Neuroscience

Stossel: The Science Around Male Brains vs. Female Brains

It's politically correct to say men and women are mentally the same, but Stossel lays out science that says otherwise.

|

HD Download

Lately, we've been hearing that men and women are biologically the same.

A BBC video claims, "There seems to be no purely male brains versus female brains."

"Seems like we're just not that different after all," echoes HuffPost.

Politically correct corporations act as if that were true. When Google engineer James Damore merely suggested that biological differences might explain why half the people in tech are not women, he was fired.

Professor Gina Rippon recently wrote a book that confirms the popular narrative. "New neuroscience that shatters the myth of the female brain" is the subtitle.

Rippon tells Stossel it's important to tell people that that men's and women's brains are the same, so people don't mindlessly follow gender stereotypes.

Stossel pushes back, "It's not natural that in school, more boys want to play football and more girls want to do ballet? I want to run and bang into people."

Rippon responds: "Well, I think actually girls might want to run and bang into people, but because there's an image that girls don't do that, they're stopped from doing that."

That's popular to say, but Stossel has covered research that shows big innate differences. In one experiment, students were blindfolded and then walked through the maze of tunnels. They were then asked which direction they'd moved. Men had a much better sense of that than women.

In another experiment, students were left in a cluttered room to wait. Later, women were much better at remembering all kinds of details about that room. Men were more likely to say: "I dunno, some stuff."

Of course, the students may already have been molded by a sexist society, Stossel notes. But newborns also show gender differences. Boys tend to look longer at objects, like tractor parts, while infant girls stared more at faces.

Stossel asks Rippon about that, who responds: "If you look very closely at the data, a third of the girls actually seem to respond more to the tractor parts than the boys."

"A third," Stossel repeats.

"A third," Rippon replies.

"But two-thirds didn't!" Stossel retorts.

Rippon says the study should be redone. "Do it again with a bigger set of newborns [and] a better controlled set of stimuli."

Evolutionary psychologist Diana Fleischman says there's overwhelming evidence of biological differences.

"Cultures around the world show very similar differences between men and women," she points out. "Men are more likely to seek status, women are more likely to take care of children. Women are more likely to stay in the home. Men are more likely to do dangerous, aggressive things like go to war."

Stossel pushes back: "Because we men have been socialized: 'Work's important!' And you women have been told by your mothers, 'Take care of the kids.'"

"Why would you see that across every culture in the world?" Fleischman responds.

"Even if you look at nonhuman animals…monkeys…they don't have culture, yet there's still these very large differences between males and females," she adds. In those species, too, males focus on war and status, while females nurture children.

Among scientists, these differences are well-accepted, Stossel notes. The journal Neuroscience cited 70 studies that found differences.

Stossel asked Gina about some of the most obvious mental differences.

"I stutter. Most stutterers are boys. It's not a brain difference?"

"Yeah, yeah. There are those kinds of brain differences and I'm definitely not a brain difference denier," Rippon replied.

"It's kind of how you've been presented by much of the media," Stossel responds.

The journal Nature, for example, ran an uncritical review of her book headlined, "Neurosexism: the myth that men and women have different brains."

The Guardian summarized her book with: "Are there any significant differences based on sex alone? The answer, she says, is no."

"Perhaps they haven't read the book," Rippon says.

Fleishman argues: "Gina Rippon seems to be a sex difference denier depending on kind of what audience that she's talking to."

In her speeches, Rippon does say things like: "They're thinking there's differences between men and women. People like me stand up and say 'actually no, there's not.'"

"It's an incredibly alluring message," Fleischman says. "It's really sad that it's not right."

Rippon worries that talk of sex difference will increase sexism, but Fleischman notes that minimizing sex differences can hurt people, too, by pushing them into fields they're not naturally suited for. Politicians pass laws to force "equality."

"Saying that men and women have different aptitudes isn't sexism. It's actually a statement about the true nature of the world," Fleischman says. "If we keep saying that those differences in what men and women choose to do are because of sexism, nobody's going to end up happy with what they're doing, and we're going to keep making laws to remedy what's actually just the result of freedom."

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel; his independent production company, Stossel Productions; and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.

NEXT: University of Louisville Students Can't Sue Escort for Exposing Prostitution in the Louisville Basketball Program

HD Download

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Cool. This whole argument is yet more proof that neither men nor women can even begin to think probabilistically.

    1. Boys tend to look longer at objects, like tractor parts, while infant girls stared more at faces.

      Sex robots will make us all equal.

      1. random threesomes will be less risky

        1. You’re obviously not familiar with “Electro-Gonorrhea, The Noisy Killer”

    2. Agreed. Both sides are arguing using the language of binary propositions rather than acknowledging that these are overlapping bell curves. It’s sloppy logic caused by simplistic representations of the data. A single average is far less informative than a graph of the raw data.

      1. And people get that wrong a lot too (not saying you do). Men and women are more the same than different overall. But at the extremes you see some big differences.

      2. It’s perverse really. If anyone outside science should be receptive to concepts of uncertainty/etc, it is anyone who has read Hayek (or Popper). From Use of Knowledge to Studies in the Abuse of Reason to Sensory Order. All the stuff where he seems to have lost interest in economic/social post WW2 – applied the notion of ‘spontaneous order’ and ‘distributed knowledge’ to the brain and neural networks and science – before then coming back to economic/social stuff later in life.

        I guess the desire for easy answers and simple explanations is a pretty powerful thang.

      3. I think the best way to convey this concept to people is physical strength, say the bench press. The average guy can obviously lift more than most women. But a few women, particularly those who strength train, can lift much more than the average man. Men who strength train, though, can obviously lift more than any woman, though. Just look at the Olympics for evidence. This also applies to sprinting, distance running, etc. Why wouldn’t it also apply (one way or the other) to mental and emotional skills?

        But you have no way of knowing a priori which women (or men) will be at the top or bottom of a given curve until they try. That’s why it’s important to give all kids a broad education so they can see what they want to do. Then, as they get older, you treat them more and more like individuals. Ultimately no one should care about how diverse a given career field is because it was populated by individuals, each acting in their own self-interest.

        1. “Then, as they get older, you treat them more and more like individuals.”

          You’re new to this planet, aren’t you?

      4. I’m a woman, who spent most of her working career in STEM disciplines (computer programming, network admin, physics and chemistry teacher). Even in STEM careers, men and women function differently.

        Women are more apt to form single-sex teams. Women can be unbelievably bitchy – and ruthless – in cutting out their rivals from competition. They are MORE likely to use gossip and rumors to tank a rival’s career.

        Side note: MOST of the women in STEM careers have an unusual hand configuration – most women have a shorter ring finger, compared to the index finger. In STEM women, they are MORE likely to have a ring finger that is equal to, or longer than, the index finger – just like the typical male hand.

      5. “Both sides are arguing using the language of binary propositions rather than acknowledging that these are overlapping bell curves.”

        Bingo.

        1. Thank you for saying this.

      6. Speaking of bell curves, the IQ curve for men is flatter than that for women. So basically, men and women have the same AVERAGE IQ, but once you get to about 110 on the scale, men outnumber women, and the further out you go, the greater the difference.

        Of course, on the other end of the scale, there are more really dumb men.

        But competition takes place on the high end of the scale. Companies that recognize that once you get beyond merely “bright”, men are going to utterly dominate women in IQ won’t bother to hire most women for jobs that require great intelligence.

        It’s like sports. We know that across the board women are inferior to men in sports. The proof is quite simple. Men’s sports pay a lot more. So if women were capable of competing against men, they would do it and earn more money. But they can’t, so they don’t.

    3. This whole argument is yet more proof that neither men nor women can even begin to think probabilistically.

      This statement falsely assumes probability definitively explains anything.

      1. It doesn’t have to definitively explain anything in order to be useful.

        1. Sorry, I guess I wasn’t highlighting the scientism inherent in the statement enough; “Proof positive that 100% of men and women don’t think rightly about probability” doesn’t mean probability is the key to solving the problem or that there even is a problem for probability to solve.

    4. True. And that just feeds the “gender dysphoria” or trans-sex fad.

  2. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.

    The LeBron James of disclaimers.

    It’s interesting that the most vocal defenders of the theory that there are no differences in the genders’ brains are women. Listen, ladies, you can’t both wage your little war on men and also want so desperately to be the same. It’s perverse. YOU’VE BEEN MANSPLAINED.

    1. Chairman James was so elucidating on china yesterday. You’re just not educated enough if you dont support chinas assaults and murders on it’s people.

      1. As long as the rest of them can buy NBA crap, right?

        1. Just wait until the Chinese start telling the NBA their aren’t enough yellow men on the court.

      2. Oh, yes, of course! And anyone who does NOT support Der TrumpfenFuhrer’s protectionist policies (selectively “protecting” politically favored entities in the USA), and goes and buys a few plastic toys made by “Chinese slaver labor”, and resents taxes (tariffs)… THESE are the ogres who “support chinas (sic, should be China’s) assaults and murders on it’s (sic, should be its) people”.

        Trade wars one everyone, is a stepping stone to shooting wars on everyone!

  3. Stossel pushes back: “Because we men have been socialized: ‘Work’s important!’ And you women have been told by your mothers, ‘Take care of the kids.'”

    Damn. Stossel is OLD!

    1. He tries to challenge everyone he interviews, even the people he agrees with – and really, isn’t this what the socialization theory amounts to, that sexist parents imported from the Fifties are teaching sexism to their helpless offspring?

  4. I would not disagree that there are differences. I think the push for equality is over concern that talented women get overlooked. Crick, Watson and Wilkin won a noble prize for the discovery of DNA structure and Rosalind Franklin was shut out. We need a to recognize the difference while allowing talent to show through and be recognized. I also think the differences mean that to be truly democratic we need more women in Congress. We need those differences to be working for us to be the most representative we can be.

    1. Those feminists you’re trying to impress still arent going to fuck you.

      1. The fact that his comment triggered you so shows that deep down, you are still frightened by women, Jesse.

    2. “I also think the differences mean that to be truly democratic we need more women in Congress.”

      Agreed.

      Except for Tulsi Gabbard — I’d support a privileged straight white cis-male over her.

      #ElectWomen
      #(UnlessItBenefitsRussia)

      1. Really? What the problem with Tulsi, she seems pretty straight forward to me? She is not my first choice for President, but I have no problem with her in Congress. I like her skepticism about foreign interventions.

        1. It’s a parody account.

    3. At the risk of seeming like the cynical old crank that I am, I have found that whatever you or I think the Congress needs our political process will not deliver it. If a woman (or a man for that matter) gets elected to Congress it’s usually for the wrong reasons.

      1. I appreciate your cynicism, but I cannot help but wonder if Congress would function better if male/female ratio were closer to that of the population. Particularly if their were more Republican women. The small mass of Republican women in Congress limits them from presenting their view point. I think they are forced to tow a party line primarily developed by their male colleagues.

        1. If more Republican women means more Susan Collinses, what’s the point?

          If it means someone with actual freedom-philosophy convictions, she’ll be portrayed as a cat’s-paw for men. And her male colleagues will probably sideline her for political not sexist reasons.

          1. I don’t see Susan Collins as the model here. To me Senator Collins is more the remnant of the northeast Republican. Like Lowell Wicker, Nelson Rockefeller or Lincoln Chaffee. I like to see a broad swash of Republican women from the South, Midwest, and West. I noted that Republican tend to offer up seats to women candidates in competitive districts and hold reliable Republican districts for men. I like to see that change.

      2. If a woman (or a man for that matter) gets elected to Congress it’s usually for the wrong reasons.

        So you’re saying that AOC got elected by being a pretty girl in a soft district?

    4. Of course there are brain differences between men and women. The problem is when you try to extrapolate that conclusion to justify your prejudices and claim such nonsense as women are not interested in science (James Damore) or that women aren’t smart enough to be libertarians (Walter Bloch).

      1. In general, women are NOT as interested in the sciences as men.

        That’s not a prejudice. It’s a fact.

        People act as if this ‘get more women into science’ thing started yesterday–but it didn’t. It was already a thing in my father’s day.

        It’s been at least thirty years since there were any ‘sexism’ based barriers to women going into STEM fields.

        The preference has been revealed.

        1. Totally disagree. If you looked at a hospital laboratory in your father’s days you would likely see that the lab was primarily filled with women that did the yeomen’s work producing medical data. This was because this was one of the limited area of science that woman could work. You might also read “Hidden Figures” you will note that Katherine Johnson a brilliant mathematician was limited to computing because no Mathematic PhD programs accepted woman (much less a black woman). This is the problem that “in general” becomes a stop for the truly talented.

        2. If anything it’s the reverse at this point. Companies are begging women to apply for STEM jobs, especially in software. Women have an enormous advantage in making a career in STEM compared to men of equal skill and intelligence.

          1. It may be worth noting that software companies have been notorious for having myogenetic work environments. I think that will change as more woman join the firms, but like Congress you need to get a large enough group of women to insure all concerns are addressed.

  5. monkeys…they don’t have culture

    Bullshit. If primates live in large social groups, they have culture. It’s been shown that different large groups of the same species of apes and monkeys have slightly different ways of interacting with each other, ie different cultures.

    1. Bullshit. If primates live in large social groups, they have culture. It’s been shown that different large groups of the same species of apes and monkeys have slightly different ways of interacting with each other, ie different cultures.

      Ants live in large social groups. Do ants have culture, Juice?

      1. Culture requires passing on knowledge from one generation to the next. AFAIK, ants don’t do that. Many mammals do. In particular, it has been proven for whales and dolphins.

        1. Gender roles are encoded into the genome, physiological, and psychological structures much lower than culture. Large swaths of the animal kingdom have clear and well defined gender roles without anything resembling culture.

          The idea that gender roles, with or without culture, preceded sexual dimorphism is laughably idiotic.

          1. I was simply arguing that some animals do have culture and responding to your ant question.

        2. “ants don’t do that”

          How do they manage to maintain colony coherence over time? They have odors that identify the colony from outside which young ants are presumably expected to master if they are to lead successful lives in the colony.

          1. They have odors that identify the colony from outside which young ants are presumably expected to master if they are to lead successful lives in the colony.

            ‘Master’? Why do you assume neural pathways can’t just be hard wired naturally? I mean, it’s not like it happens billions of times every second of every day or anything.

            1. “Why do you assume neural pathways can’t just be hard wired naturally?”

              Because it’s a boring, anthropocentric hypothesis without scientific evidence to back it up. I’ve always been a fan of ants and have spend hours as a lad closely observing their comings and goings. I am inclined to view ants having agency and cleverness that go beyond first appearances.

              1. Because it’s a boring, anthropocentric hypothesis without scientific evidence to back it up.

                You mean aside from the fact that, even in man, nerves get hardwired to perform specific functions trillions of times a day every day.

                I am inclined to view ants having agency and cleverness that go beyond first appearances.

                Only an infantile mind would assume that hard wiring absolutely precludes agency and cleverness.

                1. What is this ‘hard wiring’ you speak of? There are no wires in a typical ant’s brain. You are mistaking the metaphor for the truth. The map for the territory. Show me the evidence, and I may be more sympathetic.

                  1. You are mistaking the metaphor for the truth. The map for the territory.

                    I’m not mistaking anything. The autonomic, peripheral, and even large parts of the central nervous system in humans is hard wired. Nobody learns how to brain stem or fight or flight, the behavior is hard-wired. The ‘odors they are expected to master’ fall into this category. The odors may vary from colony to colony, but they are classed between colonies and consistent within colonies. Being more clear; ants don’t learn the ‘mating odor’ and any differentiation they make between the ‘mating odor’ and any ‘warning odor’ or ‘foraging odor’ they know upon experiencing the odor for the first time. That, of course, doesn’t mean they can’t be reconditioned or alter their behavior in response to any particular odor, it just means that the overwhelmingly predictable and direct response is determined prior to birth.

                    Similarly, some humans use their left thumb and index finger to grasp a pencil and some use their right and while the capacity to write with two index fingers isn’t unlearnable the motor pathways for such aren’t as hardwired as the others.

                    1. “Nobody learns how to brain stem or fight or flight, the behavior is hard-wired.”

                      Humans don’t learn to blush either. But octopuses do. They have remarkable control over their skin pigmentation. Just because you can’t conceive that humans are capable of a certain power, doesn’t mean that other living things are bound to follow suit. It’s an anthropocentric conception that ants are essentially zombies without self-awareness or agency. It’s a boring hypothesis and it’s entirely lacking in evidence.

                    2. It’s an anthropocentric conception that ants are essentially zombies without self-awareness or agency.

                      First, in your false framework it’s only anthropocentric if I assert that only humans have free will, which I haven’t. The majority of their responses aren’t taught or learned is clearly different than the idea that all of their responses aren’t taught or learned.

                      Second, maybe 50 yrs. ago this idiotic ‘determinism vs. free will’ reduction may’ve been considerable case. Since that time we’ve made inroads and developed insights into the nature of complexity and emergent phenomenon. We’ve long realized that you can have strictly deterministic rules produce non-deterministic outcomes. Ants can be strictly programmed according to their genetics and biology and still encounter phenomenon not described by their programming.

                      It’s a boring hypothesis and it’s entirely lacking in evidence.

                      It’s not a hypothesis. The only reason we know what pheromones are is because of the hard-wired response they invariably elicit without regard for prior ‘training’. It’s practically essential to the definition. You are, however, correct that there is absolutely no evidence to support the straw man you’ve propped up.

                    3. “Ants can be strictly programmed according to their genetics and biology ”

                      But there is no evidence for this. It’s idealistic dogma. You’re just substituting genetics for god or some other overarching principle. This is not my style.

                      “The only reason we know what pheromones are is because of the hard-wired response they invariably elicit without regard for prior ‘training’. ”

                      But how any ant will react to certain stimuli in the colony in a social context is by no means certain. It’s certainly not encoded in their genes.

          2. Individual ants do learn. However, to have culture, information needs to be passed on to the next generation, and ants are not able to do that. Cultural evolution is Lamarckian.

            1. “However, to have culture, information needs to be passed on to the next generation”

              But ant colonies exist on time scales that are much larger than the life span of individual ants. The methods that ants use to identify themselves and others must be passed on somehow. Pheromones, I guess, the chemicals ants produce to communicate all manner of essential colony functions and lifestyles.

              1. There is no evidence that pheromones can pass information from one generation of ants to the next.

                1. The odors of the pheromones are the information that has to be mastered if a young ant is to live in the colony.

                  1. Excuse me, MASTERED? They either do it or don’t.

                    1. Yeah, mtrueman, likes to take words to have very different meanings than what they actually indicate and completely ignore the obvious implications of the mutated definitions he’s weaving together.

                      By his own definitions and tenets;
                      -Ants that don’t think and learn are zombies.
                      -Even plants, without neurons adapt and adaptation is a form of learning.

                      So, technically, even zombies could learn. But ants aren’t zombies because that wouldn’t be libertarian.

                    2. “Excuse me, MASTERED?”

                      Yes, mastered. I’m just teasing you though, using mastered, a word I know that will offend you, instead of ‘learned,’ which probably won’t offend your sensibilities as much.

              2. The methods are encoded in their genes. That is not culture.

                1. What genes? Again, like the ‘hard wired’ argument, this hypothesis gives us leave to consider ants as little more than zombies without agency. Quite the opposite of a libertarian approach to animal behaviour.

                  1. Quite the opposite of a libertarian approach to animal behaviour.

                    It’s not even wrong.

                    The genes for pheromone production and reception are encoded prior to birth. The ant can choose how actively to respond to different concentrations of pheromones and how to react to adverse conditions contraindicating the pheromones message, but they can’t sense a mating pheromone and decide they’d rather forage instead. Moreover, this is the case without a surrounding colony to ‘teach’ signals and responses to the offspring.

                    You’re deliberately misinterpreting what’s being written as having some higher philosophical meaning than it actually does.

                    1. “The genes for pheromone production and reception are encoded prior to birth. The ant can choose how actively to respond to different concentrations of pheromones and how to react to adverse conditions contraindicating the pheromones message, but they can’t sense a mating pheromone and decide they’d rather forage instead.”

                      The encoding is there right at the beginning, but how these codes finally find their form in an adult is essential to understand how genes work. It’s an unavoidable interaction with the environment that makes each ant a unique individual, and it’s perfectly plausible that some ants will behave differently given conflicting signals. You have no evidence to back up your assertions which strike me as dogma. You seem intent on underselling the mental capacity of the species, even though their brains are proportionally larger than ours.

                      My notion is libertarian in that it gives primacy to the individual. Even extends it to the insects.

                    2. My notion is libertarian in that it gives primacy to the individual. Even extends it to the insects.

                      An individual that doesn’t know anything intrinsically, even pheromone responses that are hard wired and is wholly reliant on the society around it to teach it what the world means?

                      You can cram that abstract view and all the evidence you would need, but don’t have, to support it right up your ass. You aren’t a libertarian, you’ve said as much. This claim that you adhere to the tenets of libertarianism when ‘doing science’ is utter bullshit.

                    3. “An individual that doesn’t know anything intrinsically, even pheromone responses that are hard wired and is wholly reliant on the society around it to teach it what the world means?”

                      Not sure what you are asking here. Libertarianism gives primacy to the individual and the choices the individual makes.

        3. Culture requires passing on knowledge from one generation to the next.

          I’m not sure this is true.

          AFAIK, ants don’t do that.

          Ants receive ‘training’, so yes, they DO pass on knowledge

          That makes this–

          Many mammals do. In particular, it has been proven for whales and dolphins.

          Moot.

          Culture is what forms when survival needs require so little time to meet that animals create things to do in that free time.

          Prior to that, everything–even the passing on of knowledge–is subsistence.

        4. “Culture requires passing on knowledge from one generation to the next.”

          Nice ass pull.

          Culture is not exclusively (or even inclusively) generational. It has little to do with progeny and everything to do with socialization.

          The real question is: Do ants exhibit any socializing behaviors?

          I’m inclined to say no, ant behaviors are pretty much hard wired.

          1. “The real question is: Do ants exhibit any socializing behaviors?”

            Yes, ants are compulsive communicators. I’m not sure what you mean by ant behaviour being hard wired. They don’t have any wires in their body and are animals, not machines. You are letting your metaphors get in the way of understanding. The map is not the territory as William S. Burroughs, author of the controversial classic Naked Lunch, said.

  6. Stossel? I thought that was HL Mencken…

  7. “Saying that men and women have different aptitudes isn’t sexism. It’s actually a statement about the true nature of the world,” Fleischman says.

    Would women ever say that? Well, maybe a third.

    1. Lots of women say that. They just mostly talk about the ones where women come out ahead. It’s apparently sexist to point out that it goes both ways.

  8. Actual brain science: let’s work hard to get the best objective data, and use that to understand where male and female brains differ.

    Progressive brain science: we have already decided that male and female brains are not different (except for special contexts where women are better), so let’s work hard to deny any data or analyses that suggest a difference.

    1. Actual brain science: let’s work hard to get the best objective data, and use that to understand where male and female brains differ.

      That sounds exactly like the sort of thing a man would say, privileging facts and logic and reason and rigid rule-based thinking over feelings and instinct and intuition and other ways of knowing.

      But, let me hasten to add, it also sounds exactly like the sort of thing a woman would say. Because there’s no difference between the ways men and women think.

    2. Progressive brain science: we have already decided that male and female brains are not different (except for special contexts where women are better), so let’s work hard to deny any data or analyses that suggest a difference.

      Brains, male, female, black, white, intellectuals, and dullards, are all the same. Real diversity comes from the amount of melanin in someone’s skin and should be celebrated wherever it is found in sufficient concentrations.

  9. It’s an incredibly alluring message

    For the life of me, I can’t understand why this would be alluring. Maybe if you were a simpleton and the world were already too complex.

    1. So, most progressives, then?

  10. Next you’re going to tell us that men and women have different genitalia! Absurd! Obviously, you’re some kind of right wing Christian fundamentalist who believes in divine biological determinism!

    1. Yep. Us idiot fundamentalists also make up over 55% of the world’s population. And that does not include the equally crazy Jews.
      So as long as we allow parody, have your fun.

  11. Can’t say men and women are different, because these differences can be turned into value judgments. Same with race or sexuality. To say one is different from another is to say one is better than the other. And that is not allowed. Well, it is allowed when the white, heterosexual male is the inferior one, but that’s it.

    The only differences you are allowed to point out are choices, like politics. Then you can say that one political view is better or worse than another, as long as the view furthest to the left is the superior one.

    1. “Well, it is allowed when the white, heterosexual male is the inferior one, but that’s it.”

      You poor victim, you.

      1. You poor victim, you.

        He’s only a victim if you give a shit about equality.

        1. He’s only a victim if he wants to be, lucky victim, him.

          1. I’m fairly certain he’s being facetious in his adoption of other’s idiotic quest for absolute equality. You’re the one who took him to be speaking in earnest as though equality were a or his reasonable goal.

            1. I think his resentment is absolutely sincere, honest, heartfelt and contemptible.

              1. Because you don’t believe in equality one way or the other.

                1. I’m pretty fond of tautology, and that’s about as equal as equality gets.

              2. Fair enough. And the rest of us think your willful misinterpretation of his motivation is absolutely sincere, heartfelt and contemptible.

                1. I’m not interested in what motivates his resentment.

          2. No, he’s not a “victim” just because you call him one. He’s simply pointing out the reality of societal bias. And it’s childish to attack someone just because you can’t handle reality.

            1. “No, he’s not a “victim” just because you call him one. ”

              He’s calling himself a victim, whining about the troubles of being a white (that’s right, he said white) heterosexual male.

              1. The one whining here is you.

            2. Do you think anyone suffered from social bias before white heterosexual males in the 21st century? Just trying to calibrate.

              1. Who says white males are suffering? It’s an observation about the world, not a personal complaint. Whiny white dudes need to get over it too.

  12. If men’s and women’s brains are all the same, then 93% or so of jailbirds being men in jails and prisons v/s 7% of jailbirds being women, is a HUGE injustice! Let violent men free ASAP, or round up and imprison some innocent babes ASAP!!! The numbers must be FORCED to match, or else there is continued horrible injustice!

    1. ” Let violent men free ASAP,”

      Most men aren’t in prison due to violence, I believe, but for economic crimes like fraud, theft etc. This shouldn’t be surprising as men have traditionally been responsible for the upkeep of the family. One area where women are more likely to be jailed than men is infanticide. Far more women are in jail for murdering children than men, again not surprising as women have been traditionally responsible for raising children.

      1. Most violent crime is committed by males, most of them between 16 and 30. After 35 the number of violent offenders drops precipitously.
        When a woman does commit a violent crime, it’s usually in the company of a male or else violence to her own child. Usually.

      2. Murder victims under the age of 8 are more likely to be murdered by their mothers. Child murder victims who are 8 and older, however, are more likely to be murdered by their fathers. Almost all children murdered by parents have been physically abused by them beforehand.
        Murder is the fifth highest cause of death for children, and almost two thirds of the victims are murdered by a parent.

      3. Most men who are serving sentences in prison (not just locked up in county awaiting bail) are there for either drug offenses or some violent crime. “Economic offenses” like fraud or car theft represent about 35% of those locked up.

    2. Need to start dosing ~3-5X as many girls for ADHD too.

    3. Good point, SQRLSY One. Since men are undeniably more violent than women, should we perhaps prevent men from being cops?

      Interestingly enough, in Bob Murphy’s ancap novel (I forget the name of it), security services are provided by women decked out in armor and armed only with nets.

      1. “women decked out in armor and armed only with nets”

        Sounds interesting; can we assume consent?

        1. Since men are undeniably more violent than women, should we perhaps prevent men from being cops?

          Great example of why designing rules is hard, there, since there’s at least some evidence that female cops are more likely to have interactions escalate to violence, likely due to perceived threat imbalances on both sides of the interaction.

          1. I’d predict that when physical violence does ensue it would be more likely a female cop would use a gun.
            Six female cops choking a guy selling loosies sounds improbable.

      2. “provided by women decked out in armor and armed only with nets.”

        That’ll cost you triple in Vegas.

  13. Yet the courts will give always award custody of the kids to mom so long as she isn’t dead or in jail, because mothers better than fathers.

  14. no dude I know would have w/o signaling driven his Lexus Egg into the space occupied by my hood, then *not* let the next person in front of him in line who *was* signaling politely

    chicks do that shit because they didn’t grow up on the playground and they don’t know the rules. or they have different brains who knows lol.

  15. Also I have noticed that high-status positions MUST forcefully be filled with women… NASA is saying, not, “best person for the job”, but rather, “next American boots on the Moon MUST include a woman”. Software and hardware high-status engineer and manager jobs MUST have high numbers of women in them! (Google etc.).

    But NO ONE is screaming for more female garbage collectors! At the end of the day, qualified men will be forced out of high-status, high-ability jobs, and settle for… Collecting garbage! And men are supposed to suck it up and shut up about it!

    1. “But NO ONE is screaming for more female garbage collectors! ”

      I reckon most women collect garbage at some point in the day. They just don’t get paid to do it.

      1. I reckon most women collect garbage at some point in the day. They just don’t get paid to do it.

        And the old trope is that they hand the bag to their husband to take to the curb.

        1. The new trope, another husband, another victim.

          1. You’re babbling.

              1. Yes, you babble like a little child.

                  1. You like getting mocked?

                    1. I appreciate your reading my comments. If mockery is what you have to offer in return, I welcome it. If you can manage something else, I appreciate that more,

        2. “And the old trope is that they hand the bag to their husband to take to the curb.”

          That’s exactly how it works at my house and no one is complaining on Twitter about it.

      2. The same can be said of most men.

      3. Women end up wiping up a lot of baby shit and vomit. Though they say more men are now also wiping up baby shit and vomit.

    2. This is not always a bad thing.
      Throughout my life I have learned that having females in the workplace is beneficial because charm and charisma does very little for most men so they’re hard to manipulate into doing what you want them to do. If she thinks you enjoy having her as a co-worker she won’t comprehend that you’re stealing her job out from under her and she may not even realize she helped it happen.
      Guys always seem to catch that and if they don’t expect some form of reprisal.
      My therapist said I’m not a sociopath because I know I do this and I know it isn’t the right thing to do.

    3. And then because women on average want pair off with higher status males (and males generally do not care much about the social status of their mates), there will be complaints are no suitable men available for the high status women.

      1. Some percentage of high status women will have to deal with lower status men or stay single. It’s already happening a lot.

        1. And another percentage of those women are banging the senior partner at their law firm on the side.

  16. “Evolutionary psychologist Diana Fleischman says there’s overwhelming evidence of biological differences.

    “Cultures around the world show very similar differences between men and women,” she points out. “Men are more likely to seek status, women are more likely to take care of children. Women are more likely to stay in the home. Men are more likely to do dangerous, aggressive things like go to war.”

    If the desire to go to war is truly a ‘biological difference,’ then surely this difference would be observable by biologists, (like tissues and structures) and the cultural issues raised in the second paragraph would be irrelevant. As far as I understand things, the male and female reproductive organs are completely different, but our brains, livers, kidneys and other organs are all but indistinguishable.

    1. As far as I understand things, the male and female reproductive organs are completely different, but our brains, livers, kidneys and other organs are all but indistinguishable.

      Completely untrue. Skeletons, hearts, lungs are readily distinguishable post mortem. Individual components (pelvis, skull, jaw, etc.) being &95% accurate and collectively pushing the certainty upwards. Prior to death, there are a host of functional and chemical indicators that are just as, if not more predictive that aren’t strictly genital/morphology-related.

      You’ve, once again, started from an empirically wrong conclusion and are lying over the evidence to affirm your hypothesis.

      1. “Prior to death, there are a host of functional and chemical indicators that are just as, if not more predictive that aren’t strictly genital/morphology-related.”

        You are correct, but the author is trying to make the point that these biological differences account for men’s willingness to go to war. This is my objection. I don’t see any evidence presented that the difference between a man’s and woman’s skeleton or lungs or brains makes the difference. As I mentioned before, if the desire to go to war was due to biological differences between men and women, these differences, if the existed, would be identified.

        1. I merely suspect that war-mongering is more male than female (don’t have data at hand for that). HOWEVER, warmongering is related to empathy versus evil (lack of empathy, psychopathy). The brain science is still a little fuzzy, but the measurements and the knowledge is rolling in and accumulating!

          For those who are serious about studying up on it, I would suggest starting here, if you’re not up to paying for some books to read:

          See
          The Science of Good and Evil, January 2018 National Geographic, by Yudhijit Bhattaharjee , see https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/08/science-good-evil-charlottesville/
          We know enough about brain science by now, that we can MEASURE good (empathy) v/s evil (lack of empathy, psychopathy); that we could test for it!

          1. I find empathy is often overrated. It has to be balanced with logic and tough mindedness for it to function well. Women leaders who are tough minded do a better job as chief executives than those who are too empathetic. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind.

        2. Part of the problem is chicken-and-egg and the potentially inexhaustible motivations for war. Many of the differences I listed are strongly correlated with men’s willingness and ability to combat predators and prey. Whether that constitutes war or correlates strongly to it is a rather ‘eye of the beholder’ issue.

        3. Do men go to war because they are stronger, or are they stronger because they are the more belligerent sex?

          I think they probably go together. In higher primates, I think the situation is about the same. Males are larger and more aggressive. Seems likely that it is an innate sex difference.

    2. Proving yet again that no, you don’t understand things. Forensic pathologists have little difficulty identifying male vs female victims from various organs. And anyone with an fMRI can observe statistically significant differences in brain function.

      1. “And anyone with an fMRI can observe statistically significant differences in brain function.”

        You mean a man’s likeliness to go to war can be observed with such a machine? I am still skeptical.

        1. Wrong. The word is ‘wrong’.

          Not ‘skeptical’

          1. “The word is ‘wrong’.”

            But what’s the evidence that proves I’m wrong? I’ve yet to hear it. Science lives and dies by evidence, not the dogma you want from it.

        2. Very true mtrue.

          When someone says “anyone with an fMRI machine can…” they do not understand what it is.

    3. Your understanding is simply wrong.

      1. In that case what is the difference between a man’s and woman’s brain that makes men more likely to go to war?

        1. No one knows. But there is a lot of pretty compelling evidence that it is the case.

          1. Actually there are historians who maintain that queens were more likely to go to war than kings. Some of them quite ruthless. There are overall more wars initiated by men however men are much more likely to be in positions of power.

            Even in modern history take Golda Meir, Indira Gandhi, or Margret Thatcher.

            There is also a history of female warriors. The Kurds actually have a long history of female fighters for example. Through most of history women were not expected or allowed in combat roles if they had been i expect the list would be much longer.

            While women may lack the physical strength for some combat roles my impression is that when you even things out, say a sniper or pilot, they are just as effective. The role of women in the Soviet military in WW2 bears this out.

          2. “No one knows. But there is a lot of pretty compelling evidence that it is the case.”

            You’re right. But my point is the evidence is not biological in nature. You can’t look down the end of a microscope or at an xray and see it. It comes in the form of sociological statistics or historical anecdotes.

        2. Men are simply more likely to be in charge of countries that go to war. When women are in charge, they are perfectly capable of going to war. From St. Joan to Isabela la Catolica ( who along with her husband managed to throw the Muslims out of Spain) to Margaret Thatcher in the Falklands.
          War isn’t an exclusively male invention.

  17. Rippon worries that talk of sex difference will increase sexism

    You’re not allowed to even speak the truth, lest it threaten the cult of diversity and inclusion.

    1. “You’re not allowed to even speak the truth”

      More shrill more mendacity.

    2. You’re not allowed to even speak the truth, lest it threaten the cult of diversity and inclusion.

      You mean a cult of “diversity” and “inclusion”. The truth the cult of diversity doesn’t want spoken is that brains might function differently. The implication being that there are different brain functions that they can’t or won’t accept or include.

      1. What different brain functions would you have ‘them’ accept or include?

        1. What different brain functions would you have ‘them’ accept or include?

          I don’t want them to include any because I don’t share their delusions about selective and false diversity and superficial inclusiveness. That’s why I said “diversity” and “inclusion”. Maybe you didn’t understand what was written? You seem to be suffering a lot of issues grasping pretty basic facts.

          1. “You seem to be suffering a lot of issues grasping pretty basic facts.”

            Great news. I can be a victim too!

    3. Ben Shapiro interviewed Neil DeGrasse Tyson in a show published this weekend. It was fascinating that with regards to say climate change science must inform.policy and can be trusted to be objective. About a half an hour later Shapiro questioned him about transgender policy and NDT said something to the effect that politicians must he shielded from scientific findings if those findings may influence politicians to limit human freedom. It was one those glorious moments of philosophical disconnect and I am not sure NDT was even aware of the contradiction from what he said earlier.

      1. NDT, being an idiot, is not aware of much.

        He says the things he’s told to, and mopes about the Hayden Planetarium otherwise.

  18. “I want to run and bang into people.”

    That’s not maleness, it’s retardation.

    Anyway, I wouldn’t reject the idea immediately that (on average) male and female brains are different, but the important point is that neither business nor government nor sports nor shopping nor housekeeping are biological functions. Some institutions are built to favor men because men built them. Then they get the idea that men are best at running those institutions.

    But that’s like an overexcited retard saying banging into other people is the best way to go about one’s day, because that’s what the overexcited retard likes doing.

    I recommend Woolf’s A Room of One’s Own. Just because men control everything doesn’t mean only men’s interests matter or that men are the best decision makers. That’s just narcissism.

    1. That’s not maleness, it’s retardation.

      *sigh*

      1. Maleness, retardation, same thing.

      2. Could be latent homosexuality too.

    2. Democracy is obviously sexist.

      1. You would be referring to that thing that in this country didn’t even permit women to participate in until 1920.

        1. Really? In a Libertarian forum, you only recognize federal actions?
          1. Lydia Taft was an early forerunner in Colonial America who was allowed to vote in three New England town meetings, beginning in 1756, at Uxbridge, Massachusetts.
          2. The New Jersey constitution of 1776 enfranchised all adult inhabitants who owned a specified amount of property. Laws enacted in 1790 and 1797 referred to voters as “he or she”, and women regularly voted.
          3. John Allen Campbell, the first Governor of the Wyoming Territory, approved the first law in United States history explicitly granting women the right to vote. The law was approved on December 10, 1869.
          4. Colorado notably enfranchised women by an 1893 referendum.

    3. How would you know what maleness is, Tony? Yours is defective.

      1. Actually I’m kind of an expert.

  19. But newborns also show gender differences. Boys tend to look longer at objects, like tractor parts, while infant girls stared more at faces.

    Stossel asks Rippon about that, who responds: “If you look very closely at the data, a third of the girls actually seem to respond more to the tractor parts than the boys.”

    Anyone who thinks that girls, on average, ever reach the insanity that little boys have towards anything with wheels has never been around children for longer than a few seconds.

    1. How can that be innately biological? Wheels have only been around for 5,500 years. Even retention of lactose tolerance into adulthood took at least 10,000 years to evolve.

      1. How can that be innately biological?

        Unless you’re getting spiritual, it’s all innately biological.

        The idea that it’s not biological assumes an abstract dichotomy applied in theory and widely known and understood to be much more continuous as fact.

        1. No, it could be learned. For example, parents could be subconsciously offering trucks to boys and the boys are just responding positively to please their parents.

          1. So a baby that hasn’t learned anything is acting to please its parents’ subconscious “decision” making? Moreover, that this behavior somehow both transcends and is subverted by the invention of the wheel? That’s the theory you’re going to go with?

            Lactose tolerance took 10,000 yrs. but the overbite took less than 1,000 (even multiple times or varyingly over the last 4,000+ yrs.) Moreover, gender differences in facial muscles and bone structure were preserved through such a shift. Analogously, you might say that hunter/gatherers preferred play that resembled prey moving along a straight line while caregivers found such one dimensional, uncommunicative play to be uninteresting.

            1. “So a baby that hasn’t learned anything is acting to please its parents’ subconscious “decision” making? ”

              It’s the mother. The father comes into the picture a little while later. I think it’s a mistake to underestimate the strength and multidimensional nature of the bond between mother and child. And what exactly is a baby that hasn’t learned anything? Any healthy baby will have learned a thing or three while still in the womb, and a lot more when they make their exit.

              1. And what exactly is a baby that hasn’t learned anything? Any healthy baby will have learned a thing or three while still in the womb, and a lot more when they make their exit.

                So not only did you not address the question of ‘How did boys learn to play with trucks as gender role eons before the invention of the truck?’ and not only did you sidestep the question of ‘How did they “learn” a behavior they can’t rationalize that isn’t being consciously “taught” or rationally associated?’ but you go on assert may’ve learned it in utero too? And by asserting this your further claim is that it’s *not* innately biological (or religious)?

                You seem to have a weird belief that just because something develops neurons it must be learning. I suspect that you’re really just full of shit.

                1. “So not only did you not address the question of ‘How did boys learn to play with trucks as gender role eons before the invention of the truck?’ ”

                  Well, I’m not all that interested in the question. I’m not convinced the assumptions are true. I know that the Aztec children played with wheeled toys though the wheel was not in use in the adult world. I would assume that children of both sexes played with wheeled toys.

                  “How did they “learn” a behavior they can’t rationalize that isn’t being consciously “taught” or rationally associated?’

                  They learn by experience. Wax on wax off. When do you think a child stops being a baby that hasn’t learned anything to one that has?

                  “You seem to have a weird belief that just because something develops neurons it must be learning. I suspect that you’re really just full of shit.”

                  Plants have memory and learn without neurons. Same goes for amoeba, one celled creatures without a brain or neuron between the lot of them. Learning is adapting to new experience and conditions. Adapt or die: It’s the basis of life and the cruelest law of the universe.

                  1. Learning is adapting to new experience and conditions.

                    Learning and adapting are not synonyms. They can be used synonymously but learning =/= adapting.

                    1. “Learning and adapting are not synonyms.”

                      That’s true, and I don’t want to confuse things. But both learning and adapting require taking in new knowledge, experience or conditions to supplant something currently in existence. I don’t see how babies in the womb are incapable of learning. When do you think a baby is finally able to start to learn?

                      Cortez’s expedition to Mexico saw the children playing with wheeled toys even though wheels were not in general use. Do you assume that only (or mostly) Aztec boys played with these toys? Some of these ideas are rather interesting, that wheels for example hold some fascination for boys that is absent in girls, presumably because of encoding in genes.

          2. I guess you’ve never heard of the kibbutz “experiment” in Israel. You can read about it in an article by Stanley Kurtz “Can We Make Boys and Girls Alike?” from the Spring 2005 edition of City Journal (it’s referenced on other sources as well). The short of it: Despite an attempt to raise boys and girls androgynously, “[t]he experiment collapsed within a generation, and a traditional family and gender system reasserted itself.”

  20. Men and women are different. Some of it comes from brain functions, some of it comes from physical differences in our bodies that allow us to fulfill different roles, like our muscle mass or working tits, some of it is societal pressures that have been built over the years. I don’t know this because I am a scientist or phycologist or any such thing as that. I know it because I’m a logical person that has been living with and around males and females for 42 years. Once we are all willing to acknowledge all three aspects that are in play in the interactions and societal roles of genders we will be better able to accept each other and allow everyone to fulfill the best role for them.

    1. A phycologist is a professional plankton studyer.

      1. I think that most of us commentors here CLEARLY need some phycological counseling! Speaking just for myself, for me it may have come from, when I was a grade-school kid, the other kids plankt-on me a LOT!

  21. that biological differences might explain why half the people in tech are not women

    That means that half of them are women. Equality!!!

    1. Damore fired for idiot math not for non-wokeness lol

      1. Like you could understand his math.

    2. There are differences, but they are stastistical, if I understood the article right. Two-thirds of newborn boys looked at the truck parts and one-third at the faces, while one-third of newborn girls looked at the truck parts and two-thirds at the faces? If that’s right (and if that’s a reasonable measure of future interests), then we might expect two-thirds of people in tech jobs to be men, and one-third to be women?

      1. Sadly, “tech” does not include tractors. The experiment is pointless.

      2. Yes, I think that’s the takeaway there.
        And you see a lot bigger difference if you look at the people who are very interested in trucks or whatever and the people who are very interested in faces and people. Engineers are the sort of people who are very interested in things. So you are likely to see an even larger difference in interest in those subjects than the overall average would suggest.

        1. There’s no problem with admitting some differences at the tails. The problem is with people not admitting characteristics mostly overlap. I know a lot of women engineers and they are as competent as the average male engineer with perhaps a slight tendency to be more competent. (Don’t know why maybe have to me more confident than in fields like medicine which are closer to 50/50).

  22. >>>I think actually girls might want to run and bang into people

    tomboys are the most fun.

  23. Structural differences between male and female brains is a well established fact. These include cortical thickness, and size of structures such as the amygdala, and thalami.

    Functional MRI studies have demonstrated differences in such things as language processing and emotion.

    It is difficult to make any conclusions based on behavior because of environmental factors and individual variability.

    I didn’t read Rippon’s book and from media reports it is hard to tell what her point is. Media tends to go with hype and unsubstantiated conclusions in reporting science so it is generally worthless.

  24. So, I guess this is one more (if subtle) way of trying to subvert individuality.

  25. Neck down: vast differences. Neck up: no differences. Not likely. And so what? Pluses and minuses for both, get over it.

  26. The women I work with can’t shut the fuck up.

  27. Nature vs nurture may be confirmed with peer reviewed science but recorded observations are facts as well.

    Women and politicians are stupid and get along for different reasons.

    Women, consumed by irrational emotion, don’t get logic. Like colour blind but with logic. Rather than admit and try to correct their stupidity, they bundle up all the issues they can’t emotionally understand and discard them.

    Politicians want to make voters feel emotionally good too, so they bundle up and discard inconvenient truths.

    They both don’t address the true and uncomfortable root causes and as a their ideas and solutions are incomplete and ineffective, stupid.

    This is what feminism has brought us. Under the guise of equality, stupidity, political correctness.

    1. “Women, consumed by irrational emotion, don’t get logic.”

      Even wasps have been shown to grasp logic. If A is bigger than B, and B is bigger than C, then you can say that A is bigger than C without even looking at the two of them together to compare directly. This is called transitive inference. And until recently, insects were believed not to be able to master this logic. But the wasp proved us wrong.

      “Women, consumed by irrational emotion”

      Interesting assertion. Is there a gender that is consumed by rational emotion?

      1. I am making the distinction that there is no rational emotion.

        1. You mean a child, particularly a boy, who is happy when given a birthday present should be admonished for being irrational? And if it’s a girl you might as well let it slide because of their inherent cluelessness? Sounds like an entry from a crackpot parenting manual.

          1. Children are children. They are supposed to be gradually learning the necessary value of rational behaviour.

            Sometimes irrational, irresponsible and emotional behaviour (playing) as recreation is beneficial.

            Under careful rational analysis of the benefits of playing the emotion vanishes.

            When some people mature, they recognize the need to keep emotions out of important decisions. Not you though, obviously.

            1. “they recognize the need to keep emotions out of important decisions. Not you though, obviously.”

              You mean important decisions like choosing a career or a spouse? We should ignore the fact that one women fills us with disgust and another fills us with joy?

              1. If one considers why they feel a certain way, their conclusion is never emotional and is more likely to be rational.

                Take yourself for example. I could initially be disgusted by your desire to share your apparent stupidity.

                Instead, I’ll just share why you do.

                For any unambiguous question or issue, there is only one truthful answer or solution that all rational people share. There are infinite irrational delusions.

                I don’t know why you can’t or won’t recognize the evidence of reality that I share with irrefutable logic. The rational argument is over.

                Instead you keep sharing irrational delusions, ambiguities as contrary arguments. Logic demonstrates the delusion every time.

                You fail to recognize that irrefutable logic will always demonstrate the best truth that we are capable of perceiving.

                You are no longer an object of disgust, maybe pity.

                1. “For any unambiguous question or issue, there is only one truthful answer or solution that all rational people share.”

                  All rational people? Don’t you mean men? I thought we’d already established that women were incapable of understanding logic or thinking rationally. Now you are backtracking?

                  My advice: step back a moment and meditate on this claptrap you are espousing here.

  28. Like many journalists, Stossel is oversimplifying the issue, in this case by polarizing between “male and female brains are the same” versus “male and female brains are different”. The facts are more complicated.

    First off, there’s the important question of how much of a difference, and not only between genders, but within each gender. Hence the experiment which Stossel interprets as “male babies look more intently at objects, female babies at faces” — then tries to gloss over the fact that one-third of female babies look more at objects.

    Secondly, neural wiring develops over time, and is significantly influenced by environment.

    Third, differences in brain structure are also shown in other categories — right-handed, left-handed and ambidextrous people, for example — but we don’t necessarily assume that everyone of a certain handedness is going to like one set of jobs.

    When we look in depth, we may show trends in differentiation between men and women, but we also see considerable overlap between genders, and variation within genders. The bottom line question is whether this justifies discrimination in jobs, education and other factors. Do we bar men from taking courses in nursing and pursuing careers in that field, simply because we believe that “women are better nurturers”? Or do we allow for individual variation and ability, regardless of gender? It would seem the latter is more in keeping with libertarian ideals.

  29. I am a psychologist who taught Psychology of Women for many years. Unlike Stossel, I have read a great deal of the original research. NO ONE is claiming women and men are identical but there is substantial research that makes it clear that the differences are minor. Stossel was on this toot back in the 90s when he had a similar program, with a psychologist on his side and the politician Bella Abzug on the other. Fair much? I actually met him and told him so. Not that he cared or cares. For further information on this topic, see the Facebook page Research on Gender Issues.

  30. Best point in the whole discussion, “Making laws that remedy freedom…”

    Sell your soul to the [WE] foundation – After all; You don’t own you [WE] own you and [WE] get to decide who you hire, fire and promote as well as how much you pay them.

    [WE] also will decide which subjects you learn, which jobs you take and what pay you’ll accept.

    The Feminist Group is nothing but a misery symptom of too much socialism with the wrong address (Sexist) and the wrong target (Prejudice). A corrective group would actually lobby for freedom (Individual) and target it at Socialism (Government).

    …. But; Its certainly not the first time Women have lost their “sense of direction” … Sure it won’t be the last.

Please to post comments