MFool article on income by age and sex

[Mississippi Mudstache]

TL;DR -- It's asinine to think women are more biologically suited to primary child-rearing when our entire system conditions women for that suitability.  Everyone is conditioned by society throughout childhood and pressured to conform to expectations throughout adulthood.  Conforming doesn't imply a biological basis, it just implies that the conditioning was successful.

Fair enough. I'm really not interested in changing your opinion, and I don't care enough about the topic to find out if there's any relevant research, but I still think that there's no reason to assume that there isn't a biologic basis for women being more nurturing than men. Actually, if one were to extrapolate from the behavior of our fellow mammals, I think that would be the most logical conclusion.

In science, when a claim is made, it is required to be supported by evidence.  The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim, not on the person attempting to disprove the claim. 

It's much more logical to say "we don't know" than to say "I intuitively feel this is the way things are, so this is how they must be."

OK, that was poorly worded on my part, but you don't need you to explain how science works. And FWIW, this part is correct:

I intuitively feel this is the way things are

But this part is not:

so this is how they must be."

You are assuming that women and men naturally have the same levels of nurturance without providing any evidence to support that assumption. I assume that women naturally have stronger levels of nurturance than men, which has influenced society's expectations over hundreds of generations, and that these societal expectations then reinforce the biological tendencies, causing said differences to appear more distinct than would be explained by biology alone. I, too, am not providing any evidence to support my position. It appears we are at an impasse, but still I feel no burning desire to do actual research, because I am still greatly unconcerned with changing your mind (or my own, apparently). Oh well. This has been useless. Maybe I'll read up on it later.

[Zikoris]

I think the thing that's hardest for me to wrap my head around is: Why is this a bad thing?

I mean, regardless of whether women make more family and life friendly choices because of themselves, society, or the flying spaghetti monster, the results are the same. They end up making slightly less money, yes - but in return for that, they get MUCH higher quality of life, more time with their families, better health, and substantially longer lives! I mean, isn't this sort of what Mustachianism is about - working less or not at all and focusing on living the highest quality of life you can?

It's a bad thing because it's not an objectively higher quality of life.  You might think it is better to stay at home, but your personal opinion does not extrapolate to every woman ever.  And women who have a different opinion than yours are less free to pursue their personal preference than you are.

For a woman who, as an individual, would prefer to focus on a career rather than a family, being forced into SAHP'ing would be just as painful as a man who wanted to stay at home being forced into a high pressure career. 

Also, I was very clear on the fact that I'm arguing that these expectations are harmful to both men AND women.  So your argument that it's not a bad thing because women, in your opinion, have a better life than men completely ignores the flip side -- that men have a (in your opinion) worse life than women due to the societal pressures exerted on both genders. 

Also, in my personal application of MMM principles, life is about doing what you enjoy.  Is it really so hard to comprehend that someone might actually enjoy their work?  Or at least, enjoy enough of it that the benefit of being able to do what they enjoy outweighs the negative aspects of the job?   Consider situations where you literally cannot do your work outside of the institution you work for (in my case, research -- very difficult to undertake on your own due to expenses).

I'm not talking about only being a SAHP, I'm talking about ALL the choices women make that lead to less pay, but higher quality of life. Things like:

- Flex time
- Normal working hours (not graveyard, etc)
- Lower stress fields
- Less risky jobs, both financial (commission based jobs, etc) and physical (mining, climbing electric poles, etc)

[Mississippi Mudstache]

However, just because you and your wife (and everyone else who agrees with you) believe that staying home to raise children is better than working does not automatically mean that it is is objectively the better situation for every individual. 

We're really not that far apart. I agree with every word in this statement. I absolutely DO NOT believe that staying home is the right decision for all women. Not even close. I do not believe that working is the right decision for all men, and that in many cases in a marriage, the man is absolutely the more nurturing parent. My only point is that, even if the difference were minor - suppose only 60% of SAHPs were women - then one would expect to see at least some effect on the average wages of women in the workplace. That's all, really.

And that is where we are having a disconnect.  I believe everyone should be free from societal pressures to behave in ways that they don't prefer. 

I know what you mean here, so I won't go into the obvious cheap shot tangent about society expecting us to do things like not raping and murdering. In some ways, societal expectations are clearly helpful. It's up to us to decide where they aren't helpful and to pursue those changes.

When you claim that your wife's personal preference is a sex-linked biological characteristic, you are forcing her personal preference on everyone that shares her biological gender.  And, when you do that, you are automatically forcing the opposite on everyone of the opposite biological gender.  That's not fair.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about averages. There is a huge and obvious difference for those who don't consciously choose to ignore it. If I said that men are, on average, taller than women, that doesn't imply that I believe that all men are taller than all women. It doesn't mean that I look down upon men who are shorter than most women for not conforming to the stereotype. But it does mean that, in a co-ed basketball league, I would expect most of the total points to be scored in any given season to have been scored by men.

[Cressida]

women naturally have stronger levels of nurturance than men

Mississippi Mudstache is clearly going to be stubborn here, so for the benefit of everyone *else*: There is no evidence for the above. You probably think there is, but there is not.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

women naturally have stronger levels of nurturance than men

Mississippi Mudstache is clearly going to be stubborn here, so for the benefit of everyone *else*: There is no evidence for the above. You probably think there is, but there is not.

Nice cut and paste. Feel free to read my entire statement when you get the chance.

*Edit to add:
By the way, just a cursory search on the topic revealed scads of information about the effects of oxytocin on mother-child bonding, particularly during childbirth, but during breastfeeding as well. Plenty of reading for this evening...

[Cressida]

women naturally have stronger levels of nurturance than men

Mississippi Mudstache is clearly going to be stubborn here, so for the benefit of everyone *else*: There is no evidence for the above. You probably think there is, but there is not.

Nice cut and paste. Feel free to read my entire statement when you get the chance.

*Edit to add:
By the way, just a cursory search on the topic revealed scads of information about the effects of oxytocin on mother-child bonding, particularly during childbirth, but during breastfeeding as well. Plenty of reading for this evening...

I didn't misrepresent what you said. You started from the unproven premise that women are "naturally" more nurturing than men.

Don't bother going down the childbirth and breastfeeding path. Adoptive mothers don't give birth, and plenty of mothers don't breastfeed.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

Gotcha. Don't bring up relavent topics because they might weaken your argument. Nevermind that every human who has ever been born was birthed by a female whose body was flooded with hormones that evolved over millions of years to encourage immediate attachment between mother and child, that adopted children make up only 2.5% of American children, that 77% of American mothers breastfeed for at least some length of time, and that for most of human history that percentage was damn near 100%.

[Emilyngh]

Gotcha. Don't bring up relavent topics because they might weaken your argument. Nevermind that every human who has ever been born was birthed by a female whose body was flooded with hormones that evolved over millions of years to encourage immediate attachment between mother and child, that adopted children make up only 2.5% of American children, that 77% of American mothers breastfeed for at least some length of time, and that for most of human history that percentage was damn near 100%.

All of the recent studies I've seen show that it's the amount of time spent with the child that leads to bonding/nurturing "instinct," not gender.   Here are two examples:

"The study, the first to look at the neurological changes brought about by fatherhood, concluded that fathers who are involved in bringing up their children adapt quickly and become as suited to parenthood as mothers.
Among the changes to the father's brain is the expansion of grey matter, shrinking grey matter elsewhere and a larger pre-frontal cortex"

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/new-fathers-experience-brain-change-to-bond-with-their-child-9940117.html

"Fathers who spent more than four hours a day with their infant recorded a similar recognition rate of 10 percent compared to their female counterpart.Their results showed that fathers who spent less than four hours a day with their child or those who spent time with other babies showed a lower rate of recognizing their offspring's voice."

http://www.medicaldaily.com/fathers-maternal-instincts-are-just-strong-mothers-245044

[G-dog]

Source material:  http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/03/02/heres-how-much-the-typical-american-made-last-ye-2.aspx

There's not a ton of useful information here, but the comments are amusing as always.

One thing of note, this graph suggests that women stop increasing their salary beyond age 35.  The article sort of hand-wavingly dismisses this as something to do with child rearing, but it's not clear if these numbers are average for all women, including SAHM types, or if they're averages just for working women.  In which case child rearing shouldn't be relevant.

Well, I'm not "average", my income didn't start really going up until I was about 35 yo. But that's when I moved from academia to industry (bachelor's degree) -> 50% pay increase there. Then a career change within industry, another big jump.  I now make 5X what I made at 34 years old.

[G-dog]

But, you can't easily separate dependent and possibly independent variables - do women opt to be SAHM because they make Kessler or do they make less because they might/do leave the work force for child rearing (less flex schedule, fewer hours/day, maternity leave, SAHM).

[deborah]

One thing that isn't made apparent in most of these kinds of wage comparison studies is how much do men earn when in female dominated jobs? Do male nurses and other non-doctor medical professionals, childcare workers, pre-school or elementary school teachers, flight attendants, clerical workers, service workers, etc...earn more than their female counterparts? Less? About the same? Do they (and have they) had to deal with the same sexism and stereotyping to work in female dominated jobs as women do in male dominated jobs?

THat is what is so interesting about the Australian study I mentioned earlier. They found that especially in female dominated occupations, men were paid more than women.

Also, in Australia at least, women have more education than men. This has been the way since 1987! More girls than boys are accepted into tertiary education, and more girls complete degrees. It has been something that has been vexing the education establishment for as long as it has been happening. So, the Australian data should have more highly qualified women than men in most jobs.

[G-dog]

I guess my point was that lower pay rate/less career opportunity tends to skew the codices for women vs. men (coupled with culture, etc.). I don't think the choice is independent of the pay and career options (generally - definitely specific exceptions).

Do you know if the gender pay gap is smaller (for same rank/grade) in the military or in gov't jobs than it is in the larger context?

[sol]

Also, in Australia at least, women have more education than men. This has been the way since 1987! More girls than boys are accepted into tertiary education, and more girls complete degrees.

It's the same in the US now.  More women are admitted to college.  They get better grades.  They graduate at higher rates.  They still make less money after graduation.

Part of that discrepancy has been mentioned above: men tend to gravitate toward the higher paying fields more than women do. 

Even in the same field, though, women make less.  In some cases, this confusingly works to increase their representation in the workforce.  For example, when I finished my PhD and was applying to faculty jobs around the country, I made a list of every interviewed candidate for academic hires in my field over the previous five years.  Women got more interviews (per capita) than men did, and they were hired for more positions (per capita) than men were.  Talking to them, though, it was pretty clear they were also getting paid less in those positions than men and some of them speculated to me that they might have been offered jobs precisely because the department administration expected them to request less salary.  My take-away from that analysis was that I was going to lose out to every equally-qualified female candidate.

So it's a double edged sword.  If the current trends continue I expect women to dominate all professional fields and men to dominate all of the physical or trade fields.  I expect that by the time I'm an old man, male lawyers and doctors and scientists will be somewhat rare, but plumbers and electricians and construction workers will (still) be almost exclusively male.

Imagine what that sort of income dynamic will mean for future couples who adhere to traditional gender roles.  If men make 75 cents on the dollar compared to women in 2050, the historical narrative of "male provider" will have to change.  And good riddance.

[deborah]

Do you know if the gender pay gap is smaller (for same rank/grade) in the military or in gov't jobs than it is in the larger context?

That Australian report doesn't talk specifically about military, but for government jobs the pay gap is smaller.

[sol]

Do you know if the gender pay gap is smaller (for same rank/grade) in the military or in gov't jobs than it is in the larger context?

Theoretically, there is NO pay gap in government jobs because everyone who holds the same job makes the exact same amount of money, by law.

Any woman of the same rank, with the same time in service, would earn the same amount of pay as a man of equivalent rank and time in, regardless of the job.

We have the same system (also government) but I don't think it solves the problem as neatly as you might like.    Government jobs don't really have negotiable pay scales, so the equality they enforce can't spread to other non-government employers.  It also doesn't prevent federal hiring managers from choosing male candidates over female ones for better paying jobs, or promotions.  So discrimination can still flourish even when pay is exactly the same for the same positions.

In my particular agency, about 70% of the senior management is female.  There are a variety of historical reasons for that, but basically they're all related to gender discrimination against women that resulted in their concentration in jobs that turned out to eventually feed into senior executive positions.

[G-dog]

I vaguely remember a story about assertions made by the old Soviet Union claiming their system was better and more fair because "see how many women doctors we have"!  Then the story goes on to point out, yes, but doctors made very little in the USSR (so women still getting paid lees/concentrated in lower paying jobs - just the jobs were different).

[MrsPete]

The only point where I think we have a real difference /real discrimination is when you're talking about the less-educated manual-labor jobs.  A man with no education can still earn a pretty decent wage by working his tail off in construction (or similar).  A woman with no education doesn't have the physical strength to equal that . . . so she's going to earn a lower wage as a shop clerk or a factory worker.

That pay for labor doesn't come without risk.  Earlier I said men get killed 11 times more often at work than women, but it looks like as of the 2012 numbers, they get killed 12 times as often with 4277 men killed at work versus just 351 women.  Riskier jobs that get you killed more frequently should pay more, IMHO.

I don't disagree with you.  For example, a high-school graduate male soldier is risking his life every day; a high-school graduate female receptionist isn't. 

You could also say that comfort in the work place is worth something:  The soldier is involved in heavily physical work, in extreme temperatures, and away from home.  In contrast, the receptionist sits in an air conditioned room, can drink coffee all day while she works, and has access to clean bathrooms.  Even if you consider a more physical typical female job -- perhaps waiting tables -- it's easier.  The waitress might lift heavy trays, but she gets breaks, a meal, and at the end of the evening she gets into her personal car and drives to her own home. 

The point:  When you're looking at entry-level workers with little education, men tend to do harder, more physical work -- yes, that often does come with more danger, and I can see why it pays more. 

But when you move into the world of professional jobs, I think these differences disappear -- at least in most jobs.  I mean, in my teaching job, I know the guys make the same thing I do (for same experience).  I strongly suspect my engineer husband would say the same thing about his co-workers. 

[jrhampt]

You are assuming that women and men naturally have the same levels of nurturance without providing any evidence to support that assumption. I assume that women naturally have stronger levels of nurturance than men, which has influenced society's expectations over hundreds of generations, and that these societal expectations then reinforce the biological tendencies, causing said differences to appear more distinct than would be explained by biology alone. I, too, am not providing any evidence to support my position. It appears we are at an impasse, but still I feel no burning desire to do actual research, because I am still greatly unconcerned with changing your mind (or my own, apparently). Oh well. This has been useless. Maybe I'll read up on it later.

This is called the null hypothesis, which is where we start in statistics - that there is no significant difference between group a and group b.  You then do tests to see if they disprove the null hypothesis -- in order to find out if there is a significant difference between group a and group b.  You don't start out the other way around - saying that there is a significant difference and then trying to disprove it.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

You are assuming that women and men naturally have the same levels of nurturance without providing any evidence to support that assumption. I assume that women naturally have stronger levels of nurturance than men, which has influenced society's expectations over hundreds of generations, and that these societal expectations then reinforce the biological tendencies, causing said differences to appear more distinct than would be explained by biology alone. I, too, am not providing any evidence to support my position. It appears we are at an impasse, but still I feel no burning desire to do actual research, because I am still greatly unconcerned with changing your mind (or my own, apparently). Oh well. This has been useless. Maybe I'll read up on it later.

This is called the null hypothesis, which is where we start in statistics - that there is no significant difference between group a and group b.  You then do tests to see if they disprove the null hypothesis -- in order to find out if there is a significant difference between group a and group b.  You don't start out the other way around - saying that there is a significant difference and then trying to disprove it.

Right, I know what a null hypothesis is, and I've taken enough statistics courses to make my eyes bleed. I don't recall people arguing with the assertion that women are more nurturing - and certainly no one is arguing that women are more frequently the primary nurturer. Do I really need statistics to prove that? Okay, here's some shit from the Census Bureau. We do observe differences, therefore your null hypothesis is already false.

What seems to be under discussion is the underlying cause of the differences, i.e., the old nature vs. nurture:

I am less convinced that "nurturing" is a sex-linked biological trait.  On a macro level, little girls are given baby dolls and play kitchens; little boys are given science kits and engineering toys (legos, Kinect, etc).  There is a fairly recent trend away from this, but it is still what's considered normal.  It's what's marketed to parents and children, from a very very young age ... Women are taught, from an incredibly young age, how to be mothers.  They're taught to care about the feelings of others (often over their own), to be patient, not be too demanding or assertive ("bossy") or intellectual, not to question authority.  Men aren't taught these things -- they're taught that real men don't cry, or talk about their feelings (or even think about them, in some cases), that they have to provide for their families, be tough, not show fear or worry or pain.  Is it any wonder that men seem to gravitate towards rational/logical type fields, while women seem to gravitate towards fields requiring a higher emotional intelligence? 

So is the politically correct view necessarily the scientifically correct view?

I actually don't disagree with any of what caliq wrote in that quote in a general sense. Boys are girls are raised differently, and these differences do result in different behaviors than would be observed if they were always raised in the same manner. I simply believe that from well before the origin of our species, there were biological reasons that led women to be the primary caretakers of children more frequently than men, and that these differences are at the root of our societal expectations. Females are the primary caregivers in practically all primate species (as well as most other mammals). Why would it not be the case in humans? In other words, why should we assume that in a perfectly egalitarian society - where men and women are viewed as equals by everyone, and everyone is free to make lifestyle choices as they please - that women and men would choose to be the primary caregivers in equal numbers? I don't believe this would be the case, because there are biological reasons that could swing the pendulum towards women being the primary caregivers in greater numbers than men. Notably, the flood of oxytocin released during childbirth and breastfeeding, which are two activities that men will still be unable to perform even in this hypothetical society. I'm not arguing against the need for equality of opportunity for men and women - of course I want my son and daughter to have the freedom to pursue whatever path in life fulfills them the most - but I simply don't believe that equality of opportunity will (or should) inherently lead to the equality of results.

[rockstache]

The only point where I think we have a real difference /real discrimination is when you're talking about the less-educated manual-labor jobs.  A man with no education can still earn a pretty decent wage by working his tail off in construction (or similar).  A woman with no education doesn't have the physical strength to equal that . . . so she's going to earn a lower wage as a shop clerk or a factory worker.

That pay for labor doesn't come without risk.  Earlier I said men get killed 11 times more often at work than women, but it looks like as of the 2012 numbers, they get killed 12 times as often with 4277 men killed at work versus just 351 women.  Riskier jobs that get you killed more frequently should pay more, IMHO.

I don't disagree with you. For example, a high-school graduate male soldier is risking his life every day; a high-school graduate female receptionist isn't. 

You could also say that comfort in the work place is worth something:  The soldier is involved in heavily physical work, in extreme temperatures, and away from home.  In contrast, the receptionist sits in an air conditioned room, can drink coffee all day while she works, and has access to clean bathrooms.   Even if you consider a more physical typical female job -- perhaps waiting tables -- it's easier.  The waitress might lift heavy trays, but she gets breaks, a meal, and at the end of the evening she gets into her personal car and drives to her own home. 

The point:  When you're looking at entry-level workers with little education, men tend to do harder, more physical work -- yes, that often does come with more danger, and I can see why it pays more. 

But when you move into the world of professional jobs, I think these differences disappear -- at least in most jobs.  I mean, in my teaching job, I know the guys make the same thing I do (for same experience).  I strongly suspect my engineer husband would say the same thing about his co-workers.

Of course the beautiful thing is that women can choose to be soldiers (or do many trade type jobs) and men can choose to be receptionists and the like - and both have been able to make those choices for decades now. The question to ask then - is why don't more women go into those uncomfortable often dangerous hard jobs? Most women are 100% physically capable of doing those jobs (and as a feminine, not uber muscular woman who has done them herself I have found you don't need to be extraordinary) so what holds them back from embracing those higher paying jobs?

If I had to guess, I would say foresight, and knowing that when  you are hard on your body in a job like that, it starts to give out on you  faster than it would have otherwise. At least that is what I always thought about, and young men tend to think they're invincible (stereotyping, I know).  My mom suggested I learn to be a plumber because of the money in it. I went into the Navy instead.

[Zikoris]

I think a big reason women choose not to get into demanding careers is that even if they don't want to have kids now, they know that will at some point and are planning for that. It's a reality of biology that there's a time limit for women on the whole reproduction thing, so if that's something you want, you kind of have to plan for it early on.

[deborah]

I think a big reason women choose not to get into demanding careers is that even if they don't want to have kids now, they know that will at some point and are planning for that. It's a reality of biology that there's a time limit for women on the whole reproduction thing, so if that's something you want, you kind of have to plan for it early on.

"Demanding careers" are generally seen as ones requiring degrees, rather than hard physical work. As both Sol and I have said, women are the majority of people entering/finishing degrees, so girls are obviously choosing "demanding careers" more often than boys!

[Cressida]

So is the politically correct view necessarily the scientifically correct view?

I actually don't disagree with any of what caliq wrote in that quote in a general sense. Boys are girls are raised differently, and these differences do result in different behaviors than would be observed if they were always raised in the same manner. I simply believe that from well before the origin of our species, there were biological reasons that led women to be the primary caretakers of children more frequently than men, and that these differences are at the root of our societal expectations. Females are the primary caregivers in practically all primate species (as well as most other mammals). Why would it not be the case in humans? In other words, why should we assume that in a perfectly egalitarian society - where men and women are viewed as equals by everyone, and everyone is free to make lifestyle choices as they please - that women and men would choose to be the primary caregivers in equal numbers? I don't believe this would be the case, because there are biological reasons that could swing the pendulum towards women being the primary caregivers in greater numbers than men. Notably, the flood of oxytocin released during childbirth and breastfeeding, which are two activities that men will still be unable to perform even in this hypothetical society. I'm not arguing against the need for equality of opportunity for men and women - of course I want my son and daughter to have the freedom to pursue whatever path in life fulfills them the most - but I simply don't believe that equality of opportunity will (or should) inherently lead to the equality of results.

"In the case of animals and prehistoric humans, females gestated the babies and therefore were responsible for raising them" is a fact. However, that fact does not demonstrate that women as a rule are "biologically" or "naturally" more nurturing than men. Raising children is an action. Nurturing is a character trait. You can't generalize from the one to the other, as anyone with a cold standoffish parent can attest.

[Zikoris]

I think a big reason women choose not to get into demanding careers is that even if they don't want to have kids now, they know that will at some point and are planning for that. It's a reality of biology that there's a time limit for women on the whole reproduction thing, so if that's something you want, you kind of have to plan for it early on.

"Demanding careers" are generally seen as ones requiring degrees, rather than hard physical work. As both Sol and I have said, women are the majority of people entering/finishing degrees, so girls are obviously choosing "demanding careers" more often than boys!

They get degrees, but make totally different career choices. Look at medical specialties - among part time pediatricians, what's the gender breakdown? Compared to full-time shift-working ER doctors? It's fairly similar for most fields - women overall tend to choose totally different career paths.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

"In the case of animals and prehistoric humans, females gestated the babies and therefore were responsible for raising them" is a fact. However, that fact does not demonstrate that women as a rule are "biologically" or "naturally" more nurturing than men. Raising children is an action. Nurturing is a character trait. You can't generalize from the one to the other, as anyone with a cold standoffish parent can attest.

But you're generalizing as well, on the basis of having a cold, standoffish parent. You wouldn't consider it a valid argument if I told you that my wife is more caring and compassionate towards our children than I am, and my mother was more nurturing in comparison to my father, and therefore this is the natural order of things and the way things should be. You may have convinced yourself that's what I'm saying, but it's not. Once again: I'm talking about averages, not individuals. You're trying to use individuals to disprove the existence of averages.

[sol]

I think cressida is trying to use individuals to disprove your generalizations and absolutes.  Not the same thing as averages.

The point here is that neither individual anecdotes nor averages really matter.  What matters is that each individual is free to choose a path free of anyone else's disapproving judgment about what is proper.  You wouldn't claim that men can't be good nurses just because, on average, most nurses are women, would you?  Same thing.

[Cressida]

"In the case of animals and prehistoric humans, females gestated the babies and therefore were responsible for raising them" is a fact. However, that fact does not demonstrate that women as a rule are "biologically" or "naturally" more nurturing than men. Raising children is an action. Nurturing is a character trait. You can't generalize from the one to the other, as anyone with a cold standoffish parent can attest.

But you're generalizing as well, on the basis of having a cold, standoffish parent. You wouldn't consider it a valid argument if I told you that my wife is more caring and compassionate towards our children than I am, and my mother was more nurturing in comparison to my father, and therefore this is the natural order of things and the way things should be. You may have convinced yourself that's what I'm saying, but it's not. Once again: I'm talking about averages, not individuals. You're trying to use individuals to disprove the existence of averages.

? You've badly misrepresented what I said.

In any case: Regarding your comments in this thread, I've continually made a specific claim, which is that there is no evidence that women are "biologically" or "naturally" more nurturing than men. Nothing you just said addresses that point, so I'm not going to engage with it.

[Mississippi Mudstache]

I think cressida is trying to use individuals to disprove your generalizations and absolutes.  Not the same thing as averages.

The point here is that neither individual anecdotes nor averages really matter.  What matters is that each individual is free to choose a path free of anyone else's disapproving judgment about what is proper.  You wouldn't claim that men can't be good nurses just because, on average, most nurses are women, would you?  Same thing.

Oh, for fuck's sake. I agree with you. Who/what are you arguing with? I sincerely regret stepping into this shit pile.

[Ynari]

I find the talk about averages vs individuals a bit upthread very interesting.  It highlights how two people can seem to be talking about the same thing, but if they don't decide on the proper measure, they will both have different results from the same inputs.

If, on average, women and men have different outcomes, but, individually, most have similar support, opportunities, and consequences, then the differences may truly be a result of "choice."  I would have no problem if this is how society was, no matter what I may believe of nature vs. nurture.

If, on average, women and men have the same outcomes, but, individually, a large portion of people are corralled into a specific life due to support, opportunities, and consequences, then that *seems* to be equal but really it just means that society really fucked up big by focusing on fixing the measure of the problem and not the problem itself.

I think focusing on average outcomes irrespective of individual inputs is unproductive. (It'd be like saying "People in poor countries aren't overweight, so they must be healthy." In this case, and in most, weight is a poor measure for health. Similarly, the wage gap may be an indicator that something is wrong, but it is not a good measure for "level of sexism".)  We need a different measure. I don't know what that would be, though.