What are immutable differences between men and women?

[SimonDoom]

Why do people focus on looking for spurious differences rather than being reassured by similarities? It leads to the common two gender roles being forced to be more different than those people might act, if not pressured to do differently.

This is an empirical question, and I don't think we know the answer for sure yet. Is it really true that the differences we perceive are the result of social "pressure," which might theoretically be changed? Or are they baked into our DNA?

There's some evidence that it's at least partly the latter, and that's something worth exploring. Why are STEM fields dominated by men? Is that purely culture? There's some evidence to the contrary. For instance, in countries like Sweden that more proactively encourage womento have the same career opportunities as men, differences in career choice and in incomes persist to a degree that has surprised a lot of people. It's possible that there's something baked into our natures that predisposes men to want to go into those fields more than women. It doesn't appear to be intelligence, because men and women rate the same on intelligence tests, but it might be something that influences desire.

 

[SamBomb]

That influence you are looking for is society.

 

[Lucy_Lastic]

Why did the oppressive patriarchy make it so likely that a man will think with his dick instead of his brain? Poor planning, I'd say.

Because the oppressive partiarchy thinks with his dick. Duh.

 

[AG31]

Because the oppressive partiarchy thinks with his dick. Duh.

So thinking with one's dick is a product of nature, while other stuff is a product of nurture. Clear. Very clear.

 

[Lucy_Lastic]

So thinking with one's dick is a product of nature, while other stuff is a product of nurture. Clear. Very clear.

You're the one who asked the dumb question.

 

[burgwad]

We tried to raise our baby to see gender as a spectrum and yet he still wound up adopting a binary understanding. Probably didn’t help we called him a boy from day one. Dang it.

The tattoo is already there in his brain crinkles. More brain crinkles have already grown over and around it. Those, too, tattooed in binary. Girls and women are one tattoo type. Boys and men, a different one. There is some overlap or stylistic similarity, but he can tell them apart at a glance. He’s a goner, like all of us before him; he will have to effortfully, actively unlearn this bias his whole life, if he even bothers at all. We’re talking about something he has already learned to discern - however unscientifically or prematurely - before he’s even come to fully grasp that others have interior lives. It’s fucked.

But I like to believe today’s brain sponges are probably better off than yesterday’s crop, and that given a century or two of sustained social warfare in the direction of progress we might start to see … change of some sort? But idk. Again, idk.

 

[AwkwardMD]

That influence you are looking for is society.

I don't always have the stamina to fight this fight in this arena (though I fight it in others), so thank you.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

KQ - I'm all for looking at similarities. My concern is the sometimes dogmatic insistence that there are no differences or that noting differences is somehow bad.

I view men and women as fundamentally different on many levels. That doesn't to me mean that one is better or worse overall, just that each has particular strengths and abilities which, when acknowledged and used to their full potential, results in a better overall result. No, I am not suggesting women have to be in the kitchen or sexually subservient or that men are the automatic head of the household or any of that nonsense.

It mean that, IMHO, based on being a witness during too many trips around the sun, that men as an overall group are better at some things and women collectively are better at others. (Bell curves and outliers are freely acknowledged). My point is that we have complimentary skills. This isn't a race or a competition.

For instance, I think women are better at healing than men, for instance. Is it bad to think so? I don't think so. It is, rather, something to be acknowledged and, indeed, cherished. I for one am quite happy to see the shift in medicine from male-dominated to female-dominated. That plays to our collective strength, offers a better outcome for society as a whole.

As to 'spurious differences', I think many are not so very spurious, but if an individual is unhappy with them, then they should be free to seek a workaround and good luck to them.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

KQ - I'm all for looking at similarities. My concern is the sometimes dogmatic insistence that there are no differences or that noting differences is somehow bad.

I view men and women as fundamentally different on many levels. That doesn't to me mean that one is better or worse overall, just that each has particular strengths and abilities which, when acknowledged and used to their full potential, results in a better overall result. No, I am not suggesting women have to be in the kitchen or sexually subservient or that men are the automatic head of the household or any of that nonsense.

It mean that, IMHO, based on being a witness during too many trips around the sun, that men as an overall group are better at some things and women collectively are better at others. (Bell curves and outliers are freely acknowledged). My point is that we have complimentary skills. This isn't a race or a competition.

For instance, I think women are better at healing than men, for instance. Is it bad to think so? I don't think so. It is, rather, something to be acknowledged and, indeed, cherished. I for one am quite happy to see the shift in medicine from male-dominated to female-dominated. That plays to our collective strength, offers a better outcome for society as a whole.

As to 'spurious differences', I think many are not so very spurious, but if an individual is unhappy with them, then they should be free to seek a workaround and good luck to them.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but mixing up facts that are true about a group, with assumptions about individuals, is a very bad idea.

More women than men are good carers - you're probably right, no matter what the reason. But if a woman gets a caring job over a man solely because she's a woman and not because that particular woman is a better carer than that particular man, then we are *not* getting the best results for society.

Treating people as groups rather than people is a slippery slope. I doubt you'd want to return to the days when only boys got to do woodwork at school and girls home ec, even if most boys are likely to be more interested in the woodwork and vice versa. Or only boys and Chinese girls encouraged to do double maths for the last two years of high school, which was my experience.

 

[AwkwardMD]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but mixing up facts that are true about a group, with assumptions about individuals, is a very bad idea.

More women than men are good carers - you're probably right, no matter what the reason. But if a woman gets a caring job over a man solely because she's a woman and not because that particular woman is a better carer than that particular man, then we are *not* getting the best results for society.

Treating people as groups rather than people is a slippery slope. I doubt you'd want to return to the days when only boys got to do woodwork at school and girls home ec, even if most boys are likely to be more interested in the woodwork and vice versa. Or only boys and Chinese girls encouraged to do double maths for the last two years of high school, which was my experience.

Which makes the whole question of "what are the immutable differences" completely moot.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I'm not saying you're wrong, but mixing up facts that are true about a group, with assumptions about individuals, is a very bad idea.

More women than men are good carers - you're probably right, no matter what the reason. But if a woman gets a caring job over a man solely because she's a woman and not because that particular woman is a better carer than that particular man, then we are *not* getting the best results for society.

Treating people as groups rather than people is a slippery slope. I doubt you'd want to return to the days when only boys got to do woodwork at school and girls home ec, even if most boys are likely to be more interested in the woodwork and vice versa. Or only boys and Chinese girls encouraged to do double maths for the last two years of high school, which was my experience.

Not arguing in the slightest. I freely acknowledge, as I noted, individual variance and such and I don't think anyone - male or female - should be pigeonholed or shoved into any rôle based on their sex. Yet trends and bell curves are valid overall.

Actually, perhaps I should rephrase that. I don't think anybody should be given a preference or special status in life due to their sex. Were I to be hiring somebody for a job, the last thing on my list is whether the toilet seat needs to be up or down.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Which makes the whole question of "what are the immutable differences" completely moot.

Not at all.
Exceptions don't disprove a rule.
Men are on average taller than women.
The existence of exceptionally tall women and exceptionally short men doesn't disprove it.

 

[SamBomb]

Not at all.
Exceptions don't disprove a rule.
Men are on average taller than women.
The existence of exceptionally tall women and exceptionally short men doesn't disprove it.

But who cares? On average men are taller, okay? It doesn't fucking matter. If you see someone taller you shouldn't assume they are a man.

It all seems so pointless.

 

[SimonDoom]

Which makes the whole question of "what are the immutable differences" completely moot.

It doesn't if you get rid of the word "immutable" and you rephrase the question as "what are the observable statistical differences in the populations of men and women, and why do they occur?" and you leave open the possibility that some of those differences are accounted for by nature, as well as nurture.

For example, consider the pay gap between men and women. If you take the position that men and women must necessarily be exactly the same in terms of nature, you are going to be more likely to conclude that all differences in pay must be the result of exogenous factors and that we should try to get rid of them. But what if that's not true? What if men and women are in part programmed by nature to want different things, and men gravitate toward jobs that for various plausible reasons pay more (e.g., longer hours, greater risk to life, greater level of expertise)? Then the problem may not be what you think it is, and the solution isn't either.

Implicit in Kumqatqueen's comment is the assumption (as I read it) that only one camp wants to treat people in terms of the groups they belong to. That's manifestly not so. I can tell you from conversations I've had with my recently college-graduated kids (as well as general reading) that young, left-of-center people are much more likely to think in terms of groups than they were when I was in college. Affirmative action, reparations for slavery, cultural misappropriation, hate speech regulations-- these are all concepts that treat people as members of groups rather than as individuals. They're based on concepts of equity (whatever that is--I'm not sure), rather than the classical liberal concept of equal treatment of individuals under the law.

I agree with you that the term "immutable" is problematic, but the term "differences" is not. It's an important issue that has potential implications for public policy that cannot be wished away.

 

[AG31]

Which makes the whole question of "what are the immutable differences" completely moot.

Well, I, for one have gotten something out of this thread. (I'm the OP.) As I said, I've experienced a late in life increased physical attraction for men. I was trying to understand what's going on. I came to the conclusion that there are a cluster of attributes that women (on a bell curve!!!!) are hard wired to respond to, but they can work in many combinations. No single attribute is required.

So the question wasn't moot. I got an answer, even if a little unexpected.

 

[AG31]

But who cares? On average men are taller, okay? It doesn't fucking matter. If you see someone taller you shouldn't assume they are a man.

It all seems so pointless.

See my reply #65.

 

[AG31]

You're the one who asked the dumb question.

Here's a new question. Can you articulate what it is about another person that makes them sexually attractive to you?

 

[intim8]

Maybe not an immutable difference, but I've said that women are just as horny as men, maybe more so, but the difference is that the man needs permission from the woman, and the woman needs permission from herself.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

But who cares? On average men are taller, okay? It doesn't fucking matter. If you see someone taller you shouldn't assume they are a man.

It all seems so pointless.

Because if I'm making clothing perhaps my women's line should be sized differently than my men's line.

Or, more germane to this forum, if I'm writing a story then what appeals to a male or female audience will vary.

Men prefer action movies, women prefer romcoms.
That doesn't mean we should assume any given ticket buyer to a rom-com is female. But it is useful in how you direct your marketing campaign.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Maybe not an immutable difference, but I've said that women are just as horny as men, maybe more so, but the difference is that the man needs permission from the woman, and the woman needs permission from herself.

Which goes back to my statement in the "passive men" thread. Women are the gatekeepers.

 

[AwkwardMD]

It doesn't if you get rid of the word "immutable" and you rephrase the question as "what are the observable statistical differences in the populations of men and women, and why do they occur?" and you leave open the possibility that some of those differences are accounted for by nature, as well as nurture.

Removing load-bearing words from the OP's question hijacks the conversation in favor of your head canon. What if we removed the words Men and Women and instead focused on Dogs and Cats? What are we doing?

Men identify as men, and Women identify as women. Anything past that is a problem.

 

[SimonDoom]

Men identify as men, and Women identify as women. Anything past that is a problem.

I'm writing honestly when I say I have no idea what this means.

 

[Lifestyle66]

...
For example, consider the pay gap between men and women. If you take the position that men and women must necessarily be exactly the same in terms of nature, you are going to be more likely to conclude that all differences in pay must be the result of exogenous factors and that we should try to get rid of them. But what if that's not true? What if men and women are in part programmed by nature to want different things, and men gravitate toward jobs that for various plausible reasons pay more (e.g., longer hours, greater risk to life, greater level of expertise)? Then the problem may not be what you think it is, and the solution isn't either.
...

When it comes to the pay gap, I go by my own life experiences and examples for analysis and find the reasons.

A long time ago, my sister-in-law worked at a sewing factory, where women worked at sewing machine doing the same repetitive work for eight hours per day. My brother, her husband worked in a machine factory. The machine factory workers formed a union, and they go on strike to demand higher wages. They worked as a group to force management to pay them more. But the women in the sewing factory were paid by the piece work, meaning those who worked faster and did more pieces were paid more. The women would compete against each other for the bragging rights that their paychecks were higher than the other women. It didn't matter that they were working more than the men in the other factories, as long as those women could beat each other.

Then there was the example of me and my ex-wife. When I'd start a new job, I'd update my resume and send it out to start looking for my NEXT job for more money. At one point I had a manager call me in to criticize me, saying "We found your resume posted. Are you looking for another job?" I replied "Of course! Do you want an unambitious slug working for you?" They gave me an immediate 10% raise! But my ex-wife worked at a job and complained when other would get higher pay raises, and I suggested she look for another job. She replied "But I like where I'm working. They just need to pay me more!" They then they cut her salary by 10%, and she STILL stayed there, because she had her 'friends' there!

So, one of those immutable differences between men and women (in my observations) is that women tend to remain where they are and hope for the best when it comes to pay, because they form longer friendship bonds with their co-workers. Men are less emotionally bound to their co-workers and more willing to risk losing a job to demand higher wages or willing to move to another job to get a higher salary. If there is ANY misogyny involved in paying women less for similar work, it's only because the managers know they can do it due to those emotional differences of the women remaining among their friends, while men would say "F U" and leave.

(BTW the managers where I worked were on bonus plans based on their ability to manage the project budgets and pay scales. That 10% pay raise that manager gave me came out of HIS potential end-of-year bonus!)

 

[SamBomb]

I'm writing honestly when I say I have no idea what this means.

What is your gender?

 

[AwkwardMD]

I'm writing honestly when I say I have no idea what this means.

Men don't identify as women because the defining characteristic of men is that they identify as men. Men identify as men.

Women don't identify as men because the defining characteristic of women is that they identify as women. Women identify as women.

Everything more specific than this has exceptions, and exceptions violate the base premise of an immutable truth.