Hormones plays a huge role here. Women by nature are gentler and less aggressive. And this filters to all aspects of behavior. This also means modest and less confrontational. Also maybe less demanding

Pretty much everything you're talking about in this sentence is more easily explained by social conditioning. Particularly when we know that such social conditioning happens, at least with a lot of women. It seems pretty understandable to me - if you were a woman, and you were told your whole life that a "proper" woman is gentle, modest, takes up as little space as possible, and is never confrontational, aims to please everyone, and every woman who steps out of line is a "bitch" and ostracized, I bet many of you would fall in line, too. Just as many men fall in line when it comes to those aspects of masculinity which are socially-conditioned (a lot of those, too).

Frob even pointed this out, somewhat.

The "girl code" learned as children is harsh, girls who step forward and put themselves out there are often shunned by their peers... Girls learn that trying to advance in the girl's world means deflecting complements and putting themselves last, and when it comes to the workforce most feel putting themselves forward for promotion or funding will cause damage to their careers.

Judging by the experiences of the women I've talked to about this subject, it goes even farther than that. Personally, I don't think we can disentangle what biological aspects there may be to the gendering of personalities without first doing away with gendered social conditioning and gender roles entirely. I doubt that will happen while we're alive, but I'm occasionally encouraged by the progress of society in that direction.

N.B. I'm talking about eliminating gender roles on a societal level, not an individual level. Even if one is raised without explicit gender role conditioning, merely being in a society with a culture of gender roles exerts some influence on us.

If the reasons stated here is close to being right, then not much.

I'm confident that they aren't right, and you are spouting unsubstantiated, '50s-era nonsense. And just because things are a certain way now, doesn't mean that it's right that they stay that way.

Again Am I the one who set women Tennis prizes lower than that of men?

What? Why would that be relevant?

What you wrote shows you didn't read ... you only skimmed through post, and as such you missed the core issues i addressed.

The reference to "1950s-era" nonsense was specifically to the first claim you made in the post and to the fact that you seemed to be justifying gender discrimination on the basis of which gender makes which choices.

Just mentioning trends based on free choices that people make and how it affects wages differences that may have inadvertently caused the disparages

Your post is specifically claiming that the cases in the list are ones where gender discrimination make sense. Allow me to quote you:

Except that situations were they make sense are not rare, In fact there are lots of them. The few I can remember right now are:

So, you actually are claiming that "trends based on free choices" (and are they really free choices, if it's down to biology?) justify gender discrimination? Wow...

Making sure everyone (male or female) has the freedom to work any job they choose to work without unnecessary barriers (except in rare situations where gender discrimination might make sense),
as long as they meet the requirements (and ensuring that the requirements are legitimately designed, not maliciously designed to exclude them).

Try as I might, the only job I can come up with where sex discrimination makes any sense at all is that of surrogate mother. Even the job of wet nurse can be handled with hormone shots. For everything else, sex is not a legitimate issue.

I can only come up with a few.

For example, if a director of a movie/show wants a character to be male because that's the artistic choice he made, 90% of females wouldn't be eligible for that job, and only a few that can easily be made to temporarily look, sound, and act male would actually fit. Ditto in the opposite direction.

Discrimination of gender, race, religion, etc... is legally recognized as worth protecting in that area:

"It shall not be an unlawful employment practice for an employer to hire and employ employees [...] on the basis of his religion, sex, or national origin in those certain instances where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise..."

It'd be illegal discrimination to not hire a gay actor (or possibly trans) from playing a straight male, since they can play the role just fine.
However, it is permitted discrimination to not hire a trans or female if they are incapable of coming off as male enough to play the role.

It's legal discrimination to not hire a black man if the director genuinely wants a Asian man in the role (and listed it as a requirement). The director can and should consider different genders and ethnicity for different roles, for the sake of art in general, but ultimately it's his decision.

[Edit:] Possible correction, it's legal to discriminate based off of appearance of ethnicity, but not ethnicity itself. So if a the black man looks enough like an Asian to suit the role (or can, at reasonable accommodation, be made to look the part), then he can't be discriminated against. Which makes sense, and basically what I was saying about women who are able to look the part of a man.

As far as I understand, it'd be illegal for him to discriminate in race and gender in areas where it's not required - like cameraman or tech workers.

If the government feels there isn't enough representation of female Koreans in the media, the government can use funding to encourage more works containing female Koreans, but has recognized that it's not the government's place to force specific works to change the nature of their art for the sake of diversity.

Likewise, it's perfectly fine for NAACP to require a black person for a specific job if it's a critical part of that position, or for a church to require specific religious beliefs to become the pastor, or etc... etc... A group of nuns may genuinely require female employees in their all-female convents.

Sex discrimination also does makes sense in sporting, I think. While it's been disproven (I think?) that black athletes have individual significant advantages over white athletes (though they may on average have a tiny edge in some sports, just as on average, white athletes may have the advantage of several extra inches of height over Asian athletes (excluding Asian outliers that are very tall)), males on the other hand have a significant advantage on average over female athletes, and even after hormone treatment and sex-change surgeries, transsexuals still have a very big advantage over females, and thus discrimination against transsexuals and males from competing in female-only sport competitions is potentially a legitimate discrimination.

Transsexuals, having their surgeries later in life, have already had their muscles develop significantly more (on average), possibly giving them greater advantages then even steroids use would. So either make a sport mixed gender entirely, or don't permit transgenders in female teams until further studies are done.

While hormone changes may help, it still doesn't address existing muscle-mass (it'd be like someone using steroids to train all through youth, and then stopping use of steroids when ready to join a team). And what about hemogloblin count and lung capacity - both of which men have a roughly 10% advantage on (supposedly), on average, and both of which are thought to be really important for athletics? Does sex reassignment surgery change those? (I don't know if it does or not). If a women can compete on a male team, great! She should be allowed to. But allowing men or trans into women teams, that's an unfair advantage. Either we should make contests (in specific sports) entirely not gender-segregated (and watch women lose 90% of the time), or transexuals shouldn't be permitted to compete against females.

Perhaps a better alternative is to simply group people of any gender into "weight classes" like wrestling does, except instead of weight, use brackets of general physical capacity (measuring different characteristics depending on the particular sport), so men on the lower half of the male bell-curve can compete with women, and women on the higher end of their bell curve compete with the men, and so on. That might be a pretty decent solution. You could have three or four separate brackets/'weights'.

I don't particularly care about sports, so whatever solution is done, doesn't really affect me, it's just an example where some form of discrimination might make sense - if not by gender, then by physical capabilities.

I have no issue with women in any military or emergency position (like firefighters), as long as standards of physical fitness aren't lowered to accommodate female averages, because that could cost real lives just to be politically-correct. Again, by using brackets of physical capabilities, it'd be easy for the military to say, "MOS 0325 requires a minimum of {x,y,z,w,q} physical qualities". To a limited extent, they already do this, but there's ongoing controversies over the finer details.

In a test of several hundred female marines, females performed vastly under their male counterparts in certain realistic missions to test their physical capabilities. There was controversy over the way the test was conducted, and which MOS's it disqualifies the females from, but the measurements themselves weren't questioned.

"Still, the study reinforced previous findings about the range of male and female physical performance. While there are certainly some women who compare favorably with some men in this arena, among the participants of this study the top 25 percent of women matched the bottom 25 percent of men in anaerobic power; and the top 10 percent of women overlaps with the bottom 50 percent of men in both aerobic and anaerobic capacity. The study also points to the disparate impact on male and female anatomy that the types of tasks these Marines were called on to perform can have. For instance, musculoskeletal injury rates were 40.5 percent for women, compared to 18.8 percent for men."

Also there's the issue of privacy, so if only (for example) four women meet the requires for a specific MOS, but it'll cost hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars to build additional facilities to ensure their rights of privacy, it wouldn't make economic sense to do so until there are enough women wanting the job and meeting the requirements for the job to be worth building the extra infrastructure (e.g. the "reasonable accommodations" test applied to religious and disability accommodations).

A) Making sure everyone (male or female) has the freedom to work any job they choose to work without unnecessary barriers (except in rare situations where gender discrimination might make sense), as long as they meet the requirements (and ensuring that the requirements are legitimately designed, not maliciously designed to exclude them).

Except that situations were they make sense are not rare, In fact there are lots of them. The few I can remember right now are [these are only averages, there are many women who do well in construction work for instance]

Building construction jobs Pro male: too rough and tough for ladies wages high
Office receptionists Pro female: they are a better welcoming face for a company/big corporation wages very low/good
Toddler Nursery day carers Pro female; Better at caring for toddlers wages average
Engineering Pro male: By choice women don't go for it. Who knows why
my guess: its uncool for a lady to be a mechanical engineer wages very high
Nursing Pro female, By choice, perhaps uncool for a man to be a nurse wages very high
Massage parlous Pro female: most visitors are male, thus would feel more comfortable with females wages average
American football Pro male: too rough and tough for ladies (we are not excluding sports from the discussion, are we?) wages extremely high
Tennis 50/50 wages (prize money) favours males players
Stock market traders Pro male: This is the only one not justified. wages extremely high

Out of a few thousand different careers, you posted roughly ten. Supposing even a hundred exist, I'd still classify that 'rare'. :wink:

Plus, some of those are subjective. Male nurses can do the job just as well as females can, so explicit discrimination (i.e. hiring a female because she's female) isn't justified there. I know a male nurse who's a very good one.

When you say "building construction", there are a few dozen different separate jobs under that; even if one or two have extreme strength requirements, there are still plenty that don't.
A friend of mine joined the iron-workers... with a damaged back. They easily accommodated him in specialty occupations that he was fully able to do without heavy lifting, so he worked on highrise buildings and bridges and so on. If my friend (with chronically unexpected intense back spasms) can do that position, certainly a strong female can do it, and many other 'construction' positions, even if they can't do two or three specific positions.

One of my brothers is better with babies, toddlers, and young children than the average female is. Male and female qualities often exist on two separate overlapping bellcurves, and men or women at extreme ends of their gender's bellcurve can easily be better than the merely average person of the opposite gender. We only get to discriminate on an individual's capability to do the job, not the broad averages of their gender. The averages do get to explain the ratio of males to females in a specific career though.

Using women as eye-candy is not an excuse to refuse to hire males for receptionist positions. :)

Perhaps we're talking about different things? I'm not it's rare that gender disparities in careers exist, I'm saying it's rare that explicit gender discrimination is justified. But there are situations where that is the case.

Women by nature are gentler and less aggressive.

Disagree.

The methods involved might be different but in many respects, maybe due to social conditioning, women are much worse.

There is the old line, two guys who are friends have a fight they will be down the pub the following weekend laughing about it - two women have a fight and its only the beginning of a multi-year cold war.

Women by nature are gentler and less aggressive.

Disagree.

The methods involved might be different but in many respects, maybe due to social conditioning, women are much worse.

There is the old line, two guys who are friends have a fight they will be down the pub the following weekend laughing about it - two women have a fight and its only the beginning of a multi-year cold war.

Women actually initiate more non-reciprocal domestic violence than men, and lesbian couples experience the most domestic violence. Counting my own experience, I've been physically assaulted by women much more often than by men. So women are equally capable of being as brutal as men.

Shogun.

Damn! This cannot be for real!

Female bias even extends to people's own children: Pocket money: Boys get 13% more than girls, survey finds

Is this a female hating world or people witch-hunting the male dominance myth are seeing what they want to see?

Ah! , No... none of the above, Apparently its because boys moan, complain and asks for more!!! :(

So instead of girls/woman learning to ask for more and make sure they get the payment they deserve, we expect men to just stop being so greedy and ask for less?

How about just accepting that the world is unfair, and only treats to what you ask for, and that women in general just ask for less?

Would I like a world better where you get paid for your actual worth and you don't have to sell yourself as hard (and imposters overselling their own worth get a ton of money before someone finds out they have no skills)? Yes, of course... but this is reality, and not some utopia.