Or maybe women and men are just different. Occam’s razor cuts a lot deeper to this direction.
1 Like
Men and women are different is an observation, not a hypothesis. It is not an explanation; it is that-which-needs-to-be-explained. Thus, Occam’s razor does not apply.
Edited
I’m very weary of this. Are you pushing at me over it again? Why? How many times? How many escalating responses? Manage your own reactions and feelings of rightness and goodness. If you’re comfortable insulting others you should find a way to become comfortable with having people notice that you do it.
In these last two posts on the matter I have been as direct as I can possibly be, with no effort to assuage delicate feelings. Stop. I’m not able to make you feel better. If that makes me a hypocrite or an asshole, then fine. I have hemmed and hawed and owned and apologized all I’m going to for saying that I didn’t like the tone a debate had taken.
2 Likes
Do you work for yourself?
I’m too disorganized to manage all the details that go into my credentialing and billing. I’d just wind up doing therapy for free all day long, and get paid nothing at all.
I do think Hockey and I could be slum lords or house-flippers in our spare time and have suggested it, but he hasn’t bitten yet. Maybe because it entails harder work for him than for me.
It’s a statement of fact. It requires no explanation.
I’m inclined to agree. ED, is all of it that-which-needs-to-be-explained to you? Because while I think I see more shades of gray than Cortes does (more and less masculine/feminine women and men, who would be prone to more or less masculine/feminine behavior) there seem to me clear differences that remain across time and place.
Yes, that is what I said.
The issue at hand is not whether it requires an explanation; the issue is whether it can be used as an explanation. (It can’t.)
There are two questions that pertain:
- In what ways do men and women differ?
- What accounts for those differences?
Your observation that some differences seem independent of cultural factors is undoubtedly true (certain physical characteristics come to mind, for example). And it seems very likely that these persistent differences are accounted for, ultimately, by biology (specifically, genetic factors).
Some discussants (including you?) seem to have the impression I am arguing that men and women do not differ significantly. That is not the case. My point throughout the latter aspect of this long-and-winding thread is that we must 1) proceed with caution when identifying differences, and 2) attribute differences to biology very reluctantly; ie, only after carefully ruling out cultural factors, and preferably by demonstrating genetic and/or anatomic correlates.
I’m not sure how we prove something like “women are prone to more nurturing and inclusive behavior than men,” given that it’s a generalization? However, I think some things are loosely generalizable, and stem from biological predisposition. Do you not?
Fortunately, prove is not the bar we need to clear. But I see no reason why this subject wouldn’t be amenable to study (in fact, I feel certain it’s been thoroughly studied already).
I think we all look around our world and see patterns of behavior, and come to the conclusion that these patterns represent ‘truths’ about the way the world is. And when these behavior patterns coincide with gender differences (ie, women seem more likely to do x, men more likely to do y) we tend to attribute the difference in behavior to differences in biology. (Aside: This seems to be especially true when the gender differences in question conform to preconceived notions concerning gender roles.)
What I object to is allowing the process to end there–to simply accepting these observations and inferences without verification. There have just been too many times in history when seemingly obvious patterns have turned out to be completely wrong (geocentric model of the universe, anybody?).
In short, empirical issues have not been truly addressed until they’ve been addressed empirically.
So, in my experience, does it seem like women are more prone than men to engage in nurturing behaviors? You bet. Do I think a significant proportion of the variance in this behavior might be accounted for by biological factors? Sure. Absent compelling data, am I willing to accept either of these assertions as fact? No.
My god what a thread!
I don’t even know what to say to this. Are you fucking with me? I mean, I agree that we need to understand our world and that empirical data is important to that. I have a master’s degree in knowing about things like the global tendency of women to raise their vocal pitch when talking to infants. But, ED, there’s a LOT of data re: men and women and the differences between them, both culturally based and biologically. Are we going to review it all here and come to a set of This Thread conclusions?
I’m a girl, you know, and don’t want to have to work too hard. This is starting to sound like math.
: )
1 Like
You know what? I think you’re avoiding a real response because you know I’m right. You’re invested in a model that is all wrong.
Question for EyeDentist and Emily: What kind of utopian world would you like to see come to fruition? How are you going to get rid of everyone’s way of doing things and the way they think, behave, and speak? How are you going to eradicate everyone’s cultures until we are amalgamated into one big giant mass of deracinated, sexless zombies, all thinking alike, all getting along, all never offending one another’s feelings?
Tell me how wonderful this world will be. There will be no individuality, no competition, no one will want too much, no one will step on one another’s toes, no race, and we will perceive that there will be no difference between men and women except for the configuration of their genitalia. Tell me about this Bolshevik Utopia.
More importantly, what will be the magnitude of such an endeavor with seven billion human beings on this planet, most of whom don’t care what you have to say or think or offer?
I ask you to please explain without simply saying, “we have to educate them.” But if you must use that trite statement, please tell me who will be doing the giving and educating.
By the way, regarding my last conversation about magnificent civilizations, I ask you both of you what has Western society done to you?! I want to know. Perhaps I am wrong, but our civilization has served both of you well. Let’s see one is a high earning doctor with the luxury of feeding and physically training as he pleases and all the technology that our society has to offer, and the other, if I have it correct is a social worker living what I assume to be (though I might assume wrong) a pleasant middle-class lifestyle from what you tell us here.
I’m not being sarcastic!
2 Likes
That sounds rather tedious, so I’ll opt out, thanks. But if there are one or two particular differences that are germane to the topic at hand, perhaps we could focus on them.
I hope she doesn’t mind, but I’m going to respond with one of Emily’s lines. To wit:
I don’t even know what to say to this. Are you fucking with me?
1 Like
Not at all. As I said, I am not being sarcastic.
I don’t think you’re being sarcastic. I think you’re editorializing, using me (and Emily) as a foil for doing so. Which is fine–I’m not suggesting there’s anything wrong with this as a rhetorical technique. But I would suggest that you cannot seriously expect answers to questions like “How are you going to eradicate everyone’s cultures until we are amalgamated into one big giant mass of deracinated, sexless zombies, all thinking alike, all getting along, all never offending one another’s feelings?”
Edited
Well, to be fair, that does seem to be what you are going for.
2 Likes