Feminism

[merithyn]

Not to speak for him, but I think that what he was saying was that on average, women make better caregivers then men, but individual differences are more important than the average differences between men and women.  So, overall, maybe in, say, 65% of heterosexual couples, the woman might be the better caregiver, but in the other 35%, the men shouldn't fell ashamed to be the primary caregiver.

I don't really disagree with him on either point.

Based on what evidence? And what counts as better?

Also, it seems to me if that you think on average women will be better caregivers - I don't see how you can escape judging the men who "substitute" themselves in. After all, how do you know the situation wouldn't be improved if their wives were to stay home to raise the children?  It feels a bit two-faced to say "Well in general, I think women are better at raising children, but Mike, I think you're probably doing a bang-up job."

Why is that?  In general, taller people make better basketball players, but that doesn't mean that someone 7'1" is automatically a better player than someone 6'9".  Same here.  I don't have a way to "score" childraising ability, but say on average, women score at 5.5 on a 0-10 scale, while men on average score at 4.5--that doesn't mean that there aren't men who score 9.9, or women that score 0.

As for what evidence I have, it's purely anecdotal.  There probably is some study out there somewhere that compares the abilities of men and women in this regard--several of them actually, with contradictory and inconsistent conclusions.

My issue with this line of thinking is that I believe that care-taking isn't innate, but rather taught. In general, girls are taught to take care of things while boys are taught to compete for and against things. So long as we see that as just how things are rather than a societal thing, like Berkut said, it's not likely to change.

Here's an interesting excerpt from a fairly well-known book on Child Development:

Some researchers suggest that male infants are more emotionally reactive than female babies, but that culture socializes boys to express less emotion as they get older (with the possible exception of anger). As a result, boys become less skilled at understanding both their own and others' emotions. As this view predicts, research shows that by adolescence there are clear gender differences in the expression of emotions, particularly of negative ones.

There's a lot more at that link, but this, to me, says more about why boys are less likely to be care-takers than girls.

[garbon]

Why is that?  In general, taller people make better basketball players, but that doesn't mean that someone 7'1" is automatically a better player than someone 6'9".  Same here.  I don't have a way to "score" childraising ability, but say on average, women score at 5.5 on a 0-10 scale, while men on average score at 4.5--that doesn't mean that there aren't men who score 9.9, or women that score 0.

As for what evidence I have, it's purely anecdotal.  There probably is some study out there somewhere that compares the abilities of men and women in this regard--several of them actually, with contradictory and inconsistent conclusions.

Unlike in your basketball scenario, where there are clearer metrics to tell whether or not a shorter player is performing as well as a taller - the same doesn't exist for child rearing.  With it being hard to objectively judge a person's parenting skills (short of catastrophic things like killing their child), you've opened up males for criticism if they try to take on a role that you know the average woman to be better at.  The question lingers on whether or not the children would be better off with their mother (or in the cases of gay male adoption - whether they would be better with a mother)*.

And then there's always the chicken and egg bit if one accepts the premise that the average woman is a better caregiver than her husband.  Are women innately better caregivers or is that we encourage women in the direction of caregiving? There isn't a clear cut answer to that question (as it is a mix) but I think it needs to be factored in if one is going to make the statement that men aren't equally built to be primary caregivers. We do part of the building!

*incidentally, this is what Sheilbh said that he wants us to be indifferent about - not that the goal is to have 50/50 split of caregivers across genders.

[Berkut]

Not to speak for him, but I think that what he was saying was that on average, women make better caregivers then men, but individual differences are more important than the average differences between men and women.  So, overall, maybe in, say, 65% of heterosexual couples, the woman might be the better caregiver, but in the other 35%, the men shouldn't fell ashamed to be the primary caregiver.

I don't really disagree with him on either point.

Based on what evidence? And what counts as better?

What evidence?

Seriously - you are asking what evidence suggests that overall women are better caregivers than men?

If you can't see the evidence for that in basic biology, temperament, attitude, and the evidence of your eyes, then nothing I can do will convince you.

[garbon]

Gotcha, so we (Meri, Sheilbh and I) weren't really wrong in how we interpreted your post.

[The Brain]

I guess the thing there is that she can be successful and talented without being hot. I think it's always been true, even for women. I mean, dudes aren't lining up to have sex with Aretha Franklin either. The stereotype that women have to be pretty to be successful is wrong. But it's still out there because some did make it by being hot. (Guys too.) Adele has legit pipes and didn't make it big because of her looks.

I think some people have a complex about their looks and examples like her make them feel better. So there's a market for that.

Not to get totally off the subject, but I think Adele IS hot! She's bigger than a size 2, though, and so it's supposed to be this huge thing that she's gotten famous despite that.

And Aretha was a pretty woman when she was younger. She just got big, and so no one sees that anymore.

Are you a straight male? No?

[Berkut]

Gotcha, so we (Meri, Sheilbh and I) weren't really wrong in how we interpreted your post.

Yes, you were completely wrong.

Saying that women, in general, are more interested in and better at caregiving in general than men says absolutely nothing about whether men should or should not be caregivers in particular. And it sure as hell isn't saying anything about gay adoption.

[Sheilbh]

Saying that women, in general, are more interested in and better at caregiving in general than men says absolutely nothing about whether men should or should not be caregivers in particular. And it sure as hell isn't saying anything about gay adoption.

But if women are naturally better at caregiving, in general, then aren't you conceding the criticism of gay adoption that it's not right to place a child in a family without a man and a woman.  There's a lack of feminine care there which makes - on average, in general terms - a gay couple less able to offer the same level of care as an average, general straight couple.

To use your terms it seems like you're saying gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt in general, but perhaps should in particular.

[garbon]

Gotcha, so we (Meri, Sheilbh and I) weren't really wrong in how we interpreted your post.

Yes, you were completely wrong.

Saying that women, in general, are more interested in and better at caregiving in general than men says absolutely nothing about whether men should or should not be caregivers in particular. And it sure as hell isn't saying anything about gay adoption.

If you say that women are better caregivers in general, how does that not impinge upon particulars? After all, if the average man is worse at caregiving than the average woman, what business does a particular man have being a caregiver unless he is confident that his parenting skills are better than average?  And similarly, why should a society countenance men who chose to be caregivers? After all, on average they'll be inferior caregivers.

And when you talk about interest, would be surprising that the average woman might show more interest in caregiving than the average man in a society that believes that women are better suited to being caregivers?

[Berkut]

Saying that women, in general, are more interested in and better at caregiving in general than men says absolutely nothing about whether men should or should not be caregivers in particular. And it sure as hell isn't saying anything about gay adoption.

But if women are naturally better at caregiving, in general, then aren't you conceding the criticism of gay adoption that it's not right to place a child in a family without a man and a woman. 

If the only variable that went into a couple fitness for parenting where gender, then that would be true.

Conversely, for YOUR claim to be true, it must be the case that gender has NO role whatsoever - that in fact the observed reality that overall women across cultures, time, income levels, and education are consistently more likely to be the primary caregivers is 100% a function of poor resource allocation and screwed up social norms.

Maybe that is true - maybe it is the case that men and women have no biological or mental difference between them when it comes to raising children, and in fact in general either are exactly equally capable and interested in caregiving, and the only reason we observe that women do it at a vastly greater rate than men is totally a figment of every single culture ever being screwed up in the exact same way.

Occams razor suggests that this is not the case however. Common sense suggests that this is not the case. Biology, history, simple science, and basic logical reasoning suggests that if you wish to make that claim, you are going to need some pretty substanital evidence to back it up.

And "Gee, we would like to believe it to be true because it seems ever so much more fair and 'equal' if it were true" is not evidence.
[/quote]


There's a lack of feminine care there which makes - on average, in general terms - a gay couple less able to offer the same level of care as an average, general straight couple.
[/quote]

On average, that might be true. But in reality, there are so many other variables involved that it makes no difference. Not the least of which is that a gay couple that wants a child has already shown probably the most important variable in effective child-rearing. Interest in doing so.

To use your terms it seems like you're saying gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt in general, but perhaps should in particular.

No, acknowledging that women are in fact biologically more suited to being primary caregivers in general means absolutely nothing to the issue of gay adoption, unless you believe that the difference is extreme, which I do not. By far the damage done to society by denying a portion of the population the right to raise children in a equal manner is a much graver concern than trying to measure some particular couples fitenss to raise a child based on their *particular* abilities as caregivers.

It is simply bizarre to me that this discussion has somehow become about gays. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. Kind of weird that you two immediately try to force into that kind of debate.

[derspiess]

Adele is not hot and obviously she's bigger than size 2.  She may be bigger than size 20 FFS.

I tend to sort of go for the type of gal who doesn't fit the conventional definition of beauty.  And I don't mind one with curves, either.   But, eh, no thanks...

[Sheilbh]

Conversely, for YOUR claim to be true, it must be the case that gender has NO role whatsoever - that in fact the observed reality that overall women across cultures, time, income levels, and education are consistently more likely to be the primary caregivers is 100% a function of poor resource allocation and screwed up social norms.

I'm not making a claim.  I'm saying that men and women should be equally able to leave work and become full-time parents - if their circumstances allow - without any social stigma or judgement or poverty shaming.  Similarly if they decide not to there shouldn't be any shaming.  In addition I think that men should be as defined by their roles as a 'father' as women often are as a 'mother'.  As I said I think many househusbands are treated with a sort of wondrous admiration precisely because the perception is that that's not a male role and aren't they wonderful and special for doing it.  In my view the goal should be that that's seen as an entirely normal thing for them to do - that there's nothing special about it, same for a mum who stays at home or who chooses to work.

As it happens I do think men are as a rule equally able to be good full-time parents.

By far the damage done to society by denying a portion of the population the right to raise children in a equal manner is a much graver concern than trying to measure some particular couples fitenss to raise a child based on their *particular* abilities as caregivers.

I look at it from a different perspective.  With adoption there is no right to raise a child.  The state or an adopting agency has, for whatever reason, that child in their care.  They have a duty to find the child a home (which is as close as people get to a right to have a child) and a duty to ensure, as much as possible, that it will be a loving, stable and successful home.  Any policy they have will inevitably be exclusionary.

It is simply bizarre to me that this discussion has somehow become about gays. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. Kind of weird that you two immediately try to force into that kind of debate.

But it does.  If women are better at caring for children for men then it seems appropriate to say that only families that include women should be able to adopt, or that they should be given preference.

And when you talk about interest, would be surprising that the average woman might show more interest in caregiving than the average man in a society that believes that women are better suited to being caregivers?

This is very true as well.

[Berkut]

Gotcha, so we (Meri, Sheilbh and I) weren't really wrong in how we interpreted your post.

Yes, you were completely wrong.

Saying that women, in general, are more interested in and better at caregiving in general than men says absolutely nothing about whether men should or should not be caregivers in particular. And it sure as hell isn't saying anything about gay adoption.

If you say that women are better caregivers in general, how does that not impinge upon particulars?

For the same reason that observing that in general men who are faster make better wide receivers than men who are slower does not mean that every man who is slightly faster is a better wide receiver.

There are a lot of variables that go into what makes a good receiver - speed is an important one, but is often balanced by many others.

Same thing with raising children. Women may tend to be better at it, but since we allow women who clearly suck at it to raise kids anyway, I think we can safely let the men do it as well if they want.

After all, if the average man is worse at caregiving than the average woman, what business does a particular man have being a caregiver unless he is confident that his parenting skills are better than average?

Myabe his skills are better than average?

And what difference does it make anyway?

We let people who suck at raising kids raise kids all the time.

  And similarly, why should a society countenance men who chose to be caregivers? After all, on average they'll be inferior caregivers.

Actually, I would guess that on average, men who *choose* to be caregivers are probably quite a bit better than the average man, and maybe even the average women. You've already selected for a subset that has overcome one of the oprimary hurdles to why men are not as good as women, on average - most men don't care for it.

And when you talk about interest, would be surprising that the average woman might show more interest in caregiving than the average man in a society that believes that women are better suited to being caregivers?

Of course.

And why is it that society believes that women are better caregivers?

Could it be because...they are?

Your argument demands that we accept that nearly every single human society across history, cultures, demographics, languages, religions, etc., etc. - have all gotten it wrong. They've all been mis-allocating resources for all of human history in a manner that actively harms humans ability to survive and procreate by mis-aligning capabilities and responsibilities.

I suppose that is possible. But it seems rather unlikely, and really makes no sense from a biological standpoint. I think it much more likely that in fact women, as a result of simple evolution, are in fact better caregivers in general, simply because it makes biological sense for them to be so. I think you are almost exactly right, except with the exactly wrong stimulus. It is not society that has reinforced the role of women as caregivers, and made women more interested in caregiving, but evolution. You cannot completley separate the two obviously, and we are fortuante that as a species we have reached a point where we can choose to ignore those biological pressures if we so choose. Men do not HAVE to provide for their families in a manner that demands greater physical ability than women possess, and women can provide just as well as men.

So it is a good thing that we can in fact allow men to take the primary caregiver role if that is what they wish, and women to have the flexibility to NOT take that role if that is what THEY wish.

But to pretend that somehow millions of years of evolution can be wiped away because we are so enlightened that we want it to be so is folly.

I know a lot of men, and I know a lot of women, all in my basic age group. All with a few kids. In a few cases, the men in the couple by inclination of simple fisdcal reality are the primary caregivers. But it is a very, very small fraction of the whole. I don't buy the idea that that is completely a fiction of a screwed up society.

[Sheilbh]

I don't find the argument of appealing to all of history convincing because that's the lesson of feminism: society got it wrong.  From Europe and the US, through most of Latin America, the majority of Africa and from the Islamic world to China there's been a historic patriarchy that goes way beyond parenting and into every aspect of a woman's life.  Ultimately they were always subject to her father or her spouse?  Subversion from that rule was socially censured across those societies and that that was wrong.

In response to feminism you could cite 16th century English manuals on huswifery, and the position of women in Ancient Greece.  You'd find support for a conservative view of women's role as much in Saladin's Egypt as in Naguib's, and similarly in India and, from my understanding, most East Asian cultures.  But all of that was wrong and didn't and shouldn't amount to much.

I can understand the conservative argument of learned human experience if what someone's arguing for is a seismic shift - as feminism was - but all we're saying is that men should be equally able to be 'dads' as women are 'mums' and society shouldn't care.

Edit:  As an evolutionary aside I've read that most scientists now think it takes place over the long-term and in sudden spurts over relatively few generations.  But it's a good view of things like political correctness in my view, I'm less racist than my parents and will probably be more racist than any children I have.  I think PC and that sort of thing are trying to speed up evolution over fewer generations.

[Berkut]

Conversely, for YOUR claim to be true, it must be the case that gender has NO role whatsoever - that in fact the observed reality that overall women across cultures, time, income levels, and education are consistently more likely to be the primary caregivers is 100% a function of poor resource allocation and screwed up social norms.

I'm not making a claim.  I'm saying that men and women should be equally able to leave work and become full-time parents - if their circumstances allow - without any social stigma or judgement or poverty shaming.

No argument with me then. I simply noteed that your demand that society treat the issue with indifference was wrong - it IS different, and hence there is no reason to pretend it is not different.

Of course men should be allowed to do so. I think for the most part they are though, aren't they? I know several men who are stay at home dads. I think a couple of them even like it.

Similarly if they decide not to there shouldn't be any shaming.  In addition I think that men should be as defined by their roles as a 'father' as women often are as a 'mother'.

I agree - although those roles are not the same. A father and  a mother are both critically ijportant roles, but they are not the same role.

Going back to the sports analogy, it is like saying that both the quarterback and the running back are important - they both are - but they are not the same, and the same skill sets do not apply to each of them.

  As I said I think many househusbands are treated with a sort of wondrous admiration precisely because the perception is that that's not a male role and aren't they wonderful and special for doing it.

I fail to see the great crime in that. I don't know if they are wonderful and special, but they are relatively unusual.

  In my view the goal should be that that's seen as an entirely normal thing for them to do - that there's nothing special about it, same for a mum who stays at home or who chooses to work.

Meh. I don't think it is entirely 'normal' from a statiscial standpoint, and don't think it is any big dela to notice that. Certainly when I was being a stay at home dad, even hanging out with other stay at home dads we were all pretty much "Damn, this is fucking weird. How in the hell do women do this all the time???"

As it happens I do think men are as a rule equally able to be good full-time parents.

I think that is simply obviously not true - if for no other reason than as a rule men are not as equally interested in being full time parents. And since I think that interest in doing so is a primary indicator of ability in doing so, I don't think ti can possibly follow that in general men can in fact make as good full time parents.

Now, if you are selecting out the fraction of men who in fact do WISH to do so, then you are no longer comparing apples to apples.

By far the damage done to society by denying a portion of the population the right to raise children in a equal manner is a much graver concern than trying to measure some particular couples fitenss to raise a child based on their *particular* abilities as caregivers.

I look at it from a different perspective.  With adoption there is no right to raise a child.

I disagree, I think people should have equal rights to basic human activities. Raising a child is certainly a basic human activity, and barring some *particular* reason to beleive that a couple cannot do so in a fit manner, all couples should have equal opportunities to adopt.

  The state or an adopting agency has, for whatever reason, that child in their care.  They have a duty to find the child a home (which is as close as people get to a right to have a child) and a duty to ensure, as much as possible, that it will be a loving, stable and successful home.  Any policy they have will inevitably be exclusionary.

There is nothing there that precludes them from placing a child with a gay couple, or suggests that they should prefer a straight couple over a gay couple.

It is simply bizarre to me that this discussion has somehow become about gays. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. Kind of weird that you two immediately try to force into that kind of debate.

But it does.  If women are better at caring for children for men then it seems appropriate to say that only families that include women should be able to adopt, or that they should be given preference.

No, that doesn't follow at all.

You might as well say that since in general, people over 30 have higher incomes than people under 30, and people with higher incomes make better parents, so therefore nobody under 30 should be allowed to adopt, even if they can show that in fact they do have higher incomes than the average 30 year old couple.

Your claim makes no sense. In particular, there are many variables that going into fitness to raise a child. The gender of the proposed parents is one variable, and when you have already selected for specific people who want to raise children, that variable is even less consequential.

But all of this is irreelvant to the argument - you are essentially saying something is true because you want it to be true, and you don't care for the implications if it were not true.

I don't agree with you that if my claim is true, then gay couples would make poorer choices than straight when it comes to adoption. But even if I did agree with you, that would not actually refute my claim one bit/

And when you talk about interest, would be surprising that the average woman might show more interest in caregiving than the average man in a society that believes that women are better suited to being caregivers?

This is very true as well.
[/quote]

Right, so we are back to this idea that every single human society for all recorded human history has gotten this wrong, despite incredible pressure to get it right, and in fact all along humans have been poorly allocating precious resources towards survival because...what?

Isn't it more likely that in fact human societies ahve encouraged women to be primary caregivers and men to be primary bread winniers because in fact that was the most optimal structure to ensure survival? And hence the interst in caregiving amongst women is, for the greater part, a result of basic biology that directly selects for women who are interested caregivers, and hence today, even though the environmental reality is that there is no need for that kind of specialization, we are still creatures of our biology, and hence men still, in general, are wired to be praimry resource gatherers, and women are, in general, wired to be primary caregivers?

And yes, society of course reinforces those very tendencies, for obvious reasons. Now, we can certainly argue (and we should) that those environmental imperatives no longer apply, and we should hardly be slaves to them, and we should actively attempt to change societal norms to reflect that.

But we should also recognize that this is NOT simply social pressure, and demand that women become something they are not, or demand that men become something they are not.

[Berkut]

I don't find the argument of appealing to all of history convincing because that's the lesson of feminism: society got it wrong. 

From an anthropological perspective, that is simply not possible.

Societies do not "get it wrong" over tens of thousands of years, and in every single case.

All societies are set up to help ensure the survival of their members. You cannot possibly argue that in a critical aspect of survival (optimal resource allocation) nearly every single human society across all of human history has been wrong in a manner that would result in them non-optimally allocating the very resources that are critical to their own survival.

There are certainly plenty of cases where humans are wrong, and consistently wrong. But in all those cases, you can generally see why being wrong was "right" - why thinking that the earth was flat made sense, or why thinking that other tribes were worthy of enslavement in fact helped them survive. Racism is wrong, but it is easily understood as an anthropological construct. What is the explanation for forcing 50% of the population into non-optimal resource allocation roles, and how does it apply to every single human society throughout all human history?

In this case, you are claiming that men and women are equally capable of being primary caregivers, despite the fact that throughout human history it is always the woman who is the primary caregiver in general. Why is that? What force could create such an error that would actively work against social survival?