EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

Studies of mental functions, behaviors and the nervous system.

Moderators: kiore, Blip, The_Metatron

Re: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

#281  Postby TMB » Mar 30, 2014 1:57 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
TMB wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
zoon wrote:
I certainly agree with you that men's larger size doesn't make subordination of women reasonable. I continue to suspect it's why women have been subordinate in so many societies.

Maybe it's actually men's generally greater strength that really subordinated women, historically. (This is only on average, of course.)


I would say that mens greater physical strength means they have not had to develop more subtle coping mechanisms (as women would have had to because they have less physical strength). So the appearance with greater physical strength is that women are subordinate to men and in some cases this is true, but in other cases this is an illusion, just as a position of formal power is a position of real power.

This is why I suggest you look to see which gender is reaping the real rewards in things that are truly valuable. If men were the ones in power, do you think they would be suiciding more and dying younger, or living homelessness or giving up their liberty. If I look at issues facing Aboriginal Australians, these criteria are the ones being used to measure their lack of power. Surely the same criteria are applicable to a gender as to a racial group?

What makes you think that women are "cleverer" (in the sense of more manipulative) than men, just because they are physically weaker? The "dying youinger" issue is not related to their having more power. Do not kid yourself that patriarchal societies are really matriarchal.


You are asking why women, who are physically weaker than men, would have developed coping mechanisms to ensure they retained benefits in a relationship that fundamentally exists so that our species can get better mixing of their genes? And if so why would one of these traits not be a better ability to be more subtly manipulative? Note that men try and manipulate behavior in others, but this is more direct and often more physical than the way women would do it.
Tell me if you have a problem with the logic above and I will try again.

Your second comment I assume to mean that why should we consider mens earlier death to reflect a lack of power to stay alive better than women, or do you mean that you think that men do have more power and this is not the reason they die earlier?

I am not suggesting that we label our society either patriarchal or matriarchal as I consider these labels carry to much political baggage to unravel their actual meaning, so I would prefer to talk specifics wherever possible.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

#282  Postby TMB » Mar 30, 2014 2:04 pm

Doubtdispelled wrote:
Fallible wrote:That's pretty simplistic reasoning there. You don't know precisely why more men kill themselves more or why men on average live shorter lives. You just assume it's because men as one lump are not really in power without having done the necessary work to show the link. You're giving us a circular argument and expecting it to be sufficient. It is not.

Regarding why men on average live shorter lives, it was pointed out up thread that this has been discussed in detail elsewhere on the forum.

I provided a link: http://www.rationalskepticism.org/gener ... ?#p1854307 and also said
And further along in that thread I gave a link which addresses specifically the question about men dying younger, and which in turn leads to academic papers providing plenty of further reading material.

TMB's response to this was
I could not find your additional reading that adds more to this – please direct me to these things that might offer more substance.

Now, given that the link I provided, in a post to Rachel, and saying that "It makes me feel grateful that my three boys are so hale and hearty!" appears on the very next page following the original linked post of Boyle's, I just found myself thinking... if you really are so interested in more substance, TMB, then you would have been able to spot that link, and follow the ones that it leads to... or even do the research yourself.... so I didn't bother to respond.

But also now given the continued referencing to this subject as though it is something that no-one here wants to have anything to do with, or are even willing to accept is any kind of problem that should be addressed, I'm beginning to think I should have.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2013/06/17/192670490/why-men-die-younger-than-women-the-guys-are-fragile-thesis

http://www.soa.org/news-and-publications/publications/other-publications/monographs/m-li01-1-toc.aspx

http://jerrymondo.tripod.com/lgev/id1.html


Thankyou for posting these references, and once again no thanks for your sneering tone, something that does not add to rational debate.

The specific articles that describe the biology, genetics and hormones, of earlier death in males and females, throughout life, are excellent and I found it very good reading.

As I assume you have also read them, what conclusion did you come to, and how do you think the large bank of PDF articles facts support or undermine my assertion that the male species has less power than female as reflected by a number of criteria, earlier death being one, suicide, prison, and homelessness being others.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

#283  Postby TMB » Mar 30, 2014 2:15 pm

Fallible wrote:If you expect to use higher rates of suicide to show that men don't have power, you need to explain how larger amounts of attempted suicide in women does not denote less power. Is that direct enough?


My logic behind suicide as an indicator of powerlessness is based upon the value that most people place on their life, the loves of loved ones etc. In order to consider death to be a better option that life, one must be having an llife (although there have been notable cult suicides seeking a better life after death, these are not typical). By committing suicide a person is trying to maintain control to the last, in this case by making a choice (however irrational) to take their life.

As men suicide x4 more than women, women attempt x3, and report x2 more depression than men. The logic of these differences depends upon womens failure to suicide because they are inefficient, or because they choose means that are more easily reversed (pills as opposed to hanging usually), or because they are using the attempt as a way to get help from others, or a mix of the three. There is no doubt a woman attempting suicide does need help and must be having a shit life, however the attempts gives them another chance and demonstrates the ability to influence others to their advantage, whereas males are less likely to seek the help of others. This is probably an interdependent mix of not being able to get help, and less chance that society will help them.

So the power dynamics are quite different, and I suggest they illustrate how males and females are able to (or not) leverage society to improve things for them. Men 0 and women 1 for this round.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

#284  Postby Regina » Mar 30, 2014 2:17 pm

TMB wrote:
Fallible wrote:If you expect to use higher rates of suicide to show that men don't have power, you need to explain how larger amounts of attempted suicide in women does not denote less power. Is that direct enough?


My logic behind suicide as an indicator of powerlessness is based upon the value that most people place on their life, the loves of loved ones etc. In order to consider death to be a better option that life, one must be having an llife (although there have been notable cult suicides seeking a better life after death, these are not typical). By committing suicide a person is trying to maintain control to the last, in this case by making a choice (however irrational) to take their life.

As men suicide x4 more than women, women attempt x3, and report x2 more depression than men. The logic of these differences depends upon womens failure to suicide because they are inefficient, or because they choose means that are more easily reversed (pills as opposed to hanging usually), or because they are using the attempt as a way to get help from others, or a mix of the three. There is no doubt a woman attempting suicide does need help and must be having a shit life, however the attempts gives them another chance and demonstrates the ability to influence others to their advantage, whereas males are less likely to seek the help of others. This is probably an interdependent mix of not being able to get help, and less chance that society will help them.

So the power dynamics are quite different, and I suggest they illustrate how males and females are able to (or not) leverage society to improve things for them. Men 0 and women 1 for this round.

How do you determine whether suicidal women succeed at improving things for them?
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15713
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

#285  Postby DavidMcC » Mar 30, 2014 3:32 pm

TMB wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
TMB wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
Maybe it's actually men's generally greater strength that really subordinated women, historically. (This is only on average, of course.)


I would say that mens greater physical strength means they have not had to develop more subtle coping mechanisms (as women would have had to because they have less physical strength). So the appearance with greater physical strength is that women are subordinate to men and in some cases this is true, but in other cases this is an illusion, just as a position of formal power is a position of real power.

This is why I suggest you look to see which gender is reaping the real rewards in things that are truly valuable. If men were the ones in power, do you think they would be suiciding more and dying younger, or living homelessness or giving up their liberty. If I look at issues facing Aboriginal Australians, these criteria are the ones being used to measure their lack of power. Surely the same criteria are applicable to a gender as to a racial group?

What makes you think that women are "cleverer" (in the sense of more manipulative) than men, just because they are physically weaker? The "dying youinger" issue is not related to their having more power. Do not kid yourself that patriarchal societies are really matriarchal.


You are asking why women, who are physically weaker than men, would have developed coping mechanisms to ensure they retained benefits in a relationship that fundamentally exists so that our species can get better mixing of their genes? And if so why would one of these traits not be a better ability to be more subtly manipulative? Note that men try and manipulate behavior in others, but this is more direct and often more physical than the way women would do it.
Tell me if you have a problem with the logic above and I will try again.

Your second comment I assume to mean that why should we consider mens earlier death to reflect a lack of power to stay alive better than women, or do you mean that you think that men do have more power and this is not the reason they die earlier?

I am not suggesting that we label our society either patriarchal or matriarchal as I consider these labels carry to much political baggage to unravel their actual meaning, so I would prefer to talk specifics wherever possible.

Don't kid yourself, TMB, most human societies are basically patriarchies. Pretending that they are not is a white-wash. Even when a woman becomes the political leader, economic power in that society tends to remain largely male-dominated, and poltical power may soon revert to male.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 70
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

#286  Postby Boyle » Mar 30, 2014 11:49 pm

TMB wrote:You are asking why women, who are physically weaker than men, would have developed coping mechanisms to ensure they retained benefits in a relationship that fundamentally exists so that our species can get better mixing of their genes? And if so why would one of these traits not be a better ability to be more subtly manipulative? Note that men try and manipulate behavior in others, but this is more direct and often more physical than the way women would do it.
Tell me if you have a problem with the logic above and I will try again.

This doesn't follow. For something to have gained traction, it would have had to confer benefits on a reproductive level. Are you saying that women that are more manipulative have always had greater reproductive success than those that are less manipulative, and that this trait is overwhelmingly linked to genetic predisposition rather than environmental circumstances? Why would being manipulative help women to pass on their genes to a greater degree than those women that aren't more manipulative?
Boyle
 
Posts: 1632

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

#287  Postby TMB » Mar 31, 2014 1:00 pm

Regina wrote:
TMB wrote:
Fallible wrote:If you expect to use higher rates of suicide to show that men don't have power, you need to explain how larger amounts of attempted suicide in women does not denote less power. Is that direct enough?


My logic behind suicide as an indicator of powerlessness is based upon the value that most people place on their life, the loves of loved ones etc. In order to consider death to be a better option that life, one must be having an llife (although there have been notable cult suicides seeking a better life after death, these are not typical). By committing suicide a person is trying to maintain control to the last, in this case by making a choice (however irrational) to take their life.

As men suicide x4 more than women, women attempt x3, and report x2 more depression than men. The logic of these differences depends upon womens failure to suicide because they are inefficient, or because they choose means that are more easily reversed (pills as opposed to hanging usually), or because they are using the attempt as a way to get help from others, or a mix of the three. There is no doubt a woman attempting suicide does need help and must be having a shit life, however the attempts gives them another chance and demonstrates the ability to influence others to their advantage, whereas males are less likely to seek the help of others. This is probably an interdependent mix of not being able to get help, and less chance that society will help them.

So the power dynamics are quite different, and I suggest they illustrate how males and females are able to (or not) leverage society to improve things for them. Men 0 and women 1 for this round.

How do you determine whether suicidal women succeed at improving things for them?


I am not clear what you are asking here based upon my previous comment. If a man succeeds in killing himself it is certain that he will not be able to improve his life, because he is dead. If a woman attempts suicide and is rescued, then she has a chance of improving the circumstances of her life. This is the relevant comparison being made when you consider suicide rates between men and women. If a woman attempting suicide still ends up with a shit life, is this better than a man who is now dead who has no chance of improving things. If the womans life was still so bad then she still has the choice of ending it. Since women suicide less than men do, the logical conclusions is that their life must be bearable, and better than death. The additional argument is that women are ineffective at suicide which seems unlikely. Its more likely that men and ineffective at attempted suicide and women are effective at attempted suicide.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

#288  Postby TMB » Mar 31, 2014 1:19 pm

DavidMcC wrote:
TMB wrote:
DavidMcC wrote:
TMB wrote:

I would say that mens greater physical strength means they have not had to develop more subtle coping mechanisms (as women would have had to because they have less physical strength). So the appearance with greater physical strength is that women are subordinate to men and in some cases this is true, but in other cases this is an illusion, just as a position of formal power is a position of real power.

This is why I suggest you look to see which gender is reaping the real rewards in things that are truly valuable. If men were the ones in power, do you think they would be suiciding more and dying younger, or living homelessness or giving up their liberty. If I look at issues facing Aboriginal Australians, these criteria are the ones being used to measure their lack of power. Surely the same criteria are applicable to a gender as to a racial group?

What makes you think that women are "cleverer" (in the sense of more manipulative) than men, just because they are physically weaker? The "dying youinger" issue is not related to their having more power. Do not kid yourself that patriarchal societies are really matriarchal.


You are asking why women, who are physically weaker than men, would have developed coping mechanisms to ensure they retained benefits in a relationship that fundamentally exists so that our species can get better mixing of their genes? And if so why would one of these traits not be a better ability to be more subtly manipulative? Note that men try and manipulate behavior in others, but this is more direct and often more physical than the way women would do it.
Tell me if you have a problem with the logic above and I will try again.

Your second comment I assume to mean that why should we consider mens earlier death to reflect a lack of power to stay alive better than women, or do you mean that you think that men do have more power and this is not the reason they die earlier?

I am not suggesting that we label our society either patriarchal or matriarchal as I consider these labels carry to much political baggage to unravel their actual meaning, so I would prefer to talk specifics wherever possible.

Don't kid yourself, TMB, most human societies are basically patriarchies. Pretending that they are not is a white-wash. Even when a woman becomes the political leader, economic power in that society tends to remain largely male-dominated, and poltical power may soon revert to male.


Set aside the label of patriarchy and its connotations. Men dominate the majority of formal positions in business, politics, science, government, the judiciary. These are positions of power and responsibility. People in these positions can have major effects upon other people, however the person in the position might not directly benefit from his actions, however they also pass on benefit to their dependants, the majority of which are women and children.

This means that a major component of the power imbalance is class/hierarchy based, where a small number at the top can have major adverse effects on larger numbers below, regardless of gender. It is also possible that the masses at the bottom of the stack can affect those at the top, along the basic principles of democracy. In reality democracy is not very effective in effecting this, as the people at the bottom engage in too much blind herdlike behavior and usually do not have the capability to consistently outsmart those at the top. At every level of the hierarchy you have men and women, usually in a family unit.

In general the man is held responsible for economic, security, and physical resources and performs most of roles that are less risky and usually less responsible, with the exception of child=rearing. However issues in child rearing impact both parents, and often longer term society as a whole.

Your assumption is that formal positions equate to power. I disagree and think that formal positions carry large amounts of responsibility, and while they have power to affect others, they usually provide greater benefit to their dependants than to themselves. This is measured by the real benefit of life, quality of life (reflected in suicide rates), homelessness, and deprivation of liberty.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

#289  Postby Regina » Mar 31, 2014 5:16 pm

TMB wrote:
Regina wrote:
TMB wrote:
Fallible wrote:If you expect to use higher rates of suicide to show that men don't have power, you need to explain how larger amounts of attempted suicide in women does not denote less power. Is that direct enough?


My logic behind suicide as an indicator of powerlessness is based upon the value that most people place on their life, the loves of loved ones etc. In order to consider death to be a better option that life, one must be having an llife (although there have been notable cult suicides seeking a better life after death, these are not typical). By committing suicide a person is trying to maintain control to the last, in this case by making a choice (however irrational) to take their life.

As men suicide x4 more than women, women attempt x3, and report x2 more depression than men. The logic of these differences depends upon womens failure to suicide because they are inefficient, or because they choose means that are more easily reversed (pills as opposed to hanging usually), or because they are using the attempt as a way to get help from others, or a mix of the three. There is no doubt a woman attempting suicide does need help and must be having a shit life, however the attempts gives them another chance and demonstrates the ability to influence others to their advantage, whereas males are less likely to seek the help of others. This is probably an interdependent mix of not being able to get help, and less chance that society will help them.

So the power dynamics are quite different, and I suggest they illustrate how males and females are able to (or not) leverage society to improve things for them. Men 0 and women 1 for this round.

How do you determine whether suicidal women succeed at improving things for them?


I am not clear what you are asking here based upon my previous comment. If a man succeeds in killing himself it is certain that he will not be able to improve his life, because he is dead. If a woman attempts suicide and is rescued, then she has a chance of improving the circumstances of her life. This is the relevant comparison being made when you consider suicide rates between men and women. If a woman attempting suicide still ends up with a shit life, is this better than a man who is now dead who has no chance of improving things. If the womans life was still so bad then she still has the choice of ending it. Since women suicide less than men do, the logical conclusions is that their life must be bearable, and better than death. The additional argument is that women are ineffective at suicide which seems unlikely. Its more likely that men and ineffective at attempted suicide and women are effective at attempted suicide.

And this is what you call "to leverage society to improve things for them"? What exactly is the lever? The threat of trying to do it again?
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15713
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

#290  Postby TMB » Mar 31, 2014 11:37 pm

Regina wrote:
TMB wrote:
Regina wrote:
TMB wrote:

My logic behind suicide as an indicator of powerlessness is based upon the value that most people place on their life, the loves of loved ones etc. In order to consider death to be a better option that life, one must be having an llife (although there have been notable cult suicides seeking a better life after death, these are not typical). By committing suicide a person is trying to maintain control to the last, in this case by making a choice (however irrational) to take their life.

As men suicide x4 more than women, women attempt x3, and report x2 more depression than men. The logic of these differences depends upon womens failure to suicide because they are inefficient, or because they choose means that are more easily reversed (pills as opposed to hanging usually), or because they are using the attempt as a way to get help from others, or a mix of the three. There is no doubt a woman attempting suicide does need help and must be having a shit life, however the attempts gives them another chance and demonstrates the ability to influence others to their advantage, whereas males are less likely to seek the help of others. This is probably an interdependent mix of not being able to get help, and less chance that society will help them.

So the power dynamics are quite different, and I suggest they illustrate how males and females are able to (or not) leverage society to improve things for them. Men 0 and women 1 for this round.

How do you determine whether suicidal women succeed at improving things for them?


I am not clear what you are asking here based upon my previous comment. If a man succeeds in killing himself it is certain that he will not be able to improve his life, because he is dead. If a woman attempts suicide and is rescued, then she has a chance of improving the circumstances of her life. This is the relevant comparison being made when you consider suicide rates between men and women. If a woman attempting suicide still ends up with a shit life, is this better than a man who is now dead who has no chance of improving things. If the womans life was still so bad then she still has the choice of ending it. Since women suicide less than men do, the logical conclusions is that their life must be bearable, and better than death. The additional argument is that women are ineffective at suicide which seems unlikely. Its more likely that men and ineffective at attempted suicide and women are effective at attempted suicide.

And this is what you call "to leverage society to improve things for them"? What exactly is the lever? The threat of trying to do it again?


You are not putting much effort into this discussion, why do you not answer the specifics of my Previuos post, are you ignoring or not understanding my points? It is logically very simple. Wen you compare the position of a male who successfully commits suicide with a woman who attempts suicide, clearly the woman has more chance of redeeming her position. The lever is the fact that society in general rallies to the aid of a female victim, this might be family, friends or a social institution more than they do for male victims. This is not to deny the tragic situation someone must be in to overdose on sleeping pills, but in comparison to a person who most likely hangs himself and is now dead, who do you think is the real victim?
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

#291  Postby Fallible » Apr 01, 2014 9:52 am

Your problem is that you seem incapable of seeing numerous situations as anything other than a competition for power drawn upon arbitrary lines. This leads you to plop out endless arguments from personal incredulity and question begging statements. Has it occurred to you that in such a situation no one has the upper hand? Your ''argument'' here is like saying someone in a persistent vegetative state through a stroke is less of a victim than a person who dies from the same thing. Oh sure, they're still technically alive and therefore theoretically have "more chance of redeeming their position'', but the chance of this happening is small. A woman who attempts suicide may theoretically have a better chance of redeeming their position, but your claim that they are likely to see more people rallying around them has all the hallmarks of something you just made up to help your argument. There is no telling whether a specific woman has the kind of support you blithely suggest here, and indeed it is quite possible for women (or anyone) to get caught up in a cycle of increasingly less tolerated suicide attempts. Out of all the people I have seen professionally, it's the men who have more often repeatedly threatened and attempted suicide, and indeed it could be clearly seen that they were not genuine attempts, because it was always done where other people were present and they always told someone what they were about to do. Their motivation was their sense of powerlessness, and their view that a suicide attempt was what it would take to get noticed. Precisely the same reasoning given by women.

Get this through your head - it's not about who is the ''real victim'' - you have no sense of nuance whatsoever, so intent are you upon lumping all of humanity into two categories. Some men are victims, some women are victims. Someone who wants to be dead but survives has not won, someone whose only recourse for help is to risk death by feigning suicide has not won, someone who wanted only to get help but not to die but who dies anyway has not won. These people are all victims. However, if death is what you are after, the exact opposite argument to yours could easily be made - namely that if you want to be dead, achieving that death makes you less of a victim than someone who tries and fails. Cue arse-extracted value judgements about how you must be a real victim if death looks like a good thing. An advance taster of what my reply to this shit would be - you only get to decide on what the value of your own death or life would be, not anyone else's. This is because you are not the arbiter of what is right for others.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 51
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post


Re: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

#293  Postby DavidMcC » Apr 01, 2014 4:58 pm

TMB wrote:
...
Your assumption is that formal positions equate to power. I disagree and think that formal positions carry large amounts of responsibility, and while they have power to affect others, they usually provide greater benefit to their dependants than to themselves. This is measured by the real benefit of life, quality of life (reflected in suicide rates), homelessness, and deprivation of liberty.

I stand by my "assumption". Your problem is that you are ignoring the inequalities between males, and trying to use it to bolster a fallacy about the nature of power throughout human history . You speak in terms only of FORMAL positions, with FORMAL responsibiloities. Throughout most of history this "formal responsibility" has been largely ignored, and only the rise of feminism began to change that.
May The Voice be with you!
DavidMcC
 
Name: David McCulloch
Posts: 14913
Age: 70
Male

Country: United Kigdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

#294  Postby Regina » Apr 01, 2014 6:38 pm

@TMB
I choose to reply to those points that are relevant to the discussion.
What seems to be obvious to you are in fact mere assertions. But of course you can easily change them into evidence by presenting the research pertaining to your as yet unsupported views.
I'm awaiting figures clarifying to what extent "society in general" supports a female victim more than it does a male one.
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15713
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

#295  Postby TMB » Apr 02, 2014 8:58 am

Boyle wrote:
TMB wrote:You are asking why women, who are physically weaker than men, would have developed coping mechanisms to ensure they retained benefits in a relationship that fundamentally exists so that our species can get better mixing of their genes? And if so why would one of these traits not be a better ability to be more subtly manipulative? Note that men try and manipulate behavior in others, but this is more direct and often more physical than the way women would do it.
Tell me if you have a problem with the logic above and I will try again.

This doesn't follow. For something to have gained traction, it would have had to confer benefits on a reproductive level. Are you saying that women that are more manipulative have always had greater reproductive success than those that are less manipulative, and that this trait is overwhelmingly linked to genetic predisposition rather than environmental circumstances? Why would being manipulative help women to pass on their genes to a greater degree than those women that aren't more manipulative?


Your question does not follow either. Why are you asking this question for an assertion I have not made. My point was the difference between the overtones of male versus female manipulation, not degrees of manipulation between women, so I do not see how it progresses the original point, however I will answer it.

By definition, manipulation means that manipulation is designed to deliver benefits, if successful it does, and this includes those that are adaptive, ie. conferring reproductive advantage. There is no requirement to pose the question, the use of the term manipulation covers it.

Working out a split between genes and nature is probably not valid either, especially given the advances in things like epigenetics. Are you assuming that cultural factors are less inevitable? Bottom line manipulation is done for advantage, and if successful, then yes it might prevail.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

#296  Postby TMB » Apr 02, 2014 9:11 am

Regina wrote:@TMB
I choose to reply to those points that are relevant to the discussion.
What seems to be obvious to you are in fact mere assertions. But of course you can easily change them into evidence by presenting the research pertaining to your as yet unsupported views.
I'm awaiting figures clarifying to what extent "society in general" supports a female victim more than it does a male one.


I disagree, the step before presenting evidence is a logical position. If this makes sense logically, then it will be tested through evidence. If however it does follow logically, thenDR fails before evidence is required. The difficulty is getting someone into a rational discussion about the base assertion. For example you have made a blanket statement obout my arguments, but not pointed a specific assertion that would allow us to examine it and test your assertion. How do you expect to progss a discussion if you are unwilling or unable to offer a specific argument of mine that you say is failing?

Also note that there is plenty of evidence and I have provided plenty of facts about suicide, longevity rates that are not being contested by anyone.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

#297  Postby babel » Apr 02, 2014 9:16 am

I once read that women living longer than men was due to men engaging in more dangerous behaviour, at least in the decades that have passed and now that women have more equality, that effect is slowly eroding.
From memory, they were referring to going outdoors to work (traffic, stress, dangerous jobs like construction worker), smoking
Milton Jones: "Just bought a broken second hand time machine - plan to fix it, have lots of adventures then go back and not buy it, he he idiots.."
User avatar
babel
 
Posts: 4675
Age: 43
Male

Country: Belgium
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Re: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

#298  Postby TMB » Apr 02, 2014 9:21 am

DavidMcC wrote:
TMB wrote:
...
Your assumption is that formal positions equate to power. I disagree and think that formal positions carry large amounts of responsibility, and while they have power to affect others, they usually provide greater benefit to their dependants than to themselves. This is measured by the real benefit of life, quality of life (reflected in suicide rates), homelessness, and deprivation of liberty.

I stand by my "assumption". Your problem is that you are ignoring the inequalities between males, and trying to use it to bolster a fallacy about the nature of power throughout human history . You speak in terms only of FORMAL positions, with FORMAL responsibiloities. Throughout most of history this "formal responsibility" has been largely ignored, and only the rise of feminism began to change that.


I am not Ignoring inequalities between males, or between we females, if you had read my posts closely I have said a number of times that many power issues occur between gender neutral hierarchies and in fact many issues females face arise from this. Although I have not suggested that humanity has had formal authority throughputs its history, I have said that power has existed since life began, and probably matter itself.

What do you mean that formal responsibility has been ignored until feminism came up? I would say that women are trying to have two bites of the cherry. Seeing what appears to be a power kick for males, women want to add this to the power that derives from associating with the varying resources of males. However since these position add significant risk and responsibility as well as power, this has been harder that they initially thought. Noting the differences between males, women are concerned because they say glass ceilings are holding them back in business, and there are many talented men who have been pushing to get higher in the pile only to get stomped down. The people who get to the top, unless they get a hand up, have gotten there by being ruthless and ambitious in the main.
TMB
 
Posts: 1197

Print view this post

Re: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

#299  Postby epepke » Apr 02, 2014 9:46 am

The best thing about this discussion is that TMB is being accused of the same things that have been mainstays of feminist thought for decades.

"Neither men nor women have a monopoly on cruelty or kindness" is such an appalling idea to these types." Types like, say, Marilyn "Women are great and men are awful" French? Check.

"Your problem is that you are ignoring the inequalities between males, and trying to use it to bolster a fallacy about the nature of power throughout human history." Ooh, big fat hairy check here. The basis of what is called "feminist theory" is that men and women are basic social classes and everything else is subsidiary. It's all about really powerful men versus hordes of downtrodden women.

"Get this through your head - it's not about who is the 'real victim' - you have no sense of nuance whatsoever, so intent are you upon lumping all of humanity into two categories." Well, at least that one was posted on April Fool's Day.

"Your problem is that you seem incapable of seeing numerous situations as anything other than a competition for power drawn upon arbitrary lines." Robin Morgan, anyone?

If I were younger and more gullible, I might be charitably inclined to think that the rhetoric were improving. But I rather think it's the same as it has always been.
User avatar
epepke
 
Posts: 4080

Country: US
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY v FEMINISM

#300  Postby Fallible » Apr 02, 2014 10:38 am

Well done for taking so long to say nothing at all. I'm not a "feminist" as you would probably define it. Your post is so full of fallacies.
She battled through in every kind of tribulation,
She revelled in adventure and imagination.
She never listened to no hater, liar,
Breaking boundaries and chasing fire.
Oh, my my! Oh my, she flies!
User avatar
Fallible
RS Donator
 
Name: Alice Pooper
Posts: 51607
Age: 51
Female

Country: Engerland na na
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Psychology & Neuroscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest

cron