@Knixon said:

@Invidia said:

It also sounds like NEX is a pretty good cook too. He knows all about how to use SPICES and things like that.

And NOTE the way most of the FAMOUS CHEFS are also MALES.

Which also makes one WONDER how WOMEN got stuck with the JOB of being the CHIEF COOK and HOUSEKEEPER when MEN are also much better at it than they are???

I remember hearing or reading something about the chef/cook dichotomy but don't recall where. Something having to do with the invention of restaurants among other things. Anyways here is something interesting I found.

https://openthemagazine.com/voices/the-cook-the-chef-and-the-gender-gap/

Meanwhile, back at the thread that is supposed to about Star Trek Picard........

@Invidia said:

There's definitely something VERY FISHY going on in this show because ALL of the characters that we've met who are in POSITIONS of POWER have been WOMEN (even PICARD's FEMALE HOUSEKEEPER has also been more POWERFUL than the MALE one).

And you've got PICARD BEGGING a WOMAN ADMIRAL at STAR FLEET for a SHIP ... who's in CAHOOTS with another COMMANDER who wears SUNGLASSES ... who's in charge of NAREK'S SISTER ... who BOSSES HIM around.

And you've got RAFFI CONTACTING another WOMAN to get PERMISSION for PICARD to board the BORG CUBE (even though the other ADMIRAL also refused to let him have a SHIP for the MISSION that's taken him there to that CUBE).

And you've also got the ROMULAN NUNS who RAISED ELNOR, but still refused to let him join them.

And you've got 7 of 9 flying around and KILLING the other woman who was selling BORG BODY PARTS.

And Hugh was the DIRECTOR of the CUBE, but before that he was still also UNDER the THUMB of the BORG QUEEN who controlled it before he did.

So what's happened to the OTHER MALES who used to have POSITIONS of POWER???

Were most of them KILLED OFF in a WAR or something???

And We also find RIKER standing at the KITCHEN SINK doing the DISHES as if he's DEANNA's HOUSEKEEPER when PICARD shows up to visit him.

Nice to see you started to notice these things.

Ow god Invidia a few days ago you were complaining about some posters dehumanizing you but when I raised that I thought the replacement was also dehumanizing that somehow doesn't count and makes me a sexist misogynist make up your mind will you!!Otherwise you are being a hypocrite.

And like I said a thousand times before me having issues had nothing to do with me being sexist or anti women it was because of the dehumanizing aspect of the change and that the decision to make the change was made on the basis of a very small minority view and wasn't something the majority had issues with and as a supporter of democracy for me that is a big no no.

Surely the biggest factor in male/female job parity is simply biology?

Most women are going to want to have at least one child, which is going to necessitate time off work throughout their career. If our biology differed only in that the "birth parent" was randomly selected at the time of conception things would be very different. The "male pill" would've been a thing decades ago, for a start!

Men are also more likely - and more willing - to spend more time at a job, including additional overtime hours, taking work home, etc, etc. This whole "THEY DO THE EXACT SAME JOB AS MEN!" is just oversimplistic BS. IF anyone is ever able to actually measure that, at some point in the future, I will be surprised. But I'm certain they aren't capable of it NOW.

P.S. "If our biology differed only in that the "birth parent" was randomly selected at the time of conception things would be very different." might be A dictionary definition, if not THE dictionary definition, of androgyny. So there would be no "male" pill. It would essentially erase what we currently think of as "gender" and so none of these differences would have arisen in the first place.

@Knixon said:

P.S. "If our biology differed only in that the "birth parent" was randomly selected at the time of conception things would be very different." might be A dictionary definition, if not THE dictionary definition, of androgyny. So there would be no "male" pill. It would essentially erase what we currently think of as "gender" and so none of these differences would have arisen in the first place.

Nope. I'm suggesting a thought experiment where the only difference is that there's a 50/50 chance of the male giving birth.

Like I said, that's not "male" that's androgyny. That kind of "thought experiment" is useless, like a child - or college student - asking "What if water was dry?!?! Wow man, the colors!"

@Knixon said:

Like I said, that's not "male" that's androgyny. That kind of "thought experiment" is useless, like a child - or college student - asking "What if water was dry?!?! Wow man, the colors!"

If you can't grasp the value of thinking about such questions, I'm surprised that you're watching the sort of shows that posit such questions. Like, "What if there was a society that strove for equality for all?"

You think those are similar? Wow.

@LansingFan said:

Meanwhile, back at the thread that is supposed to about Star Trek Picard........

Well LF when I first put this thread up I expected it to fade away quick. Yet it goes ever on. I was genuinely irritated for a time. Then it came to mind that at least it keeps the posters off the streets. For an old space faring captain Picard sure knows how to cause fuss.

So evolution is misogynist?

Of course it is! "Everyone knows" that nature is not Politically Correct.

You'd think that those who seem to worship nature might take note, but... nawww….

@Nexus71 said:

So evolution is misogynist?

That's Evil-Lution 👹