[LMB] OT: Gender Roles , figures

Matija Grabnar lmb at matija.com
Tue Sep 28 14:27:53 BST 2021


On 28/09/2021 02:08, Pouncer via Lois-Bujold wrote:
>
> Peter Hews suggests:
>
>> A quick look at the figures
>
> Agreed. Let's look.
>
>> will tell you that the strongest woman is way stronger than the
>> average man, the weakest man far weaker than the average woman,and
>> most of the scale overlaps.  The musclemen and and the weak little
>> women are not norms but statistical outliers.
>
> Height being correlated and easier to measure we find

Whoa. Stop right there. That's some serious "looking for keys under the 
streetlight" at best, and deliberately deceitful at worst.

Height is only weakly correlated to strength. A 5 foot tall body-builder 
will win any contest of strength against an 8 foot tall couch potato.

And your comparing the percentiles does nothing to address the point 
made earlier that there is a significant overlap in heights of the two 
populations.

Which was the earlier point.

> https://dqydj.com/height-percentile-calculator-for-men-and-women/
>
> We could use WEIGHT, instead, of course:

Which has an even poorer correlation to strength, of course. In fact, 
for a person of a given height, when they take strength training, their 
weight can shrink even though the same volume of muscle weighs more than 
a given volume of fat.

Hey, maybe you can take waist size as a proxy for strength? Or are we 
finished being silly?

> To stress another point of my original remark,  "professions"
> are different, and much more common in this century, than "jobs".
>
> The office suite of Word, Excel, and PowerPoint is a tool and
> skill set of professionals.  Driving a vehicle to deliver
> mail according to GPS and QR codes is a profession. The company
> clerk who keeps the government's forms filled out with statistics
> about race,  gender, citizenship, vaccination status, natal
> language, participation in health and retirement programs ---
> a professional.  The person climbing a pole to change a
> blown transformer has a job. The person who climbs under the
> tanker truck to hook up hoses and refill the gas station's
> underground tanks has a job. 

That's an interesting distinction which doesn't lead to the conclusions 
you think it does. If you insist on saying that only manly-men can do 
things that require physical strength, that would mean that the 
professions should be reserved for the other ones, i.e. women should get 
all the office, research and managerial jobs/professions.

I don't think you would like to live in that world, and neither would I.

> The enlisted person in a military-
> occupational-specialty who by combat readiness standards is
> required to test every three months by carrying 80 pounds (36
> kilograms, or literally --fully-- half the body weight of a median,
> 50th percentile, strong healthy trained athletic and hale female)
> over a distance of ten miles (16 Km) has a ... problem.

And yet, there are women who want to qualify, and do qualify. So what's 
the problem in their keeping the job they qualified for?

And, of course, only a very small percentage of modern military jobs are 
infantry troops, a lot of the other positions are what you called 
professions earlier on.

By your logic, we should reserve the jobs of privates to men, and make 
sure nobody but women get ranks of  colonel and above.



More information about the Lois-Bujold mailing list