It's not misinformation, it's literally the prevailing view of contemporary sociology. None of your links are saying what you think they are: behavior traits being associated with certain genes cannot and indeed are not extrapolated to conclude behavior traits about men and women more broadly. It ironically leads to the opposite conclusion: sexual biology is less relevant to behavior than inherited genetics and social moors.Let’s not misinform about something so basic.
There's just a common fallacy here to argue from a conclusion: that the universal and historical roles of men and women develop from genetics, when there's nothing in our study of genetics to support that conclusion. All the evidence we have in fact promotes the opposite view: social policies and attitudes are what determine social roles, not biology.
Ah, the bees...through environmental pressure.
I like more this kind of "evolutionary pressure",
How Iceland Is Closing the Gender Wage Gap - Harvard ...
In 2018, Iceland introduced the first policy in the world that requires companies and institutions with more than 25 employees to prove that they pay men and women equally for a job ofequal value. The policy is implemented through a job evaluation tool called the Equal Wage Management Standard, or simply, the system. If companies show they pay equally for the same positions, they receive certification. Beginning in 2020, certification became a requirement and companies without certification incur a daily fine.
Il y a quelque chose de pire que d'avoir une âme perverse. C’est d'avoir une âme habituée
Charles Péguy
Every human society must justify its inequalities: reasons must be found because, without them, the whole political and social edifice is in danger of collapsing”.
Thomas Piketty
What he said is empirically false. Reality is simple: people want what they can't have. Once they can have that they revert to their natural inclinations and that natural inclination is: women are more interested in people, men are more interested in objects. There are always exceptions but on average it's a very consistent rule.
Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!
I’m not sure what the point of setting up a rhetorical dichotomy is if we’re going to predicate it on an attempt to separate genetics from biology. The claim that genes/biology plays no role in social behavior or that the role is only hormonal is untrue.
Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII
That's not what is being argued, the point is that they have an insignificant effect on social roles.The claim that genes/biology plays no role in social behavior or that the role is only hormonal is untrue.
That muscles and testosterone allow men to overpower women does not then conclude that gender roles are "natural." It's a non-sequitur.
That point is laughable when most biological and psychological differences have been proven to trace back to the hunter and gatherer social roles.
Under the patronage of Pie the Inkster Click here to find a hidden gem on the forum!
The framing doesn’t make any sense though. Whatever humans do is natural. Neither do I think its useful to talk about “decision making” as though it’s separate from behavior, and therefore, from associated genetic/biological factors. Seems rhetorical.
Of these facts there cannot be any shadow of doubt: for instance, that civil society was renovated in every part by Christian institutions; that in the strength of that renewal the human race was lifted up to better things-nay, that it was brought back from death to life, and to so excellent a life that nothing more perfect had been known before, or will come to be known in the ages that have yet to be. - Pope Leo XIII
Muscles and testosterone did not happen to allow men to overpower women. Nor is that how gender roles arose. Sexual dimorphism evolves for a reason. Men didn't randomly evolve to have protective instincts towards women, and women didn't randomly evolve to be physically smaller and weaker. And at no point did men artificially create gender roles by brute force. It was only natural that men do the most physically demanding tasks as well as the dangerous tasks of hunting and fighting. It wasn't until the neolithic that people started gathering in large societies; prior to that they had lived in small, nomadic tribes. And in small, nomadic tribes, women are objectively more valuable - and precious - than men. They therefore needed to be shielded from unnecessary dangers, because these societies could not afford to risk their lives. It is in this hunter-gatherer backdrop that we evolved. The agricultural revolution didn't set in until 12,000 years ago (some regions as late as 6,000 years ago). And while agriculture provided a pretty good guarantee for survival, 6,000 - 12,000 years is not enough time for evolution to do away with our hunter-gatherer instincts. There has been no selection pressure to do so until just recently.
So yes, gender roles are natural, because sexual dimorphism is natural. The fact that modern society with modern technology invalidates old gender roles does not make them less natural. They were not randomly assigned, and men didn't pick the "best ones" because they were stronger than women.
Correct. Bees, like all other life, are subject to, and a consequence of, evolution.
The sophisticated socialization and organization required to have "companies and institutions" as well as policies, commerce and ideological preferences are a product of evolution.I like more this kind of "evolutionary pressure",
How Iceland Is Closing the Gender Wage Gap - Harvard ...
In 2018, Iceland introduced the first policy in the world that requires companies and institutions with more than 25 employees to prove that they pay men and women equally for a job of
Kissaki and Cope: I do not mean to suggest that human behaviors are not the outcome of developmental processes which involve both biology and environment in non-separable manners. But the point I'm making, and the best understanding we have on the matter, is that it is too far a leap to associate social outcomes and preferences on these components. Especially with how much influence social policy and attitudes have.
Given how far we've strayed from the original topic, I'd like to make a final comment along this vein. Anyone who is interested in a summary analysis of this debate should read Cordelia Fine, Daphna Joel and Gina Rippon's essay.
If the origins of these differences remain unclear, so too do their consequences. And yet arguing about the kinds of effects that these small average differences in psychological traits have on patterns of real-world behaviour and societal outcomes are the real flashpoints in this debate: are women suited to careers in STEM areas or not? Is the pay gap due to differences in traits such as agreeableness? Generally speaking, correlations between personality traits and a variety of consequential social outcomes – happiness, educational attainment, job performance, health, longevity – are weak, and the predictive power for individuals is very low. And that’s when we look at the full range of trait values across the whole population. But the sex differences discussed here are tiny relative to that range, meaning that any predictive value for outcomes will be correspondingly reduced [...]
Given how little we know about how all these factors interact, it seems wildly premature and more than a little arrogant to assert that the small differences observed on lab-based measures of psychological traits are a sufficient explanation of observed differences in societal outcomes. We don’t have a ‘get out of evolution free’ card, but we are also not meat robots whose behaviour is determined by the positions of a few knobs and switches, independent of any societal forces. One thing is clear: we’ll never get to grips with the complexity of the interactive mechanisms in play if the debate remains polarised. We need a synthesis of findings and perspectives from genetics, neuroscience, psychology and sociology, not a war between them.
Theres less judges probably because judges tend to be decades removed from their schooling years and you’re using statistics related to graduates in the last half decade. No the statistics you’re using are going to be completely worthless and not applicable to the point you’re trying to make for another 20 years
Rep me and I'll rep you back.
UNDER THE PATRONAGE OF THE KING POSTER AKAR
Two wrongs don't make a right.
No, I am not providing statistics on qualifications. I am providing statistics that show clearly that Biden's administration is heavily discriminating against male judges for promotions.
Aside of that being a very wrong view of how statistics work ('There are small lies, big lies and statistics') it has nothing to do with the heavy discrimination against male judges that Biden is displaying.
It is not a problem to promote qualified female judges and I am offended that you claim that "everything I have said" shows that I think there's a problem with that.
The problem is with promoting less qualified female judges over more qualified male judges based on their gender. That's discrimination.
Everything you have said shows that you think it is fine to discriminate against male judges and promote less qualified women instead.
A small correction there: There is no statistical evidence that Biden's appointments favor minorities. They don't discriminate against minorities.
22 appointments are minorities IIRC, out of 41 judges. Sure, the "complete average" would have been like 18 or something, but with a sample of that size, 22 instead of 18, there is not enough statistical evidence to prove discrimination against white people.
Simply put, in those 41 judges promoted, 22 minorities is "just a bit" too high which may be happenstance. 53% promotions out of a group of 40% is not the same as 80% promotions out of a group of 30%. At most, it could be considered "a slight favor" towards minorities but frankly, it could indeed be chance.
Yes, but in the previous thread, we were discussing those 42 promotions by the current administration, not mistakes of the past or what governors do.
And I would again point you to the minorities: Biden was fair towards minorities. He didn't discriminate against white people. He could have done the same with women judges too.
Trump is a butthole.
But two wrongs don't make a right.
If Biden appoints 245 judges, Trump's discrimination does not excuse Biden to discriminate against the other side.
THERE is where we disagree.
I believe in promoting the best people for the job, not trying to do signal effects or right past wrongs by moving the average.
You want to have a case?
Something I would applaud (and neither party wouldn't pass) is to re-examine the qualification of lower lever courts. Force the governors to check those appointments made 30 years ago. Let's see if that 65 years old judge IS STILL the best for the job or that black female attorney is better alternative.
Do not promote based on gender to correct past wrongs.
Simply check past appoints to correct past wrongs.
So, because in 2016 Britain women did more housework, you think you can call all males as lazy couch potatoes?
Morticia, saying "Women have to take the kids from school, make homework with them, cook lunch, do other housework, while the males are sitting lazy on the couch drinking beer and watching TV. "
is sexist.
Yes, many men are like that. On the other hand, there are also many men that work while their wives stay at home doing nothing but housework and raising kids. So yes, they do more "unpaid work" but they also spend much more time with their kids.
And before you speak about the evil men that stop women from working in order to limit their independence, a great many of the women that become housewives do that by THEIR choice. There is a not-small minority of people married to sit-at-home wives that would prefer if their wife brought an extra salary home.
Last edited by alhoon; January 25, 2022 at 10:20 PM.
alhoon is not a member of the infamous Hoons: a (fictional) nazi-sympathizer KKK clan. Of course, no Hoon would openly admit affiliation to the uninitiated.
"Angry Uncle Gordon" describes me well.
_______________________________________________________
Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.
Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).
The Armenian Issuehttp://www.twcenter.net/forums/group.php?groupid=1930
GTA 6 Thread
https://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?819300-GTA-6-Reveal-Trailer
"We're nice mainly because we're rich and comfortable."
Good lord. Is this really what they teach you in sociology?
You'd need to prove that there was any subjugation in the first place...In liberal societies that alleviate female subjugation we likewise see a shift in role preferences, proportional to the degree to which that subjugation is addressed.
What understanding of biology, from some 19th century ideologue perhaps?Combined with our understanding of biology, there's no reason to think it's biological. You're just asserting observations and intuitions that doesn't match the data.
@ Alhoon:
You are still delivering no evidence, that the promoted female judges were less qualified than the not promoted males.The problem is with promoting less qualified female judges over more qualified male judges based on their gender. That's discrimination.
So, because in 2016 Britain women did more housework, you think you can call all males as lazy couch potatoes?
Morticia, saying "Women have to take the kids from school, make homework with them, cook lunch, do other housework, while the males are sitting lazy on the couch drinking beer and watching TV. "
is sexist.
Yes, many men are like that. On the other hand, there are also many men that work while their wives stay at home doing nothing but housework and raising kids. So yes, they do more "unpaid work" but they also spend much more time with their kids.
And before you speak about the evil men that stop women from working in order to limit their independence, a great many of the women that become housewives do that by THEIR choice. There is a not-small minority of people married to sit-at-home wives that would prefer if their wife brought an extra salary home.
As of June 2020, more than two-thirds (72.7%) of women aged 16–64 are employed,16 a percentage that has risen from 52.8% in the first quarter (January-March) of 1971, when the Office for National Statistics began recording this data.17
The numbers are equal in whole northwestern Europe.
So women work full time or part time too and do still 60 % more housework? Wait, checking my argument, result: most males are lazy couch potatoes.
And now to the sentence, which is energizing me...
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
So housewives are sitting lazy on their ass at home eating pralines and drinking prosecco? Congratulations, you win the sexist of the month award.On the other hand, there are also many men that work while their wives stay at home doing nothing but housework and raising kids.
I'm really sure, you either are living still with Mom or you have transferred from Motel Mum tpo Grand Hotel Wife without living some time alone.
I have no own children, but girl friends with children. Little children tend to jump in the mud with their clothes, smear chocolate or other food on their cloths, are often sick, vomitting into their bed, must be brought to kindergarden/school/doctor, take home at afternoon from school. And then you have a husband, which want everyday a new shirt for work, but two left hands, when it comes for washing and ironing.
And we haven't talked about cooking and cleaning the rooms yet.
You have no clue how hard housework is.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Run...^^
Last edited by Morticia Iunia Bruti; January 26, 2022 at 02:31 AM.
Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
And tomorrow you'll be on your way
Don't give a damn about what other people say
Because tomorrow is a brand-new day
Poor try of trolling.
Its obviously an sarcastic question to Alhoons " while their wives stay at home doing nothing but housework and raising kids."
Cause tomorrow is a brand-new day
And tomorrow you'll be on your way
Don't give a damn about what other people say
Because tomorrow is a brand-new day
Here is my argument: Two wrongs don't make a right. Biden discriminating against men is not right just because Trump discriminated against women.
And that was always my argument. You just made my argument for me.
Furthermore, you say "you don't know if those judges are less qualified".
I do know it and I told you how I know it: Statistics. And I showed you the numbers that prove it. In a sample of 41 promotions that come from a mixed pool with populations of M 70% and W 30%, the chance that you would end up with 33W and 8M is negligible without skewing the selection process.
I do. See above. It's math.
2/3 of women aged 16-64 working equals "women work full time" in your book?
https://www.pewresearch.org/social-t...-home-mothers/
29% of mothers are stay-at-home mothers.
" The largest share consists of “traditional” married stay-at-home mothers with working husbands. They made up roughly two-thirds of the nation’s 10.4 million stay-at-home mothers in 2012. "
Soooo... 20% of mothers were stay-at-home mothers in mid 2010s with a working husband. Is it weird that they would be doing more of the housework?
Never said that, never implied that. You have decided to see me as "the enemy" and you twist my words. If you have followed my posts in this thread and others you would have seen that I don't think house-keeping is an easy job, so I support maternity or paternity leaves and more money for pre-school kindergardens.So housewives are sitting lazy on their ass at home eating pralines and drinking prosecco? Congratulations, you win the sexist of the month award.
And BTW, I know men that do nothing but staying at home doing housework and raising kids while their wives work.
And I know more than one couples that alternate between the two, with the parents splitting the days that they will sit at home while the other will work. I live in a country that for the first year after you baby is born, you're getting a few days each week to stay at home and raise it. And that's because it is not easy work and not everyone has access to grandparents to look after their kids while they work.
Not that it is any of your business but I am living away from home since 1998 and I am neither married nor have been married.I'm really sure, you either are living still with Mom or you have transferred from Motel Mum tpo Grand Hotel Wife without living some time alone.
Furthermore, I have a lot of cousins, friends etc with kids. Males and females. I know how hard work it is to raise kids and I knew that even while I was a kid.
You couldn't be more wrong about me. Your accusations are both misplaced and sexist.
To speak plainly: Just because I am a man, doesn't mean I am oppressing women or a lazy couch potato.
**************************************************
And here is the math for those that scream and pull their hair that "You didn't prove there was discrimination!"
Binomial distribution.
Let's see the probability for just k=8 out of n=41 picks to be men, when the picks come from a population with p=70% for men.
Binomial coefficient: n! / ( k! (n-k)! ) = 41! / (8! 33!) = 41*40*...*35*34 / 8! = 95,548,245
p^k = 0.7 ^8 = 0.05765. (1-p)^(n-k) = 0.3^33 =5.55906 *10^-18
Probability for 8/41 picks to be men = 3.06 *10^-11 or 0.000000000306% or simply 1 in 32.66 billions.
Sure, I didn't take into account the even lower probabilities of k<8, that would have me making these calculations 7 more times to add miniscule numbers.
But I assure you, it doesn't go more than 1 in 15 billions for this to happen without interference.
Thus, here is your proof, by mathematics.
Biden's administration clearly and demonstrably discriminated against men.
Now, some detractors, not all, said that when you discriminate against men it is not bad because other people discriminated against women in the past.
At least they had the honestly to own it instead of trying to persuade us that 1 in 15 billion is a reasonable chance for the 33 women to be as qualified as the men they hopped over.
Last edited by alhoon; January 26, 2022 at 08:31 AM.
alhoon is not a member of the infamous Hoons: a (fictional) nazi-sympathizer KKK clan. Of course, no Hoon would openly admit affiliation to the uninitiated.
"Angry Uncle Gordon" describes me well.
_______________________________________________________
Beta-tester for Darthmod Empire, the default modification for Empire Total War that does not ask for your money behind patreon.
Developer of Causa Belli submod for Darthmod, headed by Hammeredalways and a ton of other people.
Developer of LtC: Random maps submod for Lands to Conquer (that brings a multitude of random maps and other features).