Women producers!! Where are you!

[fluffy_little_something]

I think people feel attracted to tasks that they feel they can be good at in a natural way. Of course there is no gene for music production or basketball or cooking, but someone may happen to display certain, ancient properties that are beneficial to certain modern tasks. Being tall, fast and having good spatial thinking all benefit a basketball player.
And some properties are more typical of men than of women, and some the other way round.

[Jace-BeOS]

Not saying, in any way, anything about ability, but funny how so many bashes someone for pointing out that women's neural structures are anatomically different from men.

Bashing? That's your characterization of an argument being had. The argument is: someone is claiming men and women have fundamentally different aptitudes / abilities BECAUSE they're men or women, while others are saying this is unfounded and sexist. Calling someone's perception "sexist" is not bashing. It's like describing the color of an object or noting a claim is specious. I haven't personally engaged in ad hominem attacks; maybe I'm missing other comments that have done so.

Even brain size, and components of the brain are different, thus working differently.

This statement is specious. Brain size has nothing to do with ability or potential. The "brain components" and "working differently" statements are meaningless without context.

Since the sex-based brain differences are most of all due to hormones and genes doing their thing during puberty, those differences are obviously only partly due to different treatment by society, if at all.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscie ... ifferences

Well, everyone believes what they want, obviously.
So, let's agree to disagree as neither side will convince the other

Did you read this part?:

"Experts note that neural sexual dimorphisms in humans exist only as averages, with overlapping variabilities,[3] and that it is unknown to what extent each is influenced by genetics or environment, even in adulthood.[4][5]"

The statements on that page are overviews of the observations in the cited studies. No statement written on that page includes a declaration of cause for the observations. You're pointing to this page as proof of your opinion being correct. It is not proof. At best, there's evidence of sexual dimorphism in the brain. The cause(s) and end results are not proven. Using this information to back up the claims that men and women are inherently better or worse at anything BECAUSE of their sexual status is intellectually dishonest.

Why not ask the questions "Where are the male dental hygienists" or "Where are the male kindergarten teachers".

The same issues apply: men are guided away from these professions because of gender acculturation. You might also want to ask why these jobs are "left to women" to fill.

[fluffy_little_something]

Not saying, in any way, anything about ability, but funny how so many bashes someone for pointing out that women's neural structures are anatomically different from men.

Well, no, no-one has been bashed for that here that I can see, though it is actually untrue.

I think its fair to say that making claims made about what such structural differences actually mean have been subject to rebuttal. And of course, that's because the claims being made have zero evidence to support them, its just random nonsense about 'brain scans' and 'structure' and 'different components.'

What is true is that the range of structures of female brains is different from the range of structures of male brains. That doesnt mean that you can actually point to a specific brain and say that its male or female, or that female brains are specifically different from male brains; there's actually significant overlap within those ranges.

Have some facts from one of the most recent studies.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/ ... -and-women

Despite the study’s consistent sex-linked patterns, the researchers also found considerable overlap between men and women in brain volume and cortical thickness, just as you might find in height. In other words, just by looking at the brain scan, or height, of someone plucked at random from the study, researchers would be hard pressed to say whether it came from a man or woman. That suggests both sexes’ brains are far more similar than they are different.

There is overlap of course (I suppose my brain would also be somewhere in the middle, I am fully aware of my strong female traits). In such cases researchers would be hard-pressed to tell the sex (although hard-pressed doesn't mean impossible).
Still, with most brains experts can indeed tell whether a scanned brain is male or female.

[risome]

Dana Ruh
Helana Huff
Rezz

[Jace-BeOS]

I think people feel attracted to tasks that they feel they can be good at in a natural way.

I would have zero argument against this statement (which seems to be "people pursue what's easiest for them"), except you used the word "natural". As I've pointed out, there is no way to determine what is a "natural" inclination, aptitude, or ability by gender/sex because culture directs some people toward certain areas of activity and away from others, based on their sexual identity.

Of course there is no gene for music production or basketball or cooking, but someone may happen to display certain, ancient properties...

What is "ancient properties"? This isn't a scientific term. As far as I can tell, it doesn't mean anything in the context of this subject.

Do you mean biological or physical traits? If yes, well okay: It's certainly fair to say that someone with certain physiological traits (longer legs and arms) may find greater success with certain tasks (reaching a high shelf) that clearly benefit from such physiological traits.

However:

It does not account for when people who lack those physiological traits find success in the same tasks.

[EDIT: it also does not account for when people have the presumed beneficial physical traits, yet demonstrate reduced abilities in the physical task or skill]

It does not account for tasks that do not benefit from such physiological traits (emotional or intellectual tasks).

It does not account for gender, since sexual dimorphism is not absolute.

...that are beneficial to certain modern tasks.

What are "modern tasks"?

And some properties are more typical of men than of women, and some the other way round.

You are making a false analogy. Here you're talking about physiology in overall bodily makeup. This is a VERY different subject from intellectual ability. The size and shape of one's body parts has nothing to do with their intellectual capabilities.

[Jace-BeOS]

Not saying, in any way, anything about ability, but funny how so many bashes someone for pointing out that women's neural structures are anatomically different from men.

Well, no, no-one has been bashed for that here that I can see, though it is actually untrue.

I think its fair to say that making claims made about what such structural differences actually mean have been subject to rebuttal. And of course, that's because the claims being made have zero evidence to support them, its just random nonsense about 'brain scans' and 'structure' and 'different components.'

What is true is that the range of structures of female brains is different from the range of structures of male brains. That doesnt mean that you can actually point to a specific brain and say that its male or female, or that female brains are specifically different from male brains; there's actually significant overlap within those ranges.

Have some facts from one of the most recent studies.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/04/ ... -and-women

Despite the study’s consistent sex-linked patterns, the researchers also found considerable overlap between men and women in brain volume and cortical thickness, just as you might find in height. In other words, just by looking at the brain scan, or height, of someone plucked at random from the study, researchers would be hard pressed to say whether it came from a man or woman. That suggests both sexes’ brains are far more similar than they are different.

There is overlap of course (I suppose my brain would also be somewhere in the middle, I am fully aware of my strong female traits). In such cases researchers would be hard-pressed to tell the sex (although hard-pressed doesn't mean impossible).
Still, with most brains experts can indeed tell whether a scanned brain is male or female.

What? No. How are you interpreting the exact opposite meaning from the statement given?

[fluffy_little_something]

I clearly disagree on that, I do think men and women tend towards different tasks due to their inherently different natures (i.e. based on genes and what those bring about, i.e. hormones etc.).

By ancient I mean properties that have nothing to do with our modern world, but already existed in stone-age humans, where the sexes were not equal at all, either.
What applies to the physiological realm, also applies to, and actually includes the mental realm as the mind is also just a part of the body.

Modern tasks are tasks such as music production or engineering, which at first glance have nothing to do with the stone age, but indirectly they do. Tens of thousands of years ago, men were hunting and building tools, which genetically reinforced certain traits such as patience, spacial and technical thinking, focusing and concentration, and what not. Women were taking care of each other and kids, which also genetically reinforced certain traits such as linguistics, diplomacy, empathy, caring, multitasking, etc.

Have to go to bed, good night...

[Jace-BeOS]

Women were building tools "back then"...

Good night.

[Jace-BeOS]

Why not ask the questions "Where are the male dental hygienists" or "Where are the male kindergarten teachers".

It's also important to point out that many tasks that were left to women in one generation, were later taken over by men because the culture suddenly decided that task was "important". Teaching is one relevant example.

[BMoore]

So every difference between man and woman is just culture?!
And I have never said anything about ability. I'm arguing that there are differences, and different choices are made.

[BMoore]

And as far as I can see, no one but the posters calling someone sexist, is mentioning ability as to what women are not capable of doing.

[deastman]

So every difference between man and woman is just culture?!
And I have never said anything about ability. I'm arguing that there are differences, and different choices are made.

Obviously there are differences between men and women which are biological in nature. But when it comes to academic performance and fields of work and study, all evidence points to the difference being cultural in nature.

[deastman]

And as far as I can see, no one but the posters calling someone sexist, is mentioning ability as to what women are not capable of doing.

Huh? What about that article that Fluffy linked to:

"The gray-white matter difference may explain why, in adulthood, females are great multi-taskers, while men excel in highly task-focused projects."

Sounds to me that he’s asserting exactly that: that men have superior ability in highly task-focused projects.

Edit:
Or to put it in less kindly terms, which that author is actually insinuating with his pseudo-science, “women are too scatterbrained to concentrate on a single task”. But it all sounds very official and factual and sciency the way he worded it.

[jancivil]

I'm finding it hilarious that we have a misogynist male here whose user name always made me think of teh vagina. And I'm sure I'm not alone.

[jancivil]

And as far as I can see, no one but the posters calling someone sexist, is mentioning ability as to what women are not capable of doing.

Huh? What about that article that Fluffy linked to:

"The gray-white matter difference may explain why, in adulthood, females are great multi-taskers, while men excel in highly task-focused projects."

Sounds to me that he’s asserting exactly that: that men have superior ability in highly task-focused projects.

Edit:
Or to put it in less kindly terms, which that author is actually insinuating with his pseudo-science, “women are too scatterbrained to concentrate on a single task”. But it all sounds very official and factual and sciency the way he worded it.

Yeah. We're looking at two very intellectually-dishonest individuals at least as regards this whole area which screams to me they're threatened by something. And it's the Dunning-Kruger Effect very nicely illustrated.