Important studies on ethnicity, race, sex, gender, etc.

[Catmatic Leftist]

I just had a discussion with a friend about biological aspects of gender, race, etc. and I'm now curious to find the real truth.
What important studies are out there involving race, gender, sex, ethnicity, etc.? Especially those that point towards egalitarianism? Also, famous counter-arguments by other prominent figures such as racial realists, anti-feminists, etc. that need to be examined?
EDIT: Does anyone know where to find valid, falsifiable scientific studies in general? I don't care if it's about biology, chemistry, physics, psychology, etc.

[Catmatic Leftist]

bump

No one? :(

[Old Mole]

Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State by Engels might interest you.

[Dogs On Acid]

RevLeft needs a thread on arguments and counter-arguments because this kind of thread keeps coming up.

I have already brought this to attention when I joined and no one gave a sh*t. Even the mods didn't bother replying.

[Catmatic Leftist]

RevLeft needs a thread on arguments and counter-arguments because this kind of thread keeps coming up.

I have already brought this to attention when I joined and no one gave a sh*t. Even the mods didn't bother replying.

I completely agree; this is irritatingly frustrating. I already made a suggestion in the Member Forum... No one responded. :(

I'm trying to get an accurate picture of the information so I can make an informed assessment and find what's best for me. I'm trying to find out what organization is the right way to go, but there's just so much smoke and mirrors that it's hard to find the truth... Now don't get me wrong, I agree with the basic premises of communism, but it's hard finding the information about the details. It's just that I am a look-before-you-leap kind of person and I want to know what I'm getting into before I do it, so I know what consequences to expect, etc.

[RED DAVE]

The classic liberal study is An American Dilemma, by Gunnar Myrdahl, which is available at googlebooks:

http://books.google.com/books/about/An_American_dilemma.html?id=EujEQ6qVJOUC

Here is a discussion of An American Dilemma by Ralph Ellison.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=554

RED DAVE

[WeAreReborn]

http://wupa.wustl.edu/record_archive/1998/10-15-98/articles/races.html
That link shows races do not exist and are socially constructed.
In terms of male/females well there are differences but they do not prove inferiority or superiority, just slight chemical differences. Sorry I would like to give a more in depth answer with more cites but I am not very strong in biology.

[RED DAVE]

Another class study is Black Metropolis, published at almost the same time as An American Dilemma.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo3638645.html

RED DAVE

[Catmatic Leftist]

Thank you for the information, comrades.

Now I'm mainly looking for biological explanations. :)

[NewSocialist]

I wrote a post (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2124309&postcount=1) on a related topic not that long ago which contains references to a bit of research you might find helpful.

Edit: I just saw that you gave me rep. on that post, so you're obviously already familiar with it ;)

[Catmatic Leftist]

In terms of male/females well there are differences but they do not prove inferiority or superiority, just slight chemical differences. Sorry I would like to give a more in depth answer with more cites but I am not very strong in biology.

How far do chemical/physiological differences affect behavior?

For example, upper body strength; it's commonly said that men will innately have more muscle mass than women, so they'll be stronger, but how can we isolate and control for the environment? Typically, scientists study adult bodies, so by that time, society will have impressed a lot of mores and social sanctions, taboos, and the like on people that may affect data (i.e. women are told from birth that they are weaker and society tells them a 6-pack is "unattractive"). Are there any studies in this regard?

[Dogs On Acid]

How far do chemical/physiological differences affect behavior?

Hormonal differences obviously affect behaviour, but there is no exact guide to the differences between female and male behaviour, because it's influenced so much by Culture, Education, experiences, etc.

Also it depends in what context of behaviour you are referring to.


For example, upper body strength; it's commonly said that men will innately have more muscle mass than women, so they'll be stronger, but how can we isolate and control for the environment? Typically, scientists study adult bodies, so by that time, society will have impressed a lot of mores and social sanctions, taboos, and the like that may affect data (i.e. women are told from birth that they are weaker and society tells them a 6-pack is "unattractive"). Are there any studies in this regard?

You edited your post after I replied just above. Also strength isn't directly related to muscle mass.

[RED DAVE]

One of the earliest works is W.E.B. DuBois's The Philadelphia Negro published in 1899..

Here is the text online.

http://www.webdubois.org/wdb-phila.html

Here's a wikipedia article on The Philadelphia Negro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Philadelphia_Negro

RED DAVE

[Catmatic Leftist]

Another class study is Black Metropolis, published at almost the same time as An American Dilemma.

http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/B/bo3638645.html

RED DAVE


The classic liberal study is An American Dilemma, by Gunnar Myrdahl, which is available at googlebooks:

http://books.google.com/books/about/An_American_dilemma.html?id=EujEQ6qVJOUC

Here is a discussion of An American Dilemma by Ralph Ellison.

http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=554

RED DAVE


One of the earliest works is W.E.B. DuBois's The Philadelphia Negro published in 1899..

Here is the text online.

http://www.webdubois.org/wdb-phila.html

Here's a wikipedia article on The Philadelphia Negro

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Philadelphia_Negro

RED DAVE

Thank you, RED DAVE, I'll look into these. :)

[Catmatic Leftist]

Also, any big name scientists? (Both ones I should look out for and ones I should just point and laugh because of their idiocy):

I've seen a few mentioned around here such as Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, and people making fun of J. Phillippe Rushton... I'm just looking for others who have worked in this subject area. :)

[Zanthorus]

Not sure if this is exactly what you're looking for but one of the groups that broke from the Italian Autonomist group Potere Operai - Lotta Feminista - produced some interesting work on the analysis of women's issues and the role of unwaged domestic labour (i.e. the work of housewives) in reproducing capitalist social relationships. I think probably the classic text by that milieu is Mariarosa Della Costa and Selma James' 'The Power of Women and the Subversion of the Community (http://libcom.org/library/power-women-subversion-community-della-costa-selma-james)'. I think this text is flawed in certain key respects, but still worth a read if you are interested in this kind of thing.

[28350]

The History and Geography of Human Genes by Cavalli-Sforza (http://www.amazon.com/History-Geography-Human-Genes/dp/0691087504)
it's >1000 pages and costs $250

The classification into races has proved to be a futile exercise for reasons that were already clear to Darwin.

[Post-Something]

Um, well, to be honest, these kinds of topics are still up in the air. I think the debates about race have really moved away from biology recently though. Im not sure who showed it but I remember that it was basically impossible to classify people into races based on genes because of how arbitrary and variable they are. You cant really predict anything about a person from their "racial" traits in comparison to other traits like nationality, class, gender, geographic location etc. So the debate about race isn't really done in biology anymore. Unless you inclue the bell curve debate..

Sexuality is one thats very interesting and obviously has a lot of input from biologists. I dont know very much about it, but if you want to get started there, you could probably come in from zoology, psychology or biology. Robert Sapolsky does great lectures in general so you'll probably like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOY3QH_jOtE

Gender and Gender roles is the one where you'll probably find the most fluctuation in opinion though. You have people who argue a whole range of positions. I think when it comes to biology, its a common position to hold that organisms that evolved into having two different genders were the most successful because it meant that one of the two could look after the young, while the other looked for food. Thats the explanation for why the vast majority of living creatures have genders in the first place. Of course there are exceptions to this kind of reproduction, like the greenfly, but yeah, it kind of puts a dent into the idea that there can be equality between the sexes when they were basically meant to play different roles in life. Of course, the argument against it is that our environment has changed to a degree that we dont need this system of gender roles anymore.

But as for your last question, I dont really know, take out popular science books from the library. Watch documentaries and youtube videos. If you want to be serious read the big name journals like Nature.

[Catmatic Leftist]

The History and Geography of Human Genes by Cavalli-Sforza (http://www.amazon.com/History-Geography-Human-Genes/dp/0691087504)
it's >1000 pages and costs $250

:scared:

That's an arm and a leg. WTF.

[NewSocialist]

Cordelia Fine has a relatively new book out on the topic of gender, which you might find interesting, entitled Delusions of Gender: How Our Minds, Society, and Neurosexism Create Difference. It's quite affordable (http://www.amazon.com/Delusions-Gender-Society-Neurosexism-Difference/dp/0393068382/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1) as well.

[Dacaru]

Ashley Montagu- Man's most dangerous myth: The fallacy of race is a classic debunking of race as a biological concept.
Reynolds and Lieberman- Race and other misadventures: essay in honor of Ashley Montagu in his Ninetieth year
Omi and Winant- Racial Formation
Sanjek and Gregory Race

These are good places to start.

[Dacaru]

1. The first problem with racial classification is that it does not allow for scientific defintion due to lack of discreteness in universal defintions.
2. These phenotypical features for racial classification do not form a stable set.
3. These so called racial traits are not inherited together.
4. Physical types vary gradually, in clines, as we cross the globe north to south, east to west.
5. These so called racial traits can change from one generation to the next with a change in environment and/ nutrition.

This is a paraphrase of his summary.

Spears, Arthur K. 1999. Race and ideology: language, symbolism, and popular culture. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.