# Men, women and careers



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

I have some life examples from my previous relationships with male partners who didn't like to or couldn't focus on my role in "society" or support my career development.

I also have an interaction example where I am the one who "can't" bring this part of me into the relationship, I just become very stupid and uneducated* around this (male) person. However, even in this uneducated mode, I am able to look at his career and accomplishments very clearly.

Maybe men can't value accomplishments from females that they inherently like, but not the other way around?

When you find an ideal partner, maybe you just focus on this partner-aspect and role, and cannot focus on anything else.

Do you have some life examples when this happened? Both male or female experiences.

(*Fun fact/addition: when this happens I go and watch this particular Nobel Prize lecture that I like, it's a smart lecture so it kind of helps.)


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

I don't have any examples of this. 

However I think you have summed me up perfectly:



> When you find an ideal partner, maybe you just focus on this partner-aspect and role, and cannot focus on anything else.


At the end of the day that is what I am after in a partner, a partner. For me work is something I do for a set amount of hours a week and I get paid for it. If someone views their work as (as you put it) "their role in society", then we are not going to mesh. Just two totally different value systems.

I am actually ambitious work wise, however, once I have finished for the day, I am finished for the day. If I want to discuss my career progression, career goals, I will have that chat with my manager in a monthly one to one.

Will I still show an interest in work gossip, hell yeah, especially if it is funny or interesting. But thats it.

Work takes up 40+ hours of my week. That is enough. My personal identity/self image is not based on my career.

So anyway, I am aware of this and know that as far as relationships go, I would want someone with a similar view to my own.

Also, women asking about my job and career, especially early on in dating sets off lots of red flags to me. I want someone interested in me. Not my job/pay/career.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

recycled_lube_oil said:


> At the end of the day that is what I am after in a partner, a partner. For me work is something I do for a set amount of hours a week and I get paid for it. If someone views their work as (as you put it) "their role in society", then we are not going to mesh. Just two totally different value systems.


So you think the one would have to exclude the other? Why not have both at the same time?


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

Antiparticle said:


> So you think the one would have to exclude the other? Why not have both at the same time?


When it comes to dating and relationships I just prefer to be with someone on the same frequency as myself.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

Antiparticle said:


> I have some life examples from my previous relationships with male partners who didn't like to or couldn't focus on my role in "society" or support my career development.
> 
> I also have an interaction example where I am the one who "can't" bring this part of me into the relationship, I just become very stupid and uneducated* around this (male) person. However, even in this uneducated mode, I am able to look at his career and accomplishments very clearly.
> 
> ...


Men don't care about this stuff.

This whole "career and ambition" thing is something women have been taught to value in themselves and in their partners. Dudes don't discuss these things between us when it comes to valuing partners. We also don't really care much about it with our male friends, we just want people we can get along with. Is it "nice"? Of course, but it will never be the focus/determining factor for a relationship for most men.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

SgtPepper said:


> Men don't care about this stuff.
> 
> This whole "career and ambition" thing is something women have been taught to value in themselves and in their partners. Dudes don't discuss these things between us when it comes to valuing partners. We also don't really care much about it with our male friends, we just want people we can get along with. Is it "nice"? Of course, but it will never be the focus of a relationship for most men.


I totally agree with what you have said. However.... one caveat..... if a mate gets a promotion or leaves a job/gets a new job, thats a pretty solid reason to go to a bar for a couple of drinks if ever there was one.

One of my managers when I was younger was very keen on the philosophy of "shop talk stays in the shop", "don't talk shop in the bar" and "there is no managerial hierarchy in the bar".


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

recycled_lube_oil said:


> I totally agree with what you have said. However.... one caveat..... if a mate gets a promotion or leaves a job/gets a new job, thats a pretty solid reason to go to a bar for a couple of drinks if ever there was one.
> 
> One of my managers when I was younger was very keen on the philosophy of "shop talk stays in the shop", "don't talk shop in the bar" and "there is no managerial hierarchy in the bar".


Of course. Good stuff that happens to your friends/partners should always be celebrated.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

SgtPepper said:


> Men don't care about this stuff.
> 
> This whole "career and ambition" thing is something women have been taught to value in themselves and in their partners. Dudes don't discuss these things between us when it comes to valuing partners. We also don't really care much about it with our male friends, we just want people we can get along with. Is it "nice"? Of course, but it will never be the focus of a relationship for most men.


Most scientists, CEOs, Nobel Prize winners are men, so doesn't really make sense what you said. Statistically, women are less ambitious in terms of their careers, various societal and historical factors influenced this. Today this is something considered to be negative: for example in science, there are additional money grants for groups that hire more women -> this is to encourage reducing this gap.

When I wrote this I didn't have in mind salaries or company ranks. Personally, I think an artist who doesn't make a lot of money also has an important role in society, so I am not sure what are women "taught to value"?


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

Antiparticle said:


> Most scientists, CEOs, Nobel Prize winners are men,


And where on the bell curve of men would the above lie? In the centre (the average man) or are they outliers?

Also as you mention scientists. Do they talk about their career or the science? Two totally different things.

I personally can talk about psychology, however talking about psychology and talking about someone's career as a psychologist are two different things.


----------



## SgtPepper (Nov 22, 2016)

Antiparticle said:


> Most scientists, CEOs, Nobel Prize winners are men


It is *your* own conclusion that because mostly men achieve these categories that ambition and career are at the top of the list when it comes to finding a *romantic partner*.



Antiparticle said:


> Statistically, women are less ambitious in terms of their careers, various societal and historical factors influenced this. Today this is something considered to be negative: for example in science, there are additional money grants for groups that hire more women -> this is to encourage reducing this gap.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

SgtPepper said:


> It is *your* own conclusion that because most men achieve these categories that ambition and career is what they look for in a *romantic partner*.


How is statistics my own conclusion? There are more men in these roles, compared to women in these roles. 

The other conclusion is not related to what I think.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

We acknowledge and celebrate each other’s accomplishments but it’s not something either one of us dwells on. What he does, what I do etc it’s not even secondary in terms of our relationship. Unless there’s an issue we want the other’s advice on, It’s barely on our radar.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

recycled_lube_oil said:


> And where on the bell curve of men would the above lie? In the centre (the average man) or are they outliers?


Not sure how is this related?



recycled_lube_oil said:


> Also as you mention scientists. Do they talk about their career or the science? Two totally different things.


Not sure I understand this question. Why is it different? For my male and female colleagues (scientists), their career is science.



recycled_lube_oil said:


> I personally can talk about psychology, however talking about psychology and talking about someone's career as a psychologist are two different things.


My original post was related to some profession in general. This is what I meant by "role in society", not "rank" in society. It is not about career advancement.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

I don't really relate to this as a woman. I tend to be pretty competitive and ambitious, but I don't really care what job a significant other has unless it's just interesting. Hell....I've dated two men without jobs because they were pretty cool people. I definitely don't relate to becoming more uneducated or seeming stupid if i have been interested in someone. I value banter, and interesting conversation too much for that. If anything, younger me used to flirt by being an asshole.

Also, sure many scientific achievements are filed under men, but there's a ridiculously high amount of proven historical cases of women in those fields who made the actual achievement and a man got credit. So that doesn't mean very much?


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

Why does this so make me think of "Bones".


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

recycled_lube_oil said:


> Why does this so make me think of "Bones".


What specifically?


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

We are looking for partners, not competitors. Regarding this, there are many things to keep in mind.

— Some people, demonstrate traits (assertiveness, combativeness/argumentativeness, aggression, leadership, confidence) that are generally understood as more masculine. Those traits tend to lead to success, regardless of gender. The issue with that, is that it's not something that one can just turn off at will. It's not so much of a problem for men, because those traits, and their result, are universally attractive to women. Women look for all of those in a partner. However, it is a problem when women have those traits, because yes, that makes them successful in their career, but that also means that they are a pain in the butt to deal with at home, as partners. One thing that is very important to men, is that home is, and should be, peace. If they fight the world during the day in order to be successful, the last thing they want is to come home to someone who will endlessly fight them, try to compete with them, or be a general headache to deal with. We'd rather date an average to pretty chick who works at KFC but who will bring peace and help at home, rather than a super hot career woman who will be annoying, obnoxious, and a pain to deal with. If even super hot women will get passed due to their careers and what those careers bring home, you better believe that average women with those traits will be ignored.

— Since at least a relative professional and financial success is expected of men (99% of the time : nobody cares about exceptions, they are irrelevant), it means that money is not a concern. When a successful man has a successful partner, it's a nice bonus because that makes her, likely, an interesting person, only under the condition that she is not a headache. But, he doesn't care about it, because he's never gonna see the colour of that money, since that's what's expected of _him_. Women care about financial security, not men. Having a career as a woman doesn't make you more sexually attractive, so men ultimately don't care about it. It's not social, societal, or cultural, the reasons for this are biological, nothing else. It's never changed, because women never settled down and never lowered their standards for what they wanted in a partner. It's still the case nowadays. I would say this is the main reason we don't still live in caves around fires.

— It can be valued, but the woman has to know how to make it valuable specifically to her partner. It's something like : "ok, you have a career, how does it benefit _my_ success ? How, with the professional skills that you have, can you _assist_ my career ?"
The issue is that, as someone else said, yes, women have been led (mainly by feminism) to believe that having a career is intrinsically valuable thing to have, and they try to leverage that with men in the dating world… except… that doesn't make men care about it. So that value that women think they bring, in the eyes of men, is a base 0, and it requires further work to make it valuable to his eyes.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Lonewaer said:


> We are looking for partners, not competitors. Regarding this, there are many things to keep in mind.
> 
> — Some people, demonstrate traits (assertiveness, combativeness/argumentativeness, aggression, leadership, confidence) that are generally understood as more masculine. Those traits tend to lead to success, regardless of gender. The issue with that, is that it's not something that one can just turn off at will. It's not so much of a problem for men, because those traits, and their result, are universally attractive to women. Women look for all of those in a partner. However, it is a problem when women have those traits, because yes, that makes them successful in their career, but that also means that they are a pain in the butt to deal with at home, as partners. One thing that is very important to men, is that home is, and should be, peace. If they fight the world during the day in order to be successful, the last thing they want is to come home to someone who will endlessly fight them, try to compete with them, or be a general headache to deal with. We'd rather date an average to pretty chick who works at KFC but who will bring peace and help at home, rather than a super hot career woman who will be annoying, obnoxious, and a pain to deal with. If even super hot women will get passed due to their careers and what those careers bring home, you better believe that average women with those traits will be ignored.
> 
> ...


I don’t agree with almost any of this, but not important as it’s about our personal preferences in partners. I also think it’s zero value if a man has a job - same as my own situation, he can lose it, or lose his health and not be able to work etc. Anything can happen, women often have jobs with more stability, which is an advantage.

Not completely related, I have one experience of working with a male person that I think cannot see me as his equal (at work) because of his personal preferences in partners.
I think I fit good into his “partner role” (just platonic, but seems I am a good fit), and that because of it I cannot advance with him/ work equally. So I can confirm he doesn’t like to compete (at least with me). It’s not a problem, not everything at work is a competition. I value him because of his achievements, but I think I will give up on our interaction completely. It is really weird, I feel like I have to speak to him in a different way. 

Which is why I wonder do we completely erase our social roles when any kind of “partner alarm” goes on.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

Antiparticle said:


> I don’t agree with almost any of this, but not important as it’s about our personal preferences in partners. I also think it’s zero value if a man has a job - same as my own situation, he can lose it, or lose his health and not be able to work etc. Anything can happen, women often have jobs with more stability, which is an advantage.


You don't have to agree with it, it's the male perspective, it's backed up by millions of years of evolution. Of course you don't, you're asking that in the first place because you likely have a career, but that doesn't change the fact that men think of it like that. It's either extremely dishonest or extremely hard to be a man, read what I said, and disagree with it, all three at the same time. I don't expect women to understand or agree with this, it's normal, but that's the answer to your OP.




Antiparticle said:


> Which is why I wonder do we completely erase our social roles when any kind of “partner alarm” goes on.


Yes. It would be the same for you if suddenly at your workplace there was a new recruit that's incredibly hot to you in every single way : you would stop competing with him, and start competing with other women, in order to try to get his attention in some way. Given your initial response to my post, it's pretty clear that you will deny that tooth and nail, but every single time you'll be presented with the situation, you will prove what I'm saying right. It just so happens that men's standards are, to our detriment, and to the benefit of the species, way lower than women's, so there are way more situations where the competition stops in favor of courtship.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Lonewaer said:


> You don't have to agree with it, it's the male perspective, it's backed up by millions of years of evolution.


We don’t have careers for millions of years. What you mean is men want to feel like protectors, but it’s the wrong way to do it by finding a weaker person to protect. You can also find a CEO girl and protect her. If you would feel bad in this relationship then you probably feel bad about your own career, not about hers.



Lonewaer said:


> Yes. It would be the same for you if suddenly at your workplace there was a new recruit that's incredibly hot to you in every single way : you would stop competing with him, and start competing with other women, in order to try to get his attention in some way. Given your initial response to my post, it's pretty clear that you will deny that tooth and nail,


Maybe, I don’t know. With this particular person I want to compete, but it’s weird, he doesn’t want to.


----------



## MidnightFlight (Nov 6, 2021)

Antiparticle said:


> I also think it’s important, but not important in a way this thread went: men will have their careers, and females will chose them based on their success in their careers.
> 
> It’s so outdated that to support this argument one has to mention “when we were in caves, it was similar because…”, which is not really convincing to me.


After observing people from all countries based on hardwired biology, I understand why inequality of outcomes happen between biological sexes on average from my perspective.

I know there are females who have male-dominated and female-dominated jobs. I know there are males who have male-dominated and female-dominated jobs. I know there are females with masculine and feminine behaviors. I know there are males with masculine and feminine behaviors. But when it comes to statistics based on historical and relevant mathematics, there is inequality of outcomes between biological sexes. This inequality of outcomes has existed since humans were a new specie many years ago. It continues to exist despite improved education, improved infrastructure, increased wealth, feminism, egalitarianism, and transgenderism. Because it has to do with hardwired biology that education, infrastructure, wealth, feminism, and transgenderism can't get rid of. So, biological males will continue to be taller, physically stronger, smarter, and more dangerous than biological females on average. Military researchers and criminologists have already proved this for centuries.

Biological females are the ones who usually rely on their opposite sex for providing wealth in their society. Which is why it's not far-fetched when wives are relying on their husbands for money, physical strength, and intelligence when those wives don't have enough money, physical strength, and intelligence to get specific things done because of their biological disadvantages. A society that normalizes single mothers who are biological females will cause an impoverished society with crime and illiteracy more than single fathers who are biological males because of inequalities of outcomes between biological sexes. This is why females rely on males more than males relying on females in regards to survival. There are no fully independent females in objective reality. Humans rely on each other for survival or they will become extinct. One has to have a God complex, superiority complex, or Dunning-Kruger effect to think otherwise.


----------



## Negotiator (Mar 15, 2018)

MidnightFlight said:


> My biological sex is female. As a female, I'm argumentative, extremely introverted, cynical, tomboyish, and hateful towards the beauty industry, entertainment industry, and music industry that make it harder for females to become wealthy musicians without selling sex and abusing females' well-being.
> 
> The middle eastern countries have authorities who make it hard for females to have male-dominated jobs through systemic sexism.
> 
> ...


What about BDSM where the woman is a dominatrix?


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

MidnightFlight said:


> So, biological males will continue to be taller, physically stronger, smarter, a


I lost you on “smarter”, and “military researchers” proved this. What military researchers? Smarter for what? In what metrics?




MidnightFlight said:


> There are no fully independent females in objective reality. Humans rely on each other for survival or they will become extinct.


The same applies for switching females-> males in the sentence. It’s not that difficult to understand how society works, but would be a longer post.


----------



## MidnightFlight (Nov 6, 2021)

Negotiator said:


> What about BDSM where the woman is a dominatrix?


I'm aware there are dominatrixes. I talked to some dominatrixes before.


----------



## Eu_citzen (Jan 18, 2018)

My personal experiences have been that generally my partners have supported me no matter what job I had.
And the same holds true the other way/direction.

That said, I've known a few ladies whose men seemed intimidated by their wife's ambitions, etc.
Though I feel those are the exception, not the rule.

I also don't know if this "ideal partner" exists, so I don't know about that.
But it's true that certain people make you accentuate/focus on certain aspects of your personality.
Mirror neurons? You adapt to each other to some degree. Who knows, I'm rambling


----------



## MidnightFlight (Nov 6, 2021)

Antiparticle said:


> I lost you on “smarter”, and “military researchers” proved this. What military researchers? Smarter for what? In what metrics?


Biological males, on average, have a tendency to have a wider range of I.Q's than biological females. There are more biological males with high I.Q's than biological females for example. Most biological males have invented and created the ideas, technologies, books, buildings, weapons, wealthy societies, and other things that exist today more than biological females because of inequalities of intelligence and physical strength between biological sexes.

Military people usually recruit male soldiers because females are more of a financial and political liability in war because of their tendency to be physically weaker, shorter, less emotionally stable, and intellectually challenged. Those military people want to win, not lose. Females will make it harder for those military people to win. Males surpass females when it comes to battlefield strategy and jobs that require lots of physical strength based on hardwired biology. These military researchers have helped military recruiters find the best soldiers that can help strengthen their military. Females continue to be a liability in militaries on average despite feminism, transgenderism, hormone pills, surgery, etc.




Antiparticle said:


> The same applies for switching females-> males in the sentence. It’s not that difficult to understand how society works, but would be a longer post.


Indeed it would be a longer post.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

MidnightFlight said:


> Biological males, on average, have a tendency to have a wider range of I.Q's than biological females. There are more biological males with high I.Q's than biological females for example. Most biological males have invented and created the ideas, technologies, books, buildings, weapons, wealthy societies, and other things that exist today more than biological females because of inequalities of intelligence and physical strength between biological sexes.
> 
> Military people usually recruit male soldiers because females are more of a financial and political liability in war because of their tendency to be physically weaker, shorter, less emotionally stable, and intellectually challenged. Those military people want to win, not lose. Females will make it harder for those military people to win. Males surpass females when it comes to battlefield strategy and jobs that require lots of physical strength based on hardwired biology. These military researchers have helped military recruiters find the best soldiers that can help strengthen their military. Females continue to be a liability in militaries on average despite feminism, transgenderism, hormone pills, surgery, etc.
> 
> ...


Differences in physical strength (between the genders) or having physical disabilities (within the same gender) are not an argument to justify any work/career/education inequalities. It's really weird to read this.

I don't know why you mention military so much - we have conventional science that researches gender inequalities in many various confounding variable settings, the results are published and available for the general public. 

You seem to want to make scientific arguments without scientific method - feel free to send any of the research papers with the conclusions you mention.


----------



## MidnightFlight (Nov 6, 2021)

Antiparticle said:


> Differences in physical strength (between the genders) or having physical disabilities (within the same gender) are not an argument to justify any work/career/education inequalities. It's really weird to read this.
> 
> I don't know why you mention military so much - we have conventional science that researches gender inequalities in many various confounding variable settings, the results are published and available for the general public.
> 
> You seem to want to make scientific arguments without scientific method - feel free to send any of the research papers with the conclusions you mention.


People who are in the higher part of the military hierarchy have a responsibility to recruit competent enough people. There are females who get involved in international militaries. But females are part of the lower hierarchy in militaries. Because females usually either do not choose or are too incompetent to be part of the higher hierarchy in militaries because of hardwired biology influencing that outcome. It's not discrimination against biological sex in every country for militaries necessarily, it's discrimination against outcomes to keep the militaries from failing. It's hard for females to become battlefield strategists because of how intense military training and strategizing can be on female's well-being. Females are psychologically and physically more fragile than males on average. Females' bodies will go into shock at the expense of their health during military training that will cause them to have hormonal imbalance, chance of infertility, anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, other psychological instability, and higher likelihood of physical injury. Hormonal imbalance will makes those females' bodies go into self-destruct mode. Inevitable menopause makes it even harder for females to catch up with males in militaries in regards to physical strength, energy, and health. Males' bodies will not deal with hormonal imbalance, infertility, and potential physical injuries as much in militaries. Biological males will never have to deal with menopause symptoms as much, either. Also, there are militaries with requirements before females are allowed to be recruited. Females have to have a specific height, weight, I.Q, and not too many disabilities before being recruited in those specific militaries.

Here are some sources to back up my claims:









Amazon.com: Smart and SeXy: The Evolutionary Origins and Biological Underpinnings of Cognitive Differences between the Sexes eBook : Kaine, Roderick: Books


Buy Smart and SeXy: The Evolutionary Origins and Biological Underpinnings of Cognitive Differences between the Sexes: Read Books Reviews - Amazon.com



www.amazon.com





^ This book has scientific citations from peer-reviewed journals.









Physiological differences between genders. Implications for sports conditioning - PubMed


It is commonly accepted that there are physiological and morphological gender differences. These differences become evident in the specific responses or magnitude of response to various training regimens. Very little difference is seen in the response to different modes of progressive resistance...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov













Gender differences in strength and muscle fiber characteristics - PubMed


Strength and muscle characteristics were examined in biceps brachii and vastus lateralis of eight men and eight women. Measurements included motor unit number, size and activation and voluntary strength of the elbow flexors and knee extensors. Fiber areas and type were determined from needle...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov













Intelligence: is there a sex difference in IQ scores? - PubMed


Arising from: S. Blinkhorn Nature 438, 31-32 (2005); Blinkhorn replies. Steve Blinkhorncriticizes our study of samples of university students, in which we found that the average IQ of men is 4.6 points higher than that of women, as measured by the Progressive (or Raven's) Matrices. He maintains...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov













Men, women, and murder: gender-specific differences in rates of fatal violence and victimization - PubMed


To study the potential differences that distinguish homicides involving women as victims or offenders from those involving men, we analyzed Federal Bureau of Investigation Uniform Crime Reports data on homicides that occurred in the United States between 1976 and 1987. Only cases that involved...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov













Fear of violent crime among men and women on campus: the impact of perceived risk and fear of sexual assault - PubMed


Prior research has consistently shown that women are more afraid of crime than men despite the fact that men are much more likely to be victims of all crime except sexual assault and intimate partner violence. The "shadow of sexual assault" hypothesis argues that women's fear of sexual assault...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov













Conjugal violence: a comparison of violence against men by women and women by men - PubMed


Because few studies demonstrated the types of violence performed by women, the aim of our study was to access violence men against women as well as women against men. A retrospective study was performed based on all the medical certificates for victims who consulted our centre specialized in...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov













Single mothers, poverty and depression - PubMed


The present study set out to examine the relationship between marital status, poverty and depression in a sample of inner-city women. Single and married mothers were followed up over a 2-year period during which time rates of psychosocial risk factors, onset of depression and experience of...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov













High injury rates among female army trainees: a function of gender? - PubMed


The key risk factor for training injuries appears to be physical fitness, particularly cardiovascular fitness. The significant improvement in endurance attained by women suggests that women enter training less physically fit relative to their own fitness potential, as well as to men. Remedial...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov













Female infertility, active component service women, U.S. Armed Forces, 2000-2012 - PubMed


Infertility is the inability to become pregnant after one year of regular, unprotected sexual intercourse. Among active component service women, 16,807 received a diagnosis of female infertility during the 13-year surveillance period. The incidence rate of infertility diagnoses increased during...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov













Self-reported infertility among male and female veterans serving during Operation Enduring Freedom/Operation Iraqi Freedom - PubMed


Women Veterans are more likely than their male counterparts to seek care for infertility, and given their increasing numbers, the demand for infertility evaluation and care within Veterans' Affairs may increase.




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov













US Army Enlistment Weight Requirements


The following are the Army height, weight and body fat requirements for enlistment.




www.military.com













Explanations for gender differences in sickness absence: evidence from middle-aged municipal employees from Finland - PubMed


The overall gender differences in sickness absence are due to relatively short absence spells being more common among women. In longer sickness absence spells the female excess is mainly explained by heavier burden of ill-health and to a lesser extent by higher physical work demands among women...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov













Neuroticism biases memory self-report in women - PubMed


Reports of memory problems are associated with cognitive decline risk and other adverse health outcomes, and the personality trait of neuroticism is known to influence these reports. Since women tend to have higher neuroticism as well as a unique risk profile for cognitive decline, we examined...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov













Osteoporosis in men and women - PubMed


Osteoporosis is a cause of significant morbidity and mortality in postmenopausal women as well as men. In both men and women, increasing age and low bone mineral density (BMD) are the 2 most important independent risk factors for an initial vertebral or nonvertebral fracture. Although the...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov













Menopausal Symptoms and Their Management - PubMed


The menopause transition is associated with various symptoms, which can interact to produce morbidity. Vasomotor symptoms are the most commonly reported, but vaginal dryness/dyspareunia, sleep difficulties and adverse mood changes have all been shown to worsen as women approach menopause. For...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov













Symptoms of menopause - global prevalence, physiology and implications - PubMed


The symptoms of menopause can be distressing, particularly as they occur at a time when women have important roles in society, within the family and at the workplace. Hormonal changes that begin during the menopausal transition affect many biological systems. Accordingly, the signs and symptoms...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov













Men and things, women and people: a meta-analysis of sex differences in interests - PubMed


The magnitude and variability of sex differences in vocational interests were examined in the present meta-analysis for Holland's (1959, 1997) categories (Realistic, Investigative, Artistic, Social, Enterprising, and Conventional), Prediger's (1982) Things-People and Data-Ideas dimensions, and...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov













Compared to men, women view professional advancement as equally attainable, but less desirable


We identify a profound and consistent gender gap in people’s core life goals. Across nine studies using diverse sample populations (executives in high-power positions, recent graduates of a top MBA program, undergraduate students, and online panels ...




www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov





I'll add more peer-reviewed sources when I get the chance.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

MidnightFlight said:


> People who are in the higher part of the military hierarchy have a responsibility to recruit competent enough people. There are females who get involved in international militaries. But females are part of the lower hierarchy in militaries. Because females usually either do not choose or are too incompetent to be part of the higher hierarchy in militaries because of hardwired biology influencing that outcome. It's not discrimination against biological sex in every country for militaries necessarily, it's discrimination against outcomes to keep the militaries from failing. It's hard for females to become battlefield strategists because of how intense military training and strategizing can be on female's well-being. Females are psychologically and physically more fragile than males on average. Females' bodies will go into shock at the expense of their health during military training that will cause them to have hormonal imbalance, chance of infertility, anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, other psychological instability, and higher likelihood of physical injury. Hormonal imbalance will makes those females' bodies go into self-destruct mode. Inevitable menopause makes it even harder for females to catch up with males in militaries in regards to physical strength, energy, and health. Males' bodies will not deal with hormonal imbalance, infertility, and potential physical injuries as much in militaries. Biological males will never have to deal with menopause symptoms as much, either. Also, there are militaries with requirements before females are allowed to be recruited. Females have to have a specific height, weight, I.Q, and not too many disabilities before being recruited in those specific militaries.


I have heard that there are certain military jobs where women do very well such as drone pilots, aviation, and flight traffic control. I used to attend West Point. The top cadet in my basic training was a woman. There are some outliers that do very well.

I do see your point though. Overall, the armed forces primarily rely on men.



Mark R said:


> Extroverted thinking and introverted sensation (your weakest functions) value salary, rank, career, and success. People are usually blind to their two weakest functions value. Even though women stereotypically value those things in their men, you probably would value them less than other women because you are an INFJ ... INFJ women have a reputation for valuing intelligent men and a deep connection.


This is a video that I found online that agrees with my hypothesis earlier. I'm curious if this resonates with the INFJ women here.


----------



## MidnightFlight (Nov 6, 2021)

Mark R said:


> I have heard that there are certain military jobs where women do very well such as drone pilots, aviation, and flight traffic control. I used to attend West Point. The top cadet in my basic training was a woman. There are some outliers that do very well.
> 
> I do see your point though. Overall, the armed forces primarily rely on men.


I have ancestors who were involved in science, politics, and the military. They knew inequalities of outcomes between biological sexes. Even though that top cadet was a woman, it's not common for females. I can imagine women trying to work harder in the military due to sexism and wanting equal opportunities that men have. It's hard to resist hardwired biology and its significant influence on biological sexes in regards to female-dominated and male-dominated jobs, though. So, I can imagine women struggling in the military more than men from that aspect. Although, I will say that males deal with P.T.S.D, depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, and suicides more than females in the military due to male population versus female population.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Mark R said:


> I know men want to be proud of the women they chose to be with. We want them to be successful and happy. We want them to grow to be the best versions of themselves. Success and how much money a woman earns just doesn't make any difference in initial attraction.


I'm pretty sure that's both ways? Can't say I've ever asked someone how much money they made before a date or something or cared about that?


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

MidnightFlight said:


> Most biological males have invented and created the ideas, technologies, books, buildings, weapons, wealthy societies, and other things that exist today more than biological females


Actually fun fact: most of the things invented, ideas that were created, etc that changed the world and how we do things were made by people with ADHD.

A new study just determined that Leonardo Divinci most likely had ADHD, on top of the diagnosed ones we know about like Gates. It's because we have divergent thinking

The Creativity of ADHD "Three aspects of creative cognition are divergent thinking, conceptual expansion and overcoming knowledge constraints. Divergent thinking, or the ability to think of many ideas from a single starting point, is a critical part of creative thinking. Previous research has established that individuals with ADHD are exceptionally good at divergent thinking tasks, such as inventing creative new uses for everyday objects, and brainstorming new features for an innovative cell phone device."

Good job having a penis if so, but that doesn't magically make you creative or good at divergent thinking? 🤣. Given that you think in categories and blocks like that it kind of indicates that you're probably pretty bad at seeing outside of your cognitive bias and as such are pretty unlikely to create or invent anything different than what exists already.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

daleks_exterminate said:


> The Creativity of ADHD "Three aspects of creative cognition are divergent thinking, conceptual expansion and overcoming knowledge constraints. Divergent thinking, or the ability to think of many ideas from a single starting point, is a critical part of creative thinking. Previous research has established that individuals with ADHD are exceptionally good at divergent thinking tasks, such as inventing creative new uses for everyday objects, and brainstorming new features for an innovative cell phone device."


Isn't this a description of Ne?


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

A


daleks_exterminate said:


> I'm pretty sure that's both ways? Can't say I've ever asked someone how much money they made before a date or something or cared about that?



I’ve definitely had dudes throw that around liked I’m supposed to be impressed by it.
Like I told someone recently, “If I were single and all you had to offer me is a big house and a fat wallet, you have nothing to offer me.”


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Mark R said:


> Isn't this a description of Ne?













Being an entp means you may be pretty good at divergent thinking, conceptual expansion, and overcoming knowledge constraints. We do tend to think "outside the box" and such, but em, having ADHD which also pretty much means having a smaller than average amygdala, putamen, accumbens, caudate and hippocampus and a defect prefrontal cortex means you may be great at divergent thinking, conceptual expansion, and overcoming knowledge constraints because there was never a box to think outside of, and tradition means absolutely nothing and also time is fake. 😅

I am really trying to not take over this thread and make it about ADHD, but when people say men invented everything because women are less intelligent (and leave out the amount of women who have been proven to discover or invent something and a man got credit or a Nobel prize instead and often didn't even credit her) ..... It's interesting as dopamine receptor issues including ADHD are more common in geniuses who go on to invent this stuff and many of them also had ADHD or ASD (disproportionately so). So perhaps that's also relevant for what types of people make history (and maybe more so than a penis) 

More in spoiler BC I've already been too long winded about this on the thread 
* *





There are similarities, and to be fair, quite a lot of entps have been diagnosed with ADHD (so make of that what you will, but so have other types). In a way it's kind of like Ne on acid. Ne is good at "thinking outside the box", ADHD is basically there was never a box to begin with. That can actually be very helpful but more so once/if we learn to harness it. An ADHD expert said it like this: "ADHD is having a ferrari engine for a brain, but with bicycle breaks." If you can learn to work on building the breaks and go to a "break specialist" you'll be at an advantage, sure, but that's easier said than done.

there are also different benefits having Ne alone doesn't have, but also a massive amount of weaknesses. An entp may lose track of time occasionally, lose their keys, focus only on what they find interesting etc. But someone with ADHD can be late even if they leave 3 hours in advance, misplace things to a point of it actually being a problem, and are unable to direct attention.... It's not actually a problem "paying attention", it's a problem regulating that attention. As in sometimes we cannot pay attention even if we very much want to, and sometimes we cannot stop paying attention. Hyperfocus is one of my biggest symptoms. While that can be good because I can actually get the equivalent of a 40 hour work day done in 12 hours I can be physically unable to stop it without meds even if I very much want to do something else to the point of not eating, drinking or like caring about people/things around me. 

so...
Not really.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Queen of Cups said:


> A
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Right?

I don't understand how an entire movement of men who believe they need to "hold frame", "never show emotions", "never be vulnerable", "have a good job", "lift a bunch" happened. It doesn't take very much looking around at the actual world to see that people don't want to have long term relationships with a wall who doesn't share anything about themselves, and is never vulnerable. Where's the trust? Also people lose their jobs, they lose health, status, beauty etc and then what? If your relationship was based around some acting and a lie that you always have to maintain not only does that legit make sense why those people seem stunted and don't believe in love (no one with them knows them, let alone can actually love them), but it's no wonder they'd attract the type of person who didn't mind using them for resources... Like what the fuck else would there even be? It's not like there isn't a billion carbon copies of that all the same to choose from lol.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

daleks_exterminate said:


> There are similarities, and to be fair, quite a lot of entps have been diagnosed with ADHD (so make of that what you will, but so have other types). In a way it's kind of like Ne on acid. Ne is good at "thinking outside the box", ADHD is basically there was never a box to begin with. That can actually be very helpful but more so once/if we learn to harness it. An ADHD expert said it like this: "ADHD is having a ferrari engine for a brain, but with bicycle breaks." If you can learn to work on building the breaks and go to a "break specialist" you'll be at an advantage, sure, but that's easier said than done.


I've been diagnosed with some serious ADHD myself. I don't know what part of my personality is ENTP and what part is ADHD then. I'm taking a combination of Naltrexone and Wellbutrin for weight loss (I lost 100 lbs. and it helps me keep from gaining it back). It also helps with ADHD symptoms.


daleks_exterminate said:


> I don't understand how an entire movement of men who believe they need to "hold frame", "never show emotions", "never be vulnerable", "have a good job", "lift a bunch" happened. It doesn't take very much looking around at the actual world to see that people don't want to have long term relationships with a wall who doesn't share anything about themselves, and is never vulnerable. Where's the trust? Also people lose their jobs, they lose health, status, beauty etc and then what? If your relationship was based around some acting and a lie that you always have to maintain not only does that legit make sense why those people seem stunted and don't believe in love (no one with them knows them, let alone can actually love them), but it's no wonder they'd attract the type of person who didn't mind using them for resources... Like what the fuck else would there even be? It's not like there isn't a billion carbon copies of that all the same to choose from lol.


Yes. Relationships need to be based on more than such shallow things. There are always richer men and more beautiful women for people to lose their partners to. Also, people just need to be there authentic selves to attract the right partner. It gets exhausting wearing a mask at all times.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

MidnightFlight said:


> People who are in the higher part of the military hierarchy have a responsibility to recruit competent enough people. There are females who get involved in international militaries. But females are part of the lower hierarchy in militaries. Because females usually either do not choose or are too incompetent to be part of the higher hierarchy in militaries because of hardwired biology influencing that outcome. It's not discrimination against biological sex in every country for militaries necessarily, it's discrimination against outcomes to keep the militaries from failing. It's hard for females to become battlefield strategists because of how intense military training and strategizing can be on female's well-being. Females are psychologically and physically more fragile than males on average. Females' bodies will go into shock at the expense of their health during military training that will cause them to have hormonal imbalance, chance of infertility, anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation, other psychological instability, and higher likelihood of physical injury. Hormonal imbalance will makes those females' bodies go into self-destruct mode. Inevitable menopause makes it even harder for females to catch up with males in militaries in regards to physical strength, energy, and health. Males' bodies will not deal with hormonal imbalance, infertility, and potential physical injuries as much in militaries. Biological males will never have to deal with menopause symptoms as much, either. Also, there are militaries with requirements before females are allowed to be recruited. Females have to have a specific height, weight, I.Q, and not too many disabilities before being recruited in those specific militaries.
> 
> Here are some sources to back up my claims:
> 
> ...


Military is specific, it's exactly the opposite of "living in peace and going every day to your job" while thinking about career advancement, paying taxes and interacting with the opposite gender.

I wouldn't claim that females are on average better in military.

In joint crossfit trainings (which is about pushing your physical limits) with men, there are many differences for the same exercise for men and women. However, I never think there is something wrong with me, we just have different ways to reach physical limits because we have different bodies.

it's different between men as well, some are much weaker than the others. (I am sure I deadlift more than some of them, and it's not much -> 60 kg. *For many men [email protected] kg is not much.)

Comparing physical strength is kind of like saying that men cannot give birth.

So I am not sure why would physical strength mean anything in terms of career inequalities, considering it's different between men as well.

If we do the arm wrestling during job interviews, then of course.

*I mention deadlift because it's the usual measure of total body strength.


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

Antiparticle said:


> If we do the arm wrestling during job interviews, then of course.


From here on out, I’m asking that all my interviews be conducted with bat'leths.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Queen of Cups said:


> From here on out, I’m asking that all my interviews be conducted with bat'leths.


Interesting choice. I was going to go old timey pistol duel.


----------



## Negotiator (Mar 15, 2018)

Queen of Cups said:


> A
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Reminds me of a date I had and the guy was only talking about the house he'd just bought. I do wonder if you shouldn't mention it, but on the other hand, isn't it fair to say you've been busy with the house?


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Mark R said:


> I have heard that there are certain military jobs where women do very well such as drone pilots, aviation, and flight traffic control. I used to attend West Point. The top cadet in my basic training was a woman. There are some outliers that do very well.


My group did some research with armasuisse (Swiss military research for science and technology), which I think should also count as military.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

This is probably just the stain on my soul that's an Austrian school libertarian no matter how much I try to clean it out, but em....

I really don't get the "men better as proven by the military" thing....I don't really see how anyone can view that as proof of competency or superiority. *Statism is an embarrassment to men more so than women.*

_thats not really something anyone should be striving for? Might as well be "police brutality usually done by men so let's give a pat on the back, champ" ...._


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

daleks_exterminate said:


> This is probably just the stain on my soul that's an Austrian school libertarian no matter how much I try to clean it out, but em....
> 
> I really don't get the "men better as proven by the military" thing....I don't really see how anyone can view that as proof of competency or superiority. *Statism is an embarrassment to men more so than women.*
> 
> _thats not really something anyone should be striving for? Might as well be "police brutality usually done by men so let's give a pat on the back, champ" ...._


Sorry about that, Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard haunt me and possess me from time to time 


But also.... Is no one else going to find it funny that the person bragging about men in the military (apart from my inability to see how statism is a brag or benefit), is French? Like.... out of any one to focus heavily on military competency.... Really? Just me? Alright....


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Sorry about that, Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard haunt me and possess me from time to time
> 
> 
> But also.... Is no one else going to find it funny that the person bragging about men in the military (apart from my inability to see how statism is a brag or benefit), is French? Like.... out of any one to focus heavily on military competency.... Really? Just me? Alright....


On my first day of job with my French mentor, this book was on my desk as a welcome gift. It's a thing


----------



## Queen of Cups (Feb 26, 2010)

The “all genders are/want X” talks are always head shakers.




daleks_exterminate said:


> Sorry about that, Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard haunt me and possess me from time to time
> 
> 
> But also.... Is no one else going to find it funny that the person bragging about men in the military (apart from my inability to see how statism is a brag or benefit), is French? Like.... out of any one to focus heavily on military competency.... Really? Just me? Alright....



I didn’t notice but now that you point it out, it cannot be unseen.

Physical strength is irrelevant to most jobs so it’s extra hilarious tbh.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

To be fair, SEAL team guys can be pretty hot, brains and brawn.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Sorry for spamming:


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

Antiparticle said:


> I want him to be supportive of my ideas and leadership, think that I can do anything and encourage me to do it. These can be our joint projects or my own.


That sounds like a decent romantic partner, but if he's a coworker, he has no reason to think so highly of you. That's competition. You would have to demonstrate to him that your ideas are consistently strictly better, that your leadership is consistently strictly better, than those of your colleagues, him included. You might think that it's the case, but he needs to _see_ that it's the case. It's not something that you get because you want to get it. You get it by proving that you are consistently strictly better than your competition. Once you do that, and if he has half a brain, he will have no choice. There are also some people who will never see it despite the amount of evidence, and at that point, you have to ignore those people.



Antiparticle said:


> You asked a few times about down dating and specific qualities, but I don’t know how to define them.
> I don’t mind giving examples of people who I liked (and their professions) in past, but doubt it can give insights or general conclusions:
> University professor
> emergency doctor in his residency training (it was 2 of them, so emergency medicine could be my thing)
> ...


Regarding dating down or dating up, these professions are only relevant if compared to your own. I don't even personally need the specifics (I'm honestly too lazy to do that math, you'd have to do it), you really have to compare their wages to your wage, and their potential promotions with their potential future wages compared to your potential promotions with your potential future wage. Also, once you have done those comparisons, keep in mind that those guys are your exes. So even if you maybe effectively dated some of them down, you are currently not with them, meaning, that you dated down, but that didn't last. It could be for a multitude of reasons, but the dating down part is a factor in the break up.

To specify on "potential" and "ambition", I asked all those questions because "potential" generally means potential for a higher/increasing income (as everyone fails to say anything else), and "ambition" generally also conveys the idea of a better financial situation in a near future. It never fails to mean that from what I've seen, so I wanted to see what Mark's response would be to that, like, what else could those mean outside of the money aspect of it.



Antiparticle said:


> The exact person profile mentioned here, but in my eyes worse: selfish, uses all relationship resources and energy for his own success, and then expects appreciation.When I think of it I still get annoyed, and years passed. He was so average, needed so much help from others that even success feels bad in his case (unhealthy ENFP). I can imagine how he will try to sell this success to some other woman.
> 
> Maybe this is why men need to have personal and business life separated, so other females can’t tell if they are really successful or not (if they don’t understand their business).


I'm assuming this is the CTO, aspiring CEO ? Regardless, yes, the thing with trying to sell his career/success/money, from my point of view, is, despite everything I said before, a terrible idea, this will get him in trouble. All of that needs to be in order, it is an absolute necessity, but it is not something to "sell" it's something to retain and leverage, i.e. "you want me because I have A, but I need you to realize that I want B and have C, so you won't get A until I get B and you start to see C". It is a negotiation and a compromise. It sounds messed up, but it is exactly what women do with their sexuality ("you want sex, but I'm not gonna give you access to sex until I get what I want, aka, take me out on a date, and then on another date, and pay for those" (among other things, of course)).




Queen of Cups said:


> Physical strength is irrelevant to most jobs […]


Only the jobs that are _essential_ to any country, no big deal. Those jobs kept the entire world economy running during the pandemic when every "comfort" jobs stopped. That was a truly ignorant statement, impressive.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Lonewaer said:


> Only the jobs that are _essential_ to any country, no big deal. Those jobs kept the entire world economy running during the pandemic when every "comfort" jobs stopped. That was a truly ignorant statement, impressive.


Epidemic is also a "military situation" - many didn't understand that. If the virus was a bit more lethal, it would be clear by the amount of military that would actually be on the streets.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

MidnightFlight said:


> I'm against B.D.S.M. because it can enable males to exploit females through psychological corruption and abuse...
> 
> So, I don't want to get into a relationship with someone who promotes any military, B.D.S.M, religion, and sexism.
> 
> I'm bisexual and would like to have an open relationship. So, I don't want my significant other getting jealous and trying to treat me like property. I won't tolerate the patriarchal slutshaming bullshit, either.


I have my own list of sexual activities that I am drawn to and I would enjoy. I have a less defined category of sexual activities that I would give my consent to if my partner asked. There are other activities I would say no to. Some activities I may even say, "Let me research that and give it some time (in terms of health risk or my own feelings about the activity)." The issue here is consent. In all activities that a couple engages in, sexual or otherwise, there should be glad and full consent from both. Everyone should accept the "no" of their partner without coercion. Perhaps even an unenthusiastic "yes" should be questioned as to whether it is really a "no."

You might have boundaries that BDSM isn't for you. I might have boundaries that inviting a third party into intimate activities isn't for me. I am certain that there are some women that enjoy BDSM and would gladly consent to it. Some women may even coerce an unwilling man into it. In that case, it would be a women exploiting her man "through psychological corruption and abuse." The issue here isn't that any act in itself is wrong. The issue is still always consent.

Men struggle with issues of consent too. I've felt exploited and degraded in certain sexual activities as a man. I did eventually say no and I felt good about it. The book, _No More Mr. Nice Guy_ by Dr. Robert Glover, is about men who have difficulty saying "no" and feel resentful about it. Couples should support each other in the area of consent so no one feels abused or resentful.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

The extreme gender imbalance in the military is because of the emphasis on upper body strength. Considering military engagements, most people don't do pull ups and the ones who do, would likely be sent home in a body bag since they're not focused on the armed battle.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Lonewaer said:


> You would have to demonstrate to him that your ideas are consistently strictly better, that your leadership is consistently strictly better, than those of your colleagues, him included. You might think that it's the case, but he needs to _see_ that it's the case. It's not something that you get because you want to get it. You get it by proving that you are consistently strictly better than your competition. Once you do that, and if he has half a brain, he will have no choice. There are also some people who will never see it despite the amount of evidence, and at that point, you have to ignore those people.


I want to, but every time I get confused because of how he dresses and the colour of his eyes

Too bad I am not his superior. 

(It is just my sense of humour, ignore.)


----------



## MidnightFlight (Nov 6, 2021)

Antiparticle said:


> Military is specific, it's exactly the opposite of "living in peace and going every day to your job" while thinking about career advancement, paying taxes and interacting with the opposite gender.
> 
> I wouldn't claim that females are on average better in military.
> 
> ...


More women are shorter, struggling to keep healthy weights from fat storage because of their bodies preparing for pregnancy, having thinner arms, dealing with osteoporosis/arthritis, and other things than men.

More women got mandatorily discharged from military service due to their bodies aging before 30 years old than men. This inequality between biological sexes is to protect women from causing a liability, such as permanently physical injury.

Men on average have the upper hand in the military compared to women. Evolution has made men more powerful and dangerous physically and mentally than women on average.

Over the years, the militaries have lessened their inequality between biological sexes. But, evolution has still made men have a hardwired advantage over women in regards to physical strength, intellectual capacity, energy, and competition.

Yes, there are men much weaker than the others. However, there are average heights, weights, muscle masses, I.Q's, and other things from males. There are also average heights, weights, muscle masses, I.Q's, and other things from females. Various countries have different average heights, weights, muscle masses, I.Q's, and other things due to how much wealth and resources they have. But, there is still an evolutionary advantage that males have over females.

There can be career inequalities when females are not being competitive, physically strong, energetic, and smart enough. Most biological females tend to have less energy than average biological males. The menstrual cycle negatively affects their energy levels. The menopause phase also negatively affects their energy levels. P.C.O.S. negatively affects their energy levels.

Females are more likely to have illness absences from work than males. The reason for this is because females have more illnesses from weaker bodies than males on average. Although, females tend to have longer lifespans than males regardless of their illnesses. So, when people hire security guards, they might choose male workers to avoid dealing with illness absences from female workers for example.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

Antiparticle said:


> I want to, but *every time I get confused because of how he dresses and the colour of his eyes*
> 
> Too bad I am not his superior.
> 
> (It is just my sense of humour, ignore.)


I was gonna say, "now the bolded indicates another kind of thinking highly of him", heh.


——
If there is some kind of confusion (I don't why there is such a tangent) about the differences in physical abilities, just in case, there have been recently a couple of scandalous, but real, MMA fights between males and females, if anyone is interested. They are not good fights, as they picked males unable to fight properly, yet they are scandalous because they are still one-sided no-matches.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

MidnightFlight said:


> Females are more likely to have illness absences from work than males. The reason for this is because females have more illnesses from weaker bodies than males on average. Although, females tend to have longer lifespans than males regardless of their illnesses. So, when people hire security guards, they might choose male workers to avoid dealing with illness absences from female workers for example.


If this is supported by statistics, did they consider that women tend to take on the majority of child-rearing responsibilities, even when they also work full time and are in a relationship with a male partner?

Because some of those "illness absences" could be to take care of ill children or aging parents (women probably also tend to do the majority of caregiving for others in the family. Also--in the US, people sometimes have to take "sick time" in order to take children to doctor's appointments, go to children's school meetings etc. There's a lot of work in raising children that employers just sweep under the rug when they can get away with it, as in the US. And so I can imagine women taking more vacation time/sick time to deal with these responsibilities.

Despite that the majority of medical research is done on men, and women have actually been neglected by modern medicine, men still get ill more often. It's because their bodies are more fragile.









Mars vs. Venus: The Gender Gap in Health - Harvard Health Publishing - Harvard Health


Americans are living longer than their ancestors, but women still outlive men by an average of five years, due to many biological, behavioral, and social factors. Making healthier lifestyle choices...




www.health.harvard.edu





I do believe physically, males tend to be more fragile...this is the case from the beginning of gestation.

But male illness and life quality could also be influenced by their lifestyles (alcohol and cigarettes are advertised towards men more now? men are more commonly alcoholics than women) and employment--more laborers are men, and more likely then to suffer from injuries from physical labor. Men probably also tend to go into risky professions more...

partly because women do tend to be given the responsibility of child-rearing, even when they work full time. But someone who is responsible for all the children in society isn't the best person to send to war, because with them goes all the children, and the entire next generation of the society. So historically, that's probably also why women weren't used in the military as much.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

MidnightFlight said:


> Men on average have the upper hand in the military compared to women. Evolution has made men more powerful and dangerous physically and *mentally *than women on average.


I really cannot agree with you with the mental superiority or being smarter - I know that on average men have less creative and innovative ideas in science than women* - but I don't really follow these statistics and research, I was never interested in gender comparisons.
*even this statement was something I remember that my colleague researched for some reason

Just to write a disclaimer: from my own experience, most of my male (and female) coworkers supported me and helped me when I needed. 

Regarding military inequalities:
Military in my country is thought as something that preserves stability, i.e. if you see a soldier on the street you would feel safe, not in danger. We have ridiculous social*, work and academic benefits for people whose parents were active in military. 
I would completely remove these benefits, because I think it is unfair towards others. So, nothing military related should have anything to do with everyday activities.

I am not sure why you think this is important, I believe my country is outlier for doing this, because a lot of people think it's independence was based on a war (with another country).

*eg. you can even get apartments for smaller prices, etc., I am not even sure what else


----------



## MidnightFlight (Nov 6, 2021)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Actually fun fact: most of the things invented, ideas that were created, etc that changed the world and how we do things were made by people with ADHD.
> 
> A new study just determined that Leonardo Divinci most likely had ADHD, on top of the diagnosed ones we know about like Gates. It's because we have divergent thinking
> 
> ...


Social workers diagnosed me with A.D.H.D. when I was a child. They, then, diagnosed me with A.D.D. after I was 18 years old.

I can remember my dreams and control them while creating new things.

I'm good at stepping outside of my perspective to understand animal behavior as an animal behaviorist. I've figured out how to analyze different personalities from various species. I've also found innovative ways to manipulate animals' reactions. I was exposed to farms, animal shelters, and other things to help me learn about animal behavior manipulation. I've even created ways to make animals obey my commands without verbal communication.

I've invented many words in my head. Some of them became normalized on the internet. Speaking of words. I've written many unpublished stories as an unpredictable child that would disgust lots of adults.

I was a wild child with an attraction to imagination. It made me become a pervert before hitting puberty.

My mind is good at figuring out innovative ways to steal things. I've stolen several items from shops successfully without getting arrested and having no remorse.

I've become skilled at singing exactly like other singers and developing my own unique voice by creatively figuring out how to use my body to its potential for a challenge instead of staying in my comfort zone.

I've found my own ways to make me become physically strong.

Otherwise, the fact remains that there are career inequalities between biological sexes in specific circumstances because of inequality of outcomes more than inequality of opportunities. For example, females are struggling to catch up with males in college American football. So, the American football coaches hire male footballers, especially to avoid females having drastic injuries.


----------



## Mark R (Dec 23, 2015)

mia-me said:


> To be fair, SEAL team guys can be pretty hot, brains and brawn.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

Mark R said:


> View attachment 890001


Normal military service (Green Army) can take a toll on relationships that normal relationships do not have. Exercise, deployment overseas, etc. The Military really does come first. As do your team mates.

That is just regular forces, never mind more elite forces such as the SEALs or Special Forces.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

MidnightFlight said:


> Otherwise, the fact remains that there are career inequalities between biological sexes in specific circumstances because of inequality of outcomes more than inequality of opportunities. For example, females are struggling to catch up with males in college American football. So, the American football coaches hire male footballers, especially to avoid females having drastic injuries.











College Football Injuries 2022-2023 - Full Injury Report for Jan 05, 2023


See which college football players are injured today and get the latest NCAA football injury news with our injury report for every team in the NCAA.




www.covers.com













Brain Disease Is Common in Former Football Players: Study


The degenerative brain disease CTE may be common among American football players




time.com





Yeah, it would be a shame if football had any drastic injuries like 87% of former players having brain injuries. So glad to hear they're trying to avoid accidents and being super safe. 

/sarcasm


----------



## cjlab9ihih (Jul 2, 2021)

I would like to tell a little story from personal experience. Recently my girlfriend and I decided to move to Canada. We have been planning this for a long time, we gave immigration consultant edmonton for help. If anyone is thinking about immigration, this guys will be able to help you. We immigrated and got a job. The girl was lucky and found her dream job very quickly and started moving up the ladder very quickly. To be honest, I just could not appreciate her achievements and that is why we had to fight and later break up. Such a sad experience


----------



## MidnightFlight (Nov 6, 2021)

WickerDeer said:


> Despite that the majority of medical research is done on men, and women have actually been neglected by modern medicine, men still get ill more often. It's because their bodies are more fragile.
> 
> 
> 
> ...











Gender differences in mental and physical illness: the effects of fixed roles and nurturant roles - PubMed


A decade ago it was widely assumed that there were no gender differences in mental illness/mental health and that any evidence that suggested that women experienced more psychological distress than men was due to women being more willing to admit to psychological distress, being more willing to...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov





Not all women have been neglectled by modern medicine, especially in some of the developed nations. Though, I would say the U.S. and some other developed nations are not relevant to that. Because the U.S. has state-wide political systems controlled by upper class people that make it harder for working class people to easily access modern medicine from increasingly expensive healthcare as an example. This does not happen as much in France, the Scandinavian countries, etc.









Health Care: How France and the U.S. Compare


The World Health Organization ranked France's health care system highest and the United States came in at 37, behind most of Europe despite the fact that the United States outspends most nations per capita. Fellow Paul Dutton compares and contrasts these two systems.




www.wilsoncenter.org





As a result from that link I shared, it is not surprising American men suffer from more illnesses.









The influence of sex and gender on immunity, infection and vaccination - PubMed


Sex/gender significantly contribute to shape the immune responses, contributing to differences in the pathogenesis of infectious diseases in males and females, the response to viral vaccines and the prevalence of autoimmune diseases. Females typically develop higher innate, humoral and cellular...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov





^ That link talks about how women have more autoimmune diseases than men on average.









Skeletal muscle mass and distribution in 468 men and women aged 18-88 yr - PubMed


<p>We employed a whole body magnetic resonance imaging protocol to examine the influence of age, gender, body weight, and height on skeletal muscle (SM) mass and distribution in a large and heterogeneous sample of 468 men and women. Men had significantly (P < 0.001) more SM in comparison to...




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov





^ That link talks about how men have bigger skeletal muscle mass than women. Which results in men having stronger bodies while women have more fragile ones.

If gender roles were reversed, then women would be more sick than males. Because if most men were taking care of children while average women did more risky jobs, then illness rates would be substantially different. Men are more likely to become alcoholics and smokers for a coping mechanism while getting sick because of them having dangerous male-dominated jobs that average women don't have. So, women are less likely to have alcohol and products for smoking be advertised directly towards them based on the female gender. Also, women are less likely to become sick from that result. More men are exposed to stressful jobs that most women never experience. Innately though, average males are less fragile than most females before them being exposed to stressful jobs, alcohol, products for smoking, etc. that harm their well-being. Even if a male becomes ill, there are more males who keep working without illness absence than females on average. A reason for this is because average females tend to be risk-adverse.









Gender differences in financial risk aversion and career choices are affected by testosterone - PubMed


Women are generally more risk averse than men. We investigated whether between- and within-gender variation in financial risk aversion was accounted for by variation in salivary concentrations of testosterone and in markers of prenatal testosterone exposure in a sample of >500 MBA students. Highe …




pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

MidnightFlight said:


> Gender differences in mental and physical illness: the effects of fixed roles and nurturant roles - PubMed
> 
> 
> A decade ago it was widely assumed that there were no gender differences in mental illness/mental health and that any evidence that suggested that women experienced more psychological distress than men was due to women being more willing to admit to psychological distress, being more willing to...
> ...


I am still not sure why is it important to prove that "men are more dangerous." 

To me it seems (combined with earlier military topic) that you want focus on more extreme situations to prove this.

Extreme situations are by definition outliers - most jobs are not stressful or risky, physically or mentally.

In my view, men represent more stabilising role than destabilising role in the society, at least this is usually how they represent themselves.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

Antiparticle said:


> […]most jobs are not stressful or risky, physically or mentally.


Nothing personal, but I will forever heavily disagree with that.

The jobs that are essential to a society that runs properly are nearly all stressful physically, dangerous physically. We have a tendency to take basic necessities for granted, but those jobs are physically hard, dangerous, and straining, all of them. We're talking food, construction, clean/waste water treatment, electricity for heating, transports of goods, extraction of resources (basically anything within primary sector), transformation of resources (basically anything within secondary sector), health workers, which include high earning jobs like surgeons, but also like nurses, who themselves do much more hours than reasonable because they're generally understaffed, who do night hours, etc.

The jobs that are not essential to society are for the most part (sometimes very) stressful mentally. Anything fast-paced, anything involving managing people, anything that's basically problem-solving, anything that's high-responsibility, etc. That doesn't leave a lot of place for no-stress jobs, if at all. I know my job is right there in the heavy mental stress category, I would bet yours is there too.

It can depend on the person working the job, but right off the top of my head, I can't name a single job that's not either dangerous physically, stressful physically, or stressful mentally. And it doesn't matter if the person loves their job or not.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Lonewaer said:


> Nothing personal, but I will forever heavily disagree with that.
> 
> The jobs that are essential to a society that runs properly are nearly all stressful physically, dangerous physically. We have a tendency to take basic necessities for granted, but those jobs are physically hard, dangerous, and straining, all of them. We're talking food, construction, clean/waste water treatment, electricity for heating, transports of goods, extraction of resources (basically anything within primary sector), transformation of resources (basically anything within secondary sector), health workers, which include high earning jobs like surgeons, but also like nurses, who themselves do much more hours than reasonable because they're generally understaffed, who do night hours, etc.
> 
> ...


In this view just living is stressful mentally or physically. Running is stress for the muscles, so obviously I am under stress every time I go to run after work.


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

Antiparticle said:


> In this view just living is stressful mentally or physically.


I wouldn't go that far, but if you've ever heard of burnout, that's what it is. Too much stress that builds up, to the point where it can't be managed anymore and starts to affect your health. Then regarding physical jobs, we're not just talking exercising, we're talking stuff like back problems. Even in "easier" jobs, simply sitting, you might think it's not physical and can't cause issues, but I had my worst tendinitis (multiple ones) by sitting in a less than perfect posture.

I could also link, about programming as an entire field since that's my job, an article that describes how we basically have to let Satan dine in our skulls. We sit all day, so by your metric that's not a hard job, but ignoring the lurking tendinitis if we don't sit right, the article describes the hell that is the entire field and how it'd be easy to turn insane. It's not as physically demanding as other jobs, by far, but mentally you have to sell your soul. That's just one job in the tertiary field.
Actually, you know what, here it is : 
* *




Coding Sucks: Why a Job in Programming Is Absolute Hell






Antiparticle said:


> Running is stress for the muscles, so obviously I am under stress every time I go to run after work.


You don't run 8 hours a day, 5 days a week. Then the stress is on the joints rather. Ankles and knees. Muscles too, but if you let them rest, your muscles regenerate decently fast. And they definitely need the rest.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

Lonewaer said:


> I wouldn't go that far, but if you've ever heard of burnout, that's what it is. Too much stress that builds up, to the point where it can't be managed anymore and starts to affect your health. Then regarding physical jobs, we're not just talking exercising, we're talking stuff like back problems. Even in "easier" jobs, simply sitting, you might think it's not physical and can't cause issues, but I had my worst tendinitis (multiple ones) by sitting in a less than perfect posture.
> 
> I could also link, about programming as an entire field since that's my job, an article that describes how we basically have to let Satan dine in our skulls. We sit all day, so by your metric that's not a hard job, but ignoring the lurking tendinitis if we don't sit right, the article describes the hell that is the entire field and how it'd be easy to turn insane. It's not as physically demanding as other jobs, by far, but mentally you have to sell your soul. That's just one job in the tertiary field.
> Actually, you know what, here it is :
> ...


So you are assuming that everyone is on burnout?


----------



## Lonewaer (Jul 14, 2014)

Antiparticle said:


> So you are assuming that everyone is on burnout?


Everyone is under stress that could lead to burnout. It's not far-fetched.

This article talks about reported burnout, but not about the fact it's probably building up in a big portion of the other respondents : Indeed Study Shows That Worker Burnout Is At Frighteningly High Levels


----------



## MidnightFlight (Nov 6, 2021)

Antiparticle said:


> most jobs are not stressful or risky, physically or mentally.


Firemen/firewomen, police officers, judges, security guards, intelligence agency agents, circus performers, entrepreneurs, professional athletes, farmers, rehabiliation service workers, psychiatrists working with mentally disturbed patients who are violently erratic, research scientists that do dangerous experiments, military workers, drivers, chefs exposed to extremely hot liquid for cooking, specific dancers, gymnasts, pilots, therapists, some assembly line workers, babysitters, video game developers, software developers, architects, and other people could disagree with you.


----------



## Antiparticle (Jan 8, 2013)

MidnightFlight said:


> Firemen/firewomen, police officers, judges, security guards, intelligence agency agents, circus performers, entrepreneurs, professional athletes, farmers, rehabiliation service workers, psychiatrists working with mentally disturbed patients who are violently erratic, research scientists that do dangerous experiments, military workers, drivers, chefs exposed to extremely hot liquid for cooking, specific dancers, gymnasts, pilots, therapists, some assembly line workers, babysitters, video game developers, software developers, architects, and other people could disagree with you.


I am surprised how we even manage to function as a society 😅


----------



## MidnightFlight (Nov 6, 2021)

Antiparticle said:


> I am surprised how we even manage to function as a society 😅


Once upon a time, I used to be surprised by how people manage in society. But now, I expect the unexpected and expected without surprise.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

MidnightFlight said:


> Firemen/firewomen, police officers, judges, security guards, intelligence agency agents, circus performers, entrepreneurs, professional athletes, farmers, rehabiliation service workers, psychiatrists working with mentally disturbed patients who are violently erratic, research scientists that do dangerous experiments, military workers, drivers, chefs exposed to extremely hot liquid for cooking, specific dancers, gymnasts, pilots, therapists, some assembly line workers, babysitters, video game developers, software developers, architects, and other people could disagree with you.


Dangerous/stressful jobs are over represented amongst ADHD people. Many Olympic athletes have ADHD including Michael Phelps, who has won more Olympic gold medals than 91 countries (he was almost disqualified for Adderall, but needs it to function day to day due to ADHD). 

We're around 7-10% of the population and over represented in ER rooms, as EMTs, as firefighters, etc 

So once again the whole "man does dangerous jobs thing" isn't actually statistically accurate once you start looking at the men in question. They're disproportionately diagnosed with ADHD. 

Neurotypical men on average don't choose those jobs either.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Autism spectrum disorder is over representated amongst scientists. 

So most of the arguments made of "men do all of the dangerous work and scientific advancements" have little to do with nuerotypicals anyway. 

(It also ignores the amount of proven cases where a woman (probably an autistic woman in many cases) has discovered something scientific and a man gets credit for that discovery when he did almost none of the work) but if you're going to do that at least look at what those people have in common for godssakes. 


So the "men better because science and dangerous jobs" arguments are pretty of funny to me. 

You can congratulate yourself because of your penis, but if you're not in a very small percentage of the population, you probably aren't doing scientific advancements or working a very dangerous job anyway. So why brag about someone else's achievements just because you vaguely belong to a similar group? 

We're all money's _pats self on back for how strong mountain gorillas are_ basically the same thing.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

daleks_exterminate said:


> Dangerous/stressful jobs are over represented amongst ADHD people. Many Olympic athletes have ADHD including Michael Phelps, who has won more Olympic gold medals than 91 countries (he was almost disqualified for Adderall, but needs it to function day to day due to ADHD).
> 
> We're around 7-10% of the population and over represented in ER rooms, as EMTs, as firefighters, etc
> 
> ...


I have completely lost track of what this thread was/is even meant to be apart.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

What advancements if any can be tied to absolutely nuerotypical people?

bureaucracy, maybe? 🤣


I've found new ways of doing things at almost every job I've ever worked at that were more efficient than "how it's always been done" good mangaers and employers let me do things the new way and/or changed how it was done as I figured out a better way and after verifying that it would be stupid not to. I've worked in two places though that said "this is how it's always been done and so that's how it must be done" despite them both admitting that my way was better/more efficient. I didn't work at those two very long because I value time and logic more than that.

Even what I'm currently studying right now: I've done two things that my teacher has never seen before (despite working in the field for decades). He was surprised one of the things worked, but it did. I didn't actually realize that I was even doing that thing differently, but I was. We see the world entirely differently. That's why Temple Grandin was able to change everything about how the cattle industry worked for the better. She was immune to seeing it in the way "it's always been done" 


My therapist has actually said that ADHD (and very likely Autism as well) is how I've gotten past a lot of things that most people have lifelong PTSD because of.


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

To expand on an earlier point: most jobs are stressful, even though they don't have to be. 

Modern technology has put us in a position that we're constantly adding stressful factors that our brain has trouble dealing with. 

Being constantly on-line is stressful. 
For many people it's stressful to be on-call a lot of the time. 
Working irregular shifts is stressful.
High workload is stressful.
Not knowing if you're earning enough to feed yourself or your family is stressful. 
Constant pressure to perform is stressful.
Having to work multiple jobs is stressful.
Not having job security is stressful. 
An unfriendly work environment is stressful.
Not having a fixed work place can be stressful.
Being your own boss is stressful. 
Having to negotiate details of your assignment is stressful. 
Having to work from home is stressful.
Etc...

We're constantly finding new ways to make our jobs more and more stressful, which seems to apply to most jobs that are out there. It's one of the big challenges of our time.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

recycled_lube_oil said:


> I have completely lost track of what this thread was/is even meant to be apart.


The point I'm addressing keeps coming up so it's obviously relevant. 

Maybe not to the OP but to the comments that keep being made about men being in those jobs. Consistency matters so it matters to look at the men in question and they are disporportionately not nuerotypical men. That is pretty important to that discussion.


----------



## recycled_lube_oil (Sep 30, 2021)

daleks_exterminate said:


> The point I'm addressing keeps coming up so it's obviously relevant.
> 
> Maybe not to the OP but to the comments that keep being made about men being in those jobs. Consistency matters so it matters to look at the men in question and they are disporportionately not nuerotypical men. That is pretty important to that discussion.


In regards to the "Jobs Of Men", I have seen women in these jobs. Due to them being "The Jobs of Men", the women have made a point of proving themselves, generally to a point where they are better than about 80% of the men. Oops there we are 80/20 split again.

Also in regards to the "Jobs of Women". Carers, etc. Its not that they are for women. Its probably there are more appealing jobs out there. 

In regards to neurotypicalness, I do not feel I should comment as I would be pulling stuff out of my ass, at a much higher level than I may do normally.


----------



## daleks_exterminate (Jul 22, 2013)

Antiparticle said:


> I am surprised how we even manage to function as a society 😅


Do we though? 🤣


----------

