Author Topic: Why do so few men "follow/fanboy/support" women, when the reverse is not true?  (Read 18497 times)

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
Wow. Revisiting this thread after a few days and just feel incredibly bummed.

Somehow this turned into a conversation about sports. Fine, men tend to be physically stronger.  But the initial question raised larger issues than this.

My concern is that a subset of men just... don't see women as full people in the same way they see men. Such a man might not pick up a book with a female protagonist, or watch a movie starring all women, or even just hang out with women they know as friends. They see women as so different and alien that they can't relate to female experiences. 

Zooming out to society as a whole, we can see how this leads to discrimination.  Like even in this thread, the story about the well-liked female co-worker being pointedly excluded while the men hang out and build their old boys' network is so sad. I thought those days were going out with the baby boomers. 

I am married to a thoughtful man who views women as full equals in all the ways that matter in daily life. As he is my closest personal link to "the world of men," I had started to think his attitudes were normal.  This thread is a huge come-down.

Itís interesting that you are insinuating that men are unable to separate friendships with work.

That was my story you were referencing above, and I can promise you, who I might be ďfriendsĒ with, has nothing to do with work. I am currently in the process of trying to fire one of my longer time friends, however he only partially reports to me, so itís a struggle. I could not care less that Iíve hung out with him several times outside of work or that we talk regularly. If someone fails to perform, they are held to the same standard regardless.

I used to have a lady who worked for me that I couldnít stand a lot of the time. She would cry all the time at work due to her personal relationship problems. Poor attitude, caused some work conflicts with others, etc. that being said - she was one of the best people in her position I have ever worked with. Her attention to detail was second to none. I stood up for her to my boss (and covered her ass) on multiple occasions.

On another occasion, another lady (who I was friends with) was about to be laid off from another department. I did some shifting around in my group, and was able to transfer her to my department to work for me. You know what else is funny? I had more experience, qualifications, etc., and was her manager, yet she made more money than I did. I couldnít care less, as she must have worked a good deal, but itís just a point against all those that think ďmen always make more.Ē

So yeah - I might minimize the amount of times I invite our female coworkers to come boating and drinking with a few coworkers and myself, but you have ZERO reasoning that it at all impacts how I do my job. I have positioned myself into way too good of a career to not always surround myself with the most capable people.

EricL

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 874
Wow. Revisiting this thread after a few days and just feel incredibly bummed.

Somehow this turned into a conversation about sports. Fine, men tend to be physically stronger.  But the initial question raised larger issues than this.

My concern is that a subset of men just... don't see women as full people in the same way they see men. Such a man might not pick up a book with a female protagonist, or watch a movie starring all women, or even just hang out with women they know as friends. They see women as so different and alien that they can't relate to female experiences. 

Zooming out to society as a whole, we can see how this leads to discrimination.  Like even in this thread, the story about the well-liked female co-worker being pointedly excluded while the men hang out and build their old boys' network is so sad. I thought those days were going out with the baby boomers. 

I am married to a thoughtful man who views women as full equals in all the ways that matter in daily life. As he is my closest personal link to "the world of men," I had started to think his attitudes were normal.  This thread is a huge come-down.

Yup.

Itís depressing as hell.

I guess it depends on what you read.  Amelia Earhart was an early hero.  I followed Roz Savage and supported her rows across two oceans with money and materials.  Buffy the Vampire Slayer is my favorite TV series of all time.  I'm a fan of female artists ranging from Loreena McKennitt to Pat Benatar.  If I had to choose just one sex for my musical library I'd probably choose women.  And this from a guy who's not particularly liberal on social issues. 

DS

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
I would not confess this in public, but my husband sings along with nearly all the female singers on the radio.  I wouldn't call him a fanboy, but he enjoys female singers' music.

Funny, isnít it, how this is seen as something to be embarrased by?

Saddening that this is the norm. The word "confess" makes this sound really brutal.

It's sad to think that someone would see a person enjoying music, and turn it into something negative just because of their inferred reproductive traits.

"That person has a penis and is singing along to a song by someone with a vagina. Why would they make themselves appear so weak?"

DS

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
The conversation about strength and physical characteristics is a good base for the conversation.

Super basic analysis, observations and not necessarily my opinions:

We have observable differences in sex (binary vs spectrum a whole other can of worms for another thread) that have been seen for thousands of years. From that, we slapped gender on top of it, basically implying that the actions and interests of each sex are predictable and determinable. This has created a whole mess because of all the things that became gendered which just belong to humanity in general, and have nothing to do with our specific sex traits.

The observable differences in strength and all that has been said about sports translates into the realm of what is going on in the mind, aka gender, and everything on each side has become associated with those differences. (Bias: female = weaker)

Now, when a male wants to enjoy something that has wrongly been gendered which is really just a human interest, it is seen as something to do with strength and all of those other observable differences. This makes it uncomfortable for the male person and any who would want to see them as "manly" (spouse, family, etc)

Paul der Krake

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4397
  • Age: 10
  • Location: USA
I would not confess this in public, but my husband sings along with nearly all the female singers on the radio.  I wouldn't call him a fanboy, but he enjoys female singers' music.

Funny, isnít it, how this is seen as something to be embarrased by?

Saddening that this is the norm. The word "confess" makes this sound really brutal.

It's sad to think that someone would see a person enjoying music, and turn it into something negative just because of their inferred reproductive traits.

"That person has a penis and is singing along to a song by someone with a vagina. Why would they make themselves appear so weak?"
Thankfully there's ABBA, where us men can sing along without any judgement since the band is split 50/50 and they all sing.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
I'll judge you for singing along to ABBA, but it has nothing to do with women being in the band.  :P

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
I would not confess this in public, but my husband sings along with nearly all the female singers on the radio.  I wouldn't call him a fanboy, but he enjoys female singers' music.

Funny, isnít it, how this is seen as something to be embarrased by?

Saddening that this is the norm. The word "confess" makes this sound really brutal.

It's sad to think that someone would see a person enjoying music, and turn it into something negative just because of their inferred reproductive traits.

"That person has a penis and is singing along to a song by someone with a vagina. Why would they make themselves appear so weak?"
Thankfully there's ABBA, where us men can sing along without any judgement since the band is split 50/50 and they all sing.

And for us boomers there were The Mamas and the Papas.   ;-)

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1292
I would not confess this in public, but my husband sings along with nearly all the female singers on the radio.  I wouldn't call him a fanboy, but he enjoys female singers' music.

Funny, isnít it, how this is seen as something to be embarrased by?

Saddening that this is the norm. The word "confess" makes this sound really brutal.

It's sad to think that someone would see a person enjoying music, and turn it into something negative just because of their inferred reproductive traits.

"That person has a penis and is singing along to a song by someone with a vagina. Why would they make themselves appear so weak?"
Thankfully there's ABBA, where us men can sing along without any judgement since the band is split 50/50 and they all sing.
I think this has more to do with it than men listening to women. I've never seen any men made fun of for listening to Adele but Britney Spears, well... Or even Justin Beiber for that matter. It's more a matter of style than sex but there's probably some of both.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1292
Wow. Revisiting this thread after a few days and just feel incredibly bummed.

Somehow this turned into a conversation about sports. Fine, men tend to be physically stronger.  But the initial question raised larger issues than this.

My concern is that a subset of men just... don't see women as full people in the same way they see men. Such a man might not pick up a book with a female protagonist, or watch a movie starring all women, or even just hang out with women they know as friends. They see women as so different and alien that they can't relate to female experiences. 

Zooming out to society as a whole, we can see how this leads to discrimination.  Like even in this thread, the story about the well-liked female co-worker being pointedly excluded while the men hang out and build their old boys' network is so sad. I thought those days were going out with the baby boomers. 

I am married to a thoughtful man who views women as full equals in all the ways that matter in daily life. As he is my closest personal link to "the world of men," I had started to think his attitudes were normal.  This thread is a huge come-down.

I wouldn't focus too much on the direction of the conversation. Most threads tend to find a disagreement and run away with it, the things we agree on don't need to be debated and I've seen a number of good points in this thread. It's just that when someone makes a good point the response tends to be something along the lines of, "yup". Not much to expand on there.

I do think the natural differences in strength leading to male dominated sports was relevant and it would have been nice if we left it at that but just as use2betrix and I think Wolfpack pointed out, some people get offended by verifiable facts and turn the issue into a debate. It's really hard to not keep responding to their comments.

Although based on Cressida's last post, I think it was just a matter of misunderstanding. The bolded below has nothing to do with marty998's comment. "More than likely" means >50% of the time, that's all. No need to limit the sample groups by age, fitness level, size - you can do this with the whole population and the statement is still correct.

And sorry Cressida but the bell curve thing is just nonsense. The whole point of doing statistical analysis is to:
1) run experiments on large sample sizes
2) isolate characteristics, to the furthest extent possible

You mention statistical analysis, but the problem is, that's not the way people tend to read marty998's statement. Again, here is what he said:

"objectively the physical strength of a random man will more than likely be more than that of a random woman."

Now, if you introduce controls (like picking a man and woman with similar age, fitness level, size, etc.), then the statement is probably true (as I stated several comments ago). And if you make the comparison thousands of times (as you just noted), then the statement is probably true. I'm not and have never been arguing that point.

But most people reading the statement aren't thinking that way; most people will read it and think it's saying, "most men are stronger than most women."* And that is not true. My dad died several years ago of COPD and I can guarantee that if we'd done a comparison on the day he went into the hospital, I'd have been stronger than he was.

This is all I've been saying this entire time (and if you go back and read all of my comments, they will bear this out). I've been making a very narrow claim. I'm saying that if all you know is that you've chosen one man and one woman from the population of the world, it is not true that the man will "more than likely" be stronger. There are way too many variables for that.


*If you doubt this, just check reddit. Lots of people believe this.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2018, 12:59:50 PM by Dabnasty »

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Although based on Cressida's last post, I think it was just a matter of misunderstanding. The bolded below has nothing to do with marty998's comment. "More than likely" means >50% of the time, that's all. No need to limit the sample groups by age, fitness level, size - you can do this with the whole population and the statement is still correct.

Technically it does, yes, and you're right. The problem is that people tend to round up. "More than likely" becomes "most of the time" becomes "well this is just true." The narrative I'm pushing back against is the old "the weakest men are stronger than the strongest women" story.

And no, not everyone does the rounding up thing, which is why I got such strong push-back. But it's definitely a thing, especially among groups engaging in motivated reasoning.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Although based on Cressida's last post, I think it was just a matter of misunderstanding. The bolded below has nothing to do with marty998's comment. "More than likely" means >50% of the time, that's all. No need to limit the sample groups by age, fitness level, size - you can do this with the whole population and the statement is still correct.

Technically it does, yes, and you're right. The problem is that people tend to round up. "More than likely" becomes "most of the time" becomes "well this is just true." The narrative I'm pushing back against is the old "the weakest men are stronger than the strongest women" story.

And no, not everyone does the rounding up thing, which is why I got such strong push-back. But it's definitely a thing, especially among groups engaging in motivated reasoning.

If you take a given man and a given woman of the same weight and age the man will typically have more muscle mass.
Quote
Our findings indicate that there are gender differences for regional and whole body muscle mass. On average, SM mass in men was 36% greater than in women. This gender difference remained after controlling for gender differences in body weight and height because SM mass relative to body weight was 38% in men and only 31% in women.
https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.1.81

This difference in muscle size means that a guy will typically be stronger.
Quote
The findings suggest that the sex difference in muscular strength in equally trained men and women is almost entirely accounted for by the difference in muscle size.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140138708969760

The fact that men skew slightly heavier and taller than women makes the strength difference even bigger on average.  This is well known and well studied.  Yes, it's possible that a woman at random will be stronger than a man . . . but it's unlikely.



The argument that men's and women's brains are different is not based in evidence though.  The individual variation from person to person eclipses measurable differences between the brains of men and women.
https://www.livescience.com/52941-brain-is-mix-male-and-female.html

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
Although based on Cressida's last post, I think it was just a matter of misunderstanding. The bolded below has nothing to do with marty998's comment. "More than likely" means >50% of the time, that's all. No need to limit the sample groups by age, fitness level, size - you can do this with the whole population and the statement is still correct.

Technically it does, yes, and you're right. The problem is that people tend to round up. "More than likely" becomes "most of the time" becomes "well this is just true." The narrative I'm pushing back against is the old "the weakest men are stronger than the strongest women" story.

And no, not everyone does the rounding up thing, which is why I got such strong push-back. But it's definitely a thing, especially among groups engaging in motivated reasoning.

If you take a given man and a given woman of the same weight and age the man will typically have more muscle mass.
Quote
Our findings indicate that there are gender differences for regional and whole body muscle mass. On average, SM mass in men was 36% greater than in women. This gender difference remained after controlling for gender differences in body weight and height because SM mass relative to body weight was 38% in men and only 31% in women.
https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.1.81

This difference in muscle size means that a guy will typically be stronger.
Quote
The findings suggest that the sex difference in muscular strength in equally trained men and women is almost entirely accounted for by the difference in muscle size.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00140138708969760

The fact that men skew slightly heavier and taller than women makes the strength difference even bigger on average.  This is well known and well studied.  Yes, it's possible that a woman at random will be stronger than a man . . . but it's unlikely.



The argument that men's and women's brains are different is not based in evidence though.  The individual variation from person to person eclipses measurable differences between the brains of men and women.
https://www.livescience.com/52941-brain-is-mix-male-and-female.html

How dare you enter this thread with links and supporting facts. We only do broad generalizations, extremist examples, and baseless claims around these parts.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
The fact that men skew slightly heavier and taller than women makes the strength difference even bigger on average.  This is well known and well studied.  Yes, it's possible that a woman at random will be stronger than a man . . . but it's unlikely.

I think we've been over all of the ramifications and interpretations several times now. Moreover, "unlikely" is imprecise, and your claim can't be evaluated unless you explain what you mean. Is "unlikely" less than 50%? Less than 25? Less than 10? It makes a difference, and it's already led to confusion in this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_of_estimative_probability


The argument that men's and women's brains are different is not based in evidence though.  The individual variation from person to person eclipses measurable differences between the brains of men and women.
https://www.livescience.com/52941-brain-is-mix-male-and-female.html

There we are in agreement, although now we're probably *really* going to bring out the trolls.

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
The fact that men skew slightly heavier and taller than women makes the strength difference even bigger on average.  This is well known and well studied.  Yes, it's possible that a woman at random will be stronger than a man . . . but it's unlikely.

I think we've been over all of the ramifications and interpretations several times now. Moreover, "unlikely" is imprecise, and your claim can't be evaluated unless you explain what you mean. Is "unlikely" less than 50%? Less than 25? Less than 10? It makes a difference, and it's already led to confusion in this thread.


In terms of upper body strength, I would estimate it to be approximately 5-10%. For lower body strength, maybe 10-20%.

The best hope for women to be stronger would be comparing a young fit woman to an elderly or disabled man.

An average male age 15-60 that participated in resistance training semi regularly can pretty easily be stronger than 99% of women barring any disabilities.

As an example - Iíve been to dozens of weight rooms all over the world, witnessing thousands of men and women exercising over the last decade. I can count on one hand how many times Iíve seen a woman bench press 135lbs. I was able to do that easily at 14 years old. I bench double that now for 6 reps.

Regarding leg strength, due to womenís build, they do have a somewhat closer chance of being stronger than men. Iíd say that a woman who follows a nearly perfect strength training regimen for several years, can probably squat more than many men who do not exercise at all. For example, my wife can squat 225 lbs for a few reps, which is a ton for a female. This would be hard for most men that donít workout. A man on an identical training regimen, however, could hit this much sooner with far more potential. I very rarely see women squat as much as my wife. I squat a lot more, and have never in my life seen a woman squat as much as I do, though through research some of the most elite women in the country can squat more. These are literally like 1 in a million women. That being said - I see men squat more than me in a weekly basis, as for a man, my squats really arenít that spectacular.

Again - these are all my personal examples which seem to be far more extensive than any of the women disagreeing in this thread have mentioned. This is stretched between around 2000 workouts, several countries, and easily 30+ gyms in a dozen states.

I know thereís outliers, but genetics among genders all over the world are still relatively similar.

Sailor Sam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4153
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Steel Beach
  • Semper...something
The fact that men skew slightly heavier and taller than women makes the strength difference even bigger on average.  This is well known and well studied.  Yes, it's possible that a woman at random will be stronger than a man . . . but it's unlikely.

I think we've been over all of the ramifications and interpretations several times now. Moreover, "unlikely" is imprecise, and your claim can't be evaluated unless you explain what you mean. Is "unlikely" less than 50%? Less than 25? Less than 10? It makes a difference, and it's already led to confusion in this thread.


In terms of upper body strength, I would estimate it to be approximately 5-10%. For lower body strength, maybe 10-20%.

The best hope for women to be stronger would be comparing a young fit woman to an elderly or disabled man.

An average male age 15-60 that participated in resistance training semi regularly can pretty easily be stronger than 99% of women barring any disabilities.

As an example - Iíve been to dozens of weight rooms all over the world, witnessing thousands of men and women exercising over the last decade. I can count on one hand how many times Iíve seen a woman bench press 135lbs. I was able to do that easily at 14 years old. I bench double that now for 6 reps.

Regarding leg strength, due to womenís build, they do have a somewhat closer chance of being stronger than men. Iíd say that a woman who follows a nearly perfect strength training regimen for several years, can probably squat more than many men who do not exercise at all. For example, my wife can squat 225 lbs for a few reps, which is a ton for a female. This would be hard for most men that donít workout. A man on an identical training regimen, however, could hit this much sooner with far more potential. I very rarely see women squat as much as my wife. I squat a lot more, and have never in my life seen a woman squat as much as I do, though through research some of the most elite women in the country can squat more. These are literally like 1 in a million women. That being said - I see men squat more than me in a weekly basis, as for a man, my squats really arenít that spectacular.

Again - these are all my personal examples which seem to be far more extensive than any of the women disagreeing in this thread have mentioned. This is stretched between around 2000 workouts, several countries, and easily 30+ gyms in a dozen states.

I know thereís outliers, but genetics among genders all over the world are still relatively similar.

Even your fancy gyms, your experiences aren't controlling for the gender discrimination women experienced early in life. Right when girls hit puberty, they tend to leave organized sports. This means they stop improving their sub-conscious muscle coordination and sequence firing at the exact same time when young people are building their adult muscle mass.

So, for example, when boys are learning the exact moment to fire their Latissimus Dorsi when doing a pull up, learning it so deeply it becomes unconscious, girls are NOT learning. Which means they become women who aren't necessarily weak, so much as they are uncoordinated.

Here's my personal example: I was a staff officer at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, where I trained Office Candidates. The previously-civilian women I trained universally needed remedial training on muscle sequence and recruitment for big compound lifts. Once they got that remedial training, they got mysteriously 'stronger' much faster than muscle growth could account for.

Based on my experience, 95% of women can do a pull-up, and 20-25% can bench press 135lbs. They just need some kinesiology training, and they need the motivation of someone screaming blue fucking murder at them if they don't get that weight up.

Our anecdotes conflict. Whatever shall we do?

PoutineLover

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1016
This whole strength discussion is besides the point, but just for the sake of argument, think about the functional strength required to do daily tasks in life rather than the unnatural environment of the male dominated gym in affluent Western society. All the women who carry jugs of water miles to and from the well. The strength required for childbirth and carrying around infants all day. Farming, cleaning, caregiving. Women do more work than men worldwide when you include paid and unpaid labour, and yet male work is valued and paid more. Which is kinda like the argument being made by the women in this tread about the sports and entertainment industries...
Just because western society values certain types of typical male strength and actively works to undermine women's strength by discouraging female participation in sports, spreading the lie that lifting weights will give women huge muscles and make you undesirable, and calling strong women "manly" as an insult, doesn't mean that women in general aren't as strong or stronger than men in arguably more important ways.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
The fact that men skew slightly heavier and taller than women makes the strength difference even bigger on average.  This is well known and well studied.  Yes, it's possible that a woman at random will be stronger than a man . . . but it's unlikely.

I think we've been over all of the ramifications and interpretations several times now. Moreover, "unlikely" is imprecise, and your claim can't be evaluated unless you explain what you mean. Is "unlikely" less than 50%? Less than 25? Less than 10? It makes a difference, and it's already led to confusion in this thread.


In terms of upper body strength, I would estimate it to be approximately 5-10%. For lower body strength, maybe 10-20%.

The best hope for women to be stronger would be comparing a young fit woman to an elderly or disabled man.

An average male age 15-60 that participated in resistance training semi regularly can pretty easily be stronger than 99% of women barring any disabilities.

As an example - Iíve been to dozens of weight rooms all over the world, witnessing thousands of men and women exercising over the last decade. I can count on one hand how many times Iíve seen a woman bench press 135lbs. I was able to do that easily at 14 years old. I bench double that now for 6 reps.

Regarding leg strength, due to womenís build, they do have a somewhat closer chance of being stronger than men. Iíd say that a woman who follows a nearly perfect strength training regimen for several years, can probably squat more than many men who do not exercise at all. For example, my wife can squat 225 lbs for a few reps, which is a ton for a female. This would be hard for most men that donít workout. A man on an identical training regimen, however, could hit this much sooner with far more potential. I very rarely see women squat as much as my wife. I squat a lot more, and have never in my life seen a woman squat as much as I do, though through research some of the most elite women in the country can squat more. These are literally like 1 in a million women. That being said - I see men squat more than me in a weekly basis, as for a man, my squats really arenít that spectacular.

Again - these are all my personal examples which seem to be far more extensive than any of the women disagreeing in this thread have mentioned. This is stretched between around 2000 workouts, several countries, and easily 30+ gyms in a dozen states.

I know thereís outliers, but genetics among genders all over the world are still relatively similar.

Again, we've been over all of this. You're talking about (1) anecdotes (2) at gyms. I'm not saying your observation is wrong (I wasn't there), but your extrapolations are unsupported.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
I find this thread troublesome. I'm a male who likes a lot of male dominated sports. I also don't fanboy over anyone and if I do it's in a very minor way. I also have no problems with women at all. I don't think women are weaker emotionally than men. If anything my wife is a lot emotionally rougher than what I am. My wife also works hard. So does my mum. I work with women and they aren't difficult at all. I read books and watch shows with women in them and can definitely like female characters.

I have problems though when anyone wants to play the "society is bad" game. My take is that people with victim syndrome should focus on themselves and see if they belief systems really impact their lives in any way shape or form. I think 99% of the time people that make these types of claims aren't being honest with themselves in that all their grand theories don't actually impact them at all apart from in their own head.

I think women and men both play the society is bad victim card and I find it really tough to listen too. Men think they are discriminated against (which is true but also not true) and women think the same thing (which is true but also not true). I think all people should just suck it up and focus on improving their lives.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
I have problems though when anyone wants to play the "society is bad" game. My take is that people with victim syndrome should focus on themselves and see if they belief systems really impact their lives in any way shape or form. I think 99% of the time people that make these types of claims aren't being honest with themselves in that all their grand theories don't actually impact them at all apart from in their own head.

I think women and men both play the society is bad victim card and I find it really tough to listen too. Men think they are discriminated against (which is true but also not true) and women think the same thing (which is true but also not true). I think all people should just suck it up and focus on improving their lives.

Huh. I'm not a rabid SJW but this strikes me as pretty flipping complacent. Structural oppression and marginalization is a thing; it's not a grand theory and it's not in people's heads. Telling people to live with it seems defeatist. The status quo isn't always the best we can hope for.

I could say more but I'll leave it there.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3874
  • Location: Avalon
I find this thread troublesome. I'm a male who likes a lot of male dominated sports. I also don't fanboy over anyone and if I do it's in a very minor way. I also have no problems with women at all. I don't think women are weaker emotionally than men. If anything my wife is a lot emotionally rougher than what I am. My wife also works hard. So does my mum. I work with women and they aren't difficult at all. I read books and watch shows with women in them and can definitely like female characters.

I have problems though when anyone wants to play the "society is bad" game. My take is that people with victim syndrome should focus on themselves and see if they belief systems really impact their lives in any way shape or form. I think 99% of the time people that make these types of claims aren't being honest with themselves in that all their grand theories don't actually impact them at all apart from in their own head.

I think women and men both play the society is bad victim card and I find it really tough to listen too. Men think they are discriminated against (which is true but also not true) and women think the same thing (which is true but also not true). I think all people should just suck it up and focus on improving their lives.
i
Focusing on individual improvement does not solve systemic problems.  If it did, the USA would still be a British colony.

Also, this whole debate on stronger implies stronger is better regardless of any circumstances.  Weightlifting has weight classes for men, as do martial arts.  Are the smaller men who win World and Olympic medals in lower weight classes less good, less watchable, less worthy, than the men who win the heaviest weight class?  If not, then whether you are watching a man in his weight class or a woman in her weight class should be irrelevant.  The fact that pages have been used up talking only about how the heaviest weight class for men is likely higher than the heaviest weight class for women speaks volumes about the biases involved.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
The fact that men skew slightly heavier and taller than women makes the strength difference even bigger on average.  This is well known and well studied.  Yes, it's possible that a woman at random will be stronger than a man . . . but it's unlikely.

I think we've been over all of the ramifications and interpretations several times now. Moreover, "unlikely" is imprecise, and your claim can't be evaluated unless you explain what you mean. Is "unlikely" less than 50%? Less than 25? Less than 10? It makes a difference, and it's already led to confusion in this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_of_estimative_probability

I'll try to do better!  I'm not an intelligence operative, so have never used 'words of estimative probability' before, and don't feel qualified to start doing so based on skimming over a Wikipedia article.

This chart (https://www.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/jappl.2000.89.1.81#) from the first study I posted indicates the information I think you're looking for though.  It deals with muscle mass that men and women carry, and from the second article I posted we know that amount of muscle a person carries is one of the best predictors of strength.

If we compare men and women of the same age BMI and age between the ages of 18 and dead, men on average are always stronger.  (A bit more than 8% more muscle mass on average).  Men exhibit greater skeletal muscle mass on average that women in each age bracket tested.  If we compare men and women of different age groups, the highest muscle mass to BMI ratio is women in the 18 - 29 bracket with an average of 34.1 Ī 5.7.  This group of women is stronger than only the weakest tested bracket of men (the 60-69 group -    33.8 Ī 3.9).  All other age brackets of women are weaker than all other age brackets of men.

So, ignoring differences for age, a rough estimate that we have would be that 8.5% of women are stronger than men of the same BMI.  The extreme outliers would probably bump this number up or down a few percentage points, but I think it's a good place to start unless you have a better interpretation of the data.

If we ignore BMI AND age and just compare relative numbers, all age groups of women carry significantly less muscle mass than all groups of men on average.  Even the most muscled group of women (18-29 at 21.8 Ī 4.6) carries significantly less muscle mass than the weakest group of men (70+ at 27.8 Ī 3.4).  This makes sense since most men are both taller and mass more than women on average.  Only the very strongest from the group of 18-29 year old women (carrying 26.4 kg of muscle mass) would be stronger than the very weakest of the group of 70+ year old men (carrying 24.4 kg of muscle mass) so I guess that this number would be in the low single digits percent-wise (certainly below 8.5%) unless you have a better read on the data than I do.

So,to qualify my initial statement . . . It's possible that a woman at random will be stronger than a man at random but it's unlikely.  In a hundred comparisons, we're probably going to find this occurring once or maybe twice.


The argument that men's and women's brains are different is not based in evidence though.  The individual variation from person to person eclipses measurable differences between the brains of men and women.
https://www.livescience.com/52941-brain-is-mix-male-and-female.html

There we are in agreement, although now we're probably *really* going to bring out the trolls.

The idea that women fundamentally think differently, to the best of my knowledge is not really supported by measurable science.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2018, 09:55:23 AM by GuitarStv »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Doing this kind of statistical work is not my forte, so if I've made stupid assumptions please point them out and correct them for me.

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1292
I find this thread troublesome. I'm a male who likes a lot of male dominated sports. I also don't fanboy over anyone and if I do it's in a very minor way. I also have no problems with women at all. I don't think women are weaker emotionally than men. If anything my wife is a lot emotionally rougher than what I am. My wife also works hard. So does my mum. I work with women and they aren't difficult at all. I read books and watch shows with women in them and can definitely like female characters.

I have problems though when anyone wants to play the "society is bad" game. My take is that people with victim syndrome should focus on themselves and see if they belief systems really impact their lives in any way shape or form. I think 99% of the time people that make these types of claims aren't being honest with themselves in that all their grand theories don't actually impact them at all apart from in their own head.

I think women and men both play the society is bad victim card and I find it really tough to listen too. Men think they are discriminated against (which is true but also not true) and women think the same thing (which is true but also not true). I think all people should just suck it up and focus on improving their lives.
i
Focusing on individual improvement does not solve systemic problems.  If it did, the USA would still be a British colony.

Also, this whole debate on stronger implies stronger is better regardless of any circumstances.  Weightlifting has weight classes for men, as do martial arts.  Are the smaller men who win World and Olympic medals in lower weight classes less good, less watchable, less worthy, than the men who win the heaviest weight class?  If not, then whether you are watching a man in his weight class or a woman in her weight class should be irrelevant.  The fact that pages have been used up talking only about how the heaviest weight class for men is likely higher than the heaviest weight class for women speaks volumes about the biases involved.

I'm not going to defend everyone who's harping on this, but as far as I can tell the only reason it's overtaken the rest of the conversation is that some are denying that the physical make up of humans has something to do with why male athletes are more watched than female. GuitarStv's suggestion that inherent physical features such as strength, speed, and height have something to do with why fans watch more male sports than female seems pretty obvious to me. When people take offense and try to argue with that point, no wonder it's going to get a response. It seems like a basic fact to many of us.

And sure, it's not the only reason. Perhaps popular sports were developed around physical attributes more common in men. That's an interesting point that I hadn't considered before this thread. Another reason is almost certainly the established fan base which leads to a higher potential for earnings in male sports. Because there is more incentive to become a professional athlete, more young boys will aspire to be great athletes and more talent will be developed at a young age. Another is the direction parents tend to push their children. I have no doubt parents are more likely to push their sons towards playing sports more often than their daughters.

I think if we can't make some of these statements about reality without digressing into arguments that someone is being sexist, the productiveness of these conversations will continue to grind to a halt.





Kris

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3467
I find this thread troublesome. I'm a male who likes a lot of male dominated sports. I also don't fanboy over anyone and if I do it's in a very minor way. I also have no problems with women at all. I don't think women are weaker emotionally than men. If anything my wife is a lot emotionally rougher than what I am. My wife also works hard. So does my mum. I work with women and they aren't difficult at all. I read books and watch shows with women in them and can definitely like female characters.

I have problems though when anyone wants to play the "society is bad" game. My take is that people with victim syndrome should focus on themselves and see if they belief systems really impact their lives in any way shape or form. I think 99% of the time people that make these types of claims aren't being honest with themselves in that all their grand theories don't actually impact them at all apart from in their own head.

I think women and men both play the society is bad victim card and I find it really tough to listen too. Men think they are discriminated against (which is true but also not true) and women think the same thing (which is true but also not true). I think all people should just suck it up and focus on improving their lives.
i
Focusing on individual improvement does not solve systemic problems.  If it did, the USA would still be a British colony.

Also, this whole debate on stronger implies stronger is better regardless of any circumstances.  Weightlifting has weight classes for men, as do martial arts.  Are the smaller men who win World and Olympic medals in lower weight classes less good, less watchable, less worthy, than the men who win the heaviest weight class?  If not, then whether you are watching a man in his weight class or a woman in her weight class should be irrelevant.  The fact that pages have been used up talking only about how the heaviest weight class for men is likely higher than the heaviest weight class for women speaks volumes about the biases involved.

I'm not going to defend everyone who's harping on this, but as far as I can tell the only reason it's overtaken the rest of the conversation is that some are denying that the physical make up of humans has something to do with why male athletes are more watched than female. GuitarStv's suggestion that inherent physical features such as strength, speed, and height have something to do with why fans watch more male sports than female seems pretty obvious to me. When people take offense and try to argue with that point, no wonder it's going to get a response. It seems like a basic fact to many of us.

And sure, it's not the only reason. Perhaps popular sports were developed around physical attributes more common in men. That's an interesting point that I hadn't considered before this thread. Another reason is almost certainly the established fan base which leads to a higher potential for earnings in male sports. Because there is more incentive to become a professional athlete, more young boys will aspire to be great athletes and more talent will be developed at a young age. Another is the direction parents tend to push their children. I have no doubt parents are more likely to push their sons towards playing sports more often than their daughters.

I think if we can't make some of these statements about reality without digressing into arguments that someone is being sexist, the productiveness of these conversations will continue to grind to a halt.

I really don't think that's true. Reading back through the thread, the conversation veered toward "well, men are stronger in sports!" pretty early on, after which point it dominated the conversation. When, if we were talking about the entire phenomenon, it probably would have been relegated to one exceptional point before people moving on to other areas in which physical strength is not the issue -- which is the majority of areas.

DS

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 671
Yeah this took a sharp turn quickly and hasn't come back.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 9803
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Yeah this took a sharp turn quickly and hasn't come back.

So let's let the strength people start another thread if they care about it so much, and get back to all the other aspects.  Which was actors (of both genders), and musicians and singers and so on.

Adam Zapple

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 290
Is it true that there are fewer male fans of female actors than the other way around?  I am not a movie buff, nor do I care much about celebrity culture so I'm asking a serious question.  My observation is that women consume more celebrity-focused media than men and would, therefore, be more likely to be a "fan" of a certain (non-sports) celebrity, male or female.


OurTown

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1039
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Tennessee
I don't follow sports religiously so I can't really speak to that aspect.  I enjoy actors / actresses and musical performers of both genders.  Classical composers were predominately men just because that was the way things were.

How about following internet personalities, e.g. MMM?  Some content is gender specific, like the "Art of Manliness."  That is a fantastic site, btw.  In other cases, I suppose men are probably drawn to emulate other men because they relate to them more easily. 

never give up

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1249
  • Location: UK
I may have a different take on this being from the UK but Iím not sure I agree with the subject line. I know very few people that are fans of actors or actresses. I know lots of people that are fans of films though. Iím not sure I know anyone male or female that would watch a film just because a specific actor or actress was in it. I do know people that wouldnít watch a film because a specific actor or actress was in it though, presumably because they find the person annoying or whatever.

Music wise again I donít know anyone that only listens to music produced by just one gender. If I like a song then I like a song. If it made me tap my foot and wiggle my hips and wave my hands in the air like I just donít care then itís done itís job. I really donít mind if the vocal is male or female, or if the drummer is male or female etc.

Obviously football is big here. Attendances at ladies football is similar to five or six leagues down in the menís game. I think to some extent football is very tribal here. Menís teams have built up rivalries often over 100 years or so and as a result I think this history is embedded completely in the culture. Menís football has a different feel to it than ladies because of it. Far more women watch menís football than ladies. I happily see far more females at football matches now though than when I was younger. I think itís great the ladies game is supported so well by the big clubs and the ladies game is growing.

I think the best comparison of male and female sport is something like the Olympics where I think almost all events have representation of male and female participants. Again I donít know anyone that would tune in for the menís 100 metres but wouldnít watch the womenís. With cycling, or track and field, rowing or more random events we only watch once every four years, everyone I know that enjoys the Olympics watches it all. They never pick an event and only watch either the men or women in it.

Having an interest in sport, music, film is great and should be encouraged at a young age. As long as both males and females have access to participate in and spectate in whatever interests they have, then that is the main thing I think.


Nick_Miller

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 772
Focusing on concerts for a minute...consider Maroon 5, Justin Timberlake, Mumford and Sons, etc.

1) They are all male
2) Their concert audiences (that I was a part of) were predominantly female. The first two were close to 80% female, in my estimation.

But does the flip situation exist at all? Can any of us name a contemporary female musical act that draws a predominantly male audience? (I think the answer is "No" but I certainly don't know everything!)

Taking the question down a step, can any of us name a contemporary female music act that even draws a 50/50 split audience? (Consider that male groups/singers like Bruce Springsteen, Eagles, Elton John, Coldplay, Pearl Jam, draw TONS of women to their shoes, probably at least in the 50/50 range)

Or is it really just as unbalanced as I questioned in my OP?
« Last Edit: November 27, 2018, 12:13:17 PM by Nick_Miller »

RyanAtTanagra

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 988
  • Location: SF Bay, CA
Focusing on concerts for a minute...consider Maroon 5, Justin Timberlake, Mumford and Sons, etc.

1) They are all male
2) Their concert audiences (that I was a part of) were predominantly female. The first two were close to 80% female, in my estimation.

But does the flip situation exist at all? Can any of us name a contemporary female musical act that draws a predominantly male audience? (I think the answer is "No" but certainly don't know everything!)

Taking the question down a step, can any of us name a contemporary female music act that even draws a 50/50 split audience? (Consider that male groups/singers like Bruce Springsteen, Eagles, Elton John, Pearl Jam, draw TONS of women to their shoes, probably in the 50/50 range)

My favorite band, mr Gnome, is female lead singer/frontwoman (only other member is the male drummer, who stays in the background), and the concerts are probably at least 50% male.  Definitely not 80% male though.  It's also a lesser known band and the concerts are <100 people, so not the greatest example.  But at least one exists :-)

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 12357
  • Age: 37
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Focusing on concerts for a minute...consider Maroon 5, Justin Timberlake, Mumford and Sons, etc.

1) They are all male
2) Their concert audiences (that I was a part of) were predominantly female. The first two were close to 80% female, in my estimation.

But does the flip situation exist at all? Can any of us name a contemporary female musical act that draws a predominantly male audience? (I think the answer is "No" but I certainly don't know everything!)

Taking the question down a step, can any of us name a contemporary female music act that even draws a 50/50 split audience? (Consider that male groups/singers like Bruce Springsteen, Eagles, Elton John, Coldplay, Pearl Jam, draw TONS of women to their shoes, probably at least in the 50/50 range)

Or is it really just as unbalanced as I questioned in my OP?

You're looking at a genre of music that is heavily marketed to women rather than men.

Heart in the 70s had a female singer and guitarist and played to mostly male audiences . . . actually, I'd be willing to bet that any groups fronted by women in the genre of hard rock / metal would mostly play to guys.  Metal's not really my forte though.

If you look at the modern blues scene, there are several woman who regularly play to male audiences.  Susan Tedeschi, Ana Popovic, Samantha Fish, Heather Gillis, etc.  Again, blues audiences tend to be mostly guys . . . so if you find women fronting a band they'll be playing to mostly guys.

dashuk

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 186
Depressing how this has become not just focused on sports, but specifically on lifting lumps of metal up in the air. I can't imagine why this might have happened.

And the way strength is measured favours men.  And I can't say what measurements would favour women, because we haven't done those experiments - although the women ultra-marathoners do show up a lot.  And of course as mentioned before, women are generally trained to be weak.


Here's a few for you who can kick all comers on equal terms...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lael_Wilcox

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amanda_Coker

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beryl_Burton#Record-breaker

(the last one's worth reading just for the story about the liquorice allsort)

There is a study out there that shows that while, yes, the top man is faster than the top woman at elite level in most running distance, if you take a man and a woman who can run, say, a half-marathon in the same time, the woman will likely be faster over a full marathon or ultra while the man will be faster over five or ten k. The longer distance diminishes the importance of raw power, makes a different type of body composition advantageous, rewards a less testosterone driven approach to racing, and depends on ability to suffer mentally as much as anything.



Meanwhile in more mainstream pro cycling, it's hard to "fanboy" female athletes without conscious effort because it's not far off impossible to watch women race on TV. Same holds true for plenty of other sports - rugby springs to mind.

No TV means no money to teams, which means non-livable wages, which means very few truly pro athletes with no other jobs to worry about, which means athletes not reaching their full potential before dropping out of the sport, which limits the depth of field, which allows organisers to insist that it's impossible to run womens' races equivalent to the mens, which allows broadcasters to make the same argument being trotted out in that thread that the "product" just isn't that interesting and isn't worth showing and hey look we're going round in a big circle here.


I follow sports because I respect the dedication and skill of the participants and ultimately because it entertains me. We have gender (and weight and age) categories because it takes the boring factors of body composition and ability to produce testosterone out of it that would otherwise mask the interesting bits of how well they have prepared, how skillful they are and how much they want to win.

jessmess

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 11
I have problems though when anyone wants to play the "society is bad" game. My take is that people with victim syndrome should focus on themselves and see if they belief systems really impact their lives in any way shape or form. I think 99% of the time people that make these types of claims aren't being honest with themselves in that all their grand theories don't actually impact them at all apart from in their own head.

I think women and men both play the society is bad victim card and I find it really tough to listen too. Men think they are discriminated against (which is true but also not true) and women think the same thing (which is true but also not true). I think all people should just suck it up and focus on improving their lives.

Huh. I'm not a rabid SJW but this strikes me as pretty flipping complacent. Structural oppression and marginalization is a thing; it's not a grand theory and it's not in people's heads. Telling people to live with it seems defeatist. The status quo isn't always the best we can hope for.

I could say more but I'll leave it there.

a lot could have to do with a persons environment. Just because it doesn't affect you right now doesn't mean its not a problem for another group of people

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
I have problems though when anyone wants to play the "society is bad" game. My take is that people with victim syndrome should focus on themselves and see if they belief systems really impact their lives in any way shape or form. I think 99% of the time people that make these types of claims aren't being honest with themselves in that all their grand theories don't actually impact them at all apart from in their own head.

I think women and men both play the society is bad victim card and I find it really tough to listen too. Men think they are discriminated against (which is true but also not true) and women think the same thing (which is true but also not true). I think all people should just suck it up and focus on improving their lives.

Huh. I'm not a rabid SJW but this strikes me as pretty flipping complacent. Structural oppression and marginalization is a thing; it's not a grand theory and it's not in people's heads. Telling people to live with it seems defeatist. The status quo isn't always the best we can hope for.

I could say more but I'll leave it there.

I think it is all in people's heads or maybe better put they go looking for problems outside of themselves rather than looking at themselves. Are women given a fair go in society today ? Of course they are. Sure some people cop it but both sexes cop it. On the whole though we are living in a world that gives you so many opportunities. Focusing on on structural oppression and marginalization to me comes across as delusional. It's like focusing on the hole in the donut.

Is it okay for men to complain about how the laws are against them ? I work for a big company and women and minorities are definitely promoted as a priority. That means that capable deserving men will not be promoted sometimes. That is discrimination. I think it's crazy for men to complain about this because the modern world provides so many opportunities to all people today.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Focusing on concerts for a minute...consider Maroon 5, Justin Timberlake, Mumford and Sons, etc.

1) They are all male
2) Their concert audiences (that I was a part of) were predominantly female. The first two were close to 80% female, in my estimation.

But does the flip situation exist at all? Can any of us name a contemporary female musical act that draws a predominantly male audience? (I think the answer is "No" but I certainly don't know everything!)

Taking the question down a step, can any of us name a contemporary female music act that even draws a 50/50 split audience? (Consider that male groups/singers like Bruce Springsteen, Eagles, Elton John, Coldplay, Pearl Jam, draw TONS of women to their shoes, probably at least in the 50/50 range)

Or is it really just as unbalanced as I questioned in my OP?


This has been answered many times. Yes, it's imbalanced. As a society, we've internalized the norm that guy stuff is universal and chick stuff is marginal.

The point is not (where I suspect you want the conversation to go) that guy stuff is inherently superior to chick stuff. It means we've been taught that it is. It can be unlearned. In fact, we can unlearn the idea that stuff even has to be either guy stuff or chick stuff.

This is really not complicated at all.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2018, 05:12:08 PM by Cressida »

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
I think it is all in people's heads or maybe better put they go looking for problems outside of themselves rather than looking at themselves.

That's because that's often where it is. Under patriarchy, women have systematically been exploited for sexual and reproductive and household and emotional labor, for millennia.

Your anecdotal experience doesn't make this untrue. That you don't recognize that the system is there doesn't prove that it's not there. And that you might not have witnessed that exploitation in your own relationships or in others that you see doesn't prove that it's not pervasive.* I'm surprised at the fallacious reasoning going on here.


*Future commenters, please take note of this sentence.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1745
I think it is all in people's heads or maybe better put they go looking for problems outside of themselves rather than looking at themselves.

That's because that's often where it is. Under patriarchy, women have systematically been exploited for sexual and reproductive and household and emotional labor, for millennia.

Your anecdotal experience doesn't make this untrue. That you don't recognize that the system is there doesn't prove that it's not there. And that you might not have witnessed that exploitation in your own relationships or in others that you see doesn't prove that it's not pervasive.* I'm surprised at the fallacious reasoning going on here.


*Future commenters, please take note of this sentence.

Just on this point. I see why we have a difference of opinion. I don't believe a patriarchy exists. You do. That is what it comes down too. You have a theory of the way society functions that is based on somehow giving men an advantage. I don't see that system at all in the world today. I don't view the world through a lens of gender and gender bias within society.

I see society as a whole to have evolved to a place that is so much better than at any time in history where basically all people living in first world countries have the ability to create great lives for themselves.

No need to argue this point. You have a theory that I don't prescribe too.

Sailor Sam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4153
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Steel Beach
  • Semper...something
I myself posit that the moon is made entirely of green cheese. None of this namby-pamby 'evidence based science' will sway me, for I am correct. Who's with me!?

Dabnasty

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1292
I myself posit that the moon is made entirely of green cheese. None of this namby-pamby 'evidence based science' will sway me, for I am correct. Who's with me!?

Nonsense. The moon is a hologram like all of the other pretty lights in the sky. Anything that heavy would fall to our 2-dimensional earth in an instant.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
No need to argue this point.

Well that's for sure.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
Although steveo is not convinceable, I imagine there are some posting or reading here who might be swayed by a detailed and cogent explanation for the existence of patriarchy. Luckily, I found one recently, and I'm going to paste it here, just for information. I'm not going to provide the link* because the article as a whole has a lot of controversial content that's separate from the explanation of patriarchy, and I don't want to get sidetracked by that.

So here it is. Note: as I said, this is for information only. I really do not want to get into the minutiae of whether every observation in this quote is factual. The point is, it's a theory of why patriarchy exists, and I'm providing it for the benefit of those who might never have heard this story and might find it interesting. I've bolded the parts I find particularly salient.

Quote
No matter which side you fall on, thereís no question that the world we live in today is pretty fucked up. After all, we live in a society where a human beingís entire future depends on the shape of their genitals at birth! Male babies wear blue and learn to toughen up; female babies get pink dresses, a lifetime of silencing, and a one-in-five chance of sexual abuse. And while it starts in the nursery, it certainly doesnít stop there. This completely imaginary, pointless set of demands will worm its way into almost every aspect of our entire lives, from what kind of shampoo we buy to how much we get paid to whether or not weíre afraid to walk home alone at night. Itíll even determine how people remember us long after weíre gone Ė all because of what a nurse once saw between our legs!

It may be hard to believe, but we werenít always quite so stupid. Early on in human society, the shape of a personís genitals wasnít particularly important. Some social roles like hunting and gathering were split between sexes, but pre-agricultural human cultures were often remarkably egalitarian. Then, about ten thousand years ago, something changed. Between the rise of cities, farming, and private property, female human beings soon found themselves ruthlessly exploited by male human beings for domestic and reproductive labor Ė so much so that, by the time the first written word was developed by the ancient Sumerians, male supremacy was almost universal across the civilized world.

Now, history is absolutely stuffed with examples of oppression, and in every case those stories follow the same pattern. Think of the slave trade, or the genocide of the American Indians, or Britainís colonization of India and Africa. You start with a group of people who want something Ė whether it be diamonds, tea, land, or cheap labor Ė that another group of people has. So they go out and wage war, sow disease, spread terror, and otherwise inflicts abuse until their victims can no longer resist. But then what? Youíve got a huge number of people you need to control, and no matter how many soldiers you might have, you canít have someone standing over them with guns every hour of the day.

The answer is always the same, whether youíre an American slave trader in 1800 or a Roman general in 100 BC. All you have to do is create a system of beliefs and customs that naturalize the hierarchy youíve created, until it doesnít even look like violence anymore. When Britain invaded and colonized Ireland, for example, they immediately set out to portray the native Irish as inherently inferior and childlike, incapable of managing their own country. Soon, the British were no longer aggressive thieves and killers; they were paternalistic guides for an ďIrish raceĒ that couldnít survive without them. This narrative Ė that the Irish and the British were two distinct types of people Ė was key to ensuring that the colonized never questioned their abuse and the colonizer never second-guessed their abusing.

The race system in America served just the same purpose, as did the notion of the ďsavage IndianĒ who could never be tamed Ė except, it just so happens, by being removed from their lands and stripped of their resources. All throughout history, across every continent, this pattern plays out. Luckily, the oppressed peoples of the world have struggled for just as long to assert the truth: That there is only really one type of human being, and that submission isnít the natural state for anyone.

So what does this have to do with gender? Well, we can go back to the ancient Sumerians and see the exact same problem: What do you do with all these female human beings, now that youíre exploiting and abusing them to keep your civilization running? Male supremacy required the exact same justification that white supremacy, colonialism, and capitalism needed. And the name we have for that justification Ė that set of beliefs and practices that justify the domination of male people over female people Ė is called gender.

Gender is the idea that female human beings are a certain type of human called a ďwoman,Ē and male human beings are another called ďman.Ē Itís the belief that these types of humans are fundamentally different, and itís the set of practices that ensure one stays above the other in the social hierarchy. Just like race, and just like class, itís something invented by the powerful to define the powerless.

In other words, itís a fiction. Bullshit. It makes reference to something real Ė our sex Ė but fills up those real human bodies with meaning that is completely invented. Think about race. Do some people have thicker hair and darker skin? Of course. Does thicker hair and darker skin mean youíre destined for slavery and servitude? Of course not. Do some people have a vulva and a uterus? Of course. Does that mean they exist to pump out babies and clean the kitchen? Of course not. Our physical bodies are real, but the mythology created around them is pure fantasy.

So whatís the solution to these fantasies? For the feminist, itís obvious: Just get rid of the damn things! The entire project of feminism is to break apart this nightmarish set of rules and restrictions in their entirety, and to create a world where anyone can dress, speak, move, live, and love as theyíd like to. We imagine a future where whatís between your legs matters about as much as which hand you use to write or how your earlobes hang.



*I know anyone who wanted to find it could do so; that's how the internet works. So be it.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2018, 08:19:34 PM by Cressida »

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
@Cressida - out of curiosity, what impact do you think the massive hormonal differences play on gender roles and expectations in our society?

For example, men are often viewed as more aggressive. Testosterone is directly tied to aggression, and men have around 10x as much testosterone as women do. In your thoughts, it seems that you expect someday to have virtually *no differences* between men and women. Unless there is somehow biological changes, how can these hormones which control personality traits, seemingly balance out between genders?

With your expectations of there someday being no difference in personality traits, you would have to believe that hormones have no impact on these personality traits.

lhamo

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8770
  • Location: Seattle
Would anyone like to join me in creating a gender neutral fanclub for the strongest organism on the planet -- the gonorrhea bacterium!

https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13666-sexually-transmitted-bug-is-the-strongest-organism/

Unfortunately firefox is telling me that the plos website is unsafe so I don't want to click through to the videos.  But I bet we could come up with some pretty clever mascots for Team Gonorrhea!



Sailor Sam

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4153
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Steel Beach
  • Semper...something
@Cressida - out of curiosity, what impact do you think the massive hormonal differences play on gender roles and expectations in our society?

For example, men are often viewed as more aggressive. Testosterone is directly tied to aggression, and men have around 10x as much testosterone as women do. In your thoughts, it seems that you expect someday to have virtually *no differences* between men and women. Unless there is somehow biological changes, how can these hormones which control personality traits, seemingly balance out between genders?

With your expectations of there someday being no difference in personality traits, you would have to believe that hormones have no impact on these personality traits.

Shit! Women who undergo an oophorectomy no longer possess personalities? I'm learning so many a splendid thing today.

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
@Cressida - out of curiosity, what impact do you think the massive hormonal differences play on gender roles and expectations in our society?

For example, men are often viewed as more aggressive. Testosterone is directly tied to aggression, and men have around 10x as much testosterone as women do. In your thoughts, it seems that you expect someday to have virtually *no differences* between men and women. Unless there is somehow biological changes, how can these hormones which control personality traits, seemingly balance out between genders?

With your expectations of there someday being no difference in personality traits, you would have to believe that hormones have no impact on these personality traits.

Sounds like this is your argument:
1. Men have more testosterone than women.
2. Men exhibit more aggressive behavior than women.
3. Therefore, aggression must be a result of testosterone and there's no point in trying to roll back the pervasive gendered expectations that men will be aggressive.

I don't think that's a sound argument.

I doubt hormones have *zero* impact on personality. But men as individuals have varying amounts of testosterone production, whereas all men as a class have been subjected to gendered expectations that they will be aggressive. Let's get rid of the gendered expectations first, and then see if men are still hopelessly aggressive. Then we can talk about truly inherent personality differences.

use2betrix

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1315
@Cressida - out of curiosity, what impact do you think the massive hormonal differences play on gender roles and expectations in our society?

For example, men are often viewed as more aggressive. Testosterone is directly tied to aggression, and men have around 10x as much testosterone as women do. In your thoughts, it seems that you expect someday to have virtually *no differences* between men and women. Unless there is somehow biological changes, how can these hormones which control personality traits, seemingly balance out between genders?

With your expectations of there someday being no difference in personality traits, you would have to believe that hormones have no impact on these personality traits.

Sounds like this is your argument:
1. Men have more testosterone than women.
2. Men exhibit more aggressive behavior than women.
3. Therefore, aggression must be a result of testosterone and there's no point in trying to roll back the pervasive gendered expectations that men will be aggressive.

I don't think that's a sound argument.

I doubt hormones have *zero* impact on personality. But men as individuals have varying amounts of testosterone production, whereas all men as a class have been subjected to gendered expectations that they will be aggressive. Let's get rid of the gendered expectations first, and then see if men are still hopelessly aggressive. Then we can talk about truly inherent personality differences.

Iím not saying that this is the entire causation of differences amongst genders, itís a scientific fact that testosterone and estrogen have major impacts on personality traits.

Womenís testosterone averages around 15-70 ng/DL, while menís is around 350-1100 ng/DL. Yes, there are variations among men, but those ranges are for healthy average adults. So in healthy adults, men have around 5x-70x more..

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/

Iím sorry but no matter how much some people have this dream of being 100% identical in personality traits, unless anatomy changes, itís not going to happen.

Note - Iím not saying that more testosterone is better by any means. Yes, the higher muscle mass can be beneficial in some aspects, although itís often at the cost of flexibility, small motor skills, etc. In ďsomeĒ cases, aggression and drive can be beneficial, although in many cases it can be a hinderence. It also gets a LOT of men in trouble, in addition to the added on issues of the cultural expectations.

Iím in no way disagreeing with many of the cultural issues driving a wedge between genders, however I think instead of having this expectation that women and men will be 100% equal in their thinking some day, I think it would be more realistic to find the equal values that each gender can can contribute to all aspects of society, although of course any gender is able to contribute however they choose. I honestly feel like the hormonal differences (with the added society pressures) do contribute to women typically having better empathy and being better caretakers in terms of nurses, etc. obviously this is just a generalization.
« Last Edit: November 27, 2018, 09:39:21 PM by use2betrix »

Cressida

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2504
  • Location: Sunset Zone 5
  • gender is a hierarchy
use2betrix, your comments and the study you linked don't show causation. So you haven't provided evidence for this comment:

itís a scientific fact that testosterone and estrogen have major impacts on personality traits.

Given that lack of evidence, I see no reason to address anything else you wrote above. I have nothing further to add on this topic, beyond what I've already said.

former player

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3874
  • Location: Avalon
I don't believe a patriarchy exists.

You are a fish that doesn't know what water is.