The answer is that it depends how you slice it. One can go along with you and say, in a manner of speaking, that the fact of pregnancy determines the role of women. But this leaves too much out. The full statement ought to be: the fact of pregnancy determines the role of women in a social environment in which women are bound to the household, subservient to men, unable to pick and choose between social roles, where childcare is unavailable, and so on. You wanted to say that biology is primary here, but if what I've said so far is true, it is the social environment that is crucial.

But that doesn't immediately follow. There's a missing step between the division of labour and the subsequent dominance.

that the fact of pregnancy determines the role of women. — jamalrob

I never said this.

the fact of pregnancy determines the role of women in a social environment in which women are bound to the household, subservient to men, unable to pick and choose between social roles, where childcare is unavailable, and so on. — jamalrob

:s No, it's much simpler than that. The biological fact can determine a social environment where women are subservient. And by the way, as I made abundantly clear, I don't think women have always been subservient historically. I'm not a women's studies feminist who thinks Western culture is a patriarchy that has to be burned down.

You wanted to say that biology is primary here, but if what I've said so far is true, it is the social environment that is crucial. — jamalrob

Wrong. They're both important. They both impact one another. This was abundantly clear if you had read my whole post, where in the last paragraph I made it clear we should ensure that we have a social environment which prevents women from being abused when they are vulnerable.

But that doesn't immediately follow. There's a missing step between the division of labour and the subsequent dominance. — Michael

Look, if I'm in charge of fighting wars, while you're in charge of watching over the animals, who will rule? I will rule, because I'll become stronger than you, quite naturally, and if you disobey me, your head will not stay on your shoulders for very long. I don't see how there's a missing step there at all. As I said in my post, military and brute strength ultimately settles things in this world. All we can do to minimise suffering is promote virtue, and have virtuous rulers who are capable of enforcing laws that protect those who are vulnerable, and ensure the adequate rights for everyone.

I will rule, because I'll become stronger than you, quite naturally, and if you disobey me, your head will not stay on your shoulders for very long. — Agustino

Ah, I see. So that's what you mean by saying that there are biological reasons for social inequality. Men were/are strong enough to force women into submission.

All right, I guess we can kind of agree on all that. Even so, it's obvious that you wanted to emphasize the biology, as if doing so somehow went against Hanover's point. It doesn't, which is why I made my contribution, to point out something you appeared to be missing.

Ah, I see. So that's what you mean by saying that there are biological reasons for social inequality. Men were/are strong enough to force women into submission. — Michael

Yes, that's the explanation for why social inequality has not been historically arbitrary. And that's also exactly why (contrary to the irony I sense in your post):

The best we can do is what we're doing now. Use the law to protect women over those things where they can be abused because they are vulnerable - this means protect them against sexual abuse, physical violence, provide equal access to education and learning, provide equal access to political expression and manifestation, etc.. Much like we offer protection to children, who are exposed to a lot of vulnerabilities because of their lack of knowledge, physical size, etc. But there's not much more than that that we can do. There's some bullshit affirmative action, and other leftist ideology going around where, for example, a female professor is hired over a male professor just because she's a female - that's absolutely stupid, and in my view should stop. People should get hired for something based on their competency to do the job, not based on their sex. — Agustino

All right, I guess we can kind of agree on all that. Even so, it's obvious that you wanted to emphasize the biology, as if doing so somehow went against Hanover's point. It doesn't, which is why I made my contribution, to point out something you appeared to be missing. — jamalrob

Hanover's post suggested that the reason for social inequality was arbitrary, which is wrong. It wasn't. And that's also what the women's studies feminists seem to believe, which is just bullshit.

But that doesn't immediately follow. There's a missing step between the division of labour and the subsequent dominance. — Michael

Among socializing mammals who demonstrate hierarchy, competition between males and females is rare. Each sex has its own hierarchy.

I think patriarchy as we know it developed with the demise of prominent female deities like Ashtar. I'm guessing there are several reasons that patriarchy became such a successful social structure. But I think there's more to it than that men finally noticed that women are physically weaker.

The Judeo-Christian tradition actually blames the first woman for the existence of evil. I noticed as a child that in most fairy tales the villain is female. Maybe it has to do with a reaction to superstition. Fear of witches, basically.

The Judeo-Christian tradition actually blames the first woman for the existence of evil. — Mongrel

And you forget to mention that the Judeo-Christian tradition also ensures that it will be the woman's offspring who will crush the head of the serpent. Not to mention that the woman's curse in the OT is shorter than the man's, and the length of a judgement generally indicates the gravity of the offence in the Judaic tradition. But of course, I wouldn't be surprised if you didn't know this.

Hanover's post suggested that the reason for social inequality was arbitrary, which is wrong. It wasn't. And that's also what the women's studies feminists seem to believe, which is just bullshit. — Agustino

No, his post did not suggest that. The very fact that it is the historical subjugation of women he was talking about implies it is not arbitrary. And being a woman is a biological fact (contra some modern theorists who might say otherwise), so one could say that the biological fact of being a woman determines whether one is going to be subjugated as a woman, but this obviously wouldn't be saying much.

Not only that, but his whole point was that, far from being arbitrary, it is the specific facts of a social environment that determine how a person's biology will affect their life.

People should get hired for something based on their competency to do the job, not based on their sex. — Agustino

Having the physical strength to force others to obey you is not the same thing as being a competent leader.

To refer back to your earlier remark:

Look, if I'm in charge of fighting wars, while you're in charge of watching over the animals, who will rule? I will rule, because I'll become stronger than you, quite naturally, and if you disobey me, your head will not stay on your shoulders for very long.

Even if the general has the means to force everyone else into submission, it doesn't then mean that he would make the best leader. Perhaps the person in charge of watching the animals will make the best leader, and the general, aware of this, follows her commands to ensure that her laws are obeyed.

And to refer back to your claim about the biological reason for social inequality, although you've explained how men are able to force women into submission, you haven't explained why they did so. As you agreed, there have been (and are) matriarchies, despite the fact that men are physically stronger. So something other than the biological differences between men and women is required to explain any social inequalities.

Although maybe the answer to that is just "men are biologically dicks who like to control those who are weaker than them".

And being a woman is a biological fact (contra some modern theorists who say it's not), so one could say that the biological fact of being a woman determines whether one is going to be subjugated as a woman, but this obviously wouldn't be saying much. — jamalrob

Again, I seem to have to keep repeating this to you. Biological facts don't determine - rather they CAN determine social facts (which is what happened in some societies in the past, and is currently happening in many ISLAMIC societies in the Middle East, but you being a leftist may not like to hear that).

Having the physical strength to force others to obey you is not the same thing as being a competent leader. — Michael

And did I say it was? :s you're really very puzzling... Can you comprehend what I write?

I say people should be hired based on their competency, not on their sex, and you say that having the physical strength to force others to obey you isn't being a competent leader... :s as if the two had ANYTHING to do with each other.

And did I say it was? :s you're really very puzzling... Can you comprehend what I write? — Agustino

You said this:

Look, if I'm in charge of fighting wars, while you're in charge of watching over the animals, who will rule? I will rule, because I'll become stronger than you, quite naturally, and if you disobey me, your head will not stay on your shoulders for very long.

And then, you responded to my response by quoting this:

People should get hired for something based on their competency to do the job, not based on their sex.

So which is it? Should the leader be the one most suited to the job or should the leader be the one with the biggest muscles and the biggest stick?

you've explained how men are able to force women into submission, you haven't explained why they did so. — Michael

Well the human race does have a tendency towards immorality, so if they can do something, especially something bad, sooner or later they will do it. That's like asking me why have human beings been so brutal with each other historically - for the simple fact that they COULD! That holds for a very large number of people - the majority. Now of course there are exceptions to this - virtuous people who are concerned about morality and seek to live life with principles. But they will never be the majority. Society is fundamentally an anarchy, and you'd be deceiving yourself if you thought anything else was anything more than temporary social constructs, regardless of how virtuous or right they happen to be. That's why brute force has ultimately decided the course of things historically.

So something other than the biological differences between men and women is required to explain any social inequalities. — Michael

Right. I never claimed the biological factor is the only one, so again, I don't understand how any of what you've said here is relevant.

And then, you responded to my response by quoting this: — Michael

Nope, I quoted an entire paragraph, and that was just one small sentence from it which you have taken completely out of context.

So which is it? Should the leader be the one most suited to the job or should the leader be the one with the biggest muscles and the biggest stick? — Michael

The leader should be the one best suited for the job. I simply said men are on average better suited for leadership positions because of certain biological traits they have (and that doesn't include just muscles by the way, it includes a competitive nature, aggressiveness, etc. which are hormonal in nature). This doesn't mean women can't be leaders, or anything of this sort. They absolutely can be, and there have been great women leaders historically, and even today.

But yes, if you're a Fortune500 CEO, do you think you'd be more effective if you look like a small, tiny guy, or if you're a big towering gorilla (all other things being equal of course)? The towering gorilla will encourage obedience naturally, on a biological level. People will feel that he is strong and powerful, someone who they should naturally obey.

Right. I never claimed the biological factor is the only one, so again, I don't understand how any of what you've said here is relevant. — Agustino

So if the biological factor isn't sufficient, then what else is required, and is it arbitrary? If there's some arbitrary non-biological factor then Hanover's point stands.

The leader should be the one best suited for the job. I simply said men are on average better suited for leadership positions because of certain biological traits they have (and that doesn't include just muscles by the way, it includes a competitive nature, aggressiveness, etc. which are hormonal in nature).

Being a good leader doesn't require any of this. Most governance these days isn't limited to waging war or dominating other nations in other ways.

Being a good leader doesn't require any of this. Most governance these days isn't limited to waging war or dominating other nations in other ways. — Michael

Society is fundamentally an anarchy, and you'd be deceiving yourself if you thought anything else was anything more than temporary social constructs, regardless of how virtuous or right they happen to be. That's why brute force has ultimately decided the course of things historically. — Agustino

IF women have traditionally been relegated to submissive roles (which by the way I don't think is the case everywhere in history), then why did this happen? Is it an arbitrary thing that it was women who were relegated to submissive roles and not men? :s It seems to me that you have internalised a very leftist way of looking at this situation. — Agustino

Do you have any evidence, other than your Great Leader argument, that supports the very broad and unsupported assertion you are making?

Society is fundamentally an anarchy, and you'd be deceiving yourself if you thought anything else was anything more than temporary social constructs, regardless of how virtuous or right they happen to be. That's why brute force has ultimately decided the course of things historically. — Agustino

If our current temporary social construct isn't an anarchy (which it isn't) then what I'm saying is right.

So if the biological factor isn't sufficient, then what else is required, and is it arbitrary? If there's some arbitrary non-biological factor then Hanover's point stands. — Michael

Biological facts and social facts are interrelated, as I have already said.

If our current temporary social construct isn't an anarchy (which it isn't) then what I'm saying is right. — Michael

You're not right, because we're fundamentally an anarchy. We need to prepare for the very worst, not for fantasies that we know cannot ultimately last forever. The people who suggest disarming ourselves are living with the same foolishness as you. We must cultivate strength, and objectively great leadership (including from women, because women can also be great leaders), not live in pink-flying cloud lala land. Ultimately only brute strength can guarantee the continuation of our current social construct.

You're not right, because we're fundamentally an anarchy. — Agustino

What do you mean by saying that we're fundamentally an anarchy? Do you mean that if we take away all the temporary social constructs like laws and the government then we'd be an anarchy? That's a truism, and irrelevant. Given that we have laws and a government, being a good leader doesn't require being the strongest or the most aggressive.

What do you mean by saying that we're fundamentally an anarchy? Do you mean that if we take away all the temporary social constructs like laws and the government then we'd be an anarchy? — Michael

No, I mean that any moment we can revert back to an anarchy, and the only thing that can ABSOLUTELY guarantee that we don't is ultimately brute force (wielded by virtuous people, obviously).

No, I mean that any moment we can revert back to an anarchy, and the only thing that can ABSOLUTELY guarantee that we don't is ultimately brute force. — Agustino

And at any moment we could all have heart attacks and die. But the odds are so unlikely as for it to be irrelevant.

And, no, it's not brute force. Is it better for me to build a club, beat you to death with it, and steal your food, or to build a club, trade it with you for some food, and then repeat as necessary? Societies are built primarily on cooperation.

Well the human race does have a tendency towards immorality, so if they can do something, especially something bad, sooner or later they will do it. That's like asking me why have human beings been so brutal with each other historically - for the simple fact that they COULD! That holds for a very large number of people - the majority. Now of course there are exceptions to this - virtuous people who are concerned about morality and seek to live life with principles. But they will never be the majority. Society is fundamentally an anarchy, and you'd be deceiving yourself if you thought anything else was anything more than temporary social constructs, regardless of how virtuous or right they happen to be. That's why brute force has ultimately decided the course of things historically. — Agustino

I don't agree with your characterization. As I see it, we are human animals. We like each other. We want to be around each other. To me, that is the source of human morality. If our morality comes from inside ourselves rather than God or some other outside authority, that puts the lie to your characterization of society as anarchy and humanity as tending towards immorality. It has always struck me that the amazing thing about human society, with billions of us jammed together, is how little violence there is.

That doesn't deny human violence and brutality. Our desire for social cohesion is in conflict with other human impulses.

And at any moment we could all have heart attacks and die. But the odds are so unlikely as for it to be irrelevant. — Michael

Except that the odds here aren't like that. It's in fact very likely we will revert to anarchy. It keeps happening over and over again historically, and we bounce back from it. It's less than 100 years ago that we went through two absolutely vicious world wars, and there will be more in the future, especially if we have people around who think like you and aren't aware of the dangers.

It has always struck me that the amazing thing about human society, with billions of us jammed together, is how little violence there is. — T Clark

You clearly don't know any history then. The brutality showcased by the human race far outweighs all our positive achievements. You live in a very small, artificial social bubble which insulates you from the underlying reality of anarchy - this forms a psychological barrier of protection for most people. You're mistaking less than 100 years of prosperity for the underlying reality. You'll have a very big and unpleasant surprise when the world next erupts in a vicious and brutal war then. That's man's undoing - he forgets stuff easily.

It's less than 100 years ago that we went through two absolutely vicious world wars, and there will be more in the future, especially if we have people around who think like you and aren't aware of the dangers. — Agustino

So we had 10 years of war over a span of 113 years, and you want to say that society is fundamentally an anarchy? Seems to me that anarchies (using the term loosely here, as society wasn't an anarchy during the wars) are the irregular, temporary occurrences.

So we had 9 years of war over a span of 113 years, and you want to say that society is fundamentally an anarchy? Seems to me that anarchies (using the term loosely here, as society wasn't an anarchy during the wars) are the irregular, temporary occurrences. — Michael

No, we're always seeking (and rightly so) to escape anarchy, and never succeeding.