97 Advantages of being female

[sc94597]

SvennoJ said:

sc94597 said:

 

Because how qualified a parent is depends on much more than natural sex and/or gender. If the roles were reversed and women were not afforded a right because of "nature" or the perception thereof would you be defending your claim? Should women, for example, not be hired in computer science or engineering because they are naturally predisposed not to be interested in their fields on average, and might not perform up to task? Individualism is key here. Sex and/or gender does not determine competency on the individual level.

Computer science is not a part of our genetic make up. Assuming women are naturally predisposed not to be interested in beta sciences is pretty sexist as well ;) How much of that predisposition is nature or nurture or simply different priorities in life is still up for debate. However nurturing children has been a primary role for the mother's side passed on through genetics. I'm talking early motherhood here, newborns bonded to the mother long before birth, still getting to know the father after birth.  If both are competent then assigning an infant to the father as a male right is pretty stupid. So yeah, women have that right because of nature.

Now at what point that right should stop, I don't know. Before the kids have a legal right to decide, but definitely not in the first months after birth.

Who said anything about genetics? I said "nature" which is as much epigenetics, and development as it is genetics. And I also never implied that it was my personal belief (I believe there is a natural component, but also a social component.) Statistically women are less interested in computer science and engineering. This is not an assumption, this is an empirical fact. It is sexist, however, to let that statistic inform your decisions when dealing with individuals. I am able to distinguish between a tendency of a group and the capabilities/interest of an individual. You, on the other-hand think that people should be distinguished because their group has a tendency that isn't the same as another group (i.e men are less nurturing on average therefore the child should go to the mother.) Also since there is no evidence that children who grow up without a mom have any serious impediments, I really don't see how you can assume that a child can't be nurtured with just the father alone, or as the primary parent. A child can. The child should go to whomever is MORE competent. And if the parents are equally competent, then custody is split equally. That is fair, and egalitarian. Anything else is sexist. 

Edit: I will use a more similar analogy. Should women be prevented from partaking in combat roles in militaries because they are naturally weaker (physically) than men? If a man and a woman are equally strong should they only accept the man over the woman because he has more potential that he might not reach? I don't think that should be the case.  

Edit 2: Another analogy. An employer decides to not hire a woman because she might get pregnant. Is it not sexist to say, "it is only natural?"