Biochemist (nobel winner) resigns over his comments on women in labs

[Manfred Belheim]

I'm not talking about pushing anyone into anything, but rather removing traditional gender roles. We need more men teaching kindergarten classes.

Why do we need this? And what do you propose if men (on average) just don't want to go into this line of work? It doesn't remotely appeal to me, does it appeal to you? At some stage you're going to have to start forcing men into that line of work, or offering massive unfair incentives in order to bribe them into it, if you feel that they're really needed there, but just won't go voluntarily.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Discrimination is the only worthwhile point in all this. The rest seems more a desire to enforce uniformity than anything else.

And why should we "encourage" them ? The important part is to remove discrimination and makes it an even field for everyone. If, after that, women tend to statistically be more interested in some fields, then what about it ?

It's relevant because it shows a big double-standard. For all the talk about removing gender roles and tutti quanti (and I don't see why gender role are such a bad thing as long as they are not oppressive), it's funny to notice how the most vocal proponents of equality are actually the ones constantly enforcing actual discrimination, with women cast as helpless victims.

Why do we need to remove gender roles if they are not oppressive and why do we NEED more men in kindergarten classes ?

Y'know what? Why do we need anything? Let's just set up a Logan's Run society or Brave New World where computers and drugs take over teaching kids, and it doesn't really matter if they learn anything anyway, 'cause the computer will always take care of them.


Encouraging and pushing are not the same thing. I got pushed into home ec. in junior high, and I hated those classes so much, it took me DECADES before I had the slightest interest in cooking. And even then, that was only for the duration of my active years in the SCA when I was involved in feast planning.

Nowadays... I don't do much cooking. But when I do, I tend to look on it as an exercise in chemistry. If I do it right, the food will be edible. If not, it's time to toss something in the microwave for 2 minutes, or order pizza.

Encouragement, on the other hand... Lifelong interest in the sciences, lots of encouragement by both my dad and grandmother. He encouraged my interests in astronomy and geology and she encouraged me in computers. If I'd had the aptitude for math that it takes to get anywhere in the sciences, who knows what I might have made of my life?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

No-one ever encouraged me to study physics or astronomy, but those are the subjects I chose to pursue anyway because I was interested in them. If people need encouraging to pursue something then that suggests they're not really into it. All you need to do is make sure people are aware that something exists and give them the option. Their own interest will do the rest.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

No-one ever encouraged me to study physics or astronomy, but those are the subjects I chose to pursue anyway because I was interested in them. If people need encouraging to pursue something then that suggests they're not really into it. All you need to do is make sure people are aware that something exists and give them the option. Their own interest will do the rest.

Cute. Now tell me that I only have to wish hard enough for my dreams to come true, so I can go to bed and hug my Katy-Perry- Candy-Cushion while blissfully oozing away.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Not really, the two are not comparable at all.

Right. While you keep insisting he stated that labs should be segregated when he merely asked it in the form of a question while making a joke.

And here this female scientist is actually segregating girls from boys for a day because she apparently thinks they intimidate them from finding out how cool science is. That she can perhaps overcome this in a day.

Why do we need to remove gender roles if they are not oppressive and why do we NEED more men in kindergarten classes ?

Haven't you seen Kindergarten Cop?

My ex-wife is a highly regarded high school teacher who has won numerous awards, particularly for teaching exceptional children. She told me she has no friends who are lower grade school teachers, because dealing with young children all day long for years on end permanently changes the way they even deal with adults.

There is a reason why nearly all of them are women. It is much same reason there aren't many male nurses, flight attendants, or home economics teachers.

No-one ever encouraged me to study physics or astronomy, but those are the subjects I chose to pursue anyway because I was interested in them. If people need encouraging to pursue something then that suggests they're not really into it. All you need to do is make sure people are aware that something exists and give them the option. Their own interest will do the rest.

Indeed.

But there still is a social stigma attached to girls showing interest in erector sets instead of dolls that really should be addressed. They are literally brainwashed into desiring their roles as mothers above all else.

My mother wanted to become an engineer because her father was one. That was virtually unheard of at the time. She became a homemaker instead after getting a 2 year degree at a women's college where you could bring your own horse.

It eventually went coed and started offering 4 year degrees before finally closing last year.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Cute. Now tell me that I only have to wish hard enough for my dreams to come true, so I can go to bed and hug my Katy-Perry- Candy-Cushion while blissfully oozing away.

Seriously, are you high?

 

[warpus]

Why do we need this?

It's better for kids to have male and female role models as opposed to only female ones, at that age.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Pre-school teachers won't be the only adults they are exposed to. Other role models are available.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Like who? Remember there are a lot more single mothers now than there used to be.

I didn't have any male teachers until Grade 5, and that was for math, science, and phys. ed. (actually, it's rather inappropriate for girls to have male phys. ed. teachers after about age 11-12).

 

[Triewd]

No-one ever encouraged me to study physics or astronomy, but those are the subjects I chose to pursue anyway because I was interested in them. If people need encouraging to pursue something then that suggests they're not really into it. All you need to do is make sure people are aware that something exists and give them the option. Their own interest will do the rest.

Quite.

Implying that Women don't enter science when the option is available is due to sexism is disingenuous in the extreme.

And probably a whole host of other things.

 

[Akka]

Haven't you seen Kindergarten Cop?

My ex-wife is a highly regarded high school teacher who has won numerous awards, particularly for teaching exceptional children. She told me she has no friends who are lower grade school teachers, because dealing with young children all day long for years on end permanently changes the way they even deal with adults.

There is a reason why nearly all of them are women. It is much same reason there aren't many male nurses, flight attendants, or home economics teachers.

I'm afraid I don't see how this answer (or even is relevant to) my question.

And I don't see the logical link between the first two paragraph and the third.

 

[Triewd]

Okay, let's do a review of your posts in this thread:


In response to an exchange of comments about refraining from using racist or sexist terms and hate speech.


In response to a comment that Tim Hunt made his sexist remarks "on his employer's dime." (close paraphrase) So I'm at a loss to know what this comment even means.

I'm not going to quote the entirety of your next comment, but you did include a link to a blog article titled Why Modern Feminism Is Illogical, Unnecessary, and Evil.

This oh-so-illuminating article says, among other things:

(bolding mine)

Whereupon I asked if you seriously believe this stuff, because it sounds like the sort of claptrap from a John Norman novel. You should recall that I did explain John Norman to you but just in case you didn't read that explanation, it's basically this: John Norman is a psychologist with some seriously whacked-out misogynistic ideas about women, and he started incorporating them into a series of novels that are part science fiction, part barbarian fantasy, and part BDSM stories. Yes, his main characters actually do take time out to deliver verbal or internal soliloquies about why feminism is evil and women should just submit to men and stop worrying about trifling things like reaching their full potential as thinking human beings and just sit there and be pretty. After all, it's much more important that women shut up and make the sandwiches instead of being writers, teachers, working in the vocational professions, or becoming scientists, right?

Now keep in mind that I am not accusing you at all of inappropriate behavior or anything like a less-than-mainstream lifestyle. What I am concerned about is your continual emphasis on feminism as something that is evil, bad, associated with "witch hunts", crusades, and inquisitions.

Which brings us to the next post, which is... interesting:


Yep, that's a really good example of scholarly debate there.

And later:


I'm reasonably sure that unless you're engaging in illegal activities of some sort (note: not an accusation, just a wildly improbable hypothetical), you probably don't need to worry about NSA monitoring.

After a detour to talk about the church and abusive priests, along came this (I assume in response to my posts about other women and a male blogger who spoke against Tim Hunt):



<snipped quote from a sneering article in The Daily Mail Online>


Hmm... Putting a capital letter on the word "feminists" as though we're some huge, organized group like a political party. Well, some may well belong to political groups, but I've never heard of any "Feminist Party" that runs candidates in elections, not even in Canada, and we've had some really bizarre ones - Western separatists, various religion-based parties, and even a Rhinoceros Party candidate almost got elected one time. But Feminists? Nope, never heard of any such political party.

And there's all that hyperbole, claiming that poor Tim Hunt was "hunted down by a mob who have made no real contribution to society." Given that some of the people who were displeased by his remarks are scientists and journalists (genuine ones) and by this time, many other people from various walks of life, jobs, income brackets, etc., who are you to say that none of these people has made any "real contribution to society"?

And then... you posted a rather large image at me. I suppose I should be glad it's not one of those obnoxious animated .gifs from some pop culture thing I never heard of, but it's still pretty obnoxious.

Which brings us to the current issue of schools and libraries that offer science-related classes that one or the other gender is not allowed to attend because of some whacked reason that doesn't make any sense for any of the situations cited.

So after this review, is it any wonder that I am questioning the extent to which you really believe this mess of bizarre stuff you've posted in this thread?

So give it a rest. Please. There is no crusade. There is no inquisition. Nobody is going to harm you for being male. And I am not in the habit of "scoring points." However, I see some "high-fiving" subtext going on between yourself and one or two others.


Akka, you posted the link Triewd should have posted. Other than that, the exchange I had with him really isn't addressed to you, so it would be best not to confuse the issue.

Last point is a patronizing attempt to isolate me. Akka understands quite well I think

So after this review, is it any wonder that I am questioning the extent to which you really believe this mess of bizarre stuff you've posted in this thread?

This mess of bizzare stuff is your attempt at miscontrueing everything I have written into Your narrative in an enlarged way that you did to The Me in team claiming that

Wow. So not only segregation is a-ok, but so is racism.

^ Which he never said what he said

What he said I read as a joky imploring statement not to be sensationalist. So therefore strawman.

he said in his defense:

Indeed, such a study would have to produce an overwhelming amount of evidence to overcome the evidence against it so far. I presented an extreme hypothetical deliberately to illustrate my point, not to condone racism. It's odd to read what I wrote and conclude it as the latter.

A legitimate reason to hold beliefs is that observed evidence supports those beliefs. There are very few things that are *absolutely certain* (as opposed to things that simply have overwhelming evidence), and being capable of changing your mind in the face of new evidence is an important tool, even for strongly held beliefs, even if the thought of doing so is initially repulsive.

So give it a rest. Please. There is no crusade. There is no inquisition. Nobody is going to harm you for being male. And I am not in the habit of "scoring points." However, I see some "high-fiving" subtext going on between yourself and one or two others.

I have every right to say what I feel like to others. And I will. Especially positive talk


I am not going to turn this place into an echo chamber no matter what you say.

Hmm... Putting a capital letter on the word "feminists" as though we're some huge, organized group like a political party. Well, some may well belong to political groups, but I've never heard of any "Feminist Party" that runs candidates in elections, not even in Canada, and we've had some really bizarre ones - Western separatists, various religion-based parties, and even a Rhinoceros Party candidate almost got elected one time. But Feminists? Nope, never heard of any such political party.

Irrelevant extended grammar correction.

BTW not that it matters but there is a Feminist party in Sweden.

After a detour to talk about the church and abusive priests, along came this (I assume in response to my posts about other women and a male blogger who spoke against Tim Hunt):

A ‘detour’ in which Useless suggested that I would be less likely to condemn paedophile priests because they where white.
A poisonous fallicy. And the best you can comment for your narrative against me is
‘Detour’
Speaks for itself. Especially after your altruistic claims.

Whereupon I asked if you seriously believe this stuff, because it sounds like the sort of claptrap from a John Norman novel. You should recall that I did explain John Norman to you but just in case you didn't read that explanation, it's basically this: John Norman is a psychologist with some seriously whacked-out misogynistic ideas about women, and he started incorporating them into a series of novels that are part science fiction, part barbarian fantasy, and part BDSM stories. Yes, his main characters actually do take time out to deliver verbal or internal soliloquies about why feminism is evil and women should just submit to men and stop worrying about trifling things like reaching their full potential as thinking human beings and just sit there and be pretty. After all, it's much more important that women shut up and make the sandwiches instead of being writers, teachers, working in the vocational professions, or becoming scientists, right?

Wow. My views are similar to a BDSM novel that’s a strawman and poisonous fallacy of epic proportions. By the sound of things you can’t even be asked to actually quote John Norman.
Oh but wait you can’t because that would be against the rules? Then by definition you have made an unprovable point.

You also deliberately did not address my points about why political correctness is part of the inquisition

Your point is asinine.

BTW whilst we discuss that PM (underlined) There is very little truth in it, its full of distortions and contortions anyway:
In no particular order you claim that: I have not bothered to find common ground as I had not replyed-

The truth is you had not until that PM addressed most of my points sent in a previous PM. And then you did so with a bunch of at best half truths.

Your further proof/upon further reading of this was this statement:

I know its difficult reading criticism, I don't like it and I don't think anyone else does ether.

^ This is an olive branch if you take that as evil condescension then there is no hope of common ground ever.

You claim that I provoked you and that it was your fault you sent an abusive PM.

This is ridiculous blaming.

BTW I have had to deal with alot of bad things lately My mother falling ill then recovering. My neighbor attempting suicide, a Pagan group I was going to cheak out turning out to be a bunch of Neo Nazis in disguise and when I posted an objection to terms of a meet, the leader accusing me of being an undercover journalist/mole because and I quote:

"You are not welcome at the Allthing, in your first post to the forum you doubted the Jewish control of the media, your second posts were undermining the truth written in an article, without even bothering to read it, criticising before you read. If you do attend, your act of attendance will be considered stalking."

(critical thinking not allowed it would seem)

I have recently been harrassed by leftwing media journalists from the tab.co.uk whom are very likely attempting to send a video recorder or several concealed on a mole to this allthing, for this security concern, and your perfectly on time timing, and last minute approach, you fit this description very well, for this purpose you will not attend. If you do you will be charged with stalking"

(discussion on that on other thread I posted please - I only post it to show that I really have no tolerance for others BS right now - if this is used as a weapon against me I will be very very uncharacteristically unforgiving)

And whole whole host of minor rubbish besides, including Hayfever which suspiciously I have never had before.

So you can see why I would have really no time for others drama, and why I don't respond to those who only address half the points I send to them.

You claim that I address you with a attitude when you are the one who has been doing so to myself (and others in this thread) Like:

You have demonstrated that you understand nothing about this.

Said by you to Formaldehyde who understands a lot of things even if I don't agree with some of them.

And with plenty of comments like that that I really can't be asked to find or quote that's just one prime example.

You claim that you can't be asked with Trolls and Sexism anymore and won't be a doormat.

You have previously claimed my posts are Sexist.

You in the same PM claimed that I troll (or at the least implied it)

You state that you and I are going to clash, because of my view on feminism.

Last but not leastly you describe John Norman books as books where women are treated like dogs that can talk physically and socially dominated, and given no right to say no then you argue something I posted equates to it. And therefore you ask if I believe it.

You state that sexism and feminism are your triggers. Fine But I will post my views even if they offend.

Yes Valka I did read your PM Im not impressed You are the one who referenced by saying/implying passive aggressively that I had not

You say the Ball is in my court and that if I

If you really don't want to try to get along, we should just put each other on ignore and have that be the end of it.

Fine I would have peace at least. You would stop seeing my 'sexist posts'

One final Point Valka.

You get back what you give out. Rule of three applies to the universe.

And to my knowledge everything thing I have said is the truth I swear that before God.

I have cut out here only for the sake of simplicity and I have cut things which did not offend me but it is an accurate summary in my view

You can't say I did one thing wrong to you, then do I ton of wrong things to me and then claim you are the virtuous one. Only about 20% of this is my fault maximum. And thats a generous estimate allowing for further error. whereas you claim all of it is mine. And anything you have done is a result of me provoking you!

Way to take responsibility.

In my opinion you need to practice forgiveness, over things which annoy you - or you will carry them into conversations like this one. And I will not tolerate this I don't care what your problems are I have plenty of my own.

Lastly you will respect my boundaries. Any attempt to censure or censer me will be taken badly. I am getting real sick of walking on eggshells.

Triewd

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Like who? Remember there are a lot more single mothers now than there used to be.

So if that really is a problem, wouldn't the best approach to be to try and find ways to promote family harmony and couples staying together? Rather than just trying to "encourage" other men to fill the father's shoes in an official teaching capacity? Seems a bit of a roundabout way to fix the problem.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Last point is a patronizing attempt to isolate me. Akka understands quite well I think

Isolate you?



Akka wouldn't have had any reason to post the link if you'd done it yourself, which in fact you should have.

Irrelevant extended grammar correction.

Nonexistent grammar correction. Capitalization in this sense carries a whole other connotation. "feminists" is a general noun. "Feminists" in the middle of a sentence implies a specific group. Or so I interpret it.

BTW not that it matters but there is a Feminist party in Sweden.

Good for them. However, since I don't have voting eligibility in Sweden, I don't see how that's relevant to my life.

A ‘detour’ in which Useless suggested that I would be less likely to condemn paedophile priests because they where white.
A poisonous fallicy. And the best you can comment for your narrative against me is
‘Detour’
Speaks for itself. Especially after your altruistic claims.

I don't have any idea why you're complaining about this. A detour is simply a change in route - or in this case, a temporary change in the topics you were addressing. It's not relevant to the ongoing conversation you and I were having, so I just glossed over it.

Wow. My views are similar to a BDSM novel that’s a strawman and poisonous fallacy of epic proportions. By the sound of things you can’t even be asked to actually quote John Norman.
Oh but wait you can’t because that would be against the rules? Then by definition you have made an unprovable point.

Re-read the older posts. You posted a link to a blogger who evidently believes the same kind of drivel as John Norman. I did some investigating of some links in that article, and they lead to more of the same. So I asked if you seriously believe this stuff - the blogger's views - because it's just so outrageously misogynistic.

Note that I never accused you of holding those beliefs or engaging in that lifestyle, and made sure to make that clear. If you want to do your own research, I gave you a couple of starting places where you can easily find the information that backs up my points. The rest is up to you. So no, my points are not "unprovable." I could easily prove them elsewhere, but not here.

You also deliberately did not address my points about why political correctness is part of the inquisition

I don't recall where you made that point. If it wasn't addressed to me, I'm not obligated to counter-address it.

BTW whilst we discuss that PM (underlined) There is very little truth in it, its full of distortions and contortions anyway:
In no particular order you claim that: I have not bothered to find common ground as I had not replyed-

The truth is you had not until that PM addressed most of my points sent in a previous PM. And then you did so with a bunch of at best half truths.

Your further proof/upon further reading of this was this statement:

^ This is an olive branch if you take that as evil condescension then there is no hope of common ground ever.

You claim that I provoked you and that it was your fault you sent an abusive PM.

Y'know, it's really tacky to quote peoples' PMs without their permission. It's also tacky to call someone a liar in a public place when there isn't any way within the rules for a public defense.

personal stuff not relevant to this conversation or even this forum

Why is this relevant at all? Everyone here has difficult times in their life and yes, they can add up and cause frustration. But they don't add up to an excuse to engage in a truckload of hyperbole, overreaction, and posting links to blatantly misogynistic blog articles.

You claim that I address you with a attitude

More quoting PM content without permission.

Said by you to Formaldehyde who understands a lot of things even if I don't agree with some of them.

Formaldehyde is quite capable of defending himself, and appears to be doing so at length. If there is anything we want to say to each other, we don't need any assistance, thank you.

quoting PM material without permission

And still more public references to PM material, quoted without permission.

You do understand that "PM" is an acronym that means "Private Message", right? You're cherrypicking a bunch of things said over several communications, taking them out of their proper context, and twisting them.

accurate summary

Not even close.

In my opinion you need to practice forgiveness, over things which annoy you - or you will carry them into conversations like this one. And I will not tolerate this I don't care what your problems are I have plenty of my own.

Lastly you will respect my boundaries. Any attempt to censure or censer me will be taken badly. I am getting real sick of walking on eggshells.

Triewd

JFCOASRDMEONAJ. There is so much personal stuff here that I wouldn't even know where to start. You really don't have any reason to preach forgiveness at me. As for boundaries, I explained how that can best be achieved. It's a common practice on a lot of forums.

 

[useless]

If this dude has said that blacks or Asians or gays etc, should be segregated in labs i doubt anyone would even bother defend him, but when it comes to women...

 

[Borachio]

JFCOASRDMEONAJ

Hmm.

Jesus <redacted> Christ on a sympathetic red diamond multi- environmental orbiting nuclear joke?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

JFCOASRDMEONAJ

Hmm.

Jesus <redacted> Christ on a sympathetic red diamond multi- environmental orbiting nuclear joke?

Nope.

 

[Triewd]

Isolate you?



Akka wouldn't have had any reason to post the link if you'd done it yourself, which in fact you should have.


Nonexistent grammar correction. Capitalization in this sense carries a whole other connotation. "feminists" is a general noun. "Feminists" in the middle of a sentence implies a specific group. Or so I interpret it.


Good for them. However, since I don't have voting eligibility in Sweden, I don't see how that's relevant to my life.


I don't have any idea why you're complaining about this. A detour is simply a change in route - or in this case, a temporary change in the topics you were addressing. It's not relevant to the ongoing conversation you and I were having, so I just glossed over it.


Re-read the older posts. You posted a link to a blogger who evidently believes the same kind of drivel as John Norman. I did some investigating of some links in that article, and they lead to more of the same. So I asked if you seriously believe this stuff - the blogger's views - because it's just so outrageously misogynistic.

Note that I never accused you of holding those beliefs or engaging in that lifestyle, and made sure to make that clear. If you want to do your own research, I gave you a couple of starting places where you can easily find the information that backs up my points. The rest is up to you. So no, my points are not "unprovable." I could easily prove them elsewhere, but not here.


I don't recall where you made that point. If it wasn't addressed to me, I'm not obligated to counter-address it.


Y'know, it's really tacky to quote peoples' PMs without their permission. It's also tacky to call someone a liar in a public place when there isn't any way within the rules for a public defense.


Why is this relevant at all? Everyone here has difficult times in their life and yes, they can add up and cause frustration. But they don't add up to an excuse to engage in a truckload of hyperbole, overreaction, and posting links to blatantly misogynistic blog articles.


More quoting PM content without permission.


Formaldehyde is quite capable of defending himself, and appears to be doing so at length. If there is anything we want to say to each other, we don't need any assistance, thank you.


And still more public references to PM material, quoted without permission.

You do understand that "PM" is an acronym that means "Private Message", right? You're cherrypicking a bunch of things said over several communications, taking them out of their proper context, and twisting them.


Not even close.


JFCOASRDMEONAJ. There is so much personal stuff here that I wouldn't even know where to start. You really don't have any reason to preach forgiveness at me. As for boundaries, I explained how that can best be achieved. It's a common practice on a lot of forums.

I really do not care anymore.

Maybe I did someone wrong to you a while ago.

And I guess I am wrong for arguing with you oh well.

One final thing.

I cannot do with this level of distortion anymore Don't have time for drama.

You are going to hate this quote but never mind:

People that hold onto hate for so long do so because they want to avoid dealing with their pain. They falsely believe if they forgive they are letting their enemy believe they are a doormat. What they don&#8217;t understand is hatred can&#8217;t be isolated or turned off. It manifests in their health, choices and belief systems. Their values and religious beliefs make adjustments to justify their negative emotions. Not unlike malware infesting a hard drive, their spirit slowly becomes corrupted and they make choices that don&#8217;t make logical sense to others. Hatred left unaddressed will crash a person&#8217;s spirit. The only thing he or she can do is to reboot, by fixing him or herself, not others. This might require installing a firewall of boundaries or parental controls on their emotions. Regardless of the approach, we are all connected on this "network of life" and each of us is responsible for cleaning up our spiritual registry.&#8221;
&#8213; Shannon L. Alder

I'm done

 

[Valka D'Ur]

^I assume that's the last word, then? Good.

If this dude has said that blacks or Asians or gays etc, should be segregated in labs i doubt anyone would even bother defend him, but when it comes to women...

The uproar would have definitely been a lot louder than it's been for this. I've been fortunate in that while I've felt the sting of being considered weird by some of my classmates ("You read science books for fun?!") and some family, at least none of my teachers or college instructors ever had a problem with co-ed science classes or labs. And my dad's encouragement of my interest in the sciences came well after I decided for myself that I enjoyed it.

Some good news about the situation in Timmins, Ontario (about the girl who had been told she couldn't register for the robotics class): There was so much backlash from the community, not to mention a petition that garnered over 12,000 signatures (including the mayor's), that the library reversed its stance and let girls take the course as well.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm afraid I don't see how this answer (or even is relevant to) my question.

And I don't see the logical link between the first two paragraph and the third.

The reference to Kindergarten Cop is a joke which I hope I don't have to resign for making.

The second paragraph explains why men are typically unsuited for becoming kindergarten teachers, unless they happen to be Captain Kangaroo. Even most women are not suited for that job.

The third paragraph mentions that some jobs are better suited to women than to men. The same is obviously true for men. Examples would be lumberjacks and offensive linemen for the New England Patriots.