Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Is There Anything Good About Men?

psy.fsu.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 237 posts

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#101

Post by ezy »

cefarix wrote: post #84
mitcheme wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, so if women lack those motivations, where did feminism come from?

Feminism arose for the same reasons that any social movement arises: a part of society feels that they are being unfairly treated as second-class citizens. What exactly does it mean to be a second-class citizen? Whether it is getting paid less, or not having the same job opportunities, in the end it boils down to this: a second-class citizen feels that they are not given the same honor and dignity as a normal citizen…

No. You should really read more before pontificating.

Feminism did not arise because we suddenly stopped valuing women as mothers. It arose because that is all we valued in women[1].

The history, if you bother to read it, bears this out. Hell, even today, certain attitudes bear this out, although with the help of feminism, we see less of it in modern culture.

Do you think a woman should be allowed to become a doctor? A physicist? To run in a marathon? SHould she be less valued if she chooses not to be a mother? Should she be forced to make a choice between those occupations and motherhood? And if she chooses both, which should be more valued by society?

[1] Ok, not all, but I'll leave out the other aspects so-as not to confuse the issue.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#102

Post by Produce »

tariqk wrote: post #55

First off, the author misrepresents the idea of patriarchy as a "conspiracy of men to subjugate women". That's not how I've heard how it's been defined. Patriarchy/kyriarchy, roughly put, is a series of assumptions and privileges provided to a segment of the population, often at the expense of everyone else. It's not, as far as I can see, a conspiracy -- i.e. a secret plan hatched by a clandestine group that goes aga…

>Secondly, the author doesn't make a convincing argument that the fact that the reason why men get all the risk and all the reward is because of something innate, instead of a self-perpetuating social system that actively encourages one gender to risk it all and reap the rewards, while holding back the other gender to mediocrity and risk-free existences. The possibility is raised for a few sentences, and discarded, as if it's ridiculous, and it's obvious that the reasons are inherent.

I think that the mechanism for what he is describing is the difference in neurotransmitter and hormone balances. Nobody is going to argue that men have more testosterone than women and that women have more estrogen than men. Nobody is going to argue that these things change behavior - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Testosterone#Physiological_effe... Similarly, nobody is going to argue that men cannot bear children because of social conditioning. Why is it so difficult to accept that men and women are physically and psychologically built for different sets of requirements and therefore have different probabilities of performing particular actions? I'm not suggesting that it's set in stone, but there are certainly tendencies to go in a particular direction.

>the statement "the British Empire did a lot more good than harm" is a disgusting, privileged statement that really doesn't elicit much more than pitying contempt from me.

Completely agree, building roads for your slaves doesn't free them.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#103

Post by sliverstorm »

jordan0day wrote: post #100
sliverstorm wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amusing to live in a world where instinct in animals is readily accepted as heritable, and yet whether or not humans can inherit behaviors is hotly contested. Almost seems like another round of people looking to maintain the illusion that humans are separate from animals. What was the last one we had, tool use?

I'm on the opposite side of that. I find it amusing when people try to justify certain actions with corollaries found in animals. The amazing thing about being human is that we can overcome instinct, and it doesn't even require superhuman effort. Regular old human effort will do.

You've never seen a dog overcome instinct?

It's not a uniquely human ability.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#104

Post by scott_s »

mitcheme wrote: post #80
mitcheme wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's very little actual substance there to invalidate, and I did discuss some of issues. His analysis of women's creativity is wrong, and is his talk about relative sex drives is spurious. I also think it's a huge mistake to label cultures who have persisted by making over half their population miserable (women and low-status men) as "successful". If you wanted me to take it apart line-by-line you will have to be…

nocipher, his analysis of women's creativity is wrong because we know women have created art throughout history. We don't actually know how much art, unfortunately, because historically, the bulk of women's creative expression was not considered "real art". It wasn't signed by its creator, and its recipients didn't treat it with that extra level of care to prevent it from being destroyed. That's a big issue when you'…

Interestingly, the Mosuo have a different model of the family than most of the rest of humans. In Mosuo culture, men take care of their nieces and nephews, not their sons and daughters. (I had to look this up on Wikipedia to verify it, but I guess it was true based on your description of their sexual relationships - such an arrangement is not stable otherwise.)

So, two points. One, this kind of culture is the exception for humans. I think there are a handful of other cultures that operate this way, but it's still the exception. When an overwhelmingly large percentage of a species behaves in a particular way, we tend to attribute that to instinct rather than random chance - even though there are exceptional cases. I think it's also valid to ask why this kind of culture is not the dominant culture. It's possible that these cultures get out-competed by cultures where men are usually responsible for their own children.

Second, the author did not claim that women don't like sex or have no sex drive. Not enjoying sex was not a part of his argument. His argument was that, in aggregate, men have a stronger sex drive. That claim is consistent with Masuo women having up to 50 partners in their life.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#105

Post by cefarix »

ezy wrote: post #97
cefarix wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the problems in Western cultures is that being a CEO, a President, a rockstar, an astronaut, etc is more highly valued than say, being a mother. This is why many Western women feel that being a mother with young kids and staying at home is not fulfilling their lives - because the cultural messages tell them that being a stay-at-home mom is an unglamarous job. You will find that not all cultures are like this -…

This is profoundly naive. Consider, for a moment, that a woman may not want to be a mother, or more realistically, that's not all she wants to be. Many Asian cultures are notoriously sexist. And, no, I wouldn't say being a mother is glamorous in those cultures... being a mother is expected and a woman is honored, briefly, when she fulfills those expectations, but it's not glamorous. Society's expectation, even Wester…

> Consider, for a moment, that a woman may not want to be a mother

Then she is not likely to get the same respect as a woman who does want to be a mother. Respect for women who want to be mothers, and not respecting women who do not want to be mothers, is something that naturally evolves in a culture that values its population. This is because women who have genes and/or memes that cause them to have more children will spread those genes and/or memes more widely than women who have fewer children because they had a genes and/or memes that caused them to not want to be a mother or not have so many children. This would be reflected in the culture in that women who want to be mothers would be respected more than women who did not want to be mothers. The same thing can be said for men being fathers.

> or more realistically, that's not all she wants to be

I never said anything about women being _only_ mothers. The best mothers to raise the next generation are those who, first of all of course have children, but then after that, have an education, are able to dream and aspire of other things, and pursue those opportunities.

> Many Asian cultures are notoriously sexist.

You say this as if being sexist is a bad thing. Men and women are different, and this is reflected in the fact that every culture has different social roles for men and women. There is nothing wrong with being sexist, it simply arises from the fact that men and women are biologically different. The problem happens when women are judged by what men are supposed to do, or when men are judged by what women are supposed to do.

> Saying a culture cannot survive with misery is something you invented.

No, it simply stands to reason. You cannot subjugate the females in society, generation after generation, and expect it to survive. The psychological effects would be passed down to the next generation, and the fabric of society which raises the next generation, would unravel. Just look at the effects on children who grow up in abusive households. Now extrapolate this to an entire society. The results would be catastrophic.

> Often the coping techniques include (surprise!) investing all her energy into making her children accomplish by proxy (speaking of asian cultures, sound familiar?) what she could not.

All parents, mothers and fathers, want their children to accomplish what they could not. This is not limited to mothers. Fathers will also use it as a "coping technique". Say a father wanted to go to the city and get an education so he could have a bigger house and more luxuries for his family, but was unable to do so in his life. Would he not encourage his children to pursue that? Of course. This has nothing to do with the issue at hand, namely the subjugation of women.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#106

Post by Produce »

Aloisius wrote: post #40

I had no idea that the dominant view today was that women are better than men. It is my view and I haven't dissected all the reasons why I think that, but a lot of it comes from seeing so many men at the bottom. Biology wasn't kind to a huge percentage of men. I do find it true that men seem to try harder to be different, to entertain, to exceed and to impress. The top is dominated by cocky people and there aren't a…

Perhaps it's simple economics at work, with a physical foundation - men make many low risk investments whereas women make a handful of extremely high risk ones (bearing a child is physically very costly). Thus, men will be more inclined to approach and, therefore, lower their market value by increasing supply, while women will be more inclined to shoot down offers, since they are in great demand. I think that the society you're talking about would either have to be one where men have mutated into childbearing creatures or one where women have mutated to have very short and early pregnancies. An alternative might be a society where men take the brunt of the work of raising kids, though this is unlikely because women are more socially inclined due to their neurochemistry and, therefore, better at providing the emotional support a child needs, not to mention that they need to breast feed and physically recover after delivery which makes them less able to actively find food and shelter.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#108

Post by cefarix »

ezy wrote: post #101
cefarix wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Feminism arose for the same reasons that any social movement arises: a part of society feels that they are being unfairly treated as second-class citizens. What exactly does it mean to be a second-class citizen? Whether it is getting paid less, or not having the same job opportunities, in the end it boils down to this: a second-class citizen feels that they are not given the same honor and dignity as a normal citizen…

No. You should really read more before pontificating. Feminism did not arise because we suddenly stopped valuing women as mothers. It arose because that is all we valued in women[1]. The history, if you bother to read it, bears this out. Hell, even today, certain attitudes bear this out, although with the help of feminism, we see less of it in modern culture. Do you think a woman should be allowed to become a doctor?…

Feminism arose because women did not like the way they were being treated. Society did actually stop valuing motherhood. It was an indirect result of society valuing doctors, physicists, CEOs, etc, yet restricting women from those same things. Only women can be mothers, and when women are restricted from those things society values, they become more defined only by being a parent, and when the value of women falls, so does the value of a woman being a parent.

To answer your question, of course a woman should be allowed to become a doctor, a physicist, or an athlete. Yes, she should be valued less if she chooses not to be a mother, just the same as a man should be valued less if he chooses not to be a father. She should not sacrifice her motherhood in pursuit of a career, just as a man should not sacrifice his fatherhood in pursuit of a career.

Because of the biological difference between a woman and a man, a woman must take much more time and effort away from other things in life to be a mother, whereas a man barely has to do any effort to have children. And so a natural division of labor occurs where the father takes on the role of a provider and the mother takes on the role of a nurturer. Since the father has more of a burden for providing, it is more important for him to become a doctor or such, but this is because that is how he fulfills his duties as a father.

You might say, why should a person be valued less if they choose not to be a parent? Well, all normal people have a sex, male or female. Why are we male or female if not to procreate with the opposite sex? Furthermore, any culture that values people not having children over people having children would have gone extinct.

Re: Is There Anything Good About Men?

#109

Post by frankus »

The question this article raises for me is whether the strategy of out-breeding every other culture is going to continue to be a successful one at cultural level in the near future. The article suggests that it was, at least in the distant past.

It seems like the most successful cultures today (measured by standard of living, anyway) are no longer those with the fastest-growing populations. China (strictly speaking a nation and not a culture) explicitly embraced a policy of slowing population growth, but I'm not knowledgable enough to have an opinion on how complete a success it has been.

The interesting thing about culture in the modern age is that it is increasingly divorced from the genetic makeup of its members. If someone who is genetically foreign (to the extent that such a thing is possible) moves to the US and assimilates, their "home culture" has lost a member and "American culture" has gained one (leaving aside the plausibility of this scenario the current insanity of the US immigration system). If this "cultural switcher" phenomenon is large enough to overwhelm birthrate effects we could see culture shaped by some very different forces than in the past.

Post reply on HN