Snafu wrote:
Sadly, it's not the case, and science is finding biological differences (albeit subtle ones) between the two sexes.

Paul wrote:
Such as? Most of what people think of as differences -- like the supposedly different types of intelligence aptitudes -- has been shown either wrong or highly suspect by science. More importantly, such things are statistical averages and not rules.

Your rather offensive stereotype of american men as chivalrybots from the 17th century simply doesn't hold true in the real world. I cannot imagine a guy in a war situation who has trained with both men and women as equals being so much more likely to protect the woman (if he has bias it'll be toward saving his friends). Self-sacrifice for the sake of other men in time of war does happen, and is generally applauded and rewarded with posthumous decorations rather than frowned on, so calling it a problem is silly. The idea that women are utterly irresistable to the point of guys happily piling on the gernade 20 deep is absurd and reeks of sexism. I've read Coulter-type conservatives argue that women would be "distracting" because men can't help but fall in love with them and romance hinders combat... that's absurd enough, but you've taken it to a new extreme which even the conservative lunatic fringe won't touch.

TMB wrote:
What is the driver behind your question? Why are you concerned about the concept of feminism, surely how we define things is of less importance than what we practice? Is the ideal surely not to pursue those things we believe to be of real value, and how we label them, secondary? re you more concerned that the definition is carefully defined and controlled, and then conformed to in some particular way? I have no issue debating the argument as you have posed it, however the only value I can see in this exercise is a political one, not one of finding true value or knowing the reality of our gender landscape.

Masculism (also referred to as masculinism) consists of social theories, political movements, and moral philosophies primarily based on the experiences of men. Although masculism provides a general critique of social relations, many of its active proponents also seek to analyze gender inequality and promote men's rights, interests, and issues.

Most of what people think of as differences -- like the supposedly different types of intelligence aptitudes -- has been shown either wrong or highly suspect by science. More importantly, such things are statistical averages and not rules.

we need to consider not only biological differences, but differences that are permanently embedded in a society's culture. Women aren't allowed on front lines in American wars not because they're incompetent (my Navy sister would certainly attest to that fact) but because American men are socialized to protect women, male soldiers will often sacrifice their lives to save a female comrade.[/quote]

If I read this correctly Snafu is using her sister as the validation that all women in wars are not incompetent, relative to men. Using an anecdoate as evidence aside, what exactly defines competence on the front line of battle? I would imagine that the effective ability to kill the enemy, with minimal equipment, at lowest cost to all resources might fit this, if we believe that annihilation of the enemy, at lowest cost is the objective. Even though there are remote weapons, there appear to be plenty of gunfire injuries, tanks, grenades etc are used in Iraq. Doing this with minimal fuss and indifference all appear to be competence in this model. Or would we consider a competent front liner to be one that avoids bloodshed on both sides, and is able to negotiate a bloodless war and peace with the opposition, and enter into harmonious relations? Without a clear view of what we judge to be of value in soldiers, how can we judge gender differences. By whose subjective standards shall we judge this?

Countries like Israel (despite being religiously-based and conservative in many ways) find no trouble putting women on the front lines. America's current wars don't have front lines of course (when there are front lines, they're actually safer since it means conventional war at which we always win easily). Women are involved in the combat and frequently killed. The exclusion from the front lines is nothing more than lip serice to appease people like you. My poor googling skills show 33 killed and 240 women injured in Iraq as of early 2005, so presumably several times more by now, despite composing only 14% of the army according to other googling, and presumably a smaller percentage of combat forces.


You appear to be suggesting that Israel fields women as much as they do men, and presuambly this implies casualty rates are similar? Excuse me for saying this but your information on this does not present like you are an expert on this or well educated on this topic. Your figures from the US troops in Iraq also seem to be based on limited research. I would suggest that to get a perspective on something like this (which I do not have either), is to cover all modern armies at war, across countries. My limited googling skills gave me the idea this is not a simple exercise. If you are qualified to judge this, then I apologise, and ask for some more meat and facts on this. It appears that although women are being taken into the armed forces, in the US at least the current laws prevent them from being exposed to combat situations.

The total death toll in Iraq through to Sept 2006 is just under 3000, this means what something over 1% of casualties are women. The figures I found included accidents, suicides, as well as from enemy engagement.

Israel does not appear to put women into combat either, in 2005 around 2% were in combat positions. See this reference on how increased exposure to masculine roles in the army changes the behavior of the women, despite them still not being significant in combat positions.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-6742045/W...

[quote]Your rather offensive stereotype of american men as chivalrybots from the 17th century simply doesn't hold true in the real world. I cannot imagine a guy in a war situation who has trained with both men and women as equals being so much more likely to protect the woman (if he has bias it'll be toward saving his friends). Self-sacrifice for the sake of other men in time of war does happen, and is generally applauded and rewarded with posthumous decorations rather than frowned on, so calling it a problem is silly. The idea that women are utterly irresistable to the point of guys happily piling on the gernade 20 deep is absurd and reeks of sexism. I've read Coulter-type conservatives argue that women would be "distracting" because men can't help but fall in love with them and romance hinders combat... that's absurd enough, but you've taken it to a new extreme which even the conservative lunatic fringe won't touch.

Men are not automotauns who worship women. Men have brains, believe it or not. The overwhealming majority of men do not try to be paternal protectors of co-workers on a gender basis -- if they did then women would have to be kicked out of the business world too in order to keep men undistracted -- you may as well just stick the women in burquas to protect men from their influence. If someone comes at you with a knife on the street, I'm running away, not taking the knife for you -- and so are 99% of other men.

Fortunately here in the 21st century most people realize that, so even the regressive bastion of intolerance that is the american millitary leadership (the soldiers aren't the problem) has moved onward to a great extent -- though it still believes gay men in the ranks will pile on gernades 20 deep out of love for men apparently -- and has observed a complete lack of any problems with the thousands of women serving on dangerous duty in Iraq and Afghanistan as we speak. We're not talking about managing to hope with the stream of protective men here, we're talking about absolutely zero issues to my knowledge. If you can cite an article where men and women fighting togeather has hindered the combat operation, please do. Just one surely isn't much to ask when you're insisting it's a huge widespread problem which calls for making separate gender-specific rules. You're just rehashing a new version of the argument made last century that racial integration would destroy the millitary since it's impossible for different races to get along.

You could just as easly be arguing that women as negotiators or CEOs or just as co-workers would be disastrous because men would be unable to pull off the sometimes harsh confrontations of the business world against a woman. Back in reality, men compete with women every day and don't cede them any chivalrous advantage. Welcome to the 21st century... or the 20th for that matter.

There are differences that are being proven through science. As I stated, they are extremely subtle. Science has found that women have more neural connectors between the left and right sides of their brains, enabling them to be better multi-taskers (however, with Gen Y this multi-tasking gap between the sexes is quickly closing). Deborah Tannen--a highly-regarded social scientist and feminist--has also found that women communicate for different purposes than men, and in different ways (although it's unclear whether this is socially or biologically-influenced behavior). It's not anti-feminist nowadays to admit that there are biological differences between men and women. I know a lot of feminists today resist these kinds of findings, but it seems as though they share a little too much with religious fundamentalists refusing to believe that dinosaurs existed because it's more convenient for them to say otherwise. I don't believe there's much good in fighting what science has shown. I do believe in approaching it with a grain of salt, however.

To that end, I've seen nothing in scientific research thus far to suggest that there is anything significant to these differences--they are (as I said) rather subtle. Their importance is mostly in allowing us to understand each sex, not legislate or oppress them. I can't think of a single thing that's been shown to be a biological difference between sexes as of yet to merit some kind of special right. However, if something came up, I think it would be fair to give special consideration to it legally (the same way American law grants special consideration for parents who kill in defense of their children's lives--a "privilege" (if you will) that is not granted to other people who kill in defense of others). Again, I don't see anything yet that would be worthy of this kind of consideration, but I would rather not rule it out since this field of science is still rather new.

Believe you me, I was livid when New York State decided it's public schools needed to restrict the dress code (surprisingly directed almost entirely at girls' fashion) in order to "prevent violence and classroom distraction." This includes short skirts and spaghetti-strap tank tops, because apparently a bra strap has caused gang wars and is the sole reason for why boys aren't paying attention in Calculus. Allow me to channel my high-school self: Puh-leeze.

What I'm getting at with the military example is an example of how the government treats one sex differently from the other because of how the two interact. It's not a fair law, and I'm strongly opposed to the idea that women are kept from front lines and that they are not drafted. I believe it still stands today that women don't fight on front lines--although, as you say, there hardly are any nowadays. I know the reason for it was as I said: they believed that an entire platoon would die just so a female comrade lived.

I know women are on front lines in dozens of other countries--Israel being one of them, although I know there are more

And I'm sure most men in the military do not behave as such anymore (although you'd be surprised at the protective nature men have in the military towards women. They might as well be in feudal England.). I don't think men are a bunch of dumb neanderthals who cannot resist the wiles of a woman. And even if they were, I wouldn't punish the women for it. You have to remember, I'm not the one who implemented this rule of "no women on the front lines." I'm merely stating the reason why someone did it. There's a difference between explaining a reason and defending one. I was just using it as an example of how we've treated the sexes differently because of socialized behavior. I imagine at one time, it was a serious concern for the military. (The 1950's attitude toward interaction between the two sexes seems especially suspect.) However, as far as social change is concerned, the military is often the last bastion of conservativism. I doubt it's really all that serious of a problem now. But, then again, you'd be surprised at the kinds of men who join the military: my sister is getting cock-blocked by her fellow sailors because they don't want anybody breaking her heart. (Seriously, they are physically protecting her--they surround her during meal time and push away any guy who tries to talk to her. One might imagine a few of these guys would possibly take a grenade for her.)

Women and men have biological differences, although science has yet to prove anything that would merit giving special consideration to either sex.

However, baseline equality runs the risk of hurting more than helping in the event that a difference between the sexes is, in fact biological, and merits giving special legal consideration. Also, it needs to be remembered that while most differences between the sexes are socialized, it does not change the fact that they exist (albeit on a temporary and superficial scale).

Therefore, we need to give special consideration for these socialized differences, since they are almost as difficult to change as biological ones. I cannot think of an example outside of the outdated military example, but I imagine there are still a few in existence. Maybe there are none anymore, or at least any that would merit special consideration given to either sex.

If not, well, that's why I'm suggesting we apply a bit of caution before we say the law should be blind to sex. Overly progressive laws can be just as oppressive as overly conservative ones.

These strands of thought treat men and women as hostile classes. Some infamously ascribe radically different thought patterns to men and women as such. I reject such group-thinking. Each individual should be judged based on character, actions, and ability, not merely on the person's sex.