Well, anything is possible, but considering if they have as many partners, the single mothers need to live in celibacy, consideting the single fathers presumably have only one partner.

Yes, and I'm pointing it out aswell that single fathers are providing better circumstances than single mothers for the kids.

You didn't watch the video's did you? How does men and woman being more the same on average, and differing in the extreme's, mean that men and woman generally prefer different things? It means on average they're similar, but when it comes to certain things, men and woman are very different.

Like when it comes to building a skyscraper let's say. Most male engineers won't give a crap about how the building looks aesthetically, or how well the spaces inside are laid out. All they really care about is building a thin and super tall structure that won't fall over or collapse. That's it, because it's overcoming a challenge that they find wicked cool. Now the engineering firm is forced to have some people who need to make sure it looks good enough and is well laid out so consumers will like it and will buy into it, but that's a 'because we have to reason, not because we want to'. That's where you would want female or lgbt engineers who are going to care much more so about that and will do a far better job than most straight men would.

Why are people so worried about the natural Earth as it was? Why do they have such a problem with it being changed? Why do some people, see people, as a cancer that's destroying the planet because we're changing it? Why do they want the Earth left alone to be as natural as it once was, for us to learn to live with it as it's supposed to be, yet those same type of people, seem to think seeing people like men and woman, as naturally a certain way, is unacceptable? 

What part of being a secretary correlates to computing? Did the role of secretary not become a position until after computers were invented?

Correct.

Nobody says the sky is white even though there's clouds. Even if there's a ton of clouds on a very sunny yet very cloudy day, nobody says the sky is white, they say it's blue. That's because the majority of the time the sky looks more blue than white. That doesn't mean nobody see's white when they look up and see clouds.

Some things aren't easy to learn. Some are extremely difficult. Some would almost seem to be impossible to learn and do well and that its really and truly something special that a tiny minority or rare few can do.

Men and woman like what they like. If a guy doesn't care about kitchen stuff he's likely not going to put much effort into doing a good job unless there's some other pressure or large enough incentive for him to care.

This is why many business have different types of people working for them. Not just men and woman, but job types. The more specialized people you can bring in, the more robust your overall product can be because more thought and care can be put into the product.

There's many possible reasons for the problems. Sometimes as simple as not enough money in the budget to do things right, or a healthy budget but too much greed by the contractor. Both of which could've been decided by a man or woman, but more likely a man in your case probably.

I didn't watch the video before replying. I have now, and it was exactly what I was expecting it to say.  

And now I'm wondering if you watched the videos you shared.  

For one, I am using the word things differently than Jordan Peterson is. I'm using the word things as "subjects" - whether it's people, art, computers, and he's using it more as a contrast against people.  

What I am saying is that someone could become a doctor because they like helping people, or because they like working with people, or because they like the pay or because they like the benefits. Some of these preferences are associated with men and some are associated with women. 

Even if you could associate that women like helping people more than men like helping people, and men prefer solving problems, both of those apply to the job of doctor. 

People are not concerned about keeping the Earth "natural". People are concerned about dying and staying healthy - people are concerned about climate change for example, because it is going to kill people. 

People live where they do, because those areas have expected climates. This affects what gets grown there, what kinds of storms happen, and a lot of other things. We have infrastructure and supply lines in place because we expect certain places to be able to support 

If that climate changes, best case scenario we have to spend a lot of money to move a lot of operations and change building codes.

Worse case scenario, a lot of dead people. 

Most people aren't concerned about keeping the Earth natural just because. They are doing it to prevent harm.

Just like it causes harm when people insist that men and women naturally like different things. It causes harm to the people that don't fit those views. It causes harm when society views some preferences as more valuable.  

Secretarial work isn't really the best phrasing on my part. 

It was viewed in the sense of being work that didn't require as much thought. Like a secretary taking notes in a meeting. 

Reading through this thread has been everything I expected, unfortunately. Variety, like most legacy media, is just coming around to fact has been exspoused by others for years. As has been the case, especially in the last 5 years or so. Content creators, on Youtube in particular, will point out a failing in entertainment media, get labelled as every pejorative in the book for it, then that very same legacy media will post the same views years later like it's a great epiphany.

Disney has gone out of it's way to tear down the aspects and/or characters that appealed to male audience in its IP. The audience expressed their issues, got ignored, and So they left. Anything that appeals to the male audience is viewed bad and/or archiac in Hollywood, so they refuse to make products that will sell to that audience. Ironically a lot of the elements that appeal to a male audience, appeals to the female audience as well. So when they alter things to appeal to female audience, not only to they turn off the male audience, they produce something that unappealing to the female viewers as well.

This is a big reason why Eastern entertainment IP has found great success. They have no issues making content targeted at a specific audience. Not everything is sanitized to "appeal to everyone". You get things like Solo Leveling and My Happy Marriage. The real way to "appeal to everyone" is not alter one property in a one size fits all fashion, but to produce a wide spectrum of properties with different target audiences. That's how you often get surprise hits with crossover appeal.

Side note: It amazes me how properties I grew up with wrote women better than content today. You wouldn't the Sara Connor of T2 in today's media. Instead of using expert tactics to take down men twice her size, she'd fight them straight up and win. Hell Ripley came into reality the year I was born.

They know it in Hollywood that a lot of the same stuff appeal to men and women, which is why they often try to write women as men. 40 years ago the heroines of the story weren't written as someone who could beat a man, but as someone willing to put up a fight not worth fighting against her.

This is a fun hypothetical but do you have anything to back up the idea? Because I looked up the gender ratio of architects (the people that would be the most interested in aesthetics of a building) and women make up 27% of them while making up 17% of civil engineers. A measurable difference but nothing that makes me think that civil engineering is the domain of dudes while the aesthetics of buildings is ladies' work. 

You can see them as being "naturally a certain way" but when it comes to prescriptions I want everyone to do what they like regardless of societal pressure. If you want to be a house wife or house husband, yay, if you want to work as an engineer also fine. 

And if you want to enjoy a story about a hero who is a protector saving a damsel in distress, that is fine too.

You could argue in the end that both end up helping people but that's a poor argument. For example, the men who created the nuclear bomb, were and weren't looking to help people from you're perspective. Yet you could argue, in the end, since what came from that in the future, nuclear energy, was mostly a good thing so they were mostly helping people. This excludes a potential nuclear annihilation if it were to ever happen.

The fact of the matter are the scientists were really most interested in the "things" they were working on, and it was the politicians/military that were worried about the people. Many of those scientists didn't want the bombs used against people, yet went ahead and made them anyway. Why?

---

So is the Earth better in a natural state or not? On one hand you're saying it is, but on the other you're saying it's not.

What I'm saying is the Earth's natural state changes, little bit by little bit each day, but also changes considerably over time. Nobody seems to care much about the minor day to day changes, though we do care a bit, but they are extremely worried about the large overall change of climate. Same reason why humans see some work as mens work and some as womans work at certain points in time. That's not to say there aren't some men who prefer doing what woman have in the past, and vice versa. That's not to say views on male and female work positions won't change over the long term either. Nobody puts major focus on the small things, but that's not to say they aren't there, and should get some degree of focus. Democracy may be a better system for the minority, but it's far from a perfect system. Earth may be a better environment for humanity, but it's not the perfect environment.

Some people believe we're destroying the Earth and should put it back the way it was, leave it in it's natural state, and stop tinkering with it. How would that work out for the human race as it exists? Would everyone agree? Would everyone go along with it? Would forcing people to go along with it and just live with the outcome be the right thing to do?

Most people aren't top tier in terms of what they do. Just because there's less woman, doesn't mean those woman aren't the top tier in their line of work. I wouldn't exactly say the majority of buildings are all well laid out and extremely pleasing to the eye.

Nobody also said it's ladies work. What was said was that females and lgbt would do a much better job in those positions because they care more about the people who will be impacted. Not all positions require that human touch.

Some prefer that people simply do what they like. Some prefer people do what makes most sense. It's why rules and regulations exist. You can't just have everyone doing whatever they like, and for those who are negatively impacted by the rules, we as a society see it as "tough luck" for the most part. Letting everyone simply do what they like for work will lead to far less highly skilled professionals and less efficiency overall. Those things mainly come when focusing on having the best who can do those jobs, taking those positions, whether they like the role itself or not. Just depends on what society as a whole decides is most important to them.