https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/03/210325115316.htm
For anyone arguing that any of the sexes are cognitively 'superior' to the other, including any of the misogynists arguing that women are 'incapable of leadership [on account of 'different' brains].'
Strange you failed to make special mention of misandrists who claim men are incapable of leadership.
shareI didn't mention them because I haven't encountered any on this site. Maybe if I were speaking on Twitter, it would be more relevant to mention them. But my last discussion about male v female brains/leadership was with a presumably male poster who was arguing that 'women were incapable of leadership because their brains are difference,' hence my emphasis in my OP.
But, even as a 'feminist', or 'feminist ally', I've been very open in criticising all forms of supremacy, including women who believe *their* sex to be 'superior'. FWIW, I abhor all forms of supremacy, and in fact my initial argument, on a thread posted on International Women's Day, was partly about challenging or at least interrogating the assumption that 'women are better leaders than men, and the latter should step aside for the former.'
I am an EGALITARIAN. Yes, there are differences between the sexes, but they're almost all exclusively physical and social, NOT cognitive, psychological or emotional. The latter is only different, for the most part, because of socialisation and the different ways we've historically treated women and men.
The physical divide creates the social divide, which then creates the cognitive, psychological and emotional divide. It will always be thus, unless you want to force the genders into roles they aren't physically suited for. Men get to carry babies in their stomach, and feed them from their nipples. Women get to pee standing up, grab things off tall shelves, or open tricky jars. Like, that's not the most functional arrangement...
shareI don't know how much our ability as men to pee standing up, grab things off tall shelves, and open tricky jars, significantly affects our IQ/cognitive abilities...
But yes, carrying babies does have a psychological impact on women, I suppose, but not enough to substantially affect the respective abilities of women and men to once again lead and fulfil cognitive tasks.
They are a figment of Gd's lack of imagination.
shareMen and women think and act differently to situations. Are there outliers? Of course, but biology is biology. Getting upset and insulting people with different beliefs than yours isn't productive, and will not change minds.
As for the article... Just because the brains are similar in make up, that doesn't explain the differences in biological thinking and motivation. Science cannot explain everything in the world.
You are a man attempting to speak for women... Doesn't that make you a sexist or something?
I seriously wasn't trying to start a battle with ya bro, but the entire world doesn't subscribe to the feminist ideology.
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
I'm speaking for *human-beings*. I'm speaking for equality between the sexes. How does that mean I'm 'speaking for women'?
And this isn't extremist ideology. Some feminists would disagree with me. Some feminists would say that 'women are "superior" to men'. My 'ideology' as you put it, is rooted in reasonable *equality*. Not supremacy. I'm a moderate (a moderate-leftist, yes, but still a *moderate*).
How does that mean I'm 'speaking for women'?
And this isn't extremist ideology.
Feminism in of itself it ridiculous and easily laughed at...but it has political power, which makes it dangerous. And it gets more and more toxic with each subsequent wave. It needs to be snuffed out for good.
🤣
I noticed you don't actually have a means to refute my post, but that's a nice little effortless emoji you have there.
I expected nothing less.
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
I'm not simping for anyone. I depise simping. And fwiw, it's a word that I use (perhaps incorrectly) to refer to irrational or lovelorn sycophancy displayed to both women *and* men.
BUT, I do believe in equality. I do believe in trying to build a world based on equal rights between the genders. And if the science promotes that ideology, I'm not going to hold back on highlighting the evidence that supports me.
Also, who says women won't date me? But even if you were right, so what? I'm not a child. I'm ruled by logic, reason, rationality and fairness. NOT pettiness and bitterness (okay, occasionally I'm ruled by bitterness, but not to the extent where I'm going to *punch down* at women, who have relative less structural power than me, as a class).
And 4chan? Really? Are you for real?
Feminism is about equality. Yes, there are some female supremacists, but that's not the type of feminism I'm promoting here
Feminism is about equality.
I don't understand your first point. Equal pay and protections from sexual harassment, is clearly about *equality*
As for the 'word salad' criticism, I 100% accept this point, but I'm not writing a dissertation here. I'm not getting paid for these thoughts. But the truth is, the world is complex, and my thoughts are often conflicted, and I don't want to present myself in a binary manner, and so I occasionally add various caveats and parentheses throughout my posts to account for this complexity. I could type more succinctly, but the danger is that I would end up falling into a binary trap, rather than do justice to my more ambivalent/moderate take on various issues.
A woman trying to be a leader is like a squirrel trying to drive a car, sure is cute and funny, but doesn't have any idea of WTH is doing, and if is not stopped on time is going to end hurting some poor innocent soul who is not responsible of all this madness
So if you see a woman trying to be a leader please be responsible, dont encourage her just to milk out of her some easy LOL, and inmediatly stopped her, next, be a gentlemen show her the way to the kitchen and ask her to bring a sandwich and some slippers.
Based.
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Ah yes, it's only about reacting to drag queen storytime, and transwomen in sports - no misogyny otherwise! You're just a disaffected Liberal from the 00s, right?
shareWhy do drag queens require children in their audience?
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
They don't, but I was getting at the other user being clearly sexist.
shareYes it was over the top, but funny.
In my experiences in the corporate/working world, women leaders have 2 things in common:
1. There is almost always a man/men in a position of power enabling it. Even at the CEO level...they are still controlled by the Board of Directors.
or
2. The company is woman owned, and no men are hired for anything other than the labor that actually makes the money.
In both scenarios, the women still require the men in order for the business to operate. No matter how you try to enforce or legislate it....men and women work better in tandem, and not against each other. The "battle of the sexes" is a subversive psy-op.
________________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people.
Minimal differences between normal vs adhd, bipolar, sociopath, narcissist, etc. Does not prove mental illness does not exist!
This is a metastudy, so the individual studies that show differences don't show up in the averages.
So a Woke "scientist" thinks Woke things. Who would have thunk it !?
No, a scientist has a *scientific* basis for concluding that women and men are effectively equal from a cognitive perspective.
Are you a neurological/biological scientist? If not, I'm more inclined to defer to the authority of the actual scientist in this instance.
No a scientist who has a Woke outlook will definitely allow that bias to skew their work. Either consciously or unconsciously they look for ways to support what they already believe.
Here is an article from Stanford which takes a different view by looking AT THE ACTUAL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE:
https://stanmed.stanford.edu/how-mens-and-womens-brains-are-different/
Even if this study is right, the fact that men are more prone to ASD, and the following "The two hemispheres of a woman’s brain talk to each other more than a man’s do. In a 2014 study, University of Pennsylvania researchers imaged the brains of 428 male and 521 female youths — an uncharacteristically huge sample — and found that the females’ brains consistently showed more strongly coordinated activity between hemispheres, while the males’ brain activity was more tightly coordinated within local brain regions. This finding, a confirmation of results in smaller studies published earlier, tracks closely with others’ observations that the corpus callosum-— the white-matter cable that crosses and connects the hemispheres — is bigger in women than in men and that women’s brains tend to be more bilaterally symmetrical than men’s," do not suggest that it is *men's* brains that are the 'superior' ones.
The study I provided is more recent though, but I won't deny that it also adheres to my much less divisive belief in EQUALITY, rather than this pathetic bun-fight between women and men as to who is the 'most superior'; a fight that will get us nowhere.
Okay, so women can do anything men can do. What's your point?
What do you want us to do, or not do, about it?
This follows on from a discussion I had on another thread with Quasimodo, and a few other posters, who were trying to argue the opposite, which is why I felt compelled to post this thread.
I don't expect you to do anything about it, especially if you *already* regard women and men as equals. 🙂
Oh, alrighty. I was a little suspicious that this topic was going to be about blaming men for women not succeeding, or not getting equal rights, or something like that. But I guess not.
Thanks for replying.
I mean, systemic sexism still exists against women, BUT, I'm not interested in attacking or blaming anyone specifically. I prefer more friendly and positive forms of reinforcement. And, ultimately, I'm about equality and understanding, not supremacy and blame.
shareOkay, so women can do anything men can do.
Implying social, behavioral, cognitive, etc. differences are more the product of programming, i.e. mental conditioning, than brain structure, an idea I've always leaned toward. However, there are also biochemical differences that are rooted in biology, and these can influence behaviors. Such things are not all strictly about the brain and its wiring. In fact, it's probably mostly just a moist processing unit with storage capacity. The real differences come from other biological and environmental factors. Also consider: what does this study indicate about gender dysphoria, if the only real differences are generated by flesh, bone and biochemistry, and not the brain?
I'll add that in my 30+ career at a major telecommunications company I've had two female managers (one nearly 20 years ago, one currently right now), and both of them were/are superb and as capable as any male, if not a bit better in some ways (e.g. less ego). I don't think most woman would qualify like they did, which I suspect boils down to a combination of how they were raised and interest (with the interest perhaps being influenced by the biochemical elements I mention above), in part explaining why there are fewer women in those types of positions. It's anecdotal, but to me it indicates that women have the same potential for leadership as men.
However, the manager 20 years ago faced daily hurdles of an engrained good ol' boys club, forcing her to work harder than male peers, that the current manager doesn't seem to have to endure, which may be another reason there's fewer women in those positions.
_________________________________________
Never believe. Always question. Rebuke belief, a.k.a. bias, a.k.a. groupthink, a.k.a. ideology, the bane of skeptical, logical reason.
> I'll add that in my 30+ career at a major [ telecommunications, in my case IT ] company I've had two female managers (one nearly 20 years ago, one currently right now), and both of them were/are superb and as capable as any male, if not a bit better in some ways
That's been my experience too. The major failures and demoralizing situations I've been in have except for one cases always been men.
Unfortunately, that's not been my experience. On the other hand, I'd say my worst *and* best bosses were women (which goes against the narrative/idea that men tend to fall on one of the two extremes; as feminist Camille Paglia put it “There is no female Mozart because there is no female Jack the Ripper.") Although I'm referring more to competency and attitude within the work place, as opposed to tendency towards genius or psychopathy, suffice to say, in my own personal experience, it's the *men* who've tended to fall into the bland, middle-of-the-road bosses, and it's the women who've either been brilliant and encouraging leaders, or terrible bullies who ruled by fear. My hunch is that some women feel the need to compensate for structural sexism by trying to emulate what they *think* is required by them as bosses, and they end up falling into the worst stereotypes of 'The Boss'.
In the UK, for instance, some of the most racist and bullying MPs, are people like Priti Patel and Suella Braverman (both, incidentally, women of colour), and look at Margaret Thatcher, she was both extremely competent, intelligent and able, *and* a bit of a right-wing monster who essentially ruled by fear (all the men who've tried to emulate her have generally been less able, but also less draconian).
I've been bullied by two or three female bosses (who were all, incidentally, despised by practically all of my female colleagues), but never been bullied by a male boss (although the male bosses I have worked with, have tended to display more cowardice, sliminess, spinelessness, laziness and occasional ineptitude in comparison to their female peers). It's also possible that the type of fields in which I work (public law, grassroots Labour Party politics, charity) attract more aggressive, less 'alpha' type men than one might find in the corporate world, or professional sports, for instance.
Thatcher was the ruin of Britain. And the last "white" lady, forget her name already, tried Thatcher austerity policies and was out on her ear in days. Thatcher's ... I forget what they called it, but attempt to dump taxes on the poor and middle class with a local or community tax?? She and Reagan, that was their goal. Somehow it was less obvious and reported on and still exists in the US this removing taxation from the rich thing.
I also had bad woman boss once. Not quite as bad as the worst male boss I had, and there was swift justice with her - she was eventually transferred and I was begged to take over and I was an outside contractor at the time. I had almost forgotten about that.
My point is that in this day and age, someone who can bring people together by concensus and avoid risk and corruption is the best boss, manager, leader, there are too many men these days that border on the criminal megalomaniac when given a little power.
I agree with everything you said until the final point.
I think there is an innate good in greater representation of women within global parliaments and boardrooms, but in my experience (and bear in mind the UK has had three female PMs, Thatcher, May and Truss, all Tories, and all increasingly worse in terms of competence; in fact Thatcher was *extremely* competent, the problem was the cruelty of her politics), female leaders can be *just as bad* as male ones.
Like I say, I'm 100% for MORE women in top positions, but that's not because I think women necessarily produce better results. I just think more women is an important goal in itself (i.e. smash that glass ceiling, and tear down any wall and hurdle that systemically blocks women from doing *equally* as well as men).
But I see NO argument for *supremacy*. Both from an ideological POV (I think we should regard women and men as equals as a *matter of principle*) and from lived and observed experience, and also in terms of what the *science* says.
Competance != Competance @ cruelty.
share