When women can be ordered to die in service of their country, then we'll discuss equality.

Why is it news when so-called "experts" begin to acknowledge something that many of us have known our whole lives? If you say stuff like this as a conservative, then you're a bigoted misogynist troglodyte who wants to send women back to the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant. I'm glad the moronic feminists are finally catching up to the rest of the human race. Freaking idiots.

I'm glad the moronic feminists are finally catching up to the rest of the human race.
Posted by: Tom at November 10, 2010 4:05 AM
---------------------------------
Tom you probably already know this. Feminists and N.O.W's mantra has been to say they are for equality. That's BS. They are for favored treatment of women, not equality.
That's why you don't see the feminists screaming that women sign up for These Selective Service draft registration, equal penalties for equal crimes, equal child custody in divorce, equal ampounts of money spent on prostate cancer, highschool programs that are aimed at males who have a way higher drop-out rate than females. Women being put on the front lines in battle etc...
They are organizations that want preferential treatment for women, while banging the drum shouting for equality.

When I was living in Japan, I taught two Japanese feminists English so they could go to an international women's conference and speak with the other delegates. It was very interesting to speak to them about Japanese feminism and compare it with the American version. While they admired American feminists on a theoretical level, they completely rejected their tactics as too devisive and too culturally defined to be of much help to them. They were extremely offended by American feminists' broad slandering Asian women as essentially spineless & brainless. I would imagine this to be true with many cultures.

David, most feminists I've met are against the draft for everyone. They tend to be rather anti-war. So of course they don't want women signing up for the draft, they don't want men to do it either.

"When I was living in Japan, I taught two Japanese feminists English so they could go to an international women's conference"

I know who to blame for the destruction of paradise.

Yesterday you had me feeling bad about my white privilege and now you tell me I'm from Africa.... did we get married and you didn't mention it to me Amy?

>>Amy: "There are, of course, definite differences between us, and Diana Fleishman, an up-and-coming evolutionary psychologist I met..."[quote from Fleishman:] "If I had to use an animal example and said that most female swallows sat on the nest while the males forage for food, and if you put them in laboratory conditions, and they did the same thing, no one would argue with me about that because (the swallows) don't have culture...."

It makes me shudder when an "up-and-coming evolutionary psychologist" appears to share common ground with a fundie Christian patriarchy movement.

"The teaching is that God designed males and females to fulfill distinct roles and that men and women cannot be truly satisfied unless they are consistently filling their special role as a man or woman of God..."

Random quote about the teachings of the cultish Christian "Quiverfull" group, ripped out of context to make a cheap point!

This is a good example of why ev. psych has developed a bad rep in the science community, and why many scientists in related fields don't regard it as a true science. There's far too much of this sort of normative grandstanding, based on incomplete, lazy, conjectures.

I happen to agree w/ Diana Fleishman on these issues, but also recognize that she's gone off the reservation by appealing to the authority of 'science' on these matters.

Why is it news when so-called "experts" begin to acknowledge something that many of us have known our whole lives?

"Many" of you may know it, but it is disputed by many feminists and others, and it's always good to have examples that lead to us better understanding how we are.

I think this, from Diana, needs to be said and heard a great deal -- especially in the wake of what I experienced after my
Psych Today piece on beauty was published.

I don't know why everything that's different about men and women in terms of feminist theory has to be from the neck down. Why can't it be from the neck up? Why can't women also have different motivations and brains?

Link to my Psych Today piece on the truths about beauty here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201010/the-truth-about-beauty

>>...And note that if you read the piece, she says she is an outlier in terms of behavior that is common to women.

You mean when she says this, Amy?

"I don’t think I know very many women who are 30 and still think “I’m gonna date anyone I want to date, and that sounds like a good time to me,” so I feel like I’m more sensation-seeking and ambitious than a typical woman is, although I have recently found contentment in a more stable, monogamous existence and can identify with that..."

So she "feels" like a special snowflake!

Big whoop:)

Wow, Jody, are people ever threatened by this piece. I mean by this:

"I’m very happy being an ambitious woman and trying to discover new things but I don’t think of myself as a typical female brain, if that makes sense."

Men generally seem to be more ambitious and competitive than women. Testosterone probably drives this to a great extent. Women generally fight wars of words, not with their fists. Women are generally far less visual in their sexuality than men. Etc., etc.

Men and women are different, men and women are different, even if it hurts your feelings or makes you feel threatened.

The only danger of evo psych is that many people generalize too much, leading people to say things like "all women are gold-diggers" and "all men will nail any hot body that wanders into the room." This isn't a flaw with the science but with the people.

Hormonal effects are real, but, as she explains in the article, they are subtle, and we all still have free will. Hormonal differences can give us a basic idea of what motivates people, but the behavior itself can vary greatly from person to person.

The only danger of evo psych is that many people generalize too much, leading people to say things like "all women are gold-diggers" and "all men will nail any hot body that wanders into the room." This isn't a flaw with the science but with the people.

Right.

And FYI, I don't want to get married or have children (I have a very happy relationship of eight years), and don't expect a man to pay for me, but I still would not be interested in dating the waiter, no matter how handsome he is. Most women (maybe unless they're in their 20s and the waiter has potential and is on his way) would not be. It's different if some woman just wants to have an affair with a waiter. But, if a waitress is beautiful, she's going to get asked out by male customers and will maybe have a relationship with or marry one. Men don't look for women to be providers -- they look for them to be hot. (And yes, yes, other things matter -- I realize I have to say that now at every turn, or people will rise up enraged and tell me "beauty isn't everything." Again, no it isn't but no man is going to look at you from across the room and want to meet you and have sex with you because you look like the sort to read to the blind.)

"the University of Michigan asked him not to publish it. Not because it was based on bad data, or was biased, but because people would be too upset"

Just like the Harvard president who got into hot water (for stating something utterly obvious), or the whole hullabaloo around "The Bell Curve". One is simply not supposed to study such things, much less talk about them in public. The truth might not be politically correct, and we don't want to risk finding out that the world does not meet our preconceptions, do we...

I found the differences in behavior interesting when looking at myself and my husband's ex-wife.

She is a waitress and my husband is an engineer. He makes a great salary and provided her with a much higher quality of life than she had as a single waitress. He wanted a family, as did she, and they got along well. Yet she left him for an unemployed actor 20 years older. They got married and had a baby. She clearly perceived status differently. (She was also an actress.)

I'm probably more gender typical. I want someone with a stable job, and "bad boys" whose rent I have to pay don't appeal.

>>Men and women are different, men and women are different, even if it hurts your feelings or makes you feel threatened.

It neither huts my feelings, nor threatens me.
I notice - and wonder -about the differences between men and women every day.

I thought the woefully simplistic example she used about male & female swallows is, however, totally bird-brained.

I am only a "bird" in the sense of 1960s affectionate slang for a broad.

Or as I have said for many a year, "Women make bad warriors because a woman has never gathered an army of women and conquered a nation." Finally, the scientist are getting smarter. Or braver.

Thanks for blogging, I read you daily. -bill

Jody's comment about fundie Christians and evo psych agreeing, cracked me up.

regardless if you are the sum total of millions of years of evolution, or you are made by the design of some god, God, flying speghetti mosnter... you are as you are meant to be plus whatever you pick up from culture.

so where is the wrong in that?

there are a number of different movements that seem to be of the opinion that their theoretical ideals should be worn like a shoe, regardless if the shoe actually fits.

>>Or as I have said for many a year, "Women make bad warriors because a woman has never gathered an army of women and conquered a nation."

Yeah, and if we had, it would be "freaking feminazis..."

Yeah, and if we had, it would be "freaking feminazis..."

If I had a garage band, that would be the name.

So of course they don't want women signing up for the draft, they don't want men to do it either.

But neither are they screaming bloody murder about the inequality of it all, nor do I see any great effort - from anyone, actually - to repeal the Selective Service.

And if you're a man who refuses to register with Selective Service, you're automatically eliminated from competing for government jobs, and certain government loans and grants for education.

Equality for all, eh? not so much.

"Women make bad warriors..."

Tell it to the jihadis who ambushed Sgt Leigh Ann Hesters convoy in the Iraqi desert five years ago:

http://www.stripes.com/news/female-soldier-awarded-silver-star-1.34794

Score?

Dead goatfuckers: 27 (several of them sent to Paradise by Leigh Ann personally)

Dead Americans: 0 (3 wounded)

She seemed to be a perfectly ordinary shoe store manager from Nashville in her civilian life.

Africa, the seat of our civilization.

Africa may or may not be the source of humanity, but it certainly is not - happily - the seat of our civilization. We are a hell of a lot more civilized than just about anywhere in Africa you'd care to name.

"at no time in human history has a group of women made war on another group of women"

Not DIRECTLY, at least. But in the end war is always about control of resources -- resources used ultimatelty to protect and provide for women's and children's welfare and personal safety. This is why the feminist claim that women are more "peaceful" than men is bullshit; women are happy to view men's deaths and injuries in warfare as the guys' patriotic duty -- and as women's privilege.

Remember, good ol' Hillary "C" reminded us that, by surviving intact, women suffer more from war than do the killed and maimed men who actually fight.

Ah, the eternal solipsism of the female mind!

I don't know why everything that's different about men and women in terms of feminist theory has to be from the neck down. Why can't it be from the neck up? Why can't women also have different motivations and brains?

Irony alert.

It is a safe bet that most feminists are not huge fans of monotheism, and also consider naturalistic evolution correct.

Yet are simultaneously willing to insist that despite the huge differences in fitness challenges the genders face, the only differences are physical.

As if that outcome was pre-ordained.

>>Irony alert. It is a safe bet...outcome was pre-ordained.

Not trying to be rude, Hey Skipper -
but what the fuck are you going on about here?

Don't get why this is such a big controversy.

You know what PORN is for the female oriented online communities I frequent? Someone posting pictures of all the things they have purchased, whether it's shoes, makeup or clothing. These are a big hit among women, including myself. I love watching "haul" videos on youtube.

And anyways nobody ever posts a pic of a hot guy. Now compare that to male oriented online communities, where there are frequent pics of hot chicks.

>>You know what PORN is for the female oriented online communities I frequent? Someone posting pictures of all the things they have purchased, whether it's shoes, makeup or clothing. These are a big hit among women, including myself. I love watching "haul" videos on youtube.

Seriously, I've never come across anything like that Ppen! (Though I do love the "fug" girls).
I have certainly - very occasionally - heard men discuss male footwear AND admire another guy's boots!

Humans exist on a continuum. There are male-ish women and women-ish men. This is news why? And it in no way negates the median of either gender being a fair amount different than the median of the opposite gender.

Women commit war on other women frequently. It may not be overtly physical, but it's war, and nasty. ANd I've certainly heard men talk about their shoes, although that may be an age thing.

I'm in a muddle about this. On the one hand, my elderly mother was (I believe) discriminated against (in the Canadian system).

I took women's studies courses back in the 80s, wasn't radical but aware, and I have defended a colleague who was a men's rights advocate. It got me into some trouble with other women, but he was being forced into an early retirement for no other reason than he was vocal about his and other men's rights. I stood up for him and paid a price (although not a hefty one).

Then I see a sexist bastard of a doctor delay and delay and delay treatment for my mother until she almost died and emerged from the ordeal severely disabled. I wasn't sure I was seeing what I thought I was seeing until a group of four OR nurses asked me (no, begged me) to write a letter of complaint. They confirmed my suspicions--this doctor doesn't care for patients who happen to be elderly women.

So...women may never have started a war, but I put on my armour and fought quite vocally with the hospital officials. I made myself intentionally obnoxious so that when people saw me coming, they would jump to and see to my mother. I get the testosterone thing mentioned by the woman in this article. I swear it was coursing through my body when I was in this state.

I was uniformly hated by every healthcare worker I had words with. And I had words with a lot of them. Sometimes the hatred was so palpable it wasn't funny. I hate it that when a woman gets vocal, starts sticking up for someone weaker and decides not to take any mealy-mouth, social worker type answers to my very direct questions, that that woman is instantly hated by both men and women. I could hear the whispers start as soon as I got off the elevator at my mom's floor.

This situation for me was tough in many ways. It was hard to be hated, but the alternative was for my mom to get bad care. I think being a warrior is tough and I get why women don't start wars. A lot of us, me included, don't like being disliked. I think it's hardwired into us and it is very difficult to override.

This isn't an answer, just a series of observations. The important one, however, is that my mom had the misfortune of having a sexist and ageist doctor. It was a disaster and doctors who practice and think this way are still out there, which is really scary.

Have you ever heard a guy squeal to another, "Those are the cutest shoes?"

Sure have. Of course the remark was to his boyfriend.

Seriously though. I have heard guys say things like "look at the rims on that ride!" which is different than "look at the blonde interior." So it seems like the specific item is the point of question.

momof4... War means killing people. Please don't act like it is something less serious.

I like the Robin Baker "Sperm Wars" approach. The egg just sort of floats there while the sperm act like a football team.

Explains a lot, really.

Jody:

>>Irony alert. It is a safe bet...outcome was pre-ordained.

Not trying to be rude, Hey Skipper -
but what the fuck are you going on about here?

If one accepts evolution as being a correct explanation for natural history, which I'll bet most feminists do, then the outcome they should take as given is that organisms with different survival requirements will end up with different means to cope with those requirements.

However, one way to distinguish a card carrying feminist is the ideological commitment to equality of outcome regardless of gender.

But (absent tyranny) that result obtains only if the genders are essentially identical.

Which flies in the face of the evolutionary theory feminists must believe in to reject the monotheistic religio-patriarchical hetero normative hegemony.

The irony is that the only way to get to identical genders is an a priori commitment to the conclusion, which is to pre-ordain an outcome.

The God they reject can do that, but not the evolution they accept.

(Speaking as an atheist believer in evolution who can occasionally parody leftist gobble speak, but not nearly as well as it parodies itself.)

"momof4... War means killing people. Please don't act like it is something less serious."

I didn't get she meant it literally from her use of it. If that was her meaning, obviously women go to war. Our military and government have been gender-mixed for some time now.

There was an Outer Limits episode Lithia a few years back where there no men left -- it was all women.

The whole story was that men are bad -- women are good.

The thing I always question in these stories -- all the women will form a communes. I say bull shit -- look at Hillary -- do you think she would from a commune? Or would she try to lead it to where she wants to go? It may not be quite as brutal -- but the socialist/Marxist ideas would lead a world of women to the same place.

This is an uneducated in psych opinion. But I've seen some office politics that would cut the other managers throat just as quickly.

As a Christian, I don't take offense if someone else believes something else, but I do find Jody's comment at leaswt rather irritating. So Jody finds it obnoxious that something true matches what the Bible says? Apparently the Bible has to either be consistently wrong, or people have to completely disagree with it in order to be OK with Jody's world view?

As far as male-female, my feeling is that women who are being nasty about it are usually a lot more subtle. If women were in charge, there might be fewer wars, but there might be a lot of unexplained poisonings (and I'm female).

I worked in a day care center as a teenager, and boys and girls act differently. A girl will almost never pretend her finger is a gun unless she's trying to spend more time with the guys. Girls rarely make engine noises with their mouths.

One area where evolution and natural selection impacts on the psychology of the sexes is that women tend to be more "social" than men, inasmuch as women have a greater tendency to simply go along with views and behaviors that are considered socially appropriate, fashionable, or just the done thing. This extends to things like politics, where women are often more likely to avoid unconventional or unpopular views and stick to conventional wisdom or a more stereotypical "good citizen" view of the world. Think of any issue, and then think of what is the most PC conventional view of that issue, and chances are women are more likely to embrace that view.

This is easy to understand in terms of natural selection. In more primitive times, if a woman was kicked out of the tribe, she and her offspring would most likely struggle to survive and/or meet an unpleasant fate. OTOH, if a man was kicked out of the tribe, there is a greater chance he could perhaps survive on his own, possibly hang out in the wilderness for a while, maybe poach a few females and start his own tribe.

In other words, evolution and natural selection strongly encourages women to not rock the boat and to learn to get along with those who appear to have the power in society. While for men, evolution offers a greater incentive to "go your own way". For men, fortune favors the brave. For women, fortune favors the timid.

This would go some way to explaining why women are often likely to campaign for PC causes or to appease aggressive males, or other similar behaviors. Millions of years of evolution are saying "love, if you want to survive, you had better toe the line and get along with the existing power structure."

>>But (absent tyranny) that result obtains only if the genders are essentially identical...

Hey Skipper,
Thanks (I think!) for amplifying.

>>Millions of years of evolution are saying "love, if you want to survive, you had better toe the line and get along with the existing power structure."

That's very funny, Nick S.

So "millions of years of evolution" sound spookily like some GOP strategist getting snotty with Sarah Palin?

I've never found it particularly useful to play the "Boys are better! No, girls are better!" game. Both genders have traits and tendencies that are vital to the survival of the species beyond sperm meets egg.

The women in my social circle are the ones who send the Christmas and birthday cards and bake Christmas cookies, carrying on generations of family traditions. When I volunteer, it's mostly women, even in a wide variety of volunteer positions, from caring for handicapped kids to planting trees at the local school.

All of these things are important in maintaining communities. My husband admitted it never occurred to him to send his cousin a congratulatory note when her baby was born. He and his friends never talk about personal stuff. They find out what's going on in each other's lives by asking their wives and girlfriends. They spend their time talking about work, politics and video games.

On the other hand, my husband gave up a comfortable job to move across the country for a better one, then gave up that one to work at a start-up for a significant pay cut that he hopes will pay off later. I've stayed at my so-so job far longer than I should have because it has given me the flexibility to care for my parents. My job is stable, but his is the one that will make us very comfortable if it works out, and perhaps change the nature of education. And we're both happier for being together.

Of course, none of this is written in stone, which is where people get tangled up in evo psych. I have certainly taken risks in my life and in my career and expect to take more once my family obligations are less pressing, and my husband has taken the initiative to be a caregiver in his family. All of these things are generalizations that don't necessarily apply to all people at all times. Which is why none of this is a reason to deny women professional opportunities or men caregiver opportunities.

Thank goodness men and women are different! The world would be pretty boring if we weren't.

I like what men bring to the equation (I'm the mom of a son, and I've learned a lot watching the boy-to-man evolution), and I love being a woman. But, my idea of feminism frees women and men from their roles and society's retrictions, so dads can (happily) be homemakers and moms can (happily) be breadwinners or whatever other arrangement a couple decides.

Shouldn't feminism give freedom to both genders?

Shouldn't feminism give freedom to both genders?

Yes, and things have improved in many ways. I never heard of stay-at-home dads when I was growing up. Men just didn't do that unless they were unemployed, and then it was only temporary. It's still not common, but I'm seeing it more.

One thing that struck me was this: "female lawyers have higher testosterone than women in less climbing-the-ladder kinds of jobs."

How do we know what comes first? Isn't it possible that having a job where you need to be aggressive, like winning in court, might cause more testorone production?

I mean, it's assumed that our hormone levels drive us into certain behaviors, but couldn't the behaviors themselves, conditioned as they are culturally, affect our hormones?

I think women care about shoes simply because other women care about shoes, not necessarily because of anything hormonal or genetic.

I, for one, don't really care about shoes - or handbags - but I've occasionally overspent on those items just to fit into my social circle. It probably lowers my testerone levels just thinking about that.

I obviously can't spell testosterone.

Boadica (spelling might be off) tried. (Female leader in Britain that fought the Romans) Incidentally, she proved to be a pretty poor general, and after some initial success her forces were defeated and she took her own life.

There is a history of female warriors and generals (or their period equivalent) and heads of state in the world, however they are particularly conspicuous precisely because they are so very rare. And in none of these cases, at least none that I know of, do we find a woman as the one that brings a kingdom into existance. They inherit through familial lines.

--------------

Yes momof4 our military has been gender mixed, and it has been a complete and total fuckup from the groundup.

Don't get me started on this one, I can rant for quite awhile on allllll the fubar (fucked up beyond all recognition) shit I've seen in my decade+ in service.

Don't get me started on this one, I can rant for quite awhile on allllll the fubar (fucked up beyond all recognition) shit I've seen in my decade+ in service.

Don't get me started on this, either. I can rant for quite awhile on the number of women I know who have made real sacrifices for their country.

So Robert and Monica both... I think you should make sure you are both using the same definition of soldier, and so forth. I think you are talking past each other.

"How do we know what comes first? Isn't it possible that having a job where you need to be aggressive, like winning in court, might cause more testorone production?"

LS, from what little I know about hormones and endocrine systems, it is to an extent a chicken-and-egg thing... one reinforces the other. Women who have more testosterone than average may be more likely to go into the field in the first place, but then their bodies reinforce it if they are successful. Maybe someone who knows more about it than I do can give a better explanation.

"I hate it that when a woman gets vocal, starts sticking up for someone weaker and decides not to take any mealy-mouth, social worker type answers to my very direct questions, that that woman is instantly hated by both men and women."

ie, this is the one bit I had to comment on, because I've heard it said before -- "assertive women are frowned on by society; a man in the same situation would have had it much easier". Admittedly I wasn't there, but I have been in much the same situation you were in, when my grandmother was in a nursing home and they weren't feeding her properly. And I can assure you that they did not say "oh, he's a man, we have to respect him and do what he says". No, they fought me tooth and nail. I had to resort to sneaking in food for her. I think their hostility towards you had a lot less to do with your being a woman and a lot more to do with the fact that you were forcing the lazy slackers to do their damn jobs.

As with gays in the military, putting women somewhere as a politically-amplified exercise results in me-me-me-firsters screwing things up for the crew interested in the mission.

Diversity is an obstacle to be overcome, not a goal in itself. This is proven on simulated battlefields run by the NBA and NFL, and it is wholly true on the real ones, unimaginable to most (phantom voice here: "I saw a movie once...).

It really and truly was and is bad luck to have a woman on a warship, because somebody will be thinking of her instead of his job. And, in case you haven't noticed, merely falling in the water means you die at sea. You don't have to set off the nuke or missile booster. You can just touch the wrong wire, or fail to do a thousand other intricate things for which you have no instinctive ability.

You can see a success story here and there. Those happen with extra effort, and are reported for their novelty.

Did Sgt Hester appear on the regular news?

I'll bet my rant beats your rant MonicaP.

I've worked for women, I've worked with women, I've had women work for me. Unless your rant is full of FIRST HAND observations of your own personal experience, I'm going to need a boatload of salt to take your anecdotes with.

Because you see, all of my experience IS personal, I walk through it, live it every day, I've spent years in warzones, and I see with my own two eyes exactly what the impact is for our nation's military, from Europe, to the Pacific, to the Middle East, to here on the homefront.

To clarify for Swiss:
Soldier-someone in one of the branches of the military.

I'm not interested in any allegorical, metaphorical, or hypothetical use for the word. When I say soldier, I mean soldier.

Am I crazy, or does it seem like we've been making language a lot more complicated than it used to be?

So we've got Patrick, saying women can't possibly desire true equality unless we're all clamoring to go to war.

But we've also got Robert, saying that these freakin' women need to get out of his military already! (Are you the Canadian Robert?)

And then we have Radwaste, agreeing that military women are screwing things up and should just get off the damn ship, because men will be thinking about the ladies rather than focusing on their jobs. But somehow that's the women's fault. (Sounds kinda like the rationale for covering Saudia Arabian women with tents, doesn't it? Women are just sooooo attractive the men-folk can't control themselves!)

Sigh. No, Sam. Don't put words in my mouth. Social experiment: put you and Amy on the conning tower of a submarine as lookouts. You've been to sea (now, this is something you probably won't get, but try) for six weeks and it's the first time she's been at arm's length from you.

I can show you all sorts of scenarios where people die because they can't resist impulses. Gee, just out in town, do you think you can watch a felon's hands when the blonde on his arm flashes you?

Read the action reports from real battles. Distractions kill people and lose ships. This stuff happens, and when it does, losing is real.

There isn't a "do-over" in military service. That's another thing people infatuated with "should be" fantasies just don't get. USS Cole got a hole blown in her because somebody simply wouldn't see that she was defended properly.

It's not "her fault", Sam. It's how we're built, period.

Nope, not Canadian.

Now, it's news that Jessica Lynch is "still hurt".