A Megan McArdle column. Second to the last paragraph:
So if we find out that women's brains really are different from men's, in ways that are driven not by the environment in which they are raised but the hormones suffusing their brain, we're going to need to start by rethinking the ways that we identify sexism in the first place -- and then start thinking about what sort of remedies might be appropriate. This is going to be an even longer, messier negotiation than the one we're having now.If it's hormones, and one can take hormones, should we have our choice of hormones, allowing us to go further in whichever direction we prefer?
Posts
84 comments:
Societies train women to take second fiddle to men in work and relationships -- and then punish them for trying to break out of their assigned roles.
Which is bullshit, known to anyone who has paid attention to how people actually operate in our society.
oh and "irritating differences" equals things women don't like about men.
Men aren't to bring up the irritating things women do, because that's just sexist.
The study linked stated that hormones make a difference, but not all the difference. It also stated that different regions of the brain are used for some tasks by men versus women.
But the study and the article are for naught. Feminists are now the sole determiners of right and wrong, cause and effect and statistical validity in this area.
Mostly when you lot start to whine about something I just ignore you. If it was really important you'd learn to do it yourselves.
Because I have found, over the years, that no matter what I do to accomodate you it's never enough.
So. Do whatever.
I'm bussy.
Vive la différence.
Or…we can do down the path of allowing Womyns Study grads create seminars like this one at Vanderbilt: 'The Macho Paradox: Why some men hurt and how all men can help.' Then spend the next 10 years asking 'where have all the real men gone?".
There are lots of women first fiddles. Music composition is a huge sexual difference, but not music playing.
Whatever...
Hormones in the womb, if so. The XX is going to have something to do with it, or else where do the hormones come from.
The key to feminism ought to be identifying how women's interests differ from men's. Push women into things they'll actually find interesting, not things that they won't but men will.
Famous women scientists tend to be into meeting-organizing, the social end, even after they've done the work. They find that satisfying where men don't. The work itself isn't so interesting to them as conferences and being chairman.
Vicki Hearne again, a woman who's into the male field of philosophy but with an interesting spin, women's brains.
She figured it out.
Quoting George Carlin: "Men are from Earth, women are from Earth. Deal with it."
Maybe it is brain differences and the arguments against women's suffrage were correct.
I thought that was an uncharacteristically bad and whiny column by McArdle.
Science!
Which reminds me, one of the things I intend to do this morning is to visit the website for the American Egg Board to see if it's now safe to eat more than one egg a day.
Finding out that lack of ability/disinterest/incompetence are the primary causes of your failures and not some shadowy conspiracy must be quite heart breaking.
I don't find sex differences irritating. There are male-specific and female-specific ways of being an irritating git, but it's the behaviors, not the differences in the behaviors, that make for the irritation.
Why can't a woman be more like a man?
Men are so honest, so thoroughly square;
Eternally noble, historically fair;
Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat.
Why can't a woman be like that?
Other than the sometimes annoying but frequently intoxicating biological differences, the persistent irritating differences are in your head. Stop projecting.
busy
Remember: women have some nice soft qualities too.
Yeah. But next time I think I'll rent rather than buy.
SGT Ted said...
oh and "irritating differences" equals things women don't like about men.
Men aren't to bring up the irritating things women do, because that's just sexist.
What I find insufferable in these articles by women is the spin that says we ought to fix all the areas where women lag men, and of course don't think that the areas where women dominate require any remediation.
Just suck it up and recognize that there are differences and Nothing is going to alter that...
Want to be more like a man? Take Testosterone, but be less like a woman...
Women are great, but feminists are irritating. They're not the same thing.
"Feminists' answer has been: ...
Whatever (with eye-roll).
A novel study performed on about 950 men and women (8-23 years of age) has shown that the neural connections in male and female brains are vastly different.
If it's hormones, and one can take hormones, should we have our choice of hormones, allowing us to go further in whichever direction we prefer?
It's not just hormones, and they don't work that way.
A recent study by Israeli researchers that examined male and female brains found distinct differences in the developing fetus at just 26 weeks of pregnancy.
It is a heck of a lot more than hormones, for Heaven's sake.
The UW medical school has brain people who can explain all this.
Eric,
Funny you should mention that. I have a map of all the major players in the Health Sciences Bureaucracy up on my wall.
I check the trades, stats and latest Food Pyramid goings-on at least twice a week.
***I would never corrupt so pure a passion with the thought of native advertising.
In the words of the great Sade, this is no 'Ordinary Love.'
"This is going to be an even longer, messier negotiation than the one we're having now."
If you are talking about a woman sucking a man's cock this development is a plus.
Girls: stock up on the face towels.
I am Laslo.
If women are incapacitated by their hormones, then maybe the 19th Amendment wasn't such a good idea.
Rusty,
Come on down to Uncle Jeb's women-rentin' lot and spend an afternoon.
We gotcher 'sex-workers,' mail-order brides (photos only), strippers, trophy-wives, and these days even a few aspirin' women and such out front. Not gonna lie, we've had some complaints.
Out back we gotcher rent-to-own and some quality women-folk.
So if we find out that women's brains really are different from men's, in ways that are driven not by the environment in which they are raised but the hormones suffusing their brain, we're going to need to start by rethinking the ways that we identify sexism in the first place
Interpreted: "So if someone proves scientifically that we have been consciously disingenuous throughout our entire movement, denying surface gender realities even the most challenged know to be true, we will have to rethink the way we use sexism accusations to our advantage"
"Women are put-upon" McArdle is my least favorite McArdle.
And Laslo is right to bring up the blow job. These 'choice' hormone therapies could be quite dangerous to the continuation and survival of the art. Much like ISIS blowing up ancient temples.
How long was the "women are relegated to the kitchen" stereotype even operable? Yes, I know women couldn't vote and there were land ownership issues and other equality issues.
But the kitchen strikes me as a bad metaphor. Most of the time women were "in the kitchen", their duties were pretty arduous, as were men's. It was a distribution of hard labor. For the very wealthy, perhaps, women were overseers of the household and not doing the actual work. But men who were wealthy were called to war to defend their lands, while women were home- as Althouse has pointed out - to provide the replenishment generations.
I could be wrong, but being "relegated" to the kitchen while men lived the high life (and got drafted) is only a couple of generations old.
I think it's fair to expect that many 2nd and 3rd wave type feminists are so ideologically blinkered, and the costs of independent thought high enough in such circles, that no rethinking of the whole cultural gender construct is in the works.
In fact, it might be rather foolish to expect such a change, or a way to meet a deadline and get some clicks.
The Professor skipped over the obvious hypocritical sexist joke from the article's last paragraph.
This is going to be an even longer, messier negotiation than the one we're having now.
Especially if science tells us that women are just better at understanding complicated stuff like science. Men, the benighted darlings, will just have to trust us.
Is that supposed to be cute, or read with an eye-wink? Even if the author wanted us to think she's joking, she's not. That's the bitterness underneath the skirt. That's the penis envy.
And we all KNOW there are differences between the sexes driven by hormones. But it takes some transgender study to open up the feminist blind eye.
"Conservatives might just be right, but it took a guy with his dick tucked between his legs talking estrogen to make us even consider the idea."
This is stupid.
I have two female bosses (matrix organization), one is a lesbian. I admire and respect both of them.
If you're looking into how women can integrate into the organization, top to bottom, look at healthcare.
"Women might point out that, since too many men seem to trust a mysterious toilet paper fairy to change out the forlorn tube of cardboard,"
I have spent some years living by myself, basset hounds don't count, and have discovered that, when I am living with a woman my toilet paper consumption goes up about 600%. That data includes several periods of years in either status. The most recent ended a year and half ago. Yup, toilet paper is an indicator.
I, for one, celebrate the ladies.
Every Young Hot Cheerleader had a mother and a grandmother.
And the mother might still be hot.
I am Laslo.
Hormones are a product of sexual difference (XY vs XX). Hormones do not cause sexual difference.
"That's the bitterness underneath the skirt. That's the penis envy."
Now that's sexist. It's really difference feminism 2.0. Tool for Progs to "end male supremacy." There's a new book on it, complete with biological justification.
"too many men seem to trust a mysterious toilet paper fairy to change"
OK, ladies, we promise to replace the toilet paper, if you'll return all the products of male ingenuity that reduced your domestic labors and kept you from dying while giving birth.
When I was growing up in the 70s, there was a very simple, clear paradigm; boys competed against boys - the winners got the best girls.
Playing tackle football with girls? Inconceivable. Hitting a girl? Never in a million years.
I'm still hard wired a bit to this paradigm - but, obviously, in the business and professional world this has changed. Girls now compete with boys to get into college and land professional gigs after college, and they are often winning. The marginal male has been the big loser in this paradigm shift. The attractive, but not too bright nor ambitious female, has lost a bit too. The aggressive feminists have thrust her into the rat race, where she didnt want to be and can't really compete.
Yes, these are mostly generalizations. The feminist push to "equalize" the sexes has had some benefits for the driven ambitious female, who didnt want to live her life dependent on a man. I accept that. But the societal side effects have often been large and negative in many ways the Left doesn't talk about.
"I have two female bosses (matrix organization), one is a lesbian."
What a coincidence: I, too, once had two female bosses, of which one was a lesbian.
It was a late Thursday evening in the Office and I was finishing up a project -- I thought I was the last one left in the building -- when I heard moaning coming from down the dark hall.
I went to investigate, only to find my lesbian boss rhythmically inserting a ten-inch yellow polyurethane dildo into my other boss' vagina.
They didn't notice me at first, and I wondered if I should sneak away, but then the non-lesbian saw me and asked if I had something pressing that I needed to discuss with them.
I replied that I had something pressing, but it wasn't the need for a discussion: I am smooth that way.
One of my bosses said "Come help us with our spread sheets" and soon my lesbian boss was soon rhythmically inserting a ten-inch yellow polyurethane dildo into my other boss' vagina while I fucked her in the ass. Some would call this 'team-building', I think.
As I neared completion I was perplexed as to who's face to ejaculate upon -- I did not want to make the other feel lesser, being my boss and all, but they put their faces together cheek-to-cheek and I distributed my results as evenly as I could.
So, like I said: I, too, once had two female bosses, of which one was a lesbian.
I am Laslo.
A similar thing happens with outcome based laws, especially upcoming ones.
US blacks have an average IQ of 86. In terms of outcome and large numbers, blacks will do worse than whites with a strong statistical difference. That is to say, outcome based tests will correctly determine that there's a bias against blacks.
But that's without any discrimination at all and the best good will in the world.
Those laws will produce problems where there aren't any problems.
There aren't problems because happiness does not depend on IQ, but on good character. You take up what interests you.
The same thing happens with women vs men, but not based on IQ but merely interests. Outcome isn't the problem, the solutions are the problem.
"If it's hormones, and one can take hormones, should we have our choice of hormones, allowing us to go further in whichever direction we prefer?"
19th century Modern Science catches up with gender issues!
"We sort of understand part of how this works. We just need to give people hormones and it'll be just like the natural functioning of the body!"
Maybe we can also make really manly men and womanly women!
Chris N said...
Rusty,
Come on down to Uncle Jeb's women-rentin' lot and spend an afternoon.
Alas. I'd have to ask the woman-who-lives-in-my-house and she'd just say no.
This whole thing is idiotic. We all know that there are clear sexual differences, which appear to be primarily the result of male hormones on the brains of fetuses. The differences are so ingrained and accepted (except by academic feminists, who, not surprisingly, very often turn out to be lesbians). For example, we are staying at a hotel. You see the teenaged girls in pairs, often touching, and seeming to mimic each other, as they eat breakfast. The boys don't touch, often are in groups with odd numbers, and tend to spread themselves out evenly. We also know that females recover their ability to speak better after having a stroke, that males are better at spatial navigation, while females are better with landmarks, that verbal speech transmits more information to females than males, etc. (On average). Most of us accept these differences as essentially innate, because they mostly are.
Why is this even in debate? Partially, I think that it is women, no longer tied to the biological necessity of spending a couple decades mostly pregnant, are fighting for better employment opportunities. It made some sense to give men the better jobs, when they, alone, were the bread winners, and rthen had more mouths than their own to feed. But it often doesn't, in many areas of employment, these days. Maybe the two sexes don't do the same job in the exact same ways, but most often there isn't much difference in the results. Another part of this though may be in response to the mainstreaming of homosexuality. I think that, by now, few disagree with the premise that sexual orientation, etc, is primarily a result of how brains are wired - e.g. If a boy baby has sufficient male hormones at certain points, in utero, he is almost assured to be heterosexual. If he doesn't, his brain isn't fully masculinized, and may end up with a homosexual orientation, as well as maybe exhibiting other female traits. Mainstreaming this though appears to be the reality that much of academic feminism appears to have been controlled over the last couple decades by lesbians - I.e. female homosexuals. They often seem to be struggling with the question of why any woman would prefer being with men, over women. Instead of accepting that they are wired differently from most women, they look everywhere else for the answers.
If it's hormones, and one can take hormones, should we have our choice of hormones, allowing us to go further in whichever direction we prefer?
No. Certainly not if you're a female athlete (c.f. Mary Decker Slaney)*. Plus, are you certain that the medical profession understands which hormones do what and in what doses and that you yourself understand the side effects well enough to give informed consent.
BTW, you are aware, I trust, that the hormones they give women are made from horse urine?
___________________
* The exception, of course, being the East German athletes of the 1970s and 1980s.
Expanding a bit - it appears that there are some male and female baseball/softball teams staying at this hotel. Something else I noticed about the girls is that they seem to collaborate in pairs. But there are tables of males, consisting of fathers and their sons. The older the male, the more he seems to be talking. The high schoolers appear to be allowed to speak in response to questions, but their answers are invariably respectful. The youngest appear to be not fully socialized yet, so don't participate with the adults - rather they talk to older boys, often their o lier brothers, except when the older boys have been recognized by the adult males. This is so different from female groups, where everyone seems to be recognized and allowed to participate, no matter how young.
We all know that there are "women drivers," but Danica Patrick, who definitely is a "woman," is also definitely not a "woman driver."
I object to these simple-minded all-inclusive statements about, men, women, and for that matter also "science."
There are scientific fields in which women dominate, but in most they do not. Perhaps not because "women can't" compete in those fields, but maybe because "they" just are not interested. Except, of course, there are always a few who do and successfully compete.
Also Ms. McArdle should read Jung Chang's "Empress Dowager Cixi."
"There are scientific fields in which women dominate,"
Most are "soft science" meaning Sociology.
Women who really can do well in hard science are few and have it made as everyone is trying to recruit them
Medical school has changed a lot as more women become medical students. Some specialties, like general surgery which has long hours and high stress, are now entering crisis shortage mode.
Hormones can certainly influence behavior, much as something like LSD can, but there is only so much they can do in an adult. In utero is where they have a much larger effect on things, particularly at certain stages of development.
They probably belong with other mind-altering substances as a controlled substance, by prescription only for actual medical issues.
"Marriages don't break up because of infidelity. They break up because somebody gets caught."
- Lies and Alibis
An amusing line at the start. Who knows if it will turn out any good.
Michael K: Medical school has changed a lot as more women become medical students. Some specialties, like general surgery which has long hours and high stress, are now entering crisis shortage mode.
Gee, it's almost as if all those old sexist guidelines about med school admissions had a point? (I.e., extra scrutiny of women applicants to ascertain that they were as likely to be as all-in as male candidates.)
But hey, who cares if skills and knowledge that have been developed over centuries, and that take years of hard-core dedication for an individual to master (and be able to pass on) are lost? I mean, you can pick up surgery from online courses in your spare time, right? Anyway, the deterioration of skills and declining availability of skilled practitioners is a small price to pay for equality and diversity.
This whole article centers on a study of transgender men's brains, but McArdle doesn't link to the study or even summarize any of its findings! I completely understand all her points about the limits of a single study. But either tell us what the study says, or don't mention the study at all.
"Gee, it's almost as if all those old sexist guidelines about med school admissions had a point? "
Yes, I have written about this before. Physician recruitment companies report that women physicians work about 28 hours a week on average, which is about in line with admissions committee thinking in the early 60s. They assumed a doctor shortage and decided to go with the people (men) who would be working full time for a long career,
Male students also work less, which is a function (I think) of reduced autonomy and income. I was recently shocked to find a physician I have known for 30 years (Pulmonary specialist) now needs the permission of an ER doc to admit a patient with a serious diagnosis. The ER docs are employed by the hospital and determine what other physicians do. It has a 1984 feel about it.
I met a (female) general surgeon a couple of years ago who told me she did not know a general surgeon in San Francisco under the age of 50. I get recruitment e-mails all the time. The salaries and terms offered are not bad.
Terry said...
Hormones are a product of sexual difference (XY vs XX). Hormones do not cause sexual difference.
Wrong. Sexual development is a delicate dance involving both genes and hormones. It's true that the genes cause the hormones to start being produced in fetuses, but non-genetic influences can also change the level of hormones. Once the hormones start to be produced, physical development into male and female occurs. Screw ups in development may well account for many of the various sexual "deviancies", using that word in a nonjudgmental sense.
The human body is almost female by default. The production of the male hormones changes development from male to female body plan. There are lots of things happening, all with the potential to go slightly awry from the brain on down.
"If it's hormones, and one can take hormones, should we have our choice of hormones, allowing us to go further in whichever direction we prefer?"
If one could take hormones and know precisely what the effects would be under all circumstances...
If one could take a pill or get a shot that would prevent or cure any disease with no risk of "collateral damage"...
If one could get psychotherapy that would consistently, predictably, and effectively make them despite an absolutely horrible past (abandonment, childhood rape, foster homes, etc) into a perfectly well-adjusted, happy, fulfilled, "functioning" adult...
If one could flap their arms and fly to Jupiter...
then the "choice of hormones" question might have relevance. None of the above is possible given the state of knowledge as it exists today, nor will any of these be possible in the foreseeable future, if ever.
If "we" can only get over trying to make it public policy that "we" can mold reality into absolutely anything we wish it to be...
Maybe that's not possible either.
I can relate to experiencing the gender differences and not understanding them. When women started to break out of the traditional role in the 60's and 70's I silently rejoiced. I couldn't understand why women couldn't take shop or wear pants to school. When I was in college women were becoming engineers too. As women's sphere expanded to overlap mine I began to experience my dissatisfaction with the male role. I realized I liked doing things boys did but never liked being a boy.
I achieved wholeness after transitioning and surgery. I realize that what I felt and thought was very different from other males. My solution to my existential dilemma worked for me and I have no regrets. It's interesting to see folks having this discussion now.
There may be a brain/hormone aspect as well as a social aspect and the precise influence of each can probably affect individuals differently. The physical disparities tend to be more easily quantified and exemplified.
Bruce 10:24
So there is a cure for homosexuality? Or rather a prophylaxis?
Remedies: to make a man more like a woman, or to make a woman more like a man?
What happens to DIVERSITY?
Women and men are different. In size, shape, interests, likes, dislikes. Been seeing this for lo, these many years. Some just refuse to see; some see and can't cope with it and want others to change. Others (I'm an other) like it this way.
" It can be true that women are less likely to have astounding math or engineering abilities, even though that's unfair as heck, and I don't like it. In the world of science, things do not become more true just because we'd be better off if they were."
Don't be absurd. That's like imagining that men are bigger and stronger than women, or that women can get pregnant but men can't.
Is it logical to say that "gender" is a social construct and we can use hormones to rewire our body so as to move us in the direction of the "social construct" we want to specialize in?
And is forcing women to take second place in every social niche as Islam does the same as saying that women are generally not interested in science and math?
And is the "kitchen" the same as the home? Were women making dinner or a home?
And did the autism epidemic begin when a majority of women stopped making a home and started building careers - and started calling home "the kitchen", and only spent a few moments of quality time with their children?
And does anyone really believe that that pouring large quantities of hormones into their bodies is any different than football players pouring steroids into their bodies?
Is Caitlyn or Kim Kardashian the most attractive?
Why isn't Caitlyn trying to be a computer geek? Isn't she stereotyping?
The whole subject is quite complicated and the the single certainty is that involving the Federal Government will make matters bad or else worse.
I think most young women taking civil engineering in college utter some vague intention becoming "environmental engineers" - whatever the hell that is.
It's really quite simple. Men do not have the legal right to indiscriminately kill [wholly innocent] human lives by the millions, or to hold a human life hostage in order to commit extortion over its lifetime. In order for men and women to approach equivalence, these rights and rites must be extended to men, or, alternatively, there must be a separation of State and pro-choice cult. Fiddling with modulus of a contrived congruence has only ensured progressive corruption and dysfunction, violation of civil rights, and an unprecedented violation of human rights.
Why has this become such a big thing now?
The definition of an engineer is someone who applies the knowledge gained by scientists to modify natural materials in some way useful for mankind, so in that sense we are all "environmental" engineers.
However, there is no such recognised branch of engineering, and I think the young ladies just have some vision of working for a government agency charged with regulating (and if possible, obstruct) the activities of the rest of us.
"we're going to need to start by rethinking the ways that we identify sexism in the first place -- and then start thinking about what sort of remedies might be appropriate" reminds me of the old Lone Ranger and Tonto joke:
LR: Tonto! We're surrounded by Indians.
T: What do you mean "we", Paleface?
"Averages are just averages."
But not if you are using averages as your proof of discrimination. Larry Summers lost his sweet job as President of Harvard because he argued that lower representation of women in certain math-oriented academic fields might be due to inherent differences in math skills between men and women, and not to discrimination.
"Larry Summers lost his sweet job as President of Harvard because he argued that lower representation of women in certain math-oriented academic fields might be due to inherent differences in math skills between men and women, and not to discrimination."
And the female biology professor who said she was going to faint proved it.
"If male brains do a better job at certain things -- say, competition or negotiating -- then the answer might be 'we need to restructure the economy so that it better rewards female talents.'"
So far as I know, differences between the work that men mostly do and the work that women mostly do have lasted tens of thousands of years. If this distribution reflects the inherent skills and talents of the individuals involved, changing that distribution might reduce the total happiness of the species.
If you want to change the reward structure to favor female talents, you need to show that this will improve the overall success of the community.
Personally, I think (intuit?) that society as a whole will benefit if it has the flexibility to receive the benefits of both male and female ways of doing things. However, I am not Emperor of the World, so I don't get to decide this.
Why is this a problem? Why can't we just let men be men and women be women without trying to fix everyone? Personally, I enjoyed being one of the few women in my college Calc class who liked the math. Why this urge to induce homogeneity?
Æthelflæd:
Exactly. You don't have to deny your female sex and orientation to become a scientist, mathematician, mechanic, etc. The people arguing against dual sexes are exploiting misleading correlations in order to stoke a gender conflict, presumably to create political, economic, and social leverage. While there are intrinsic differences between the sexes that motivate gender roles, they are neither a closed set nor so confined as they would have people believe.
The differences between men and women can be summed up by this Wikipedia article:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arunachalam_Muruganantham
The thing is, it's not just hormones. It's chromosomes, to be precise, the last 2. It's not your externals that determine your gender, it's those pesky internals.
Hormones are a product of sexual difference (XY vs XX). Hormones do not cause sexual difference.
Boy, is this ever wrong.
Just one of the many instances of the astounding ignorance celebrated at this blog.
Blogger Hagar said...
I think most young women taking civil engineering in college utter some vague intention becoming "environmental engineers" - whatever the hell that is.
"environmenttal engineering " is what you get into what you can't hack the civil engineering courses.
However, there is no such recognised branch of engineering, and I think the young ladies just have some vision of working for a government agency charged with regulating (and if possible, obstruct) the activities of the rest
At least at some schools, environmental engineering is a track in the more traditional engineering disciplines. Know a kid who just got their Masters degree, and hopefully a PhD in a couple years, and both involve an environmental track in the Mechanical Engineering Dept. Friend got his PhD from the same school in, I believe, Civil Engineering. Not sure if they had an environmental trackback then,but if they had,he would have been on it. He ultimately moved to the architecture department to get tenure. In real life, there is a lot of crossover between different branches of engineering, all trying for a piece of all of the environmental research funding sloshing around the Obama Administration.
The sex/gender side of math and engineering is interesting to me. My mother was first in her class at the U of IL, with a degree in mathematics, and one of her aunts got a Masters degree in math from Columbia in the mid 1920s. By the time my kid graduated a couple years ago, maybe half the kids with a math major were female. Engineering though is weird. Apparently civil and chemical programs often have more females than male students. I think that mechanical engineering is still male dominated, but not nearly as much as when my next brother goths MS there. Petroleum and mining are similar, but some of that is a result of where you mostly have to practice them professionally (either on an drill site or underground, both harsh environments). Don't know about aeronautical/aerospace. Which leaves EE and CS, which should have a lot of women, but don't. I don't think it is hazing or a hostile work environment. And women can thrive in these fields (know a number of them having worked in or around both of them throughout most of the last 40+ years).
Althouse, isnt that what the transgendered are arguing Now? Hence the giving of sex hormones.
As I recall, Tyler Cowen thinks that many of the good paying jobs of the future, jobs that won't be taken over by computers, will be jobs where interpersonal talent is important. Men will be "under-represented" in those jobs just as women will be "under-represented" in many STEM jobs.
Post a Comment