Colossus
Master Don Juan
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2005
- Messages
- 3,505
- Reaction score
- 547
I have been reflecting on this article a bit.
While Baumeister's synthesis certainly makes for an interesting read, it's not altogether novel, and like many career academics he makes the sort of sweeping, nebulous generalizations that I detest.
I agree with much of what he said--particularly his point about how men are given to extremes, and how this accounts for many of the accepted "inequities" between gender that modern statistics suggest.
What I disagree with is his hypothesis that ability is more or less equal across gender, and that it is more often a question of motivation rather than one sex being better at something than the other.
If you think about it, this is rubbish. In certain academic areas I can accept the evidence that ability IS more or less equal. Girls generaly dont care for physics and boys generally dont care for english literature. It's a question of interest rather than ability. The reason why there arent that many female physics professors is likely just that--women in general just dont LIKE physics.
But--and this is my editorial here--I'm not going to sit here and swallow some modernist b.s. that the reason why men have been behind the development of all significant scientific, cultural, ecomnomic, and political advancements is purely attributable to social motivations rather than ability. I firmly believe that men are better at some things than women, and likewise women are better at some things than men. Further, I dont think this is entirely because of cultural conditioning. Each sex has innate abilities that the other does not.
The reason why men would rather conquer than coddle children is multifactorial: 1) biologically speaking, we are physically suited for labor, battle, defense, and attack. Women are not. 2) Cognitively we are hardwired for it. Men think and make decisions rationally, are less given to compassion and empathy, and are emotionally better equipped to make tough, fast decisions. 3) As naturally follows with innate ability, we LIKE to strive, to build, and to conquer.
I'm not saying there isnt a cultural element to gender roles, but I think it is a rather small piece of the pie when we are talking about things as different as raising children and building empires.
I understand what he is saying about how most cultures are structured in a way that makes the men are realtively expendable while women are protected in order to preserve the biological imperative of propagating the next generation. This is really an example of culture conforming to biology, rather than the species evolving to meet culture.
I guess what bothered me is he portrayed men as these pawns who serve some larger existential purpose while women are these lovable, sweet creatures who got the soft end of the evolutionary deal. He gave no credit to men's hard work, our provisioning to these sweet women, or that perhaps our desire to succeed and reach greatness is innate rather than some conditioned function to serve women and culture.
While Baumeister's synthesis certainly makes for an interesting read, it's not altogether novel, and like many career academics he makes the sort of sweeping, nebulous generalizations that I detest.
I agree with much of what he said--particularly his point about how men are given to extremes, and how this accounts for many of the accepted "inequities" between gender that modern statistics suggest.
What I disagree with is his hypothesis that ability is more or less equal across gender, and that it is more often a question of motivation rather than one sex being better at something than the other.
If you think about it, this is rubbish. In certain academic areas I can accept the evidence that ability IS more or less equal. Girls generaly dont care for physics and boys generally dont care for english literature. It's a question of interest rather than ability. The reason why there arent that many female physics professors is likely just that--women in general just dont LIKE physics.
But--and this is my editorial here--I'm not going to sit here and swallow some modernist b.s. that the reason why men have been behind the development of all significant scientific, cultural, ecomnomic, and political advancements is purely attributable to social motivations rather than ability. I firmly believe that men are better at some things than women, and likewise women are better at some things than men. Further, I dont think this is entirely because of cultural conditioning. Each sex has innate abilities that the other does not.
The reason why men would rather conquer than coddle children is multifactorial: 1) biologically speaking, we are physically suited for labor, battle, defense, and attack. Women are not. 2) Cognitively we are hardwired for it. Men think and make decisions rationally, are less given to compassion and empathy, and are emotionally better equipped to make tough, fast decisions. 3) As naturally follows with innate ability, we LIKE to strive, to build, and to conquer.
I'm not saying there isnt a cultural element to gender roles, but I think it is a rather small piece of the pie when we are talking about things as different as raising children and building empires.
I understand what he is saying about how most cultures are structured in a way that makes the men are realtively expendable while women are protected in order to preserve the biological imperative of propagating the next generation. This is really an example of culture conforming to biology, rather than the species evolving to meet culture.
I guess what bothered me is he portrayed men as these pawns who serve some larger existential purpose while women are these lovable, sweet creatures who got the soft end of the evolutionary deal. He gave no credit to men's hard work, our provisioning to these sweet women, or that perhaps our desire to succeed and reach greatness is innate rather than some conditioned function to serve women and culture.
