5 ms·

If you are going to claim something as harmful as that, I want you to present clear evidence and peer reviewed studies to support your claims. What you were s

by deyouz 7y ago

If you are going to claim something as harmful as that, I want you to present clear evidence and peer reviewed studies to support your claims. What you were suggesting is that men are better than women at STEM. Simplg saying men have more testosterone doesn't cut it as evidence. (Besides, competitiveness doesn't make you a better researcher or employee, and can even be harmful in a team). I also need data for the number 2 in that list. At what are men better at than women by a significant ammount? And how does that thing relates to STEM? And number 3 doesn't prove absolutely anything. Women were subjugated throught history and basically no opportunity to do anything. Even with their limited possibilities, you still have women like Hatshepsut, Ada Lovelace, Marie Currie, Sappho, Ann Lister, Hypathia of Alexandria, etc. And now that they are finally allowed in higher education they outperfom men in terms of degree gained. So there is clearly not something that holds them back from studying. If they have the ability to get a PhD, then they can also be good researchers. Simple as that. If you are going to continue with this subtle sexist talk (implying men are better than women at STEM), I want clear examples. Thanks.

allovernow 7y ago
Start here [1]. This is delving dangerously close to flame war territory, so I probably won't respond further. But I'd like to point out that because of attitudes like this >If you are going to continue with this subtle sexist talk (implying men are better than women at STEM) You're probably unlikely to find too much on the subject - it's dangerous to academic careers to even propose research which could potentially justify any aspects of classical sexism. I'd just like to point out three things: 1. You're aware of the massive differences in physical capabilities, on average, between men and women, right? Which make men and women better suited, on average, to certain tasks? Why would sexually dimorphic specialization stop above the shoulders? 2. This isn't about inferiority, it's about specialization over thousands of generations. We see it in practically every other sexually reproducing species. The fact that humans have some ability to override instinct doesn't preclude gendered differences in average behavior. 3. This doesn't say anything about individual ability. We are talking about distribution statistics. What that means is that differences in average performance lead to different proportional representations in various fields. That doesn't justify discrimination or mistreatment, but it does suggest that, say, forcing gender parity in industry is unrealistic and potentially harmful. 1. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/male-female/201910/men-s-advantages-in-spatial-cognition-mechanical-reasoning https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/male-female/201910/m...
- rixed 7y ago
  Regarding 1: Sexual dymorphism in hominids is not regarded as large compared to other close primates. I don't know where you take this opinion that physical abilities between males and women are "massive", but certainly not from actual measurements. Here are some, conveniently in a single table, for those interested: https://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/nats104/00lect13dimorph.html https://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/nats104/00lect13dimorph.h... (Note: We are homo sapiens, pan troglodites is our closest relative still alive the social ape chimpanzee, pongo pygmaeus is the solitary orangutan, gorilla gorilla is the small group living usual gorilla, others are extinct relatives)
  - allovernow 7y ago
    Ok, I know I said I probably wouldn't comment further, but the extent to which people will bend over backwards to deny reality is, frankly, infuriating. If you narrow your definition of sexual dimorphism to body mass, as in your link, then sure, the difference isn't huge relative to other primates. But even a cursory internet search produces results which absolutely, unequivocally demonstrate that physical performance of males across all measures of strength and endurance is in a league far above that of females, both trained and untrained. By some metrics, like grip strength, the bottom 10th percentile of males outperform the upper 90th percentile of females. Female records for 100m sprints are regularly beaten by teenage boys. Men are approximately 50% stronger on average in measures of both upper and lower body strength - and the gap widens enormously among elite athletes. Lung capacity, injury resistance, training response - I could go on, but I would say that this is more than enough to fit the definition of massive - particularly considering that in practical terms even trained females compare poorly to untrained males by most metrics. Sorry, it may be an uncomfortable truth, but there is simply no ambiguity regarding the degree of physical specialization among males and females, and I've yet to come across any compelling evidence that the same specialization doesn't apply to the brain. In a truth seeking society, this should not be a controversial topic - the facts are absolutely undeniable, not to mention they almost universally match anecdotal experience.
    - rixed 7y ago

by deyouz 7y ago

allovernow 7y ago

Start here [1]. This is delving dangerously close to flame war territory, so I probably won't respond further. But I'd like to point out that because of attitudes like this >If you are going to continue with this subtle sexist talk (implying men are better than women at STEM) You're probably unlikely to find too much on the subject - it's dangerous to academic careers to even propose research which could potentially justify any aspects of classical sexism. I'd just like to point out three things: 1. You're aware of the massive differences in physical capabilities, on average, between men and women, right? Which make men and women better suited, on average, to certain tasks? Why would sexually dimorphic specialization stop above the shoulders? 2. This isn't about inferiority, it's about specialization over thousands of generations. We see it in practically every other sexually reproducing species. The fact that humans have some ability to override instinct doesn't preclude gendered differences in average behavior. 3. This doesn't say anything about individual ability. We are talking about distribution statistics. What that means is that differences in average performance lead to different proportional representations in various fields. That doesn't justify discrimination or mistreatment, but it does suggest that, say, forcing gender parity in industry is unrealistic and potentially harmful. 1. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/male-female/201910/men-s-advantages-in-spatial-cognition-mechanical-reasoning https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/male-female/201910/m...

rixed 7y ago
Regarding 1: Sexual dymorphism in hominids is not regarded as large compared to other close primates. I don't know where you take this opinion that physical abilities between males and women are "massive", but certainly not from actual measurements. Here are some, conveniently in a single table, for those interested: https://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/nats104/00lect13dimorph.html https://www.geo.arizona.edu/Antevs/nats104/00lect13dimorph.h... (Note: We are homo sapiens, pan troglodites is our closest relative still alive the social ape chimpanzee, pongo pygmaeus is the solitary orangutan, gorilla gorilla is the small group living usual gorilla, others are extinct relatives)
- allovernow 7y ago
  Ok, I know I said I probably wouldn't comment further, but the extent to which people will bend over backwards to deny reality is, frankly, infuriating. If you narrow your definition of sexual dimorphism to body mass, as in your link, then sure, the difference isn't huge relative to other primates. But even a cursory internet search produces results which absolutely, unequivocally demonstrate that physical performance of males across all measures of strength and endurance is in a league far above that of females, both trained and untrained. By some metrics, like grip strength, the bottom 10th percentile of males outperform the upper 90th percentile of females. Female records for 100m sprints are regularly beaten by teenage boys. Men are approximately 50% stronger on average in measures of both upper and lower body strength - and the gap widens enormously among elite athletes. Lung capacity, injury resistance, training response - I could go on, but I would say that this is more than enough to fit the definition of massive - particularly considering that in practical terms even trained females compare poorly to untrained males by most metrics. Sorry, it may be an uncomfortable truth, but there is simply no ambiguity regarding the degree of physical specialization among males and females, and I've yet to come across any compelling evidence that the same specialization doesn't apply to the brain. In a truth seeking society, this should not be a controversial topic - the facts are absolutely undeniable, not to mention they almost universally match anecdotal experience.
  - rixed 7y ago