Equal Opportunity is bad because men and women are different

[antares]

I mean, I believe men and women are different on average (with much overlap) but I don't see the problem with equal opportunity. Also the treating according to natural law is a fallacy, as well as dangerous since differences are so nuanced and variation within the genders is large.

 

The military combat roles is a fallacy too.

 

themattwalshblog.com/2013/12/28/why-it-matters-that-men-and-women-are-different/

 

 

 

Quote

 

Scientists recently made another not-so-ground-breaking discovery. Maybe you’ve seen the headline kicking around on facebook. It turns out that the difference between men and women extends beyond a few basic biological facts about their reproductive functions. They think differently, and as a result, behave differently.

 

If you’re like me, you had little more interest in clicking on that link than on something titled “Scientists discover that water is moist.†But then I decided to write a blog post about it, so I did actually read it.

 

Researchers mapped the neural circuitry of the brains of 428 males and 521 females. They found that connections in the male brain were stronger within hemispheres, whereas they are stronger between hemispheres for females.

 

Researcher Ragini Verma was “surprised†that the implications of these findings were consistent with “old stereotypes.†But as Scientific American notes, the findings are consistent with multiple previous studies on the topic. In fact, I’m pretty sure the number of studies contradicting these “stereotypes†numbers exactly zero.

 

I think it is time to acknowledge that studies on this topic are a serious waste of the finite resources of the scientific community. This is old news, guys. And I don’t just mean old news as in, “we’ve known these things from the dawn of time†kind of old news. I mean old news as in, we as a society have conclusively re-discovered these things even post sexual revolution.

 

Unless you’ve been living under a rock since the 1960’s, you’re probably aware that the question now dividing factions in the gender wars is not, “are men and women different?†but rather, “do the obvious and scientifically verifiable differences between men and women actually matter?†Do these differences have ethical implications for the roles that men and women should fulfill in the family and in society?

 

How you answer that question depends on how you answer a more basic one: do differences between things make a moral difference at all? In other words, do we make ethical distinctions based on nature? I propose that you cannot really have a coherent moral code unless you answer “yes†to that question. And since most of us abide by what we consider some kind of moral code, I suggest that most of us do, in fact, make moral distinctions based on natures.

 

Let’s start with this: a deer and a human being are intrinsically different kinds of things, and this fact has moral implications for how we interact with them.

 

Think you don’t agree? Let me ask you this: if your children were starving and there was a deer in your backyard, would you shoot it and feed it to them? If you think you wouldn’t, you are probably not a parent. If you are a parent and you think you wouldn’t, then these thoughts are not addressed to you. God help you, because I cannot. Of the remaining 99% of the human race, I ask: what if your children were starving and there was a random stranger in your backyard? Would you shoot a human being and feed him to your children?

 

Maybe, when it comes down to it, some of us would. But at a minimum, I think most of us can agree, the very thought makes our skin crawl. If we shot a deer in that situation, we would jubilantly gather our starving children around the carcass and thank whatever God we believe in. If we shot a human being, we would know we had done something unspeakable. We would be traumatized for life and would probably lie to our children about it. Some might call it excusable. Does anyone call it good?

 

It perhaps says something about the deep divide in our culture on moral issues that in search of an almost universal consensus on something, I must raise a case so dark and terrible. If I could think of something less disgusting to talk about, I would. But in a country where the governing majority thinks it permissible to murder children in their mother’s wombs, you have to reach pretty far for consensus. And I do try to avoid talking about Nazis. It’s so cliché.

 

In any case, the important thing to notice here is that we all make a fundamental moral distinction based on natures. We look at other human beings and notice that they are completely different kinds of things from brute animals. And, in the situation I have proposed, this observation is the basis for a moral judgment. I would call this difference between human beings and animals rationality. You can call it something else if you like. The important thing for the argument I am making right now is that it is there, and its being there is the basis for moral judgment.

 

The implications here are vast, and extend well beyond the gender question, which, you may remember, was what this post was supposedly about. Granted, of course, that there is a much greater difference between human beings and deer than there is between men and women, and this is why there is not nearly the same ethical divide in how we treat them. A deer is not the kind of thing that can possess a capacity for rational thought. Regardless of differences in brain structure or even actual ability to function rationally, all human beings are the kind of thing that can possess a capacity for rational thought.

 

But if human experience and a vast body of scientific literature consistently tell us that there is a fundamental difference in the way men and women think and act, does it seem reasonable to hold that this makes ABSOLUTELY NO ETHICAL DIFFERENCE AT ALL? Should we completely disregard these facts when considering whether to send women to the front lines of a war, or asking whether children need both a mother and a father for a healthy, happy childhood?

 

I would suggest that denying any ethical import to these facts leaves us without any credible basis for formulating moral statements of any kind. And it is, moreover, a formula for unhappiness. It seems a rather obvious thing. When we treat things in accord with the way they are, the universe runs more smoothly. Which, if we gave it a try, might turn out to be a greater good than “equal opportunity.â€

[RosyDaisy]

I stopped reading when I saw deer vs human. WTF??

[Savoring Samsara]

Dear fundies: sorry, but women are still not the moral equivalents of nonhuman animals, much as many of you might like us to be.

[Peas n carrots]

Yeah the deer thing wandered into WTF territory.

People like this author still cannot wrap their tiny, inflexible brains around the fact that there is a massive spectrum within men and women's brains. Someone are wired to be nesters, and some women are wired to be warriors. I mean, wtf you can figure this out just by casual observation of people they know!

[JesusFightClub]

Dear fundies: sorry, but women are still not the moral equivalents of nonhuman animals, much as many of you might like us to be.

Yeah. The above.

And also, Walsh's argument doesn't even make sense. The group which is "deer" cannot think in the same way that a human can. There are no outliers amongst deer who have human-level understanding. However, amongst both male and female humans we have a spectrum. There are people who are female who can do the things our society regards as "male". There are people who are male who can do the things our society regards as "female". Both groups are comfortable in these roles.

My brother is a single dad. He does the changing nappies, cuddling kids who just woke up from a nightmare, teaching moral and ethical values, making sure they're properly dressed for a Nativity play...as well as packing their lunches for school, discussing child development with nursery school teachers, everything. He is a fantastic single parent.

Is he therefore not really male? or could it be that the old-fashioned ideas of "male" and "female" behaviour or activities aren't universal?

[lilah]

funny how science is so important until it contradicts something in the bible like evolution or that sexaulity is innate and not chosen.

And personal rights are not contingent on brain make up

[debrand]

What is the danger of letting people decide these things for themselves? If most men and women fall under some sort of gender controlled thinking, then no one will be unhappy in their natural place. Women won't try to usurp a 'man's' place and men won't need anyone to make them feel manly. We will all just instinctively act in predictably stereotyped ways. The very fact that some people(a lot of people) balk at being put in narrow roles proves how difficult it is to put people in easily defined gender boxes.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

Bottom line for me is, IF you take it as a given that men and women are so different that they will naturally self-segregate (which I don't, but let's just assume that to be true for the moment) then you should NOT NEED GENDER POLICING. Why? Because just throwing the boxes open and letting everyone do what they want should result in all the men in one camp, women in the other, with possibly a few outliers.

But those who constantly trumpet the supposed "different ways of thinking" and "natural ways of being" of men and women are never happy to throw the boxes open and let people choose, no, they have to say "well, she's a girl so we'll shove her in the pink box from birth" - why not just let her choose the pink box on her own if you're so damn sure she will?

...because deep deep down, they're not sure.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

What is the danger of letting people decide these things for themselves? If most men and women fall under some sort of gender controlled thinking, then no one will be unhappy in their natural place. Women won't try to usurp a 'man's' place and men won't need anyone to make them feel manly. We will all just instinctively act in predictably stereotyped ways. The very fact that some people(a lot of people) balk at being put in narrow roles proves how difficult it is to put people in easily defined gender boxes.

...Heh. I KNEW I should have read the whole thread first! This, exactly this.

[Full enough quiver]

Obviously men and women are different. Everyone is different. I'll even concede that there are certain traits that are more common in men and certain traits more common in women. Whether that's nature or nurture, I don't know, but it makes sense to just let people be whatever the heck they want to be, and are capable of doing. If a woman wants to be a construction worker, or a man wants to teach preschool, who cares? I have a cousin in the army. She's 5'8, 200 lbs of muscle. She boxes, and I have personally seen her beat the snot out of a man in the ring. Shes not exactly "feminine". My youngest brother is 5'4, maybe 110 lbs soaking wet. He's very sensitive, can't stand the sight of blood. not at all "manly". She is definitely the better candidate for being a medic in Afghanistan. It does seem like most people would fall into their "gender boxes" of their own accord, but why not let the outliers figure out where they belong? My cousin is a good soldier. My brother is a good preschool teacher. I'm an lvn part time(a very female dominated profession) and a sahm. My husband is a foreman/project manager (the only women at his job are the clerical staff) and that's ok too. We're comfortable in our roles, doing what we're good at.

[Hane]

Slightly OT: When my mom worked for a large insurance company in the '40s and '50s, there were lower pay scales for female underwriters than for males--the old "but he has to/will have to support a family!" argument. Apparently no allowance was made for war widows.

[dairyfreelife]

Bottom line for me is, IF you take it as a given that men and women are so different that they will naturally self-segregate (which I don't, but let's just assume that to be true for the moment) then you should NOT NEED GENDER POLICING. Why? Because just throwing the boxes open and letting everyone do what they want should result in all the men in one camp, women in the other, with possibly a few outliers.

But those who constantly trumpet the supposed "different ways of thinking" and "natural ways of being" of men and women are never happy to throw the boxes open and let people choose, no, they have to say "well, she's a girl so we'll shove her in the pink box from birth" - why not just let her choose the pink box on her own if you're so damn sure she will?

...because deep deep down, they're not sure.

To debrand and GVC, it's a simple matter to fundies...it's cause of Adam and Eve and the fall of Eden and humans are all sinful and won't do as they are supposed to do and therefore we must make sure men and women stay in their little narrow gender boxes so they do as God says because otherwise they will want to be different and fight those roles God gave them and that's just sinful. Everything boils down to people as naturally bad and sinful from birth.

[tigerchild]

I don't know if other people's experiences were different growing up, but honestly--despite all the moaning to the contrary, it seems to me that women form the backbone of the fundie church too. Especially for converts. It's not often the MAN that discovers it and drags his wife in but the other way around. It's the woman who provides the structure. She just has to catch all the crap in her hands too, and is the scapegoat as well. I think the non-stupid people in the movement know this, and this is why they write screeds like this--to make themselves feel better.

I have yet to meet personally a fundie or even fundie-lite guy who would know his elbows from his ass without his wife. I know there have to be exceptions. Certainly my dad is kind of one--there was no question who was the (abusive) top in our family. But he only had time to do that shit because everything else was done for him by us. And I often wonder how things would have been different if my mother wasn't so mentally ill. They were a pretty good match in that regard. However, if it hadn't been for OTHER people modifying some of the dictates that Our Lord and Master passed down from above then frankly he would have been pretty damn lost in RL.

[gardenvarietycitizen]

To debrand and GVC, it's a simple matter to fundies...it's cause of Adam and Eve and the fall of Eden and humans are all sinful and won't do as they are supposed to do and therefore we must make sure men and women stay in their little narrow gender boxes so they do as God says because otherwise they will want to be different and fight those roles God gave them and that's just sinful. Everything boils down to people as naturally bad and sinful from birth.

But that's just it though - to them, it's all about God Said So. Which is okay, if they will just admit that. At least that makes some consistent sense, even if I don't believe in it.

It's when they drag out the supposedly scientific justification, insisting that we're so different that of COURSE all women naturally want this and all men want that, then they pretty much are undermining their need for the policing, OR making a knowingly bad argument. If women really never wanted to rebel, there would be no need to put all the misogynistic rules on women.

Their actual belief is that women will happily rebel (and lead men into sin too, in many cases), and that's against God, so they need to be controlled all the time.

[August]

Aaaand the implication is that because we work differently, in order to have the best world we can you need lots of both male and female parents, and male and female doctors and male and female etc, etc, etc.