I suspect that evolution is involved. Those who have power in society are making the decisions and thus NEED the larger brains. Those whose grandfathers were ditch diggers and under 99% of the societies ever designed would be ditch diggers themselves, didn't need big brains and in fact were better able to survive without them.

The women can work as secretaries, receptionists, etc. until they get a new gig. The men? They won't even think of applying.

That's bollocks, because men will end up working manual labour in the same situation if money is tight. You won't get hired as a secretary or receptionist as a man, because... well let's be honest, most men aren't eyecandy and for secretary and receptionists jobs that is a job requirement. It is, don't deny it.

So, no I wouldn't apply for those positions, but I would apply for a bus driver or truck driver job. Men will chose the harder jobs over jobs that handle humans... which brings us to...

Just look at the ratio of male to female nurses as another example. A job where the extra strength of a man is an advantage, but they avoid it like the plague. Why? Fear. Fear of what other people will think.

I don't think it's fear. I wholly lack the empathy to care for people. I would be more than wrong on that place and I share this *mental* state with most other men. That's exactly what you've been saying: there is a mental difference and the nursing job simply doesn't match what men like to do. If I can avoid people and get machines instead, I will take that option every single time. Even if it's worse paid and more physicals. Humans are disgusting, humans are vile, interaction with them in undesirable.

I think you're too much of a victim to see these things clearly. Men, do not like jobs where you have to handle humans. Only in highly paid positions, they accept that burden. That's why a project manager is paid more than a good programmer, while doing much less for the project.

I'm just curious if these are the same people who penetrated the SR site via phpMyAdmin, over the Internet, on 192.168.1.24?

I mean, what motivation could there have been at play?

You won't find those exact words; however, you will find this:

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

If there was a state religion, or if religion were not required to be separate from the state, there would, indeed, be religious tests applicable.

Of course, the Constitution also still contains provisions on how to count slaves for purposes of allocating Congress.

Both are equally likely to produce useful counter-terrorism results.

The most effective thing to do for counter-terrorism is to keep blowing up families in the Middle East and occupying "holy lands". Keep bombing villages until democracy emerges.

To do so, we need ever-stronger Nation States, and giving them the ability to monitor all of their subjects' domestic communications is a good rung up on that ladder.

Also, Facebook is the real danger to world peace - so be very upset about their ad network and don't bother encrypting your traffic.

Or if a man says something to a woman at work and she takes it the wrong way, another lawsuit.

Perhaps that is a cultural problem. I have, in my career, never shunned perverted jokes, sexual innuendos, compliments ("sexy dress today, Jane"), etc. The worst I had was a little talk because on one I made a girl turn totally red and she complained to her superior (Blowjob joke, but damn, if you're kneeling in front of a coworker you're deserving that.). I merely, got a little stern talk about behaving a bit better -not around women- but around uptight PriceWaterHouseCooper consultants.

I have a cute dataminer sitting next to me at work, the rest of us are neckbeard developers and/or sysadmins. Male-jokes get made and she just laughs with us. It is not a problem. Now, it were different, if I'd be touching her inappropriately, but I'm not and I wouldn't want to.

Other example, my sister is a roadie/sound-engineer. That is pretty much a physical job and she is the only female. She handles well and her nickname is "pittbull". A women in these jobs just has to take up the culture, because it's just that: a culture and it's not against women, it's just in good fun. So, yes, she gets teased that she'll be sent in a pink dress to the client to make better sales, but she quips back hard and everything is in good fun.

Sueing? So North-American. Try "forgiving" and "adapting".

It is very simple, you are free to say that -let's say- black people and inferior people. Totally free in my eyes to say that. You'd be an idiot, but freedom allows you to be an idiot.

What you can't do is enforce your beliefs, because that is the actual discrimination.

The laws are there to protect minorities, not from vile speech, but from actual harm. However, even discrimination laws have their limits. Especially regarding to gender, because there *are* actual physical difference between men and women (feminists will never allow this to be true, but it's pretty much scientific fact). So, I can understand that an employer wouldn't hire a female truck driver, because in the event of a flat tire, she wouldn't be able to help herself because changing the tire would be too heavy. Of course, this would depend on the candidate. I know very physically strong women, but that is not how feminists think. That said, they're not battling for women to become truck drivers, but for women to get so called white collar jobs in management.

So, no, discrimination is not equal to political correctness. I am not politically correct, because I'm not afraid to say what I think even if it is contrary to popular beliefs, but I do not discriminate (at least, I try not to... it is apparently impossible not to discriminate at all)

It's subtle what's been "ditched" in later case law. And it's not what you're assuming.

I have to wonder why. That's the environment that fosters the maximum in human diversity, where everyone is the most free to find and do what is their own thing.

So you like an existence of more uniformity and degree of being controlled. I don't. I think even HOA's are frickin' nazis. As if the squeezing every last dollar of resale value is The One True Goal that everyone should have. Fuck that, I bought a home as a place to live, not something to flip, I want to customize it. If someone wants to paint their place Pepto Bismol pink, they ought to be able to.

My problem is I'm a city boy (or rather a suburbs boy) so I wouldn't be content to go live in some remote place just to be let be. That's why I wish the U.S. was split up geographically, for the two political sides.