Men and women, biologically, fill a specific niche that neither could replace the latter in. Moreover, physical, mental and social attributes vary from person to person, and the claims that one sex is overall better than the other, in any field/trait, is tantimount to senseless bigotry?
2007-02-24
10:07:57
·
10 answers
·
asked by
Anonymous
in
Social Science
➔ Gender Studies
Robinson:
You are generalizing, by what you're are saying is that there is no woman in the world that could have more testerone than a man because the average says so.
I know for certain that there are women in the world that are smarter than myself, stronger, but at the same time, there are some that are less intelligent, and weaker.
2007-02-24
10:46:29 ·
update #1
Baba Yaga:
By biological niche, I mean that there are organs in womans body that are not in a mans. For example, if a man and a woman have a child, and the mother is killed, the man cannot nurse the child. As well, if a society is made up completely of women, there is no second source of genetics to impregnate said women to continue the species.
This concept however overlooks humanities progress in medicine; as many know, one can impregnate a woman with her own DNA (with obvious complications), and hormone treatments can cause a male to lactate.
But, in their purist natural states, male and female humans are biologically indepentent entities.
2007-02-24
12:26:58 ·
update #2
jonmcn49:
You are correct, I am simply leveling the ground, as there are people on Yahoo! answers that seem to believe that their sex is somehow the better sex because they can do this, that and the other thing. Its sad that one needs to define that equality is a rights issue and not a biological one.
I am however not confused about biological niches, the entire purpose of two sexes is to increase the combinations of genetic diversity. To say one sex has a niche with respect to the other (you must consider the respective nature of the comparision to understand.). The sexes share a symbiotic relation to one another, not a parasite nature as some here attempt to insinuate.
And to make things clear, I am not a social scientist, I'm an mechanical engineering undergrad. I've never so muched open a sociology text, as I find it better to comment of my observations and experiences rather than those of others.
2007-02-24
13:20:08 ·
update #3
I think the confusion lies in your choice of words; confusing a term of graduation, better, with a term of dichotomy, different. No one is claiming a moral position by pointing out sexual differences. Do not confuse equality of opportunity with equality of identity. Because one sex is physically stronger than the other, on average, does not mean one is morally better than the other.
You are seriously confused about " biological niche ". We are one species and inhabit one niche. A difference in sex organs does not constitute a different biological niche. Review you biology and put down the social science texts for a moment.
PS The sexes can not be said to share a symbiotic relationship. You say you understand niche, then you say something as " symbiotic ". The moral point is more important here, but I am a biologist and can not let such inaccuracies pass; even when they may be in metaphorical form.( we are not all that certain about the " purpose " of having two sexes, as opposed to simple binary fission/cloning/budding )
2007-02-24 12:51:27
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Bigotry is:
1. Stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own.
So, no; I don't believe that those who believe in psychological, physical, or social differences in men and women in general are bigots, especially not when they are proven by a host of studies. Check the one Baba Yaga is so fond of posting but look at the actual studies to determine the worth of each.
Men on average produce 15 times as much testosterone as women; women on average produce 20 times as much testosterone as men. (Information from a nutritionist; he could be off by a bit.) Testosterone is a chemical that naturally builds muscle. If men have this natural chemical, is it any wonder that they are stronger on the AVERAGE? No. I disagree with your conclusion wholeheartedly although I do agree that men and women are just human beings and similar in most respects.
EDIT: "You are generalizing, by what you're are saying is that there is no woman in the world that could have more testerone than a man because the average says so."
I never said any such thing. I said that men are stronger on the AVERAGE, and it is therefore sensible to assume there are definitely differences between men and women as a WHOLE. Do you care to argue with genetics and human evolution? You can, if you wish, but the fact remains that, given a normal population, a man will always occupy the top 100 positions for physical strength (which is determined by sarcomere concentration), and probably positions further along the line than that because men simply have the biological factors that allow for this. One can argue against biology if one wishes, but doing so does not result in the TRUTH, only in a man-made LIE.
2007-02-24 10:41:49
·
answer #2
·
answered by Robinson0120 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
You are absolutely correct and thanks for a excellent observation. The problem is that is your defend one sex or the other and claim equality then you are considered to be sexist. I believe that there should be equality across the board. Which means for minorities, visible and not, religion, disability, age and gender. There is obviously a power imbalance in many cultures and societies, and people like Robinson with all the wisdom of their sixteen years have not experienced this first hand and as a result do not seem to grasp the pain and bitterness this can cause.
Thanks for drawing peoples attention to this issue.
2007-02-24 11:55:36
·
answer #3
·
answered by Deirdre O 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I don't understand what you mean by 'biological niche'. Men and women are different, but equal. Why does Robinson rant so yet never produces any evidence to back up his claims: 'nutrionist buddy' doesn't cut it.
2007-02-24 11:56:05
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes I agree.
2007-02-24 16:29:53
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
"....cultural forces paintings their magic... " isn't that like asserting Stalin altered the Soviet custom via killing 250 million people? "Primordial Superstitions " - i'm jotting that down as a achievable band call. thank you!
2016-10-01 22:25:48
·
answer #6
·
answered by aubrette 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You think a woman could be stronger than me? I seriously doubt it.
2007-02-24 11:30:32
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋
unfortunately the world is full of such bigots
2007-02-24 10:16:26
·
answer #8
·
answered by curious115 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, I agree with you.
2007-02-24 10:48:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by vanhammer 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
yes it's true
2007-02-24 11:32:24
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋