2 ms·
Third or fourth person here to tell you that you're incorrect: There's a huge leap between "biological differences may explain the gender gap" and "women are il
by hungerstrike 9y ago
Third or fourth person here to tell you that you're incorrect: There's a huge leap between "biological differences may explain the gender gap" and "women are ill-equipped..." and here's why:
First and most obvious, do you know the difference between the words "may" and "are"? "May" expresses possibility. "Are" expresses existence. They are almost total opposites.
Second and most important, "biological differences" does not automatically equate to women being "ill-equipped". That's just in your mind. It could mean so many things and you're just cherry-picking the one that aligns with your personal view.
- emodendroket 9y agoHow do you interpret it, then?
- belorn 9y agoLets give one example of an interpretation. Small preference can cause major effects. For example, if you have a group where everyone are voting on food choice and preference to eat taco get 99.9999...% the preference rating of pizza, how much taco will be eaten if you go 10 rounds? 0% Taco. the infinitive small preference will cause each round to have pizza with higher preference than taco, regardless of how close the actually preference of taco vs pizza. If different groups of people rate jobs with different preference, then even a infinitive small preference can cause segregation. That preference is not a judgment of the groups ability to perform the job. Not that I think that is the cause of gender segregation. Personally I view incentives and self-doubt to be much more realistic causes, but that theory (which has pretty decent observational data to support it) are currently not very popular on either side of the political spectrum.