It's not, actually. You're just too busy being offended to notice. Read the section headlined "Stereotypes at Harvard." There's a point being made, but since that point flies in the face of "women are underrepresented because patriarchy" you tuned out and went full snark, zero refutation. It's not even a complicated argument. Here - I'll spell it out simply: Because it takes one womb to create one child, women are effectively assured reproduction. On the other hand, one man can have countless progeny which requires men to compete with each other in order to reproduce. This competition has genetically selected for diversity in male behavior while the assurance of reproduction in women has genetically selected for homogeny. How 'bout simpler? Men have to stick out and take risks if they want to have kids, while women have to survive. A man who does nothing to distinguish himself is unlikely to reproduce, while a woman who strives to distinguish herself actually reduces her ability to reproduce through undue risk. The key phrase is actually in the text: Here's how that reveals itself in GPA, with women earning better grades than men: Here's how it reveals itself in the workplace, with women earning less pay than men: The article presents a statistical, evolutionary argument for why women get the shaft academically, professionally and historically without resorting to "the patriarchy." Simply put, it says that the basic underpinnings of society were created by men to one-up other men and that historically, women largely opted out because the fundamental unit of female society is smaller than the fundamental unit of male society. It goes on to say that there's conflict now because we're reshaping our society to fit women into the larger context. But you were too busy literally getting your panties in a twist. 'member this? That's yet another example of the most controversial words I've ever committed to the internet: It's part of an argument whereby I point out that both genders are adjusting to a changing social dynamic and that we ought to account for and understand the deficiencies both genders are dealing with. But, like countless times before, somebody completely lost their shit over the "a half dozen generations ago you bitches were de-facto property" part... ...without recognizing that not only is that painted as something bad, it happens to be true. You came in looking for a "rah rah men's rights" argument so superheated that you literally ignored everything that wouldn't give it to you. And you're better than that. And you looked at it, and said "who the fuck badged this", and snarked the fuck out of it, and I called you on it, and you called it "a silly article with a rather pointless premise" instead of wondering what, exactly, I saw in it. And I'm better than that and you know it.Almost certainly, it is something biological and genetic. And my guess is that the greater proportion of men at both extremes of the IQ distribution is part of the same pattern. Nature rolls the dice with men more than women. Men go to extremes more than women. It’s true not just with IQ but also with other things, even height: The male distribution of height is flatter, with more really tall and really short men.
A pattern of more men at both extremes can create all sorts of misleading conclusions and other statistical mischief. To illustrate, let’s assume that men and women are on average exactly equal in every relevant respect, but more men at both extremes. If you then measure things that are bounded at one end, it screws up the data to make men and women seem significantly different. Consider grade point average in college. Thanks to grade inflation, most students now get A’s and B’s, but a few range all the way down to F. With that kind of low ceiling, the high-achieving males cannot pull up the male average, but the loser males will pull it down. The result will be that women will get higher average grades than men — again despite no difference in average quality of work.
The opposite result comes with salaries. There is a minimum wage but no maximum. Hence the high-achieving men can pull the male average up while the low-achieving ones can’t pull it down. The result? Men will get higher average salaries than women, even if there is no average difference on any relevant input. Today, sure enough, women get higher college grades but lower salaries than men. There is much discussion about what all this means and what should be done about it. But as you see, both facts could be just a statistical quirk stemming from male extremity.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but a half dozen generations ago you bitches were de-facto property. If we wanted in your pantaloons we'd fucking ask your dad, not you. So next time you get all catty and bitchy about shit, remember that we're dealing with our instincts in your world and try not to be too fucking complicated about it.
What this article says to me is that I, just naturally, whatever, cannot be as great as men. Not all men, but, you know, like 50% maybeish. I just can't. I didn't evolve that way, the women before me just lay there to get me here, and the assets I bring to the table in life are that I fucking get along with people and my baby will love me regardless of whether I am special in any single way or not. Neither of which are things I particularly care about. That even a "different" woman won't be able to get to the same peak or success as men. Because after all, historically, culturally, societally, etc, the only thing that has really mattered about all the women before her was their wombs. Women fall to the middle. Men get to the extremes. Huh? Do you expect that I am going to read that and be like "Yeah man, cool. I've always wanted to be average" ? And sure, like, we can all pow-wow and be like "Not you ref!" if we really want to, we can say "We mean it in general but not in specific" but the bottom line is that I'm a member of this class which has been identified in this article as having basically no significant, worthwhile positive attributes so far as I can see. They go along to get along. They've just had to survive. They don't take risks. They aren't as motivated. They're not as creative. Whatever, we can keep going. Let's even just say for the fun of it it's all fucking true. Who. The fuck. Would want to believe that? Oh yes, very insightful klein. Great article. Love it. 'scuse me while I go accept my second-rate existence. Don't worry, it doesn't bother me. Besides, I'm way more concerned with what everyone else thinks.
The article says literally fuckall about you. Here's the funny thing: on average, men are every bit as average as women. What the article says is that men are also more likely to rule harder and suck harder than women, but the men who suck harder are rarely even noticed. The article basically points out that women are going to be underrepresented at the top the same as they're underrepresented at the bottom but being underrepresented at the top is held forth as social injustice while being underrepresented at the bottom is held forth as a consequence of the natural superiority of women. But you're too busy looking to feel victimized to notice. The really stupid thing is that the article isn't even saying it should be this way. The article is saying "it's probably worth investigating how it came to be this way" and putting forth hypotheses. Know what the article says? "Average dudes don't get laid." It then explores the societal results of that maxim. Is your existence second-rate? Well, statistically you're more likely to get laid - assuming we're both single. We're not, though. I'm married. To a woman who was married before. To a guy who dropped out of college, didn't get a job, got addicted to pot and dropped out of life. That guy? out of the gene pool. I'll bet you didn't even know he existed - the fact that I'm my wife's second husband. He's so irrelevant to our life that we haven't even looked his ass up on Facebook. That guy? Not the norm. "Extraordinary." In a way you don't want to be. A dude who can't get laid is a loser. A woman who can't get laid is a tragedy. The article explores what that means for CEOs and jazz musicians. But frankly, at this point if you want to take it personally I really can't stop you so go right ahead.
Found it! Don't ever let statistical averages apply to you and you won't have a problem. What happens in the aggregate has jack shit to do with YOU, so long as you don't let it. I graduated high school thanks to a gift grade from an art teacher, who passed me when I didn't deserve it, as I'd spent all of high school getting high and cutting as much class as I could. In the average, I should be digging ditches for minimum wage by now, but I'm sure a shit not digging ditches. I'm not going to sit here and brag about how awesome my life is, but if I would have listened to everyone who told me I was destined to be a failure, I never would have stood a chance. My elementary school principle told my parents as much when I was 9. Seriously. Fuck averages. They're instructive when trying to explain group behavior, but they are meaningless to any particular individual. I'm not telling you not to be offended. I didn't read the article, because I don't have any interest in reading it. I don't know what it's like to be a woman or a minority, and I won't pretend to. But what I am telling you is that every other woman in the world could be a slug, and you're still you, and you still get to make your own choices.What this article says to me is that I, just naturally, whatever, cannot be as great as men.
Perhaps I will when I have time later. One thing I found fascinating about Catching Fire was the author's assertion that gender roles sprang from the need for protection in camp, as cooking requires (a) a fire that's easy to detect, and (b) sitting in one place for a ling time. Essentially, men and women struck a "deal" in which women cook for men and men protect them while doing so, and that this relationship has exactly nothing to do with sex. Best argument I've ever read, frankly.
And the African tribe that marries off the young bucks to the crones because the crones will bloody well be able to cook, which gives the young bucks the opportunity to thrive, outlive their crones and then take on the hot young new wives when they're established. It's funny how many taboos there are to talking about sex, even when the discussion is about the economic motivations derived from gender.
This is true for me as well. Being a man I'm statistically in exactly the same spot. About 50% of men cannot be as great as the other 50%. Why is this worse for you than for me? What this article says to me is that I, just naturally, whatever, cannot be as great as men. Not all men, but, you know, like 50% maybeish. I just can't.
No, what it's saying is that women produce fewer Stephen Hawkings, Einsteins, and so on. People who aren't normal. People who didn't speak for years, or have genetics that create muscular dystrophy. Traits that, in an ancient time, are more damaging to exist in women than to exist in men. You may well be an exception, you may well be an Einstein or a Stephen Hawking. However, if women as a group produce fewer of these sorts of people, then society will develop a bias against women as being incapable of doing those abnormal things. You should fight that bias, but understand it's origins at the same time. Without doing that, you cannot understand it, and will never defeat it.What this article says to me is that I, just naturally, whatever, cannot be as great as men. Not all men, but, you know, like 50% maybeish.