Men as Providers

[zil]

41 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Though in fairness, I suppose there are those who may well say the same about me.

From what I have observed, anyone who says that about you wouldn't know logic if it bit a chunk out of their left brain.

[Rob Osborn]

4 hours 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.

[Vort]

25 minutes ago, zil said:

From what I have observed, anyone who says that about you wouldn't know logic if it bit a chunk out of their left brain.

Especially then.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm going to say this without knowing a thing about it, having never studied the matter, but I would bet dollars to donuts that there are some serious flaws/problems with the methods whereby either they determine "IQ" or gather said data in whatever study(s).

Dollars to donuts.

This is the graph.  It is the standard IQ methodology.  You may reject it, which is fine, but it would be basically rejecting that IQ measurements have significance.

As you can see in the graph, the highest and lowest IQs are occupied by more males than females.

Now, IQ is, of course, affected by education opportunity and competitiveness.  Education opportunity is now flipping to become majority female such that, eventually, it is highly possible that it will overcome male competitiveness which would then change this graph.

[Vort]

The crossovers in the graphs occur very close to one standard deviation from the mean, which corresponds to 15 IQ points.

I am not a fan of IQ scores, and I believe they have only limited predictive value. I also disbelieve that they constitute any sort of reliable and unbiased measure of underlying (and unchanging) intellectual potential.

[SilentOne]

3 hours ago, MormonGator said:

Ever notice that the only place people brag about having "high IQs" (or even talk about it really) is the internet?  

 

Not IQ scores, but at some sort of gathering of freshman (freshmen?) honors students my brother went to, a lot of the kids were bragging about their test scores. His complaining about that to us is part of why I decided not to bother with the honors program when I went to college. The other factor is that they would have made me take the honors version of a class I had APed out of and at the time, I felt that would be a waste.

That story reminded me of the time the same brother and I were silently eating lunch together at a summer workshoppy thing and one of the teacher-people, in an effort to get us to talk to one another, told my brother to tell me his test scores. My brother was like, "She knows my scores. She's my sister." But really, what sort of a conversation starter is that?

"I scored really high on a test."

"Okay. Cool." Then what do you say?

Outside of school contexts, the only "intellectual" bragging I've heard in person is about their children's accomplishments, not their own IQs.

Edited December 12, 2018 by SilentOne

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, anatess2 said:

You may reject it, which is fine, but it would be basically rejecting that IQ measurements have significance.

Only rejecting the significance which is most  commonly ascribed to them. 

Edited December 12, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[MarginOfError]

I'll leave this here:  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-8425911.html

I'll also point out that IQ test don't measure intelligence.  They measure one type of intelligence.  Specifically, the ability of a person to recognize patterns in chaos.  That can be affected to some degree by education and some social factors.  

The tests are also written and administered by people that favor a very structured approach to logic and proofs that most humans are never exposed to until late high school at the earliest, if ever.  So, it turns out distributional approximations of observed IQ scores more accurately represent the state of human achievement than they do human intelligence.

I've worked with lots of doctors. I've worked with lots of doctors at one of the premier research medical facilities in the world.  Some of them are blithering idiots.  Most of them are quite intelligent.  A certain handful of them were beyond brilliant.  In each of the groups, the split between men and women was about half and half.

Lastly, someone obtaining an M.D. is a lot of work, but surprisingly not difficult.  Medical schools very, very rarely fail a student. Because if the student fails, the student doesn't get a job, and then the student never pays back the student loans, which costs the school a lot of money.  Someone that gets a D+ in medical school is still a doctor.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, boxer said:

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.

Really?  Where did you get this insightful piece of data?

[Guest]

12 hours ago, boxer said:

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.

As the site's resident engineer, I'll let you in on a little secret.  It doesn't take a lot of brain power to be an engineer.  True, you can't really succeed without being at least average.  But the way things are set up, the day-to-day engineer can be perfectly capable with only an average IQ score (which, BTW, is 100, not 80).

[MarginOfError]

As far as "changing standards to accommodate women", here are a couple of interesting articles about the issue in the US Army's Ranger School.

The first, from the Washington Post, declares that it was a good thing that all of the women failed in the first couple of pilots of women in Ranger School (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/13/19-women-washed-out-of-army-ranger-school-last-week-heres-why-thats-actually-a-good-thing/?utm_term=.15087c83d8f5). Indeed, as I remember, most of the feminists I know and read were, at the time, elated that the women got to try, disappointed that they failed, but supportive of the standards as they are.

The second, from the Christian Science Monitor, leads with the headline "All 8 women fail Ranger School: Some Rangers say standards should change" (https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2015/0529/All-8-women-fail-Ranger-School-Some-Rangers-say-standards-should-change). That's a lovely, provocative title, but the content is intensely interesting.  Such as one male ranger who says “my feet didn’t feel the same for literally two years,… but I can’t honestly say I learned much.” Or the Secretary of the Navy that said, regarding standards for combat positions, "First, we're going to make sure there are standards. Second, that they are gender-neutral, and third, that they have something to do with the job." Those are arguments that "we should change the standards to make it easier for women." Those are arguments that "we should evaluate our needs and write standards that fit our needs."  Which is, by the way, a perfectly legitimate bureaucratic and administrative approach to considering women in combat positions or any career field.  

Do lumber jacks really need the same level of brute strength that was required in 1840 now that we have hydraulic machinery that can do the brute labor?  

As one of the resident feminists, I have no problem excluding women from jobs they are not qualified to perform.  I only expect that the qualifications reflect the actual requirements of the position that is being filled. Nostalgia is not a valid approach to determining requirements.

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

As far as "changing standards to accommodate women", here are a couple of interesting articles about the issue in the US Army's Ranger School.

The first, from the Washington Post, declares that it was a good thing that all of the women failed in the first couple of pilots of women in Ranger School (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/05/13/19-women-washed-out-of-army-ranger-school-last-week-heres-why-thats-actually-a-good-thing/?utm_term=.15087c83d8f5). Indeed, as I remember, most of the feminists I know and read were, at the time, elated that the women got to try, disappointed that they failed, but supportive of the standards as they are.

The second, from the Christian Science Monitor, leads with the headline "All 8 women fail Ranger School: Some Rangers say standards should change" (https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Military/2015/0529/All-8-women-fail-Ranger-School-Some-Rangers-say-standards-should-change). That's a lovely, provocative title, but the content is intensely interesting.  Such as one male ranger who says “my feet didn’t feel the same for literally two years,… but I can’t honestly say I learned much.” Or the Secretary of the Navy that said, regarding standards for combat positions, "First, we're going to make sure there are standards. Second, that they are gender-neutral, and third, that they have something to do with the job." Those are arguments that "we should change the standards to make it easier for women." Those are arguments that "we should evaluate our needs and write standards that fit our needs."  Which is, by the way, a perfectly legitimate bureaucratic and administrative approach to considering women in combat positions or any career field.  

Do lumber jacks really need the same level of brute strength that was required in 1840 now that we have hydraulic machinery that can do the brute labor?  

As one of the resident feminists, I have no problem excluding women from jobs they are not qualified to perform.  I only expect that the qualifications reflect the actual requirements of the position that is being filled. Nostalgia is not a valid approach to determining requirements.

So, one of my first jobs was building and delivering commercial cabinets. Our shop was pretty much all male. Delivering the cabinets was especially a physically demanding job. Over the few years I worked there my employer would, from time to time, hire women. Not sure exactly why, perhaps he wanted diversity. The problem always was though that they couldn't handle the heavy lifting over and over again. We would regularly haul cabinets and office counters that weighed hundreds of pounds up narrow stairwells. Because this was a regular part of the job none of the women panned out. The amount of shear grip strength to hold on to akward heavy cabinets for long distances was too grueling for the women. Eventually the boss stopped hiring women, he got the picture.

Now, as for lumberjacks, I'm not sure if you have ever done much work with a chainsaw while traversing the side of hills in the mountains. I've done a fair amount. As a man speaking, it's one of the most physically tasking jobs on the body that I have ever done. I have worked alongside with women on the mountain cutting and hauling out timber. The truth of it is, it really is a man's job to wield a chainsaw. They aren't terribly heavy but the fatigue gets grueling. And long after the women have bowed out the men keep finding extra gears to keep going and going. My grandfather was a lumberjack his whole career until his untimely death. His body was incredibly big and strong, it had to be. Times have changed, the chainsaws have gotten lighter but the processes for felling trees is still the same and almost all lumberjacks felling trees are still men.

The point that I'm worried about is that as we try to diversify and start demanding a neutral gender bias in the workplace that in order to do so in many jobs they have to scale back and even out the physical demands so that women will not fatigue. I'm not sure that's a good thing.

The Marines did a study of groups of soldiers who were both all men and groups mixed with women doing tasks they would do on the frontlines in battle. The groups that we're all male outperformed the mixed groups every single time. They also found that women in the mixed groups were two to three times more likely to suffer stress fractures in their bones from the physical demands placed on them over and over again. Regardless of the study, they have opened up all ground positions to women, but in order to do so they had to lower the standards by which one qualifies at. I'm not sure why, when faced with all the hard facts, that we would do something counter to what we know otherwise to be true.

My whole point is why must we lower the quality of the playing field which ultimately hurts overall means and production just to satisfy this new god we call "diversity"? Men and women aren't equal when it comes to physical labor that requires strength. So why do we think that needs to change? It's a testament to the feminist movement. 

[MarginOfError]

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, one of my first jobs was building and delivering commercial cabinets. Our shop was pretty much all male. Delivering the cabinets was especially a physically demanding job. Over the few years I worked there my employer would, from time to time, hire women. Not sure exactly why, perhaps he wanted diversity. The problem always was though that they couldn't handle the heavy lifting over and over again. We would regularly haul cabinets and office counters that weighed hundreds of pounds up narrow stairwells. Because this was a regular part of the job none of the women panned out. The amount of shear grip strength to hold on to akward heavy cabinets for long distances was too grueling for the women. Eventually the boss stopped hiring women, he got the picture.

No he didn't.  The problem was that the job requirements he advertised did not meet the actual job requirements.  The problem was that your boss didn't have an appropriate screening process.

Quote

Now, as for lumberjacks, I'm not sure if you have ever done much work with a chainsaw while traversing the side of hills in the mountains. I've done a fair amount. As a man speaking, it's one of the most physically tasking jobs on the body that I have ever done. I have worked alongside with women on the mountain cutting and hauling out timber. The truth of it is, it really is a man's job to wield a chainsaw. They aren't terribly heavy but the fatigue gets grueling. And long after the women have bowed out the men keep finding extra gears to keep going and going. My grandfather was a lumberjack his whole career until his untimely death. His body was incredibly big and strong, it had to be. Times have changed, the chainsaws have gotten lighter but the processes for felling trees is still the same and almost all lumberjacks felling trees are still men.

Still not a problem of men vs. women, but of the requirements of the job.  Are those requirements being properly identified and screened for?  If not, that's a problem with the company, not with women.

Quote

The point that I'm worried about is that as we try to diversify and start demanding a neutral gender bias in the workplace that in order to do so in many jobs they have to scale back and even out the physical demands so that women will not fatigue. I'm not sure that's a good thing.

No sane, rational, respectable person expects the requirements of the job to be scaled back just to accommodate diversity.  We expect that gender, race, religion, etc are not the qualifications for the job.  If the job requires that you be able to handle a chainsaw continuously for 12 hours without fatigue, then advertise that and screen for it. Just make sure that the requirements for the job you advertise actually reflect the work that will be done.

Quote

The Marines did a study of groups of soldiers who were both all men and groups mixed with women doing tasks they would do on the frontlines in battle. The groups that we're all male outperformed the mixed groups every single time. They also found that women in the mixed groups were two to three times more likely to suffer stress fractures in their bones from the physical demands placed on them over and over again. Regardless of the study, they have opened up all ground positions to women, but in order to do so they had to lower the standards by which one qualifies at. I'm not sure why, when faced with all the hard facts, that we would do something counter to what we know otherwise to be true.

My whole point is why must we lower the quality of the playing field which ultimately hurts overall means and production just to satisfy this new god we call "diversity"? Men and women aren't equal when it comes to physical labor that requires strength. So why do we think that needs to change? It's a testament to the feminist movement. 

This just tells me you didn't read anything I had posted.  Is the military changing some of its standards for combat? Sure. Is the military changing some of its standards for combat just so they can put women in combat? No, they are not.  The changes in standards come from looking at the requirements of the position and realizing, perhaps, that there is no longer a need to send a platoon of Marines on a 16 hour, 40 mile, cross-mountain march--we have drones that can fill that need.  If you reevaluate what you need the Marines to do and realize that the requirements don't need to be as stringent, then it's reasonable to ease the requirements to expand the pool of eligible soldiers.  (CAPITALISM!)

I get that you're concerned that not all change is good.  But likewise, not all change is bad. The way you speak of the issue suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of how and why changes are being implemented.

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

It doesn't take a lot of brain power to be an engineer. 

Something Carb proves daily. 

Kidding Carb.

Edited December 12, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

12 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

The changes in standards come from looking at the requirements of the position and realizing, perhaps, that there is no longer a need to send a platoon of Marines on a 16 hour, 40 mile, cross-mountain march--we have drones that can fill that need.  If you reevaluate what you need the Marines to do and realize that the requirements don't need to be as stringent, then it's reasonable to ease the requirements to expand the pool of eligible soldiers. 

Why does it feel like this is going to come back and bite us someday?

[MarginOfError]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Why does it feel like this is going to come back and bite us someday?

Oh, it will.  You've heard of SkyNet, right?

[The Folk Prophet]

24 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Oh, it will.  You've heard of SkyNet, right?

Haha. Not quite what I meant. I was thinking more...EMP or some such.

[MarginOfError]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Haha. Not quite what I meant. I was thinking more...EMP or some such.

I know.  and to be fair, I think it's reasonable to question if we have the job requirements right. But the focus should be on what it required to complete the task. Set the requirements and then don't worry about whether it's a man or a woman doing the job.

[Guest]

43 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

This just tells me you didn't read anything I had posted.  Is the military changing some of its standards for combat? Sure. Is the military changing some of its standards for combat just so they can put women in combat? No, they are not.  The changes in standards come from looking at the requirements of the position and realizing, perhaps, that there is no longer a need to send a platoon of Marines on a 16 hour, 40 mile, cross-mountain march--we have drones that can fill that need.  If you reevaluate what you need the Marines to do and realize that the requirements don't need to be as stringent, then it's reasonable to ease the requirements to expand the pool of eligible soldiers.  (CAPITALISM!)

We'll always need marines in the future.  Haven't you seen StarshipTroopers?  If that's not proof, I don't know what is. 😎

[Lost Boy]

I personally don't see a push to make women equal providers.   I suppose some out there want this.  To me the push should be for equal opportunity.  But honestly, I think we basically have that already.  There is nothing stopping women from being engineers, doctors, etc.  And many become such.  I work with quite a few female engineers.  They are no less competent than their male counter parts.

Men and women in general have different skill/ability set.  One will often be more suited to a particular job than another, but both should have equal opportunity getting the job based on ability and skill.

I would never pigeon hole my daughters into any particular field or try and make them work for that matter.  That said, I think they should know how to work and be capable of supporting themselves.  And until marriage, they should be self sufficient.  Prior to marriage they need to discuss with their future spouse about careers and who is going to do what.

For my wife and I we agreed that she would stay home while the kids were young.  As they got older and didn't need her as much, she got a job outside the home that she enjoys.

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

I personally don't see a push to make women equal providers.   I suppose some out there want this.  To me the push should be for equal opportunity.  But honestly, I think we basically have that already.  There is nothing stopping women from being engineers, doctors, etc.  And many become such.  I work with quite a few female engineers.  They are no less competent than their male counter parts.

Oh, but there is... Competition. 

So, the Ivanka Trump STEM "hand out" to Women is designed to give Women an edge so they don't have to compete as hard.  This is another thing that's wrong with today's Feminists.

Edited December 12, 2018 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

No sane, rational, respectable person expects the requirements of the job to be scaled back just to accommodate diversity

Hum....I guess having a double standard for men vs. women is different then. Scaling back/ lower standard, for women. https://www.fitness.marines.mil/PFT-CFT_Standards17/

[Lost Boy]

6 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Oh, but there is... Competition. 

So, the Ivanka Trump STEM "hand out" to Women is designed to give Women an edge so they don't have to compete as hard.  This is another thing that's wrong with today's Feminists.

That is just as wrong as affirmative action.  Affirmative action as you would probably agree is a horrendous failure.  People should succeed on their own merit.  That said, there should be no road blocks that put people on unequal ground based on race and gender.

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, Lost Boy said:

.  That said, there should be no road blocks that put people on unequal ground based on race and gender.

I disagree. The physical limitations of a woman already give her a natural roadblock in some jobs that you can't really remove.

[MarginOfError]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum....I guess having a double standard for men vs. women is different then. Scaling back/ lower standard, for women. https://www.fitness.marines.mil/PFT-CFT_Standards17/

First, note that those are general admittance requirements to be eligible for the Marine Corp. They do not specify the physical requirements for any particular job. And it's a little bit ridiculous to classify everything in the Marine Corp as the same job.

That said, there is also a problem with the publication of different standards for men and women.  If there are jobs available to may be performed when only meeting the lower physical standards, why are they not available to men who can meet the lower standard but not the higher standard?  That could qualify as sex-based discrimination! The standards for admittance to the Marine Corp should be the same for men and women. And the standards for acceptance to any particular job in the Marine Corp (some/many of which will exceed the standard for general admittance) should be the same for men and women.