Science Says ‘Lean In’ Is Filled With Flawed Advice, Likely to Hurt Women

[bilby]

...
Humans were already planes living social hunter gatherers by the time of Australopithecus after which they increased their migratory behavior, adapted to a broad range of climates, took up team hunting and clearly specialized as tool makers.
...

Point of information: Humans couldn't live on planes prior to 1903, and although planes certainly increased migratory behaviour, this only became significant after WWII.

Living on plains OTOH we have been doing for some time.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

...
Humans were already planes living social hunter gatherers by the time of Australopithecus after which they increased their migratory behavior, adapted to a broad range of climates, took up team hunting and clearly specialized as tool makers.
...

Point of information: Humans couldn't live on planes prior to 1903, and although planes certainly increased migratory behaviour, this only became significant after WWII.

Living on plains OTOH we have been doing for some time.

 

[dystopian]

It doesn't get any more clear cut than that. Your repeated denial of clear cut objective fact shows a lack of interest in any honest discourse on the matter, so I won't bother wasting my time with you further.

chain of events:

1. Ronburgundy makes post that Dystopian interpreted a certain way.
2. Dystopian made a post in response to said interpretation.
3. Ronburgundy flipped the fuck out, accusing Dystopian of being a faithy-idealogue who'se anti-science.
4. Dystopian clarified his post further.
5. Ronburgundy flipped the fuck out some more, accusing Dystopian of revisionism.
6. Dystopian suggested that perhaps they'd both misunderstood/misrepresented each other's position and that it'd be reasonable to acknowledge that and move on.
7. Ronburgundy flipped the fuck out again, making a public declaration that Dystopian is dishonest and that he won't be bothering with him anymore.
8. Dystopian snickers, retracts his suggestion that perhaps he'd misunderstood Ronburgundy's position; states once again, with greater certainty now, that Ronburgundy appears to be the one ideologically motivated; and openly mocks him.
9. ???
10. Profit.

 

[dystopian]

Agriculture was a minority occupation up to less than 3000 years ago.

I'm not sure that's really accurate. Surely that depends on the geography we're talking about.

As you know lactose tolerance is only found in 60% of today's human population and that genetic factor introduction dates to 6500 +/- 2000 years ago. If we go back to 15 k years ago we find dogs were becoming pets and helpers in human communities.

Actually that's wrong; current evidence suggests domestication of dogs began as early as 36,000 years ago. 12-14,000 years we had the neolithic revolution, which is when we started adopting urban lifestyles and started domesticating cattle and crops.

...and as I Wrote our discussion is irrelevant to humans since marriage and sexual rights are an economic social factor which only ties to power and authority. No basis in genetics for that particular station.

Again, I agree. But tangents can be fun.

 

[Togo]

I don't see much need in this chimp discussion.
We (except usual suspects) accept that there are innate psychological differences between sexes, and we can't really do much about it.

The usual suspects being scientists insisting on actual evidence.

And do we really want women be exactly equal to men in every respect?

In terms of treatment and opportunity? Yes, we do.

Why would any normal woman want to be some WallStreet bankster CEO? These should be more correctly called CEAs (Chief Executive Asshole)

Because they have a lot of money, influence and power? I guess the gals shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about such things...

 

[barbos]

The usual suspects being scientists insisting on actual evidence.

Usual suspects are people like you who ask for science citation and then ignore it.

And do we really want women be exactly equal to men in every respect?

In terms of treatment and opportunity? Yes, we do.

Why would any normal woman want to be some WallStreet bankster CEO? These should be more correctly called CEAs (Chief Executive Asshole)

Because they have a lot of money, influence and power? I guess the gals shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about such things...

Maybe they should not have lot of money influence and power? Have you thought of such solution?
And why do you think women have the same motivation you (as a male) have?

 

[Togo]

Usual suspects are people like you who ask for science citation and then ignore it.

But I did ask you for a science citation, and then I did go into it in a great deal of detail, explaining exactly why it didn't support your position.

You ignored my response.

And do we really want women be exactly equal to men in every respect?

In terms of treatment and opportunity? Yes, we do.

Why would any normal woman want to be some WallStreet bankster CEO? These should be more correctly called CEAs (Chief Executive Asshole)

Because they have a lot of money, influence and power? I guess the gals shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about such things...

Maybe they should not have lot of money influence and power? Have you thought of such solution?

Yes, I have. The idea that we'd somehow be better off by restricting half of humanity off to non-leadership positions doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It also doesn't appear to be a very healthy way to be led, or to make decisions generally.

And why do you think women have the same motivation you (as a male) have?

Because I talk to them, and many of them have remarkably similar ambitions to men. What makes you think that no woman can share your motivation, or mine?

Is it safe to say that your concern about "Lean In" is not that it wouldn't work, but that it might work all too well, to the general detriment of woman who you feel are not suited to leadership roles?

 

[Bomb#20]

Why would any normal woman want to be some WallStreet bankster CEO? These should be more correctly called CEAs (Chief Executive Asshole)

Because they have a lot of money, influence and power? I guess the gals shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about such things...

Maybe they should not have lot of money influence and power? Have you thought of such solution?

Yes, I have. The idea that we'd somehow be better off by restricting half of humanity off to non-leadership positions doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It also doesn't appear to be a very healthy way to be led, or to make decisions generally.

Um, sounds like he meant "Maybe WallStreet bankster CEOs should not have lot of money influence and power? Have you thought of such solution?" Chill.

 

[barbos]

But I did ask you for a science citation, and then I did go into it in a great deal of detail, explaining exactly why it didn't support your position.

No, you did not.

You ignored my response.

I certainly did not.

And do we really want women be exactly equal to men in every respect?

In terms of treatment and opportunity? Yes, we do.

Why would any normal woman want to be some WallStreet bankster CEO? These should be more correctly called CEAs (Chief Executive Asshole)

Because they have a lot of money, influence and power? I guess the gals shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about such things...

Maybe they should not have lot of money influence and power? Have you thought of such solution?

Yes, I have. The idea that we'd somehow be better off by restricting half of humanity off to non-leadership positions doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It also doesn't appear to be a very healthy way to be led, or to make decisions generally.

Nobody suggests such restrictions, women are allowed to be leaders of criminal enterprises the same way as men.

And why do you think women have the same motivation you (as a male) have?

Because I talk to them, and many of them have remarkably similar ambitions to men. What makes you think that no woman can share your motivation, or mine?

Scientific studies have shown that women have different motivation, they think differently.

Is it safe to say that your concern about "Lean In" is not that it wouldn't work, but that it might work all too well, to the general detriment of woman who you feel are not suited to leadership roles?

I have no such concern. My only concern is that ignores that women are psychologically different.

 

[Togo]

I replied in post #60, going into a fair amount of detail.

You ignored that.

Jokodo replied in post #61

Your ignored him


It really does look like Joko nailed it:

Have been cited million times already.
each time it's quietly ignored and thread dies... until another is started few months later.

My experience is quite the opposite: Each time someone patiently points out why the cited articles don't show what you all want them to show, and then you're never back to discuss them.

Your excuse that no one looks at your links is no longer available to you.

Scientific studies have shown that women have different motivation, they think differently.

No they don't. What the studies show is that when you analyse individuals, they think differently from each other. If you bunch them up into groups by sex, then you get a difference between the two groups, suggesting that there are differences in the distribution of different outcomes between the two. That doesn't mean that girls think one way and boys another, it means that all the different ways of thinking are more or less common in one group than in the other.

And as I said before, these differences are tiny. Once you start to control for differences in upbringing, they all but disappear.

 

[Starman]

Science is not a thing that says anything.

Except when it comes to global warming. And evolution. And the fact that *homosexuality is hereditary.*
And anything else you liberals wish to proclaim from your lofty *scientific* and *rational* perches.
THEN *science* says everything you want it to say. Always your way.

"Nothing is known for certain except in pure mathematics." - Carl Sagan, Demon Haunted World, page 28 (as I recall)

Or was that "Sex was invented."

 

[barbos]

I replied in post #60, going into a fair amount of detail.

You ignored that.

You posted bullshit as I predicted.

Jokodo replied in post #61

Your ignored him

Posting bullshit is not a valid reply

It really does look like Joko nailed it:

If posting bullshit is nailing then yes he "nailed" it.

My experience is quite the opposite: Each time someone patiently points out why the cited articles don't show what you all want them to show, and then you're never back to discuss them.

Your excuse that no one looks at your links is no longer available to you.

Scientific studies have shown that women have different motivation, they think differently.

No they don't. What the studies show is that when you analyse individuals, they think differently from each other. If you bunch them up into groups by sex, then you get a difference between the two groups, suggesting that there are differences in the distribution of different outcomes between the two. That doesn't mean that girls think one way and boys another, it means that all the different ways of thinking are more or less common in one group than in the other.

And as I said before, these differences are tiny. Once you start to control for differences in upbringing, they all but disappear.

Define "tiny"?
And bullshit again. Science have established that there are huge differences between sexes and they have nothing to do with upbringing.
You sound like these fucking pastors who promise to cure gays and it's all about upbringing.
It's not!

 

[barbos]

--

 

[Togo]

Science is not a thing that says anything.

Except when it comes to global warming. And evolution. And the fact that *homosexuality is hereditary.*
And anything else you liberals wish to proclaim from your lofty *scientific* and *rational* perches.
THEN *science* says everything you want it to say. Always your way.

Reality has a strong liberal bias. A bit like the media.

I replied in post #60, going into a fair amount of detail.

You ignored that.

You posted bullshit as I predicted.

If you say so, but it was still a reply. Which makes your claim, that I didn't reply, untrue.

And bullshit again. Science have established that there are huge differences between sexes and they have nothing to do with upbringing.

Outside of physiological differences, and sexual behaviour? I don't believe that it has. Do you have any references to that science?