Do males or females "have it better" + Has anyone lived as both?

Well youse all seen the first one before, but what about the second one. Has anyone lived as both male and female to see who has it better? Has anyone written studies on this? Do you all know such studies, if so please post them here to discuss.

Who could possibly judge such a thing? Anybody who "lived as both" would be trans, and therefore would have a very different experience and encounter totally different types of prejudice.

I meant a sociologist who was androgynous and could act as both male and female in certain cities and see how the person was treated.

@G: they would actually encounter 3 types of prejudice, than. Trans, as a male and as a female.

See This trope

which has a link to this article

edited 24th Jan '11 7:43:29 AM by MrAHR

Even if one were to do such a thing, the sample size would be useless.

http://fistfulofscience.com/2010/09/06/kate-bornstein-conducts-a-gender-experiment/

The question of who "has it better" is an ultimately subjective question to begin with, because "better" or "worse" are subjective. Even someone who had a sex change (which would have plenty of sources of error on its own) wouldn't necessarily yield an objective answer, because that individual's priorities may differ from the priorities of others.

I consider this to be a way to gauge whom are the more or less rational in the context of gender issue debates. Claiming one gender "objectively" has it worse ultimately reflects poorly on the rationality of the person making the claim and thus I would tend to be less inclined to take seriously their perspective.

So, if a female says that women have it worse, you can therefore conclude she's lost the debate?

"So, if a female says that women have it worse, you can therefore conclude she's lost the debate?" - Jordan

Not entirely. I just interpret it as reflecting poorly on their rationality, but not ruling out they might win the argument anyway. Oh, and by the way, I'd apply the same to males who claim that men "objectively" have it worse.

Though for men claiming women have it worse or for women claiming men have it worse... that's another story. It has a similar problem but I wouldn't consider it quite as bad...

Oops, didn't have a chance to edit the post- good point- there is a third group of people who believe their own gender has it better/the other gender is worse off.

I'm not sure I like your use of the term "less rational" though.

Generally, females are still treated somewhat worse that men, because Stay in the Kitchen attitude is still strong, and females are still conditioned from childhood to accept the roles of helper and dependant.

However, it does not i any way meant that all females are treated worse than all males, nor does it mean that there are no cases in which it is men who face prejudice. Take All Abusers Are Male, for example, or most disputes about who gets to keep children after divorce.

edited 24th Jan '11 10:43:14 AM by Beholderess

Not to mention, the above is really only applicable to (most of) the developed West. If you're talking worldwide, this is a laughable thing to ask; there's no question but that men have it better than women.

I assume we're arbitrarily ignoring the 1/3 or so of the world where women can't vote, can only work in certain jobs, are legally equivalent to children or property, etc., etc.?

Even if so, in the developed world things like rape and being sold into sex slavery affect women a fair bit more than men and in ways that don't have much in the way of real parallels. And even in the countries where the anti-feminists inform us that sexism has been eradicated, you'll still find a fair bit more misogyny than misandry.

You don't need to be trans to figure this out, really.

I tend to consider that being a female would probably be a tougher option, if only by looking at the entertainment culture they would grow up in. Think about it, when a female is objectified, she's Megan Fox, in an action movie. When a male is objectified, he's Taylor Lautner, in a romance movie. In both cases, the male is STILL the one doing all the heavy lifting. In the third case, where neither side is objectified, males are usually the protagonists, or the ones that are doing something, and all that jazz.

edited 24th Jan '11 11:14:10 AM by MrAHR

I dunno, considering the quality of most modern "entertainment" it may be doing girls a favour to have them just be some special, relatively unimportant variant of boy. :P

Men dominating works of fiction dates back to the time when such entertainment was largely written by men and for men — since the only people who could read were likely to be found in monasteries. It continues to the modern day just because men being the default gender has become self-reinforcing. I've seen this critiqued elsewhere at greater length and accuracy by real feminists, so I'll shut up now before I start getting details wrong.

"Generally, females are still treated somewhat worse that men, because Stay In The Kitchen attitude is still strong, and females are still conditioned from childhood to accept the roles of helper and dependant." - Beholderess

That conditioning doesn't really seem all that prominent nowadays, though.

In any case, whether or not that is worse than having the role of defender, even at the potential cost of your survival (such as how the draft applied to men but not women, for example) is still a subjective matter.

edited 24th Jan '11 11:28:34 AM by neoYTPism

Well, I do think that gender roles are stupid, period. And draft should apply to both genders or (preferably) not at all, otherwise it is unfair toward males.

Male roles, however, still usually allow them more autonomy and authority that females.

And, as been said above, even that applies only if we are speaking about modern Western world. There are still countries in which women have little to no say, and I do not know about any places in which the situation is opposite. I mean, umm, just where are males regarded as second-class citizens?

I consider this to be a way to gauge whom are the more or less rational in the context of gender issue debates. Claiming one gender "objectively" has it worse ultimately reflects poorly on the rationality of the person making the claim and thus I would tend to be less inclined to take seriously their perspective.

That's Begging the Question. You are assuming that the premise is not a rational position, and that therefore anyone who says it is not being rational.

Basically, you're assuming that you're right, and discrediting anyone who doesn't agree.

edited 24th Jan '11 11:54:21 AM by jewelleddragon

Ignoring the sociological aspects of sex, consider:

Higher muscle density and all its advantages(in general, more strength, less tendancy to fat, more speed, and an easier time holding alcohol) versus pregnancy, chilbirth, periods, lactation, lower muscular development, better distance running, and more sensitive genitals.

Unless you're a marathon runner or have really high expectations for sex, males definitely have it better.

Females do have better all-around endurance though, according to Tibetan Fox.

edited 24th Jan '11 11:59:40 AM by MrAHR

What do you mean by "all around endurance"? I know, as I said, that women tend to be better distance runners, but when it comes to other forms of endurance (like upper body exertion) they tend to be behind men.

This almost sounds like a trick question where the solution lies in one having it better globally while the other having it better locally.

The last guy who tried to answer this question got blinded by a pissy bitch that didn't like his answer

edited 24th Jan '11 12:16:34 PM by Pykrete

And the last gal who tried to answer it was disowned for being a pissy bitch?

@Wander: Don't remember off the top of my head, I think it was a better tolerance for pain.