I don't know how useful it is to focus on an athletic example. That is the area where men and women have the most conspicuous differences, far greater than in math. I do recall reading, though, a while back that women are actually better suited to endurance sports so if a woman is ever to be the best in the world, the marathon would be a likely place.
I specifically used atheltics as an example because of the conspicuous differences to illustrate my observation that many times even though generalizations may be useful, applying the generalization to specifics is often not useful, many times inappropriate, and sometimes foolish.
I thought that my example of marathon runners would be a perfect illustration. But then again, if no one else can see it, how could it be any good? It was not meant to illustrate that women would be better at it - even though there may be some physiological basis, but that is irrelevant to my contention.
On one side of the issue we have the cavemen, who are attached to the notion that women are inferior.
There are far more of these types (and they do a lot more harm) than:
the other side we have a species of groupist that believes that all result disparities are the result of discrimination.
Neither is reasonable.
One side does far more harm than the other.
Individuals of both sexes vary across every range based on physical, cultural, and personal variations so individuals can only be fairly assessed as individuals.
You would think that would be indisputable.
|
