I am actually baffled by your insightful post. I often don't read them. — Emptyheady

The same thing, only less of it. Better? 145 words v. 307.

Camille Puglia says women have had plenty of opportunity to be great painters. Apparently they don't have what it takes (like, the male gaze).

The standard distribution will not be mocked. Most (99.009%) people never do anything great because most people have ordinary abilities. Whether it be mathematics or horse shoeing, genius is rare. Very perceptive, creative minds seldom occur. Smart people are a small minority. Most of us live in the big hump in the middle. That's OK because we mediocrities in the big hump actually keep the world turning.

The people on the top (or out there in the .001% of high achievement) clawed, bought, or bullied their way to the top. It takes more than genius--it takes balls. And connections don't hurt, either. Most women don't have balls, but a few do.

Perhaps most women are wise enough to see that philosophy is mostly nonsense disguised as hard questions.

The people on the top (or out there in the .001% of high achievement) clawed, bought, or bullied their way to the top. It takes more than genius--it takes balls. And connections don't hurt, either. Most women don't have balls, but a few do. — Bitter Crank

I agree >:O genius!

Yeah that must be it...

Lol I accidentally flagged your comment man... sorry :-#

Lol I accidentally flagged your comment man... sorry :-# — Agustino

Heh, heh, heh. I accidentally flagged your comment.

Men should be less ambitious and successful, so that we can become more equal. — Emptyheady

Sounds like the voice of frustration to me. I know Unenlightened gets pissed off if one focuses on the why instead of the what.. but especially with stuff like this.. the why is the only interesting aspect of it (to me).

So if you got the impression at some point that you aren't allowed to ask this kind of question or that it would be wrong to think the way you do -- I'm genuinely sorry about that. You have a right to think whatever makes the most sense to you.

It would be a little ironic if you didn't go about it with a little intelligence, for instance in paying attention to what you can and can not do with statistics, but otherwise.. explore away.

Personal anecdote that may fit in: I worked at AT&T for ten years. In that time I saw a number of women drop out of electronic engineering to raise their kids. One was my boss's boss's boss. She was supposed to keep going up the line to NY. She quit. I heard she bought an amusement park, but wanted to spend more time with her kids.

I didn't quite know what to make of that, especially as I watched the trend. I myself quit to go off and explore living in a van or in the woods. I eventually became a massage therapist, and then a nurse. I lived the life I wanted. There's no doubt about that. I hope you do too.

BTW.. why are you focusing on this question so much?

Heh, heh, heh. I accidentally flagged your comment. — Bitter Crank

Which one? X-)

(6) I have omitted perhaps the most obvious reason why men and women differ at the highest levels of accomplishment: men take more risks, are more competitive, and are more aggressive than women. — Emptyheady

I pretty much agree here.
I think that women are not as competitive as men are.
Women in general seem to be unwilling to put in the same level of effort, commitment and sacrifice as men when it comes to excelling.

I don't think you can argue that women are fundamentally incapable compared to men, except for perhaps in pure physical prowess, and even then on a pound for pound basis women are just as capable as men physically.

I was quoting you, about your allegedly accidentally flagging empty heady.

Well I did actually accidentally flag it LOL no jokes. >:O

Women in general seem to be unwilling to put in the same level of effort, commitment and sacrifice as men when it comes to excelling. — m-theory

It's not this. Rather they do what it takes to avoid conflict. Women hate conflict, at least most of them do. I'm a very conflictual person, I enjoy conflicts, and I see this quite frequently in women. They back down easily. Even men do, but they first put up some resistance.

The point I was making was that I do not believe there is grounds to argue that women are less capable than men are, say for example at confrontation, but that women not as willing as are men.

I do not believe it is sexist to point out that, compared to men, women are less willing to do what is necessary to be a top competitor in certain arena's of competition and that this, more than anything else, accounts for male dominance in areas like science and philosophy.

By and large women simply don't have the will or interest to make the necessary commitments and sacrifices. even women that would be capable are more likely to make other things a priority.

So did I, sorry.

The same thing, only less of it. Better? — Bitter Crank

I thought your previous post was fine. Writing is all about clarity and purpose. Length is unimportant.

Anyway, to the crux of your post. What people (mostly leftists) need to realise is that life is a not a zero-sum game. All socialists arguments are rooted in some kind of zero-sum thinking, but one of the first thing they teach you in economic classes is that economics is not a zero-sum game.

Men's successes do not go at the cost of women.

It is evidently the case that the gender gap in higher education increases if the financial aspects becomes less important. For, example, there are proportionally more women in engineering in India or in other poorer countries than in Norway, because the women in Norway worry less about money, and are therefore more inclined to choose what they truly enjoy instead of planning a career.

Women and men make different choices, and there is strong evidence that discrimination plays little to no role.

Women avoid excessive risk taking, and women are less likely to put up with living in a laboratory, making morning toast on a bunsen burner. Getting to the top appears to require laser focus on THE GOAL. But most men also don't take excessive risks, and like to be free in the evenings, and don't enjoy bureaucratic dog fights that much.

So did I, sorry. — Emptyheady

>:O Was it accidental?

Women avoid excessive risk taking, and women are less likely to put up with living in a laboratory, making morning toast on a bunsen burner. Getting to the top appears to require laser focus on THE GOAL. But most men also don't take excessive risks, and like to be free in the evenings, and don't enjoy bureaucratic dog fights that much. — Bitter Crank

I'm not sure if it's just the risk... I've known women who are big risk takers, and fearless in the face of risk, so long as that risk doesn't include becoming directly engaged in conflict with other people.

I myself for example, am not a big risk taker. I'm a coward when it comes to risk, I want certainty. So I'm not sure that men are "bigger risk takers".

What are you on about? I think you miss the point, but I would first like to hear some clarifications before I respond fully. I do not want to base my reply on a misunderstanding.

I argue both. Going by the evidence I cited, women are less willing to make the necessary sacrifices and are naturally less capable.

No, but I said "sorry" so all is fine.

No, but I said "sorry" so all is fine. — Emptyheady

>:O Sure, I don't mind. I actually did accidentally hit flag on yours lol

I argue both. Going by the evidence I cited, women are less willing to make the necessary sacrifices and are naturally less capable. — Emptyheady

Having a difference in priorities does not make women less capable in my opinion.

I agree that men and women make different decisions based on different set of priorities that are driven by biological imperatives but I do not agree that being a woman automatically makes you incapable of doing something as good as a man, well except for purely physical things of course.

I think you miss the point, — Emptyheady

Awesome! What's the point? That culture has nothing to do with gender disparity?

I don't find it attractive or culturally appropriate when (heterosexual) women take male roles (soldier, firefighter, steel construction. philosopher) and fill them in an "as-if-they-were-male" style that amounts to caricature. The same goes for (heterosexual) men in typical female roles who ape women's styles of job performance. Waiters don't have to act like waitresses, so to speak.

Are you fucking kidding me?

That was sort of my point.
It is not social constructs that accounts for some gender disparities.
For example most men are not willing or interested in being stay at home parents compared to women.
That simply is not as validating to most men compared to women.

Are you fucking kidding me? — Mongrel

She's a #feminazi ;)

I don't find it attractive or culturally appropriate when (heterosexual) women take male roles (soldier, firefighter, steel construction. philosopher) and fill them in an "as-if-they-were-male" style that amounts to caricature. The same goes for (heterosexual) men in typical female roles who ape women's styles of job performance. Waiters don't have to act like waitresses, so to speak. — Bitter Crank

This is some dumb shit right here, >:O

Heister are you also #feminazi dear? :-}

You must know, as "a very conflictual person... I enjoy conflicts" that conflicts can be extremely risky -- not that one will necessarily be shot (except if you live in Chicago) but one is more likely to get fired, passed over for promotion, demoted, shunned, etc. if one is too conflictual. At the very least, you'll find that the only people who want to be around you are also conflict-addicts. (I also love a good conflict, as long as it stays verbal OR I have overwhelming arms superiority.)

Are you trying to put a joke in somewhere or..?