideas of masculinity and femininity seem to undergo significant historical shifts that aren't grounded in innate gender differences. I may very well be wrong, but shifting conceptions seem to explain the general expressions better than natural gender differences, and I think Peterson offers up another socially and historically conditioned understanding of masculinity that will eventually give way to something else.

As mentioned, the model of masculinity that JP uses to highlight these supposedly natural gender differences, at least as I understand it, would not be seen as such in other premodern or maybe even contemporary non-Western contexts, and the macho CEO (even if a woman) who's preoccupied with his or her career and moneymaking at the expense of all else, would likely be perceived as much less manly than (e.g.) the poets and philosophers sitting around drinking and conversing on love in Plato's Symposium. In today's world that would be seen as a waste of valuable time by powerful CEOs, not to mention pretty unmanly by our society more generally.

I'll go back and watch the interview again to make sure I'm not strawmanning Peterson. By the way, thank you @T Clark for linking it.

Quoting Erik

As mentioned, the model of masculinity that JP uses to highlight these supposedly natural gender differences, at least as I understand it, would not be seen as such in other premodern or maybe even contemporary non-Western contexts

Absolutely, take this recent study for example
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6236/796

I'm not suggesting that the overwhelming majority of hunter-gatherers don't have a gender based division of labour, but it's far from Peterson's tired old capitalist cliché.

Quoting Maw

Studies have shown that women are just as proficient in mathematics, science, and other STEM related fields, as men are.

Sources? Are you talking about mean or median?

It seems to be the case that more men than women suffer from forms of autism. Must we insist that this cannot be the case? That the apparent inequality must be the result of some socially conditioned bias when measuring autism in men and women. Or, if there is a genuine difference, it must be the result of the way boys and girls are nurtured.

Likewise, men make up by far the majority of criminals. Until prisons are 50:50 men and women, should we assume the police and courts are discriminating against men?

Personally, I have no problem with the idea that some traits may be more common in one sex than the other. If this is so it may also be that the unusual obsessive traits that can make for career progress and exceptional earnings in some fields may be commoner amongst men than women.

Accepting such differences would not mean it is rational to assume that every man is autistic, criminal, or a CEO. But it would mean that we should not assume all statistical evidence of inequality between the sexes must be the result of sex discrimination.

Reply to BlueBanana Here and here, just two examples