Moreover, there are other possible biological bases for these differences that are not testosterone. You need to explain why we can dismiss these as well.
And those biological differences are what?
Look, I've already shown that the testosterone reasoning could be considered unlikely. Sure, testosterone might be a cause. So could Thetans. I'm not trying to prove that American Gender Norms are the only cause, just that they're one of the most likely causes. This is a social science field, it's a lot more difficult to find compelling evidence and likely there are a lot of factors that influence the outcome. Testosterone likely is a factor, but there's not reason to assume it's a major factor, especially when it's not a static concept - men lose testosterone when they have children, and as I show below they actually change more when given the primary caregiver role.
Let's assume for a moment it is true that women are offered less "even before negotiations begin."
Look, if you're not going to accept any evidence I present, what's the point. The John and Jennifer Yale study is already pretty well known at this point. Here's another article on the topic. Similar effects are shown in other professions where identical resumes are sent out but where one group has a name associated with a group of people that there might be negative perceptions of.
[quote from="bitterroot »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/608376-would-we-be-better-off-if-gender-didnt-exist?comment=126"]Womens' (typical) role as primary caregiver might conceivably be the reason that women are offered less - employers (correctly?) expect women to work fewer hours. You have not shown that the tendency of women to act in a caregiving role is determined by culture as opposed to biology. Therefore you have not demonstrated that the tendency of employers to offer women less money is determined by culture as opposed to biology.
If the perception of a woman's primary role as a caregiver means they're offered less because they expect women to work fewer hours, regardless of whether or not that's true for an individual woman, that's discrimination. It doesn't matter whether or not women have a biological imperative, just the impression of that being the case causes a bias against all women, regardless of whether they have a family, or even ever intend to start a family. If women end up being paid less because they don't work as much, that's fine. If women get paid less based on the perception that they don't work as much, that's a very different.
What about single fathers? Divorced Dads with primary custody? Dad's who actually take an active or primary role in their child's development? Studies show men change when presented with the primary caregiver role to become 'maternal'. So if men can fill the exact same role, and have the exact same changes, what's stopping them? The primary caregiver role is a matter of choice and opportunity - an opportunity that is challenged by the expectation for women to take that role. If both men and women become 'maternal' when given the role of primary caregiver, it isn't really tied exclusively to gender, is it?
At the risk of further derailment: I doubt that was the reasoning as much as agricultural society undergoing industrialization thinking of women as physically inferior or capable of hard labor. Before efficient birth control and the concept of workplace safety there was also a serious incentive to not put women into work in factories handling dangerous chemicals, which could easily damage not only the mother but also the child.
Yeah... this isn't really true. Women were exposed to just as dangerous conditions during the industrial revolution as part of the textile industry. In South and Southeast asia, you see the same thing happening today.
The women that worked in the textile industry were primarily really poor, and came from a background where they did not have the option of being picky. Nor did their families, usually owning no land or even being able to rent any - living in a city and being poor meant working in a factory. Furthermore the understanding of chemicals was much worse back then, and they were unlikely regarded as less dangerous than heavy-duty construction work. In case of modern south/southeastern factories: No one would work in them willingly. There simply are no other jobs available, and thus no choice. I am almost certain that if you asked a family living there whether or not they would want the mother of the family to have a different job away from the chemicals they would say yes, and I assume that if you asked them whether or not it should be the mother or the father of the family moving to a better job they would choose the mother. The same bias exists there, but it simply cannot manifest under the conditions.
I would also argue that the concept of women being intellectually inferior is contradictory to the claim that women were enlisted as teachers,
I didn't say it made sense. They were put into teaching because of their mother-like qualities. They were not, of course, believed to be intellectual equals of men.
and that it most likely has more to do with the fact that writing, reading and languages were considered appropriate hobbies for women for long before they became teachers, and they were therefore simply suitable for that job.
No. Up until the 19th century, teaching was man's job. I wish I could find the newspaper article from the 1830s I saw a while back that talked about how women's qualities make them better teachers, or the article that discussed to politics behind them being able to pay women much less than men, but women didn't take over teaching until the early-mid 19th century. Men still dominated the upper level positions in teaching, as well, and still do today, despite the enormous gender gap (an effect known as the glass escalator).
This, and especially the article linked, represent a highly Ameri-centric view of the situation. From personal experience the rector at the schools I have went has been a woman ever since the man in charge of my first school retired in my third year there. The leader of department of musicology in the University of Jyväskylä is also a woman, and the longest-standing rector of the University was a woman. The education minister of Finland has been a woman roughly half of the time since 1975. I am not claiming that the glass escalator effect does not exist in Finland, but evidence would suggest that it isn't nearly as strong.
[quote from="bitterroot »" url="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/outside-magic/debate/608376-would-we-be-better-off-if-gender-didnt-exist?comment=126"]Womens' (typical) role as primary caregiver might conceivably be the reason that women are offered less - employers (correctly?) expect women to work fewer hours. You have not shown that the tendency of women to act in a caregiving role is determined by culture as opposed to biology. Therefore you have not demonstrated that the tendency of employers to offer women less money is determined by culture as opposed to biology.
If the perception of a woman's primary role as a caregiver means they're offered less because they expect women to work fewer hours, regardless of whether or not that's true for an individual woman, that's discrimination. It doesn't matter whether or not women have a biological imperative, just the impression of that being the case causes a bias against all women, regardless of whether they have a family, or even ever intend to start a family. If women end up being paid less because they don't work as much, that's fine. If women get paid less based on the perception that they don't work as much, that's a very different.
This is a very real cause of discrimination, and one that is unlikely to ever go away. From the position of the employer doing risk-reward analysis, the woman will inevitably have higher risk because of these factors. Hiring an employee is a investment, and assuming that people do not take statistics into account when making investments is lying to oneself. Of course, that does not excuse not paying the same amount for the same job once someone is hired, be they man or a woman.
Some of the strongest ways to fight this is promoting equality in custody cases, awarding custody based on the parents based on merits rather than their gender and thus equalizing the amount of women and men as primary caretakers. The other one is reducing the rights of the workers and worker unions, since arguably the ability to fire employees for no reason allows employers to fire women who choose to become pregnant - though this still does not fix the issue of knowledge-centric and information-centric fields where employers would be more likely to promote and/or invest in educating male workforce. Complete power of the employer in the workplace also would likely lead to issues much more severe than the gender cap.
What about single fathers? Divorced Dads with primary custody? Dad's who actually take an active or primary role in their child's development? What about single fathers? Divorced Dads with primary custody? They face a different kind of workplace discrimination. Studies show men change when presented with the primary caregiver role to become 'maternal'. So if men can fill the exact same role, and have the exact same changes, what's stopping them? The primary caregiver role is a matter of choice and opportunity - an opportunity that is challenged by the expectation for women to take that role. If both men and women become 'maternal' when given the role of primary caregiver, it isn't really tied exclusively to gender, is it?
The legal system that awards custody to the mother disproportionally often? IIRC something like 84% of the time for the woman in the US. Most often men would want to have custody of their children, but are not able to. Furthermore, non-custodial mothers pay significantly less support on average than non-custodial fathers. Furthermore, studies show (Not the most fresh one.) that single-fathers work considerably more than single-mothers, totally default on support significantly less, and receive significantly less public assistance, thus suggesting that fatherhood and single-parenthood is less significant problem for the male workforce than the female workforce. In other words: Since maternal fathers still work, hiring men would present lower risk even in the case where they had exactly the same chance of receiving custody.
It is also most likely a matter of degree. Fathers in caregiver position become maternal, but do they become as maternal as mothers in the same position?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I actually find the concept of gender useful, if it's allowed to be flexible and there are caveats given on how to deal with the rarer cases such as GIS or homosexuality. Specifically, having a prebuilt assumption to certain aspects for a human based on after meeting someone and gaining basic interests builds on the capacity for inference and allows the person over time to make certain conclusions to build a relationship with by guiding into prebuilt questions. People will often group themselves into "tribes" or "groupings" of some point, and gender aspects do play a role in this. To deny that, is to deny humanity.
We have gender, we have sex, we sexual preferences. Intersexed is a complex discussion, since that's something we might just need tos it down and ask real intersexed people "what doy ou want?
I would say, if we were sitting down and designing humans from scratch the capacity to change sex more readily would probably useful for a number of reasons without much imagination.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
The intent behind race-based segregation is to prevent the races from intermingling as much as possible.
You know that the prevention of 'intermingling' is the point of sexual separation as well, right? One of the purposes is to prevent men and women from having premarital relations. They just didn't want blacks and whites having any relations.
The intent behind avoiding situations where the opposite sex sees you naked has to do with cultural squeamishness about *sexuality*, not about *gender itself*. It isn't because the culture wants to prevent men and women from being in the same community. It's because a lot of women don't want men leering at them when they're in a locker room (which are also gender segregated).
You keep painting this narrative that the women are the only ones that what this separation. That the separation of sexes in bathrooms (as well as school, and clubs etc.) is simply for the 'protection' of women. As if we wouldn't want any women in -for example- in fraternity houses because then they're get 'leered' at, even though being in a fraternity would help job potential. The implication being men are animals and we need to separated from women for their own protection, something women must 'want;' even if this culture of sexual segregation is hurting their potential.
You know where I've heard this argument before? The reasoning behind Hijabs. If you ask a Muslim why women need to wear garments like that, they will tell you the INTENT (something you put a lot of stock in) is purely to protect women. That most women WANT to wear them -anyway- to prevent 'leering.' They claim the law simply reflects this wish of the majority.
By contrast, race has no more impact on using a bathroom than it does when you sit at a restaraunt. Let's say a state decided to make laws enforcing the use of sun tan lotion to prvent skin cancer. To be reasonable, they only require each person that goes out in summer to wear a certain amount of sun tan lotion in order to prevent getting burned. If you have darker skin, you need less lotion. While this law isn't actually logistically possible to enforce, I don't have an issue with this kind of race-based discrimination... Because the intent isn't based around race itself, but rather external qualities. If there were higher speed limits of people of a certain race, or longer prison times specifically based on being a certain race committing the exact same crime, that would be prejudiced and sick.
Except laws represent averages, and should be for everyone. You would't want to make a law that needed to that specific (since literally everyone would need a different amount), you'd want to find out what the average amount is and make that the law.
To use your example another way, Gingers are very sun sensitive. Would you want your law to say they need to be wrapped up when they go outside? That they (and ONLY Gingers) would need to wear special garments whenever they were out of the house, purely for their own protection, you understand. Do you see how something like that could be a problem?
An absurd hypothetical question that is utterly meaningless to debate about. Gender is, and it will always be. You can't just get rid of it. No point to this thread.
Womens' (typical) role as primary caregiver might conceivably be the reason that women are offered less - employers (correctly?) expect women to work fewer hours. You have not shown that the tendency of women to act in a caregiving role is determined by culture as opposed to biology. Therefore you have not demonstrated that the tendency of employers to offer women less money is determined by culture as opposed to biology.
If the perception of a woman's primary role as a caregiver means they're offered less because they expect women to work fewer hours, regardless of whether or not that's true for an individual woman, that's discrimination. It doesn't matter whether or not women have a biological imperative, just the impression of that being the case causes a bias against all women, regardless of whether they have a family, or even ever intend to start a family. If women end up being paid less because they don't work as much, that's fine. If women get paid less based on the perception that they don't work as much, that's a very different.
What about single fathers? Divorced Dads with primary custody? Dad's who actually take an active or primary role in their child's development? Studies show men change when presented with the primary caregiver role to become 'maternal'. So if men can fill the exact same role, and have the exact same changes, what's stopping them? The primary caregiver role is a matter of choice and opportunity - an opportunity that is challenged by the expectation for women to take that role. If both men and women become 'maternal' when given the role of primary caregiver, it isn't really tied exclusively to gender, is it?
What you're talking about is so incredibly subjective that I'm not sure how you could possibly regard it as proven. (What, exactly, does it mean to be "maternal" and how does one measure this accurately?)
But let me put a slight spin on this: If you have a condition like diabetes you're going to pay more for life insurance because you're more likely to die young. This kind of discrimination sucks, and is beyond your control. Moreover, some people with diabetes will take good care of themselves (or have good genes) and therefore live a very long, healthy life. But the actuarial likelihoods are what determine the insurance prices.
What if it was scientifically proven that, for some biological reason, women are statistically more likely to chose the role of primary caregiver than men? Maybe it's only a 1% difference or something, but it's a real measurable difference. In the face of that evidence, would you say it's ok for employers to pay women differently than men, provided the pay difference is carefully calibrated to reflect the biological discrepancy in the actualrial likelihood that a woman will quit her job to start a family? Or would you still say that this kind of discrimination is not ok?
In other words, I want to know if you stand by your position that gender discrimination is ok if it "correctly reflects biological attributes of men and women that are not tied to cultural norms."
Look, I've already shown that the testosterone reasoning could be considered unlikely. Sure, testosterone might be a cause. So could Thetans. I'm not trying to prove that American Gender Norms are the only cause, just that they're one of the most likely causes. This is a social science field, it's a lot more difficult to find compelling evidence and likely there are a lot of factors that influence the outcome. Testosterone likely is a factor, but there's not reason to assume it's a major factor, especially when it's not a static concept - men lose testosterone when they have children, and as I show below they actually change more when given the primary caregiver role.
Look, if you're not going to accept any evidence I present, what's the point. The John and Jennifer Yale study is already pretty well known at this point. Here's another article on the topic. Similar effects are shown in other professions where identical resumes are sent out but where one group has a name associated with a group of people that there might be negative perceptions of.
If the perception of a woman's primary role as a caregiver means they're offered less because they expect women to work fewer hours, regardless of whether or not that's true for an individual woman, that's discrimination. It doesn't matter whether or not women have a biological imperative, just the impression of that being the case causes a bias against all women, regardless of whether they have a family, or even ever intend to start a family. If women end up being paid less because they don't work as much, that's fine. If women get paid less based on the perception that they don't work as much, that's a very different.
What about single fathers? Divorced Dads with primary custody? Dad's who actually take an active or primary role in their child's development? Studies show men change when presented with the primary caregiver role to become 'maternal'. So if men can fill the exact same role, and have the exact same changes, what's stopping them? The primary caregiver role is a matter of choice and opportunity - an opportunity that is challenged by the expectation for women to take that role. If both men and women become 'maternal' when given the role of primary caregiver, it isn't really tied exclusively to gender, is it?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
The women that worked in the textile industry were primarily really poor, and came from a background where they did not have the option of being picky. Nor did their families, usually owning no land or even being able to rent any - living in a city and being poor meant working in a factory. Furthermore the understanding of chemicals was much worse back then, and they were unlikely regarded as less dangerous than heavy-duty construction work. In case of modern south/southeastern factories: No one would work in them willingly. There simply are no other jobs available, and thus no choice. I am almost certain that if you asked a family living there whether or not they would want the mother of the family to have a different job away from the chemicals they would say yes, and I assume that if you asked them whether or not it should be the mother or the father of the family moving to a better job they would choose the mother. The same bias exists there, but it simply cannot manifest under the conditions.
[citation needed]
This, and especially the article linked, represent a highly Ameri-centric view of the situation. From personal experience the rector at the schools I have went has been a woman ever since the man in charge of my first school retired in my third year there. The leader of department of musicology in the University of Jyväskylä is also a woman, and the longest-standing rector of the University was a woman. The education minister of Finland has been a woman roughly half of the time since 1975. I am not claiming that the glass escalator effect does not exist in Finland, but evidence would suggest that it isn't nearly as strong.
This is a very real cause of discrimination, and one that is unlikely to ever go away. From the position of the employer doing risk-reward analysis, the woman will inevitably have higher risk because of these factors. Hiring an employee is a investment, and assuming that people do not take statistics into account when making investments is lying to oneself. Of course, that does not excuse not paying the same amount for the same job once someone is hired, be they man or a woman.
Some of the strongest ways to fight this is promoting equality in custody cases, awarding custody based on the parents based on merits rather than their gender and thus equalizing the amount of women and men as primary caretakers. The other one is reducing the rights of the workers and worker unions, since arguably the ability to fire employees for no reason allows employers to fire women who choose to become pregnant - though this still does not fix the issue of knowledge-centric and information-centric fields where employers would be more likely to promote and/or invest in educating male workforce. Complete power of the employer in the workplace also would likely lead to issues much more severe than the gender cap.
The legal system that awards custody to the mother disproportionally often? IIRC something like 84% of the time for the woman in the US. Most often men would want to have custody of their children, but are not able to. Furthermore, non-custodial mothers pay significantly less support on average than non-custodial fathers. Furthermore, studies show (Not the most fresh one.) that single-fathers work considerably more than single-mothers, totally default on support significantly less, and receive significantly less public assistance, thus suggesting that fatherhood and single-parenthood is less significant problem for the male workforce than the female workforce. In other words: Since maternal fathers still work, hiring men would present lower risk even in the case where they had exactly the same chance of receiving custody.
It is also most likely a matter of degree. Fathers in caregiver position become maternal, but do they become as maternal as mothers in the same position?
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
We have gender, we have sex, we sexual preferences. Intersexed is a complex discussion, since that's something we might just need tos it down and ask real intersexed people "what doy ou want?
I would say, if we were sitting down and designing humans from scratch the capacity to change sex more readily would probably useful for a number of reasons without much imagination.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
You keep painting this narrative that the women are the only ones that what this separation. That the separation of sexes in bathrooms (as well as school, and clubs etc.) is simply for the 'protection' of women. As if we wouldn't want any women in -for example- in fraternity houses because then they're get 'leered' at, even though being in a fraternity would help job potential. The implication being men are animals and we need to separated from women for their own protection, something women must 'want;' even if this culture of sexual segregation is hurting their potential.
You know where I've heard this argument before? The reasoning behind Hijabs. If you ask a Muslim why women need to wear garments like that, they will tell you the INTENT (something you put a lot of stock in) is purely to protect women. That most women WANT to wear them -anyway- to prevent 'leering.' They claim the law simply reflects this wish of the majority.
Except laws represent averages, and should be for everyone. You would't want to make a law that needed to that specific (since literally everyone would need a different amount), you'd want to find out what the average amount is and make that the law.
To use your example another way, Gingers are very sun sensitive. Would you want your law to say they need to be wrapped up when they go outside? That they (and ONLY Gingers) would need to wear special garments whenever they were out of the house, purely for their own protection, you understand. Do you see how something like that could be a problem?
Laws need to be for everyone.
What you're talking about is so incredibly subjective that I'm not sure how you could possibly regard it as proven. (What, exactly, does it mean to be "maternal" and how does one measure this accurately?)
But let me put a slight spin on this: If you have a condition like diabetes you're going to pay more for life insurance because you're more likely to die young. This kind of discrimination sucks, and is beyond your control. Moreover, some people with diabetes will take good care of themselves (or have good genes) and therefore live a very long, healthy life. But the actuarial likelihoods are what determine the insurance prices.
What if it was scientifically proven that, for some biological reason, women are statistically more likely to chose the role of primary caregiver than men? Maybe it's only a 1% difference or something, but it's a real measurable difference. In the face of that evidence, would you say it's ok for employers to pay women differently than men, provided the pay difference is carefully calibrated to reflect the biological discrepancy in the actualrial likelihood that a woman will quit her job to start a family? Or would you still say that this kind of discrimination is not ok?
In other words, I want to know if you stand by your position that gender discrimination is ok if it "correctly reflects biological attributes of men and women that are not tied to cultural norms."