it's gone to the dogs in my mind

And yeahh the majority of the time they called the SAME IDEA a great idea coming from him, and shut me down or cut me off, not even letting me finish telling them it. (They didn't know we were writing down their responses)

And it took us sending a FUCKIN A/B TRIAL STUDY WITH SUMMARY STATISTICS to the bosses (all dudes) to get them to believe that they were treating me any different. Like the most insidious thing about the whole thing?

Even with a fuckin STUDY!!! They tried to argue with me saying that they didn't shut me down because I was a woman, they just might have listened to him more because he had more experience (He was born 2 days before me and had the same degree as me, the only experience I was missing was the experience of not having boobs)

And it took a dude being like "No I don't think that's it" for them to take A DAMN EVIDENCE BACKED STUDY seriously.

It's so exhausting to do a damn research paper on "Please stop telling me to shut up" and be told "ok but how about shut up"

At least I learned a way to address this that works, and I've leaned on a few times in my career since.

- get a guy to help you

- run a/b trials saying the same things to the same person to see if the guy gets shut down like you

- write a paper documenting your findings

- have the guy deliver the paper to the other guy because you both know it won't get taken seriously if you do it

For as long as I can remember, I used to think everyone was struggling just as much as me, and everyone else knew how to fake it better than I did. I used to watch people have conversations and wonder "how do they make it look so easy??"

1. The only biological advantage males have over women is their muscle mass, which in this technology based world, useless. And even in the earlier ages before today’s technology, it was for them to serve and protect the clan, because its purpose was made to be disposable.

2. Women have higher EQ and better management skills due to partial brain differences.

3. Women’s bodies were evolved to survive through the hardest of conditions.   it is believed that women can live longer than men without food because women have more body fat and less muscle mass than men. Since fatty tissue needs far fewer calories than muscle, women have the double advantage during starvation of having less muscle (thus burning fewer calories) and more fat (thus having a greater amount of stored calories) which translates into a metabolic advantage during times of famine. Using historic data to analyse death rates for men and women who endured famines, epidemics or were sold into slavery, researchers found that in nearly every case, women outlived male counterparts by years.The study looked at events in history such as the 1933 Ukraine famine in the Soviet Union, the 1845 Irish potato famine, life expectancy of slaves in Trinidad in 1813; the Swedish famine of 1772-1773, survival rates of freed slaves from the US settling in Liberia between 1820 and 1843 and a deadly measles epidemics in Iceland in 1842 and 1882. In comparing male and female birth and death records they found that females virtually always lived far longer. For example, during the Irish potato famine life expectancy went from from 38 years for both sexes, to 18.7 years for men and 22.4 years for women and in the Ukrainian famine life expectancy dropped from 41.58 to 7.3 years for men, and from 45.93 years for women to 10.9 years.The study points to the idea that women have a survival advantage which is biologically innate. “Even in Liberia, the population with the lowest life expectancy, newborn girls were hardier than newborn boys,” the study notes. Also species that have the ability of parthenogenesis, always produce females since females are hardwired to survive in tough conditions were males can’t endure it.

4. Women live longer and have higher vitality biologically. All around the world the average for female life expectancy is 80 while for males it is around 74/76.  For example, in the U.S. male life expectancy was 73.4 years for males and 80.1 years for females, a difference of 6.7 years, whereas in France it was 7.8 years and in the U.K., 5.3 years.  Furthermore, female hormones and the role of women in reproduction have been linked to greater longevity. Estrogen, for example, facilitates the elimination of bad cholesterol and thus may offer some protection against heart disease; testosterone, on the other hand, has been linked to violence and risk taking. Finally, the female body has to make reserves to accommodate the needs of pregnancy and breast feeding; this ability has been associated with a greater ability to cope with overeating and eliminating excess food.  Support for a biological root of the gender gap in survival stems from studies of groups in which men and women have more similar lifestyles than in the general population, such as among nonsmokers (6, 7) or within religious groups such as active Mormons (8) or cloistered monks and nuns (9). Findings indicate that, even though men and women in these groups have more similar lifestyles and men are exposed to fewer risk factors than men in the general population, a gender gap in life expectancy still persists. Excess male mortality is also found among newborns and infants (10⇓–12), when behavioral differences are unlikely to play a crucial role and social factors may be neutral or favor male survival. An untapped source of information is the reverse situation, when both men and women experience high, perhaps extreme, levels of mortality risk. A finding that men and women have similar life expectancies under these conditions would challenge the notion that the survival advantage of women is fundamentally biologically determined in all environments.  Once mortality was broken down by age group, the researchers found that most of the difference came down to female babies being more likely to survive infancy than males. Rather than social reasons, researchers say the root of the discrepancy must be biological. Now whether its genetics, hormones such as estrogen, or differences in how male and female immune systems work, will have to be sorted out in future studies. Out of 43 world’s oldest people, 42 are women. Conclusion: men age like milk

5. Having two XX chromosomes is an enormous biological shield. Having two X chromosomes provides a huge health advantage, which is clearly the case for X-linked diseases, such as color blindness, hemophilia and Duchenne’s disease (a severe recessive X-linked form of muscular dystrophy). These diseases, caused by mutations on the X chromosome, nearly always affect only men. Since females have two cell lines (one paternal and the other maternal with different X chromosomes active), if just one of a woman’s X chromosomes is “healthy,” it can prevent the expression of most X-linked diseases. Males, however, who have a “sick” X chromosome will inevitably be affected, as they have no “back-up” X chromosome from a “healthy” cell line.  The sex hormone estrogen protects women from heart attacks and may explain why they are far less likely to be struck down than men.  this naturally-occurring chemical helps stop blood cells sticking to the walls of arteries and forming potentially fatal blockages.  Women are known to have a lower incidence of cancer — men have a two- to five-fold greater risk of developing the disease. Women are also better able to survive trauma, and, according to some reports, don’t get as seriously ill from bacterial and viral infections. In a new paper, researchers from Ghent University in Belgium argue these sex-specific health disparities may be due, at least in part, to tiny pieces of genetic material called microRNAs. The main function of microRNAs in cells is to turn off, or “silence,” specific genes. The researchers say microRNAs located on the female X chromosome may give women an immune system advantage over males. The X chromosome contains 10 percent of all microRNAs in the human genome. The Y chromosome has none. Some of the microRNAs on the X chromosome are thought to be involved in immune system function and cancer development.If a microRNA did something “good,” like help control cell growth, having two copies of that microRNA might provide females with extra protection against cancer. The same would be true for microRNAs that played a role in immune function.As a real-life example, septic patients (who have widespread bacterial infections) have low levels of a particular microRNA found on the X chromosome, the researchers said.Thus, this particular microRNA may offer some protection against sepsis.  Many infections cause more severe illness in men than women. Men infected with tuberculosis are 1.5 times more likely to die than women; men infected with human papillomavirus are five times more likely to develop cancer than women; and men infected with Epstein-Barr virus are at least twice as likely to develop Hodgkin’s lymphoma as women. The most striking sex differences in the immune system are seen in autoimmune diseases. Autoimmune disease affects about 8% of the population, but 78% of those affected are women. Women are three times more likely than men to develop these types of disease. This is the penalty women pay for having stronger immune systems. 6. Virus target men much more harshly than women, the reason for this is said to be that the virus’ goal is to “preserve female species”, and target men because the virus perceives males as weak. This is because women’s immune systems mount a stronger response against foreign invaders, particularly viruses.

7. Women are less violent due to lack of testosterone.  Even though women experience much higher rates of mental illness, depression and stress. 

8. Women have more endurance. Women have greater muscle endurance than men, a study appears to show.Researchers from the University of British Columbia found women were less tired after natural muscle exercises than men of a similar age and athletic ability.For the study, nine women and eight men were asked to flex their foot against a series of sensors as quickly as they could 200 times.The speed, power and torque - rotational force - of their movements and electrical activity of their muscles was recorded. The results showed men were faster and more powerful at first, but became more exhausted much faster than the women.Professor Brian Dalton, study author, said: “We’ve known for some time that women are less fatigable than men during isometric muscle tests - static exercises where joints don’t move, such as holding a weight - but we wanted to find out if that’s true during more dynamic and practical everyday movements.“And the answer is pretty definitive: women can outlast men by a wide margin.

8. Women can have multiple orgasms. the Clitoris is the only single human organ in existence to not have a direct link to reproduction and exists for solely for pleasure. It is proved that it isn’t an underdeveloped penis. Also it’s been proved that it has no evolutionary function. It’s simply there for the pleasure of women. Although it has been purposely excluded from biology textbooks out of fear and men’s feelings about it not being “fair” to be able to orgasm without penetration, it certainly exists. The another reason that it was excluded from textbooks was the reason that men found it “sinful” to being able to have pleasure from sex that isn’t coming from reproduction purposes.  The secret lies in ovulation, the mechanism that causes ovaries to discharge eggs for reproduction. In some species, like cats and rabbits, physical stimulation is needed to prompt the egg to be released—a phenomenon called induced ovulation. But in humans, ovulation happens spontaneously (without stimulation), often on a regular schedule. And not only can human females come to orgasm without penetration, but a recent survey of more than 1,000 women suggests that many—only 61.6 percent of heterosexual women—do not orgasm during intercourse at all. Nor is female orgasm associated with a higher number of offspring in humans.

9. Women were hunters too. Men were gatherers too. Women and men both cared and nurtured the infants. Women Made Cave Art. Take the assumption that men painted and drew the images we can still see in their caves. Since modern men assumed that ancient men did the hunting, they also assumed that men made the paintings.It turns out that women made their mark too — they may even have been responsible for the majority of those pictures. Hundreds of them are stencils of people’s hands, and Snow found that 75 percent of them were women’s. Experts can identify the gender of a hand’s owner relatively reliably based on its proportions. Men’s ring fingers tend to be longer than their index fingers, while in women, the two fingers tend to be the same length. In most of the Paleolithic-era stencils found in France and Spain, the ring and index fingers are the same length. The stencils women made of their hands appear next to paintings of animals their societies hunted and ate. New evidence shows that Pleistocene female hominids hunted, leaving no reason to think that men painted the animals. Snow says that women may have gone hunting with men and hauled dead animals back to their dwellings.Some anthropologists argue that female Neanderthals participated in hunting, a dangerous activity, in part based on their skeletons’ displaying the same bone fractures as male skeletons do. Another reason for the conclusion is Neanderthals’ relative lack of tools, meaning they relied on numbers to overcome their prey. Mercyhurst Archaeological Institute’s Director James Adovasio posits that the notions of Paleolithic men as the strong, fierce hunters and of women staying away from danger may derive more from our own modern culture than from the actual evidence.  A study out of Northwestern published in American Anthropologist argued that way back when, fathers carried, bathed, fed, taught and played with children. The study’s author, Lee T. Gettler, argued that if fathers had shirked this kind of labor, humans could not have evolved into what we are today.

10. Parthenogenesis. A form of asexual reproduction found exclusively in females, where growth and development of embryos occurs without fertilization by a male. What’s more, parthenogenesis always results in female progeny because the offspring invariably possess two X chromosomes. While there are no known cases of naturally occurring mammalian parthenogenesis in the wild, it does occur in a variety of species and is a possibility in humans. Hence, it is theoretically possible for women to reproduce without any male genetic contribution (i.e. sperm), while it is impossible for men to procreate without women. Although it doesn’t happen naturally in mammalian species, there has been successful experiments that the scientist were able to conceive an infant (mice), therefore there are ongoing research about this subject.

11. Male Y chromosome is a genetic mutation. The Y chromosome may be a symbol of masculinity, but it is becoming increasingly clear that it is anything but strong and enduring. Although it carries the “master switch” gene, SRY,that determines whether an embryo will develop as male (XY) or female (XX), it contains very few other genes and is the only chromosome not necessary for life. Women, after all, manage just fine without one.  What’s more, the Y chromosome has degenerated rapidly, leaving females with two perfectly normal X chromosomes, but males with an X and a shrivelled Y. If the same rate of degeneration continues, the Y chromosome has just 4.6 million years left before it disappears completely. This may sound like a long time, but it isn’t when you consider that life has existed on Earth for 3.5 billion years.  The Y chromosome hasn’t always been like this. If we rewind the clock to 166 million years ago, to the very first mammals, the story was completely different. The early “proto-Y” chromosome was originally the same size as the X chromosome and contained all the same genes. However, Y chromosomes have a fundamental flaw. Unlike all other chromosomes, which we have two copies of in each of our cells, Y chromosomes are only ever present as a single copy, passed from fathers to their sons.  This means that genes on the Y chromosome cannot undergo genetic recombination, the “shuffling” of genes that occurs in each generation which helps to eliminate damaging gene mutations. Deprived of the benefits of recombination, Y chromosomal genes degenerate over time and are eventually lost from the genome. Despite this, recent research has shown that the Y chromosome has developed some pretty convincing mechanisms to “put the brakes on”, slowing the rate of gene loss to a possible standstill.For example, a recent Danish study, published in PLoS Genetics, sequenced portions of the Y chromosome from 62 different men and found that it is prone to large scale structural rearrangements allowing “gene amplification” – the acquisition of multiple copies of genes that promote healthy sperm function and mitigate gene loss.The study also showed that the Y chromosome has developed unusual structures called “palindromes” (DNA sequences that read the same forwards as backwards — like the word “kayak”), which protect it from further degradation. They recorded a high rate of “gene conversion events” within the palindromic sequences on the Y chromosome — this is basically a “copy and paste” process that allows damaged genes to be repaired using an undamaged back-up copy as a template.Looking to other species (Y chromosomes exist in mammals and some other species), a growing body of evidence indicates that Y-chromosome gene amplification is a general principle across the board. These amplified genes play critical roles in sperm production and (at least in rodents) in regulating offspring sex ratio. Writing in Molecular Biology and Evolution recently, researchers give evidence that this increase in gene copy number in mice is a result of natural selection.On the question of whether the Y chromosome will actually disappear, the scientific community, like the U.K. at the moment, is currently divided into the “leavers” and the “remainers”. The latter group argues that its defense mechanisms do a great job and have rescued the Y chromosome. But the leavers say that all they are doing is allowing the Y chromosome to cling on by its fingernails, before eventually dropping off the cliff. The debate therefore continues.  A leading proponent of the leave argument, Jenny Graves from La Trobe University in Australia, claims that, if you take a long-term perspective, the Y chromosomes are inevitably doomed – even if they sometimes hold on a bit longer than expected. In a 2016 paper, she points out that Japanese spiny rats and mole voles have lost their Y chromosomes entirely – and argues that the processes of genes being lost or created on the Y chromosome inevitably lead to fertility problems. This in turn can ultimately drive the formation of entirely new species. Even if the Y chromosome in humans does disappear, it does not necessarily mean that males will disappear. Even in the species that have actually lost their Y chromosomes completely, males and females are both still necessary for reproduction.In these cases, the SRY “master switch” gene that determines genetic maleness has moved to a different chromosome, meaning that these species produce males without needing a Y chromosome. However, the new sex-determining chromosome – the one that SRY moves on to – should then start the process of degeneration all over again due to the same lack of recombination that doomed their previous Y chromosome.However, the interesting thing about humans is that while the Y chromosome is needed for normal human reproduction, many of the genes it carries are not necessary if you use assisted reproduction techniques. This means that genetic engineering may soon be able to replace the gene function of the Y chromosome, allowing same-sex female couples to conceive.