[0db532a0]

I’ll assume that you agree that objective value is not possible to define and that therefore no one has objective value. Are you taking issue with my view that women are conditioned to believe that they have inherent, objective value? Why do you think Instagram is so popular with them, where it is sufficient just to post a photo of oneself to be valued?

Also what do you mean by inherent merit? It doesn’t exist, just like objective value. It doesn’t matter that a study has shown that men are hired or receive funding because they’re male over inherent merit, when the study has already necessarily failed at defining inherent merit.

You’re either being intellectually dishonest, or you need to read what I wrote again.

[tomkarlo]

Yes, I completly disagree with your sweeping characterizations of entire genders, on both sides of that discussion.

A key part of the problem is that society often propogates such sweeping generalizations to children, reinforcing existing biases based on stereotypes rather than individual merit. This is part of what diversity policies are intended to address.

[0db532a0]

Language and the market are generalisations. These are the only ways in which humans can interact. The market is neither right nor wrong. It is the status quo. Women put more selfies on Instagram than men. It's a generalisation and also a fact.

You're still propagating the idea that individual merit exists and can be defined. It can't. If you think that hiring based on your subjective, generalised idea of merit would lead to grater gains, it's up to you to show it with real results. You clearly stand to make a lot of money. Until then, the status quo remains.