Discuss. 
And pretend you are back in college and treat it seriously.
Inspired by Vanilla's thread on FG's proposal, do women often just not see politics as attractive?
Being completely honest, despite the best liberal and progressive intentions of my parents, I probably grew up with just a little bit of Ken/Barbie type role definitions. I suspect most people did. I eventually learned better and had a few preconceptions and assumptions verbally battered out of me at college for starters.
There are seemingly a few biological truths though.
The primary hormonal driving force for the male, testosterone, is pretty uncomplicated. Basically, copulate with it, or kill it. 'Drive' seems to be one of the only ambiguous, potentially positive consequences of the stuff.
The primary female hormone, oxytocin, is much more complex. I can't even begin.
Repeated studies seem to indicate that e.g. women injected with higher than normal doses (I know they have testosterone too) of testosterone (but still only just at, or less than, at the average male level) report drastically increased aggression and a preoccupation with sex.
Men dosed with oxytocin don't know what to be doing with themselves. But they are nicer to their wives.
Don't ask me to quote sources OK - I read it, many times. If you disagree, link to many reputable sources.
I'm always scared of appearing to be sexist or reactionary at times like these but is it simply the case that women and men, (with exceptions, obviously) are better suited, and prefer to pursue, certain jobs?
E.g. proportionally few male nurses or social workers
Proportionally few female engineers or quality auditors
(examples purely random, and based on personal experience)
And pretend you are back in college and treat it seriously.
Inspired by Vanilla's thread on FG's proposal, do women often just not see politics as attractive?
Being completely honest, despite the best liberal and progressive intentions of my parents, I probably grew up with just a little bit of Ken/Barbie type role definitions. I suspect most people did. I eventually learned better and had a few preconceptions and assumptions verbally battered out of me at college for starters.
There are seemingly a few biological truths though.
The primary hormonal driving force for the male, testosterone, is pretty uncomplicated. Basically, copulate with it, or kill it. 'Drive' seems to be one of the only ambiguous, potentially positive consequences of the stuff.
The primary female hormone, oxytocin, is much more complex. I can't even begin.
Repeated studies seem to indicate that e.g. women injected with higher than normal doses (I know they have testosterone too) of testosterone (but still only just at, or less than, at the average male level) report drastically increased aggression and a preoccupation with sex.
Men dosed with oxytocin don't know what to be doing with themselves. But they are nicer to their wives.
Don't ask me to quote sources OK - I read it, many times. If you disagree, link to many reputable sources.
I'm always scared of appearing to be sexist or reactionary at times like these but is it simply the case that women and men, (with exceptions, obviously) are better suited, and prefer to pursue, certain jobs?
E.g. proportionally few male nurses or social workers
Proportionally few female engineers or quality auditors
(examples purely random, and based on personal experience)