Yeah I agree with what you said. I was just giving one viewpoint before. I would have included the stuff about individuals and all but it takes ages and I didn't want to wander while I was on a point.
I think as I said in the post after the one quoted that its individuals. In GENERAL however it is clear that males and females do behave differently from childhood due to different hormonal levels.
More men are in politics for the simple reason that more men WANT to be in politics as a pose to women. Some women WANT to do politics and they do.
What I have a problem with is feminists making up what THEY believe to be best for women which is all wrong [just go to AH and you'll see].
Gender blindness would be a blessing in many ways. Heres an excerpt from AH'S Article: A Permanent Gender War:
Imagine, for example, that a certain Law School can accept 1,000 new students for a course, and that it accepts 500 females and 500 males.This appears to be fair and non-discriminatory.But what if 10,000 males and 2000 females had actually applied for the course?Well, if this was the case, then 5% of the males and 25% of the females had their applications accepted.And so this is not 'equality'!And now, think of what happens next, as the successful candidates pursue their new legal careers over the years.Well, only the best 5% of males got into the Law School, but, for females, those who were merely in the top 25% managed to get in.As such, the 500 successful male applicants are clearly not 'equal' to their 500 female counterparts.The males are definitely a very superior bunch!And this is just one reason why they will fly a lot higher throughout their careers than the females who studied with them at the Law School.And so, despite the fact that the Law School had bent over backwards to discriminate very heavily in favour of women, we would still all end up being subjected to further rounds of hate-mongering by the feminists because the far less able bunch of women who were accepted by the Law School would not succeed as well in their future careers as would the superior bunch of men! (In general, and in practice, the only type of 'equality' that will satisfy feminists is one where men are continually discriminated against right throughout their entire careers.)Now, imagine that the Law School changed its acceptance policy.Henceforth, the number of male and female applicants to be accepted would be based on the relative proportions of male and female applications.And so, for example, if twice as many males as females applied to the Law School, then twice as many males as females would be accepted by it - with only the best being selected from each group.Would this be 'equitable'?Well, again, the answer is, No.It would still be the case that more males and females would fail in their applications, and it would also be the case that the sheer number of applications, rather than hard work and talent, would determine to a large extent who was accepted by the Law School.For example, in this particular scenario, the males could all be absolutely useless compared to the females; and yet the Law School's new policy would result in the acceptance of twice as many males as females!Perhaps the best solution, and the most equitable solution, is for the Law School to be completely gender blind, and to accept students purely on the basis of their merit.But, of course, you will never get the feminists agreeing to this.
So yes maybe looking at individuals is a good idea in certain cirumstances where men and women are indeed EQUAL in terms of skill etc. Just bear in mind that men and women through GENES seperate from ENVIRONMENT do influence their behaviour to an extent and blocking out natural impulses can be COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE as I outlined in my first post