Originally Posted by ocean_314

I totally disagree with you on that one. The feminist’s movement was all about women being the same as men. Both in the work world and social world. This has led to tremendous conflicts among women.

Originally Posted by ocean_314

Women are far superior at some jobs and men are superior at others. Yet can a feminist admit this?

Originally Posted by ocean_314

A man's brain can only do one task at a time. Men evolved to fight, kill dinner and fight for the right to reproduce. In the work world point a man to a task and tell him to "kill it" he will work until that one task is complete no matter how long or difficult it is. He will completely focus on that one task only.

Originally Posted by ocean_314

A woman's brain evolved to be in a group of women, have kids running around and be able to gather up food while paying attention to all of the above and keeping a watch out for danger, both the four and two legged kind.

In the work world a woman is skilled at all multi tasking jobs and is invaluable at pointing the man in the direction that he need to go into, she keep the man moving from crisis to crisis. A well run company has the women in charge of pointing the men at the tasks they need to and keeping the men organized and on track..

Originally Posted by ocean_314

Men do the aggressive one single task at a time work very well. Finish one task and then off to the next all day long. That’s what makes a good executive. His right hand is always a woman who is really running the show, keeping the man organized and on task.

Originally Posted by ocean_314

Women do the none aggressive multi tasking work exceptionally well.

The crossover that both sexes do well is the none agressive intellectual work like research, writing and various scientific work.

This is a very simplistic description but it would take a small book to talk about this in great detail.

Originally Posted by JavaBlack

The work world and the social world have little to do with biology in the modern day.
And the division of labor throughout history is overstated. Men did gather (especially before hunting was possible) and women did hunt in some cultures. The reason why the division existed to the point that it did had more to do with the dangers of pregnant women and nursing women in a hunt more than the average physical differences.


What you are missing is that the men protected their women from being kidnapped by other tribes/ groups. This was part of human history for millions of years. This is part of the aggressive fighting part of a man’s DNA. The men did the hunting because it was a very physical endeavor and took a lot of body strength. Sorry for using the bold highlights but i dont know how to break up the quote and type inbetween.

Statistically sure. And a lot of it is based on socialization. Mathematics and science are not naturally fun for men and anathema for women- this is a result of tradition and social forces.

I am not saying that men or women are better at math and science, that’s a social issue. I am saying that men are better at jobs that require aggression, that single minded aggressive focus on the task until it’s done.

Statistical arguments fall apart on the individual level. Some women will beat most men at "man jobs". Some men will beat most women at "woman jobs".
Are you going to argue that Madam Curie was not better than the average man at science?
Are you going to claim Gandhi was not more nurturing than many women (harder to come up with a closer example- women's work is undervalued, and thus men who excel at it go uncelebrated, even stigmatized... even in an age of liberation)?

All social male mammals are nurturing. The young learn their place by crawling all over and interacting with the males. If males in a social group where not nurturing then the young would be at great risk from the males.

My wife is a trained engineer with a high IQ who has no nurturing instinct. I am a guy with a merely above-average IQ, no natural talents for math and science, and of a service-oriented bend. And I like comforting people and dealing with kids (sometimes).
If we made statistical rules for behavior, I would be expected to support the family and my wife take care of the kids and home... Obviously from an economic and social standpoint and even for happiness- that would be completely retarded.
As long as all the necessities are taken care of, why does it matter who does it?

I agree with you 100%. I keep telling my wife that i am smarter then her and you should see the eye rolls i get in return. lol

And yet some men are good at multi-tasking.
Furthermore... women are not bad at focusing on one thing, just good at focusing on multiple things as a result of their brain's connection between the two hemispheres... lacking in men.
Still, multi-tasking is mostly learned. And it has a trade-off for focus ability. It's been shown that the younger generation, male and female, is having its focus ability impaired by too much multi-tasking. The learning is more significant than the sex differences.

Its hormones. Thats what makes a man agressive and a woman a multitasker.

And according to a better theory ("Man the Hunter" is flawed... it assumes hunting to exist for longer than it does and to be more central to human society than it was), men likely gained their qualities of single-tasking and large size as GUARDS- not hunters. They defended the weak. Hunting came later.

The need to protect their women from other groups and being the strongest and most agressive got the best females.

Most food, even after hunting was developed, was found through gathering. Part of the reason hunting gained so much prestige is because of its difficulty and the rarity of any food coming back.
If not for other discoveries in technology and adaptability to tundra and desert climates realted to successful hunting discoveries, hunting would have been a horrible inefficiency for human nutrition.


And they are still mostly capable of doing single-tasks too.
One thing about women and men is the deviation of intelligence. Women tend toward average. Men tend toward extremes. Men are usually either dumb or smart. The averages come out similar.
Women are capable of being geniuses or idiots... It's just rarer.
On a sidenote, intelligence and fertility are inversely related- doesn't that suck??!

Thats society doing that.

There are exceptions to the rule.
That's the point. Rights is about allowing people who are exceptions fill their proper niche rather than going where they are less effective.
Not every woman makes a good stay-at-home mom. Not every father can be an executive.
Some women are capable executives. Some men are capable caregivers.
Why should there be a bunch of dumb rules that force the square pegs into circular holes?


And any way you look at it, it's statistical and based on the idea that each member of each sex embodies these qualities in a binary fashion- regardless of upbringing and natural deviance.
It also assumes a very stagnant and one-path labor system and fails to recognize the importance of practical level of skill vs. 100% competence.

The best person at a "man job" is likely to be a man. The best person for a "woman job" is likely to be a woman. That oes not mean that there are not cases- many cases- where a woman is practical for a "man job" and better than male applicants or the opposite.
Flexibility and allowing people to succeed as they see fit, according to actual rather than statistically assumed talents and interests is simply a better way to go about it.

Originally Posted by katiegrrl0

I really think that sexual liberation has made us more aware of our own sexuality. It has pressured some people to do things that they didn't want to. It has bound some people up in the thoughts of sexuality. For myself i would have followed my path no matter what. i just couldn't live outside of who i am. I have been refered to many times as a flamer or extreme lesbian. I can hide it i really never could. I don't express my gay the way i do to be in your face, There is a song by Catie Curtis Titled Radical. It says in one lin I'm not radical to make a statement. I just love you.

I have been refered to as being radical and in your face, i don't intend that. It is in my nature. It's just who I am. I am not sure that I would be as free to express that side of who I am without liberation. I may have to reine that in some but struggle against my nature would not happen.

We are who we are the more we live as who we are the greater the community becomes. As a whole the community becomes larger and freeer and better.