[rewmie]

> Women are primed to (...)

Your comment sounds awfully prejudiced.

I've worked with women in leadership roles that were more assertive than all the men in the room, and I also worked with men who went out of their way to avoid any semblance of confrontation. That hardly justifies bigoted views towards men or women.

[a_bonobo]

???

perhaps it's some kind of ESL issue, but here are some similar articles I'm talking about:

https://medium.com/fearless-she-wrote/shut-that-b-up-why-spe...

https://janicetomich.com/women-speaking-while-female/

I don't see how my makes me prejudiced? Society wants women to be quiet and primes them (i.e., [1]), which is one of the main ways male power dominates. How does that make me bigoted?

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/mar/08/silenc...

Edit: I think I see the misunderstanding; I meant 'primed by society starting from birth', you seem to have read 'primed by nature'

[rewmie]

> perhaps it's some kind of ESL issue, but here are some similar articles I'm talking about:

I'm not sure you noticed, but your so called sources are nothing more than baseless opinion pieces of people that you cherry-picked only because they convey the same prejudice and bias that you do.

Pointing out other people that share your opinion is hardly a substantial argument.

[mx_02]

So is pointing your own experience.

[rewmie]

> So is pointing your own experience.

No, not really. That's not how logic works. This puerile "no, you are" argument is meaningless.

If someone makes a broad baseless accusation that all X are true and you reject that baseless assertion by stating the fact that in the very least there exists some X that are verifiably false, you don't magically annul the rejection by mindlessly claiming it's a subjective interpretation. Either all X are true, or they are not. No discussion.

You can repeat all the puerile arguments you want, but if you want to defend a thesis on how all women are primed for something, in the very least you need to try to substantiate your wild claims, and your personal prejudices and bigoted views won't do.

[TeMPOraL]

> which is one of the main ways male power dominates

That in itself is not a true belief, but a complex piece of bigoted propaganda. I think GP understood you well, they're just questioning the assumptions underlying what you said.

[mlboss]

That might be an exception.

People in leadership roles are in general assertive irrespective of gender.

I think the parent comment was talking about dynamics in a regular team meeting where people are more or less equal role.

[rewmie]

> People in leadership roles are in general assertive irrespective of gender.

I'm not sure you got my point, but the point was that these traits are not determined by gender, and thus any claim that goes "<gender foo> is primed for <something>" is patently false and only reflects prejudice and bias.

[patrick451]

Yes they are. All of these traits live on a bell curve. The mean and variance are different for men and women. That some women are are more assertive than some men in no way invalidates the claim that on average, men are more assertive.

[rewmie]

> Yes they are. All of these traits live on a bell curve.

Do you actually have a source to substantiate your belief, or is this something you feel is right just because?

[patrick451]

Where are your sources? It's a radical position to claim that there is no population level difference in psychology between men and women. My position is canonical and easily googled.