₦airaland Forum

Stillfire:
Despite this and every other thing I have said, Nigerian female rates roughly match the Western counterparts. I don't need anyone to tell me that we can do excellently well if given the opportunities Western women have.

Morning Stilly.. how far?

Deep down you do realise this is mostly wishful thinking don't you? !

If Nigerian women are given the opportunities that Western women have, thet'll do exactly the same thing Western women do - and pretty much what they themselves already do now

If Nigerian women are the beneficiaries of affirmative action, positive policy and financial incentives to to study STEM courses, and at the same time have an array of alternative choices, they will either;

1. Continue to take advantage of the enabling environment to enter STEM fields and then (a) drop out at higher numbers before completion (b) leave the profession in higher numbers after completion - many within a few years, and (c) add very little, if anything, to actual progression in these fields

2. Simply express a preference for other fields or specialities that are more in keeping with their inclinations and amenable to their lifestyle choices.

In wiring, there is little difference between any two groups of women - however you categorise them . Nigeria is way more likely to produce a Kim K before a Bill G.

To properly re-engineer society, you first have to re-wire women

Please don't, we love you as you are were


TV

Mindfulness:
This is going to be fun and I so enjoy it.

Not fun - a labour of love !

Mindfulness:
Very true but the desire to marry the one you love and the one who loves you back can be traced back to ancient times.

But this "love" was not the sole or main predicator of marriage. And it was not imbued with some moral value meaning that one was justified acting on this feeling regardless. Which is what you are indirectly arguing on the other thread - and which Kimoni should call you out for !

Mindfulness:
I don't agree. I have, what you call emotional love, for my family and a few very close friends and it is not a concept but a very strong emotion, which does not ebb and flow, come and go and which I consider to be the purest feeling of all, superb, beautiful, exhilarating, joyous, motivating, calming, peaceful, wonderful.

Please stop. Filiail love is of a different order to what we are discussing

Mindfulness:
Let us try to define what love is now: How about this definition?

1 Corinthians 13:4-8 Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends. As for prophecies, they will pass away; as for tongues, they will cease; as for knowledge, it will pass away.

Read more: http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/bible-verses-about-love-25-awesome-scripture-quotes/#ixzz3psbyop8t

And does that definition - some versions read "does no harm" - allow for one break up a marriage as her responsibility is to herself and not the husband she is trying to snatch, or his lawfully wedded spouse? "it does not insist on it's own way".

Mindfulness:
Is it a problem? Is the problem love or rather of what people think love is?

Nope. It's how people mis-understand mis-apply and miscontrue what love is, what it is for and the validity of actions based on it.

Mindfulness:
I disagree. I am full of love for so many people and things and nature and I feel euphoric almost every day. It is wonderful.

Different kinds of love - stop making catergory errors

Mindfulness:
Well, there is no proper or improper love. Love is perfect.

Spoken like one who has never had a stalker - one of mine has even shown face on this thread

How can love be perfect is the one expressing it isn't?

Mindfulness:
I wish it was that easy but we both know it is not. I have an aunt who married a man she didn't love but she grew to love him in the course of their marriage but I have also seen good men having witches for a wife who never learned to love and appreciate them.

Not based on the script I outlined

Mindfulness:
Marriage can be a long-term endeavor but it does not have to end with death. It you go by Christian doctrines, then yes but not everyone is a Christian and non-religious people marry too.

Marriage as defined is the lifelong union of a man and women - anything else is not marriage. Till death do part. You are free to have any type of relationship you choose, but if you choose marriage, it is not yours to define as you like.

Mindfulness:
And I disagree with you that marriage / relationships always require a level of endurance. Some marriages are PURE JOY.

A marriage being joy does not mean you wil not have to endure things - it could be tight finances, a sick partner or child, no children (if you desire them), your theories are mostly conceptual aren't they? .

Mindfulness:
This is where the problem truly is. People seek the wonderful feelings of love and joy in the wrong places. If they were able to find them within themselves, which is possible, relationships would be much better and their kids happier.

Like I said, conceptual - what does this even mean. Especially based on the definition you posted above !

Mindfulness:
Again, the problem is not love but the absence of love.

No, it's your misunderstanding of what it is and what it entails. For you, love is about self - the feeling you get, as abosed to the acts you do - it's why you can't get your head around marriage.

Mindfulness:
Yes! People should enter marriage for a whole range of reasons.

And marriage is so beneficial, it's best not to over regualte it. We don't overly scrutinise why, but once you meet the criteria and decide to enter the institution, you should do so soberly and endeavour to meet it's demands.


TV

Kimoni:
100% convinced = 100% conviction

100 convinced = 100% commitment

TV, which sounds more like what she wrote naa >:

"More like"?

I can only speak for what I posted. I don't believe that a person must be 100% in love (however they define it), 100% compatible (whatever their criteria), 100% convinced (however convinced they feel they should be), or that they tick all your boxes (no matter how many boxes one has).

What I stated, is that once one decides to commit, one should do so 100%. And again, why would one commit less than this? Or if it's not 100%, what is the uncommited % for? What could it be for other than an exit route, or an excuse to not fully engage?


TV

Emotional love as the basis for marriage is a very recent phenomena. Marriage – whether you believe it was God given or man-made – has sprung up near universally in all cultures.

EL, which unsurprisingly no one has actually taken time to define – is nothing more than an abstract, value laden concept, which at best ebbs and flows, can come and go, and is not some stand alone, inviolate, or even pure feeling.

What people grow or learn to love is as much conditioned by outside influence – funny how no one shouts “society” about this – as anything else. People can exercise feelings of love over a 6-pack, or a picture. Some people even equate love with money!

And another quite serious failing of that type of love, is that it tends to be predicated on an individual’s idealised (or romantic) notions of one’s desires, or expectations of another person.

With no universal definition of love – other than romantic feelings often leading to sexual congress – is it any wonder that there is so much confusion and it and marriages predicated on it don’t seem to be doing very well?

Love the romantic feeling is in a sense “euphoric”, and no one can maintain, or exist in that heightened state indefinitely. Any such feeling is at best meant to help cement and establish the pair-bond, not singularly sustain it.

Proper, “bonded-love”, is perhaps less excitable, but deeper and should come as the pair truly commit and grow in the union. So in a sense, you can’t predicate a marriage on that, as it properly takes time to grow. With that type of bond & depth, you will actually love her more – regardless of stretch marks, scars, hormonal storms, greying hair or an expanding waistline.

It’s why arranged marriages tend to work better. When a woman is with a man of sound character with the right attributes, she will tend to bond with and love him. Especially when she is not confused by Hollywood type notions of what love is or how marriage should be.

Marriage is intended as a long-term endeavour. If during the course of a marital journey based on “emotional love”, you encounter challenges, find yourself in certain situations, or simply rub against the behaviours or beliefs of your spouse, your perception can change, along with how you feel.

This is almost always the case. That is why notions of endurance, patience and tolerance are relevant, if not equally applicable in every union, dependent on how solidly it was formed.

With the reversal of love and marriage as noted, people tend to constantly seek that euphoric feeling, and use that as justification for entering & exiting marriage. Another deleterious effect is that it becomes primarily about the feeling of the adults – not the children – such feelings not being the concern of, or warranting privilege by society.

The whole reverse notion of love as the basis for marriage also means it has gained an almost moral value as a justifier of actions, especially exiting and entering marriage – or breaking other marriages up, or abandoning responsibilities - as noted, but also as validating sexual congress on the basis of “being in love”.

Properly, romantic love should at best be a consideration - amongst other more pragmatic reasons – for getting married. It is marriage that honours the expression of this love, and also provides the setting for it to develop into a deeper, more bonded and active love.

I find your articulation of love faulty, your positioning of it wrong, and the moral value you place on it misguided, and in practice, potentially quite dangerous.

Please signify you total agreement with me

TV

Mindfulness:
Should be is not the same as is. Love is a strong feeling, commitment is not. You can love someone without commitment and you can commit to someone without loving them.

Articulating love as a feeling is the root of a lot of the issues we have in relationships today. More on that in my next post.

Mindfulness:
I don't think the Bible asks Christians to commit to their enemies when it tells them to love them.

It calls for a commitment to treat them - act - in a certain manner, not have a fuzzy inchoate feeling towards them

Mindfulness:
Yes, according to Christian norms but the commitment does not stop at this. It also entails the promise to love, honor and cherish each other, doesn't it? If the involved parties do not stick to these marriage vows of loving, cherishing and honoring each other, is it still a marriage according to Christian norms or is it something else?

Love is not how you feel about each other, it's how you treat one another. It's why you can "love your enemies". If love is a feeling, who is to determine what degree of that feeling is appropriate?

Mindfulness:
It does not change the fact that the decision to commit depends on conditions, even in the Christian context. There is this promise to love and honor each other and based on this promise you take someone as your wife or husband.

You confuse the promise made during the commitment with the basis for the commitment. When you get married, you commit to loving - as an act - regardless of how you feel.

Mindfulness:
Well, it differs for me because I feel love for my grandma but no infatuation

I could agree entirely, but as it's an abstract, I could totally disagree. Again, more in my next post.


TV

Mindfulness:
I really appreciate the discussions we have even though I know that we will not always agree but this is what makes it interesting.

What!!! I thought all our discussions ended with you whole-heartedly agreeing with me !

Mindfulness:
I am not equating love with commitment. My thought process is that people decide to commit to one person and not another based on some conditions. If these conditions change, then the reasons why people decided to commit disappear, which means that commitment is conditional, isn't it?

Not to be reductionist, but in it's simplest form, that's exactly what love should be; love = commitment.

The marital commitment is different; hence considered a covenant or sacrement by many; For better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness in health. It's why I termed it "forward-looking"

Mindfulness:
Well, if you say that commitment is the basis, then anyone can actually marry anyone because what matters is commitment and not the conditions and motivation for why you decided to commit to this person and not another, right?

Commitment is the basis for marriage, what you predicate the decision to commit upon, is subject to what one understands marriage to be and believes is desirous in a worthy spouse.

Mindfulness:
I partly disagree. What people rather idealize is infatuation and not love. Love can't be idealized, it is ideal in itself.

I take your point to a degree, but without clearly defining terms we could be talking at cross-purposes. Who is to say that love materially differs from infatuation and in what way?

Mindfulness:
I have to give your last sentence some thinking. This is profound.

Everything I say is profound - ask Bukatyne !


TV

Mindfulness:
Let us talk about it. If an individual decides to commit to another because the other is, for example, good-looking and rich and gentle, what happens when these attributes change? The reasons to commit are absent and with them the motivation and the basis for commitment. Is that not so?

That is why it is about commitment and not love - unless love is synonymous with commitment. Pretty much anything can change - and many will - during the course of a union. Others, such as some character attributes may hopefully remain fixed, but even here change can - for better or worse - come. Then there're the totally unexpected left of centre things that can happen.

And it's a forward looking commitment. Her looks will fade, she'll get stretch marks and maybe an accompanying c-section scar - amongst other things. Outside of extremeties, your commitment remains even if the basis changes. Otherwise it was never a worthy marital commitment.

The tendency today is to idealise "love" and make it the basis of marriage. Hence when love goes, there is no basis to maintain the marital state. it should be the reverse; marriage is the proper setting for love, not the main basis for it.


TV

Kimoni:
@100% conviction before marriage - I'll say that's relative. For people who believe in love before marriage, I'll also agree fully but we mustn't forget that people marry for different reasons, even

I never said 100% conviction, I didn't specify 100% love, or 100% compatibility. I said 100% commitment. Per my response to Mindfullness below, whatever you base on your getting there on, once you get to the point of making the decision to marry, it demands 100% commitment.
Why would one marry with anything less? And if one is less than 100% committed - at any % - what does that mean in terms of conditions for exiting the marriage?

Mindfulness:
We need to figure out now what makes people commit 100%. What are the factors people should look for to make the decision to commit to another person 100%?

That is a decision - what feeds into that decision is for individuals to decide for themselves. It shouldn't be taken lightly, but once it is, it should be stuck too.


TV

Mindfulness:
I am really looking forward to what TV01 will say about it.

As far as I am concerned I do not think that anyone should marry if (s)he is not 100% convinced that (s)he wants to marry a particular person.
If you can't find the person you are 100% sure you want to marry, you better do not marry at all. My two cents.

I agree - 100% commitment.


TV

Kimoni:
@ TV01, you know, I sincerely wish you had answered this question for the benefit of all. Remember that argument the ladies had with you guys on the boys thread was centered around this same subject and right here, we have a real life situation. Fortunately, the deed (marriage) has not been done yet.

I did answer - kindly actually - and I don't recall the particular discussion you are referring to? Feel free to quote on the BNO thread.

Kimoni:
She's got a good man she loves and adores but she doesn't love him,

You managed to contradict yourself and the OP in half a sentence...you know I have high expectations of you !

Here's the challenge however, she feels no passion for this man, in her own words "my heart is not in this relationship"

Kimoni:
yet she can vouch he will make a good husband; maybe she dated him for 3 years thinking the love will grow. It's difficult to fault this except the time frame is too long but anyways, the love did not grow and now, she needs to take a decision cuz it's time to move to the next level.

I said I was kind - as I only called her immature - the truth is, like most women (and it's something I wish men would grasp) she is simply being strategic. And she dated him for 3 years because it was a relationship that served her well. Now she is wondering if she should stick or spin for something better. She is likely hedging her bets, if she had a guaranteed move, she'd ditch him like a pair of holey slippers.

She is well aware of all his great qualities and readily admits he'd make a certified gold-plated husband - and she knows he's after a wife. If she "has no passion for him" and "her heart is not in the relationship", she should have freed him as a matter of integrity way before 3 years. Even if it was just to test how she fared without him.

How long is she going to stall? Will she ultimately decided to go through with it and find it was a mistake - especially if something better appears - before or after? Then we will be hearing stories of loveless/abusive marriage that she was coerced into .

Kimoni:
Should she choose safety (assurance of a good marriage) over love or take the risk to further search/wait for someone else who she will not only love but will also be a great marriageable guy. It's a real dilemma young people face everyday.

It can only work as outlined if she is able to commit wholeheartedly and unflinchingly. I don't think very many men or women can do that without the requisite "feeling". Indeed, she already has feelings for someone else - are these feelings a mere crush, infatuation or properly developed feelings?

And being unable to commit as required leaves the door open to all sorts of potential issues, from infidelity, to her treating him as unworthy or taking him for granted - he doesn't deserve that and she doesn't deserve him

Kimoni:
Personally, as much as I believe you should love who you are getting married to, it gets complex when you are advising someone to let go of a great guy you don't have feelings for in search of someone (often imaginary)you would love and also tick the boxes.

I wouldn't quibble if she could love as in commitment, believing that with that, love as in feeling will follow. But not for one who cannot be certain that she will not develop feelings for others - as she has, or even develop a real sense of appreciation and affection for him after 3 years - which she hasn't


Ladies please stop reading here; this is for my men.

Men, when you are after a wife, especially when you are a principled man of sound character, and even more so if you are a Christian, you shouldn't be allowing your relationships to meander aimlessly, or letting feelings dictate your actions.

You should at all points know how the relationship is progressing, what you are working towards and how you stand with the woman. And you should be acutely aware of the position through both direct and indirect communication.

A woman that respects you and appreciates your qualities will be set on pleasing you, and almost certainly desirous of being your wife. No bones about that. If she is not - no matter how you feel about her, you shouldn't be seriously thinking of wifing her, and after a suitable period - and certainly not 3 years - you should move her on post-haste.

All the qualities she has mentioned here are good, but mostly solid beta traits. In all likelihood, if the alpha traits of attraction were ever present, he has neutered those by lavishing her with time and affection, without demand or expectation. Don't be mugus, don't be saviours, don't be desperate, don't be "plan b" - be men and take responsibility!


TV

frisby:
Thank you,

You are welcome, hopefully.

frisby:
But could you please shed some wisdom on bold part?

I can try, the real question is can you properly handle it?

frisby:
Are you married? What are the things that truly count in these long term unions?

Yes I am - and that affects your friends marriage dilemna how exactly?

frisby:
If she's misguided, a few words from someone more enlightened could save her years of pain

Here goes; words of wisdom will be all but wasted on your friend. Until she forms a considered view of what marriage is and what it entails, she will not truly appreciate the qualities of a worthy partner, appreciate them and then set herself to - as love is indeed an act - desire and fall in love with someone who possess those characteristics.

She is basically just a child, tossed around by indeterminate emotions and feelings. She is not ready for marriage. She needs instruction - and perhaps discipline - not wisdom.

She will marry unthinkingly and then come here to be claiming "abusive marriage" to heartfelt solidarity from divorce campaigners. Like an "abusive marriage" is something one orders online - go to BuyRght sef, you'll find a "buy one get one free".

I'm not in the mood - perhaps you should have gone to the romance section !


TV

^{...one day I may reconsider my view that most women would benefit from their fathers and family elders helping arrange their marriages - maybe one day}

cococandy:
@TV01
Yea I was getting to the part where domestic violence is not only restricted to married relationships. One bit at a time as I'm not online at a stretch to post all the various angles at once.

Besides from the beginning of the thread, we have tried to show that abuse isn't the prerogative of one gender but if you also have ways of making the discussion more objective and non biased (if you think it still is) pls I'd appreciate that. The truth is that I feel very hurt for any man who can't express his pain because he's expected to man up and not show weakness. I don't think it's natural and I also believe it leads to expressions of unnecessary aggression because of long suppressed emotions. So pls more objective points are welcome:

About Valorising divorce, I don't think anyone preaches divorce for frivolous reasons like you're trying to make it look. When the other option is death, then that's the right message to preach.
It doesn't then mean such a person is trying degrade marriage. From where I stand even I would think that upgrades marriage in itself because the underlying message is that marriage should be beautiful (even with it's ups and downs) and not some scary bondage one can't get out of when it becomes horrible.

My first two points were about why I tend to avoid DV discussions generally. I wasn’t querying those two things per se. Having said that, you did make a good attempt to ensure non-bias, but that didn’t do much to help the general tone – fingering men – as the thread progressed.

As for an explanation of terms, there was none forthcoming, but more on that later. My main concern was how marriage is typically implied as the setting and divorce as the solution.

Abuse spans a spectrum. From what may be considered low-level – not to condone or otherwise encourage it or any abuse/violence – that a couple may manage or work trough.

At the other extreme, is the kind of abuse that may lead to serious harm or damage to an individual and collaterally affect children – psychologically or physically - due to its scale or its scope.

Whilst all levels of abuse should be remediated if at all possible, it is the more extreme cases that the “D” word should even be mentioned – even then it should be done in context.

The most violent relationships are female to female, followed by male to male, then male to female unmarried (co-habiting and non-cohabiting), then male to female married.

DV encompasses all relationship types and is by both sexes, and though many instances may be of married male/female couples, that is primarily due to the overwhelming preponderance of this type of relationship - not it's "inherent abusiveness" or "state of bondage".

Now, to married male/female couples and divorce; firstly, the binary is not necessarily death or divorce. As I noted there is a spectrum and for most of it, divorce simply does not have to come into play.

Secondly, there are myriad other measures up to and including separation. And it is worth noting that some faiths – o.k. Christianity – do not necessarily give leave to divorce on grounds of a blanket “abuse” ruling.

It’s doubly worth noting that Christianity also counsels the proper way to enter into marriage. This should mean extreme cases of abuse are rare. That many claim to be “Christians”, or consult “pastors”, is an indictment of individuals, not Christianity itself, and not call for vilification of the faith.

One should be fully versed in the marriage tenants of whatever, faith, culture or worldview they hold too - not owning that prior to marriage means you'll likely be outsourcing issues during marriage.


By failing to be specific about degrees of abuse, neglecting to make a distinction between marriage and it's relativel safety compared to other domestic relationships, not emphasising the correct approach to marriage and prescribing divorce as a solution without nuance – having been neither specific nor distinct to begin with - not only is divorce being valorised as I stated, but marriage itself is being diminished.

As mentioned, my gig is marriage and marital foundations. With unnuanced discussions of this nature, it’s too easy for some to read without the depth required and form the wrong impressions of marriage, abuse and divorce. No beef, I had to point that out.


TV

....I'll tell you this much; is she marries the "good man", she may not grow to love him, but if she marries the one "she loves" and he is "not good", she will grow to hate him...

It appears "your friend" lacks understanding of the basis for a sound long-term union. She should free that good man whilst she figures it out.

All the best.

TV

Mindfulness:
@red

Because they want to and because they can.

And no one is denying them that right, the question is, is the justification rational or not? Is it, as some suspect, driven by the wrong-headed notions of the equalist, such notions beloved of bored and over-entitled middle-class Western women - and their enablers .

Mindfulness:
Unfortunately, there are many more studies that show the same. Asians score best at IQ tests and Blacks are at the other end of the spectrum.

"Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; that for Whites, about 100; and that for Blacks, about 85 in the United States and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa."

https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

...and another nail in your coffin on this issue question for you;

based on the evidence you supplied and rest your case on, are Africans less intelligent than African-Americans? Some 20% according to your evidence !

Quit worshipping IQ. It's a not very comprehensive or completely accurate construct purporting to measure human intelligence. It probably has it's value, but will at the very least contain some bias.

I suggest you graciously bow-out Mindfullness, you've painted yourself into a tight corner


TV

^{...do you actually answer questions or just pose them}

Mindfulness:
No, this is not the conclusion they reached, this is what they measured.

Using the head circumference measures to calculate cranial capacity at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years, at each of these ages, the Asian American children averaged larger cranial volumes than did the White children, who averaged larger cranial volumes than did the Black children.

I remain unenlightened as to the point you are making - Asian kids had bigger heads than white kids, who had larger heads than black kids, and IQ co-related, regardless of overall mass. This changes nothing in my reply o my position.

Mindfulness:
Unfortunately, there are many more studies that show the same. Asians score best at IQ tests and Blacks are at the other end of the spectrum.

"Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; that for Whites, about 100; and that for Blacks, about 85 in the United States and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa."

https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

Neither does this

Mindfulness:
TV, nature or nurture?

I could be nature or nature and nurture, but it is certainly not nurture alone - and in terms of brain size and relative advantage, as you've ably evidenced, nature is enthroned from the get go !

Men have a natural edge when it comes to STEM field study and participation.

Mindfulness:
I have already answered your question. The brain size differences are measured by taking into account the proportion to the rest of the body.

A short Chinese man who has a smaller brain than a tall African (American) man has a larger brain when the proportion to the rest of the body is taken into account.

I believe the study was clear that "the rest of the body" had no absolute effect? My reading, was that the brain capacity was independent of body size. But whatever, my view and position remains unchanged.

Mindfulness:
Irrelevant.

Totally relevent;

1. If nature dictates that men have greater cranial capacity than women, does that make men more intelligent/ Does it mean they possess higher IQ's

2. Is the seemingly superiority of black athletes due to nature or nurture?

Mindfulness:
Good point! Let us talk about the cost benefit perspective.

Do you know how much money countries have spent to encourage girls into STEM?

I just know that many countries spend a relatively low amount of money in terms of percentage of GDP on education. And I also know that money can do a lot for schools in EVERY respect.

Why should countries spend money to specifically encourage girls to take up STEM courses?

Mindfulness:
Well, men also want families but do not face these challenges, why is that so?

Again you mis-think this. Men and women typically have families in conjunction - not independently. A narrative that always views the two in isolation is bound to fail.

And, the natural inclination to have children is greater in women, the initial bond with the child is also greater, meaning the obvious thing is for maternal care to take initial precedence - The desires of women and choices of families simply reflect this reality - nature, nature, nature.

Mindfulness:
I agree but every group specific problem has to be tackled differently.

The lack of women in STEM is not a problem - your ideology insists it is for poorly founded equalist notions.

Trying to coral women into stem is a problem. As Stillfire has noted the drop-out rate is way high? That's because women are being herded down routes they are not actually inclined to go. When they realise this, they simply drop out, or opt out if already qualified.

Re-engineering to accord with ideology as opposed to reality will come at cost - it always does. If a river flows one way and you insist on it flowing in a different direction, there will be a cost involved. Forcing women into STEM is bad for women and STEM.

As to your worship of IQ, this is quite odd. IQ alone does not capture the measure of a man, and is no metaphor for his worth. Things such as compassion, tenacity, vision, all play important - and it could be argued - greater parts.

Why have your large headed Asian men not led the world in inventions and technology? Or in establishing lasting civilisations?


TV

Domestic violence – I suppose it’s worthy of discussion, although not something I’m personally that interested in. Many reasons for that, but one is that I rarely hear it parsed objectively and unemotionally. And I have personally seen a wide range – if not the full spectrum of DV.

My first point is about the term “abuse” itself. When I was younger it was essentially to be “verbally rude”. Now it seems it has become a catch-all term for any kind of wrong or “perceived” wrong behaviour.

Terms should always be clearly clarified before, or during discussion. Many households exist in what could be described as “low-level conflict”. This can be anything from rows, silent-treatment, to what one may term light physical altercations.

These are often jointly provoked and engaged it, and typically don’t escalate to requiring “intervention” – or only minimally. It can happen for a number of reasons and for different time spans - and yes, as they grow and mature together, many couples get beyond this.

Secondly, it’s routinely discussed as something men do to women, which even if physical abuse is preponderously against women, is simply not the case. And often women are given a free pass when it comes to their abuse – verbal or physical. That doesn’t help anyone.

The term domestic violence captures all relationships, not just marriage. And of all domestic arrangements, marriage remains the safest for women and children.

Female/female relationships are the most violent, followed by male/male, then male/female unwed, before you get to marriage proper. Talking of DV as if it’s something that occurs in marriages only, is again skewed at best and damaging at worst.

But my main concern is around divorce. Many jump from “abuse” to “divorce” – as if one is the logical outcome of the other. The next step is to condemn the stigma around divorce, and demand that divorce be de-stigmatised.

Divorce is stigmatised for a reason – and rightly so. Tying abuse to divorce is like tying abortion to rape. As I stated above, lots of what may be termed abuse does not warrant divorce. And, lots of divorces have nothing to do with abuse per se.

Under the rubric of de-stigmatising divorce for “abuse victims”, there is the risk of de-stigmatising divorce as a whole, which weakens the marriage institution.

We already see the escalating numbers of what are frivolous divorces, compounded by ill-founded marriages, as if divorce is “not a thing”, then marriage itself loses its gravity, and is not entered into with the right degree of sobriety.

Then there are the long-term outcomes. As much as many portray divorce as a neat solution to DV, it is never that simple – and I speak specifically about where kids are involved.

Divorce always damages kids – how badly may vary. Tropes like the “kids just want their parents to be happy”, or the “kids will be happier if I am happy”, are just that, mindless tropes. Children are happier if their parents stay together and attend to their needs. Yes kids are selfish and blinkered – although not as much as some adults it seems.

Not only does it damage them in the moment, but the damage can be deep-seated, even generational, as it goes on to affect how they form and engage in relationships and their views on marriage.

And beyond children, walking away from a marriage is not that simple. It’s akin to bereavement and psychologically very hard to deal with. Even with financial independence and a decent support system, the future can be very bleak.

So yes, it’s worth enduring, and worth seeking a solution to a troubled union – even if “abuse” is part of that trouble. The question should be around how long and at what point.

So I guess another reason is that I personally feel efforts are best focused on preparing people for marriage, to minimise the probability of abuse and divorce as an outcome. And I say marriage, as I have no truck with domestic arrangements outside it.

Not saying there are no benefits in DV crusades or campaigns, by all means, carry go, but at least try not to hamper the efforts of marriage advocates by valorising divorce.

Please don’t quote me stupid.


TV

LordReed:
Here are the clauses:

353. Any person who unlawfully and indecently assaults any male person is guilty of a felony, and is liable to imprisonment for three years. The offender cannot be arrested without warrant.

360. Any person who unlawfully and indecently assaults a woman or girl is guilty of a misdemeanour, and is liable to imprisonment for two years.

If giving women lighter sentence is discriminatory then what do you call this?

Cracky already answered this here; https://www.nairaland.com/2683426/discrimination-against-women-nigeria/6#39316625

It is likely that the assault on the woman would be considered "prosecutable" at a lower level than an assault on a man. Also misdemeanours are typically not punished by jail time - but fines/cautions, kind of buttressing my point. This law may actually mean that the levels of violence against a man have to be relatively high to warrant criminal prosecution - hence actually discriminating against men !

Again, this is at play in the UK today. a Man will be arrested on allegations of even light violence - i.e. a single slap or push - against a woman. This is were there is no physical evidence, or witnesses or where the womans story is falsifiable - that is she demonstrably lied. As long as she insists, the man will be arrested and processed. This is not what I read or was told. I saw it live and it was explained to me by the arresting officer.

I repeat, no one sat down to wilfully codify discrimination against women into the constitution. At worst, they codified the already agreed social norms. Anything viewed as discrimination against one sex would almost certainly have a corollary against the other.

Men have always viewed themselves as the protectors of womens virtue/honour. Even now, if a man physically attacks a woman, it's other men who will take him on, physically if they have too. It's wired women know, expect and play on it.

Hence my reading above; touch a woman, even slightly, and you are facing jail time. You'd have to do a lot more seriously damage to a man to risk prosecution.

Best drop this one dude !


TV

Mindfulness:
Read again TV:

"Race differences in average brain size are observable at birth. A study by Rushton (1997) analyzed recorded head circumference measurements and IQ scores from 50,000 children in the Collaborative Perinatal Project followed from birth to age 7 (Broman, Nichols, Shaugnessy, & Kennedy, 1987). Using the head circumference measures to calculate cranial capacity at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years, at each of these ages, the Asian American children averaged larger cranial volumes than did the White children, who averaged larger cranial volumes than did the Black children. Within each race, cranial capacity correlated with IQ scores. By age 7, the Asian American children averaged an IQ of 110; the White children, 102; and the Black children 90. Because the Asian American children were the shortest in stature and the lightest in weight while the Black children were the tallest in stature and the heaviest in weight, these average race differ- ences in brain-size/IQ relations were not due to body size."


It really is not so difficult TV.

Ok, I'll try, lets take it from the top;

This is the conclusion;
"Race differences in average brain size are observable at birth (and note the study was of Americans).

This what they did;
Using the head circumference measures to calculate cranial capacity at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years

=> they inferred that head circumference was directly correlated to cranial capacity, brain size and hence IQ, no?

Without correctly factoring as we have previously pointed out, the only conclusion they could reasonably reach is that Asian brothers have large heads. QED

Even if we take it as read that all constraints/influencers were factored for, this would only apply to American "races" - and we all know the history there.

As I asked you previously, based on what you are relying on above, male brain size is demonstrably larger - not inferred and not unfactored - on that basis, are you willing to concede that men are naturally brainer/more intelligent/possess higher IQs than women, or are you going to present me with a tuna steak ?

Bear in mind, I am unperturbed by claims such as the experiment you posted make - correctly controlled for or otherwise. EqualOps, OpenAccess and let the chips fall where they may.

You still haven't answered my question about the physical superiority of men of African descent - all the white girls I know agree with a cross between a dreamy smile and a sly look !

Not having a high IQ, I may have missed your point, please enlighten me if I have .


TV

LordReed:
Then why is it so hard to say clause 360 is discriminatory?

Must admit, I've been in and out - what is the 'ish around that?


TV

Kimoni:
TV01 - I read OP's story and I thought of you. Some of the things he said about headship, providing leadership and direction for his family being non-negotiable sounded so like you 'twas like I was reading from you.

God help the OP, I feel for him. It's sometimes confusing if one should fight for true love in cases like this but I respect and applaud the OP decision based on his reasons.

Lemme read some comments...

Derail - please ignore.

Read it K. Agree with the outcome, but he went about it the wrong way - that should have been flagged somewhat earlier in his due dilligence. I also don't agee with his conclusion of ecumenism - just so he can fulfil his carnal love ! Again if his faith was that meaningful, it should have been an issue earlier. He was also somewhat presumptious. Maybe a younger version of me


TV

Mindfulness:
Really?



I don't like to do it on a beautiful Saturday but I have to:

"[size=18pt]Race differences in average brain size are observable at birth.[/size] A study by Rushton (1997) analyzed recorded head circumference measurements and IQ scores from 50,000 children in the Collaborative Perinatal Project followed from birth to age 7 (Broman, Nichols, Shaugnessy, & Kennedy, 1987). Using the head circumference measures to calculate cranial capacity at birth, 4 months, 1 year, and 7 years, at each of these ages, the Asian American children averaged larger cranial volumes than did the White children, who averaged larger cranial volumes than did the Black children. Within each race, cranial capacity correlated with IQ scores. By age 7, the Asian American children averaged an IQ of 110; the White children, 102; and the Black children 90. Because the Asian American children were the shortest in stature and the lightest in weight while the Black children were the tallest in stature and the heaviest in weight, these average race differ- ences in brain-size/IQ relations were not due to body size."

https://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf


It hurts me too TV01 and ApexTitan.

Your pain is your own - and I have no balm for you .

Mens brains are typically bigger than womens - will you on that basis agree that men are more intelligent.?
This study is on Americans, and some of the "races" therein. Further, as already pointed out by both AT and myself, they are worthless is not correctly factored.

And like I've repeated ad infinitum, if all told, racial advantages are found, let everyone have equal opportunity and equal access - and may the best man win.

Intelligence is not a primary criteria for women in selecting a mate. So black men will always be kings.

Way to answer a question with a question - are you by any chance Nigerian . Not just herring, but a whole net of oily fish !


TV

LordReed:
Can you just answer the simple question, is that example discriminatory or not?

If you want a short answer it's "yes" - especially if viewed using the lens of gender equality.

Historically, women were given lighter sentences due to their child rearing responsibilities - and I for one can see the reasoning behind that. But in this age of equality, and people who can't rightly read making lung-bursting cries of discrimination, then it is - if you want to play that game.

There are murmurs of moves to stop the incarceration of women in the UK - the ideologically charged reasoning being that only men are really violent .

I repeat, no one - and yes, it was probably mostly men - sat down gleefully conjuring up ways to codify systematic discrimination against women. At worst what was codified was what already obtained societally. If viewed holistically, anything that appeared discriminatory against women would probably have placed a corollary burden on men.

And in this age, any discriminatory law will surely be repealed on challenge. The law evolves. Up until recently, it was legally permissable for a man to cane his wife in the UK - the only rule being the cane must not be thicker than his thumb. Guess I'm a law-breaker .


TV

Mindfulness:
This one is for TV01 and ApexTitan:

[img]http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/c1/fig01-03.gif[/img]

Black people are ALWAYS the weakest group. Nature or nurture?

AT has already responded - probably conclusively !

But let me add this; race is a social-cultural construct, which is at best a superficial attempt at broad-brush labelling. Human beiongs are sexually dimorphous. The only real categories of human are male and female.

Black, white, or gay, straight, or any other such notions are all fallacies merely used to push ideologies or agendas. Now, even if black/white was a thing, as AT has pointed out, we'd have to make that call on properly factored longitudinal studies.

And even if we did come to the conclusion that one "race" - see what I did there - had an edge over another in certain aspects, would it change a thing I have said? No. Equal opportunity and open access - and may the best man(or woman) win !

The truth is, even if women were simply brainier than men,their desires, choices and aspirations would probably mean they would always be under-represented in STEM fields.

And finally, as you seem to ascribe to racial notions, given the pre-ponderance of AA in the NBA, NFL etc., and how they are over-represented in sports in countries where they are a minority, given that the Olympics typically features 8 men (usually of West African descent), in the 100m final and black East Africans typically sweep the middle to long distance events, are black people physically superior to white people?

Stilly feel free to answer that last question !


TV

crackhaus:
Do you know why I asked you to look up the difference between a felony assault and a misdemeanor assault?
It's to save me the stress of having to explain it myself...

So on the assumption that you have looked up the difference, I'm going to try my best to explain why the sentences for both differ.

Real good effort here Cracky. Some of the most erudite minds of their era did not sit down gleefully looking to codify the oppression of women into the constitution.

The very worst they would have done is capture what was already generally accepted in society - point in question being things about spousal unions and the marital estate.

Trawling through the constitution and then wilfully or ignorantly mis-ascribing discriminatory intent is the purview of a troubled mind. Like I noted, the law - for better or worse - evolves. Under appeal, any such blatantly discriminatory law would be repealed.

That is in part the confoundingly obtuse confusion of feminism. Always playing the victim, always bleating on about rights - yet totally neglecting responsibilities - and always looking to villify men as misogynist, whilst demanding the same men give in to their unthinking demands. Did anyone even look to see if any women were involved in framing the constitution?

LordReed:
@Crackhaus
Do you find this discriminatory:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1874742
Excerpt:
CRIME
Men Sentenced To Longer Prison Terms Than Women For Same Crimes, Study Says
Sep 11, 2012
The study found that men receive sentences that are 63 percent higher, on average, than their female counterparts.
Starr also found that females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.
Other research has found evidence of the same gender gap, though Starr asserts that the disparity is actually larger than previously suspected because other studies haven't looked at the role of plea bargains and other pre-sentencing steps in the criminal justice system.
A 2009 study suggested the difference in sentencing might arise because "judges treat women more leniently for practical reasons, such as their greater caretaking responsibility."
Past studies have also found that minority men are, on average, given longer prison sentences than white men convicted of the same crimes.

I noted this phenom in my initial post. Even if laws are written in a perfectly gender-neutral manner, discrimination can still happen. It's common knowledge that women typically are charged less and receive lighter sentences where they are charged. It's not just the law, it's the application of the law.

Especially in sexual assault cases - where females are the perpetrators. Some women are shameless enough to claim victimhood - one case I recall the male she assaulted was barely 11 years old, and she claimed he seduced her .

A cause for whingers, mewlers, bleaters and losers who campaign on identity politics, unthinking notions of equal rights and victimhood.

Shior


TV

Sagamite:
The constitution's aim was to see women as an inferior human with inferior rights, so it was aimed to be sexist against WOMEN.

I would dispute that assertion - it was an attempt to codify the prevailing morés of the time - with of course some external influence.

No one sat down with the rubric "how can we institutionalise discrimination against women" and set to work. Just like no one thought "lets look at where we are now and where we will be in 50 years and promulgate future proof laws. The law evolves.

Sagamite:
It being perculiar to the era does not make it right.

I did not say it was right - only that the constitutional provisions were sexist against both men and female, if one uses that lens - and that in Nigeria, as everywhere else, things were evolving for better or worse.

Sagamite:
It does not make it sensible, correct, progressive and apt. It is against my beliefs, hence it is OBVIOUSLY completely wrong.

Why? Because I am always right!

If laws are to be ever "progressive", then you can never be right can you? Or at best, you can only be right, right now - which brings us back to evolving .

Sagamite:
A position of equality and giving each individuals the right to control and decide their destiny.

Only to a degree and to ensure it is fairly done. Society cannot just give leave to everyones unfettered desires, Hence why we have laws, traditions, customs and morés in the first place.

Sagamite:
That is why the world needs people like me with foresight, so hindsight becomes largely redundant.

You can't go into the world Saga - well at least not until you've sorted out NL first !

Sagamite:
Don't confuse "choice" with "discrimination".

Fair point, but I'm not not in a sense. And there is not always a marked difference.

Sagamite:
It is the fair and most objective way to underpin a law. So when it was decided is irrelevant.
It is sensible, correct, progressive and apt.

As log as it is applied sensibly and not as some over-arching and universal principal.


TV

Sagamite:
No, my views are not from a "modern or so-called 21st Century lens".

I am not funky. I will never be funky. Neither am I medieval. I will never be medieval.

This is coming from the realms of Intellectual and Logical Thinking. The glorious Thinking where gender equality is supported and it actually means equality, not women getting advantage.

If there are laws based on the premise of any burden or expectations on a man, solely because of his gender, then that law is sexist.

For example, I know in the UK, it is the law that the burden to get consent is solely placed on the shoulder of the man. I find that as sexist.

I am sure I have even read somewhere that a wife sued a man in Nigeria for not providing for her and the court took the case. That is sexist.

In my philosophy, both parents should provide for their child, not just the man, based on REASONABLE needs and divided based on proportion of earnings. Furthermore, there should be a mechanism to ensure the money is actually being spent on the child by the parent acting as custodian of the child.

We are not deliberating your beliefs, just what this particular portion ot the Nigerian constitutions says - in context. It was sexist to both men and women - if you are viewing things from that perspective. It was peculiar to that era and the antecedents of the constitution.

Sagamite:
I rail against divorce laws because, in the UK, the laws are sexist against men. In Nigeria, the laws are sexist against women.

But the plaintive cry of this thread is how women are institutionallly/legally discriminated against in Nigeria and the world over

Sagamite:
I repeat, laws should not be formulated based on premises that disadvantages, directly or indirectly, ANY GENDER. That is my stance on gender equality.

Again, that is your position, not necessarily the focus here, but needless to say, promulgating laws through a "gendered" lens, sounds somewhat "funky" to me. I would personally opt for a more holistic, what better serves all round" approach.

Sagamite:
We can't continue practicing stupidity based on the excuse "It was given to us under colonial times". (not saying that is your own stance)

As much as I call black people monkeys, I still believe we have a little bit of brain. Lets use it!

With hindsight, the whole world practices stupidity - laws are being enacted and repealed everywhere and all the time. Hence my noting that we are all "evolving", for "better or worse". IN 50 years time what is considered right now, may well be considered dated then.

Sagamite:
All forms of discrimination, in ANY part of the world has to be reversed.

Equality should be the premise the law is based on.

Discrimination is what humans live and die by every minute of every day. And some forms of discrimination are perfectly and legally appropriate. In marrying my wife, I discriminated against all the other candidates - ok, there was just one and we were too closely related !

If you buy a Benz, you discriminate against Jaguar, BMW and all the others, if you choose to live in Chelsea, you are hating on Dagenham.

When, and by whom was "Equality" decided to be the underpinning of the law. And even if you don't mean in the new-age sense of the word, equality means to treat things similarly situated or all aspect alike the same under the law. It doesn't mean the use of the law to "equalise" things that are in purpose, design, function or outcome quantitavely different.

Sagamite:
If 2 people then get together and decide, to create "harmony", they want to practice some form of non-equality, then fine.

I, for one, would never practice equality in my relationship. I am the BOSS, if any girl does not like it, she is free to take a hike!

https://www.nairaland.com/1020560/relative-spouse-beaten-brother-in-law-story/9#11937820

I should not be able to force her to take it and the law should not back me to force her to take it. But we should both have the choice to decide if that is what we individually want or not.

"Choice is one of the great ingredients of happiness" - Sagamite 2015.

The law does not intrude on relationships - unless you willingly place yourself under a relationship defined by law.


TV

Stillfire:
The premise of my argument between TV01 and I, was not about entering the STEM but about the girl child completing it. This would help push our numbers up. At the moment, our drop out rates are high. And one of the factors that limits the girl child are familial circumstances and sexist tendencies like this.

Which basically "deads" your argument. So girls prove themselves capable of doing STEM, good enough to start - and then drop out? Any pressure would have been prior to starting. Once they start - whether they faced a lot of pressure or none, good or bad - the end result lies squarely with them.

What the high drop out rates signify, is;
1. They found they were not really up to it
2. Not really up for it
3. Even if they were up for it, they figured their real talents, greater gains or an easier life lie elsewhere

Stillfire:
So, you arrived at faulty hypothesis without carrying out an experiment to prove my hypothesis is faulty? Mr. man you can do better. All you had to say was ok, let's carry out this experiment on Naija girls. And this is simply a rate reaction , we would see an increase of girls in the STEM, if we decrease familial factors that hinders females. Are we going to deny that Nigerian girls are psychologically discouraged from going further in their endeavours but aspire to be wives first, defined by a husband? So why would a girl go into STEM, when your aspirations should be home economics . Boys are encouraged to be providers hence the doggedness to take financially rewarding courses of which a career in STEM stereotypically insinuates. There were a lot of 'last-carrying' boys in my class who should have just respected themselves and gone to less-tasking courses . Take away these limiting factors and let's see if the percentage of Nigerian women in STEM would not increase. Simple.

A hypothesis presented without proof does not require proof to be rebutted

To say that Nigerian girls are discouraged is disingenuous. Without any outside influence whatsoever, they would soon realise that the cost benefit of pursuing some of the harder, more rigorous courses - especially those that may mean harsher work conditions - did not accord with the lifestyles they wanted.

Newsflash - women are not just pressured to want children. It creational, or natural if you prefer. All society does is pass on recieved wisdom. We all have the liberty to demur.

And this is patently evidenced by the low rate of STEM take-up in the West. Not only do they wilfully eschew STEM due to their personal aspirations, they have a wider array of alternatives. And, alternatives that more closely align with their natural inclinations.

How many women would choose a hard hat over the wardrobe allowance of a TV presenter? Afterall, the bugly ones can always opt for radio . Which female would choose drilling for oil in desolate terrain over running a gossip blog? Only a very few exceptions.

And as for those "last carrying" boys, abeg free them. They labour under the knowledge that if they don't deliver, men will not respect them and women despise - if they actually acknowledge - them. Their burden, social expectation and the pressure they are under is far more punishing - as a certified "last-carrying" Joe, I can personally attest to that


TV

Sagamite:
So you think saying a "woman marries into the family of a man" as a premise of making laws is not sexist discrimination?

Indeed, viewing through the “modern” lens of “equality” and, specifically “gender equality”, it may well appear “sexist”. But there would have been similar burdens and expectations on the man that would equally be deemed sexist if viewed from the same perspective.

So for example, he would have been “expected” to be solely responsible to protect and provide for the woman and any children they may have”, is that not equally sexist? Have you yourself not railed against the unfairness of divorce laws? Either you’ve become an Emma Watson fan or you’ve….wait 0! Saga, Saga, you get news

These things should be parsed as a whole – it was about harmony and flourishing, not discrimination. Those were the social morés agreed and in place at the time. Rightly or wrongly, the law merely sought to codify them.

And it’s worth mentioning that large sections of our constitution were lifted wholesale for the British one. They had like traditions and, for "better or worse", are evolving, as we all are. It’s not to say that those laws were instituted with the specific aim of oppressing women – which is the whole thrust of this pathetic thread.



Pathetic and atrociously pitiful thread. An utter fail. Women are discriminated against all over the world? Discrimination against women is institutionalised?? And for what? A married woman is was once required to have her husband’ written permission to obtain a passport What a bunch of near-unredeemable whingers. Oh my! So;

1.What was the point? – it was all about the integrity of the family and acknowledging the traditional headship of the husband – nothing implicitly wrong with that, and in that era
2. What was the implication? – the crippling cost and life-threatening trauma of having hubby pen a brief note – a totally unecessary burden on the husband !
3. What now? – the law was repealed once anyone cared to challenge it. But some still think it serves as an example of women being under the boot of the evil patriarchy

And a woman being able to obtain a Nigerian passport far more readily than a man is discrimination against women, not men? Is that all you can find? Does that mark Nigeria as an antediluvian cesspit of misogyny and it’s men as brutish cavemen. Anything meaty? or even a tad bit relevant to present?

Well, I have news for you “men are discriminated against – and institutionally – the world over”. Take a snippet of current – not dated or repealed - laws/application of laws in the West;

A father does not automatically have Parental rights to his children unless he is married to or marries the mother. If he is married to the mother of the child and it turns out not to be his, he cannot readily disclaim parental responsibility.

If a woman decides she doesn’t want a baby she wilfully conceived, she can abort it, if a man doesn’t, unless the woman agrees, tough. If the man causes the woman to miscarry, it’s murder, if the woman aborts, it’s a “clump of cells”

If the woman decides she doesn’t want the baby after delivery, she only has to put it up for adoption or simply leave it with a note at a convenient place – no questions asked. A man will be on the hook for child support till the child is 18, if it can be proven he is the biological father – whatever his views or desires at any stage from conception to birth.

Yes, there are probably some vestigial traditions that hampered women - just like there were some that disadvantaged men. Discrimination is not institutionalised against women any more than it is against men. The law actually treats men way more harshly than women, and burdens then a lot more - especially when it comes to punishment for crimes.

So please, just quit this “victim mentality” tripe and if anyone has things they need to work through, best seek help.


TV

Mindfulness:
PISA, the best known assessment program, which compares school performance by country, by gender, by social class etc. measures, compares and contrasts the performance of students with the help of exactly the same methods, questionnaires AND worksheets.

All your questions and postulations here amount to very little. The real questions here are;

1. Do men have brains that are dissimilar in some ways, giving them differing relative advantages in some areas - point in question here being TEM?
2. Are men and womens brain wiring and structure exactly the same - or indeed, womens have superior intelligence specifically with regards to TEM - meaning under/over representation is due to discrimination?
3. Do womens choices - due to lifestyle, preference etc - play a part in under/over-representation

Please present cogent arguements to make a case either way. It's worth noting that Chess which ios a totally cerebral exercising - ignoring mens greater digit strength - has segregated championships for men and women. Why is this?

It is also worth noting that the best female player plays against men - not in the womens league, hence she is not the womens champion - and the top ten women from the womens league would not make the mens top 100.

Is this also due to age-old discrimination or regressive gender stereotyping? Or do men simply have a "relative advantage" in some areas? And perhaps womens strengths tend to lead them - if not coerced by ideology - to other areas?

I'm just being rhetorical here and don't expect answers - although I'd be pleasantly surprised.


TV

Stillfire:
Social engineering? TV01 stop slacking. It is within my rights to make postulations, that is how theories and laws come into place.

Based on sound data, real life dynamics and mutually acceptable outcomes that lead to flourishing for all. You are using what at best is a blinkered ideology to justify what will be costly and counter-productive social engineering.

Stillfire:
We can now go ahead and do our experiments as 'scientists' lmao on a sample of Nigerian girls based on my hypothesis that if we don't limit Nigerian girls to aspire to kitchen life , the drop out rate will decrease and we would have an increase in the number of nigerian girls in STEM.

Firstly, your hypothesis is clearly faulty ! Secondly, your underlying assumption that most Nigerian girls arer STEM material is seriously flawed - not even most/many men are. Thirdly, nobody "limits" Nigerian girls - if they really want it - "and are capable" - it's there for the taking. Sounding like the only reason Nigerian girls eschew STEM is because they are actively discouraged . Any limitations are likely from girls or women anyway.

Stillfire:
And no I am not despising the girls that aspire to kitchen life, I am concerned about the girls who have it in them but drop out due to some retrogressive ways of thinking.

Such will be minimal and are probably decreasing. The real cause is the choice of women themselves. End of.


TV

raumdeuter:
TV01

SEGREGATED SPECIALTIES:
 Women are only 29% of all physicians, yet they are
overrepresented in traditionally lower-paying
specialties. Pediatrics is the only specialty in which
women are the majority (55%).3, 7
 Women have the lowest representation in surgery.
In 2005, women were less than 6% of each
orthopedic, thoracic, urological and neurological
surgeons.5

http://crgp.ucsd.edu/documents/GenderinMedicalProfessionsCaseStudy.pdf

Baically even in the field of medicine and Surgery, the harder part are left for the men while the easier part are female dominated

I know some would say which are the harder part. Well in the US post med school redicency to be a Neuero surgeon is 7yrs while for family medicine is 3yrs

The average required USMLE scores for Neuerosurgery is way higher than most specialties

The figures speak for themselves. There is way more data out there that shows that men are "over-represented" for a whole host of reasons aside discrimination.

If real-life dynamics and lived experince don;t accord with your ideology, social re-engineering is not the answer !


TV

Mindfulness:
What are women's strengths? Which jobs are family friendly / unfriendly? Why are women able or not able to compete at the point of entry?

It's been noted repeatedly that the men are better suited to the requirements of TEM. Medicine has lots of branches that afford women the flexibility to combine work with family. Female Dr's can opt for peadiatrics as opposed to neurosurgery, or being a GP as opposed to an opthalmologist.

Being a GP for example means they can easily adopt P/T or flexible working arrangements. This - as I have already detailed and evidenced - is actually compromising healthcare delivery in the UK.

Firstly becuase most new Dr's are women, there are fewer entrants into things like neurosurgery (still tend to be male), and because they look for areas that are flexible, front-line services are compromised. Try getting a GP appointment in the UK today.

At the point of entry for medicine, soft skills, i.e.e bedside manner, articulacy etc. are emphasised as much, if not more than pure scientific ability. This favours women at that point - 18-20 - one reason why they secure more places. Contrast this to things more math, logic or modelling based, which is the emphasis in TEM. Men have the edge - even if they are nerdy/clumsy/inarticulate!

Mindfulness:
Preferences can change over time, they are not fixed but flexible, which is great and convenient. What we are discussing here, however, is where these preferences come from. And I am still not sure whether it is nature or nurture or both.

If you are cliaming nature has nothing to do with it - and can prove that - then you would be correct.

I am of the opinion that nurture, and all our social norms, constructs etc. have always been predicated to some degree on nature/biology - and it has worked more or less. If you would bring something different please prove it works. All efforts to deny nature have so far proved abortive !

Mindfulness:
I agree and who wouldn't? Who wants to discriminate in favor or against anyone though? I thought it was more about encouragement of girls and not discrimination against boys.

Encourage them against their will?


TV