space_raptor wrote:You're telling me you think the differences between men and women are all in how they are raised? No "nature", just nurture? Genes got nothing to do with it?
I think the human mind and the human body are both incredibly malleable, that our instincts are not as strong as people like to imagine they are, and that the biggest differences between men and women are in the hormones. Meaning the biggest thing, biologically, that it is to be "male" is to be violent and impulsive. Luckily, going back to that "incredibly malleable" thing, we can choose to overcome that.
Solt wrote:I won't start the statistics and evidence game because I really don't have time right now. Though I will mention that only 10% of engineers in the US are women, and only 6% of mechanical engineers. And this is almost a century out from the women's rights movement. Is this partly due to discrimination against women? Certainly. But it just so happens that boys and girls take math and science in high school in equal proportions these days, and MORE women go to college than men- discrimination simply cannot account for the small presence of women in engineering. I bring up engineering because in modern times a lot of the big achievements associated with masculinity are related to engineering and the sciences.
You're right. It isn't just that women are outright discriminated against. It's that they're taught to be bad at math, to be weak, to be stupid. The women's rights movement gave them the *right* not to be these things, but it will be quite some time before the effects of the social conditioning behind the legal reality also dies away.
But the social conditioning is a good thing, right?
Solt wrote:We would not have had as many wars- you can't deny that wars have been critically important in advancing the state of humanity to where it is today. We would not have done a lot of things that we did for intangible reasons- like fund the Apollo Missions, or the American revolution. These points are meant to say nothing of any shortfalls in women, but rather to point out those events which were carried out, presumably, in the context of the same ideals which masculinity stands for.
So what you're saying is that women lack principles, curiousity, and backbone. But you don't mean to insult them or anything? It's okay, because only men are supposed to have those? Interesting.
Courage, strength, knowledge, logic, ambition. These are all things that are associated with manliness and I don't see how you can encourage these values without that context.
But I wonder, then, why you would value logic unless you were a scientist? If you would find strength and the courage to stand up for yourself (both physically and politically) a relevant trait? If you would be fine with allowing a base instinct like emotion to rule your life?
Then you are, in my estimation, shortsighted, unimaginative, pessimistic, and a little bit...off.
Pardon my saying so.
Are you telling me you can't see the value of any of those traits, if they don't somehow validate your dick?
Are you saying you can't see encouraging those things by teaching them as good qualities for people as opposed to men?
Yes, masculinity has been used as a motivating factor, insofar as it was considered, for much of human history, to be *better* than femininity. Keeping oneself above the feminine became a motivating factor. Hold the woman down to push the man up.
It doesn't speak well of us as a race, that even one of our paragons, the mahatma himself, had to motivate his people with fear of the feminine. "Guys, they're doing worse than enslaving us and taking away our freedom, they're turning us into ::gasp-shock-horror:: women!" "Oh shit, India, now it's serious!"
It's not a pretty impulse. I have a hard time seeing why you're glorifying it. Unless misogyny is supposed to be one of those lauded masculine traits that are pushing us forward as a people.