The Chronicle of Higher Education: Colloquy

Do college students get a distorted picture about the differences between the sexes, a view that overstates disparities and minimizes the enormous overlap and similarity? In an essay in this week's Chronicle Review, two scholars write that American college professors, some unwittingly, mislead their students by teaching widely accepted but scientifically unsubstantiated ideas about women and men. Those ideas are based on faulty research that includes, they say, findings that women are more "relational" than men, that girls' self-esteem plummets in adolescence, and that men have a genetic advantage over women in mathematics. Such research grabs headlines and pervades classrooms, they write, but it gets little scrutiny in carefully designed peer-reviewed studies. Are they right? Read more...

Interesting to chose Gilligan as a straw "man" through which to attack the sex difference literature-- since she's basically a theoretician whose empirical work has been called shakey. There's a considerable existing literature that disputes both Gilligan's findings and her progenitor, Kohlberg's. The use of the term "essentialist" running through this is also disquieting, since the term comes out of pomo, and is "essentially" cant. Note: in "science," the goal IS to make general statements. One doesn't need to be an ultra-Darwinist to see some sex differences between men and women, overlap as they may.

Whatever the results, bring on the empirical research. One of the major planks in the identity politics platform has been the superimposing of stereotypes on the complexities of human experience. The greatest fear of the subscribers (including the members of other 'multicultural' and 'postmodern' splinter sects) is the fear of fact, logic, and empirical research. Their assaults on these elements of knowledge, elements that can be disputed in the intellectual marketplace, has been noteworthy. Facts and logic are (in their judgment) little more than tools of hegemony (especially when they undercut their claims).

Bring on the empirical research . . . wherever it leads . . . and to whatever conclusions it takes us. The essential task of the university is to develop new insights and new knowledge, not force received 'wisdom' upon the young, whether that 'wisdom' be the 'authority' of the church, the nobility, or the academic left.

I would agree with this article.

I should like to suggest that obtaining certain results to support the misconceptions about men and wormen that are outlined in the article may be a key factor in perpetuating the existance of certain of these groups.

Perhaps research in the area of male and female relationships and attitudes would be better handled by other groups whose existance arguably does not depend upon the general acceptance of the results of such research.

We all know what astrology and current culture has said about Women and Men and Venus and Mars. Science tells us that Venus and Mars are not inhabitable by either Men or Women, provided that they are still human.

It is good to know that there are objective researchers without pre-existing agendas doing legitimate work in this area.

College students get their "picture" of the difference between men and women from the same place most of the rest of us do -- life.

I don't think very many people care what the so-called "empirical research" says about gender differences. People make their own observations from people that they actually know.

Unlike multivariable calculus or quantum physics, gender difference is a subject most people can learn about easily on the basis of life experience.

Men may not have a "math gene," but if men are observed to excel in math in greater numbers, it is irrelevant whether the difference is genetic or caused by some other factor. (By the way, men don't have a "football gene" either, but I think the gender difference is about to surface, as it does every year at this time.)

I think too much effort is going toward erasing gender differences. Coed dormitories, unisex bathrooms, etc., are evidence of this kind of "progressive" thought toward the sexes.

If I wanted to learn more about gender differences, I'll ask the people in charge of the church nursery. Most of them are women, but I think that's OK.

I read your post with interest. One question. When you say "empirical research” do you mean only quantitative research? Or do you mean quantitative or qualitative inquiry that meet the standards for scholarly research?

If you are wondering… I’m a graduate student who is honestly curious about what you believe distinguishes “empirical” research from just plain research.

Also, do you think that much of the work that has been done on gender differences is not “empirical” research for some reason?

1. I suspect that almost everyone experiences differences between the genders. I also suspect that most of these observed differences—including gender identity--are functions of the social positions for which we are groomed & that we fill, consciously or not, in reproducing the social order. This includes experiencing differences.
2. As to genetic or, more generally, biological origins for gender differences, there may well have been some historically—but I see the differences likely to diminish—especially in environments like academia where they seem irrelevant.
3. There may be a variety of reasons, cultural & political, why & when differences or similarities—not just about gender--are emphasized. I think it’s as revealing to look at the reasons that the emphasis shifts as at either the differences or similarities.

Thank you Douglas for a much needed reality check. If you look at history, 'intuitively' appealing truths have generally been truer than truths concocted by social theorists (Marx, Freud, Skinner, Kinsey, etc.). When it comes to human behavior, we do better to trust what everyday people know to be true. The authors caricature the claims of proponents of sexual difference, expressing them in the most outlandish terms. The fact is that books and articles about sex differences are popular because they hit a nerve, they ring true to the majority of people. This is true for popular media across the ideological spectrum, from conservative (Laura Schlesinger) to liberal (Oprah Winfrey). While the marketplace of ideas is not good at getting at historical truth (The Da Vinci Code, for example), it's usually on the mark regarding human behavior. When we disregard or suppress everyday reality, we end up with horrific examples of social engineering -- as with communism, or personal tragedy, as in sex researcher John Money's failed attempt to turn a baby boy into a girl, all to prove that 'gender" is a social construct. His subject committed suicide recently.

Why is there no reference in the article to the famous social experiments conducted in Israeli kibbutzim? Despite efforts to neutralize sex roles, in every case sex roles re-established themselves.

The bottom line is, talk to young parents and they'll tell you that sex differences are real, and innate, although, as in anything else, masculine and feminine traits will be distributed along a bell curve, which accounts for the outliers. Those people who are outliers need to be respected, but we shouldn't allow them to change our understanding of the fundamental, underlying reality.

College students, like all humans, would do better to "get their picture" using a variety of means: certainly "scientific" research, experience, opinions, intuition and the life they see are part of it. The context of college should surely be the place where they are encouraged to explore various ideas, and engage dynamically to find the truth of the moment, and to keep questioning it using whichever methods throw new light on the matter without killing anything.
The insights I have gained through the above means have led me to acknowledge how much our behaviours and attittudes are shaped by our environments, history and social contexts. I know too though, that when circumstances allow, we can find the missing genes within ourselves regardless of our genders.

Quote:

"Unlike multivariable calculus or quantum physics, gender difference is a subject most people can learn about easily on the basis of life experience."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Life experience can sometimes be a bad teacher. Life is complicated and easy to mis-interpret.

For years people thought that the sun rose in the morning and set in the evening and rotated around the Earth every 24 hours. Religion reinforced this notion. It is not so. There are many, many other examples of good intentions gone bad in the human experience.

Sometimes life experience is not what it seems. While science does not have all of the answers, some of the answers the sciences have are not disputable. However, some of its answers are just plain wrong from a moral, humanitarian standpoint. This is also true of the field of Medicine, where we sometimes find variable codes of ethics.

In the case of men, women, boys and girls, we must first remember our humanity and its vulnerability. Then we might make an intelligent decision on an issue that is tempered with humanitarian empathy.

For example, consider the problems an inter-sexed child would have growing up in our society. Klinefelter's Syndrome, Turner's Syndrome and a whole plethora of genetic sexual abnormalities that might have the effect of making someone intersexed do exist.

Should these folk be allowed to get married? If so, how so? They are NEITHER male OR female. What would George W. Bush say about this? Can the judical system change the sex of a person after it has been determined at birth by a doctor and/or a nurse?

What can WE say about this issue?

In Central America there is a tribe that has a curious abnormality where certain children who are born with female genitalia turn into males naturally at puberty. Talk about your life experience. Curiously, it does not seem to be the problem in that society that it would be in ours.

Should these folk live a cloistered life and take a vow of chastity? Which public BATHROOM should they use if they come to our society? What RELIGION might accept them?

This is just some food for thought. This problem is out there and it is real.

Regarding Mr. Garner's point about science re-interpreting observations, yes, certainly science can explain an observable phenomenon, but that is not the same thing as OVERTURNING an observation.

Using Mr. Garner's example of the sun and the earth, the observation is that the sun rises in the east. Earlier in human history, that observation was explained by the sun going around the earth. Later, of course, came the better explanation of the rotation of the earth. However, the OBSERVATION of the sun's path in the sky is unchanged, only the explanation has changed.

By the same token, if I observe that women are more relationally oriented than men, I might be open to varying explanations of why that is. However, if someone claims to have empirical research stating that men and women are equally relationally oriented, contrary to my experience, I will believe my own experience rather than the so-called "experts."

Regarding Mr. Garner's point about science re-interpreting observations, yes, science can offer a better explanation for an observation than what was available previously. However, that is not the same as OVERTURNING the observation. The explanation of the earth's rotation causing sunrise and sunset does not change our observations of sunrise, sunset, and the sun's path in the sky in between.

If science attempts to explain an observation in the natural universe, than the scientists are doing what scientists are supposed to do. On the other hand, if scientists present "research" that says a plainly observable fact is false, that research is likely to be discredited or deemed irrelevant.

For example, if I observe that women are more relational than men, scientific research will not be able to convince me to the contrary. Granted, my observations are somewhat local to my culture. The sexes interact differently in different cultures, but those differences are less relevant to me because the gender differences I have to deal with are ones local to me.

College students also form gender opinions based on observations of men and women from their local culture. Contrary scientific research based on observations of other cultures may be interesting but not relevant to daily life as it is lived.

We are living in an age when we are taught to be sure of nothing.Since we can't be experts in multitudes of fields of knowledge we have to depend upon experts for our knowledge.Expert opinion certainly affects our observation in a big way.In matters of health and medicine,are we ready to trust ourselves.We are told that Diabetes is a silent killer.What can be our own observation about Diabetes?We have to depend entirely on tests conducted by experts.

I find it amusing that the authors of this "work" are even considered scholars. I'll bet they even consider this to be legitimate research.

First of all many of the so-called misconcepts have overwhelming empirical evidence. Women are more relational then men. Is there anyone out there who has not experienced this time and time again? (Better yet, ask any married man.)

Men are better at math than women. No, this is not universally true, but it is so prevalent and so ubiquitous that the generalization is not wrong.

This "work" by these two "scholars" is nothing more than radical feminism once again attempting to say there are no gender differences. Frankly, I'm getting sick and tired of this. Women are different from men and they always will be.

Get over it girls...

Let me begin with a trite statement that we live in an age of science and technology which is ruled by experts upon whom our dependence is total and abject and unavoidable also.There is an infinite amount of vital information concealed from us on account of our human inability to cope with that we have to depend upon experts even for very trivial things.My printer went out of order.I made a plethora of my own observations about the possible faults all of which turned out to be totally false.What could my observations do when I don't know anything about printers?We are living in an age when like Socrates we are convinced that we know nothing.Not having any expertise in the ailmkents of the human body,I practically nothing about my own body.Whether I am having an incipient cancer or the onset of diabetes will be revealed to me only by the tests conducted by the experts.What observations can I trust?The earth seems to be stationary but I know that it is moving.We are trained to doubt.When I see a beauty contest like Miss World and don't find the selected Miss World to be the most beautiful woman in the world,I simply suppress my own observation and go with the choice of the experts.
What is the alternative to expert observation?The anarchy of the inexpert,that is to say,everything is as valid as anything.

Much has been made during this debate about the need to rely on "experts" to get by in various aspects of life. This is because knowledge and expertise have become so diverse and specialized that one individual cannot be a master of all disciplines.

However, the examples being cited in this debate involve fields such as medicine, astronomy, computer repair, etc., which have one thing in common: they are highly technical fields in which achieving mastery requires specialized study and/or training. Those who do not have the training, therefore, rely on those who do.

The issue on the table in this debate, however, is differences of the sexes. This is not such a highly technical discipline, and the knowledge of sex differences is readily accessible to anyone who goes through life with his/her eyes and ears open. Most everyone has interacted with hundreds or thousands of men and women (i.e. a statistically significant sample to "experts"), and anyone can draw conclusions from their own life observations.

I think that I possibly have opened up a controversy here. I would like to discuss Dr. Strout's statement...

The fact that men and women are different in fundamental ways does not lead to "inequality," as Mr. Garner previously stated.

Differences only become the basis of "inequality" if we discriminate unfairly rather than put our differences to productive use.

If my math skills, for example, are higher than those of most of the female population (I said "most", in case one of my female math colleagues reads this :) ), that doesn't mean I think I'm better than women, just different. I use that difference as a chemistry teacher and researcher to benefit (I hope) others.

We do not need to erase differences to ensure equality. Equality does not require us to be identical.

Actually, men go to college with swollen gonads and women with bright shinny red sex skins. Oh, am I confusing college students and babboons in the Kalahari?

Maybe, but it's not much of a difference. By making much of a pro- or anti-mating issue, streight and gay faculty begin a gender distinction that assumedly everyone who is is college is supposed to have mastered its suppression. But the retickling of it with sex oriented comments by Viagra-junky faculty resets the controlled fires ablazing.

Gender is as personal a matter as excretion. By the time they reach the university, all students had developed a home-spun distinction. It is not the university's function to tamper with that unless it becomes an academic specialty. On the other hand, gay studies have so perverted the distinction as to make it seem as queer as queers themselves.

Under such sex-oriented atmospherics, it is harder to focus on abstract scholastics than it was in high school. There is no need to impose weird agendas derived from the distorted growth of the profs on the students there to learn a trade or a science in order to "sensitize" them to a disproportionate obsession with genetilia that may or may not be gender neutral, gender switch or gender barriers.

Wouldn't following your train of thought, then, Douglas Strout, lead one to conclude that we should therefore dissolve academic departments such as sociology (since we all live in societies, as such know a lot about how society works, and thereby do not need "experts"), English (since we can read literature, draw our own conclusions, and don't need "experts"), and many other humanities departments? I doubt one becomes interested in the study of gender because one knows little about it. We should also not lose sight of the fact that the formal study of gender has existed for quite a while now; to say "we don't need experts in this area" is dismissive of the thousands of "experts" working in this field, and publishing quite "technical" literature. While I think about the nature of life quite a bit, that doesn't mean I'd begrudge Socrates his position as a philosophical expert, empirical evidence or not.

I find the implications contextualized around your comment that "Those who do not have the training, therefore, rely on those who do," quite offensive (it implies that no such training in gender can or should exist), particularly as I have been "training" in questions of sex and gender for over a decade now. Given that authors have been trying to untangle the differences between the sexes for thousands of years, perhaps this is a subject that is much more complicated to "master" than merely observing life would allow.

Additionally, to follow up on an earlier thread, Sally Randall's throw-away comment "Get over it girls" is not only belittling, but taken with the rest of her post reduces a wealth of diverse feminist texts and movements to a single stereotype. Yes, Sally and the Vatican may agree, but perhaps both should fully educate themselves about a field before proclaiming judgments and sweeping generalizations.

Okay - now that I've read the comments and the article, I suppose I can say something.

Yes, more research should be done on this topic. It's not at all clear that one side is exactly right or wrong in this issue. I suspect it's somewhere in the middle.

We can't gloss over the similarities or differences with a broad brush and then claim "Eureka!" this is now solved.

It's true that males and females are different, both in anatomy and in emotional makeup (to a degree): The anatomy/physiology is plain - as well as the brain differences regarding the inter-hemisphere connectivity. Women seem to always have more of it, and men do not. This may account for some of the difference.

Emotionally, both men and women in the West grow up with a set of similar but distinct sets of "appropriate" behavior. Males are usually socialized to keep feelings inside until they erupt, women socialized to express them evenly. Decorum, manners, and other traits are "normed" differently as well. Expectations of dress and attitude are also different.

Perhaps this only means that the differences we see are results of both environmental and other factors. What the "other" factor(s) are, I can't say. My feeling is that there are some inherent biological differences, but until substantial research is conducted, I cannot tell.

The question is not "are men different from women?" Rather the question is whether biological, and particularly evolutionary explanations are used to explain and rationalize socially sanctioned behavior. Remember that social expectations take on the appearance of pre-ordained self-evident fact: it was common (erroneous) knowledge that blacks were of a different "race" than whites, the “obvious” beliefs die hardest.

It is imperative that we look at all the possible explanations and turn the mirror on ourselves before assuming differences are somehow inherent. Are women biologically more "relational" as some have posted here, or does that have anything to do with the fact that for many women (and until relatively recently most women) in our society, survival was based on successful "relational" behavior (marriage being the only sanctioned route to livelihood? Are women naturally more monogamous than men or does the fact that the consequences of non-monogamy for women have been greater (including death in some places and times) have any bearing on their behavior? Just because something is obvious to you doesn’t mean that biology is the only explanation.

Dr. Strout,

Could your belief that males have, shall we say, an advantage in aptitude in some areas possibly lead to subjective grading in some subjects by unenlightened professors?

On the other hand, should there be "special help" for those who are "sexually disadvantaged" in a subject?

Obviously, you have seen what you are talking about in years of being a college professor, is it not so?

Could it be that what you are actually seeing is a societal phenomenon and not a biological one?

I shudder to type this, but here it goes. The end of the road to males having superior aptitude than females in selected areas in a society and females being the best in aptitude in other areas such as to nurture and to raise children in a society lies in Afghanistan when it was ruled by the Tailban.

Dr. Strout, I am well aware, sir, that you will never get to the end of that road. Others, however, have. To me, just having an address on that road even close to its beginning is intolerable enough to make me change my residence.

I say this because I have seen far too much of people, both men and women, being taken advantage of in societies because of their sex.

I am not attempting to cast doubt on what anyone has seen with their own eyes, I am just trying to cast doubt on the conclusion that this observed phenomenon in many societies by many individuals has at its root a biological cause.

Mr. Garner,

Perhaps you'd concede that there exist hormonal and neurochemical dissimilarities between men and women resulting from their respective reproductive imperatives, and that behavior and mental function are heavily influenced thereby. If so, how can you discount the possibility that men and women have different, but complementary, strengths and weaknesses? If not, are you really arguing that hormonal and neurochemical dissimilarities are solely a result of societal influences?

I recognize that there is an interplay between genetic predisposition, life experiences, and personality which results in a particular blend of psychological and functional characteristics at any given moment in an individual's life, and that societal norms, expectations, formative experiences, etc. can make an enormous difference and perhaps account for a significant amount - even a majority - of the differences we perceive. But I find it difficult to accept that inherent physical/genetic traits have no impact whatsoever, and the fact that you feel this is an illegitimate line of inquiry (merely asking the question would take us down that perilous road, you seem to argue) is troubling to me. It sounds awfully political - tantamount to squelching embryonic stem cell research - i.e. "we don't want to know what science might teach us".

Last Obs,

Certainly I will concede that there are hormonal, biological and even structuural differences between the sexes. However, I refuse to see that be elevated to handicapping conditions.

The differences are easily compensated for by way of human intellect, which I hope that YOU will concede, is equal in men and in women. Therefore, such differences are insignificant, so why study them? Are we studying them to gain knowledge? (I hope!) Are we studying them because we want to use what we find to reverse real or imagined differences? (Feminist motivation) Or, are we doing it so that we may exploit the differences and gain an advantage or make a profit? In short, are our intentions honorable?

In a larger sense, then, are the differences being studied for the purpose to exploit them? Of course, no one will admit to such behavior. We have discussed in collquy the difficulty of funding research without that research being turned into a profit at its conclusion in previous forums. There is always potential to use the research in question to subjugate and to discriminate. There is always this possibility in science and in discussing and in researching the differences between males and females. We must be vigilant not to let it control our actions, thoughts and deeds.

You state that...

"(merely asking the question would take us down that perilous road, you seem to argue) is troubling to me. It sounds awfully political - tantamount to squelching embryonic stem cell research - i.e. "we don't want to know what science might teach us"."

My field is science, and I prepare students to be credentialled and to practice in a medical sub-specialty, medical imaging. 9 out of 10 of my students are female.

Regarding the human genome and stem cell research, there is tremendous proential and financial pressure to subjugate and to catagorize individuals due to what science tells us. There is tremendous pressure to turn the wheels of profit with the force of science without consideration as to what the human consequences may be. It is part of our society's demand for instant gratification. Is this similar to how we run up HUGE national debt because we will all be dead by the time that the bill becomes due?

It is our humanity that is at risk when we abuse science in such a manner. It becomes apparent after one reads Matt Ridley's book, Genome, that we will shortly have, if we don't already have a sub-category of folks who cannot get medical insurance because they are genetically stereo-typed. HIPPA legislation has superficially and inadequately addressed this issue recently. There is incredible wealth supporting lobbyists that are out to prevent the level genetic playing field from being constructed legislatively in the area of health care.

Furthermore, when we look at people and attempt to fit them into categories because of their sex, it is just a different way to discriminate.

Science proivdes us with knowledge, not the wisdom how to use it, or even the wisdom how NOT to use it. That is the job of the philosophers and the humanists. Our technology and knowledge has passed up our humanity.
Science has given man the ability to dream up such things in our world as nuclear weapons and nerve gas, but so far, as a species we have NOT had the sense NOT to build them. Thankfully,we are starting to get the sense to destroy these things, before some idiot comes along and uses them, however the jury is still out regarding whether this is too little and too late.

The reeal question is, does the exploitation of science and technology in our world today know no bounds?

It is not exploitation to catagorize the differences between men and women. It IS, however, exploitation of the individual to behave in certain manners because of the possession of this knowledge.

In closing, I would hope that, at least in academeia, we can look at things other than an individuals sex when we judge the potential of the human soul. I would hope that there could be one sacred area in our society where men and women could actually be allowed to play on an entirely level field.

Maybe you are right, and I am wrong. Perhaps I expect too much and we are all victims of our over-sexed society, even the intellectuals. Perhaps I am a dreamer and it will always be as DE Teodoru has described it. Perhaps sexual exploitation will always be a part of academia.

Maybe I am wrong and the feminists are correct.

I think most fair-minded observers would agree that both nature and nurture probably play some sort of role in the apparent differences between "the average woman" and "the average man." Just how large a role each plays remains, however, very much up in the air. The history of science suggests that we have to be especially cautious about research findings in this area, since researchers (being human) have a tendency to set up and interpret experiments so as to confirm their biases. (The data "proving" racial inferiority are only one sad example of this tendency.) I am not so "po-mo" that I don't think we can find out the truth about these issues, but I think it will be a long time coming.

The question I want to pose is what we ought to be doing in the meantime, as a society. Here's my response: we ought to be doing everything we can to eliminate the "nurture" part of the equation. Nature differences, if they exist, are simply a fact of life, while nurture differences represent a wrong committed against both men and women. Thus, we have a moral obligation to discover nurture differences and to work to eliminate them. Concretely: I don't want my daughters discouraged from playing hockey or taking advanced math, nor do I want my nephews told that "it is sissy to play with dolls." The adult version of this argument shows up in my area of expertise, employment discrimination law: I don't want anyone to assume that I am less ambitious, simply because I am female, nor do I want anyone to assume that my husband is less interested in flex-time, simply because he is male.

Here's a challenge to all those who are already convinced that biology is destiny: How can you be so sure, given all the evidence of social conditioning and social channeling (much of it in the form of unconscious cognitive bias)? If you want to convince others of your point of view, you should also be interested in reducing these forms of bias, because as long as they exist, they will continue to confound any attempt to prove that men and women are born to be different.

My research has to do with religiosity and related areas of cultural practices.
The differences between men and women in these areas are striking. Women are everywhere more religious, more likely to believe in astrology, "New age" ideas, etc.
Here are some references:

Beit Hallahmi, B., and Argyle, M. The Psychology of Religious Behaviour, Belief, and Experience. London and New York: Routledge, 1997.

Beit Hallahmi, B. Religion, religiosity, and gender. In C. Ember (ed.) The Encyclopedia of Sex and Gender. Boston: Kluwer, 2003.

The findings are clear. Now we need to explain them, with the help of other findings.

quote:

"The differences between men and women in these areas are striking. Women are everywhere more religious, more likely to believe in astrology, "New age" ideas, etc....."

and...

"The findings are clear. Now we need to explain them, with the help of other findings."

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

As a rule, when people are faced with hopless situations or great emotional stress, they turn to religion. This is not to say that all who practice religion are under such stress, it is just to point out that that this is a coping mechanism. It could even be argued that the practice of most religions reduces stress.

Perhaps what you are seeing is an indicator of underlying sociological phenomenon.

I'm curious about the author's view that essential differences between males and females have been over-emphasized. It seems to me that many major differences are hardly ever discussed. What explains:

1. Why, despite the existent of female generals and female fighter pilots, are only men required to register for selective service, and why is this inequity never discussed?

2. Why, despite men dying on ever 6 years earlier than women, are social security benefits not sex-differentiated, and why does public policy emphasize women's health, not men's?

3. Why, while men have no reproductive rights and can be forced to pay 30% of their income in "child support" merely for the crime of having sex, restrictions on partial birth abortion are considered a very serious matter, while this punitive regulation of male sexuality is ignored?

4. Why does the domestic violence industry ignore the large number of male victims of domestic violence, and present domestic violence as a problem of evil men?

I could go on and on. For those who have been grossly mis-educated, I suggest doing some remedial reading at www.trueequality.com and www.mensactivism.org

Extra,

I am hoping that your post is mostly out of jest.

But I'll take you at your word and try to respond a bit:

1. Women, although they can and do serve in the capacities you mention, typically do not want to register for the service and they are more than willing to allow others to do so. I don't think many people (save for some antebellum Southerners) would object to women registering themselves for Selective Service. And anyway, women can sign themselves up - no one's stopping them! Kind of a moot point when you look at the alternatives.

2. Our health system doesn't recognize men's health? How about insurance plans covering Viagra? How about many more men having health insurance than women due to full time, benefits-carrying positions? Surely you'd agree that the history of women's health is a bit more shaky than men's.

3. I suppose you should try being pregnant for 9 months. If a man loses a few sperm, it's no harm. Losing some months of earning power, being charged with the care of a helpless infant, and the social stigma of being an unwed mother should convince you that we need to help these folks, not harm them. And on 3b - You have a right to force a woman to come to term with the baby? What other rights do you have as the donor of something that's statistically insignificant?

4. I don't have the evidence, but I think if you'll look at the national data, you would see that the perpetrators of domestic violence are overwhelmingly male. Sure, there is a much smaller percentage of women who are batterers. I'd say less than 5%, as a rough guess.

All this boils down to an argument about social inequality and the benefits that some groups have and others don't. I would echo the poster from Iowa law who states that we should work towards eliminating these differences. No one deserves to be harassed due to any reason - however, to argue that each person or group is harassed equally - well that's just silly, and flat-out wrong.

Men are from earth, and so are women