Re: Egg and chicken

No.

There is a correlation between power and violence [*]. That's very, very, very different.

Yes, the correlation is there. Men traditionally were in power because they either took it by force or defended it by force, and later they institutionalized male rule in both religious and secular rule. At any rate, the fact that males are more violent on the whole is likely due to some relationship between their chemical and genetic makeup. I am certain it has a physiological basis anyway.

Any woman that ever exercized power stands as proof.

Riiiight. :rolls eyes: How about looking at the criminal records of men and women? Women have just as much opportunity to commit violent crimes as men do, especially in a country like the U.S. where guns are readily available. And yet they don't. Things that make ya go hmmmmm . . .

It is also true that many more men have been notable thinkers (including those affirming values of nonviolence); notable artists; notable scientists... You cannot simultaneously use the over-representation of men among tyrants to prove men are better at tyranny, and not use the over-representation of men in nearly every field of achievement as proof that men are better in, well, nearly every field of achievement.

That's debatable. Until very recently women have been all but completely barred--directly or indirectly--from fields like the arts and sciences. They've pretty much caught up with men in the arts. Nevertheless, I will grant that men are, on the whole, better at spatial and analytical thinking than women, which makes them more suitable for those sorts of fields. But women are, on the whole better at communications, so it really evens out.

I still blame power.

Men are not better at being tyrants than women anymore than men are better at being artists and scientists than women. Men had better chances at being artists, and scientists, and tyrants, and took them. If you give women equivalent chances, they will take them and gladly disprove you.

This is a bit of a red herring. I never said men were better at being tyrants than women; I simply argued that they were more aggressive and violent than women. Sorry Charlie, but this is factually and demonstrably true. It just is. I don't like it either, but I am not here to deny uncomfortable facts about my own gender. What's true is true, regardless of yours or my feelings on the matter.

Except that we already are, and in every country for which there are stats the results are that women too prefer to have boys than girls.

Oops.

You're talking about countries and regions where traditional values are still quite powerful. I am talking about first world nations, where currently gender preference is about 50/50. But right now gender selection of a zygote or fetus is not feasible. In the future I think it will be, and I think the gender preference will steadily shift towards females on its own. After all, if the state does have a female bias (and it very well may), parents will want to give their children every advantage they can, will they not?