That this is a good example of the difference in the genders

[walkswithmydog]

en.mogaznews.com/World-News/915265/First-woman-to-join-infantry-regiment-quits-after-two-weeks.html

Doesn't this just show that there is no such thing as gender neutrality, there never has been and never will. Women aren't suited to certain roles, and vice versa.

Ha ha 😂 😂!! You should read the thread about someone saying they hate all female working environments because all women are gossipy bitches! I bet it's him

I used to be in the army. I knew women who trained with the SAS and got through courses with them. Many women attached to infantry regiments trained with them too and kept up, it just wasn't "officiial". Sorry but you have no idea what you're talking about.

@stillnotbored

Your original statement is :
"a plethora of observable differences from different skin, eyes, joints, blood and including brain function and composition months before birth, once born, any difference between the sexes must be due to the patriarchy and absolutely nothing to do with psychological evolution.

I'm not joking.

I am not aware of research that supports your assertion that there are differences in brain function and composition before birth. I'm not aware of any that supports that assertion after birth either.

I am not aware aware of any observable difference in blood or skin or eyes or joints - certainly not before birth.
There are differences in bone density, length, muscle density and strength post-puberty.
But eyes, skin? I'd be really interested to read those references.

I understand that there are differences between the sexes- those differences are complementary and both sexes have a role in human reproduction and evolution.
Many differences can be explained by cultural/social factors, but some are innate and biological.
It's important not to mistake one for the other.

And apart from what Baroness said, someone has still got to interpret those differences. 500 years ago, the observable differences in male and female anatomy would have been taken as proof that women were constitutionally unsuited to any intellectual work, not least that of teaching. These days- what a suitable profession for a woman!

100 years ago, the domains of literary criticism and philology were considered unsuitable for women (too fluffy-brained!) while biology (study of pretty flowers!) was thought a bit sissy. These days, STEM subjects are thought of as all male and humanities as more female.

This is obviously an interesting example of how a subject becomes more feminine as it becomes less fashionable and less well remunerated. 200-100 years ago, reading Latin or Ancient Greek was the route into a well-paid academic career; these days it's the route into unemployment or a precarious casual contract. The actual verb system remains the same, the structure of the female brain presumably remains the same, the one thing that has changed is the size of the pay packet.

Ditto the profession of cook. In the Middle Ages, it was a male job. Then male servants became too expensive and suddenly cooking is something that only women can understand- oh, unless we can afford a French chef, then it's fine for a man.

Or corythatwas, we could just observe that those differences are there, which may enable better medical care, and accept that any interpretation will be limited if interesting to some as fodder for thought.

Stating that there are differences between the sexes observable in multiple species does not mean humans should emulate any species, it can just be an observation. Observing that adult males have less productive tear glands and larger tear ducts does not actually require an interpretation. We could debate whether it is possible that cross-cultural social norms about men crying less may have derived from observable differences being socially exaggerated or possibly that these social norms may have affected sexual selection, but in the end those are just thought experiments and the end result of the observation can just as likely and more usefully be that men may need different eye drops.

There are many slight differences on average between the sexes. We can list dozens of difference in skin alone as sex hormones have a big impact on it. As I said before, the average of a group should not outweigh the individual nor that physical differences outweights social pressure, but just observing or attempting to understand human anatomy doesn't mean it must or even should be interpreted to those differences mean anything in particular. Just like reading about fictional men sobbing does not tell us anything about male anatomy, we don't need research on sex differences in anatomy to tells us anything about how men and women should be, that's kinda outside the biological remit.

cory A really interesting point there about higher female participation in a profession leading to it becoming devalued - I read something similar about web design and development. According to it, once women started learning to code, wages started to fall. Now women often find themselves relegated to front-end development which is now viewed as being a bit touchy-feely and the kind of thing where you feel your way in, and men tend to be back-end or full stack developers, which is of course where the true manly coding occurs. I shall look for a link.

Here we go: www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/14/tech-women-code-workshops-developer-jobs

Cory - I don't think that pregnant women should be on the front lines in wars,

I'm not sure that's what you were referring to, there's a lot of posts. I made quite a long one about conscription that said that the whole pregnancy thing is a bit of a tricky one with conscripting women, and I think that most of society would be keen not to see pregnant women on the front lines.

Most pregnant women wouldn't want to be on the front line either, I'd have thought.

I suppose that there is a point around choice here, but conscription is not about choice.

My understanding is that there are differences but the bell curves for men and women are so overlapped that these are often irrelevant for most people.

MsGameandWatching

Are you able to elaborate on what courses they were? I am currently serving and have completed a CLM course on WHICH there was a member of the SAS. It certainly doesn't mean that I could join them.

I am ex forces. Basic training was very hard for either sex.

It was twenty years ago now and I was at peak physical fitness but I just couldn't keep up with the men. None of us could apart from one women.

At our fastest in timed runs, 90% of the males beat the fastest female times.

On the marches carrying weight, the men didn't struggle as much. Partly due to the height difference (longer strides) and the weight we had to carry. 45kg from memory.

Mentally we would be equal but physically we just aren't. It's an observation that holds true. Not every man can out perform a women but as a whole gender they are faster and stronger.

This is the thing,

In the past we had to say we could do anything men could do (and of course we can) because it was the only way to get ahead in a man's world, we had to say, yes we can do it, let us in.

However this came with a price - the price of pretending that we are excatly the same.

We aren't exactly the same, and now we have our foot in the door, maybe we can say, OK, now we're in the male environment, let's make it a bit more accomodating for everyone. Things like menstruation, menopause, breastfeeding not accounted for (or only a bit). Plenty of women avoid talking about their kids at work in certian workplaces as to be seen as a "mum" means less ambitious, less engaged etc (when the same is not true for dads.

The same goes for outdoors of work. I read a thing that said only men would have come up with the idea of 3 hour exams, for girls with heavy periods that hit then, it's a bit of a nightmare. White clothes for many sports, no wonder girls drop them! Temperature in offices set for men to be comfortable so women are always a little uncomfortable (on average of course). Simple little things that make life just that little bit easier for men and that little bit harder for (some - more) women.

With stuff like the army, there is no point saying the line is people with dicks / not dicks. The line is the level of strength fitness psychological resilience etc, and probably less women will meet it, but why should the women who can, and want to do it, be excluded because cunt?

That is aside from teh stuff I have read about women not having kit that fits properly, stuff rubbing, breasts not taken into account in uniform, everything to big, that sort of thing, which is one of those times like I say - minor seeming things - that nevertheless can have a big impact.

Mentally we would be equal but physically we just aren't. It's an observation that holds true. Not every man can out perform a women but as a whole gender they are faster and stronger. That is it in a nutshell.

I do t know if his was a typo for can't but his has made my night

ical resilience etc, and probably less women will meet it, but why should the women who can, and want to do it, be excluded because cunt?

Are you able to elaborate on what courses they were? I am currently serving and have completed a CLM course on WHICH there was a member of the SAS. It certainly doesn't mean that I could join them.

I don't think I said they could join them did I? I said they could keep up, which they could. I don't which specific courses no, they were in support roles attached to the unit and trained alongside the, fitness wise.

"We could debate whether it is possible that cross-cultural social norms about men crying less may have derived from observable differences being socially exaggerated or possibly that these social norms may have affected sexual selection"

as someone who has taught ancient & medieval literature for decades, my conclusion would have to be that as far as Western society is concerned our modern ideas about men not crying are anything but cross-cultural

in medieval historical accounts you are more likely to come across men who feel like freaks because they can't cry, who ask God for the gift of tears because they feel inadequate without it

doesn't mean other ideals of masculinity may not be very similar to ours, just that it doesn't come as a package

Sardine, my comment on conscription was in response to AndrewOgg, not to you

basically, I think there is an argument for leaving this as a voluntary thing for women, since they are already (as a group) losing out on their careers through childbearing, which is more and more of a disadvantage in an era where both sexes are supposed to accrue the money for their own pensions

"Mentally we would be equal but physically we just aren't."

Any proof of the first bit?

Nope I've never researched it but I'm going off my own experiences.

School, armed forces, work, tv shows etc. Neither gender to me seems to be cleverer than the other.

I think a lot of Russian Women didn't get the memo that some posters did. As said, in other countries Women have worked alongside the Men.

The speech by Sojourner Truth, "Ain't I a Woman" sprang to mind when i read the OP. So did the weighing in of the cotton in "12 years a slave". the Slave Women were judged to be able to work and take the lash, as the men could. They had the disadvantage of being impregnated and giving Birth, as well, though.

There have been other times in history when Women had to do what the Men could.

There is a slight difference in physical capabilities, if you had two people of the opposite sex, at their peak, pitted against each other. But that's not how a working day, outside of the SAS etc works.

There are situations that Women won't put themselves in, to prove a point. There are work roles were Women aren't accepted and things are made that difficult for them that they quit. so there are discrepancies in numbers.

I had read the studies around Chivalry and also the danger of a forced pregnancy in a kidnap situation etc.

The truth of the matter is that with equipment getting lighter and more advanced, there are very few roles that, that applies to.

"Neither gender to me seems to be cleverer than the other."

Sorry for quoting another film, but Mrs Banks has it spot on when she says "Though we adore Men individually, as a group, they're rather stupid" (particularly the under 30's).

Very deficient attempt at logical thinking op. Must try harder.

There is a huge spectrum of physical body types within the human race. Some bodies are stronger and more muscular than others. If you ranked everyone in the population by strength/muscularity then you would certainly find that the strongest 20% was mostly men and the weakest 20% was mostly women. That is a sex difference not a gender difference and it's why we have separate women's categories in sports. No one is denying that. However, the middle categories apart from those top and bottom quintiles will be mixed. There are some women who will be significantly stronger than the average man. There will be some men who are significantly weaker than the average woman.

This training is about a lot more than strength and some of the required characteristics may even be more prevalent in women than men.

This case only demonstrates that you as an individual have deeply internalised misogynistic tendancies, which is sad.

@Imchlibob

Interestingly enough, we find that men tend to be the most and least intelligent. Approximately the top 20% would be male.

Interestingly enough, we find that men tend to be the most and least intelligent. Approximately the top 20% would be male.

The distribution of intelligence has been found to be wider for males (with the usual caveats about intelligence testing) but I'm pretty sure I've never seen anything which would come close to supporting your assertion 'Approximately the top 20% would be male.'.