"If genetic programming determined gender roles and other aspects of our behavior, then it would be impossible to resist them."

???

I believe that genetic programming inclines dogs to walk on four legs, and humans to walk on two - but I have seen dogs walking on only their hind legs, and I have seen humans on all fours. Genetic programming does not make something "impossible to resist", it just makes one pattern of behavior more likely.

Humans in particular are remarkably adaptive creatures. I can cook dinner or sew on buttons in a pinch, just as women can swing a hammer or calculate a trajectory in a pinch - but there is a reason why most of us stick to traditional gender roles most of the time. Doing otherwise is a lot like that dog walking on its hind legs.

Of course there are exceptions - but we aren't all exceptions.

"I can firmly attest that women are fully capable of being warriors, with their typically smaller sizes giving them advantages in certain ways"

LOL. Of course there are a few badass women who can beat the average man, but there's a reason why men's and women's athletics are kept separate in almost every sport. A long time ago when I competed in an individual sport in local competition, I was middling among the men, and roughly equal with the most competitive women. The biggest advantage that a woman has in a fight with a man is that the man is typically trying not to hurt her.

""We should expect it, and thus the genders should expect us to create social policies and expectations in accord with this school of thought." No, what I think we should respect is individual choice and ability, and treat everyone on a case-by-case basis."

These two ideas are not contradicting each other. We should expect that most people will more or less want to conform to gender roles, and we should treat everyone on a case-by-case basis. Why is this difficult to understand?

There are a few women who have figured out a way to successfully use a urinal, but that doesn't mean most women want urinals in women's restrooms - and certainly not a whole row of them like you see in men's restrooms - nor should "equality" mean that we remove urinals from men's restrooms just because most women don't use them. We build restrooms to meet the needs of most of those using them while allowing options for those that want something else. We should build a culture the same way. It is irresponsible, insulting, and counterproductive to do otherwise.

"I do not support attacking women who may choose to live in accordance with what we consider traditional roles if it truly works for them as individuals"

I am glad that we are in agreement on this. I think the biggest difference is in our estimate of how many women prefer traditional gender roles, and particularly my belief that many women have been pushed by social forces to adopt behaviors contrary to their preferences. Most people tend to go along with whatever the trend-setters in their group do, and this seems particularly true of women, who for various evolutionary reasons tend to be much more group-oriented than men.

"What about the equally strong cultural signals and attitudes that insist that men who choose to be homemakers are failures and not living up to their "responsibilities"?"

I consider this to be part of the same feminist anti-femininity that attacks traditionalist women. Paradoxically, in travelling around the world I have noticed that men in reputedly "macho" cultures are far more likely to engage in such "feminine" activities, precisely because these activities are valued and no man is considered less a man for engaging in them.

"I think the main folly of the SJW movement, or what "feminism" has corrupted into in its "third wave" incarnation, is trying to impose the opposite type of standardization that society pushes, rather than just letting everyone be themselves"

Agreed.




Baldur