We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
The people who understand what "bell-curve data" means don't tend to be upset by this. Outrage often comes from people who can't visualise a Gaussian distribution or understand it when they see one.
I am generalising myself when I say that, of course.
Assistant Village Idiot
This all makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, and you'll see it mirrored in other primates a well as most mammals.
It's all about genetic success. Aggressive, assertive males have a strong genetic advantage. They displace other males and produce larger numbers of offspring. Even a male that lives a short life can produce a large number of offspring.
By contrast, female success is limited, NOT by number of matings, but lifespan and health. So the best strategy for females is to survive--aggression and risk taking work against that goal.
The majority of our male ancestors were aggressive and (at least for a while) well up in the pecking order. The majority of our female ancestors were those who kept themselves and their young out of harm's way.
Not allowed to say that most places. You have to say that male aggressiveness is entirely cultural because we encourage it and they can get away with it, and female avoidance of violence is because we made them wear pink and told them to be nice. In most public circles now you are not even allowed to say that it is only mostly gender expectations and training. Evolutionary biology cannot be admitted as even 1% of the answer, even though everyone knows (in theory) that it's crazy.
Environment is assumed, heritability doesn't even make it to the discussion. Conservatives will allow that there are some default settings for the sexes, but will not allow that for anything else, except maybe eye color and height.
Assistant Village Idiot
I'll tell you of a difference between men and women that most people won't like or want to read: Most girls who are bipolar are great students until puberty and after puberty are very sexual and outgoing. Almost perfect to succeed in the first 30-40 years of life. Whereas most boys who are bipolar are to distracted and difficult in school prior to puberty and after puberty are more violent, more dishonest and more likely to drop out of school and end up in jail. The same boy in a more primitive or hunter gatherer culture would fit in better and be more.
90% of all great artists, composers/musicians, writers and inventors were bipolar and that vast majority of them were men. About 50%-70% of every homeless person you see is bipolar and most of them are men too.