Censorship? There is no censorship!

[Tagaziel]

What if a large majority of women don't want to work? I don't see how it should be split 50% just because of equality. Plenty of women are content without jobs. Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying. I think many women are perfectly happy with the "traditional" role as housewife hence a skewed percentage in some cases. Of course they should be equally represented though. That is a given.

What if a large majority of men don't want to work? I don't see how it should be split 50% just because of equality. Plenty of men would be content without jobs. Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying. I think many men would be perfectly happy with the "progressive" role as housewife hence a skewed percentage in some cases.

The "traditional" role is a purely cultural construct. Some women are happy with it and that's fine. However, some are unhappy, but forced to adopt this role due to a system severely skewed in favor of men. Ideally, both genders would be free to adopt a role without feeling the weight of cultural prejudice - women miners, male nurses, women CEOs, male kindergarten teachers... That's the point. In a perfectly fair world, the percentages would be very similar, if not identical, for employment for sexes.

 

[Crni Vuk]

female reign of terror

You know what is somewhat interesting. How things change between cultures. Or how things change just within societies. Thx to history. And traditions.

Take Japan as an example. The Geisha as most people know it today, is a role associated with females? Right? One thing we should know about the history of geishas is that the first geisha were actually men.

And this is also true for many jobs which are today dominated by females. Like here in Germany for example, where a lot more females than males work as hairdressers. Yet in the past this was a job done traditionally by males. And in many cultures, it still is.

So might it actually be possible that biology is playing a rather minor role here? Or even our gender? But actually more what role we associate with gender? The traditions we grow up with. The history we learn in school. The culture we soak in when we grow up? It becomes particularly hilarious when our western standards and thinking collides with other cultures, like certain nations in Asia or the Middle East.

In this sense it is also interesting to actually investigate how often cultural changes come with wars, or similar situations situations when males either disappear or where females have to take over male roles, be it as workers or with the children. Like in Europe, where many females have been forced to work in factories, doing the jobs of males, while they have been on the front lines, many groundbreaking changes happened after WW1. And this is often a point where old traditions and sexual stereotypes start to crumble.

It was similar in the US, with more and more females getting in to the usual workfoce,

I remember a historian who once said, they (-females) enjoyed the new gained freedom, that came with doing the work of males and many would later fight to keep those.

the image of what a "female" or "male" should do changed over the decades, just as it how it will change again in the future. To believe that it is biology would be very naive. Even dangerous - as far as equality goes.

Yes, it is true, males and females think differently. They have different braines. But:

Men and Women Really Do Think Differently

"These findings suggest that human evolution has created two different types of brains designed for equally intelligent behavior," said Haier, adding that, "by pinpointing these gender-based intelligence areas, the study has the potential to aid research on dementia and other cognitive-impairment diseases in the brain."

That doesnt have to mean they can't make the same choices. Or even share preferences.

 

[Sander]

In this thread: "What if women are just inherently inferior? You know, biologically. Let's seriously consider this option with no real evidence so we can justify not changing anything!"

It'd be hilarious if this exact reasoning hadn't been used to protect the status quo for the past 200 years.

 

[Hassknecht]

What if a large majority of women don't want to work? I don't see how it should be split 50% just because of equality. Plenty of women are content without jobs. Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying. I think many women are perfectly happy with the "traditional" role as housewife hence a skewed percentage in some cases. Of course they should be equally represented though. That is a given.

What if a large majority of men don't want to work? I don't see how it should be split 50% just because of equality. Plenty of men would be content without jobs. Maybe I'm not understanding what you are saying. I think many men would be perfectly happy with the "progressive" role as housewife hence a skewed percentage in some cases.

The "traditional" role is a purely cultural construct. Some women are happy with it and that's fine. However, some are unhappy, but forced to adopt this role due to a system severely skewed in favor of men. Ideally, both genders would be free to adopt a role without feeling the weight of cultural prejudice - women miners, male nurses, women CEOs, male kindergarten teachers... That's the point. In a perfectly fair world, the percentages would be very similar, if not identical, for employment for sexes.

I wouldn't say it's a purely cultural construct, though. I mean, it's nowadays, but it's rooted in the physiological differences between men and women. Of course, these don't matter any more except for very few jobs, so it's stupid to argue with those.

 

[Sander]

I wouldn't say it's a purely cultural construct, though. I mean, it's nowadays, but it's rooted in the physiological differences between men and women. Of course, these don't matter any more except for very few jobs, so it's stupid to argue with those.

We don't actually know that they are rooted in physiological differences, nor how they are rooted in those differences. It also very much depends on what you mean by a "traditional" role. The way 'Western' societies have constructed their idea of what 'traditional' roles are, is very much a mid-nineteenth century construct.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

Dude I would love to be a housewife. Thanks a lot matriarchy! Taking all the good jobs for yourself!

 

[Crni Vuk]

*shrugs* you can still become a housewife

 

[Hassknecht]

I wouldn't say it's a purely cultural construct, though. I mean, it's nowadays, but it's rooted in the physiological differences between men and women. Of course, these don't matter any more except for very few jobs, so it's stupid to argue with those.

We don't actually know that they are rooted in physiological differences, nor how they are rooted in those differences. It also very much depends on what you mean by a "traditional" role. The way 'Western' societies have constructed their idea of what 'traditional' roles are, is very much a mid-nineteenth century construct.

I mean the "traditional" roles of provider and caretaker in general. It made sense for the hunter & gatherer and farmers to have specific roles for men and women. The long gestation period with the long and slow infancy that leaves human children more or less worthless for a ridiculously long time means that the family needs a lot of protection, especially the women. Hunting is dangerous, so it makes sense for men to do that, because they're more expendable and stronger and faster on average.

 

[PlanHex]

Hunting is dangerous, so it makes sense for men to do that, because they're more expendable and stronger and faster on average.

Isn't that kind of a "chicken or egg came first" type deal? With the "stronger and faster" part.

 

[Gnarles Bronson]

*shrugs* you can still become a housewife

yeah, and women can be president.

 

[Crni Vuk]

food for thought

I think we really have to get away from this idea of roles based on gender, but rather roles based on necessity. I guess most males took the role of hunters, but if you consider the fact of pregnancy then this is not very surprising, females with children simply cant realy hunt when they are pregnant, at least at some point.

But I would not be surprised if females also took roles in hunting, if necessary. The early humans have been most of the time nomads following their primary food source. In such a situation the physical differences between males and females is not THAT large, as far as the physical stress and strains goes.

I don't think the Sexual division of labour was done because of some big advantage. It just happend naturally. Looking at male and female differences their physical differences are not so big, and in most situations females can achieve the same like males. So I dont see why a group of females should not be possible to hunt a mamoth just because they are females. What I am saying is, they sure didnt made their decisions based on sexism or gender alone.

 

[Sander]

I mean the "traditional" roles of provider and caretaker in general. It made sense for the hunter & gatherer and farmers to have specific roles for men and women. The long gestation period with the long and slow infancy that leaves human children more or less worthless for a ridiculously long time means that the family needs a lot of protection, especially the women. Hunting is dangerous, so it makes sense for men to do that, because they're more expendable and stronger and faster on average.

That sounds very logical, and it's certainly possible that this is the natural explanation -- but we have a lot of conflicting historical evidence, and the story is probably much, much more complicated than that. I'll give you the short version: the entire concept of a split between a provider and a caretaker is a middle-class, mid-nineteenth century idea that has never been reality outside of the wealthiest classes of any society we know.

As far as we can tell, women (and particularly poor women) have always worked and have always provided for their families. During and after the industrial revolution in 'the west', they worked in textile mills. In agricultural situations, they've always taken on a large share of the farming work. In the early-modern period in Europe, they often worked in proto-industry from the home. In West African urban situations, women were and are heavily involved in trade as market women. In most hunter/gatherer societies we find that women are heavily involved in providing food for their families. That doesn't mean there were no gender divisions in all of these societies, just that they weren't provider/caretaker roles -- they don't map to what our culture sees as traditional gender roles.

As for the way the differences that do exist evolved -- that's the subject of considerable academic debate. There are those who, like you, would tie them to evolutionary, physiological advantages. Others argue that there is no real biological basis, and that these gendered divisions are relatively recent developments (10,000-50,000 years ago). The evidence we have of genuinely ancient societies is very limited, and the evidence of gender roles in those societies almost non-existent, which makes this a pretty muddied debate with a lot of speculation and projection. We probably shouldn't be making very definite claims about what is and isn't caused by inherent, physiological differences in human beings. Even when the story sounds so convincing and logical.


Also, just a quick note: hunting isn't all that dangerous. Human beings don't tend to hunt things that are dangerous to them, and they tend to avoid situations where they could be hunted. The problem is that it is risky, in the sense that you're investing a lot of time and energy into something that has a decent chance of not producing a result.

 

[Hassknecht]

Hunting is dangerous, so it makes sense for men to do that, because they're more expendable and stronger and faster on average.

Isn't that kind of a "chicken or egg came first" type deal? With the "stronger and faster" part.

Yeah, pretty much. It's not even very relevant, as we're mostly not hunters and gatherers anymore, and most jobs don't really benefit from the little difference in physical strength anymore.
Sure, the differences come into play for jobs like (frontline) soldier, bouncer or firefighter, where you often need raw physical strength, but even then it's not like women can not do those jobs. It's just harder.

I mean the "traditional" roles of provider and caretaker in general. It made sense for the hunter & gatherer and farmers to have specific roles for men and women. The long gestation period with the long and slow infancy that leaves human children more or less worthless for a ridiculously long time means that the family needs a lot of protection, especially the women. Hunting is dangerous, so it makes sense for men to do that, because they're more expendable and stronger and faster on average.

That sounds very logical, and it's certainly possible that this is the natural explanation -- but we have a lot of conflicting historical evidence, and the story is probably much, much more complicated than that. I'll give you the short version: the entire concept of a split between a provider and a caretaker is a middle-class, mid-nineteenth century idea that has never been reality outside of the wealthiest classes of any society we know.

As far as we can tell, women (and particularly poor women) have always worked and have always provided for their families. During and after the industrial revolution in 'the west', they worked in textile mills. In agricultural situations, they've always taken on a large share of the farming work. In the early-modern period in Europe, they often worked in proto-industry from the home. In West African urban situations, women were and are heavily involved in trade as market women. In most hunter/gatherer societies we find that women are heavily involved in providing food for their families. That doesn't mean there were no gender divisions in all of these societies, just that they weren't provider/caretaker roles -- they don't map to what our culture sees as traditional gender roles.

As for the way the differences that do exist evolved -- that's the subject of considerable academic debate. There are those who, like you, would tie them to evolutionary, physiological advantages. Others argue that there is no real biological basis, and that these gendered divisions are relatively recent developments (10,000-50,000 years ago). The evidence we have of genuinely ancient societies is very limited, and the evidence of gender roles in those societies almost non-existent, which makes this a pretty muddied debate with a lot of speculation and projection. We probably shouldn't be making very definite claims about what is and isn't caused by inherent, physiological differences in human beings. Even when the story sounds so convincing and logical.


Also, just a quick note: hunting isn't all that dangerous. Human beings don't tend to hunt things that are dangerous to them, and they tend to avoid situations where they could be hunted. The problem is that it is risky, in the sense that you're investing a lot of time and energy into something that has a decent chance of not producing a result.

Yeah, I'm aware that there's a lot of debate around these issues. The split between roles just seems to make sense in some way, so I don't like the absolute claim that something's "purely cultural" when the origins might be physiological in some way. Just hairsplitting, I don't like dealing in absolutes in debates like this

 

[Tagaziel]

I mean the "traditional" roles of provider and caretaker in general. It made sense for the hunter & gatherer and farmers to have specific roles for men and women. The long gestation period with the long and slow infancy that leaves human children more or less worthless for a ridiculously long time means that the family needs a lot of protection, especially the women. Hunting is dangerous, so it makes sense for men to do that, because they're more expendable and stronger and faster on average.

As Sanderman points out, this is not clear-cut. I recommend this article on Wikipedia, particularly the section on native Americans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy

I know this is going to sound noble-savage'y, but the natives were really more culturally advanced than the people who conquered them. It also highlights how culture deeply affects our perception of what is appropriate for particular genders.

 

[Byzantine]

Speaking of which, did you know the Aztecs had a festive deity known as Xochipilli ("Flower Prince," in ancient Nahuatl), whose profile resided over homosexuals?

 

[Crni Vuk]

its true that many cultures have a much healthier stance to sexuality then our western civilisation. Some cultures don't even know the concept of sexuality like we do, the idea of homosexuality, or heterosexuality for them everyones bisexual, which is also a lot closer to the way how Kinsey saw sexuality.

 

[TheWesDude]

Please answer my question. No more statistic wanking. Let's get to the core of it.

Why would that be such a problem? Why would it be a problem if (more or less) 50% of the leaders in our world would be females.

none. it wouldnt be a problem. i wouldnt give a damn if 90% of the world leaders were female. but to think the goal is some magical hard number or hard % is a fallacy.

Nope. If women make up 50% of the world's population, then it stands to reason that they should make up 50% of the employed workforce and be equally represented in all aspects of life.

nope. it wouldnt. to expect a 50% representation in all aspects is a pipe dream and a fallacy denying of reality.

i mean fuck, MEN are severely under-represented in some fields.

or do you just mean until women make up 50% of the "good" jobs there is no equality?

where are all the women in ironworkers, sewage workers, commercial welders, garbage collectors, etc

or that women do not make up 50% of the homicides and suicides is a huge tragedy! we need to kill more women and drive more women to suicide for equality!

right?

I know it's a radical fucking idea, but maybe that claim is just full of shit? Why would women be inherently disinterested in high paying, high technology jobs? Why would women be inherently disinterested in leading a country or participating in politics? Why would women be inherently disinterested in working in mining, in factories, or holding jobs?

The problem with your line of thought, your entire line of thought is that you take the status quo for granted and accept cultural conditioning (that women shouldn't be interested in certain types of jobs) as a biological imperative.

Somehow, and bear with me, because this might be hard to grasp, somehow, I think, maybe we didn't evolve in an environment full of computers, politics, working sewage infrastructure, and mines all over the landscape. Maybe, just maybe, the appropriateness of certain jobs for certain genders is a purely cultural construct?

i have never made any claim of a biological imperitive. i have made the claim of their choice could be a driving factor, and that saying its all sexism or discrimination is an easy out and in a vacuum of personal choice.

and that could very well be the driving factor. and older women that i know that i have asked and talked to honestly about this, all seem to be saying they wouldnt WANT to do a job that requires 12-16 hour days and 80-100 hour weeks. you do know that is a very common thing for executive level employees, the medical field, engineers, and especially in technology/IT?

nobody at my job likes the hours. we work 12 hour days in a rotating shift where we can all be called in at any time to cover any shortage. i work friday nights and every other saturday night. when it rains, i work. when it snows, i work. when we have a fucking hurricane, i work. when they shut down the military base because of hazardous conditions, i can get on base and work. if there is a federal/national holiday? i work. you know thanksgiving and christmas and new years day? i work.

a lot of the studies i see posted, they all cite "quality of work-life balance". they also cite where they didnt feel like their contributions are valued. you know what, thats damn near universal. day in and day out i get told that i am an idiot and my ideas are useless and im wrong all the time. if i actually believed that shit, you would think im one of the worst people there. you want to know how i know that is all bullshit? when there is a problem, i am the one they ask for help. when someone calls out and they need someone to cover it, i usually get a phone call.

maybe the low participation from women in these fields IS a social/cultural construct, one in which they do not have to accept positions that require such "commitment" from the employees?

in a way, you guys are all close to the mark, but you all miss it. women in IT/Tech and even upper management are desired. i keep saying this. the problem is finding women who want to do the job within the established structure.

you guys keep saying sexism and discrimination within the societal/cultural structures, but having been in IT i can tell you, you are wrong for every place i have been. i have seen a lot of women complaining about not getting promotions or pay raises, yet when the managers call people to come in off schedule or to work overtime, its not the women that come in, its pretty much always the men that come in. if i see it as a lowly worker drone, you dont think the people who watch for these factors and track these things see the same thing? you dont think my mom saw this at her work too? thats partially what my mom was trying to get across i think when she was talking about productivity stats.

there are women willing to show up. there are women willing to do the jobs. there just isnt a lot of them. its not sexism. its not discrimination. its the nature of the jobs. there is a reason these jobs are high paying. its because the number of qualified people willing to do these jobs is small. its economics. the companies have to pay people enough to entice the "pool of workers" willing to do these jobs is small. if there were a lot of people willing to do these jobs that were qualified, they wouldnt pay as much.

 

[Sander]

Your pretense that we're denying the existence of gendered inequalities for men is bordering on the hysterical, TheWesDude. How often do we have to say that yes, problems specific to men are also problems and should similarly be eliminated? But that they're often the result of the same gendered culture that limits women? Because I dunno, man. We've addressed this point a million times and you keep bringing it up as if it's relevant.

the problem is finding women who want to do the job within the established structure.

I'd say the problem is a refusal to alter the established structure. And that's something that goes for every single objection you keep throwing out. Existing structures are not objective realities that should not be tampered with. All of feminism (and really, any social critique) is about those structures and how to alter them.

Women don't want to do these jobs, and men do. Yes, that's part of the problem (though far from all of it). But your analysis stops there, where ours just begins. Why do people make those choices? And once you dig down, you find lots and lots of reasons that have to do with a gendered culture.

 

[Crni Vuk]

i have never made any claim of a biological imperitive. i have made the claim of their choice could be a driving factor, and that saying its all sexism or discrimination is an easy out and in a vacuum of personal choice.

but personal choice never happens inside of a vacuum though.

 

[Hassknecht]

I mean the "traditional" roles of provider and caretaker in general. It made sense for the hunter & gatherer and farmers to have specific roles for men and women. The long gestation period with the long and slow infancy that leaves human children more or less worthless for a ridiculously long time means that the family needs a lot of protection, especially the women. Hunting is dangerous, so it makes sense for men to do that, because they're more expendable and stronger and faster on average.

As Sanderman points out, this is not clear-cut. I recommend this article on Wikipedia, particularly the section on native Americans.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matriarchy

I know this is going to sound noble-savage'y, but the natives were really more culturally advanced than the people who conquered them. It also highlights how culture deeply affects our perception of what is appropriate for particular genders.

Well, many tribes did leave the hunting and warfare to the men and child-rearing and plant-growing to the women, which is all I was refering to. The value given to these roles is very much cultural of course, but it does seem like many cultures tended to send the men hunting and let the women care for the home.