Originally Posted by toddbishop
... To people like our Jasper, this is an example of political correctness gone mad, but it's really just acting like a grown-up and treating people with basic human respect.
Yeah, I enjoy this aspect of discussions...
My observations appear to be sexist, but then if I attempt to equal the results, then there is more sexism. There is no place for political correctness (unless you are attempting to be elected to a political office).
If I say that more male drivers race cars than women, I'm sexist - right?
It is my observation. How is that wrong?
Are there female drivers? OF COURSE!
Can women race cars? YES!
Can women race cars well? YES!
Is race car driving dominated by men? YES!
Is it politically correct to say any of this? I don't care - it is true, based on my observation.
Now replace race car drivers with drummers. Everything still fits.
*edit: It may very well be a sheer numbers thing - i.e. 1 in 100 drummers would be exceptional, 5 in 100 would be great, maybe 2 of those 100 drummers might be female. So where they fall in could be anywhere in that group of 100. If there were more participants, then perhaps numbers would fall in line. Nobody here is trying to suggest that those two females can't excel, but rather the odds of those two being seen is a rarity (unfortunately). But if 98% (arbitrary assignment) participants are male, there is a large percentage the exceptional ones will be male. I just haven't found that sample of the 2 (or overwhelming minority) excel in that group. I've always seemed to have seen the average (in rare cases, above average - but then is my perception skewed?).