Every civilization has an unlimited number of stories of women behaving in extremely heroic, and sometimes literally super-human efforts to ... save their own children.
This is the evolutionary act that they are geared for. I'll agree that they're not going to be heroic for you as a man, or even other women. Their priority is children.
Yes, but that's the singular instance in which they are capable of anything heroic. The point is that they have absolutely no business being in any sort of public safety role. They can attend to wellbeing of children but that's all.
Men and woman overlap in certain aspects of their distributions (say, "selflessness," for this instance). However, the medians are divergent enough to make the general statement "woman should not be in dangerous, heroic-requiring roles."
When you make rules, you have to do so for the standard, not the exception. Moreover, rules are implicit with the understanding that there will be "fringes" or exceptions.
Knowing that a few, select woman will be able to meet the same physical/ heroic standards as men and retaining the belief "women should not be in heroic roles" is not a contradictory world view. Again, the few, select women are exceptions, meaning your model of reality is accurate.
These "stories" from "every civilization" on heroic woman might just be a manifestation of their "fringes" to the rules. More intricately said, if you examine the core tenants of these cultures, you will see that each basically states something along the lines of: Men on the battle field/ at work, woman at home/with children.
Spare me. Don't stand there and tell me "well akschully it's a bimodal distribution of..." like it's 2014. The claim was that women are genetically incapable of heroism due to evolution. That's a retarded claim and now amount of apologetics and back-pedaling from the Internet Skeptic Community of 10 years ago changes that.
This is fucking hilariously wrong.
Every civilization has an unlimited number of stories of women behaving in extremely heroic, and sometimes literally super-human efforts to ... save their own children.
This is the evolutionary act that they are geared for. I'll agree that they're not going to be heroic for you as a man, or even other women. Their priority is children.
Yeah, that's what he said.
Stop putting them in charge of literally anything other than their own children.
Saving their own children is heroic.
Yes, but that's the singular instance in which they are capable of anything heroic. The point is that they have absolutely no business being in any sort of public safety role. They can attend to wellbeing of children but that's all.
It doesn't change that they are still evolved for heroism in a single specific (and obvious) sense. That's my issue.
except.. women stopped having children lol
Men and woman overlap in certain aspects of their distributions (say, "selflessness," for this instance). However, the medians are divergent enough to make the general statement "woman should not be in dangerous, heroic-requiring roles."
When you make rules, you have to do so for the standard, not the exception. Moreover, rules are implicit with the understanding that there will be "fringes" or exceptions.
Knowing that a few, select woman will be able to meet the same physical/ heroic standards as men and retaining the belief "women should not be in heroic roles" is not a contradictory world view. Again, the few, select women are exceptions, meaning your model of reality is accurate.
These "stories" from "every civilization" on heroic woman might just be a manifestation of their "fringes" to the rules. More intricately said, if you examine the core tenants of these cultures, you will see that each basically states something along the lines of: Men on the battle field/ at work, woman at home/with children.
Spare me. Don't stand there and tell me "well akschully it's a bimodal distribution of..." like it's 2014. The claim was that women are genetically incapable of heroism due to evolution. That's a retarded claim and now amount of apologetics and back-pedaling from the Internet Skeptic Community of 10 years ago changes that.