The next article in this series on "Which sex is playing higher stakes reproductive game?" is also worth reading: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-diff... It reminds me of an interesting hypothesis I've read about the other day that the concept marriage plays a significant role in the success of our culture as it counteracts this difference. It allows more men to reach a social status at which…
> they are motivated to be productive members of society
The converse has also been proposed; to wit, that societies which systematically disenfranchise young men from the opportunity to reproduce suffer greater social instability. This thesis has been presented as a possible explanation for the willingness of young men in some parts of the world to become suicide bombers.
That really is the crux of the matter. Everyone should be given an equal chance with no prejudice, and then if population differences still emerge, that's OK. Unfortunately there isn't much room for this middle ground. People who want to acknowledge sex difference want to use sex as a filter, e.g. "no women in combat roles." People who want to give everybody a chance also want to even things out, e.g. "Allow women in…
I hesitate to bring up extreme cases, but the relationship between social darwinism and the rise of the nazi party make many people, including myself, very hesitant to speak about differences in sex etc. Not because we deny their existence, but because we've seen how far large groups of uninformed electorate can be persuaded into supporting some scary stuff because of it. It's just a very tricky subject when it comes…
Don't read below the parent comment, the thread has devolved into an argument about Nazis.
Academics have approximately zero power. This is the craziest conspiracy theory I've seen in a while, because it's just so obviously wrong. Oh yes, college professors need to be kept in check because otherwise they'll go out and kill all the Jews. WTF?
You don't understand, recognizing sex differences leads to industrial-scale mass murder, just like it has in every human society that has ever recognized sex differences. Wake up sheeple!
No No No! I thought it was NOT recognizing sex differences that leads to industrial scale mass murder!
Now I'm confused. Not really, because this thread is nonsense -- confirmation bias mixed with absurdity.
The next article in this series on "Which sex is playing higher stakes reproductive game?" is also worth reading: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-how-and-why-sex-diff... It reminds me of an interesting hypothesis I've read about the other day that the concept marriage plays a significant role in the success of our culture as it counteracts this difference. It allows more men to reach a social status at which…
> they are motivated to be productive members of society The converse has also been proposed; to wit, that societies which systematically disenfranchise young men from the opportunity to reproduce suffer greater social instability. This thesis has been presented as a possible explanation for the willingness of young men in some parts of the world to become suicide bombers.
I know very little about this subject, but my gut feeling is that the systematic disenfranchisement of young men you are referring to has probably little in common with the kind of marriage we find in Western cultures. Regardless of that, I'm also failing to find evidence of this being a prevalent motive among suicide attackers on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_attack#Profile_of_atta...
I think it is a terrible summary, but I'll assume it's because of a failure to communicate on my part. (3) does not follow from (2) and (1) together. What does follow is a need to analyse the argument further. I didn't make this analysis, I only sketched it in broad outlines. Let me put out my thoughts in a different way: A) There is no causal link established between measured sex-linked variation in humans and socia…
> It claims that sex-linked variation is the most likely and simplest basis for the observed social organization Who claims that? Not me. I just want to know if sex differences exist, where they come from, and how big they are.
I think danharaj's point was that the effects of sex-linked variance -- regardless of how big they are -- have not been shown to be meaningful compared to the other factors that affect human society. However, it gives the illusion of scientific rigor to use observable sex-linked variances to explain our social condition; in reality there are many possible alternative explanations that are never addressed, and many confounding variables that aren't controlled.
There's also the eugenicist argument that the undesirables shouldn't be permitted to procreate. For example, Margaret Sanger didn't want to round up people and exterminate them but she did want to keep them from reproducing.
Given that procreation requires one man and one woman to participate, it's going to be really hard to practice eugenics based on genetic differences between the sexes.
Beside selective abortion and embryo selection, it's already possible to derive gametes of both kinds from stem cells of arbitrary sex in mice, and it will most likely be possible to do the same with human cells soon.
Mice that descend from two males or two females have already been created in the lab.
You still need wombs, but they can be grafted and will probably be farmed from stem cells in the future too.
Yes, but more and more, courts and laws try to enforce "equal outcomes" and not "equal opportunity."
Where do they do that? Even the notorious punching bag of Affirmative Action is intended to make up for prior bias, not force equal outcomes regardless of all merit. (Whether it actually does that is another question, but "try to enforce" is all about intent.)
Let's start with this NYTimes report about allegations of bias on teacher's qualification tests, because of the disparity in results:
A large part of the problem is the failure to distinguish between the aggregate and the individual. For the sake of argument let's say that the population of individuals who would make good engineers is 60% male and 40% female. From an aggregate level that's a huge difference. Once you gather enough of people that statistical inferences can be made, the difference becomes obvious. In a classroom, for instance. But at…
I'm a female computer scientist / developer, and after my experience both online, at school, and at work, I would really just rather ignore it. I went to a college with 4:1 ratio of male to female. I've had periods in my life where I felt like I was the beautiful princess at the school, and periods where I feel like a somewhat disfigured monster with an average intellect. It really sucks when culture places so much e…
A cousin of mine with a high IQ (TNS level) and who would be categorized as a 'cute blond' expressed similar laments. Moderately sociable as a kid, reasonably well-heeled, one who loved spending most of her time devouring science and math tomes, conducted experiments on her own; an individual. Then adolescence hit coupled with menarche and amplified social pressure to 'fit in' which caused her sense of strong individualization to wane. In late teens she talked to me about majoring in law or sociology and I questioned: 'is that YOU?' What followed was a long diatribe, de rerum natura, which had the earmarks of a 'something' being repressed. Using salient observations like those opined by Marilyn vos Savant in her old 'ask Marilyn' column it was conceded that individualization and mutualization are sustainable while open-end charity with no sense of culturally enforced mutualization is fatally maladaptive, given received human nature. And the old social dictates evolved for survival in times prior to the advent of modern medicine were just so THEN but this is NOW. And the great seminal inventors and scientists of the late 19th century, almost all of whom were male, were individualists by temperament who while developing their ideas would partition themselves off from the vicissitudes of life for the duration. That exchange was capped-off with a paraphrase of an extract from the 'Bulfinch's Mythology' section 'Glaucus and Scylla'. Glaucus was a river god who developed the hots for a maiden called Scylla, who scorned his every approach. Retreating in to sulk mode he was given a pep talk by a mentor goddess Circe (where the word cereal comes from). To paraphrase: Recognize and objectify your worth. Then realize you are someone to be sought after rather than one who seeks in vain. Be willing to meet people half way. But if they spurn you, spurn them! Why should they disturb your Wa? (Wa = inner harmony (jp); we were both into Japanese and anime). In any event, my cousin segued back into math and IT, is herself, and suffers no fools lightly (IE, abides no BS).
> gender is a cultural construct Trans people such as myself are proof that gender is not a social construct. In my experience, the nastiest transphobes are the ones who believe gender is a social construct. They're called TERFs. They can't wrap their minds around the fact that we prove their pet theories wrong, so they stalk, harass, and doxx us.
Not particularly surprising. Feminists in a general sense are usually pretty bad people. They espouse their gender over masculine and other genders. It is akin to saying that the Black Panthers are good, when the KKK is bad. They're both bad. Feminism == Masculinism == sex discrimination
What an ignorant comment. Feminism is directly responsible for women getting their rights, like abortion. Saying it is "just as bad as..." is a clueless claim. What wrongs has Masculinism ever corrected?