On the topic of biological differences?

Question

It's been batted around here and elsewhere fairly frequently that gender roles and double standards are justified by the biological differences between men and women. There are, after all, clearly significant structural and hormonal differences between the average man and the average woman, so, to paraphrase one recent advocate of this idea, 'why object to being treated differently when we so clearly ARE different?'

Obvious counterpoints from the racial civil rights movement aside, I've noticed that many of these terribly important 'differences' that such people use to justify gender roles are also found, with striking similarity, between people of significantly different heights. Tall people, after all, are usually better suited to physical tasks and hand-to-hand combat than short people (with longer reach, proportionately greater strength, and greater speed, the difference in physical capability between the average people separated by ten inches in height is easily greater than that between the average man and woman), and with height a genetically-controlled biological result of exposure to growth hormone and other pituitary secretions, even the hormonal difference between people of different heights could be argued to dwarf that of people of different sexes.

Also analogously, many competitive sports tend to be dominated by people in a certain height range, and certain positions very clearly lend the advantage to the tallest person out there - there are areas where height actually matters to the performance of a task, and it's reflected in places where people compete for the job of performing that task. And, there are more subtle advantages for people based on height - many a study has suggested that the confidence, and perhaps unconscious respect, afforded to tall people gives them slight advantages in applications where height wouldn't immediately seem like a factor.


So, mostly aimed at the "we are different, so why not have gender roles" people, would you support a cultural trend of extending much of what are currently gender roles to people of different heights (i.e. beyond the obvious consequences of the physical differences, and into wide-spanning cultural expectations, such as protective and submissive attitudes, paying for group activities, competitive versus collaborative culture, etc.)? Or would this be a case where we can recognize that individuals are different in some certain ways, but where it's silly to extend this to unrelated elements of behavior and expectation?

Answer 1

Exacly! there isnt a job that man can do that a women cant! these men arent willing to move beyond there cavemen days which is sad. You are capable of understanding that biological differences do not incapacitate women from doing jobs these days which are dependent on the capacity to use brains. which is why we dont want to lose you to the antifeminist camp!

Answer 2

Most of the differences between the races are skin deep. Biologically speaking we're all pretty much the same aside from the differences already mentioned. Black people have a lower average IQ, but this is taken into account when IQ tests are administered. This difference is likely to be more culturally based than anything else. Some black people (especially of Kenyan/Ethiopian descent) also have a different shaped ankle to white people, which helps with their running abilities-watch a marathon and see how many of the leading men are white compared to black. I guess what we're all trying to say is that we're all pretty similar when you get down to it and any differences are minor, certainly not anything to make any one race superior to another in general. In specific areas such as running yes, but since when has the ability to run fast for a long time meant you're the best at everything?

Answer 3

No. Gender roles have very little importance and should not be followed for the most part.



Not every job requires superior physical strength. Not every man fits the macho category. Of course men and women may have different needs physically, and those needs should be addressed but gender roles can get in the way of being productive, or meeting needs of individuals.



a question i asked could be related to this. an answer explains why labels can be bad, and labels can also be associated with stereotypes and gender roles.

Answer 4

I think, perhaps, that you, or who you are referring to, are applying the whole to individual parts... or individual issues.

It may seem, albeit structural differences, that there is still a cultural construct... at what level, we will never know.



Are the structural differences a manifestation of prior social constructs?



What may seem apparently inherent, may in fact be a part of history; what is not absolute or inherent?



Is a dichotomy between nature and nurture truly representative of existence, or are we simply reifying our own perception---creating ideological groups who are tilting at windmills;

The journeyman Hyde Park ramblings of rotundity.



Is there an actual answer? If there is an actual answer, yet we do not know the answer, does the answer actually exist(Is the existence of an answer parasitic to the answer being able to be known)?

Answer 5

See, that's why I wanna be taller.



Good point, anyway. But what I think it matters more than just physical differences (take the strongest and the weakest person in the world, if they're mentally the same I couldn't care less about the difference between them) are the existing psychological differences between men and women, which are in turn based on some physiological differences too. For example, the corpus callosum (the part of the brain connecting the left and right hemispheres) is thicker in women, which explains the greater interference of their reasoning with their emotions. This difference impacts our life more than height would (of course, within normal limits).



As for your analogy, height matters mainly in sports, while our way of thinking affects our whole life. Of course, the fact that women are *on average* more emotional than men (for instance) shouldn't be generalized, because that's not true for everyone. But yeah, I do think that there is some scientific basis for all these stereotypes. I used to think there isn't, but then school started and I met with girls again and saw that many completely matched the feminine stereotype and seemed to enjoy their gender roles very much. It's not just observational selection, that's true for almost every woman I ever heard about.

Answer 6

I'm not a "we are different, so why not have gender roles" person



I'm more a "we are different, so stop complaining when we fullfill gender roles that aren't even forced on us"



ie that women earn less, do more childcare, are raped and domestically abused more.



These aren't valid complaints when talking about fairness of society, because they are rooted in biological differences, and there is nothing we can do about them.



Are you really going to tell me that the gender which carries the baby for 9 months doing more childcare is because of sexist gender roles?



I don't believe in enforcing gender roles. That would be stupid. Complaining about that they explain the way things are is just stupid though. Trying to unnaturally "correct" such situations is sexist.



ie imagine if women ever commit domestic violence on men as much as men do on men. It will show that society is incredibly sexist against men, and disproportionatley hateful of men because women just naturally have less opportunity to do this. Could you imagine how much more prone to pray on weakness women would have to be for that to happen?



It's similar to women earning as much as men. If they do, then men are actually earning less ( in terms of fairness) and WAY underachieving, because we do less childcare, and have less commitment elsewhere to children. If men are earning less, its because they are way under encouaged compared to females.



ie women achieve better in school, but still earn less, especially later on in life. You can say it's because of sexism or gender roles all you like (as feminist will), but no-one forces women to earn less, have children etc.



Getting women to earn as much would be like getting men to have equal custody of children, soceity wide- It could only be done through unfair means.

Answer 7

I think any such weaponry is crual and unusual punishment against human beings.

Answer 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NvgLkuEtkA





...for the subject of "certain height ranges." This song ruffled a few "little" feathers in 1978.



But, you're right.

Answer 9

I disagree with your second paragraph when it comes to hand to hand combat, I've seen a 5'9" man weighing 200 pounds smash the hell out of a 300 pound 6'5" man. Both trained in hand to hand combat, one just had superior technique.



Taller people generally have greater potential, but not necessarily greater application.



The last paragraph is also too ambiguous to give a concise answer too.

Give an example so I can answer this.



And think Rugby, Scrum halves are almost always under 6 foot, often about 5'7 or less. That is for a reason.



I don't expect to play a position I have the wrong build for in a sport so this already exists.

Answer 10

Gender differences are a natural division among people in my opinion. But treating people differently according to height? I'm tall and I don't want to be told I'm expected to do this or pay for that because I am. Classifying someone as having more confidence or expecting them to have submissive or protective qualities because they are short, medium height or tall is just really out there. My ex-husband was 6'8" and might as have well been 5 foot for all the characteristics he had attributed to tall, physically dominant people. Tall people can reach higher, yay.

Answer 11

In Theory

I Concur



Thus Far



In Rhetorical Practice

As Observed To Date



This Barrow Will Probably Be Pushed

In A Direction I Will Find Unpalatable



Good Luck

Answer 12

For the record any gender roles I would support have much less to do with physical differences (although in certain cases it would make sense to base them on this) as much as it is emotional and intellectual differences. I would even be willing to compromise and say historical social conditioning plays a part. As an example, I think MOST women are less likely to take responsibility for themselves and show personal accountability then MOST men. Now, this could be caused by one of several differences:



1) Their physical bodies - doubtful

2) Their emotional make-up - perhaps that are more emotionally high strung and more personalize criticism, even legitimate ones.

3) Social conditioning - maybe they are equally capable of performing at the level of men, but know they generally can get away with falling far short of the mark with little to no consequence so they do out of convenience and ease



Why they don't do it is of little concern. The fact that they consistently display this behavior is the real crux of the matter to me. Like most things in life, it's the bottom line, performance based results that matter.



To use a sports analogy: If I was starting a basketball team, it would behoove me to have guys that are taller, rather then shorter for the center position, due to the demands of the positon. (blocking shots, rebounding, inside scoring) These things are much better accomplished by an even below average very large man then an incredibly talented 5 foot person.



The problem with movements like feminism is they want to redefine postions (that works best a certain way) to fit and confrom what works for THEM. It would be akin to defining our hypothetical basketball center postion as being suitable for a very short person (since a woman is short) It totally disregards the job requirements and waters them down to the point of ridiculousness.



Now if a woman is capable of meeting the original requirements, more power to her. Unfortunately, in many cases, it would require an extrodinary woman indeed, and they are loathe to admit it.

Answer 13

The biological differences only come into play in bed. Otherwise, salaries, and opportunity, political offices, have nothing to do with it. Being tall is handy if you want to intimidate.

Answer 14

Thank you for making this point. It demonstrates the inherent bias and hypocrisy in the "we're different, so it's justifiable" crowd.



You alluded to this in mentioning the Civil Rights Movement, but I think it's important to make the point that the SAME argument was used to justify slavery and segregation.