this post was submitted on 20 Jul 2023
1193 points (98.2% liked)

Asklemmy

44151 readers
1310 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy 🔍

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_[email protected]~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
1193
How many Lemmy users are non-technical background? (programming.dev)
submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
668 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

I think most all of us here on Lemmy are people with technical background. Most of my professional contacts remained using Reddit, Twitter and even excited when Threads launched.

If you are non-tech background, please comment and share what you do for life.

If you have tech background, upvote this to help promote this post so that we can find more non-tech users on Lemmy.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 10 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is no disagreement that, in the current day and age of the human species, men are biologically predisposed to be more physically capable on average. There is no contention about that.

The point I am making is that two bodies with similar bone density, muscle mass, testosterone, etc. are going to be physically capable of the same thing, regardless of their genders. The gender is a red herring, what matters is the capability of doing the work.

As I told the other commenter,

We have a history of giving jobs to men because we’ve conflated their gender with other capabilities, not because they actually are the most capable. But my point is, we’re smart enough as a species to not do that anymore.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

But my point is, we’re smart enough as a species to not do that anymore.

Lol. Are we? Maybe it's just my small world but I don't see that at all. I encounter sexism CONSTANTLY. Hell, scroll down to the bottom of the comments on my main reply, it's right there for everyone to see.

The point I am making is that two bodies with similar bone density, muscle mass, testosterone, etc. are going to be physically capable of the same thing, regardless of their genders.

But gender does matter because one gender is predisposed to be bigger, stronger, have more testosterone, and has the ability to be stronger/build muscle more easily. I'd love to agree with you, that in a perfect world, gender didn't matter in brute strength, but it does. All things are not equal out of the box.

Now, as I have clearly proven, brute strength isn't everything, in fact most of the time it only means so much, but it's still there regardless. I think a more accurate statement would be something like "strength only gets you so far, capability is more important"

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 year ago

Lol I meant it more in a "you're smart enough to stop leaving the milk out of the fridge, child!" kind of way. I agree sexism is still rampant, and I guess I'm implicitly saying people in the past are somehow excused because they weren't as intelligent, but what I'm intending to saying is that we're smart enough now, so we have no excuse.

one gender is predisposed to be bigger, stronger, have more testosterone, and has the ability to be stronger/build muscle more easily

I see this as a heuristic at best, and an excuse for sexism at worst. In my example above I'm specifically referring to two people who are equally physically capable of doing a task by definition. The man shouldn't be given preference simply because he's a man, and men happen to be stronger on average. That's not relevant when picking someone who can do the job.