Men as Providers


Rob Osborn
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, mikbone said:

For example, I fix bones.  

If someone in my ward breaks a bone and I fix it I dont charge them.  

This is not service by his defination.

That makes no sense.

Fixing somebody's bones is a service regardless of whether you get paid for it or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Not quite.

Exactly.

Now I'm sad.  I was going to consider it a badge of honor to be on your ignore list..........🙈🙉🙊

10 minutes ago, mikbone said:

They have this habbit of referring to themselves as full-time fathers.  

That's right up there with fathers saying they are going to "babysit their kids so that mom can go to Relief Society."

Sorry pal.  When it's your own kids, the proper term is "parenting"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
Just now, MarginOfError said:

Now I'm sad.  I was going to consider it a badge of honor to be on your ignore list.........

 

Tell me about it, I've trying to get on his ignore list for 22 years now. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MarginOfError said:
19 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

But, the reality is that in general, men are biologically at advantage on average amongst all jobs.

Sweet....I'm a better programmer than @anatess2 because I'm male.

5.1 out of 10 on the zinger scale, but points have to be deducted for a statistician ignoring the bolded part.

I'm surprised no one commented on the italicized part.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Vort said:

5.1 out of 10 on the zinger scale, but points have to be deducted for a statistician ignoring the bolded part.

I'm surprised no one commented on the italicized part.

I just found the whole thing to be ridiculous. "Men are biologically at advantage on average amongst all jobs...because lumberjacks."

With the myriad ways to mock that post, I settled on one.  I won't begrudge anyone for low scores for zingers or for other worthy mockeries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

I just found the whole thing to be ridiculous. "Men are biologically at advantage on average amongst all jobs...because lumberjacks."

With the myriad ways to mock that post, I settled on one.  I won't begrudge anyone for low scores for zingers or for other worthy mockeries.

"Men are biologically at advantage on average amongst all jobs...because aggressiveness in competition."  This is because jobs go under the rule of scarcity.  Yes, if men ever decide to flood the nursing program they would out-compassion women just through sheer competitiveness.  ;)

 

 

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

"Men are biologically at advantage on average amongst all jobs...because aggressiveness in competition."  This is because jobs go under the rule of scarcity.  Yes, if men ever decide to flood the nursing program they would out-compassion women just through sheer competitiveness.  ;)

 

 

I can't compete with that.....

therefore I conclude that I am actually a woman.

Edited by MarginOfError
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

"Men are biologically at advantage on average amongst all jobs...because aggressiveness in competition."  This is because jobs go under the rule of scarcity.  Yes, if men ever decide to flood the nursing program they would out-compassion women just through sheer competitiveness.  ;)

 

 

They indeed would! Just as we out beauty all women too!

https://www.google.com/amp/s/sputniknews.com/amp/viral/201807031066011555-miss-universe-contest-transgender/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im afraid that as we try to make each job gender neutral/ equal in most aspects all we will be doing is hampering progress. Certain jobs require a certain amount of physical labor, something relatively easy for men to do. But as we are now on a path to make even those jobs available for women too we thus limit production or hamper it by not allowing the function of muscle to do its natural job. This bothers me that we believe we have to make all things equal in the workplace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

"Men are biologically at advantage on average amongst all jobs...because aggressiveness in competition."  This is because jobs go under the rule of scarcity.  Yes, if men ever decide to flood the nursing program they would out-compassion women just through sheer competitiveness.  ;)

 

 

It breaks down to biology.  The bell curve for men on intelligence is much broader than for women, i.e. there are more geniuses and more dunces who are male. At the upper ends of intelligence practically all super geniuses are men.  Sorry, woman don't hold a candle to the upper end of male intelligence.  But by the same token, men have far more idiots than woman. The bottom rungs of intelligence are populated with men.

That's one reason why there are more men who are engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. than women.  B/c it requires high intelligence that frankly most woman simply can not compete on.  This does not mean there aren't extremely intelligence women-b/c obviously there are-but when looked at as a population it's not a comparison.

The second factor is work ethic. The really high intellectual jobs require INSANE amounts of dedication, hard work, and motivation to actually compete.  60 hour work weeks are nothing, it is highly competitive, highly intense and really hard work-and you need a far amount of freaking testosterone to drive one to survive.  It's why women simply biologically can't have it all, but a man can. A man can have a family, take care of his kids and do well in his job-but a woman simply can't.  In order to compete with kids, a woman is going spending 15 min. pumping breastmilk for her 2-month old baby in the bathroom stall a couple times a day while the man is busting his tail.  Biology-she just can't compete if she wants it all. If she wants to compete with the men, she has to give something up-either be done having kids-have no kids-take a lower paying or less stressful job, etc.  Tack on the fact that men and woman are socially different creatures.  Stock traders and financial market guys-all male-requires super intelligence and super hard work.

I'm speaking broadly and definitely there are outliers on either sex . . .but if you look at the data and study large groups of people certain trends pop-out.  Just like men are more violent than women, but both men and woman can be very agrressive.  Men show their aggression physically, woman show their aggression and revenge . . .with a knife in the back.

Unfortunately very few people want to acknowledge the real differences between men and women-yet anyone who is married CLEARLY knows there are vast, vast differences.

Edited by boxer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im afraid that as we try to make each job gender neutral/ equal in most aspects all we will be doing is hampering progress. Certain jobs require a certain amount of physical labor, something relatively easy for men to do. But as we are now on a path to make even those jobs available for women too we thus limit production or hamper it by not allowing the function of muscle to do its natural job. This bothers me that we believe we have to make all things equal in the workplace.

Forcing the workplace to be gender equal is just as bad as forcing certain genders out of certain jobs.  Merit is a spectrum among genders.  There are very weak men and there are very strong women even as they are the minorities in the statistical spectrum.  Telling the very strong woman she can't take the job because she is a woman while the very weak soy-fed man takes the same job is stupid.

So yes, set the requirements of the job using measurable merits to the topmost efficiency in achieving the objective.  If a woman wins that merit over a man, so be it.  Pregnancy and childbearing does not exempt a woman from the requirements.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Forcing the workplace to be gender equal is just as bad as forcing certain genders out of certain jobs.  Merit is a spectrum among genders.  There are very weak men and there are very strong women even as they are the minorities in the statistical spectrum.  Telling the very strong woman she can't take the job because she is a woman while the very weak soy-fed man takes the same job is stupid.

So yes, set the requirements of the job using measurable merits to the topmost efficiency in achieving the objective.  If a woman wins that merit over a man, so be it.  Pregnancy and childbearing does not exempt a woman from the requirements.

 

I agree it is stupid to lower the requirements . . .but that is EXACTLY what happens and we all know it.  The "diversity" hire or the "diversity" promotion happens all the time!  How many times to you hear someone say "we need more woman in xyz", or "boy it's good to see woman in blah", or "more woman need to be CEOs/xyz".  So companies through HR make an emphasis to hire more woman, to promote more women.

In fact-if you didn't know this-if a company is above 20 employees and they do not have a certain number of woman that they hire, the federal government MANDATES the entire company takes "diversity" training. A small business employer must pay his employees to take a day out to ensure they are adequately trained on "diversity".

Edited by boxer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, boxer said:

That's one reason why there are more men who are engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc. than women.  B/c it requires high intelligence that frankly most woman simply can not compete on.  This does not mean there aren't extremely intelligence women-b/c obviously there are-but when looked at as a population it's not a comparison.

This is not the reason.

Engineering is not because of intelligence.  Engineering is because of tactile aptitude and not intelligence.  You put a male and a female toddler in a room with a doll and a tonka truck, most females will take the doll (observe its facial features) while most males will take the tonka truck (make it move).  The natural interest in the tonka truck is Engineering aptitude.

Doctors and Lawyers.  These are actually professions that women could excel in over men (the "doll aptitude").  The problem with this is not intelligence.  The problem is TIME investment required for proficiency.

Now, where you see the male intelligence displayed is in theoretics.  Newton, Einstein, etc. etc.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, boxer said:

I agree it is stupid to lower the requirements . . .but that is EXACTLY what happens and we all know it.  The "diversity" hire or the "diversity" promotion happens all the time!  How many times to you hear someone say "we need more woman in xyz", or "boy it's good to see woman in blah", or "more woman need to be CEOs/xyz".  So companies through HR make an emphasis to hire more woman, to promote more women.

In fact-if you didn't know this-if a company is above 20 employees and they do not have a certain number of woman that they hire, the federal government MANDATES the entire company takes "diversity" training. A small business employer must pay his employees to take a day out to ensure they are adequately trained on "diversity".

If you must know... my white cis-male of a husband got laid off from his job TWICE because of... diversity requirements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

If you must know... my white cis-male of a husband got laid off from his job TWICE because of... diversity requirements.

That sucks-it's the way of the world now. It's dangerous to be a straight white male in 2018.

Google Tom MacDonald-rap-but actually kind-of decent rap and the youtube videos bleep the bad words.

Edited by boxer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This is not the reason.

Engineering is not because of intelligence.  Engineering is because of tactile aptitude and not intelligence. 

With respect, you don't know what engineering is and coding is not engineering.  A high school kid can learn how to code a script-we call them script-kiddies-that's not engineering.

Engineering absolutely requires extreme intelligence-running insanely complex mathematical algorithms, probability, statistics, calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, material strength, pi, R-values, resisters, etc.

It's intelligence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, boxer said:

With respect, you don't know what engineering is and coding is not engineering.  A high school kid can learn how to code a script-we call them script-kiddies-that's not engineering.

Engineering absolutely requires extreme intelligence-running insanely complex mathematical algorithms, probability, statistics, calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, material strength, pi, R-values, resisters, etc.

It's intelligence.

Hah hah.  Silly boxer.

I'm not just a "coder" dude.  If you must know, I happen to be a Computer Engineer (not a Software Engineer) with a Masters in Systems Engineering.  My dad is a Chemical Engineer, my brother is an Electronics Communications Engineer.  It is hilarious for you to say I don't know Engineering.

Engineering requires intelligence.  Women have that intelligence.  That's not why there are more Male Engineers than there are Female Engineers.  Stop blowing smoke out of your butt.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Hah hah.  Silly boxer.

I'm not just a "coder" dude.  If you must know, I happen to be a Computer Engineer with a Masters in Systems Engineering.  My dad is a Chemical Engineer, my brother is an Electronics Communications Engineer.  It is hilarious for you to say I don't know Engineering.

Engineering requires intelligence.  Women have that intelligence.  That's not why there are more Male Engineers than there are Female Engineers.  Stop blowing smoke out of your butt.

Sigh, this is why getting into discussions like this is pointless.  Women use emotion to think, men use logic.

Whatever, use emotion, call me silly.  I deal in facts, logic, reason, not name-calling and emotional logic.

No you don't know engineering-period. I don't care about your pedigree-doesn't matter to me.  It doesn't have to do with interest it has to do with intelligence.  The fact that you claim it doesn't, when clearly the degree requires you to be a really intelligent person to master it and since those are high paying jobs, really highly intelligent people gravitate towards those fields, i.e. you get the most intelligent men and the most intelligence woman gravitating towards those jobs.

More male geniuses than women geniuses. Sigh, whatever . . .and you wonder how we came to the point where your husband got laid of b/c of "diversity". Women (in general) simply cannot compete in those fields regardless of their interest or at least not without "help".  It is why STEM field initiatives to get women into STEM fields fails, miserably without "incentives".

Regardless of sex, a highly intelligent person is not going to be satisfied in a non-intellectually stimulating job.  They aren't going to be satisfied being a lumberjack or a nurse-b/c their brain is going to scream for something else. The highly intellectual individuals are the doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc. b/c each new case, each new problem is different, it actually engages their brain to make it stimulating to work.  This is why the really, really smart women ARE engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc.  Because any other field would not be satisfying to their brain.

. . .but whatevs.

Good luck.

Edited by boxer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im an M.D. and my wife has her J.D.

I can guarantee it does not require any level of higher intelligence.  I met the classmates.

Being a successful surgeon requires hard work much more than being a ‘genius’.

 

But good luck with your super duper high IQ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, mikbone said:

Im an M.D. and my wife has her J.D.

I can guarantee it does not require any level of higher intelligence.  I met the classmates.

Being a successful surgeon requires hard work much more than being a ‘genius’.

 

But good luck with your super duper high IQ.

Right dude, you under-estimate your own IQ. It absolutely requires high intellect.

Average IQ is like 80.  That is the average.  People who graduate with a bachelor's degree's average IQ is around 100, master's degree 110+, PhD over 120.

You really underestimate what it takes to get an MD/JD, etc.  You are actually really intelligent.

Hard work absolutely cannot make-up for sub-optimal intelligence.  Hard work can overcome some difference, if you take a hardworker with some intelligence and a lazy person with more intelligence, but when the average IQ is 80, no amount of hard work from a person who has an IQ of 80 is ever going to compete with someone of 110+ IQ.  Just not gonna happen.

And you really don't know how smart and blessed you are b/c of your intellect until you've dealt with the average.  And most people who are MDs, engineers, etc. b/c of the circles they run in do not interact with people who are much lower than them on the IQ scale.

And this is the thing that blows me away.  .. it's not just a matter of education.  I wish it were.  There is just plain raw brain-power.  Some people have it and some people don't and no amount of forcing people to college is going to change that (unless you dumb down entrance requirements or change graduation requirements). I wish it weren't that way, but it is. You can't take someone who has an IQ of 80 and make them an engineer-if you do serious disaster is going to happen.

And it's sad, b/c nobody likes to talk about it b/c it's not "nice", yet it is reality and so we end up setting up people to fail-telling them they can be anything they want to be-yet that is a lie.

And if people thought about it, it should actually generate more charity towards others and realize that not everyone has the same gifts and to be really grateful for what you've got and to recognize that not everyone has the same capability to do really, really well in life . .that maybe being a lumberjack or a janitor is the best they can hope to achieve with what God gave them-and that it is perfectly alright.

Instead of looking down on those less fortunate b/c they didn't work as hard or whatever, maybe realize they are absolutely doing the best they can with the gifts God gave them.

Edited by boxer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, boxer said:

Sigh, this is why getting into discussions like this is pointless.  Women use emotion to think, men use logic.

Whatever, use emotion, call me silly.  I deal in facts, logic, reason, not name-calling and emotional logic.

No you don't know engineering-period. I don't care about your pedigree-doesn't matter to me.  It doesn't have to do with interest it has to do with intelligence.  More male geniuses than women geniuses. Sigh, whatever . . .and you wonder how we came to the point where your husband got laid of b/c of "diversity".

Good luck.

If you think I'm using emotion over logic you would be... wrong.  Coder, remember?

Like I said... stop smoking out of your butt.  You want to be an Engineer?  You better be able to support your statements.

My main source of this info is Jordan B. Peterson's lecture series.  I'm not gonna bore you with linking the 2 hour video on this thread.  But I'll go ahead and cut-and-paste the relevant Wikipedia entry just because I'm feeling generous.

Analyses of males' and females' grades revealed that, on average, women who had dropped out of engineering programs were either approximately as qualified or even more qualified than their male peers who continued their studies. Additionally, surveyed female dropouts revealed that very few (approximately 9.8% to 11.5%) actually dropped out because they viewed the work as too difficult.[17][21] Among their primary reasons for dropping were: loss of interest in the field, the inability to see themselves as professional engineers, inappropriate behavior from male peers, and the highly pressured environment professional engineers worked under. .[23]

[17] Seymour, Elaine. "The Loss of Women from Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Undergraduate Majors: An Explanatory Account." Science Education 79.4 (1995)
[21] Seymour, Elaine. "The Role of Socialization in Shaping the Career-Related Choices of Undergraduate Women in Science, Mathematics, and Engineering Majors." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 869 (1999): 118-26.
[23] Cuny, Janice, and William Aspray. "Recruitment and Retention of Women Graduate Students in Computer Science and Engineering." ACM SIGCSE Bulletin 34.2 (2002): 168.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share