You have it backwards. If you think there are no natural difference between men and women you better bring a mountain of evidence.

Strong claims require strong evidence. I did not make any outrageous claim.

It would be incredibly surprising if men and women were identical in every aspect except for their reproductive body parts

Just consider the difference in selection pressure that men and women face.

I have no problem with the possibility that men and women are different. What's unjustified is, given the powerful effect of culture on behaviour, someone making offhand claims that they know what differences are natural.

I read "natural difference between men and women that are implicitly understood by people" as saying that what's "implicitly" (i.e. commonly) understood as to be the natural differences is correct. Because what has been "implicitly" understood has differed substantially across time and cultures, that's a highly suspect claim that requires a matching degree of evidence.

Furthermore, just the long and loud history of people spouting off absolute bullshit about what women are and aren't is, by itself, enough to demand significant evidence for any positive statements of what's natural or not.

>Also, if you're going to say things like "natural difference between men and women that are implicitly understood by people" (down thread), you're going to have to bring some double-blind, peer-reviewed evidence.

Millenia of history is a kind of evidence. And the main answer back is "this history is the history of an oppression". Which doesn't even go to why would (all things being equal) one gender get to be the oppressor and the other always the oppressed within the same society, and with the same population numbers on each side (e.g. we're not talking about slaves captured via force here).

Natural differences are things like 'mean height', and the ability to get pregnant.

It is quite reasonable that past societies divided labor based on suitability of physical capacities for different tasks. It wouldn't be reasonable to call this 'oppression' per se.

However the structure of roles human societies has always been mediated by the level of technology. Gender divisions of labor, class and caste systems etc, have always shifted when the technological structure of production and warfare have changed as technology has developed.

Reinforcing roles that were developed in a less advanced technological society but are not necessary in the present landscape is most certainly oppression, as is resisting thought that could lead to more freedom for groups you don't belong to.

Think about that history affected our biology (due to evolution). Consider the case with food. We now have an abundance of food rich with carbs and fats, but if we eat too much of them we get sick, because our bodies were designed with certain assumptions about environment. In this case, or natural environment.

Wouldn't the same be applicable to our social environment?

Also, technology is not permanent. Consider what would happen if society collapsed for whatever reason.

>Also, technology is not permanent. Consider what would happen if society collapsed for whatever reason.

Plus, "just because technology enables it" is never enough reason for anything.

"Just because it was this way in the past" is an even worse reason for anything,

Actually that's a very good reason, if not the best one.

Having been that way in the past means it's already tried. And if it has been carried on, it means it has passed the test, and it has proven useful. It also means its not fickle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect

https://medium.com/incerto/an-expert-called-lindy-fdb30f146e...

Nope. All it tell you is that it has been tried and it works for whoever is in power. Any kind of oppression that works, can therefore be justified this way, including slavery and genocide.

Just because something works, does not mean it is good to do. And in fact, having seen the undesirable effects of a practice may provide all the reason need for discontinuing it in favor of an untried practice.

You are simply arguing against the development of society.

So women should be kept in outdated gender roles in case society collapses?

At least it's clear what kind of logic you are using.

Note that the qualification "outdated" has been added by you, not the parent.

One could have easily said "evergreen" or "tried and true" or "resilient" roles.

Also not being reliant on what's enabled by the available technology for major choices is more than about "being prepared in case society collapses".

For one, technology is neutral, it can enable all kinds of things, including things that are bad for society. What should be going should be a cultural/ethical/etc discussion, not a knee-jerk adoption of any new available option.

Not saying that this is the case here, but there's more to being logical than your critique of the parent.

If you want to make the case that the gender roles are not outdated, be my guest.

The parent brought up the idea of society collapsing. Not me. If you have something to add please do, otherwise you are just kicking up dust.

There has been a cultural/ethical discussion going on and a great many people decided that gender roles needed to change. If you 'aren't saying that's what happened here' how is your comment relevant?

All you have attempted to do here is add doubt without adding substance or logic of your own. If you can actually argue your position, go ahead, but engaging in this kind undermining suggests that not only can you not, you are aware of it.

Your other comments on this topic show that your suggestion that you are merely trying to point out that my logic isn't as strong as it could be is a misrepresentation of your view.