Gender Differences: Nature vs. Nurture, or Nature & Nurture?

Feminist ideology and the effect it has had upon society
About this forum
This is an example of one thread - Feminism - which has recently been turned into its own subforum. Thus we are currently breaking that very interesting, but very long, thread into sub-discussions where appropriate. This will leave the original thread with a lot of views while the new threads will apparently have fewer. They'll begin to catch up though.

Re: Gender Differences: Nature vs. Nurture, or Nature & Nurture?

Postby Nathan » 31 Jul 2013, 13:22

Talking about compulsory military service, I have been led to believe that bringing it back in Britain (it was abolished in 1960) would have to be for both men and women equally because of modern gender equality legislation - is there an argument in Germany that obliging men to do something but not obliging women is sexist and/or illegal? While I wouldn't for a moment think that the typical woman (notwithstanding the masculine-inclined ones who do join up) is suited to the military, I think that if we have chosen the path of gender equality then it really does have to be both ways, and that if men ever have to serve again then women should have to do at least something vaguely equivalent.

The idea of compulsory military service for women such as in Israel sounds very strange, and I too would like to hear more about how it works in practice. Are units segregated, with "women's jobs" and "men's jobs"?
Nathan
 
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: Gender Differences: Nature vs. Nurture, or Nature & Nurture?

Postby Elliott » 01 Aug 2013, 01:55

Lots of examples of gender differences in this account of being a stay-at-home dad.
Elliott
 
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Gender Differences: Nature vs. Nurture, or Nature & Nurture?

Postby Caleb » 02 Aug 2013, 07:31

I couldn't get very far into it. Gender differences are published when it's an "I'm a guy, I suck at X" article. Now imagine the reverse article about a woman feeling like an idiot trying to work in computer programming. Firstly, it wouldn't get written. Secondly, it wouldn't get published. Finally, even if it did, it would soon be retracted as sexist and the publication would have sponsors pulling advertising, and see a massive hit in its sales.

To be honest, I don't think guys do themselves any favours when they write these kinds of things. The sisterhood generally close ranks in this respect. They do not play by the same rules as men do in this regard. Does this guy really think he's going to get any kudos for writing that? He's not going to waltz up to that catty playgroup who rejected him at the start of the article and get accepted in. If anything, having read the article, they'd see him as even less masculine.
Caleb
 
Posts: 865
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 04:44

Re: Gender Differences: Nature vs. Nurture, or Nature & Nurture?

Postby Yessica » 02 Aug 2013, 11:54

Heather wrote:
Yessica wrote:What does upset you? The potical developments? Are you afraid for the future of your children?


I think that with all the extra hormones it's just too easy to get caught up in imagining the worst. Some of the discussions here delve into violent and bloody possibilities. I've never liked to take part in those, but right now I know it's best not to even look at them because they'll give me nightmares.


You are right to not look at it in this in this case.
Enjoy your pregancy. By the way. Your profile says you are planning to homeschool and going to use a classical curriculum.
I'd be very interested to hear more about this like why you made that choice and how you are planing to do it.
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: Gender Differences: Nature vs. Nurture, or Nature & Nurture?

Postby Yessica » 02 Aug 2013, 12:41

Nathan wrote:Talking about compulsory military service, I have been led to believe that bringing it back in Britain (it was abolished in 1960) would have to be for both men and women equally because of modern gender equality legislation - is there an argument in Germany that obliging men to do something but not obliging women is sexist and/or illegal? While I wouldn't for a moment think that the typical woman (notwithstanding the masculine-inclined ones who do join up) is suited to the military, I think that if we have chosen the path of gender equality then it really does have to be both ways, and that if men ever have to serve again then women should have to do at least something vaguely equivalent.

The idea of compulsory military service for women such as in Israel sounds very strange, and I too would like to hear more about how it works in practice. Are units segregated, with "women's jobs" and "men's jobs"?


That's a good question, Nathan.
Until 2001 women were not even allowed to serve in combat units. Small wonder that they were not drafted.
After 2001 they were still not drafted. I never heard any feminist complain about this. They want equal rights - not equal obligations.

Now that there is a discussion if the draft should be brought back the issue of gender-fairness is rarely mentioned. I would say it is not central to the discussion. Some masculinists bring it up, but they are not a big group.
I am neither a lawyer nor an expert on gender legislation (far from it... I do have only minimal interest in both of these things) but as far as I know we have laws saying that nobody should be discriminated because of his gender unless the common good benefits from it. So this is seen as a case where the common good benefits.
The common good is above other laws. Hard to explain it in English. It is for example not allowed to disposses people in Germany... unless it serves the common good. In that case it is allowed.

The general opinion is that soldiers should be male and that having a great number of female soldiers would be a badge of shame for our State.
Many women go into voluntary civil service for a time (typically one or two years) after they graduated from school. That is the equivalent of military service but it has never been compulsory.

To my mind it is not the job of a woman to serve in the military. As Heather said, men should seek to protect women not the other way around. Our job as women is being worth being protected. That's only a womens perspective. May be most men would disagree. I think to ask a man to go into military service is more than a State should be ever allowed to ask of a young man. So I am happy that there was alternative civil service and if the draft will be reintroduced that will be introduced again too.

Do you wish that the draft should be back?
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Re: Gender Differences: Nature vs. Nurture, or Nature & Nurture?

Postby Heather » 02 Aug 2013, 12:47

I didn't like that article either, for the reasons Caleb gave. I even wondered if it was meant to be a pro-government childcare thing. He made a big deal about the baby's development going off-track (it actually didn't; everything he cites is normal), as though if Mommy needs to work and no longer has time to read up on the latest techniques, only a professional can handle it.

Looking at his over-the-top pictures I couldn't help but think of the refrain in one of my son's books:

I'm a pout-pout fish with a pout-pout face
And I spread the dreary-wearies all over the place.
Blub
Bluuuub
Bluuuuuub


Who does he think he's helping!? No, I really think this was a feminist man-bashing article.
Heather
 
Posts: 132
Joined: 28 Apr 2012, 23:05
Location: The American South

Re: Gender Differences: Nature vs. Nurture, or Nature & Nurture?

Postby Yessica » 18 Oct 2014, 18:46

I came across a book called "Is There Anything Good About Men?: How Cultures Flourish by Exploiting Men" by Roy F. Baumeister which I found to be very interesting. Please don't mind the somewhat offensive title, the book is good.

Baumeister holds the opinion that men have a stronger urge to "get rich or die trying", to conquer, to explore than women and that there is an evolutionary reason for that. Today that urge is channeled into building cathedrals and founding enterprises and culture benefits from that.

He argues that throughout history nearly all fertile women had children while most fertile men did not. The men who had the most children where persons like Ghengis Khan, who fathered thousands of children and has numerous descendants because his children again were successful in fathering children again.
A woman with a similar life story on the other hand would have ended up with less children than she could have had when she stayed at home.

I like the book because it gaves me new insights. There are some things however it does not explain.

* In historic times it was difficult to raise a child, in fact most children died in infancy. That would mean that children would benefit from having a commited father at home who was very much unlike Ghengis Khan.
That would mean that there must have been two very different kinds of "evolutionary pressure" at work.

* Both sons and daughters inherit genes from both their parents, The human Y-chromosome, which makes a person male, is actually smaller than all other chromosomes and I have been told it carries far less genetical info.
How comes the sons of Ghengis Khan ended up aggressive and dominant and his daughters did not? May be there are genes that must be "activated" by testosterone???
Yessica
 
Posts: 426
Joined: 22 Mar 2013, 17:11

Previous

Return to Feminism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

User Menu

Login Form

This site costs £100 per year to run and makes no money.

If you would like to make a small contribution to help pay for the web hosting, you can do so here.

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.