VGPolyglot said:
When the argument is that there is a clear disadvantage against women in the workforce, showing an example of that disadvantage is inadvertently going against what you're trying to argue. |
What is your definition of disadvantaged? Are you looking at it from the angle of said woman in question or society?
There are plenty of reasons men tend to dominate specific subfields and women as well. Take for instance construction workers. Most of these guys are 20-40 year old men. Why is that? The male body is more physically suit for rigorous work on a daily basis and can grow muscle quicker with better output than say a woman (https://www.webmd.com/diet/features/weight-loss-wars-men-vs-women#1). Women have more caring aspects in them, and as such they have dominated teaching and nursing professions for nearly their entire existence.
I guess my thing is I don't know what there is to argue here. Men and women both have different qualities and body compositions that make them unique individuals. If you're trying to say that there is inherent sexism in certain fields such as manual labor, I need the proof that it's widespread (even though if there is any it's most likely case by case). If there is no evidence of said discriminaiton, your argument essentially boils down to genetics are sexist, which is flawed in itself to say the least.
