>But I’m not going to justify that I think you and Ben are expressing ideas that are out of date and place worked into boxes defined by very specific gender roles.
You've just assumed what I mean. Did you just mansplain what I think to me?
What idea have I expressed? Let's go back.
1) people should cooperate
2) people have different capacities
3) people have different preferences
Some of this difference may be distributed by gender, and, if that is the case, so what?
> as for your own views about pay. If it’s easier to agree with you I will because I’m quite honestly stuffed if I can see the point of debating.
My views about pay are that
1) we have moved away from merit based selection in a lot of areas
1a) partially we have driven this through playing on social desire to change governance structures to include women, that's a separate issue.
2) peoples choices in life affect their earning capacity
3) some jobs pay more then others and women may not choose them (eg, under sea welder).
I haven't really engaged with you on this at all, I was more pointing out how biases are applied to statistical modelling in general, that's all.
I would say that I think pay outcomes really come down to how well you play the game, and certainly it's generally the case that the women I know who get paid well tend to have gamed their way into positions (ie - they've worked the system intelligently to their own benefit) whereas the men I know who get paid a lot tend towards just really smashing themselves hard (ie, their perspective on how to get ahead is kind of archaic - work hard not smart).
And note, please note, I am not saying "men work harder than women and are therefore more deserving of money". I'm saying men and women interpret the rules of the game differently and, frankly, women seem to be better at playing the "workplace culture 21st century" game better than men.
(We could have another whole discussion about useless make-work jobs and a total lack of actual productivity lol)
>so let me simply add that of course you are superior.
I have not at any point in time tried to argue that, nor do I think that. Wtf would you say that to me for? I am genuinely trying to discuss this with you in good faith.
My original point was that the biggest problem women face as they gain social status (ie, "if matriarchy replaces patriarchy") is the lack of eligible male partners.
Women PREFER men with higher status than them. This is just an objective fact. It is not a complaint. It is not an indictment of female character.
And so, as women gain social status, consequently, the number of male partners with higher status - and thus acceptable to them- shrinks. This is just material reality.
Women cannot be "at the top" and also have men "higher than them".
This may have social consequences, yes? What might they be? This is the point of this discussion.
I'm not trying to trap you into some admission that men are better than women, or that you have to "clean toilets" (wtf???)
I'm trying to have an intellectual discussion with you (I'm treating you as an equal here... )
It's not a discussion about you or me. It's about the potential outcomes of reordering societies. Why would you take it personally????
