wtf equality?

If what you want is to see more manly Air Force action, I've got a movie for you. It stars Evil Ed from the original Fright Night:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0291818/

People confuse equal opportunity with equality of outcome. If there is a disparity, they think it is due racism, misogyny etc etc.When you implement policies to correct them through discrimination, that is when the real racism misogyny etc happens.

Everything should be equal. IF a guy wants to do nails, great, good for him. If he is in competition with a woman for a certain spot in a salon, whom should get the job? Simple, whoever is better at it.

Now reverse it, if a girl wants to be a fighter pilot in the Navy. Great. She's up for promotion against a man doing the same job. Who gets the promotion? Simple again, whomever is better at the job.

In my mind, the big difference between male and female, and men should realize this. Men dominate for a certain period of time mainly due to strength. But women are built for the long term. It's why ( I believe anyway) most men, at some point, end up helpless in the hands of a woman. It's exactly what happened to every man I ever knew, and it will probably happen to me, too. This has nothing to do with equality, it has to do with biology.

Anyway, back to equality, yes, whomever is the best, male or female, should win.

You gotta remember how things were back in the day. Before the Sexual Revolution, a lot of women were forced into stereotypical job roles and were blocked from many career paths, and often lost their jobs when they got married, because it was believed that it was the man's job to bring in the money to the home (when in fact he either wasn't earning enough, or was a lazy, unemployed bum that would beat his wife and drink). A few women managed to muscle their way through into jobs such as lawyers, engineers, doctors, and politicians, but only because they were strong-willed and wanted to do the jobs really bad and to prove to both themselves and to others that they could do it and do it well.

But it also makes sense to have everyone (both men and women) who wants certain high-level jobs to prove themselves. One reason the concept of meritocracy has worked for a long time is because it weeds out all the people unqualified for and unsuited for high-risk, high-skill, and high-demand jobs.

This DEI shit has been going on far too long to make things look more equal, when in fact they've actually been harming a lot of services and industries by putting in people whose only qualifications include how dark their skin is or by being female. There's a reason this nonsense is being dumped in favor of meritocracy again, but slowly.

I did my undergrad thesis on this and could go on about it for days. I mostly agree with your main point; however, I take issue with your framing. In fact, you’re making the same fundamental attribution error as the people you’re arguing against—and kind of being a dick about it too. You’re not going to change any minds like that.

That said, to your point: disparities in occupational outcomes are better explained by differences in personality than by sex/gender. Viewing occupational preference -- and its associated outcomes -- through a sex/gender dichotomy is a fundamental attribution error. When we look at occupational preferences through the lens of personality, we find that the same personality types consistently show up and are overrepresented in certain occupations, regardless of sex/gender. These findings exist across cultures and nations, including non-Western cultures, where individuals are socialized completely differently than the US and other developed Western nations, as well as Western nations that have the most egalitarian socialization structures in the world. If it came down to socialization and barriers to entry, the findings would be different across cultures and nations, but they aren’t -- they are consistent.

I believe this is the main argument you’re trying to convey, and I largely agree with it. In fact, it’s supported by some of the most robust research in social and behavioral science over the past 50 years.

HOWEVER, if your argument is that women should stay at home and raise the kids, that is not the logical inference to be made here. The rational conclusion is to remove as many barriers to entry as possible and let people pursue the life that aligns with their personal proclivities.

SOME woman can do exact things man can do. It is possible. No problem. EQUAL opportunity exists. No blocked career paths. That is facts in equality.


YOU SEEM CONFUSED....OPPORTUNITY DOES NOT BEGET EQUAL OPPORTUNITY.

asian women have out-earned white men in the us 7 of the last 8 quarters.

You can find the statistics yourself by going to the bureau of labor & statistics & selecting median weekly earnings for those populations. Refreshingly for a gov't site, the bls page is easy to navigate.

https://www.bls.gov/webapps/legacy/cpswktab2.htm

here are the numbers for the last 10 quarters. not sure how nicely this will format, but i'll give it a try:

qtr......wm......aw.difference.%
2024-3 1292 1393 101 7.8%
2024-2 1281 1337 56 4.37%
2024-1 1254 1331 77 6.14%
2023-4 1243 1356 113 9.09%
2023-3 1231 1217 -14 -1.14%
2023-2 1201 1310 109 9.08%
2023-1 1222 1313 91 7.45%
2022-4 1194 1342 148 12.40%
2022-3 1192 1177 -15 -1.26%
2022-2 1161 1182 21 1.81%


if group differences are proof of discrimation then asian women should be punished & white men should receive special treatment.

https://www.thejournal.ie/gender-equality-countries-stem-girls-3848156-Feb2018/

countries like sweden, that have the highest levels of gender equality, tend to have fewer women pursuing stem careers, compared to less 'enlightened' countries like india or china, where women are more likely to go into stem.

in regions where women are most free to choose & have the best economic circumstances, they are more likely to choose the kinds of jobs they are more interested in, rather than doing something they have to do to take them out of poverty.

it's the gender-equity paradox. the more free & rich women are, the more likely they are to choose stereotypically female careers.