Gender Equality Vs. Gender Biology

[DeeryTheDeer]

In these types of topics, I see biology brought up a lot as an excuse for our modern behavior that some view as sexist. For example, people see an ugly old man with a perfect young female, and they get fed up with the "double standards", while others say "Well, that's just biology! Men are naturally more visual than women, and women want a man who can provide". Then there are biological justifications for other double standards, including "player vs slut", being that women have more at stake when they have sex (even though now we have birth control and condoms). Most recently, there are people who have been praising Charlie Sheen while condemning Lindsay Lohan and Amy Winehouse when dealing with similar off the wall behavior. My mind isn't working well enough tonight that I can make the clearest thread, but it boils down to this: Where does "biology" end and "women's rights" begin? Are these arguments valid or false justifications that we've been taught in a patriarchal society? I suppose there's a reason why most societies turned out to be patriarchal in the first place... and why most women have just gone along with it in history.

[Alric]

It isn't that men are naturally more visual than woman. Men date younger woman, because they are better able to have children. And woman date older men because they are better able to defend and provide for the children. Men can continue to produce sperm and can have children into old age, so age isn't a factor. As woman age however, they eventually get to the point where it is harder and harder to produce healthy children til eventually they can no longer have them at all. So for woman, age is a factor. So if you are looking to build a relationship where you will have children, men actually have a valid reason for seeking younger woman. However, if you are just going to have sex for fun and excitement, well that has nothing to do with biology. And usually that is the case with the players and slut things, is they don't want children. And men really do have a responsibly to take care of any children they have. Saying that since it isn't your body that gets pregnant, so it isn't your problem, just doesn't fly in my book. Both people need to take responsibility for there actions. There is nothing wrong with dating people either younger or older than you, and that isn't sexist in any way. People are free to do what they want. People are not animals though, so you can't blame biology if your a slut or a player, people are fully able to control them self, and shouldn't act so irresponsibly.

[Maria92]

We have laws to legislate women's rights. This is much more a matter of beliefs ingrained in society. Really, for the first time in history, women are becoming independent and are on near equal footing with men in terms of what they can and can't do. A massive shift has occurred in a relatively short period of time. Bias and prejudice are things that don't often change in people, so it makes sense that there would be a lag between laws and popular public opinion. It wasn't until the 60's or so that women started to gain equal footing. It wasn't until 1972 that the ERA passed both houses of Congress before ultimately stalling in the ratification process. The post-WWII baby boom happened before this, and so a massive chunk of the population that grew up in a time when women were far from equal are just now middle age. A shift in societal expectations and values will take time. There are elements of truth to the men-are-visual-and-women-are-emotional thing, but I can tell you that the ugly man/pretty woman relationships are not founded in romance. He wants someone pretty to screw, and she wants his vast fortune. The reverse can also happen, but is less common. Also, Charlie Sheen is an idiot. So are Lohan and Winehouse. Gender serves as no buffer for sheer stupidity. I view promiscuous women and men the same way.

[DeeryTheDeer]

It isn't that men are naturally more visual than woman. Men date younger woman, because they are better able to have children. And woman date older men because they are better able to defend and provide for the children. Men can continue to produce sperm and can have children into old age, so age isn't a factor. As woman age however, they eventually get to the point where it is harder and harder to produce healthy children til eventually they can no longer have them at all. So for woman, age is a factor. That's not true. Sure, men still produce sperm until they die, but the older a man gets, the weaker the sperm, and the weaker genetics in his sperm. This obviously isn't good for healthy, ideal offspring. However, if you are just going to have sex for fun and excitement, well that has nothing to do with biology. Pardon? Nobody would be having sex if they didn't think it was fun and exciting. That's a direct mental reward from biology, like eating and sleeping. Our media is swamped by this attitude about sex. We have laws to legislate women's rights. This is much more a matter of beliefs ingrained in society. Really, for the first time in history, women are becoming independent and are on near equal footing with men in terms of what they can and can't do. A massive shift has occurred in a relatively short period of time. Bias and prejudice are things that don't often change in people, so it makes sense that there would be a lag between laws and popular public opinion. It wasn't until the 60's or so that women started to gain equal footing. It wasn't until 1972 that the ERA passed both houses of Congress before ultimately stalling in the ratification process. The post-WWII baby boom happened before this, and so a massive chunk of the population that grew up in a time when women were far from equal are just now middle age. A shift in societal expectations and values will take time. There are elements of truth to the men-are-visual-and-women-are-emotional thing, but I can tell you that the ugly man/pretty woman relationships are not founded in romance. He wants someone pretty to screw, and she wants his vast fortune. The reverse can also happen, but is less common. Also, Charlie Sheen is an idiot. So are Lohan and Winehouse. Gender serves as no buffer for sheer stupidity. I view promiscuous women and men the same way. That's a very well put post. I was talking about how other people excuse Charlie Sheen or glorify his activities, not you (although that's probably not the case anymore, he's getting over the top now). We're always progressing, but it is disquieting that the GOP is not only trying to obliterate the right to an abortion, but they're also trying to redefine rape. That seems like many steps backwards for legislating equality, although I'm not sure they'll succeed.

[DrunkenArse]

That's not true. Sure, men still produce sperm until they die, but the older a man gets, the weaker the sperm, and the weaker genetics in his sperm. This obviously isn't good for healthy, ideal offspring. That's relevant only in proportion (possibly not linear) to the time spent by males, in the ancestral environment, creating new offspring that they could have used raising offspring from earlier in their life. There's still a chance, albeit smaller, that children of older men will reproduce and pass on whatever genes (statistically) cause men to want to reproduce into old age. So if that likelyhood is, say, 1/2, then it still pays more to have three children later in life than one early on. And that's assuming that you can't do both.

[Alric]

People would have sex even if it was boring, just so they could reproduce. However that is besides the point. My point was, if you are having sex for fun, a persons ability to have children has nothing to do with it. Men might have more difficulty having children at old age, but it is nothing like woman. A man can continue having children into his 60's without any trouble, while woman have a very set deadline. Usually woman start having trouble around 40. Also you are comparing weaker genetics, with utterly incapable.

[Saturos]

Regarding the whole, player/slut thing, and how men are congratulated for having lots of sex, and women are looked down upon for it, I think that it really just comes down to the challenge of it. A hot girl can go up to basically any guy and ask if they want to have sex, and most guys will say yes. However, if a man does that, then he will likely be slapped across the face or laughed at. So I don't really consider it a double standard. It's like if there are two people, and one has food brought to them whenever they want, and they gorge themselves. Most people would call them a glutton. Now, the second person is starving, so he goes out and scavenges a large amount of food and eats it. People will likely not call him a glutton because he had to work for his food. I know it's not exactly the same thing, but it works in a very similar way.

[Philosopher8659]

First of all, a mind is not defined by gender. Gender is only one's givens. Otherwise, mind = mind. The problem is not in the logic, it is those who cannot use it.

[Alric]

Personally I think it is pretty nasty to sleep with some random stranger who offers you sex. It doesn't matter how hot she might be. That is probably a great way to get some kind of STD though. I don't think I would go so far as to say most men are willing to sleep with any hot girl that walks by, though I am sure it is fairly common.

[Arra]

Regarding the whole, player/slut thing, and how men are congratulated for having lots of sex, and women are looked down upon for it, I think that it really just comes down to the challenge of it. A hot girl can go up to basically any guy and ask if they want to have sex, and most guys will say yes. However, if a man does that, then he will likely be slapped across the face or laughed at. So I don't really consider it a double standard. It's like if there are two people, and one has food brought to them whenever they want, and they gorge themselves. Most people would call them a glutton. Now, the second person is starving, so he goes out and scavenges a large amount of food and eats it. People will likely not call him a glutton because he had to work for his food. I know it's not exactly the same thing, but it works in a very similar way. Thanks for bringing that point up. I'd never thought about it before. I don't know if that explanation explains the 'bias' entirely, but it might explain it at least a bit, and is worth considering.

[DeeryTheDeer]

You guys are only talking about hot girls, though... what about average or unattractive girls? Do they even have the ghost of a chance even if they directly asked for it? And I doubt any woman would turn down sex from a guy that was hot. Again, you don't describe how hot the guy is, but you assume the girl is hot.

[Jeff777]

You guys are only talking about hot girls, though... what about average or unattractive girls? Do they even have the ghost of a chance even if they directly asked for it? Though a vagina is a vagina, most guys talk to their friends about banging hot girls to receive the reward of acceptance and respect. What they won't tell their friends about are the "average" or "unattractive" girls that they've banged because there's no social rewards to be gained from it. In fact, doing so could harm the males social standing among his male peers. And I doubt any woman would turn down sex from a guy that was hot. Sooo you're saying that just because a guy is hot that a girl will mindlessly fuck him? Sorry but I've gotten my fair share of rejections (gotta love self-confidence :). I disagree with this. It really comes down to opportunity/cost. The possible opportunity of having sex with him (rewards gained) versus the potential cost of doing so (feeling like a slut, being labeled as one etc.). The slut/whore binary has been firmly established by society to punish a woman for sleeping around. Therefore MOST women require a certain level of trust to be stocked in the male before the commencement of headboard banging.

[Jeff777]

Just some additional thoughts: Men are naturally polygamous and are encouraged to sleep with as many women as possible. The alpha male. Women are more of the "nesting" type since engaging in sex means she's taking on a higher risk than a male ie pregnancy, slut/whore binary. Therefore she's more selective with who she wants to sleep with. What's important to women is a man's ability to provide for her, "the nest", and his ability to produce healthy children and be a great parent. That can be summed up with a few things. A woman cares about a man's good looks and his pocketbook. Secondary is his parental capabilities. This information she receives by doing dumb shit sometimes like giving him something to take care of.. a plant, an animal or something else. But most of the time, her thoughts on his parental capabilities is gained by how he treats her and how he communicates with others. This is why rich men have no problems getting laid and why there are stories of women who secretly bring medicine droppers into the bedroom. =/ Women who are younger feel as if they have time on their side so they're generally attracted to the bad boy type. These women seek are seeking out alpha males to turn them into beta males. As they age, they seek stability and want the male I described above because they realize time is ticking and their eggs aren't getting any fresher.

[DeeryTheDeer]

Sooo you're saying that just because a guy is hot that a girl will mindlessly fuck him? Sorry but I've gotten my fair share of rejections (gotta love self-confidence :). I disagree with this. It really comes down to opportunity/cost. The possible opportunity of having sex with him (rewards gained) versus the potential cost of doing so (feeling like a slut, being labeled as one etc.). The slut/whore binary has been firmly established by society to punish a woman for sleeping around. Therefore MOST women require a certain level of trust to be stocked in the male before the commencement of headboard banging. I read an article about a study that suggested women are more likely to sleep with a man if she's going to gain anything from it. In short... if he's actually going to make HER orgasm, not if he's just using her as a random hole for his pleasure. That's what irks me about the "vagina is a vagina" thing. Also, it seems like from how men talk, huge boobs are a crucial part of sex, if not MORE important than the vagina or anything else.

[Jeff777]

I read an article about a study that suggested women are more likely to sleep with a man if she's going to gain anything from it. In short... if he's actually going to make HER orgasm, not if he's just using her as a random hole for his pleasure. That's what irks me about the "vagina is a vagina" thing. Also, it seems like from how men talk, huge boobs are a crucial part of sex, if not MORE important than the vagina or anything else. They're not called "fun bags" for nothing. But then again every guy has their ideal breast size limit (as I'm sure every woman has their ideal cock size limit).

[spockman]

Personally, breast size doesn't really matter. Not to say there aren't other things I consider in a woman, though. I mean if I am not attracted to someone it isn't going to work. And evidence seems to suggest that we have very limited control over what we are attracted to. To the root question, as far as gender biology goes, I researched this for a little while. Read quite a few papers. Looked into some journals. The only things I was able to firmly conclude were: A. Men are typically larger and stronger then women, including a somewhat larger brain, (though no evidence I read was able to conclusively link the size difference in the brain to any difference in intelligence.) B. The mathematical/spatial thinking areas of the male brain are more developed than the females. C. The social areas of the female brain are more developed. D. Female left and right hemispheres of the brain are better connected than a male's, leading to, (on average,) better multi-tasking and possibly an ability to 'put two and two together' whereas mean lean more towards single-mindedness. I found nothing to prove men had a significantly higher sex drive as is often accepted, (even though there could be solid evidence out there saying so,) and I found nothing solid on differences concerning ambition or career goals, (as some sources suggest women are more rarely seen in corporate positions because they have less of a desire.) Of course, my studies were purely out of personal interest and although four years of policy debate did hone my ability to find good evidence/know when to trust sources better than many, my conclusions are far from professional. But it is what I found, so here are my findings Deery. /: