Originally posted by MythLordThere is a reason why most engineers are male, and most nurses female. Certain personalities, which tend to be attributed by gender, go hand-in-hand with certain fields.
No one human is born completely equal to another, but that doesn't mean they don't deserve equal rights. kek
Originally posted by Kurk
There is a reason why most engineers are male, and most nurses female. Certain personalities, which tend to be attributed by gender, go hand-in-hand with certain fields.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
Well yeah, but the expectation that if you give everyone equal rights success along all areas will be evenly distributed between group aggregates is absurd.
You could argue society plays a part in it, but when there are differences in the average interests between boys and girls even a day after birth, then even removing any cultural factors it would make sense that males would be the marked majority in STEM fields and women the marked majority in say social work because there is a deep biological root leading to difference in distribution of personality traits and interests between men and women.
Could you use this to assess a random individual you have no information on? No. Group aggregates by their nature are not something you can use to draw conclusions about an individual, however they do speak to larger statistical trends.
The idea that unequal proportions of men and women in certain careers is something that constitutes a problem
to be solved is a bit absurd.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
You could argue society plays a part in it, but when there are differences in the average interests between boys and girls even a day after birth, then even removing any cultural factors it would make sense that males would be the marked majority in STEM fields and women the marked majority in say social work because there is a deep biological root leading to difference in distribution of personality traits and interests between men and women.Could you use this to assess a random individual you have no information on? No. Group aggregates by their nature are not something you can use to draw conclusions about an individual, however they do speak to larger statistical trends.
The idea that unequal proportions of men and women in certain careers is something that constitutes a problem
to be solved is a bit absurd.
Originally posted by |King Joker|I'm glad you agree we live in a sexist matriarchy where young boys are traumatised from a young age, which inevitably leads to 90% of prisons being filled by men, the majority of them being there for victimless crimes like drug use/sale, making them possibly the most raped demographic as a knock on effect.
👆 There are innate biological pushes for behavior, but the expression of those pushes are hardly cut-and-dry or universal. Culture exaggerates biological proclivities and transforms them into norms of behavior and an encouragement of assumed natural ability, which thus exacerbates a sex divide.
Those darn societal pressures. I agree. Less men in prisons, more women on the oil rigs.
Originally posted by EmperordmbAs I've acknowledged, biology is an innate factor that I'm sure plays a relatively large role in career selection, and I in no way expect a 50/50 split between men and women in certain professions (engineering, nursing) in the future, regardless of the prevailing societal climate. All I'm saying is that I think the current (or at least historical) culture enforces stereotypes of what men and women "should" pursue and be interested in, and therefore exacerbates the ratio between men and women in certain professions.
You could argue society plays a part in it, but when there are differences in the average interests between boys and girls even a day after birth, then even removing any cultural factors it would make sense that males would be the marked majority in STEM fields and women the marked majority in say social work because there is a deep biological root leading to difference in distribution of personality traits and interests between men and women.Could you use this to assess a random individual you have no information on? No. Group aggregates by their nature are not something you can use to draw conclusions about an individual, however they do speak to larger statistical trends.
Originally posted by EmperordmbI didn't say that it was a problem per se, though I do think it's a problem in certain fields like politics, where I would prefer better representation for women. Literally all I'm doing is addressing the pretty basic and honestly inarguable fact that our culture does/did enforce stereotypes based on general biological proclivities. If you don't think it's an important issue then that's fine, lol.
The idea that unequal proportions of men and women in certain careers is something that constitutes a problem
to be solved is a bit absurd.
Originally posted by ILS
I'm glad you agree we live in a sexist matriarchy where young boys are traumatised from a young age, which inevitably leads to 90% of prisons being filled by men, the majority of them being there for victimless crimes like drug use/sale, making them possibly the most raped demographic as a knock on effect.Those darn societal pressures. I agree. Less men in prisons, more women on the oil rigs.
How is it an "inarguable fact" that culture reinforces biology? Is it not possible that the reverse is also true? Perhaps 200,000 years of evolutionary programming plays more than a "relatively large role" in society: one could argue it's the leading driver.
And I'm curious if you think I'm wrong, Jokester. Nobody seems to cry out when men are being rekt in court rooms, financially, in the prison system, working the most dangerous jobs by far, and so on.
Originally posted by ILSMy saying that culture reinforces biology doesn't preclude the reverse being true as well. What's clear though is that there are degrees to which these biological truths can be reinforced—either passively, in which the culture lets the natural probability of men participating in "masculine" activities and women participating in "feminine" activities sort themselves out without a strong reinforcement—or actively, in which the culture persistently reinforces gender stereotypes in harmful ways (read: 1950s America).
How is it an "inarguable fact" that culture reinforces biology? Is it not possible that the reverse is also true? Perhaps 200,000 years of evolutionary programming plays more than a "relatively large role" in society: one could argue it's the leading driver.
Originally posted by ILSAll problems that need to be addressed and alleviated. 👆
And I'm curious if you think I'm wrong, Jokester. Nobody seems to cry out when men are being rekt in court rooms, financially, in the prison system,
Originally posted by ILSInteresting that you listed this as one of the societal woes of manhood. I would've figured that you'd accept it as one of the natural, biologically-driven realities of men. mmm
working the most dangerous jobs by far,
Originally posted by |King Joker|Care to elaborate on what is harmful about men being masculine and women being feminine?
My saying that culture reinforces biology doesn't preclude the reverse being true as well. What's clear though is that there are degrees to which these biological truths can be reinforced—either passively, in which the culture lets the natural probability of men participating in "masculine" activities and women participating in "feminine" activities sort themselves out without a strong reinforcement—or actively, in which the culture persistently reinforces gender stereotypes in harmful ways (read: 1950s America).All problems that need to be addressed and alleviated. 👆
Interesting that you listed this as one of the societal woes of manhood. I would've figured that you'd accept it as one of the natural, biologically-driven realities of men. mmm
Indeed. But first, let's make sure we have more female computer programmers, eh? Need to have priorities.
I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those espousing your current arguments. Nobody is in a hurry to replace men with women in careers where it requires high levels of physical labour or mortal danger, despite those fields being dominated by men.
Originally posted by ILSUh, literally nothing? I mean, I myself quite like masculine men. 🙂
Care to elaborate on what is harmful about men being masculine and women being feminine?Indeed. But first, let's make sure we have more female computer programmers, eh? Need to have priorities.
I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those espousing your current arguments. Nobody is in a hurry to replace men with women in careers where it requires high levels of physical labour or mortal danger, despite those fields being dominated by men.
I'm starting to think you're reading somebody else's posts. mmm
In that case, you'd probably waste less of your time directing your posts towards people who are actually hypocritical on this issue, lol.
Originally posted by KurkIt must be quite jarring for you down in the sewers, indeed.
ILS leaves himself exposed quite a bit for attacks. Idk why people here hold him such high light as a debater.
Originally posted by |King Joker|Agreed, tbh. Feminine women are also supreme.
Uh, literally nothing? I mean, I myself quite like masculine men. 🙂I'm starting to think you're reading somebody else's posts. mmm
In that case, you'd probably waste less of your time directing your posts towards people who are actually hypocritical on this issue, lol.