I’m not that old yet but feminism to me growing up was always that men and women should have the same opportunities and treatment, but never that they were the same. Maybe I’m wrong but that’s more of a recent phenomenon which claimed for itself the title of feminism - I doubt the original feminists would agree with it, but I don’t know. (I find it sad because to me it’s turned a serious movement for which very brave women had to fight hard into a joke.)

1) men and women become more equal;

2) the remaining reasons for inequality become predominantly biological (because the social ones are reduced, while the biological ones remain).

But it is easy to make a completely opposite conclusion, such as: "if some differences are social, then all differences have to be social". And then, when trying harder does not change things anymore, it is only a proof that we need to try even harder.

My take is: don't describe things as biological unless you are damn well sure that they are. We (as a society) have been wrong too many times before.

(And similarly, this doesn't prove that everything is genetic. You can't get science by merely doing the opposite of other people's prejudices.)

The belief that nothing is genetic can also be used to oppress people. For example, you can dismiss highly intelligent people from poor families by insisting that high intelligence doesn't really exist and everything comes from universities, and then pointing out how poor people usually don't come from the best universities.

Any kind of incorrect belief can be strategically used to hurt someone.

This is still true today, to a certain extent (never is a heavy word). It's important to understand that Feminism isn't some authoritarian philosophy with a single set of ideas that you must subscribe to consider yourself a Feminist. Sure, some Feminists challenge gender essentialism in one way or another, but that doesn't mean all do or that it is a critical part of Feminism. The best way to learn is to talk to some local political groups.

What you're seeing there is an effect of the internet, not an effect of shifts in feminist movements. The internet gives everyone a place to speak which is great but the loudest/most astonishing/most disruptive voices are the ones that come out on top. Not the majority, not the thoughtful, not the ones who take action, not the voices who would like to have a conversation. If you dive past the surface I don't think you'd find modern feminism a joke and think that it has grown and matured. But I'm just one opinion

What we're looking at here is a bit more complicated; the modern situation (not just feminism but a number of different position groups) wants to downplay the existence of actual differences between the sexes. This seems partly motivated by existing, bad/biased science, and partly by the worry that if women and men are physically different, that people will use that as a basis for discrimination. I do see a bit of what appears to be science denialism amongst the "there is no male brain or female brain" crowd, which I find worrisome. Ultimately, I am with the second-wave feminists: people deserve equal opportunities regardless of their differences.

The right not to be grabbed or groped or touched without consenting, to be evaluated on ability to do the work and not on appearance, to have supervisors and coworkers focused on working together and not on how to date you.

These are all issues disproportionately impacting women, that are not requests for "equality of outcome" or that men and women are the same, and very much critical to addressing "equality of opportunity".

On the one hand we have women in Iran facing real dangers to take off their veils. Then on the other we have this strange group that deny science and demand we believe men and women are identical. I also reject this pattern where women should measure and compare themselves to men, and shape themselves into men. Which seems very anti-feminist. You're fine to do it, but to label that feminist is (I believe) wrong.

That men are raised with the social expectation to not find problem and to not let something impact them is not to say that women are impacted more by it. With reference to non-consensual encounters, there is a great deal of bias that refuses to see men as victims and even encourages them to see being the victim as a beneficial event for them.

But I would be very surprised if the overall number of men experiencing non-consensual touching was greater than the number of women.

There are also numerous self reports by bouncers in bars that point out how bad it gets and the extent of the double standard.

Or consider the case of celebrities openly admitting to such crimes of recent and the vast difference in social reaction based on the gender of the celebrity.

Interesting. I've never really got the impression that Men's Rights Activists ascribe to any specific notion like that. To me the movement seems to be about shedding light on the injustices of our legal systems where men get screwed over: divorce court, custody of a child, alimony, punishments seemingly not being equal between the sexes. I guess they also have an element of fighting against social injustices such as false claims.

I might be wrong though. I might simply be seeing only the things I care about in their movement, since I see it so rarely.

In the end it doesn't matter if either movement has bad apples. What matter is if we want a society that make abortion illegal or a legal system that base judgement on gender.

I actually like this line a lot, because it points to several of the problems in modern society. It makes you ask the question: "on what grounds is worth judged?"

And then you realize that, without a clear way of thinking about "worth" (which is something organized religions provided), we, at least in the US, fall back on "economic value", which is determined by "aptitude". So we can pretty quickly see the philosophical pit we've fallen into: if "worth" and "aptitude" are intertwined, then the statement admits women are indeed "worth less".

I want to agree with that statement. But, there's a problem: how can we come up with a method of judging worth that doesn't rely on some sort of "over-human validator" (e.g. God)? Or alternatively, how can we come up with a broadly acceptable method of judging human worth, without falling into the pitfalls of Abrahamic religious practices?

Our brains are pretty well built for this. Are you sure that requiring human-type validation is even avoidable at all?

Who's asking you to "expect" anything? I think if you assess people's abilities individually everybody's happy.

Well, James Damore got fired from Google (and, apparently, blackballed out of the employment market entirely) for insinuating that Google was assessing people's abilities individually. While I think you're correct, the problem is that too many people seem to try to evaluate whether or not everybody's abilities are being assessed individually by looking at the end result rather than looking at the individuals involved.

It doesn't look like it. A lot of people in science are demanding equality of outcomes for groups (when the outcome is positive). They are well done pass asking for equality of opportunities.

The idea of being equal in worth is interesting. How do you define it? Is it a kind of humanitarian worth? That all people are deserving of basic rights, decency and respect? Such would be the case even for handicapped or mentally challenged individuals? Or are you saying that their set of aptitudes, while not identical, sum up to an equal worth in utilitarian terms? Say, for example, taking one of the very strong stereotype, that child bearing is so useful to our societies, that it makes women as worthy as even the strongest of men and their aptitude for heavy lifting?

Now, the idea of equal aptitude is relevant as well. There's two main reasons for that. The first is that, some aptitudes, like intelligence, such as talents in mathematics, or decision making in general, has historically been thought of as inferior for women. Yet, there's never been evidence of this as far as I know. In fact, now that we admitted women in higher education, they are out outclassing men in most fields when it comes to grades. So this is a very relevant debate, because bias still exist, that a pretty young woman can't be as smart as a young man.

The other reason is the wash of the average. Lots of women are physically stronger then lots of men. Similarly, lots of men are emotionally more adept then lots of women. Thus aptitude shouldn't be characterised by gender, but it should be more individualized. This applies in some scenarios, like not giving women applicants a chance at very physical jobs. Even though some women have the necessary aptitudes.

To give a concrete example: Dame Caroline Haslett who was the President of the Women's Engineering Society in Britain created objectively the safest electrical outlet and plugging mechanism ever conceived (as long as you don't step on one). There was no such mandate for it to be so safe, you could argue that a man could have done exactly the same but I'd rather consider that she was being extremely empathetic as to how the device would be used and that safety in this area would quite literally save the lives of men, women and children.

A world without her contribution would be a lesser one, but I would argue that it was made with her femininity, not with how much she filled a man-shaped role.

Believing science is one thing, but that sounds like exactly the sort of "gendered narrative building" that feminists are trying to fight against. When they say stuff like "gender roles are fictional," a large part of it is due to people inventing stories in their heads about gender roles that aren't true. I think that it's fair to not try to add anything beyond what's demonstrably there.

Why? If peoples' experiences and psychology (in my layman's understanding of agreeableness) show that women tend to be more empathetic than men, it seems perfectly reasonable for them to suggest that that may have benefited an inventor in a fantastic discovery they made. People have no obligation to buy into others' narratives. Groups can claim whatever they want is fictional, it doesn't mean everyone else has to censor their speech accordingly.

I thought the person you were responding to was making a very thoughtful point, and one that was very respectful of women and the valuable insight some of them have that is often overlooked.

The problem is his comment can very easily be read as "Women should do what they are good at". This implies "taking care of kids and home" for many invested in this narrative. On contested topic like this, we should try to phrase our comments very clearly.

> People have no obligation to buy into others' narratives.

Our society seems to work best if we agree on fundamental "narratives". Equal opportunity being good is one of them. Actually, not really, since perfect equal opportunity would require us to not be able to help our own children more than others can help theirs. But let's not get into capitalism/class stuff but back to gender. A talking point the other side likes to make is "wanting equal outcomes". Nope, that would be stupid. But significantly unequal outcomes are a good indicator we'll find unequal opportunities when we look into it. Or some other reason. But the other side very quickly likes to accept "men and women are just different" as other reason and prefers to disregard e.g. fixing societal feedback loops via affirmative action. That finally brings me to your first part:

> If peoples' experiences and psychology (in my layman's understanding of agreeableness) show that women tend to be more empathetic than me

I don't think we have hard scientific research data showing to what degree this is based on nature or nurture. The latter would be problematic since against the spirit of equal opportunity. Of cause that question is hard to answer, since randomized controlled trials are impossible and understanding the physics and it's emergent properties is still beyond us.

Also, I am under the impression that rolling ones eyes at a choice to stay at home is a continued devaluation of women’s work. The upkeep of a living location and the caring of any little humans is a significant labor, such that upon outsourcing is often equivalent to a median yearly salary of a single person. However because there isn’t a common framework to evaluate worth beyond money in the society I live in, unpaid labor isn’t valued.

People who are driven by money, no matter gender, skin color, etc shouldn't be held back from it because of preconceptions about their ability. Only their actual ability should matter.

Or were there are other factors e.g. stimulating, flexible, empowering, creative etc.

Because pretty sure women are selecting roles for a range of different factors as well. You know because all women aren't the same. Just like all men aren't the same.

But you said it yourself: "several career paths would likely have made me happier".

What's the point in living if not to be happy? Money is just a means to avoid unhappiness. It's been proven time and time again that after a decent income money does not increase happiness.

I'm (reasonably) good at it. I don't like it much. But be slightly good and have a little experience in programming and if you're not careful pretty soon it's way better than most other options you've got, by every measure except "enjoy and am proud of what I do".

I also do not have a trust fund, actually the contrary, I grew up as poor as you can possibly be in the UK. Mother didn't work, had various vices including drinking and smoking which did not jive with our financial situation (living on benefits).

Due to that my mother put more worth into immaterial things, and that rubbed off on me I think.

Additionally; I've only been employed in a self-sustaining fashion for 8 years now. Perhaps I've lost what it feels like to be destitute- but I don't think I'd trade happiness for money because outside of not worrying about bills and food money doesn't actually buy me anything. Just a little more ease of mind.

I think there's also some pretty big cultural differences between the US and western Europe when it comes to decisions to pursue money or not.

There is evidence that women are judged by appearance and men by financial success. Even a mild effect would be more than enough to skew the outcomes; it would impact the more competitive representatives of each gender.

I think this is the most important question to solve if we want more equal outcome in worklife.

When I was young the highest paying job direct out of high school was underwater welder. Not many teenage girls are signing up for that program, nor are there much political interest to get 50/50 gender ration for jobs that work in the dark, dangerous, on rusty oil rigs far away from land.

In a bit of irony, the same can be said for professions dominated by women. Hired midwifes during the summer vacation months here in Sweden are getting salaries up to 9k a month. Very few people here in Sweden has a monthly pay that high. Demand can skyrocket when you only recruit from half the population, at which point the employer will pay what the market demands.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2019/04/20/the-worst-jo...

1. Taxi Driver: Uber and Lyft have significantly increased the number of women, and there are lots of efforts to get more women involved. https://www.gosafr.com/ is one example.

2. Logger: This is probably the kind of job you were thinking of. Logging is completely male dominated, but there are some small efforts at change: https://www.pressherald.com/2019/03/17/the-axe-women-loggers... and https://www.tigercat.com/between-the-branches/logger-girl/

3. Newspaper reporter: Majority male, but not overwhelmingly. Definitely a big push to equalize the field: http://www.womensmediacenter.com/reports/the-status-of-women...

4. Retail salesperson: Majority women.

5. Enlisted military personnel: Hard to summarize here, but issues around women in the US military come up quite frequently in Congress and elsewhere, and the history of increasing participation and equality is long.

6. Corrections officer: Women were 37% of adult officers and 51% of juvenile officers in 2007 (http://www.corrections.com/articles/21703-women-as-correctio...). There is a push to increase equality: https://www.correctionsone.com/women-in-corrections/

7. Disc jockey: Hard to find exact stats, but it's the same story as everywhere else in modern society. Used to be completely male dominated, now women are increasingly entering the industry and fighting against entrenched stereotypes. A random article: https://www.laweekly.com/music/women-djs-are-out-there-clubs...

8. Broadcaster: Feel like I'm starting to repeat myself. It's the same story as everywhere else in the media. Look at the Women's Media Center and other organizations for evidence of a push.

9. Advertising salesperson: Is this the kind of job you thought was on this list? Majority women, apparently: https://datausa.io/profile/soc/112011/#demographics

10. Painter: Seems to be similar to logging. I honestly don't know why. Presumably it's historically male (like everything), and it's not a particularly desirable career for anyone.

etc.

Industries like logging and painting are outliers. There are some jobs that are so physically demanding that men have a significant innate advantage, but there's no natural reason for any industry to be 95+% male.

"Do your best, help out the world, and your needs will be taken care of."

As a goal for structuring society, if that isn't in your top 2 of "things to collectively strive for," I don't think it's a very good society. I grew up on the Star Trek vision of utopia, though, and hope that some day humanity still gets there.

That's not a structure. It's at best a goal or more realistically a slogan.

and specifically, why wouldn't you want to make sure each individual's needs in the society are met?

Very funny.

I'd say it's more that anyone familiar with the history of that slogan knows that the systems associated with it very consistently do not work.

As for the systems associated with it, I think it's an oversimplification to say they do not work. As I mentioned, there is a not-insignificant number of people out there who long for a return to life under Soviet control (just from people I've met in my travels). To them, it worked. It wasn't perfect, but I didn't say that and nothing is. To a great degree, history is written by the victors, anyway.

Rather than play on red scare feels, I'd appreciate engaging with the idea, and again I ask: what's better than that, and what about that don't you like?

I'll even posit an alternative: personal freedom is the most important thing, even if it means people's needs aren't met.

I don't agree, because the world is resource-rich enough to ensure everyone's needs are met, so where do you draw the line? who do we say it's okay for their needs not to be met? rather than defer to an amorphous "market," I'd like to hear from you whose needs should not be met.

Ever read Solzhenitsyn?

Strangest distinct memory I have of hanging with people in a post-Soviet state: partying all night long, passing out some time around 3, waking up at 5 to hearing them all singing the Soviet anthem -- not the Russian anthem, though the melody's the same -- and then talking in hushed tones the next day with some of them about life being better before the fall.

And that's just one of many conversations I've had with people about this stuff. shrug

But it raised a few points I do want to address.

Yes, people were oppressed under the Soviet system. American capitalism is oppressive to many, too. Ask a prisoner who can now only access books on an "allowed books" list.

No, soviet life wasn't better for everyone; American capitalism isn't better for everyone. Ask the millions who can't access health care and die prematurely for it.

Saying that "some suffered under soviet rule, therefore it is unacceptable" sets a bar of "nobody should suffer" that is unreasonably high; it is also a bar that American capitalism very distinctly fails to clear. Suffering is great in the US. Ask the homeless, ask the struggling. There's no American freedom for them, it's an empty slogan. There's only suffering for them.

My point that some prefer soviet rule is to rebut the generalization that it did not work. It didn't for many. It did for many others. American capitalism does not work for many; hence the extremism in political life. People want a change.

My point is that it's an oversimplification to say ours is good, theirs was bad, when the history and reality is much more complicated than that.

Meritocracy was originally devised as a negative concept, simply because the idea of what constitutes 'merit' is subjective and complex.

Encourage men and women as individuals to pursue roles that match their aptitudes and personalities even if they do not line up with their sex.

Provide wisdom or rules of thumb based on how men and women as populations may differ.

However, the problem that I would see with this approach is that humans tend to be lazy in their thinking, so general rules of thumb tend to become absolute rules.

My (also single) dad says that men are smarter and more ambitious than women, that womens' place is at home, taking care of the children and that society is broken because women are trying to do the things that men are naturally better at doing and don't want to do what they're good at.

Your mom against my dad. Who wins?

Not to mention that there seems to be considerable scientific controversy on what this "modern scientific understanding" is -and how else could it be? Science is a debate- I doubt we can settle it by listening to what our moms and dads say.

your comment:

> My (also single) dad says that men are smarter and more ambitious than women, that womens' place is at home, taking care of the children and that society is broken because women are trying to do the things that men are naturally better at doing and don't want to do what they're good at.

Men are smarter at what exactly? Mathematics?

Although the question of whether there is a gender difference in math seems like a simple one, the answer is complicated. Overall there are only small differences in boys’ and girls’ math performance; those differences depend on the age and skill level of the student, what type of math they are attempting and how big of a dissimilarity is needed to say that boys’ and girls’ math performance is truly different.

Ambitious? Again, Ambitious at what? travelling the world? starting and sustaining a family? or is it solely on what dollar amount is ascribed to an hour of your day?

A womans place is at home is about as sexist an argument I have ever heard. By that logic my "place" is running around the jungle with a spear? please don't argue such bad faith.

If I were to try to dig into what your argument actually is then I would assume you dislike my comment because it leans heavily on what my mother said.

We're I arguing in bad faith I would probably say that you're rejecting her logic so outrightly because she is a woman.

But I'm going to try to argue something else.

I'm going to ask what smart and ambitious mean mean to you.

Conversely, I don't know what your mom meant by "how women think about things".

How do women think about things? I mean- according to your mom. You report her saying and seem to agree with it. Do you know what she means?

Edit: Do I really need to make it clear I disagree with my dad? I'm a woman. Is it very likely I reported here what my dad says to argue that I'm less smart and less ambitious than a man?

I don't believe I ever argued that I understood women?

I Merely stated that on average women differ from men and that it's no less valuable- I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that I believe that I know how women think.

It's genuinely impossible to know how all women think just like it's impossible to know how all _people_ think.

But you report her words here and you seem to agree with her. If you don't understand what she means, how can you agree with her? And why report her words if you don't know what she means?

I believe I clearly understood my mothers intent here, I am comfortable defending the statement, where am I ambiguous in my understanding?

I can call her if you want me to confirm but in my opinion her words were incredibly concise and clear.

Her exact words were “men and women are equal but different, in many ways they’re complimentary” she then explained that some men look down on women because they didn’t value how women think about things.

I'm dangerously close to stating common stereotypes so please take the following with good faith;

I knew a female engineer who was very good at her job (she was in networking), after having a child she discussed with her husband (also a network engineer at another company, roughly the same pay) about reducing her working hours.

He was fine with it, but he was open to also taking time off, she felt it was needed because she was the mother, purely her choice. Her manager took it graciously and put her down to 80% time.

However, one engineer resented that she was away 2-half-days a week, he ascribed values that he held to her and couldn't understand why she would want to be home with her kid instead of making more of her career.

--

a male example: I have a close personal friend who is what you would call a manly-man.

His girlfriend obviously loves him, but his girlfriends best friend is not a fan of how he's "aloof", often she considers that he is secretly plotting something or is going to cheat on her. He lacks the empathy to be "seriously deep". He might even be a psychopath; by the way she tells it anyway.

The truth is that he's just a bigger guy and he is quiet, it's different when it's just me and him but with a large group he recedes into being very quiet.

She never made much of an effort to connect with him; but she judges him based on values she has, values about being open and warm and caring and smiley.

My mother has more "anecdotes" but the way things are is that it's not statistically backed. But it's a good rule of thumb to ensure that I at least try to understand someone else's values before I judge their actions (or, non-actions).

I don’t think there is anything I can say to convey the meaning I meant then. I’m sorry that I am not understandable.