Steve Youngblood
Member
Just for clarification's sake, 'Male' is implicit in 'Patriarchy.'
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
"The End of Men And the Rise of Women"
- Thread starter Sir Alemeth
- Start date
- Status
Just for clarification's sake, 'Male' is implicit in 'Patriarchy.'
evil solrac v3.0
Member
when women take over, they will become like the men are now. the cycle will be the same because we are human.
Douglas Quaid
Member
I know...
Since most of the obvious thoughts have already been covered, I want to point out that it is at least possible that women are indeed better suited to modern civilization, just as men were clearly better suited to handling the primary tasks of hunting and other intense physical demands during the bronze age and earlier.
Or not; perhaps men are still better. Or maybe both genders are indeed exactly equally suited to all tasks in the modern world. I'm not saying we have enough information to decide which of these are correct, just that all of these seem like realistic possibilities to me.
Or not; perhaps men are still better. Or maybe both genders are indeed exactly equally suited to all tasks in the modern world. I'm not saying we have enough information to decide which of these are correct, just that all of these seem like realistic possibilities to me.
Jackben
bitch I'm taking calls.
While physical strength had a lot to do with the patriarchal leadership way back when, it has had little relevance in the creation of the civilization. Men are more likely to be inventers, artists, and leaders then women just because psychologically, they are tuned for that. Modern society still needs leaders, and unless the avergae female evolves into a stronger leader, I just don't see this working.
Women are completely capable of being leaders, and are capable of doing anything a male can, it's just less likely for a female to be a natural leader.
I don't think there is any study to back that up, if there was, could you please post it
I also doubt there would be any link to "unsafe plastic chemicals" to lowered testosterone
Jackben
bitch I'm taking calls.
I don't think either gender is suited to lead on a wide scale. I think if anything, advancements in culture and technology requirements are creating a future in which individuals will shine and gender will be of little to no consequence.
Books with soundbites like this are just to people up and increase sales.
Books with soundbites like this are just to people up and increase sales.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Due to patriarchical structure we've never had a fair assessment of women's "natural" abilities for leadership or anything else really.
I'm fully on the side of "there are important biological/psychological differences between men and women" but when that gets translated into what you're saying it's something I feel the urge to distance myself from.
What's happening now, as gender equality becomes more of a reality, is that women are better able to express their natural capacities, and we'll probably find they are quite good at all kinds of things required of a person in modern society. Pointing to history as evidence that men are superior in certain domains ignores too many relevant factors to be taken seriously.
tl;dr It might be true that women are less likely to be natural leaders (thought that might further depend on what kind of organization needs leading) but we absolutely cannot assess their "natural abilities" accurately given the longstanding history of social inequality between genders.
if either gender was incapable of leading in a wide scale, then why has Civilization been the most effective way for humans to advance?
Humans are pack creatures, and humans need leaders. To say otherwise would be silly
im not saying that men are superior in any way, just psychologically built for different things
yes, we've held down many women from truly being legitimate people for many years, but if women were generally strong leaders, there would be less patriarchy throughout history. There's a reason why the patriarchy existed, and it wasn't because "herp derp, men are strong"
Women are just as capable of being incredible leaders too, just biologically are less likely to be one. See Cleopatra, Hilary Clinton, Joan of Arc, and many other influential feamle leaders
Why would increasing complexity decrease the significance of gender distinctions? Let's say women are broadly smarter than men. Wouldn't that gap be increasingly relevant as the world gets increasingly complex?
but that's arguing that women are smarter
is there any way we can argue that, since intelligence is so subjective
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
I actually think it's entirely possible that physical dominance is the root cause of many forms of social inequality, though of course it's built upon by all kinds of factors and institutions. In a dynamic system seemingly small changes can make big differences in the big picture, right?
Jackben
bitch I'm taking calls.
You misunderstand. I did not say either gender was incapable of leading on a wide scale. I said I do not believe either is suited for it. These two words have very different meanings.
Males can and have led civilization on a wide scale for some time, the benefits and consequences of which are debatable.
As I said previously, I think because of increases in technology and shifting demands we are heading for a world where the individual is more suited to lead regardless of gender.
I don't think you're understanding his point; there is no way to know if Cleopatra and Hilary Clinton are outliers because women are "less likely to be" leaders, or if they're outliers because of pervasive sexism which kept other potentially great female leaders from ever ascending to prominence.
The variables are too numerous and complex and even a professional sociologist would not have an answer to that conundrum. We simply do not know.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Women aren't smarter by any current measure of IQ which I'd argue is difficult to measure but far from totally subjective.
Women however score higher on measures of self-control throughout their school-age years, which leads to better grades, which leads to better future life courses. Small differences in individuals can add up to large/important differences in a population.
Yes, that's what I meant. Thanks.
Jarate, I think my main problem with your position is your confidence in its accuracy. Otherwise, I am not offended by the mere propositions of "natural" inequality.
physical dominance as an indicator of a good leader died with the Romans. While it may have something to do with a patriarchal system, many cultures have been led by women, and very well.
Im not saying that the current patriarchy isn't inhibiting women from properly being leaders and such, but biologically the average female is just not as good of a leader as a male. It's like saying that women are better at figuring out emotions then men. It's no knock on men, it's just the way gender works
Infinite_Daremo
Member
Men going third party confirmed?
I think this should be obvious but since it hasn't been stated outright, I'll do this, do not "call out" other members or provoke them in this manner. Thank you.
Jackben
bitch I'm taking calls.
I feel like the kinds of complexities we are headed for rely less on traditional male strengths and more on habits and abilities that either gender can employ without significantly outpacing either. Obviously we aren't really close to that just yet but that's where I ultimately see western civilization headed.
Note that this is completely based on conjecture and my own perception.
I guess in that respect I agree with what some of the book is saying.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
Don't you think "being leaders" is a much more complicated concept than "reading emotions"?
I do and I think it's an important distinction. Have there ever been social forces actively working against men reading emotions? I think it's a much more fundamental human process. "Being a leader" can mean so many things; it's a much more complicated social concept. And social forces have been working against women attaining those positions, in many societies, in many eras.
Also, I didn't mean physical strength leads directly to people choosing you as a leader. I mean that in the earliest of human societies, when life consisted of little more than hunting and mating, those with the strength had the power, the social capital. That head start in social position can persist long after people stop judging a man (or leader) strictly by how many animals he can kill or how many rivals he can pummel.
I'm not trying to provoke, I'm honestly curious about her opinions. She's one of the more interesting posters to read, and since I went through all the trouble of making that a topic ago, figured I'd get some use out of it.
Fusion Pizza
Member
I am totally ok with this.
yes there has, have you ever seen men on TV talking about emotions and such. The machoism that men put on themselves make them less likely to read, and push out emotions then women.
And while being a leader is fairly subjective, there's still a clear indication that men are more likely to be natural leaders. Maybe women have evolved these past few hundreds of years into a being that are better natural leaders then men, but there's no proof of that being the case.
ReBurn
Gold Member
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
You're right, I suppose that men are not supposed to be as emotional, and this might actually affect their fundamental ability to read emotions.
As for the second paragraph, you're making some strong empirical claims that so far you have not presented evidence for.
Again, if your "clear indication" is simply the state of affairs as it has occurred and continues to occur, that's not good enough evidence for the reasons previously mentioned.
I know my evolutionary psych reasonably well, so if there's something in that literature you'd like to specifically call out as evidence, maybe that will clarify things for me.
speculawyer
Member
good.
the usa is behind in this.
the usa is behind in this.
Link to abstract of study
Results:
And there's been research showing that BPA, PVC, and a few other varieties of chemicals used in plastics can interrupt proper function of the endocrine system. Especially in young children.
The timing of the fall in societal testosterone levels matches up with the increase in use of plastics.
TheOohChild
Member
we should probably start taking rights back away from women before this gets out of hand
TUROK
Member
When women weren't equally represented in the workforce, it was the patriarchy. When men are losing their foothold in the workforce, it's their own fault.
Heh.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/157313/half-women-prefer-job-outside-home.aspx
Here's a nice study suggesting that men are more likely to leave their comfort zones to find a job then women. This suggests that women are less ambitious then men, and are thus less likely to be leaders
http://www.medicaldaily.com/article...ignificantly-less-speak-group-discussions.htm
Women are less likely to speak then men in large groups, public speaking is hugely indicative of leading
http://thecareerist.typepad.com/thecareerist/2011/11/mores-career-survey.html
http://www.bps.org.uk/news/women-leaders-less-likely-take-risks
here's just a few in my google fu-ing that I found, and i've read a few psych books that I don't feel like citing that have told me the same
obviously, there no statistic to prove either of us right, sice it's generally hard to measure natural leadership, but these are reasons why I think what I think
Vermillion
Banned
Nice save.
Damn.
Conclusions: These results indicate that recent years have seen a substantial, and as yet unrecognized, age-independent population-level decrease in T in American men, potentially attributable to birth cohort differences or to health or environmental effects not captured in observed data.
could be a whole lot of factors. Could easily be environmental, could easily be we have developed less need for testosterone, or possibly we got fatter, and that lowered our testosterone
LegendofJoe
Member
I strongly feel that there are enviromental factors at play with regards to the explosion of diabetes in the last few decades so I'm inclined to err on the safe side when it comes to ingesting any kind of man made chemical.
Also, as an interesting anecdote I once had a roommate who swore that the government was putting something into tap water to decrease testosterone levels. All the water he used to cook and drink was inonized and bottled. I thought he was crazy, but like I stated above I do believe that man made chemicals are having negative effects on the function of the human endocrine system. I'm in his corner with regards to that at least.
Also, as an interesting anecdote I once had a roommate who swore that the government was putting something into tap water to decrease testosterone levels. All the water he used to cook and drink was inonized and bottled. I thought he was crazy, but like I stated above I do believe that man made chemicals are having negative effects on the function of the human endocrine system. I'm in his corner with regards to that at least.
The Awesomest
Member
I am a man
but I can change
if I have to
I guess.
but I can change
if I have to
I guess.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
I'll admit I haven't read your sources, so maybe this response is inadequate, but the mere presence of these differences isn't evidence that they are "natural," which is the crux of our argument here. Couldn't these differences arise from social conditioning? So, even granting that all those differences exist, and that they have implications for leadership ability, I can still deny that the cause of those differences is biological more than social.
To the bolded: I have a Ph.D. in psychology (I say this not to appeal to my own authority, but to give a convincing context for why I have seen a lot of psych books) and I have never seen a psych book that said outright that "men are naturally better leaders," for whatever that's worth. Gender differences are typically described with more nuance and caution.
I see some people complaining about triumphalism and feminists missing the point and so forth, and I think people allowing their prejudices against feminism to color how they are reading this. And Hanna Rosin has actually had some interesting coverage within feminism on blogs. For instance, this is a good blog posting on Feministing from 2010:
I would recommend reading the rest (and searching the archives for other stuff, including this more recent article in response to her article extolling hook-up culture as not necessarily bad for women in the way many (particularly anti-sex) feminists worry that it is.
Interestingly, more recent-ish research has suggested that meat actually made up a relatively small amount of the diet of early humans, and that one the great technological leaps was not developed because of hunting but instead because the slings that were developed so that women could carry both babies and food. I remember reading that it may even be true that this shift from foraging for food to gathering and storing food was an important catalyst in the upright stature of human beings.
And so the explanation of male dominance as being a product of men doing the hunting because of their superior strength while the women stayed home and took care of the children and horticulture doesn't appear to be historically accurate.
I think more to the point, it is narrowly construed patriarchal notions of hegemonic masculinity that many men ascribe to which are causing these problems for me.
The media attention to this issue, Rosin’s included, takes a decidedly negative view of the situation: look at the poor American man! He has no job, no life, no masculinity. Cue the reasons behind our so aggressively monitored fad of “anxious masculinity” advertising (remember the super bowl?) The cover image for this story, of the bright pink men’s symbol with a limp arrow that looks like a fallen erection, is the perfect illustration of this narrative.
In addition to bemoaning the male loss of identity, the achievements for women are not appreciated for what they are: advancements. It’s incredible that women are getting educated at such high rates, or being employed at such high percentages. Instead, the plight of women is further bemoaned because with men’s lives in the shitter, who will they date?? We know this narrative well, the thorn in the successful feminists side. Even if you have the best career you could ever imagine, you’re never going to find a man and therefore be a sad and lonely spinster.
So, is this a success for feminism? Not really.
It’s not a failure for feminism because these successful women can’t get a man. It’s a failure for feminism because the success of one sex over another is still sexism–just in reverse.
This is why I cringe every time a feminist proclaims: if women were in control, the world would be so much better! I think that’s bullshit, not just because not all women are feminists, or progressives, or even good people (like Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and Sarah Palin) but because that kind of shit is just plain sexist.
Arguing that women are inherently better than men is just as problematic as arguing the reverse.
Now I understand why this kind of rhetoric cropped up. When one group is so intensely oppressed and belittled by a dominant group, the tendency to try and overcompensate (not only do we not suck, we’re better than you!) makes perfect sense. But that doesn’t mean it’s good politics, or that it’s still relevant.
Women have made incredible gains in the last fifty years in the US (Rosin’s article does a great job of outlining them) and this is thanks to our feminist foremothers. This doesn’t mean sexism is dead, but it does mean that the feminist project needs to adapt.
In addition to bemoaning the male loss of identity, the achievements for women are not appreciated for what they are: advancements. It’s incredible that women are getting educated at such high rates, or being employed at such high percentages. Instead, the plight of women is further bemoaned because with men’s lives in the shitter, who will they date?? We know this narrative well, the thorn in the successful feminists side. Even if you have the best career you could ever imagine, you’re never going to find a man and therefore be a sad and lonely spinster.
So, is this a success for feminism? Not really.
It’s not a failure for feminism because these successful women can’t get a man. It’s a failure for feminism because the success of one sex over another is still sexism–just in reverse.
This is why I cringe every time a feminist proclaims: if women were in control, the world would be so much better! I think that’s bullshit, not just because not all women are feminists, or progressives, or even good people (like Arizona Governor Jan Brewer and Sarah Palin) but because that kind of shit is just plain sexist.
Arguing that women are inherently better than men is just as problematic as arguing the reverse.
Now I understand why this kind of rhetoric cropped up. When one group is so intensely oppressed and belittled by a dominant group, the tendency to try and overcompensate (not only do we not suck, we’re better than you!) makes perfect sense. But that doesn’t mean it’s good politics, or that it’s still relevant.
Women have made incredible gains in the last fifty years in the US (Rosin’s article does a great job of outlining them) and this is thanks to our feminist foremothers. This doesn’t mean sexism is dead, but it does mean that the feminist project needs to adapt.
I would recommend reading the rest (and searching the archives for other stuff, including this more recent article in response to her article extolling hook-up culture as not necessarily bad for women in the way many (particularly anti-sex) feminists worry that it is.
Interestingly, more recent-ish research has suggested that meat actually made up a relatively small amount of the diet of early humans, and that one the great technological leaps was not developed because of hunting but instead because the slings that were developed so that women could carry both babies and food. I remember reading that it may even be true that this shift from foraging for food to gathering and storing food was an important catalyst in the upright stature of human beings.
And so the explanation of male dominance as being a product of men doing the hunting because of their superior strength while the women stayed home and took care of the children and horticulture doesn't appear to be historically accurate.
I think more to the point, it is narrowly construed patriarchal notions of hegemonic masculinity that many men ascribe to which are causing these problems for me.
Obviously no book is going to say that, outright since scientifically, you cant really put a number to leadership.
I dont believe theres enough evidence to support either of our claims, and I doubt we're going to convince eachother anything without the proof.
I think we can all agree though that this women os morally wrong in her quest to prove that women are better then men, and will take over. We should actively be pushing for equality, not inequality to make our societies better
And are women less likely to leave their comfort zone because that is their innate preference sans outside influence, or is it because society has broadly conditioned them to behave like this?
And are women less likely to speak up because that is their innate preference sans outside influence, or is it because society has broadly conditioned them to behave like this?
And are women leaders less likely to take risks because that is their innate preference sans outside influence, or is it because society has broadly conditioned them to behave like this?
He isn't endorsing a position opposing yours; he (and I) are arguing that your position is not grounded in enough science to be considered conclusive, or even particularly close to it. Just for starters, I was able to quickly pull up several studies which directly contradict your position:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/hrm.3930330405/abstract
http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7343/952
Here are just a couple studies suggesting women perform better in leadership positions and high functioning roles like physicians. The point, again, isn't that you are wrong; the point is ultimately that this isn't physics, or even medicine. This is largely the turf of sociology you are treading on, and coming to broad, sure conclusions about topics like this is simply not advisable. There's simply too many variables, too much noise without enough signals, and too much evidence pointing in opposite directions.
I remember learning originally that human society was pretty matriarchal until agriculture/pastoralism. For one thing, there's no reason to assume that the mechanics of parenthood were well-understood until after pastoralism makes it easier, and necessary, to understand them. On investigation this turns out to not be settled, although there are examples of horticultural matriarchal societies even today.
hey_it's_that_dog
benevolent sexism
There's nothing wrong with compiling evidence and writing about it. It would be morally wrong if she was fabricating the evidence or grossly misinterpreting it but I have no reason to think that's her goal. Describing a process or set of circumstances by which women are gaining success is not the same thing as arguing the prescriptive view that women should be in power over men.
And I'm certainly not going to get morally outraged about what she's saying based on a review of the work without having read the work itself.
Surely you can see how nuanced this argument is, then? There is absolutely no way science is advanced enough to come to solid conclusions about what drives these subtle differences. If we were seeing something stark, physical and easily measurable your position would be on better ground here -- something like asking, "Are men taller than women?" is an easily measurable distinction.
But something as nuanced as "women may have better leadership skills, but men are better at risk taking which gets them in to those leadership positions" is hopelessly beyond modern science. Sociology is referred to as a "Soft science" for a very good reason, and even in much less complex studies which don't involve the history of every civilization in the world, sociology cannot come to convincing conclusions.
Devolution
Member
Sounds like the author is drinking too much of some rah rah women koolaid. I don't see the end of anything, I just see the pendulum swinging far in the opposite direction but it will come right back to the center. Girls are basically told they can do whatever the fuck they want at this point, there's still some socialization in terms of femininity (looks, behavior, what have you) but in terms of encouragement into fields a lot of the sexism my mother and her generation encountered in education has eroded. I think we're seeing what can happen when a gender is less held back in education and the workforce year after year.
At the same time however I don't think boys are totally free to do as they please and as a result seem kind of listless in comparison. Women have/had the feminist movement to challenge the traditionalist definitions of the word "woman" and it went from a very narrow patronizing role to at this point up to the individual. I think my own mom gets a little jealous of the freedoms I was endowed with but she managed to do fine herself despite the conservative parents who didn't approve and the "times" she was in.
Dad on the other hand, I don't think too much has changed from when he was a kid. Masculinity/man is still in a conservative box. Many fathers are starting to take it upon themselves to raise their boys in a more understanding open environment from what I've seen but there's never really been a movement to usurp the definition of man from the patriarchy. So it stays there, mostly unchallenged except by certain individuals but there is still push back in the the forms of homophobia and sexism. I find that many men want to do scores of things but still held back by rigid thinking. And they get defensive about it too when questioned. Why is something gay? What makes it for women? I just don't see my gender pre-occupied with this shit mostly.
When we see something unfair, like the current reproductive nonsense from the right, we have the foundations, feminism, to fall back on. We rally. We march on DC. As much as some people (and the article writer doing it no favors) want to vilify feminism as some negative portrayal of men, the movement has mostly just been about breaking down the myths about who women are and what we're capable of. Until men have a positive movement like this or enough men decide to challenge other men on their antiquated views, you'll keep seeing this trend I think. I don't think MRM is such a positive movement despite efforts to say the opposite. Then people will say well why doesn't feminism/women handle it, feminism does but I've always stressed that men who are already kind of sexist and homophobic have to hear how they are wrong from other men. There's really no other way around it. You want to press forward, you gotta challenge your fellow dudebros, maybe even teachers, other parents, the people around you and say look "don't fucking tell my son what you think a "real man" should grow up to be or what he should do with himself." If he's talented at something, let him flourish.
In the end I don't think there is a single answer but I don't see the honest point in how narrowly confined men are especially compared to their counterparts.
At the same time however I don't think boys are totally free to do as they please and as a result seem kind of listless in comparison. Women have/had the feminist movement to challenge the traditionalist definitions of the word "woman" and it went from a very narrow patronizing role to at this point up to the individual. I think my own mom gets a little jealous of the freedoms I was endowed with but she managed to do fine herself despite the conservative parents who didn't approve and the "times" she was in.
Dad on the other hand, I don't think too much has changed from when he was a kid. Masculinity/man is still in a conservative box. Many fathers are starting to take it upon themselves to raise their boys in a more understanding open environment from what I've seen but there's never really been a movement to usurp the definition of man from the patriarchy. So it stays there, mostly unchallenged except by certain individuals but there is still push back in the the forms of homophobia and sexism. I find that many men want to do scores of things but still held back by rigid thinking. And they get defensive about it too when questioned. Why is something gay? What makes it for women? I just don't see my gender pre-occupied with this shit mostly.
When we see something unfair, like the current reproductive nonsense from the right, we have the foundations, feminism, to fall back on. We rally. We march on DC. As much as some people (and the article writer doing it no favors) want to vilify feminism as some negative portrayal of men, the movement has mostly just been about breaking down the myths about who women are and what we're capable of. Until men have a positive movement like this or enough men decide to challenge other men on their antiquated views, you'll keep seeing this trend I think. I don't think MRM is such a positive movement despite efforts to say the opposite. Then people will say well why doesn't feminism/women handle it, feminism does but I've always stressed that men who are already kind of sexist and homophobic have to hear how they are wrong from other men. There's really no other way around it. You want to press forward, you gotta challenge your fellow dudebros, maybe even teachers, other parents, the people around you and say look "don't fucking tell my son what you think a "real man" should grow up to be or what he should do with himself." If he's talented at something, let him flourish.
In the end I don't think there is a single answer but I don't see the honest point in how narrowly confined men are especially compared to their counterparts.
TheRagnCajun
Member
Granted.
However, correct me if I'm wrong, but, 'The End of Men' are her words. Probably not the best way to phrase it.
- Status