>ignore the fact that our emotional patterns are not tied directly to our genders. Social/antisocial patterns are not strictly female/male patterns. I know plenty of wonderful women who are antisocial and dislike direct contact with lots of people;
Why is it so hard to accept that biological sex can and does have a strong affect on emotional patterns? Testosterone and estrogen are the driving hormones behind our sex differences. It's a fact that testosterone affects aggression. So why is this so hard to accept?
Of course there are going to be outliers, but anecdotes do not disprove the general trend.
>are bordering on downvote-worthy. Are you really suggesting that women can't handle male careers? Really? Are we living in the seventies still?
Again, you're countering his assertion with an anecdote. It's wonderful that your mother was able to balance both, but that doesn't counter the apparent correlation with women's increasing career aspirations and the breakdown of traditional families. This isn't being sexist, it's being honest.
>This is really, really, really stupid. Your argument only holds water if you think that "wanting to be a mommy" is a genetic trait, that women are born either wanting kids or not wanting them.
You're missing the spectrum in between. You're right that career aspirations are social traits, but ambition in general is likely strongly rooted in genetics. So the question is does one outweigh the other in a particular individual. While his conclusion is a major leap, it's not without a semblance of reason.
This is the problem with discussions like these. Any non-PC point of view gets immediately shot down and accusations of sexism fly. If we truly want to get at the root cause of the imbalance, we must be able to ask the tough questions that might have uncomfortable answers.
Why is it so hard to accept that biological sex can and does have a strong affect on emotional patterns? Testosterone and estrogen are the driving hormones behind our sex differences. It's a fact that testosterone affects aggression. So why is this so hard to accept?
Of course there are going to be outliers, but anecdotes do not disprove the general trend.
>are bordering on downvote-worthy. Are you really suggesting that women can't handle male careers? Really? Are we living in the seventies still?
Again, you're countering his assertion with an anecdote. It's wonderful that your mother was able to balance both, but that doesn't counter the apparent correlation with women's increasing career aspirations and the breakdown of traditional families. This isn't being sexist, it's being honest.
>This is really, really, really stupid. Your argument only holds water if you think that "wanting to be a mommy" is a genetic trait, that women are born either wanting kids or not wanting them.
You're missing the spectrum in between. You're right that career aspirations are social traits, but ambition in general is likely strongly rooted in genetics. So the question is does one outweigh the other in a particular individual. While his conclusion is a major leap, it's not without a semblance of reason.
This is the problem with discussions like these. Any non-PC point of view gets immediately shot down and accusations of sexism fly. If we truly want to get at the root cause of the imbalance, we must be able to ask the tough questions that might have uncomfortable answers.