Holy Topic Veer, Batman! :lol:.
I do think that it is somewhat related to topic to bring up general differences between men and women tho', given that the OP was about barriers to advancement for women.
In the spirit of debate I'll try to address a couple of things brought up by the ladies without inspiring a barrage of scornful looks or rotten fruit
.
The strength 'issue' is an average genetic truism but, as noted, any distribution has extremes, so to say that all men are stronger than all women is obviously untrue.
I am assuming that in something like the fire-service, there are tests that must be passed to judge if a person is fit enough to perform the duties? I hope that these are identical for men and women because, if they are, the allegation that women are not strong enough is easily set aside. If they are not the same tho', I do believe that it is wrong to put ideals of equality ahead of the practicalities of the circumstances.
On the educational 'issues', that is a recent development (by which I mean 'since I went to school' ... no comments please
) and has a lot to do with the peer-pressure being built up to suppress appearing intelligent or educated or even passably well mannered. It is as if a social devolution is in progress for males where the negative traits are the ones being pushed to the fore.
I would appeal to all the ladies within 'ear-shot' of this to please stop
breeding with these poor examples of the male gender - if you picked your partners from those with positive traits then 'natural selection' will run it's course. If you don't then you have noone but yourselves to blame for what you end up with
.
As to women having the upper hand ... that's not really a sentiment I find particularly reassuring for the future if it's a prevelent attitude. It suggests role inversion rather than parity, which I don't think is a step forward.
Personal relationships are built on mutuality, with an agreed/apparent Decision Maker to stop things getting deadlocked. If that process is followed with the
other persons best interests at the fore then it works fine. If it's done selfishly then it works very badly and such relationships seldom survive. The gender of the 'arbiter' matters not one jot ...
... altho' if it's a woman in a Western heterosexual relationship, it's nice if, in public, she let's it appear as if the man 'wears the trousers' (even in ths day and age it's hard for a man to hold his head up with pride if those around judge him as 'commanded').
Professional relationships are also based on mutuality with a more formal hierarchy overlaid on them. The 'upper hand' is delineated in such circumstances and should not depend on gender. Of course, gender will intefere somewhat, depending on the era and general background in which the people involved grew up but common sense and common courtesy should keep problems to a minimum.
In my case, for example, I've worked with women as subordinate, equal and superior and have never had any unpleasantness - that's despite my being a reactionary old fossil with a strict christian upbringing :lol:.
Anyhow, this headache of mine is getting worse and I think I shall have to retire hurt for a time until I can string sentences together more coherently.
