I don’t think this post will get me downvoted. Recall a similar response I gave you on matters of gender relations.
In which post you piously denied all the differences that allegedly make women different and superior.
But since women are in fact superior in certain ways (though not those listed), your post was politically correctness in the face of reality.
Let us suppose you instead had listed the ways that women really are inferior, or merely genuinely different. Then you would have been downvoted to oblivion
For example you piously denied that women are better mothers than men are fathers. How very PC of you
Suppose you had instead said, that men are bad mothers and women are bad fathers, that boys without a natural father are apt to become petty thugs, no matter how much mothering they get, and girls without a natural father are apt to become whores, that it takes a intact marriage to raise a child, you would have been downvoted.
Had you said that women drivers disproportionately cause deadly accidents despite their disproportionately slower, more sober, and more cautious driving, that women have difficulty reading maps and parking cars, that everyone, male or female, hates female bosses in the workplace, you would have been downvoted into utter oblivion.
Tell me, what makes those statements contrary to LW standards while asserting that men are as good at fathering as women are at mothering is OK?
It is true that it is now safe to challenge many of the politically correct beliefs about women that first appeared in Victorian times—but in your post you only challenged those Victorian beliefs that are now safe to challenge. That there is nothing wrong with bastards, and that women are equally capable in many fields where they are obviously not equally capable is Victorian PC, and to challenge that Victorian PC is now even more dangerous than it was in Victorian times.
Although Victorians, unlike moderns, did not suggest that women were equally good at being lumberjacks and firemen and should be equally engaged in competitive team sports, they did, like moderns, pressure people to pretend to believe that women were equally good at being bosses, scientists, musical composers, and mathematicians, and that fatherhood is unimportant.
And, as I recently remarked, some of the 219 censured theses are still censured, or perhaps have been re-censured.
Tell me, what makes those statements contrary to LW standards?
Being unnecessarily mean perhaps?
Let me try and quickly restate them:
Boys without a father figure raising them have higher rates of delinquency
Girls raised without a father figure tend to have more sexual partners and higher divorce rates
Children raised in intact marriages have better life outcomes in a wide variety of measurable ways
Women drivers while more careful drivers and having fewer accidents, cause more accidents with lethal outcomes
Female superiors in nearly all types of organizations are generally more disliked than male superiors.
We’ll see if taking away the meanness makes them discussable or not on LW. Not claiming one can do so without controversy obviously, but I’m pretty sure I can discuss all of those in appropriate threads without getting down voted to oblivion.
Have no problems believing the first three, though I’d like to see the different correlations between widows/divorcees/never-married/lesbian couples and the levels of deliquency/promiscuity in the children; not just a generic “lack of father figure”, but the reason for the lack of father figure.
The sentence about women drivers seems the exact opposite than reality, if my half-minute of googling on statistical studies on the subject led me right—That link says statistically women have more accidents, but male drivers are the ones who are associated more with fatalities and the more serious accidents.
As for gender-likeability in bosses; I’d like to see the studies for that one too. And in what cultures they were taken. If I had to guess I’d guess that women in Iran would fare differently (and worse) than Texas which in turn would fare differently (and worse) than Sweden: that’s my prediction on the subject.
Since, in the ancestral environment, women were seldom bosses, whereas that minority of males that became ancestors frequently became ancestors because they were successful bosses, it is unsurprising that men are
inherently better adapted to it by a very large margin, a margin that is as large and obvious as the difference in upper body strength, or possibly larger.
To argue that women bosses are on average equally likeable as bosses, is like arguing that women are on average as strong as men. It is just nuts.
To argue that women bosses are on average equally likeable as bosses
Nobody here argued that, as far as I can tell. What you seem to find offensive is the prediction that female bosses may be more likeable in Sweden than in Texas.
As for the evolutionary argument, even if I acknowledged modern-day bosses of capitalist companies to be the equivalent of the sword-swinging warlords and kings, it doesn’t explain to me why Queen Elizabeth is seen as so much more likeable than Prince Charles, and in an informal poll I just found here it doesn’t explain why four out of five favourite monarchs from everyone seem to be female.
Evolutionary arguments often merely have the shape of a justification, but in reality they’re like snakes that you can twist them any old way to plug into any bottomline one seeks. After all one could just as well argue that male bosses could use physical strength and intimidation to frighten opponents, but his consorts needed to be well liked in order to have favorite position to produce the heirs—so likeability goes to women, and physical strength goes to men. Evolutionary arguments are often of very little use.
I wish to emphasise I didn’t mean to imply I agree with all of the statements or think they are likley to be true. I just rephrased them to reduce unnecessary meanness and demonstrated they can be discussed in the usual LW way.
But since women are in fact superior in certain ways (though not those listed), your post was politically correctness in the face of reality.
blinks
Okaaay. You do realize I was responding to:
Many modern PC beliefs about women first showed up in Victorian times, which beliefs were I to mention them would be get me as down voted now as much as they would get a Victorian gentlemen in trouble.
Right? I wasn’t trying to optimize the post to be PC, I was just challenging a specific claim you made. Can you agree that claim basically wasn’t true (I’m not talking about your recent point, just the quote above)?
Let us suppose you instead had listed the ways that women are inferior, or merely genuinely different.
Women have a different distribution of abilities and personalties, much of which is caused by differences that have their roots in biology. I talk about such differences all the time!
Remember it was me opening the discussion about how female hypergamy matters when thinking about the sexual marketplace in the polyamory thread.
In which post you piously denied all the differences that allegedly make women different and superior.
But since women are in fact superior in certain ways (though not those listed), your post was politically correctness in the face of reality.
Let us suppose you instead had listed the ways that women really are inferior, or merely genuinely different. Then you would have been downvoted to oblivion
For example you piously denied that women are better mothers than men are fathers. How very PC of you
Suppose you had instead said, that men are bad mothers and women are bad fathers, that boys without a natural father are apt to become petty thugs, no matter how much mothering they get, and girls without a natural father are apt to become whores, that it takes a intact marriage to raise a child, you would have been downvoted.
Had you said that women drivers disproportionately cause deadly accidents despite their disproportionately slower, more sober, and more cautious driving, that women have difficulty reading maps and parking cars, that everyone, male or female, hates female bosses in the workplace, you would have been downvoted into utter oblivion.
Tell me, what makes those statements contrary to LW standards while asserting that men are as good at fathering as women are at mothering is OK?
It is true that it is now safe to challenge many of the politically correct beliefs about women that first appeared in Victorian times—but in your post you only challenged those Victorian beliefs that are now safe to challenge. That there is nothing wrong with bastards, and that women are equally capable in many fields where they are obviously not equally capable is Victorian PC, and to challenge that Victorian PC is now even more dangerous than it was in Victorian times.
Although Victorians, unlike moderns, did not suggest that women were equally good at being lumberjacks and firemen and should be equally engaged in competitive team sports, they did, like moderns, pressure people to pretend to believe that women were equally good at being bosses, scientists, musical composers, and mathematicians, and that fatherhood is unimportant.
And, as I recently remarked, some of the 219 censured theses are still censured, or perhaps have been re-censured.
Being unnecessarily mean perhaps?
Let me try and quickly restate them:
Boys without a father figure raising them have higher rates of delinquency
Girls raised without a father figure tend to have more sexual partners and higher divorce rates
Children raised in intact marriages have better life outcomes in a wide variety of measurable ways
Women drivers while more careful drivers and having fewer accidents, cause more accidents with lethal outcomes
Female superiors in nearly all types of organizations are generally more disliked than male superiors.
We’ll see if taking away the meanness makes them discussable or not on LW. Not claiming one can do so without controversy obviously, but I’m pretty sure I can discuss all of those in appropriate threads without getting down voted to oblivion.
Have no problems believing the first three, though I’d like to see the different correlations between widows/divorcees/never-married/lesbian couples and the levels of deliquency/promiscuity in the children; not just a generic “lack of father figure”, but the reason for the lack of father figure.
The sentence about women drivers seems the exact opposite than reality, if my half-minute of googling on statistical studies on the subject led me right—That link says statistically women have more accidents, but male drivers are the ones who are associated more with fatalities and the more serious accidents.
As for gender-likeability in bosses; I’d like to see the studies for that one too. And in what cultures they were taken. If I had to guess I’d guess that women in Iran would fare differently (and worse) than Texas which in turn would fare differently (and worse) than Sweden: that’s my prediction on the subject.
You would like to see Harvard bless a fact that runs contrary to Harvard doctrine? You will have a long wait.
Yet the fact is evident, so evident that to make a study would be as ludicrous as a study to confirm that women have less upper body strength. There is, however, a study which reports, not that female bosses are less likeable, but that every single person surveyed is so horribly sexist, racist, stupid, and nasty, that they do not like female bosses
Since, in the ancestral environment, women were seldom bosses, whereas that minority of males that became ancestors frequently became ancestors because they were successful bosses, it is unsurprising that men are inherently better adapted to it by a very large margin, a margin that is as large and obvious as the difference in upper body strength, or possibly larger.
To argue that women bosses are on average equally likeable as bosses, is like arguing that women are on average as strong as men. It is just nuts.
Nobody here argued that, as far as I can tell. What you seem to find offensive is the prediction that female bosses may be more likeable in Sweden than in Texas.
As for the evolutionary argument, even if I acknowledged modern-day bosses of capitalist companies to be the equivalent of the sword-swinging warlords and kings, it doesn’t explain to me why Queen Elizabeth is seen as so much more likeable than Prince Charles, and in an informal poll I just found here it doesn’t explain why four out of five favourite monarchs from everyone seem to be female.
Evolutionary arguments often merely have the shape of a justification, but in reality they’re like snakes that you can twist them any old way to plug into any bottomline one seeks. After all one could just as well argue that male bosses could use physical strength and intimidation to frighten opponents, but his consorts needed to be well liked in order to have favorite position to produce the heirs—so likeability goes to women, and physical strength goes to men. Evolutionary arguments are often of very little use.
I wish to emphasise I didn’t mean to imply I agree with all of the statements or think they are likley to be true. I just rephrased them to reduce unnecessary meanness and demonstrated they can be discussed in the usual LW way.
Thanks, on my part at least I understood that.
blinks
Okaaay. You do realize I was responding to:
Right? I wasn’t trying to optimize the post to be PC, I was just challenging a specific claim you made. Can you agree that claim basically wasn’t true (I’m not talking about your recent point, just the quote above)?
Women have a different distribution of abilities and personalties, much of which is caused by differences that have their roots in biology. I talk about such differences all the time!
Remember it was me opening the discussion about how female hypergamy matters when thinking about the sexual marketplace in the polyamory thread.