When these discussions center on the brain, they fail to notice one very important fact. Male and female brain is almost identical. What is different are our biological reproductive functions. These have been amplified and exhagerated by social structures and pressures. And of course we cannot discuss sex/gender anymore anyway.

A bigger problem at hand is that modern schools are failing EVERY student in teaching them basic math.

 

If they are "almost" identical, what are the differences? Well, I thought I would do a little reading and found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences

Studies, counter-studies, and hypothesis. It could be a lot more reading.

That still doesn't explain Sweden's maximum equality and disappointing distribution of genders in various fields.

 

https://medium.com/@w1nnersclub/gen...orced-to-wear-high-heels-at-work-9b266477ef84

Men should be forced to wear high heels at work according to researchers from the University of Aberdeen.

 

https://medium.com/@w1nnersclub/gen...orced-to-wear-high-heels-at-work-9b266477ef84

Men should be forced to wear high heels at work according to researchers from the University of Aberdeen.

Please, not the 70's again.

 

I have two pairs of high heels. My cowboy boots and my Latin dance shoes.

Bob

 

If they are "almost" identical, what are the differences? Well, I thought I would do a little reading and found https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences

Studies, counter-studies, and hypothesis. It could be a lot more reading.

That still doesn't explain Sweden's maximum equality and disappointing distribution of genders in various fields.

I already said it, having to go through preganancy in order to give birth and all other things associated is the largest difference. Those making it about some sort of neurological disparity are creating an issue that is not there. It is actually very simple and stems from different reproductive roles that have been build upon by social structures.

p.s. there was one interesting project that simulated period cramps to show men what most women go through every month. It was hard to assess impact from the video, but as far as I know there is no male equivalent in biology to that and no man understands what it is

 

I already said it, having to go through preganancy in order to give birth and all other things associated is the largest difference. Those making it about some sort of neurological disparity are creating an issue that is not there. It is actually very simple and stems from different reproductive roles that have been build upon by social structures.

p.s. there was one interesting project that simulated period cramps to show men what most women go through every month. It was hard to assess impact from the video, but as far as I know there is no male equivalent in biology to that and no man understands what it is

I don't begrudge women doing any damn thing they want. I'm not "creating" and neurological disparity, and the issue is already there, as there are psychologists who did and continue to do that type study.

We began categorizing since we could discern differences. Gender discrimination is when you decide quotas are the way to go. Maximum freedom dictates the individual has the right to choose. Discrimination is when you lose that right. Granted, if you choose to be a rocket scientist, you should endeavor to become competent in what a rocket scientist does. If you get a job as a rocket scientist but you are incompetent as a rocket scientist, and was hired to satisfy some EEOC fantasy of equitable distribution, that would be discrimination.

Don't make it was it isn't. Are there women on the upper tail of the distribution curve that are capable of being competent in a field. Hell yeah. I'd take her over any "average" person.

This reminds me of the phrase "looks good on paper." Yeah, I have met some who were assigned because they "looked good on paper" that ended up being more of a headache. Yes, I'm talking about both sexes.

Care to proffer an explanation of the disparity of gender equity in the most egalitarian society? I cited one that you didn't like from a Psychologists.

 

I don't begrudge women doing any damn thing they want. I'm not "creating" and neurological disparity, and the issue is already there, as there are psychologists who did and continue to do that type study.

We began categorizing since we could discern differences. Gender discrimination is when you decide quotas are the way to go. Maximum freedom dictates the individual has the right to choose. Discrimination is when you lose that right. Granted, if you choose to be a rocket scientist, you should endeavor to become competent in what a rocket scientist does. If you get a job as a rocket scientist but you are incompetent as a rocket scientist, and was hired to satisfy some EEOC fantasy of equitable distribution, that would be discrimination.

Don't make it was it isn't. Are there women on the upper tail of the distribution curve that are capable of being competent in a field. Hell yeah. I'd take her over any "average" person.

This reminds me of the phrase "looks good on paper." Yeah, I have met some who were assigned because they "looked good on paper" that ended up being more of a headache. Yes, I'm talking about both sexes.

Care to proffer an explanation of the disparity of gender equity in the most egalitarian society? I cited one that you didn't like from a Psychologists.

We are talking different language unfortunately. Sweden is not immune to assigning gender identities. A woman is still expected to perform her gender role. Their outcome actually shows that they support women as women and men as men in their respective role assignments and majority of people are comfortable with that despite what radical feminists may want you to believe. At the onset, when we are born, the neurological differences are marginal. The society works very hard to amplify that difference and blow it out of proportion to a level where men and women dont talk to each other anymore. Sad.

p.s thank you for listening

 

justtrying,

The question was when does gender equality become gender discrimination. My simple answer is, when the governments decide that you must have numbers in your organization, no matter how large or small, genders equal to the population distribution.

You can substitute any other discriminating feature of the human race for gender in my statement.

Then apply Occam's razor.

If you think equality can be mandated or set as a goal, then you should have a good explanation of the disparity in the most egalitarian society on the planet. You can reach it, by mandating the requirement, but it will destroy individual freedom and competency.

Imagine if you required equity in the game of basketball. You would be causing unemployment for a large group of competent people. Hell, the salaries would drop as the labor market would be flooded in the majority of the competent while the government will be hounding the business owner because they can't find enough of the distribution minority with competence.

 

justtrying,

The question was when does gender equality become gender discrimination. My simple answer is, when the governments decide that you must have numbers in your organization, no matter how large or small, genders equal to the population distribution.

You can substitute any other discriminating feature of the human race for gender in my statement.

Then apply Occam's razor.

If you think equality can be mandated or set as a goal, then you should have a good explanation of the disparity in the most egalitarian society on the planet. You can reach it, by mandating the requirement, but it will destroy individual freedom and competency.

Imagine if you required equity in the game of basketball. You would be causing unemployment for a large group of competent people. Hell, the salaries would drop as the labor market would be flooded in the majority of the competent while the government will be hounding the business owner because they can't find enough of the distribution minority with competence.

I agree. That is why I said we are talking different language. I do fundamentally disagree that there is neurological differences. That was my main point. I do come from a society where men and women were equal and there was no shortage in women doing "mens" work. These women did not walk around proclaiming themselves feminists. It was done because it had to be done, men were either dead or alcoholic.

 

I agree. That is why I said we are talking different language. I do fundamentally disagree that there is neurological differences. That was my main point. I do come from a society where men and women were equal and there was no shortage in women doing "mens" work. These women did not walk around proclaiming themselves feminists. It was done because it had to be done, men were either dead or alcoholic.

From what I've read so far, aren't women better at distinguishing subtle differences in color, whilst men have their vision enhanced for the perception of motion? Or is that a myth? And if it isn't, wouldn't that count as an important neurological difference?

 

From what I've read so far, aren't women better at distinguishing subtle differences in color, whilst men have their vision enhanced for the perception of motion? Or is that a myth? And if it isn't, wouldn't that count as an important neurological difference?

I have read a number of anthropology books that look into how this have developed. I believe it has been proven, but I am not a benefit of it
I am terrible at color, I believe that due to epilepsy and having had seizures for 15 years I have possible damage in those areas? I have enhanced smell sensitivity though. This is also possibly why women suffer migranes more often.

Women also have better peripheral vision. This is to do with the need to watch out for predators while gathering food. Men's vision is more geared towards hunting. These traits have been selected to survive in our respective roles in hunter/gatherer society and surved us well up until now I suppose.

This is also why I abhore tests such as IQ. There is something in my brain that prevents me from doing the 3D questions. Does that mean I am stupid? People need to question things like this more.

As a woman, I would be appauled to know that I only got admitted somewhere because of an "equality"agenda. The few times I have been treated unfairly was all by other women

 

I had forgotten about the enhanced sense of smell, that's yet another difference. I'm truly sorry to hear about your epilepsy. As you might already know, I have a (beautiful) 19 year old daughter with cerebral palsy, and it has developed a deep sense of empathy in me for other people who suffer some sort of neurological disorder.

Here's my personal opinion on the men-vs-women discussion:

I do believe that due to their differences in perception (which are a result of different enhancements in their senses, which are natural to their sexes) bias their interests in the world surrounding them in different (but no opposing) directions.

If I were to somehow express in a graph what I've just said, it would look something like this.

​

Feel free to adjust the graph's scale and proportions if you believe it's somewhat distorted or exaggerated. I'm sure you get my meaning, anyway.

The problem starts when people's opinions on the subject become absolute, instead of treating it using tendencies and statistics. I believe that we should deal with each particular case individually, while of course also we should use statistics to some degree so as to make our system of education more effective, and not just more efficient. Maybe when we start thinking on a personal level (as opposed to a general one) society's expectations from men and women will be far less weighty on how they choose to live their lives.

It think that women who are interested in STEMs are real gems that should be nurtured and motivated to pursue their interests. But not at the cost of making less of other women who want to live more conventional lives.

 

I had forgotten about the enhanced sense of smell, that's yet another difference. I'm truly sorry to hear about your epilepsy. As you might already know, I have a (beautiful) 19 year old daughter with cerebral palsy, and it has developed a deep sense of empathy in me for other people who suffer some sort of neurological disorder.

Here's my personal opinion on the men-vs-women discussion:

I do believe that due to their differences in perception (which are a result of different enhancements in their senses, which are natural to their sexes) bias their interests in the world surrounding them in different (but no opposing) directions.

If I were to somehow express in a graph what I've just said, it would look something like this.

View attachment 174320​

Feel free to adjust the graph's scale and proportions if you believe it's somewhat distorted or exaggerated. I'm sure you get my meaning, anyway.

The problem starts when people's opinions on the subject become absolute, instead of treating it using tendencies and statistics. I believe that we should deal with each particular case individually, while of course also we should use statistics to some degree so as to make our system of education more effective, and not just more efficient. Maybe when we start thinking on a personal level (as opposed to a general one) society's expectations from men and women will be far less weighty on how they choose to live their lives.

It think that women who are interested in STEMs are real gems that should be nurtured and motivated to pursue their interests. But not at the cost of making less of other women who want to live more conventional lives.

Thank you for this post. I agree with what you wrote. My personal interests lie in many subjects, I could have been in arts, but need drove me to a more practical area.

I am glad that you took your daughter's experience to develop higher degree of empathy towards others. I know many who do not. I find that people that faced hardship themselves with little help have highest degree of understanding and ability to explore alterantive viewpoints. We need more of this in the world.

I have been lucky that I was born a strong enough individual to be able to get by with very little help. This is not very common, most people need multiple layers of support. I see it at the hospital all the time. In fact, people are become less and less self reliant and more dependant on either technology or government, no matter what gender.

I wish all the best to you and your daughter.

 

Justtrying,

I never said there was a shortage, other than the difference in the population vs workers in the field. Does your society have women working in a field equal to their percentage of the population? Is it the same across all fields of endeavor?

I know there is overlap and there are qualified women in the stem field. However, the EEOC Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the legislatures are always accentuating the difference between the population and the workforce in various endeavors.

Equality of outcome is bad. Equality of opportunity is good. Outcome dictates actions that run afoul of individual choice. That is what the data from the most egalitarian society demonstrates.

on edit:

Most women I know would be just as appalled. There have been suspected cases, but I have no absolute. We do know that money will by you access, per the recent placements in some colleges based on bribes and false information.

 

The question was when does gender equality become gender discrimination. My simple answer is, when the governments decide that you must have numbers in your organization, no matter how large or small, genders equal to the population distribution.

It seems to me that you're looking at the issue with a tight focus and missing the bigger picture. Rational people understand that government-mandated equality is not true equality, that quotas and such are themselves discriminatory. Equality of opportunity is indeed the goal, but when the system itself is so rife with bias that equal opportunity is not possible, corrections must be imposed, and -- as in any feedback-control system -- the larger the error, the greater the correction. Societies, as systems, tend to react slowly, and so the errors accumulate. Sometimes this results in drastic correction measures.

Consider the history of black people in the U.S. For a long time, they were considered sub-human and treated as property. The cultural bias was so significant that it took a terrible civil war to begin the process of correction. Of course, abolishing slavery was only the first step on the very long path toward racial equality. We're not there yet, clearly, but we're a lot closer than we were. Along the way, the government has had to step in with anti-discriminatory laws, forced desegregation, quotas, and other manner of unpopular and seemingly unfair intrusions into the "natural order" of things.

Today, we look back with horror and disgust at our country's earlier cultural attitude toward black people. And that was exactly the point of the drastic self-corrections imposed by the government. What was controversial yesterday has become an obvious truth today.

And so it goes with our cultural sexism. The big difference is that our sexism is more subtle and more "gentle" than our racism. Because it's harder to see, it's more difficult to eradicate; in systems terms, where racism is a first-order effect, sexism is a higher-order effect. (Incidentally, I don't find it surprising in the least that we've had a black president before a female president).

So, while you look at female STEM initiatives and gender quotas as being explicitly unfair and geared toward equality of outcome, I see them as being necessary steps in the cultural self-correction toward true equality of opportunity.

 

Affirmative Action (AA) has been in effect for at least 40 years and blacks (and women) are still greatly "under-represented" (based on their percentage of the entire population of the U.S.) in the STEM fields.

Therefore, it's obvious that AA has not been effective (and more of an abject failure) and it's time to legally decommission this failed socio-economic experiment.

In fact, all the $$$ spent on AA would have been a lot better spent if the government (and business) were to launch a "Crash Program" to get everyone (not just minorities and women) into STEM.

 

Affirmative Action (AA) has been in effect for at least 40 years and blacks (and women) are still greatly "under-represented" (based on their percentage of the entire population of the U.S.) in the STEM fields.

Therefore, it's obvious that AA has not been effective (and more of an abject failure) and it's time to legally decommission this failed socio-economic experiment.

In fact, all the $$$ spent on AA would have been a lot better spent if the government (and business) were to launch a "Crash Program" to get everyone (not just minorities and women) into STEM.

How about a program to see who actually has STEM talents as to concentrate the effectiveness of the money spent instead of wasting money on everyone in the Utopian dream that we can all be 'engineers' or makers.

 

How about a program to see who actually has STEM talents as to concentrate the effectiveness of the money spent instead of wasting money on everyone in the Utopian dream that we can all be 'engineers' or makers.

I believe some European countries (such as Germany) had something like the Scholastic Aptitude Test to determine a person's academic talents (and also their vocational talent) in order to route them into an optimum path for success. This testing started at the elementary school an continued through high school.

Many were not found to be suitable for college, but a lot of the others were very suitable for factory workers. And guess what the U.S. needs today? More factory workers.

 

How about a program to see who actually has STEM talents as to concentrate the effectiveness of the money spent instead of wasting money on everyone in the Utopian dream that we can all be 'engineers' or makers.

How do you test for "STEM talent"? At what age? What happens after you've determined who is or is not a strong STEM candidate?