Comment by DoreenMichele
4 years ago
It essentially assumes incompetence on the part of women. That's not the only possible explanation.
I don't even think it's the most plausible explanation. Social pressure and upbringing are large factors in human behavior and it takes time to make society-wide changes.
Is noting that women have two times less upper body strength misogynistic because it implies less competency in hand-to-hand combat or heavy manual labor?
I'm assuming women are more compassionate and less aggressive, which makes women less competent in competitive settings where self-advocacy is important, and more competent in scenarios requiring cooperation and caretaking, like child-rearing.
Whether these differences are inherent to female biology, or a result of deeply ingrained structures of human culture that mold girls in their upbringing is orthogonal to my premise. But as it happens, there is overwhelming/definitive evidence that much of these differences are biological in origin, and noting that is not misogynistic.
We do not make the world better by deceiving ourselves about it. An accurate model of the world is needed before any positive changes for it can be formulated. A positive but inaccurate vision of the world does not result in actions that improve the world.
Women are extremely competitive and they are not more compassionate than men.
Women are less aggressive and more compassionate (agreeable) than men on average.