[ogurechny]

The idea that there are straightforward “female” and “male” traits should seem quite shaky to anyone who is even a little bit into humanities. The problem is that both sides of the equation are constructs of the mind, both the thing we would like to measure, and the measure itself. Fighting journalistic simplification with journalistic simplification is not the mentioned “pursuit of truth”. So before arguing whether pink is “for silly girls”, or “proud female colour”, it would be great to remember that its association with gender basically only started yesterday.

Even if we assume that there are “standard men” and “standard women”, there's another problem: office politics occurring in country M in century N is most certainly the product of specific culture, and not some cavemen rituals. Problems of Patrick or Patricia Bateman are probably quite alien to a lot of people in the world.

The irony is that the image of “good old days” is itself based on modern day stereotypes. So-called progressive propaganda was quite focused on the caricature of concentrated Bad Masculine Man, and now, freshly painted, it is presented as a positive example (because public is familiar with it, and making public think is too hard).

[arnoooooo]

If you look at things like physical strength for instance, the difference is quite marked. That some females can be stronger than some men does not change the fundamental distribution. This is not a construct of the mind.

If male and female abilities differ, it should follow that our social expectations differ.

[muwtyhg]

> That some females can be stronger than some men

If you are using "female" as a noun in a sentence to refer to human women, it is a good idea to also refer to human men as "male". It is more consistent and doesn't end up dehumanizing one side.

People seeing this inconsistency may jump to conclusions about your thoughts on men and women.

[BobaFloutist]

When the variation within the category is greater than the variation between categories, it's worth asking just how useful or informative the categories actually are.

[bjourne]

Would you assume the same thing about men? That a muscular man has different "societal expectations" etc. than a skinny man?

[arnoooooo]

If by muscular and skinny you mean that one has more capacity for developping strength, then sure, why not ? Should our expectations not be based on ability ?

[bjourne]

No, I meant exactly what you wrote. You say that since physical strength of men and women differ their cognitive abilities should differ too. The physical strength of muscular and skinny men differ too, hence, according to your argument, their cognitive abilities should differ too.

[fuzzfactor]

Sometimes the real strongmen cry and whine the most when they don't get their way.

[happymellon]

So all of Donald Trumps arguments are emotional, and illogical.

Are you saying he is actually a woman?

[arnoooooo]

I did not say anything about logic or emotions. I'm also not sure I agree with your characterization of Donald Trump.

For the sake of argument, let's say I had mentioned logic and emotions and you were right about Trump. He would just be an example of an outlier (which by the way he obviously is, although not in the way you imply), not an argument against my point which is that male and female distributions are quite distinct for some traits, with little overlap.

[vapg1974]

The idea that there are straightforward “female” and “male” traits should seem quite shaky to anyone who is even a little bit into humanities... "Humanities", that alone makes your whole argument invalid.

As if brain configuation, that staemming from genetics and hormone levels, had no influence in how the sexes perceive world and social clues and behave according to those perceptions. Not mentioning the inherent physical differences which also influence how they differently percieve the world and behave.

[ogurechny]

As many others, you believe that by talking about certain things you're directly touching “real”, “material”, “physical” world. So-called humanities — barely even taught to so-called educated public — could help you see how that specific creed of scientism spread in last two centuries, how it was tied to mass education and journalism, and not actually to science, and what made you stick to it (no one told you that the outside world exists). You chose comfortable ignorance.

Being a proud servant of the status quo is neither fresh, nor smart, nor scientific. Illiterate savages worshipped their idols in the exact same fashion.

[techblueberry]

Yeah, it’s very strange to me that the starting premise of some of these articles seems to be masculinity is UFC and femininity is The Real Housewives. Most men I know, and certainly over a certain age don’t want to work for a frat boy culture. I’ve worked for plenty of men who exhibit ruinous empathy and plenty of women with excess ambition, and I’d say the dichotomy of ambition - empathy is wrong. The best leaders of either gender have both.

I do also love how she glossed over her example of how men were better at reconciliation and less likely to cancel culture because men were conditioned for war in which “ The point of war is to settle disputes between two tribes, but it works only if peace is restored after the dispute is settled. Men therefore developed methods for reconciling with opponents and learning to live in peace with people they were fighting yesterday.” Like completely glossing over the fact that first they felt they had to kill thousands of people? And do you think it was the people who fundamentally differed in ideology that reconciled with?

Then like: “Men order each other around, but women can only suggest and persuade”

Almost every leader eventually learns that leading through influence is much more powerful than leading through authority, gender be damned.

But it’s also just got more holes than Swiss cheese. Sure I love classical liberalism and the ideas of rationality, but per some of her own arguments, this isn’t the natural state of things. Most men in most cultures just wanted to club people over the head to win arguments, not engage in rationality. Most kings just wanted their way, not to deal with an objective legal system. And per her own arguments, are men Socrates or Bluto?

[janwl]

> The problem is that both sides of the equation are constructs of the mind

No, they are not. And when we take into account that they are not, the whole argument breaks down.

[ogurechny]

I think that you misunderstood me. Sadly, philosophy is completely absent from “required” education in our “enlightened” world (or presented as narrow-minded bean counting), so capturing “evident things” as results of the thought process is hard.

By one side of equation I meant all those arguments about “men” and “women” altogether. You are absolutely free to state that men are X, and women are Y, and attribute it to Nature as a whole, or scientific data sliced off of it. There is nothing wrong with that by itself. However, the whole other “stable” side which you try to “fix” by this process is no less of an invention.

Say, we're having an argument whether cucumbers are fruits or vegetables. In that case, we can even reach an “official” answer. But it's more important to realise that the whole stage on which we're playing is constructed. “Fruits” and “vegetables” are convenient man-made classifications. Cucumber does not come with a label “I'm a cucumber, as stated in encyclopaedias, etc.” Nor its atoms come with a label “We're parts of that cucumber thing”, nor anything else (note for our young vulgar materialists).

In my opinion, feminist thought taking that step (which — for multiple possible reasons — was not taken even by greatest thinkers) is the most important achievement. Which “wave” is right, or how to “correctly” display your alignment with “correct” movement according to latest fashions are ancillary questions.

[vapg1974]

So philosophically a 48yo, 6ft4 and 200lbs man can be taken as a 5ft4 90lbs woman. That means if I repeat "Charmander" enough times, it will socially construct itself in this reality.

[ogurechny]

What you're saying is “Fat, ugly, flat-chested, etc. women are not real women, I only care about my kind of true women, please only show me these”. That's exactly what I was talking about. The measure to define women in your head is shaped like that, and you reluctantly decide to let someone pass. Yes, it is common. Yes, it is stupid. What's actually new in that?

[techblueberry]

Are you going to make an argument here? This isn’t aggressive or empathetic. Trying to mask your gender????

[K0balt]

If we are just going to be serious here, the morphology of females differs significantly from males, and there are well documented behavioral biases that have been shown to predate or even defy socialization time and time again.

Just because some people -want- men and women to be interchangeable in all respects does not mean that they are, or can be.

Women bring a critical set of biases and skills to the human condition, as do men. There is technologically no escape from sex determined role differentiation at a statistically significant scale without dooming humanity to population decline and rapid extinction.

Even if it were possible, is it wise to ignore the wisdom of millions of years of evolution, hard won by countless suffering and deaths? Should we blindly lunge toward an ill tested notion of “equality”, ignoring the sociopolitical and cultural risks we now are bearing witness to, undercutting the very ideals of self determination and individual freedom and allowing an easy entry point for totalitarian aspirations?

The simple, inescapable truth is that statistically, men hold the monopoly of coercive force on the planet, and all rights that women enjoy are therefore in effect granted by men. We don’t have to look far to see what happens in societies where this kind of affordance is considered unwise.

Whether one wishes it were so or not, the overstepping of women towards the erosion of reason in deference to compassion, while admirable in some measures, is propelling us towards a reaction by men and women alike that erodes the plausibility of the hypothesis that women should be trusted with power in hierarchical society.

I’d like to add that I am not making a personal value judgment here. I am a man, but life has shown me the great value that women can bring to nearly every endeavor both directly and indirectly.

I do not suppose that the role of men is somehow more important or significant in creating a just and prosperous society, but that rather the roles of women and men are of equal importance and value, specifically because those roles tend to be distinct and irreplaceable.

[ogurechny]

> some people -want- men and women to be interchangeable in all respects

That's a generalisation that loses all sense.

For example, you're building giant pyramids out of human corpses. Based on experiments and precise calculations, you know that you need x.y% more female corpses than male corpses, and get really angry when suppliers try to argue that men and women are equal in all respects.

Obviously, this is not the important question. We should ask questions about your activity as a whole instead.

(It might seem that my example is a bit over the top, but people around us do things that are just as bad, and with real enthusiasm.)

Gender issues are not just abstract, they are tied to problems people see in the society. It is not fashionable today to just state that someone is a swine to behave in some manner (and the answer would usually be that you are not allowed to limit anyone's freedoms), so dumb pathetic fences of bureaucratic states are used, and the talk about progress, benefits, equality, shared future, etc. floods the stage. However, you personally still either think that something is right, or that it's wrong.

During “millions of years of evolution”, in many places any woman walking alone without male relative or servant could be treated as a potential free sex toy. It was simply “evident” that anyone could try to rape her, and “everyone” knew that — men, women, kids. It was “natural”, and even the commandment about neighbour's wife could easily be seen as excluding “no one's” or “everyone's” wives, so it was even sanctioned from above. Obviously, it all stemmed from the heads of certain people, and changes introducing consequences mutated that “natural order”.

By the way, the figure of noble male saving damsel from the jerks is considered noble because... he could've joined the party, but choose not to. What a hero! Simple-minded people continue to see things the old way to this day when they expect heroines saved by the hero to have sex with him immediately. Because what are other options, really?

[K0balt]

You’re right that my generalization was overly broad when taken out of context, as you have, but I don’t think that anything I was saying can be interpreted in good faith to mean that I assert that things were better in pre history or even 50 years ago.

I am a supporter of legal equality for women, of course, and of women having the social agency and opportunities to choose the path of their life on an individual basis.

That has nothing to do with the abandonment of reason for empathy, which I see as threatening and highly dangerous to the cause of female empowerment. You don’t have to use your imagination to see how that works out.

[marcusverus]

> The idea that there are straightforward “female” and “male” traits should seem quite shaky to anyone who is even a little bit into humanities.

Straightforward male and female traits/roles pervade the animal kingdom, including the other great apes.

Honestly, even entertaining this idea is female-coded. In a male space, the denial of so obvious a reality would be dismissed out of hand as obviously retarded.

[nis0s]

Are you saying other male animals don’t perform the tasks usually attributed to human females? Look up the behavior of male penguins in the Arctics. There are many such examples, have Chat look them up for you.

[marcusverus]

> Are you saying other male animals don’t perform the tasks usually attributed to human females?

No. My claim is that male and female traits/roles generally differ. That can't be read as a claim that there is no overlap between their roles/tasks.

[rufus_foreman]

I looked it up. Male penguins are physically different from female penguins, they have different behavior and different vocalization methods.

Are those social constructs?

[bigyabai]

Would it be feminine of me to ask you for a citation?

[marcusverus]

Only if you did so in a passive-aggressive way ;)

From the relevant Wikis:

Chimps:

At the core of social structures are males, which patrol the territory, protect group members, and search for food. Males remain in their natal communities, while females generally emigrate at adolescence. Males in a community are more likely to be related to one another than females are to each other. Among males, there is generally a dominance hierarchy, and males are dominant over females.

Orangutans:

One to several resident female home ranges are encompassed within the home range of a resident male, who is their main mating partner.[50][51] Interactions between adult females range from friendly to avoidance to antagonistic.[52] Flanged males are often hostile to both other flanged males and unflanged males, while unflanged males are more peaceful towards each other.[53]

Orangutans disperse and establish their home ranges by age 11. Females tend to live near their birth range, while males disperse farther but may still visit their birth range within their larger home range.[51][54] They enter a transient phase, which lasts until a male can challenge and displace a dominant, resident male from his home range.

Gorillas:

Gorillas live in groups called troops. Troops tend to be made of one adult male or silverback, with a harem of multiple adult females and their offspring.[58][59][60] However, multiple-male troops also exist.[59] A silverback is typically more than 12 years of age, and is named for the distinctive patch of silver hair on his back, which comes with maturity. Silverbacks have large canine teeth that also come with maturity. Both males and females tend to emigrate from their natal groups. For mountain gorillas, females disperse from their natal troops more than males.[58][61] Mountain gorillas and western lowland gorillas also commonly transfer to second new groups.[58]

Mature males also tend to leave their groups and establish their own troops by attracting emigrating females. However, male mountain gorillas sometimes stay in their natal troops and become subordinate to the silverback.

[judahmeek]

> male and female traits/roles pervade the animal kingdom

Your citations don't really support your claim well, since the sections you quoted don't mention traits or roles much at all.

---

Also, why mention Orangutans and Gorillas, but leave out Bonobos?

According to https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/natured-nurture/2022..., "Evolutionarily, humans are equally related to patriarchal chimpanzees and matriarchal bonobos".

I almost thought to argue that this means that humanity could basically pick its traits, except... the traits mentioned for two species seem fairly gendered themselves: "Chimpanzees are male-dominated, competitive, territorial, and sometimes violent. Bonobos are female-dominated, peaceful, and highly sexual."

This reminds me of the ""Nordic gender equality paradox", where "in Sweden and Norway, gender strongly influences job choice despite high levels of gender equality".

Ultimately, I think the argument that everyone should be having is not whether gendered traits exist, but whether this fact is something that should be enforced or resisted.

I personally think it should be resisted as resisting our basic impulses is generally considered more enlightened or noble and the world already has enough idiots who will try to put others in a box and claim some sort of evolutionary justification.

[marcusverus]

> Your citations don't really support your claim well, since the sections you quoted don't mention traits or roles much at all.

The sections do mention roles very clearly. If you're not capable of making these basic connections, it's no wonder that you're confused.

For chimps:

> At the core of social structures are males, which patrol the territory, protect group members, and search for food

Male roles: Patroller of territory, protector of group members.

For Orangutans:

> One to several resident female home ranges are encompassed within the home range of a resident male, who is their main mating partner.

Female roles: harem member. Male Roles: Alpha, Harem haver

For Gorillas:

> Troops tend to be made of one adult male or silverback, with a harem of multiple adult females and their offspring.

Female roles: harem member. Male Roles: Alpha, Harem haver

If roles weren't based on sex, a female Chimp would be just as likely to patrol territory, and a female gorilla would be just as likely to be an alpha with her own harem. The fact that these roles are only filled by males indicates that they are sex-based roles.

> Evolutionarily, humans are equally related to patriarchal chimpanzees and matriarchal bonobos

You've lost the plot. For bonobos to be matriarchal implies male and female traits/roles, which obviously supports my argument.

> I personally think it should be resisted as resisting our basic impulses is generally considered more enlightened or noble and the world already has enough idiots who will try to put others in a box and claim some sort of evolutionary justification.

Telling the truth is a good thing, actually. Encouraging people to understand their nature is good. Lying to people about their nature is bad. Encouraging people to misunderstand their nature, which will inevitably lead to them making life decisions based on lies, is bad. Borderline evil.

[judahmeek]

I don't think that resisting our baser impulses is the same thing as lying.

And I don't think the fact that we have baser impulses is justification enough to tell people that they should live a certain way.

[DaveZale]

thank you. I almost posted earlier but stopped myself, thinking, this discussion could be very divisive, you did it better.

I just read a book about civic action, where a comment was made that suggested not thinking about left and right, but of top and bottom... but even that is dualistic.

[fuzzfactor]

>both sides of the equation are constructs of the mind,

More than dualistic when so much of the time it is constructs of other peoples' minds on top of that.