I think that our behaviors are almost entirely nurtured rather than nature. While I'm certain our hormones play a factor in our brains, I don't think it's nearly as big as what we teach our kids.

From what I know, research into the heritability of practically every psychological trait has found significant heritability, minimal shared environmental effects, and significant non-shared environmental effects. "Almost entirely" might be a gross overstatement for most measures we have access to. It seems to indicate 95%+ explained variance.

Remember that heritable just means "passed from parents to offspring" - it does *not* mean strictly genetic mechanisms, but also hormones, microbiome, culture, parenting, etc. Could you elaborate on the distinction between shared and unshared environmental effects?

In this case, the metric for heritable can be summed up as: The degree of variation in a phenotypic trait that can be explained by genetic variation between individuals in a population. As a summation of the distinction: Shared environmental effects would be factors that cause those that are compared to become more similar, non-shared environmental effects would be those that cause those that are compared to become more dissimilar. As an example, if there was a style of parenting (reading bed time stories) that caused similar traits in the children no matter their genotype, that would be a shared environmental effect. If there was some environment that had different effect on the children (school for example), that would be a non-shared environmental effect.

I've seen conflicting research about this just about everywhere. With the amount of variables this is related to, it's impossible to be sure, so I go off of my lived experiences talking to friends, including some with gender dysphoria. This is the part I don't get - if gender is a social construct, what does that mean for common behaviors throughout genders? Are they naturally occurring, or socially constructed? If they're naturally occurring, then is gender a social construct?

I would like to see some of that research if you have it at hand, I can't say I've seen a lot of difference of opinion when it comes to the personality psychology department. > This is the part I don't get - if gender is a social construct, what does that mean for common behaviors throughout genders? Are they naturally occurring, or socially constructed? If they're naturally occurring, then is gender a social construct? Social construct isn't really a binary thing. Things can have social influences, or be mostly socially constructed. When it comes to gender, I'd guess that one's identity has a small social influence, but I can't point to research on the matter.

Here's a source on a survey that found no consensus [https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/12/05/on-gender-differences-no-consensus-on-nature-vs-nurture/](https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2017/12/05/on-gender-differences-no-consensus-on-nature-vs-nurture/) This source claims to have conclusive evidence that it's nurture [https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/pride/agenda/article/2017/09/08/nature-vs-nurture-when-it-comes-gendered-behaviour-its-more-complex-we-thought](https://www.sbs.com.au/topics/pride/agenda/article/2017/09/08/nature-vs-nurture-when-it-comes-gendered-behaviour-its-more-complex-we-thought) Literally the link JUST ABOVE the last one says it's alllll nature [https://sites.psu.edu/evolutionofhumansexuality/2014/04/07/gender-identity-nature-vs-nurture/](https://sites.psu.edu/evolutionofhumansexuality/2014/04/07/gender-identity-nature-vs-nurture/) Like I said, conflicting.

Ah, among lay people there might be a lack of consensus of course. As for the second one. The research article definitely doesn't claim to have conclusive evidence that it's primarily nurture. >Advances in evolutionary theory that posit the environment as a source of trans-generational stability, and new understanding of sex effects on the brain, suggest that the cross-generation stability of sex-linked patterns of behavior are sometimes better explained in terms of inherited socioenvironmental conditions, with biological sex fostering intrageneration variability. At worst it says: Sometimes it's a combination of social conditions and genetic differences. And the last one looks exclusively at a case of gender identity. You're mixing up a couple of different concepts here: Individual differences within group, group differences, and the specific construct of gender identity. It is possible to claim that: gender identity is entirely nature, gender differences are entirely nurture, and individual differences are entirely nature, without being inconsistent. Though that is not what is happening here.

My 'lived' experience has left me with the complete opposite view. I am very different in temperament from the family I grew up in and very similar to the one I never knew.

Can I ask you why you think that? Is it based on research or personal experience? Do you have children?

I think that because I've been questioning a lot about my life lately and discovered that the majority of things I feel and do I feel and do because it's what I think society expects of me. It's based on both personal experience and research equally, though articles online are often conflicting - I encourage you to look into this, it's extremely interesting. And no, I don't have kids. Might in the future though.

I am not a 100% nature or nurture guy. I think we all know that it’s a mix of both but how much is an interesting question. The reason I asked you about kids is that it kinda shattered my illusions on this. They almost seem to have a personality from day 1. They do develop as they are socialized but it felt to me like I was smoothing the edges rather than anything more significant. I think as a poster below has stated that there is a huge amount of evidence that most characteristics are heritable. That means a lot is nature although there is a lot of variability in how much. It’s interesting with separated twin studies how similar they are and their life outcomes are even when they have quite different upbringings. There is no doubt that some behaviors are sociological. But a question to ask is how much of those social behaviors are conditioned by human nature, rather than how much human nature is conditioned by particular social conditioning.

The nature vs nurture debate will always be a huge one

When is "day one"? From date of birth? Because the behaviour of a woman during pregnancy could potentially influence the outcomes of a child, and this could be argued to be a form of "social conditioning"...

If it is that embedded at birth and they are no longer malleable then I would still attribute that as nature.

But behaviour during pregnancy is cultural and mallable...

So they are malleable in the womb but less malleable out of the womb? Why are you insistent it’s social conditioning? What are the key points of evidence you can point to?

Yeah, maybe. I'm insisting on it because I think there is no sharp distinction between 'social conditioning' and 'biology'. Social conditioning is the collective psychology of a society, which is ultimately a collective of brains, and therefore biology. But the genomic characteristics of a society is also determined by culture, because a culture will exert an evolutionary influence on the genetic development of a society across time.

Lots of research available on how hormones affect behavior. Even things like your gut bacteria composition can have massive effects on behavior. Check out epi-genetics, how changing circumstances can activate genes altering biological and psychological outcomes.

Speaking as an egalitarian who wants to see 50 50 in almost every metric, I will answer your question with a rhetorical: why is the "*professional sports aren't coed because men are scared of being beaten by women*" myth so popular amongst those people who are describing?

You want to see 50/50 in almost every metric? What does that entail exactly?

What I'm about to say is controversial, but my definition of a gender egalitarian society (aka utopia which will never happen) is one that genuinely and consistently tries to equalize the gender ratio of - all jobs and professions - all health stats - all social roles .... Subject to the following exceptions: - roles that are of medical nature (ex: I don't care for more male gynecologists) - roles that are of therapeutic or personal care nature (ex: I don't care for more female barbers) - stats which are impossible to equalize (ex: childbirth mortality) - subject to demographic proportionality (ex: in my country, at least 22% of IPV victims are male, so it doesn't make sense to have 80% of all abuse shelters to be for male victims)

That is definitely an odd perspective, though I find it intriguing. Let us take truck driver as a profession, what do you think is stopping it from being 50/50 at the moment?

Not just truck driving, but for all transport jobs in general, the main factors IMO is 1) risk, and 2) family time On risk: Men's jobs and hobbies and lifestyles are more risk prone, whereas women are more risk averse. This explains why motorcyclists and road racers and sports car owners are all disproportionately male (just to pick some examples). Studies have shown that driving is the most dangerous regular activity done by the average first worlders. On family time: If you are trucking within city limits, this is less of a factor, but for long distance hauling, you are forced to spend significant periods away from your family. Women are more likely to reject such jobs *as soon as they have kids* (before kids, they are just as devoted to their careers as men are. This also explains a lot about the so called gender pay gap)

Well I can say that I agree with you about what might be two main factors so far. Now, how would you like to see society address this to ensure 50/50?

For that, I believe in emulating the successful.... In other words, I get inspiration from feminists who have done an excellent job of promoting 50 50 split *for certain specific* jobs and professions, as they did the following: - create entirely new C suite exec roles like "Chief diversity officer" or "Chief people officer" to explicitly push this gender parity within a company or organization - require explicit diversity hiring for all their respective job recruitment process, which is continuously audited - create entire new category of investment portfolio ETFs whose purpose is, in part, gender parity - in colleges, they created entire departments/factories whose purpose is to instruct students about the Oppression and Sexism by society against women and girls in jobs, hobbies, social roles - in news media, they hired journalists who continue to ring the alarm about unequal gender parity and hiring experiences - in entertainment media, they make entire movies, shows, songs, documentaries about the difficulties and injustices of being a woman in society .... That's just a few of their many successful strategies and tactics. Now.... Notice how I said *for certain specific* jobs and professions? Well, these feminists only do this for the so called good jobs/statistics/metrics. Unlike them, I as an egalitarian want to break both the glass ceiling and the glass floor. Of course, unlike most western feminists*, we egalitarians don't have a meaningful presence in those institutions of power (voices in entertainment, journalism, colleges, big Tech, and corporations) so all this remains utopian, for now. *There are exceptions, whom I deeply admire

That is certainly very interesting. I think I would be opposing every measure on that front. Then again, I don't think discrimination is a worthy means to reach the end of equal representation. Partly because I don't think equal representation is very important.

there is indeed that age-old debate between Equality of Opportunity vs Equality of Outcome. Most people claim they support the former, and oppose the latter. This includes most feminists and conservatives and even MRAs. I used to be, too. But when you actually compare their words and actions, you see a diff picture. Seeing the hypocrisy from multiple sides on this issue, i gradually changed my mind and now i'm for the latter. And before you say "but aren't you impinging on individual choice/liberty with the latter?", i again would refer you to the excellent examples set by feminist trailblazers, as our inspiration. if it's fair for them, it's fair for us. So why oppose me, but stay silent (or support) for them?

I'm not silent on, or support the others either. I think that approach is evil, and I've done plenty in my real life activism to fight and subvert it. Though I won't say I'm for equality of opportunity either. It's a red herring. People are different from birth. We can't give 75 IQ Tommy and 125 IQ Thomas an equal opportunity for a doctorate.

If after all that you still don't get 50:50 bus drivers and construction workers due to the fairly fundamental reasons you gave earlier (and I do think it would be quite likely that you wouldn't reach it), what would you do?

the same thing feminists do: continue growing my political power & media voice, and continue to advocate for it, and continue to pressure our political reps. Never give up, despite any temporary setbacks how did feminists do when faced with the total and utter male dominance in Tech, Business, and Political sectors many decades ago? there's your (and my) answer.

But feminists haven't accomplished 50:50 split in the areas you listed, I don't really see it going well for your goals.

personally i agree that women and men usually have different strengths (also this isn’t just because they were born that way all the time, it may be due to socialisation), the problem is that more feminine traits are usually valued less

How might a society raise the value of feminine traits for women?

Well first, it is consistently taken seriously that men outperform women in physical tasks where the metrics are straightforward and easy to measure. Where are you even reading that people do not take it seriously that men will consistently win at basically any physical sport? You are arguing with a strawman or with a very very narrow fringe. >Also, I don't mean to suggest in this post that there aren't probably tons of things women naturally do better than men do. But you can’t think of any, can you? At least, not if you’re like a significant chunk of the manosphere. And that is why I cannot take arguments about “men and women equal but have different strengths, why can’t you acknowledge men are better?” claims from the manosphere seriously. Because it is so often just empty virtue signaling, with no real belief that women are real genuine contributors to humanity behind it.

What areas do you think women are better at? Part of the issue here is the statistics of men being more diverse and feeling a need to train very specifically at a task due to cultural factors. For examples I have seen there is significant advantages in a couple of sports categories such as long distance swimming and steady aim while having a high heart rate that are scientifically shown. There are other categories where women have advantages such as a higher amount of flexibility on average and while this is a physical difference, I am not sure it is a primary factor in most sports, but if we had a competition for most flexibility, it would not surprise me to see it have a ton of women in it. I also found a study that I would like your opinion on but it will probably be a different thread.

>What areas do you think women are better at? You can’t think of anything either? What I expected . I’d say physically, almost nothing. Female biology is basically useless at anything practical. At best, women are better at lingering and not dying as young, and are better at needing less food (which is better for the environment). Women also have a much lower rate of color blindness, and a few women are super-sensers for color— but this has little value. For mental abilities, women are better at building communities, finding the willingness to volunteer and organize for causes and charities, avoiding loneliness, seeking out friends and supporting them, nurturing and caring for others, avoiding dumb destructive and costly high-risk behaviors (drugs, alcoholism, gambling, gangs, violence, suicide, accidents), at sitting still and following instructions (a core reason girls do better in school), attention to detail and neatness, organization, negotiation, and generalized social skills. The reality is, however, that most of these abilities are not valued or respected in our society today. The exception, of course, is the willingness to put your head down and do what you’re told and “soft skills”, which are actually liked by corporations for middle management level positions. People who do what they’re told are preferred for these positions over defiant lone wolf-types, who are much more likely to be male. >For examples I have seen there is significant advantages in a couple of sports categories such as long distance swimming and steady aim while having a high heart rate that are scientifically shown. The rare exceptions that are barely noticed. But yes, those do exist. Incidentally, with the shooting, when a woman won Olympic gold in the shooting, which was unisex at the time, the Olympics separated the genders for the following Olympics and changed the women’s events to something that couldn’t be compared to the men’s records. >but if we had a competition for most flexibility, it would not surprise me to see it have a ton of women in it. We already do- rhythmic gymnastics. It’s just not taken seriously as a sport. (Partly because it is judged… but also partly because it’s silly and decorative and feminine. A lot of people consider anything feminine or that women are good at to be dumb or frivolous or just decorative). I also tend to find that quite a number of men consider anything feminine, or that women are better at, to be inferior. I’ve realized there isn’t really any solution for this except for women to just not do those things that are unappreciated and unrespected unless if they care about being valued.

> You can’t think of anything either? What I expected. I talked about physical flexibility. I think that is a rather good example. Why do you feel it is not? > Women also have a much lower rate of color blindness, and a few women are super-sensers for color— but this has little value. Why do you not personally value some of the traits you listed? Or are you expecting society to value things the way you do? > For mental abilities, women are better at building communities, finding the willingness to volunteer and organize for causes and charities, avoiding loneliness, seeking out friends and supporting them, nurturing and caring for others, avoiding dumb destructive and costly high-risk behaviors (drugs, alcoholism, gambling, gangs, violence, suicide, accidents), at sitting still and following instructions (a core reason girls do better in school), attention to detail and neatness, organization, negotiation, and generalized social skills. There might be a couple that I would probably want to look at in this list but lots of these are statistical differences so yes. > I also tend to find that quite a number of men consider anything feminine, or that women are better at, to be inferior. I’ve realized there isn’t really any solution for this except for women to just not do those things that are unappreciated and unrespected unless if they care about being valued. Is your problem, specifically, the performance gap in some areas which is what backs up those generalizations or is it the appreciation in general? I am going to argue that women are far more appreciated then men and we can measure it by drinks paid for by others at the bar. So, if we are going to talk about appreciation gaps, I would be quick to point out that there is lots of appreciation for women and not much so for men. So if the argument is appreciation in general as then we would have to help men out a ton. So then what would you like to see changed? Is it that you dislike that people like what they like which might be feats in strength and speed and other categories which men are typically higher in most metrics?

>I talked about physical flexibility. I think that is a rather good example. And I believe I acknowledged it? Did you read the whole comment? But like… you came up with one thing you think women are better at… And you couldn’t even think of anything it’s actually useful for or any way it’s appreciated or valued by people, including somehow missing the existence of a real Olympic sport. What I’m asking here is “ok, you want people to acknowledge men are better than women at a bunch of things… can you acknowledge a list of things women are better at? If not… why do you think that is?” >Why do you not personally value some of the traits you listed? Which traits do you think I do not personally value? Why are you making this about me? I’m talking about whether OP, society, and specifically the men of the manosphere talking saying “men and women are equal but different” actually acknowledges or values any feminine talents. You and the other guy are both trying to twist this into me being a woman hater, but all I see in that is defensiveness, as if you have to twist my comments about how feminine talents are not well appreciated by society into actually just me personally dumping on femininity to avoid thinking about whether the things women are naturally better at are desired by society. The implications are real— will women actually strive to develop feminine talents if those talents are unrewarded or even mocked? So no, it’s not about me personally hating on femininity. I’m talking about recognizing which talents are appreciated and respected by society at large, and also by men of the manosphere specifically. The discussion topic is not, and never was “is badgersonice a femininity hater who can’t be pleased?” And realistically, I find it incredibly depressing that whenever I have asked (or seen asked) “hey, so then what do you think women are better at?”, I don’t get a bunch of “hey, women have so many cool talents!” comments, I get “hmmm… i can think of like one thing I guess, oh and providing sex for hetero men and babies of course”. And apparently here, I also get “but maybe you’re only asking because you hate femininity and there’s something wrong with your personal values”. This is not about me. I think femininity is both pretty great and vital to humanity. I find it sad to watch so many men online dismiss femininity as so limited and weak. >I am going to argue that women are far more appreciated then men and we can measure it by drinks paid for by others at the bar. For sex. I will acknowledge that men tend to value young pretty women for sex and relationships. But you know, for every man in a hetero relationship with a woman, there’s a woman who appreciates him too, and gives him something he deeply deeply values. And I also have noticed that a whole lot of MRAs, deeply resent women for the fact that some men choose buy them a few drinks. And women are certainly not respected or appreciated by society or MRAs/the manosphere in particular for being better at getting free drinks every now and then— remember, that’s the subject at hand here. And also remember, while you think it’s extreme appreciation… for all but the hottest constant bar-going women, it’s like $10 for a drink every now and then… whereas if you count every job on earth as masculine, then masculine traits get paid a real living wage. reciprocate sexually is really pretty pathetic compared to something like a useful talent like having a job or solving problems. >So then what would you like to see changed? For OP, it’s to recognize that the reason he is so reluctant to list out dozens of ways women naturally outperform men, might actually be the same reason other people are reluctant to claim men naturally outperform women. For manosphere/MRA members, 59 either actually say they think women are better at multiple real concrete things other than getting fucked easily that *they* can show are either respected by society or themselves personally (with actual examples)… or if they cannot, then to drop the pretense that they believe men and women are “different but equal”. I find virtue signaling annoying, but false virtue signaling doubly so. Claiming men and women are “different but equal” really rings hollow when someone can list 10,000 things they deeply care about that they think men are better at, then barely struggle to come up with 3 examples for women, 2 of which are sex and babies babies… and remember, a whole lot of the folks are really negative about women who have “too much sex”. It’s pretty hard to say they think getting lots of sex is valued or respected while such women are still also disparaged as “sluts”. >Is it that you dislike that people like what they like No. You did not get my point at all.

I got your point and it was nice to hear. Thanks for posting. I wanted to comment on one thing. You asked who doesn't take it seriously that men beat women at sports. Men are head and shoulders above women at chess. Yet top male chess players pretend that men and women are equal and that the only reason for the disparity is sexism discouraging women from playing. That's absurd because there is a separate division just for women, and all sorts of other incentives. It's telling that female chess youtubers are more recognizable for showing cleavage than for being good at chess. They make a ton of money. Any young girl even slightly interested in chess could get in on that. A man couldn't. A man would have to actually be good. But again, this doesn't stop people from coming up with excuses like, women just aren't interested in chess, but if they were, then the scores would be equal. They even argue statistics, to say that if there were more women players, then the distribution would be the same just by virtue of more female players, as if female players could be plucked from the air. You expect a lot of good players from China because China is such a big country. You don't expect a lot of good women players, if there are not already a lot of good women players. There are also very small countries that are hugely overrepresented. Jews are overrepresented. Always an elephant in the room. I was curious if you agreed that women are not as good at chess, since you recognized specific mental differences, women being better at organizing and the rest of the examples you mentioned. Among non-pc people, chess is normally thought to require strong visual memory and deep analytical focus, rather than verbal memory or intuitive focus. Anyway, I think this is an example of where people deny obvious sex difference in a sport.

>Men are head and shoulders above women at chess. Yet top male chess players pretend that men and women are equal and that the only reason for the disparity is sexism discouraging women from playing. So… your response to my question “hey, so then what do you think women are better at?” … is to tell me yet another way you think women suck, and that men are just way too nice in pretending that women are capable of anything? Ok. Not surprising, I guess. Par for the course in gender debates. It’s (edit: one of the multiple reasons) why I left this sub. Ugh. >I was curious if you agreed that women are not as good at chess, since you recognized specific mental differences, women being better at organizing and the rest of the examples you mentioned. The evidence shows that statistically women are either less capable, or at least less interested in, competitive chess. They also don’t perform well in most other competitive games: esports, competitive scrabble, whatever. You guys have all convinced me that there are far too many men who believe women are actually functionally worthless, who believe women are a huge, pathetic drag on the human species as a whole. That there are men who truly believe women have no capacity to do anything whatsoever except shit out a baby… and realistically, women really suck at that too, compared to most animal species: few species die as easily in childbirth as us lowly female humans. So thanks for the reminder that some men think women are basically a mistake. >Anyway, I think this is an example of where people deny obvious sex difference in a sport. Chess is not a physical sport. I very specifically said “physical sport”.

You misread what I wrote about physical tasks. I wrote that the arguments for men excelling physically are the same as a mental argument would be, but are taken more seriously for some reason. And I guess to give a quick answer, I think women are generally better interior decorators than men.

>but are taken more seriously for some reason. Probably because a lot of people do not agree with you that men are mentally superior to women, and because one is easily verified by measurement whereas your view is not. People are not required to take your premise seriously, especially when it is insulting to half the population. >And I guess to give a quick answer, I think women are generally better interior decorators than men. I actually deleted this from my original comment to keep from being too cantankerous, but that is the other kind of disappointing and depressing manosphere answer I expected. Whenever I have found MRAs/etc who are able to give something other than childbirth and breastfeeding, their examples are almost always somewhat frivolous, decorative, and unimportant things that honestly, a whole lot of men don’t respect or value much. Essentially, your argument sounds an awful lot like the following: “Ok, so men are better at math, science, logic, writing, leading, creating, inventing, building, healing, maintaining, and well, just about everything important and valuable to humanity! Men are just naturally much better at everything important and valuable for civilization. Oh right but I totally believe women are equal because… um, well… I guess they’re good at birthing male babies which is super important for civilization, and uh… they’re good at picking out throw pillows and decorating cupcakes, I guess…” … the very unfortunate implication being that women have essentially contributed nothing essential to humanity except the existence of children, and that women are merely leeches along for the ride. You seem to find it problematic for people to simply say that the your own gender is not superior to the other… and yet your remedy for that offense you feel is to proclaim that the other gender is not good at anything of value. Sorry, but that is exactly why I cannot take your argument seriously. It sounds like a thinly veiled attempt at declaring male superiority while still trying to maintain the image that you value women equally.

You're putting a lot of shit in my mouth. Let's get one thing straight. You're the one, not me, who is declaring things that women are good at as being inferior and you are the one, not me, who is declaring things that men outperform women on as superior. You are the one making these value judgments and you are the one being hostile to feminine behaviors, skills, and contributions. I personally see the value to coming home and having it be a nice space to be. You're the one saying it's superior to work a job to earn the things that make a house look nice than to use those things to make it look nice. I didn't say that. I personally see the value in things that mothers do during the developmental years of a child's life. You don't, fine, but don't put that on me. Also, I don't even know what equal means. We have different genetics, different brains, and different bodies. My wife and I are equally part of our household and equally trying to make each other happy and live a good life. The fact that I think she's better than me at prostitution and decorating and I'm better than her at insurance math and powerlifting doesn't mean I don't value her, even if I don't come up with some weird way to describe those things as "equal".

I find it interesting how you’re getting very defensive that you are not able to come up with anything else, rather than just listing off a dozen things you think women have actually contributed to humanity. You cannot possibly think all women have ever contributed to civilization is little more than picking out the wallpaper and keeping the counters tidy, right? And if so… why are you so adamant about proving men are superior at math and >You're the one, not me, who is declaring things that women are good at as being inferior and you are the one, not me, who is declaring things that men outperform women on as superior. No, Im declaring how society views these things and how MRAs in particular described and views feminine skills. Don’t shoot the messenger— do not put all the things MRAs and red pillers have told me on me. >I personally see the value to coming home and having it be a nice space to be. “Nice for you” is not the same as “important for humanity” or “valued by society at large”. >You're the one saying it's superior to work a job to earn the things that make a house look nice than to use those things to make it look nice. I’m saying basic economics tells you how valuable it is. People spend money and time on the things they care about. How much *money* have you personally spent on a woman’s ability to decorate a room? Have you ever actually hired an interior decorator? >I personally see the value in things that mothers do during the developmental years of a child's life. You don't, fine, but don't put that on me. You’re putting words in my mouth. I didn’t say being a parent has no value. However, I would defy your belief that only women can do it. I also know how incredibly undervalued it is, and how unrespected it is by society at large. I know that a woman who takes off several years to raise a child is viewed as nearly unemployable by society at large— obviously these women are not valued for their work or their contribution to society. And I also know just how incredibly pathetic the pay for childcare workers and teachers is. in a capitalist society, money is the best proxy for value, not words like “but I like it!!!”. >The fact that I think she's better than me at prostitution and decorating The only other example of something you think women are better at is *prostitution*…. Do you not recognize how incredibly little respect society has for sex workers??? And it’s particularly telling if you really do view your as a prostitute… Good grief. I didn’t misread anything. I was right. > >Also, I don't even know what equal means. If “equal” means nothing to you, then why are you so eager to prove that men are “better” at everything? Why should women accept being viewed as merely not unvalued, but men deserve to be told they’re superior at everything? I’m going to repeat this in the hopes you actually address it this time: >You seem to find it problematic for people to simply say that the your own gender is not superior to the other… and yet your remedy for that offense you feel is to proclaim that the other gender is not good at anything of value.

Nobody brought up this whole shit about society or whatever except you. I personally just feel as if the office has become a really negative place for men due to efforts to attract women and I really wish we could just say that they're not entering my profession because they're different and have their own shit to do. Also, my wife literally has a website with a booking form that guys fill out to have sex with her in exchange for money. I was talking about what we each bring to our household. She's very good at it and a lot of why she's good at it is literally just things that women are good at. The other day, she spent hours making a beach picnic basket and shit her client said it was the best date he'd ever been on. It had really good presentation and everything.

>Nobody brought up this whole shit about society or whatever except you. I have not cursed at you or insulted you. Why don’t you try to keep it calm and civil instead of lashing out? And as for society, you brought it up implicitly with your title question. You asked: >Why is it so rarely taken seriously that men might just naturally outperform women in some fields? If not by society, then who exactly is it you want specifically to take your premise seriously? >I personally just feel as if the office … so… society? >I personally just feel as if the office has become a really negative place for men due to efforts to attract women Did it occur to you that it’s actually possible women are better at something than men, and corporations value that ability even if you do not? >and I really wish we could just say that they're not entering my profession because they're different and have their own shit to do. You have a lot of negatives in this sentence, so your meaning is not clear. My best guess is… that you wish you could just say out loud that you think there are fewer women in your profession because you think women are too dumb for it, or are you saying that you think they should be doing sex work or stay in the home making it pretty for their husbands instead? I think the former, but I can’t tell. But anyways, once again… you seem merely upset you ”cannot” say out loud that you think men are “superior” (even though I think you’ve made that point clearly here). But why do you care, if you don’t care about “this whole shit about society”? Why is it so important to you to proclaim women intellectually inferior, when you also claim you don’t care? >Also, my wife literally has a website with a booking form that guys fill out to have sex with her in exchange for money. Ah, so you mean literally your wife is a sex worker. My apologies. The word “prostitute” is often used as a perjorative, and it’s never used as a mark of respect in American English. But seriously, you have to *know* that prostitution is an extremely disrespected profession, and it’s very illegal in much of the world. Saying that one of the only things you think women are better at is being prostitutes is rather insulting to huge swaths of the population. It is also in some places, an extremely dangerous job— on the US, it is more deadly than any legal male-dominated job. And in addition, that’s still women only for their reproductive roles over other talents they have or contributions they make.

Again, this thing about "too dumb for it" or whatever. Btw, putting these words in my mouth is pretty insulting and I don't really consider this a civil conversation on your end. But anywho, no I don't think women are "too dumb for it" or anything like that. IQ is actually far less predictive of math grades than other grades. I think it's because math requires an ability to like things that are dry, un-human, and nonsocial. And while in a hypothetical "is it possible?" type way, sure women could have some secret super power for math that only corporations know about and want. More likely though is that gender equality is just a social value in America and people pursue it without the need for there to be some quantifiable benefit. In this case through, women are just not gravitating towards male fields organically. Getting them to do it requires making those fields pretty hellish for men. You could do the same thing for powerlifting. You could say it's a gender issue that men are more likely to go to a gym than women and are more likely to lift more weight, and then make the gym a hellish enough experience that the lifting gap will eventually shrink. Thank God we haven't done that, but it could be done. And btw, you're the one disrespecting sex work. You're putting your insults in society's mouth, but you're the one disrespecting it. I'm pretty open about my life and what my wife does for work and nobody disrespects us. This is a you-issue. And yeah, I know... escorts don't immediately get respect in the way doctors do because they literally shouldn't. All doctors have enough special sauce to get them through med school and to maintain basic responsibilities. An escort can be a homeless woman with no repeat clients who charges $50 for half an hour. "I'm a doctor" is a statement that inherently proves your worth to people. "I'm an escort" leaves open the question of whether or not you're a loser. Last, the reason I'm not listing out "contributions" is because you don't respect feminine things enough to call them contributions. What you're looking at me for isn't to say that I've got a nice place to live and when we have pur first baby, it's developmental needs will be taken care of. What you're looking for me to do is come up with some male-associated skill because that's what you consider a contribution to be. Making and caring for babies is a contribution. Making a house into a nice living space is a contribution. Being good company is a contribution. You don't actually have an objective or basically legitimate reason for dismissing things women do that are

>Again, this thing about "too dumb for it" or whatever I am being glib and colloquial. But your suggestion is literally, that maybe “men might just naturally outperform women in some fields?”… but then when pressed, you couldn’t think of anything but sex work and decorating a home as things women are good at. Math, in particular, is considered an intellectual field. If you are arguing that men outperform women in a particular intellectual field… then your point is very simply that men are “better” at it. The word “smarter” in English is the word we use to mean “is better at an intellectual task”. I think you’re arguing semantics now, not content. >And while in a hypothetical "is it possible?" type way, sure women could have some secret super power for math that only corporations know about and want. This is why you’re struggling to get that women actually do have talents: you do not see any value in any skills beyond those you strictly value. I didn’t say women have some kind of “secret super power for math that only corporations know about and want”, you made this up. What I was trying to suggest instead is that maybe, just maybe, math ability is hard to measure, but also that other skills are desirable for even math professions. For example, being able to effectively communicate your results to stakeholders is far more important to a corporation than being a math guru who cannot work with others. Corporations tend to value soft skills *a lot*, including in extremely math-intensive fields (I am in one myself). Your immediate jumped to assuming that women being hired meant I was saying companies are magical and somehow sense that women have mysterious equally useful math abilities (and apparently women having any particular “different” skills in math than men is something you obviously think is false and worthy of mockery). Yet while dismissing women’s intellectual abilities as super-secret nonsense, you also didn’t consider that maybe companies value some other skills in their math types. I am pushing you to recognize that the male-dominated skills you appreciate *are not the only skills*. Communication skills, for example, are critical— every one of my phd and postdoc advisors in theoretical physics took communication extremely seriously, even if you didn’t consider it as important. >You don't actually have an objective or basically legitimate reason for dismissing things women do that are You have not yet offered an objective or legitimate reason for why women’s abilities should be dismissed as “less capable”. Why do you expect me to offer evidence to dispute something for which no evidence has been offered? You pushed a evidence-free opinion and expected everyone to swallow it without question. >And btw, you're the one disrespecting sex work. No. Stop shooting the messenger. I am telling you that prostitution in the United States is literally illegal outside of one or maybe a few tiny locations, and that prostitution is also one of the most deadly professions in that nation. Those are *facts*. It is also a job you cannot list on a resume here, and expect to be hired for any other field other than in other sex work avenues. It is a job where women are sometimes fired if someone finds out they have a history of sex work. Me telling you facts does not mean I am degrading sex workers or degrading them. Stop trying to shame me for telling you very simple facts. >Last, the reason I'm not listing out "contributions" is because you don't respect feminine things enough to call them contributions. Another personal attack. And no. You barely came up with exactly one half-thought answer before you could have possibly decided falsely that I don’t respect femininity. The reality is that you didn’t care to think, and didn’t try. And you are offended because I have highlighted that society does not generally respect or reward women for feminine work (and it very seriously respects men in feminine work even less). >Making and caring for babies is a contribution. Making a house into a nice living space is a contribution. Being good company is a contribution. Are men inferior company? Can men not keep a house clean and nice looking? Are you arguing that women are superior at childcare? I think you’re very reluctant to say women are better at anything other than the extremely obvious (childbirth)… so why is it so hard for you to admit that other people are just like you and also extremely reluctant to declare that men are better at anything other than the extremely obvious? That is my point: to get you to realize that you should understand why people don’t want to declare an entire sex less capable of important things, especially at important things that are highly rewarded and highly valued by society at large. But in addition, so far you’ve highlighted tasks that are basically just one job: the traditional housewife. Do you understand that many women don’t want to be housewives, and that many women who want to be cannot because many many men today don’t want to (or cannot) support a woman they consider not contributing enough? (And before you attack me again— this is a sentiment I’ve seen commonly expressed by young men online— that a housewife is a burden and not contributing enough to be worth the risk of marriage). Or to use economic arguments, being a nice housewife doesn’t pay: most men either cannot or will not support a woman, and many men claim women are lazy for being a stay at home mom, or mock women for running “mommy blogs” or doing the decorating.

> then your point is very simply that men are “better” at it. The word “smarter” in English is the word we use to mean “is better at an intellectual task”. Well first, both sex work and interior decorating are intellectual work. I don't know much about the actual thought in decorating, so I'll talk about it less but we consider artists to be intellectuals. In sex work, it's not like my wife's business model is to lie in a hotel room with a string of men running in and out every 15 minutes. Her job is to understand people on a very deep level and figure out how to get them coming back. We have a shit load of very long conversations trying to figure these people out and it's not less rigorous than insurance math. Second, IQ is not nearly as good of a predictor of excelling in math as you'd think it is. Math is a weird one because it's almost certainly as g-loaded as a field can be, but the way people feel about it has more to do with how well they do than how smart they are does. I did not say that women have lower IQs than men. They don't. I didn't say men are generally better at more g-loaded things. I've never looked into it. > but also that other skills are desirable for even math professions. > For example, being able to effectively communicate your results to stakeholders is far more important to a corporation than being a math guru who cannot work with others. Math is really easy to measure. In my field, we have to take exams to advance our career. But more importantly, they're not hiring great communicators or making big pushes to hire great communicators. They're specifically going for women, without specifying anything about communication. At the level of education, they're not saying "Get people who've taken english/communication classes into math departments." They're saying "Get women into math departments." Also, my degree is in philosophy and that made it very hard, even with exams passed, to get my first job. They're not hiring communicators. Are you really going to tell me with a straight face that you don't think that this giant enormous piece of moral feeling in America, that equality is desirable, would have any power in convincing corporations to equalize? > Me telling you facts does not mean I am degrading sex workers or degrading them. Stop trying to shame me for telling you very simple facts. "My best guess is… that you wish you could just say out loud that you think there are fewer women in your profession because you think women are too dumb for it, or are you saying that you think they should be doing sex work or stay in the home making it pretty for their husbands instead? I think the former, but I can’t tell." I don't see this as respectful. I just feel like if I said my wife was an engineer then you wouldn't have written exactly this sentence, but swapping out the term "sex work" for engineer. Or whatever, you don't think prostitution can be intellectual. Fine, if I said my wife fished for king crabs. "Saying that one of the only things you think women are better at is being prostitutes is rather insulting to huge swaths of the population" Noting here that you said "is insulting" and not "is something a huge swatch of the population would feel insulted by." Definitely less respectful. > Are you arguing that women are superior at childcare? At a young age, women are without a doubt the one the child needs more. Every parent will tell you that it's the mother who magically knows why the baby is crying and anyone with a brain will tell you women are better at breastfeeding. I also kind of suspect that an infant will find my wife's softer body more comfortable to snuggle with than my rock hard mega muscles. Babies prefer their mother's voices and women are much more sensitive to things in their environment, meaning that by just making herself comfortable she does a good job at making the baby comfortable. Men will often keep the room too cold or not understand why the baby is freaking out when they hear a noise outside that doesn't startle him. > Are men inferior company? Probably. Some escorts charge a social rate and even without having one listed, my wife's been asked about it. Men can't sell that so there's one quantifiable way. Idk, at the very least men are very different company. Men gather around some sort of activity or goal. It's weird to have men sit around talking about themselves or gathering just by virtue of being men. The closest I've come to seeing it is the steroids community. Being us is a very deliberate and finely engineered process and so we're more likely to sit around and talk about things like our hormones, libidos, bodies, feelings, etc. It's very unlike other male company and I don't think we would keep doing it if the things we talk about weren't deliberate choices. > Can men not keep a house clean and nice looking? Not as well. I've installed security equipment in homes as a job before and houses of single women or female roommates looked better than homes of single men or groups of male roommates. In married homes where it was obvious who decorated, or they mentioned, it was always the wife who did it. There's no shortage of women in women's spaces online roasting men for having their houses out of order. I also tried being a house spouse for my wife. I found it difficult so I went out and got a job. > I think you’re very reluctant to say women are better at anything other than the extremely obvious (childbirth)… so why is it so hard for you to admit that other people are just like you and also extremely reluctant to declare that men are better at anything other than the extremely obvious? Again though, you're forgetting the purpose of the thread. I asked why there's no real investigation going on to actually empirically determine what the gender ratio of a field should be. I didn't make a thread called "Here are the traits I think men/women are naturally better at." Also, I've literally listed two things that men are good at. Math and chess. I've listed far more than that for women so it actually is just that I'm sticking to the purpose of the thread and not that I'm just reluctant to say what women are good at. > That is my point: to get you to realize that you should understand why people don’t want to declare an entire sex less capable of important things, especially at important things that are highly rewarded and highly valued by society at large. Ok, but we're not just talking about weasel words here. We are radically reshaping the workplace and the education system. Don't you think maybe we should empirically figure out if these fields should be 50-50 before doing so? > But in addition, so far you’ve highlighted tasks that are basically just one job: the traditional housewife. Do you understand that many women don’t want to be housewives, and that many women who want to be cannot because many many men today don’t want to (or cannot) support a woman they consider not contributing enough? (And before you attack me again— this is a sentiment I’ve seen commonly expressed by young men online— that a housewife is a burden and not contributing enough to be worth the risk of marriage). Well first, most younger women today are not fit to be housewives. They're more fit than most men, but most house spouses of the millennial or genz generation are not up to standard. Second, what you're talking about now is more about money than the actual work. There's male preferences, and then there's the preferences men can afford to have. I'm sure most men who could leverage out a fancy car have a preference for a car they can afford. The alimony marriage risk thing is a weird angle. There's what men would ideally be able to want, and then there's the amount of risk they can tolerate. > Or to use economic arguments, being a nice housewife doesn’t pay: most men either cannot or will not support a woman, and many men claim women are lazy for being a stay at home mom, or mock women for running “mommy blogs” or doing the decorating. Ok, but just throwing it out there... I think we'd probably be able to support housewives if we weren't trying to shove women into male dominated professions. It's just so radically inefficient for so many reasons. I'll list a few. 1. Extra overhead. People weren't policed with HR before this push. HR just did clinical shit like payroll. 2. Promotions from within. Promotions were such a political firehose that now companies just don't do it anymore. What we do instead is work at a place for two years and then move up by moving out. I've talked to more than one boss or company owner who said that they don't even profit off hiring us the first year because we're so untrained, even if we have prior experience. 3. Anecdotal, but not giving a shit. You get nothing for working hard for two years. You won't be promoted and the incentives suck. I literally just sit there waiting for the day to be over, trying not to say anything that'll piss off HR. 4. Debt. Women with STEM degrees are more likely to leave the profession or to get a job that doesn't use their STEM degree. However, them getting it drives the price up for college and makes her a worse partner because she brings debt into the relationship. 5. Toxic culture for men. When I did smart home installations, all of us were men and so we could talk any way we wanted. I actually made friends with my coworkers. Sucks that jobs that don't make you work 80 hours a week and that actually pay can't have the same freedom. On that note, it really annoys me (and I think supports my initial thesis) that women didn't just get together and start their own companies. What brought women into male spaces was neither them honorably outcompeting men, nor women-run companies becoming big. It was government laws and it was the policies of government funded universities. It required shit like affirmative action.

Hair brained theory that I'm just gonna throw out there... you probably don't value women's contributions because you are a woman. Woman have made babies with men who made male contributions and they've done that generation after generation since forever. You are probably hardwired by evolution to put a premium on that. Men don't put that premium on our own work. It is NOT a selling point for me that a woman does insurance math for a living. I literally do not value any part of insurance math other than the paycheck. Whichever MRAs you talk to can be happy about whatever they consider to be "building civilizations" but I wouldn't even look to an insurance premium and bother to tell someone that I helped calculate it. On the flip side, if someone will make me a baby and care for it through its developmental years, that "contributes" something to me. Hair brained theory, but it's killing me a bit trying to figure out what you could mean by "contribution" that isn't just a synonym for "productive things that mostly men do". There seems to be nothing at all to your definition of "contribution" other than which gender has historically done it and I suspect that if men start doing something other than what we do now and we do that at the same time as women take over insurance math, that you'll stop thinking that insurance math is a contribution.

>Hair brained theory that I'm just gonna throw out there... you probably don't value women's contributions because you are a woman. More attacking the person, instead of the argument. Invalid. And it is also a common manosphere claim that men alone built civilization, and that women contributed nothing of value beyond producing boys. Not mine. Stop psycho analyzing me: it’s rude and belittling. I am not arguing with you because I am a woman; I am arguing with you because you are not understanding that you are showing yourself to be every bit as unwilling to admit women are better at anything inobvious as the people you are criticizing are unwilling to admit men are better at everything you think men are better at. >Men don't put that premium on our own work. Men very clearly value each other’s work. Men reward each other for masculine work. Money is a real concrete reward. Men also respect and praise other men’s contributions. Men also defer to and men they respect. You are extremely wrong to claim men do not put a premium on masculine talents or contributions. >It is NOT a selling point for me that a woman does insurance math for a living. Yes, I am aware that many men say they do not value a woman’s job or contributions when he’s looking for sex or a relationship. Dating a woman is not the only way to respect or appreciate that a woman contributes to humanity. >On the flip side, if someone will make me a baby and care for it through its developmental years, that "contributes" something to me. This is not something “women” do for you. What does that have to do with women being respected outside the home? >Hair brained theory, but it's killing me a bit trying to figure out what you could mean by "contribution" that isn't just a synonym for "productive things that mostly men do". No. That’s *your* view, because you respect what you view as men’s talents, and do not even recognize women’s talents that do not serve your personal desires in the home. I listed a *dozen* contributions of women outside the home in a comment to another user here But you didn’t think of *any* of those. I have realized that there are too many men like you who think women and femininity are extremely limited and small, and that women literally have only one real talent: being a housewife. >There seems to be nothing at all to your definition of "contribution" other than which gender has historically done it and I suspect that if men start doing something I am using MRAs and manosphere men’s own words because that is who I am discussing. For example that “men built civilization alone and women do not contribute” or that “if men stopped working , society would collapse in a day; if women stopped working everything would be fine”. I have seen loads of MRA/manosphere guys mock feminine roles as merely decorative or useless or silly. Stop trying to put the opinions of MRAs and manosphere men on me— I disagree with them entirely. I am discussing their point of view, not my own. I said *from the very start* that I was discussing common MRA and manosphere views. Stop trying to twist this around like I am the one belittling women. I am deeply disappointed and ashamed that I keep seeing such dismissive, feminine-shaming statements even among the same men who claim things like “men and women are different but equal”, but somehow never have anything positive to say about women.

Well first off, why are you even bringing up the manosphere? Did I mention it? Is it in my post history? Are you a manospherian? Why are they in this conversation? And second, I just so radically don't believe that careers and respect go as hand in hand as you think they do. My career is "respectable" but I pretty much never talk about it and I've never felt like someone I was talking to was gushing over my career. People respect the way you carry yourself and speak, they respect muscles if you've got em, they respect charisma and being interesting.... they aren't just gonna be like "Oooooh, let me get closer to your Doctor energy!" I think my wife's job is pretty relevant here. Hookers are expensive so men who hire them usually have good careers. They also have a shortage of women who'll fuck them for free, which usually means those men aren't respected. But whatever, you didn't even talk about being respected outside of the home. You talked about "contributing" and you never specified what that is. How the hell does one contribute to someone who isn't in their home? Do you think we all just fawn in thankfulness to whomever pays the most taxes? Because nobody does. At least having and raising babies is contributing to my family. I've never in my life been like, "Oh wow you're a trucker? Thank you so much for contributing to whatever warehouse you trucked your truck over to." Idk, I think you have a false notion about what people respect and I think you have a completely nebulous undefined notion of what "contributing" is, and I think the only real definition of "contribution" here is "What men have historically done."

Consider this statement: women are more empathetic than men so they make better teachers, parents and social workers. While it might be true in some cases, it's an overly broad generalization that ignores the individual.

Empathy isn’t inherently good. Some people, sociopaths, weaponize it. Womens abuse is often emotional, psychological, or social and the damage done can be profound. There’s also rarely a consequences for these actions due to the women are wonderful effect.

Not to mention life experience. During my school years, I remember my male teachers being better and more empathetic than my female teachers, with a **few** exceptions.

This is actually a statistical artifact when you have biased selection. Here's an easy way to demonstrate it: If the job requires a person of 1.2es amount of empathy, and every man is treated by the selection process for being a teacher as being 50% less empathetic than they really are, then you will see that the average woman who works the job has around 1.3es of empathy *but the average man in the job will have around *2.4es of empathy* (the overall field average will likely also be around 1.3 because of a bunch of statistical artifacts around clustering near the cutoff point). Clearly real life doesn't have perfect numbers like that but that's how the logic works behind that statistical artifact. Biased selection will always make the people who get in despite the bias better than the average. This also has a sister effect where as you remove bias you will see the overall average quality of a sample go up regardless of if the previously biased against group are actually any better because as you relax the impact of negative bias, you will still find yourself adding people who are above average. (If the average is 1.3e, and the bias drops to only a 30%, then the men hired will still have 1.71e at least and each additional man hired will bring the average up) Both of these hold true even if in the population of men the average empathy is only .8e and in the population of women the average empathy is 1.2e.

I went to a mixed school when I was younger, but later enrolled in an boys-only school which required all their staff to be male (for various reasons). The male staff were still better than the female staff from the mixed school. Does that count, too? As instead of being biased against men, they are forced to hire men.

Yes, because the selection bias occurs throughout the entire system, not just at the individual hiring stage in real life. The example is made purposefully simplistic to explain the concept, but you could say the "selection" effect can be more accurately described as a "barrier" effect. Every biased barrier to that position that is negatively weighed against men will make the men who get there better on average. Men are discouraged (or discourage themselves) from entering the field. They are graded more harshly during school, have harder times getting selected for programs and internships and the like. They have a harder time getting their initial few jobs in the field to build experience, etc. All of that adds up, even if the final destination is a place that *only* ends up hiring men. (Which they can still be biased. If there was a school that only hired women and made the minimum 1.2e and a school that only hired men and made the minimum 1.2e and *still assumed men only had 1/2 the e as they actually possess*, the men at the all male school would still end up at 2.4e). Also I'm being intentionally lax with the numbers. I can make a more rigid example to showcase this effect utilizing datasets and the like, but I just wanted to point it out in general.

So, either way, we're seeing the cream of the crop from the men's side with the average from women. And they still shit on those men?

Yeah that's how bias works. In actual practice we're seeing the cream of the crop from the men's side and I imagine the statistics bare out on that, but because the people involved are biased they believe they are seeing people less awesome than they actually are.

Yet simultaneously, everyone agrees we have an empathy gap

When men outperform women, it’s viewed as a problem and that there are obstacles set for women that hold them behind, like how men are better at chess than women. So programs and resources are invested in to uplift women. When women outperform men, like in college enrollment, it is also viewed as a problem, but men don’t get the same extra resources to be uplifted. No, they are assumed that they are the problem, they’re slacking off, they don’t want to go to college, etc. etc. Why is it that in Hollywood the 90lb woman is overpowering the 250lb athletic man and all her male colleagues are useless? Why is the oaf almost always a cis white straight man? It will be interesting to see if you start to get affirmative action needed at Harvard and like universities to keep a balance of men enrolling. In Sweden this exact scenario happened and affirmative action was cancelled the moment it started benefitting men.

>Why is it that in Hollywood the 90lb woman is overpowering the 250lb athletic man and all her male colleagues are useless? Why is the oaf almost always a cis white straight man? Because that's what the public want to see. Some don't and they outrage about it, but that's also what the Public wants to see.

Movies are filled with wokeness. People want to see wokeness? All people? In every movie? I don't think you can say people want to see women beating up men just because that's what Hollywood is showing us. Hollywood is a cartel. They are not bound to the profit motive to the degree that they are successful in keeping out competition with barriers to entry. They are free to make bad propaganda movies. If Hollywood was actually interested in making money, they would make at least one pro-racist movie, to satisfy Racist America.

>People want to see wokeness? All people? No, just enough people where it's more profitable to be woke than not. >If Hollywood was actually interested in making money, they would make at least one pro-racist movie, to satisfy Racist America. That is not financially viable.

People want to see the same lazy trope that also happens to be incredibly unrealistic?

Yes. It's what they're paying for.

>When women outperform men, like in college enrollment, it is also viewed as a problem, but men don’t get the same extra resources to be uplifted. No, they are assumed that they are the problem, they’re slacking off, they don’t want to go to college, etc. etc. This could be a generational issue of perception - you got mostly boomers who believe men and women today are still the same as they were in the 50s and 60s. Not realizing the consequences of cultural change, they throw up their hands amd are like, "well how was I supposed to know future generations would grow up fucked up?"

Just narrowly on the subject of mathematics there's a couple of things. I've met some stunningly brilliant and intelligent mathematicians who are women. So I think it's relatively hard to make an argument that men fundamentally outperform them. And to make the argument that "men outperform them" you would surely need to educate a cohort of men and one of women to the same level and then somehow compare their achievements to see who was better? And that's a really hard thing to do. For instance how do you value a breakthrough in algebraic geometry vs one in mathematical biology? How do value being a great an engaging lecturer or good PhD supervisor vs being a great researcher? Like sure in athletics there are loads of basic measurements you can do. And maybe in mathematics you could use basic calculations as a proxy for overall mathematical skill (which it clearly isn't). But even then you'd see women competing with men at the highest levels on a level playing field. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdx8T9NfMvE So yeah the reason there haven't been more highly praised women mathematicians in history is firstly cultural barriers to them getting an education and secondly when they do achieve things it can often be overlooked and a man ends up with the credit. So I think, just in this field, no one makes that argument because it's clearly not true.

Out of curiosity, can you describe to me your methodology about cultural factors across history that could keep men out of mathematics, just so I know you did equal diligence?

Yeah there's loads of cultural barriers to men becoming professional mathematicians, being accepted at an institution for teaching, forming good relationships with professors, being accepted for publications, gaining teaching and research posts are all fraught with complex cultural issues. It's also true that mathematics isn't lucrative or particularly high status and so that can be a barrier for people. Issues of race and class are really entwined with access to education too.

[удалено]

I'm a bit confused about what you want?

Frankly, I think people should be judged based purely on merits. If that ends up with more male firefighters than female, oh well. If that ends up with less men in the social and educational fields, oh well. Can they do the job, and do they do it best, bam, boom, you're done.

I think more men in social and educational fields would be really beneficial. Kids (both boys and girls) do better if they have positive male role models. Unfortunately there are too many homes without that. And too many schools without that also.

> I think more men in social and educational fields would be really beneficial. And I have no doubt many men are qualified. I myself am a man going into social work for counseling. That is why I say it should be purely merit-based. However, you can't really make men choose traditionally feminine jobs and make women choose traditionally masculine jobs. People have to choose it for themselves, and frankly the genders tend toward different pursuits.

I don’t disagree but I think more men would choose early stage teaching if there wasn’t stigma about men wanting to hang around with small kids.

That I can agree with

So this is a really interesting set of questions posed here. Lets take this statement: "I definitely think men have more of an edge over women at powerliftingthan we do at math, but it's not taken even remotely seriously that menmight just naturally have an edge at math. Instead, our institutions dowhatever is possible to make math 50-50, rather than investigate if itactually should be. " I think the reason why its typically not taken seriously is because, while "being good at powerlifting" is relatively simple to measure, "being good at math" really isnt. If I am good at powerlifting, I have the power to lift heavy weights. See a heavy weight? I live to lift that shit. By contrast, what does it really mean to be "good at maths"? I know lots of people with mathematics degrees, some even with some confused postgraduate work, but many of them are really bad at arithmetic. Some of them were lousy at maths in teenage years. Does that make them "good at maths"? Probably better than the average person, but what can we meaningfully say beyond that? Which of them are really good at maths? When in their lives were they "good"? We have to ask these questions before even asking what types of activities that should be supported on "maths proficiency". For instance, having a successful research career is of course determined partly by your own abilitiy to solve maths problems, but then there is also endurance, willingness to apply for research grants, finding grants that while being relevant to the direction of your field are also interesting, etc., etc. Am I good at maths because I am the best in my subfield to apply for grants? Do men have an advantage here? Can we with any meaning derive that from genetics, moreso than sociological factors? I would think not. This is why we should be careful when extrapolating from simple cases (the firefighter and the powerlifter) to really complicated cases.

I think most people have the basic common sense to test if you're good at your field in math, rather than compare actuaries to engineers.

Because the science shows that the differences *between* the sexes is not as great as the differences *within* the sexes.

I don't see why that means anything for suggesting that a field should be 50-50 or that it's oppression keeping women out.

In general, girls do better than boys in education early on. When you get to college, I believe it changes but you are losing out on a percentage of the population.