4 ms·

Perhaps there is, yet this still wouldn't make men "ill-equipped" to be vets. Only different enough that most choose not to be. Can you see now how you and the

Perhaps there is, yet this still wouldn't make men "ill-equipped" to be vets. Only different enough that most choose not to be. Can you see now how you and the article are misrepresenting the original statement?

emodendroket 9y ago
Well, frankly, no, I still don't see where you're coming from at all.
- cowpig 9y ago
  Ill-equipped: I'm ill-equipped to play basketball at a professional level: I'm not particularly huge, I have weak knees, and I broke my arm as a child in a way that prevents me from shooting correctly. However, I love basketball and have spent many hours of my life improving myself at it. If I was well-equipped to play professionally, I probably would do so. Choose not to: I am well-equipped to walk the Appalachian trail. I have done multiple-day hikes before, and am confident I would be capable of achieving this. However, taking seven months out of my life to walk across some mountains doesn't appeal to me. I choose not to do so. Does that make the difference clear?
  - emodendroket 9y ago
    At a minimum, he is claiming that women are biologically predisposed to not want to be in tech jobs or be leaders. I don't see that as analogous to "I don't want to do something."
    - cowpig 9y ago
      The point is there's a difference between saying I'm biologically predisposed to some preference, and I'm biologically ill-equipped to achieve something. If you don't see how important this difference is, consider this: if someone is biologically ill-equipped to do something, it's easy to justify not hiring them. If they're predisposed against interest in something, it's easy to simply hire the ones who are interested (their mere application is already a strong indicator against whatever biological predisposition). edit: That's all to say that saying someone is "biologically ill-equipped" is clearly problematic, while saying someone is "biologically predisposed against interest in x" is maybe problematic, and if so, much less problematic than the former claim.

emodendroket 9y ago

Well, frankly, no, I still don't see where you're coming from at all.

cowpig 9y ago
Ill-equipped: I'm ill-equipped to play basketball at a professional level: I'm not particularly huge, I have weak knees, and I broke my arm as a child in a way that prevents me from shooting correctly. However, I love basketball and have spent many hours of my life improving myself at it. If I was well-equipped to play professionally, I probably would do so. Choose not to: I am well-equipped to walk the Appalachian trail. I have done multiple-day hikes before, and am confident I would be capable of achieving this. However, taking seven months out of my life to walk across some mountains doesn't appeal to me. I choose not to do so. Does that make the difference clear?
- emodendroket 9y ago
  At a minimum, he is claiming that women are biologically predisposed to not want to be in tech jobs or be leaders. I don't see that as analogous to "I don't want to do something."
  - cowpig 9y ago
    The point is there's a difference between saying I'm biologically predisposed to some preference, and I'm biologically ill-equipped to achieve something. If you don't see how important this difference is, consider this: if someone is biologically ill-equipped to do something, it's easy to justify not hiring them. If they're predisposed against interest in something, it's easy to simply hire the ones who are interested (their mere application is already a strong indicator against whatever biological predisposition). edit: That's all to say that saying someone is "biologically ill-equipped" is clearly problematic, while saying someone is "biologically predisposed against interest in x" is maybe problematic, and if so, much less problematic than the former claim.