The Deciders

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

Men are wired that way by our culture, not by some sort of innate biology.

I don't know that that can be said definitively.

[LMNO]

No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.

Ok, I notice I am confused. 

I'm not saying I'm right, I'm going to say what I thought I knew:

Testosterone is linked to aggressive/risky/selfish behavior.
Males tend to produce higher amounts of testosterone (often significantly higher) than women.
Ergo, men have a greater probability of aggressive/risky/selfish behavior.


Additionally, the links you provided were related to a connection between neural pathways and culture, not about hormone production.


What am I getting wrong, here?

[Juana]

I don't have an answer for that (ATM, since I gotta scoot for class in a second), except to point out that there are societies where men, or an entire gender made of males, don't act like that.
*shrug* I'll do some research when I get out of class.

No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.

I can't get my head around that. Why does society want them that way? Society happened because of us, not the other way around.

That's a very complex, ancient problem (and society happens TO us, demanded by the circumstances in which people find themselves in). TBH, I'm not entirely sure, but possibly bigger + upper body strength = better suited for killing/taking things and people. That + marriage patterns (polygyny is far and away the preferred marriage pattern) + female infanticide (in farming communities, depending on the crop, because males can do more heavy work (I wouldn't say much about hunter-gatherer societies because I don't know) and the usefulness of men in protecting territory) + land inheritance patterns (first-born gets it all, etc.) = not enough women and land to go around. That leads to "we need more women and land!" which leads to kidnapping women of neighboring groups and war for territory. Which leads to women trying to make their boys more aggressive in an attempt to protect themselves from kidnapping (things usually do not go well for kidnapped women) and to protect their territories.
And then it went from there? IDK. That's my sort partially informed thoughts.

Men are wired that way by our culture, not by some sort of innate biology.

I don't know that that can be said definitively.

I think it can, or mostly so, given the variety of societies humans have created for themselves. I already linked to sources, on top of that.

I am really motherfucking tired of arguing with you over your ridiculous quibbling, RWHN.

Ultimate Deciders are, yes, the wealthy white men who run our society from top to bottom.

But Deciders (in again, broad cultural strokes, a point you have conceded) are still SWM. When you enfranchise the rest of us, we can fucking talk.

Oh, so now we have two levels of Deciders?


Which one is the poor SWM?

Broad level. Duh.
Also, that's not a "now" thing. Go re-read my posts.

[AFK]

I still believe that is categorically wrong for reasons I've already laid and to which others seem to have agreed or at least considered a point worth pondering, but it makes little sense to continue to debate the point with you

[LMNO]

I don't have an answer for that (ATM, since I gotta scoot for class in a second), except to point out that there are societies where men, or an entire gender made of males, don't act like that.

See, I can believe that, because the culture probably doesn't encourage or reward the risky/selfish behavior.  But that's not really addressing whether behavior... is...  ah.  Language trouble again.

Ok, we're going to need one term for biologically/hormonally driven behavior, and one for cultural.

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.

Ok, I notice I am confused. 

I'm not saying I'm right, I'm going to say what I thought I knew:

Testosterone is linked to aggressive/risky/selfish behavior.
Males tend to produce higher amounts of testosterone (often significantly higher) than women.
Ergo, men have a greater probability of aggressive/risky/selfish behavior.


Additionally, the links you provided were related to a connection between neural pathways and culture, not about hormone production.


What am I getting wrong, here?

There's a TED talk that touches on this topic. Anthropologists were studying a group of baboons. The group males were split between the dominant males and the not dominant ones. The Alphas showed typical aggressive behavior and the others showed a typical more altruistic behavior. Due to accidental food poisoning the Alpha males all died out, leaving only the not-so-aggressive males, females and babies. Long term observation showed that the whole group of baboons actually changed in their behavior. The males tended to be more altruistic and less aggressive. When new males tried to join the pack, only those that were less aggressive were accepted.

Its a single study, but one that indicates that MAYBE there is a very strong cultural component to some things we thought were purely biological.

http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_sapolsky_the_uniqueness_of_humans.html

Also, I love Sapolsky's hair

[Faust]

No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.

It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.

It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.

I think the point is that social and cultural forces are sufficient to push the momentum in either direction, so biological factors aren't a justification for allowing rampant patriarchy. Even if biology is skewed one way or another (which is debatable), culture is powerful enough to compensate for that. Also, even if higher levels of testosterone result in a higher probability of aggressive or domineering behavior, it doesn't logically follow that such behavior must result in a male-dominant society. There are other ways to channel that kind of behavior.

[Faust]

No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.

It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.

I think the point is that social and cultural forces are sufficient to push the momentum in either direction, so biological factors aren't a justification for allowing rampant patriarchy. Even if biology is skewed one way or another (which is debatable), culture is powerful enough to compensate for that. Also, even if higher levels of testosterone result in a higher probability of aggressive or domineering behavior, it doesn't logically follow that such behavior must result in a male-dominant society. There are other ways to channel that kind of behavior.

True Older women actually have more testosterone then men and they aren't aggressive.

[tyrannosaurus vex]

No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.

It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.

I think the point is that social and cultural forces are sufficient to push the momentum in either direction, so biological factors aren't a justification for allowing rampant patriarchy. Even if biology is skewed one way or another (which is debatable), culture is powerful enough to compensate for that. Also, even if higher levels of testosterone result in a higher probability of aggressive or domineering behavior, it doesn't logically follow that such behavior must result in a male-dominant society. There are other ways to channel that kind of behavior.

True Older women actually have more testosterone then men and they aren't aggressive.

This is not true. My Grandma could be mean. But I think it less to do with testosterone and more to do with the fact that my Grandpa was an grumpy old fart who never heard anything she said unless it was followed by a walker to the temple.

[P3nT4gR4m]

Society is a meta product of biological evolution, not the other way around.

It would logically follow that a social impetus toward gender roles would be a result of biology.

Because of our emergent consciousness, human society has, to an extent, grown along arbitrary lines dictated by consciousness, rather than underlying biology.

This appears to have resulted in a feedback loop whereby brain function can be influenced by social conditioning.

It does not logically follow that gender behaviour is entirely dictated by society.

it does, however, logically follow that there could be instances where social conditioning and biological imperative would be in conflict.

[LMNO]

No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.

It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.

I think the point is that social and cultural forces are sufficient to push the momentum in either direction, so biological factors aren't a justification for allowing rampant patriarchy. Even if biology is skewed one way or another (which is debatable), culture is powerful enough to compensate for that. Also, even if higher levels of testosterone result in a higher probability of aggressive or domineering behavior, it doesn't logically follow that such behavior must result in a male-dominant society. There are other ways to channel that kind of behavior.

I can agree with this statement.

[P3nT4gR4m]

No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.

It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.

I think the point is that social and cultural forces are sufficient to push the momentum in either direction, so biological factors aren't a justification for allowing rampant patriarchy. Even if biology is skewed one way or another (which is debatable), culture is powerful enough to compensate for that. Also, even if higher levels of testosterone result in a higher probability of aggressive or domineering behavior, it doesn't logically follow that such behavior must result in a male-dominant society. There are other ways to channel that kind of behavior.

I can agree with this statement.

Me too. However, there's a reason that aggression rose to such prominence, in the animal kingdom in general, not just human beings.

[Faust]

No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.

It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.

I think the point is that social and cultural forces are sufficient to push the momentum in either direction, so biological factors aren't a justification for allowing rampant patriarchy. Even if biology is skewed one way or another (which is debatable), culture is powerful enough to compensate for that. Also, even if higher levels of testosterone result in a higher probability of aggressive or domineering behavior, it doesn't logically follow that such behavior must result in a male-dominant society. There are other ways to channel that kind of behavior.

I can agree with this statement.

Me too. However, there's a reason that aggression rose to such prominence, in the animal kingdom in general, not just human beings.

Then I guess the real question is, is it still necessary?

[tyrannosaurus vex]

No, it does, to some extent. BUT the idea that "men are aggressive because nature makes them so" isn't accurate. They're aggressive because that's how society wants them.

It can be social factors but it is not exclusively social factors.

I think the point is that social and cultural forces are sufficient to push the momentum in either direction, so biological factors aren't a justification for allowing rampant patriarchy. Even if biology is skewed one way or another (which is debatable), culture is powerful enough to compensate for that. Also, even if higher levels of testosterone result in a higher probability of aggressive or domineering behavior, it doesn't logically follow that such behavior must result in a male-dominant society. There are other ways to channel that kind of behavior.

I can agree with this statement.

Me too. However, there's a reason that aggression rose to such prominence, in the animal kingdom in general, not just human beings.

Then I guess the real question is, is it still necessary?

Of course aggression is still necessary. Have you not been listening to Todd Akin?