Gender (In)Equality at a Small Scale

My argument is this:

• 1) Gender differences exist.
• 2) Men and women are of equal "worth". Interpret that how you will.
• C) Therefore, the differences must be balanced.

According to the above, I would not a complete feminist, since I believe that there are gender differences that must be factored in. However, I do believe in fairness. If men are better in one thing, women are better in another. If men are given higher expectations/standards in one for that advantage, women should be in another likewise.

This must be deemed as valid subversion of feminist-approach of absolute equality if we accept that gender gaps are a real concept. I'll give you an example. There used to be height requirements for joining the police force, and it was equal regardless of gender ("equal protection" on the surface). And yet, the federal courts struck them down because women are generally shorter than men. Therefore, the height limit could not be met by many women, and it seemed like women were discriminated from working for the force.

This shows that absolute equal standards isn't always fair. The above is an example of providing what's best for each.

edited 27th Oct '11 1:08:21 AM by abstractematics

Yeah, and you ninjaed me. Took a hit from your own shuriken, so to speak.

Regarding communications skills though, there's credence to that, as do a number of abe's examples. I would disagree of course, for society to act on any of those trends however, in an effort to promote fairness. The gender differences in the examples thus far aren't as extreme as the trend on physical strength.

edited 27th Oct '11 1:11:02 AM by Vellup

So you're saying there shouldn't be absolute standards?

edited 27th Oct '11 1:11:36 AM by TheProffesor

Loni jay : It's true women are consider much more friendly and aren't plauged with crippleing masculinity issues.

edited 27th Oct '11 1:16:21 AM by joeyjojo

Anyone else agree with this post?

@Joey: Issues of feminity can be just as crippling as issues of masculinity—for instance, anorexia compared to compulsive weightlifting. (Then again, that's a culture thing.)

edited 27th Oct '11 1:22:55 AM by feotakahari

x4 Some things could have gender-neutral standards. It depends on the subject. I've learned, I think in a psychology class, that abilities to have emotions, contrary to popular belief, are not superior for women. Ability to show emotions in nonviolent ways might be greater for women, though.

But I will not buy that we should assume there's no significant differences just because they're not as popularly known norms as physical difference. If we do treat physical difference as significant, then we're treating gender gaps seriously. Therefore we need to look at what those gaps are.

I think physical strength difference being extreme is exaggerated. Like many said in this thread, there are boys who do not like sports all that much, and girls who do have interest in sports. We know that there are very skilled women athletes. Women, who in history weren't really allowed to participate in many men's activities, have come a long way for this kind of recognition.

But I'm willing to accept some general difference due to statistics and physiology. At the same time though, I recognize other gender differences that should be treated fairly.

edited 27th Oct '11 1:24:53 AM by abstractematics

Interests vary from person to person, but what is for certain is that a very inshape man who has been developing his muscles will be stronger than a women who has done the same.

Yes but women know how to recover from it better. Women form support groups and starts public awareness campaigns. Men start Bah! threads and 'an hero'.

edited 27th Oct '11 1:41:10 AM by joeyjojo

How do you know that's better? General complaining has caused mighty events to happen throughout history.

Furthermore, how do you back up that claim?

edited 27th Oct '11 1:35:07 AM by TheProffesor

Just look at at the suicide rates

That proves nothing. Who is to say that if a women was in the same position she wouldn't commit suicide either? Who's to say they are in equal positions?

I would disagree with point C. The type of "worth" I'll interpret we're talking about is an individual's worth to society. Society isn't God however, and so there's no reason why it's standards between genders can't be unfair, or "unbalanced."

I agree with point 2 however, because I don't think men really have an advantage over women, even with the assumption that men are "better at sports." The gender-related "advantages" that women get, mostly social, count for just as much, if not more than physical strength, even if they can't be measured.

So you're saying men are in worst positions then?

edited 27th Oct '11 5:29:10 AM by joeyjojo

When I say differences must be balanced, I'm saying that for male and female to be different yet still equal, there must be advantage for each.

Society should definitely do its best to fairly accommodate for the gender gaps. You said that women get social advantages; if we pretend they're not there when we make social policies, we're going to be disenfranchising men.

I also disagree that all of women's advantages are out of reach of measure (and that they should thus be disregarded). Quantitative social analysis gives us a pretty good idea of the trends.

For what it's worth, Joey, Women attempt suicide more often then men. Men are just more likely to be successful in their suicide attempts - mostly because they are more likely to use a gun than poisoning/overdose.

Though I think this thread has taken a trip into some weird assumptions. Some gender differences do exist. However, difference does not necessarily mean one gender is superior, and one is inferior. Biological differences are value neutral.

What's going on is that people are confusing biological difference with values placed by society.

@Drakyndra: thanks for the intell. Yes it's doesn't break down evenly.

As for 'natural' vs 'cultural' differences well there is a lot of disagreement over which is which.

The Psychologist Cordelia Fine lambasts the prevalent of what she calls 'Pseudoscientific Pop Neurosexism' in her book Delusions of Gender, where she argues that there are no innate major biological differences between men and women's psyches and societal beliefs actually contribute to commonly perceived sex differences.

I think she is talking out of her hat myself, but it's good to hear a voice of dissent in neuropsychology for a change.

If I read one more article about how 'women are attracted to pink because berries grow in the forest' or some other tosh i'll cry.

Well, that last one is blatantly rubbish. The whole "girls like pink" thing is less than 100 years old. (Reference)

Especially since pink used to be considered a 'manly' color for its similarity to red, the color of blood. (Ninja'd by Drakyndra!)

But I'd actually like to address the 'police height restriction' case that was brought up. If having that sort of height restriction was actually not necessary to the work, then I would argue it was equally discriminatory towards short men. If it was necessary to the work, then they shouldn't have made it lower to accomodate the women. I would just have a fitness/obstacle course that accurately simulates the real-world conditions you would encounter in police work, and if you can pass it - you're in, if you can't you're out. Again, absolutely no reason to make it about gender.

Sports... well, I can certainly recognize some gender differences, but to be sure, most people couldn't become top athletes no matter how they trained, they have to be born with the right genes. And not just being a boy or a girl. How would I deal with it? I like the kind of system boxing has, with weight classes, or age classes in marathons. Maybe it's just my particular focus (I'm on a serious extreme of the bell curve when it comes to height), but I just can't get my mind around the fact that there is an 'average female body' and an 'average male body' that everyone is supposed to conform to. No, we all have our own bodies, different from anyone elses', and our own strengths and weaknesses, and saying that just because I'm a female I should have the same physical expectations put on me as the Williams sisters is... absurd.

edited 27th Oct '11 8:28:28 AM by TheGirlWithPointyEars

I think the approach to evolutionary psychology should be to start with non-gender-related things, record people's reactions to them based on the logic used, then if people only start objecting to very similar logic once it is applied to gender... well, then we know who the disingenuous ones are.

edited 27th Oct '11 10:05:44 AM by HiddenFacedMatt

It depends on the reason of the height limit. For instance, Sixflags has gender-neutral height limits for the rides because it's just not safe for you if you're not tall enough. A height limit can be adjusted if, for instance, the height of the person has to be in good proportions with the due to physiological reasons. It would check to see if you're at the normal height according to your gender (and age, etc.), if that's healthy and apt for that gender.

I agree that we shouldn't make double standards unless there's a very compelling reason to give what's best for each group. If a supposedly equal law is made directly to target a gap in favor of the advantageous side, and for no reason other than to discriminate, then there's a problem. That's what voting restriction laws after Civil War were like.

The whole issue of affirmative action is similarly debatable.

edited 27th Oct '11 1:11:49 PM by abstractematics

In general, height has nothing to do with health. Like I said, I'm miniscule (under four and a half feet) and I'm perfectly healthy and have been able to run a 10-minute mile or better. Now, having the leverage and mass to tear down a door or subdue a 200-pound person, perhaps not - but that's what the obstacle course would determine.

edited 27th Oct '11 2:15:15 PM by TheGirlWithPointyEars

Evolutionary psychology isn't pointless because it's new, it's pointless because it's impossible to test. (You could say the same about certain branches of modern science, of course, but that's another rant.)

edited 27th Oct '11 6:53:06 PM by feotakahari

There are some external physiological effects, though there may not be much medicinal effects. If your height is too much away from what's supposed to be a normal height for your type, then it may be a liability. I'm just presenting that as a possible example of an adjusted standard.

Some standards are single-dimensional, while others are multidimensional; determining obesity depends on your mass and height.

edited 27th Oct '11 7:18:07 PM by abstractematics

Sure, but the only thing that should be at issue is whether you can do the work, which would be a problem whether the reason was that you didn't weight-lift enough or you couldn't get enough leverage because your arm was too short or whether you have weight issues that limit your fitness.

And for certain kinds of jobs, maybe an average man can do the work while an average female can't. But there needs to be a reason for it.

I know I'm nitpicking here, so bear with me, not trying to be antagonistic...