[QUOTE=TestECull;39908140]No. Kilts are basically skirts and Scottish men do not give a damn about being seen in them. It's entirely a social construct, we call skirts feminine because we think they are not because they actually are.[/QUOTE]
skirt is an obvious example used to illustrate my point that feminine and masculine traits can often be shown to be cultural rather than inherent. i know about kilts and stuff. in fact, pants were considered rubbish in roman culture as well.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39908151]no but it did heavily imply that there are inherent differences between men and women without providing much evidence for it, and not taking into account cultural expectation.[/QUOTE]
I don't think it implied much other than that men and woman have a different thinking pattern and how they handle situations/roles differently. A important one being that men display more Autistic traits then women, which has been said that is a majority male condition, even to the point to say that all men are on the Autistic spectrum.
The rest of the world needs to stop bunching Finland in with the other nordic countries when talking about progressive social policies.
We're by FAR the most backwards of the nordics.
[QUOTE=Virtanen;39908211]The rest of the world needs to stop bunching Finland in with the other nordic countries when talking about progressive social policies.
We're by FAR the most backwards of the nordics.[/QUOTE]
Well youre certainly needing abit of the usual nordic common sense, But youre still salvageable.
[QUOTE=Vasili;39908162]Well I assumed this was a well known assumption about mans nature but well there is this;
[url]http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/monkey-my-shoulder/201002/men-power-more-they-admit[/url]
Its probably a bit of both, but I do know that men are often given promotions from other men if they're married/having children also.[/QUOTE]
That source doesn't seem to point to anything that suggests it's inherently true (by which I mean true regardless of culture or time period) other than the analogy drawn to chimpanzees. The fact that it ends on pretty presumptuous language like this:
[quote]Wherever men get together -- in the military, the church, secret societies -- they quickly arrange themselves vertically. I would even go further: without such an arrangement, men are miserable.[/quote]
Only makes it seem dubious and self-promoting. At best you could glean from this that men in positions of power [I]currently[/I] have a power dynamic related to their position, but not much else.
[QUOTE=Megafan;39908276]
Only makes it seem dubious and self-promoting. At best you could glean from this that men in positions of power [I]currently[/I] have a power dynamic related to their position, but not much else.[/QUOTE]
I think its a very far stretch to suggest mans desire for power is based on purely culture. I think its plentifully explained mans desire to dominate, to rise up in the ranks to a position they want, kind of self explanatory due to men having double the testosterone than women, even from a evolutionary purpose. I think its explained quite well in the video. Chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, sharing more than 98 percent of our genetic blueprint, I think taking a example from them is quite far, most male animals in general display these same characteristics, to say human males don't is a bit naive.
[QUOTE=Vasili;39908357]I think its a very far stretch to suggest mans desire for power is based on purely culture. I think its plentifully explained mans desire to dominate, to rise up in the ranks to a position they want, kind of self explanatory due to men having double the testosterone than women, even from a evolutionary purpose. I think its explained quite well in the video.[/QUOTE]
Well I'm certainly not going to assume it's for some biological reason. And even you might want to avoid the 'evolutionary purpose' explanation. Besides, if it were just based on testosterone, surely it should be observable in all men without a testosterone deficiency and relatively similar other conditions, no?
[QUOTE=Megafan;39908366]Well I'm certainly not going to assume it's for some biological reason. And even you might want to avoid the 'evolutionary purpose' explanation. Besides, if it were just based on testosterone, surely it should be observable in all men without a testosterone deficiency and relatively similar other conditions, no?[/QUOTE]
I think testosterone is a perfectly reasonable reason as to why men are more aggressive and [URL="http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120327215556.htm"]competitive[/URL] along other 'masculine' traits. Desire for power is male, what we determine that power is is cultural.
Having low testosterone can be harmful.
[QUOTE=Vasili;39908357]I think its a very far stretch to suggest mans desire for power is based on purely culture. I think its plentifully explained mans desire to dominate, to rise up in the ranks to a position they want, kind of self explanatory due to men having double the testosterone than women, even from a evolutionary purpose. I think its explained quite well in the video. Chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, sharing more than 98 percent of our genetic blueprint, I think taking a example from them is quite far, most male animals in general display these same characteristics, to say human males don't is a bit naive.[/QUOTE]
we also are very closely related to pygmy chimps which have sex as a means of conflict resolution and assimilating members into a group. i mean we are quite different from both common and pygmy chimps so saying "chimps do it, therefore we do it" is quite a stretch.
hell i could give a ton of examples of primates that act incredibly different to us and that are still closely related to either us or common chimps.
and where is the evidence that testosterone is linked to dominance? it has a link to aggression and criminal behaviors, but not an incredibly strong one.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39908479]we also are very closely related to pygmy chimps which have sex as a means of conflict resolution and assimilating members into a group. i mean we are quite different from both common and pygmy chimps so saying "chimps do it, therefore we do it" is quite a stretch.[/quote]
I think we shouldn't forget we are also animals, our core mechanics are not a lot different with many species in this world in terms of behaviour. We often use chimps in a lot of studies to refer to ourselves, even mice or otherwise 'similar' animals.
[quote]
and where is the evidence that testosterone is linked to dominance? it has a link to aggression and criminal behaviors, but not an incredibly strong one.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/under-the-influence/201209/testosterone-and-dominance[/url]
[url]http://news.softpedia.com/news/Men-039-Competitiveness-is-Determined-by-Testosterone-Levels-42342.shtml[/url]
There is also this, but its quite the read;
[url]http://cogprints.org/663/1/bbs_mazur.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Vasili;39908569]I think we shouldn't forget we are also animals, our core mechanics are not a lot different with many species in this world in terms of behaviour. We often use chimps in a lot of studies to refer to ourselves, even mice or otherwise 'similar' animals.[/QUOTE]
Similar yes, but you can't just go 1:1 and say "chimps do it so we do it too".
[QUOTE=Vasili;39908569]I think we shouldn't forget we are also animals, our core mechanics are not a lot different with many species in this world in terms of behaviour. We often use chimps in a lot of studies to refer to ourselves, even mice or otherwise 'similar' animals.
[url]http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/under-the-influence/201209/testosterone-and-dominance[/url]
[url]http://news.softpedia.com/news/Men-039-Competitiveness-is-Determined-by-Testosterone-Levels-42342.shtml[/url]
There is also this, but its quite the read;
[url]http://cogprints.org/663/1/bbs_mazur.html[/url][/QUOTE]
Problem is the only way to know for sure is with a lumbar puncture.
"studies therefore have often instead used more [U]unreliable measurements from blood or saliva[/U]. Most studies support a link between adult criminality and testosterone although the relationship is modest if examined separately for each sex. Nearly all studies of juvenile delinquency and testosterone are not significant. Most studies have also found testosterone to be associated with behaviors or personality traits linked with criminality such as antisocial behavior and alcoholism. [U]Many studies have also been done on the relationship between more general aggressive behavior/feelings and testosterone. About half the studies have found a relationship and about half no relationship[/U]"
Handbook of crime correlates
[QUOTE=Vasili;39908357]I think its a very far stretch to suggest mans desire for power is based on purely culture. I think its plentifully explained mans desire to dominate, to rise up in the ranks to a position they want, kind of self explanatory due to men having double the testosterone than women, even from a evolutionary purpose. I think its explained quite well in the video. Chimpanzees are our closest living relatives, sharing more than 98 percent of our genetic blueprint, I think taking a example from them is quite far, most male animals in general display these same characteristics, to say human males don't is a bit naive.[/QUOTE]
you really, really need to learn how to biology.
Gender Ideology for equality? Tall order for countries (looking at you Norway and Finland) that do mandatory military service for men only.
Am I missing something here?
Eh, there is a cultural influence and a genetic influence. But obviously the genetic influence is not that powerful or it would be obvious in society.
There is obviously an evolutionary and hormone factor, but it's not anywhere near completely that. I think maybe the origin point of societal bias is due to genetics, but the society we live in now has non-genetic bias, where genetic bias is no longer needed to survive.
And that's why "soft" social sciences should be taken into account to understand the deeper level of WHY cultural influences do this and that, and HOW to change them, and find a more non-biased way.
It's not all based on genetics, the origin is, but the society we live in has the ability to change that. The social bias of the society has not changed, while the social structure has changed.
Equality can go do one.
Common sense,women are slightly more sensitive then men,and naturally go for easier and more caring jobs like teachers and doctors.
Men are not so sensitive howeve,and will usually go for harder,more well paid jobs.
[QUOTE=Megafan;39908631]Similar yes, but you can't just go 1:1 and say "chimps do it so we do it too".[/QUOTE]
Yeah lol I'm not saying we're the same, but I think we share a lot of characteristics with them and behaviour in some respects.
If you work from the assumptious basis of "Whats wrong with men", Your results are going to be incredibly flawed.
I believe that was why these studies were defunded.
Good, no matter your opinion or ideology you'll agree that biased and unscientific studies trying to pass as scientific are bad.
Also I can't foresee this thread turning to shit. Nope not at all what could go wrong.
I have a question then, how did things get to being so convoluted with social roles if there wasn't something biological about it? I think we can agree that discontent for something doesn't just appear out of no where.
[QUOTE=redshift2234;39911689]I have a question then, how did things get to being so convoluted with social roles if there wasn't something biological about it? I think we can agree that discontent for something doesn't just appear out of no where.[/QUOTE]
I think the only biological thing about it is the human brain's complexity.
The human mind isnt as much the slavering beast of instinct as the cynical thinkers of today might think.
Strange things can happen when a human convinces him/herself of something and then passes that conviction down to his/her children.
Namely religion.
[QUOTE=redshift2234;39911689]I have a question then, how did things get to being so convoluted with social roles if there wasn't something biological about it? I think we can agree that discontent for something doesn't just appear out of no where.[/QUOTE]
there is a biological reason for social roles, and probably an evolutionary reason for gender identity(i would guess sexual selection but i'm no biologist). humans naturally create social orders and groups that have an incredibly level of complexity.
that doesn't mean gender roles or any social role is inherent to the human, it means that we have the ability to constantly create these roles and enforce them socially.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
