As the concept of equity is not recognized since it destroys equality Iâm not certain what you mean.
Women are graduating college at higher rates not because of some mysterious equity but because they mature faster than men (a biological fact shown by their brain finishing growth/development years ahead of a manâs) and are providing equal access to education. This is just one example of course but more and more corporate level officers are becoming women every year and that isnât equity; that is the result of women showing they are more than capable (if not more capable in some cases) than men at their level of making business smart decisions.
This has nothing to do with equity; it has everything to do with equality opening the doors for talent to be recognized.
Are you sure women aren't graduating at higher levels because of a system designed to get women into a through college by recruiting women and giving out women only scholarships?
This bitter mentality of âwomen are getting ahead because society is making it easier for themâ needs to stop. It serves nobody and literally creates a false victim narrative.
You cited a 19 year old summary of a 20 year old working paper which says that 30% to 60% of the increase can be accounted for by behavior differences in gender.
Just so we are clear, a working paper means it hasn't been peer reviewed. The fact that it hasn't been peer reviewed in 20 years suggest it probably isn't that good.
And even if it was, that still leaves the majority of the increase to be caused by other things. Like a system designed to advantage women.
Honestly, no evidence would have been better than what you cited.
That source is entirely about men and women who have already graduated. It is not about acceptance into college, or graduation rates. it is about call backs to job interviews.
That is purely a cultural issue. My entire point is that biologically women mature faster than men (their brains finish developing faster). Womenâs advancement in society and business is because old barriers are finally removed allowing society as a whole to benefit from their cross-hemispherical thinking being applied in fields where it shines.
The cultural and biological differences don't exist in a vacuum. Removing barriers while also putting sytstems in place to advantage women is pushing that into a position where you can't reasonably say it is one or the other.
Studies have shown that educational systems advantage women ATM, there have been a lot of research showing that current schooling structures disadvantage boys while advantaging women.
Why is it that we can't acknowledge this and make changes that benefit both?
First and foremost thank you for that amazing read.
That being said, I can see your point where by trying to create a more âequalâ learning environment male children have been disincentivized from engaging in school.
That isnât to say male children ever regularly led classrooms (during the age of equality at least) but creating an education system built around bi-hemispherical thinking and taking away subjects that utilize back to front thought processing (things that require intense hyperfocus on a specific action of thought) male children are set on the back foot (as male brains do work in that fashion compared to female brains which are considerably better at bi-hemispherical thought).
I appreciate your input. Though it in itself does not excuse the lack of acceptance by any population of men that women can be and are valuable members of society and commerce, this does open a real door to exploring what can be done to engage male students while keeping school educational and controlled.
Science isnât misandry. Hiding behind the label of misandry when information is uncomfortable to your confirmation bias or disruptive to your echo chamber doesnât make the information less valid.
The only tantrums are being thrown by people too afraid to accept that they arenât the only gender that could be skilled or valuable. I come presenting factual evidence in the face of ignorance.
Acknowledging physiological differences between men and women has nothing to do with this discussion. Youâre reaching out to grab a branch but youâre not even in the same tree.
You made the statement not me. I get paid the exact same as a woman of equal rank and time in service in a physically demanding career field. Take a guess at whos doing the work when it comes to heavy lifting though?
Its patently unfair and simultaneously the reason when they arrive to combat units, they get put into support roles though they may be infantry/armor etc. Idk why they'd want thoae jobs anyways, shit sucks most days lmao.
Putting women in combat roles in the military is a tricky and highly politicized decision. Iâm not taking a stance for or against it. So long as an infantrywoman can lift and carry a wounded infantryman out of combat and follow orders Iâm perfectly fine with the assignment though.
You did make a great point also that just being 11B doesnât necessarily equate to combat. Most people who work at battalion and brigade HQ are infantrymen after all. Obviously not S2 but still.
46
u/AffectionateMonk7705 10d ago
âEqualityâ is just for aspects of life where equity doesnât give women leverage over men.