Should women not be distracted from bearing and raising children by science?

[Turtle]

I suppose I should say thank you but the insults suggest that you're more interested in making a point (I would not presume to speak for the male of the species). Talk is cheap. If you were truly concerned about the state of women you would have more regard for my opinion!!

 

quite pointedly, poppycock. i am offended by willful ignorance from whatever quarter it comes and i respond as i will. as you well know i have as vigorously challenged your opinions before i knew your gender and you can expect the same even in that knowledge.

 

 

And who's disputing that religious bigotry is wrong?

 

that's not the point. the point is the unreasoned subjugation of women. that it often comes from religious roots simply makes it all the worse. but then given your early postings here you seem to want to excuse at least christian contradictions as mere misinterpretations.

 

It has nothing to do with 'less fit' but everything to do with opportunity. We simply have not had the same opportunities to evolve...but where given the opportunity, we can do every bit as well but as the research link I provided shows, we accomplish it in a different manner.

 

I was not protecting MacPhee necessarily as his attitude is a prevailing one among many males. I did agree with him that if women are not going to take responsibility for child rearing, will men step in? Granted there are men who will, but there are many that won't.

 

as i pointed out to mcphee, biological evolution is not cultural evolution. it is our ability to reason that has biologically evolved, not the way we use the ability.

 

that you continue to ignore those parts of science that you don't care for is pathetic human behavior.

[Qfwfq]

Hey, you two guys, quit being so cocky! :doh: :hihi:

 

Is it not possible that sexism is primarily a learned behavior, and has nothing at all to do with hormone levels, similarly to racism has nothing at all to do with melanin levels?

You've fallen into strawman yourself, you are oversimplifying the issue and you are really not following me.

 

It is quite obviously a matter of social norm in most societies until recent times. I was not saying what you are suggesting and hence there is not much use talking about correlation on the individual level. Not that it is absent, it just isn't the only relevant factor. Think instead about why, so typically through history, most societies have had the traditional gender roles. Nobody flipped a coin to decide it, they just saw it as the natural order until modern times. Beyond what simply suited the way of life, these secondary sexual characteristics sure swayed the balance between the husbands and the wives, as to who was the boss, especially when the girls were seeking protection in choosing their guys.

 

...to name a few. as such, these do not cause behavior

Indeed, to name a few. You leave out those which are more essentially behavioural and also neglect how much bearing size and strength have had on the matter.

[Turtle]

Hey, you two guys, quit being so cocky! :doh: :hihi:

well, secondary sexual characteristics in humans are things like facial hair, adam's apple, enlarged breasts, & difference in physical size to name a few. as such, these do not cause behavior, and in particular the behavior of denegrating women as we are on about here. so in this regard, i venture that it is our neocortices that are the preeminent cause(s). testosterone notwithstanding, we have a choice whether or not to engage in -whether actively or passively- the subjugation of women. this is true whether the subjugator is male or female.

 

Indeed, to name a few. You leave out those which are more essentially behavioural and also neglect how much bearing size and strength have had on the matter.

 

i didn't leave size out, though you edited it out in your quote of me. regardless of size, people have a choice of whether or not to engage in sexism. if what you seem to imply is true then only large men would succesfully reproduce, which is not the case. we have a choice whether or not to promote or engage in sexism, and i agree with jm that you seem to be excusing that practice. in plain language Q, do you think sexism is wrong?

[pamela]

This thread is kinda all over the place really, so its hard to gather my thoughts, but here goes

 

hunter- gatherer societies varied- in more than a few the women hunted as well and often had a better success rate

 

testosterone- seriously folks ever met a chick in menopause? and besides that some of us have more than others in the species.I can be dressed in 4 inch heels and if someone goes after my son again that will become a weapon as the fight or flight response takes over

 

Its cultural and societal choices that have suppressed females through out history; religion not withstanding. Every day you hear on the news about some chick offing her kids, so where does that fit in biologically? Sure you could make a claim on some grounds of emotional/mental disruption but females seem to be getting increasingly aggressive. Or simply is it that its always been inherent in us and now we have tossed what society dictates to the wind?

 

and what happened to macphee-where did ya go pal?

 

and duck- i so thought you were a dude ;)

[Qfwfq]

in plain language Q, do you think sexism is wrong?

It seems as if nobody here is able to read the plain language I write in. Folks, remove those dark glasses and go to your opticians.

 

In any case, sexism is wrong... according to the current canons of most societies. Just like a few other things: slavery, suppression of malformed infants, fighting another nation just cuz they're foreign, torture... all kinds of things, which are no longer acceptable.

 

Its cultural and societal choices that have suppressed females through out history

Exactly like I said. What do you reckon the reason(s) to be?

 

...but females seem to be getting increasingly aggressive.

Yeah, kinda like I said, I even hinted at a reason for it.

[JMJones0424]

Q, it's really quite simple. You said.

 

Testosterone.

 

It is not as essential to the societies of today, but there is still a greater abundance of it in guys than in girls. One could hardly doubt this. It is also the reason why there is still a lot of sexist discrimination in the world.

 

 

The reason. Not a contributing factor, not a reason, not one of many factors to consider, but the reason. This is why I called you out on your statement, and this is why I asked for support of your claim. I called it an excuse, because it is an excuse, and it is used repeatedly by many sexists as an excuse for their actions. Perhaps you did not mean what you wrote. If so, you should correct your statement rather than continuing to defend what you wrote.

 

If testosterone is the reason why there is still a lot of sexist discrimination in the world, you should be able to provide evidence for your claim.

[Turtle]

This thread is kinda all over the place really, so its hard to gather my thoughts, but here goes

...

Its cultural and societal choices that have suppressed females through out history; ...

 

boldenation mine. :thumbs_up (i might qualify history as recent or recorded, as pre-historic behavior seems to be some matter proposed as justification for current sexism.)

 

given the original roots of this thread, spun off from another sexist perspective, it's no surprise that there appears little rhyme or [especially] reason to it. while grammatically somewhat clumsy, the title hits at the crux of the matter; Should women not be distracted from bearing and raising children by science? which is to say women [inherently] aren't suited to science or other intellectual endeavors.

 

by any scientific measure this is patently false in no uncertain terms and contnuing to assert, and/or support the assertion is exactly what perpetuates sexism. not decrying sexism and/or denying sexism's harm is in no uncertain terms despicable*.

 

*despicable

Deserving of contempt or scorn; vile.

[Qfwfq]

If so, you should correct your statement rather than continuing to defend what you wrote.

I did make the clarification.

 

...the title hits at the crux of the matter; Should women not be distracted from bearing and raising children by science? which is to say women [inherently] aren't suited to science or other intellectual endeavors

Indeed, we should be getting back to the topic, instead of arguing about whether the whole of history has been fair or unfair. Say what, human societies never have been fair (whether toward women or who else) and I don't see them improving all that much.

 

Saudi men are still terrified that even a driver's licence would make their women less subordinated to them. They don't ban them from university, nor even from running business, so long as everything is according to religious prescriptions, but oddly enough these include that women can't drive motor vehicles. Go figure.

Edited December 29, 2011 by Qfwfq
clarity

[Turtle]

Sexism

Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the application of the false belief that there are characteristics implicit to one's gender that indirectly affect one's abilities in unrelated areas. It is a form of discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, with such attitudes being based on beliefs in traditional stereotypes of gender roles. The term sexism is most often used in relation with discrimination against women,[1][2][3][4][5] in the context of patriarchy.

 

Sexism involves hatred of, or prejudice towards a gender as a whole or the blind application of gender stereotypes. Sexism is often associated with gender-supremacy arguments.[6] ...

[dduckwessel]

 

and duck- i so thought you were a dude ;)

 

lol...I needed an unbiased response to my theology posts and I knew that the males would 'go easy' if they knew that I was female!

 

As for MacPhees's ideas, I think he has something there. As CraigD's post shows, bad mothering (or bad surrogate mothering) has devastating effects.

 

In my mind it's best to combine work and quality time being a mother [although I still feel guilty about spending so much time researching and writing when my kids were little, especially my last (I was with my kids but not with them, if you know what I mean?)].

 

Socio-economic factors make it difficult for many women to pursue a career and motherhood and do it well. Fact is you need money (to afford good surrogate mothering/daycare) and time to accomplish both:

http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/11/the_long-term_effects_of_day-c.php

[Turtle]

...

Socio-economic factors make it difficult for many women to pursue a career and motherhood and do it well. Fact is you need money (to afford good surrogate mothering/daycare) and time to accomplish both:

http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/11/the_long-term_effects_of_day-c.php

 

inspite of your fears and agreement with mcphlea, there is no evidence that women freely pursuing or engaging in intellectual or other non-mothering pursuits will result in the demise of humanity.

 

moreover, fact is, parents/mothers don't necessarily need money to afford good surrogate daycare.

 

Grandparents: A Critical Child Care Safety Net

...Grandparents Provide Critical Help With Child Care :

• More than 8 in 10 grandparents interviewed (84 percent) had grandchildren under the age

of 13, with 58 percent having grandchildren under the age of 6.

• Nearly two-thirds of the grandparents (63 percent) live within an hour from their

youngest grandchild. Nearly one-third (32 percent) live in the same or almost the same

neighborhood.

• The majority of grandparents (51 percent) feel that they are involved in the child care

choices their children make.

• About 40 percent of grandparents, who have grandchildren under age 13 and live within an

hour from them, are currently providing child care for their grandchildren while parents are

at work or school. Another 19 percent have done so in the past. In total, nearly 60 percent

of grandparents are either providing child care for their grandchildren or have in the past.

• Of those providing child care, over half (52 percent) provide care for less than 12 hours

per week. Nearly one-quarter (24 percent) of grandparents are providing child care for

their grandchildren 12-25 hours per week. About one in four grandparents (22 percent) are

caring for their grandchildren for 25 or more hours each week.

• The hours of care vary from regular weekday work hours (61 percent) to weekend hours

(44 percent), before or after school hours (39 percent), evening hours during the week (33

percent) and overnight or late night hours (26 percent).

• Few grandparents (less than 10 percent) care for other unrelated children while caring for

their grandchildren. Even fewer grandparents (8 percent) are paid for these services.

• While the majority of grandparents are not currently providing child care to their

grandchildren, the overwhelming majority (82 percent) know some grandparents who are

providing such care. ...

 

It seems as if nobody here is able to read the plain language I write in. Folks, remove those dark glasses and go to your opticians.

 

In any case, sexism is wrong... according to the current canons of most societies. Just like a few other things: slavery, suppression of malformed infants, fighting another nation just cuz they're foreign, torture... all kinds of things, which are no longer acceptable. ...

 

thanks finally for that Q, even if you don't really assert your personal position. no doubt you take as much from being obscure as i take in being direct. ;) a stitch in time saves nine.

[Donk]

The thread title contains an "either-or" strawman which needs to be knocked over. If a mother only knows "mothering", she isn't going to be able to raise her children properly. No matter how good she is at cooking, cleaning, nursing... if she can't feed her children's minds, she can't do the whole of the job. So don't apologise, Pam. You already knew that! I was blessed with a mother who knew lots of stuff. She left school early, but fed a strong bump of curiosity throughout her life. If I asked her a question, she'd either be able to answer it straight away, or we'd look it up together.

 

Incidentally, who says that breast feeding has to be the mother's job? I used to wake up when the baby cried, take him to my almost-asleep wife, plug in to the left, plug in to the right, take him away for burping, changing, cuddling, chatting, before settling him down again. I treasured those small-hours bonding sessions with him - and my wife treasured the extra sleep. Caring for a newborn is hard work.

[Guest MacPhee]

Incidentally, who says that breast feeding has to be the mother's job? I used to wake up when the baby cried, take him to my almost-asleep wife, plug in to the left, plug in to the right, take him away for burping, changing, cuddling, chatting, before settling him down again.

 

That sounds such a good ruse! Male, wakened in night by raucous infant. Annoyance. Solution- convey infant surreptitiously to somnolent female. Plug infant into mammary glands. To suckle, left/right. Female stirs: "Oh...what's that honey?" "Hush dear, go back to sleep". Unplug infant, now satiated and quiescent. Carry infant back to crib thing. Resume male slumber. (I think the burping, changing, cuddling bit, was probably of short duration. Or largely imaginary)

 

An example of male strategic thinking, at its creative best!

 

I'd like to thank all posters, for their observations and comments. These, while not changing my basic view, have provided useful insights. In particular, CraigD in his post #18, dealt a devastating blow to my rash, unresearched claim that there aren't any women Chess Grandmasters. I now realise there are more than a score of them. Thank you sir! I'm duly chastened and contrite.

 

But in a way, that rather supports my view. If there are female Grandmasters, why have none of them so far become the World Chess Champion. Is it just a matter of time, before one does - when will it happen?

 

Best wishes to all Hypography posters, for a Happy New Year!

[dduckwessel]

The thread title contains an "either-or" strawman which needs to be knocked over. If a mother only knows "mothering", she isn't going to be able to raise her children properly. No matter how good she is at cooking, cleaning, nursing... if she can't feed her children's minds, she can't do the whole of the job. So don't apologise, Pam. You already knew that! I was blessed with a mother who knew lots of stuff. She left school early, but fed a strong bump of curiosity throughout her life. If I asked her a question, she'd either be able to answer it straight away, or we'd look it up together.

 

No one said that education isn't important. The problem is that in practical terms how would you help all women to get that so they could pursue a career and spend quality time with their chilren too?

 

I know many women that if given the financial resources and time would gladly juggle a career and motherhood but others that are more than content to stay home. If mothering was considered a real job by most governments and women compensated for it, most mothers would ensure that they and their children were well educated.

 

I think that Sweden has it right although according to this article, women fall behind men in the pay scale:

http://www.kwintessential.co.uk/resources/global-etiquette/sweden.html

 

 

Incidentally, who says that breast feeding has to be the mother's job? I used to wake up when the baby cried, take him to my almost-asleep wife, plug in to the left, plug in to the right, take him away for burping, changing, cuddling, chatting, before settling him down again. I treasured those small-hours bonding sessions with him - and my wife treasured the extra sleep. Caring for a newborn is hard work.

 

nice :)

[Donk]

That sounds such a good ruse! Male, wakened in night by raucous infant. Annoyance. Solution- convey infant surreptitiously to somnolent female. Plug infant into mammary glands. To suckle, left/right. Female stirs: "Oh...what's that honey?" "Hush dear, go back to sleep". Unplug infant, now satiated and quiescent. Carry infant back to crib thing. Resume male slumber. (I think the burping, changing, cuddling bit, was probably of short duration. Or largely imaginary)

Actually, no. I'm rarely asleep before 2am, usually 3 or 4. And I can miss a night's sleep and function quite well the following day. When I wake up, I'm in a trancelike zombie state, usually needing an hour or two for all the brain cells to wander around and find each other.

 

Except when I'm woken by a crying baby (worked only for my own, thankfully). I got an instant adrenalin shot that woke me completely in an instant. It took at least an hour for the dose to wear off, so if the kid wasn't up for a little playtime, he'd sleep on my lap while I read a book.

[Turtle]

That sounds such a good ruse! Male, wakened in night by raucous infant. Annoyance. Solution- convey infant surreptitiously to somnolent female. Plug infant into mammary glands. To suckle, left/right. Female stirs: "Oh...what's that honey?" "Hush dear, go back to sleep". Unplug infant, now satiated and quiescent. Carry infant back to crib thing. Resume male slumber. (I think the burping, changing, cuddling bit, was probably of short duration. Or largely imaginary)

 

An example of male strategic thinking, at its creative best!

 

 

these posts violate not only basic human decency, but our rules. as the reporting function doesn't seem to be working for me, consider this my report and complaint. enough is enough and this is too much.

 

Rules

 

These rules must be observed by anyone who wants to participate in our community.

...

■If you make strange claims, please provide proof or at least backup of some kind. If you fail to do so, or the backup you provide is not deemed adequate, the moderators may move your post to the Strange Claims forum.

...

■Statements like "I just know that this is the way it is" (especially when religion is being discussed) are considered ignorant and might be deleted. Likewise, users who have an obvious agenda behind the majority of their posts may be banned.

...

■Also, we will not accept racist, sexist, hateful, or derogatory posts. Such posts may be deleted or edited without further notice.

Violations of these ground rules might lead to banning without further notice. It is always a good idea to lurk around a bit before you start posting.

[pamela]

lol...I needed an unbiased response to my theology posts and I knew that the males would 'go easy' if they knew that I was female!

oh, no one goes easy here, duck, female or not, so feel free to be yourself knowing full well we treat both genders equally :)

 

As for MacPhees's ideas, I think he has something there. As CraigD's post shows, bad mothering (or bad surrogate mothering) has devastating effects.

 

In my mind it's best to combine work and quality time being a mother [although I still feel guilty about spending so much time researching and writing when my kids were little, especially my last (I was with my kids but not with them, if you know what I mean?)].

Try not to feel guilty, we do what we must.Its really been in just recent history that our nurturing has become excessive.We let children play instead of working in the fields. We have softened them somewhat by sitting them in front of a TV or comp instead of pushing them out the door to explore. There has to be balance. Chances are,you have most likely fostered a more independent child who probably won't be living in your basement at age 30 :P

Socio-economic factors make it difficult for many women to pursue a career and motherhood and do it well. Fact is you need money (to afford good surrogate mothering/daycare) and time to accomplish both:

http://scienceblogs.com/cognitivedaily/2009/11/the_long-term_effects_of_day-c.php

I did both as they grew older and indeed it was difficult.Still is infact, as I have a son with developmental delays and Aspergers. We may not have quantity time, but we do make quality time. :)