The lack of genetic capability was Eneas Carneiro talking about LULA not Dilma. Eneas is dead for quite some years now,

And from all the text you sent it would make more sense for women to be natural leaders, strange enough they aren't and in workplace they tend to fight a lot among them, make small groups, sabotage one another and despise women that are their bosses.

I don't see why being a virgin is so bad. At least you won't have to worry about STDs.

so the ideals people strive to live up to are all the result of patriarchy? there is no innate bilogical reason for men feeling the need to be strong, physically attractive, have style etc etc etc that is tied into finding a mate?

"We can respectfully agree to disagree but I honestly think destroying patriarchy is more beneficial to us males. You have males committing suicide because they aren't able to meet the requirements of a male in the "patriarchy system". "

lol and you believe that a society can be created where requirements do not exist? especially when a lot of these "requirements" are innate to human beings?

again something i've realised is becoming very common recently is the desire for a utopia where everyone is equal and no one has to feel bad for any reason etc

the ironic thing is that this idea is now being pushed mainly by academics and atheists who ridicule theists for having the same desires and i must say that this idea is absolute nonsense there will never be a utopia

as a man because one of the strongest if not the strongest drive you will have is the urge to reproduce you will always feel the innate need to compete with other males for females and this applies for women as will

therefore you will have to compete across certain criteria and most men realise very quicky that the criteria are physical attractiveness, how many resources you've acquired etc etc etc

"Patriarchy has been responsible for a lot of this."

sorry i missed this bit and with all due respect if you really believe this then you are sound asleep 

"Just look at how since feminism has been coming along a lot of men aren't alpha males anymore because they aren't forced to be like they were in say the 1940's."

can you elaborate on what you are saying here because honestly it doesn't make any sense to me

Ah, my apologies. Still weird to blame it on genetics, anyway nm.

I haven't noticed the stereo typical cat fighting myself, yet in sofware development women were (are) very much in the minority. They had 1 big advantage, never have to wait for the bathroom. Upside down world.

Yet what makes the women in that article unnatural leaders. How can they be effective in cool-power leadership if women only sabotage and despise their bosses? You do have a point, yet it's not that big of a deal:
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2014/01/why-dont-more-women-want-to-work-with-other-women/283216/

Social scientists who have been poking at this can of worms for decades have found that women sometimes exclude other women from opportunities in order to gain a competitive edge. Women tend to mainly only bully other women in the workplace, while men are equal-opportunity harassers. 

Much of this can be chalked up to decades of workplace and societal gender discrimination. Women tend to face the so-called "backlash effect," the theory that women can only advance at work if they act more like men, but they then face social penalties for behaving in unfeminine ways.

But perhaps the statistic to focus on isn't the quarter of workers who care about the gender of their colleagues. It's the 77 percent of workers who say they don't care. More of that, and we won't have to worry about boy's clubs or glass ceilings.

Agreed. It's just one of those insults that cool kids like to throw around. It's like telling someone to "suck a dick". What if that person (guy or girl) actually likes sucking dicks?

Also, many women play the victim card complaining that society is unfair and criticizes them for having multiple sex partners (whenever a friend makes fun of a woman for doing so I always tell them off), while ignoring the fact that men are also considered less attractive, though if they've never had sex before. While women have been fighting against this, men, instead of following the example of some women by doing whatever the fuck they want, are pressured into having sex with any girl just so they don't look bad or considered less of a man by both men and women. Having sex seemingly becomes their only purpose in life and the only topic of discussion.

As I said before, I have nothing against feminists, but it's time for men to wake up and fight for true equality.

You cand get them in Forms you had no guilty at all... the only bad part about being a virgin is not having enjoyed sex, but that is a personal decision so use it as insult is moronic.

Eneas was just being "polite" with the insult. Lula was proud to not being able to read or write, didn't graduate and several things that would make him an undesirable leader for any company. And as president he made a lot of goofs (but was a good mediator, unfortunately mostly for his and his party interests). So Eneas instead of calling him dumb or not prepared said that he lacked genetics traits (ie. low IQ). Was a curveball that Lulla seems to not have understood even like 9 years after it was said.

Call it empiric and dismiss it but most of the women I know don't like to have female leaders (and perhaps is because those leaders are a lot less gentle, because men are taught to be gentler to women, or just jealously and women competition) even if they like to have female coworkers... and your study could either summary on "let's not worry about it because 78% of men don't care and 76% of women also don't" or " why 30% less woman want to work with another woman (5/7) and 25% more with man (18/14)  while being less indiferent to gender". And show that perhaps female have more prejudice agaisnt themselves or are more sexist... But I agree with you that internally in the company that can be worked to be better.

Engineering and likely careers are very women lacking (and we saw already on the last discussion of the subject diverse reasons) so it's hard to judge from POV it happening, I also haven't saw the fighting, just reports of sabotage... probably in call center and other areas it may happen more commonly.

The only problem I have with what you posted is that yet again it tries to push blame to the system again. As I put before, when it's bad for women in some way it was fault of the system and must be destroyed, and if it was good for woman or bad for men that should be pushed  higher.

Women really are more no to be community leaders or at least articulators and flowing within the group. But their effectiveness and company value is still unproved don't you thinl?

Never had any trouble with people calling me virgin, being one or not =]

And yes, feminazism bother me, but I like my life, being a man, love my wife and etc, so I don't fell the urge to either fight them or complain about how hard it's for me.

Lula was quite the character I see. Not so far off actors going into politics in the US :/ Not that Trump is any better.

Not so much blame the system as blame old role models, expectations, stereotypes etc.

From the pevious paragraph
The results are similar in other surveys on who Americans would prefer to work for, rather than with. As Derek Thompson wrote in November, Gallup reported that all of 23 percent of U.S. employees now say they'd prefer a female boss—and that's a record high. And once again, more men than women said they either preferred a female boss or had no preference. We've apparently come a long way, though: That number was only about 5 percent until the 1970s, which helps explain some of Peggy Olson's endless suffering.

There's no easy answer for why both sexes lean slightly toward a male-dominated workplace. Among women, some studies make it seem as though this preference is the professional extension of "all my best friends are guys." As in, "I'm a woman, but I have an overall negative perception of female personalities and thus prefer to surround myself with men." For example, female respondents told one British pollster that male bosses are "more straight-talking" and "less prone to moods."

Women are no different when it comes to stereotypes about the sexes, including their own. Feminism is as much targeted at women as men.

But true. While there are plenty examples that women can be effective in an originally male dominated world, you cant really tally up the final scores until there is a balanced situation.


The media is unfortunately always focused on women breaking into male dominated worlds. Men have only gone up 7% (to 10%) in nursing careers. Even when it gets reported on, it's about the wage gap again. http://globalnews.ca/news/1900137/male-nurses-scarce-but-make-more-money-than-women-rns-study/

Stereotypes need to be broken there too.
http://carenovatemag.com/why-we-need-more-men-in-the-nursing-field/
If you pull aside a random man or boy and ask him if he’s considered going into the healthcare industry, the response you’ll normally get is “I’m not smart enough to be a doctor” or “I don’t want to go to school for 10 years”. We don’t really think about nursing, or being an administrative worker in a medical facility because we’re conditioned to think that a normal medical facility is set up like the US in the 50s, with a man in charge and women running around and doing all the actual work.

Men do have a tendency to be physically stronger, which is a big part of the job that keeps getting bigger.
An aging population and rising obesity rates means more and larger patients. While we don’t usually think about nursing as a physically demanding profession, it requires a lot of lifting, pushing, pulling, and otherwise moving patients around. The heavy physical work is injuring nurses who are forced to lift people who weigh more than they do. Even “light” people are much heavier than what would be considered “heavy lifting” in most jobs. Getting more men into the profession means nurses on average get bigger and stronger, which means the load can be distributed and bigger nurses can lift bigger people.


The same for teaching careers
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11668169/Why-arent-we-doing-more-to-encourage-men-to-be-primary-school-teachers.html
With male teachers still in a small minority in primary schools, is it any wonder that so many boys are falling behind girls

More interesting to note here is that feminism is to blame for turning primary eduction into a female dominated world
In primary school in the 1950s, male teachers outnumbered women by about three to one. Most of my teachers had served in the Second World War and some were battle-hardened toughies for whom controlling a class of nine year-olds was a well-earned stroll on easy street. ... I am certain, that they were doing something socially worthwhile and worthy of respect.

They also, of course, were paid more than women. The conventional presumption of the time was that a woman would leave work to look after her own family when she married and that a man’s income needed to be enough to support them all. After equal pay for men and women teachers became the norm in education in 1961, primary school teaching rapidly became a female preserve. Along with the longer holidays and shorter working day that were ostensibly on offer (and thus greater flexibility to look after their own children), women were encouraged to see themselves as more naturally possessing the “caring” and “nurturing” qualities that would fit them for working with children. More than a million women now work in education – approximately one in 10 of all women at work.

At the same time, men as a whole were increasingly being portrayed in feminist-dominated culture as predatory beasts who are a menace to children and women alike. As the TES survey reveals, men who might like to become primary school teachers today are worried that they might be seen as latent or active paedophiles, or otherwise unmanly.

Whether or not the absence of men as teachers in primary school has any bearing on the steep decline in the academic performance of boys in recent years (and there seems to be no hard evidence on this question), I do know from my own direct experience that many young women of the 1960s and 1970s went into teaching inspired by a feminist mission to raise the self-esteem and the social position of girls. I could name at least half a dozen women teachers I knew personally in the later decades of the last century who were proud to say that they favoured girls in class to make up for the oppression of women in the past. The moral dubiety – and outright sexist prejudice - of inflicting second-class treatment on little boys who could bear no personal responsibility for those alleged (and profoundly questionable) historical crimes never seemed to trouble those apostles of equality.

It’s not at all clear what can now be done. Men – having no sense of brotherhood to match the sororal feelings of women – are hardly likely to become primary school teachers because they feel they owe a duty to their sex. They are not going to enter the profession so long as it automatically brings them under the suspicion that they might be harbouring sexual feelings towards children. They are not going to train to become primary school teachers so long as that job would bring them less respect and social standing than running the dodgems at the fair. How likely is it that any government would launch a programme to improve the position of boys at school and the standing of male teachers to match the expensive STEM campaign – rightly approved by everybody – to get more girls into science, technology and industry? About as much chance as an audible announcement at our primary’s sports day.

Situations of the opressed becoming the opressor is nothing new. And change is always messy. Maybe one day we'll see balance. For now inequality exists on both sides. And both men and women are capable of pretty much any modern job. Time for the humanist movement?

Very good articles... most of times I turn my face on the allegations of gap claims because the method of analysis is very unclear or biased. But other than the monetary question it was very good (and if we consider the necessity of heavier lifters and the lack of supply it would "justify" paying more for them). If I were asked about working in healthcare I would just say I don't like blood, difficulty of the subject wouldn't be a problem, but the dedication to the career is very serious and necessary.

On the second problem I particularly never saw a problem in having more women as teacher before high school, but I can see several instances of teachers that favour female students (but most of cases I saw male teacher doing it) and never saw in a way that it harrassed the male students, but I can't say for other places. Anyway for me it is more of a problem on how female teachers are doing it than the lack of male teachers. And the answer for why there is less male teacher before high school is quite clear on the text, besides the paedophilia suspicion the biggest reason is the lesser payment for under high school than on high school and university.

And I agree with you, all distortions must be corrected as needed independently  of gender, and hopefully based on more concrete and unbiased studies, and the biggest chance of that to happen is using market reality.

It's a bit iffy justifying paying male nurses more because they are in higher demand. At first it sounds logical, yet then you get situations where physically strong women get paid less than physically weaker men, and you get the same justified complaints when there's preferential treatment to hiring lesser qualified females over more qualified males in the private sector.

I think more balanced gender distribution is very important in education. That's where children learn how the world works by example. Having male role models in education are just as important as the message itself. It's been a long time since I was in school, and from my memory it was pretty balanced, definitely not the glaring 1 to 10 distribution that article exposes.
However in high school the stereotypes were very much enforced. All science teachers were male, all but 1 language teachers were female. Sure, men and women have better tendencies in those areas, but not at those absolutes. Of course it's a struggle to get more girls into science when all exposure to science at school is from men. At least the principle was a women, not all stereotypes.
I don't know how it is today, my kids aren't in high school yet. Their primary school is pretty much all female. And the first thing I heard about volunteering at school is that you have to go through a police check 3 months prior. Understandable maybe, still rubbed me the wrong way.

And yes, the old stereotypes of patriarchy together with lower payment put men out of primary schools. The man must make more money, something that still nags some people today. Market reality can work, yet with the deck stecked against equality from birth a little more is needed.

About the gap, it's just market if you need that professional and there isn't enough you will pay more... but certainly there will be some iffy cases.

Before High School I just got male teacher on 9th grade or so. It wasn't 1:10 it was 0. Don't think it impaired me much, but who knows. I don't think balance only per balance brings value, but enable balance to come naturaly can bear fruits. Nothing that is unnatural to humans or society will stablish itself even if forced.

On the math classes on High school I had male, on languagues it was woman and gays. Geography, history and biological was split. And I actually believe that altough it isn't absolute (since I have female friends that are mathematicians and male friends that pursue languages) the poll is very gendered - perhaps it's a bad thing, and we can encourage and remove barriers to have people look at all options. My family never pressured me or showed a profession to be male or female adherent, but I was influenced by my father career more or less and at historical payments.

I'll have several years before my 1y old start going through the grades... it's horrible that we have to screen people, but between prejudice, inconvenience and else from adults and children safety I choose second (but seeing that nowadays women are almost the same as man on child abuse I would screen both).

Well there was a pressure to earn more because of being a man, but from early age I always loved money so it wasn't really patriarch society that pressured me. And if my wife could earn enough for me to be at home and she to work I would accept, but seeing our career options unless my backup plan works I'll still be the main provider in my house for the years to come. And I want to push further enough that on the backup plan she can at least be more time home to enjoy our son and raise him well. I don't like the idea that both of us sacrifice ourselves and can't enjoy the baby