Pointing out differences between men and women, is mysoginistic?

Let's assume that men and women are different; not just physically, but in our general propensity to excel in different areas...

Why is mentioning the fact that men are better than women at certain things (and vice versa) mysoginistic?

Just curious; as (a bit randomly, oh no, Waldo's off on one again) Kay Burley played the opening move for Magnus Carlsen in round 6 of the World Chess Champs; and previously Kay has had a bit of a twitter spat with British GM, Nigel Short, over his comments on the relative skill levels of men vs women in chess.

Kay makes the opening move: https://www.chessable.com/blog/2018/11/16/kay-burley-chess-sky-news/

Kay suggesting Nigel is mysoginistic on Twitter:

Article in the Independant: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/nigel-short-slammed-by-leading-female-chess-players-for-saying-women-are-not-as-good-as-men-at-the-10188487.html

We are ALL different. Trying lump certain characteristics on all females and males is incredibly simplistic. Any differences in men’s and women’s brains are tiny and insignificant compared to differences between individuals. We all know people who clearly fit into gender stereotypes. That’s fine. But also plenty of other people don’t. They are not ‘anomalies’ just part of the normal range of human beings and shouldn’t be be made to in any way odd for not to trying change to fit in with the stereotype for their gender.

We are ALL different. Trying lump certain characteristics on all females and males is incredibly simplistic. Any differences in men’s and women’s brains are tiny and insignificant compared to differences between individuals. We all know people who clearly fit into gender stereotypes. That’s fine. But also plenty of other people don’t. They are not ‘anomalies’ just part of the normal range of human beings and shouldn’t be be made to in any way odd for not to trying change to fit in with the stereotype for their gender.

True, but on average women tend to be more empathetic than men for example. Men on average, have a higher propensity to violence.

Assuming all of that gender have those traits is wrong, but the two genders do have differences when viewed as a population as a whole.

We are ALL different. Trying lump certain characteristics on all females and males is incredibly simplistic. Any differences in men’s and women’s brains are tiny and insignificant compared to differences between individuals. We all know people who clearly fit into gender stereotypes. That’s fine. But also plenty of other people don’t. They are not ‘anomalies’ just part of the normal range of human beings and shouldn’t be be made to in any way odd for not to trying change to fit in with the stereotype for their gender.

Absolutely agree. We are all individuals with unique natures and talents and areas of interest; and that's great. We should cherish and honour our own unique nature, and not try to live up to any external standards that society tries to foist upon us.

Still, men and women (generally speaking) tend to have different natures, as I perceive things...

Women are more nurturing and emotionally intelligent. Men tend to be more mechanically minded / spatially aware.

That's my perception, does that make me misogynistic for saying so?

No, misogyny is a prejudice against women. By focusing on positive traits, you are not being misogynistic. If you said your perception was that women could not do mechanical tasks or could not do tasks that require great spatial awareness, that would be misogynistic, and wrong.

No, misogyny is a prejudice against women. By focusing on positive traits, you are not being misogynistic. If you said your perception was that women could not do mechanical tasks or could not do tasks that require great spatial awareness, that would be misogynistic, and wrong.

Of course women can do mechanical, and tasks that require good spatiial awareness. Some women will do such tasks with far greater skill than some men, but if you somehow measured everyone's ability in the area, men on average would be better; likewise, in areas where women are naturally more adept, there will be some men who outperform some women.

I honestly don't see what the big deal is. It's great that we all have different strengths, both individually and collectively as trends for women and men.

I'm also struggling to see what Kay Burley finds so objectionable about GM Nigel Short's comments regarding men generally being better than women in chess.

The misogyny occurs when you state, as Nigel Short did, "that women are not as good as men at the game - or driving". It is the implication that all men are better than all women at chess and driving that's both sexist and, to a certain extent misogynistic.

The misogyny occurs when you state, as Nigel Short did, "that women are not as good as men at the game - or driving". It is the implication that all men are better than all women at chess and driving that's both sexist and, to a certain extent misogynistic.

I'm not sure that's the implication at all max. All men are better than all women (at pretty much anything) is clearly not true, isn't it more likely he was just talking in terms of general trends?

I'm not sure that's the implication at all max. All men are better than all women (at pretty much anything) is clearly not true, isn't it more likely he was just talking in terms of general trends?

I've no way of knowing what his meaning was, I can only see the actual words he used:

we should just gracefully accept that women are not as good as men at the game - or driving

Pretty unequivocal that, not "some" women or "some" men just women are not as good as men.

I've no way of knowing what his meaning was, I can only see the actual words he used:

 

 

 

Pretty unequivocal that, not "some" women or "some" men just women are not as good as men.

Isn't this often the case when internet fury ensues over some comment, though?

Most people speak in shorthand, omitting words that can actually make a big difference.

We need to be careful when casting judgement.

Pretty unequivocal that, not "some" women or "some" men just women are not as good as men.

But by the same token, it doesn't state "all" women or "all" men; and without the presence of any qualifier, for me, I'd interpret it to mean a general tendency.

---------- Post added 17-11-2018 at 12:34 ----------

Isn't this often the case when internet fury ensues over some comment, though?

Most people speak in shorthand, omitting words that can actually make a big difference.

We need to be careful when casting judgement.

Yeah, it just goes to hilight the importance of clear communication, that isn't so susceptible to misinterpretation.

But by the same token, it doesn't state "all" women or "all" men; and without the presence of any qualifier, for me, I'd interpret it to mean a general tendency.

 

---------- Post added 17-11-2018 at 12:34 ----------

 

 

Yeah, it just goes to hilight the importance of clear communication, that isn't so susceptible to misinterpretation.

Depends why / where / when / how you are making that communication though. Most people will make sloppy off the cuff comments day-to-day, that could be mis-interpretted if they were read by a large critical audience.