I must have stumbled into system wars. I thought this was off topic.

Yes, that is correct, they've become more common. I've never argued against that. What Damore argued and what I've been saying for 3 posts now is that women are less likely to be interested in certain fields than men are and vice-versa. It's not the total number of women who are in a given field that we're talking about, it's the male-female ratios.

Again, the ratio was in favour of men decades ago. The point is that the expectation was for guys to go to university and claim the status and career. Women's rights allowed them to make their own choices and the ratio began to change. The idea that there's some innate desire towards tech from men is BS. It's like saying that the there's some innate desire towards higher level academic achivement from them compared to girls. high level tech on a civilian level is also a new thing to society. Why would there even be a biological preference for men?

I didn't say status is the only determinant nor did I say that biology is the only determinant. Like, ever. Learn to read. I said men are more interested in status than women are. Besides you asking that question implies you think nursing is somehow a job below what a person should aspire to. Why?

Who told you men care more about status? From where? If a civilization had nothing but women in power, you still think that younger men would be the ones interested in pursuing higher positions compared to younger women?

And i didn't imply nursing is a low level job. It's that it's been seen as women's job due and as being "bellow" a physician who would traditionally be male. Remember Meet the Parents? (i think that's the one. they change titles in my country) Greg got mocked for being a male nurse instead of a doctor.

Even if there's an innate sense to be more driven as a man, it is society's enforcement of gender roles that makes it so, not instinctive biology.

"Broken"? You mean "even"? Well, that's fine. So what? None of this has any relevance to what I'm arguing nor to what you were answering to.

Breaking gender roles is what you do make it even for both sides. Not hard to figure out.

I didn't say studies they were the only reason. I didn't ignore the rest, I answered after that. So congratulations, again, your reading comprehension is graded F and you get another dunce hat.

Oh look, personal attacks. Cool.

And in case you failed to keep track on the convo, my point about animal cruelity is to prove how he humans rise beyond pure instinctive biology. he's a distinctive trait of modern humans, to my knowlodge. It definitely is rare in other animals.

No, you're the one who's failing the grasp the obvious reality. You have the language skills of an autistic toddler and keep misunderstanding the points I make and arguing against points I didn't make. You don't even understand the meaning of the expression "more/less likely to" and keep talking in generalizations that ignore population distributions, I mean, did you drop out of school during fifth grade?

The argument falls flat in your head because you don't know how to read historical data. Up until 1975 men outnumbered women in college, by 1980 women started outnumbering men until the point where we are at today where the overall number of enrolled women is over 30% higher than the overall number of enrolled men. Also decades ago people were much less likely to choose to go to college as there were many more perceived career opportunities that didn't require a college degree and the perceived cost of college was much higher than it is today, so having a college degree was much more likely to be a choice for status, which men are more interested in, as opposed to today where everyone feels like they can study whatever they feel like studying.

So in other words, as women become more autonomous in their choices, they went to unversity more. Similar to how in countries with even more gender equally, women prusuing science and tech fields becomes even more common.

And if men are so interested in status from a pure biological perspective, why was there an uptake in female oriented roles like nursing then?

Also, do you understand what the expressions "more/less likely to" mean? It doesn't mean shit if women were part of the original Google team or if Ada Lovelace was the first programmer in history or if Merkel is the current Fuhrer of Germany. Statistics and statistical observations are made by population distributions, not outliers alone.

Statistics show that gender roles in the workforce have been more and more broken as women are given autonomy and equality to make choices. Many decades ago, women couldn't even vote, and thefore, their issues weren't of concern. As things change, statistics show that women's issue like abortion become topics of discussion when electing political candidates.

Appealing to biology is one fo the dumbest ways to make a case. We humans contest biology all the time. Animals, and us historically, don't give a damm about other species and their suffering and life. Yet modern society tries to protect wildlife and it's quality, specially that of our pets.

We protect and nurture our pets because they give us emotional satisfaction, and we protect the wildlife because we have concluded that the more biological diversity we have the better we can study and adapt changes in the animal world to our own. Don't worry, it's scientific stuff, you're not supposed to understand it.

Ask the average person why they'd like to preserve bio diversity and i think you'll find that studies aren't the only reason. Also, good job at ignoring the rest.

If scientific studies are the only reason, then why are there guidelines in terms of not causing/causing the least amount of harm possible to the animals during testing?

Why would we give a shit about some rat getting tested on? Why care about the well being of a cow that's just going to die for consumption? Why is there outrage against the conditions of many farms of mass production? Why is veganism a growing trend?

As regarding pets, that doesn't answer the question. Why are there laws about who can have a pet? If they're tools of self satisfaction why is their personal happyness a thing to consider?

Why do we feel sad about lions getting illegally killed by some poucher?

And his argument for biology was pretty reasonable. Here, I'll quote it

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:

• They’re universal across human cultures
• They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
• Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
• The underlying traits are highly heritable
• They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Do you have any better explanation that can interpret the differences between men and women that he mentioned in the cultures of today and of the past? 'cause otherwise you and your argument are shit out of luck.

Old cultures where also discriminatory against homosexually (no, romans don't count. It was a slave dominace thing). And yet today they're a protected class. Just like how some men and women tend to identify as the opposite gender and they're also part of the LGBT movement.

Ofcourse there's biological differences. I said so myself.

That doesn't have anything to do with gender norms and expectations. One can make an argument that men are more aggressive, yes. But to simply accept it as pure, unchanging biology ignores toxic masculine behaviour that not only leads to women's abuse and even mental damage to men.

Both of you are failing the grasp that despite there being evolutionary traits, learned behaviour is what mainly determines men and women alike. That's in many ways linled to the LGBTQ movement.

@toast_burner: no, sexism is not intrinsically hateful. It's entirely possible to be a sexist without being a misogynist/misandrist, and I'd extend that to racism as well. You can be a white supremacist and harbor no ill will to blacks or any other race. It means you view them as inferior.

While white supremacy is often hateful, it isn't needed. I know people personally who are, what I like to term, "benign racists". Nice people who interact and are kind to other races, but they are prejudiced towards their own. Racism and sexism isn't always intended to do harm against, it can be for.

I never said sexism doesn't have a bad history, I said it's not necessarily a hateful view.