NationStates Jolt Archive

But people aren't trying too hard either. War is a given, violence is still acceptable, and armies are still normal things to have. Unless we decide that these things are NOT all right, no changes will be made. I hope we haven't come this far just to stop now...we'll never breed out our innate violence, but we can surely come up with better ways of dealing with it than this!

Diplomacy will only protect you so far before the huns come breaking down the door. As much as I don't want it, armies are a very necessary thing (at the time being). Without a means to defend ourselves, our ideas and beliefs (including pacifism) will be swept away and lost forever.

I will concede the point, men are more violent. Ok, now all the women's libers will be all over you and I because " women are equal to men", are they really? We are more violent, more physical, you said it yourself, so the sexes are no longer equal, correct?
As to the solution, hmm... you did not name one, you want to study the problem. Sounds like you are pitching for funding. How about let the punishment fit the crime and reinstitute public floggings, it works for Singapore.

Women and Men definately arn't equal no matter how much we like to pretend we are.

Sexist.

Sexist.

The truth isn't politically correct, remember that.

Sexist.
Oh are you arguing that there is not a statistical imbalance in violent crime or just about any other measure of average number of perpetrators of violence? The title may have gotten my hackles up but did you read the post?

I will concede the point, men are more violent. Ok, now all the women's libers will be all over you and I because " women are equal to men", are they really? We are more violent, more physical, you said it yourself, so the sexes are no longer equal, correct?

*lays this myth to rest* Common, and annoying misconception...no rational human being is for equality in the sense that everyone should be exactly the same...but rather, all people should have equal opportunities.

*lays this myth to rest* Common, and annoying misconception...no rational human being is for equality in the sense that everyone should be exactly the same...but rather, all people should have equal opportunities.
But what if biological differences cause differences in hiring patterns

I.E. A imbalance in CEO towards males (assume no “inside” opposition to a female applicant) because of a natural aggressiveness in more males on average (statistical basis not an individual basis)

(sorry if this is not clear just ask me to try to clarify)

The truth isn't politically correct, remember that.


You're right, but that doesnt mean you aren't being sexist. ;)

You're right, but that doesnt mean you aren't being sexist. ;)

I'm not biased towards men or women in general, but to ignore that we are different is like seeing a woman and saying: "You have no penis!? Sexist!".

Oh are you arguing that there is not a statistical imbalance in violent crime or just about any other measure of average number of perpetrators of violence? The title may have gotten my hackles up but did you read the post?

You know as well as I do that generalizations of one group of people can be defined as sexist, racist, ageist, etc. If actual studies were done, both physical and mental violence studied, I'm sure the resulting statistics would be closer to 50-50 male to female.

I'm not biased towards men or women in general, but to ignore that we are different is like seeing a woman and saying: "You have no penis!? Sexist!".

And? That's a biological difference. Everyone knows that. The point of this post is still sexist. Generalizing to include all men make it sexist. "Women are less adept at science and mathematics." There are questions being raised about this statement. Harvard President, I'm forgetting his name, made a similar statement and was repremanded. This statement, "Men are more violent", is the same sort of generalization that can be decried as sexist. That's my point.

But what if biological differences cause differences in hiring patterns

I.E. A imbalance in CEO towards males (assume no “inside” opposition to a female applicant) because of a natural aggressiveness in more males on average (statistical basis not an individual basis)

(sorry if this is not clear just ask me to try to clarify)


The fact of the matter is that people will still claim that those people "inside" are being sexist because there are less women in that position. You know this, you even went so far as to say "assume no 'inside' opposition" as if this occurance is not rare.

You know as well as I do that generalizations of one group of people can be defined as sexist, racist, ageist, etc. If actual studies were done, both physical and mental violence studied, I'm sure the resulting statistics would be closer to 50-50 male to female.
Maybe find the studies … this was dealing with physical violence

Maybe find the studies … this was dealing with physical violence

Did the original post have any links to the studies saying men were more violent? I believe not. Until then all statements made are baseless and can be classified as sexist because of the generalization made about one group of people without supporting evidence. My guess, and this is just speculation, is that the figures are closer to 50-50 than most people think.

The fact of the matter is that people will still claim that those people "inside" are being sexist because there are less women in that position. You know this, you even went so far as to say "assume no 'inside' opposition" as if this occurance is not rare.
I did that include to prohibit that line of thinking because some of it … a lot of it could be personal bias … I was trying to remove the hiring person or board bias on the subject for the hypothetical for the express reason to gauge her feelings (and others) on how they feel if they thought it was far that the statistical biological differences reflect similarly in social differences that they are beneficial in

Add to that original question that do you (impersonal) think it fair the statistical deficit of men in certain “motherly” like jobs that seem to benefit from the natural nurturing attitude that more women seem to exhibit (again averages not individuals)

I did that include to prohibit that line of thinking because some of it … a lot of it could be personal bias … I was trying to remove the hiring person or board bias on the subject for the hypothetical for the express reason to gauge her feelings (and others) on how they feel if they thought it was far that the statistical biological differences reflect similarly in social differences that they are beneficial in

Add to that original question that do you (impersonal) think it fair the statistical deficit of men in certain “motherly” like jobs that seem to benefit from the natural nurturing attitude that more women seem to exhibit (again averages not individuals)

To answer your question, and to stop playing devils advocate, there are many reasons why women wont climb the business ladder that far. Family is probably the main factor. Women tend to think more of their family when applying for a position than men do, women are less likely to be open to travel, etc etc.

That sort of thing, women being in more 'motherly' jobs, also goes along with the $.70 a woman makes to every $1 a man makes. In each individual job area the numbers are probably closer to 1-1, it's the fact that men will take jobs women wont (trash collecters, "dirty jobs", jobs that require more travel, etc) that limit the possibilities for women to make equal wages across all spectrums.