This story is unavailable.

Biological determinism etc.

That is an impressively detailed rebuttal. There are a few points in there that don’t hold water though, or at least might not, so I figure I’ll contribute with good intentions. I’m just picking points out, there’s no real narrative I’m drawing by choosing specific quotes from you.

Paid family leave is not an entitlement.

It’s a matter of law whether something is an entitlement, and, a matter of opinion whether it should be. That it isn’t an entitlement in the US implies that people who believe it should be, have a right gather, speak and march to seek it being put into law. There’s nothing controversial about that.

The way you phrase that statement is sufficient to clarify your position on the issue, but I’m not sure why you phrase it that way though. Do you think it’s ridiculous that people would want to have paid family leave broadly available to the population? Your’s seems a bit imposing as a statement to me, as in people shouldn’t even be able to discuss it, let alone march etc. Is that so? If so why?

I don’t mean to imply that I was offended or anything. Nothing of the sort. I’ve no interest in censorship.

How it this going to be fixed by wearing a woollen vagina on your head?

It got your attention, no? Obviously you hate much about it, but folks do all sorts of things all the time. What made this stand out? Questioning the delivery of a message from the opposing view seems counter productive if it’s an issue you care about. I’m curious about your motivation for this.

Feminism ignores the biological differences between men and women, burned into our genes millions of years ago, which influence everything we do.

Hence my title. Someone elsewhere in this thread called you out for biological determinism. Big deal. You tried to refute too, but give that up. The quote above could be over the entry way to the biological determinism club house.

And, the quote is absolutely not true. Sure, genetics influences a great deal. Is it the only thing responsible for differences between genders? Not by a long shot. Genes collectively encode potential for an organism, which is a manifestation that responds to its environment. There are many signals integrated from the environment that influence what happens to gene products, which ultimately make up an organism, including humans. Humans also happen to exist in an environment that is much more of their making that anything else I’m familiar with. And in many ways we can choose the kind of world we want to live in. We. At least that’s the value call I make. I 100% advocate for your freedom to make your own value judgements, though. Do you choose ‘we’?

You cannot blame the different choices that men and women freely make on some kind of patriarchal conspiracy.

I almost let you get away with that! Seriously, I’d say it’s very clever. I don’t think that quote is controversial in any serious sense. However, your intention must be to mislead by adding ‘conspiracy’ to the end of that sentence. Sure, you can find a quorum supporting any fuckbrained notion, but millions of people aren’t taking to the streets to protest men communicating among themselves with intent to keep women down. Funnily enough you criticise someone else in this thread for that sort of thing.

Ironically, you follow this statement with the example of women and men differing in their choices of university subject. Given the context, you necessarily imply that this difference is decided exclusively by genetics. I can easily give examples of environmental experience that would shape how someone would decide their educational specialisation. It would be hyperbolic to say genetics have absolutely no role, just as it is of you to say the same about experiential differences between genders.

The first human instinct is to survive. That overrides all our other instincts. The second is to mate and reproduce and this instinct dominates directly or indirectly almost every thing we do.

I’m not sure whether the above statement is the bleakest sentiment I’ve ever considered with respect to myself, or it is the most exceptionally simplistic in its analysis of our lives. That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s false, it’s not, but you could apply that thinking a looooooooong way down the tree of life and still be correct. So I think it’s basically unforgivable to be so modest with what you aim to understand. Do you think of how you treat others in only these terms? Do you find enjoyment in life? If not, and the above was the limit of your analysis, how could you go on? Would you say there’s any value in increasing the enjoyment people get from their lives? The last question in particular I do not intend to be rhetorical.

Anyway, that’s just some thoughts. You cover a lot of ground, but I brought a microscope. I hope you don’t mind. Your value judgements are just that. In your thinking on evolution I suggest that there’s so much more to the way things interact from a selection standpoint, even if some of it has to feed into those processes across generations to increase long term success. It’s easy to get caught up in the typical human scale of time, but it restricts what can be considered, which can obscure the best explanation. And, don’t ignore the human intellect, ability to invent, create, communicate and ultimately record information to result in a considerable net understanding of the universe. It’s complex.

Like what you read? Give Nat F Brown a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.