Deja vu.
Deja vu.
This guy fails to realize that the arguments he makes are all supported by the post-structuralist viewpoint, he's just drawing illogical conclusions.
Fucker needs a sociology class.
As much as I loathed studying post-structural political thought, I will say that the author, Dr. Roy Baumeister who's profile page at FSU states his area is "Social Psychology", probably understands that but is out to make a point. Not to mention that this essay was delivered to the APA as a speech, not submitted to a peer-reviewed academic publication. Just playing devil's advocate here, but the author in question probably knows a lot more about sociology and psychology than you do.
Anyway, Baumeister posits some interesting, if not earth-shaking theories about gender. Basing all his arguments on this theory of evolutionary trade-offs is certainly interesting and appealing, but a bit of a dangerous gambit. Certainly the way he has presented his argument makes it compelling, but without a better understanding of current sociology and psychology discourses it is hard to make a good analysis of it all.'
I did like his spin on the "women are more social" trope, particularly his example of children at play with girls preferring one-on-one intimate connections whereas boys were more free-wheeling and preferred to play with a larger group. I have no clue how long this concept of differing social spheres (women preferring limited number of close relationships and men preferring a greater number of more shallow relationships) but it does seem to stand as a solid argument.
Baumeister also makes a point of differentiating between "equality" and "equity", referencing the Major et. all experiements about the division of a resource (money) for work done. Of all the things in gender politics I find the difficulties arising from how men and women perceive those terms and concepts that most vexing. I don't want to get into an argument about language or interperation of socially-derived ideologues in language, but I do think that there is a difference in the way men and women both think about and, more importantly, value those two concepts.
I suppose this speech did speak to me becaus it has always bugged me that it's completely okay to say "women are better than men", even in a very serious and non-joking way, but to say the opposite would ostracize one very quickly as a misogynist (the former would be highly unlikely to place the label of misandry on the speaker). Stating one or the other is first-class bullshit to me since it prevents the meaningful understanding of differences between the sexes and genders.
I'll take the articles word for it over your attempt to always make it society's fault, Kuya.
Women just have a brain a third the size of us. It's science.
I had a sociology professor who challenged anyone who mentioned that "society" does something, that we are actually our own "society".
What one sees in their life they dub a "society" and that in fact, my idea of "society" and somebody else's idea of what "society" is can be 180 degree opposites.
But the demeaning thing about that is the idea that women must be better may be a product of women being perceived as more fragile. You can't say that men are better (implying that women are worse) because they will cry or something. This isn't my opinion at all, but an accusation of patronizing like this is pretty valid.