Has the notion of female equality gone too far?

[castalia]

I am a woman and applaud everything that has happened regarding women's rights in past years. However, I believe that some women, especially older ones, go too far with this whole "female equality" thing in the 21st century.

I had a discussion with a woman in her 60s today regarding a joint meeting of the Greek and Turkish cabinets. She saw the meeting on TV and immediately blurted out what a shame it was that she did not see many women present as cabinet members or even those present at the meeting from the newspapers and TVs and started to say that the two nations are against female equality etc. I pointed out to her that the new Greek cabinet is made up of around 40% women (I don't know what percentage they make up in the Turkish cabinet, but I am sure there are female ministers). She said that until women get more than 50% representation in all fields, she will not be happy.

I have to say that this sort of argument is usually put forth by women who have somehow failed to achieve anything in their professional and even personal lives. These days women are rarely discriminated against in universities, jobs, and politics. If anything, it has gone the other way around! Men tend to be passed over for some jobs in order to hire female empoyees. My PhD program is 70% women and most department at some of the best universities actually have more females than males enrolled.

I am tired of keeping quiet and wish that these women who claim that females are discriminated against in the above jobs would shut up. Maybe you are being passed over because you are not good enough for the job, not because you are female.

[Distance]

That's a simplistic view of the inequality of genders. But the woman you were talking to, also chose a simplistic view.

By law, inequality and discrimination against women within the work place are having impact on levelling the playing field. But there's still a social glass ceiling, where there are far greater expectations of women to prove themselves in the work place, prior to receiving the promotion or fiscal reward. It's also difficult to prove discrimination on the grounds of gender inequality.

Myself, instead of bitching about it, I went and did it. More women are also doing the same. I fully support their efforts since they're going to need the support!

p.s. I also agree that candidate selection should be centered around the best person for the job.

[Monte314]

In any large social change, the pendulum always overshoots a bit. Part of this has to do with the "momentum" achieved in bringing about change... the engines of change can't stop on a dime.

There's another significant factor: the unwillingness of advocacy groups to recognize that their mission has been accomplished, and they are no longer needed. It's easy to mention several without even trying... rather than "pack up the tent", these organizations sometimes force overcorrection. This is not good for anyone, and can produce a backlash that undoes some of what was accomplished.

[fwiffo]

I believe that for the sexes to be "equal" they must be treated with equal respect. Equal respect does not necessarily mean equal treatment or an equal ratio of female:male employees.

The sexism that exists today relegates certain behaviors and activities into male and female genders. Those belonging to the female gender are generally considered foolish or less important, whereas those belonging to the male gender are celebrated.

Too often, the idea of equality is interpreted to mean that women should be like men. However, this plays into the sexism inherent in devaluing "female" behavior.

To me, equality means equally respecting the male and the female behaviors. It means that any time a male performs a female-gendered activity, it is not seen as an act of "lowering" himself. It means that any time a female performs a male-gendered activity, it is not seen as "elevating" herself to the status of males.

In this regard, I don't think that equality has gone nearly far enough.

[AngryGroceries]

Actually, I just got a job at a grocery store and found out a few days ago that the manager doesn't hire girls at all because they are supposedly 'distractions'.

So, it still exists, just not as bad as it was.

[firebee]

Actually, I just got a job at a grocery store and found out a few days ago that the manager doesn't hire girls at all because they are supposedly 'distractions'.

... wow.

This rather neatly fits into my thoughts on the subject -- that the current status of women is such that a professional woman who is in a conventional relationship with a sensible man, in certain industries and career paths, can get at least to mid-level positions without encountering sufficiently overt examples of discrimination that the subject grabs their attention. This is a big accomplishment -- the scenario I describe was certainly not true for my mother, who received her degree in mathematics under the assumption that she would use it to teach high school math rather than to become a systems analyst -- but the world does not consist entirely of socially compliant office workers.

I've personally had the experience of working for a company which was perfectly willing to hire me, but where my managers assigned me work based on the assumption that I could not drive a pickup truck, could not change a tire, had little to no practical experience in constructing working systems in the field, and had no safety training -- all of which were provably untrue, if they had cared to ask rather than to make assumptions which I discovered after the fact, and all of which they assumed the opposite regarding the other people in the department (all male).

Now, I'm a professional woman with some fairly convincing credentials, so I have the option to assess my position and move on when I'm faced with that sort of irritation. However, it strikes me as rather... self-centered... to pull up the ladder behind me when it comes to the female grocery store clerks, bulldozer drivers (I overheard a most fascinating conversation yesterday at the occult shop involving a woman who at some point before coming to work at that shop had been a Harley-riding member of the heavy equipment operator's union), et cetera who do not receive the sort of privilege I do with regards to my work life.

To say nothing of the matter of one's personal life -- regarding which I have only to ask: Have y'all read R&D lately?!

[tp6626]

I must admit in my workplace, women are specifically targeted by the people doing the recruiters. I would go as far as predicting, that should two candidates, male & female apply for the same job, and both are passable for the role, but the male has a slight academic or experience-based edge, that the female would still be the one who is ultimately recruited.

There are also societies & organisations such as WISE in the UK (women into science & engineering) who I believe help women into engineering roles, provide grants / training etc, and promote roles to women in schools & universities. I can understand their aims, but I can't help thinking that it's just a little bit sexist to single out a gender like that, in order to give it a foot-up into an industry.

I don't know whether there are similar organisations aiming to give a foot up to men to get into primary school education, which is a role predominantly filled by women, at least in the UK. Or nursing, or any other-such predominantly female based industry.

I have a feeling that if that were the case, then there would be many feminist groups up in arms about it, calling it sexist and all sorts!!?

[zibber]

I agree that the quota feminists miss the mark sometimes, but it can't be said that there is true equality yet. There are still many areas which are essentially male networks. "Positive discrimination" isn't the ideal, ultimate situation, but it is a noble effort. As long as it is accompanied by efforts truly and profoundly to improve social equality through changing public consciousness, it seems premature to condemn it. Not that much time has passed yet.

[Synamon]

Reading the posts at the start of this thread declaring that equality is here makes it sound like we should all be sipping champagne to celebrate. While things have improved over time and the discrimination isn't as blatant as it once was, there are still pockets of sexism that affect many women (and men as fwiffo points out). It is great that there are more women who aren't affected by sexism on a daily basis, and even a lucky few like the OP who have somehow managed to avoid it altogether, so far.

I must admit in my workplace, women are specifically targeted by the people doing the recruiters. I would go as far as predicting, that should two candidates, male & female apply for the same job, and both are passable for the role, but the male has a slight academic or experience-based edge, that the female would still be the one who is ultimately recruited.

I'm glad your new workplace isn't discriminating against hiring women tp6626, perhaps that goes a little way towards evening things out since there are still environments where sexist attitudes thrive. In fact your old workplace was one of those and here was your description of that from a year and a half ago:

At work in my industry, the state of things is even worse. It is run by a boys-club in their 60's-70's. My MD is of the opinion that Technical means male, and Administrative means female (incidentally, they also confuse length of service with competence, and age with ability / respect). I tried to recommend a female placement student last year, and it was brushed aside with no explanation. She was likely the best candidate, and my view is that he missed an opportunity to add value to the company because of his (wrong) preconceptions. A clued up competitor (if it was me) would have a competative advantage by not having the same preconceptions.

[reb]

i am not a fan of any of this 'dsicrimination', in any direction. after nearly 30 years in u.s. civil service, i find the whole affair completely disgusting. the misapplied principles, the lack of efficiency, the complete stupidity of a system that responds to complaints on large scale out of fear, rather than strength and principle....the 'reverse discrimination' demoralizes those who are on both ends; the other discrimination works the same way, i have seen. no one benefits in the long term.

really, i think that sex, race, religion and any other 'personal factors' such as weight or sexual preferences should not be on a job application or resume; maybe not even in official personnel files. let the cops keep that kind of thing, not employers. once the interviewees are picked, interviews should be conducted through a 'blind microphone' interview, with voice disguising software used, both for promotions and initial hire.

i think back to a day when my boss came to me, frantic in his upset...'i've hired a pregnant woman! what shall i do??? she'll be off on maternity leave for 3 months! i can't afford her that much time off!'.

'well, you will go get a cup of coffee, calm down, and then come back here so i can tell you what you WILL NOT do. let's do that, shall we?'.

shit like this was constant, and sometimes it was buried, which really caused me to get irked when i dug it up. makes me both sick and wryly amused at the same time to think of it even now. i hate 'common factor clumping'; society forces many of us to use it, but i dislike it terribly. another characteristic of humanity that sucks.

[TigerL]

I have to say that this sort of argument is usually put forth by women who have somehow failed to achieve anything in their professional and even personal lives. These days women are rarely discriminated against in universities, jobs, and politics. If anything, it has gone the other way around! Men tend to be passed over for some jobs in order to hire female empoyees. My PhD program is 70% women and most department at some of the best universities actually have more females than males enrolled.

I am tired of keeping quiet and wish that these women who claim that females are discriminated against in the above jobs would shut up. Maybe you are being passed over because you are not good enough for the job, not because you are female.

This is too much of a generalization.

In my medical subspecialty, we happen to have about an equal gender split because of the subject matter and the academic department I worked in prior was well-run by a male chief whose wife also happened to be tenured faculty.

But I know within other specialties, like surgery for instance, and in the upper echelons of academic medicine overall, the percentage of women department chairs are still less than 10% overall and the percentage of women who achieve tenure is not high.

Sure, one can put froth reasons like women didn't want to go into particular specialties, they took time out to have children and thus lost time off of the academic "clock", they decided the politics of academia were not for them, etc. but I've heard too many stories from accomplished, diligent, intelligent, socially well-adjusted female colleagues ranging from their 20s to their 60s in and out of academia to declare that gender discrimination no longer exists. As mentioned above, it is very hard to prove gender discrimination although the news media would have you believe it is easy.

I don't know what field you are in Castalia, how old you are, or where you are in your career but I think it's easy to declare gender discrimination doesn't exist when one is still young, isn't in a male-dominated field, or hasn't approached the upper levels of one's field.

[Azen]

I believe that for the sexes to be "equal" they must be treated with equal respect. Equal respect does not necessarily mean equal treatment or an equal ratio of female:male employees.

The sexism that exists today relegates certain behaviors and activities into male and female genders. Those belonging to the female gender are generally considered foolish or less important, whereas those belonging to the male gender are celebrated.

Too often, the idea of equality is interpreted to mean that women should be like men. However, this plays into the sexism inherent in devaluing "female" behavior.

To me, equality means equally respecting the male and the female behaviors. It means that any time a male performs a female-gendered activity, it is not seen as an act of "lowering" himself. It means that any time a female performs a male-gendered activity, it is not seen as "elevating" herself to the status of males.

In this regard, I don't think that equality has gone nearly far enough.


QFT

Not nearly enough indeed, though sadly the majority of people don't see things in this way. In the way the majority see it, I agree it has gone too far and is beginning to strain the very foundation of our culture.

As a result of 'female equality' being pushed too far in the 'wrong' way, many males are quietly becoming very mad at what is going on because they are being forced to accept that women can fulfill the "male" roles, whereas the "female" roles are also monopolized by the women. Jobs are now in rabid competition between the two sexes, especially in non traditional roles where brute force has been the norm.

A quiet acceptance of things that don't quite make sense is starting to reach a breaking point.


Why does the (canadian)army require less physical ability from women recruits than male if things are equal?

Why are women still favored for keeping the children when a marriage breaks up if things are equal?

Why is it accepted for women to wear traditionally male clothing like suits but not vice versa?

Physical violence? People still only care if involves women. Men are and always have been the expendable ones. Do women want that part of equality too?

Ability to acknowledge your own sexuality? It's a woman's world, from weddings, to choice of birth, to


Women are fighting to become men, not free and equal women. And that fight sadly is not a winning battle as can be seen by the 'subterranean' discrimination when it comes to real power.


We really do have a long way to go before 'equality' is seen as the understanding and appreciation of what being human is, and how our genders (as per our hormone levels) DO offer DIFFERENT strengths that make us a complete species.

[Anima Mundi]

I find that despite two (?) waves of feminism, the workplace is still geared towards men who have a wife cooking dinner at home. I feel like I'm busting my ass for no reason, and would be much further ahead in terms of career and salary if I were a man.

At the same time, I don't like the idea of pulling up women by putting men down. We should be respectful and accepting of the differences that naturally exist between women and men.

[Deliberator]

I have many complex thoughts and emotions about this topic. I do agree that fighting for a percentage of women (especially for it to be OVER 50%) in any given field is unrealistic, even if it is supposedly sexist to say so. Women are different from men. There will probably never be as many stay-at-home-dads as stay-at-home-moms, also likely there will probably never be as many female computer engineers as there are male computer engineers.

That, however, doesn't mean that the status quo is fine and that we shouldn't encourage all women to consider the vast array of possibilities that are available to her. We should encourage more women to pursue the sciences, positions of leadership, and military roles. yada yada.

I absolutely abhor patronizing and coddling methods of promoting women into non-traditional roles. Women should be held to the exact same standards as men for whatever position they seek. If a woman can't keep up physically in the military, she shouldn't hold any positions that may require that kind of strength.

I think vast dicrimination and stereotyping exists against both sexes, as others have mentioned. I wouldn't say women are being oppressed per se, but in some areas for sure I think women have to fight a double standard.

I too get tired of men assuming I can't do anything mechanical perhaps even better than they can, or women assuming that I give a shit about Oprah. I'd say some of the worst discrimination actually comes from women, and I have heard this from many women in professional fields. I think it stems from some primal instinct, where other women are threat to her position among men.

I agree with anima mundi that the current working lifestyle isn't designed to facilitate the lives of families wherein both parents work. It is something I keep facing now with my life, and it drives me crazy. How do other countries do it?

I think we are still in the process of equalizing, and some fields are slower to gain women than others. Women in the biological sciences have practically outnumbered men, whereas women in computer science and engineering fields actually went down. As long as things are going in the right direction I'm not too worried about it. I just don't want to be gifted with a position just for being female... I want to earn it.

[Delarge]

The quest for "equality" is largely an emotional enterprise and facts are often ignored. To assert that females are on the receiving-end of "systemic discrimination" in academia, politics and the labour market as a whole is absurd and overlooks evidence supporting other hypotheses, some of which are outlined below.

The under-representation of females in the theoretical and applied sciences is largely attributable to innate differences in aptitude. We know, for instance, that testosterone exerts a profound influence on visuo-spatial ability and numerical aptitude, both of which are of paramount importance in engineering, mathematics and the physical sciences. When one administers testosterone to female test subjects, their performance on tasks of mental rotation improves substantially over their baseline performance relative to placebo groups. Mean sex differences in visuo-spatial ability emerge in infanthood and also appear to be exhibited in a number of non-human mammals.

The under-representation of females in politics is probably the result of sex-hormone mediated differences in personality. Females are on average less aggressive, more risk averse and less inclined toward status-seeking behaviour. Inter and intra-sex variations in these traits are strongly associated with serum testosterone levels.

As for wages, when one controls for IQ, education, occupation and the personality-dimension "agreeableness", females earn roughly the same amount of money as males.

[gabbya]

Excluding crazy feminists and bitter women, the notion hasn't. The application, on the other hand, has. Places should be awarded according to merit, not quota. Still being at university, this crazy idealism stands out rather frequently, eg. in student publications and elections. Although it probably settles down a bit in the work force, the consequences of it are even greater. And this is coming from a female.

If you have to regulate for equality, you prevent equality from ever becoming the natural state of being.

[Elfrun]

These days women are rarely discriminated against in universities, jobs, and politics.

Bull. If you think discrimination against women doesn't exist anymore then you're sadly mistaken. It's nowhere near what it was, and legal rights are the same but mentality hasn't changed to a point where it doesn't exist. In my work place women are treated with a certain level of disrespect that is accepted as normal. So accepted, and so normal, that people often don't recognise it for what it is. Men's opinions matter more, it's acceptable for them to talk over the top of a woman and ignore what they say, this same disrespect isn't shown to men, even if they are in junior positions.

People who are in the prime position to tell us exactly what discrimination does and doesn't exist are transsexuals, the following article does not support the OPs position: To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"When it comes to bias, it seems that the desire to believe in a meritocracy is so powerful that until a person has experienced sufficient career-harming bias themselves they simply do not believe it exists … By far, the main difference that I have noticed is that people who don't know I am transgendered treat me with much more respect: I can even complete a whole sentence without being interrupted by a man."

[flower]

QFT

Not nearly enough indeed, though sadly the majority of people don't see things in this way. In the way the majority see it, I agree it has gone too far and is beginning to strain the very foundation of our culture.

It seems that you only see equality if a woman is cooking and taking care of the kids (I get this from the rest of this post)

As a result of 'female equality' being pushed too far in the 'wrong' way, many males are quietly becoming very mad at what is going on because they are being forced to accept that women can fulfill the "male" roles, whereas the "female" roles are also monopolized by the women. Jobs are now in rabid competition between the two sexes, especially in non traditional roles where brute force has been the norm.

As I see it it is mostly men who are not as accepting of other men in traditional female roles.

Why does the (canadian)army require less physical ability from women recruits than male if things are equal?

So to you there is no place for women in the military?

Why are women still favored for keeping the children when a marriage breaks up if things are equal?

This is bias and I agree with you, but remember that about 40 % of father absent homes (it doesn't mean they don't have partial custody) the children haven't seen their father in the last year and 50% of these children never set foot in their fathers home. Now what does that tell you?
Here are the statistics (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and here is some info on custody battles (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Why is it accepted for women to wear traditionally male clothing like suits but not vice versa?

Men in kilts look sexy, but I would guess if you are heterosexual you would not want gay men who prefer men in drag to be hitting on you. I've never met a man (hetero and non crossdresser)to dress in skirts and heels because they look so confy they just had to try it

Physical violence? People still only care if involves women. Men are and always have been the expendable ones. Do women want that part of equality too?

This is another bias perpetuated by men, Why do you think men are less likely to report rape? You mean equality to care that men are victims of violence or to not care if women are the victims?

Ability to acknowledge your own sexuality? It's a woman's world, from weddings, to choice of birth, to


Ability to acknowledge your own sexuality? If you mean a woman's sexuality, believe me we try to be femenine but first of all we try to be ourselves. If you don't want a wedding by all means tell your SO precisely that. As to choice of birth, well it has been exahustingly discussed and most men that respond don't want to hear the "excuse" that it's the womans body, so maybe we should just flip a coin.

Women are fighting to become men, not free and equal women. And that fight sadly is not a winning battle as can be seen by the 'subterranean' discrimination when it comes to real power.


I don't know any women who want to be men, we just want to be respected.

We really do have a long way to go before 'equality' is seen as the understanding and appreciation of what being human is, and how our genders (as per our hormone levels) DO offer DIFFERENT strengths that make us a complete species.


With this I agree.

I hope I don't sound defensive, but you quoted @fwiffo and by your post it seems you are saying something complete diferent than she. I know we are not the same physically, even how we process thought. But you can see by the responses that women are not considered for some positions, we agree that the contrary is unaceptable either. We should be treated as per our abilities.

[gecko]

where is the short men movement, because taller people are unfairly perceived as innately more powerful/dominant?

where is the introvert movement, because introverts are inherently handicapped in social situations?

where is the poor movement, where the poor...nvm, affirmative action.

moving along, where is the psychopath movement, where people without emotions as we know them are ...well...called a psychopath in that derogatory tone! As if these humans are not worthy nor capable of a fulfilling life.

and the stupid movement, to help the ignorant...hell, they already have ridiculous labels on everything so companies don't get sued by idiots(hot coffee is HOT!!!!). Well darn, I guess the retards are already "getting theirs". LOL@Obesity suing McDonalds.

I don't agree with the feminist movement. It has peaked. Women want equal rights - that is what they have. Trumpeting about will not change the minds of those who are set in their ways, only competence shown or a major event in their life will be effective, and sometimes not even that.

@Angry Groceries - your grocery store is likely run by a traditional older man who is likely right that young men often get distracted by young women(he isn't hiring "professionals" unless you are his book-keeper). I hardly think an observation of the demographic of employees in a small family-run grocery store is indicative of anti-female sentiment.

---------- Post added 05-16-2010 at 02:03 AM ----------


As I see it it is mostly men who are not as accepting of other men in traditional female roles.

Umm...maybe you can tell me what a "real man" is. Because I hear that a lot. From women.

remember that about 40 % of father absent homes (it doesn't mean they don't have partial custody) the children haven't seen their father in the last year and 50% of these children never set foot in their fathers home. Now what does that tell you?

Pretty much nothing. Oh, that you've rationalized a bias against men. Nice, can I do that regarding women?

This is another bias perpetuated by men, Why do you think men are less likely to report rape? You mean equality to care that men are victims of violence or to not care if women are the victims?

Do you know how easy it is to get a man locked up for supposed abuse towards a woman? Women can abuse men physically and more easily get away with it. Plus social stigma, men don't want to admit getting "slapped around" by a woman. I guess that's our fault.(sarcasm)

---------- Post added 05-16-2010 at 02:38 AM ----------

@ OP, the ignorant are ignorant. Just like the cab drivers who tell me their racist anti immigrant views. And the ...n (let n = set of ignorant tirades often spouted by the ignorant)

---------- Post added 05-16-2010 at 02:39 AM ----------

Does not detract from the partial truths of reality.

[vampyroteuthis]

It's very problematic to make the generalisation that gender equality has been achieved, considering the lower status of poor women and Third World women relative to men, 21st century or not.

But, if we set aside country and class, and leave the majority of women aside for the moment, there's still ample evidence of gender-based barriers to entry, recognition, and equal wages in high-paying jobs where, we'd like to think, anyone can achieve success with the right qualifications and enough effort, such as the medical profession, or IT -- fields that are supposed to use objective criteria to reward demonstrable skills.

For example, the gender wage gap for doctors in the UK (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) persists even when you factor in differences in expertise and qualifications, and worsens for female consultants the longer they've been in the field. IT shows a similar trend (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), also worse for women who have been in the profession longer and are at higher levels. In fact, most fields in the US and the UK, both liberal democracies that had strong feminist movements and claim to be egalitarian and enlightened about gender, show similar trends. In the US, women still earned less than 80% (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) of what men did in most professions as of 2008, according to Census data. So really I could have picked almost any example, but I picked these two for the further reason that they are relatively quantitative fields that value skills that are supposed to be objectively measurable. Yet they exhibit strong evidence of gender disparities.

A common explanation for these inequalities is rooted in the idea of substantial and significant biological difference. It's funny how wildly speculative people who are supposedly schooled in data analysis become when they try to explain this, when in fact the under-representation of women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (also see this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. iological.php) article, focusing particularly on math) has far less to do with biological differences than sociocultural factors.

My apologies for the sheer amount of links I've put in here. This is the last one, I promise, but here's a great slide show (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) by a woman in computer science, explaining how the argument that biological gender differences in intelligence lead to the gender gap in computer science is flawed, in that it fails to explain the extent of the gap and relies on misrepresentation of data and lack of rigour in statistical analysis.

[Nikita]

She said that until women get more than 50% representation in all fields, she will not be happy.

Purely taking her view of reality for a moment, "more than 50%" is not equality.

[Vagrant]

There's another significant factor: the unwillingness of advocacy groups to recognize that their mission has been accomplished, and they are no longer needed. It's easy to mention several without even trying... rather than "pack up the tent", these organizations sometimes force overcorrection. This is not good for anyone, and can produce a backlash that undoes some of what was accomplished.

*ahem* PETA *ahem*

Couldn't help but point that out. :p

And I think Monte hit the nail on the head. The pendulum of change is swinging a bit far as it usually does.

The sexism that exists today relegates certain behaviors and activities into male and female genders.

Thing is, as long as there are the two genders, there will always be "gender roles." Simply put, a man cannot give birth, and a woman (generally) does not possess the strength or structural capacity of a man.

Beyond that, the two genders have a different personality divide as we see in T/F split. Men are 50/50, but women are 33/67 for some reason. Of course that gets into the issue of whether personality is ingrained or not. But it certainly is a strange statistic.

[Dru]

IMO "i deserve respect because i'm a woman" is not a legitimate statement, nor is any statement discerning race/religion/ethnicity or social class. "i deserve respect because i'm a human being" is something i can respect.

i feel that i should also point out that it is my opinion that respect is something to be earned, not something that is owed - but that would digress from the central point i'm trying to make.

[firebee]

(he isn't hiring "professionals" unless you are his book-keeper)

This bit goes back to my earlier point -- namely, that the proposal here seems to be to observe that professional women in certain career fields may not necessarily encounter obvious discrimination in the area of work, and therefore to declare that the entire gender "problem" is officially solved. Women who are not professionals also need to earn a living and also need to be treated well while at work, and if anything discrepancies for them have greater impact because they are already lower on the ladder to start with.

From my part, I'm inclined to think that the "fundamental biological differences" that folks bandy about as a reason why everything is fine and we don't have to give any thought to the subject anymore, are actually the reason why tensions among people based on gender will always be something that we struggle with. At a minimum, it appears that the overwhelming majority of people have biologically rooted sexual desires for people of one gender or another, and this tendency is unlikely to change; these people therefore have a minimum of one compelling reason for differential treatment based on gender, and where one item is, others tend to accumulate. Again, ponder the matter of R&D.

---------- Post added 05-16-2010 at 02:21 AM ----------


Beyond that, the two genders have a different personality divide as we see in T/F split. Men are 50/50, but women are 33/67 for some reason. Of course that gets into the issue of whether personality is ingrained or not. But it certainly is a strange statistic.

And here is an example of a situation where erroneous conclusions can easily be made; let us say that there is, indeed, a distinct difference whereby women skew F. That's useful data indeed, when thinking of the population as a whole -- but if you conclude therefore that it is valid to label F as a feminine trait and T as a masculine trait... and assume then that it is safe to conclude that a man is T and a woman is F... and give a set of rigid prescriptive advice based on these assumptions...

...well, you have the makings of a successful magazine article or self-help book. Also a fallacy that misrepresents about 40% of the population, but never mind that.

[gecko]

This bit goes back to my earlier point -- namely, that the proposal here seems to be to observe that professional women in certain career fields may not necessarily encounter obvious discrimination in the area of work, and therefore to declare that the entire gender "problem" is officially solved. Women who are not professionals also need to earn a living and also need to be treated well while at work, and if anything discrepancies for them have greater impact because they are already lower on the ladder to start with.

Good points, and I would agree would I not have the multitude of service-oriented franchises that (from my limited observations) pose no barrier to women employees, and as the norms are - orient towards a female. Here is a myth for you to shatter: men prefer physical labor and minimal service related jobs at the entry level rather than the abundance of service/retail jobs available. Think cashier, sales representative(guy/gal at target who asks if you need help), waiter/waitress. In addition, social norms encourage and reinforce such hospitality standards. For example: on craigslist NYC, jobs-> food-beverage-hospitality, you will find a minor yet recognizable tendency of posters(I check every few days) to advertise specific to women - women waitresses, shot girl, female bartenders. Very rare is a male specific ad for a hospitality related job.

From my part, I'm inclined to think that the "fundamental biological differences" that folks bandy about as a reason why everything is fine and we don't have to give any thought to the subject anymore, are actually the reason why tensions among people based on gender will always be something that we struggle with. At a minimum, it appears that the overwhelming majority of people have biologically rooted sexual desires for people of one gender or another, and this tendency is unlikely to change; these people therefore have a minimum of one compelling reason for differential treatment based on gender, and where one item is, others tend to accumulate. Again, ponder the matter of R&D.

This is true, but I wager those who bother to rationalize their prejudice "reasonably" tend to be more "educated" people(who also carefully hide their prejudices unless 'socially acceptable to voice). Others, what is the gritty, grinding "working-class" (mom and pop shop owners, laborers, city workers, etc.) feel no real need or have no recognition of closely rational thought. They are the majority, and while here and there you will find one of them who fancies himself "smart" and reads the sort of articles that suggest biological causes(which is not entirely admissible in the first place) and rationalizes thusly - I see the crushing weight of humanity itself as the reason for prejudice. Confirmation bias, traditions, whispers, sloppy thinking, less than rigorous analysis of their thoughts. This is rampant among the majority, and sometimes the battle of the sexes becomes comedy and a feeling of defeat or ...who is John Galt-ish throw your hands in the air and then sing kumbayah sort of propagation.

What is this matter of R&D you speak of?

[thod]

The idea that there must be 50% representation at the top of each field is based on the idea that men and women are identical except for genitalia. No matter what attribute science looks at, there is greater variation in males. The IQ curve is one, that seems to be of interest for INTJ's, where men are overrepresented in both the top and bottom deciles. This does not mean that no women are there, only that fewer are. When one talks about 'top' positions, these are extreme positions requiring personal attributes at the extreme. There will always be more male candidates that have those attributes and thus there will always be males present. Exceptional females do occur and are promoted. When a guy is passed up, he has no excuses. When a woman is passed up it's easy to blame sexism. Yet if we had the 50% in all top positions, we would be promoting less capable people.

There are plenty of all male run companies but very few all female. Trade contracts do not care about gender. But there is competition there and promoting less capable people leads to failure. It is hard to argue that 50% of chess grand masters should be female (they actually have a separate category). You either win a game or lose it, you cannot be deemed to have won when you lost because of handicaps.

Thus the statistical arguments that show that fewer women occupy top jobs as evidence of sexism is flawed. What it actually reflects is that women are less likely to be capable of filling top jobs. If it was going to make them more money, they would be happy to hire a monkey.

[vampyroteuthis]

And here is an example of a situation where erroneous conclusions can easily be made; let us say that there is, indeed, a distinct difference whereby women skew F. That's useful data indeed, when thinking of the population as a whole -- but if you conclude therefore that it is valid to label F as a feminine trait and T as a masculine trait... and assume then that it is safe to conclude that a man is T and a woman is F... and give a set of rigid prescriptive advice based on these assumptions...

...well, you have the makings of a successful magazine article or self-help book. Also a fallacy that misrepresents about 40% of the population, but never mind that.

This. Added to which, the MBTI is based on self-reporting and is not an objective measurement of intelligence or ability, but an assessment of which functions people prefer to use. Preference is uncorrelated with intelligence, analytical ability, or skill. F's can be good at math too! (We have quite a few examples on this forum.)

---------- Post added 05-16-2010 at 04:41 AM ----------

The idea that there must be 50% representation at the top of each field is based on the idea that men and women are identical except for genitalia. No matter what attribute science looks at, there is greater variation in males. The IQ curve is one, that seems to be of interest for INTJ's, where men are overrepresented in both the top and bottom deciles. This does not mean that no women are there, only that fewer are. When one talks about 'top' positions, these are extreme positions requiring personal attributes at the extreme. There will always be more male candidates that have those attributes and thus there will always be males present. Exceptional females do occur and are promoted. When a guy is passed up, he has no excuses. When a woman is passed up it's easy to blame sexism. Yet if we had the 50% in all top positions, we would be promoting less capable people.

There are plenty of all male run companies but very few all female. Trade contracts do not care about gender. But there is competition there and promoting less capable people leads to failure. It is hard to argue that 50% of chess grand masters should be female (they actually have a separate category). You either win a game or lose it, you cannot be deemed to have won when you lost because of handicaps.

Thus the statistical arguments that show that fewer women occupy top jobs as evidence of sexism is flawed. What it actually reflects is that women are less likely to be capable of filling top jobs. If it was going to make them more money, they would be happy to hire a monkey.

Citations needed.

[Ben1220]

I personally don't like sexism in any form, against women or against men. I know that there are differences between the sexes, but there are also very large differences between individuals of the same sex, so much so that in most cases it is more likely that the difference between two randomly picked people of the same sex would be greater than the difference between the statistically average man and women. Sexual stereotyping is useless.

I think it is helpful to think of two different kinds of sexism, public and private sexism. We can theoretically do something pretty quickly about public sexism, but private sexism is more difficult to change. Companies who hire substandard employees because they are women and they need to meet a quota, would be an example of public sexism. The fact that it is politically incorrect to make jokes about women but generally fine to make jokes about men (or at least this is what I perceive) is an example of public sexism. The ingrained attitude of... say an unintelligent old person... that women are supposed to be stay at home wives and not have proper jobs is an example of private sexism. The ingrained attitude of some people that chivalry is somehow "morally correct" or ethical, and should be undertaken by all men is an example of private sexism. I feel that there is slightly more public sexism against men and slightly more private sexism, of course depending on the person, against women, but of course there are many instances of both for public and private sexism.

Public sexism is easier to get rid of. Make sexism illegal, and this applies to both men and women, let women join the army, get rid of affirmative action, get rid of women only train carriages and beaches unless the same is being provided for men... We don't have unisex toilets and womens toilets... If the law sees the difference between men and women as relevant only when it actually is... then at least the law is aligned with what we want society to be like. If you're the kind of person who would make a fuss and complain when there's an implicitly sexist newspaper article or TV add portraying women in a negative way, then do the same when there's a tv add portraying men in a negative way...

The problem of private sexism, requiring there to be a change in attitudes, both conscious and unconscious, of people with simplistic views regarding sex, such as both the women mentioned by the OP and some irrational conservatives who believe that ones sex somehow defines ones role in life, is really just a of a greater problem... Irrational thinking and stupidity in general. The best thing to do here I guess is to just continue to improve the educational system, so that newer generations will be equipt with better reasoning and critical thinking skills, and will be less susceptible to accepting dodgy and frivolous arguments. Or just beleiving something due to conformity, without even thinking about it.

I also want to add, just because someone is a women, is brilliant, and is treated unfairly DOES NOT necessarily imply sexism. Especially in the academic world. Academia is extremly harsh, no matter what your gender, and you shouldn't go into graduate school in some fields expecting a tenure track position. If life is tough... it just might be because... well yeah, life is tough... not because of sexism. Don't think that equality somehow implies a happy and healthy life and all these brilliant opportunities and stuff... many men don't have that... I'm sure people realise this, I just guess its very difficult to tell when bad fortune is due to sexism or something completely irrelevant to sex.

[tp6626]

I'm glad your new workplace isn't discriminating against hiring women tp6626, perhaps that goes a little way towards evening things out since there are still environments where sexist attitudes thrive. In fact your old workplace was one of those and here was your description of that from a year and a half ago:That's interesting reading my words again. I was really angry about that when it happened.

I wouldn't say my stance is pro-women per se, but I'm extremely anti-anti-women, when I see it. In that I mean that I would never agree with, all other things being equal "you've got the job because you're female", but I would angrily & actively fight against "you can't have the job because you're female" or "the other candidate got the job because he was male". I know those things are usually the managements thoughts and are hard to prove, but they're generally not hard to spot. And they are different things. But managers actually stating the former one ("you've got the job because you're female") is becoming more and more accepted lately, which I think is wrong.

I think ultimately, for engineering at least, any organisations like women into science & engineering should be working more in schools, colleges & the media at changing perceptions about engineering, rather than providing grants based on gender to female university students, and lobbying recruiters to favour females. I think those sorts of behaviours are an example of doing the wrong thing at the wrong time, (albeit) for the right reason.

I always believe you should be doing the right thing, at the right time, for the right reason.

I find that despite two (?) waves of feminism, the workplace is still geared towards men who have a wife cooking dinner at home. I feel like I'm busting my ass for no reason, and would be much further ahead in terms of career and salary if I were a man.I would feel bad to expect a wife to stay at home doing the ironing and housework etc. It would make my life easier, sure, and I would quite like to not have to do this stuff myself if it came to it, but the thought has never even crossed my mind that the wife should do all this. Which is funny, seeing as that's what my mother did when I was younger, and is generally the 'accepted' thing in my locality. I am a bit of an outsider though, in terms of local tradition. :S

IMO "i deserve respect because i'm a woman" is not a legitimate statement, nor is any statement discerning race/religion/ethnicity or social class. "i deserve respect because i'm a human being" is something i can respect.

i feel that i should also point out that it is my opinion that respect is something to be earned, not something that is owed - but that would digress from the central point i'm trying to make.
I agree with this, gender, race, religion, social class etc shouldn't be a grounds of any form of different treatment that someone receives.

I've seen women engineers spoken over and talked down to by various males in the time I've been working, I think solely because they have the preconception that they're female, they probably don't know what they're talking about.

This is one of the quickest ways for me to become very hostile towards someone (and I'm generally a very laid back & tolerant person!). If / when I see this type of behaviour from someone, I'd automatically label them an arse-hole (in my head), and then proceed to treat them accordingly, showing them up for what they really are.

In doing that I would be sticking up for the female engineer, but not because she's female, rather because I think the person who discriminated based on gender was wrong, unjustified, and narrow-minded to do so.

[Gobbbler]

I believe that for the sexes to be "equal" they must be treated with equal respect. Equal respect does not necessarily mean equal treatment or an equal ratio of female:male employees.

The sexism that exists today relegates certain behaviors and activities into male and female genders. Those belonging to the female gender are generally considered foolish or less important, whereas those belonging to the male gender are celebrated.

Too often, the idea of equality is interpreted to mean that women should be like men. However, this plays into the sexism inherent in devaluing "female" behavior.

To me, equality means equally respecting the male and the female behaviors. It means that any time a male performs a female-gendered activity, it is not seen as an act of "lowering" himself. It means that any time a female performs a male-gendered activity, it is not seen as "elevating" herself to the status of males.

In this regard, I don't think that equality has gone nearly far enough.
First, let me say that I think the bolded portions of this post are a very good insight and I really think this is a great point. If for some reason women prefer some behaviors, those behaviors should not be devalued, a male who does them should not be devalued, and women should not feel pressured to avoid these behaviors in order to be accomplished.

I will quibble with this post a bit and say I think the “generally” in this sentence overstates the situation. “Those belonging to the female gender are generally considered foolish or less important, whereas those belonging to the male gender are celebrated.” I think that much progress has been made in reducing this problem, especially by talking up the importance of female behaviors and I also feel that many male behaviors are considered foolish, immature, or irresponsible. In fact, because of political correctness I find that it is more acceptable to engage in male bashing. I think that part of this is that people do adhere to social gender roles, and they are going to embrace those that fit them as part of their identity and self esteem. This is fine as long as they recognize that it is their personal preference and not gender superiority. I think that there are many professions where the mentality you cite is rare and seen as outdated.

@ Firebee & AngryGroceries: I definitely think that in some areas of employment, gender stereotypes and discrimination are still rampant. Some groups of historically male employment are defensive of their position as something women can’t do. This still needs work. Yes, it may still be true that if you picked a random man and a random woman off the street, the man would probably be more likely to be knowledgeable or skilled in an area that men are typically more interested in, but one should not assume that a woman who is interested in working in such an area is less knowledgeable or less capable of learning & performing the job.
Why does the (canadian)army require less physical ability from women recruits than male if things are equal?
In the case of the army, I would be perfectly willing to believe that the test is a test of physical fitness, not performance and thus adjusted to accurately weed out women who have poor conditioning. I will admit that some manifestations of this do annoy me. Women’s rights activists do sue employers & the military over such tests demanding lower standards, even if the test is practically based. For instance, the Navy SEALS and elite or very physically demanding units may have performance standards and shouldn’t be required to lower standards to accommodate a political agenda that takes an unrealistic view of job demands and physical differences. On the other hand, in some cases tests are historically designed with men in mind and should be adjusted for a better reflection of job capability that is fair to females.

@vampyroteuthis You have good points. I would argue against citing the 80% and some of the broad based studies because I have found many of them to overstate the disparity (which I do believe exists) by overlooking specific relevant factors. For instance, ignoring years of experience. If you break down some professions by years of experience, you find that the difference disappears once you take out those over a large # of years, which may be because discrimination had an stronger effect back in the time period that these people were getting hired and gender roles were different. For instance, at many law firms, the senior partners are predominantly male, but the new hires and, more tellingly, those promoted to partner are equally female. This can also matter for some lower end jobs because more women take time off for children and family and re-enter the workforce in a different job where they start over. I also think that while biological differences in mental fields may exist and should not be dismissed without consideration, such factors are really hard to distinguish from other far more obvious factors and biology is really just being used as a excuse. I don’t see much merit in widespread discussion of this biological point of view until the known issues have been better resolved. In fact, I believe the harm outweighs the merit at this point.

@Ben1220 I think you have some very good points. I don’t agree with all of them, but this is already a very long post and I am not done yet.

[Azen]

It seems that you only see equality if a woman is cooking and taking care of the kids (I get this from the rest of this post)

Wow you do sound very defensive, and I find it funny how so many people jump to this very extreme when saying that females have their roles in society. What about caretakers of humanity and the world? The Jane Goodall's the Mother Theresa's, the Princess Di's. It's sad that society has belittled the majority of the 'female' roles, but don't take it out on me. I would much prefer to stay at home raising my kids than working in some bust ass dirty hole for 16 hours a day, but guess what? stay at home dads get the same disrespect for doing that as women, so don't tell me sexism is based just on sex. THAT IS WHY I QUOTED WHAT I DID. Because it spoke of gender roles being the matter in question.

As I see it it is mostly men who are not as accepting of other men in traditional female roles.
Bullshit. Women are no better than men when it comes to respecting men in feminine roles. You know how many gay guys I know that get treated like ditsy little school girls? Guess what they have penis's, so it's not SEXISM it's social gender roles. Some are higher on the chain of power than others.

So to you there is no place for women in the military?

LOL. Serious? That was a big jump?! but again I'm glad you hoped in the end that you didn't come across as too defensive, so at least you were aware of it. Look the way I see it is if there is a job to do, I don't give a shit WHAT gender you are, you better be able to do the job. You know how many female firefighters there are? Not too many. Why? They don't have separate expectations for one, and male humans are born with a greater average capacity for physical work...sorry that's just the way nature is. If I need to get pulled out of enemy fire because I'm wounded, I want that person to be just as able as the next to do it. I could care less if their penis was an innie or an outie ;).

This is bias and I agree with you, but remember that about 40 % of father absent homes (it doesn't mean they don't have partial custody) the children haven't seen their father in the last year and 50% of these children never set foot in their fathers home. Now what does that tell you?
Here are the statistics (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and here is some info on custody battles (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

Also doesn't tell me anything other than the fact you are trying to justify the fact that stereotypes SHOULD exist against men. I was referring to the many stories I have heard from friends going through divorces where they as men were the main caretakers of the kids, the moms hardly spent time with them. then when it came to it, the court ordered the kids to the mother. Unless she was a crack whore who refused treatment(I've seen the ones in treatment still get the kids), the female gets the kids. The women can't financially care for them? So what, that's what alimony and child support is for. It's bullshit from the male perspective, and I have been an advocate for women's rights my entire life being raised by a single mom. Statistics and the legal system is really a poor argument for what is ethically right.


Men in kilts look sexy, but I would guess if you are heterosexual you would not want gay men who prefer men in drag to be hitting on you. I've never met a man (hetero and non crossdresser)to dress in skirts and heels because they look so confy they just had to try it
Admittedly that was probably one of my weakest points as I really don't have any desire to wear a spring dress to the beach ;P(though i would secretly love to be able to wear those samurai type dresses), but the point was to consider the uneven trend toward women 'becoming' men by adopting their traditional attire, without the opposite being done by men. It is more an encroachment and loss of identity for the male that is not being acknowledged by society.

This is another bias perpetuated by men, Why do you think men are less likely to report rape? You mean equality to care that men are victims of violence or to not care if women are the victims?

Gecko got the point on this one. But I don't really understand where men reporting rape came in. It's the male gender role that says suck it up and deal with it. Its the male gender role that says do not hit women. It's the male gender role to die before the female in order to protect them so they can care for the young. Am I being sexist by saying a man should give his life to protect his wife and child? YES because sexism is GOOD in that respect. It's how nature designed us to survive as a species.

By asking "do you want that equality too?" I meant does anyone actually believe we should somehow change our entire genetic programming to now offer up females as sacrifices and somehow honestly justify it later? In war, in everyday life? If a guy hits my kid with his car while texting his friend, I will pull him out of his car and beat the shit out of him until he can barely breath should I have the chance. Now if it was a woman, I would not. Is that equality? Do females WANT males to do this to them?? If you truly want equality then be ready to deal with that shit, and not cry violence against women.

Ability to acknowledge your own sexuality? If you mean a woman's sexuality, believe me we try to be femenine but first of all we try to be ourselves. If you don't want a wedding by all means tell your SO precisely that. As to choice of birth, well it has been exahustingly discussed and most men that respond don't want to hear the "excuse" that it's the womans body, so maybe we should just flip a coin.

Here's what I meant.
Female natural sexual programming: Finds a genetically attractive mate and stay with him for protection and security against other males/females so your offspring will survive.

Male natural sexual programming: Find and mate with many females in a blanket method in order to ensure the survival of your offspring.

What do we have as the sexual ideal? (western world is where I live) Find a suitable partner without procreation, be monogamous, get married, only be attracted to that one person the rest of your life. This standard fits pretty nicely with what women already want, but is a hell of alot different than what men are made to do. And man have long carried the burden of their pig like nature in society, despite the fact it is completely natural. Have men been oppressed? No we just have a female gender stereotype as an ideal in society.


I don't know any women who want to be men, we just want to be respected.
Right. This I understand fully, and agree with fully. The problem is that females are 'playing' men and then expecting respect when it doesn't work like that. Just because some no nothing boss's son becomes your supervisor, doesn't mean he'll get your respect. The architecture of the human power structure is far more intricate. Males grow up fighting for the same power that females now want, so in order for equality to be had no punches can be pulled for the females. And sadly until we change our genetics, this will not happen.

[Gobbbler]

@castalia & the OP I do think that you have many good points. I have worked a number of jobs where people perform poorly or have serious attitude problems or other issues and then when chastised or disciplined or passed over they cry race or gender discrimination. Some people just can’t accept responsibility for their actions and they hurt those who suffer real discrimination. In other instances, why one candidate got promoted/hired is more ambiguous because both are very qualified. Sometimes this may allow subconscious gender preferences to play a role, but in other instances the female or minority candidate gets the job simply to promote one of that group. Either way, emotionally/ego mature candidates need to acknowledge the impressive skills of the other candidate and move on instead of looking for excuses based on one case unless a pattern is present.

Some areas I do think female equality has become problematic. Some are addressed above, but here are others:

Education: I don’t think gender inequality is fully eradicated, especially in some fields, but I am starting to see a pattern of neglecting boys. There are many programs to aid women in entering certain fields and many changes have been made based on studies showing how girls learn. Graduation rates for girls at high school and college levels now exceed those of males. This alone does not indicate neglect; however, I think the absence of programs geared toward helping boys learn is a factor. Sometimes I suspect that people are too quick to cry gender discrimination when programs are introduced to target areas boys are deficient in. We've targeted math & science for women, why not English and reading for boys? We should be seeking to improve education for all children, not just those who fit popular social agendas.
Also, many networking and mentoring programs ignore low income white males. Having been one, I lacked the networking connections and experienced mentors to guide me in navigating the subtleties necessary to find a job and advance. Unless I wanted to join a specific political group with views I didn’t agree with or join an expensive golf club, I had no place to turn, but I saw a variety of women’s and minority group mentoring programs. Yes, most of my white male classmates were connected and didn’t need them, but I was very frustrated. Connections are very important and I also made missteps in attire and formalities simply because I had nobody to advise me on these things and it was a foreign world for me.

Also, I do observe that some men get ahead compared to women because they are more ambitious. I think more men are simply unhealthily ego-driven to succeed at work at the expense of everything else – perhaps because of testosterone or how society values of men (generally and as mates). In other instances, because women prefer high status husbands more than vice-versa, or because of who wants to take time off for the kids, the men are still the larger breadwinner or sole breadwinner for their family and thus tend to feel more of a responsibility to get ahead. (small sample, but I know almost no Ph.D./J.D./M.D. women married to guys with bachelors degrees, but many Ph.D./J.D./M.D. men married to women with only bachelors. I think lower educational attainment is a more common turn-off for women than it is for men.)

I touched on the military before. I will say that having known infantrymen in the army, they shouldn’t force them to allow women there or in some other very strenuous roles where performance is a matter of life-or-death. Women can do the vast majority of military roles, but where the demands are severe, the vast majority of women would slow a team down – which risks getting people killed. I’ve played enough co-ed sports to know that while women can be very skilled and in great shape, very few of them can physically keep up with in-shape men. As a somewhat athletic male in his mid 30’s who works an office job and exercises at best two times a week, I was about to consistently outjump, outrun, and generally physically outperform collegiate Division I female athletes at a recent camp, even though they were far more skilled than me and train intensely at those specific abilities. The few women who would want and succeed in these infantry or other roles may simply not be worth what could a high price. Who wants to die for overambitious political correctness?

I also sometimes feel like the female equality movement loses sight of what the real goal should be and instead pursues statistical markers or economic power. If a woman is happier as a housewife or happier in a lower prestige traditional female job and doesn’t want to be manager because she personally isn’t comfortable being in charge of people, then she should shouldn’t feel shamed (side note: some men really need to accept that they aren’t good leaders or comfortable being in charge of people and not feel emasculated by it). I know very intelligent, capable women who have decided to be stay at home moms because quite simply, they didn’t like the jobs. Or who passed on promotions to administration because they loved their current role and the personal interaction involved. It is different if they doubt themselves because of gender stereotypes, but not all women who so choose should be broadbrushed as anti-feminists who bring down the struggle of women. Also, is it really a bad thing that at least one gender tends to be more comfortable turning away from professional success for the benefit of their children and family? Our society seems so focused on professional status and success that we lose track of the fact that other aspects of life are also important. Raising children can be very enjoyable, and the time stresses of having both parents work can take a toll on happiness. More men should embrace these non-work values and perhaps equalization should be more about men moving in that direction instead of everyone overvaluing career goals.

[Latro]

Citations needed.
I'm not defending everything thod said, but is a citation really needed in order to say that strict quotas (things like 45%-55% of the employees at each level must be x (where x is any specific group), not so much 30%-70%) will cause less capable people to be hired?

[Azen]

Gobbler did an excellent fleshing out of fwiffo's original statement.

We need to respect the support roles in society with the same dignity we give the prestige positions. Will it happen though? I don't really believe it will. Every relationship has subtle undertones of animal hierarchy. We need to know who is top dog, who is leader, and who is follower. Will there come a time when you somehow are more inclined to listen to a soft spoken house wife, than a well spoken charismatic man? How about an uneducated house husband over a well respected female humanitarian? Status is what we are vying for, it's just that the majority of those roles are considered masculine as males are the natural leaders in human biological makeup.

(And thanks synamon for editing my earlier post for tags...I wish it would auto do that when you quote ;) ).

[Vagrant]

And here is an example of a situation where erroneous conclusions can easily be made; let us say that there is, indeed, a distinct difference whereby women skew F. That's useful data indeed, when thinking of the population as a whole -- but if you conclude therefore that it is valid to label F as a feminine trait and T as a masculine trait... and assume then that it is safe to conclude that a man is T and a woman is F... and give a set of rigid prescriptive advice based on these assumptions...

...well, you have the makings of a successful magazine article or self-help book. Also a fallacy that misrepresents about 40% of the population, but never mind that.

Too true. The question is why that skew exists.

[Aronnax]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I think a lot of the effort to increase the number of women in technical fields is misplaced. By the time hiring preference/quotas roll around it's already too late, you're just making the most of a small pool. More emphasis should be placed on promoting math and science at an early age. I think a lot of girls buy into the lie that they're "just not good at math" and it's reinforced because math is hard and/or taught poorly. Boys on the other hand grow up hearing that they're supposed to be good at math and when it becomes difficult they dig in due to expectations.

[vampyroteuthis]

I'm not defending everything thod said, but is a citation really needed in order to say that strict quotas (things like 45%-55% of the employees at each level must be x (where x is any specific group), not so much 30%-70%) will cause less capable people to be hired?
Oops. I should have been clearer. I don't think quota systems are the way to go -- they oversimplify a much more nuanced problem. But I meant citations for the following:No matter what attribute science looks at, there is greater variation in males. The IQ curve is one, that seems to be of interest for INTJ's, where men are overrepresented in both the top and bottom deciles. This does not mean that no women are there, only that fewer are. as well as citations to show correlation between IQ and those who occupy top positions in various fields. I'm on another similar forum now where there's a discussion about why it seems to be that the smartest people are rarely the most successful, and the posters are positing that ambition and hard work are equally, or maybe even more, significant than IQ in predicting job success. I don't know whether that is true, but I don't know that it's false either. I haven't seen conclusive data either way. I'd be interested to know if it's out there.

@vampyroteuthis You have good points. I would argue against citing the 80% and some of the broad based studies because I have found many of them to overstate the disparity (which I do believe exists) by overlooking specific relevant factors. For instance, ignoring years of experience. If you break down some professions by years of experience, you find that the difference disappears once you take out those over a large # of years, which may be because discrimination had an stronger effect back in the time period that these people were getting hired and gender roles were different. For instance, at many law firms, the senior partners are predominantly male, but the new hires and, more tellingly, those promoted to partner are equally female. This can also matter for some lower end jobs because more women take time off for children and family and re-enter the workforce in a different job where they start over.

Gobbbler, you're absolutely right that disaggregating the data by age makes a difference to how the picture looks, which I didn't really go into other than mentioning that the wage gap worsens for older women. The best data I could find on this are here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and they use median wage rather than mean [WARNING: the link is to a .pdf file so clicking it will start immediate download]. I think this might in part explain the difference in perceptions of workplace between the OP and the older woman she was talking to. And I agree with all the explanatory factors you mentioned, but I wonder if some small part of it might also be explained by the persistence of a "glass ceiling", though I don't know how one would go measuring this. In any case, the data do show that the gap is substantially lower for the younger age ranges, though it still persists (roughly 4,500 dollars for people aged 25-34). I'm guessing which state you're in in the US will also affect your perception of the gap. New York seems to have narrowed it down to about 450 dollars for the youngest age range. It would be interesting to look at correlations for each state between wage gap, age range, percentage of working women who are mothers, availability of daycare, etc.

There's also separate data on factors like gender bias in hiring (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in various fields based on recruiters looking at applicant profiles that include the applicant's gender, and linguistic differences (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) in the use of 'standout' descriptors in letters of recommendation for men and women. But while I find these instances instructive and sometimes disturbing, the data are far more specific and the studies conducted on a smaller scale, so I don't know how to assess extent.

I think a lot of the effort to increase the number of women in technical fields is misplaced. By the time hiring preference/quotas roll around it's already too late, you're just making the most of a small pool. More emphasis should be placed on promoting math and science at an early age. I think a lot of girls buy into the lie that they're "just not good at math" and it's reinforced because math is hard and/or taught poorly. Boys on the other hand grow up hearing that they're supposed to be good at math and when it becomes difficult they dig in due to expectations.
I also think that while biological differences in mental fields may exist and should not be dismissed without consideration, such factors are really hard to distinguish from other far more obvious factors and biology is really just being used as a excuse. I don’t see much merit in widespread discussion of this biological point of view until the known issues have been better resolved. In fact, I believe the harm outweighs the merit at this point.
I agree. In fact it seems like the public discussion is harmful in itself and does cause girls to buy into the lie that they can't do math. Exposure to stereotypes that women are necessarily worse than men in certain fields leads women to perform worse in those fields, at least in the short term (e.g. here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), and here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)).
Also, much of what I've read on the subject would indicate that, while there are certain biological gender differences on average, they get grossly misrepresented in the media, not just as to magnitude of differences but also when it comes to the nature of the difference. The whole furore (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) over studies supposedly showing that men are funnier than women was pretty interesting, for example, where the columnists who overdrew the conclusion probably didn't look at the original study, and/or didn't know how to read the data. The actual information we have on gender difference fascinates me, because I don't think we really understand what these differences signify.

Again, sorry about the proliferation of links. It's just such a pleasure to be able to have this conversation. Discussions about statistical data and methodologies make me drool. I think all schoolchildren should discuss popular science reportage when they learn statistics, so that they learn how to examine the results of actual studies rather than trusting mainstream news media to parse it for us. Maybe that would also lead to less internalization of stereotypes and unconscious bias in the next generation.

[Distance]

Also, many networking and mentoring programs ignore low income white males. Having been one, I lacked the networking connections and experienced mentors to guide me in navigating the subtleties necessary to find a job and advance. Unless I wanted to join a specific political group with views I didn’t agree with or join an expensive golf club,When it comes to the business world, you have to play the game and be proficient at your job in order to attain advancement.

For women, it's an even more complex game due to dominant male egos as it relates to gender assumptions about emotionalism and logical progression. So...you out-rational the top-tier until you become the go-to person while networking from the mailroom person to the CEO, extending your network outside the company to ensure for future jobs in case there's no room at your existing firm for advancement within your time schedule.

Strangely enough, you can also leverage off of the male inclination to be visual. As long as it's kept at arms-length and professional, it's advantageous to get noticed and then, an added pleasant surprise to be articulate and more business rational than your peer group.

Business is rational. It's there to make money. To advance, everyone needs to be on the asset side of the balance sheet. For women to advance, you need to irrefutably be on the asset side of the balance sheet.

[Feral]

I think that if a woman is so upset that there aren't enough women in any given place, that maybe they should stop complaining and try to take the job for themselves. Not be given a job, but work their way up and take it if they think it needs a woman so badly.

[Delarge]

Good points, and I would agree would I not have the multitude of service-oriented franchises that (from my limited observations) pose no barrier to women employees, and as the norms are - orient towards a female. Here is a myth for you to shatter: men prefer physical labor and minimal service related jobs at the entry level rather than the abundance of service/retail jobs available. Think cashier, sales representative(guy/gal at target who asks if you need help), waiter/waitress. In addition, social norms encourage and reinforce such hospitality standards. For example: on craigslist NYC, jobs-> food-beverage-hospitality, you will find a minor yet recognizable tendency of posters(I check every few days) to advertise specific to women - women waitresses, shot girl, female bartenders. Very rare is a male specific ad for a hospitality related job.



This is true, but I wager those who bother to rationalize their prejudice "reasonably" tend to be more "educated" people(who also carefully hide their prejudices unless 'socially acceptable to voice). Others, what is the gritty, grinding "working-class" (mom and pop shop owners, laborers, city workers, etc.) feel no real need or have no recognition of closely rational thought. They are the majority, and while here and there you will find one of them who fancies himself "smart" and reads the sort of articles that suggest biological causes(which is not entirely admissible in the first place) and rationalizes thusly - I see the crushing weight of humanity itself as the reason for prejudice. Confirmation bias, traditions, whispers, sloppy thinking, less than rigorous analysis of their thoughts. This is rampant among the majority, and sometimes the battle of the sexes becomes comedy and a feeling of defeat or ...who is John Galt-ish throw your hands in the air and then sing kumbayah sort of propagation.

What is this matter of R&D you speak of?

Are you denying the existence of brain dimorphism between the sexes? In terms of mean values, male and female brains differ slightly in terms of morphology and, consequently, vary in function. It is completely unfair and inaccurate to assert that those who propound a biological explanation for sex differences in occupation patterns and salaries are merely interested in "rationalizing" their prejudices. I find the reluctance of cognitive egalitarians to review the available data and critique it in a rational manner to be astounding, and clearly illustrative of their emotional commitment to the idea.

[cylontoaster]

A common explanation for these inequalities is rooted in the idea of substantial and significant biological difference. It's funny how wildly speculative people who are supposedly schooled in data analysis become when they try to explain this, when in fact the under-representation of women in Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) (also see this (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. iological.php) article, focusing particularly on math) has far less to do with biological differences than sociocultural factors.
My apologies for the sheer amount of links I've put in here. This is the last one, I promise, but here's a great slide show (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) by a woman in computer science, explaining how the argument that biological gender differences in intelligence lead to the gender gap in computer science is flawed, in that it fails to explain the extent of the gap and relies on misrepresentation of data and lack of rigour in statistical analysis.

It's not just about ability, but about exposure, interest and choice. Growing up in Silicon Valley, girls had equal exposure to math, physics, chemistry, biology and computer science. We had programs that fostered girls in science and technology. We'd go out on hikes, visit professionals in the field, and go on some other neat field trips around the bay. By the time high school rolled around, everyone was taking as many AP classes as possible (Spanish, history, biology, calculus, chemistry, computer science, English, you name it). Girls who were in the CS AP class could do the work just as well as the boys, many simply did not like it. They slaved through the class so they could add yet another AP class to their college resume.
Women who could have gone into math, physics, engineering, (or also literature for that matter), chose instead to teach, become lawyers, doctors, biologists, or chemical engineers— and some eventually followed other lifelong dreams, like starting up a dog-walking business.

Now, is it really that hard to consider the possibility that the majority of girls simply do not like computer science? Perhaps you could increase the numbers a bit by increasing exposure in schools, but it still takes a particular personality type, somewhere leaning more toward the Aspie/Autistic spectrum, who would personally enjoy hunting down and optimizing bottlenecks in code, to obsessively tweak the heuristic of an AI algorithm just because it could be better, be especially amused by the rendering of a teapot, or get so involved with a problem that he or she forgets to eat.

There are easier ways of making money than going into math or engineering or physics. Those that do, tend not to only have the ability, but also really, really enjoy it. I’d like to see some statistics on not only how many males and females have the ability to enter math and science, but the percentage that also like it.

[Delarge]

Here's some literature concerning the differences in IQ distribution between males and females that thod alluded to:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This article's not bad, it employs a fair amount of references:
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'll locate additional studies.

---------- Post added 05-16-2010 at 03:59 PM ----------

Here is a piece of literature concerning the relationship between testosterone and performance on visuo-spatial tasks.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

---------- Post added 05-16-2010 at 04:02 PM ----------

Here's an interesting study demonstrating that female homosexuals outperform their heterosexual counter-parts on visuo-spatial tasks in spite of receiving exposure to the same cultural atmosphere during childhood.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[daydreamer]

I am a woman and applaud everything that has happened regarding women's rights in past years. However, I believe that some women, especially older ones, go too far with this whole "female equality" thing in the 21st century.

I had a discussion with a woman in her 60s today regarding a joint meeting of the Greek and Turkish cabinets. She saw the meeting on TV and immediately blurted out what a shame it was that she did not see many women present as cabinet members or even those present at the meeting from the newspapers and TVs and started to say that the two nations are against female equality etc. I pointed out to her that the new Greek cabinet is made up of around 40% women (I don't know what percentage they make up in the Turkish cabinet, but I am sure there are female ministers). She said that until women get more than 50% representation in all fields, she will not be happy.

I have to say that this sort of argument is usually put forth by women who have somehow failed to achieve anything in their professional and even personal lives. These days women are rarely discriminated against in universities, jobs, and politics. If anything, it has gone the other way around! Men tend to be passed over for some jobs in order to hire female empoyees. My PhD program is 70% women and most department at some of the best universities actually have more females than males enrolled.

I am tired of keeping quiet and wish that these women who claim that females are discriminated against in the above jobs would shut up. Maybe you are being passed over because you are not good enough for the job, not because you are female.

why do you care so much what another woman thinks?

[Distance]

Does anyone know of any studies that compare historical statistics on gender-related IQs? I would be curious to see if there have been any increases or decreases in IQ per gender now that women have increased their attendance in post-secondary education.

Perhaps even more telling would be to test the IQ levels of men and women within the "higher paying jobs" or "male-dominated intellectual industries".

[Delarge]

Does anyone know of any studies that compare historical statistics on gender-related IQs? I would be curious to see if there have been any increases or decreases in IQ per gender now that women have increased their attendance in post-secondary education.

Perhaps even more telling would be to test the IQ levels of men and women within the "higher paying jobs" or "male-dominated intellectual industries".

To the best of my knowledge, males and females have remained in parity in terms of mean IQ since the introduction of psychometric tests. Both genders have benefited equally from what is known as the Flynn effect, however it appears to have halted and is now reversing in certain jurisdictions.

[Synamon]

Does anyone know of any studies that compare historical statistics on gender-related IQs? I would be curious to see if there have been any increases or decreases in IQ per gender now that women have increased their attendance in post-secondary education.

Not exactly what you are asking for, but there were some studies posted in an old thread asking Why aren't there more women in Math? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) so I dug them up, forgive me for quoting myself. This link that I posted showed the "math gap" declining significantly over the decades:

Here (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is a comprehensive study about the gender differences in math scores. The study found that there was no difference in math achievement scores until the high school level. If your biology theory were true there would be a difference right from the start.

In that same thread LionsPride posted a link to a study that looked at SAT scores by gender and country:
I found this article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) very interesting, particularly this statement:

They looked at gaps in math scores world wide and found some countries where there was no gap in math and some where the girls performed higher. They also compared reading scores and the boys didn't fair very well. In fact, there were no countries where the boys performed higher. (I mention this because I happen to be equally annoyed that boys are often discouraged against reading as much as I am annoyed by girls being told it's okay to suck at math)

It did not explain why girls do not continue with math or prove why there is a gap in performance differing between countries, only that there is a gap in performance and in some countries girls out perform boys.

[Distance]

To the best of my knowledge, males and females have remained in parity in terms of mean IQ since the introduction of psychometric tests. Both genders have benefited equally from what is known as the Flynn effect, however it appears to have halted and is now reversing in certain jurisdictions.I'd like to see these types of historical statistics in a couple of decades, as well as the previously expressed IQ tests for the higher salary brackets/purportedly higher intellectual fields.

It would be interesting to see what IQ levels are present, from a gender and non-gender related perspective. IF the average IQ within the higher salary bracket/purportedly higher intellectual fields don't mesh with societal assumptions, then...

[Delarge]

I'd like to see these types of historical statistics in a couple of decades, as well as the previously expressed IQ tests for the higher salary brackets/purportedly higher intellectual fields.

It would be interesting to see what IQ levels are present, from a gender and non-gender related perspective. IF the average IQ within the higher salary bracket/purportedly higher intellectual fields don't mesh with societal assumptions, then...

I'm not certain of what it is you're asking, but it's fairly well-established that class differences in IQ do exist and have existed for at least as long as we've been able to measure intelligence. Given the bi-directional relationship between IQ and socio-economic status, this is to be expected. When one adopts children born to lower class parents into upper-middle class families, their scores tend to improve to a negligible degree as compared to the mean performance of the lower class. When one adopts children born to upper-middle class parents into lower class families (something of a rarity), they obtain scores that are comparable to the mean upper-middle class value in spite of being exposed to an inferior familial and social environment. All of this suggests that a significant genetic component is active in determining one's IQ, and consequently, one's socio-economic status.

[cannotseethe]

How could equality possibly go too far? What is too far, in this connection?

If it's the potentially deleterious consequences of women occupying jobs that some people seem to believe require super-crazy-special intelligence, then I can't muster much beyond a "so what?" after calling bullshit but granting the premise for the sake of argument. Name a job, any job, that frequently and critically requires an IQ at the high tail of the IQ distribution to such a degree that human death would result if a person not possessing an IQ in that range did it.

[Distance]

Not exactly what you are asking for, but there were some studies posted in an old thread asking Why aren't there more women in Math? (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) so I dug them up, forgive me for quoting myself:

In that same thread LionsPride posted a link to a study that looked at SAT scores by gender and country:Thanks. I quickly scanned both articles and found this little tidbit.

Regardless of which measure of gender equality they used, Sapienza and her colleagues found that improved social conditions for women were related to improved math performance by girls. For example, the math gender gap almost disappeared in Sweden (GGI = 0.81), while girls scored nearly 23 points below boys in math in Turkey (GGI = 0.59). Not only did average girls’ scores improve as equality improved, but the number of girls reaching the highest levels of performance also increased. In Iceland, for example, there were 117 girls for every 100 boys among the top 1 percent of math students.

[Delarge]

How could equality possibly go too far? What is too far, in this connection?

If it's the potentially deleterious consequences of women occupying jobs that some people seem to believe require super-crazy-special intelligence, then I can't muster much beyond a "so what?" after calling bullshit but granting the premise for the sake of argument. Name a job, any job, that frequently and critically requires an IQ at the high tail of the IQ distribution to such a degree that human death would result if a person not possessing an IQ in that range did it.

I'm more concerned with explaining the etiology of sex differences in occupations and salaries than I am with issuing prescriptions. Nevertheless, compromising the meritocratic structure of society for the purpose of increasing female and minority representation in academia, the professional class and politics might result in less scientific and technological progress, more malpractice suits from botched dental and surgical procedures, more structural failures, more plane crashes, a greater risk of economic and political mismanagement and an increase in socialistic legislation.

[Rudy]

Hmm... the most fundamental mistake the OP makes is to imply that there is a single measure of gender equality which has either gone too far, not far enough, or just right. In reality, there is no such thing. Gender equality is going to mean many things to many people, but it's clear as can be that it could go "too far" in one area, and not nearly far enough in others.

As some others in this thread, I'm very much opposed to discrimination of any kind. "Positive discrimination" is a ridiculous term, in my opinion, because one could easily say "positive discrimination" toward men. So, I don't think it's a term worth using. Discrimination is discrimination, and should not be used in any form regarding sex. Ends don't justify means, and sexual discrimination is wrong, as far as I'm concerned.

Similarly, attitudes such as what the OP describes, where 50% representation of a gender in a given profession is desired, are barely worth entertainment. A bit of thought will show you that, even if ability in a given area was 100% equal across every single person (an obviously flawed assumption,) that this would not imply that an unbiased population would lead to equal representation of genders in that area. Perhaps more of one gender enter a field than another gender out of a difference in desire, for example. As a previous poster pointed out, there are statistical differences in personality between men and women (T v. F being the most prominent example) and this will lead to differences in career preferences. Again, statistically. More men are going to want to enter the military, because of testosterone leading to a greater statistical desire to kill things. *shrug*

No, these different forms of discrimination are a poor and immoral solution to a serious problem. Sexual discrimination against women still exists; there is no doubt about that. I think the only real long-term solution is the continued raising of social consciousness around the issue, which the feminist movement has been very successful at for the most part. It's important to combat the complacent idea that the movement is done with, and the condescending idea that women should be happy with what progress they've made and shut up.

Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, I think there has been another negative effect of making what were once traditional roles for women (housewifery, etc.) seem degrading in comparison. The solution here is not to defend women who wish to perform these tasks, but to defend the tasks in general, so that either sex might perform them without social stigma. That is, it is not enough to defend women who wish to have "manly" careers, one must also defend men who wish to stay home and make casserole, if you want to really approach gender equality. The entire notion of a division between tasks for men and women need be done away with.

[cannotseethe]

more malpractice suits from botched dental and surgical procedures, more structural failures, more plane crashes, a greater risk of economic and political mismanagement and an increase in socialistic legislation.

WTF?! What reason do you have to believe that any of this would be a function of gender?

[Delarge]

WTF?!

I'm speculating of course, but we know, for instance, that visuo-spatial ability is tremendously important with respect to piloting a plane, and performing surgery and dentistry. Conceivably, if males were forced out of these positions in favour of females, the rate of accidents would increase on account of the lower mean performance by females on tasks of a visuo-spatial nature. As an example, it's been found that females under-perform males on the visuo-spatial component of the dental admission test.

Mathematical aptitude and visuo-spatial ability are of importance in civil engineering. If males were bumped out for reasons other than merit, I can imagine more bridge failures occurring.

As is well-known, females are more likely to support social welfare policies than males. If the composition of a legislature was dominated by females, this might translate into a greater level of wealth transfers and perhaps a reduction or retardation of economic output.

[Distance]

As is well-known, females are more likely to support social welfare policies than males. If the composition of a legislature was dominated by females, this might translate into a greater level of wealth transfers and perhaps a reduction and retardation of economic output.I can see by the current global economic crisis conditions, it's well worthwhile to protect. ;)

[cannotseethe]

I'm speculating ... Conceivably ... I can imagine ... this might

It's good to see arguments in favor of a belief that gender equality has gone too far grounded in such powerful evidence, worthy of the weightiness of the claim.

[Delarge]

It's good to see arguments in favor of a belief that gender equality has gone so far grounded in such powerful evidence, worthy of the weightiness of the claim.

Would you prefer me to pontificate? I'm making speculations based on available data concerning sex differences in ability, the relationship between abilities and job performance, and the political orientation of females.

[Rudy]

Would you prefer me to pontificate? I'm making speculations based on available data concerning sex differences in ability, the relationship between abilities and job performance, and the political orientation of females.

Concerning only the last of a number of ridiculous claims, I'm quite opposed to socialist policies myself as a rule, and yet I've never thought that the fact that someone disagrees with me politically was sufficient grounds to bar them from office.

[Delarge]

Concerning only the last of a number of ridiculous claims, I'm quite opposed to socialist policies myself as a rule, and yet I've never thought that the fact that someone disagrees with me politically was sufficient grounds to bar them from office.

I'm not arguing in favour of restricting females from legislatures, I'm suggesting that mandatory quotas for female representation in a legislature might translate into a greater intensity of wealth transfers.

[Rudy]

I'm not arguing in favour of restricting females from legislatures, I'm suggesting that mandatory quotas for female representation in a legislature might translate into a greater intensity of wealth transfers.
Well, I'm also opposed to mandatory quotas in any profession, but I'm at a loss as to:

a) Who in this thread was suggesting that.

b) Why you think such opposition would need to be based in the fact that you don't agree with their opinions.

and

c) Why you think that an opposition based in this would be at all sound.

[Delarge]

Well, I'm also opposed to mandatory quotas in any profession, but I'm at a loss as to:

a) Who in this thread was suggesting that.

b) Why you think such opposition would need to be based in the fact that you don't agree with their opinions.

and

c) Why you think that an opposition based in this would be at all sound.

I was simply describing what might happen, on a societal level, if greater "equality" was granted through non-meritocratic means. I don't oppose quotas based on the prospect that greater wealth transfers might occur, I'm of the view that constituents should be permitted to appoint whoever they wish to a legislature, regardless of sex. In the private sphere, business operators should be permitted to hire whoever they want.

[Azen]

I'm more concerned with explaining the etiology of sex differences in occupations and salaries than I am with issuing prescriptions. Nevertheless, compromising the meritocratic structure of society for the purpose of increasing female and minority representation in academia, the professional class and politics might result in less scientific and technological progress, more malpractice suits from botched dental and surgical procedures, more structural failures, more plane crashes, a greater risk of economic and political mismanagement and an increase in socialistic legislation.

Yah despite the fact I had to google half of what you say, I would agree as well. And to me since sex differences break into hormonal levels more so than what genitalia one possesses, I find it is more a matter of who displays what traits that are considered favourable.

I would say that the original system of tribal human structure, animal instinct, and 'place within the pack' are the obvious root of our gender roles, and that our natural biological makeup is based on hierarchy within the tribe.

With men being the hunters protectors and warriors for thousands of years, while the women took care of the camps, the children, clothes (and well...pretty much everything else), there was always that physically strong both dominating and protecting the weak. These are the male roles which only in the last century or so have come to change by becoming unnecessary.

The female roles, took on the same attributes as the people who performed them...weaker humans who were more suited to support the warriors of the tribe than to fight for their survival.

Now as a western society, there is less and less need for physical stature to become dominant. Instead dominance is attained through money, power, and intellectual ability. These are the things the woman's rights movement wants equality in. To be free from the shackles of being looked down upon by others just for being a woman.

So they push into non traditional fields in search of the same power that men have enjoyed, and are quite capable of competing with men in the great majority of dominant roles. Not by being strong examples of FEMALE power, but instead by copying the same thing males do in those positions because of how dominance was had in the first place; by utilizing stereotypical masculine methods( ie non emotional, thick skinned, powerful through speech and subtle physical intimidation).

So you see its much less about what sex makes how much and what age, etc. etc. etc. though I'm sure people can occupy themselves with statistics for days on end. It's about power in relationships, the need to know your 'place' amongst others in terms of status, and women being tired of being told they can have no part of it.

Discrimination will always exist against the 'support' roles in society and the humble farmer will never be more celebrated than the war veteran or the president of the USA.

It is already quite accepted that housework is for both sexes, something that used to be under the woman's domain, it is STARTING to be accepted for men to stay at home and raise the kids while the woman goes to work. But in the end, whoever brings home the bacon, and thereby secures the survival of the offspring, is the one who has the true power whether stated or not.

[Synamon]

I'm more concerned with explaining the etiology of sex differences in occupations and salaries than I am with issuing prescriptions. Nevertheless, compromising the meritocratic structure of society for the purpose of increasing female and minority representation in academia, the professional class and politics might result in less scientific and technological progress, more malpractice suits from botched dental and surgical procedures, more structural failures, more plane crashes, a greater risk of economic and political mismanagement and an increase in socialistic legislation.
Would you prefer me to pontificate? I'm making speculations based on available data concerning sex differences in ability, the relationship between abilities and job performance, and the political orientation of females.
I assumed pontificating was what you were doing. What data?

I just spent some quality time with google. I found no studies where malpractice suits were more prevalent for women physicians or dentists. Half the studies I found had a positive correlation of higher numbers of malpractice cases for male physicians/dentists and the rest of the studies showed no difference related to the doctor's gender.

[firebee]

Visio-spatial ability is also important in proctology. Does that mean that men are intrinsically better than women at pulling ridiculous shit out of their asses?

Mathematical aptitude and visuo-spatial ability are of importance in civil engineering. If males were bumped out for reasons other than merit, I can imagine more bridge failures occurring.

This is an example of a statement that sounds superficially important but on further examination is composed mostly of meaningless noise. "I can imagine more bridge failures occurring?" As if engineering design of that nature is done through the amazing conceptual power of one person's brain, as opposed to being predominantly a bureaucratic and logistical exercise? It is to titter girlishly.

Not that I necessarily mind the mythology that has sprung up regarding engineering, because it certainly makes me seem like a freakishly smart person, but the reality is a little different; this series of slides (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is aimed at a sister-profession of engineering where the ground truth is roughly the same.

Besides which, the assumption that you seem to be making here is that working towards equality -> establishing quotas for women. Ta'int necessarily so. From what I see, there is plenty of ground to cover as far as combating the tendency to conflate, say, biology resulting in a detectable difference between the mean female and the mean male and biology resulting in an unbridgeable gulf between the female and male populations before we have to go as far as drafting wimminz who can't do arithmetic into the population of registered professional engineers.

[JTG]

Mathematical aptitude and visuo-spatial ability are of importance in civil engineering. If males were bumped out for reasons other than merit, I can imagine more bridge failures occurring.

Firebee, i wouldn't say his post was meaningless at all. He makes a good point. He's speculating about a society which enforces gender quotas that would presumably (as racial quotas have done in some areas) reduce the quality of work.

Any time somebody who merits a position is passed over because of who they are - whether because of quotas, racism, chauvinism, etc other -isms - the quality of work suffers. It's impossible to argue that somebody less capable receiving a position benefits the situation. At best, you break even because of extra work put in by others to compensate.

[Delarge]

I assumed pontificating was what you were doing. What data?

I just spent some quality time with google. I found no studies where malpractice suits were more prevalent for women physicians or dentists. Half the studies I found had a positive correlation of higher numbers of malpractice cases for male physicians/dentists and the rest of the studies showed no difference related to the doctor's gender.

With the exception of racial quotas, the medical system is fairly meritocratic. Presumably, most of the females practicing as dentists and surgeons attained those positions through standard meritocratic means, and weren't simply appointed by virtue of being female. Their under-representation in both occupations is probably the result of disinterest, increased squeamishness about slicing and drilling and, on average, inferior performance on sub-components of entrance examinations. If we started augmenting the supply of female dentists and surgeons without regard to their performance on pre and post-medical school examinations, problems would likely arise.

Impact of Gender on Dental State Licensure Examination Performance
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

---------- Post added 05-16-2010 at 09:32 PM ----------

Visio-spatial ability is also important in proctology. Does that mean that men are intrinsically better than women at pulling ridiculous shit out of their asses?


This is an example of a statement that sounds superficially important but on further examination is composed mostly of meaningless noise. "I can imagine more bridge failures occurring?" As if engineering design of that nature is done through the amazing conceptual power of one person's brain, as opposed to being predominantly a bureaucratic and logistical exercise? It is to titter girlishly.

Not that I necessarily mind the mythology that has sprung up regarding engineering, because it certainly makes me seem like a freakishly smart person, but the reality is a little different; this series of slides (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) is aimed at a sister-profession of engineering where the ground truth is roughly the same.

Besides which, the assumption that you seem to be making here is that working towards equality -> establishing quotas for women. Ta'int necessarily so. From what I see, there is plenty of ground to cover as far as combating the tendency to conflate, say, biology resulting in a detectable difference between the mean female and the mean male and biology resulting in an unbridgeable gulf between the female and male populations before we have to go as far as drafting wimminz who can't do arithmetic into the population of registered professional engineers.

With respect to labour markets, I'm inclined to advocate for a laissez faire approach. Certainly, females shouldn't be prevented or discouraged from pursuing traditionally male-dominated occupations if they demonstrate interest and merit, however I see no reason to minimize gender gaps for the sake of minimizing gender gaps. What end would be served? Who cares if there are more male surgeons than female surgeons? As I've indicated, I think that the data are sufficient to conclude that sex differences in occupational trends are largely determined by differences in skill and preference, both of which are influenced to a significant degree by androgens and estrogens.

[firebee]

increased squeamishness about slicing and drilling

Indeed. The natural biological propensity of women clearly disposes them away from a profession like medicine where they might see blood, might be vomited on, might encounter explosive fountains of poo, et cetera.

Clearly, they should become mothers instead.


As I've indicated, I think that the data are sufficient to conclude that sex differences in occupational trends are largely determined by differences in skill and preference, both of which are influenced to a significant degree by androgens and estrogens.

So you didn't actually look at the slides, then?

[Synamon]

With the exception of racial quotas, the medical system is fairly meritocratic. Presumably, most of the females practicing as dentists and surgeons attained those positions through standard meritocratic means, and weren't simply appointed by virtue of being female. Their under-representation in both occupations is probably the result of disinterest, increased squeamishness about slicing and drilling and, on average, inferior performance on sub-components of entrance examinations. If we started augmenting the supply of female dentists and surgeons without regard to their performance on pre and post-medical school examinations, problems would likely arise.

Impact of Gender on Dental State Licensure Examination Performance
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Who was suggesting quotas or augmenting? A meritocracy would be grand. Not passing over, discouraging, or flat out rejecting qualified females from accessing education or employment opportunities is what I'd like to see. That is what females are trying to break free from, a past of systemic discrimination.

The percentage of females graduating medical school is already 50%. From your own link: "Women represent an increasing percentage of U.S. dental school admissions, comprising nearly 42.2 percent in 2004." I'm not quite sure what you were trying to spin from that link, the purpose of the study was to determine if gender is predictive of performance in dental school and on state licensure examinations and the conclusion was that the difference in genders was not statistically significant.

[Delarge]

Who was suggesting quotas or augmenting? A meritocracy would be grand. Not passing over, discouraging, or flat out rejecting qualified females from accessing education or employment opportunities is what I'd like to see. That is what females are trying to break free from, a past of systemic discrimination.

The percentage of females graduating medical school is already 50%. From your own link: "Women represent an increasing percentage of U.S. dental school admissions, comprising nearly 42.2 percent in 2004." I'm not quite sure what you were trying to spin from that link, the purpose of the study was to determine if gender is predictive of performance in dental school and on state licensure examinations and the conclusion was that the difference in genders was not statistically significant.

I was under the impression that you were under the impression that I thought that practicing female dentists and surgeons are more likely to commit mistakes. I don't believe this to be the case, however if we perverted the medical meritocracy with gender quotas, this probably would be the case.

After controlling for these three factors, the difference in genders was no longer statistically significant.

[Synamon]

After controlling for these three factors, the difference in genders was no longer statistically significant.
Yeah, that's how statistics work, they control for confounding factors to determine correlation.

[Delarge]

Yeah, that's how statistics work, they control for confounding factors to determine correlation.

They controlled for PAT and DAT scores and, unsurprisingly, found that the between-sex difference on licensure examination performance was reduced. Meaning, they reduced the scope of the sample to such an extent that it was no longer representative of the female dental student population as a whole. As indicated earlier in the study, the average performance on the PAT and board exam of the entire female dental student population was lower than the average score of the entire male dental student population.

---------- Post added 05-16-2010 at 10:15 PM ----------

Indeed. The natural biological propensity of women clearly disposes them away from a profession like medicine where they might see blood, might be vomited on, might encounter explosive fountains of poo, et cetera.

Clearly, they should become mothers instead.



So you didn't actually look at the slides, then?

If you like, I will compile as much of the available literature as I can muster concerning the relationship between sex hormones and inter and intra-sex variations in visuo-spatial ability, numerical aptitude, short-term memory capacity, verbal fluency, empathy, aggression, agreeableness, extroversion, status-seeking behaviour, risk aversion and social dominance. I'd also be happy to assemble data concerning differences in IQ standard deviations between the sexes.

[Distance]

Delarge, not one person including the woman that castalia described, suggested that women be given preferential treatment due to quota-based selection criteria. So why are you debating against something that no one is debating for? It looks to me like you saw a golden opportunity to "assert" that men are better qualified by way of biological differences rather than social discrimination, for the higher status jobs.

[Gobbbler]

It has been 9 years since I have been in the neuropsychology field, but I am not aware of any consistent pattern of gender differences in small scale visio-spatial ability. I am aware of a pattern of males outperforming females at trajectories of rapidly moving or arching (airborne) objects or path prediction or redirection of large moving objects, but not any with fine detail work that would be relevant to any of the professions at issue here.

If anything, one could even postulate that women should have smaller and therefore more dexterous hands to work in small spaces.

One completely speculative perspective I might add relates to selection of the surgical profession. Having been friends with and dated many medical students and doctors, I was told of (and noticed) trends in which fields people were interested in that seem to relate to gender ratios and would impact gender ratios in surgery. One, many men are interested in orthopedic surgery because of its relevance to sports injuries. Another is that surgery is a bit more of a macho profession and draws big male egos. I have spoken to female med students who are a bit turned off from the field by the personalities of practicing surgeons. In addition, it seemed that a higher proportion of top female students have an interested in pediatric medicine or obstetrics and gynocology. In fact, obstetrics and gynocology are very difficult to get into, with about as many people competing for those areas as surgery. (Dermatology is apparently the top field because it's clean, has few late night emergencies/being on call, and relates to lucrative plastic surgery.) Anyway, it seems very plausible to me that top male med students are less drawn to gynocology and obstetrics or women are more drawn, thus resulting in a higher proportion of top male students seeking surgery.

---------- Post added 05-17-2010 at 12:20 AM ----------

I did some googling to see if it backed up what I had heard through word of mouth. It does support the notion that women simply prefer other fields over surgery. I was not aware of psychiatry being something women preferred. I think I actually knew more males in psychiatry. Anyway, it suggests that male and female med students have different preferences when selecting fields, primarily driven by gender preferences for (or aversions to) fields involving children & babies or female care.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. - Top 10 Medical specialties 2007
(fits with what I said about what the most sought fields are).

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(Survey of students of field preference)
"More women than men listed primary care as their specialty choice (2=4.7237, P<0.05), with 84% choosing pediatrics, family medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, or internal medicine, compared with 60% of the men. About 10% of the women chose psychiatry, compared with 2% of the men. See Table 1. The women wanted to work an average of 49 hours per week, compared with 53 hours for the men."

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Another article, not a research paper though, saying that women tend to prefer gynecology (oops, misspelled it before), obstetrics, and primary care(pediatrics) as well as psychiatry.

[Hinun]

Any time somebody who merits a position is passed over because of who they are - whether because of quotas, racism, chauvinism, etc other -isms - the quality of work suffers. It's impossible to argue that somebody less capable receiving a position benefits the situation. At best, you break even because of extra work put in by others to compensate.

Exactly. Also, the origins of the idea of gender equality and racial equality was never to have quotas, to my knowledge, but more make it about the individual who is most well qualified for the given position. Men, in general, are more apt, whether it be nature or nurture, for certain jobs and vice versa. Given this, we cannot overlook it.

Gender and racial equality should be about equal opportunity for all regardless of these factors. The entire liberal "lets ignore any differences in gender and race" idea is idiotic and delusional from its core. Facts should never be overlooked. I speak as a Hispanic engineering major.

[Distance]

Exactly. Also, the origins of the idea of gender equality and racial equality was never to have quotas, to my knowledge, but more make it about the individual who is most well qualified for the given position. Men, in general, are more apt, whether it be nature or nurture, for certain jobs and vice versa. Given this, we cannot overlook it.

Gender and racial equality should be about equal opportunity for all regardless of these factors. The entire liberal "lets ignore any differences in gender and race" idea is idiotic and delusional from its core. Facts should never be overlooked. I speak as a Hispanic engineering major.Conceptually, Feminism is working towards nurture or law being of no impact.

As someone who has engineering in her family both male and female sides not including myself, my anecdoetal perception of gender defined occupations is that it's primarily nurture. I deliberately chose a different path, one that didn't follow the family trend. Looking at most of the women in my extended and immediate family, they're math and hard science intensive. The stories they tell about the type of crap they had to put up with, the male elitism and isolation experienced, it's not easy being a woman in those fields.

[TigerL]

In regards to the posts about women in medicine, my concern here is not so much exact quotas or even that women/ men tend to pick one medical specialty or another but rather what happens when one looks at who are the major decision makers in academic medicine and the processes/ pathways these decision makers come along. There are lots of women medical students and even a fair number of non-tenured women faculty (relatively low status positions) but once you get to the tenure level (associate professor and above) and department chairs, the numbers fall drastically.

There are women have the interest, who do not get married, do not have children, publish 50 major articles on the academic clock (i.e. within 7 years), sat on multiple committees, etc. yet do not have the same salary/ position compared to a male physician that one would expect based the curriculum vitae. Various groups have done studies on this - e.g. blacking out names on CVs and sending them out.

Interviews with both male and female department chairs show that discrimination occurs at a subtle level - e.g. not taking the opinions of women seriously (although the same idea is taken seriously when given by a male physician), placing women physicians on less powerful committees (which have some influence on whether they become chairs), etc. There was another article on this recently in one of the major medical journals recently and is a concern among medical department chairs. One of my good friends is associate medical director of a training program (the same one she and I both went through) and her remark to me was that she didn't realize the politics of this until she became director and had a difficult time retaining talented female faculty.

Lest anyone think I am a disgruntled former academic, I was offered tenure-track positions at two different large universities and had some wonderful experiences in academia but found I could do a similar job with higher pay in a unique position outside academia. Yes, I'm in a more "nurturing" medical specialty but I also have a masters in statistical methods that would blow some people's minds.

It's always interesting to me how whenever the topic of feminism or similar comes up on INTJf, I get to see the male chauvinists come out.

[Gobbbler]

In regards to the posts about women in medicine, my concern here is not so much exact quotas or even that women/ men tend to pick one medical specialty or another but rather what happens when one looks at who are the major decision makers in academic medicine and the processes/ pathways these decision makers come along. There are lots of women medical students and even a fair number of non-tenured women faculty (relatively low status positions) but once you get to the tenure level (associate professor and above) and department chairs, the numbers fall drastically.

There are women have the interest, who do not get married, do not have children, publish 50 major articles on the academic clock (i.e. within 7 years), sat on multiple committees, etc. yet do not have the same salary/ position compared to a male physician that one would expect based the curriculum vitae. Various groups have done studies on this - e.g. blacking out names on CVs and sending them out.

Interviews with both male and female department chairs show that discrimination occurs at a subtle level - e.g. not taking the opinions of women seriously (although the same idea is taken seriously when given by a male physician), placing women physicians on less powerful committees (which have some influence on whether they become chairs), etc. There was another article on this recently in one of the major medical journals recently and is a concern among medical department chairs. One of my good friends is associate medical director of a training program (the same one she and I both went through) and her remark to me was that she didn't realize the politics of this until she became director and had a difficult time retaining talented female faculty.

Lest anyone think I am a disgruntled former academic, I was offered tenure-track positions at two different large universities and had some wonderful experiences in academia but found I could do a similar job with higher pay in a unique position outside academia.

I wonder how much of this has to do with age & generational differences and how much will fall out as younger generations that are less biased replace the older generations.

[JTG]

my anecdoetal perception of gender defined occupations is that it's primarily nurture.

I agree. Going out and throwing a ball with your son is more likely to develop spatial skills than the dolls you brought home for your daughter to throw tea parties. That's just how children have been raised traditionally. I'm not saying it explains why men statistically have better spatial skills (if indeed they do) but it certainly is something to think about.

It's a generational thing. The more generations pass, the more "okay" it'll be to raise women to be strong individuals.

[Antares]

When a boy acts in a traditionally "girly" fashion, parents think they did something seriously wrong. When a girl acts in a traditionally "boyish" fashion, she's a cute little tomboy.

^Generalization

Which reminds me, if I ever have a daughter, I will not buy her any stereotypically "girly" clothing (notice how baby clothes already start drilling gender roles in babies?). In fact, I might put her in blue baby suits, with tiny rockets and trains. Then I'll buy her model cars and rockets as toys as opposed to dolls.

[Azen]

Male chauvinist is such a dirty tag yes? Believing that males are innately superior to females?

Is there a big list of facts and statistics out there that haven't been brought forth showing that women are in fact superior or at least on par with men? Because I agree, I haven't seen any studies yet where women are the true leaders in a field and I would really like to see this balanced.

The more I read, I try to keep an objective eye, but I can't help but think deep down inside that the pinnacle of male development seems to outperform or match the pinnacle of female development in almost all areas.

If we were talking about cars, the male car would indeed be better, and we would all have to admit male chauvinism.

Now I know this is a very touchy subject, but it seems people are really beating behind the bush with a lot of things here and there is this sub conversation that wants to overboil.

So does anyone know of any research that shows females outperforming males?

[themuzicman]

The whole gender equality thing has gone too far when institutions have to lower standards in order to have enough women qualify to satisfy government standards.

This occurs in firefighters and in the military, where women are routinely given more time, less weight or less reps to complete in order to pass.

There are areas where men are superior to women, there are areas where women are superior to men. To deny this to fit some politically correct agenda is going too far.

[Antares]

Now I know this is a very touchy subject, but it seems people are really beating behind the bush with a lot of things here and there is this sub conversation that wants to overboil.

So does anyone know of any research that shows females outperforming males?

Oh gee. Don't make me dig out my textbook.

Spelling Females are better spellers: At the end of high school, only 30 percent of U.S. males spell better than the average female (Lubinski & Benhow, 1992).
Verbal ability And, year after year, among nearly 200,000 students taking Germany's Test for Medical Studies, young women have surpassed men in remembering facts from short medical cases (Stumpf & Jackson, 1994).
Nonverbal memory Females have an edge in remembering and locating objects (Voyer et al., 2007). In studies of more than 100,000 American adolescents, girls also modestly surpassed boys in memory for picture associations (Hedges & Nowell, 1995).
Emotion-detecting ability Females are better emotion detectors. Robert Rosenthal, Judith Hall, and their colleagues (1979; McClure, 2000) discovered this while studying sensitivity to emotional cues.
Math and spatial aptitudes On math tests given to more than 3 million representatively sampled people in 100 independent studies, males and females obtained nearly identical average scores (Hyde et al., 1990,2008). In 20 of 21 countries, female displayed an edge in math computation, but males scored higher in math problem solving (Bronner, 1998; Hedges & Nowell, 1995).


Myers, David G. "Chapter 10: Intelligence; Group Differences in Intelligence Test Scores; Gender Similarities and Differences." Psychology. 9th ed. New York: Worth, 2008. 431-33. Print.

So there. Thank God for citations.

I have omitted the studies that show males are superior, since you asked for those that show females are superior. I can post them if anyone feels misrepresented.

And just to prove females can be superior, girls are more high-achieving than boys in my school. Boys have more outliers (the truly brilliant ones can outscore anyone), but on average, girls' average grades are higher.

My two cents: Employment should be a meritocracy, and I don't like the idea of quotas. However, this should not detract from a woman's chances of becoming an engineer if she truly has the aptitude, nor should we be allowed to tell a woman she should not become an engineer. Gender biases are inevitable, which is why I advocate voice synthesizers during interviews so the interviewer wouldn't know which gender is being interviewed. If males are truly superior engineers, their numerical profiles should be more than enough to show the employer that. Regardless of whether the interviewer knows the gender of the interviewee, the numbers should give males an advantage, that is, if males are actually better.

[Night Runner]

My two cents: Employment should be a meritocracy, and I don't like the idea of quotas. However, this should not detract from a woman's chances of becoming an engineer if she truly has the aptitude, nor should we be allowed to tell a woman she should not become an engineer. Gender biases are inevitable, which is why I advocate voice synthesizers during interviews so the interviewer wouldn't know which gender is being interviewed. If males are truly superior engineers, their numerical profiles should be more than enough to show the employer that. Regardless of whether the interviewer knows the gender of the interviewee, the numbers should give males an advantage, that is, if males are actually better.
Agreed. Interesting timing, too - SMBC released a comic on this very topic just a few days ago. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

And just to play my favorite part of devil's advocate... ;) What shall we do about existing situations in which women have a huge advantage over men? I'm talking about life expectancy and college scholarships. On average, women live several years longer than men, and this statistic is universal all over the world. Why, just here in the United States, women born in 2010 are expected to outlive men by 5.88 years (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). I don't know about you, but I would certainly appreciate six more years of life... Some of this is due to a more risky and violent lifestyle men lead (wars, fast driving, bar fights, etc.) but women's bodies appear to last longer than men's. We ought to rectify this immediately by spending more money on men's health research or by using affirmative action to make it up to men - for example, paying them ~10% than their female counterparts for the same amount of work? :p

The other elephant in the room is college scholarships. There are hundreds if not thousands of scholarships that are available to women only. They're not exclusively for girl-scouts, or sorority members, or any members of all-female organizations - no, the main criterion in many of them is biological sex. In my years of searching for financial aid, I have never found a single scholarship that was exclusively for men (barring scholarships for former boy-scouts and/or fraternity members) because, of course, setting up a scholarship of that nature would be wrong. :rolleyes: That's a huge obstacle for male college students who may not be able to afford higher education otherwise and who, ironically, would be eligible for a lot of free money if only they didn't have that pesky Y chromosome...

[Azen]

lol so there...

So on average males are outperformed or equal in said areas. 5 areas? What about the pinnacle of male potential vs. female potential? I know there's an obvious answer to this that will never be uttered aloud without horrible resentment but, wouldn't this be the main reason why men state rude obnoxious things and women are always left trying to defend? If men felt inferior to women then it would be they who was on the defence.
Am I playing devil's advocate, or is this not some unspoken fact that everyone seems to want to ignore?

To me the woman is the ideal of what we want to be as a species. She carries in her the essence of all that is great about humanity. It is men however that reign in day to day affairs however as we struggle towards a greater humanity.

I have known a few women who know their own strength and they scare the shit out of me. Not because they are physically powerful or man-like. But because they are so at peace with their own feminine nature. This nature makes all the men look like scared little boys. Becasue really we are. But as long as women keep playing the role of the downtrodden it will not change. See the irony in fighting for equal rights? Voice synthesizers?...really?

[connieculkins]

I too get tired of men assuming I can't do anything mechanical perhaps even better than they can, or women assuming that I give a shit about Oprah. I'd say some of the worst discrimination actually comes from women, and I have heard this from many women in professional fields. I think it stems from some primal instinct, where other women are threat to her position among men.



Yes and this why there will always be sexism IMO. On the one hand women fight against sexism, but then on the other they use it to oppress other women whom they see as threats.

[themuzicman]

To me the woman is the ideal of what we want to be as a species. She carries in her the essence of all that is great about humanity.

yer kidding, right?

[Distance]

Yes and this why there will always be sexism IMO. On the one hand women fight against sexism, but then on the other they use it to oppress other women whom they see as threats.Nah, we're not hive minds, which IMO is a good thing. You'll find all kinds of permutations of traditionalism and different thoughts when it comes to women's equality. Myself, I believe in the law being changed to ensure for non-discrimination. Beyond that, it's up to each woman to do her part to get where she wants to go. This might mean it's against all odds but to me, that just hones her like fine steel.

I will not support an incompetent, just to see one put into a position of authority. I also don't support different rights for women when it comes to the workplace. We shouldn't be pandering to women who are the sole caregivers. This is their choice to be such, rather than expecting their partner to also take time off for childcare. And lest anyone forget, I'm a mother.

[Silence]

lol so there...

So on average males are outperformed or equal in said areas. 5 areas? What about the pinnacle of male potential vs. female potential? I know there's an obvious answer to this that will never be uttered aloud without horrible resentment but, wouldn't this be the main reason why men state rude obnoxious things and women are always left trying to defend? If men felt inferior to women then it would be they who was on the defence.
Am I playing devil's advocate, or is this not some unspoken fact that everyone seems to want to ignore?

To me the woman is the ideal of what we want to be as a species. She carries in her the essence of all that is great about humanity. It is men however that reign in day to day affairs however as we struggle towards a greater humanity.

I have known a few women who know their own strength and they scare the shit out of me. Not because they are physically powerful or man-like. But because they are so at peace with their own feminine nature. This nature makes all the men look like scared little boys. Becasue really we are. But as long as women keep playing the role of the downtrodden it will not change. See the irony in fighting for equal rights? Voice synthesizers?...really?

This is ridiculous. It is this type of argument that people used in the 50s and 60s (and possibly the 70s) in order to try and convince people that whites were superior to blacks.

[tp6626]

I don't think this is one of those things that can ever be changed by force - laws, campaigns, directly targeted charity & aid etc...

It's one of those things that needs to make people change their behaviour without them realising it. Without them feeling like they're being changed. Raising their consciousnesses so as to realise why they're wrong, making them want to change their behaviour.

It's by no means a fast thing to alter. Will take decades, indeed what has been achieved so far already has taken decades.

But expecting something to happen immediately and getting wound up that it's being ignored, really is a losing (or at least naive) stance to take.

[Azen]

yer kidding, right?

Nope. When I think of the ideal of 'woman' I think of kindness, compassion, understanding, and dedication. A person who not only carries the family, but is (and has in history) one who has fought for it. She is the spirit of endless energy and calm when males have long been exhausted by their explosive ways. They inspire and exude true beauty. They are the mothers and the daughters that have loved men and all their ways throughout history.

The 'woman' that I see, has all the traits of a much more ideal society of human being. If we as humans could one day become as an idealized woman, I see it as the epitome of being human.

Would I say the same about the ideal man? Although I think the ideal man is a powerful and mighty force of super coolness, it sadly is not what I see "human" to be.

This is ridiculous. It is this type of argument that people used in the 50s and 60s (and possibly the 70s) in order to try and convince people that whites were superior to blacks.

Wow I'm hurt, and impressed you spent so much time in formulating that post. You are one of those people that are too afraid to address things that are big faux pas, instead you would rather ignore and build a fantasy world maybe?

Ridiculous that I said what my logic cannot deny? Because I was honestly NOT wanting to be chauvinistic but instead wanted to know whether I was justified in my brutal honesty, or unjustified because of error?

Your post shows exactly what I spoke of IN that post. This fierce protective brick wall that closes in people minds as soon as we talk about being different. Guess what? we are different. We are NOT equal, not by sex, race, religion, height, disability, hair color blood type, whatever.

There's easily many categories where one is considered 'better' than the other, so don't give me the 50's mentality bullshit just because you want to deny what you in actuality can not.

[firebee]

To me the woman is the ideal of what we want to be as a species. She carries in her the essence of all that is great about humanity. It is men however that reign in day to day affairs however as we struggle towards a greater humanity.

The great thing about supposed "spiritual rewards" and "the meeeeeeracle of life" and all that jazz is that provides no-value in exchange for value; you give, say, my hypothetical brother and I an envelope, and his is full of cash, and I look in mine and there is nothing in there, and you say "It's full of spiritual!" Which is so much better than having mere petty dirty cash, and oh hey coincidentally a lot easier for you, because you don't have to go to the bank to fill an envelope with lots and lots of spiritual.

Wonderful.

Except that, y'know, my landlord doesn't accept envelopes full of spiritual for payment of rent, even if there is magical feminine mystical power in there that is... totally powerful, yeah! Except not in any way that involves actual power, i.e. the ability to exert change upon the world according to our preferences.

It's kind of like... at Thanksgiving, I've been known to say "I'm going to throw myself on the last piece of pecan pie in order to protect you from it, it's horrible." And I know I'm full of shit, and my father knows that I'm full of shit, and the pecan pie probably also knows I'm full of shit because the pecan pie is legendary. Except that I'm not, y'know, saying this in a legitimate attempt to support the state of affairs in which I get two slices of pecan pie and my father gets no pecan pie. It's a joke.

And likewise so is this.

[Azen]

The great thing about supposed "spiritual rewards" and "the meeeeeeracle of life" and all that jazz is that provides no-value in exchange for value; you give, say, my hypothetical brother and I an envelope, and his is full of cash, and I look in mine and there is nothing in there, and you say "It's full of spiritual!" Which is so much better than having mere petty dirty cash, and oh hey coincidentally a lot easier for you, because you don't have to go to the bank to fill an envelope with lots and lots of spiritual.

Wonderful.

Except that, y'know, my landlord doesn't accept envelopes full of spiritual for payment of rent, even if there is magical feminine mystical power in there that is... totally powerful, yeah! Except not in any way that involves actual power, i.e. the ability to exert change upon the world according to our preferences.

It's kind of like... at Thanksgiving, I've been known to say "I'm going to throw myself on the last piece of pecan pie in order to protect you from it, it's horrible." And I know I'm full of shit, and my father knows that I'm full of shit, and the pecan pie probably also knows I'm full of shit because the pecan pie is legendary. Except that I'm not, y'know, saying this in a legitimate attempt to support the state of affairs in which I get two slices of pecan pie and my father gets no pecan pie. It's a joke.

And likewise so is this.

LOL that was awesome, and so very true. After posting it I did feel pretty guilty for having to think as poetically as possible for some way I could balance out the gender gap without help, so I'm glad you called me on trying to save you from the pecan pie.

Though what I wrote was an honest, albeit patronizing (matronizing?), blurb for its 'lack of cash in the envelope'(because apparently compassion in the world has no merit of function), I would be left with this conclusion then in more real terms.

Studies are pretty 'neat' but when you read about their controls, a great many of them I would personally toss out as useless crap. What's left? Personal observation.

Why have males been in power for so long? physical force? Scientific capability? Because we are mean and want to be the best?...might have something there.

It seems as though this is all really about human dominance in general. men have always dominated men as well as women throughout history, remember the slaves that built the pyramid? not all women...were they being sexist against men? Probably not, that would be wierd, and ruin the point I'm trying to make.

So pecking order...dominance. Guess who makes it to the top? the strongest in that field. The ones who take what they want and know where they are going for the most part.

Now see , I'm a human, and somehow I ended up with enough manstuff to make me 'male'. This gives me a greater self image, less ability for self doubt, and all in all the right stuff to try and beat the crap out of the world.

Women? not so much. they get more emotions, and less physical strength. They also don't have that impenetrable wall that men have. It's called 'The House that Testosterone Built' and sits solidly and blankly in the face of anyone who starts to use emotional manipulation against us.

See this fancy house is not the thing that makes US think we are better. It is the thing that makes YOU think we are better (that YOU refers to females btw ;) ).

It is the thing that all women hate about men, but it is also one of the most important things in fighting for your status within this big ol tribe of society.

So until we stop struggling for pecking order in society, females in their natural state will be at a disadvantage to males, and will have to suffice with quotas if they expect things to be 'equal'. And then once those positions are filled, there will always be the natural inclination of the male to deal with when it comes time to compete, or have a confrontation.

See when all is happy happy time, we can say we are equal, but when the shit hits the fan it's easy to notice the differences.

[JulietCapulet]

Better too far than not far enough. Let's not forget the sacrifices that have been made so that so many people can take their achievements for granted.

[Rudy]

Better too far than not far enough.

While, as I stated in my post, I think that there is a lot more to be done, I can't agree with this notion at all. In this case, "too far" means that you are going past the point of equality, to where you've just reversed the situation so that some other group, in this case men, are discriminated against instead. Obviously this is not desirable either; discriminating against one sex is not "better" than discriminating against the other. So, while I don't think we have gone too far in most areas, it's a legitimate worry, and one we need guard against.

[Gobbbler]

Better too far than not far enough. Let's not forget the sacrifices that have been made so that so many people can take their achievements for granted.

The problem with too far is that then men get shafted. And before anyone shouts out "turnabout is fair play" or "you shafted us for X decades" remember that those getting shafted will not be the already dead or already prosperous ones who reaped the advantage, but will instead be the new, young males coming up who have been raised with far greater notions of gender equality and respect for women and all that. Nobody likes being shafted, and going too far is just going to breed resentment and perhaps cause the pendulum to swing further back.

@Night Runner
For some reason your post reminded me of a current issue. The whole notion of laws preventing women from having to pay more for health insurance, even though they cost more. If it were just childbirth and related burdens, then maybe, but it isn't. I heard on NPR that women are more accident prone and more likely to seek medical care instead of trying to tough it out. It's not even that it is that big of a deal, but we certainly know for sure that if (and when) a similar situation went the other way, there was/would be no proposed new laws or talk of how men deserve to have their costs paid because they bear some burdens in society that women don't.

[katrin]

Equal pay for equal work would be great.

As a person who works on a regular basis with kids, teens, and 20-somethings, I have to say that, overall, it seems that gender equality is advancing. The kids are alright. The boys I know support their science geek female friends, girls let book nerd guys know they're cool, and most kids I know support equality and freedom of expression for GLBTQQ teens. Yeah, there are still more math/science oriented guys and language/social science/helping profession oriented girls, but it's not that girls aren't encouraged to try and love math and science. Many of them simply don't. (I was that way. I got straight "A"s in the math and science classes I took but never considered majoring in science. Just didn't like science as much as literature/language.)

There seem to be a lot of scholarships available for girls, and mentoring programs for young women entering male-dominated fields.

The problem that I see remaining is that all this awesomeness seems to be happening more frequently for upper and middle class kids. Kids who are living in poverty--I think the term is Generational Poverty--are not necessarily benefitting from society's advances in gender equality to the same degree. Ruby Payne's theory says that may be because the culture of poverty is different than that of the middle or upper class. One example would be that kids living in generational poverty may learn from parents to live in the moment, spend it while you got it, don't bother planning for the future, because it's not going to get better. So girls (and boys) of talent might be slipping through the cracks because they're not being brought up to dream big and don't have the support network that is required to plan for the achievement of hard goals, even though financial assistance is out there. Not that there aren't parents of low SES busting their butts to make a better life for their children; my own mother was one of them. It just seems that a lot of these kids are still vulnerable.

As the child of a single working mom who had only a high school education, I was not well off financially as a kid, but my mother recognized that I had potential and always pushed me to achieve and become the first person in our family to go to college, to get a better-paying job, to be able to support myself instead of graduating high school and then working a low-paying job and hanging around at bars trying to find a man who would support me. That was what my mother and her sisters had done and they'd all found bad marriages, domestic violence, low-paying jobs and then divorce and financial insecurity. My female cousins basically have continued that pattern. I'm lucky to be out of that cycle and in a good job, with a house, and a decent--if not exciting--life.

[Silence]

Nope. When I think of the ideal of 'woman' I think of kindness, compassion, understanding, and dedication. A person who not only carries the family, but is (and has in history) one who has fought for it. She is the spirit of endless energy and calm when males have long been exhausted by their explosive ways. They inspire and exude true beauty. They are the mothers and the daughters that have loved men and all their ways throughout history.

The 'woman' that I see, has all the traits of a much more ideal society of human being. If we as humans could one day become as an idealized woman, I see it as the epitome of being human.

Would I say the same about the ideal man? Although I think the ideal man is a powerful and mighty force of super coolness, it sadly is not what I see "human" to be.



Wow I'm hurt, and impressed you spent so much time in formulating that post. You are one of those people that are too afraid to address things that are big faux pas, instead you would rather ignore and build a fantasy world maybe?

Ridiculous that I said what my logic cannot deny? Because I was honestly NOT wanting to be chauvinistic but instead wanted to know whether I was justified in my brutal honesty, or unjustified because of error?

Your post shows exactly what I spoke of IN that post. This fierce protective brick wall that closes in people minds as soon as we talk about being different. Guess what? we are different. We are NOT equal, not by sex, race, religion, height, disability, hair color blood type, whatever.

There's easily many categories where one is considered 'better' than the other, so don't give me the 50's mentality bullshit just because you want to deny what you in actuality can not.

I had to do a drive-by posting, because I didn’t have the time to fully go into what I wanted.

Now I have a bit more time to delve into this.

I find your posts are a bit confusing. On one hand, women are clearly inferior because they’re not physically strong like men. Apparently, men are all of a certain height and have certain physical strength. They’re chock full of these emotional feelings, and aren’t very strong, which according to you means they’re not even ON PAR with men.

But wait, there’s more. Women don’t deserve anything higher than second-class because there’s no proof to the contrary, so it’s totally justified that they must work twice as hard, still put up with unenlightened males in superior positions that pay them far less than anything with a Y chromosome in the same work position.

On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, we have your next post, extolling feminine virtues and proclaiming that all of humanity should emulate the feminine confidence. Your romantic generalizations echo an era long past. ‘Kindness, compassion, understanding and dedication,” are traits that would be welcome in specific households, or certain jobs, but many traditional male-dominated careers require something completely different. If a woman doesn’t exhibit these behaviors, is she any less a woman in your eyes? I wonder how many others think along these same tracks- and it is this sort of thinking that acts as a glass ceiling. Why is it that women are often paid far less than male peers, or promoted far less often even if they are qualified? You demand proof of where a woman is superior and/or deserving to be even considered to be on par with men. I say, open your eyes and stop being so obtuse. The reason there are very few female “leaders” might be found I the very companies in which they are trying to advance. For every unqualified female in a role, I have to wonder how many qualified females are being held back by a God Old Boy mentality, or by threatened males, or some other reason.

Let me digress a moment and tell a variation of a common story:
A tourist was shopping in a small farmers market in the Midwest, when he happened upon a stall with tomatoes. Next to the stall was a purple rock tied onto a large stick, adorned with feathers and beads and bones. “What’s that?” the tourist asked the clerk. “That’s my stonepole,” the clerk replied. Seeing the tourist’s expression, he explained, “It keeps the tigers away.” “Tigers? There are no tigers here in the Midwest!” “I know,” the clerk smugly replied. “It works good, don’t it?”

Does my utilization of this make sense?

Now, working backward: there is merit to what you said previously: gender roles are slowly breaking down. I find it as appalling to see people treating a househusband as a second-class citizen as I do a female in a role outside the “traditional” Western norms. Sexism is ugly, no matter which form it takes.

Your take on the Western Sexual Ideal is made to sound as though it were some scheme formed by females, in order to control the men. I highly doubt this is true. Do you have any citations to show your suspicions, or are we simply blue-skying ideas? If it’s the latter, I propose that if we look deeper, we might find Western religion to be at the core. That’s my supposition, but I have not researched it yet.

As I see it, the majority of roles that females are striving for aren’t always the leadership roles. They are roles in their workplace in which they are treated with equality. ‘Equality’ in this case would be the intangible benefits of being treated as equals with male counterparts. That is to say, they would be able to offer opinions and suggestions without being automatically discounted; they would receive equal pay as the males in the same employment status, and they would be treated with the same courtesy afforded their male counterparts.

Technology in the workplace has given an edge to women in that “guys are always stronger and therefore de facto leaders” argument. You are correct in that certain jobs require physical requirements- your example of firefighters was a good one. However, if the female can meet the same standards as the males, I see no reason why they should be turned away or mistreated.

I am also of the mind that those jobs that have specific requirements for reasons such as rescue should not have a double standard. On the flip side of the equation, women that demonstrate the ability to compete in a career that was traditionally male-dominated should not constantly be forced to endure the hazing and bullshit that men feel ‘justified’ in doing, because “it’ll help her build character” or “they’re just trying to show her she’s too soft/weak for the job” or whatever the excuse of the week is.

Different does not always divide into “superior” and “inferior." "strong" or "weak." Generalizations can and do severely undermine progress.

[Azen]

Yah I see what you are saying, and I do have a very multifaceted view of the situation as in general day to day life I would agree that all people should be treated equally as far as social politeness goes, but when it comes down to things like jobs and such, it is our form of hunter/gathering now and there is fierce competition. Personally I never think of myself as better or above females realistically.

The reason I mention the idealized notions of gender and species is to get to the root of WHY we have inequality, and that given those observations we can come to realize that not only do vertain women have difficulty rising through that glass ceiling, but I would say also, if anyone bothered to study it, gentle men, follower men, would also meet the same fate because they suffer from the same dominating tactics as the females, ie not being listened to, taken seriously, etc.

I state that on a macro scale, female equality is a matter of human equality and will always be subject to the same bullying and jockeying for status and pride as males deal with from birth, all of us are just adjusting to it in the last 60 years or so. Women however, must show the same strengths as men in order to compete here, and if they do not, there is a cry of foul. Is it sad and wrong? Feels that way in an ideal world, but do is lions killing zebras when they are just hangin out gettin a drink an shit.

Feminism however HAS gone too far, and men are now the ones without the support in society. If it can be blamed on a man, it's ok and accepted because it is now politically incorrect to speak that way about women (and any other minority that has been abused in the past).

[zibber]

And just to play my favorite part of devil's advocate... ;) What shall we do about existing situations in which women have a huge advantage over men? I'm talking about life expectancy and college scholarships. On average, women live several years longer than men, and this statistic is universal all over the world. Why, just here in the United States, women born in 2010 are expected to outlive men by 5.88 years (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.). I don't know about you, but I would certainly appreciate six more years of life... Some of this is due to a more risky and violent lifestyle men lead (wars, fast driving, bar fights, etc.) but women's bodies appear to last longer than men's. We ought to rectify this immediately by spending more money on men's health research or by using affirmative action to make it up to men - for example, paying them ~10% than their female counterparts for the same amount of work? :p

This is unpopular, but I think it needs to be said.

I also think it's skewed that Africans are better at marathons and basketball, but perhaps I am being too radical and progressive there. There is time enough for genetics research to develop. I'm just an idealist.

The other elephant in the room is college scholarships. There are hundreds if not thousands of scholarships that are available to women only. They're not exclusively for girl-scouts, or sorority members, or any members of all-female organizations - no, the main criterion in many of them is biological sex. In my years of searching for financial aid, I have never found a single scholarship that was exclusively for men (barring scholarships for former boy-scouts and/or fraternity members) because, of course, setting up a scholarship of that nature would be wrong. :rolleyes: That's a huge obstacle for male college students who may not be able to afford higher education otherwise and who, ironically, would be eligible for a lot of free money if only they didn't have that pesky Y chromosome...

On that topic, why should I be banned entry into a sorority?! What the fuck is that?! Just because I have a dick, I can't be in your club? The same goes with Lamaze classes - why should this kind of training be exclusive to one group of people?!

[Antares]

This is unpopular, but I think it needs to be said.

I also think it's skewed that Africans are better at marathons and basketball, but perhaps I am being too radical and progressive there. There is time enough for genetics research to develop. I'm just an idealist.



On that topic, why should I be banned entry into a sorority?! What the fuck is that?! Just because I have a dick, I can't be in your club? The same goes with Lamaze classes - why should this kind of training be exclusive to one group of people?!

Women's colleges just never made sense to me. They were the legacies from a time when women were not allowed to attend colleges, but are now well out of date. But then, "Asian Club", "Black Club", Sororities and Fraternities don't make much sense either.

[vampyroteuthis]

Women's colleges just never made sense to me. They were the legacies from a time when women were not allowed to attend colleges, but are now well out of date. But then, "Asian Club", "Black Club", Sororities and Fraternities don't make much sense either.

The thing with women's colleges is that they provide a classroom environment in which women speak up and are not expected to speak less assertively or represent "the female point of view". Done right, this can be a great confidence builder. Some of them make it a point to focus on science and math to allow women to develop confidence in their own abilities before they enter into a male-dominated field in which they are often denigrated, discounted or sexualised. They might have the ability but it's not much good if they don't believe in it. (In my home country, I pity any woman in engineering college -- the sexual harassment and bullying on a daily basis is pretty humiliating. Female faculty members have a hard time with it and they're in a position of authority.)

As someone who teaches politics and sociology, I find that very different classroom dynamics have emerged the few times I've taught classes where men were in the minority. I wouldn't mind teaching at a women's college someday.

A similar argument can and has been made for safe spaces for people of colour, but I'm not going to go into that in this thread as it's off-topic.

[plotthickens]

I also think it's skewed that Africans are better at marathons and basketball, but perhaps I am being too radical and progressive there. There is time enough for genetics research to develop. I'm just an idealist.

Unfortunately, selective breeding in the generations of slavery has led to african-american's excelling at sports. The segregation of imperfect genes from the breeding pool, and the breeding of physically superior types, has led to some darn powerful and striking black folks. It's awful, but there it is.

The runners (which were great to watch on the Bay to Breakers run last weekend -- another world record!) who excel can possibly be explained by another type of selective breeding. Many of the African colonies, tribes, empires etc were very far-flung (an evolutionarily excellent way to get around malaria), but of course needed to communicate. Runners were rather wonderful at doing long-distance endurance runs in extraordinarily punishing weather.


Why have males been in power for so long? physical force? Scientific capability? Because we are mean and want to be the best?...might have something there.

Patriarchial societal pressures (esp. religion) treated women as furniture or slaves for most of human history. This does not make men 'the best'.


It seems as though this is all really about human dominance in general. men have always dominated men as well as women throughout history, remember the slaves that built the pyramid?

No, it's about treating 51% of the human race the same as the other 49% of the human race.

Hollywood does not make accurate historical reproductions. Anyone who worked on the pyramid that would guide the Pharoah to their reward was similarly guaranteed a place in their good afterlife. This means that the people who worked on the pyramids were religious devotees, people who were favored, not slaves.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


They get more emotions, and less physical strength. They also don't have that impenetrable wall that men have. It's called 'The House that Testosterone Built' and sits solidly and blankly in the face of anyone who starts to use emotional manipulation against us.

Females and males have equally intense emotional reactions. The suppression of emotions in males comes through societal pressures after early childhood. Darn, I can't find the link -- there was a link posted this or last week on INTJf that proved this through iris reactions to emotional stimuli in young children -- can someone post it?

Women have just as much ability to build muscle in their lower body(sans anabolic steroids) as men; the upper body is reliant on a much different pelvic saddle and internal arrangement of organs which is a biological compromise between reproductive and physical ability.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbs%3Disch:1) To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. 3Den%26sa%3DN%26tbs%3Disch:1)

Biologically and evolutionarily speaking, this compromise -- to take a little less strength in exchange for the reproductive monopoly -- is a good deal for women. This compromise is further thrown in women's favor by abilities to handle stress better (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and longer lives.


See when all is happy happy time, we can say we are equal, but when the shit hits the fan it's easy to notice the differences.

Indeed. With today's changes in all societies (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), most children's regular familial contact is maternal, not paternal. In general, men are not contributing to the continuation of the species except genetically... that is a disparity to despair.

Azen, your conclusions are wrong because your basic premises are wrong.

[admittedheretic]

Females and males have equally intense emotional reactions. The suppression of emotions in males comes through societal pressures after early childhood.

Bullshit. You might as well argue that women are just as physically strong as men.

Your second claim is bunk too though at least there is some truth to it. Societal pressures do play a role, but they are far from a sole cause that explains why women are more hysterical than men.

[Distance]

Nope. When I think of the ideal of 'woman' I think of kindness, compassion, understanding, and dedication. A person who not only carries the family, but is (and has in history) one who has fought for it. She is the spirit of endless energy and calm when males have long been exhausted by their explosive ways. They inspire and exude true beauty. They are the mothers and the daughters that have loved men and all their ways throughout history.I'm not seeing any aggressive qualities in your list of ideal womanhood hence why so many little girls are raised to believe they're made of sugar and spice and everything nice. Better that little girls be raised as human beings, rather than limited by stereotyping.

[plotthickens]

Bullshit. You might as well argue that women are just as physically strong as men.

Your second claim is bunk too though at least there is some truth to it. Societal pressures do play a role, but they are far from a sole cause that explains why women are more hysterical than men.

Conscious expression of emotions -- especially when societal repression of same is endemic -- is possible. Conscious suppression of unconscious expressions is, by definition, impossible. Therefore both genders have relatively equal emotional depths; they do not have equal conscious expressions of feelings. Please do not confuse the two.

FvM emotional responses in irids (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.):
Pupil dilation to emotional stimuli was not affected by gender.

Further analyses showed that female subjects had significantly larger pupil responses than males only to neutral stimuli and only during the auditory stimulation.

Pubertal Changes in Emotional Information Processing: Pupillary, Behavioral, and Subjective Evidence during Emotional Word Identification (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)
(...)there were no gender, race, or socio-economic status differences between the pre/early- and mid/late-pubertal groups.

(...)the human pupil dilates when an individual is exposed to something that she likes. For instance, the pupils of women and infants (but not men) spontaneously dilate when they see babies. Pupil dilation is an honest indicator of interest and attraction. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Let me know if you need more citations.

[Aronnax]

Better too far than not far enough.


Too far is exactly as bad as not far enough and for the exact same reason.

[Anhedonic Lake]

Just one thing to say on this; Innate differences does not necessarily mean aggregate inferiority. Alot of third wave feminists seem to over look this.

[Distance]

To expand on how nurture can be detrimental to women, many women are raised to be support networks rather than individuals or leaders, where everyone else's needs such as male and child needs, always trump our own.

As well, little girls aren't taught to be self-sufficient from the day they're born. Case in point, any policies or laws that overcompensate for gender. Are we really a gender that can't be self-sufficient, where we need to be nurtured by society with special environments, special grants and special treatment, in order to be assertive? Better that we nurture our little girls at home to believe that they are human beings with equal rights.

[Anhedonic Lake]

Better that we nurture our little girls at home to believe that they are human beings with equal rights.

I can't imagine any reasonable person disagreeing with this statement.

To go off on a slight tangent, I am interested in what people think about discrimination against men,especially in the media. The movie,my super exgirlfriend, sickened me. It sent out the message that it's o.k. for women to assualt men,yeah I know it was subtle-but it was there. That T-shirt ,"Boys are stupid,throw rocks at them", sickened me too.
Interesting how women have more leigh way in gender specific clothing and how a woman who shows traditionally masculine qualities is applauded as being assertive,yet a guy who displays traditional feminine qualities is regarded as a "sissy" and invariably told to "man up".

[ArtistTyrant]

I can't imagine any reasonable person disagreeing with this statement.

To go off on a slight tangent, I am interested in what people think about discrimination against men,especially in the media. The movie,my super exgirlfriend, sickened me. It sent out the message that it's o.k. for women to assualt men,yeah I know it was subtle-but it was there. That T-shirt ,"Boys are stupid,throw rocks at them", sickened me too.

^this

i'm okay with many opinions of rational feminism, but i tune people out as soon as they become hypocrites, no matter the topic/subject of focus

[Anhedonic Lake]

^this

i'm okay with many opinions of rational feminism, but i tune people out as soon as they become hypocrites, no matter the topic/subject of focus

Yep, and people almost invariably do just that eventually.The human condition is a sad thing at times.

[Azen]

Patriarchial societal pressures (esp. religion) treated women as furniture or slaves for most of human history. This does not make men 'the best'.

If you read what I said, it was 'because we are mean and we WANT to be the best', obviously a comical portrayal of the general premise that humans have always and still do, place themselves within the society by way of force/subtle dominance;ie. speech.

And guess why they treated them like furniture? because they were more powerful, more demanding, more willing to fight to keep their position as the leaders of the world. Was it some world wide male conspiracy? No...that's just how we work. Did some cultures have ultimate RESPECT for the female? apparently, but that's irrelevant details.

PLUS, if we were talking about animals on national geographic or pbs as you seem to like, there would be no issue in saying "the chimps go through intricate rituals of intimidation, physical bravado, and psychological torment in order to show everyone else who is the BEST."


No, it's about treating 51% of the human race the same as the other 49% of the human race.


Oh man that really warms my heart, and should be put on a T-shirt, or maybe a Kleenex box or something.

WE ARE ALL HUMAN is what I was saying, and WE ALL FIGHT FOR PECKING ORDER. Male's ARE BETTER AT IT because our first reaction is not to go cry in a corner when being confronted. Is this a blunt illustration?

Should I be more blunt to say that many women walk around and talk like men 'can't' hit them, and do ALL SORTS of stupid shit MEN would NEVER do to another man because we would get punched the fuck out. Is it clear now how men are more suited for dominance? We know how things work, and women expect to get a free ride to the top while hiding behind her girly parts.




Hollywood does not make accurate historical reproductions. Anyone who worked on the pyramid that would guide the Pharoah to their reward was similarly guaranteed a place in their good afterlife. This means that the people who worked on the pyramids were religious devotees, people who were favored, not slaves.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


About the pyramids? That is actually pretty neat. Except they say MAY not have been slaves. I'm glad you like to think they were all singing koombuy-fuckin-ya while heaving big ass rocks up hills in the desert heat, but sadly you may also be wrong, just like I was...thanks for the correction.


Females and males have equally intense emotional reactions. The suppression of emotions in males comes through societal pressures after early childhood. Darn, I can't find the link -- there was a link posted this or last week on INTJf that proved this through iris reactions to emotional stimuli in young children -- can someone post it?


Hmmm, so my iris's are the reason I don't give a shit when women try to emotionally manipulate me...Guess that DOES mean that men are equally emotional. Seriously? I read your later post, and it's still irrelevant because it's like saying It's just as fucking windy in your house as it is outside because I can see it through the window.


Women have just as much ability to build muscle in their lower body(sans anabolic steroids) as men; the upper body is reliant on a much different pelvic saddle and internal arrangement of organs which is a biological compromise between reproductive and physical ability.

..interesting pelvic diagrams...

Biologically and evolutionarily speaking, this compromise -- to take a little less strength in exchange for the reproductive monopoly -- is a good deal for women. This compromise is further thrown in women's favor by abilities to handle stress better (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) and longer lives.


OK, I 'm assuming you are arguing statements that 'male human' is typically stronger than 'female human'. I must say although I have always been afraid of women's legs since I was a boy, I did not know these facts about how women can be just as strong as men from the waist down...or is it 'ability to build muscle'? I guess this is why women are faster runner's than men? Or do the muscles just get bigger? All equally rhetorical questions.

lol I did enjoy the added selling feature though where it was like females opted out of the enhanced strength category for a womb, and 5 or so years extended warranty ;).



Indeed. With today's changes in all societies (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), most children's regular familial contact is maternal, not paternal. In general, men are not contributing to the continuation of the species except genetically... that is a disparity to despair.

Not contributing eh? Who the fuck do you think built your house, mined the metal for your prius, and invented the shit that that circles the planet? Trust me, although men ARE pretty damned useless when it comes to being reliable, paternal, caring, and thoughtful (ie women), they will surely find ways to make themselves useful.

[plotthickens]

If you read what I said, it was 'because we are mean and we WANT to be the best', obviously a comical portrayal of the general premise that humans have always and still do, place themselves within the society by way of force/subtle dominance;ie. speech.

And guess why they treated them like furniture? because they were more powerful, more demanding, more willing to fight to keep their position as the leaders of the world. Was it some world wide male conspiracy? No...that's just how we work. Did some cultures have ultimate RESPECT for the female? apparently, but that's irrelevant details.

PLUS, if we were talking about animals on national geographic or pbs as you seem to like, there would be no issue in saying "the chimps go through intricate rituals of intimidation, physical bravado, and psychological torment in order to show everyone else who is the BEST."

None of this invalidates my original point. Your middle paragraph invalidates itself. The final paragraph has no basis.


Oh man that really warms my heart, and should be put on a T-shirt, or maybe a Kleenex box or something.

WE ARE ALL HUMAN is what I was saying, and WE ALL FIGHT FOR PECKING ORDER. Male's ARE BETTER AT IT because our first reaction is not to go cry in a corner when being confronted. Is this a blunt illustration?

Should I be more blunt to say that many women walk around and talk like men 'can't' hit them, and do ALL SORTS of stupid shit MEN would NEVER do to another man because we would get punched the fuck out. Is it clear now how men are more suited for dominance? We know how things work, and women expect to get a free ride to the top while hiding behind her girly parts.

None of this invalidates my original point. The middle paragraph shows an immense prejudice. The final paragraph shows a complete lack of understanding of the history of matriarchial wars/societies, nor any knowledge of homicide stats by gender.


About the pyramids? That is actually pretty neat. Except they say MAY not have been slaves.

Wrong. From each of the citations:
Contrary to some popular depictions, the pyramid builders were not slaves or foreigners.

Who Built the Pyramids? Not slaves.

Were these militaristic kinds of conscripts? Certainly they weren't slaves.


Hmmm, so my iris's are the reason I don't give a shit when women try to emotionally manipulate me...Guess that DOES mean that men are equally emotional. Seriously? I read your later post, and it's still irrelevant because it's like saying It's just as fucking windy in your house as it is outside because I can see it through the window.

This is a false analogy fallacious argument and does not contradict my original point.


OK, I 'm assuming you are arguing statements that 'male human' is typically stronger than 'female human'. I must say although I have always been afraid of women's legs since I was a boy, I did not know these facts about how women can be just as strong as men from the waist down...or is it 'ability to build muscle'? I guess this is why women are faster runner's than men? Or do the muscles just get bigger? All equally rhetorical questions.

lol I did enjoy the added selling feature though where it was like females opted out of the enhanced strength category for a womb, and 5 or so years extended warranty ;).

None of these statements contradict my original points.


Not contributing eh? Who the fuck do you think built your house, mined the metal for your prius, and invented the shit that that circles the planet? Trust me, although men ARE pretty damned useless when it comes to being reliable, paternal, caring, and thoughtful (ie women), they will surely find ways to make themselves useful.

This is a false analogy fallacious argument and does not contradict my original point.


Azen, you're welcome for the FYI on likely pyramid construction. The basis for your arguments are still sexist and wrong. Your conclusions, past and current, are therefore still wrong.

[JTG]

Bullshit. You might as well argue that women are just as physically strong as men.Is it so hard to believe that you are as emotional as your INTJ female counterparts? I do believe emotionality varies between people and populations, but i have no problem believing that as a whole, we're more or less equal in this regard.

Personally, i think you're underestimating the power society has when it comes to teaching men to repress emotions. Refer to the second paragraph of AL's post i quoted below. It's worded differently than i would word it, but i agree with the idea.

To go off on a slight tangent, I am interested in what people think about discrimination against men,especially in the media. The movie,my super exgirlfriend, sickened me. It sent out the message that it's o.k. for women to assualt men,yeah I know it was subtle-but it was there. That T-shirt ,"Boys are stupid,throw rocks at them", sickened me too.

Interesting how women have more leigh way in gender specific clothing and how a woman who shows traditionally masculine qualities is applauded as being assertive,yet a guy who displays traditional feminine qualities is regarded as a "sissy" and invariably told to "man up".

I don't see any discrimination against men in the media that isn't equaled in the same or other areas by discrimination against women. A lot of feminists say that pornography is bad, because it teaches men that it's okay to slap around women and gag them on their cocks. I've never had "porn sex" although i'm sure it happens, probably between people who want to get freaky like that.

I think everybody just needs to live and let live. Mentally healthy men don't turn into rapists or abusers because they watch porn, and no mentally healthy woman is going to throw a rock at a boy because a t-shirt told her to.

[firebee]

Male's ARE BETTER AT IT because our first reaction is not to go cry in a corner when being confronted. Is this a blunt illustration?

Should I be more blunt to say that many women walk around and talk like men 'can't' hit them, and do ALL SORTS of stupid shit MEN would NEVER do to another man because we would get punched the fuck out.

Should I be even more blunt, and ask that if you insist on contradicting yourself, that you not do so in successive sentences?

Incidentally, I find it interesting that one of your key assertions seems to be that women are substantially more emotionally fragile than men. Is this post meant to be an example of the sort of dispassionate male analysis that renders men uniquely suited for designing bridges to Mars and/or ten-foot shafts to Hell? If so, I am somewhat dubious; in my experience, solid technical work is generally characterized by the noted absence of pointlessly-aggressive shouting and bravado-filled references to physical violence.

[Anhedonic Lake]

I don't see any discrimination against men in the media that isn't equaled in the same or other areas by discrimination against women. A lot of feminists say that pornography is bad, because it teaches men that it's okay to slap around women and gag them on their cocks. I've never had "porn sex" although i'm sure it happens, probably between people who want to get freaky like that.

I think everybody just needs to live and let live. Mentally healthy men don't turn into rapists or abusers because they watch porn, and no mentally healthy woman is going to throw a rock at a boy because a t-shirt told her to.

Ah lets be realistic now. There's a big difference between regular porn and the type of semi rape fantasy you've just descibed as an example of porn. The latter is the exception. Girls watch porn too. I can't help but wonder if there was a movie called "My super ex boyfriend" who went around beating the crap out of a girl because she left him,even in in a slap stick manner, what the out rage would be like. I just hate double standards and hypocrisy.

My point was'nt that "Well there's plenty of discrimination again'st men in the media,so it balances it all out." My point was that different types of discrimination are faced by both sexes,but sometimes it's not recognised in equal measures.

[ArtistTyrant]

Ah lets be realistic now. There's a big difference between regular porn and the type of semi rape fantasy you've just descibed as an example of porn. The latter is the exception. I can't help but wonder if there was a movie called "My super ex boyfriend" who went around beating the crap out of a girl because she left him,even in in a slap stick manner, what the out rage would be like. I just hate double standards and hypocrisy.

i'd also like to point out that mainstream porn is considerably different than rape play porn, in that in mainstream porn the female is shown as eager to elope, so the majority of porn doesn't exactly show any effectively negative image of women, in fact, it could be argued that the capitalistic sexualization of everything artificially raises the value of those physical+character attributes shown as desirable, a sort of "pussy on a pedestal" effect, rendering it almost impossible for males to relate to females in a normal way

[Distance]

As another female member once said to me "how rational is testosterone"?

So guys, think twice before using the men are less emotional than women argument. ;D

[Anhedonic Lake]

As another female member once said to me "how rational is testosterone"?

Ha,this is true. I could never understand the average mans obsession for sex. Also, I think there is a misconception that being more emotional lowers a persons capacity to be logical/rational.
I'm a very emotional person since I was a small child(A very strong F),especially when the anhedonia/dysthymia lets me,but I can competently debate IRL and on high brow forums.
In fact it's an advantage in someways as I can debate with both logic and rationality,and intense passion.

[Antares]

Azen: you asked for ANY research. I gave you at least five. I don't devote my life to this research, but in China, they're starting to have to discriminate AGAINST girls in higher education because girls just score that much higher. In HKU's graduate exchange program, out of some 15 students, ONE is male who is pursuing a Law degree. His girlfriend has two masters, as do other girls, and are on the way to two doctorates. Funny how the world works on the other side of the world, eh?

When you are determined to believe masculine superiority, no amount of statistics will change your mind. I can see mine were clearly dismissed out of hand.

^this

i'm okay with many opinions of rational feminism, but i tune people out as soon as they become hypocrites, no matter the topic/subject of focus

Hypocrites? Do you see the same cultural landscape as I do? What about, oh, Twilight? If that's not antifeminist and disgusting in every manner imaginable, I don't know what is.

Let's ask ourselves. Are women truly equal? Why are women automatically expected to give up their careers for marriage in most cases? Why are women expected to give up their maiden names at marriage? Why do women marry INTO families, as per Asian tradition? Why are women "given away" as a part of marriage? Who gives her away? Who OWNED her in the first place? Why is DOWRY still practiced? Why are daughters used as bargaining chips? Why are wages for the same work unequal? Why are men mocked when they are "feminine"? To say that we live in an equal society is presposterous.

Clearly, remnants of cultural, financial and ideological discrimination still exists, and still persists.

[Azen]

None of this invalidates my original point. Your middle paragraph invalidates itself. The final paragraph has no basis.

FIRSTLY, Your original point "(1A) Patriarchial societal pressures (esp. religion) treated women as furniture or slaves for most of human history. (2A) This does not make men 'the best'. "

My post first addressed your assumption 2A that I was saying "Men are the best". I made a simple clarification by saying "'because we are mean and we WANT to be the best'". Your original statement 2A is based on connotations that simply aren't there.

1A is in reference to my quote of "Why have males been in power for so long? physical force? Scientific capability?". You are apparently trying to 'correctly answer' the rhetorical questions I used when formulating the momentum of my ironic statements.

Both parts of your 'original point' is moot given the fact that you misread. Therefore your original point is now invalid.

SECONDLY "Your middle paragraph invalidates itself." would of course be referring to,
"And guess why they treated them like furniture? because they were more powerful, more demanding, more willing to fight to keep their position as the leaders of the world. Was it some world wide male conspiracy? No...that's just how we work. Did some cultures have ultimate RESPECT for the female? apparently, but that's irrelevant details."

Since you did not care to illustrate, I will assume that the bold portion is what in your mind invalidates the prior. So let me clarify.

Since obviously I was not disagreeing with your 'original point' (regardless of its completely out of context statements) I, in this second paragraph went on to illustrate my agreement that women were treated unfairly, yet also posed the (also rhetorical) questions of WHY as an advancement of your unfounded statement.

The bold portion was an aside to your statement that, "women were treated as furniture or slaves for most of human history", in order to quickly convey knowledge regarding the fact that not ALL societies treated women with such degradation.
This statement has no bearing on my original statement regarding how the male is better suited to engaging in direct confrontational struggles in order to achieve status within society.

THIRDLY "The final paragraph has no basis." The starting point basis is in relation to you using links to pbs and national geographic in order to argue another rhetorical passing question on slavery and the pyramids. (which really was irrelevant and unnecessary to the discussion.) The main point was not to state the specifics of the quote but to illustrate that as humans we have no problem casually using words like BEST, STRONGEST, GREATEST, when speaking of dominance hierarchies in animals. You again, took things out of context by not accepting the "paragraphs" as cohesive continual statements, illustrations and rhetorical methods that combine to form the overall MESSAGE of the post.


Wrong. From each of the citations...

This is a false analogy fallacious argument and does not contradict my original point...

None of these statements contradict my original points...

This is a false analogy fallacious argument and does not contradict my original point...

Azen, you're welcome for the FYI on likely pyramid construction. The basis for your arguments are still sexist and wrong. Your conclusions, past and current, are therefore still wrong.

Let me tell you a little something. When you are discussing things with people it is not all about contradicting point, especially if the point made is redundant or so far out of whack with what was meant that communication has completely broken down.

It's sad that you feel justified in thinking that you KNOW that slaves did not build the pyramid, but such is the way of the masses, and you are definitely one of them.

You know nothing about the 'basis' of my arguments as I have made that apparent. I was speaking in terms of species on a whole without personal agenda to make myself feel better about being a male. As I have said before, I speak from being a human with a fascination for human interaction on all its levels. As a human I have observed how things work. Do I rely on textbooks, websites, and sophisticated language to convey my honest thoughts? No. Because I find that the deepest thoughts unspoken in polite society are the most intriguing and relevant; not the bullshit flawed studies that cater to the masses. People like you (ie closed minded but well integrated members of society :) ) can't take hearing things you don't want to consider.

Humans can be easily observed to socialize through an intricate dominance heirarchy. In times of peace where no conflict is present, it is easy to allow these boundaries of dominance to blur to the point that equality seems the most obvious option. After all, resources will be available to all in these times, and there will be no disparity between groups.

In times of conflict or competition however, a "pecking order" must be established in order to discern the winner of said resources. This could be anything from a job, to land, to ones own self worth, to who picks the wallpaper, to...the last piece of pie(That was a small joke referencing a prior post. I in know way am saying people will actually need a pecking order for the last piece of pie).

We've all heard the arguments, the facts, the studies, the hormones, etc., and in the end are left STILL having to decide what make the most sense. I say that given our 'primal' natures (as can be seen in times of extreme strife) Men are the superior sex in relation to the above dominance hierarchy. Does that make them BETTER in terms of fighting for status? I say YES. Does that make me a sexist? a chauvinist? Who really cares, because in day to day life I hold the door for everyone, I treat everyone I meet with respect male or female. If someone cuts me off, they are an asshole, If I see they are female, they are a bitch. In the end I don't give a shit what your gender is, all that determines is how I fight you for dominance.


Should I be even more blunt, and ask that if you insist on contradicting yourself, that you not do so in successive sentences?

Incidentally, I find it interesting that one of your key assertions seems to be that women are substantially more emotionally fragile than men. Is this post meant to be an example of the sort of dispassionate male analysis that renders men uniquely suited for designing bridges to Mars and/or ten-foot shafts to Hell? If so, I am somewhat dubious; in my experience, solid technical work is generally characterized by the noted absence of pointlessly-aggressive shouting and bravado-filled references to physical violence.

Yah yah yah, see above, I'm too tired, sorry lol

---------- Post added 05-18-2010 at 11:02 PM ----------

Azen: you asked for ANY research. I gave you at least five. I don't devote my life to this research, but in China, they're starting to have to discriminate AGAINST girls in higher education because girls just score that much higher. In HKU's graduate exchange program, out of some 15 students, ONE is male who is pursuing a Law degree. His girlfriend has two masters, as do other girls, and are on the way to two doctorates. Funny how the world works on the other side of the world, eh?

When you are determined to believe masculine superiority, no amount of statistics will change your mind. I can see mine were clearly dismissed out of hand.



Hypocrites? Do you see the same cultural landscape as I do? What about, oh, Twilight? If that's not antifeminist and disgusting in every manner imaginable, I don't know what is.

Let's ask ourselves. Are women truly equal? Why are women automatically expected to give up their careers for marriage in most cases? Why are women expected to give up their maiden names at marriage? Why do women marry INTO families, as per Asian tradition? Why are women "given away" as a part of marriage? Who gives her away? Who OWNED her in the first place? Why is DOWRY still practiced? Why are daughters used as bargaining chips? Why are wages for the same work unequal? Why are men mocked when they are "feminine"? To say that we live in an equal society is presposterous.

Clearly, remnants of cultural, financial and ideological discrimination still exists, and still persists.

Yah sorry Antares I was going overboard as to be sure not to speak in veiled tones. All points were good. I'm glad someone actually posted things where women were out performing men because it ws like all the pro-women were just being too busy defending against the pro-male side. (which ironically is the weaker stance :P)
I'm pretty sure I never said men were smarter anyway because I don't believe that. I actually think we are generally more simple minded and the older I get the more I feel intellectually threatened by women because that is what they are focusing on in order to oust the man from current superiority in socio-economic circles. I'm burned out though now...and so goes the flame of man hehe.

Thanks for the civil response btw, much props to you for seeing around the false bravado.

[Storm]

I'm pretty sure I never said men were smarter anyway because I don't believe that. I actually think we are generally more simple minded and the older I get the more I feel intellectually threatened by women because that is what they are focusing on in order to oust the man from current superiority in socio-economic circles.

So, you view men and women as at war with each other on a large scale? Fighting for "superiority in socio-economic circles." It must be frustrating to think like that. I'd be more worried about an individual your directly competing with being smarter/better/faster/stronger than you than the mean average of women.

Anyway, the article that Elfrun posted about how transgendered people experience discrimination or promotion after their change I found most interesting. It shows that discrimination doesn't have to do with actual ability so much but perceived ability. This means that you can have a "meritocracy" but people's unconscious biases still make a difference. People may think they are picking the more qualified candidate, when really they only perceive the person as better because of their sex.

Few (if any) jobs are inherently male or female if you look at it over time and across cultures. At one time, farming was considered a feminine job, then it switched to masculine. Cooking is feminine if done in the home, masculine if done at a restaurant. Secretaries use to be largely male, and then it became dominated by women. Acting use to be the exclusive realm of men. Whatever the cultural norm at the time is, people who decide to go against that norm will face prejudice. It only changes once people stop thinking of the field as a "man" or a "woman" field and start just thinking of it as a field. Lifeguard is a good example of such a job - even if it's low-paying. Which, incidentally, does require physical strength, risks, and assertiveness. Maybe we have Baywatch to thank. ;D

[JTG]

So, you view men and women as at war with each other on a large scale? Fighting for "superiority in socio-economic circles." It must be frustrating to think like that. I'd be more worried about an individual your directly competing with being smarter/better/faster/stronger than you than the mean average of women.

I think this cuts to the heart of the issue. The woman described in the OP seemed to view it similarly. A lot of feminists seem to as well, as do the stereotypical male chauvinists who want to keep women down. Some people just see it as a power thing and want to be on top at somebody else's expense.

Even if it isn't stated explicitly, or if it's publicly argued against, people will show you that side of themselves in the way they act and carry themselves and talk. If you pay attention, t's not too hard to tell the difference between somebody who wants to be equal and somebody who wants to be more equal than somebody else.

[TigerL]

I wonder how much of this has to do with age & generational differences and how much will fall out as younger generations that are less biased replace the older generations.

Gobbler, I hope you are right but going by the posts at least on INTJf (which has a high proportion of males under 30 on one of its polls), it doesn't seem to be happening.

(You know, it's not politically correct but I almost want to shout "Sissies! Wusses!" to the male posters out there who are intimidated by women getting a bit more preferential treatment the last few decades via scholarships, etc. given that women have been at a disadvantage for CENTURIES across different cultures. Men, if you're really good at what you do, it'll shine through. Well, you hope so anyway. Now you know what women have had to deal with for so long.)

And let's not even get into women who grew up within the last few decades thinking that there is no longer a need for feminism merely because they have experienced the fruits of it during their lives and not the struggles. Yes, I used to be less aware of these issues as well but time and experience have taught me differently.

[ArtistTyrant]

Hypocrites? Do you see the same cultural landscape as I do? What about, oh, Twilight? If that's not antifeminist and disgusting in every manner imaginable, I don't know what is.

Let's ask ourselves. Are women truly equal? Why are women automatically expected to give up their careers for marriage in most cases? Why are women expected to give up their maiden names at marriage? Why do women marry INTO families, as per Asian tradition? Why are women "given away" as a part of marriage? Who gives her away? Who OWNED her in the first place? Why is DOWRY still practiced? Why are daughters used as bargaining chips? Why are wages for the same work unequal? Why are men mocked when they are "feminine"? To say that we live in an equal society is presposterous.

Clearly, remnants of cultural, financial and ideological discrimination still exists, and still persists.
Twilight=written by a mediocre Mormon woman, that example has little bearing on anything

"equal" depends on your definition...for a group of average intelligence, yes, women and men are generally overall "equal", if that's the prime measurement of value is, but as soon as you get into the top 10, or 1%, or the top 0.1%, or the 0.01%, its male dominated

i've never stated support for a woman giving up her career unless she really wants to focus on being a housewife and/or raising her children, but ON AVERAGE a woman is going to be a better nurturing parent than their father

they give up their maiden names because the male spouse generally has more prestige and clout, and ON AVERAGE is the leader of the relationship

obviously we have different perspectives of gender, in some regards, based on culture and other factors ;)

as for the "equal pay for equal work" thing, unskilled labour/general manufacturing will NEVER be an even field, as it is founded on simply accomplishing task A at the lowest rate, and in most cases so many people can do task A that the work itself is nearly worthless

i'm a MtF transsexual (i still label myself as transgender because i haven't started hormones yet), you think i don't know that society places double standards on gender behaviour???

i never said we lived in an "equal" society, and the closer to "equality" a society gets, the more likely it is that socially fragmenting forces are at work (assuming a population of mostly average intellects)

discrimination isn't always bad, it used to be true that to label someone a "man of discriminating tastes" was a compliment, and doubly true for civilizations

[admittedheretic]

Conscious expression of emotions -- especially when societal repression of same is endemic -- is possible. Conscious suppression of unconscious expressions is, by definition, impossible. Therefore both genders have relatively equal emotional depths; they do not have equal conscious expressions of feelings. Please do not confuse the two.

Uhh, what? This sounds like a half assed Freudian crackpot theory.


FvM emotional responses in irids (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.): Pupil dilation to emotional stimuli was not affected by gender.

Further analyses showed that female subjects had significantly larger pupil responses than males only to neutral stimuli and only during the auditory stimulation.

Significantly larger = no affect :huh: I don't follow your logic or lack there of.

Pubertal Changes in Emotional Information Processing: Pupillary, Behavioral, and Subjective Evidence during Emotional Word Identification (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)(...)there were no gender, race, or socio-economic status differences between the pre/early- and mid/late-pubertal groups.

That study compared two groups of people. There where no differences between the groups other than one was pre/early and one was mid/late. Period. How you interrupt "there is no difference between male and female emotions" is beyond me.

(...)the human pupil dilates when an individual is exposed to something that she likes. For instance, the pupils of women and infants (but not men) spontaneously dilate when they see babies. Pupil dilation is an honest indicator of interest and attraction. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

Interest and attraction are holistically what emotions are.


Let me know if you need more citations.

I do. Keep them coming.

Is it so hard to believe that you are as emotional as your INTJ female counterparts? I do believe emotionality varies between people and populations, but i have no problem believing that as a whole, we're more or less equal in this regard.

Personally, i think you're underestimating the power society has when it comes to teaching men to repress emotions. Refer to the second paragraph of AL's post i quoted below. It's worded differently than i would word it, but i agree with the idea.

Yes it is very hard to believe. What is some of the reasoning behind your belief? Why do think that most people believe that women are more emotional than males?

What have I said yo basis your suspicion? You might be underestimating innate influence on emotions. Males are different than females emotionally beginning in the womb. That is all I'm saying. I don't think it tilts the scales of equality in any way what so ever. All that matters in our existence is that we procreate and it takes two to tango thus we are truly equal.

[plotthickens]

Uhh, what? This sounds like a half assed Freudian crackpot theory.

It's scientific fact. If someone else could break down the wording better than I did, please do so.


Significantly larger = no affect :huh: I don't follow your logic or lack there of.

Different emotional responses, as measured through irid response, was only seen in auditory stimuli. "Women process sounds to emotions better". Since that was the only difference, it supported the finding that there is no difference between genders in emotional responses.


That study compared two groups of people. There where no differences between the groups other than one was pre/early and one was mid/late. Period. How you interrupt "there is no difference between male and female emotions" is beyond me.

(...)there were no gender, race, or socio-economic status differences between the pre/early- and mid/late-pubertal groups.
I do. Keep them coming.

Hm. I gave 3, you misinterpreted them for the purpose of discreditation. Your misinterpretations are cleared up above. May we deal with what's on the table first?


Males are different than females emotionally beginning in the womb.

Citation needed.

[Delarge]

To those who propound the social role theory as an explanation for the sex disparity in performance on different cognitive tasks, how do you reconcile this belief of yours with the following observations?

In spite of being subjected to similar if not identical forms of socialization, female homosexuals outperform their heterosexual counter-parts on tasks of mental rotation, on average. Additionally, male homosexuals under-perform male heterosexuals on these tasks [1]. This is noteworthy because the etiology of homosexuality is thought to involve exposure to a disbalance of sex hormones in utero. Amniotic sex hormone concentrations are highly predictive of infant digit ratio [2], which in turn is moderately predictive of future sexual orientation [3]. Digit ratios within and between sexes correlate with visuo-spatial performance. [4]

Infant males demonstrate a superior ability to recognize objects at novel angles [5], and exhibit a greater attraction to toys traditionally associated with males. [6]

Administering testosterone to female test subjects improves their performance on visuo-spatial tasks compared to their pre-administration performance, relative to placebo groups [7]. This is also true of andropausal males [8]. Administering estrogen to males serves to improve their performance on tasks of short-term memory [9].

The trend for male superiority on visuo-spatial tasks is present in many non-human mammals. [10] I am having difficulty re-locating studies investigating this phenomenon with respect to chimpanzees, dogs and sheep, and will expand the citations underlining this claim gradually.

Does any of this information imply that one sex is superior to the other in an ethical sense? No. Are there policy implications associated with these findings? Perhaps. As I argued previously, the under-representation of males and females in certain occupations probably reflects sex-determined differences in preference and skill, and is therefore not amenable to alteration, short of biological intervention, within a meritocratic society.

1. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
2. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.(04)00012-X/abstract
3. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
4. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
5. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
6. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
7. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
8. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
9. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
10. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[ArtistTyrant]

these are of course general trends

my index fingers, for example, are noticeably longer than my ring fingers, on both hands, and i'm godlike at visual-spatial and mental rotation ;)

[Delarge]

I don't doubt that social factors influence the level of expressiveness exhibited by males, however fMRI studies have demonstrated that males and females differ in terms of affective intensity. I recall reviewing one study in which males and females were presented with stimuli designed to induce an empathic response, and the mean level of activity within regions of the brain responsible for processing emotional information differed significantly, as did other physiologic indicators. I'll dig through the literature to locate studies on this topic.

[plotthickens]

As I argued previously, the under-representation of males and females in certain occupations probably reflects sex-determined differences in preference and skill, and is therefore not amenable to alteration, short of biological intervention, within a meritocratic society.

You're not taking the capabilities of outliers into consideration. There are ninety-million (approximately :wiseguy:) jobs in society which require innate spatial relationship expertise. If females are not as good at males at this, does that mean that no females should be in these positions? No. Upper-end outliers on the scale would fit quite happily and do those jobs well.

The problem in equality is not sorting by capability, but that (except in a very few traditional roles) women are consistently under-represented and under-paid across all levels of employment. That cannot be explained by your meritocratic sorting by capability.

The facts say that something is rotten in the state of equality.

[Delarge]

You're not taking the capabilities of outliers into consideration. There are ninety-million (approximately :wiseguy:) jobs in society which require innate spatial relationship expertise. If females are not as good at males at this, does that mean that no females should be in these positions? No. Upper-end outliers on the scale would fit quite happily and do those jobs well.

The problem in equality is not sorting by capability, but that (except in a very few traditional roles) women are consistently under-represented and under-paid across all levels of employment. That cannot be explained by your meritocratic sorting by capability.

The facts say that something is rotten in the state of equality.

I'm not suggesting that all females are inferior to males with respect to visuo-spatial abilities, or that all males are inferior to females with respect to short-term memory capacity; I'm merely suggesting that the disparity in mean performance on these tasks translates into different occupational patterns. I certainly wouldn't advocate that females who demonstrate skill and interest in traditionally male-dominated professions be rejected by virtue of being female.

I'll address the disparity in earnings in another post, however I'll hint that I'm not of the view that it's the result of systemic discrimination against females.

[plotthickens]

I'll address the disparity in earnings in another post, however I'll hint that I'm not of the view that it's the result of systemic discrimination against females.

You're not? I'm shocked. :stare:

Please note that trying to prove earning differences based on any one (or two or three) causes will be futile. If the differences were between races or between blondes VS brunettes or anything else... would there be near as much discussion?

[firebee]

There are ninety-million (approximately :wiseguy:) jobs in society which require innate spatial relationship expertise.

I also think that an important part of the problem is attributing a strict need for "innate spatial relationship expertise" to jobs -- or entire fields of study -- where this is not necessarily the case. As if, say, an affinity for engineering was a monolithic thing in the first place, and it consisted entirely of a direct function of innate mathematical potential and innate spatial relationship potential. The reality is that even within a given specialty, there is a broad variety of functions that a given engineer could elect to pursue -- and with respect to those particular functions, there are a lot of ways to skin the appropriate feline.

It's somewhat uncommon for people to be hired for a job that consists solely of rotating cubes in their head all day like a Windows screensaver; in fact, if I were to name the one function that all of my former employers had been clamoring for, and that industry repeatedly calls on engineering schools to provide, it would be that old saw "verbal and written communication skills". Which is oft considered to be a trait favored by the female types.

Funny how that factor somehow becomes trivial and insignificant when it comes to explaining how men evolved to become the perfect fit for professions that didn't exist 500 years ago...

[ArtistTyrant]

I also think that an important part of the problem is attributing a strict need for "innate spatial relationship expertise" to jobs -- or entire fields of study -- where this is not necessarily the case. As if, say, an affinity for engineering was a monolithic thing in the first place, and it consisted entirely of a direct function of innate mathematical potential and innate spatial relationship potential. The reality is that even within a given specialty, there is a broad variety of functions that a given engineer could elect to pursue -- and with respect to those particular functions, there are a lot of ways to skin the appropriate feline.

It's somewhat uncommon for people to be hired for a job that consists solely of rotating cubes in their head all day like a Windows screensaver; in fact, if I were to name the one function that all of my former employers had been clamoring for, and that industry repeatedly calls on engineering schools to provide, it would be that old saw "verbal and written communication skills". Which is oft considered to be a trait favored by the female types.

Funny how that factor somehow becomes trivial and insignificant when it comes to explaining how men evolved to become the perfect fit for professions that didn't exist 500 years ago...
science didn't exist 500 years ago? ;)

[plotthickens]

science didn't exist 500 years ago? ;)

rotating cubes in their head all day like a Windows screensaver;

[ArtistTyrant]

i meant the wider implications of having better visual-spatial abilities :)

i mean, engineering existed 500 years ago :p

[Storm]

I'm not suggesting that all females are inferior to males with respect to visuo-spatial abilities, or that all males are inferior to females with respect to short-term memory capacity; I'm merely suggesting that the disparity in mean performance on these tasks translates into different occupational patterns.

And here's where you make a leap in logic. A couple, actually. Firebee has already pointed out that you go from "Men are, on average, better at X ability than women" does not mean that makes them better suited for an entire field or job. Another fallacy is that you've assumed that some difference in ability X explains completely the difference in representation career Y of the sexes.

First, whenever I've seen differences in ability between the sexes, it's usually not by much. Women certainly are not incapable of, for example, visio-spatial ability as men are not incapable of short-term memory. Nor do women completely suck at visio-spatial ability. Just as men aren't noticeably worse to the naked eye at short term memory. You need an intense scientific study to notice the difference. These relatively small difference between the average male & female can not account for the much larger gap between men & women representation seen in gender-dominant fields.

Second, assuming that these differences between the average male & female accounts for some of the disparity, it does not follow that it accounts for ALL of the disparity. There have been some extremely compelling arguments about known cultural influences and comparisons to other cultures and times that shows the current gender split among professions is NOT innate. If you want to argue that the current gender split at current representations is inherent, you need to explain changes in those percentages in recent times. For instance, why has farming switched gender? Why are there more female sporting fans (evidenced by an increase in female fan clothing)? Why has shepherding switched gender many times? Why did factory work switch gender? Why did school teacher switch gender? Why are more women entering medicine and law than they did before?

Third, it's easy to find some small difference and assume that it is THE explanation for a difference. For instance, men and women are fairly equally represented in the job of store clerk today. Sure, you say, it's a rather menial job that most anyone can do - why would there be an over-representation of one sex or the other? And you'd be right because store clerk doesn't suffer any widespread gender bias, and so people are hired based on ability alone. But, let's suppose that men were overrepresented in this field. You could easily say "Oh, it's because men are more assertive and more likely to get jobs at a young age." or "Men are better at handling money." Flip it around, and pretend that women are over-represented in the field. You could say "Oh, women are more personable with the customers." or "Women like service-orientated jobs." All of these explanations, however, could also be because the people doing the hiring just perceive a certain sex as being better suited to the job, and not because they actually are better suited. Merely pointing out an average difference between the sexes does not win your case.

[firebee]

i meant the wider implications of having better visual-spatial abilities :)

i mean, engineering existed 500 years ago :p

A thing called engineering existed 500 years ago, and there were people who did the things that we would today categorize as engineering probably as far back as there were humans, but the engineering profession in its modern form is younger than that.

Plus which, I should think it would seem fairly obvious that various sub-branches of engineering cannot be too terribly old; the profession of electrical engineering does not predate the study of electricity, for instance, and software engineering was at best rudimentary before the invention of the computer.

And also, your original statement goes even farther than the fallacy that I identified, in that it seems to lump the entire concept of science into the domain of the cube-rotating savant. Regarding that problem, I hardly know where to start, except to reiterate my earlier statement and note that the systematic study of natural phenomena can be approached with a variety of cognitive styles.

[nanotube]

I think fwiffo said it best early on. A lot of this debate is based on valuing activities that have traditionally been male-dominated. Being a workaholic, putting in long hours, being "married to your job," are considered positive things in our society despite that they compete for time with family, child-rearing and household tasks. Our shortsighted capitalist society values work over family, immediate productivity over investments in the next generation. Whether they are valued because men do them or because of external factors (i.e. winning wars is inherently better than losing them, no?) is an interesting question.

[plotthickens]

Whether they are valued because men do them or because of external factors (i.e. winning wars is inherently better than losing them, no?) is an interesting question.

Value can be expressed in a lot of ways; Gross National Product VS Gross National Happiness is one. However you measure it, when one gender habitually gets less value in all realms than another, the situation is unequal.

[Anhedonic Lake]

What's this? A discussion on gender?

Women being cited as inherently more passive,emotional,compassionate,emotionally violent and artistic than men?

Men being cited as inherently more aggressive,competitive,physically violent,and emotionally dominant than woman?

Damn, next thing people will be saying gay men have a flair for flamboyance,nerdy guys are sexually inexperienced and man evolved from chimps.

[AtheneNoctua]

Equality is far from being reached - you only have to look at the UK cabinet and the recent election where women were renegated to wives (Sarah Brown and SamCam...) and this whole 'mumsnet' thing.
In addition, sexism is rife in teenage boys

[thod]

Equality is far from being reached - you only have to look at the UK cabinet and the recent election where women were renegated to wives (Sarah Brown and SamCam...)

There is a good reason for this, they ARE just wives. There is no reason why the wife of a head of state should be promoted to anything else. Michelle Obama should not be making policy nor sitting on committees simply because of who she married.

[AtheneNoctua]

There is a good reason for this, they ARE just wives. There is no reason why the wife of a head of state should be promoted to anything else. Michelle Obama should not be making policy nor sitting on committees simply because of who she married.


I mean that women are seen as an accessory to their husband, there were very few - if any - female politicians in the spotlight.

On a slightly different note, I was looking at a facebok group called 'Dianne Abbott for Labour Leader'. The only comment on it was:
'But she's a women'
followed by something else adding - 'hahaha she should be making a sandwhich'
'yeah, inbetween ironing and sucking willy'

Welcome to equality

[gps]

These days women are rarely discriminated against in universities, jobs, and politics. If anything, it has gone the other way around! Men tend to be passed over for some jobs in order to hire female empoyees. My PhD program is 70% women and most department at some of the best universities actually have more females than males enrolled.

I am tired of keeping quiet and wish that these women who claim that females are discriminated against in the above jobs would shut up. Maybe you are being passed over because you are not good enough for the job, not because you are female.


There is no greater inequality than calling unequals equal.


Though Thomas Jefferson may have coined some rather tendentious rhetoric incorporated into the mythology of the US of A, to the contrary, All men -- and women -- are not created ... let alone equal.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but organisms which reproduce sexually tend to produce more diverse offspring than those which merely replicate copies of the single parent.
In math the concept of different-yet-equal is a farce.
What kind of mental masturbation is required to behold two different people as if equal to whatever tasks they might be tasked with?


I won't be happy until 50% of Sumo wrestlers, sanitation engineers, and suicide bombers are women ... and categorically `people of color', and handicapable, and ... and ... and.

Who gives a fuzzy rats ass how competent and able-to-perform-as-required each is?
Let's just rig the game for gender equity, race equity, sexual-preference equity.

What are we ... superficial twits who engage in social engineering based on how the candidate looks or their gender or sexual preferences?
Somehow these strike me as decidedly more superficial than competence and demonstrated ability.

When that fire `person' climbs up the stairs to rescue my ass after I've succumbed to smoke inhalation I want him, her or IT to be able to carry me down the ladder without dropping me.

I'm beyond tired of all the socio-political engineering.

Oh, yeah ... I've noticed that during the layoffs, down sizing, work-force reductions enacted at former employers a disproportionate number of singles were placed in the life boats and set adrift while some less competent-but-better-connected married types steamed on with the rest of those still collecting pay checks.

I'd like to believe my discriminating tastes are capable of discerning the indiscriminate misuse of antidiscrimination as a means of orchestrating social, political, racial, and gender-orientation would-be equality. Yes, we know that 4 was born poor and to an orange family, but 2 is female, chartreuse, and transgender ... so 4 and 2 being equal, how do we proceed?

What's the gender, color, `race', religion, and sexual orientation of Competence?
I'd like to see more of 'em in all the positions ...you know who they ARE ;)

[Weber]

On a slightly different note, I was looking at a facebok group called 'Dianne Abbott for Labour Leader'. The only comment on it was:
'But she's a women'
followed by something else adding - 'hahaha she should be making a sandwhich'
'yeah, inbetween ironing and sucking willy'

Welcome to equality

Shouldn't you also be claiming discrimination against men since just about every "sitcom dad" out there is portrayed as both stupid, lazy, incompetent, and emotionally retarded? Both of these examples belong in the comedy category, after all. At least your mention isn't condoned in mainstream entertainment productions; there, typically, the only demographic target that is allowed to be singled out for ridicule is the white, straight male.

[plotthickens]

Shouldn't you also be claiming discrimination against men since just about every "sitcom dad" out there is portrayed as both stupid, lazy, incompetent, and emotionally retarded? Both of these examples belong in the comedy category, after all. At least your mention isn't condoned in mainstream entertainment productions; there, typically, the only demographic target that is allowed to be singled out for ridicule is the white, straight male.

Sitcom dad: fictional character made for ridicule
Political figure: real person trying to do a job

There is no comparison. Also, if only white straight males are OK to laugh at most of the comedies on TV are going off the air tonight and the rest of them will be strangely quiet.

[Weber]

Sitcom dad: fictional character made for ridicule
Political figure: real person trying to do a job

I see. So politicians should be above ridicule, and they are somehow hindered in their job by a few morons spouting lame jokes on the internet.


Also, if only white straight males are OK to laugh at most of the comedies on TV are going off the air tonight and the rest of them will be strangely quiet.

Interesting observation, but I wonder if you're of the misapprehension that this is a relevant response to anything I stated.

[plotthickens]

I see. So politicians should be above ridicule, and they are somehow hindered in their job by a few morons spouting lame jokes on the internet.

False analogy. Entertainment made to be laughed at is not comparable to people doing a job. My point stands.


Interesting observation, but I wonder if you're of the misapprehension that this is a relevant response to anything I stated.

At least your mention isn't condoned in mainstream entertainment productions; there, typically, the only demographic target that is allowed to be singled out for ridicule is the white, straight male.

Also, if only white straight males are OK to laugh at, most of the comedies on TV are going off the air tonight and the rest of them will be strangely quiet.

Yep, those have nothing at all to do with one another.

[vampyroteuthis]

Here's another article (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) discussing several scientific experiments that prove unconscious sex bias.

It seems to me that most of the people in this thread who point out the under-representation of women in various fields aren't arguing that recruitment and advancement should not be based on merit -- we/they are pointing out that they are not based on merit.

Now I am not personally in favour of a quota system, but pointing out the existence of sexism is a descriptive and not a prescriptive argument, and should be treated as such for arguments against it to be coherent.

[Weber]

False analogy. Entertainment made to be laughed at is not comparable to people doing a job. My point stands.

Analogy? Who's making an analogy? I'm forced to doubt if you know what that word means. I am merely taking your apparent counterclaim to its logical implications. You seem to be implying that there is a significant problem with the jokes in question made on Facebook. They are clearly jokes, just as a sitcom is clearly "entertainment made to be laughed at". There is stereotyping in both cases, but I have to speculate why you think one is more harmful than the other.

Yep, those have nothing at all to do with one another.

Only superficially and if you ignore keywords such as "demographic" and "singled out" and "mainstream entertainment". Yeah, basically if you ignore the whole message. The point is that the common perception of what is good comedic taste is governed by a blatant double standard and a xenocentrist bias relative to what is generally considered the attributes granting predisposition to success.

[plotthickens]

You're right, Weber. Those comments were totally fine, just like sitcoms, indicative of nothing about society. And those poor het white men are being picked on WAY too much -- nothing else is allowed to be funny anymore! Poor whities, all mocked and powerless. *shakes head sadly*

[Storm]

I see. So politicians should be above ridicule, and they are somehow hindered in their job by a few morons spouting lame jokes on the internet.

Which is appropriate?

1) A political cartoon which mocks Obama for being an "Oreo."
2) A political cartoon which mocks Obama for his decisions in regards to the new health insurance bill.

That's what gender equality is about. It's about people being judged on their actual competence, not biases.

[AtheneNoctua]

Which is appropriate?

1) A political cartoon which mocks Obama for being an "Oreo."
2) A political cartoon which mocks Obama for his decisions in regards to the new health insurance bill.

That's what gender equality is about. It's about people being judged on their actual competence, not biases.

Thank you!
It is all too often that women are derided for simply being women, rather than on the basis of how they perform in that job - and should they prove to be unsuitable in that particular job, it shouldn't be seen a reflection of women in general, but of themselves only.
For example, the media storm that attacked Gordon Brown (ex British PM) didn't claim that this was what happened when white men get control of the country, because we know and accept that there are many different types of white men - yet when a woman steps into a position of power and responsibility it's a different story...

[themuzicman]

Nope. When I think of the ideal of 'woman' I think of kindness, compassion, understanding, and dedication. A person who not only carries the family, but is (and has in history) one who has fought for it. She is the spirit of endless energy and calm when males have long been exhausted by their explosive ways. They inspire and exude true beauty. They are the mothers and the daughters that have loved men and all their ways throughout history.

So, drama, manipulation, including sexual manipulation, emotional intimidation, seeking one man to raise her children and another to father them, all of that is no big deal?

The 'woman' that I see, has all the traits of a much more ideal society of human being. If we as humans could one day become as an idealized woman, I see it as the epitome of being human.

Well, you're going to face reality, someday.

Would I say the same about the ideal man? Although I think the ideal man is a powerful and mighty force of super coolness, it sadly is not what I see "human" to be.


So, qualities of honor, duty, protector, laborer, leader are meaningless?


I think you've bought into the notion in the west that somehow women are superior to men... most call that "Sexism."

[universalis]

Equality feels good to think about. It does not exist.

Asians are smarter than Caucasians
Men are more intelligent on average than woman
Ghanians are smarter than other black races
Jamaicans are more athletic
Woman are designed to raise children
Men are designed to fight and protect and innovate etc
Nearly all major scientific, maths, tech innovation has been from men.

etc

So gender equality is a BS notion.

None of this of course precludes individuals that go against the normal distribution. EG a smart INTJ female may beat the pants off 99.9999% of males. But so what? Is everyone expected to change society just for her?

People have no problem agreeing "white men can't jump" and Blacks make better basketball players, but when you suggest different physical attribute like mental aptitude or ability to accomplish advances, suddenly everyone gets all "PC" and pretends we equal. Feeling #fail. It's feelings that make humans close minded.

[nanotube]

I'm just going to state this hypothesis I've heard before...

Pay inequality is by choice. Women place a lower priority on their careers and have other goals and values, like raising a family, so they choose employers and positions that offer other benefits besides a hard salary, like good healthcare, flexible hours, other family-friendly policies that are difficult to quantify and compare. They pass up promotions and don't commit as much time to their careers. This is necessarily a generalization, which leads to stereotypes that are unfair to individual exceptions, but it's not unlike the social stigma leveled on men who want to stay home and raise a family while their wives work to provide income. Furthermore, this situation is OK because women have a point: there are more rewarding things in life than work; it's men that are being simplistic and stupid. Focusing on career progress equality or salary equality is measuring women by a value/standard established by men. Basically women who demand simple pay equality, just like men who subtly ridicule stay-at-home husbands, have bought into the male-established value system that places work and salary above childrearing and family life.

[plotthickens]

Nearly all major scientific, maths, tech innovation has been from RELIGIOUS WHITE men.

So gender equality is a BS notion.


Fixed!

Now that's settled, only religious white men need to be scientists. Everyone else can be fired. Saves time, yeay!

[Storm]

"white men can't jump" and Blacks make better basketball players.

That's funny, I see many white basketball players at college and professional level sports. These men certainly can jump. I guess I'm just a big ole softie unable to separate my feelings from cultural stereotypes and biases.

[Polymath]

Fixed!

Now that's settled, only religious white men need to be scientists. Everyone else can be fired. Saves time, yeay!

How does that follow?

[plotthickens]

How does that follow?

Sarcasm.

I fixed his erroneous generalization, and got sarcastic all over the stupid conclusion that logically followed. The sarcasm is that my fixed erroneous generalization is just as illogical as his -- only more offensive to most INTJ types.

[firebee]

None of this of course precludes individuals that go against the normal distribution. EG a smart INTJ female may beat the pants off 99.9999% of males. But so what? Is everyone expected to change society just for her?

So... for the same treatment that a 75th or even a 50th-percentile male gets, it's reasonable for a woman to have to beat out 99.9999% of males? Fuck, that's not sexist at all, is it?

Also, I am curious to know what these incredible soul-crushing concessions that "society" has to make in order to treat people according to their actual merits as opposed to hypothesized merits, based on their membership in various groups, that they may or may not have. Is it really that much of a horrible obstacle to progress, to give people work according to what they are good at instead of what the gerbils that live in our brain say about their gender or race or whatever?