You completely missed the point. The example of the soldiers was about staistics. No-one was saying german soldiers are better genetically than Americans. The point is that the superiority of the German soldiers (whatever the cause) was real and substintial, even though the ranges in performance overlapped.
Apparently, if someone disagrees with feminist dogma they must be a misogynist!
> Lewontin's fallacy
Amid all the wishful thinking and acts of imagination fueled by ideology, a voice of reason.
> The difference in genetic makeup between the average male and the average female is LESS than the difference between one individual and another individual.
No that is a myth based on bad statistics. Sure there are outliers but the average differences between the sexes are much greater than within the sexes when you look across the whole range of eg personality dimensions.
An example: in WWII it is universally acknowledged that the German soldiers were abut 40% more effective that those from the US. That is, with the same equipment and tactical advantages, you would need more than 40% more US soldiers than Germans to win a battle. The gap to English, French and Italians was even higher.
Yet, the worst German battalion was worse than the best US battalion. So the extreme of the range within the German army was wider than the average difference between the US and German soldiers. This in spite of the existence of large and consistent differences.
A lot of people in this thread are unhappy with the truth: while there are individual exceptions **there are large and consistent differences between men and women**.
The existence of neuroplasticity does not negate this. We also have muscular plasticity - if you do weightlifting you will get stronger. However men are still on average a lot stronger than women.
This is not true. The differences between the sexes are greater than the average differences between individuals. Some researchers have tried to obfuscate this fact by taking differences one at a time, rather than holistically. When you do a multi-factorial analysis of differences between the sexes versus the average differences between individuals, the sexes are clearly different. This is the case for example with strength and endurance, also with personality traits.
I am perfectly happy that if, eg a woman wants to be a physicist, then all power to her. However it is not realistic to expect that 50% of people in such fields will be women. This recognition is *not* the same thing as "enforc"ing social roles.
"Poor man wanna be rich. Rich man wanna be king. And the king ain't satisfied till he rules everything" Bruce Springsteen.
Most of the 'sources' are typical citation fraud ie someone makes a claim based on nothing much, and everyone else cites this as evidence.
Here is the section from the link you quoted that has the most and most credible citations:
> Though anger and power are believed, by some academics, to be the primary motivation for most rapes, in 1994, Richard Felson coauthored the controversial book "Aggression and Coercive Actions: A Social-Interactionist Perspective" with James Tedeschi, a book which argues that sexual fulfillment is the motive of rapists, rather than the aggressive desire to dominate the victim. Felson believes that rape is an aggressive form of sexual coercion and the goal of rape is sexual satisfaction rather than power. Most rapists do not have a preference for rape over consensual sex. In one study, male rapists evaluated with penile plethysmography demonstrated more arousal to forced sex and less discrimination between forced and consensual sex than non-rapist control subjects, though **both groups responded more strongly to consensual sex scenarios**.
This is consistent with the theme in pornography that the most important thing is that the woman must appear to want it and to enjoy it. There is a relatively small genre of dominance porn, but that is a small minority. And there is probably more FemDom (woman is domanant) porn than male dominant porn.
No-one argues that there are no rapes motivated by anger, or revenge, or madness, or whatever. But this in no way justifies the radical feminist view that rape **is about power not sex**.
> Rape is about
When you actually look at the evidence, this seems unlikely.For example, rapes are mostly of fertile young women and rape rates correlate closely with fertily. Less than 5% of rapes are women over 45 years old.
> Statistically, only a very small number of rape accusations turn out to be fabricated.
This is greatly disputed. Even feminist will admit that 2-8% of rape accusations are false, which is a non-trivial fraction. Serving police officers in the field of sexual assault tend to think the number is more like 40%.
On balance it looks like her story is more likely. But we are trying to make our minds up based on very little evidence. It is OK to say "I don't know". This does not mean you don't believe anyone - it just means you don't know for sure. Many people have been executed and many have served long sentences for crimes they did not commit.
> my experience (that people with stories like that generally aren't making them up)
This implies that:
A. You have experience of several similar events.
B. You were in a position to know with surety what happened in those events.
Please tell us more!
> even if you are "innocent"
ESPECIALLY if you are innocent.
The main reason older people don't like pulling 80 hour weeks (routinely) is that it is counter-productive.
> maybe the only thing added to engineering the last 10 years is unit testing.
Hmmm. There was an IEEE standard for unit testing in... 1987. A quarter century ago.
"Those who don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it."
You missed the point,which is that the rules are such that any woman (but not a man) can take offence at normal conversation and cause major grief for you. Not every woman will use that power but some will. How lucky are you feeling? Thus even though notallwomenarelikethat, the situation is risky. Just the way marriage is now very dangerous for men.
> As for Einstein, I have a sneaking suspicion that life had worn him out.
Yes I think you are right about Einstein. I don't know why you have been downvoted.
Apart from the terrifying prospect of a long period of pain, ill health and dependency, he has largely become irrelevant to physics. His unified field theory had become a bit of a joke and no doubt his mental capacities had declined.