What if men are just better?

[Metaphor]

What if men are just better than women on certain traits, skills, and talents? What implication(s) does that have for public policy and societal structure?

(Everything that follows is about group averages).

Men outperform women in mathematics. This is evident in every marker of mathematical talent, from SAT scores through to the achievements of historical mathematicians through to winners of the Fields Medal in mathematics.

Imagine for a moment that some of this difference is due to discrimination and unequal opportunity, but that some of this difference is due to a higher average mathematical ability in men. If men are higher in mathematical ability on average, why should anybody support a policy that targets equal representation of men and women in academic mathematics? Such a policy would not make sense, and equal representation could only be achieved by discriminating against more mathematically-able men in favour of less mathematically-able women.

Men and women also have different interests, on average. This was a fact pointed out by James Damore in his memo 'Google's Ideological Echo Chamber' - which brought a wave of criticism and which got him fired. And yet, why would we expect equal representation of men and women in every human endeavour? Equal representation would imply equal talent and interest and effort, and none of these three prerequisites has been demonstrated, for a single field let alone all of them.

I believe there are obvious cases where men are just better than women. In upper body strength, men are just better than women. So every single job where upper body strength plays a role in success, (all other things being equal), I would expect there to be more men than women. Yet this is regarded, somehow, as a problem. Why?

Western countries now have government policies - as well as widely accepted rhetoric - that boards should have equal gender representation, regardless of any other factors whatsoever. I find this wholly unreasonable given the unequal representation of men and women in the labour force, the unequal representation of hours worked by men and women in the labour force, and the well-documented differences in interests between men and women in the labour force, amply illustrated by occupational segregation. Under these circumstances, I would expect equal representation as a goal to be entirely irrational, and yet the idea of equal representation is sacrosanct.

 

[starwater]

 

[dismal]

Obviously men and women are the same, and we need to ensure equal representation of men and women because diversity.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What if men are just better than women on certain traits, skills, and talents?

So in a classroom, is a teacher teaching males and females or individuals?

 

[Metaphor]

What if men are just better than women on certain traits, skills, and talents?

So in a classroom, is a teacher teaching males and females or individuals?

?

It depends. In a sex-segregated high school, it'll be one or the other. Otherwise, both.

I'm not sure what your comment is about.

 

[AirPoh]

What if men are just assholes, idiots, and wholly undesirable?

 

[PyramidHead]

Totally normal thread title in a very healthy and normal country

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What if men are just better than women on certain traits, skills, and talents?

So in a classroom, is a teacher teaching males and females or individuals?

?

It depends. In a sex-segregated high school, it'll be one or the other. Otherwise, both.

I'm not sure what your comment is about.

Yeah, I think that's the point. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that schools teach demographics, not individuals. It doesn't matter if one gender in general could be better than another gender in any academic field if individuals from both genders can excel in it. Which is why we teach students as individuals, not gender demographics.

 

[ronburgundy]

IF the innate difference is quite large, with a large impact on job performance (such as with upper body strength in some jobs), then clearly we should not demand or expect equal workplace outcomes related such jobs. Of course, I don't think there is anything remotely close to equal outcomes in such jobs, nor a widespread expectation that there will be. Pushing for there to be more than zero women in such jobs and for women to not be cart-blanch excluded is not pushing for equal outcomes.

However, there is an argument why an objective fact of a smal innate difference in ability should be treated as though it doesn't exist. I am somewhat playing devil's advocate here. My general disposition in life is that all facts should be acknowledged and used to inform our decisions. But accepted facts get perverted and misapplied, sometimes to the point where it would be better not to treat it as a fact at all.

If there is a biologically-based difference in math ability, it is rather small. And if it is small, then the question is whether allowing for such a difference in math-ability influenced job outcomes is worth the certain discriminatory bias that would create, as it has certainly already created due to the widespread belief that such a biological difference exists. IOW, if a small difference in actual ability is allowed to be used as a justification in unequal outcomes, the difference in outcomes will become much larger than the difference in innate ability, due to the biases and prejudices that will inherently follow.

So, allowing for such biological difference to be openly treated as fact and acted upon in the employment and education sectors, will actually create false beliefs that are against the facts regarding the real size of that difference and logically fallacious applications of that fact from the general to the specific in terms of how individuals are prejudges and how their performance is interpreted. There is far more evidence to support the certainty of this consequence than there is to support even a small difference in innate math ability.

Thus, it isn't a simple matter of arguing that we should acknowledge and apply the fact of a difference, if doing so is guaranteed to produce the misapplication of those facts and creation of beliefs that contradict the facts.

 

[ronburgundy]

My post above is based upon the assumption that there is in fact a biologically based difference. A separate but related issue is that the acceptance and allowed application of that fact must be based on very strong evidence, precisely for the reasons I laid out above that belief in such facts virtually always lead to their widespread distortion and misapplication. We know that beliefs in such differences are widespread and we know that people act on such beliefs. Thus, we know that discrimination occurs against specific individuals, whether or not those beliefs are accurate. So, we know that differences in performance (such as on math ability tests) are impacted by the beliefs themselves. Thus, such difference in performance are not evidence of differences in innate ability. Other evidence is required to establish such ability differences, and that is very tough to come by b/c in most cases the beliefs and assumptions begin produce actions that deferentially impact males and females from birth, and even before.

Complicating matters further is that most of these abilities require development and training to achieve whatever innate potential the person has. Even if women have equal potential ability for something, if the beliefs about it lead to their potential being less developed, then their actual developed ability will be lower. And job performance is impacted by actual ability not potential ability, so job performance would be harmed by expecting gender equality in some jobs, even if women have equal potential ability. IOW, whether one is willing to allow gender inequality in some jobs doesn't even cleanly map onto whether one accepts differences in innate potential ability.

A far leftists response to this would be to argue that even if there are differences in actual ability due to beliefs that impact ability development, gender equality in those jobs should be required, b/c that will impact development of those abilities for future generations by undermining those beliefs that are currently leading to under-development of abilities in women. It is the epitome of social engineering, basically forcing actions that harmful and even unjust (e.g., hiring/promoting objectively less able/qualified people) in order to try and reduce other future harms and injustices (e.g., continued lack of development of potential ability in some groups) caused by basic cultural flaws in the system (e.g, prejudices beliefs about potential ability).

 

[ronburgundy]

?

It depends. In a sex-segregated high school, it'll be one or the other. Otherwise, both.

I'm not sure what your comment is about.

Yeah, I think that's the point. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that schools teach demographics, not individuals. It doesn't matter if one gender in general could be better than another gender in any academic field if individuals from both genders can excel in it. Which is why we teach students as individuals, not gender demographics.

Yeah, but some people are demanding that we don't teach individuals, but rather that we make sure that we are teaching males and females at equal rates at every level of the subject, and that we don't hire individuals but rather make sure to hire equal numbers of males and females to perform the jobs which apply what was taught.

That is what underlies the aggressive push to increase females in the STEM fields, as though unequal representation in those fields is inherently a bad and unjust thing.

That's the OPs point. Is that a reasonable thing to expect, if there are differences in ability?

My 2 posts above try to take a nuanced stance that considers competing values and goals on the issue.

 

[dismal]

Totally normal thread title in a very healthy and normal country

Well, the good news is we're making progress against free speech. Soon people will be able to call people who say "men and women are different" nazis and punch them silly instead of having these debates.

 

[starwater]

this is why there are wars - because men run the countries.

 

[Worldtraveller]

this is why there are wars - because men run the countries.

Yes. I note that the OP "mysteriously" only defines the things that he thinks men are better at, and does not delve into the list of things that women are (statistically) better at.

Let's assume some these stupid stereotypes are true and that women are more empathetic, caring, nurturing, etc. Wouldn't we want women to be in charge in social situations in that case? Sure, let the men all sign up to be firefighters, and whatever other jobs require 'upper body strength', but if this is going to be used as an excuse to segregate society, let's go whole hog and put the women in charge of all the things they are better at.

I suspect maybe metaphor only thinks women are better at making sammiches and babies, but that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

 

[starwater]

this is why there are wars - because men run the countries.

Yes. I note that the OP "mysteriously" only defines the things that he thinks men are better at, and does not delve into the list of things that women are (statistically) better at.

Let's assume some these stupid stereotypes are true and that women are more empathetic, caring, nurturing, etc. Wouldn't we want women to be in charge in social situations in that case? Sure, let the men all sign up to be firefighters, and whatever other jobs require 'upper body strength', but if this is going to be used as an excuse to segregate society, let's go whole hog and put the women in charge of all the things they are better at.

I suspect maybe metaphor only thinks women are better at making sammiches and babies, but that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

^^^^this

This is why I posted popcorn eating gif at the top of this thread. I so enjoy reading the responses of posters that can tear this apart much more articulately than I can.

 

[dismal]

this is why there are wars - because men run the countries.

Yes. I note that the OP "mysteriously" only defines the things that he thinks men are better at, and does not delve into the list of things that women are (statistically) better at.

Let's assume some these stupid stereotypes are true and that women are more empathetic, caring, nurturing, etc. Wouldn't we want women to be in charge in social situations in that case? Sure, let the men all sign up to be firefighters, and whatever other jobs require 'upper body strength', but if this is going to be used as an excuse to segregate society, let's go whole hog and put the women in charge of all the things they are better at.

I suspect maybe metaphor only thinks women are better at making sammiches and babies, but that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

How can women be better at things if they aren't different?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

?

It depends. In a sex-segregated high school, it'll be one or the other. Otherwise, both.

I'm not sure what your comment is about.

Yeah, I think that's the point. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that schools teach demographics, not individuals. It doesn't matter if one gender in general could be better than another gender in any academic field if individuals from both genders can excel in it. Which is why we teach students as individuals, not gender demographics.

Yeah, but some people are demanding that we don't teach individuals, but rather that we make sure that we are teaching males and females at equal rates at every level of the subject, and that we don't hire individuals but rather make sure to hire equal numbers of males and females to perform the jobs which apply what was taught.

And if we didn't have a nation of 325 million people and were a commune of 25 people, that could create a legitimate problem.

That is what underlies the aggressive push to increase females in the STEM fields, as though unequal representation in those fields is inherently a bad and unjust thing.

Is that what is actually happening? In general, my experience with people bitching about schools seem to actually know very little about it. In my school district there are several schools, regular, stem concentrated, arts.

That's the OPs point. Is that a reasonable thing to expect, if there are differences in ability?

My 2 posts above try to take a nuanced stance that considers competing values and goals on the issue.

The OP brought up genders and alleged generalities, which is just dumb. So many fields consisted primarily of just white males. Was it because women couldn't play in an orchestra, design bridges, or play basketball?

We need to provide a venue for students to excel at both what they are good at and what they can do for a living.

Stuff is getting extremely complicated, really quickly in the world. We are losing millions and millions of jobs to innovation, machines, and productivity, and the education system is doing its darnedest to keep up. Heck, in the end, Arts might be the only employable field left after AI steals what is left.

 

[barbos]

Accepting that men are better at math than women opens huge can of worm like "what if race X is better at math than race Y?"

I was reading about autism in women and it turns out that autistic women have brain activity patterns similar to that of ordinary men.
That might explains why normal women are not interested in math.

 

[dismal]

Accepting that men are better at math than women opens huge can of worm like "what if race X is better at math than race Y?"

I was reading about autism in women and it turns out that autistic women have brain activity patterns similar to that of ordinary men.
That might explains why normal women are not interested in math.

Why is that a "can of worms"? If you created some objective metric for "ability at math" why would you expect all races to score equally?

Is this a Biden "we care about truth not facts" situation?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

this is why there are wars - because men run the countries.

Yes. I note that the OP "mysteriously" only defines the things that he thinks men are better at, and does not delve into the list of things that women are (statistically) better at.

Let's assume some these stupid stereotypes are true and that women are more empathetic, caring, nurturing, etc. Wouldn't we want women to be in charge in social situations in that case? Sure, let the men all sign up to be firefighters, and whatever other jobs require 'upper body strength', but if this is going to be used as an excuse to segregate society, let's go whole hog and put the women in charge of all the things they are better at.

I suspect maybe metaphor only thinks women are better at making sammiches and babies, but that would be stupid, wouldn't it?

Better yet, how about we don't hold anybody's gender for or against them? Just because women on average are this or men on average are that doesn't mean anything about any particular individual woman or man.