Nazi women vs. Nazi men

[SLD]

Who was worse?

Just reading about some of the sadism of the Nazi SS women guards at concentration camps. Holy shit, those women were fucking brutal. They sound far worse than the men. They really got off on torturing people to death. Irma Grese would get sexually aroused while beating inmates. Another liked to stand during marches and kill any that looked up at her. So many others seemed to enjoy torturing and killing people in a way that I don’t read about men.

What does this say about the nature of men and women?

Pat Buchanan once quipped that women shouldn’t be allowed to serve in combat because they weren’t civilized enough to observe the rules of warfare. He said that in response to listening to women speak at a GOP convention.

Are women naturally more sadistic than men?

Or is this a prejudice on my part, an assumption that no woman could ever behave like this so I find it doubly shocking?

SLD

 

[GenesisNemesis]

.

Are women naturally more sadistic than men?

Considering the Holocaust wasn't a natural event, how can anyone conclude "women are naturally more sadistic"? You're also conveniently forgetting the millions of women who were victims of the Holocaust. Were they sadists too? It's far more complex than your superficial observation suggests. It's quite pathetic, actually.

 

[WAB]

Magda Goebbels murdered her six young children on May 1, 1945, just before she and her equally sadistic husband had themselves shot (or shot themselves, I forget which).

Though not exactly nazis (lack of capitalization intentional), nuns in Catholic schools were notorious for their cruelty, though of course so were the brothers.

I am not arguing that women are more cruel than men, as I think that would be an absurd position to take, Buchanan's gibberish notwithstanding. In fact, history has shown that the biggest, cruelest monsters were overwhelmingly male. Of course, they also had more opportunity.

We won't ever get anywhere until we realize (once and for all) that we can't judge people by groups, but must judge them as individuals. If and when we are forced to judge them at all.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

We won't ever get anywhere until we realize (once and for all) that we can't judge people by groups, but must judge them as individuals. If and when we are forced to judge them at all.

What a crazy, revolutionary idea.

 

[WAB]

We won't ever get anywhere until we realize (once and for all) that we can't judge people by groups, but must judge them as individuals. If and when we are forced to judge them at all.

What a crazy, revolutionary idea.

Yeah, I know, I sound like I think said something profound...

But I think judging by groups (prejudice) is epidemic. (Wow, yet another profound thought!)

 

[ronburgundy]

It doesn't say anything about women vs. men in general because of the massive selection bias for males in such a position. As with most cultures, the Nazis had a strong bias against women in positions of power or just in military positions in general. That not only prevented most women from ever having a chance to be in such positions, but socialized most women not to even consider it or desire it.

That means that only very unique and special women would have wound up in those positions in contrast to the more typical male who could have wound up there. Given the sadism involved in executing such a position, it makes sense that those would be women who were unusually and extremely sadistic with an extreme personal drive and ambition to wield such power.

Note that this same issue applies in different ways to other areas of society. Wherever there is a bias against a group being in particular position or achieving a particular outcome, there will be a selection bias in which members of that group wind up there. This will inherently create a difference in the people in that position, depending on their group membership, because the minority group members will be less representative of their overall group than the majority members are of their group.

I've heard many people, mostly women, say that their female bosses/supervisors are worse. I don't know if this is objectively true, but it's plausible simply due to this selection bias issue due to the greater obstacles against women in becoming bosses. But it can also work to select people who are especially high on positive traits. For example, in the absence of affirmative action programs, women who become physicists would be likely to be more intelligent and hard working than the average male physicists.

Note that none of this denies that there might also be biologically based differences that also feed into this selection bias in the form of self-selection into or out of a situation.
Also, note this is different than what WAB said. While we should judge people as individuals, the differences between individuals who wind up in a given situation can be impacted by the group they belong to, because of factors that make the statistically typical members of that group differentially probable to wind up in that situation.

 

[ruby sparks]

It doesn't say anything about women vs. men in general because of the massive selection bias for males in such a position. As with most cultures, the Nazis had a strong bias against women in positions of power or just in military positions in general. That not only prevented most women from ever having a chance to be in such positions, but socialized most women not to even consider it or desire it.

That means that only very unique and special women would have wound up in those positions in contrast to the more typical male who could have wound up there. Given the sadism involved in executing such a position, it makes sense that those would be women who were unusually and extremely sadistic with an extreme personal drive and ambition to wield such power.

Note that this same issue applies in different ways to other areas of society. Wherever there is a bias against a group being in particular position or achieving a particular outcome, there will be a selection bias in which members of that group wind up there. This will inherently create a difference in the people in that position, depending on their group membership, because the minority group members will be less representative of their overall group than the majority members are of their group.

I've heard many people, mostly women, say that their female bosses/supervisors are worse. I don't know if this is objectively true, but it's plausible simply due to this selection bias issue due to the greater obstacles against women in becoming bosses. But it can also work to select people who are especially high on positive traits. For example, in the absence of affirmative action programs, women who become physicists would be likely to be more intelligent and hard working than the average male physicists.

Note that none of this denies that there might also be biologically based differences that also feed into this selection bias in the form of self-selection into or out of a situation.
Also, note this is different than what WAB said. While we should judge people as individuals, the differences between individuals who wind up in a given situation can be impacted by the group they belong to, because of factors that make the statistically typical members of that group differentially probable to wind up in that situation.

Yup.

Regarding treating people as individuals or as groups, I think that a mixed approach is best, blended according to context (and in for example courts of law, it would seem appropriate to treat people as individuals). Often, you can't get at underlying facts and trends (eg about racism for example) unless you look at groups. Equally, only seeing people as members of a group is going too far.

As to the OP question, I agree with what you say about selection bias.

I believe there is ample evidence and that it is generally agreed that men typically possess more of the undesirable traits involved with violence against others.

 

[J842P]

.

Are women naturally more sadistic than men?

Considering the Holocaust wasn't a natural event, how can anyone conclude "women are naturally more sadistic"? You're also conveniently forgetting the millions of women who were victims of the Holocaust. Were they sadists too? It's far more complex than your superficial observation suggests. It's quite pathetic, actually.

What wasn't natural about the Holocaust?