Why do many liberals have a problem with gender statistics?

What I don't get is that why so many on the left feel the compulsion to deny the gender differences that are backed up by statistics and pretend it's just a matter of "everyone is different as a person" when the statistics show it isn't just one big unisexual blob of grey - the gender differences are well-documented (and in many cases pure common sense) - it's like people are just afraid to say what everyone really knows because the Church of Political Correctness declares it a heresy.

For example, as I pointed out the other day women make up over 70% of veterinarians - and yes back in the "good old days" (1960s and before) only men were allowed to be veterinarians (and being a vet isn't a "lowly position" by any means), so this can't be explained away by claiming it was a "role" which women were forced into. Women on average are better at occupations that stress lots of social contact and interpersonal communication - while men are better at working alone, this is pretty much a no-brainer.

So of course I have no problem with acknowledging gender facts, such as that women are better in social situations - it's just biology and the statistics back it up. On the other hand when you point out something basic such as that men are better at serving in combat or athletics, people on the left will feel compelled to point out an exception (ex. "Boadicia" the female warrior) just for the sake of being politically correct - sure there's some women somewhere who fight on the front lines- ...but for that matter there's some young earth creationists somewhere who are members of MENSA' (but on average how many do you think meet MENSA'S IQ requirements)?

I've got no problem acknowleding either sexes' strengts and weakness - why do liberals OTOH have a problem acknowledging this (well more accurately - specifically when talking about women - because it's a lot of these same liberals who have no problem making statements such as that "women are better with kids" - yet they'll refuse to acknoweldge something as basic as men being more physically built for combat - which shows their denial and bias specifically toward women).

 

You have some nerve saying men are better at some things and women are better at others.

 

Why? Sorry if it's politically incorrect to say what everyone knows (but is afraid to say out loud)

 

Actually, it's kinda ironic. He is troubled by some gender based issues but shows he is more troubled about these things than anyone else.

 

There are difference and everyone acknowledges those differences. However, 20 years ago, there were assumed differences that that we know were simply false. Just look at academics. So many people assumed that women were just mentally inferior and that men were naturally more intelligent. Today, those same people are now worried because women have overtaken and surpassed men in many areas and they are worried that boys might fall behind.

So there is an importance to separating what is assumed and what is possible and setting arbitrary and false limits based on gender isn't really helping anyone but those who feel having a penis should allow them special benefits.

 

There are others who feel having a vagina should allow them special benefits as well.
I'm a supporter of if you can do it do it, doesn't matter what gender you are

 

That's what feminism is all about.

- - - Updated - - -

That's what egalitareanism is basically all about, hence the chasm between feminism and egalitareanism.

 

Big difference - I'm not talking about the state enforcing "gender roles" (such as banning women from education, driving cars, etc) - because a state could decree any "roles" it wants (ex. if some govt somewhere wanted to force men to be homemakers or women to serve in combat they could do it in theory).

I'm talking about gender differences that exist in nature - ex. where both sexes have complete freedom to be whoever they want to be, they still tend on average to drift in different directions - I used my example of veterinarians, and how the majority are women (even though back in the day this was also considered a "man's role" as were most professions regardless of the skills involved)

 

I agree with this - despite many feminists supporting women's right to serve in combat, I'm not aware of any feminist organization campaiging to make women eligible for the SS.

 

I think everything should be open to both genders and if you can do it, you get in, if not oh well. But everyone must pass the same standards. For example right now the Army physical fitness test females need a slower run time and are allowed to do less push ups. The standard should be across the board on physical fitness IMO I know a lot of females who can out run the males here.

 

Because it's actually untrue AND it's used to justify discrimination against women. The fact of the matter is that some PEOPLE men and women are better at some things than others and that women tend to be better at some things in greater numbers than men (and vice versa). As long as you just take note of the fact and then don't use it to exclude women who ARE just as qualified (if not more) than some men are for some things, then there's no problem. The thing is that conservatives always DO try to use it to discriminate.

To put it another way, stats show that most women in the military are more naturally qualified than men to be nurses. Fine. But have you ever heard that men should be excluded from being nurses because the stats show that most men in the military are less naturally qualified than most women to be nurses?. Yet they do exactly that with combat roles.

I know (and am sure you do too) many women who would be far better combat soldiers than most men

 

Source Please: showing statistics that women in the military are more naturally qualified than men to be nurses


Thank You

 

I love the self serving hypocrisy of the feministsts. In this feminists first sentence she/he says, "because it's actually untrue AND it's used to justify discrimination against women," then in the next paragraph she/he says, "stats show that most women in the military are more naturally qualified than men to be nurses."

LOL

 

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the difference between this and saying that men or women respectively are statistically better qualified for certain jobs.

Edit: There is no discrimination in saying this. Discrimination starts when you refuse a woman a job she is capable of with the justification that men are statistically better suited for that kind of work. Or pay them differently.

 

I think this issue is the loss of the element I highlight between these two statements in your post.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with pointing out statistical variations between different groups but there can be a problem with automatically associating those implied characteristics with every member of that group. For example, men are, on average, stronger than women but the strongest women will still be stronger than the vast majority of men and the weakest men weaker than the vast majority of women.

The practical problem come about when someone is looking for a strong person and they automatically dismiss any woman out of hand. When a statistical tendency becomes a stereotype. That doesn't do anyone any favours.

 

It's hard to read into sarcasm when typed. It's complete sarcasm. I need to learn to write that when I type. I am a very sarcastic person and obviously that doesn't transfer typed very well.

 

Not at all. I'm not troubled by anything really. I do like to push buttons though.

 

It's already been established as true that genetic differences exist

Then if "evolution is used to justify racism" that means we should teach creationism? Um... okay

So we agree then... what's the problem?

I don't care what 'conservatives' do - I don't support legal discrimination in any way - I believe everyone regardless of sex should be judged by individual talent - the problem is there's a trend within the far left to push for "affirmative action" and insist that no biological differences between the sexes exist - this is what I'm combating.

Which I don't support - I know the difference between "gender roles" dictated by society or the state, and natural differences between gender.

...but how many?

- - - Updated - - -

So who's doing that? As far as I'm aware it's not legal in the 21st century to ban qualified women from a profession simply because "they're women"

 

Everyone does it, if only subconsciously. I see plenty of people doing it and caught myself sometimes too. You were leading to it in the statements of yours I highlighted. It doesn't really have anything to do with what's legal but what actually happens (lots of illegal things still happen).

Facts are important but how they're presented can be even more important. The statements "On average, men are physically stronger than women." and "Women are weak!" are essentially presenting the same fact but in practice present very different images. I think you're misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) attempts to avoid the latter kind of statement as attempts to ignore the truth of the former.

 

Point is it's a double standard - if someone were to state "women are better with kids" then that wouldn't illicit the same negative reaction that stating "men are stronger than women" would - the political correctness is one-sided against men

 

Or... he has common sense... and of course statistics and facts.

Sorry you don't.

 

Careful, Drago and Mr_T will jump on you for that small dose of statistical fact.

 

Maybe, though I think that would depend as much on the environment than the statement. Anyway, I don't see either reaction actually being against men (or women). Declaring unconditionally that "men are stronger than women" doesn't really do anyone any favours, men or women.

 

I didn't take this post seriously. I took it as a funny sarcastic post

 

I don't care about how many of whatever gender is doing whatever job or whatever role as long as both men and women are given a fair and equal shot at doing it. By that I simply mean that the same rules apply to both and the rules aren't changed to specifically deny either. Equal treatment, equal opportunity. After that it's just up to individual choice and ability.