There is no gender difference when the product you are selling is your brain. I don't see a point in pretending there is no difference, where you primary product is your physique.
These are entirely the result of socialization. Though the body is subject to natural selection and sexual dimorphism, the brain is subject only to the laws of Lysenkoism.
Saying "entirely" is not only demonstrably false but ultimately harmful if we are talking about pay gaps and irrelevance of gender for advanced mental work - people get "reactive" once they realize they have been lied to about gender differences.
Some random quotes from the wiki article:
"Several studies have shown the hippocampi of men and women to differ anatomically, neurochemically, and also in degree of long-term potentiation."
"In accordance with the sexual dimorphism of the amygdala, the right VPMC is more dominant in an active limbic system for males while the left is more dominant in females. These differences carry out to a behavioral level."
"Positron emission tomography studies have shown that men and women ranging from the ages of 19 to 32 years old metabolize glucose at significantly different rates in the orbital prefrontal cortex. Infant males who exhibited lesions on their orbital prefrontal cortex struggled with object reversal experiments, but females exhibiting such lesions did not have impaired performance in object reversal."
The "Lysenkoism" bit makes me pretty confident he's being sarcastic. That was the Stalinist rejection of Mendelian genetics, so it's a claim that mental differences are governed by a totally invalid theory.
Entirely? That's an incredibly strong claim. Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Is such an assertion even plausible, if you are objective about it?
I will probably get downvoted into oblivion for saying this, but I'll do it anyway. I see two problems with equal pay for each gender:
The first is the natural bias that exists to want to promote people similar to oneself. Whether this be sex, age, religion, race, in order to be a civil person, your ability to reach beyond yourself is truly a measure of your humanity. Certainly we should do everything in our power to eliminate bias.
The second is really hard fact to accept: men generally tend to be more aggressive, more direct, more assertive, and more driven in their careers than women. I feel denying this obvious fact is one of the problems with achieving equality in pay, and people want to dance around it because it's uncomfortable to talk about.
Can/should something be done about the second point? I don't have a great answer. I absolutely want all humans to be successful. I just think denying the obvious differences between the two genders is stupid.
I think it's the parent's second point: there can be legit attributes that both lead to higher pay, and tend to be concentrated in one gender. I think that's what's going on with models: the pay-increasing attribute is "look like an attractive woman" or maybe "look attractive to hetero men".
In this case, at least, we can see that men are going to have a harder time at that.
Trying to equalize pay between male and female models is therefore going to be an uphill battle at best: we can recognize legit market forces that lead to higher pay for female models.
Do those dynamics generalize to the difficulties of equalizing pay in other areas? It's worth thinking about.
If you sell tampons to a woman no-one bats an eye, and if you try to sell them to men people will point out the silliness of the idea.
But this simple understanding gets thrown out of the window as soon as jobs are involved.
For example males playing football make much more money than their female counterparts; simple logic tell us it's because people like to watch the athletes of top psyche, it's just that they happen to be male thanks to evolutionary predisposition. Males have more strength in the majority muscles in humans and most mammals (only exception is buttocks and upper legs). But no, people likes to immediately assume it's because sexism, a "they against us" mentality where it must be patriarchy or misogyny instead of looking for the most simple explication driven by the market.
And then if you make an average of how much women make and you happen to inclue athletes then this disparity will show up, and people will say stuff live "look women make 77% of what men do, sexism!" Instead of looking at the million variables, conditions of each gender and how they relate to every possible occupation/job field.
21 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 61.1 ms ] threadhttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differen...
Some random quotes from the wiki article:
"Several studies have shown the hippocampi of men and women to differ anatomically, neurochemically, and also in degree of long-term potentiation."
"In accordance with the sexual dimorphism of the amygdala, the right VPMC is more dominant in an active limbic system for males while the left is more dominant in females. These differences carry out to a behavioral level."
"Positron emission tomography studies have shown that men and women ranging from the ages of 19 to 32 years old metabolize glucose at significantly different rates in the orbital prefrontal cortex. Infant males who exhibited lesions on their orbital prefrontal cortex struggled with object reversal experiments, but females exhibiting such lesions did not have impaired performance in object reversal."
Entirely? That's an incredibly strong claim. Do you have any evidence for this assertion? Is such an assertion even plausible, if you are objective about it?
This would be a rational explanation. Of course the real explanation is misandry!
- can gain entry into the most secure places in the world
- don't think for themselves
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoolander
Maybe we are only allowed to discuss 'pay gaps' that have direct relevance to the software industry.
The first is the natural bias that exists to want to promote people similar to oneself. Whether this be sex, age, religion, race, in order to be a civil person, your ability to reach beyond yourself is truly a measure of your humanity. Certainly we should do everything in our power to eliminate bias.
The second is really hard fact to accept: men generally tend to be more aggressive, more direct, more assertive, and more driven in their careers than women. I feel denying this obvious fact is one of the problems with achieving equality in pay, and people want to dance around it because it's uncomfortable to talk about.
Can/should something be done about the second point? I don't have a great answer. I absolutely want all humans to be successful. I just think denying the obvious differences between the two genders is stupid.
In this case, at least, we can see that men are going to have a harder time at that.
Trying to equalize pay between male and female models is therefore going to be an uphill battle at best: we can recognize legit market forces that lead to higher pay for female models.
Do those dynamics generalize to the difficulties of equalizing pay in other areas? It's worth thinking about.
But this simple understanding gets thrown out of the window as soon as jobs are involved. For example males playing football make much more money than their female counterparts; simple logic tell us it's because people like to watch the athletes of top psyche, it's just that they happen to be male thanks to evolutionary predisposition. Males have more strength in the majority muscles in humans and most mammals (only exception is buttocks and upper legs). But no, people likes to immediately assume it's because sexism, a "they against us" mentality where it must be patriarchy or misogyny instead of looking for the most simple explication driven by the market.
And then if you make an average of how much women make and you happen to inclue athletes then this disparity will show up, and people will say stuff live "look women make 77% of what men do, sexism!" Instead of looking at the million variables, conditions of each gender and how they relate to every possible occupation/job field.