I think it can probably only be done by better defining the group one is talking about in a way that is not necessary when conducting a campaign encouraging the uplift of women and other minorities.
I think there is a need to be careful about a blanket uplift of women. This is where intersectionality comes in. Recognising that, say, Hilary Clinton's upper class privilege almost certainly outweighs the male privilege of a former coal miner in Appalachia. When we talk about male privilege, or white privilege, we have to be clear that we're talking about averages, about "all other things being equal" situations. If we're trying to raise up women and people of colour then there has to be some care taken that, for example, we don't end up displacing working class men with upper-middle class women while leaving upper-middle class men sitting smugly on top of the heap.
Because the system exists, all men need do to benefit is do nothing.
False.
First, to imply that there a simple axis of benefit versus oppression is a gross misrepresentation. There is a complex array of benefits and oppression at play.
Second, individual "men" are less stereotypical than either "the system" or you seem to admit. While I acknowledge that I have many unearned benefits from the system, I strongly feel that this is vastly outweighed by all the ways I have been hurt or punished for not conforming with the stereotypical definitions of a "man". (Exhibit A: my massive fucking therapy bills. Exhibit B: my long list of physical injuries received for my non-conformance.)
My rebuttal is that "the system" is bad for almost everyone, even males. Which is true even while also being much worse for women and minorities.
One problem is that we live in the world as individuals but are often seen by others as members/representatives of groups. When confronted with the advantages enjoyed by a group, however unequally distributed within that group, it's easy for individuals to start distinguishing themselves / their associates from that group and equally easy to believe they aren't "privileged." But who are they comparing themselves to? The boss who makes 17 times what they do, or the 80-cents-on-the-dollar receptionist out in the lobby?
Until we're willing to grasp that membership in a privileged group is in itself a privilege, we'll get nowhere.
Firstly, equal rights is not a pie. That women and minorities in white-majority countries now
(legally) have the same opportunities as men is a thing to be celebrated.
Secondly, only a dick would post a list of the world's richest people and use that to say that men are privileged. We already understand that because we're not on the list, we've failed as men. No need to rub it in.
Only an idiot would see it that way. Sorry, idiot is the wrong word, thee is better: Complete, fucking moron.
Firstly, equal rights is not a pie. That women and minorities in white-majority countries now
(legally) have the same opportunities as men is a thing to be celebrated.
Secondly, only a dick would post a list of the world's richest people and use that to say that men are privileged. We already understand that because we're not on the list, we've failed as men. No need to rub it in.
I perceive myself as a failure on that basis. I'm not sure I consider myself a failure at all.
Because the system exists, all men need do to benefit is do nothing.
False.
First, to imply that there a simple axis of benefit versus oppression is a gross misrepresentation. There is a complex array of benefits and oppression at play.
Which does not make it false. It is an over-simplification, but nuance is pretty much lost here to some.
Second, individual "men" are less stereotypical than either "the system" or you seem to admit.
Individuals are irrelevant when talking about the system unless they are in large enough of a group. I am not saying individuals do not matter, but that the system still benefits a group even if some individuals do not see benefit.
While I acknowledge that I have many unearned benefits from the system, I strongly feel that this is vastly outweighed by all the ways I have been hurt or punished for not conforming with the stereotypical definitions of a "man". (Exhibit A: my massive fucking therapy bills. Exhibit B: my long list of physical injuries received for my non-conformance.)
My rebuttal is that "the system" is bad for almost everyone, even males. Which is true even while also being much worse for women and minorities.
As I said in Epiphanies, I know many men who do not fit all the stereotypes and yet still fit into male society. They do not play sport, they do not engage in misogynist speech, talk about motors, etc. Their presentation is decidedly neutral and yet they do not face the issues you describe. So they get the benefits with no downside.
This is not denying your experience nor marginalising it. Like anything, experience is going to be a spectrum.
And, as I've said before, I support awareness of the issues you speak about and in changing male culture to be less toxic to males as well as others. But I do not think that the average man suffers as you do. Not in my experience. Again it is going to be a spectrum and, as you mention not completely simple.
Still, I reject that men as a group are oppressed.
I do not think that the average man suffers as you do. Not in my experience.
I have deep reservations about your perceptions of "average men". One of the insidious aspects of our society is that Real Men™ are not supposed to show weakness, and that required appearance both creates a tonne of pain even as it masks it. My experience is that most average men are pretty fucked up.
I reject that men as a group are oppressed.
AGREED. As a group, men are not oppressed. But that is not the same as saying that the entire group gets a net benefit - or even a majority.
Again: I strongly believe that making things better for women and minorities will also make things better for most men. It's about making things better for all individual people, not a zero-sum game between stereotypical groups.
Firstly, equal rights is not a pie. That women and minorities in white-majority countries now
(legally) have the same opportunities as men is a thing to be celebrated.
Secondly, only a dick would post a list of the world's richest people and use that to say that men are privileged. We already understand that because we're not on the list, we've failed as men. No need to rub it in.
Only an idiot would see it that way. Sorry, idiot is the wrong word, thee is better: Complete, fucking moron.
"Men are privileged! Look at this list!"
That's exactly why you put it there, Reaper Drone. As long as you hit the 'target', you don't give a single fuck about the collateral damage.
@lilbuddha wrote: Days/months exist to counter the rubbish that exists as the default. Again, it is about being equal. The celebration comes as a counter to the denigration that is the societal norm.
Exactly this! An how useful would it be to have a day that countered the default rubbish narrative about men. A narrative that has broken so many men through denigrating societal norms.
Societal norms are the problem, on this we agree. But societal norms do not denigrate men as a group. They punish men who do not conform and this is not good.
Again, the problem with International Men’s Day is that men still dominate our cultures and that day comes across as similar to a Celebrate White People Day.
But we had an exchange of a similar nature on the toxic masculinity thread some months ago, and it seems that neither of us has moved on. Perhaps it is that I believe that toxic masculinity is deeply damaging to men, and that doing some work this damage might for many be a precursor to other action.
Asher
I agree that toxic masculinity is damaging to some men and that changing this is good. Both for men and women.
You really are not listening are you. Yes previous generations built up a patriarchal structure. Just because it is there doesn’t mean that men are complicit now.
That is a variable thing. Because the system exists, all men need do to benefit is do nothing. They needn't actively participate. To complete eschew participation they need to work against that system. Merely not actively being a dick doesn't suffice. You benefit by being male. You likely do not see it, systemic privilege is invisible by default to those who have it.
I don't go around knocking men back, BTW. You began the discussion complaining about the response to International Men's Day and do you not yet get why that happened?
Wrong again. For a few years I went out with a strongly feminist woman. I heard all the arguments and understand a lot more than many women on the issues. I still stick to what I said. Which includes by the way for the 1000th time acknowledging issues and dealing with them. Please don’t assume you know anything about me. You are almost certainly wrong.
AGREED. As a group, men are not oppressed. But that is not the same as saying that the entire group gets a net benefit - or even a majority.
Most men - my father, my grandfathers, myself - have been fucked over to a varying but usually fairly large degree by the stereotype. That those at the apex doing the fucking are largely men is the trope namer, but for literally every one else, male and female, they are fucked.
That we are complicit in not only our own fuckedness, but in the fucking of others is a feature of the system, not a bug. That we are attempting to have this conversation is an indication that some of us at least are intent on breaking this conditioning, and allies of whatever gender are always useful.
Again: I strongly believe that making things better for women and minorities will also make things better for most men. It's about making things better for all individual people, not a zero-sum game between stereotypical groups.
I do not think that the average man suffers as you do. Not in my experience.
I have deep reservations about your perceptions of "average men". One of the insidious aspects of our society is that Real Men™ are not supposed to show weakness, and that required appearance both creates a tonne of pain even as it masks it. My experience is that most average men are pretty fucked up.
I reject that men as a group are oppressed.
AGREED. As a group, men are not oppressed. But that is not the same as saying that the entire group gets a net benefit - or even a majority.
We are going to disagree here. I've worked across several very different industries and my experience is that the net benefit is real. More jobs, more money, more mobility, etc. Even in the video game industry, one chock full of non-traditional males, men dominate. The idea that the majority of men suffer mental health issues just doesn't come through.
Again: I strongly believe that making things better for women and minorities will also make things better for most men. It's about making things better for all individual people, not a zero-sum game between stereotypical groups.
I agree and have not been saying it is.
But a celebration of men has really bad optics, something that a few people here just don't get.
There is a difference between recognising the issues that male culture brings to some men and saying "yay men"
@”lilbuddha” wrote: Asher’s contention that men are oppressed
12.06am 22/11/19
Please can you show me where I have said that men are oppressed. If I did say that then I will apologise for mis-speaking, as this is not what I believe.
@”lilbuddha” wrote: Please note that was a response to you saying that men are not oppressors.
12.28am 22/11/19
Please can you show me where I have said that men are not oppressors. If I did say that then I will apologise for mis-speaking, as this is not what I believe.
@”lilbuddha” Over time there have been in your posts statements about ‘men’ as if they are a single homogenous oppressive body. For me this is a real dog whistle as it is something I try not to do with any group. It is helping me engage with you that you are qualifying more of these statements. Thank you.
I have found it interesting to reflect, as I have read this thread, on the role that you played in getting the ship to reflect on the need for more protected space for (in particular) Trans discussions.
Wrong again. For a few years I went out with a strongly feminist woman. I heard all the arguments and understand a lot more than many women on the issues. I still stick to what I said. Which includes by the way for the 1000th time acknowledging issues and dealing with them. Please don’t assume you know anything about me. You are almost certainly wrong.
You started this thread with a post about "Why don't people understand?"
It should be very clear why a day of celebrating men would find criticism.
You even mention it in that OP: There are some issues problems which equality across the board
This is why International Men's Day gets criticised.
My personal patron saint of meta-cognition, Marshall McLuhan, would have had some dire analysis of a "we too!" modality emulating the fragile flowers of defiant "we are real people too" celebrations.
"Men", along with everyone who is secure in their person-hood, would do better to align themselves with celebrations of what make people great - independent from gender, race, or being mechanical engineers.
Sorry if this has been addressed upthread but does anyone know a bit more about the history and organizers of International Men's Day and whether or not it is a celebration of men or rather a call to action for men to be healthier and better people to each other and, especially, to women?
International Women's Day has socialist roots, and based on the little I have read about International Men's Day, it arose from a Soviet military commemoration that came to be observed as the equivalent day for men in the USSR. Disregarding the desirability of having a day establishing positive role models for men arise from a military commemoration, does anyone know what the modern organizers of International Men's Day are like in terms of their politics - gender and otherwise?
I find the proliferation of International days (men, women, dogs, cats, trees etc etc) beyond ridiculous. Who on earth decided that we should have such silly days?
I don't want in any way to imply that women do not put themselves in mortal danger for the sake of the public;
but on London Bridge yesterday it was men who tackled and disarmed the knife murderer.
A rare example of a positive attribute of men?
I don't want in any way to imply that women do not put themselves in mortal danger for the sake of the public;
but on London Bridge yesterday it was men who tackled and disarmed the knife murderer.
A rare example of a positive attribute of men?
Isn't that likely to be that the people attending a meeting for ex-cons are overwhelmingly likely to be male as much as anything?
I put my related comment on the Living with XY chromosomes thread. I think there may be something to it. (As there would be for women under perhaps slightly different circumstances, but I digress)
I don't want in any way to imply that women do not put themselves in mortal danger for the sake of the public;
but on London Bridge yesterday it was men who tackled and disarmed the knife murderer.
A rare example of a positive attribute of men?
I'm waiting for @lilbuddha to be outraged by this post. Or can we take the outrage as read, and more on?
It's worth noting that, until fairly recently in human history, the vast majority of women put themselves in mortal danger with each and every pregnancy. Where's all the praise and adulation for this bravery? Crickets. Colonial graveyards here in New England are filled with markers for crusty old farmers laid to rest beside a string of four or five wives who died in childbirth (or possibly of domestic abuse; we'll never know).
Where's all the praise and adulation for this bravery?
I seem to recall that female rates of surviving childbirth is one of the most important metrics for healthcare systems. It's true that it was never properly appreciated by society in general, but I think that individuals definitely recognized the severity of the risk and the bravery associated. At least, I hope so.
Also: in more desperate times, males are simply more disposable. If a group is to survive, it needs to reproduce - and that takes healthy females. And at least one male. All other males are purely supplementary, so definitely are the obvious choice for causing the cave bear to choke on their skull.
But since we aren't facing smilodons and such, that overbearing sense of personal-safety-bypassing aggression is poorly contained. Which may be what left us with most of the shitshow we have now. It's that bullshit which is interesting to work through, instead of celebrating being good people who happen to have dicks.
Hope you're not implying that it takes a Y chromasome to face off a saber-toothed tiger?
What would @lilbuddha say?
But seriously, boys and men growing up need a message about maleness that isn't crap
Hope you're not implying that it takes a Y chromasome to face off a saber-toothed tiger?
Surely the take-away is that you don't want to waste XX-chromosomed individuals on that sacrifice.
But seriously, boys and men growing up need a message about malenessmasculinity that isn't crap
Maybe? Or maybe they should grow up being "people" primarily, and that being male is just a circumstantial facet of that with positive and negative aspects.
Or maybe they should grow up being "people" primarily, and that being male is just a circumstantial facet of that with positive and negative aspects.
Close. Can we amend this to "[M]aybe humans should grow up being "people" primarily, and that being male or female is just a circumstantial facet of that with positive and negative aspects?"[/quote]
Or maybe they should grow up being "people" primarily, and that being male is just a circumstantial facet of that with positive and negative aspects.
Close. Can we amend this to "[M]aybe humans should grow up being "people" primarily, and that being male or female is just a circumstantial facet of that with positive and negative aspects?"
Absolutely, and God speed the day.
My point above was what do we do with the men who have grown up with the "you must be masculine defined as such-and-such" now that they find themselves in a world where this is crumbling away? It was suggested that maybe we can redefine masculinity so as to transform what are currently detriments into associated benefits/strengths. This has been shot all to hell by (presumably) well-meaning advocates of equality, but nothing has been put in its place other than "fuck them, that's their problem." Not a Christian, or compassionate, or humane answer. Is that the best we can do?
It may be worth noting that the major alleged "differences" between men and women seem rooted traditionally in labor (pun, while not necessarily intended, accepted for a small donation). Deep in the wayback machine, work (being largely physical in nature) got divided up among humans according to who was best suited to what tasks. Heavy labor/greater mobility gets assigned out to the brawny fellas; lighter labor/limited mobility gets assigned to nursing/pregnant gals, elders, kids.
Somehow our acculturation processes turn this from simple practical necessity (pack Him off to try bagging a woolly mammoth and send Her into the nearby puckerbrush for ramps and chokecherries) into socio-biological imperative; meanwhile, the nature of vast swathes of work undergoes cataclysmic eons-long changes requiring (overall) less brawn, more smarts, etc. but our shiny new socio-biological imperatives utterly fail to keep up with the changes, leaving both genders hampered in slotting themselves into some satisfactory pigeonhole in our economic arrangements. Is there some way to stop ourselves automatically assuming that the category "dentist" or "stock analyst" or "truck driver" is correctly matched with "male," and the category "kindergarten teacher" or "nurse" or "food server" is correctly matched with "female?"
Hope you're not implying that it takes a Y chromasome to face off a saber-toothed tiger?
What would @lilbuddha say?
But seriously, boys and men growing up need a message about maleness that isn't crap
Seriously, do you use your head for anything other than than a hat rack?
Whilst the physiological difference between men and women might well result in behavioural differences, the reality is that chromosomal makeup and its affect on behaviour is a lot more complex than XY v XX.
But fucking hell, your ability to comprehend is significantly lower than the audience targeted by your board namesake, so that is likely a waste on you.
I'm not particularly familiar with @Tank Engine, so maybe they have cranial-hat-rack form otherwise. But the default interpretation of that post is one of "trying to be funny". You were being teased. In a not-that-challenging a way to recognize. Especially with the "but seriously" part immediately afterwards.
Grow some skin, already. Doesn't have to be particularly thick, it's just tiring to interact with you being all exposed nerves all the time.
Or maybe they should grow up being "people" primarily, and that being male is just a circumstantial facet of that with positive and negative aspects.
Close. Can we amend this to "[M]aybe humans should grow up being "people" primarily, and that being male or female is just a circumstantial facet of that with positive and negative aspects?"
Apologies @lilbuddha I blame my genes; both my parents have crap sense of humour and I need to re-read The Blank Slate by Pinker.
No need to apologise. I can be a little prickly, I apologise for missing the humour.
As to The Blank Slate, I disagree with the premise and agree with John Dupré's criticism that Pinker overstates the biological explanations and a more balanced view is more accurate.
@lilbuddha may I put in a plug for the Bluebell Railway in Sussex. I am not 'Thomas the Tank Engine' but Bluebella real 1910 0-3-0 steam engine. (currently awaiting a boiler re-fit but such is life).
Back to task; I had a quick look on thegreatdebate.org.uk about the views of John Dupre and Steven Pinker on the old 'nature v nuture' debate -which I would say is very apposite with the recent London Bridge murders. Not sure I understand the criticism by Dupre.
My reading of The Blank Slate is that variability in measurable individual outcomes behaviours and characteristics can be accounted for by inheritance for roughly a third, environment (mainly peer group) for roughly a third, and the rest is random.
I am of course not widely read in this area but very interested in it.
Maybe for a new discussion thread in Purg?
Comments
I think there is a need to be careful about a blanket uplift of women. This is where intersectionality comes in. Recognising that, say, Hilary Clinton's upper class privilege almost certainly outweighs the male privilege of a former coal miner in Appalachia. When we talk about male privilege, or white privilege, we have to be clear that we're talking about averages, about "all other things being equal" situations. If we're trying to raise up women and people of colour then there has to be some care taken that, for example, we don't end up displacing working class men with upper-middle class women while leaving upper-middle class men sitting smugly on top of the heap.
False.
First, to imply that there a simple axis of benefit versus oppression is a gross misrepresentation. There is a complex array of benefits and oppression at play.
Second, individual "men" are less stereotypical than either "the system" or you seem to admit. While I acknowledge that I have many unearned benefits from the system, I strongly feel that this is vastly outweighed by all the ways I have been hurt or punished for not conforming with the stereotypical definitions of a "man". (Exhibit A: my massive fucking therapy bills. Exhibit B: my long list of physical injuries received for my non-conformance.)
My rebuttal is that "the system" is bad for almost everyone, even males. Which is true even while also being much worse for women and minorities.
Until we're willing to grasp that membership in a privileged group is in itself a privilege, we'll get nowhere.
I perceive myself as a failure on that basis. I'm not sure I consider myself a failure at all.
What does this actually mean?
This is not denying your experience nor marginalising it. Like anything, experience is going to be a spectrum.
And, as I've said before, I support awareness of the issues you speak about and in changing male culture to be less toxic to males as well as others. But I do not think that the average man suffers as you do. Not in my experience. Again it is going to be a spectrum and, as you mention not completely simple.
Still, I reject that men as a group are oppressed.
AGREED. As a group, men are not oppressed. But that is not the same as saying that the entire group gets a net benefit - or even a majority.
Again: I strongly believe that making things better for women and minorities will also make things better for most men. It's about making things better for all individual people, not a zero-sum game between stereotypical groups.
"Men are privileged! Look at this list!"
That's exactly why you put it there, Reaper Drone. As long as you hit the 'target', you don't give a single fuck about the collateral damage.
Wrong again. For a few years I went out with a strongly feminist woman. I heard all the arguments and understand a lot more than many women on the issues. I still stick to what I said. Which includes by the way for the 1000th time acknowledging issues and dealing with them. Please don’t assume you know anything about me. You are almost certainly wrong.
That we are complicit in not only our own fuckedness, but in the fucking of others is a feature of the system, not a bug. That we are attempting to have this conversation is an indication that some of us at least are intent on breaking this conditioning, and allies of whatever gender are always useful.
Testify.
I agree and have not been saying it is.
But a celebration of men has really bad optics, something that a few people here just don't get.
There is a difference between recognising the issues that male culture brings to some men and saying "yay men"
12.06am 22/11/19
Please can you show me where I have said that men are oppressed. If I did say that then I will apologise for mis-speaking, as this is not what I believe.
@”lilbuddha” wrote: Please note that was a response to you saying that men are not oppressors.
12.28am 22/11/19
Please can you show me where I have said that men are not oppressors. If I did say that then I will apologise for mis-speaking, as this is not what I believe.
@”lilbuddha” Over time there have been in your posts statements about ‘men’ as if they are a single homogenous oppressive body. For me this is a real dog whistle as it is something I try not to do with any group. It is helping me engage with you that you are qualifying more of these statements. Thank you.
I have found it interesting to reflect, as I have read this thread, on the role that you played in getting the ship to reflect on the need for more protected space for (in particular) Trans discussions.
Asher
I wonder what the biggest cause of death is for men under the age of 45?
It should be very clear why a day of celebrating men would find criticism.
You even mention it in that OP:
There are some issues problems which equality across the board
This is why International Men's Day gets criticised.
My personal patron saint of meta-cognition, Marshall McLuhan, would have had some dire analysis of a "we too!" modality emulating the fragile flowers of defiant "we are real people too" celebrations.
"Men", along with everyone who is secure in their person-hood, would do better to align themselves with celebrations of what make people great - independent from gender, race, or being mechanical engineers.
International Women's Day has socialist roots, and based on the little I have read about International Men's Day, it arose from a Soviet military commemoration that came to be observed as the equivalent day for men in the USSR. Disregarding the desirability of having a day establishing positive role models for men arise from a military commemoration, does anyone know what the modern organizers of International Men's Day are like in terms of their politics - gender and otherwise?
https://internationalmensday.com/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Men's_Day
but on London Bridge yesterday it was men who tackled and disarmed the knife murderer.
A rare example of a positive attribute of men?
Isn't that likely to be that the people attending a meeting for ex-cons are overwhelmingly likely to be male as much as anything?
I'm waiting for @lilbuddha to be outraged by this post. Or can we take the outrage as read, and more on?
Also: in more desperate times, males are simply more disposable. If a group is to survive, it needs to reproduce - and that takes healthy females. And at least one male. All other males are purely supplementary, so definitely are the obvious choice for causing the cave bear to choke on their skull.
But since we aren't facing smilodons and such, that overbearing sense of personal-safety-bypassing aggression is poorly contained. Which may be what left us with most of the shitshow we have now. It's that bullshit which is interesting to work through, instead of celebrating being good people who happen to have dicks.
What would @lilbuddha say?
But seriously, boys and men growing up need a message about maleness that isn't crap
Maybe? Or maybe they should grow up being "people" primarily, and that being male is just a circumstantial facet of that with positive and negative aspects.
Close. Can we amend this to "[M]aybe humans should grow up being "people" primarily, and that being male or female is just a circumstantial facet of that with positive and negative aspects?"[/quote]
Absolutely, and God speed the day.
My point above was what do we do with the men who have grown up with the "you must be masculine defined as such-and-such" now that they find themselves in a world where this is crumbling away? It was suggested that maybe we can redefine masculinity so as to transform what are currently detriments into associated benefits/strengths. This has been shot all to hell by (presumably) well-meaning advocates of equality, but nothing has been put in its place other than "fuck them, that's their problem." Not a Christian, or compassionate, or humane answer. Is that the best we can do?
Somehow our acculturation processes turn this from simple practical necessity (pack Him off to try bagging a woolly mammoth and send Her into the nearby puckerbrush for ramps and chokecherries) into socio-biological imperative; meanwhile, the nature of vast swathes of work undergoes cataclysmic eons-long changes requiring (overall) less brawn, more smarts, etc. but our shiny new socio-biological imperatives utterly fail to keep up with the changes, leaving both genders hampered in slotting themselves into some satisfactory pigeonhole in our economic arrangements. Is there some way to stop ourselves automatically assuming that the category "dentist" or "stock analyst" or "truck driver" is correctly matched with "male," and the category "kindergarten teacher" or "nurse" or "food server" is correctly matched with "female?"
Whilst the physiological difference between men and women might well result in behavioural differences, the reality is that chromosomal makeup and its affect on behaviour is a lot more complex than XY v XX.
But fucking hell, your ability to comprehend is significantly lower than the audience targeted by your board namesake, so that is likely a waste on you.
Grow some skin, already. Doesn't have to be particularly thick, it's just tiring to interact with you being all exposed nerves all the time.
/notworthy
[Extra [/quote] removed - Rossweisse]
As to The Blank Slate, I disagree with the premise and agree with John Dupré's criticism that Pinker overstates the biological explanations and a more balanced view is more accurate.
Back to task; I had a quick look on thegreatdebate.org.uk about the views of John Dupre and Steven Pinker on the old 'nature v nuture' debate -which I would say is very apposite with the recent London Bridge murders. Not sure I understand the criticism by Dupre.
My reading of The Blank Slate is that variability in measurable individual outcomes behaviours and characteristics can be accounted for by inheritance for roughly a third, environment (mainly peer group) for roughly a third, and the rest is random.
I am of course not widely read in this area but very interested in it.
Maybe for a new discussion thread in Purg?