Another Blow For The Feminist We’re All Entirely Equal Demand

The phrase “separate but equal” has unfortunate overtones in our language, given the manner in which it was used in both South Africa and the Democratic South to justify racial discrimination. And yet it’s clearly a part of the solution to whatever it is the feminists are shrieking about this week. Men and women do indeed have their differences. It’s not purely a matter of different plumbing.

As we’ve noted just recently there’s a definite predisposition to more collective solutions among women than there is among men. Something we can easily justify given the difference in successful breeding methods.

It’s that old hunter gatherer divide, isn’t it? The risk taking potential bounty hunters as against – or different from – those happy to just farm the present for a reasonable return. We can be less polite about it too, given socialism’s propensity for taxing everyone into a stupor. Could be that women are programmed to insist on everyone else’s efforts be directed to the support of their own children. But that would be sexist, wouldn’t it?

There’s also that well known lower predisposition to risk taking among women than men. Harry Harperson did indeed tell us that Lehman Sisters wouldn’t have gone kablooie! in the same manner.

So, yes, there are differences over and beyond the position to pee.

None of which means that civil liberty should be in any manner different. We thus finding ourselves perilously close to that separate but – certainly we’re at different but equal.

Today giving us another example of difference:

Men who eat two portions of yoghurt are less likely to develop bowel cancer, major study finds

Sadly, no, two portions of curdled lactose does not provide a lifetime’s safety. It’s two per week. But this is the fun part:

While men who ate yoghurt had a far lower risk of developing the growths, called adenoma, no association was seen in women.

Quite why no one knows as yet. But we really do have this difference so far as we as yet know. If we were to institute yoghurto-lactarian policies we would indeed have different ones for men and women. Those differences are very much more than just the pee pee position – they extend to potty as well.

The more extreme positions that men and women are the same – and thus should have the same outcomes – are simply wrong. The idea that there should be equal numbers of male and female programmers. Well, maybe, maybe not, it depends, is there anything innate upon average? For note what is being said above – different bowel cancer rates are normal given modern diets or modest alterations to them. We could, for example, imagine someone noting those different rates and insisting that it’s the patriarchy that doesn’t care for women’s bodies – an odd thing as that’s something a patriarchy is very concerned with, women’s bodies – and yet our actual finding is that it’s just one of those things, one of those innate differences.

Leading to the very interesting indeed question, well, what else is down to those innate differences? Possibly even including a propensity to code?

3
Leave a Reply

avatar
3 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
3 Comment authors
ThruppennybitthammondPJHH Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
PJHH
Guest
PJHH

“Harry Harperson”

Oh, please.

It’s “Harry Harperchild.”

thammond
Guest
thammond

I strongly the suspect the bowel cancer study is rubbish and can only provide a “wee p” value that is usable if you split men and women. The effect doesn’t seem to be dose-dependent, so is very likely to be just wrong.

Thruppennybit
Guest
Thruppennybit

Oh dear. An observational study. Sigh.

“The study tracked a total of 32,606 men and 55,743 women.
Every four years they provided detailed information on lifestyle and diet – including how much yoghurt they ate.”

If you ask that many people what they think they had to eat over the last 4 years you’ll get many slight correlations none of which have anything to do with causation.