Who's responsible for gender roles? Biology or Society?

[Cope]

Bingo.Enough said.

All human activity (including socialization) is ultimately a product of evolutionary pressures. The claim is the inverse of reality.

[Basilius]

Let’s not misinform about something so basic.

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.

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.

[Ludicus]

All human activity (including socialization) is ultimately a product of evolutionary pressures.

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 of

equal 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.

[Sir Adrian]

Bingo.Enough said.

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.

[Lord Thesaurian]

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.

[Basilius]

The claim that genes/biology plays no role in social behavior or that the role is only hormonal is untrue.

That's not what is being argued, the point is that they have an insignificant effect on social roles.

That muscles and testosterone allow men to overpower women does not then conclude that gender roles are "natural." It's a non-sequitur.

[Sir Adrian]

That point is laughable when most biological and psychological differences have been proven to trace back to the hunter and gatherer social roles.

[Lord Thesaurian]

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.

[Kissaki]

That's not what is being argued, the point is that they have an insignificant effect on social roles.

That muscles and testosterone allow men to overpower women does not then conclude that gender roles are "natural." It's a non-sequitur.

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.

[Cope]

Ah, the bees...through environmental pressure.

Correct. Bees, like all other life, are subject to, and a consequence 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

The sophisticated socialization and organization required to have "companies and institutions" as well as policies, commerce and ideological preferences are a product of evolution.

[Basilius]

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.

[Cope]

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.

The brain (along with the rest of human physiology) is a biological entity. Every preference, attitude, trait, behaviour and "societal force" is ultimately the product of evolutionary biology.

[ggggtotalwarrior]

Sorry Alhoon, you are the best example, why its pointless to discuss with conservatives.

Its common fact, that girls have significant better exams than boys.

Why do more women than men go to university? - BBC News

So why are there only 1/3 female judges then, if their graduations are in average better?

The answer is simple male networks.

But hopeless:

Conservatives will rant because of male discrimination, even if it are their networks in reality which preserve their privileges and prevent female careers.

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

[alhoon]

Sorry Alhoon, you are the best example, why its pointless to discuss with conservatives.

Its common fact, that girls have significant better exams than boys.
[...]

Conservatives will rant because of male discrimination, even if it are their networks in reality which preserve their privileges and prevent female careers.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

You're not providing any statistics on qualifications.

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.

This is not how statistics work. You can not alter what they point at to keep your narrative alive.

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's not. Nothing I have said indicates that. Everything you have said, however, shows that you think there is a problem with promoting qualified female judges. So, yeah, why is it such a problem to promote qualified female judges?

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.

If this was a simple case of a business hiring people I would agree with you. But remember that Biden has only appointed 42 judges so far, and that makes up less than 5% of the total (there are currently 870 federal judges). Even though the demographics of those 42 individuals favour women and minorities,

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.

Even though the demographics of those 42 individuals favour women and minorities, it is still the case that the whole body of federal judges does not favour women and minorities.

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, by contrast, appointed 245 (which is quite a lot for a single term president), of which only 25% were women.

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.

It's not the upheaval the media portrays it as. I don't know to what degree Biden's nominations replaced men or women - that would require more meticulous research than I am inclined to do right now. But even if all the openings had previously been filled by white men, Biden will still only have slightly moved the average towards being more representative of the overall population.

And even if that weren't the case, I am still of the position that the POTUS can nominate whomever he wants for whatever reason. It's more about the signal effect than anything.

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.

I think women would work longer, if they don't 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.

In Britain in 2016, according to the Office for National Statistics, women did almost 60% more of the unpaid work, on average, than men.

But thats nothing more than besides the point, as judges are selected because of exams and a job interview, not by promotion because "he/she has sitting 45 minutes more in the bureau drinking coffee".

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.

[PointOfViewGun]

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.

You can try to deflect from the failure of your arguments all you want, alhoon. You do not know if those judges are less qualified. Yet, you made claims about it. The statistics shows that Biden is correcting past discriminations done in favor of male judges.

[athanaric]

Stronger physical strength has allowed human males to overpower and subjugate human females in every major society, and the gender roles stemmed from that.

Good lord. Is this really what they teach you in sociology?

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.

You'd need to prove that there was any subjugation in the first place...

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.

What understanding of biology, from some 19th century ideologue perhaps?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

@ Alhoon:

The problem is with promoting less qualified female judges over more qualified male judges based on their gender. That's discrimination.

You are still delivering no evidence, that the promoted female judges were less qualified than the not promoted males.

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: 

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 housewives are sitting lazy on their ass at home eating pralines and drinking prosecco? Congratulations, you win the sexist of the month award.

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...^^

[Kissaki]

So housewives are sitting lazy on their ass at home eating pralines and drinking prosecco? Congratulations, you win the sexist of the month award.

So Morticia's idea of housework and child rearing is sitting lazy on one's ass at home eating pralines and drinking prosecco. If so, why is she complaining women do 60% more of this than men?

[Morticia Iunia Bruti]

Poor try of trolling.

Its obviously an sarcastic question to Alhoons " while their wives stay at home doing nothing but housework and raising kids."

[alhoon]

You can try to deflect from the failure of your arguments all you want, alhoon. You do not know if those judges are less qualified. Yet, you made claims about it. The statistics shows that Biden is correcting past discriminations done in favor of male judges.

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.

@ Alhoon:

You are still delivering no evidence, that the promoted female judges were less qualified than the not promoted males.

I do. See above. It's math.

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[/URL]

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.

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?

So housewives are sitting lazy on their ass at home eating pralines and drinking prosecco? Congratulations, you win the sexist of the month award.

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.

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.

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.

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.
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.