Men and women are physically equal

This is actually one of the main reasons I find such gender differences so plausible; all the knee-jerk flying off the handle at some of them just seems so irrational.

It's kinda complicated, though, seeing as some of the pro-biodiversity folk mistake aggregates for essentials and get all prescriptive with that mistake.

Wouldn't genetic engineering be expensive ?

The haves would buy it for their kids while the have-nots don't. Thereby increasing the differences between the rich and the poor and promote inequality.

Why would we even be the same anyways ? I want to better than the guy next to me not his equal. So I'd shell out a little more for that.

And if we somehow did make it inexpensive, you'd still have those people who are morally against. I'm imagining a Coordinators versus Naturals scenario now. (Gundam)

I wonder if these altered genes would be dominant or recessive.

As a side-note, the person who mentioned bodybuilding as compared to powerlifting...they involve two different types of lifting. Bodybuilders generally can lift less but lift more often and hold the weight they lift longer, while a powerlifter lifts the weight quickly one to three times but it is a heavier weight.

GE also brings up one of the same problems with eugenics: The flexibility of the term "flaw". Most will agree that schizophrenia is bad, but what about a violent attitude? Or sexuality?

It's a blurry line.

The problem with eugenics is that "eu" will always be someone's particular preference.

Genetic engineering might be analogous with computers or an Industrial Revolution in that it would involve a real but fleeting class disparity - I'm not sure - but it definitely wouldn't be if we threw long life into the engineering mix.

As for fixing the irrational, nasty bits of human nature, I'd be all for that, once I took a decade to ascertain that the person who developed the technology was neither clueless nor a supervillain.

Actually trying to get rid of schizophrenia is really bad. It's closely associated with math skills.

I think when talking about physical differences between men and women, if I take it as true (it's too hard to test for pure biological reasons versus cultural reasons), it doesn't actually change that much when talking about having 50/50 split in physical labour jobs.

Like Black Humour stated, there's a limited amount of physical strength actually required for most jobs. In fact, endurance is a more important factor than strength, which would in fact lead us to hypothesize that women would be superior to men in physical labour jobs. (This does hold to be true in agrarian societies, interestingly enough but I'll leave that alone for now)

Then there's a limited number of physical-related jobs in the market. Especially, if you look at the USA, most of it is service related jobs. I don't think that the person selling me a suit requires the ability to lift 200 lbs in an Olympian show of strength. He just needs to show me a good suit that fits me.

So taking all these concepts into account, the number of men and the number of women capable of performing all the physical jobs allows us to have a 50/50 split, even within the military. Unless you want to tell me that the US military is incapable of finding 1.5 million women (half the military personnel) in a country of 300 million... or roughly 150 million women? That sounds fairly silly, considering as well, that males in the military are not body builders but rather of simply above average strength and endurance.

For social optimisation purposes (since explosive breeding is not an issue in the modern world after any war), using a lot of women in physical labour jobs including the military makes more sense rather than wasting women who could otherwise be trained to do so at an office or service job.

edited 28th Nov '11 11:12:08 AM by breadloaf

Actually, in the military, there is a need for both strength AND endurance. Have you ever seen how much gear and armor people carry around in the military? It does require strength to carry all that around. It also requires endurance to move everywhere while carrying all that. However, in the military, you are (most likely) not going to be running 50 kilometres non-stop, so you do not need to be built like a marathon runner (which men or women can do). On the other hand, you do not need to be built like a bodybuilder either (which men or women can do). However, some strength is required for things ranging from overpowering enemies in CQC to actually firing heavier guns. Ever heard of Crippling Overspecialization? That is an important thing to avoid in the military (I'll get to outside of the military later on).

In addition, there are other factors that come into play. On average, men have a better pain threshold than women (for impacts like weapons or fighting hand-to-hand (like CQC), in general, being bigger in terms of bone and muscle equals better pain threshold on a strictly nature level; nurture obviously affects this too). If someone is going to use the Mythbusters example, there is a huge difference between being hit and dipping your hand into cold water, which women on average would be better at because women on average have more fat (their bodies are better equipped for fat, and estrogen promotes fat, fat insulates the body and keeps it warm, including in the hand which would prevent 'pain' from the cold longer).

Also, you are not taking many other factors into play. For example, genetics and somatotypes. To use myself as an example, I am an ectomesomorph. I have long limbs with somewhat thin-looking but really dense bones. It's true I'll (probably) naturally never look like Arnold (you know the one); but I can run really fast in a sprint run for a long time, am flexible and jump high due to my ectomorphic traits (long limbs) and due to my mesomorphic traits (ability to build muscle quickly and dense bones), I can take a beating and lift a lot of weight...but my overall potential is probably to be able to blend strength, speed and endurance but not excel immensely in one to much detriment to the others. What I'm trying to say is that body types and genetics do play a major role in what your body is suited to overall (some people like me lean more to doing a bit of everything, while some people lean to doing certain things over others). However, people should not let genetics decide what they can and cannot do. If one is dedicated enough, they will find a way to do what they want. And that goes for biology of sexes as well.

Also, when someone says "strength (or insert other thing here) isn't that important", I have to ask...in what? To use the military again, you need strength to lift the biggest handheld guns.

In general, I don't think anything related to physical attributes like strength and endurance is so...simple. Everyone is different, both in nature and nurture.

Also, I've looked at agrarian societies. Often, women in those societies end up not doing much that would involve strength or endurance. They cook, clean, etc. I haven't looked at many agrarian societies though, so I'll admit I may not be well informed on that.

As for women in the military, I fully support them going into the military...except that I want men and women to be held to the same standards in training and on the battlefield. Yes, I have just mentioned basic biological differences between men and women, but those are only nature NOT nurture. I am a firm believer that anyone can accomplish anything, perhaps not to the standards they have for themselves (for example, no one is going to be Hulk until we perfect gamma radiation), but if you put your mind to it then the results will amaze you. I don't care if someone is a man or woman, they can accomplish anything. Gender Is No Object to me, but at least I know what nature hands out to people on average and how they can work with what they got.

However, in terms of this happening in Real Life anytime soon...it won't. People are too entrenched in maybe not believing in gender roles, but trying to exploit them. Besides, if women were to be in the military just as much as men, then you'd expect them to be in the front lines. They're still not unless the military thinks it has found a way to ensure they don't die. Men Are the Expendable Gender after all. Due to men being taught "chivalry" and Wouldn't Hit a Girl, it is also worried that able-bodied male soldiers would sacrifice themselves for female soldiers when sometimes...you are NOT more expendable in battle. There are other Double Standard things preventing women from entering the military and being effective in front lines as well, sadly. See the movie GI Jane for a good analysis of this.

That's not to say women can't be effective in the front lines in the same way that men are. We would just need to break down a lot of societal stereotypes which I hope we will one day, but we're not quite there yet. My personal philosophy on stereotypes (including gender) is "Treat everyone kindly and as individuals to the best of my ability in all aspects of life" (yes, this includes fighting...though I prefer to be non-violent outside of sparring and I still refuse to hurt children and believe in Thou Shalt Not Kill).

Anyways, I'm going to end this rant with this: Everyone is different. Generalizing on a nature standpoint has some merit, but nurture is just as important if not more so. Also, all skills and attributes can come in handy at different times and situations so don't dismiss anything so easily.

IIRC, the majority of military jobs don't require actual high levels of physical skill. Much of it is maintenance, requiring the same level of physical skills as an automechanic. It would more likely require a higher level of problem solving and spacial reasoning. I think spacial reasoning actually does have a difference across gender lines, but I can't remember which way.

@Deboss: Men have a slight advantage at rotating figures in their heads.

If that sounds like a bit of a pointless distinction, that's because it is. As far as I'm aware, the advantage doesn't persist over all kinds of spacial reasoning, just the special case of rotating figures in their heads.

Ah.

Hey, hey, hey. I like having a penis, thanks.

@ Darkclaw

Well yes, but I mean, don't take the "strength" isn't important to some extreme conclusion. Neither I, or what I believe Black Humour to be stating, is that nuture far exceeds any nature difference for the tasks involved in physical labour jobs.

Essentially, I'm saying that

• There's a limited number of physically-related tasks
• The absolute number of men/women capable of fulfilling those tasks more than exceeds those jobs.

With those two points, any physically related job can have a 50/50 split if you wanted to do so. Whether that is entirely economic, probably not. But considering how little nature matters, the split is likely only going to be on the order of 47/53 or something ridiculously slight anyway.

As for stereotypes, I think the US is probably the most behind, which is unfortunate and it'll take time to catch up with western standards but it is doable. Protecting women because of their reproductive organs is an idiotic prerogative of modern western governments. It's not like we need hordes of pregnant barefoot women to replace our constantly yearly mortality rate.

Also for agrarian societies, women do most of the farming because men spend a lot of time hunting (it's a very wasteful job because you could go a month without catching anything, but it's the only way to get meat). Thus why in both hunter-gatherer society and in agrarian society, women hold so much power, are physically stronger and provide the majority of the calorie intake. Whereas in industrial/post-industrial society, what matters are social relationships and interacting outside the household, where men were traditionally placed in.

edited 29th Nov '11 12:04:13 PM by breadloaf

@breadloaf: Careful about saying things about all hunter-gatherers. They don't all forage for food the same way; they really can't, because they exist all over the world and not all environments are the same.

For example, the way the Inuits get food (all hunting of fairly large game, essentially no gathering and no small game hunting at all) is much different from the way most of the hunter-gatherers in Brazil get food (lot of killing small game, lots of gathering, hunting large game is rare and done more for prestige than actual need of it).