Anti-Humanism
The Church of Gaia
| May 24, 2009
| Tim
webecoist.com:
Each of these species move about their surroundings with a territorial purpose, and defend what they deem as rightfully their own. They defend the members of their social grouping, and they care for their young, old, and sick. They use babysitters, they have affairs, they have deadbeat fathers and even the occasional runaway bride. They mourn their recently departed. When these behaviors are witnessed, they can evoke a feeling that these animals are more human than we are.
I can understand someone thinking a social animal is "almost human", or even (though I don't share it) "human." But what is it that leads an environmentalist to suggest that other animals are "more human" than humans? Whatever it is that defines humanity, humans would naturally be expected to have more of it than any other creature. "Wow, they do some of the same things we do. So they're more entitled to the epithet 'human' that we are!" Isn't that just code for: "They're so much better"?
Men and women are exactly the same, says the feminist.
But the world would be so much better if it were run by women.
Human beings are just another animal, says the environmentalist.
But humans are not as good as the other animals.
Humans and animals have many traits in common. The thing that makes humans human, is our brain. It is much more advanced. That's the only difference.
Hey Random,
I think you're missing the point of the article. If someone said "animals are almost human" it wouldn't be significant. The point is that the author said that they were more humans than humans are. Which is a bit absurd in a few different ways.
Men and women are exactly the same, says the feminist.
But the world would be so much better if it were run by women.
Some feminists may have said this, but I've never heard one say it in front of me. Perhaps the sentiment belonged to a different generation (testosterone poisoning is no longer a catchphrase, it seems). And I've known my share of women's studies majors.
Some feminists may have said this, but I've never heard one say it in front of me.
Which phrase? As to the first: Did you hear why Lawrence Summers was fired from Harvard? Perhaps that (somehow) is no longer part of women's studies (etc) (?) — if so, good, but I'd be shocked if academia has, in large, given up on that idea. Or that your friends never absorbed it.
Or did you mean the other one? A few weeks ago at work I parked next to a rather ratty old car with a (similarly ratty) bumper sticker:
Men-tal Anxiety... Men-opause... Men-tal Breakdown. Ever notice that all our problems start with MEN?
Har har! A few times on my way to work I've seen other similar anti-male sentiments expressed on bumper stickers.
Dee Dee Myers — Bill Clinton's press secretary: "Why Women Should Rule the World."
Mark Lange, former presidential speechwriter (and clearly a feminist): "It is getting harder to escape the sense that most of the trouble in the world – whether it's coming out of the Senate, a mortgage lender, or a tank turret – can be traced to one overriding problem: too many men steering."
Psychology Today, 2003: "Women Make Better Leaders... they are not only doing just as well as men, but they are doing better."
And I think nearly every prime-time sitcom is based on (or evinces, anyway) a similar premise.
Which phrase?
That the world would be so much better if it were run (exclusively or predominantly) by women.
A few times on my way to work I've seen other similar anti-male sentiments expressed on bumper stickers.
I'm hesitant to take bumper stickers as evidence. I've quoted Norm from Cheers saying "Women, can't live with'em. Pass the beernuts." I hope noone would interpret that as a serious political assertion on my part. It's a joke.
Did you hear why Lawrence Summers was fired from Harvard?
IIRC, he gave several arguments to justify the disproportionate number of men in certain positions, one of them being that the bell curve for for women was more protracted with fewer exceptional cases and fewer failures. True or not, it seems that his arguments were controversial because it justified a disproportionate number of men in various roles. How does that bear on this discussion?
The feminists I've known have typically argued for equality. i.e. 50% female senators and 50% male, not exclusively female. The NPR link that you cite gives some support for my view. Many have argued that a lack of equal reprsentation is defacto evidence of sexism, and that a defense of inequal outcomes is also sexism which I disagree with.
Hutchison believes the goal of representative government is to bring together as many backgrounds, points of view, and experiences as possible "to make a better result. And it's just that, historically, the women's experience was not at the table."
...
One possible answer: There were no women in the room when the questions were asked, the answers considered, and the strategy of how — or even whether to proceed discussed.
...
That's not to say that women's priorities are better than men's. Rather, when women are empowered, when they can speak from the experience of their own lives, they often address different, previously neglected issues. And families and whole communities benefit.
NPR story
Granted the Mark Lange article does argue for female superiority. And
granted, I think the Psych Today article is off base in its conclusion and does also support your point in arguing for female superiority.
However, as a side note, one of the most elegant signals of discrimination is that those who break through the 'glass ceiling' tend to be better than average. The first black baseball players to play in the majors were phenomenal. The same holds true for the first women to graduate from European universities (Curie, Meitner, etc.) So it may very well be that extant female leaders are more effective, not because they were honed for superiority by adversity but because those who didn't outperform their competitors were culled out at a higher rate.
"CEOs should level the playing field, and make sure women are given equal opportunities to be managers," says lead author Alice Eagly, a professor of psychology at Northwestern. "The study shows they are not only doing just as well as men, but they are doing better."
...
Women striving for leadership roles may also have to meet a higher standard than men. They may therefore adapt their leadership tactics along the way to fit the more effective transformational style, Eagly says.
Psychology Today
Ryan, you're thoughtful and interesting as always. And, also as always, it's a pleasure conversing with you.
I'm hesitant to take bumper stickers as evidence...
I live near Boulder, CO. There's really no contextual reason to believe that most of what I see on bumpers (unless obviously satirical, e.g. "visualize whirled peas") doesn't contain at least a grain of truth about the drivers' views. One guy I worked with had a bumper stick which said "I don't get mad, I get even." I learned soon enough that was quite accurate. (Well, he attempted to get "even." Management wasn't interested in enabling such schenanigans.)
I hope noone would interpret that as a serious political assertion on my part.
You weren't serious enough to put it, permanently, on your rear bumper. Big difference.
Re: Summers, the comment which stuck most in my mind (second here), and which I first heard about, were his suggestion that we do more research looking towards innate differences, which is what his critics in the audience seemed most shocked by in the first accounts I read.
(Weirdly, one feminist was saying she felt like throwing up or fainting — I forget which — in response to hearing such statements. Um, sure, we're just the same. I can so easily imagine Noam Chomsky or Abraham Lincoln fainting or throwing up when hearing a different opinion voiced at a debate. Not.)
Many have argued that a lack of equal reprsentation is defacto evidence of sexism, and that a defense of inequal outcomes is also sexism which I disagree with.
As do I: you have to measure the desire and effort of people to get into the situations, not just the outcome. If a lot of white guys aren't trying to become basketball stars, then it's not clear that, inch per inch, you'll be seeing discrimination if rates differ. Or men wanting to be pediatricians.
You also have to measure (blasphemy!) innate ability. Yes, it's true: more men are probably capable of passing tests required for by firefighting positions than women. Horrors.
Granted the Mark Lange article does argue for female superiority.
Actually, as usual, I could really accommodate either position. (Sometimes I've suspected women are superior to men. Though at the moment I think they're equivalent, just different.) What bugs me, as implied above, is the seeming contradiction. (Mind you, I might be mixing two different opinions from disparate individuals. But I strongly suspect, for example, if you asked Dee-Dee Meyers if gender-link behavioral tendencies were mostly socially determined, in the right context, she might very well agree with that.)
However, as a side note, one of the most elegant signals of discrimination is that those who break through the 'glass ceiling' tend to be better than average.
I disagree. I don't mean that this is never true, but I think you're looking at a fallacious contrapositive.
Where discrimination exists, yes, those who break through the glass ceiling must be especially brilliant. But the converse doesn't follow: that if only a few, especially brilliant members of X are doing something, there must be discrimination. I think that's fallacious.
Think of great rock guitar players. Most tend to be white: CSN. Randy Rhoads of Black Sabbath. Eddie Van Halen. Eric Johnson. Clapton. Jimmy Page. (And innumerable more mediocre performers, like the Cars — I love their stuff, but it's sure not complex.) Yet one of the best and most innovative was surely Jimi Hendrix, who was, it seems to me, far, far above average.
So is this proof that there's a conspiracy or tendency in the music industry (or among fans) to boycott black guitarists? Or is more the case that a young black man who likes music would tend to have been pulled toward Motown or rap? I tend to suspect the second: that there's more far more self-selection going on in this case than discrimination, producing the result you describe as a sure indicator of the later.
Again, I suspect we'd have to compare # of people trying to do X to those who end up doing it. The big (idiotic, no offense intended) assumption behind a lot of this vapidity is that everyone wants, in equal numbers, to do everything equally. That's never been true in history, and certainly won't be true now.
(And I can't remember where, but I remember reading from Thomas Sowell that he had extensively documented the way different cultures tended to produce people who focused on specific professions, for example, the traditional paucity of excellent German violins, or English cooks.)
The same holds true for the first women to graduate from European universities (Curie, Meitner, etc.)
Of course, women were excluded from universities: very definitely a case of discrimination, and obviously so, it seems to me.
So it may very well be that extant female leaders are more effective, not because they were honed for superiority by adversity but because those who didn't outperform their competitors were culled out at a higher rate.
And yet again we disagree. I think, if anything, there's actually an affirmative preference toward women in leadership these days — women actually earn more than men in similar positions, and certainly there's a desire to have a woman on a board of directors — even one with a resume which would look less impressive than her counterparts, if they were compared blind.
In my experience, it seems to me that women often select themselves out of the workplace. I know a lot more women than men who'd like to drop out and spend more time with their kids. And I hate to have to say this, but I'm not saying ALL women want this, or that ALL men don't. I'm just saying that I hear that sentiment in far greater numbers from women I know than from men.
Self-selection and preferences need to at least be considered, and yet it's largely absent from the debate.
Good talking to you too, Tim!
I agree with you re: Mark Lange. My argument was mostly about
1. which way the current dogma was blowing. (over assumption that people were 'tabula rasa')
2. That barriers to success in an area create a pattern of a few individuals of exceptional skill and almost no mediocre or poor individuals, and these statistics only paint a pattern when read together.
women actually earn more than men in similar positions,
But do they also occupy the positions in similar numbers? Women in science in the early 19th century received more honors proportionately than their male counterparts but there was still discrimination.
The culling could happen in business school, the workforce, kindergarten. I'll agree that it could be self selective in the sense that if, say, women had a stronger desire to stay home with kids that fact could also act as a barrier. Of course, it could also be the result of some kind of female superiority. If female superiority were the reason, women should have a long left tail to their bell curve similar to what men have.
and certainly there's a desire to have a woman on a board of directors — even one with a resume which would look less impressive than her counterparts, if they were compared blind.
*cough* Carly Fiorina *cough cough*
I agree, though. And in such a case you'd likely see the opposite trend: an even longer tail on the left of the bell curve. Of course, this would not be true if there are so many possible CEOs that the desire for a few more women for gender's sake doesn't lower any barriers.
Tokenism seems more likely in highly visible jobs. But is the sentiment uniform through the culture?
Or is more the case that a young black man who likes music would tend to have been pulled toward Motown or rap?
I don't know enough about the music business to properly discuss this, but what kind of 'pulling' happens that only the exceptional guitarists make it through? If there are only a disproportionate few yet exceptional black guitarists that suggests to me that a barrier (perhaps that word is less charged than 'discrimination') probably exists somewhere. Maybe it's a barrier inside the music industry. Maybe it's a barrier inside black culture. I don't know. A few geniuses and no mediocre talent tends to be a signature of some kind of obstacle. Chinese American immigrants make more, on average, than American natives. Immigrants from southern Mexico make more money in the US than those from the north. The long journey has a culling effect on the less adept.
Again, I suspect we'd have to compare # of people trying to do X to those who end up doing it.
If I can show that one population is average, but produces only a few geniuses while another is also average but produces many people of varying levels of ability including a few geniuses what would # of people trying to do something add to the picture? The same questions would still be there. Was it self-culling due to differing values or an external barrier? If women self-cull because they want to have kids and businesses #1 is not amenable to flex time but business #2 is then we might reasonably see women 'self-cull' from business #1. Business culture is adaptive, but it isn't 'the best of all possible worlds' nessicarily. I wanted to avoid that issue of whether there was a cultural self-fulfilling prophecy at work and focus on whether there was a barrier.
At best, things like college enrollment could help show where the barrier occurrs (if college majors were 50% 50% genderwise, but the numbers changed at, say, middle management. Or if women left to have children, etc.)
You also have to measure (blasphemy!) innate ability. Yes, it's true: more men are probably capable of passing tests required for by firefighting positions than women. Horrors.
Unless the few women firefighters were superior to the average man, how would this be more than just extra corroboration? I'm not suggesting that numbers alone are sufficient evidence. It seems like this doesn't address my hypothesis, but is aimed more the predominant cultural belief.
Of course, women were excluded from universities: very definitely a case of discrimination, and obviously so, it seems to me.
My point wasn't just that women were excluded (which is obvious, yes) but that those who made it were disproportionately successful. There was virtually no mediocre female talent.
But the converse doesn't follow: that if only a few, especially brilliant members of X are doing something, there must be discrimination. I think that's fallacious.
Could you give another real-life counterexample?(outside of the music business)
you have to measure the desire and effort of people to get into the situations, not just the outcome. If a lot of white guys aren't trying to become basketball stars, then it's not clear that, inch per inch, you'll be seeing discrimination if rates differ. Or men wanting to be pediatricians.
I'd argue for the possibility of a barrier of some kind only if white basketball players were, (inch per inch) better than black players and yet there were fewer in the NBA and also if the average white person in the population was not somehow exceptionally fit for basketball.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« "Front Door" versus "Back Door" Religions: Yoga, Meditation & Buddhism |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Cultural Icons: Pondering "Krull" and "Land of the Lost" »
|
Humans and animals have many traits in common. The thing that makes humans human, is our brain. It is much more advanced. That's the only difference.
Posted by: Random on June 15, 2009 05:16 PM