reliv3
In that case, there may be a flaw in argument. Your anecdotal story doesn't disprove their point. The moment you started powerlifting training for 3 months, you've already became stronger than the average male. Most men on Earth don't do any sort of strength training, and it's not unreasonable to think that these men are not much stronger than the average woman.
I don't think I'm arguing against your evidence. It's your idea that this difference in men and women's strength is simply explained by a difference in testosterone. This claim does not nullify the questions posed in the article.
Both biology and the environment play roles in defining people's personality and physique. Higher testosterone is only a piece of biology's role, but it's only loosely related to environment's role. It's not an unreasonable hypothesis to claim society's artificial rules placed on women might have had an effect on women's physique through things like sexual selection. This is why scientists still explore these things.
Estrogen is also a hell of a drug... It's actully a point in the article that people give testosterone too much credit and estrogen not enough credit when it comes to how they affect the physique.
Your argument being founded on the effects of testosterone is not a good one...
I actually dont think testing this hypothesis is as easy as you think. You can't just control for social biases when analyzing marathon data because these social biases are longitudinal. At a young age, women quickly learn from modern society that they are physically inferior to men. Because of this, the best bet for testing this hypothesis is to look at ancient societies, because these societies are largely independent from our modern society.
Not with that attitude.
Remember when you had to get your friends and family to use Facebook? I do. Most (may be all) social media platforms are opt in. People are not born with a Facebook account.
This is not a reason, but rather a means to absolve yourself from engaging with a platform you know is toxic.
I think we really gotta stop lying to ourselves when we say "it's a good way to stay in touch with people". It's a way to stay in touch, but most of the shit you see on Facebook these days have little to nothing to do with the people you actually care about.
There are much better ways to stay in touch with others. For example, friend or family discord communities is a far superior way when compared to any Meta platform.
It feels a but ridiculous that you are using "less work hours due to pregnancy and childcare" as your primary explanation for why women make less over multi-decades long career.
Women go on pregnancy leave for months. How can this explain less pay for years of working?
On point. Everytime these kind of studies are posted, the bros always have some low key sexist comments which try to explain why the study is wrong... It happens a lot in the scientific community as well. Yet, all you need to do is speak to a few women in the field to understand just how hostile some of these Stem communities can be towards women.
I thought it takes a man and a woman to make a child. In addition, in many countries, both the man and woman can take leave when they have a child.
These sorta points greatly weaken your argument. You using child care as an alternative explanation towards why woman may make less is likely a symptom of the bias women face in the job market.
Yeah, that's my suspicion too. If more gen z are using the internet compared to boomers, then it makes sense that more of them would fall for scams.
"Notably, Navy Federal approved a slightly higher percentage of applications from White borrowers making less than $62,000 a year than it did of Black borrowers making $140,000 or more."
I don't know man. Like, I agree that data is missing, but the data they did pull is very damning. Like how is there a higher approval % of white applicants making less than half the yearly salary of black applicants?