Don't dumb girls down

> Your default assumption about an unknown person seems to be that he or she is not intelligent and doesn't have anything worthwhile to say.

My default assumption is that the person is of average intelligence. Jobs is of substantially above average intelligence, as demonstrated by having founded and run an extremely successful technology company. That puts him ahead.

> why should I be interested in convincing you that I have something worthwhile to say? What is in it for me?

I've addressed this before as well, when I said "if you want to be taken seriously". If you don't care about the opinions of people who read your posts, that's fine. If you do care, cite your sources so people can tell that what you're saying corresponds to reality. Still, if you really aren't concerned about what people think when they read your comments, why not just write them in a text file? Why publish things on the net if you don't want people to think you're saying something worthwhile?

I suspect that a) the vast majority of womenfolk simply don't exist - that some are outliers doesn't mean that the majority are alike, because give it what you like, b) social conditions are changing, for both men and women there are very contradictory expectations - so it may very well be that there is no way to be (culturally) satisfied, and thus c) the vast majority isn't happy. Add to that d), even if we are all up to making choices where we are truly existentially alone, many will for a big part of their life choose as their environment does, because choosing what you want is scary, and doing as others do gives - cold - comfort.

I think there are big changes coming up everywhere.

There are so many games one can play, which at least give a thrill, but that doesn't mean it's satisfying for life. It's like junk food. I suppose that's what much marketing does.

Society is not an intentional result - it's the unintentional result of sometimes (mostly not) intentional actions.

Rather than just arguing about this, we ought to be looking for the scientific studies on the topic, since this is certainly an area that scientists are interested in.

When we look at achievements gaps between boys and girls in math we can see that it tracks the amount of sexism in a society very neatly - so much so that it seems unlikely that there is any biological difference in math abilities in general[1].

On the other hand there is some pretty good evidence that there are personality traits that systematically differ between men and women in aggregate. Men tend to have higher concientiousness and women higher agreeablness, for instance.

On the other hand

[1] There are some spatial abilities that make up a small fraction of "math" there is some evidence that women are worse at.

There ought to be a Godwin's Law about threads talking about gender on the Internet. Given a certain concentration of comments on the subject, a sarcastic and baseless complaint of the assumption of male guilt (especially absurb, off topic comments about rape!) must appear.

> our social/political/economic hegemony.

Hm, sorry, what hegemony are you talking about?

I always wonder why people who go all excited about gender issues can't accept that women are not men and do not have to be like men? Your 'hegemony' (I assume you speak the well known thesis about male-dominated society) may not actually exist, and the 5 year old's desire to look attractive may not be bad at at all.

Imagine, there are two dimentions to the world. One is manifesting itself in social power structures, money, status, smart jobs, Nobel awards etc.

The other is completely different and involves sense of belonging, security, plans about rising children and actual time to spend with children, emotional connection with friends, caring, feeling etc.

It just could be that most of women are not interested in the masculine dimension of this life. Heck, I dare say they may not even be particularly fit for the struggle/rat race due to their biology, exceptions notwithstanding. But they are powerful masters of another, parallel universe, which is always here with us, and where majority of men just not quite make it.

I think of many girls/women I've known in life who absolutely hate to spend their precious time on stupid things like going to work, making sure your last project is a success, competing, 'achieving' in the eyes of others etc. This distracts them from their sacred passion in life -- that is to rise a child, to shape the child's mind and soul and to protect him/her. And protection means having a secure, clean and comfortable house. And yes, that means having a strong competitive man next the them who would provide for all of that. Basically, that means a family.

(The idea of the family seems to have been discredited both by the idiotic religious right and no less idiotic crusading left, but a strong family has a clear evolutionary biological advantage. It ensures the partners reproduce and their children get competitive advantage while growing in a happy/secure place. On the other hand, a lone over-achiever may as well become the richest man in the cemetery).

A young girl is conditioned to think about her looks because this will help her later to chose her mate and to create her family. And yes, she will be chosen for the large part because of their biological traits (beauty). And that's not a bit shameful or reproachable.

Thankfully, beauty is not the only criteria, so chill, you gender activists and spare me the flaming. Of course not only looks matter in life, and child beauty contests are a horrible thing. But still, it is normal for the girls to try to look beautiful, just as it is normal for the boys to try to be strong.