I think it makes a lot of sense. Of course there are differences between men and women. This has been used to deny women entrance to universities, to take out loans, to own property, vote, participate in politics, make laws, start companies, become scientists and doctors, run marathons, and make many substantial decisions about their lives. If these differences weren't historically used as justification to deny people the ability to have control over their lives, then yes it would be easier to talk about them. Given the reality of how "focusing on differences" turns out for certain groups, it makes sense why people push for a more complete conversation than just Male != Female.
I have never spoken to a single person who flat out denies that biological differences and preferences exist between men and women. I think it is largely an uncharitable summary of the view that "Men and women aren't as different as society imposes through socialization." I don't think that most feminists claim that men and women have no differences. I also don't think it is politically incorrect to acknowledge that men and women are different and may have different preferences, as long as it is not used in the context to dismiss valid concerns about how women and men are treated socially, politically, and economically.
They didn't push for a more complete conversation. Allowing a thorough examination of the question means giving the sexists a chance to prove themselves correct and that would do nothing but reinforce the sexism. Better to impose a "truth" and persecute those who dare to question it.
Paul Graham wrote about this in 2004:
http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html
> In every period of history, there seem to have been labels that got applied to statements to shoot them down before anyone had a chance to ask if they were true or not.
> "Blasphemy", "sacrilege", and "heresy" were such labels for a good part of western history, as in more recent times "indecent", "improper", and "unamerican" have been.
> Take a label—"sexist", for example—and try to think of some ideas that would be called that. Then for each ask, might this be true?
Feminism has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with politics and power. They are making purposeful moves that advance the interests of women. The pursuit of truth in these matters is secondary at best. It is most likely a hindrance. What happens if they are right?
> I have never spoken to a single person who flat out denies that biological differences and preferences exist between men and women.
I haven't either. I have read their words and seen what they do to those who disagree.
Focusing on the most radical voices and generalizing broadly about feminism doesn't make you a "defender of the truth". In any movement you can find people with extreme opinions and then use that to discredit an entire group. There are many examples where feminism has made a positive impact without "denying the truth".
One area where feminism has pushed for a more complete conversation is in sports. Women like to participate in sports. Until laws were passed that insisted women have an equal right to participate in sports, the argument was, "why fund women's sports when they're not interested?" Women are interested. It took time to get funding, organize teams, get access to facilities, develop the training schedules that are different for women's bodies. It has taken many years. On average, 45.7 percent of American marathon participants are now women. In the 1970's they were banned from even participating. So it's taken about 50 years to get from 0% to nearing parity. This was made possible without denying that men and women have different physical abilities.
In fact, in some sports like boxing where physical mass matters a lot there are even categories within men's boxing: flyweight, featherweight, heavyweight. Manny Pacquiao is arguably one of the most famous boxers today. He primarily competes in the lower weight classes. He is a national hero. Nobody mocks his sport, denies him the ability to participate, or says that he is a poor athlete because he doesn't compete in the heavyweight category. Women athletes want the respect and opportunity to compete within their category, make money, develop a fan base, be broadcast on TV, have watch parties, etc. Manny Pacquiao is not a "truth denier" for not competing in heavyweight boxing where he would lose. The feminists who want female athletes to be respected for their talents are also not "truth deniers".
In the intellectual realm, for a large part of history women have not had the same access to education as men. Now that women do have access, over half of the students at universities are women. It's true that men and women cluster in different majors. Major preferences for both men and women have changed a lot over time with different economic opportunities, hiring trends, what people's friends or parents did, what people see on TV, and what career counselors recommend. How many archaeologists were inspired by Indiana Jones? Is there some biological component to these choices? Maybe? I don't know. There are a lot of factors that go into people's life choices. The problem isn't studying whether this is true or not, but in using this information to dismiss concerns about unequal opportunity to prove oneself and deny opportunities to groups of people because of their biology when it is one of many factors that drive people's choices.
I agree with this. I don't deny the benefits of feminism to women and society in general. I don't deny the historical oppression of women. I do claim that the methods they used to achieve their egalitarian ends were not always clean. This is one example.
> In any movement you can find people with extreme opinions and then use that to discredit an entire group.
Yes. Radicals are so toxic they've been weaponized: having agents infiltrate and radicalize a movement is an excellent way to get it discredited. Union busters have done this. Leaders need to be aware of this move and prevent radical elements from having any influence.
You say people shouldn't discredit the entire movement. Well, I didn't see the other members protest against the vocal minority that openly and directly attacks others on social media. Were they okay with it? Who knows. To the people watching the events unfold, it sure looks like they're okay with it.
Creating change is always hard, especially larges changes affecting large groups of people. Historically, radicals often have lead change. Sometimes you do have to get in someone's face to help them understand why things should change, and IMO radicals deserve some credit for having the courage to fight unpopular battles, even if their extreme views do not represent the majority of their constituents.
I do think it's a shame that most of the debating we see these days seems to be between radicals on opposite ends of the debate. In previous times, when news was more about journalism than about profit and political influence, I think the news helped put things into context and give more balanced, objective presentations of debates and issues. Now, the news itself has become radicalized and instead of helping our society grapple with these complex issues, the news companies just want to keep things as polarized and confrontational as possible. It's not just the news of course: nearly all of politics has become radical, even though my guess is that most people are in the middle.
Isn't the problem here the "deny" part, and not the justification given? That is, had the prevailing attitude been that men and women are exactly the same and therefore they must do exactly the same (backbreaking) work, wouldn't that have been just as bad? Or even worse?
So how about we get rid of the "deny" part and just let people do what they individually want? Then we don't have to suppress scientific truths.
And letting individuals do whatever they want is what western societies have been getting better and better at, partly because of economic prosperity, partly through political, cultural and social liberalisation.
And as Western societies have gotten better at letting people do what they want, men and women have diverged.
> people push for a more complete conversation than just Male != Female
That's not what's happening, because nobody keeps it at "just Male ≠ Female". In fact, the opposite is happening, "more complete" conversations are verboten. The current narrative is that any differences that manifest themselves must be due to oppression, and if you try to have a "more complete" conversation about this topic (yes, like James Damore did), then you are a misogynistic troglodyte and must be removed.
> "Men and women aren't as different as society imposes through socialization."
Interestingly, it is that view (the "society imposes differences" one) that is contradicted by the evidence. That is: socialisation appears to make men and women more similar, not more different. Society imposes convergence, not divergence.
Well, the problem is the deny part. That's why in the context of race we say being race blind isn't helpful. You have to be race conscious, and the same goes for religion, orientation, gender, and sex.
Generally, the core problem is we deny people things and remove their agency based on this stuff. It's fine to acknowledge and even celebrate differences. But when it starts to cause serious problems like the incarceration crisis or the equal pay crisis, then we need to look at systemic biases (because we should've been on the lookout for them the entire time).
Damore argued exactly for this but it still led to a shitstorm which ultimately got him fired. This proves that these things are still extremely politically incorrect.
Whether what happened to him was right or wrong, your statement is an oversimplification of that case.
But as a mod said further up, let's not go there as this discussion will spiral off into typically unproductive territory.
The truth or falsehood of the stereotypes was not mentioned by his employer; rather that it was unhelpful.
Correct me if I'm wrong but a majority of men throughout history did not have many rights either. 'Rights' were enjoyed by a few male aristocrats. History is written and perpetuated by the aristocrats. Note that rights were not that important for life quality for commoners in the past when people were struggling through wars, famine and lack of basic technology.
Men also have had massive disadvantages because of the differences. Compared to female 'disadvantages', male disadvantages had higher impact on life quality and were less likely to have an intersection with commoners of the other gender. The male disadvantages being: dangerous physical labor jobs, participating in wars, less likely to start a family, forced to be the breadwinner and work at remote places away from family.
The only things I see they normalize in boys is love for technical subjects. And ever there we don't say that we need to change girls so they love technical subjects, instead we say we need to change boys so that girls can start to love technical subjects. So I very much think that we normalize girls, girls shouldn't have to change anything at all about who they are, instead all social change must happen by changing boys as much as possible into girls.
Bear in mind that for most of the last hundred-and-something years, the psychological profession has laboured under the blank-slate assumption that human psychology is 100% learned and the human brain is somehow a general-purpose learning machine; in which case the identically of these unevolved blank slates makes perfect sense.
As recently as the 1980s I remember my schoolteachers telling me about instinct, and how ducklings knew immediately how to wander down to the water and start swimming; but that humans are different, we don’t have instincts. (Admittedly I’m sure my local primary school was not exactly on the leading edge of psychology research, but still...)
This is a myth. (I'm not sure where it comes from... maybe Steven Pinker?) Psychologists have held all kinds of different beliefs about the relationship between genetics and psychology. Carl Jung, for example, thought we could inherit memories from our ancestors genetically.
I'll be damned. I know every word.