Here I want to explain a natural account to why men and women have the distinct nature that they have. In particular, why men have been the warriors and women have been the ones who upbring the kids. This is not a social construction, this is a biological construction, a necessary biological construction. Within feminism there is a (undemonstrated, of course, not a surprise with feminism) concept that society is the way it is because of social construction. Now in some cases that is true, having a society in which women are forced to wear mobile tents is a social construction. But not everything is a social construction. What I am really talking about is a husband and wife relationship. The husband is the one who is seen as the strong one and the one who has to work, while the wife stays at home with children. Feminists refer to this as a "patriarchal society", think it is sexist, and want to change its structure. But there is a naturalistic account for it.
Consider two groups of people. One group A has 90 men and 10 women. Another group B has 90 women and 10 men. Let us make some assumptions to make this problem simple: (i) every women ends up having sex (ii) each women gets pregnant and gives birth in nine months (iii) every birth is a boy and girl (iv) the next nine months the men have sex again. Obviously, these are rather big assumptions, especially (iv), that is unrealistic, the one year old babies cannot reproduce yet, but that is unimportant, I want to illustrate an important point so I make it as simple as possible, I can make it more realistic, my argument will still hold, but it will only confuse the reader. What will happen with these two groups after nine months? Group A will have 100 men and 20 women, nine months later it will have, 120 men and 40 women, nine months later it will have, 160 men and 80 women. Group B will have 100 men and 180 women after nine months, next nine months it will have, 280 men and 360 women, nine months later it will have, 640 men and 720 women. So in three generations group A has a total of 240 people, but group B has a total of 1360. Note that both groups started out with 100 people but now group B has over 1000 people in just three generations!
The above calculation is based on a very simple biological fact. Men can impregnate many women. Women cannot. Women need to fine a unique man, but a men can have sex with many women. This is why a population that has many women and few men will prosper over a population that has few women and many men. Therefore, a population with few men and many women is more prosperous (here "prosperous" simply means having an increased chance to survive) than the model with many men and few women.
This means two things. First, it explains why men always think about sex, women are not as much obsessed about sex. Women need a single partner, men need to find multiple women constantly. But this interesting point between male and female nature is unimportant in our discussion. The point which is important is that women are precious, men are expendable. Protecting women is what will lead to a more prosperous species. This is precisely why it is men protecting the women by being the warrior sex than the other way around. Furthermore, one has to remember that women are pregnant for a long time, men can impregnate a woman at any time. Therefore, there needs to be a careful time period of protecting the mother with the child, with men this is clearly not such the case. Therefore, sexual properties of biology itself force men and women to have the nature that they have. As a result the patriarchal structure develops.
There is another very important result we can deduce from the above observation. If there are two species, one is protected and one is not then the non-protected one will have much more variation through natural selection than the protected one through natural selection. Variation occurs within a species when it is naturally selected. The more protected a species is, the slower and weaker the variation would be within the species. The less protected a species is, the faster and stronger the variation would be within the species. If animals were put on an island that was a utopia, it had everything they ever wanted and they never were killed by other animals, then there would be no natural selection within this species whatsoever. But the real world is much more brutal, animals have to struggle to adapt and survive, thus natural selection leads to a more varied species. Now let us return to men and women. Because women are precious they are more protected, thus, natural selection would not lead to much variation within the female population. The men, however, are expendable, they are not so much protected, they go to wars, and so forth, thus, natural selection would lead to much more variation within the male population. Thus, to conclude, there is more variation within men than women.
Whenever we have a population of people we can form a distribution for them. A distribution is just a histograph. The histograph can measure whatever we like. Suppose we want to measure income levels. If we form a histograph for income levels it will tell us how frequently people end up in various income levels. We expect to find a concentration of people in the middle and few people at the extremes. Most people fall somewhere in the middle income level. Now the most important kind of distribution, for anyone who taken a probability and statistics course, is a normal distribution. It depends on two factors, the "mean" and "standard deviation". The "mean" is simply the average of the population that we are dealing with, and the "standard deviation" is a measure of how varied the population is in comparison to the mean.
Let us pick something to measure between men and women. IQ is a terrible way to figure out someone's intelligence but there is a direct correlation between high IQ and good intelligence, so I will use it nonetheless. We will consider the distribution for the IQ of men and women. As with most random samples the distribution will be a normal distribution, so it will depend on the mean (average IQ) and standard deviation (the measure of variation from the mean IQ). Let us begin with a simple assumption about men and women which I think is a fair (and probably correct) assumption to make, that is, the mean IQ for men and women is the same, let us say 100 for that is usually taken as the average value. The mean would be the same, but the deviation would be different. The deviation for men would be larger than women because they are a more varied group as explained above. Therefore, we would have two distribution curves, one for women, one for men, both are centered at the same point (the mean) but the one for men would have a larger deviation. Graphically this means that the distribution for men would be a stretched curve while the one for women would be tightly concentrated at the middle.
If a curve is tightly concentrate at the middle, thin, and tall, like the one for women, it would mean that the extremes of the distribution are incredibly unlikely. That is, it is extremely impropable to find a woman who is a failure at life, and it is extremely impropable to find a woman who is an (to use a German expression) ubermensch (meaning, she is far ahead of the human race in her talents). And we see this in real life. If we have to imagine a person who is a failure at life, the picture that comes to mind is some guy. But at the same if we have to imagine a person who is far ahead of everybody else in the world either in talents or intelligence we also think of a man. Homeless people are almost always men, but Nobel prize winners are almost always men. Women are not varied enough in their distribution to end at the two extremes. Thus, we do not really see homeless women but we do not really see Nobel prize winning women.
Take for instance the Field's Medal, the equivalent of a Nobel prize for mathematics. At the moment about 40 or so people received this high prize for mathematics. None of them women. Consider the Wolf prize in mathematics, also 40 or so people received this award for mathematics, none of them women.
Is this because the Field's Medal, Wolf Prize, Nobel Prize, discriminate against women? No, not at all. Feminists would like us to believe that the Nobel prize purposefully discriminates against women and that is why we have a disproportion. But this has nothing to do with discrimination, this is simply how the world operates.
Feminists say that there is a disproportion to the number of men and women for the Nobel prize because of the "glass ceiling". That is, discrimination and sexism against women that prevents them from raising above the crowd. But, as I been saying many times before, feminists never demonstrate that it is discrimination that keeps them down, they simply state it, and we have to accept this as a fact. I offer a different explanation (not my own explanation, I seen other people use it before) to why there is this disproportion, which is actually a reasoned thought out argument. Again we run into a problem with "equality", here feminists are using "equality" as referring to actual equality between men and women. Since they believe in actual equality between the sexes it follows that if there is a disproportion between men and women it must be because of discrimination. However, the problem with that statement is that the feminists never demonstrated why men and women are actually equal to one another. The distribution between men and women busts so much of the myths the feminists say about discrimination and creates a bigger hole with feminist 'theory'.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wrong again. In many parts of the world women do most of the work. Take a look at most of Africa for example. Or native America. Or Middle Eastern Bedouins.
ReplyDeleteThe only work that is almost exclusively male is hunting.
You should really check your facts before using them as a basis for your rants.
This was a comment on the opening paragraph, not on the remainder of your post. The remainder of your post, while it remains in the realm of speculation, isn't particularly anti feminist. Only your conclusion, that this proves there is no glass ceiling, is.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that there are still people such as you today, that will devote so much time and energy searching ways to prove that women simply don't have what it takes, however weak their evidence, is a pretty damn good sign that the glass ceiling aint dead yet.
"Wrong again.": Wrong about what. If you think I am wrong respond to what I say instead to just saying "you are wrong". Anyone can make the statement, "you are wrong", not that many can respond to what the mistake is.
ReplyDelete"however weak their evidence": How is the evidence is weak? If you think that my arguments are weak then you have to refute them, not tell me that I am wrong or that I use wrong evidence. Show me why I am wrong. I made the argument that there is not as much variation among women, therefore this is why there are so many fewer Nobel prize winners and no women who recieved a Field's medal award. This is not true? Where am I wrong in my argument? You do not refute anything.
"The fact that there are still people such as you today, that will devote so much time and energy searching ways to prove that women simply don't have what it takes.": Point to where in my post I said women do not have what it takes. Point to it exactly. Do not just reach with your hand up your own anus, pull something out, and act as if the statement you said is true. I want you to quote exactly what I said that implies anything you said.
The only thing your comments to my post demonstrate is how feminists have no arguments. So far you keep on saying how wrong I am on my other posts but you never once offered a logical thought out argument to why I am wrong. I develop my thoughts carefully and the only thing you can do is tell me "you are wrong".
Excuse my lack of clarity. In aiming for brevity, I apparently have not expressed my point adequately.
ReplyDeleteWrong about what. About whether the assignment of economically productive activities are "naturally" male. Not only can they not be proven natural, they don't even reflect the historical human condition.
Lack of Evidence. Your hypotheses are well constructed but in the end they are just that- hypotheses. You treat them as fact. I commented as such on your hypotheses that employers would hire more women. This post too is a hypothesis, and it doesn't prove anything. If you don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a fact than idach zil gmor. I can't explain it on one foot.
Your facts: Often mistaken, or at the very least, universalized from your own personal experience without much research. I stated as much with regard to the homeless. Another example is your assertion that women are first to be saved. No one allowed me to leave my office first when there was a fire. No one gave my friend any precedent in trying to get out of the WTC on 9-11, and neither of us ever suggested that they should have. Additionally you attribute positions to feminism that are not feminist, as I commented with regard to chivalry, as well as being wholly ignorant of branches of feminism which revel in what they perceive as the differences between men and women. If you're going to spend so much energy criticizing feminism, the least you could do is learn what it is, instead of using a Rush Limbaugh caricature as your model.
BTW did you notice the inconsistency btw your "hypocricy" post and this one? In hypocricy you rail against the supposed hypocricy of feminist, who supposedly demand preferential treatment of women in life threatening situations while demanding equal rights in other areas, while here you construct a very coherent hypothesis why such a position would not be inconsistent at all.
"Wrong about what. About whether the assignment of economically productive activities are "naturally" male. Not only can they not be proven natural, they don't even reflect the historical human condition.":
ReplyDeleteThen explain to me why I am wrong. Again, for like the third or fourth time, you tell me that I am wrong, but you do not explain why I am wrong. Let me repeat my argument again. My argument is that biology makes women be with their kids, they need to be protected by the less precious species, that is, the male, therefore it is more efficient for a population to have men who protect the women. When the women are protected and have the kids, it is the men who go out into the wild, hunt for animals, or collect items to bring to their families. Thus, naturally the patriachal structure is present. That was my argument. You tell me that I am wrong. But you, again, do not show me where I am wrong in my reasoning.
"Lack of Evidence. Your hypotheses are well constructed but in the end they are just that- hypotheses. You treat them as fact. I commented as such on your hypotheses that employers would hire more women. This post too is a hypothesis, and it doesn't prove anything. If you don't know the difference between a hypothesis and a fact than idach zil gmor. I can't explain it on one foot.": Again, I do not know how many times I have to ask you this, show me where I made a mistake. I asked you above. I directly said, if you read the previous response to you, that if you think I am wrong then show to me that I am wrong. Instead of doing that you just say "it is just a hypothesis". So? So what? It can still be true (assuming it is a hypothesis and not a fact of biology). And I made an argument to why it is true. Where is your counter-argument? I do not see it.
By the way, you did not respond to my demand above. Above I demanded to see justification to where I imply that women do not have what it takes. You ignored my demand entirely. Where is it? I want to see you quote me directly from my text and show me where that it implied. Again, this is probably my sixth time telling you this, if you made accusations then defend them. Otherwise, all you are doing is pulling stuff out of your anus without carrying about defending them.
"instead of using a Rush Limbaugh caricature as your model.": Poisoning the well, come on, how unimpressive.
"BTW did you notice the inconsistency btw your 'hypocricy' post and this one? In hypocricy you rail against the supposed hypocricy of feminist, who supposedly demand preferential treatment of women in life threatening situations while demanding equal rights in other areas, while here you construct a very coherent hypothesis why such a position would not be inconsistent at all.":
Wow, for the first time you actually made an argument responding back to me. A failed argument, but at least an argument. You said I am inconsistent and you backed up to why that is so. But, your argument is failed. For the following simple reason. You are misunderstanding what the word "hypocrisy" means. It means saying one thing and doing another thing. I said that feminists are hypocrites because they claim to want equality, but they want equality of results, and in fact want to be treated special with extra privledges. That is hypocritical by definition. Now, what I said was different. I said that I have no problem with women being treated with some privledges. I have no problem with our tradition of carrying heavy stuff for women, for example. But I do not say that men and women are identically the same. That is why I am not inconsistent.
I've corrected you twice already so I don't know why you keep saying that I don't say why you're wrong. You write that men go out and hunt animals- true. You also write that men collect items to bring to their families- false. Gathering is women's work, and nearly universally so. So is agricultural labor in many societies. More Information on the division of labor is readily available if you are so inclined.
ReplyDeleteRegarding hunting, perhaps that would be relevant if you were talking about women in the army, but if you are talking about the professional world, it is not relevant to the safe working conditions that most of us work in. )
2. Regarding the difference between a hypothesis and a fact. You right "feminists say x but don't offer any evidence" (actually if you cared to look for it you might find plenty of evidence.) Then you say "but I have another explanation." You then present your hypothesis. You fail to state how and if your hypothesis has been tested, or select out for other explanations of the same phenomenon, or any other reason to believe in the superiority of your hypothesis.
3. HUH? So you believe that women DO have what it takes to get to the top? What happened to your whole theory that women are genetically more average?
"I've corrected you twice already so I don't know why you keep saying that I don't say why you're wrong.":
ReplyDeleteBecause your entire 'argument' is, "you are wrong". That is not an argument. Do I really need to explain that? That can be your thesis statement, but it needs defense.
" You write that men go out and hunt animals- true. You also write that men collect items to bring to their families- false. Gathering is women's work, and nearly universally so. So is agricultural labor in many societies. More Information on the division of labor is readily available if you are so inclined.":
You are ignoring what I said to make it easier to respond to me. I said that the patriarchal structure where the male is more predisposed to work and the female is more predisposed to be a parent has a naturalistic explanation to it. I never said anything about women not working, that is something you conjured up. What I said was that patriarchal structure has a natural origin to it. You tell me I am wrong. Yet you have not refuted it.
"You then present your hypothesis. You fail to state how and if your hypothesis has been tested, or select out for other explanations of the same phenomenon, or any other reason to believe in the superiority of your hypothesis.":
This is precisely why I complain and tell you that you never explain why I am wrong. This is probably the seventh time already where you tell me that my hypothesis is wrong, and you never return back to trying to defend your proposition. I am still waiting. I gave an argument that explains why, on the average, there are fewer women ahead of the human species. You tell me I am wrong. Then tell me why I am wrong. All you have been doing is focusing away from that and saying "well that is just a hypothesis". So? It can still be correct. And if you think it is wrong then you have to refute it. Not just say "that is just your hypothesis" or "that is just your opinion", what a terrible crime against the intellect! I am waiting.
" HUH? So you believe that women DO have what it takes to get to the top? What happened to your whole theory that women are genetically more average?":
Do not switch this argument over to me. It was you who claimed that I said that women do not have what it takes. I demanded for you to quote me and show where I said that instead of pulling that from outside your anus. Show me where I make such a statement, or show how it can be implied from what I said. Make a clear case for it, instead of doing the anus pull move. I can also do an anus pull move. Watch, I will do it right now, "you want men to give up their incomes to support women". See, I can do that too.
Once again.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you wrong? Because your hypothesis is based on misinformation. Got it?
What is the misinformation? Once again. You are misinformed that "the male is predisposed to work." There is no evidence that males are predisposed to work and there is plenty of evidence to the contrary. As I previously pointed out, all over Africa WOMEN do most of the work. Nor is there evidence that male labor is absolutely linked to male dominance. In those same locations in Africa, patriarchy remains firmly entrenched.
I am glad to hear that you do believe in women's innate ability to rise to the top of their professions just as men. Far be it from me to convince you otherwise. But in that case I see no point at all to your hypothesis.
"Once again.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you wrong? Because your hypothesis is based on misinformation. Got it?"
No I do not get it. Because you do not address my argument. What you say has nothing to do with my argument. Read what I wrote above. I said that the male patriarchy where the male is more predisposed to work and the woman is to be with the kids has a naturalistic explanation to it. That is what my argument was. You twist that into a parody, as if I said, "women do not work by their nature", and assume that you have refuted my argument. Address my exact argument, do not make up your own thing to refute which is not based on what I said.
And you did not even address my main argument, about the distribution between males and females. That is my entire main argument. What you do, is that you act that I have one mistake, and therefore that refutes everything that I said. Even if I am wrong about men patriarchy having a natural origin to it, which I do not think so, and you did not refute it, that does not invalidate my main argument about distribution of males and females. That is what my entire post was about. You have done nothing to refute this.