|
Post by Shark a' Pult on May 28, 2012 21:11:26 GMT -5
What do you think about feminism, as a movement, and what its goals are/what it tries to achieve?
Personally I admire what people are trying to do, and what it all stands for. I can see their points, and can agree that socially men and women are equal.
Physically though? Biologically? Women and men are not equal. Plain and simple fact. I'm willing to look past that in most cases though.
|
|
|
Post by Neurotick on May 28, 2012 21:23:58 GMT -5
Feminism isn't about the biological differences of men and women. It is entirely about the social aspect. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying to make a point against feminism, or just dense.
That said, I think it'd be a good idea if we defined feminism first since, as was plain in the chat box, lots of people think that feminism is just misandry with a different name. Feminism as I know of it, a social movement that treats men and women equally and lets either sex take whatever gender roles they choose, I agree with wholeheartedly.
|
|
|
Post by Shark a' Pult on May 28, 2012 21:33:17 GMT -5
Feminism isn't about the biological differences of men and women. It is entirely about the social aspect. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying to make a point against feminism, or just dense. Can you say, socially, that men and women are equal if physically they are not? Societal structure takes that into account, physicality, this much is for certain. There are many examples of this but lets just approach it from a professional aspect. As it stands today, a woman cannot be as physically strong as a man can be. So a man and a woman hold a job where they lift weights all day. Unfortunately as a basic, sheer limit of her biology she cannot lift weights as heavy as the man. Do they both deserve equal pay if their workload is not equal? By the way I'm just playing devil's advocate here for the sake of conversation, I largely support the feminist movement.
|
|
|
Post by Neurotick on May 28, 2012 22:27:56 GMT -5
If their workload is not equal then their pay should reflect that. The odds are, however, that a woman who takes a job knowing she will be lifting things will be more physically capable of doing so than, say, a woman who takes a job in accounting, and therefore may be just as good at lifting things as the man regardless of innate biological differences. If at the end of the day the woman lifts 30 weights and the man lifts 35, the man should be paid more. If the woman lifts 35 and the man lifts 30, the woman should be paid more. And, if over the course of time between paychecks they lift roughly the same amount of weight, their pay should be equal. It would be no different if it was two men or two women working the job, whomever does the best job should get the best pay regardless of what they were born with between their legs (or what color their skin is--feminism is closely tied to minority rights as well, but that's another story).
How about another job scenario: Two people are working in an accounting firm, one male and one female. Both do the same job of crunching numbers, have the same number of clients, and have the same number of late or missed work days. However, because the woman is biologically inclined to be better at multitasking (if we're looking at physical biological differences we might as well look at mental differences as well) she is more likely to get all of her accounts in order at once and still have time and energy to do other things around the office (such as answering corporate emails, answering the phone, etc.) while the man is (statistically) wired to focus on one thing at a time. In that scenario, who should get paid more? What if it is a black man who is good at multitasking and a white man who is not? Or a man who is good at multitasking and a woman who is not?
If we're going to add in biology then you have to also account for the fact that gender dimorphism is not nearly as prevalent in humans as it is in other species. It is not uncommon to have weak men and strong women, or have men that are good at multitasking and women that are good at analytical thinking. To say that "all women are biologically weaker than men" is a bit of a logical fallacy in itself, as it is nigh impossible to account for literally every human being on the planet and what their genetic makeup may have added or taken away from their physical limits. Statistically women are physically weaker than men, but in that same vein you can also say that statistically black men run faster than white men. Does that mean that black men are better than white men? Granted I'm not the biologist here, but I know there is always "wiggle room" in any given population.
|
|
|
Post by Shark a' Pult on May 29, 2012 1:06:55 GMT -5
I'm not trying to take into account the most common denominator, because those aren't the grounds on which we can settle differences. At least in this specific case I want to veer away from statistics, because it seems to me an easy way to dodge the central issue. In the end, it's not the common statistics that refute these points. It would be nice could we rely on statistics, but we are taking human beings and all their differences into account.
I'm trying to consider cases in where one sex is biologically defined as being better than the other at something, as defined by genes. You raise a good point in the comparison of workload in the strength department, however what I meant to say was that there is a biological ceiling of sorts in place for this example on women physically; it is a simple fact that if you take the most genetically apt man and woman on the planet for the sort of role, and have them train their bodies to their peak physical fitness, the woman will be weaker than the man. This is not a statistical proof, this is objective. For verification, view the world record strength and weight records set by men and women. It simply stands that a male body is in it's natural state more apt to build and store muscle mass than a female body for biological reasons.
Now in your example it is much the same in reverse, in the case with mental facilities and multi-tasking, women having the statistical edge. However as before we should try and veer away from statistics because it's a bit too easy to handwave the problem by using them. Now I'm not nearly as knowledgeable on the mental aspect of bodies as I am the physical aspect, but lets go along with your point to allow this consideration; as before, take the most mentally apt man and woman on the planet for the task, and have them train their minds for a task till they reach their limit. At this point for both of them, regardless of the level of training of brainpower, like the man with strength, the woman in this case will invariably win out because of the sheer nature of her biology VS. the mans.
These ceilings are in place across the board for various reasons that are not up to us, and it is a problematic, but established reality dictated by nature, and our genes. Now of course this is not always the case, and there are many more examples where men and women perform equally, however it is the empirical differences where they will outdo one another because biology says so, that break the mean of statistics. So like men having a greater endurance in resistance to pain that simply cannot be matched by a woman, much the same with women having a greater endurance in resistance to sickness and disease that simply cannot be matched by a man. These are just things which are beyond our capacity to change, and all things which factor into social structure. So in the case of She-hulk VS. a stickman in lifting boxes, or Multiple-tabs-open man VS. one-task lady in time management and multitasking, these cases do exist in the world, however they are flawed comparisons because while they do enforce the numbers and statistical outliers they aren't in the same category of comparison and don't answer the most basic question. In each of those cases, being realistic and fair you would compare the strongest man and woman, and the smartest woman and man, and consistently will see them outplay one another.
Now if we consider these things so far, we should interpret how the factor socially. For this case, let us play a little exercise; wind the clock back approximately 200,000 years to when modern humans are believed to have evolved into being. Imagine that we could alter the human genome of the time to suit our purposes; simply we just invert all the ways in which one sex is biologically superior to the other, so in the cases we have considered so far; women are on average stronger than men and able to increase that strength easier, while men are mentally more capable and able to increase those mental functions more easily. Now the most stereotypical perceptions of early human society are of the hunter-gatherer tribe, with the men hunting and dealing with defense of the tribe, and the women gathering and farming, and dealing with the social aspect of the tribe. This is the very first society and societal system. Now in this most basic time of early humans, your job and thus your societal position is determined solely by biology; in the by and large men do the hunting with outlier women also participating, while women do the gathering with outlier men also participating. As basic and unrefined as it is, the hunter-gatherer society is exemplary in demonstrating inequality based on biology. The man or woman who does the best at hunting gets the best kill and the biggest share, while the man or woman who gathers the best resources gets the choice pick of them. The greatest fighter in the tribe will lead up the defense and get the spoils of combat first while being the most respected in terms of physicality, while the smartest member of the tribe will lead up the social and political aspect of the tribe and determine how things are run while being the most respected mentally. By sheer mother nature, societal roles are determined, because there is no prejudice or inequality in place yet to say otherwise, other than the inequality of biology, and genes. From here the system only further develops overtime until statistics are observed, and the traditions are in place so that now even if you are the best fighter but not mentally apt, because you are a woman and most women have a domestic social role you become relegated to that. The same in reverse that even if you are a great domestic fit but of poor physical stature, because you are a man and most men have a militaristic role you become relegated to that. Deviations are possible but they are looked down upon.
Now turn it on it's head. Remember our hunter-gatherer tribe? Reverse the biological standards. Women are the hunters and fighters with some men participating, while men are the gatherers and determiners of social aspects with some women participating. As before in this most basic of society, prejudice and inequality is not in place, and merely your societal role and worth is entirely the result of your biology. Let time progress to further and further developed societies until as with before we have traditions, statistics, prejudice in place. Women head up the military and men head up the domestic, and though outliers exist they are frowned upon thus enforcing social roles and inequality.
And so, now that we can now look back and analyze things with a historical and scientific understanding, it is demonstrable how simple biological differences have overtime contributed to the system of inequality that has existed throughout most of human history. It is only as technology has progressed that the biological barriers between men and women have been pushed or knocked down. This goes both ways of course, and throughout the entirety of my argument I never want to simply state that "Men are biologically superior to women" and leave it at that, because it is not the case. Indeed, men are biologically superior to women, but then on the other hand women are biologically superior to men. In each sex there lies inherent biological strengths over the other sex, and it's not just physical. Statistically these differences between sexes are largely nonexistent, but in a time where they meant everything for a person and their social position, it is these small differences or even the outliers and their large differences that in the long run established the system of inequality we have had even up to today.
I offer an addendum however; in the same way that technology has always pushed or knocked down the social differences between sexes, in the future they will knock down the biological differences between sexes thus allowing for a system of true equality. That is why a part of me things the Feminist movement will die out before it sees its goal, because though major changes have always been made because of it, it is a slow process. However in 20 years, 40 tops, when because of technology every man and woman can be made biologically equal in all ways except for physical sex, true equality will be realized as if overnight. Rather than the Feminist movement claiming a great victory when all people are truly equal, simply one day its goals will become a reality without its input, and invariably the world will be a better place. Hopefully.
---
Also one slight minor detail, but where you mentioned earlier, blacks actually are biologically faster than whites. This has been proven to be a biological fact, in the same way that biologically the strongest woman cannot out compete the strongest man while the most mentally apt man cannot out compete the most mentally apt woman. Sure, statistically blacks may seem faster than whites, but this is also biologically the case. It has something to do with leg muscle structure in blacks VS. whites, an actual physical difference. I read it in some studies awhile back. Just thought anyone might be curious.
|
|