It is my view that there can be a difference between self interest and social interest only in societies which are internally divided. In truth, they are not even societies, but rather conglomerates of different societies. The society of men, the society of women, the society of rich, the society of poor, etc. They are only under the illusion of being a society, because in truth, they aren't a unity but a multiplicity. — Agustino

I would agree with this. The difference in interest comes largely when there is an ideological difference among groups in a society. That'a when it becomes nuclear, and there is effectively no society, as you point out.

I think what this reveals is that it has become a norm, at least in Western countries, to think that everyone has to have an opinion, and that everyone should seek to have their problems resolved by blaming someone else - institutions, education, economic system etc. Therefore hardly anyone feels responsible for anything. "If I have a problem, it's certainly because they discriminate against me." That's the line of lazy, irresponsible thinking that sadly dominates Western society.

Secondly, there is very little if any real authority. That is a general problem of democracy. All of a sudden everyone is an expert on politics, and able to judge what the president is doing. It's not that their concerns are not justified, it's that again, in a democratic regime, the leader has no reason to take as much responsibility, it's just a few years, after all. This also provokes virtually anyone else to think that they are as smart as representatives of governmental establishment. What a ridiculous, utterly dilussional approach. Most people are not and never will be leaders. See how 'leadership' us often used so loosely that it gives the general public the illusion of control, and with it comes an abbhorrently high number of all sorts of 'movements' that seeks to lead a certain group to think differently, which only destroys the unity. Why would anyone fight against themselves? Does the liver fight against the lungs? Of course not.

Stating the idea that men and women have different interests inherent in their gender is just an intolerable act to the social constructionists. — Bitter Crank

I don't disagree with you, but the different interest/different temperament argument is often, generally, used to avoid serious discussion. "You know how women are. Snicker, snicker. " I refer you back to a discussion from about 9 months ago.

What does being submissive mean? For the purpose of this discussion I define submissive as being deferential. What that means is when one person defers to another in decision making and/or behavior. Being obsequious would be an extreme example of submissiveness. Most submissive behavior – in my opinion – goes unnoticed because it is considered normal. I think it is important to come to terms with these concepts; because it reveals a lot about how we understand ourselves. Additionally what we think of others – both male and female. What do you think – how do you behave? — Thinker

Two of the major protagonists were TimeLine and Agustino. It turned pretty ugly. I think it gives a good lesson in the disrespect for women felt and expressed by some members of this forum, not to mention society at large.

I think what this reveals is that it has become a norm, at least in Western countries, to think that everyone has to have an opinion, and that everyone should seek to have their problems resolved by blaming someone else - institutions, education, economic system etc. Therefore hardly anyone feels responsible for anything. "If I have a problem, it's certainly because they discriminate against me." That's the line of lazy, irresponsible thinking that sadly dominates Western society. — Coldlight

Yes, I agree.

Secondly, there is very little if any real authority. That is a general problem of democracy. All of a sudden everyone is an expert on politics, and able to judge what the president is doing. It's not that their concerns are not justified, it's that again, in a democratic regime, the leader has no reason to take as much responsibility, it's just a few years, after all. — Coldlight

I also agree here. Democracies also have another problem - those in charge of the community (the leaders) are more worried about holding onto power, than taking care of administrative duties. Indeed, holding on to power becomes the primary concern, and sometimes the only one.

I think it gives a good lesson in the disrespect for women felt and expressed by some members of this forum — T Clark

I don't see any of the comments there from me as disrespectful to women. And I also don't think women are disrespected in (Western) society at large. Though in the Eastern countries, they probably are disrespected (still).

I also agree here. Democracies also have another problem - those in charge of the community (the leaders) are more worried about holding onto power, than taking care of administrative duties. Indeed, holding on to power becomes the primary concern, and sometimes the only one. — Agustino

The problem is also that the life in a society (or what's left of the society really) is often portrayed as a constant competition going to the point of an almost violent conflict of interests and ideologies. I find that everyone has a right for an opinion only if they keep it to themselves. If anyone decides to voice their opinion and use it publicly, they should take responsibility and bear the consequences. To take it further - the problem is not when someone says something, but when they propagandise it and try to sway public opinion on the other side.

To relate this back to the Gender Equality discussion, it largely seems that it is just something that has been inflated out of proportion, and now all of a sudden men are bad and women are entitled to a different treatment.

Beyond this obvious problem, I think there's something more crippling. It is the fact that some men (there's probably no formed group) retaliate by using the same rhetoric. So, they try to strike back with "No, actually, you discriminate against me!" This means they get converted to a superficially created way of confrontation. They step into the frame which makes the Gender Equality movement win in that debate because they dictate the rules of it.

In what way? I’d would disagree that they are inherently disrespectful just because they organise their Societies in a different way. I think they put more emphasis on respect than the West. That doesn’t mean people can’t be disrespectful, but it’s certainly, from my opinion, much more respect focused. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

The more educated people put more emphasis on respect than in the West. I am from Eastern Europe btw.

However, the masses of quite frankly stupid and uneducated people don't. Women are frequently treated like a piece of meat, are expected to be subservient to men in the workforce, etc. For example, I was at a notary last week, and he started swearing (with everyone there) at his secretary, then threatened to fire her, reminded her she has a child and is responsible for him, etc. That's definitely not decent treatment, and if it was a man instead of a woman he wouldn't have dared to do that.

And there are worse things than that. Back when I lived at the countryside, one of the neighbours there cut his wife with the sword because she refused to have sex with him, so my family had to call the police and then help her get out of that relationship. There's lots of stuff like that, including physical violence here.

Women though are also different and adapted to this. Which is why you get many women who end up trying to use the man for his money, and will leave him when they find someone who is better off. Happens in the poorest and the richest classes equally. There is a lot of conflict between the sexes I would say.

It depends as what your setting as the goal post for disrespect. If your morals are quite conservative, (like mine are) then the majority of youths (any many who are not so youthful) these days (male and female) contribute to the disrespect of the opposite gender (and their own) all the time. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Well, I am also a conservative.

The problem is also that the life in a society (or what's left of the society really) is often portrayed as a constant competition going to the point of an almost violent conflict of interests and ideologies. I find that everyone has a right for an opinion only if they keep it to themselves. If anyone decides to voice their opinion and use it publicly, they should take responsibility and bear the consequences. To take it further - the problem is not when someone says something, but when they propagandise it and try to sway public opinion on the other side. — Coldlight

Yes, "public opinion" seems to have become a way to arbitrate between what is right and wrong, and what is true and false in the West. If you watch students working together (for example), you'll see that the moment they reach an impasse, they will say "let's vote", instead of "let's try to think more clearly about what the truth is". And then the result of the vote is taken as truth, and the opposition is silenced. In the West, the opinion of the masses is the standard of truth. And this bastardization of truth seems to come part and parcel with democracy.

It is the fact that some men (there's probably no formed group) retaliate by using the same rhetoric. So, they try to strike back with "No, actually, you discriminate against me!" This means they get converted to a superficially created way of confrontation. — Coldlight

Yes, I would agree. Some respond to ressentiment in the same spirit that they were attacked, and hence, paradoxically, propagate the same spirit further.

where is this? when you refer to the east where are you referring to exactly? like the entire east side of the world map? Igor Just where you happen to be? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

I am from Eastern Europe btw. — Agustino

I’ve seen female bosses talk like crap to their employees, i’ve seen male bosses talk like crap to their employees. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Yes, but there usually are some limits in many Western countries.

And I don’t see how education has anything to do with it (if you’re referring to intellectual education) I think it’s more about being taught good etiquette, which is something available regardless of how educated you are. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

It absolutely does, if you're not educated in the sense that I'm talking about (which is moral education), then you will almost inevitably behave like a brute.

I’ve witnessed some of the poorest places (and least educated) to be some of the most respectful and courteous places i’ve visited. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Yes, towards visitors, since visitors have money, and they have what to take.

I find most children/teenagers from poor countries to be unquantifiably more polite than western pupils in school getting a full education. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Hmmm - like you mean going to punch the teacher, or throwing stuff while they lecture at the board, etc.? Is that "more polite"? How about going to exams where people literarily talk to each other and give each other the answers, while the instructors repeat "no talking" while doing nothing to actually stop the cheating?

Most people from the less developed countries tend to treat Americans, British, etc. like gods - why? Because they were taught since childhood to bow the head.

whether or not there should be gender equality. — Purple Pond

I don't understand the question.

It sounds like a question, but when one looks more closely at it, it dissolves into a purple haze.

To understand the question, we first need to know:

(1) what is meant by 'gender equality'; and

(2) what does the should imply? eg legislation? If so, exactly what sort of legislation, making what compulsions on whom? If not legislation then what? What exactly is the proposed action if one concludes that there 'should' be 'gender equality'.

questino — andrewk

:rofl:

It means POst MOdern.

We all know that men and women are different. — Purple Pond

And we all know that short people and tall people are different.

Men are usually more masculine and women are usually more feminine. — Purple Pond

Short people are usually shorter. Tall people are usually taller.

This is not to say that perceptions of what consists of masculinity and femininity can't change. — Purple Pond

This is not to say that perceptions of what consists of short and tall can't change. 6' used to be considered a big man in basketball, I believe.

In the STEM field, for example, men are grossly overrepresented in jobs related to science, technology, engineering, and math. — Purple Pond

Is "grossly" objective? What would be non-"grossly "? 51/49? 52/48? 60/40?

But why is there such a gap? Are women being oppressed? — Purple Pond

How long have those jobs existed?

How long have enough of them existed for the average person to aspire to fill them?

How long have significant numbers of girls and women wanted such jobs?

Do you know how many times I have heard women say that their fathers pushed them real hard to prepare for STEM fields? It is far more times than I have heard any saying that their mothers steered them in that direction.

One of my favorite athletes, Erin Stern, says that it was her father who encouraged her to try sports in high school, if I recall correctly. Now she is one of the biggest success stories in the relatively new sport of women's bodybuilding, and a role model for future generations of female athletes and women outside of competitive sports who simply want to have the best body they can.

Do you know who a Sports Illustrated article for the 40th anniversary of Title IX said it was who used the law to allow girls and women to have equal opportunities in sports? Fathers. It was fathers using Title IX to sue school boards, divisions of parks and recreation, etc. on behalf of their daughters that created a lot of opportunities previously available only to boys and men.

My guess is that girls' future in STEM fields starts in the home, not in the attitudes of the teachers doing the teaching, managers doing the hiring, CEOs making the policies, etc.

Perhaps in other cases there is a reason beyond the discrimination, may be in certain areas male traits are more desirable such as competitiveness and assertiveness. Can you think of other reasons why there is gender inequality? — Purple Pond

I do not believe it is any of that.

Again, I would say that mentors, role models, encouragement, demands/expectations, etc.--especially in the home/family--are the biggest predictor.

I personally haven't decided on whether or not there should be gender equality. I don't know how much male and female trait differences matter. What do you think? — Purple Pond

In the U.S. and, as far as I know, the rest of the post-Industrial world we have decided that every person, regardless of his/her sex, should have the same opportunities. How could you--or anybody--doubt that that is the right thing to do, let alone oppose it?

Doubting the wisdom of, or directly opposing, equal opportunities for girls and women because of their biology makes as much sense as doubting the wisdom of or directly opposing equal opportunities for short people because of their biology.

In the U.S. and, as far as I know, the rest of the post-Industrial world we have decided that every person, regardless of his/her sex, should have the same opportunities. How could you--or anybody--doubt that that is the right thing to do, let alone oppose it? — WISDOMfromPO-MO

How do you define same opportunities? There is only so many jobs, so many opportunities, so many chances. How can you ever claim that there is a same opportunity for anyone? That has nothing to do with any characteristics of an individual. If the two of us apply for the same job, do we have the same opportunity? Absolutely not. One of us might and will be more favoured. So for one of us it might be a waste of time, and for the other one a new job. That is, if you are willing to look beyond the obvious fact that we will go through the same process of interview, tests etc.

Doubting the wisdom of, or directly opposing, equal opportunities for girls and women because of their biology makes as much sense as doubting the wisdom of or directly opposing equal opportunities for short people because of their biology. — WISDOMfromPO-MO

Nonsense. Unless you define what equal opportunity really means, you're just using it as a buzzword to seemingly strengthen your argument.

By the way, who opposes opportunities for women? I've never witnessed anything like it. Media keep thrashing some incredibly evil, never-seen-by-anyone misogynist. Then the media are full of articles about women. The Guardians main page on International Women's Day was just disgusting. I am really tempted to think that in 50 years it may be displayed as propaganda of our times. There was zero objectivity and zero dialogue.

Just visit the academia - all of a sudden, loads of propaganda and advertising about women in academia, women writers, women entrepreneurs etc.

Two of the major protagonists were TimeLine and Agustino. It turned pretty ugly. I think it gives a good lesson in the disrespect for women felt and expressed by some members of this forum, not to mention society at large. — T Clark

Yes, I remember that particular philosorumble.

When we talk about differences between men and women, gays and straights. smart people and stupid people and a whole batch of other features, it is important to make refined distinctions. By 'refined' I mean carefully drawn and carefully limited, too. When we talk about strength differences between men and women, for instance, one can say that men provide specimens with more strength than any woman will present, but many men and women have about the same amount of strength. Sure, on average men may be stronger than women, but it's still true that a lot of men and women are about equally strong.

Or one can say that gay men and straight men have different object choices, but that gay men and straight men without long term partners might be about equally promiscuous. "Why don't straight men have as much sex as gay men? Because straight women won't let them." Gay men who are in long-term relationships also put a brake on each other's sexual adventures. Sigh.

Smart people sometimes do very stupid things and stupid people have been known to do some very smart things. But, on average, stupid people tend to be more stupid than smart people (an opinion that is supported by extensive research and millennia of human experience).

For example, I was at a notary last week, and he started swearing (with everyone there) at his secretary, then threatened to fire her, reminded her she has a child and is responsible for him, etc. That's definitely not decent treatment, and if it was a man instead of a woman he wouldn't have dared to do that. — Agustino

So, what did your fellow Rotarians do about this example of atrocious behavior (on the part of their fellow Rotarian?)

Back when I lived at the countryside, one of the neighbours there cut his wife with the sword because she refused to have sex with him — Agustino

Were your neighbors Slavic? Slavs seem to get hot under the collar (it's an expression, not a diagnosis of localized neck fever) over fairly casual slights. Unlike the rest of humanity who are always extremely thoughtful about what they get angry about.

No, very likely this wasn't the case, despite Ida Tarbell's account, which was more vilification than truth. Ron Chernow's biography is more accurate. — Agustino

I should probably read Chernow. Chernow's bio gets good reviews, but that doesn't mean that JDR was not a ruthless capitalist. His son, JDR Jr., the one who supervised the Rockefeller fortune after JDR died, and built Rockefeller Center, seemed to feel that his father's history was something of a burden to bear.

But I wouldn't expect you and me to have have the same view of Rockefeller or Carnegie, or various other tycoons. You and I admire different traits -- which only makes sense, given who you are and who I am.

How do we know this? Because a lot of the producers who sold out to Rockefeller remained in the business working for Standard Oil, and many of them became very rich, millionaires. So going from starving oil producer to millionaire is quite an improvement I would think, no? — Agustino

No doubt it is better to become a millionaire on the coat tails of the guy who swindled you out of your business than to be bitter and resentful for eternity. However... that doesn't make the swindler a nice guy in a white hat.

How do you define same opportunities? — Coldlight

Speaking of STEM, this is not rocket science.

One's desire, determination, preparation, skill, abilities, aptitude, sacrifice, hard work etc. should determine what opportunities are available to him/her. One's sex/gender should not play a role in determining what opportunities are available to him/her.

Forget about theory for a second. Just thinking about it in practical/pragmatic terms, if a girl has the potential to someday discover the cure for cancer, why would you want to deny her opportunities to realize that potential because of her sex/gender?

Why would anybody want to deny anybody any opportunity to realize his/her full potential?

Seeing people succeed and realize their dreams makes me smile.

What kind of person would be opposed to any person realizing his/her dreams and full potential? The only answer I can think of is a person who is so insecure, jealous, envious, bitter, narcissistic etc. that he/she needs others to fail before he/she can feel good about his/her own self.

or a member of an American Indian people in Northern California... — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Oh, there actually is a POMO Indian tribe in California. Amazing. I thought you were joking. They must find incomprehensible white PoMo English majors a very annoying group, considering the misuse of their most honorable name.

So, what did your fellow Rotarians do about this example of atrocious behavior (on the part of their fellow Rotarian?) — Bitter Crank

Hmm, I'm not a member of that club.

As for the people present, nobody did anything, you can't really tell another person how to run his business. What would you have done?

Were your neighbors Slavic? Slavs seem to get hot under the collar (it's an expression, not a diagnosis of localized neck fever) over fairly casual slights. Unlike the rest of humanity who are always extremely thoughtful about what they get angry about. — Bitter Crank

Yes, partly so. Everyone from the Balkans tends to get hot under the collar over casual stuff :rofl:

His son, JDR Jr., the one who supervised the Rockefeller fortune after JDR died, and built Rockefeller Center, seemed to feel that his father's history was something of a burden to bear. — Bitter Crank

As I told you before, I have read very little about the descendants of JDR Sr.

But I wouldn't expect you and me to have have the same view of Rockefeller or Carnegie, or various other tycoons. — Bitter Crank

Carnegie & Vanderbilt are different than, say, Rockefeller and Henry Ford. The former were ruthless, and did engage in immoral practices. So we might have the same view about them.

No doubt it is better to become a millionaire on the coat tails of the guy who swindled you out of your business than to be bitter and resentful for eternity. However... that doesn't make the swindler a nice guy in a white hat. — Bitter Crank

This is arguable. Even in court, if there are no damages (but quite the contrary), you usually hardly have a case in economic matters. If your ego was insulted, well, tough luck - you still made more money than you would have otherwise out of it. The truth is that Rockefeller helped stabilise the oil industry & create a reliable & stable output which allowed for further technical development. He was also a very devout Christian his whole life, and always tithed 10% of his income to the Church.

Hmm, I'm not a member of that club. — Agustino

Rotary International does good work, and it's a good networking organization. I would think you would find it beneficial to belong.

Yes, partly so. Everyone from the Balkans tends to get hot under the collar over casual stuff :rofl: — Agustino

There have been several prominent examples of Balkanites getting hot under their collective casual collars and then getting totally out of hand -- like some archduke merely taking a drive through Sarajevo one fine day, or more recently Yugoslavia disintegrating, and then some dissatisfaction with Kosovo, et al...

There have been several prominent examples of Balkanites getting hot under their collective casual collars and then getting totally out of hand -- like some archduke merely taking a drive through Sarajevo one fine day, or more recently Yugoslavia disintegrating, and then some dissatisfaction with Kosovo, et al... — Bitter Crank

:lol:

Rotary International does good work, and it's a good networking organization. I would think you would find it beneficial to belong. — Bitter Crank

Maybe - I know a lawyer who is a member there. Thanks for the suggestion.

I've been spending some time on a mothers/feminist forum, trying to come to better understanding of gender equality and the complete tangled mess of the different view points I see in this world. I highly recommend reading over their views for added insights to this discussion: their forum doesn't seem to be far-left in view, but rather just a very female view.

One thread they have going that seems particularly interesting to me lately is an ANTI-EQUALITY bill, or more precisely, an exemption wish list for women. ie) Girl Guides, bathrooms, prisons, gyms, etc.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YMTB26EMURyu08BTTbDZLKdNm7NSRoda/view
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3185398-Biological-SEX-MATTERS-How-many-mumsnetters-say-aye-to-this-campaign

When push comes to shove, honest women will admit there are biological differences between men and women. Please see the above document and their public vote for evidence. This really stands out when the topic of transgender picks up; women don't trust any sort of man at all it seems. I can attest to the fact that as a man, I cannot go to the beach or playground with a camera in hand, nor can I be left unsupervised when with other people's children around. This does not apply to a lady though. Sexism at it's finest**

I tend to agree with a lot of what women are stating actually though, however I am utterly confused by what is politically acceptable and not anymore. **There are a lot of double standards and double think, so I am left perpetually confused.

For example, no 8-year old boy (or trans) is going to rape an 8-year old girl if the boy is allowed into girl guides. Girls are allowed into boy scouts without concern to make that evident. I get very confused though to hear that when Girl Guides needs to allow in boys, this becomes unacceptable from feminists however.

Their explanation for this:

1. Learning, education and development
Some children and adults thrive more in single-sexed education and recreational
activities. This includes single-sex schools, Girl Guides and women and girls in STEM subjects.

2. Sanctuary, privacy and recovery
Single-sex spaces mean participants can be confident they will be free from
potential harassment, voyeurism, intrusion, domination or embarrassment

Before I can state where my opinion on the matter of gender equity lands, I think I need to understand all the views. So far, that is proving impossible as the complexity is far beyond my abilities to juggle while trying to side step cognitive biases. I tend to find the safest answer then is to look around at how things are now, what works and what doesn't, and not try to leap to conclusions about what an ideal resolution would be instead.

That doesn’t mean you’re not manly. Jordan Peterson never made a claim to the extent you’re suggesting there. When talking about men that work 80+ hours a week he was referring to an extreme minority of males willing to commit themselves to such things. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Yeah I could be overstating the case, but, going off recollection, a connection was made between traits such as that and male psychology. The opposites of course implying the standard female disposition. Not all men embody these characteristics, which is a claim he didn't make, but they are nevertheless seen as "natural" signs of (extreme?) masculinity which are then used to explain the gender pay gap.

The point I was trying to make, I think, is that these traits seem more likely the results of historically and socially conditioned ideals than natural expressions of gender differences. Think about it: What would ancient or medievals have to say about a human being who spent the bulk of his time thinking about and chasing after money as a means to success and recognition?

I don't think that behavior would be perceived as very masculine in other contexts - nor necessarily feminine - but as a slavish and debased form of existence unworthy of dignified men who were the cultural exemplars of their time(s) and place(s). That's why I think the linking of a willingness to work absurdly long hours with some unconditioned notion of masculinity seemed arbitrary.

So Peterson seems to take one contingent manifestation of manliness and then uses this to extrapolate on what he understands to be natural characteristics - ahistorical and decontextualized - separating the drives and aspirations of men and women. This in turn is used to justify (in part) the discrepancy in pay between the sexes. Generally speaking and exceptions notwithstanding, the impression is given that women are much less interested in pursuing the things that men who become CEOs are, and this can be traced to the natural disposition of their sex.

I'm open to the idea that men are more prone to pursue "immaterial" things like recognition from peers in a Hegelian battle for prestige (or Fukuyama's "desire for recognition"), although I'm skeptical of this too. Women seem just as desirous of gaining the respect and admiration of others as men - I see little difference in that ostensibly "natural" desire; only in the way it expresses itself. That obviously appears to be changing and women are no longer content with things that in previous eras may have conferred social status and respect.

Anyhow, my first post here was really bad, embarrassingly so after re-reading, and I don't think this one clears it up much. My basic contention, if it can be called that, is that ideas of masculinity and femininity seem to undergo significant historical shifts that aren't grounded in innate gender differences. I may very well be wrong, but shifting conceptions seem to explain the general expressions better than natural gender differences, and I think Peterson offers up another socially and historically conditioned understanding of masculinity that will eventually give way to something else.

As mentioned, the model of masculinity that JP uses to highlight these supposedly natural gender differences, at least as I understand it, would not be seen as such in other premodern or maybe even contemporary non-Western contexts, and the macho CEO (even if a woman) who's preoccupied with his or her career and moneymaking at the expense of all else, would likely be perceived as much less manly than (e.g.) the poets and philosophers sitting around drinking and conversing on love in Plato's Symposium. In today's world that would be seen as a waste of valuable time by powerful CEOs, not to mention pretty unmanly by our society more generally.

I'll go back and watch the interview again to make sure I'm not strawmanning Peterson. By the way, thank you @T Clark for linking it.

As mentioned, the model of masculinity that JP uses to highlight these supposedly natural gender differences, at least as I understand it, would not be seen as such in other premodern or maybe even contemporary non-Western contexts — Erik

Absolutely, take this recent study for example
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6236/796

I'm not suggesting that the overwhelming majority of hunter-gatherers don't have a gender based division of labour, but it's far from Peterson's tired old capitalist cliché.

Studies have shown that women are just as proficient in mathematics, science, and other STEM related fields, as men are. — Maw

Sources? Are you talking about mean or median?

It seems to be the case that more men than women suffer from forms of autism. Must we insist that this cannot be the case? That the apparent inequality must be the result of some socially conditioned bias when measuring autism in men and women. Or, if there is a genuine difference, it must be the result of the way boys and girls are nurtured.

Likewise, men make up by far the majority of criminals. Until prisons are 50:50 men and women, should we assume the police and courts are discriminating against men?

Personally, I have no problem with the idea that some traits may be more common in one sex than the other. If this is so it may also be that the unusual obsessive traits that can make for career progress and exceptional earnings in some fields may be commoner amongst men than women.

Accepting such differences would not mean it is rational to assume that every man is autistic, criminal, or a CEO. But it would mean that we should not assume all statistical evidence of inequality between the sexes must be the result of sex discrimination.

Here and here, just two examples