Gender (In)Equality at a Small Scale

You tell me. Do you think that males have advantage over females in the physical activities area? And if so, what's the women's advantage? I'm sure that there are qualities that females better possess than males. And I mean generally better, not exclusively outperforming. Otherwise, again, we're left with the conclusion that men are the superior gender overall.

A double standard, and an unfair one at that, is when you consider a difference between two groups in favor of the disadvantaged one on one side, but you ignore it on the other side.

It doesn't have to even the field, not quite. In sports, we don't forcefully make obstacles harder for men so that they perform the same as women. Instead, we adjust our expectations so that it's gender-relative. In our evaluation, we factor in gender as something affecting the level of performance.

A good example is having men's sports and women's sports in the Olympics. It's based on understanding that a man's performance and a woman's performance are different, separate categories. This allows us to consider within that category instead of making questionable contrast between men and women.

So have gender a legitimate factor when deciding health questions. Maybe health insurance programs. If men are at a greater risk for a certain disease, more resources should be spent on men for that field. Evaluating things at a flat equity means men are left with more problems.

Now using Trivialis handle.

The biggest problem in men's health isn't a greater risk to disease. It is a cultural where men she see it as weak to sneek help.

edited 26th Oct '11 9:14:35 PM by joeyjojo

hashtagsarestupid

Well... yes.

Um... body flexibility... and aesthetics. So in other words, there isn't one.

Not really. Physical strength is just one trait. Claiming that males on average exceed females at physical sports only implies that men are superior overall at physical sports and nothing more. Saying "Men are stronger than women. Therefore, men must be superior overall" is the same thing as saying "Russia is superior in size to Lithuania. Therefore, Russia is superior overall."

They never travel alone.

I wasn't restricting women's advantage in terms of physical traits. I was merely presenting that as an example of men's supposed advantage.

edited 26th Oct '11 10:45:33 PM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

Well the thing about athletics is that it's more or less the only occupation where it is widely accepted that men have a somewhat indisputable advantage. Otherwise, men and women are pretty much considered equally competent... at least legally. I don't know about socially.

As for traits that aren't physical, I'm not convinced that women excel over men in any mental category, or vice versa, and there's never existed any credible evidence to prove otherwise. If you can provide such evidence, do so.

They never travel alone.

Why would it be "indisputable advantage"? Simple reasoning: if there's a gender difference, then males and females are different and are advantageous in different things. What are they, and should we adjust our standards?

Now using Trivialis handle.

Men can create greater muscle mass, therefore they can be stronger. Women have greater control over fine motor skills.

So what defined activities and standardized evaluations do we have in terms of motor skills?

edited 26th Oct '11 11:44:22 PM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

Clarify?

"Motor skills" seems to be a very broad trait. How would we apply that for distinction between men and women?

Now using Trivialis handle.

As in jobs?

Jobs, competitive events, etc. Whichever we can do a fair evaluation of the gender gap factor, and use that in deciding the standards or expectations.

Now using Trivialis handle.

Well, conventional wisdom would say that women would be naturally better at small motor tasks such as driving and surgery while men, due to the greater muscle mass, would make better soldiers, farmers, ect.

Which has usually been the case throughout history.

Really? I don't think you saw very many female surgeons back in the 'old days'.

Be not afraid...

No, but women usually were incharge of the house work while men worked the fields.

Men can be stronger, so back then they were better put to work in the fields. Women could do some of the work, but it is less efficient.

This is probably when led to the "women's work" view.

edited 27th Oct '11 12:05:11 AM by TheProffesor

That's not really an argument that women are better at housework and fine-finger work, though. It's more of a reiteration that men excel at physical activity. The reality is, anyone can pull of housework well regardless of gender. Digging holes and chopping wheat for eight hours however, is easier if you're a man.

Keep in mind that "advantage" is a relative term. Society thinks that being bulky enough so that you can play football is "advantageous," whereas nature thinks surviving unmedicated childbirth is equally as useful.

From a biological perspective in fact, males are extremely wasteful to produce, and are only kept around because populations with more biodiversity (which the existence of males promote) can more easily survive environmental transitions—but other than that, males are considered by nature to be expendable gamete packets (sexual dimorphism is proof◊ of that).

Furthermore, we're actually stage 2 organisms—women are the default human form. The reason why males are so strong and impulsive is because we're designed to let ourselves get mauled in order to protect the unit that is evolutionarily important to keep unharmed—the female.

Of course, society doesn't care at all about evolved sexual gender roles, and thus, our perception of what is physically "advantageous" is skewed in favor of males. Unfortunately for women, there aren't a lot of "breastfeeding" and "childbearing" contests even if those abilities are considered very useful in nature.

They never travel alone.

I'm not talking about gender-exclusive roles of biology, but about traits that make a gender generally better at something. We wouldn't have civil rights for gender equality and feminist movements if we didn't care about balance.

edited 27th Oct '11 12:38:12 AM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

The problem is, there's almost nothing that makes the female sex "better" than men in our society other than sex appeal. Or is that the primary purpose of this thread—to find those elusive competitive events in our society that females excel at more than men?

They never travel alone.

I'm not sure what we're even talking about. Are we talking about civil rights? Femenisim? Biology?

I'm not sure what we're discussing...

You are mistaken, Vellup. It is a common stereotype that women are more people-oriented, more emotionally knowledgable, and better at networking and social stuff.

I'm not sure whether there is anything truthful to be gained from it, but it is an area in which women supposedly have an edge on men.

Be not afraid...

Basically, it's whether or not women are significantly better than men at anything society considers competitively useful. Right now, the conclusion I've reached thus far is: no, there isn't anything. Hopefully, someone can prove me wrong.

Maybe. The TC however (from what I've gathered), is more interested in stuff however, that would warrant making different expectations of men and women, similar to how we segregate sports.

edited 27th Oct '11 12:55:22 AM by Vellup

They never travel alone.

I think a better question is if it matters.

Vellup, I disagree that women aren't better at anything. Genders have cognitive differences. Gender contrasts are not absolutely binding but are general trends - girls tend to mature faster, for instance. Males tend to be more focused (that's why people say they can park cars more easily) while women tend to be more multitaskers. That claim might be less accurate than the claim tries to show, but you can't assume that they have no basis either. You have to show that.

But if you deny such factors of gender differences, and only look at masculine physical advantage, then we have to conclude that males are the superior gender, and are responsible for using that superiority. Women would still have the abilities men have, but not to male extent, since those are secondary to women's unique purpose of reproduction and caretaking..

And thus we go back to the historical tradition of male-centered society and family. The man is the head and protector, and the woman is the caretaker of the family. And on a related note to that, boys shouldn't hit girls because they're weaker, and girls shouldn't step out of the line of their weakness, because it's not proper for them to do so.

That might seem a bit drastic in this modern age, but it follows from the conclusion.

edited 27th Oct '11 12:58:18 AM by abstractematics

Now using Trivialis handle.

Dude, I just gave you something. Society considers communication skills competitively useful!

edited 27th Oct '11 12:59:18 AM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...

So you're argueing that women are just as good as men?