Are girls really treated preferentially?

[imatfaal]

Speaking of China...

 

... Girl-babies are aborted/killed by *women* only. More importantly, here is why girls are removed.

 

In China -- as in most of the world -- men are not allowed to make their daughters work in the fields and do other labor-intensive tasks because society expects men to protect their daughters. However, if a man has a son, the man can work the boy to death and no one will care. Because men are forced to provide this preferential treatment to daughters over sons, the family sees the girl as a waste of time, energy, space, and money. At least, boys maybe forced to work hard and provide for the family, girls will simply take in resources are drain the family empty. This is another example of males being forced by society to treat girls better than boys. As a result, the women of the family realize this and would prefer a boy over a girl.

 

really? your last assertion turned out, upon investigation, to be groundless

 

 

---

edited to remove horrible spelling mistake

Edited July 27, 2011 by imatfaal

[CharonY]

There are many assertions that are unfounded. In many rural areas of China women are working the fields side-by-side with men. The rest is even more ridiculous and self-contradictory (females are treated better because they are worthless? Males want to kill babies, too, but are not allowed to- what?).

[Green Xenon]

There are many assertions that are unfounded. In many rural areas of China women are working the fields side-by-side with men. The rest is even more ridiculous and self-contradictory (females are treated better because they are worthless? Males want to kill babies, too, but are not allowed to- what?).

 

Women -- as adults -- may work with men. However, as children -- if not aborted or otherwise eliminated -- girls usually have better childhoods than boys -- assuming the adult caretakers are male. If the caretaker is female, then *usually*, the children are treated in a genderless manner. In some cases, women may sympathize with boys and and treat boys preferentially over girls. This is because -- along with aforementioned reasons in my previous post -- these women feel sorry for boys and the stresses placed on boys perpetrated by the "macho man" culture.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Green Xenon

[imatfaal]

Green-X merely repeating an assertion or a variation does not validate it or form a proof. Your arguments are founded upon seemingly provable underpinnings - do you have any information sources to prove these points which are essential to your argument.

[JohnB]

Actually in many societies (although it also depends on the specific subgroup) females are treated as expendable. For instance many inheritance law only allowed the sons to inherit properties. Thus, females were groomed to become brides to someone else at best. Under certain combinations, as e.g. the one-child policy in China in conjunction with the preference for males, sometimes female babies are simply killed (if not aborted earlier, depending on level of health care, I presume).

 

I don't think that a lack of gain under inheritance laws equates to females being expendable. Even in medieval societies the females were valued both for the lands they held (which would pass to the husband) and for their use in strengthening ties between families and nations. I'm not aware of any current societies that view women as expendable, so if you can supply some examples I'd appreciate it.

 

WRT China, the one child policy and the resultant preference for males has already led to a large imbalance in the ratio of males to females. Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of men will never marry due to the lack of females. Coupled with a one child policy this will inevitably lead to a major reduction in population in the near future. (Within say 50 years or so) Once this happens there won't be enough people to actually do the work of keeping the society running, people will literally work until they drop dead and there won't be someone to replace them. this may yet cause the society to fail.

 

Societies fail and fall at different rates depending on the initial populations, conditions at the time, climate, all sorts of reasons. Tiahuanaco had good farming techniques and a fair population and fell in 50 years. The Harappan society had a large population and fell in less than 200 years. The Tasmanian Aboriginal took thousands of years to fall, they lost tool making about 1500BC and fire about 1500 AD.

 

Just because a society that devalues women is around today with that practice doesn't mean it will be around tomorrow. My personal opinion is that it's all about genetics. Treating women as expendable reduces the reproductive possibilities, this leads to inevitable inbreeding and genetic defects and thus the fall of the society. It might take centuries depending on initial population but the result is foregone. Only by valuing and protecting the women does a society maximise reproductive possibilities and genetic variance and thereby ensure its survival.

[Green Xenon]

WRT China, the one child policy and the resultant preference for males has already led to a large imbalance in the ratio of males to females. Tens, if not hundreds of thousands of men will never marry due to the lack of females. Coupled with a one child policy this will inevitably lead to a major reduction in population in the near future. (Within say 50 years or so) Once this happens there won't be enough people to actually do the work of keeping the society running, people will literally work until they drop dead and there won't be someone to replace them. this may yet cause the society to fail.

 

I see the perfect solution to this problem:

 

Society [including that of China] needs to allow males to treat a girl with as much discipline, strictness, extremely-high standards, machismo, and extremely high-expectations as they are allowed to treat a boy. Once this happens, families will be more comfortable having girls and female feticide/infanticide will be something of the past.

[CharonY]

I don't think that a lack of gain under inheritance laws equates to females being expendable. Even in medieval societies the females were valued both for the lands they held (which would pass to the husband) and for their use in strengthening ties between families and nations. I'm not aware of any current societies that view women as expendable, so if you can supply some examples I'd appreciate it.

 

 

Upon re-reading I realized that my wording was too strong. What I meant is that a girl was less worth to her family than a boy under certain laws, precisely for the reasons you mentioned. Often all possessions would be transferred to the husband and thus be lost to her family. A marrying male would in contrast bring goods to the family. Marriage for political purposes is a valid point, but I would think it is more limited to the ruling class.

Essentially a family lines ends with the last male child.

Edited July 29, 2011 by CharonY

[JohnB]

Fair enough. Your points are all valid, I think we are looking at different scales though.

 

Rather than individuals, I'm looking at it from the POV of the entire tribe or society, as an average behaviour. The family line might end with the last male child, but the tribe continues.

Edited July 29, 2011 by JohnB

[Green Xenon]

Sorry to re-open an age-old thread and reiterate but I really feel it necessary to do.

 

I sincerely believe children should be treated in a "mostly" gender-neutral manner by adults of both genders. Most women agree with me. It's the men who usually disagree. Why?

 

By "mostly" I mean I make a one-and-only exception to the genderless treatment of children:

 

I believe males of all ages -- including boy-children -- should be taught to treat adult women better -- by my definition of "better" listed in a previous message in this thread -- than adult men . This will most-likely give men/boys a respect for adult women and will help prevent these males from perpetrating domestic violence against their wives and girlfriends.

 

However, males -- of any age -- should never be taught to treat girl-children "better" than boy-children because this will cause boys to develop an intense and life-long hatred for girls and a hatred for the macho men who teach these boys to defer to girls. This sexism against boy children will likely cause boys to also despise society and it's irrational norms.

 

By "adult" I'm referring those who are 18 or above. By "child", I'm referring to those who are below 18 years of age.

 

Boy = male under 18

 

Girl = female under 18

 

Woman = female 18 or above

 

Man = male 18 or above

 

Again I must ask, why is it that most men disagree while most women -- especially feminist women -- agree with my desire for children to be treated in a gender-free manner?

[swansont]

Sorry to re-open an age-old thread and reiterate but I really feel it necessary to do.

 

I sincerely believe children should be treated in a "mostly" gender-neutral manner by adults of both genders. Most women agree with me. It's the men who usually disagree. Why?

 

By "mostly" I mean I make a one-and-only exception to the genderless treatment of children:

 

I believe males of all ages -- including boy-children -- should be taught to treat adult women better -- by my definition of "better" listed in a previous message in this thread -- than adult men . This will most-likely give men/boys a respect for adult women and will help prevent these males from perpetrating domestic violence against their wives and girlfriends.

 

However, males -- of any age -- should never be taught to treat girl-children "better" than boy-children because this will cause boys to develop an intense and life-long hatred for girls and a hatred for the macho men who teach these boys to defer to girls. This sexism against boy children will likely cause boys to also despise society and it's irrational norms.

 

By "adult" I'm referring those who are 18 or above. By "child", I'm referring to those who are below 18 years of age.

 

Boy = male under 18

 

Girl = female under 18

 

Woman = female 18 or above

 

Man = male 18 or above

 

Again I must ask, why is it that most men disagree while most women -- especially feminist women -- agree with my desire for children to be treated in a gender-free manner?

 

You really haven't established that any of this is true.

[iNow]

Again I must ask, why is it that most men disagree while most women -- especially feminist women -- agree with my desire for children to be treated in a gender-free manner?

My immediate thoughts are two-fold. One, you are working from an incredibly non-representative population sample, asking only your very small circle of friends or acquaintances, and assuming their responses correctly extend to the population at large. Two, you have a confirmation bias wherein you recall only responses which reinforce your preconceptions, and do not recall those which contradict it or show it flawed.

[Green Xenon]

Two, you have a confirmation bias wherein you recall only responses which reinforce your preconceptions

 

What causes my confirmation bias?

 

You really haven't established that any of this is true.

 

I've spoken to both women and men about my opinion that adults of both genders should treat children in a gender-neutral manner. The women seem to concur. The men, however, seem to be *macho* and would like to believe girls are weaker than boys and that it is the duty of males to ensure that girls are protected while boys are "toughened up" to fight for their own honor. This "machismo" is something I'm strongly against, and all women I've spoken to, are also just as against it.

 

In the summer of 2002, I was watching The O'Reilly Factor. O'Reilly was arguing with a feminist female coach. He walking talking about how a girl died while playing sports with boys. O'Reilly, being the macho imbecile he is, stated that boys are strong and aggressive and that girls are frail. He believed the reason the girl died is simply because she was a girl and couldn't handle "rough play" with the boys. O'Reilly also stated that he and his friends were shaving when they were in 6th grade -- what a bunch of HOGWASH! The lady coach confronted him about his faulty logic and tried to reason with him. She explained to him that the average girl-child is no more weak, delicate, sensitive or innocent than the average boy-child of the same age. She also told him about how the average girl grows faster than the average boy and that this means the girl might be stronger than the boy.

 

As a biology student and a feminist, I totally agree with what that lady said. I felt like smacking O'Reilly head with a fact book. There are some insults I would like to hurt at that illogical nutcase but proper netiquette keeps me from doing such. I pity any children he has.

[swansont]

I've spoken to both women and men about my opinion that adults of both genders should treat children in a gender-neutral manner. The women seem to concur. The men, however, seem to be *macho* and would like to believe girls are weaker than boys and that it is the duty of males to ensure that girls are protected while boys are "toughened up" to fight for their own honor. This "machismo" is something I'm strongly against, and all women I've spoken to, are also just as against it.

 

In the summer of 2002, I was watching The O'Reilly Factor. O'Reilly was arguing with a feminist female coach. He walking talking about how a girl died while playing sports with boys. O'Reilly, being the macho imbecile he is, stated that boys are strong and aggressive and that girls are frail. He believed the reason the girl died is simply because she was a girl and couldn't handle "rough play" with the boys. O'Reilly also stated that he and his friends were shaving when they were in 6th grade -- what a bunch of HOGWASH! The lady coach confronted him about his faulty logic and tried to reason with him. She explained to him that the average girl-child is no more weak, delicate, sensitive or innocent than the average boy-child of the same age. She also told him about how the average girl grows faster than the average boy and that this means the girl might be stronger than the boy.

 

As a biology student and a feminist, I totally agree with what that lady said. I felt like smacking O'Reilly head with a fact book. There are some insults I would like to hurt at that illogical nutcase but proper netiquette keeps me from doing such. I pity any children he has.

 

Anecdotes. You've established that Bill O'Reilly is a chauvinist, which is probably pretty low-hanging fruit. You haven't established that your statements are true. What you have established is that some people have these opinions and you are using them as representative samples. As iNow has stated, confirmation bias. Maybe you just need friends who are more enlightened and to stop watching Fox News. As it stands, we don't have enough data to make a conclusion.

[Green Xenon]

Anecdotes. You've established that Bill O'Reilly is a chauvinist, which is probably pretty low-hanging fruit. You haven't established that your statements are true. What you have established is that some people have these opinions and you are using them as representative samples. As iNow has stated, confirmation bias. Maybe you just need friends who are more enlightened and to stop watching Fox News. As it stands, we don't have enough data to make a conclusion.

 

Sort of OT but I'll discuss anyways...

 

I believe any male who is currently a virgin and free of offspring -- biological or adopted -- should remain that way. This will indirectly result in the end of the gender-discrimination I speak of.

 

I don't wish to have children because I'm scared to death that they will be traumatized if/when society treats them differently according to gender. No child deserves this mistreatment.

 

I don't want to marry anyone or be in any relationship because the other person may want children. I plan to remain single for the rest of my life.

 

Also, regardless of the offspring issue, relationships can get VERY nasty. I've never experienced it myself but I read about it in the newspaper and it ain't pretty.

 

There are risks in life, some I'm willing to accept, others -- such as relationships and having kids -- I prefer to avoid. I suggest all other male humans do the same.

 

I have a friend who I've known since middle school. I hate to say this but he it a total idiot. He found this woman who he fell in love with. I warned him to remain single. I cautioned him about the brutal reality of relationship gone wrong. Sadly, he gave into lust and got with that lady. He absolutely *refused* control his emotions of romance and sexuality. Now he suffers deeply. To be honest though, I have NO sympathy for him at ALL. He brought this misery upon himself. He's now trying desperately to sever all ties with her but it isn't working. She physically beats him up. He has bruises and scratches on him. Once again, I don't pity him in the *least* because he put himself in this situation.

 

Now, and only now, this friend of mine wants my help! He keeps troubling me about how his ex-girlfriend harasses him. He just doesn't get the fact that I DON'T CARE! Sure him and I go back to middle school. So what? He brought the abuse on himself by indulging in his desire to be with a woman.

 

I'm a heterosexual man and just as energetic [in "that" manner] as most men. However, I'm smart, rational, and logical enough NOT to perform any sexual activities other than solitary masturbation [sorry if this is TMI but I need to get my point across]. I'm intelligent enough to understand the results of my actions. I wisely choose to do what is right. Apparently my friend is too stupid. An analogy to my friend, would be a morbidly-obese individual who snacks on twinkies throughout the day and the whines that he/she isn't losing weight. Again, did this to yourself, no one forced you.

 

I wish all males thought like me. Besides, overpopulation is a current epidemic that will lead to another WW. For the men who are already in relationships as I write this, good luck, idiot. If you already have children -- biological or step -- good luck, idiot. If you've already gotten a woman pregnant, good luck, idiot. On the other hand, if you fit the category of male is currently a virgin and free of offspring, please remain that way and life will be a lot LESS unpleasant.

 

I apologize profusely if this topic is inappropriate but I'm just sick and tired of my friend's self-destructive desires to impress women, get laid, and have children -- because he complains about the results of his willful actions. If most men are like him, then what a stupid world this is.

[JohnB]

I wish all males thought like me.

 

The result of that would be the extinction of the human race in about 70 years. This is hardly a "logical" or "rational" outcome.

Edited August 30, 2011 by JohnB

[Ringer]

I wish all males thought like me. Besides, overpopulation is a current epidemic that will lead to another WW. For the men who are already in relationships as I write this, good luck, idiot. If you already have children -- biological or step -- good luck, idiot. If you've already gotten a woman pregnant, good luck, idiot. On the other hand, if you fit the category of male is currently a virgin and free of offspring, please remain that way and life will be a lot LESS unpleasant.

 

I apologize profusely if this topic is inappropriate but I'm just sick and tired of my friend's self-destructive desires to impress women, get laid, and have children -- because he complains about the results of his willful actions. If most men are like him, then what a stupid world this is.

 

Two things. One, this personal attack at people in relationships is childish, pointless, and against the rules (I would assume, unless it only counts towards a single person). Second you have no experience with any of the things you are saying are idiotic, all you are doing is cherry-picking information to make your lifestyle seem somehow better.

[Green Xenon]

Two things. One, this personal attack at people in relationships is childish, pointless, and against the rules (I would assume, unless it only counts towards a single person). Second you have no experience with any of the things you are saying are idiotic, all you are doing is cherry-picking information to make your lifestyle seem somehow better.

 

1. This "attack" was aimed at that friend of mine who does stupid things and then whines to me about the unwanted consequences of his actions. He complains to me despite the fact that I warned him to stay single. When someone is cautioned against a certain action, performs the action, and then throws a hissy-fit about the results -- I find it a bit of a nuisance.

 

2. I may not have experience in relationships. However, I can get a clear idea of what most relationships are like by reading about them.

[zapatos]

I don't wish to have children because I'm scared to death that they will be traumatized if/when society treats them differently according to gender. No child deserves this mistreatment.

What are you talking about? Traumatized? Were you traumatized? If so, you are the only person I've ever conversed with who has been traumatized because of 'societal preferential treatment of girls'.

 

I have a friend who I've known since middle school. I hate to say this but he it a total idiot. He found this woman who he fell in love with. I warned him to remain single. I cautioned him about the brutal reality of relationship gone wrong. Sadly, he gave into lust and got with that lady. He absolutely *refused* control his emotions of romance and sexuality. Now he suffers deeply. To be honest though, I have NO sympathy for him at ALL. He brought this misery upon himself. He's now trying desperately to sever all ties with her but it isn't working. She physically beats him up. He has bruises and scratches on him. Once again, I don't pity him in the *least* because he put himself in this situation.

You mean he had the audacity to make a decision for himself? Well then of course you should abandon him in his time of need. And he should be shopping for new friends.

 

 

 

On the other hand, if you fit the category of male is currently a virgin and free of offspring, please remain that way and life will be a lot LESS unpleasant.

 

I love when people who have no experience on a topic (in this case the quality of your life with and without offspring and with or without sexual relations with women) give me advice.

[swansont]

2. I may not have experience in relationships. However, I can get a clear idea of what most relationships are like by reading about them.

 

No, not so much.

[A Tripolation]

2. I may not have experience in relationships. However, I can get a clear idea of what most relationships are like by reading about them.

 

Hahahahahaha. No. You can't. Love is a beautiful thing. Something you will never feel if you continue to think as you do.

[Green Xenon]

What are you talking about? Traumatized? Were you traumatized? If so, you are the only person I've ever conversed with who has been traumatized because of 'societal preferential treatment of girls'.

 

Ironically, my friend was traumatized by this. He has a sister a couple of years older than him. From his earliest memories, he recalls his sister scratching him on the face, making him cry. To this day, he still has scars on his face from those scratches. According to him, his father always took her side and blamed him whenever she physically-attacked him. From what he tells me, his dad has this strong irrational belief that a girl-child is good luck and should never be made upset under any condition. Mom was impartial, though.

 

You mean he had the audacity to make a decision for himself? Well then of course you should abandon him in his time of need. And he should be shopping for new friends.

 

As for making his own decisions, I could care less. My problem is that he keeps bugging me about the results of his stupid choices especially after I warned him to stay single. Note that I did my part and cautioned him about the disadvantages of being in a relationship.

 

I love when people who have no experience on a topic (in this case the quality of your life with and without offspring and with or without sexual relations with women) give me advice.

 

In some cases [such as this], you to don't need to experience an event to know about it.

[imatfaal]

In some cases [such as this], you to don't need to experience an event to know about it.

 

This is a science forum - you just cannot assert that. in no scientific pursuit does 'my personal internal logic' trump 'observational evidence'.

[losfomot]

Ironically, my friend was traumatized by this. He has a sister a couple of years older than him. From his earliest memories, he recalls his sister scratching him on the face, making him cry. To this day, he still has scars on his face from those scratches. According to him, his father always took her side and blamed him whenever she physically-attacked him. From what he tells me, his dad has this strong irrational belief that a girl-child is good luck and should never be made upset under any condition. Mom was impartial, though.

 

It sounds like your friend had a unique experience growing up, quite outside the average experience. It certainly puts him at the extreme end of all the points you've been making. And yet he got married/(or girlfriended). I will venture a guess that he will soon find peace with the girl he is with, or another girl to hang out with (despite your warnings) and you will stop hearing him complain... unless and until that relationship breaks up as well. Regardless, the point is, your friend is an extreme example of all the points you have been making, and he didn't end up being a woman hating rapist/murderer. (sorry, this relates more to the parent thread here)

 

As for your personal choice to stay single and childless... it's probably for the best.

Edited August 31, 2011 by losfomot

[Green Xenon]

It sounds like your friend had a unique experience growing up, quite outside the average experience. It certainly puts him at the extreme end of all the points you've been making. And yet he got married/(or girlfriended). I will venture a guess that he will soon find peace with the girl he is with, or another girl to hang out with (despite your warnings) and you will stop hearing him complain... unless and until that relationship breaks up as well. Regardless, the point is, your friend is an extreme example of all the points you have been making, and he didn't end up being a woman hating rapist/murderer. (sorry, this relates more to the parent thread here)

 

As for your personal choice to stay single and childless... it's probably for the best.

 

1. My friend is a macho heartless jerk who gives into his desire to impress women. He takes out his frustration on me because I'm warm-hearted and compassionate -- qualities the cause him to view me an easy target.

 

2. This jerk is part of the victim-perpetrator cycle. He seems to enjoy the tormenting others with the same discrimination he suffered as a child. He tells me that he wants to have a family of two older daughters and one younger son. He says he'll give the daughters all the protective treatment while neglecting his son and "toughening him" up.

 

3. He believes the stupid gender-bias myth that a little girl needs more protection than a little boy of the same age because "she is more likely to be raped than him" [his own words]. For perpetuating such irrational gender stereotypes, I lose a LOT of respect I would otherwise have for him. Prior to adolescence, boys are just as -- if not more -- likely to be raped than girls.

 

4. He is also paranoid about society perceiving him as gay. When he hangs out with me, he always comments on how my mannerisms are effeminate. He is worried-sick that if he hangs out with a 'girly-man' like me ["girly" by society's and his definition] that people will think me and him are a gay couple. First and foremost, I disagree with him that I'm effeminate; I maybe unmasculine but there is nothing about me that is feminine. Society seems to equate lack of masculinity with effeminacy and also equates this "effeminacy" with "gayness". These are irrational stereotypes. Personally, I don't care if society sees me as lady-like or homosexual. What's his problem? I don't understand.

 

5. His desire to impress women really affects me negatively. Me and him sometimes visit clubs and lounges and he attempts to impress the ladies. He blames me for his lack of ability to get those women. He say my effeminacy causes these ladies to think I'm a "goof ball" and because he is hanging out with me, they don't "give him a second look". First of all, I don't care what those ladies think. I go only to accompany my friend, not to pick up gals. I'm not going to change my "lack of manliness" just so this imbecile can get laid. He should accept me for who I am.

 

So just WHY do I continue to associate with this piece of garbage? Well, I have Asperger's syndrome and he is one of the few people I'm friends with at all. Also, I must give him credit for introducing me to new people, giving me a social life, and expanding my social circle. Other than that, however, he is nuisance.

Edited August 31, 2011 by Green Xenon

[CharonY]

So am i correct in the assumption that what you really discuss are your personal experiences and opinions?

 

Regardless how often they may be repeated or with which detail they are regurgitated, they will not be elevated to scientifically relevant data.