4 ms·

It was said, that's the point. Claim that women aren't as good, is claiming they're stupid. Claiming they don't want it is claiming they're lazy. It's just try

It was said, that's the point. Claim that women aren't as good, is claiming they're stupid. Claiming they don't want it is claiming they're lazy. It's just trying being polite about it. It's still an irrational bias, no matter how you dress it up.

thegenius2000 9y ago
That is preposterous. What if they're just more interested in other things? Why do you assume a priori that men and women share the same interests internally? What evidence do you have which suggests this? OR are you just making an assumption because it seems "unsexist"?
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
ThomPete 9y ago
No it's the same and if you believe that you are wrong. There is a world of difference between someone having spent their entire life coding and someone only starting at university. Or someone having learned to draw from the age of 5 and someone who starts way later in life. That applies to men as to women. Being not as good is about experience and knowledge having put in the hours. It is not about intelligence.
godd2 9y ago
Women make up 75% of pediatricians. If I say that this is because men aren't as good at pediatrics, am I saying that men are stupid?
- mattmanser 9y ago
  No, you're stupid because you're using an example that's a biological function primarily to do with women.
  - manfredo 9y ago
    Then consider a different intellectual profession dominated by women. 78% of publishers in the U.S. are women.[1] If I say that this is due to an innate differences rather than sexism against men in the publishing industry, am I saying that men are bad readers and stupid? [1] http://blog.leeandlow.com/2016/01/26/where-is-the-diversity-in-publishing-the-2015-diversity-baseline-survey-results/ http://blog.leeandlow.com/2016/01/26/where-is-the-diversity-... Also, can you clarify what you mean when you state that pediatrics is "an example that's a biological function primarily to do with women." Are you stating that women are innately (in other words, due to their gender) better suited to administering healthcare to minors as compared to men?
  - godd2 9y ago
    Just because women are the ones who birth children doesn't mean that I brought up "an example that's a biological function primarily to do with women". 64% of practicing gynecologists are men, but only women have vaginas. You don't have to give birth to children to be a pediatrician or a gynecologist.
lmm 9y ago
What's irrational is blindly assuming performance and interests must be equal across the sexes, in defiance of all evidence or reason. Every factor we're able to objectively measure - height, weight, life expectancy, test scores - shows significant differences (in terms of distribution and averages) between men and women. It's absurd to assume that somehow we're magically equally suitable (again, on a large, statistical scale) for all jobs.

thegenius2000 9y ago

That is preposterous. What if they're just more interested in other things? Why do you assume a priori that men and women share the same interests internally? What evidence do you have which suggests this? OR are you just making an assumption because it seems "unsexist"?

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

ThomPete 9y ago

No it's the same and if you believe that you are wrong. There is a world of difference between someone having spent their entire life coding and someone only starting at university. Or someone having learned to draw from the age of 5 and someone who starts way later in life. That applies to men as to women. Being not as good is about experience and knowledge having put in the hours. It is not about intelligence.

godd2 9y ago

Women make up 75% of pediatricians. If I say that this is because men aren't as good at pediatrics, am I saying that men are stupid?

mattmanser 9y ago
No, you're stupid because you're using an example that's a biological function primarily to do with women.
- manfredo 9y ago
  Then consider a different intellectual profession dominated by women. 78% of publishers in the U.S. are women.[1] If I say that this is due to an innate differences rather than sexism against men in the publishing industry, am I saying that men are bad readers and stupid? [1] http://blog.leeandlow.com/2016/01/26/where-is-the-diversity-in-publishing-the-2015-diversity-baseline-survey-results/ http://blog.leeandlow.com/2016/01/26/where-is-the-diversity-... Also, can you clarify what you mean when you state that pediatrics is "an example that's a biological function primarily to do with women." Are you stating that women are innately (in other words, due to their gender) better suited to administering healthcare to minors as compared to men?
- godd2 9y ago
  Just because women are the ones who birth children doesn't mean that I brought up "an example that's a biological function primarily to do with women". 64% of practicing gynecologists are men, but only women have vaginas. You don't have to give birth to children to be a pediatrician or a gynecologist.

lmm 9y ago

What's irrational is blindly assuming performance and interests must be equal across the sexes, in defiance of all evidence or reason. Every factor we're able to objectively measure - height, weight, life expectancy, test scores - shows significant differences (in terms of distribution and averages) between men and women. It's absurd to assume that somehow we're magically equally suitable (again, on a large, statistical scale) for all jobs.