Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

No, I want you to back up your claim with specifics. What are these psychological differences?

http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...0030624-000003
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2..._from_mars.htm
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/...3/pr030612.cfm
http://www.crisiscounseling.com/Rela...esMenWomen.htm

Just a few links that immediately pop up when one googles for psychological differences between the sexes.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...0030624-000003
http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2..._from_mars.htm
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/...3/pr030612.cfm
http://www.crisiscounseling.com/Rela...esMenWomen.htm

Just a few links that immediately pop up when one googles for psychological differences between the sexes.

Yes, fine -- but keep in mind that most of these are general statements that do not necessarily apply to all women and all men.

And none of this justifies denying women the right to vote, to hold property, to make contracts, or to pursue careers that might put them in supervisory positions over men. To my way of thinking, that is what the feminist movement has been all about -- not this sociobiological claptrap.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Furthermore, there are many, many people who voluntarily choose to raise other people's biological children through adoption or step-parenting. In those cases, I believe they don't really give a crap about genetics. And God bless them all, I say.

Indeed. Such compassion is commendable. But it is a personal choice. Men who have their reproductive options usurped by women do not get to make this choice. Some men are forced to become fathers against their will; others are denied the opportunity to become fathers when they are more than willing to assume the responsibility (and even compensate the mothers for their inconvenience). Women always have an escape route; they can always choose to abort, or not. Men are denied this choice, because "it's her body". Except, half the genetic material that goes into making a baby is his, and his body will be made to labor for 18+ years to pay for her unilateral decision to procreate. That is not justice.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

And none of this justifies denying women the right to vote, to hold property, to make contracts, or to pursue careers that might put them in supervisory positions over men. To my way of thinking, that is what the feminist movement has been all about -- not this sociobiological claptrap.

I'm not arguing that women should all be barefoot and pregnant. That offends my sense of equity as much as I presume it offends yours. But neither do I believe that women can justly claim all the benefits of sexual equality without also accepting the costs. And one of the costs is the corresponding freedom of men to tell women to fuck themselves when they come seeking support for their unilateral reproductive decisions.

Edit: And it's only "claptrap" because it says something about the human condition that you don't want to hear.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Indeed. Such compassion is commendable. But it is a personal choice. Men who have their reproductive options usurped by women do not get to make this choice. Some men are forced to become fathers against their will; others are denied the opportunity to become fathers when they are more than willing to assume the responsibility (and even compensate the mothers for their inconvenience). Women always have an escape route; they can always choose to abort, or not. Men are denied this choice, because "it's her body". Except, half the genetic material that goes into making a baby is his, and his body will be made to labor for 18+ years to pay for her unilateral decision to procreate. That is not justice.

Justice is a word. It can be found in the dictionary. There it shal remain for evermore.

Courts are courts of Law. Law and Justice are two completely separate things.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Justice is a word. It can be found in the dictionary. There it shal remain for evermore.

Courts are courts of Law. Law and Justice are two completely separate things.

You're preaching to the choir. I place no faith whatsoever in the ability of the Law to deliver Justice. In fact, I expect the opposite from it in most cases.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

I'm not arguing that women should all be barefoot and pregnant. That offends my sense of equity as much as I presume it offends yours. But neither do I believe that women can justly claim all the benefits of sexual equality without also accepting the costs. And one of the costs is the corresponding freedom of men to tell women to fuck themselves when they come seeking support for their unilateral reproductive decisions.

I'm fine with that.

Edit: And it's only "claptrap" because it says something about the human condition that you don't want to hear.

I consider sociobiology and victim feminism both to be failed ideologies.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I consider sociobiology and victim feminism both to be failed ideologies.

It's a scientific theory, not an ideology. The theory may be inaccurate, which is something that can be tested, but to call it an ideology is about as meaningful as calling special relativity or Mendelian genetics an ideology. Yes, there are inherent biases built in, but this is true of all scientific theories. The difference between a scientific theory and a political ideology, however, is that the former is nominally descriptive, while the latter is prescriptive.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

It's a scientific theory, not an ideology. The theory may be inaccurate, which is something that can be tested, but to call it an ideology is about as meaningful as calling special relativity or Mendelian genetics an ideology.

OK. But it appears to me that there is an ideology based upon sociobiological theory. Perhaps that should be called something like "biological determinism."

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

OK. But it appears to me that there is an ideology based upon sociobiological theory. Perhaps that should be called something like "biological determinism."

Don't get me wrong. I'm skeptical of a great deal of Western science because its mechanistic, reductionist premises don't mesh well with ecological reality. But biology is one of those sciences that readily embraces organic holes, and evolution can operate as much by mutual aid as by mutual strife.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Don't get me wrong. I'm skeptical of a great deal of Western science because its mechanistic, reductionist premises don't mesh well with ecological reality.

I know you are, which is why I'm surprised that you would be flirting with determinism.

But biology is one of those sciences that readily embraces organic holes, and evolution can operate as much by mutual aid as by mutual strife.

And it's a beautiful thing when that happens.

And clearly I need to do some more reading in this area. My understanding might be a couple of decades out of date.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Aggression simply makes a pathology (greed, selfishness, hostility, bad driving) all the more dangerous.

It also makes innovation all the more valuable.

What's your point?

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Aggression simply makes a pathology (greed, selfishness, hostility, bad driving) all the more dangerous.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

It also makes innovation all the more valuable.

What's your point?

I'm wondering about your point. From my perspective, human aggression evolved at a time when military competition was beneficial to the species. When one is throwing rocks and bashing with clubs, a moderate level of violence will produce a more competitive species.

Thinks are different with nukes, IEDs and assault rifles. Innovation has produced a very different dynamic. While once upon a time aggression undoubtedly accelerated the 'progress' of evolution, it is not so clear today. (And for once, I wouldn't complain if Mr. Saari jumped in with a comment that not all progress should be assumed to be good.)

I believe this is a time when reason and culture should be shifted to curb aggression. Are you seriously contending the opposite? In order to stimulate innovation, we should encourage aggression? If so, what forms of aggression would you favor?

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Well okay, but, for the sake of balance..

All sex is rape?

Given that the friend of mine who was raped a couple months ago still has trouble being alone outside because she is afraid all random guys she runs into might rape her I think I finally understand such seemingly "ridiculous" notions, given that at least 1 out of 4 women are victims of sexual abuse or assault at some time in their lives. Is it any wonder many women can't trust men?

Originally Posted by Matt1989

This IS the internet, and you might run in trouble deciphering tone. But I agree that sociobiology is a pseudo-deterministic, culturally-influenced, status quo machine.

I have recently started becoming skeptical of Evolutionary Biology, too many culturally-biased assumptions and not enough truly objective data. Especially when it gets twisted as a result of the influence of people like Charles "Bell Curve" Murray of the American Enterprise Institute in order to get people to think that helping the disadvantaged won't work because their problems are biological and thus we can cut things like welfare.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Except that your entire psychology is informed by your biology. Tabula rasa arguments for the infinite plasticity of the human organism have been pretty thoroughly demolished in the past 40 years. This is ideologically inconvenient for proponents of social engineering, however, as it tends to disqualify the perfectibility of man, which has been a central conceit of Western thought since at least the Enlightenment.

IMO a lot of Evo-Psych pseudoscience goes too far in the other direction, especially given new research showing that the brain has far more inherent plasticity then it was once assumed. A lot of Evo-Psych seems to give conclusions that are "ideologically convieniet" for our culture's pervailing cultural orthodoxy and makes me suspect how much of it is based on culturally-biased assumptions.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

I did not, but neither do I agree with your analysis. Feminism, in my opinion, is irredeemably toxic because it rejects the complementarity of the sexes for an idealized equality, which has come to be indiscernible from identity, or oneness. Feminists do not, in my experience, seriously argue for the equal status of the feminine with the masculine, but with the melding of the feminine into the masculine, to arrive at a diluted androgyne that offends both sexes. This can be seen in everything from the medication of young boys in order to suppress their natural aggressiveness and physicality to the injection of subliminal anxiety into every adult relationship because of the non-zero probability of a spat leading to false accusations of sexual assault or domestic abuse.

No, the feminist argument is not that there are no inherent differences but that biological differences cannot be used to justify cultural sex distinctions because of outliers like the "tomboy" and "sensitive guy", women with "T" personality types and men with "F" personality types.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I'm wondering about your point. From my perspective, human aggression evolved at a time when military competition was beneficial to the species.

You're (fallaciously) isolating one particular manifestation of aggression -- violence -- to have it represent the sum of the masculine characteristic. Aggression manifests itself in far more ways. For example, the character with which an engineer might 'attack' (an interesting linguistic parallel, wouldn't you say?) a novel problem; the quality of a farmer pushing to clear his fields in time for planting...
These, too, are manifestations of aggression. The quality is as absolutely necessary for human life as is its corollary, 'propensity to risk-taking' (another masculine quality which gets short shrift these days).
Without aggressive risk-takers, new things would never be learned, problems would not be solved, and advance would be barely possible at all. It's not the only thing that matters, and it comes with its minuses (and how!), but it's a perfect illustration of the anti-feminist point that Arkham seems to be trying to make.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

I know you are, which is why I'm surprised that you would be flirting with determinism.

There is a non-trivial difference between causation and determination. A purely deterministic system is time-reversible; i.e., it demonstrates the same behavior when run backwards as when run forwards, like an orrery spun in reverse. Human beings experience an undeniable arrow of time, however, such that a cause always precedes its effect. This implies a non-repeating, random input to the universe that sets a preferential direction to time, which conventional physics cannot explain (but which is accounted for in process physics). Religious and philosophical systems may refer to God or some other first cause to explain the origin and subsequent evolution of the universe, but if the universe had a beginning, then the cosmogonic event must itself have been caused, which raises the thorny question of what caused God. Without going into too much detail, it is possible to postulate an indeterministic universe that is still subject to causal relationships. Biology, therefore, can strongly influence human behavior without actually determining it.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

To complement means to supply another's lack. Men and women are complementary; we each supply what the other lacks. Feminists seem to reject this complementarity in favor of equality, which does not mean equity in the sense that they use it, but identity or sameness. That is, most modern feminists speak and act as if they believe there is literally no fundamental difference between men and women. That we are all just interchangeable parts in a great Cartesian world-machine. This leads to absurd conclusions about organic sex roles, which are treated not as adaptive responses to real environmental pressures, but mere contrivances of "patriarchy" designed to systematically oppress women.

I consider myself a feminist. I happen to be good with numbers and analytic thinking, and have a career that uses those talents, rather than the more "empathetic" traits that as a woman, I'd be expected to have. Maybe on average, men are more analytical then women and women are more empathetic, but many people are not "average". Similarly, many women are taller than many men.

To me, feminism means being able to use my talents and interests to make my living in the way I am best suited for. I like to be judged as an individual.

I will grant that any husband who doubts that his wife's children were sired by him is free to have the children genetically tested.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Thinks are different with nukes, IEDs and assault rifles. Innovation has produced a very different dynamic. While once upon a time aggression undoubtedly accelerated the 'progress' of evolution, it is not so clear today. (And for once, I wouldn't complain if Mr. Saari jumped in with a comment that not all progress should be assumed to be good.)

I agree. Weapons-of-mass destruction have fundamentally altered the calculus of organized mass violence, which has been a major impetus for the development of 4th-generation techniques of asymmetric warfare. But I am discussing individual aggression, not mass violence. All animals demonstrate aggression, but this does not automatically lead to indiscriminate violence. Rather, in most species, aggression is channeled into ritualistic display, which more often than not discourages violent confrontation by communicating the inherent risk of physical combat. Violence in humans most often erupts when such displays are suppressed in the name of promoting security. Since the conflicting parties cannot accurately gauge the risks of combat, because they are forbidden by the authorities to display their capacity for violence, physical altercations are actually rendered more common and destructive.

The dictum that an armed society is a polite society is not just talk. The omnipresent danger of being shot over a slight, real or imagined, is a powerful incentive to courteous treatment of strangers. Human beings are at their rudest when they believe they have nothing to fear from those whom they malign. Case in point: the casualness with which we (and I include myself in the set of persons identified by "we") resort to ad hominems on these boards.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Or men could just fuck themselves instead, and then they'd have nothing to worry about.

Sorry, I just don't see much fun with this idea.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

To complement means to supply another's lack. Men and women are complementary; we each supply what the other lacks. Feminists seem to reject this complementarity in favor of equality, which does not mean equity in the sense that they use it, but identity or sameness. That is, most modern feminists speak and act as if they believe there is literally no fundamental difference between men and women. That we are all just interchangeable parts in a great Cartesian world-machine. This leads to absurd conclusions about organic sex roles, which are treated not as adaptive responses to real environmental pressures, but mere contrivances of "patriarchy" designed to systematically oppress women.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

It's a scientific theory, not an ideology. The theory may be inaccurate, which is something that can be tested, but to call it an ideology is about as meaningful as calling special relativity or Mendelian genetics an ideology. Yes, there are inherent biases built in, but this is true of all scientific theories. The difference between a scientific theory and a political ideology, however, is that the former is nominally descriptive, while the latter is prescriptive.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Don't get me wrong. I'm skeptical of a great deal of Western science because its mechanistic, reductionist premises don't mesh well with ecological reality. But biology is one of those sciences that readily embraces organic holes, and evolution can operate as much by mutual aid as by mutual strife.

There has been plenty of empirical debunking of the biological foundations of modern sex roles, and I am led to believe that nearly all claims that assert the adaptivity of traditional sex roles are greatly exaggerated. But it really doesn't matter too much: the extent to which certain traits are either adaptive or maladaptive bears virtually nothing on normative claims. Which is, in fact, what most feminists are interested in, and this is what feminism has always gravitated around. The analysis of patriarchy has always had a prescriptive bent, and you'll rarely (if ever) see a major feminist make the claim that there are no differences between men and women in their 'natural' state. Because, quite frankly, from a standpoint of feminist critique, the extent to which men and women are similar or different really doesn't matter.

I'd like to add, from an empirical basis (namely, the fact that humans screw up a lot), that it's quite likely that many of our leading scientific theories (especially those relating to complex organisms such as humans) are wrong in either degree or type.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

Gender is a grammatical construction. Sex is biological. It is rooted in the physical. This gives rise to certain behavioral differences that cannot be eliminated through clever rhetorical gymnastics or legislation designed to coerce a certain set of attitudes. Injustice is injustice regardless of the identity of the oppressed. If feminism had merely confined itself to pointing out unevenly applied principles of justice and equity and working to rectify the glaring inconsistencies, it would be a positive force in the world, but it long ago transgressed this role and became a tool for the radical re-engineering of society.

That's kind of the point of rectifying glaring inconsistencies and working toward a greater justice. The whole idea of radical feminism is that the inconsistencies have lended themselves to gross injustice, and the process of fixing how we relate to one another is something that can only be accomplished by the radical reengineering of societal expectations. Kind of like the prescriptivity of anarchism.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

There is nothing wrong with aggression. A man who vigorously attacks a burglar in his home is not commiting a crime. A boy who charges impetuously over a hill to see what lies beyond is being aggressive, but he is not doing anything wrong. Aggression is built in to the animal kingdom, and violence is an unavoidable fact of life. It is only when aggression leads to coercion that it becomes a vice.

The character trait of aggression is either a virtue, vice, or the talk about virtues and vices is either meaningless or wrong. The consequences of aggressive personality (i.e. coercion) are mostly irrelevant to the discussion of whether its a virtue or a vice, as in virtue ethics, consequences are not an essential principle of justice. A man who attacks a burglar may be acting intelligently by acting aggressively (that is, defending oneself and one's property with force) if the situation permits, but being an aggressive person is certainly undesirable. To clarify, acting a certain way toward a burglar (right action; isolated incident) does not necessarily indicate that sort of personality (right character; continuous). A person who does demonstrate the virtuous mean may have the same response to the burglar as the aggressive person.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

I know what you were talking about, and I meant an institutional status quo. As I see it, evolutionary science has diverged substantially from the crude Darwinism that informed the heinous social theories of men like Herbert Spencer and Francis Galton.

Herbert Spencer? The dude who wrote: "Every man has freedom to do all he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man?" What heinous social theories are you talking about? Spencer's biggest mistake, despite his excellent liberal credentials, was believing something like: 'What is adaptive is good, what is maladaptive is bad.' His reasoning was that biology determines ethics, and this is something that runs afoul of the is-ought gap and the naturalistic fallacy.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

It's a scientific theory, not an ideology. The theory may be inaccurate, which is something that can be tested, but to call it an ideology is about as meaningful as calling special relativity or Mendelian genetics an ideology.

Originally Posted by Arkham '80

I see nothing about evolutionary psychology or sociobiology that implies a certain immutable social order; quite the contrary.

If sociobiologists wish to explain some social behavior by appeal to biology, then I have no problem with that.

If sociobiologists wish to ascribe nearly all social practices by appealing to biological function, then they are going to run into problems of random mutation, emergent properties, traits that don't really further the survival of the species, etc.

If sociobiologists wish to begin applying their field into ethical and political discussions, by suggesting that what is adaptive is Good, or that there is relativity in the matter, or that it somehow trumps philosophy (leading to naturalistic fallacies, relativism, or nihilism), then there are serious problems which do in fact perpetuate the status quo by saying what is must be the way the things should be. And when this should crosses over into an ought, as is far too often the case, then I object most strenuously.

If sociobiologists wish to justify determinism by appealing to biology, then they have committed a grave (and axiomatic) error, and any derivitive analyses will be invariably flawed. Again: our telos is not defined by our genes.

Considering that the first hypothetical I gave isn't controversial at all, it's unlikely that the first is exclusive to sociobiology, and those who call themselves sociobiologists make use of the other three hypotheticals (including the highly ideological third and fourth) as well. So I think it may be considered an ideology depending on its usage.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

You're (fallaciously) isolating one particular manifestation of aggression -- violence -- to have it represent the sum of the masculine characteristic. Aggression manifests itself in far more ways.

I think that's a "problem" with the English language, not language in general. Dual meanings can make this sort of discussion confusing. When I call aggression a vice, I'm not referring to the type of character that allows for pursuing one's dreams energetically.

Originally Posted by Odin

Given that the friend of mine who was raped a couple months ago still has trouble being alone outside because she is afraid all random guys she runs into might rape her I think I finally understand such seemingly "ridiculous" notions, given that at least 1 out of 4 women are victims of sexual abuse or assault at some time in their lives. Is it any wonder many women can't trust men?

Erm, the point of the link was that no major feminist has ever said that.

At any rate, men are much more likely to be assaulted by strangers; women by friends and spouses -- the more intimate, the more likely.