But that's not male in-group bias, and so it won't affect men's judgements in court.
But the female in-group bias does affect it, because it applies to all females, regardless of their shared experiences or connections.
Everyone has a bias in favor of women, including and maybe even especially men, so I think you'd have a hard time arguing the point that women shouldn't be judges on that point alone.
Women will blindly take the side of other random women that they don't even know. Men never do that.
I'm not so sure about this. I don't think this blind loyalty to other women is normal at all, historically speaking. A couple hundred years ago women were the ones primarily responsible for guiding, correcting and shaming other women into proper behavior. Women would often be the first to accuse other women of being promiscuous or seducing or exploiting men for personal gain. Even today women are very hostile (i.e. passive aggressive) towards one another except in situations where men are perceived as a threat and then they band together (which makes sense biologically given their physical disadvantage). The difference today is women are raised believing they are constantly being oppressed by men so this instinct is active 100% of the time.
Additionally, you yourself are evidence of male in-group bias. It's much less likely for men to exhibit in-group bias in favor of all other men, because most men don't see women as a threat, but the moment they do (like you), the in-group bias manifests. This is because in-group bias is a survival mechanism.
That can't be true, because women have had in-group bias for many thousands of years, and this idea that "women are oppressed and men are the enemy" happened very recently, not long enough for evolution to occur.
I'd like to see a source for that, because I'm not convinced. We can do studies today on female behavior, but no such studies exist from hundreds or thousands of years ago, and I don't see any evidence in the history books of this type of behavior being the norm.
Everyone has a bias in favor of women, including and maybe even especially men, so I think you'd have a hard time arguing the point that women shouldn't be judges on that point alone.
Yes, that is true, and it's a big problem (women receiving much lighter sentences for the same crime), however the bias is 4.5 times higher for women than men.
Even today women are very hostile (i.e. passive aggressive) towards one another except in situations where men are perceived as a threat and then they band together (which makes sense biologically given their physical disadvantage).
Yes, exactly right. For example, when a woman falsely accuses a man of rape, women will always rush to take her side, regardless of the evidence. "Innocent before proven guilty" gets thrown right out the window.
I'd like to see a source for that, because I'm not convinced. We can do studies today on female behavior, but no such studies exist from hundreds or thousands of years ago, and I don't see any evidence in the history books of this type of behavior being the norm.
I don't have any direct evidence (as you can imagine, it's hard to find), however it was very common in cultures all around the world to take measures to prevent female bias (e.g. in Islam a woman's testimony only counts as half the same as a man's), and obviously women weren't allowed to be in any positions of power (and for good reason, they found out the hard way what happens when women are given power).
From what I can tell, from reading Greek and Roman sources, it seems that women's behavior 2,000 years ago was identical to women's behavior today. That makes sense, since men's behavior is also identical, because most human behavior is genetic, and 2,000 years isn't enough time to have significant evolution.
From what I can tell, from reading Greek and Roman sources, it seems that women's behavior 2,000 years ago was identical to women's behavior today. That makes sense, since men's behavior is also identical, because most human behavior is genetic, and 2,000 years isn't enough time to have significant evolution.
I'm not claiming different behavior; quite the opposite. I'm claiming that women's nature is being exploited to make them feel afraid and oppressed 100% of the time, which is why there is such exaggerated in-group preference. Again, back to the survival mechanism.
For another example, spend some time in a traditional Evangelical Christian or Amish/Mennonite community and you won't see this type of reflexive "women vs men" mentality from most women. They certainly don't "believe all women" or assume men are at fault in every disagreement. Granted, these are communities where gender roles are very traditional and women are expected to be subservient to their husbands. It's up to you whether you see this as the "default" state of female nature or whether you believe the more modern paranoid female nature is the "default".
I'm claiming that women's nature is being exploited to make them feel afraid and oppressed 100% of the time, which is why there is such exaggerated in-group preference. Again, back to the survival mechanism.
In that case I agree.
Granted, these are communities where gender roles are very traditional and women are expected to be subservient to their husbands. It's up to you whether you see this as the "default" state of female nature or whether you believe the more modern paranoid female nature is the "default".
That's the crux of the issue, isn't it? I'm firmly in the "women require the patriarchy in order to behave properly" camp.
Not necessarily because they're women... but because all people need the patriarchy in order to behave properly.
Structure, authority, hierarchy, self-control, discipline, these are necessary qualities in society. When you lose that, you get narcissistic hedonistic women, and weak soyboy hedonistic men.
But I believe that women have less innate self-control than men, so they're hit even harder by the lack of patriarchy.
Everyone has a bias in favor of women, including and maybe even especially men, so I think you'd have a hard time arguing the point that women shouldn't be judges on that point alone.
I'm not so sure about this. I don't think this blind loyalty to other women is normal at all, historically speaking. A couple hundred years ago women were the ones primarily responsible for guiding, correcting and shaming other women into proper behavior. Women would often be the first to accuse other women of being promiscuous or seducing or exploiting men for personal gain. Even today women are very hostile (i.e. passive aggressive) towards one another except in situations where men are perceived as a threat and then they band together (which makes sense biologically given their physical disadvantage). The difference today is women are raised believing they are constantly being oppressed by men so this instinct is active 100% of the time.
Additionally, you yourself are evidence of male in-group bias. It's much less likely for men to exhibit in-group bias in favor of all other men, because most men don't see women as a threat, but the moment they do (like you), the in-group bias manifests. This is because in-group bias is a survival mechanism.
I'd like to see a source for that, because I'm not convinced. We can do studies today on female behavior, but no such studies exist from hundreds or thousands of years ago, and I don't see any evidence in the history books of this type of behavior being the norm.
Yes, that is true, and it's a big problem (women receiving much lighter sentences for the same crime), however the bias is 4.5 times higher for women than men.
Yes, exactly right. For example, when a woman falsely accuses a man of rape, women will always rush to take her side, regardless of the evidence. "Innocent before proven guilty" gets thrown right out the window.
I don't have any direct evidence (as you can imagine, it's hard to find), however it was very common in cultures all around the world to take measures to prevent female bias (e.g. in Islam a woman's testimony only counts as half the same as a man's), and obviously women weren't allowed to be in any positions of power (and for good reason, they found out the hard way what happens when women are given power).
From what I can tell, from reading Greek and Roman sources, it seems that women's behavior 2,000 years ago was identical to women's behavior today. That makes sense, since men's behavior is also identical, because most human behavior is genetic, and 2,000 years isn't enough time to have significant evolution.
I'm not claiming different behavior; quite the opposite. I'm claiming that women's nature is being exploited to make them feel afraid and oppressed 100% of the time, which is why there is such exaggerated in-group preference. Again, back to the survival mechanism.
For another example, spend some time in a traditional Evangelical Christian or Amish/Mennonite community and you won't see this type of reflexive "women vs men" mentality from most women. They certainly don't "believe all women" or assume men are at fault in every disagreement. Granted, these are communities where gender roles are very traditional and women are expected to be subservient to their husbands. It's up to you whether you see this as the "default" state of female nature or whether you believe the more modern paranoid female nature is the "default".
In that case I agree.
That's the crux of the issue, isn't it? I'm firmly in the "women require the patriarchy in order to behave properly" camp.
Not necessarily because they're women... but because all people need the patriarchy in order to behave properly.
Structure, authority, hierarchy, self-control, discipline, these are necessary qualities in society. When you lose that, you get narcissistic hedonistic women, and weak soyboy hedonistic men.
But I believe that women have less innate self-control than men, so they're hit even harder by the lack of patriarchy.