Gender (In)Equality at a Small Scale

I'm talking about the things that are more detailed and perhaps less important in the big picture but do rise up when talking about specifics: "minor" cultural norms, standardization, and people's expectations and cliché.

Take Physical Education for instance. Boys are expected to be better physiologically at, for example, running a few laps than girls, so they're given higher standards. But if boys are better at something, then girls are better at something else, you would think. If so, why don't we see more standards in favor of helping handicapped boys? This would be a form of affirmative action at a small scale.

Now using Trivialis handle.

I'm not going touch this, other then:

Guys are given more leeway in art class.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Sociobiology.

Basically, due to methods of breeding, psychology dictates that males seek as many partners as possible—as breeding, for them, is basically easy and simplistic—so as to maximize potential, while dictating that women attempt to find a single, good, long-term mate, as breeding is much more difficult for them in the comparative, and instinct assigns more ability to raise offspring to the female than the male in humans. This creates social stratification between men and women, which goes from the macro-level to the micro-level.

Or at least, that's the (rather Freudian) theory from certain sociologist/biologists (I don't know how they got that kind of strange expertise mix, but...). It has quite a few critics, though, and the science behind it is rather shaky. Make of that what you will...

I am now known as Flyboy.

It's the strongest theory, and it doesn't take shit from feminists.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

I think it's an intriguing theory, at least, and it makes sense except for two rather glaring holes:

• Although social stratification may have begun as a biological imperative, it is unlikely that this is still true; now, it's merely sustained via cultural/traditional inertia.
• Humans are not as beholden to their instincts as most animals, so the idea that instinct has such a powerful and baseline impact is somewhat... counter-intuitive... to the average biological theory.

I think it's... sound, with a basis in evolutionary theory as well as sociology. I don't really think it's perfect, though.

I am now known as Flyboy.

I don't see any other alternatives, really.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Well, the hardcore social-conflict people could be right, and we're just bastards who abused the "women are, as a generality, physically weaker than men" thing to set up yet another underclass to step on to get ahead.

I, however, am primarily a symbolic-interaction person, so I'm more readily accepting of the more logical and less emotional sociobiological explanation...

I am now known as Flyboy.

It's clear you're a year ahead of me in this stuff.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

The sociobiological explanation is not more logical because, depending on culture, either the "male strategy" does not work, or it works for both sexes. It is fairly difficult to set up a culture where men can breed a lot and women can't even taking into account that men have a biological advantage in that department, because evolution is based on survival and reproduction and without at least more than one person taking care of it a baby will almost certainly not survive.

If the father must take care of it, then the "male strategy" doesn't work for anyone (because everyone is limited to the rate they can take care of babies.) If the whole tribe takes care of it, then the "male strategy" works for everyone (because there's no incentive for anyone to be non-promiscuous besides disease). Either way EVERYONE is rate limited, because of resource limits, to one baby in a period much greater than nine months, which makes the length of a pregnancy mostly irrelevant.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

Not this argument again. The point is that a male can impregnate multiple females at once while a female can only carry the offspring of one male (generally speaking; there are exceptions). That's a basic biological concept that's pretty standard when it comes to mammals, as far as I know.

Be not afraid...

You're thinking to advanced. This is pre homo sapiens behaviour carrying over.

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Ok...? But there are things women are better at, so they should be the head in that field. The push for gender equality has brought women closer to an equal footing with men, and yet when we get to physical education standards, there's still the double standard based on the age-old belief that men are stronger, whether or not that's valid.

It's like this. One may argue that a children's cliché opinion is boys are seen as "stronger" while girls are seen as "wittier" (probably based on how they mature early). But if girls are shown to be smarter in average at the age, then educational standards should adjust accordingly.

So someone may point out that there's no real difference of intelligence at a young age based on gender. But then there's something else that girls are generally better at, and once that's found, that difference should be accommodated. It's fair that way. Why do we give boys higher standards with PE? It doesn't mean every boy is stronger than a girl, but it's a general trait of the gender.

Now using Trivialis handle.

Maybe the playground conception of 'girls are smarter' has come about because of an attempt to equalise things. How many children's shows are there where the girl is shown as being not very good at fighting, but much smarter than the boys so as to avoid accusations of sexism?

edited 20th Sep '11 8:03:31 PM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...

Well, what do you think is a field in which they're generally better?

And while we're at it, I keep seeing the "Women should stay in kitchen" comments on Youtube. Among other things, this shows that Youtube comments can be inconsiderate and immature, but when did this become a widespread joke on the Internet in this day and age?

Now using Trivialis handle.

What you said is in fact standard among mammals. However mammals do not all have the sexual behavior that you're using that fact to predict.

There are mammals where the male is dominant, and where the female is dominant, some of which of both are INSANELY closely related to us and to each other, and for all of which the biological fact you mentioned above is true.

If that mattered, bonobos and all other mammals, as well as many other species, ought to be male-dominant. But they're not. And the reason is that pregnancies don't matter that much.

I'm convinced that our modern day analogues to ancient scholars are comedians. -0dd1

@Abstract: Schools these days favour girls.

And the PE expectations are perfect sense.

edited 20th Sep '11 8:11:51 PM by Erock

If you don't like a single Frank Ocean song, you have no soul.

Explain, please? I didn't quite understand what you implied by that.

With PE, the standards are built-in, but not so with other subjects that I'm aware of.

Now using Trivialis handle.

I honestly have no idea whether there's an area in which girls are 'generally better' - that is, an inherent ability, not one created by the schooling process itself or by whatever cultural ideas the kids absorb outside of school.

But seeing as differences between genders are usually not significantly wider than differences within genders, I'm not sure it's solely a gender issue. People learn in lots of different ways - a visually oriented person may be at a disadvantage in a class where the teacher just talks at/to students. An aurally oriented person may be disadvantaged when the teacher draws tables and diagrams.

Be not afraid...

I think the point is that if, for example, an early teenaged girl draws something that's utter nonsense in art class, the teacher would probably think it had some deep inner meaning and the girl is a prodigy, but if it was a boy who did the same thing, the teacher would fail him.

Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not taking either side on this.

edited 20th Sep '11 8:17:17 PM by TheEarthSheep

Still Sheepin'

Why is that? Erock said boys are given more leeway.

Are there even standards of some kind in art class? I know that studio art classes do check for design/composition.

edited 20th Sep '11 8:23:50 PM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

It's generally the other way around in English, which is also seen as a "feminized" subject.

The popular assumption (which is, on a wide basis, backed up by statistics - though how much is pedagogy and content and how much is inherent gender abilities is debated) is that girls are better at English than boys.

Which results in the majority of work in research and teaching being about "fixing" things for boys, and girls being mostly ignored - which neglects the effects of individual difference.

Which leads to situations where girls get ignored by teachers in favour of boys who "need more help" - even if the individual boys don't - and when boys and girls do the exact same work, boys will often be given higher marks, because girls have higher default expectations (despite getting less teacher assistance).

Yeah, guess what I am currently writing a paper on.

The owner of this account is temporarily unavailable. Please leave your number and call again later.

There is no biological drive for women to be monogamous, that's patriarchal bullshit.

Women have been restricted to monogamy for most of history because men had the power and they could more or less control the lives of their women, not because they particularly want to be monogamous.

edited 21st Sep '11 1:13:51 AM by SavageHeathen

You exist because we allow it and you will end because we demand it.

There are several different questions floating around here. "What are girls better at?", general questions about roles in society, and the overarching question "how much of this is determined by biology, and how much is determined by social expectations?"

The first question can only be answered in terms of generalities. In general, I have found girls to have a great capacity for relational and concrete thinking, and a great ability to deal with people (this makes them good at management). Guys (after a certain point in their development) have somewhat better abstract thinking capabilities, which includes, ideally, the ability to deal with an issue without taking it personally (something many girls have a hard time with). In kindergarten, elementary, and high school situations, girls usually have a greater natural ability to sit still, follow the teacher, and concentrate on an assignment. Guys are notoriously unruly at those ages. I'm just tossing out some things I've seen over the years, so this isn't a comprehensive list. Remember that this doesn't describe every case - it's just general. (And it may not be entirely accurate.)

It seems that the various strengths and weaknesses of guys and gals balance each other out in many cases. It's almost as if they were meant to be paired...

This may explain why monogamy has been favored during many periods of human history. It is easier to bring both perspectives to bear on a problem/issue/project (raising children, surviving, what sort of fencing to put in the backyard, etc.) if the people involved have a solid relationship, and some projects (most notably raising human young) take an exceptionally long time to complete. Polygamous societies wind up running based solely on the opinion of the dominant gender because members of the other gender are seen merely as breeders, not partners in life.

And then there's the big question: how much of this is biologically 'natural' and how much is societal? That's hard to answer, because humans, as noted elsewhere, have an amazing capacity to act against their instinctual drives. Taking that into consideration, why should it matter what is biologically natural and what is societal? A societal code can be just as important as a DNA code in a human's life. There are many societies, each with their own particular code. Societies with good codes will survive. Societies with bad codes will wither and die. Survival of the fittest.

First off, why have lolcats become a widespread joke on the internet? Because people think they're funny. Beyond that, I can make a couple of guesses. If we assume the majority of these comments are typed by immature 12-16 year old males (not an unlikely thing), then part of the reason may be that they object to the authority that their mothers and their female teachers have over them. All they want out of a relationship is sex and a servant, not someone to balance their weaknesses and share their life with.

Why should kids be divided in PE class according to gender? Why not just objectively test their skills and physical capabilities and divide them to classes according to the results? And they wouldn't need to stay at the same level till graduation. Test again at regular intervals and redivide accordingly.

Competitive sports are more fun if you're against an opponent of about the same level of ability. With non-competitive sports it'll be easier for the teacher if nobody lags behind or is so good (s)he gets bored.

Laws are made to be broken. You're next, thermodynamics.

I'm not sure what the point of this thread is, either. The OP seems to be extrapolating from physical differences to... well, I have no idea, really.

In terms of PE, the average man is slightly over 60% stronger than a woman of equal size and training, and has somewhat better cardiovascular endurance. The average woman has slightly better coordination, and the potential to fare better at feats of extreme endurance (where using fat for energy becomes more efficient than using glycogens). However, it's not like this difference isn't present in PE - when I was a child, at least, the boys played games and did a little bit of strength training, whereas the girls did gymnastics and such - if anything, it seems to me that PE classes are too sex-specific already, given that most of the aforementioned physical differences do not manifest until puberty, and before then, we're just looking at gender role training/enforcement.

edited 21st Sep '11 12:40:36 PM by MostlyBenign