Author Topic: Female Chauvinist Pigs?  (Read 20370 times)

Marge_Innavera

  • Guest
Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs?
« Reply #30 on: November 22, 2008, 12:31:05 pm »
Women in general have less muscle strength and are shorter in height which make us less strong than most men, and that's a fact. Nothing to do with being sexist. Obviously, there are some women who are lucky to have a stronger physique, and in that sense they are able to compete with men, but that's not the case for the vast majority of us. However, while is true that having a weaker physique put us in certain disavantages, it does not make us cowards.

Self-defense courses for women have come a long way since the days when women were usually blamed for attacks (e.g., "what was she doing out alone?"  "why was she dressed like that?") and the best advice women got was to rely on male protection.  There are defense tactics that don't depend on physical strength, especially upper-body strength which is the area that we women tend to be weakest. 

And in terms of just general physical ability: while women do tend to be generally less physically strong, most women can handle heavier work than they think.  The problem is that most of us, when we try to do things like lifting heavy loads, we try to do it the way we see men do it and with female muscle development and center of gravity being different, that doesn't usually work.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,711
Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs?
« Reply #31 on: November 22, 2008, 12:44:17 pm »
Well, as I said, a) it's NOT my personal opinion.

Oh, I know. You made that clear. I was concurring, not debating. :)



Offline lia

  • Jr. Ranch Hand
  • **
  • Posts: 17
Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs?
« Reply #32 on: November 22, 2008, 01:26:32 pm »
And in terms of just general physical ability: while women do tend to be generally less physically strong, most women can handle heavier work than they think.  The problem is that most of us, when we try to do things like lifting heavy loads, we try to do it the way we see men do it and with female muscle development and center of gravity being different, that doesn't usually work.

Whilst I am not disagreeing with you, I remember reading a long very article in the New York Times a few months ago with the title The Uneven Playing Field about the very high rate of injuries suffered by girls playing competitive sports. Injuries in general, but focussing particularly on the disproportionately high rate of ruptured anterior cruciate ligaments (which is the ligament that stabilises the knee), I think 7 out of 8 cases are female. And one of the conclusions was that they happened so much more often to girls because they move differently from boys, i.e. land with straighter legs after jumping, crouch less when sprinting etc. And a programme teaching girls to move more like boys appears to have very promising results.

Offline Penthesilea

  • Town Administration
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,745
Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs?
« Reply #33 on: November 22, 2008, 02:38:29 pm »
True, although over the past few months we have been treated to a high profile example of how well that works.

Interesting post, lia! You are right that heterosexual couplings are fraught with complications. In fact, when I see a straight couple in a movie  immediately have sex on their first night together, I'm always somewhat bothered. Not in a judgmental sense, but I always wonder, do people still do that very often in real life? Do they live happily ever after? I do know a couple of two who had sex immediately upon meeting and went on to have good relationships, but I know of countless more situations where the sex was the end of it.


I have only a vague idea if people still do it very often in real life. I'd say yes, but it's no first-hand experience (and refers to Germany not the US). I've never been into the dating-business as an adult, I was seventeen when my hubby and I met.
Which brings me to the next question: yup, we did have sex on the first night, we had sex some weeks before we were officially a couple. And for the last 23 years we've lived happily ever after and I think we have a very good and loving relationship.

I often have the vice versa feeling with American movies. 'Under no circumstances have sex before the third date, otherwise he'll think the woman is a sl*t' seems to be a motto in Amercian movies and series.
 ::)
I have to admit that it adds the stereotype of "the prude Americans".



Quote
Men who split after a one-night stand have at least an evolutionary basis, if not a moral one, for doing so. Since men can have virtually an infinite number of children, it makes sense to spread their seed as widely as possible -- the more offspring they have, the more their genes will carry on (some of them presumably in boys who grow up to echo those promiscuous habits).

Agreed this makes evolutionary sense. But it makes also evolutionary sense to stick with the female you had sex with and help her raise the joined offspring. The chances for the offspring to live to adulthood (and reproduce themselves) are much better if two adults care for the progeny. The less offspring a species produces in general, the more important it is to care for them. And humans and other higher mammals do not produce as much offspring as, say insects.



Quote
But also, if a woman has sex with a man on their first night together, it may imply this is a frequent habit of hers. So if she's having sex with a lot of men, and then gets pregnant, which man is going to be stuck providing the time and resources to raise a child that may not be his? There's no evolutionary payoff in that -- his efforts do not go to passing his own genes along. Therefore, again from a purely Darwinian perspective, it makes sense for the man to move on quickly after a brief encounter.


Evolutionary it can also make much sense for females to be promiscuous, and therefore let several males believe they are or at least could be the father of their offspring. Female lions and chimpanzees do this for example.


Quote
Evolutionary psychology can suck sometimes.

And it's tricky.  ;)

Marge_Innavera

  • Guest
Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs?
« Reply #34 on: November 22, 2008, 03:32:50 pm »
I often have the vice versa feeling with American movies. 'Under no circumstances have sex before the third date, otherwise he'll think the woman is a sl*t' seems to be a motto in Amercian movies and series.

I'm not sure about that with movies -- but I do know that on American TV, nobody ever, ever, EVER has an abortion.

Quote
Agreed this makes evolutionary sense. But it makes also evolutionary sense to stick with the female you had sex with and help her raise the joined offspring. The chances for the offspring to live to adulthood (and reproduce themselves) are much better if two adults care for the progeny. The less offspring a species produces in general, the more important it is to care for them. And humans and other higher mammals do not produce as much offspring as, say insects. Evolutionary it can also make much sense for females to be promiscuous, and therefore let several males believe they are or at least could be the father of their offspring. Female lions and chimpanzees do this for example.

It's generally tricky to use models from nature, or evolutionary models, for gender roles since for every example you can find to support Opinion A, there's likely an example to support Opinion B.  Nature doesn't have any respect for what human beings want to believe.  And that evolutionary argument does start getting very shaky when you start looking at non-human primates.

Here's an admittedly nonprofessional observation about birds:  people often note that the males of some avian species have bright, elaborate plumage while the females tend to be shades of gray, brown and black.  And from a human perspective, it's easy to assume that nature is just more generous with the males; but the evolutionary reality is that this bright plumage serves no purpose other than to attract females.  As far as survival is concerned, it's a handicap: the female's "drabber" coloring serves her well when she's sitting on a nest.  And I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the species with gaudy male plumage are the same species where the male has very little role in raising the young.  After all, under those circumstances, Nature would hold a male's life quite cheaply.

Offline Penthesilea

  • Town Administration
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,745
Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs?
« Reply #35 on: November 22, 2008, 03:41:49 pm »
It's generally tricky to use models from nature, or evolutionary models, for gender roles since for every example you can find to support Opinion A, there's likely an example to support Opinion B. 

Yep, this is exactly what I wanted to convey with my counter-examples.

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,711
Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs?
« Reply #36 on: November 22, 2008, 03:45:01 pm »
I have only a vague idea if people still do it very often in real life. I'd say yes, but it's no first-hand experience (and refers to Germany not the US). I've never been into the dating-business as an adult, I was seventeen when my hubby and I met.
Which brings me to the next question: yup, we did have sex on the first night, we had sex some weeks before we were officially a couple. And for the last 23 years we've lived happily ever after and I think we have a very good and loving relationship.

Way to go, Bud! I certainly didn't mean to imply this never happens. As I said, I have a couple of friends with similar experiences. Well, in one case, they divorced about a year later, but that had less to do with having sex too soon than getting married too soon.

Quote
I have to admit that it adds the stereotype of "the prude Americans".

That's us!  ;D

Quote
Agreed this makes evolutionary sense. But it makes also evolutionary sense to stick with the female you had sex with and help her raise the joined offspring. The chances for the offspring to live to adulthood (and reproduce themselves) are much better if two adults care for the progeny. The less offspring a species produces in general, the more important it is to care for them. And humans and other higher mammals do not produce as much offspring as, say insects.

This makes sense from a species-wide perspective. But evolutionary psychology focuses more on how individual genes get passed along, through behavior that increases the likelihood of having surviving offspring with one's own genes. A man who raises a child not related genetically will not pass along his genes, so the behavior of wanting to raise someone else's kids (and, by extension, to stick with a woman who seems like she'd be likely to HAVE someone else's kids) does not get passed on as frequently.

Quote
Evolutionary it can also make much sense for females to be promiscuous, and therefore let several males believe they are or at least could be the father of their offspring. Female lions and chimpanzees do this for example.

Yes, this could be a successful strategy. But apparently it's not the one that developed for humans, or we wouldn't have the word "slut." Or at least, we'd have a male equivalent. Human women who sleep around are often judged negatively, in most if not all societies -- from being called sluts to being stoned to death, even for the "crime" of being raped.

Evolutionary psychology often means working backwards, from observing the behavior to determining the logical Darwinian reason. Though that leads to the frequent criticism that evolutionary psychology is just about making up explanations for whatever you want. I don't agree with this, but I can see the point.

Quote
And it's tricky.  ;)

Yup.




Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,711
Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs?
« Reply #37 on: November 22, 2008, 03:51:16 pm »
I'm not sure about that with movies -- but I do know that on American TV, nobody ever, ever, EVER has an abortion.

That's for sure. Here's Slate's Dana Stevens on this very subject: "The Politics of Shashmortion."

http://www.slate.com/id/2168126/pagenum/all/
 
Quote
Here's an admittedly nonprofessional observation about birds:  people often note that the males of some avian species have bright, elaborate plumage while the females tend to be shades of gray, brown and black.  And from a human perspective, it's easy to assume that nature is just more generous with the males; but the evolutionary reality is that this bright plumage serves no purpose other than to attract females.  As far as survival is concerned, it's a handicap: the female's "drabber" coloring serves her well when she's sitting on a nest.  And I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the species with gaudy male plumage are the same species where the male has very little role in raising the young.  After all, under those circumstances, Nature would hold a male's life quite cheaply.

It's funny that, in humans, the plumage is generally on the other foot.

But then, the presence of a counterexample doesn't mean that evolution isn't responsible for the plumage. Any more than it the fact that some primates are omniverous and some are herbivorus disproves an evolutionary component. Different species just evolve in different directions.




Offline lia

  • Jr. Ranch Hand
  • **
  • Posts: 17
Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs?
« Reply #38 on: November 22, 2008, 04:07:55 pm »
...evolutionary psychology focuses more on how individual genes get passed along, through behavior that increases the likelihood of having surviving offspring with one's own genes. A man who raises a child not related genetically will not pass along his genes, so the behavior of wanting to raise someone else's kids (and, by extension, to stick with a woman who seems like she'd be likely to HAVE someone else's kids) does not get passed on as frequently.

Of course from an evolutionary point of view, the most efficient way of passing on individual genes is polygamy, no point in having sex with somebody who is already pregnant, best turn to the next wife in line. Too bad that most advocates of that particular practice most likely don't believe in evolution in the first place. ;)

Offline serious crayons

  • Moderator
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 22,711
Re: Female Chauvinist Pigs?
« Reply #39 on: November 22, 2008, 04:16:00 pm »
Of course from an evolutionary point of view, the most efficient way of passing on individual genes is polygamy, no point in having sex with somebody who is already pregnant, best turn to the next wife in line. Too bad that most advocates of that particular practice most likely don't believe in evolution in the first place. ;)

True. But throughout history, this has been common practice for powerful men in many societies.

And incidentally, there is no known culture in which women commonly have multiple husbands.