The Deciders

[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?

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

I try not to follow American politics.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I also want to point out that the whole "men are more aggressive" argument is a red herring. Men having more aggressive tendencies might indeed have something to do with them behaving in a more competitive manner, but really has no bearing on whether they are more likely to take over from/be condescending toward women than toward other men in the workplace. I'm afraid I don't accept the notion that men are just biologically predetermined to be sexist douchebags.

[Don Coyote]

I also want to point out that the whole "men are more aggressive" argument is a red herring. Men having more aggressive tendencies might indeed have something to do with them behaving in a more competitive manner, but really has no bearing on whether they are more likely to take over from/be condescending toward women than toward other men in the workplace. I'm afraid I don't accept the notion that men are just biologically predetermined to be sexist douchebags.

I, as a man, also do not fucking buy it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I also want to point out that the whole "men are more aggressive" argument is a red herring. Men having more aggressive tendencies might indeed have something to do with them behaving in a more competitive manner, but really has no bearing on whether they are more likely to take over from/be condescending toward women than toward other men in the workplace. I'm afraid I don't accept the notion that men are just biologically predetermined to be sexist douchebags.

I, as a man, also do not fucking buy it.

Yeah, it seems hell of insulting. I think I would tend to file it under "how the patriarchy hurts men too".

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I also want to point out that the whole "men are more aggressive" argument is a red herring. Men having more aggressive tendencies might indeed have something to do with them behaving in a more competitive manner, but really has no bearing on whether they are more likely to take over from/be condescending toward women than toward other men in the workplace. I'm afraid I don't accept the notion that men are just biologically predetermined to be sexist douchebags.

I, as a man, also do not fucking buy it.

Yeah, it seems hell of insulting. I think I would tend to file it under "how the patriarchy hurts men too".

Is it patriarchy or is it fatalism?

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I also want to point out that the whole "men are more aggressive" argument is a red herring. Men having more aggressive tendencies might indeed have something to do with them behaving in a more competitive manner, but really has no bearing on whether they are more likely to take over from/be condescending toward women than toward other men in the workplace. I'm afraid I don't accept the notion that men are just biologically predetermined to be sexist douchebags.

I, as a man, also do not fucking buy it.

Yeah, it seems hell of insulting. I think I would tend to file it under "how the patriarchy hurts men too".

Is it patriarchy or is it fatalism?

Patriarchy-flavored fatalism?

[Salty]

I also want to point out that the whole "men are more aggressive" argument is a red herring. Men having more aggressive tendencies might indeed have something to do with them behaving in a more competitive manner, but really has no bearing on whether they are more likely to take over from/be condescending toward women than toward other men in the workplace. I'm afraid I don't accept the notion that men are just biologically predetermined to be sexist douchebags.

I, as a man, also do not fucking buy it.

Yeah, it seems hell of insulting. I think I would tend to file it under "how the patriarchy hurts men too".

Is it patriarchy or is it fatalism?

Patriarchy-flavored Fatalism Chips!

Mmmmmmmantastic!

I'm so sorry for fixing this.

[ñͤͣ̄ͦ̌̑͗͊͛͂͗ ̸̨̨̣̺̼̣̜͙͈͕̮̊̈́̈͂͛̽͊ͭ̓͆ͅé ̰̓̓́ͯ́́͞]

I also want to point out that the whole "men are more aggressive" argument is a red herring. Men having more aggressive tendencies might indeed have something to do with them behaving in a more competitive manner, but really has no bearing on whether they are more likely to take over from/be condescending toward women than toward other men in the workplace. I'm afraid I don't accept the notion that men are just biologically predetermined to be sexist douchebags.

I, as a man, also do not fucking buy it.

Yeah, it seems hell of insulting. I think I would tend to file it under "how the patriarchy hurts men too".

Is it patriarchy or is it fatalism?

Patriarchy-flavored Fatalism Chips!

Made from 100% organic privilege!

I'm so sorry for fixing this.

Double fixed.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

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?

I try not to follow American politics.

Your mistake.  America's lunacy TODAY is Europe's lone nut TOMORROW.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

IN our culture, as it is today... stereotypical male aggression doesn't appear to be as necessary as it perhaps once was. However, I think that is thanks (in large part) to the Machine, the System, the Society, the culture. That means that should the society fail, aggression may once again be necessary. The comments about anarchy boiling down to "Gimme your sammich!" has some merit and should society collapse, aggression may once again be necessary for survival.

We like to think we've evolved, but it wouldn't take all that much to send us running back into the trees (metaphorically speaking)

I'm gonna suggest that we're just apes with some latex paint on us that looks like civilization.

We're the weaponized ape.  It's not what we do, it's what we are.

[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?

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

I try not to follow American politics.

Your mistake.  America's lunacy TODAY is Europe's lone nut TOMORROW.

I'm aware, its just that I barely get to keep up with Irelands politics alone, let alone europes and the rest of the world.

[Verbal Mike]

I too am a man pissed off by this bullshit innateness talk.

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.

Yeah, just like biological evolution is all based on the principles of organic chemistry!

And as has been mentioned several, fucking, times, by many different people in these many fucking threads, OTHER CULTURES HAVE DIFFERENT GENDER ROLES. Hence GENDER ROLES ARE NOT BIOLOGICALLY DETERMINED. Is it so hard to get one's cranium out of one's anus and give some serious thought to the existence of cultures different from our own?!

Yeah, it's nice and cozy to think of (an aspect of) your culture as "just natural", and this is a position seriously taken by Western scholars for centuries, but it only works so long as you ignore less familiar cultures.

I heard a talk from a biologist-cum-Marxist-gender-theorist a couple of months ago, about gender and capitalism, and he basically started by saying that whenever you think of something as completely natural, you have to get suspicious and give it some serious scrutiny, because "naturalness" is itself a socially-dictated concept.

I also heard from a friend I trust, who had read some of that guy's stuff, that there's apparently a separate genome for the part of your cells that interpret DNA, and it evolves within the organism's lifespan and affects its progeny. There was something about rat experiments, where one generation of rats were starved a little, and their grandchildren had a statistically-significant tendency for obesity. Unfortunately, I couldn't confirm any of this with a quick google search, but the moral of the story is supposed to be that it's possible, based on some relatively new biology, that culture can affect biological evolution directly, within single lifetimes. My friend said it's conceivable that we've already physically adapted to the gender binary and to the dominant economic structures. I can't verify any of this right now, but it seemed pretty relevant.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I too am a man pissed off by this bullshit innateness talk.

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.

Yeah, just like biological evolution is all based on the principles of organic chemistry!

And as has been mentioned several, fucking, times, by many different people in these many fucking threads, OTHER CULTURES HAVE DIFFERENT GENDER ROLES. Hence GENDER ROLES ARE NOT BIOLOGICALLY DETERMINED. Is it so hard to get one's cranium out of one's anus and give some serious thought to the existence of cultures different from our own?!

Yeah, it's nice and cozy to think of (an aspect of) your culture as "just natural", and this is a position seriously taken by Western scholars for centuries, but it only works so long as you ignore less familiar cultures.

I heard a talk from a biologist-cum-Marxist-gender-theorist a couple of months ago, about gender and capitalism, and he basically started by saying that whenever you think of something as completely natural, you have to get suspicious and give it some serious scrutiny, because "naturalness" is itself a socially-dictated concept.

I also heard from a friend I trust, who had read some of that guy's stuff, that there's apparently a separate genome for the part of your cells that interpret DNA, and it evolves within the organism's lifespan and affects its progeny. There was something about rat experiments, where one generation of rats were starved a little, and their grandchildren had a statistically-significant tendency for obesity. Unfortunately, I couldn't confirm any of this with a quick google search, but the moral of the story is supposed to be that it's possible, based on some relatively new biology, that culture can affect biological evolution directly, within single lifetimes. My friend said it's conceivable that we've already physically adapted to the gender binary and to the dominant economic structures. I can't verify any of this right now, but it seemed pretty relevant.

You seem to be arguing that because culture can affect biology that culture is the sole driving force behind biology? The fact that it's "conceivable that we've already physically adapted to the gender binary and to the dominant economic structures" means it's inconceivable that we did it for some other reason? Or maybe it was a mixture of  reasons?

[Verbal Mike]

No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.

EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).

[Faust]

No sorry that last paragraph was mostly an aside and absolutely not the main thing I was trying to say. The main thing is that gender roles are clearly not biologically determinedinnate, and anything that we're used to thinking of as "natural" deserves some very suspicious scrutiny.

EDITED for terminology (see strikethrough).

So homosexuality is largely a socially determined thing, a choice?