Feminism and Biology

[DeistPaladin]

The other thread on feminism or batshit insaneism http://forums.leagueofreason.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=4866 has got me thinking a bit about the topic. I want to explore the issue further into a territory that may be controversial. The topic I'd like to discuss is how we resolve issues of gender equality with the ways our brains are hardwired for survival.

In my most recent post, I wrote that equality doesn't require interchangeability. We can acknowledge difference without compromising our commitments to social justice. It may be that denial of difference may be a stage in our social development as we move toward equality but trying to insist that gender is purely cosmetic is, in the long run, neither necessary nor helpful. We can have equal pay for equal work etc. without the need to deny what biology teaches us.

I consider myself a "feminist" in the sense that I believe in equality between the genders but I do have one caveat. It's an exception that causes me to part ways with some feminists while others might agree. This asterisk references the prime rule of all human civilizations all over the world, whether African, European, Asian, Native American, etc. All other cultural, civil or ethical rules can, in time of calamity, be quickly dumped in favor of this prime rule. When push comes to shove, any society that fails to heed the prime rule is courting extinction.

The prime rule: Women and children first; men are expendable.

If the situation is really dire, children first, women second, men are expendable.

If some women find this offensive, please understand that this is how my male brain is hardwired by hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. "Female: Protect!" is an undeniable instinct in my gray matter that facilitates the survival of a species, however much this male impulse may annoy women.

The reasons for this primary rule aren't hard to understand. Let's suppose a society is faced with calamity, whether we're talking about a natural disaster or an invasion. Assuming the disaster can be seen coming and any preparations can be made, the society places its men in harms way to protect the women and children. The net result is that a large percentage of the casualties are among the males. Let's say 50% of the adult males are wiped out. Although such a loss would be a hardship, the society would recover in a generation. The surviving males would most likely take multiple wives to restore the population.

By contrast, a society that loses 50% of its adult female population would be decimated. It would have a much more difficult time recovering, assuming it ever could. Females can only have a finite number of children while males are limited in procreation only by the number of receptive women.

Now (just to take the other side of the issue) with overpopulation being a problem for modern civilization, it's fair to say there's not the same urgency behind these survival rules. Nonetheless, the protective instinct is part of our nature as men. How do we square this with equal opportunity, particularly for inherently dangerous jobs like fire departments, law enforcement and the military?

***Edited to include link to other discussion thread.***

 

[borrofburi]

It's difficult because... Well primarily because the crazy religious right is always insisting that these biological differences are very extremely important, and that all the things we feminists see wrong with the world are the direct result of biological differences. We see a glass ceiling, they see that most (nearly all) women want to be stay at home moms... And through this "all current differences are rooted in biology and as such not worth trying to change or oppose, and indeed worthy of keeping around" conceptualization they employ, they end up with a policy that resembles "separate but equal", which they code "different but equal".

 

[DeistPaladin]

Counter point Borro, does denial of difference leave us open to the "poisoning the well" fallacy?

Poisoning the well is where a person states A and B. A turns out to be false so B is assumed false as well. It's a logical fallacy but still important in a debate to avoid making any false statements. Conservatives love this fallacy and will go on the offensive, harping on the weakest point in the argument.

In this case, A and B are "men and women are the same" and "men and women are equal" respectively.

Perhaps we'd be better off acknowledging biological differences and still dismantling the glass ceiling?

After all, what does the protective instinct have to do with a female being CEO of a corporation or being elected leader of a country?

 

[borrofburi]

After all, what does the protective instinct have to do with a female being CEO of a corporation or being elected leader of a country?

They would say it's not the male protective instinct, but the female "want to have children" instinct.

 

[DeistPaladin]

They would say it's not the male protective instinct, but the female "want to have children" instinct.

My counter would be that technology has decisively changed that "traditional role". Being a full time mom isn't a full time job anymore, at least not once the children are old enough to go to school. The mother and father of a house can split the household chores that can't be done by technology and thereby efficiently maximize the potential of both, providing the family with an additional income in the bargain.

Additionally, the exact split of "traditional" duties does vary from one culture to another. One culture's concept of "woman's work" may be another's idea of "man's work". Based on my own upbringing, I've come to think of cooking as the father's job, since that was the task my own dad took over once mom started working in her own career.

The distinction is that one is based on biology and the other on relative culture. Perhaps that line can be at times fuzzy, since culture is often a matter of adaptation and survival in a given environment, but it seems a clearer argument can be made in one case than another.

If I'm not clear at any point, it's because I'm searching for the answer myself.

 

[Andiferous]

I don't see virtue in protecting population in our society, as humans tend to be overpopulated anyway, and the shortfall could be countered if surviving women choose to have more babies. Either way, it's going to be a choice and not something that is expected of them, so I'm not inclined to put this in the equation at all.

For moral and philosophical reasons I would support saving children over adults, as they haven't had opportunity to live out their lives.

Women probably tweak higher in respect to the survival of children overall, because:

1) In most cases, infants are highly dependent on their mothers.
2) It has been proven that women in general have physiological responses to babies, and are generally biologically tuned into their young. The jury is still out on men.
3) In our society, women make up most single-parent families. There are many men in single-parent families, but statistically the trend tends to run the other way.
4) Women could be pregnant, and I could pretty much guaranty the men are not.

This is not to say the babies couldn't survive without women, or that all women want to have babies. Ideally there would be a way to pick and choose by situation, but if the decision were time sensitive, I would tend to put women after children, and not because of their future reproductive potential.

 

[Giliell]

They would say it's not the male protective instinct, but the female "want to have children" instinct.

Well, if I remember correctly I neither accidentially forgot to take the pill, nor did I punch holes in our condoms nor did I slip hubby some knock out drugs so I could have kids.
He wanted the little critters as much as I did and so we decided to have them together.
But what's still very different is how things work for both sexes once they have children.
First of all there's the question whether there's the possibility to pursue a career. This means that there has to be someone who takes care of the kids. Good and affordable daycare, a trusted person who can take care in emergencies.
Second thing is cultural acceptance. How much acceptance and understanding will a woman encounter who takes a back seat in her kids' life but a front seat in her career? How much acceptance will a man get if he takes a back seat in his job so he can look after the kids? Because it's hard to justify yourself all the time.

Being a full time mom isn't a full time job anymore, at least not once the children are old enough to go to school.

It never was. If you exclude the middle-class 50's and 60's. Historically, even though raising the children was the woman's job, it was hardly done with that. Any farmer's wife at any time would probably hit you with a fork if you suggested that her work was just raising the kids.
But it is true that the traditionally female tasks were centred around the house and generally not seen as "real work" because they didn't get paid for their reproductive work (by reproductive here I don't mean procreating, but all the work that is necessary so you can recreate the power you need for the productive work). The good old "bread-winner" idea. This is of course nonsense and becomes very obvious once you try to hire somebody for every job that's part of being a housewife.

And now for my stance on feminism, biology and differences:
Now, let's leave aside the undisputable differences and move into the fuzzy realm of psychological differences.
Problem here is that we just can't make a clear cut between nurture and nature, but I think that we can say one thing for sure: Whenever we talk about something that men are or women are, the full sentence is always " on average men/women..."
Just think about body hight. On average men are taller than women, but I'm sure you all know several women who are taller than several men you know.
So, please keep that in mind whenever I say male/female, men/women.

So here's some hidden sexism that's still alive and kicking in our society: If there's a typically male way of doing things and a typically female way, the male way is seen as the standard and superior, while the female way is seen as inferior and laughed at.

 

[lrkun]

Is it possible to change equality with equity instead?

 

[borrofburi]

They would say it's not the male protective instinct, but the female "want to have children" instinct.

My counter would be that technology has decisively changed that "traditional role". Being a full time mom isn't a full time job anymore, at least not once the children are old enough to go to school. The mother and father of a house can split the household chores that can't be done by technology and thereby efficiently maximize the potential of both, providing the family with an additional income in the bargain.

Additionally, the exact split of "traditional" duties does vary from one culture to another. One culture's concept of "woman's work" may be another's idea of "man's work". Based on my own upbringing, I've come to think of cooking as the father's job, since that was the task my own dad took over once mom started working in her own career.

The distinction is that one is based on biology and the other on relative culture. Perhaps that line can be at times fuzzy, since culture is often a matter of adaptation and survival in a given environment, but it seems a clearer argument can be made in one case than another.

If I'm not clear at any point, it's because I'm searching for the answer myself.

Additionally, I would argue that the "traditional role" of having kids is silly. There are men and women who simply don't want children. There are families where the man will take care of the children (though the crazy right wing will argue these violate "natural law" or something like that, saying's unhealthy and bad for the children).

Nevertheless, I do wonder how much of the male protective instinct is hard wired and how much of it is cultural.

 

[Giliell]

Nevertheless, I do wonder how much of the male protective instinct is hard wired and how much of it is cultural.

Some studies suggest that it isn't that hard wired. I read about ut some time ago that they evaluated the wreckage of the Titanic and the Lousitania. Major difference was that the latter sunk fairly quickly while the former took her time.
The proportion of women and children in the life boats was much higher in the Titanic wreckage than in the Lousitania.

 

[borrofburi]

They would say it's not the male protective instinct, but the female "want to have children" instinct.

Well, if I remember correctly I neither accidentially forgot to take the pill, nor did I punch holes in our condoms nor did I slip hubby some knock out drugs so I could have kids.
He wanted the little critters as much as I did and so we decided to have them together.
But what's still very different is how things work for both sexes once they have children.
First of all there's the question whether there's the possibility to pursue a career. This means that there has to be someone who takes care of the kids. Good and affordable daycare, a trusted person who can take care in emergencies.
Second thing is cultural acceptance. How much acceptance and understanding will a woman encounter who takes a back seat in her kids' life but a front seat in her career? How much acceptance will a man get if he takes a back seat in his job so he can look after the kids? Because it's hard to justify yourself all the time.

Right, but the point is that women, on average, bear and take care of children; thus the crazy right wing's reasoning is that the glass ceiling isn't so much a problem as simply a result of this biological difference in which women bear and take care of children and men don't.

My position is that the woman who takes a back seat on raising her kids should be accepted as much as the guy who takes a back seat on his career to raise his kids, as much as the couple who does a good job of doing both (i.e. man and woman takes a partial back seat on career, and a partial backseat on raising children). The Sweden has done some very interesting things on this front: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world/europe/10iht-sweden.html?_r=1

And now for my stance on feminism, biology and differences:
Now, let's leave aside the undisputable differences and move into the fuzzy realm of psychological differences.
Problem here is that we just can't make a clear cut between nurture and nature, but I think that we can say one thing for sure: Whenever we talk about something that men are or women are, the full sentence is always " on average men/women..."
Just think about body hight. On average men are taller than women, but I'm sure you all know several women who are taller than several men you know.
So, please keep that in mind whenever I say male/female, men/women.

It's important to say. On a certain level I wonder if the average crazy religious right staunch "traditional gender roles marriage" advocate's primary problem is distinguishing between "on average" and "all"; though it might also be the concept that what we generally see is often the result of cultural forces (and not necessarily genetic forces), and a failure to appreciate how very powerful cultural influence really is.

So here's some hidden sexism that's still alive and kicking in our society: If there's a typically male way of doing things and a typically female way, the male way is seen as the standard and superior, while the female way is seen as inferior and laughed at.

I don't know if I even agree with that... I guess maybe I do... The point where I disagree, if I do disagree, is the idea of labelling things as "male" and "female". I concede that some of gender roles can be significantly tied to sex, but I think in general we tie "gender roles" far too much to sex, and that in general we think of "gender roles" as far too rigid a category (i.e. a person can do both "masculine" gender stuff and like certain "feminine" gender stuff, and that's perfectly ok).

 

[borrofburi]

Nevertheless, I do wonder how much of the male protective instinct is hard wired and how much of it is cultural.

Some studies suggest that it isn't that hard wired. I read about ut some time ago that they evaluated the wreckage of the Titanic and the Lousitania. Major difference was that the latter sunk fairly quickly while the former took her time.
The proportion of women and children in the life boats was much higher in the Titanic wreckage than in the Lousitania.

Though that could be the result of a lack of cognizance rather than a lack of deference.

 

[Giliell]

I don't know if I even agree with that... I guess maybe I do... The point where I disagree, if I do disagree, is the idea of labelling things as "male" and "female". I concede that some of gender roles can be significantly tied to sex, but I think in general we tie "gender roles" far too much to sex, and that in general we think of "gender roles" as far too rigid a category (i.e. a person can do both "masculine" gender stuff and like certain "feminine" gender stuff, and that's perfectly ok).

As I said, all those things are to be taken "on average".
It's not so much about liking certain stuff or doing certain stuff.
It's more about things that are "typically male" and "typically female". Not so much about WHAT people are doing but about HOW they're doing it. I'm perfectly OK with a guy using more make-up than me (which isn't that difficult) and hubby gladly leaves certain "male" tasks to me.
Especially communication theory has done a lot of research in this field. It's an old joke that men and women don't speak the same language, but there's a bit of truth in it. Typically, men and women use language and communication differently.
But what's the "general opinion"?
Women don't say what they mean, they become offended for nothing and so on. Because they didn't stick to the way men use language.
I think I'm not coming across very clear, so I'll try with an example.
Here are two instructions of how to go to a certain place:

1) When you're on the main road, drive on for about half a mile. Then turn left at the third traffic light. Go on for about 300yrds and then take the 2nd road on the left. It's house number 15.

2) OK, when you're on the main road you stay there for a while, about 2 minutes. You pass a big supermarket on the left and just after that supermarket, there's a traffic light where you turn left. Then you can already see the bakery on the right side on the corner. There you turn right and it's the green house with the purple flowers.

Now, which instruction was most likely given by a man, which one by a woman? Which one would you consider the standard instruction and why?

 

[Ibis3]

I consider myself a feminist, and I don't have a problem with your 'prime rule'. Yes, it's hard to figure out how much of the traditional gender roles are influenced by biology and how much by culture, and of course the distinctions among individuals of the same sex are probably just as important as the more general distinctions between the two sexes, but certain policies of favouritism do make sense (i.e. males protecting women and children in case of disaster)--generally speaking.

As for equality, most feminists I know want equal opportunity, equal respect, and equal treatment under the law.* They don't want sex differences to cease to exist.

*In some cases this entails action that does favour or on the surface appears to favour women due to ancient and underlying systemic imbalances. Self-identified feminists often disagree about the need for, nature of, and extent of these actions.

 

[lrkun]

How does a feminist wish to be treated?

I mean, I'm a guy. I'll always treat girls like a gentleman would - that's how my dad raised me. Opening the doors, paying for the food in dates, working for the expenses, of course I don't mind my girl working too, bringing flowers, and all that jazz? Does it mean that if a girl says she is a feminist, does she wish to be treated the opposite or is it the other way arround?

 

[Ibis3]

of course I don't mind my girl working too

Treat her like a human being and not a possession (ahem that you are in a position to judge or allow activities to) and you should be fine. Some women appreciate the "gentlemanly" or "chivalrous" touch (holding doors open, ceding your seat on the bus etc.), others see it as condescending like she can't open the door for herself. You've just got to find out how she feels. You can do this by asking her and listening to the answer.

 

[lrkun]

of course I don't mind my girl working too

Treat her like a human being and not a possession (ahem that you are in a position to judge or allow activities to) and you should be fine. Some women appreciate the "gentlemanly" or "chivalrous" touch (holding doors open, ceding your seat on the bus etc.), others see it as condescending like she can't open the door for herself. You've just got to find out how she feels. You can do this by asking her and listening to the answer.

I see. Thanks ^^,

Take note fellow travellers. (men)

 

[Giliell]

of course I don't mind my girl working too

Treat her like a human being and not a possession (ahem that you are in a position to judge or allow activities to) and you should be fine. Some women appreciate the "gentlemanly" or "chivalrous" touch (holding doors open, ceding your seat on the bus etc.), others see it as condescending like she can't open the door for herself. You've just got to find out how she feels. You can do this by asking her and listening to the answer.

Pretty much this.
Personally, I appreciate common politeness, which hasn't got anything to do with the sexes. So I hold the door for people and appreciate if they do so in return. The more "needy" a person seems (disabled, carrying heavy objects, pushing a pram), the longer I will hold. Something I can't stand are men who'll wait in the doorframe holding that door so you have to pass them closely.
I'm also all for making an odd present every once in a while. Unfortunately, I'm the person making them in my relationship. I always have to bet on something so that hubby has to buy my favourite choclates

Oh, and a killer phrase is something like "I don't do that, I'm a man", as long as you're not talking about red nail polish. Worst thing you can do is to consider yourself above something and therefore expect her to do it.

 

[lrkun]

Pretty much this.
Personally, I appreciate common politeness, which hasn't got anything to do with the sexes. So I hold the door for people and appreciate if they do so in return. The more "needy" a person seems (disabled, carrying heavy objects, pushing a pram), the longer I will hold. Something I can't stand are men who'll wait in the doorframe holding that door so you have to pass them closely.
I'm also all for making an odd present every once in a while. Unfortunately, I'm the person making them in my relationship. I always have to bet on something so that hubby has to buy my favourite choclates

Oh, and a killer phrase is something like "I don't do that, I'm a man", as long as you're not talking about red nail polish. Worst thing you can do is to consider yourself above something and therefore expect her to do it.

(highlight)... Phrases like that are excuses.

I agree with your opinions. Thanks again. (does that make me a feminist?)