Did that thread about a woman's atlas get deleted?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Can't say I'm gonna miss it, but I would have kept it as a reminder of what's wrong with some posters out here.

[Antonio the Sixth]

There is only something I want to say to Memphis. Throughout history, differences in outcomes and in situation have been explained by differences in nature. This is true for any group of individual that was excluded from political and social power. "Why are negroes unable to reach our level of civilization? Because they are naturally inferior." Variations over this arguments could be heard up until recent times, and have always justified the worst things.

I'm not saying I know the reasons behind all the differences in outcomes between men and women (even though most of them are easily explained by the workings of patriarchal society). But what I do know, based on a quick look at human history, is that assuming such outcomes result from natural/inherent differences always eventually proves fundamentally wrong and serves to justify the most obnoxious injustices.

Now I'm done with you.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Could you lock this thread?

Sorry, I can't - there's no reason to.

Leave it open, I'm quite enjoying Nathan's utter demolition of Memphis' bigotry.

[Antonio the Sixth]

And is it really sexist to suggest that men and women might have different interests that is not a result of socialization? There are physical differences between men and women. Is it a stretch to say there can be differences in our interests?

Again, notice how the sorts of people who, in the past, have inferred the idea of intellectual/psychological differences based on physical differences have have since then been proven, not only wrong, but also morally bankrupt. Please, let's not do the same mistakes over and over again.

[Antonio the Sixth]

BTW, I really like Inks' newfound interest in exposing Opebo's hypocrisy. It makes him look human for the first time in a long while.

[Antonio the Sixth]

"Differences in interests between men and women that can have a biological basis" qualifies as an "intellectural/psychological difference" in my book. I guess we don't have the same definition of the terms, but the idea I've expressed in the previous post are fairly clear.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I have never seen any difference in thoughts or behaviors between genders that had was demonstrated to be caused by biology, besides maybe a few minor hormonal impulses (but these can generally be easily overridden by rationality and self-control). While it is of course possible that some other things have a biological component, I think that assuming biological determinants in the absence of irrefutable evidence is an extremely dangerous attitude. Again, just look back at recent history to see what arguments of the sort have led to.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Would anyone mind if I euthanized this terrible, terrible thread?

I would. This is a very important argument to have, and ignoring the, hum, "issues" of many posters out here does not make them disappear. I'm aware that most people here will never accept to question their idea of "nature" a bit, but hopefully a few will.

[Antonio the Sixth]

But eventually it needs to be about "what do you want to do."  There will always be deficits of women in some fields as there will be deficits of men in others.  The point is to ensure that those imbalances are not intentional on an institutional level, but instead reflect the desires of men and women seeking to achieve their goals in life.  (Which is why I strongly oppose a 50/50 balance in parliament, for example.  But it is maybe necessary as an intermediate step.)

I think my point, as well as that of Gustaf, Nathan and others, is to remind that barriers that prevent you from doing what you want to do are not always explicit or visible. They don't generally work in the form of "we don't want women here". It's a much more subtle process, that starts from the early childhood, and slowly encourages men and women to adopt different attitudes, develop different skills, follow different paths, etc. It's not enough to say "now women must not be excluded from certain professions". Because if the general assumptions of the employer and the coworkers are still influenced by gender stereotypes, a woman still has little chance to succeed in certain fields. And furthermore, women are even discouraged from seeking certain careers in the first place, at the level of primary or secondary education already.

It's also worth noting that this form of subtle discrimination exists for men as well, though it's limited to only a few categories like nursing, which do not convey much social consideration.

But the point is, eliminating obvious forms of discrimination is not enough. You have to go deeper and reshape mentalities outright.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'll miss Inks' sig.

[Antonio the Sixth]

But eventually it needs to be about "what do you want to do."  There will always be deficits of women in some fields as there will be deficits of men in others.  The point is to ensure that those imbalances are not intentional on an institutional level, but instead reflect the desires of men and women seeking to achieve their goals in life.  (Which is why I strongly oppose a 50/50 balance in parliament, for example.  But it is maybe necessary as an intermediate step.)

I think my point, as well as that of Gustaf, Nathan and others, is to remind that barriers that prevent you from doing what you want to do are not always explicit or visible. They don't generally work in the form of "we don't want women here". It's a much more subtle process, that starts from the early childhood, and slowly encourages men and women to adopt different attitudes, develop different skills, follow different paths, etc. It's not enough to say "now women must not be excluded from certain professions". Because if the general assumptions of the employer and the coworkers are still influenced by gender stereotypes, a woman still has little chance to succeed in certain fields. And furthermore, women are even discouraged from seeking certain careers in the first place, at the level of primary or secondary education already.

It's also worth noting that this form of subtle discrimination exists for men as well, though it's limited to only a few categories like nursing, which do not convey much social consideration.

But the point is, eliminating obvious forms of discrimination is not enough. You have to go deeper and reshape mentalities outright.

Yes.  But you must recognize that men and women are different.  Memphis is correct in bringing up that there is a biological difference.  As long as there are strength requirements for firefighters, men will dominate the field.  You can call this reinforcing gender roles if youw ant, but I don't think it is.

Men and women will likely always tend to gravitate towards different roles in society.  That is because men and women are wired differently and are also physically different.  To ignore that in pursuit of some forced 50/50 equality does nothing but create an imbalance from the natural order of things.

Now of course any active discrimination needs to stop.  Men should be able to fill traditionally female roles and vice versa... but being 100% gender neutral as a society will never happen.. because almost nobody is gender neutral themselves.

Instead, removing as much societal pressure as possible on various roles and making those roles the choice of the individual is the goal.  But I still think even if we achieve that, women will still fill many of the traditional roles that we've come to think as "normal".

I don't think anybody is questioning the physical differences between men and women. If there are jobs like firefighters which require specific physical conditions, a gender imbalance is expectable (note however that the natural physical condition can also be reshaped by a personal initiative, so it is perfectly possible for a woman to overcome the physical barriers to become a firefighter, for example - the social barriers are infinitely harder to remove). But even then, the cases when physical issues come into play are extremely rare, and the gender imbalance almost always doesn't have any biological basis other than pseudo-scientific babble.

I am pretty sure that, the day where individual choice will cease to be influenced by gender-based socialization, most professions will be filled relatively equally (say, not more than a 60/40 difference).