On Mon, 13 Mar 2017 at 00:03, Ron Teitelbaum <ron@3dicc.com> wrote:
Hi Anthony,
No I absolutely do mean it this way and there is some good research to back it up.
https://futureoflife.org/2016/06/13/collective-intelligence-of-women-save-wo...
This study, and all others like it, operate in the context of the existing social structures i.e. women being trained in certain ways, and moulded by society. So such behaviour and ways of interacting is in no way intrinsic to their sex. The very attempts that we are making towards equality, will, ironically, eliminate this difference. When the sexes are equal, raised in equal environments with no sex-specific induction into ways of thinking or modes of operation, then there will be fundamentally no difference in the interaction styles and potentials. This is my point about this way of thinking i.e. 'women are better at X'. Any quality that can be ascribed to a group that is not strictly biological, must be environmental. And hence will be socially determined. The idea of non-discrimination applied from birth would seem to preclude such qualities being correlated with intrinsic characteristics. And as a direct counter-example - what would those studies say about trans-women and trans-men? If the response is 'well, it depends how they were raised', then there goes the biological link. Hence, my point that to say that women are intrinsically better (or worse) at anything, or have intrinsic qualities, means that you are either ascribing such qualities to biology, or making a distinction that is fundamentally dependent on existing forms of discrimination i.e 'women raised/trained/moulded in this-or-that society are ...'. But this is so off topic for this list at this point ... Cheers, Antony Blakey.