NationStates Jolt Archive

I think the biggest myth being perpetrated right now is that in the West, there is real (versus legal) gender equity. Apparently overall national prosperity means that we should ignore the fact that the poorest of the poor are still women (http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&do=Article&call=753&pA=A2286B2A&type=2,3,4,5,6,7)...that women suffer disproportionate amounts and levels (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/07/14/domestic-violence-050714.html) of domestic violence at the hands of men, and that women continue to lag behind men in terms of wages (http://www.womensmedia.com/new/confronting-gender-wage-gap.shtml) and representation in politics (ihttp://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/wmnmap05_en.pdf).

Feminists won, the battle is over right? Women are just choosing to be abused more, to be less affluent, less well paid, and less involved in politics than men.

Correction...


It's a white mans world.

ya but well educated upper middle class women are doing GREAT.

isnt that all that counts?

I think the biggest myth being perpetrated right now is that in the West, there is real (versus legal) gender equity. Apparently overall national prosperity means that we should ignore the fact that the poorest of the poor are still women (http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&do=Article&call=753&pA=A2286B2A&type=2,3,4,5,6,7)...that women suffer disproportionate amounts and levels (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/07/14/domestic-violence-050714.html) of domestic violence at the hands of men, and that women continue to lag behind men in terms of wages (http://www.womensmedia.com/new/confronting-gender-wage-gap.shtml) and representation in politics (ihttp://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/wmnmap05_en.pdf).

Feminists won, the battle is over right? Women are just choosing to be abused more, to be less affluent, less well paid, and less involved in politics than men.

Not sure I agree with you here. I don't think that anybody belives that there is true gender equality anywhere, what myth, I see no myth!

I suspect that the reason why there is still an inequity between women and men is that women still can't pee into a coke bottle without getting it all over the place. *nod*

Women rule. I think in some ways they are superior. :)

Nothing you should be worrying your pretty little heads over

*runs*

well in an evolutionary sense women are less physicly capable than en meaning they are more naturaly fit for desk jobs or tending to children, while im all for equality there are some jobs a woman should NOT do surrounded by over testoterone driven men that work 20 hr days whose wife gives them nothing (if you know what i mean) is not very safe is it? no. but if they choose to do so its there own problem

and certain jobs should require a test that dosent change regardless of age gender race etc> that if you fail no job for you.

Not sure I agree with you here. I don't think that anybody belives that there is true gender equality anywhere, what myth, I see no myth!
I don't believe than no one believes there is no true gender equity anywhere :D

I've met too many idiots, here and elsewhere who like to wax poetic about how feminism won...how there's no battle left to fight.

That does seem to be a pretty accurate representation of the state of affairs in the world today.

Women rule. I think in some ways they are superior. :)


It's true actually. Women get all whiney and uppity about how men get all the highest paying jobs and have the hottest homosexuals. They never seem to stop and think (maybe they just can't) about the ultimate power they wield over men. We wouldn't have ginormous buildings/vehicles and far out technologies if it wasn't for all the men working their asses off just to get a little pussy.

well in an evolutionary sense women are less physicly capable than en meaning they are more naturaly fit for desk jobs or tending to children, while im all for equality there are some jobs a woman should NOT do surrounded by over testoterone driven men that work 20 hr days whose wife gives them nothing (if you know what i mean) is not very safe is it? no. but if they choose to do so its there own problem

and certain jobs should require a test that dosent change regardless of age gender race etc> that if you fail no job for you.

I'm not sure I'm even going to respond to this trollish drivel.

Learn how to spell first. Bad troll!

well in an evolutionary sense women are less physicly capable than en meaning they are more naturaly fit for desk jobs or tending to children, while im all for equality there are some jobs a woman should NOT do surrounded by over testoterone driven men that work 20 hr days whose wife gives them nothing (if you know what i mean) is not very safe is it? no. but if they choose to do so its there own problem

and certain jobs should require a test that dosent change regardless of age gender race etc> that if you fail no job for you.

1950 called. They want their stupidity back.

It's true actually. Women get all whiney and uppity about how men get all the highest paying jobs and have the hottest homosexuals. They never seem to stop and think (maybe they just can't) about the ultimate power they wield over men. We wouldn't have ginormous buildings/vehicles and far out technologies if it wasn't for all the men working their asses off just to get a little pussy.

Riiiiiight. I'm gonna go stand over here now. :D

It's true actually. Women get all whiney and uppity about how men get all the highest paying jobs and have the hottest homosexuals. They never seem to stop and think (maybe they just can't) about the ultimate power they wield over men. We wouldn't have ginormous buildings/vehicles and far out technologies if it wasn't for all the men working their asses off just to get a little pussy.

This doesn't explain highly successful gay men.

I don't believe than no one believes there is no true gender equity anywhere :D

I've met too many idiots, here and elsewhere who like to wax poetic about how feminism won...how there's no battle left to fight.

Ahhhh idiots, of course, you can't forget about them fuckers!:D

This doesn't explain highly successful gay men.

They want a bit of ass of the gays that act like women.

1950 called. They want their stupidity back.
On behalf of the newb;
yeah well the jerk store called their running out of you :p

well in an evolutionary sense women are less physicly capable than en meaning they are more naturaly fit for desk jobs or tending to children

Our economy is increasingly based around the service sector as manual work is transferred to other countries. The wage gap is largely because women are worse paid for doing the same work as men and are held back from rising to the highest positions in an organization. And men are quite capable of looking after children.

while im all for equality there are some jobs a woman should NOT do surrounded by over testoterone driven men that work 20 hr days whose wife gives them nothing (if you know what i mean) is not very safe is it? no. but if they choose to do so its there own problem

What sort of jobs are you referring to here?

and certain jobs should require a test that dosent change regardless of age gender race etc> that if you fail no job for you.

Replace that with "all jobs" and I'm agreed. If a woman is strong and capable enough (as many are, the natural strength differences between men and women are not *that* large, and thats an average, meaning many women are stronger than men) and wants to do manual work, for instance, why not?

This doesn't explain highly successful gay men.

Shhhhh, they're not really gay, they are just pretending. probably to get into some nice lacy under garments!

One important point to make is that in those figures stated there is huge lag in statistics. Especially in higher jobs/politics. The top level jobs have often taken 30 years or so for someone to work their way up to. That means that the stats on current levels are reflecting society not just now, but over the last 30 years. Even if we had equality now, those stats wouldn't show it, because they'd also show past inequality.

I'm also highly suspicious of some of the conclusions in that pay article. To a certain extent women do choose to be less affluent for example. Whether through nurture or nature they do gravitate more towards the 'help and support' industries where the pay is less. Just because we value them less in terms of pay doesn't mean that is sexism, just that we value them less.

Also on interrupted careers, women obviously have careers automatically interrupted if they choose to have children, and also often stay at home more (nurture or culture based). Facts that do reduce an employees value (if they've spent time out of the industry).

A distinction needs to be made between true sexism (i.e. where women are directly discriminated against) and cases where women tend to disproportionally occupy a category (for example carers) that makes them less affluent for example.

I think the biggest myth being perpetrated right now is that in the West, there is real (versus legal) gender equity. Apparently overall national prosperity means that we should ignore the fact that the poorest of the poor are still women (http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&do=Article&call=753&pA=A2286B2A&type=2,3,4,5,6,7)...that women suffer disproportionate amounts and levels (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/07/14/domestic-violence-050714.html) of domestic violence at the hands of men, and that women continue to lag behind men in terms of wages (http://www.womensmedia.com/new/confronting-gender-wage-gap.shtml) and representation in politics (ihttp://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/wmnmap05_en.pdf).

Feminists won, the battle is over right? Women are just choosing to be abused more, to be less affluent, less well paid, and less involved in politics than men.

A large part of the issue is that feminism was destroyed internally. The fears of feminists being out to create a new society based entirely on women ruling over men and men having no rights isn't based on a fairy tale; there is a type of feminism that actually preaches that. In the end, the internal conflicts of the movement by these various groups is what ended it.

Now, what are the three conflicts of feminism? Simple:

1) The role of men in the world- There are some who argued men should be inferior, some who argued men should be equal, and some who argued men should be slaves.

2) Homosexuality- Some parts of the feminist movement outright oppose it, some parts include it, and some part advocate it as being superior to heterosexuality.

3) Sexuality- Some parts believe women should supress it, some parts believe men should supress their own and that all porn featuring women should be banned as degrading, and some parts believe it should be embraced, and at least one believing it should be openly explored.

In the end, these differing opinions proved beyond their ability to overcome for keeping the movement going. The movement shattered into multiple groups, the groups began to fight, and the entire thing eventually ended.

Did feminism win? No. In the end, feminism couldn't win because it couldn't decide what its goals were.

A lot of gender inequality is caused by the marginalization of caregivers. Mothers earn less money when compared to childless women. Women are often put on mommy tracks if they need part-time work hours for a period of time or need flexible hours. This happens to men too. Taking paternity leave often signals a lack of commitment to the firm.

This doesn't explain highly successful gay men.

It doesn't need to. They could get by simply by the virtue of being male, but since gay men are even superior to straight men...

I would sing James brown to you.

I would sing James brown to you.

I like being beneath you.

*has a mental image of Neesika pegging GoG*

Neesika sammich!

men ... have the hottest homosexuals.

Isn't that a matter of perspective?

Nope

Society in the west doesn't treat women completely equally yet, no. But relatively speaking, we are doing a hell of a lot better than 80 years ago, so there have been drastic improvements.

One important point to make is that in those figures stated there is huge lag in statistics. Especially in higher jobs/politics. The top level jobs have often taken 30 years or so for someone to work their way up to. That means that the stats on current levels are reflecting society not just now, but over the last 30 years. Even if we had equality now, those stats wouldn't show it, because they'd also show past inequality.

I'm also highly suspicious of some of the conclusions in that pay article. To a certain extent women do choose to be less affluent for example. Whether through nurture or nature they do gravitate more towards the 'help and support' industries where the pay is less. Just because we value them less in terms of pay doesn't mean that is sexism, just that we value them less.
Here's the issue though.

Either women are, by nature, a certain way. The way women are, is of less value to us. THAT is a gender biased, not objective value judgment.

OR, women are, by nurture, a certain way. Socialised to behave in a manner that leads them to occupy roles that are less valued.

Whichever way you look at it, this is still gender inequity.

I'd argue it's more of a nurture issue than one of nature. There is a problem with a society that perpetuates certain roles, pushing people into them, and then making some of those roles less valuable than others.

So yes. It is sexism.

Also on interrupted careers, women obviously have careers automatically interrupted if they choose to have children, and also often stay at home more (nurture or culture based). Facts that do reduce an employees value (if they've spent time out of the industry). Right. Clearly raising children is a career dampener. Nonetheless it's a role that is necessary, and common. Rather than penalising those who choose to do it, valuing that role LESS, we need a paradigm shift. Either more men stay home and raise kids, and suffer equal deprivation or...rather than continue to punish those who have children, perhaps we could create a more inclusive system? One that factors family responsibilities in at the outset?

If suddenly men were popping out the kids and being expected to stay home, I posit that such a system would be birthed tres vite.

A distinction needs to be made between true sexism (i.e. where women are directly discriminated against) and cases where women tend to disproportionally occupy a category (for example carers) that makes them less affluent for example.
Sure, you can make the distinction...but both situations are related to sexism.

I think the biggest myth being perpetrated right now is that in the West, there is real (versus legal) gender equity. Apparently overall national prosperity means that we should ignore the fact that the poorest of the poor are still women (http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&do=Article&call=753&pA=A2286B2A&type=2,3,4,5,6,7)...that women suffer disproportionate amounts and levels (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/07/14/domestic-violence-050714.html) of domestic violence at the hands of men, and that women continue to lag behind men in terms of wages (http://www.womensmedia.com/new/confronting-gender-wage-gap.shtml) and representation in politics (ihttp://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/wmnmap05_en.pdf).

Feminists won, the battle is over right? Women are just choosing to be abused more, to be less affluent, less well paid, and less involved in politics than men.

Legal equality is achieved, but it is certainly true that American culture and sex-roles still have a long way to go. The whole world does: just consider how many Olympic sports are still segregated.

Society in the west doesn't treat women completely equally yet, no. But relatively speaking, we are doing a hell of a lot better than 80 years ago, so there have been drastic improvements.

I'm happy with improvements.

I'm unhappy with the thought of 'that's enough'.

Legal equality is achieved, but it is certainly true that American culture and sex-roles still have a long way to go. The whole world does: just consider how many Olympic sports are still segregated.

You know, in the battle for equality, I think segregated sports is something that most of us can agree is probably "ok"

You know, in the battle for equality, I think segregated sports is something that most of us can agree is probably "ok"

Shooting? horseback riding? fencing?

I'm happy with improvements.

I'm unhappy with the thought of 'that's enough'.

But today you have to 'battle' it through a different direction, it's not governmental reform that's needed, but cultural change. So radical anti government feminists movements of the past are not of so much use any more.

Shooting? horseback riding? fencing?

horseback riding certainly, extra body mass skews the race. One could argue there are disparities in fencing as well

But today you have to 'battle' it through a different direction, it's not governmental reform that's needed, but cultural change. So radical anti government feminists movements of the past are not of so much use any more.

They were never merely battling the government...it has always been about societal reform.

But today you have to 'battle' it through a different direction, it's not governmental reform that's needed, but cultural change. So radical anti government feminists movements of the past are not of so much use any more.

Both are needed, Cultural change is needed, but since changing the expectations of men, to work fewer hours relative to women and care for dependents more, is a huge collective action problem since any guy who changes is penalized economically.

They were never merely battling the government...it has always been about societal reform.

Yes, but was still a heavy activity. All I'm saying is that this activity is not so important now. I don't consider the matter political.

Yes, but was still a heavy activity. All I'm saying is that this activity is not so important now. I don't consider the matter political.

Everything is political, ESPECIALLY gender-based attitudes.

There are professions where women come out on top in terms of the most desired and in making money though. Stripper, Dominatrix, Surrogate Mother...

Both are needed, Cultural change is needed, but since changing the expectations of men, to work fewer hours relative to women and care for dependents more, is a huge collective action problem since any guy who changes is penalized economically.

What do you propose the government does? I personally don't think you can force culture change from top down, it is a bottom up measure.

Everything is political, ESPECIALLY gender-based attitudes.

Well you must have a different definition of political then.

well in an evolutionary sense women are less physicly capable than en meaning they are more naturaly fit for desk jobs or tending to children, while im all for equality there are some jobs a woman should NOT do surrounded by over testoterone driven men that work 20 hr days whose wife gives them nothing (if you know what i mean) is not very safe is it? no. but if they choose to do so its there own problem
.

Given the complete lack of, y'know, basic grammar or spelling, I'm not entirely sure what you just tried to say here, but it looks like you have claimed that women shouldn't work in jobs involving manual labor, because if they do, they deserve to be raped. Please tell me this is not actually your argument? Please?

There are professions where women come out on top in terms of the most desired and in making money though. Stripper, Dominatrix, Surrogate Mother...

YES! And that unfairness must be redressed...no wait!

horseback riding certainly, extra body mass skews the race. One could argue there are disparities in fencing as well

Then should the sports not also be segregated by race, as races often have discrepancies in body mass?

YES! And that unfairness must be redressed...no wait!

It must! We demand more male strippers!

Then should the sports not also be segregated by race, as races often have discrepancies in body mass?

No, because as you said yourself, different races CAN be built differently. Women unambiguously ARE built differently from men. As it happens, the equestrian events and such aren't gender-segregated, or at least the ones I watched this summer weren't, but it is more than reasonable to separate people whose center of gravity is at their hips from people whose center of gravity is at their shoulders in any event where that could possibly matter. Now, if we were to declare the latter group of people's events automatically better, more important, or give them more time on TV - as we not infrequently do - then there's most certainly an argument to be made that this is sexist and discriminatory.

I think the biggest myth being perpetrated right now is that in the West, there is real (versus legal) gender equity. Apparently overall national prosperity means that we should ignore the fact that the poorest of the poor are still women (http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&do=Article&call=753&pA=A2286B2A&type=2,3,4,5,6,7)...that women suffer disproportionate amounts and levels (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/07/14/domestic-violence-050714.html) of domestic violence at the hands of men, and that women continue to lag behind men in terms of wages (http://www.womensmedia.com/new/confronting-gender-wage-gap.shtml) and representation in politics (ihttp://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/wmnmap05_en.pdf).

Feminists won, the battle is over right? Women are just choosing to be abused more, to be less affluent, less well paid, and less involved in politics than men.
Well, duh! The western world still needs cooks and housekeepers in every household. Who else is going to do it?

And who is supposed to get my coffee in the morning? Not one of the guys, that'd be gay.

I think the biggest myth being perpetrated right now is that in the West, there is real (versus legal) gender equity. Apparently overall national prosperity means that we should ignore the fact that the poorest of the poor are still women (http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&do=Article&call=753&pA=A2286B2A&type=2,3,4,5,6,7)...that women suffer disproportionate amounts and levels (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/07/14/domestic-violence-050714.html) of domestic violence at the hands of men, and that women continue to lag behind men in terms of wages (http://www.womensmedia.com/new/confronting-gender-wage-gap.shtml) and representation in politics (ihttp://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/wmnmap05_en.pdf).

Feminists won, the battle is over right? Women are just choosing to be abused more, to be less affluent, less well paid, and less involved in politics than men.

Whatever, go make me a sandwich.

Well you must have a different definition of political then.

Are you confusing 'political' with 'legal'?

The best change is not top down, it is bottom up...nonetheless, social norms are reflected (and influenced) at the political level. Government has enormous power to shape business practices, even if they are only leading by example. We can still fight to have government itself be a bastion of gender equity in terms of the workplace, actual political representation, and so forth. We can fight for more political notice to be taken of the gender inequity in terms of domestic violence...fight for programs to help create real change, not just legalised, after the fact sanctions.

I don't know what kind of system you envision where 'politics' is in any way segregated from society.

What do you propose the government does? I personally don't think you can force culture change from top down, it is a bottom up measure.

There a number of things it can do. It can offer paid parental leave for newborns and the newly adopted, half the period goes to one parent and hlf to the other. The time would be nontransferrable. It can limit the working week, mandate a certain number of days for sickleave, vacation, and "family needs". It can subsidize caregiving in particular and support policies that keep women in the labor force.

Are you confusing 'political' with 'legal'?

The best change is not top down, it is bottom up...nonetheless, social norms are reflected (and influenced) at the political level. Government has enormous power to shape business practices, even if they are only leading by example. We can still fight to have government itself be a bastion of gender equity in terms of the workplace, actual political representation, and so forth. We can fight for more political notice to be taken of the gender inequity in terms of domestic violence...fight for programs to help create real change, not just legalised, after the fact sanctions.


Can you be a little more specific? I tend to be sceptical with top down policies that are trying to induce more cultural egalitarianism.

Women should know their limits (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w).

Can you be a little more specific? I tend to be sceptical with top down policies that are trying to induce more cultural egalitarianism.

More funding for women's shelters. Court mandated counselling for perpetrators of domestic violence (programs that would also need funding). A Royal Commission (or equivalent study) looking into why there is still such a gender gap in terms of political representation, and a commitment to actually pay attention to the findings and implement the suggestions (it's well recognised that parties deliberately don't run female candidates for example).

Gender equity in terms of pay, and advancement within government. A comprehensive system of support for employees with family (on site daycares as an example, ongoing opportunities for job training during mat/parental leave etc).

Want some more?

Women should know their limits (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w).

:D Brilliant!

Amen.

However, note that gender bias cuts both ways.

Here's a personal example, that came up in a conversation with fellow teachers recently. Where I work, we have many sorts of classes - ranging from teaching small children to business people, colleges, small groups of adults, etc. Society in general, and the company I work for in particular, views females as better able to deal with children and males as better at dealing with other males. However, I know that I am a better childrens teacher than many female teachers at my workplace. Society's gender bias puts me at a disadvantage at work.

Social images of the macho man, who is the bread winner, defender, etc., are physically, mentally, and socially harmful to men as well as to women. :( And that's not just men's bias. Women play their part in that as well.

To summarise:
1) yes, society still immorally discriminates against females.
2) said discrimination not only hurts women, but men as well.

More funding for women's shelters. Court mandated counselling for perpetrators of domestic violence (programs that would also need funding).

I thought Canada already had this.


A Royal Commission (or equivalent study) looking into why there is still such a gender gap in terms of political representation

I think there is already explicit studies into this matter.


Gender equity in terms of pay, and advancement within government.

Again, this is a little broad.


A comprehensive system of support for employees with family (on site daycares as an example

Are you saying this should be a requirement for companies?


, ongoing opportunities for job training during mat/parental leave etc).


Thought Canada already had this too.

I thought Canada already had this. I said more. Pay attention. And no, counselling is not always ordered, nor is it well funded.


I think there is already explicit studies into this matter. Yes.

But no commitment to follow the recomendations.


Again, this is a little broad.
No.

It's very specific. Where there is a gap in pay for equal work, there should be a presumption of bias, and action taken. Where there is a gender gap in terms of upper echelon managerial positions, there should be a presumption of bias, and action taken.

How specifically that would play out depends on the particular department.


Are you saying this should be a requirement for companies? What part of 'government' did you not understand? We are talking about purely governmental examples here.



Thought Canada already had this too.Are you being deliberately idiotic? Or is it just a natural response to having your questions answered?

What IS being done is NOT enough.

Court mandated counselling for perpetrators of domestic violence (programs that would also need funding).

Oh, yes, that's something that I should have put in above.

YES, please.

Two things:

Female on male domestic violence needs to be dragged out of the closet and made so that men aren't totally humiliated by it. (Yes it's less common, but it's also way under reported due to shame issues.)

And in either case, the abuser needs "correction". Domestic abuse, like any violence, is a sign of a maladjusted person. Actually probably more so than most other sorts of violence. In any respect, doing violence to others is doing violence to oneself.

There a number of things it can do. It can offer paid parental leave for newborns and the newly adopted, half the period goes to one parent and hlf to the other. The time would be nontransferrable. It can limit the working week, mandate a certain number of days for sickleave, vacation, and "family needs". It can subsidize caregiving in particular and support policies that keep women in the labor force.

But then you have another problem. Workers without families will demand equal perks either in time off or extra money paid. Giving perks to one group and not another is still a form of discrimination. Where will it end?

Amen.

However, note that gender bias cuts both ways.

Here's a personal example, that came up in a conversation with fellow teachers recently. Where I work, we have many sorts of classes - ranging from teaching small children to business people, colleges, small groups of adults, etc. Society in general, and the company I work for in particular, views females as better able to deal with children and males as better at dealing with other males. However, I know that I am a better childrens teacher than many female teachers at my workplace. Society's gender bias puts me at a disadvantage at work.

Social images of the macho man, who is the bread winner, defender, etc., are physically, mentally, and socially harmful to men as well as to women. :( And that's not just men's bias. Women play their part in that as well.

To summarise:
1) yes, society still immorally discriminates against females.
2) said discrimination not only hurts women, but men as well.

Agreed. When I talk about support for families, I am also talking about support for the men out there who'd like to take on the more active role as parent without being penalised financially or socially.

This whole idea that men do this, and women do that...is socially perpetrated and even more difficult to tackle than specific laws enforcing gender stereotypes. The problem is systemic, and hurts us all.

But then you have another problem. Workers without families will demand equal perks either in time off or extra money paid. Giving perks to one group and not another is still a form of discrimination. Where will it end?

Equity is fairness. Equality is treating people the same.

I'm fighting for equity, because equality gets twisted and abused and turned into something manifestly UNfair.

Workers with families have specific needs. Workers with disabilities have different needs. You don't start treating everyone like they have a family, or a disability, or on the flip side, decide you're just going to treat everyone as able-bodies and family-less.

I think the biggest myth being perpetrated right now is that in the West, there is real (versus legal) gender equity. Apparently overall national prosperity means that we should ignore the fact that the poorest of the poor are still women (http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&do=Article&call=753&pA=A2286B2A&type=2,3,4,5,6,7)...that women suffer disproportionate amounts and levels (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/07/14/domestic-violence-050714.html) of domestic violence at the hands of men, and that women continue to lag behind men in terms of wages (http://www.womensmedia.com/new/confronting-gender-wage-gap.shtml) and representation in politics (ihttp://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/wmnmap05_en.pdf).

Feminists won, the battle is over right? Women are just choosing to be abused more, to be less affluent, less well paid, and less involved in politics than men.


Who let you out of the kitchen?

Oh, yes, that's something that I should have put in above.

YES, please.

Two things:

Female on male domestic violence needs to be dragged out of the closet and made so that men aren't totally humiliated by it. (Yes it's less common, but it's also way under reported due to shame issues.)

And in either case, the abuser needs "correction". Domestic abuse, like any violence, is a sign of a maladjusted person. Actually probably more so than most other sorts of violence. In any respect, doing violence to others is doing violence to oneself.
Man on woman violence tends to cause more physical harm, garnering more attention. Nonetheless, I agree that a woman who abuses her partner ALSO clearly needs counselling.

If you're in a relationship, regardless of whether you dangle or not, you should be very aware that if your partner abuses you, it's wrong, period.

Abuse of men by women in domestic situations is not actually less common, it simply manifests itself in other ways.

But then you have another problem. Workers without families will demand equal perks either in time off or extra money paid. Giving perks to one group and not another is still a form of discrimination. Where will it end?

Huh? Policies that aid families are forms of compensation for raising the next generation of workers, consumers, and taxpayers.

No.

It's very specific. Where there is a gap in pay for equal work, there should be a presumption of bias, and action taken.

Gap in pay in terms of actual hourly wage right, rather than overall earnings for a year or a month?


Where there is a gender gap in terms of upper echelon managerial positions, there should be a presumption of bias, and action taken.


Why should this be assumed? It may have nothing to do with bias at all.


Are you being deliberately idiotic? Or is it just a natural response to having your questions answered?


Why are you being so hostile?


What IS being done is NOT enough.

Right, forgive me but I thought when you said governmental action, you were talking about action by government to induce actual cultural change, as in address the underlying reasons as to why sexism still exists in society. This mostly seems to be more about treating the symptoms, I don't have a problem with this, but it's not particularly what I'm looking for.

Equity is fairness. Equality is treating people the same.

I'm fighting for equity, because equality gets twisted and abused and turned into something manifestly UNfair.

Workers with families have specific needs. Workers with disabilities have different needs. You don't start treating everyone like they have a family, or a disability, or on the flip side, decide you're just going to treat everyone as able-bodies and family-less.

Well, good luck with that. But as long as we have a capitalist (even marginally capitalist) system, it won't happen. It is all about what makes a given company the greateast profit, not "fairness."

Yet another reason to push for socialism. ;)

Huh? Policies that aid families are forms of compensation for raising the next generation of workers, consumers, and taxpayers.

But compaines aren't in the business of raising the next generation. They are in the business of making the maximum profit now.

No, because as you said yourself, different races CAN be built differently. Women unambiguously ARE built differently from men.

Really?

http://photoblog.be/carmen/images/001/115/1115718.jpg

All of them?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v610/rmburks/publicappearances_046.jpg

Yeah you're probably right, OP. But then I'm a bloke so it ain't really my problem.

But compaines aren't in the business of raising the next generation. They are in the business of making the maximum profit now.

Yeah and any company boss worth their wages knows that a happy work force is a productive work force.

Man on woman violence tends to cause more physical harm, garnering more attention. Nonetheless, I agree that a woman who abuses her partner ALSO clearly needs counselling.

If you're in a relationship, regardless of whether you dangle or not, you should be very aware that if your partner abuses you, it's wrong, period.

Abuse of men by women in domestic situations is not actually less common, it simply manifests itself in other ways.I can tell you first hand how tough it is to report domestic abuse as a man. Most police officers aren't ready to believe it, it goes against what they typically encounter in domestic situations. Twice I called 911 on my ex, waiting outside for the cops to show up bleeding from (minor) wounds she gave me. Both times she gave an explanation of self defense and I was looked upon as the bad guy by the responding officers. Each time time it was 'suggested' I leave. One officer didn't hesitate to make it known he didn't believe my side and expressed his desire to kick my ass. When I finally did leave her for good I literally left with the clothes on my back and refused to meet her anywhere or return to the house without a credible or impartial witness present.

Really?

http://photoblog.be/carmen/images/001/115/1115718.jpg

All of them?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v610/rmburks/publicappearances_046.jpg

Yeah but he still has narrower hips than most woman, and she still has breasts!:D

I think the biggest myth being perpetrated right now is that in the West, there is real (versus legal) gender equity. Apparently overall national prosperity means that we should ignore the fact that the poorest of the poor are still women (http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&do=Article&call=753&pA=A2286B2A&type=2,3,4,5,6,7)...that women suffer disproportionate amounts and levels (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/07/14/domestic-violence-050714.html) of domestic violence at the hands of men, and that women continue to lag behind men in terms of wages (http://www.womensmedia.com/new/confronting-gender-wage-gap.shtml) and representation in politics (ihttp://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/wmnmap05_en.pdf).

Feminists won, the battle is over right? Women are just choosing to be abused more, to be less affluent, less well paid, and less involved in politics than men.

You go girl! Represent! Truly we don't have equality yet and we must work to achieve it.

Now, there's a couple of things in the articles you linked that bugs me.

1- that women suffer disproportionate amounts and levels of domestic violence at the hands of men
Well, yeah, men hit harder. Of course women will suffer more bodily harm. That's sorta obvious but not what irks me in that article. The article states that 7% of women are abused while men are abused only 6% of the time. Is 1% really that big a difference? do we really need to raise a stink about 1%?
Why do the article then focuses only on the women abuse? What I want to know is how did we reach 6% of abuse on men? I didn't think it was that widespread.

2- women continue to lag behind men in terms of wages
That article is so biased in it's use of statistics it's not even funny. The only wage equality that can be hoped for is for a male and female teacher/lawyer/whatever with the same years of experience to have the same salary. We cannot compare the women and men population's wages as a whole because there's not the same amount of teacher/lawyers/whatevers in men and women for various reasons, most of them not discriminatory.

And I do think that in Canada, especially in the public sector where wages are not a deal reached between the employer and employee, we have reached equality. There's laws in places and the wages equals. The only thing left is to compensate for the years it wasn't so and we are lagging in that domain, I'll give you that.

As for representation in government, it's slowly coming. There's more women elected every elections. And from what I've seen of our women representatives, they're just as crooked and ineffective as the men.

But compaines aren't in the business of raising the next generation. They are in the business of making the maximum profit now.

Which is why I'm calling for the government to fix a market failure.

Here's the issue though.

Either women are, by nature, a certain way. The way women are, is of less value to us. THAT is a gender biased, not objective value judgment.

OR, women are, by nurture, a certain way. Socialised to behave in a manner that leads them to occupy roles that are less valued.

Whichever way you look at it, this is still gender inequity.
Not necessarily at all. We look upon the care industries as less important than others (generally speaking) at least in terms of salary etc. We pay those in it less whether they are male and female. That can be an objective value judgement.

Then there is the fact that women disproportionally occupy such a sector. That leads to statistical implications of inequality even if no such thing exists.
If they naturally do so, then it is not sexism. We should not seek to engineer statistics we like by paying certain industries more than we actually think they deserve to improve the stats. Similarly how we shouldn't pay more for say indian restaurants than others because we want ethnic minority stats to look better.

If anything it's missing the point that there should be equality of opportunity, women should be equal with men whatever career they go into, even if they disproportionally choose a career in an industry that pays less.


I'd argue it's more of a nurture issue than one of nature. There is a problem with a society that perpetuates certain roles, pushing people into them, and then making some of those roles less valuable than others.
Agree with the pushing people into roles. But I don't think the value basis of industries is necessarily connected.


Right. Clearly raising children is a career dampener. Nonetheless it's a role that is necessary, and common. Rather than penalising those who choose to do it, valuing that role LESS, we need a paradigm shift. Either more men stay home and raise kids, and suffer equal deprivation or...rather than continue to punish those who have children, perhaps we could create a more inclusive system? One that factors family responsibilities in at the outset?
Equal deprivation? That's a phrase I'm sure many stay at home parents would take issue with. But again you're focussing on symptoms rather than causes. If there is equality of opportunity for men and women to do what they want (including give up work to stay home) then why does it matter if a disproportionate number of women CHOOSE to give up work and stay home? If a man and a woman get equal results from the same decisions, why does it matter if one gender disproportionately go down one set of choices (my dislike of gender roles being forced on people included).


Sure, you can make the distinction...but both situations are related to sexism.
I disagree. Women disproportionately choosing one course is not necessarily sexist. Or at least it is no-one being sexist towards them. (Depending on the nature/nurture argument) but it is a whole different world from paying women in identical situations less than men.

Yeah and any company boss worth their wages knows that a happy work force is a productive work force.

Indeed. That's why they will have to start giving equal perks to childless/single workers too. If you favor one group, another group is going to get pissed off. "Fair" or not. It's a vicous circle of self intrest.

It is already hppening:

http://www.post-gazette.com/businessnews/19980619bbenefits1.asp

A nation-wide subsidised daycare system, such that each family paid a minimal amount (say $7.00 CAD a day per kid), for all children aged two to six years.

Paid parental leave for the first two years of the kids life, to be split up as the couple sees fit. If there is only on eparent, she gets the full two years.

A guarantee that you will get your job back at equal pay adjusted for inflation after the two years.

These measures would go a long way towards ending the employment problems associated with parenting, especially for single mothers.

Paid parental leave for the first two years of the kids life, to be split up as the couple sees fit. If there is only on eparent, she gets the full two years.
Paid by whom?

A guarantee that you will get your job back at equal pay adjusted for inflation after the two years.
What if the position no longer exists, or is already occupied by someone else, and that someone else is a woman too?

Paid by whom?


What if the position no longer exists, or is already occupied by someone else, and that someone else is a woman too?

Paid by the government as part of the existing employment insurance program.

If the position no longer exists because the company got downsized or the parent is otherwise laid off, (s)he gets the parental leave until the end of the two years and then has to find work, assuming that this does not happen in the few weeks before the two years period is over.

If the position is already filled by someone else, then that someone else will have to find another job. Considering that they would have known it was a temporary position, I don't see why this is a problem. Nor do I see why the gender of the person holding the temporary position would be relevant.

A nation-wide subsidised daycare system, such that each family paid a minimal amount (say $7.00 CAD a day per kid), for all children aged two to six years.

Paid parental leave for the first two years of the kids life, to be split up as the couple sees fit. If there is only on eparent, she gets the full two years.

A guarantee that you will get your job back at equal pay adjusted for inflation after the two years.

These measures would go a long way towards ending the employment problems associated with parenting, especially for single mothers.

And would they also provide elder care for the single worker who has to take care of an elderly parent? Or give them two years off to care for said parent with a gaurentee of geting their same job back? My mother had to leave the workforce for 9 years to take care of her mother.

And would they also provide elder care for the single worker who has to take care of an elderly parent? Or give them two years off to care for said parent with a gaurentee of geting their same job back?

No.

No.

That is hardly equality. Taking care of an elderly and or disabled family member is just as important and valuable as taking care of a child.

That is hardly equality. Taking care of an elderly and or disabled family member is just as important and valuable as taking care of a child.

I focused on parenting because it's overwhelmingly single mothers who get stuck with newborns or small children and then have to make difficult career choices.

Because the OP is about the current status of women in modern western societies.

Is taking care of the elderly or disabled something that is overwhlmingly done by women, and is currently unpaid and under-recognised by modern society?

If so, I might modify my answer to yes.

Is taking care of the elderly or disabled something that is overwhlmingly done by women, and is currently unpaid and under-recognised by modern society?

If so, I might modify my answer to yes.


Yep.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_n9-10_v31/ai_16475687/pg_3

Elder care is an increasingly common role for women. A woman over the age of 18 can expect to spend 17 years of her life caring for children and 18 years helping an aging parent. Thus women who care for an elder parent may actually provide such care for more years than they spend rearing children (Older Women's League [OWL], 1989).

But regardless, there should still be equal treatment for men, women, married, single, with children, without children, gay, straight, etc. This includes perks in employment.

Yep.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2294/is_n9-10_v31/ai_16475687/pg_3

Elder care is an increasingly common role for women. A woman over the age of 18 can expect to spend 17 years of her life caring for children and 18 years helping an aging parent. Thus women who care for an elder parent may actually provide such care for more years than they spend rearing children (Older Women's League [OWL], 1989).

Then yes, in order to better ensure an equitable role for women in the workplace, a similar system can be set up for eldercare.

But regardless, there should still be equal treatment for men, women, married, single, with children, without children, gay, straight, etc. This includes perks in employment.

Don't be silly.

Where I work, only three computers have been set up with Cree syllabics. Should everybody's computer get them, even if only one of us speak it? Should the guy in the wheelchair also get the ergonomic chairs the rest of us have? No. Obviously not. That would be as stupid as putting urinals in the women's bathroom.

Not getting fired because you chose to have kids is not a perk. It is simply treating parents as equitably as non-parents.

If the position no longer exists because the company got downsized or the parent is otherwise laid off, (s)he gets the parental leave until the end of the two years and then has to find work, assuming that this does not happen in the few weeks before the two years period is over.
Two years is a lot. Companies come and go in that period, they reorganize, positions disappear and new ones appear.


If the position is already filled by someone else, then that someone else will have to find another job. Considering that they would have known it was a temporary position, I don't see why this is a problem.
So the company is forced to hire a temp - thus, we increase the amount of people without any labor rights to speak of.

And then about the company... Some companies, like Walmart, love temp workers, their cheapness and rightlessness. Good for them.

But some don't; some need people who come to stay, not toil their hours and leave. For a high-grade specialist (M.Sc, M.Eng, Ph.D), two years is just the basic job experience gathering time, he/she is just of little use before that. Typically, one year of that time is workplace-specific. And if you spend $150,000+ to "run in" a specialist, you need that investment to work for you for more than one year. And it's not like there's a large supply of specialists eager to work as temps to begin with.


Nor do I see why the gender of the person holding the temporary position would be relevant.
Because women are more likely to be temps, actually. Both because they tend to have other needs apart from the career, and because with the new legislation companies will be more eager to hire them as temps.

Really?

http://photoblog.be/carmen/images/001/115/1115718.jpg

All of them?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v610/rmburks/publicappearances_046.jpg

Barring really amazingly intensive surgery, yes. If those people's skeletons were exhumed a century down the road, the former would be identifiably male and the latter identifiably female, no matter how gender-bendy they are in life.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all in favor of destroying gender roles and making men and women equal in all relevant ways, but I'd be being ridiculous if I suggested that men and women didn't have fundamental biological differences that could pretty obviously affect how they run or jump or dance or whatever.

I think the biggest myth being perpetrated right now is that in the West, there is real (versus legal) gender equity.

Feminists won, the battle is over right? Women are just choosing to be abused more, to be less affluent, less well paid, and less involved in politics than men.

This seems like a huge strawman to me. I've never met anyone who has said this, nor read any article that expressed it. Perhaps I choose too consciously what I read!

Clearly, I do agree with your sentiment, much is still to be done.

Two years is a lot. Companies come and go in that period, they reorganize, positions disappear and new ones appear.


Most companies are stable enough that this isn't a problem.

So the company is forced to hire a temp - thus, we increase the amount of people without any labor rights to speak of.

No. They are hiring someone temporarily. This person has as much rights as the person they are replacing.

And then about the company... Some companies, like Walmart, love temp workers, their cheapness and rightlessness. Good for them.

Since this has nothing to do with temp. workers, I'm not going to keep discussing it.

But some don't; some need people who come to stay, not toil their hours and leave. For a high-grade specialist (M.Sc, M.Eng, Ph.D), two years is just the basic job experience gathering time, he/she is just of little use before that. Typically, one year of that time is workplace-specific. And if you spend $150,000+ to "run in" a specialist, you need that investment to work for you for more than one year. And it's not like there's a large supply of specialists eager to work as temps to begin with.

I don't think we have to worry about the single mothers with six digit incomes and expensive and highly valued degress. They are a neglibile percentage of the single mom workforce.

Because women are more likely to be temps, actually. Both because they tend to have other needs apart from the career, and because with the new legislation companies will be more eager to hire them as temps.

See above.

Feminists won, the battle is over right?

Perhaps battle is an inappropriate metaphor, since dead enemies cannot get back up, but an idea can regain lost popularity.

But as for the question of whether the feminist goal has been achieved, I agree that it has not.

Legal equality is achieved, but it is certainly true that American culture and sex-roles still have a long way to go. The whole world does: just consider how many Olympic sports are still segregated.

Which is we still have a seperate but equal ideal in the system, it didn't go away a generation ago.

A nation-wide subsidised daycare system, such that each family paid a minimal amount (say $7.00 CAD a day per kid), for all children aged two to six years.

Paid parental leave for the first two years of the kids life, to be split up as the couple sees fit. If there is only one parent, she or he gets the full two years.

A guarantee that you will get your job back at equal pay adjusted for inflation after the two years.

These measures would go a long way towards ending the employment problems associated with parenting, especially for single mothers.

Now there is a lot of talk recently in Australia about maternity leave and who should pay for it etc. The government came up with something the a few months ago where by IIRC the mother will recieve 6 months of paid maternity leave but the father would only recieve 2 weeks of paid maternity leave. What's up with that, and is very fair.

Though your proposal isn't 2 years a bit long? As for day care well that might work but what about those that aren't going to be using day care?

I think the biggest myth being perpetrated right now is that in the West, there is real (versus legal) gender equity. Apparently overall national prosperity means that we should ignore the fact that the poorest of the poor are still women (http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&do=Article&call=753&pA=A2286B2A&type=2,3,4,5,6,7)...that women suffer disproportionate amounts and levels (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/07/14/domestic-violence-050714.html) of domestic violence at the hands of men, and that women continue to lag behind men in terms of wages (http://www.womensmedia.com/new/confronting-gender-wage-gap.shtml) and representation in politics (ihttp://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/wmnmap05_en.pdf).

Feminists won, the battle is over right? Women are just choosing to be abused more, to be less affluent, less well paid, and less involved in politics than men.

Yuppers
j/k

Feminists won, the battle is over right? Women are just choosing to be abused more, to be less affluent, less well paid, and less involved in politics than men.
I don't see the battle being over. But I think the battlefield has moved - in workplaces and in politics open discrimination isn't really practiced anywhere near as much, and certainly not tolerated by the legal system. Women have a variety of legal means to enforce fair treatment if they deem it necessary. So picketing the government for example isn't going to yield huge benefits for the rights and quality of life for women as it might have done a few decades ago.

I think instead it's now up to education. The barriers left today are generally in people's heads. But then, I'm not a woman and I move in the circles of highly educated people at university. There's more girls than guys at our campus, and I can't imagine the sort of top employers really discriminating based on sex. There are economic as well as social and legal imperatives that should prevent it. And for what it's worth, a women recently took over as CEO of a 27,000 employee bank in Australia (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24112710-5012694,00.html) and nobody said a word about her gender.

A nation-wide subsidised daycare system, such that each family paid a minimal amount (say $7.00 CAD a day per kid), for all children aged two to six years.

Paid parental leave for the first two years of the kids life, to be split up as the couple sees fit. If there is only on eparent, she gets the full two years.

A guarantee that you will get your job back at equal pay adjusted for inflation after the two years.

These measures would go a long way towards ending the employment problems associated with parenting, especially for single mothers.
Yeah, they'd make sure that anyone who might become a mother at any point in the future would never get a job in the first place.

Look, the formula for trying to work out whether to hire or not looks something like this:

Profit = Benefit - Cost
Profit = Sum[(Uncertainty Factor 1 * value of labour to firm)/discount factor] - Sum[(Uncertainty Factor 2 * wages and non-wage costs)/discount factor]

The uncertainty factors are determined by some probability distribution. The second uncertainty factor isn't a big thing, in general it is fairly easy to estimate what the costs are going to be. The first factor is much harder to estimate - you get good workers and bad ones. You don't usually know before having the person for a while just how much they provide to the firm.

But if you lock in 2 years of paid maternity leave, then the probability distribution is bound to shift. During that time, the employee produces close to zero value to the firm. So the uncertainty factor 1 decreases, the sum of the benefits gets smaller and the person is less likely to get hired. The bigger the leave pay, and the longer the period, the stronger that effect.

And when a firm then just plain refuses to hire women of childbearing age, it's not even being discriminatory. It's not prejudice any more than higher insurance premia for young drivers are. It's the result of a fairly simple calculation into which the government just injected all these unfavourable terms.

I'm still working my way through this thread, the following may be redundant, and the Glass Ceiling Commission Report (257p pdf) (http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/reports/ceiling.pdf)* is a bit dated (1995), but I think the following findings from that report are most relevant to this thread:

The Glass Ceiling Act was enacted with only minor changes as Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1991. It established the bipartisan Glass Ceiling Commission, with the Secretary of Labor as its chair. And it charged the twenty-one member Commission (itself an appropriately diverse body, in terms of ethnicity, gender, and political affiliation) with a complex mission: to conduct a study and prepare recommendations on “eliminating artificial barriers to the advancement of women and minorities” to “management and decision-making positions in business.”

The fact-finding report that the Commission is now releasing confirms the enduring aptness of the “glass ceiling” metaphor. At the highest levels of business, there is indeed a barrier only rarely penetrated by women or persons of color. Consider: 97% of the senior managers of Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 companies are white; 95 to 97% are male. In Fortune 2000 industrial and service companies, 5% of senior managers are women—and of that 5%, virtually all are white.

The research also indicates that where there are women and minorities in high places, their compensationis lower. For example, African American men with professional degrees earn 79% of the amount earned by white males who hold the same degrees and are in the same job categories. One study found that, more than a decade after they had graduated from the Stanford University of Business School, men were eight times more likely to be CEOs than women.

Nor does the evidence indicate that the glass ceiling is a temporary phenomenon. In fact, the research cited here finds relatively few women and minorities in the positions most likely to lead to the top—the “pipeline.” The critical career path for senior management positions requires taking on esponsibilities most directly related to the corporate bottom line. But the relatively few women and minorities found at the highest levels tend to be in staff positions, such as human resources, or research, or administration, rather than line positions, such as marketing, or sales, or production. Similarly, most companies require broad and varied experience in core areas of the business to advance—experience of the sort that, even now, too few women or minority men are in a position to develop.

In short, the fact-finding report tells us that the world at the top of the corporate hierarchy does not yet look anything like America. Two-thirds of our population, and 57 percent of the working population, is female, or minorities, or both. Nor, ominously, does the population of today’s executive suite resemble the workforce of America’s future. Women and minority men will make up 62% of the workforce by the year 2005.

As many of the CEOs interviewed by the Commission observed, this state of affairs is not good for business. Corporate leaders recognize that it is necessary for their business that they better reflect the market-place and their customers. Their trading partners and customers are becoming more global and diverse. And to succeed in this increasingly competitive environment, they need to attract and retain the best, most flexible workers and leaders available, for all levels of their organization. Narrowing the pool of talent from which they draw is—among other things—a blunder in competitive tactics. Most business leaders know that they simply cannot afford to rely exclusively on white males for positions of leadership.

The facts support their contention that diversity is good for business. A 1993 study of Standard and Poor 500 companies showed that firms that succeed in shattering their own glass ceilings racked up stock-market records that were nearly two and a half times better than otherwise-comparable companies.

Nevertheless, as the report finds, serious barriers to advancement remain—such as persistent stereotyping, erroneous beliefs that “no qualified women or minorities are out there,” and plain old fear of change.

The next order of business, then, is to learn from the success stories—to find out the best means of investing in the human assets that together form America’s most important productive resource. The Commission’s report contains case studies of world-class companies that have boosted profits while effectively eliminating glass ceiling barriers in their organizations. It also identifies some of the factors common to successful corporate initiatives—beginning with high-level commitment and leadership and including corporate-wide accountability.

We need to learn from these lessons and create models of success for all American workers, to demonstrate palpably that hard work and talent will be rewarded and promoted. This is the only way to preserve for the modern age, and to pass on to future generations, the age-old American ethic of work and its reward.

As we have learned through the work of the Glass Ceiling Commission, shattering the glass ceiling both serves our national values and makes our businesses stronger. America—which has always been a nation containing wide diversity and profound differences—has been bound together by shared promise of expanding opportunity. We cannot allow ourselves to be detoured from the next stage of our national journey. The inclusive values that modeled our past, and the economic imperatives of a challenging future, both require us to overcome the “glass ceiling” that mars the architecture of our economy today.

*Here is the shorter Executive Summary (23p pdf) (http://www.dol.gov/oasam/programs/history/reich/reports/ceiling1.pdf).

You know, in the battle for equality, I think segregated sports is something that most of us can agree is probably "ok"

True to an extent, but (as I am sure you know) Title IX in the U.S. has been a great boon to equality in sports AND society at large (although there is still a long way to go). link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_IX), link (http://www.ed.gov/about/bdscomm/list/athletics/index.html)

Where I work, only three computers have been set up with Cree syllabics. Should everybody's computer get them, even if only one of us speak it? Should the guy in the wheelchair also get the ergonomic chairs the rest of us have? No. Obviously not. That would be as stupid as putting urinals in the women's bathroom.

Not getting fired because you chose to have kids is not a perk. It is simply treating parents as equitably as non-parents.

"You *chose* to have kids." The guy in the wheelchair presumably did not choose his position; neither did men choose to have the ability to piss differently than women. A woman, however, can choose to have kids. Admittedly, men are free from that choice (whether that be a blessing or a curse), but the point still stands. If women receive nothing for maternity leave and receive equal pay for equal productivity its pretty fair. If they receive equal pay for equal productivity and then get the bonus for maternity leave... well, that just means that women that have kids are getting paid more for their productivity. Which isn't very fair at all.

Not to mention that any government funded support for families is just all of the other taxpayers paying for a family's *choice* to have kids. Children are expensive. If you don't want to pay for 'em, don't have 'em.

Amen.

However, note that gender bias cuts both ways.

Here's a personal example, that came up in a conversation with fellow teachers recently. Where I work, we have many sorts of classes - ranging from teaching small children to business people, colleges, small groups of adults, etc. Society in general, and the company I work for in particular, views females as better able to deal with children and males as better at dealing with other males. However, I know that I am a better childrens teacher than many female teachers at my workplace. Society's gender bias puts me at a disadvantage at work.

Social images of the macho man, who is the bread winner, defender, etc., are physically, mentally, and socially harmful to men as well as to women. :( And that's not just men's bias. Women play their part in that as well.

To summarise:
1) yes, society still immorally discriminates against females.
2) said discrimination not only hurts women, but men as well.

Absolutely true -- although this isn't so much a "however" as an "also note." :wink:

Anyone who thinks men aren't hurt by the same sexism that hurts women should read Susan Faludi's Stiffed: The Betrayal of the American Man (http://www.amazon.com/Stiffed-Betrayal-American-Susan-Faludi/dp/B000H2M9Y6). See also wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stiffed:_The_Betrayal_of_the_American_Man)

I think the biggest myth being perpetrated right now is that in the West, there is real (versus legal) gender equity. Apparently overall national prosperity means that we should ignore the fact that the poorest of the poor are still women (http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&do=Article&call=753&pA=A2286B2A&type=2,3,4,5,6,7)...that women suffer disproportionate amounts and levels (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/07/14/domestic-violence-050714.html) of domestic violence at the hands of men, and that women continue to lag behind men in terms of wages (http://www.womensmedia.com/new/confronting-gender-wage-gap.shtml) and representation in politics (ihttp://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/wmnmap05_en.pdf).

Feminists won, the battle is over right? Women are just choosing to be abused more, to be less affluent, less well paid, and less involved in politics than men.

The idea that complete gender equality has been reached is laughably naive.

Legally, in most western nations, men and women are equal (though not in the United States of America (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Rights_Amendment)) in the eyes of the law. Socially and economically, this is not the case at all. There are still many hypocritical double standards pervasive to western society that must be overcome. And of course, there is the fact that women still don't make equal pay for equal work. Females make up about 50% of the population (IIRC, it's actually a little bit more), but you don't see that reflected in most legislatures. To anyone who's paying attention, that there's still a long way to go should be obvious.

I think we'll get there, though. Among my generation, females seemed to be at least as ambitious and driven as males and enthusiastic about politics. Though that may just be the area I come from. A fair and equal society would be better for everyone. I wish for my late father's sake that we had been a more equal society, as that would have meant that my mom would have made about the same amount of money, enabling him to leave the workplace and be a stay-at-home dad. The only reason my mom left the workplace instead was that she made a lot less money. I think it's rather tragic, because while my dad liked his job, he liked being at home and doing things around the house a lot more.

At the highest levels of business, there is indeed a barrier only rarely penetrated by women or persons of color. Consider: 97% of the senior managers of Fortune 1000 industrial and Fortune 500 companies are white; 95 to 97% are male. In Fortune 2000 industrial and service companies, 5% of senior managers are women—and of that 5%, virtually all are white.

I can't help thinking that this would be a lot more insightful if the ages of the managers were included. If the average age is 50, for example, the statistics would probably be more representative of the ~1950-1970s than of 1995

One study found that, more than a decade after they had graduated from the Stanford University of Business School, men were eight times more likely to be CEOs than women.

This one is probably more representative of ~1985-1995 than 1995, as any bias during that time period would have slowed female ascent of the corporate ladder. Then again, 8:1 is a pretty dismal ratio, even for a decade or two ago =/.

I think the biggest myth being perpetrated right now is that in the West, there is real (versus legal) gender equity. Apparently overall national prosperity means that we should ignore the fact that the poorest of the poor are still women (http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&do=Article&call=753&pA=A2286B2A&type=2,3,4,5,6,7) normally caused by kids...that women suffer disproportionate amounts and levels (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/07/14/domestic-violence-050714.html) of domestic violence at the hands of men, require all women to keep and maintain a firearm and those numbers will reverse and that women continue to lag behind men in terms of wages (http://www.womensmedia.com/new/confronting-gender-wage-gap.shtml) and representation in politics (ihttp://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/wmnmap05_en.pdf).

Feminists won, the battle is over right? Women are just choosing to be abused more, to be less affluent, less well paid, and less involved in politics than men.
wage and politics is normally by choice. Women who dont get married and dont have children dont have a wage gap(drunk so ignore repeated donts)
according to author Warren Farrell in "Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It"
unmarried women with out families earn 117% of what unmarried men with out families.
So seems like in fact we have a reverse wage gap. I better start protesting.

normally caused by kids require all women to keep and maintain a firearm and those numbers will reverse
wage and politics is normally by choice. Women who dont get married and dont have children dont have a wage gap(drunk so ignore repeated donts)
according to author Warren Farrell in "Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap -- and What Women Can Do About It"
unmarried women with out families earn 117% of what unmarried men with out families.
So seems like in fact we have a reverse wage gap. I better start protesting.


Warren Farrell is a lying hack pig. 'Nuff said.

I haven't seen this linked yet (sorry if I'm wrong) but the Washington Post ran an article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/21/AR2008092102529.html) about a month ago describing a study that investigated how gender views affected wages. Women in general get less (that's been established for some time now), but men who have egalitarian gender roles also earn less than men who have what the article calls traditionalist gender views. Women who have traditionalist gender views get paid the least.
It's interesting because, assuming the study is true, the disparity does not seem to come from women taking maternity leave or trying to raise a family. It really does seem to be from a clash of views on what women's place in society is.

Warren Farrell is a lying hack pig. 'Nuff said.

yes of course anyone who disagrees with you must be ebil.



too bad his work is well sourced and he is a former board of directors member of NOW (only male to hold the title thrice 71-74)

yes of course anyone who disagrees with you must be ebil.

No. He is a lying hack pig, because he is a lying hack pig. Lots of people disagree with me and are neither ebil nor lying hack pigs.

too bad his work is well sourced and he is a former board of directors member of NOW (only male to hold the title thrice 71-74)

He wasn't on the Board of Directors of the National Organization for Women, but of the New York branch of NOW. Big difference. Plus what he did for 3 years some 34 years ago makes for rather pathetic credentials. Especially when his big epiphany about men's rights started when his successful wife divorced him.

His views on incest and rape are well sourced as nauseating and, yes, ebil.

But his character aside: he is wrong. The gender wage gap is very real. See, e.g., link (http://www.pay-equity.org/info.html), link (http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/women/equalpay/EqualPayForWorkingFamilies.cfm), link (http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/CEA/html/gendergap.html), link (http://www.aauw.org/research/statedata/)

EDIT: Just to make absolutely clear that Farrell is wrong about the wage gap, here is more information from an old post of mine:


The wage gap between men and women stubbornly remains despite the passage of the Equal Pay Act nearly 40 years ago. Women are still not receiving equal pay for equal work, let alone equal pay for comparable work. This disparity not only affects women's spending power; it penalizes their retirement security by creating gaps in social security and pensions.

The General Accounting Office compiled data from the Current Population Survey regarding the ten industries that employ 71 percent of U.S. women workers and 73 percent of U.S. women managers. The pay gap between full-time working women and men managers widened between 1995 and 2000, in seven of the ten industries examined.

A full-time working woman currently receives only about 73 cents to every dollar received by a man.

African-American women are paid only 65 cents for every dollar received by white men while Hispanic women are paid only 53 cents to the dollar.

If women received the same as men who work the same number of hours, have the same education, union status, are the same age, and live in the same region of the country, then these women's annual family income would rise by $4,000 and poverty rates would be cut in half. Working families would gain an astounding $200 billion in family income annually.

Pay equity in female-dominated jobs (jobs in which women comprise 70 percent or more of the workforce) would increase wages for women by approximately 18 percent.

Fifty-five percent of all women work in female-dominated jobs (jobs in which women comprise 70 percent or more of the workforce) whereas only 8.5 percent of all men work in these occupations. However, these men still receive about 20 percent more than women who work in female-dominated jobs.

Women are paid less in every occupational classification for which sufficient information is available, according to the data analysis in over 300 job classifications provided by the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics.

In 1963, the year of the Equal Pay Act's passage, full-time working women were paid 59 cents on average to the dollar received by men, while in 2000 women were paid 73 cents for every dollar received by men. In other words, for the last 37 years, the wage gap has only narrowed by slightly more than one third of a penny per year. (link (http://depts.uwc.edu/wmsts/Faculty/Pay_Equity.htm))

The statistics on the wage gap are relatively uniform across numerous sources looking at various data in various ways:

In January 2005, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation reported that nationally, college-educated women earn only 72 percent as much as college-educated men, a wage gap of 28 cents on the dollar. In every state, a persistent and significant gap exists between the earnings of college-educated, full-time working women and college-educated, full-time working men. The AAUW Educational Foundation’s Gains in Learning, Gaps in Earnings: A Guide to State and National Data (http://www.aauw.org/research/statedata/) is an online resource that examines these discrepancies.

June 4, 2004: Unequal pay takes a significant toll on working women and their families, reports the Institute for Women's Policy Research. "Still a Man's Labor Market: The Long-Term Earnings Gap" (http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C355.pdf) finds women's total earnings over their prime working years average only 38 percent of what prime-age men earn due to a combination of lower pay, more part-time work and time out of the workforce to care for children. The typical prime-age working woman earned $273,592 between 1983 and 1998 while the typical working man earned $722,693.

June 2004: A Census Bureau report, "Evidence From Census 2000 About Earnings by Detailed Occupation for Men and Women," (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-15.pdf) shows men earning more than women in all 20 of the highest-paid occupations for both sexes as well as in all 20 of the lowest-paid. Overall, among full-time, year-round workers, women's median earnings were 74% of men's, the report shows.

April 20, 2004: The Institute for Women's Policy Research issued a report on Equal Pay Day titled Women's Economic Status in the States: Wide Disparities by Race, Ethnicity, and Region (http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/R260.pdf) which shows that women are paid 68 cents for every dollar white men get.

November 20, 2003: The General Accounting Office's Oct. 2003 report, Women’s Earnings (http://www.house.gov/maloney/issues/womenscaucus/2003EarningsReport.pdf), shows the pay gap is real. Women working full-time today earn an average of 80 cents for every dollar that men earn, even when accounting for demographic and work-related factors such as occupation, industry, race, marital status and job tenure. This 20 percent earnings gap cannot be explained due to differences in work patterns or histories.

June 2002: A study by the National Women's Law Center, "Title IX and Equal Opportunity in Vocational and Technical Education: A Promise Still Owed to the Nation's Young Women," (http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/career%20ed%20report%20for%20june%206%20press%20event3.pdf) finds pervasive sex segregation in high school level vocational and technical programs across the country that results in substantial wage disparities between male and female graduates of these programs and inferior educational opportunities for women and girls enrolled in "traditionally female" programs. To illustrate the resulting wage disparities, electricians in a predominantly male field earn a median wage of $19.29 per hour, while the median wage for cosmetologists, in a predominantly female field, is $8.49 per hour.

2004 - Statistics about Professional Women (http://www.pay-equity.org/PDFs/ProfWomen.pdf) from the AFL-CIO's Department for Professional Employees

U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2002 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2002.pdf), September 2003

AFF-CIO, Equal Pay for Working Families: National and State Data (http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/women/equalpay/EqualPayForWorkingFamilies.cfm) & (2004 & 1999)

The President's Council of Economic Advisers, EXPLAINING TRENDS IN THE GENDER WAGE GAP (http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/CEA/html/gendergap.html), June 1998

The President's Council of Economic Advisers, OPPORTUNITIES AND GENDER PAY EQUITY IN NEW ECONOMY OCCUPATIONS (http://clinton4.nara.gov/media/pdf/pay_equity_paper_final.pdf), May 11, 2000

actually its still nature's world.

humans still have yet to figgured out how stupid their collective ego is.

A full-time working woman currently receives only about 73 cents to every dollar received by a man.
African-American women are paid only 65 cents for every dollar received by white men while Hispanic women are paid only 53 cents to the dollar.
You know it would be illegal to pay people less because of race, right?

So maybe most Hispanics work different jobs than Whites? Say, IT Engineer vs. Walmart Cashier.

If women received the same as men who work the same number of hours, have the same education, union status, are the same age, and live in the same region of the country, then these women's annual family income would rise by $4,000 and poverty rates would be cut in half. Working families would gain an astounding $200 billion in family income annually.
This is false logic. That money would come from where? Right, from male workers' wages. Families wouldn't gain anything, it's just income redistribution.




To illustrate the resulting wage disparities, electricians in a predominantly male field earn a median wage of $19.29 per hour, while the median wage for cosmetologists, in a predominantly female field, is $8.49 per hour.
A difference of 50%. And that's probably where most of that overall 20% disparity comes from.

But what do you suggest to do, mandate a maximum wage for electricians and elevated minimum wage for cosmetologists?

Beyond a certain basic biological level dealing purely in body strength, women are the equal of men in every way, and society should reflect this fact as such.

Sadly, it's going to be a long time yet before we get past our gender biases...the Industrial Revolution paved the way for equality for women, but humanity is slow to adjust socially.

No. They are hiring someone temporarily. This person has as much rights as the person they are replacing.
Of course they don't. Temps usually can be fired at whim, so their job rights are next to none.

This *has* everything to do with temp workers. Your policy would force companies to hire temps when someone leaves for two years, instead of hiring someone for a long-term career.

A six-month leave can be called just a leave. A two-year leave is more like a resignation, with coming back, often in a different market situation to a different manager with "Hello, sir, I used to work here, and I want to again."

Actually, usually such a person would be hired back, except when the situation has changed a lot. Say, the company has a shortage of orders, and is looking to lay off employees as it is.


I don't think we have to worry about the single mothers with six digit incomes and expensive and highly valued degress. They are a neglibile percentage of the single mom workforce.
But the legislation would affect them as well. Actually, it would affect them most of all, since it's high-pay jobs that tend to stay for long time.

BTW, what I meant is incomes around $70,000, the salary is about a half of what the company has to actually spend to maintain an employee.

Beyond a certain basic biological level dealing purely in body strength, women are the equal of men in every way, and society should reflect this fact as such.
This is one perpetuated myth that should be done away for in favour of promoting meaningful gender equality: Women and men are different, period.

I'm not saying either party is inherently superior in any aspect, even strength or endurance, but that biological differences shape the lives of both women and men in ways the people promoting androgynous view have hard time coming into terms with.

True gender equality in my view is this:
Yes, she's a woman/he's a man, that doesn't mean he or she isn't qualified, should earn less, have worse prospects of advancement or is inherently worse candidate for the job because of the gender*.

We should accept the differences, study them more purposefully and promote the well being of BOTH sexes.

One example of existing difference that should deserve better study is school success between sexes in lower grades - dominated by girls - and higher grades/universities - where the roles are more balanced, while overall student count is still (afaik) in favour of girls, but heavily divided by study area with oft better paying technical studies being heavily male biased in terms of number of students. The question I'd like to ask is that whether this feminine bias is because of culture - eg. teachers' gender balance - or some physiological deficit deriving from male biology that makes academia harder for men, like for example inherent lack of concentration at early age, interest in exercises that challenge motor coordination and perception - video/computer games, sports, lego blocks :P - rather than intellect per se, sex drive, etc..**

Another is mother's leave: Instead of handicapping the women alone, why not make father's leave equally compulsory with both being supported by the society?


* Naturally, if the job requires a male model or female consultant then there's a natural gender limit for it :tongue:

** Just so you don't think the paragraph is just an opinion: a source (http://www.educationsector.org/research/research_show.htm?doc_id=378705), another interesting read (http://portal.unesco.org/education/en/ev.php-URL_ID=29709&URL_DO=DO_PRINTPAGE&URL_SECTION=201.html), more @ google.com

Beyond a certain basic biological level dealing purely in body strength, women are the equal of men in every way, and society should reflect this fact as such.
Also some other differences, such as hormonal balance. Men don't get PMS, women don't get some of the male issues. Males get more testosterone, females more estrogens, and that does affect the thinking.

But most importantly, this lack of massive differences only applies to the hardware. The firmware and software are quite different between genders, as children are treated differently since early infancy to school, and even the college life isn't completely the same either due to gender relations.


Warren Farrell is a lying hack pig. 'Nuff said.
Maybe, but the gender salary disparity in same skilled profession is not even remotely approaching the disparity between professions.

Let's look at some of the most common skilled jobs:

IT specialist:

http://www.payscale.com/chart/189/Median-Salary-by-Gender---Job-Information-Technology-Specialist-United-States_USD_20081028090303-v1.0.jpg
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Information_Technology_Specialist/Salary/by_Gender


Mechanical Engineer:

http://www.payscale.com/chart/181/Median-Salary-by-Gender---Job-Mechanical-Engineer-United-States_USD_20081019080956-v1.0.jpg
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Mechanical_Engineer/Salary/by_Gender


Structural Engineer:

http://www.payscale.com/chart/55/Median-Salary-by-Gender---Job-Structural-Engineer-United-States_USD_20081022080129-v1.0.jpg
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Mechanical_Design_Engineer/Salary/by_Gender


Electronics Engineer:

http://www.payscale.com/chart/286/Median-Salary-by-Gender---Job-Electronics-Engineer-United-States_USD_20081027113931-v1.0.jpg
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Electronics_Engineer/Salary/by_Gender


Marine Engineer, Naval Architect:

http://www.payscale.com/chart/63/Median-Salary-by-Gender---Job-Marine-Engineer-or-Naval-Architect-United-States_USD_20081025074744-v1.0.jpg
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Marine_Engineer_or_Naval_Architect/Salary/by_Gender

Yes, actually higher for women, nearly $80k versus $71k.

Marine Engineer, Naval Architect:

http://www.payscale.com/chart/63/Median-Salary-by-Gender---Job-Marine-Engineer-or-Naval-Architect-United-States_USD_20081025074744-v1.0.jpg
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Marine_Engineer_or_Naval_Architect/Salary/by_Gender

Yes, actually higher for women, nearly $80k versus $71k.

Discriminating and sexism is rife within this profession. Something needs to be done.

I think the biggest myth being perpetrated right now is that in the West, there is real (versus legal) gender equity. Apparently overall national prosperity means that we should ignore the fact that the poorest of the poor are still women (http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&do=Article&call=753&pA=A2286B2A&type=2,3,4,5,6,7)...that women suffer disproportionate amounts and levels (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/07/14/domestic-violence-050714.html) of domestic violence at the hands of men, and that women continue to lag behind men in terms of wages (http://www.womensmedia.com/new/confronting-gender-wage-gap.shtml) and representation in politics (ihttp://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/wmnmap05_en.pdf).

Feminists won, the battle is over right? Women are just choosing to be abused more, to be less affluent, less well paid, and less involved in politics than men.

Here in the US, the Democratic Party, the supposed bastion of feminists, is just as misogynistic as the Republican Party (if not currently more so).

When women of any party run for office, they're criticized as being lesbians, bad mothers, and the most important stories about them are how they do their hair and what clothes they wear. The pics are of their legs, close up.

Male politicians, even Democrats, fuck around on their wives, have multiple mistresses they pay for with public funds, and force these mistresses to perform sexual favors for others in the name of politics.

I agree - women are still getting the shaft.

Men make a few dollars an hour more as a Man Tax. When the ship sinks and i get to hop in a life boat next to a woman and an infant, then women can get paid the same. When women pay for lunch as often as i do then pay should be equal. When there is a bump in the night and im not the one sent into the dark to investigate then pay should be equal. When the women stop expecting men to step into their fights to defend them, then pay should be equal. When women open doors for men as often as men open doors for women, then pay should be equal. When punching an asshole woman in the face is equally as socially acceptable(or equally as not) as punching an asshole male in the face then pay should be equal.

Men make a few dollars an hour more as a Man Tax. When the ship sinks and i get to hop in a life boat next to a woman and an infant, then women can get paid the same. When women pay for lunch as often as i do then pay should be equal. When there is a bump in the night and im not the one sent into the dark to investigate then pay should be equal. When the women stop expecting men to step into their fights to defend them, then pay should be equal. When women open doors for men as often as men open doors for women, then pay should be equal. When punching an asshole woman in the face is equally as socially acceptable(or equally as not) as punching an asshole male in the face then pay should be equal.

*passes around popcorn*

Mate they don't want to hear anything about that, the benefits only, none of the costs.

*Sits back to watch the show*

A few things:

1) If women choose certain jobs over others (e.g. teaching over mechanical engineering) because women have certain qualities men lack (e.g. caring versus mathematical ability), how do you explain places like Iceland, where women outperform men in areas like mathematics? Do Icelandic women have different genes? Or is it Iceland's culture that influences their career decisions? If it is culture, than certainly culture has a much larger influence on performance than any inherent gender differences -- otherwise, men would outperform women mathematically in Iceland, as they do in countries like the United States.

2) Even if women tend to be predisposed away from mathematics, what does that mean for the women who are gifted at mathematics? Should they be pushed away from their chosen field just because math is "male"? Or can we accept the existence of such women as statistical outliers and allow them to do what they excel at?

3) If aptitude in certain subject areas is based on gender, where do you think the transgendered, or intersexed, or genderqueer, have their strengths?


(Honestly, any of you who are interested in gender bias in technical fields should read this article. (http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB115274744775305134-d_SKq3_dwVeWH2_85LdpMoT_Y2w_20060811.html?mod=tff_main_tff_top) It's from the Wall Street Journal. In one part, a transgendered male scientist talks about how much more respect his research has gotten now that he's publishing under a male name.)

Correction...


It's a white mans world.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA no.

Yep, the Man is keeping whitey down.

Yep, the Man is keeping whitey down.

Not yet, but he's trying mighty hard. Egalitarianism my ass.

Not yet, but he's trying mighty hard. Egalitarianism my ass.

If he's trying he's really not any good at it.

snip

Farrell does not disagree with that Data he simply explains why.
A theory in social science is not valid until you attempt to explain why via intervening variables. That is what Mr. Farrell has done. He does not say pay is equal. He simply says there are reasons why and it is tied to things that women and men choose.

Not yet, but he's trying mighty hard. Egalitarianism my ass.

Somebody watched the news tonight.

Somebody watched the news tonight.

No. Why? What did Rudd do WHAT THE HELL DID HE DO!?

No. Why? What did Rudd do WHAT THE HELL DID HE DO!?

lol, well I suppose it really isn't on topic so I will send you a link check your TG in about half an hour.

The question is what hasn't he done, even the whole deposit guarantee policy he screwed over and made up this policy as he went along. As I say I will TG you so this thread doesn't go off topic.

Though your proposal isn't 2 years a bit long? As for day care well that might work but what about those that aren't going to be using day care?

The daycare program doesn't start until the kid is two years old. So the parental leave should last that long as well.

Yeah, they'd make sure that anyone who might become a mother at any point in the future would never get a job in the first place.

...

And when a firm then just plain refuses to hire women of childbearing age, it's not even being discriminatory. It's not prejudice any more than higher insurance premia for young drivers are. It's the result of a fairly simple calculation into which the government just injected all these unfavourable terms.

But this would be available to both parents. Not just mothers. So the equation would shift for both men and women equally. It might skew things for those who seem like prospective parents, but both genders should get dinged equally.

"You *chose* to have kids."...If you don't want to pay for 'em, don't have 'em.

People are not going to ignore their most fundamental biological imperative, simply because the economy isn't favourable. Therefore, it makes more sense to create policy that allows parents to participate fully in society, rather than make it more difficult for them during the early years of parenting.

Of course they don't. Temps usually can be fired at whim, so their job rights are next to none.

This *has* everything to do with temp workers. Your policy would force companies to hire temps when someone leaves for two years, instead of hiring someone for a long-term career.

I think your definition of temporary worker is different than mine. Here in Quebec, we have almost the system I describe. Except the parental leave is for one year rather than two. The temporary worker hired to replace the parent is, as far as I know, covered by the same laws as the person whose job they are replacing, and thus have the same rights.

You seem to have a different definition.

Actually, usually such a person would be hired back, except when the situation has changed a lot. Say, the company has a shortage of orders, and is looking to lay off employees as it is.

I discussed this already.

But the legislation would affect them as well. Actually, it would affect them most of all, since it's high-pay jobs that tend to stay for long time.

BTW, what I meant is incomes around $70,000, the salary is about a half of what the company has to actually spend to maintain an employee.

People making $70,000 CAD are considered upper middle class in Canada (you're five grand away from the top tax bracket). If someone is already that valuable to a company, then this legislation would be a moot point. They have job security anyway.

And when a firm then just plain refuses to hire women of childbearing age, it's not even being discriminatory. It's not prejudice any more than higher insurance premia for young drivers are. It's the result of a fairly simple calculation into which the government just injected all these unfavourable terms.


I'd like to point out that higher insurance premiums for drivers based on age, sex, and/or marital status is prima facie discrimination*, but that in the narrow case of insurance, has considered to be a bona fide practice. However, in the case linked to, I feel the dissent was more compelling. Justice L'Heureux‑Dubé pointed out that the test should be one of 'reasonable and bona fide', not just bona fide alone.

Any rational connection must causally link distinction and the insured risk and must be more than a statistical correlation or a simple reliance on traditional or accepted insurance practices which may be nonetheless needlessly discriminatory. The distinction must also be a reasonable means of identifying and classifying similar risks. The dissent found no causal connection between the discriminatory classification and high risk.

Justice (as she was then) McLachlin provides an even stronger dissent:

The law clearly forbids discrimination on the grounds of age, sex and marital status, unless the offender can establish that its intentions were bona fide and that, on an objective test, there was no practical or reasonable alternative to discriminating on those grounds. The insurer, however, did not demonstrate that there was no practical alternative in 1983 to basing its premiums for young men on age, sex and marital status.


Why am I going on about this? This case involved the higher insurance premiums faced by young men, compared to those faced by females of the same age. The dissent was very aware of the danger in allowing discrimination based on age, sex, marital status, or any other grounds on anything but an extremely rigorous test. We are talking about contravening constitutionally enshrined human rights...just because the stats tell you that someone belongs to a 'class' that is more likely to do 'x', does not properly justify treating every individual within that 'class' in a discriminatory manner.

When you say that simply refusing to hire women is not discrimination in much the same way insurance premiums based on sex, age or marital status is not...you are wrong. It IS discrimination. There is no doubt, or real argument there. Where the argument needs to be made is whether or not that prima facie discrimination can be justified, and you will NEVER, not even under the less stringent bona fide test, be able to justify a blanket refusal to hire women because 'women have babies'.

Right now, women bear the brunt of the 'baby' issue. Not just because women are the ones who actually have the children, but because women continue to be the primary caregivers for those children. This is NOT just about biology. Women on average make less than men, and advance at a slower rate into managerial positions. When a couple is deciding about which person should stay home, this is absolutely taken into account. That's assuming a couple who work in the same field, on relatively equal terms. More often, the woman is working in a field that has an overall lifetime earning potential far below that of the man's. Why?

Many women take jobs that HAVE a system of benefits in place for people who wish to have children. Teaching, as an example. Rather than entering a profession that is traditionally hostile towards families (Law). So what you have, is practical decision based on real life conditions that tend to exacerbate the problem, leading certain people to believe that the choice being made are 'free' and based on a gender divide in interests and priorities. BULL FUCKING SHIT.

We all have to make life choices based on reality, and the reality is, women are bottlenecked into lower earning, lower prestige professions and are the ones who disproportionately bear the brunt of having families DESPITE the fact that men are most certainly involved in these families as well. If a solution to this is to ghettoize women AND men who choose to have families into these 'family friendly' yet lower paying jobs, then I think our priorities are seriously skewed.

Slowly, industry is waking up to the problem. Right now, law schools across North America have an equal, or even disproportionate representation of women. Those in the higher echelons of firms are still disproportionately male. However, firms simply do not have the option of hiring only male associates. The amount of money that goes into training articling students, then associates, is phenomenal, compared to the return. It takes about five years of input before that input to output deficit is corrected.

What is driving firms nuts, is that five years is also the average time a female associate will stay at a firm before leaving, either to have a family, or to transfer to a more family friendly firm. (More and more men are leaving for the same reasons, btw) The solution is NOT to stop hiring women. That isn't even a option.

The solution, as many firms are coming to understand, is to create a more flexible work environment for employees with families. Allowing job sharing during mat/parental leave...providing ongoing training to ensure that the on-leave parent is up to speed when they return. Etc.

Vault 10 brought up the issue of temporary workers, filling in during mat/parental leave. In this country, if you are filling in for an employee on leave, you have contractual labour rights that are far beyond what a 'temporary' worker has. If you work in a position, full time, for a certain period (in teaching, it's a year), you are considered a full time employee, entitled to the same benefits. Once the person you are filling in for comes back, you have to give up that position, but you are then rotated to another position at the same rate of pay.

IF that is not being done in other situations, then once again, this is a problem that needs correction...not a stumbling block on the way to ensuring gender equity.




* Zurich Insurance Co. v. Ontario, [1992] (http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/1992/1992rcs2-321/1992rcs2-321.html)

You know it would be illegal to pay people less because of race, right? You know it happens anyway, right?

In Action Travail des Femmes v. Canadian National Railway Company, [1987] (http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=28&lg=_e&isruling=0), the Canadian Human Rights Commission found (and was upheld by the SCC), that the CNR was perpetrating systemic discrimination against women. Systemic discrimination is much more difficult to prove than discrimination against a single individual. This case, as well as others I will provide to you, include extensive statistics, vetted research and evidence, all of which were accepted at the highest levels of our judicial system as proving a prima facie case of discrimination.

Coming out of this amazing case is the principal that what is needed is evidence of "practices or attitudes, whether by design or impact, the effect of limiting and individual's or group's right to the opportunities generally available, because of attributed rather than actual characteristics..." (para 34).

In National Capital Alliance on Race Relations v. Canada (Health and welfare) [1997] (http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=235&lg=_e&isruling=0), a prima facie case of systemic discrimination based on colour, race and national origin was established. This discrimination occurred in the context of a government Ministry, trickling down to all areas of employment under the purview of that Ministry.

What was fantastic about this case is that it established you can indeed look at end results. Meaning, when the bulk of those in managerial positions are of a certain ethnicity, and the bulk of visible minorities fill lower level positions, the presumption is discrimination. It is a rebuttable presumption.

This case provided extensive evidence showing exactly how the systemic discrimination was being carried out. There were no laws allowing it...simply a system of policies and practices that had the practical effect of 'bottlenecking' visible minorities in lower level positions. Heath Canada (as it then was) was asked to justify these practices...and it didn't. It tendered no evidence that its practices in any way were bona fide, or justified whatsoever.

Also, this case points out that you cannot simply take two individuals employed in the same position and say 'oh look, they're making sort of same money, no discrimination'. You have to look at the wider system of practices...including those policies and practices preventing certain people from ever reaching the higher echelons.

What too many of you are doing is comparing straight across...unable to see the forest for the trees, as it were. That's not enough.

No. Discrimination based on colour, sex, or any other prohibited ground is not allowed. Clearly. That in no way means it does not happen, and in a very serious, pervasive way.

I direct your attention in that last case to section VII, the order respecting remedies. This case did not simply find systemic discrimination and go 'oh well, just stop it, k?' The Canadian Human Rights Commission ordered an extensive remedy, one that might shock your socks off.

The point is, the law prevents nothing. It is a guide, an reflects our values. It allows us to deal with problems once they have happened. That is all. Systemic discrimination continues...we just have better tools to fight it with...but the fight continues.




*Another great case is Radek v. Henderson Development (Canada) Ltd. (No. 3), 2005 BCHRT 302 (http://www.bchrt.gov.bc.ca/decisions/2005/pdf/Radek_v_Henderson_Development_(Canada)_and_Securiguard_Services_(No_3)_2005_BCHRT_302.pdf) where the operators of a mall were found to be systematically discriminating against aboriginal people and people with disabilities.

I suspect that the reason why there is still an inequity between women and men is that women still can't pee into a coke bottle without getting it all over the place. *nod*
Funny you should mention that...

I recently had a lengthy discussion with some video gaming buddies about the use of "pee bottles" for hardcore gaming addicts. I reassured them that yes, a female gamer can use a "pee bottle," and no, it's not any less pathetic if she does. :D

This seems like a huge strawman to me. I've never met anyone who has said this, nor read any article that expressed it. Perhaps I choose too consciously what I read!

Or you're just very lucky. :(

I can't tell you how many guys I meet who insist that women are already have total equality, or even superiority, to men in Western society.

There's also a special subclass of women who promote this myth. They're the same girls who insist that all other girls are sluts or gold-diggers or bitches, and that they're totally not like other girls, which is why THEY deserve to be respected (unlike all other girls).

You know, in the battle for equality, I think segregated sports is something that most of us can agree is probably "ok"
I've never understood this.

I think weight classes make sense for many sports. Height classes make sense for a lot of sports. But segregating by gender? Nah.

I know plenty of women who can easily compete against men who are of similar physical size. The only reason these women have trouble competing against men in general is because men are, on average, physically larger. Of course, this is exactly the same problem that small men have competing against larger men. It's got buggerall to do with gender.

I say use weight/height classes for all sports, and integrate the genders. If it turns out that women actually cannot compete against men in equal weight classes, then I'll be happy to eat my words. But I don't think that will be the case.

Men make a few dollars an hour more as a Man Tax. When the ship sinks and i get to hop in a life boat next to a woman and an infant, then women can get paid the same. When women pay for lunch as often as i do then pay should be equal. When there is a bump in the night and im not the one sent into the dark to investigate then pay should be equal. When the women stop expecting men to step into their fights to defend them, then pay should be equal. When women open doors for men as often as men open doors for women, then pay should be equal. When punching an asshole woman in the face is equally as socially acceptable(or equally as not) as punching an asshole male in the face then pay should be equal.

Do point to an example in the last, say, two or three decades in which a man has been barred from getting on a lifeboat while women of similar age and family status were let on.

I pay for my own lunch every day. Is that often enough for you?

I have never "sent" anyone to investigate bumps, and I cannot imagine demanding that anyone "step into my fights."

I open doors for everyone, because I am a polite person and not a jackass. If you only choose to open doors for members of one gender, how the hell is that the fault of that gender?

Punching anyone in the face is unacceptable. It's called assault.

So, shall I magically get paid as much for my work as an equivalent male now, or will you admit that this argument was utter bullshit?

Do point to an example in the last, say, two or three decades in which a man has been barred from getting on a lifeboat while women of similar age and family status were let on.

I pay for my own lunch every day. Is that often enough for you?

I have never "sent" anyone to investigate bumps, and I cannot imagine demanding that anyone "step into my fights."

I open doors for everyone, because I am a polite person and not a jackass. If you only choose to open doors for members of one gender, how the hell is that the fault of that gender?

Punching anyone in the face is unacceptable. It's called assault.

So, shall I magically get paid as much for my work as an equivalent male now, or will you admit that this argument was utter bullshit?
Yeah, I love his logic.

"Here's a list of rights that women don't actually have, and a list of obligations that men aren't in any way bound to meet, so that's why men should always get paid more than women."

Never mind that it was only UPPER CLASS women who got on lifeboats first.

Or that women traditionally didn't pay for meals because traditionally women weren't allowed to own property and therefore couldn't have money in the first place.

Or that the whole "go check out the bump in the night" bullshit has never been true, since throughout much of history women were maintaining the home alone for long extended periods.

Or that if you want to get paid to hold doors open you probably should put on a bellhop uniform and get to work.

Or that punching your wife in the face was LEGAL until very recently, and STILL carries far, far less severe penalties than if you punched a total stranger in the face. Punch another man in the face? That's assault. Punch your girlfriend in the face? Statistically speaking, you're more likely to win the lotto than to see a week behind bars.


But hey, we're talking about a guy who's demanding that he be given a bonus for not shoving people out of lifeboats or punching women in the face.

I've never understood this.

I think weight classes make sense for many sports. Height classes make sense for a lot of sports. But segregating by gender? Nah.

I know plenty of women who can easily compete against men who are of similar physical size. The only reason these women have trouble competing against men in general is because men are, on average, physically larger. Of course, this is exactly the same problem that small men have competing against larger men. It's got buggerall to do with gender.

I say use weight/height classes for all sports, and integrate the genders. If it turns out that women actually cannot compete against men in equal weight classes, then I'll be happy to eat my words. But I don't think that will be the case.

I never understood segregation by height and weight, or any segregation at all in sports. I want to see the best vs the best, not the best of everyone in this little category. Seems counter-intuitive to the principle of sport.

It's also impractical for large numbers of sports where either (in team sports) varying heights and weights are needed for different positions or size and weight can have varying advantages rather than just 'bigger is better'.

Have no segregation in sports, if women make up a disproportionally low % then so be it. Just as in NFL for example white players are disproportionally rare and black players over-represented. So be it. I want to see the best against the best with no gerrymandering.

Also some other differences, such as hormonal balance. Men don't get PMS, women don't get some of the male issues. Males get more testosterone, females more estrogens, and that does affect the thinking.

But most importantly, this lack of massive differences only applies to the hardware. The firmware and software are quite different between genders, as children are treated differently since early infancy to school, and even the college life isn't completely the same either due to gender relations.


That's not only overblown and relying on tendencies again, that's completely irrelevant. Women ought to be given completely equal treatment under the law and in society, regardless of whatever small differences there are. They ought to be given equal chances at everything.

Take, for example, being a Navy SEAL. This is one of two fields barred to women entirely, along with submarines. The reason for it has to do mainly with upper body strength and women "not being capable of it."

But this ignores that there are large numbers of men equally incapable of it, and disqualifies women that would be capable of it. I'm more eligible to be a SEAL than a woman who meets the physical qualifications just because I have a penis and she has a vagina.

My way of looking at things like this is that certain standards need to be set for what is required to complete a job effectively, and let anyone who can meet those standards try it out. If they make the cut, great. If they don't, that's okay too. And I guarantee you that--to continue with my example--if we were to change this policy you'd end up with a lot of female SEALs.

Women are my equal, as far as I'm concerned, and when I go into politics, women's rights will be one of my central issues. (Possibly my very central issue, depending upon the political environment.)

That's not only overblown and relying on tendencies again, that's completely irrelevant. Women ought to be given completely equal treatment under the law and in society, regardless of whatever small differences there are. They ought to be given equal chances at everything.
Yes, but equal without disregard for circumstances. Women are not "men with boobs", they have somewhat different hardware, firmware and software, as loaded by our society, starting from baby boys in blue pants with toy cars to play with and baby girls in pink dresses with dolls to play with. Start THERE. Change it, make it not so.

First make steps to load women with the same firmware, then try to achieve 50/50 representation in jobs, equal salaries, et cetera.
Anything else is begging for a reactionary response. If you put rules in place that make hiring women unprofitable, employers will quietly look for ways not to hire them at all. And they're not all fat cats, who can, as one poster suggested, increase female pay 25% at no loss - many companies today are struggling to just get by. Legislation will penalize exactly those open-minded employers who do hire a lot of women in "male" positions.


My way of looking at things like this is that certain standards need to be set for what is required to complete a job effectively, and let anyone who can meet those standards try it out. If they make the cut, great. If they don't, that's okay too.
My view as well. But, reserving for certain exceptions, where having men and women working together can lead to complications.


Take, for example, being a Navy SEAL. This is one of two fields barred to women entirely, along with submarines. The reason for it has to do mainly with upper body strength and women "not being capable of it."
But this ignores that there are large numbers of men equally incapable of it, and disqualifies women that would be capable of it.
First, I don't think there's all that many of them.
Second, Navy SEAL is a job on the extreme of human abilities, starting from the tests, and a high-responsibility one. Our society is not yet ready to subject women to the same physical mistreatment as considered acceptable for men. Our men are still more protective about women than about other men. Finally, and this won't change soon, our men still view women as potential sex partners, and can fall in love or lower desires, all of which would compromise the system. I simply don't see, and I think you don't either, in 2008, a SEAL team operating with a woman in its midst, and not bothering to notice that she's not a man.
An all-female troop could be more workable, but I doubt it would be possible to organize. Plus, it's simply too much trouble.

And accepting women into ALL service roles, no exception, without ensuring that they'll be seen and treated with no sexual element, is begging for trouble. Remember the rapes on the Aussie boats. We can't put women's heads (restrooms) and showers on subs, and the society is not yet ready to share showers between genders without sexual reaction. Not when there's a hundred men who are bored as hell and hadn't got a fuck in two months. Believe me, I've been there, although on the surface, and it was bad enough already; you'll soon see for yourself too.

there is no equality any where and its not just men vs. women. its every thing. and its changing all the time. ppl just cant seem to get along

now about women being weaker in he job force- they wouldnt be if they tried hard enough and wanted to do well. everyone has it in them to succeed

Or you're just very lucky. :(

I can't tell you how many guys I meet who insist that women are already have total equality, or even superiority, to men in Western society.

There's also a special subclass of women who promote this myth. They're the same girls who insist that all other girls are sluts or gold-diggers or bitches, and that they're totally not like other girls, which is why THEY deserve to be respected (unlike all other girls).

This does not make me a happy bunny :(

I will keep my circles of friends and continue to filter what I do and don't read, and if I meet any people this like, hopefully persuade them of their ill-judged views.

I've never understood this.

I think weight classes make sense for many sports. Height classes make sense for a lot of sports. But segregating by gender? Nah.

I know plenty of women who can easily compete against men who are of similar physical size. The only reason these women have trouble competing against men in general is because men are, on average, physically larger. Of course, this is exactly the same problem that small men have competing against larger men. It's got buggerall to do with gender.

I say use weight/height classes for all sports, and integrate the genders. If it turns out that women actually cannot compete against men in equal weight classes, then I'll be happy to eat my words. But I don't think that will be the case.

In many respects I do agree with this, and I do certainly enjoy mixed sports due to their variety and, generally, better social atmosphere. There is a certain level of competitiveness that can be exciting to watch in all-male sports, that is not always present in all-female sports, and I generally find that, at an average skill level, men are slightly more enthusiastic (not quite the right word, perhaps more risk-taking). However, this could well be a gender bias that says that men should put more effort in to show off, which might not be expected by a women. I find this odd, personally.

Yes, but equal without disregard for circumstances. Women are not "men with boobs", they have somewhat different hardware, firmware and software, as loaded by our society, starting from baby boys in blue pants with toy cars to play with and baby girls in pink dresses with dolls to play with. Start THERE. Change it, make it not so.


Bullshit. My littlest boy and girl are a year separate and wear the same clothes and play with the same toys. Your 'pink dresses' and 'toy cars' are pathetic excuses.


First make steps to load women with the same firmware, then try to achieve 50/50 representation in jobs, equal salaries, et cetera.


More bullshit. People like me are not going to sit by for 20 years while a generation of toy-car-playing-girls get old enough to make it worthwhile to change things. I'm not content to wait while you make excuses.


Anything else is begging for a reactionary response. If you put rules in place that make hiring women unprofitable, employers will quietly look for ways not to hire them at all. And they're not all fat cats, who can, as one poster suggested, increase female pay 25% at no loss - many companies today are struggling to just get by. Legislation will penalize exactly those open-minded employers who do hire a lot of women in "male" positions.


More bullshit. You're effectively arguing that women NEED to be paid less, because the American economy needs a second-grade-payscale workforce. By the same logic, we 'need' slavery, too.


My view as well. But, reserving for certain exceptions, where having men and women working together can lead to complications.


Maybe that applies to things like... who performs cavity searches. Other than that, I can't think of many real issues.


First, I don't think there's all that many of them.


That's okay. Reality doesn't care what you 'think'.


Second, Navy SEAL is a job on the extreme of human abilities, starting from the tests, and a high-responsibility one.


And women can't do high-responsibility jobs?


Our society is not yet ready to subject women to the same physical mistreatment as considered acceptable for men.


You mean, you're not.


Our men are still more protective about women than about other men. Finally, and this won't change soon, our men still view women as potential sex partners, and can fall in love or lower desires, all of which would compromise the system.


Apparently, you are unaware of a recent invention. I think they call it 'homosexuals'.


I simply don't see, and I think you don't either, in 2008, a SEAL team operating with a woman in its midst, and not bothering to notice that she's not a man.


Again. fortunately - what you 'think' doesn't matter in the big picture.


And accepting women into ALL service roles, no exception, without ensuring that they'll be seen and treated with no sexual element, is begging for trouble. Remember the rapes on the Aussie boats. We can't put women's heads (restrooms) and showers on subs, and the society is not yet ready to share showers between genders without sexual reaction.


More bullshit. I've been to nightclubs with shared 'heads'. I've worked places with shared showers. And you know what, we managed to not fuck each other.


Not when there's a hundred men who are bored as hell and hadn't got a fuck in two months. Believe me, I've been there, although on the surface, and it was bad enough already; you'll soon see for yourself too.

So - your excuse for segregation is that the sort of MEN that would be present, are basically rapists-waiting-to-happen?

Are you going to start pushing for Sharia law, too?

now about women being weaker in he job force- they wouldnt be if they tried hard enough and wanted to do well. everyone has it in them to succeed

Irrelevent. Hard-working, driven women STILL get less respect, are unlikely to get as good options, promotions and benefits, and get paid less... than their male counterparts.

But this would be available to both parents. Not just mothers. So the equation would shift for both men and women equally. It might skew things for those who seem like prospective parents, but both genders should get dinged equally.
Well, yes, but you and I both know that the mother is much more likely to take the leave than the father, and so a rational firm would be adjusting the uncertainty factor more for women than for men. But even if that weren't the case, the argument doesn't change much - everyone is now less attractive to hire, so the company will try to either hire people at less basic wage, or just hire less people. The alternatives are obviously some sort of machinery, or workers in other countries who aren't being held back competitively by these laws you're proposing.

I have another question, by the way. What if someone has a child, gets 2 years free holiday from your scheme and then has another child at the end of that period? It's not unreasonable for people to have kids in a 2-year interval. Could one extend this free holiday indefinitely that way?

Right now, women bear the brunt of the 'baby' issue. Not just because women are the ones who actually have the children, but because women continue to be the primary caregivers for those children. This is NOT just about biology.
I'm not saying that it is. I'm saying that if you impose as extreme measures as gift-of-god was proposing, hiring someone who is likely to leave for 2 years, get paid in full and provide absolutely nothing to the company is a huge risk to take. So how is the company supposed to react to this? Hell, for companies that don't have a lot of physical capital, but rely on the relationships and individual skills of their workforce, a sufficient number of people choosing to exercise this right to leave could bring the place down.

Maybe the answer is a contract in which you specify that you won't take this leave for X years, and if you break that commitment, the firm has the right to terminate your employment without having to pay (that goes for men and women alike). That seems to me the only way of making sure. People who refuse to sign it will then have to be content with getting offered a lower wage to account for this extra risk.

Many women take jobs that HAVE a system of benefits in place for people who wish to have children. Teaching, as an example. Rather than entering a profession that is traditionally hostile towards families (Law). So what you have, is practical decision based on real life conditions that tend to exacerbate the problem, leading certain people to believe that the choice being made are 'free' and based on a gender divide in interests and priorities. BULL FUCKING SHIT.
Running the risk of raising your blood pressure yet more...having children is a free choice too in our society. It's not like women have to have children, and so it's not like they have to take jobs that accommodate the process.

I'm not sure how realistic it is for a woman to say to her partner who really wants a child something along the lines of "fine, I'll take four weeks off work to birth it, and then you take time off work to raise it", given all the emotional stuff involved* and perhaps any (idiotic) social expectations, but the legal barriers to saying it are surely very small.

*I was watching a documentary series a while ago, and it seemed like all of the young mothers in the study were feeling quite distressed about bringing their kids to daycare, even when they were a year or so old already. Who knows what it would be like for babies younger than that. The series didn't say much about the fathers in regards to that issue, but I would propose that they might be less likely to have a problem with leaving their kids for a day or so. But you can't generalise this stuff either way.

The solution, as many firms are coming to understand, is to create a more flexible work environment for employees with families. Allowing job sharing during mat/parental leave...providing ongoing training to ensure that the on-leave parent is up to speed when they return. Etc.
As long as this bonus stuff is accurately reflected in lower earnings during that time, that's no problem. But requiring a firm to pay the same for someone on a job sharing arrangement and who gets training as for someone who is actually committed to working to the extent of her capabilities is ludicrous.

And yes, I'm not a big fan of flexi-time arrangements of any sort. I've watched them in action at the place I worked at the last holidays, and I was not impressed.

Vault 10 brought up the issue of temporary workers, filling in during mat/parental leave. In this country, if you are filling in for an employee on leave, you have contractual labour rights that are far beyond what a 'temporary' worker has. If you work in a position, full time, for a certain period (in teaching, it's a year), you are considered a full time employee, entitled to the same benefits. Once the person you are filling in for comes back, you have to give up that position, but you are then rotated to another position at the same rate of pay.
That's not really a solution - you're now paying two people to do the job of one.

Farrell does not disagree with that Data he simply explains why.
A theory in social science is not valid until you attempt to explain why via intervening variables. That is what Mr. Farrell has done. He does not say pay is equal. He simply says there are reasons why and it is tied to things that women and men choose.

1. You originally suggested Farrell's findings did disagree with the data I provided. I understand your confusion as Farrell is far from consistent.

2. The "data" I provided included studies that control for the "variables" that Farrell claims explains away the pay gap. Regardless, here is additional data rebutting Farrell: Examining the “Women’s Choices” Theory (http://www.pay-equity.org/info-choices.html)

3. Accepting for the sake of argument that "women and men choose" differently, both you and Farrell blithely (or deliberately) ignore that why "women and men choose" different things is directly impacted by gender roles and gender bias in our society.

4. I notice you backed away from defending Farrell himself. Smart move. But his views on pay equity are no more valid than his outrageous views on domestic violence, rape, and incest. It is difficult to determine whether the man is a monster or simply willing to whore for monsters.

I love how this thread started with people claiming it was a "strawman" because no one would deny the unjustifiable unequitable treatment of women and we are nonetheless arguing with those that deny women are treated unequitably and/or trying to justify it. Go figure. :eek::tongue:

Bullshit. My littlest boy and girl are a year separate and wear the same clothes and play with the same toys. Your 'pink dresses' and 'toy cars' are pathetic excuses.
Fun fact, though slightly irrelevant:

Apparently kids below a certain age have no conception of gender other than the things obvious to them. So they think that being a girl or a boy is not internal, but depends on what you wear and what you do. So below this age, when you give a boy pink, girly clothes to wear and dolls to play, they actually think they're a girl. I was watching an experiment on that on TV last year, and those kids seemed quite convinced. Had other interesting stuff as well, like the transition to realising that other people have seperate minds - followed by the ability to lie. :tongue:

I love how this thread started with people claiming it was a "strawman" because no one would deny the unjustifiable unequitable treatment of women and we are nonetheless arguing with those that deny women are treated unequitably and/or trying to justify it. Go figure. :eek::tongue:
Meh, all I'm arguing about is the treatment of having children with regards to work. That happens to impact women more than men, but that's about as far as that goes for me.

My own chosen profession, banking, is said to be an "alpha male" environment, but given that I've met plenty of women in it already, I think there are female "alphas" as well. As far as I can tell from my own experience, I don't think gender makes a big difference in the workplace (or shouldn't anyways) - what I don't agree with is people getting freebies as a result of having a child, and that goes for males and females alike.

Well, yes, but you and I both know that the mother is much more likely to take the leave than the father, and so a rational firm would be adjusting the uncertainty factor more for women than for men. But even if that weren't the case, the argument doesn't change much - everyone is now less attractive to hire, so the company will try to either hire people at less basic wage, or just hire less people. The alternatives are obviously some sort of machinery, or workers in other countries who aren't being held back competitively by these laws you're proposing.

If we allow both parents to take time off, we decrease the likelihood of it being the mother. I see it as killing two birds with one stone, though we're talking about social inertia, so it's more like slightly redirecting two elephants with one stone...

You could also apply your argument to worker safety rules, environmental rules, and other things that society currently demands of employers. Why do we allow these policies to continue but not other measures that would go towards gender equity?

I have another question, by the way. What if someone has a child, gets 2 years free holiday from your scheme and then has another child at the end of that period? It's not unreasonable for people to have kids in a 2-year interval. Could one extend this free holiday indefinitely that way?

That would depend on how it was organised. I'm using the Quebec model: http://www.rqap.gouv.qc.ca/conditions-admissibilite/index_en.asp
Using this, as long as you made a certain amount of income that could be taxed to go into that fund during a certain period of time, you could then do it again.

that women suffer disproportionate amounts and levels (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/07/14/domestic-violence-050714.html) of domestic violence at the hands of men

The domestic violence aspect of women's continued oppression has gotten little attention in this thread. Primarily it has been noted that men are also sometimes victims of domestic violence -- which is undeniable-- and that it is even harder for men to report it -- which is also true.

Nonetheless, the way in which our society victimizes women through violence should not be understated:


Nearly 5.3 million intimate partner victimizations occur each year among U.S. women ages 18 and older. This violence results in nearly 2 million injuries and nearly 1,300 deaths (Centers for Disease Control, 2003 (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/ipv_cost/index.htm))


The US Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipv01.htm) (February 2003) reports that women were 85% of the victims of intimate violence (other than murder) in 2001. Previously (October 2001), the Department (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/ipva99.htm) had also reported that "Women accounted for 85% of the victims from among the more than 790,000 victims of intimate violence in 1999".


In the United States, researchers estimate that 40% to 70% of female murder victims were killed by their husbands or boyfriends, frequently in the context of an ongoing abusive relationship. (Centers for Disease Control (http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/ipvfacts.htm)) On average, more than three women are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends in this country every day. In 2000, 1,247 women were killed by an intimate partner. The same year, 440 men were killed by an intimate partner.


The National Institute of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/pubs-sum/181867.htm) found in 2000 that "approximately 1.5 million women and 834,732 men are raped and/or physically assaulted by an intimate partner annually in the United States." Almost 25% of women, and 7.5% of men, had been raped and/or assaulted by a date or partner at some time in their lives. Women who were assaulted by an intimate sustained a higher number of assaults, and were more likely to have been injured in the most recent attack, than men who were assaulted. In addition, the study found that "503,485 women and 185,496 men are stalked by an intimate partner annually in the United States."


According the US Department of Justice (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/vbi.htm) in 1994, "Annually, compared to males, females experienced over 10 times as many incidents of violence by an intimate. On average each year, women experienced over 572,000 violent victimizations committed by an intimate, compared to approximately 49,000 incidents committed against men."


The Study of Injured Victims of Violence (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/vrithed.htm) (US Department of Justice, 1997) surveyed injuries treated in hospital emergency departments. 4.5% of male victims had been injured by an intimate, compared to 36.8% of the female victims. Of the 243,000 people who had been injured by an intimate, 39,000 (16%) were men and 204,000 (84%) were women. (In 30% of cases, the relationship between the injured person and their attacker was not identified.)



(The above is taken from an old post and I haven't double-checked the links. Hopefully, they still all work.)

My littlest boy and girl are a year separate and wear the same clothes and play with the same toys. Your 'pink dresses' and 'toy cars' are pathetic excuses.
This is nice. You're doing the right thing.
Sure all other parents do, especially in red states? Sure it was the same way for everyone since the '50s?


You're effectively arguing that women NEED to be paid less, because the American economy needs a second-grade-payscale workforce.
No. I'm arguing that if women are allowed major extra benefits, such as two-year maternal leave and others, it becomes more cost-effective for the employer to prefer men.


Maybe that applies to things like... who performs cavity searches. Other than that, I can't think of many real issues.
Submarines is one of them. Incidents still happen at an unacceptable rate.


And women can't do high-responsibility jobs?
Stop breaking up posts into tiny pieces and respond to each out of the context, please.
Today, as of 2008, there ARE problems having men and women work together in close environment. Like it or not, most men are straight, and DO have sexual and love desires. Like it or not, a pair of lovebirds is not the best thing for a SEAL squad on an assignment. Like it or not, but the military structure works better when this is out of the picture.

It's not an office.


Apparently, you are unaware of a recent invention. I think they call it 'homosexuals'.
Apparently, you're unaware of the army's policies regarding them.


I've been to nightclubs with shared 'heads'. I've worked places with shared showers. And you know what, we managed to not fuck each other. Good for you. So you're a modern educated civilized politically correct gender-respecting and all that person.
Not everyone, particularly in the military, is. Care to help solve that by enlisting?


So - your excuse for segregation is that the sort of MEN that would be present, are basically rapists-waiting-to-happen?
Yes, it's the sort of MEN we have now which is the problem. But not rapists, that is a tiny proportion. Most of them, simply lovers-waiting-to-happen. Most men DO have romantic desires. (Some women, actually, too). And they tend to come to fruit in an environment such as a ship.

And there are abuse issues too. You should realize that not everything in the world is soft, pink and civil academia. You know what happens in US, Aussie and to a lesser extent UK Navy at 0°?
That's where one of the Aussie 'rape' incidents happened. More precisely, the whole day was dedicated to older sailors buttfucking younger sailors with sticks, as well as throwing them overboard and doing lots of other ****. No exceptions for any excuse whatsoever, gender included.

Meh, all I'm arguing about is the treatment of having children with regards to work. That happens to impact women more than men, but that's about as far as that goes for me.

My own chosen profession, banking, is said to be an "alpha male" environment, but given that I've met plenty of women in it already, I think there are female "alphas" as well. As far as I can tell from my own experience, I don't think gender makes a big difference in the workplace (or shouldn't anyways) - what I don't agree with is people getting freebies as a result of having a child, and that goes for males and females alike.

I wasn't thinking of you in particular.

You do seem to be ignoring that society has an interest in good future citizens and that valuing families arguably should be a societal goal that extends to workplace accomodations. Especially as the lack of such accomodations tends to have a disparate impact on women.

Further, it's all very nice that you "don't think gender makes a big difference in the workplace," but I've shown numerous studies (including the reprort of the Glass Ceiling Commission) that show that view is, at best, naively ignorant.

You could also apply your argument to worker safety rules, environmental rules, and other things that society currently demands of employers. Why do we allow these policies to continue but not other measures that would go towards gender equity?


Because they achieve the end goals they want to achieve. However, Neu is arguing that your ideas will achieve the opposite goal, and actually reduce female employment.

Fun fact, though slightly irrelevant:

Apparently kids below a certain age have no conception of gender other than the things obvious to them. So they think that being a girl or a boy is not internal, but depends on what you wear and what you do. So below this age, when you give a boy pink, girly clothes to wear and dolls to play, they actually think they're a girl.

Nope - that's horseshit.

I don't know whether you didn't understand it, you're bad at explaining, the experiment was poorly conducted... or the program made stupid claims, but that's not even vaguely true.

In isolation, if you give a boy pink clothes to wear and dolls to play with, he'll make no judgments about being a boy OR a girl. The question doesn't even exist, because the concept doesn't exist. He'll probably notice he has a penis, and that doesn't actually raise the 'boy or girl' question either.

If you have a group of boys and girls, all dressed the same and playing with the same toys, they only get their opinions about 'boys' and 'girls' from OUTSIDE influences.

This is nice. You're doing the right thing.
Sure all other parents do, especially in red states? Sure it was the same way for everyone since the '50s?


A lot of people are living the same excuses you made. Which is one of the best reasons for NOT following your policy of 'let's straighten that out first'.


No. I'm arguing that if women are allowed major extra benefits, such as two-year maternal leave and others, it becomes more cost-effective for the employer to prefer men.


Except the leave being debated, wasn't maternal, was it? It was 'parental'?

Hell, I'd gladly have taken two years leave after the birth of my babies.


Submarines is one of them. Incidents still happen at an unacceptable rate.


Which it shouldn't. The military lacking an ability to get it's shit together isn't a fitting excuse to stop women enlisting.


Stop breaking up posts into tiny pieces and respond to each out of the context, please.


You amde a comment that appears to say something. SOmething you avoided addressing, by asking me not to examine your posts, apparently.


Today, as of 2008, there ARE problems having men and women work together in close environment. Like it or not, most men are straight,


Most men act straight... not necessarily the same thing... and actually, irrelevent. Sexual abuse isn't necessarily about who you are attracted to.


...and DO have sexual and love desires.


Which is irrelevent on TWO levels.

1) No one MAKES you act on those desires, and

2) Rape, for example, is a crime of violence - not of love or sexual desire.


Like it or not, a pair of lovebirds is not the best thing for a SEAL squad on an assignment. Like it or not, but the military structure works better when this is out of the picture.


Bullshit. And history says bullshit, too. What you are arguing against has been ENCOURAGED in historical militaries.


Apparently, you're unaware of the army's policies regarding them.


Ironic, in context of the last point... but no - I'm not unaware. DO you hoestly think that THAT means there are no homsexuals in the army?


Good for you. So you're a modern educated civilized politically correct gender-respecting and all that person.
Not everyone, particularly in the military, is. Care to help solve that by enlisting?


No. I'm too old, anyway. But given the fact that your argument for women not joining the military is that the armed forces are rapists, unable to control themselves, and just waiting for someone to harm, I think I'd pass anyway.


Yes, it's the sort of MEN we have now which is the problem. But not rapists, that is a tiny proportion. Most of them, simply lovers-waiting-to-happen. Most men DO have romantic desires. (Some women, actually, too). And they tend to come to fruit in an environment such as a ship.

And there are abuse issues too. You should realize that not everything in the world is soft, pink and civil academia. You know what happens in US, Aussie and to a lesser extent UK Navy at 0°?
That's where one of the Aussie 'rape' incidents happened. More precisely, the whole day was dedicated to older sailors buttfucking younger sailors with sticks, as well as throwing them overboard and doing lots of other ****. No exceptions for any excuse whatsoever, gender included.

You're arguing both ends against the middle, now.

Women can't be in the military, because it would encourage men to do bad things... AND men already DO bad things... just to other men.

Your argument that the military is basically just a huge exercise in sexual abuse isn't too convincing, but it IS pretty disturbing that you think it justifies exclusion.

I've met too many idiots, here and elsewhere who like to wax poetic about how feminism won...how there's no battle left to fight.

Feminism won. But just like how the mission was "accomplished" in Iraq, it's not over and there's plenty of battles yet to fight.

But things are at least moving in the right direction.

I love how this thread started with people claiming it was a "strawman" because no one would deny the unjustifiable unequitable treatment of women and we are nonetheless arguing with those that deny women are treated unequitably and/or trying to justify it. Go figure. :eek::tongue:

That's precisely why I didn't respond to the strawman claims. I knew if this thread played itself out a bit, we'd get people's REAL opinions. Having kids is a choice, and it is okay that this choice continues to negatively impact women, and actually justifies the pay gap, the glass ceiling, and any other associated discrimination against women.

The only strawman here is that there is such a thing as real gender equity.

That's precisely why I didn't respond to the strawman claims. I knew if this thread played itself out a bit, we'd get people's REAL opinions. Having kids is a choice, and it is okay that this choice continues to negatively impact women, and actually justifies the pay gap, the glass ceiling, and any other associated discrimination against women.

The only strawman here is that there is such a thing as real gender equity.

So why should gender be different from any other factor?

There is no race equity, no height equity, no age equity, no weight equity, no intelligence equity, no nationality equity, no equity at all in fact.

However you choose to slice the cake you will always find that one part has more strawberries than the other. Why are you focusing on this particular direction of cut rather than any other?

So why should gender be different from any other factor?

There is no race equity, no height equity, no age equity, no weight equity, no intelligence equity, no nationality equity, no equity at all in fact.

However you choose to slice the cake you will always find that one part has more strawberries than the other. Why are you focusing on this particular direction of cut rather than any other?

That was actually the basis of the thread, wasn't it? That THIS is the one 'equality' we pretend we HAVE got?

So why should gender be different from any other factor?

There is no race equity, no height equity, no age equity, no weight equity, no intelligence equity, no nationality equity, no equity at all in fact.

However you choose to slice the cake you will always find that one part has more strawberries than the other. Why are you focusing on this particular direction of cut rather than any other?

There OUGHT to be equal protection under the laws.

There OUGHT to be equal opportunities for life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness.

There OUGHT NOT be irrational or unfair advantages or disadvantages in society based on one's race, color, gender, sexual orientation, etc. (And yes, that would extend to height, age, weight, etc.)

Talking about one type of inequality does not mean that other types of inequality are acceptable or desirable. Only that we happen to be focusing on gender inequity.

That was actually the basis of the thread, wasn't it? That THIS is the one 'equality' we pretend we HAVE got?

Well no actually. We pretend a lot harder that we have other equalities. We really don't care to notice that there is a height inequality, the taller the person the better the job, the better the social status etc. - statistically that is. Obviously, as in the case with gender, there are exceptions both ways, poor tall people and successful short ones, but people are aware of the risk of gender discrimination, they are not even conscious of the height discrimination that goes on.

(I, by the way am 6' 4" or 1.90, so I am not complaining from a personal perspective)

Well no actually. We pretend a lot harder that we have other equalities. We really don't care to notice that there is a height inequality, the taller the person the better the job, the better the social status etc. - statistically that is. Obviously, as in the case with gender, there are exceptions both ways, poor tall people and successful short ones, but people are aware of the risk of gender discrimination, they are not even conscious of the height discrimination that goes on.

(I, by the way am 6' 4" or 1.90, so I am not complaining from a personal perspective)

In the law in the U.S., we place heightened scrutiny on any use of a "suspect" category. Such categories as race, gender, and color have a history of invidious, irrational, and harmful discrimination.

What you say about height MAY be true (I have no idea), but it is not the case that we have historically enslaved or oppressed people based on height--especially not as an official matter of policy. That makes height a different type of concern than race or gender.

There OUGHT to be equal protection under the laws.

There OUGHT to be equal opportunities for life, liberty, and the pusuit of happiness.

There OUGHT NOT be irrational or unfair advantages or disadvantages in society based on one's race, color, gender, sexual orientation, etc. (And yes, that would extend to height, age, weight, etc.)

Talking about one type of inequality does not mean that other types of inequality are acceptable or desirable. Only that we happen to be focusing on gender inequity.

Why OUGHT there be?

I notice that you did not include intelligence in your list of discriminations that OUGHT not to exist, but intelligence is just us much a matter of pure chance as race or gender and maybe more so than sexual orientation. Why ought we not to differentiate between individuals using the characteristics of those individuals. If we can't do that then we have to either differentiate purely at random, or judge all to be equal - which is patently untrue.

Now I agree that certain characteristics should not be the basis for differentiation, but I am not clear what criteria are used to determine if this characteristic or that one can be justifiably used to differentiate between people.

If it is acceptable to differentiate on the basis of intelligence (not education note) then why is it not acceptable to differentiate on the basis of gender?

Except the leave being debated, wasn't maternal, was it? It was 'parental'?
Hell, I'd gladly have taken two years leave after the birth of my babies.
Heck, me too. I mean, who wouldn't? I could buy a nice house for two years of doing what I'd have to do anyway!


Which it shouldn't. The military lacking an ability to get it's shit together isn't a fitting excuse to stop women enlisting.
And it doesn't. The positions where women aren't allowed are maybe 1% of the total. Usually the ones most damaging to the health.


You amde a comment that appears to say something. SOmething you avoided addressing, by asking me not to examine your posts, apparently. Examine as much as you like. Just don't pull phrases out of the context, and respond to what I said, not what you wish I said. And I addressed the issue of mixing genders, not genders per se.


Most men act straight... not necessarily the same thing... and actually, irrelevent. Sexual abuse isn't necessarily about who you are attracted to.
Not only abuse is harmful to the mission. Just internal romantic affairs. Especially these resulting in pregnancy - and yes, there's a lot of it in mixed-gender units.


Which is irrelevent on TWO levels.
1) No one MAKES you act on those desires, and You talk like some law-debating theorist. Sorry, it's not the way it works in warfare.
The military cares about what actually happens, not about whose fault it is, or who makes whom act on which desires.
And what happens is that people do act.


Bullshit. And history says bullshit, too. What you are arguing against has been ENCOURAGED in historical militaries.
Where are they now? But whatever. Tell it to the command, not me. So far, it's believed that "office affairs" in the army are no less harmful than in an office. The military tolerates it in most positions, but is reluctant about some where the issues would be exacerbated.


Ironic, in context of the last point... but no - I'm not unaware. DO you hoestly think that THAT means there are no homsexuals in the army?
Surely there are. But not on a scale to cause problems, and actually the DADT policy tends to keep them in the closet, that is, at least being discreet if pursuing affairs. And, also, male homosexuals don't get pregnant.


No. I'm too old, anyway.
Well, you could do it when you were young enough. But you didn't.

A lot of left-wingers like you didn't. A lot of people with much more conservative views did. Which is why the military doesn't consist entirely of left-wing college graduates with liberal values.


But given the fact that your argument for women not joining the military is that the armed forces are rapists, unable to control themselves, and just waiting for someone to harm, I think I'd pass anyway. No, it isn't, stop using strawmen.

The issue is that the military will be fucked big-time in the media for every such incident happening to a woman, and much worse than it is for simply refusing women.


Women can't be in the military, because it would encourage men to do bad things... AND men already DO bad things... just to other men.
Well, you see, when men do it to other men, it's hazing, which is no news. When men do it to women, it's sexual harassment, abuse, assault, the army is a horrible horde of misogynists, and it all makes news.

It's just one of the reasons, another is that even consensual relationships aren't problem-free.

So why should gender be different from any other factor?

There is no race equity, no height equity, no age equity, no weight equity, no intelligence equity, no nationality equity, no equity at all in fact.

However you choose to slice the cake you will always find that one part has more strawberries than the other. Why are you focusing on this particular direction of cut rather than any other?

Uh, because mashing everything together might make for a more delicious fruit medley, but splitting up the issues a bit allows for a more in-depth analysis?

I regularly do threads on racial inequality, I have done threads on issues dealing with age, in various contexts, I don't give a shit about inequality due to weight or shoe size...so if your intention is to paint me as a one issue woman, I wonder where the hell you've been over the past three years, buttplug:p

If we allow both parents to take time off, we decrease the likelihood of it being the mother. I see it as killing two birds with one stone, though we're talking about social inertia, so it's more like slightly redirecting two elephants with one stone...
But you're affecting all people who want to work negatively to do it. You could ensure equitable treatment better by just not having any parental leave at all, because then the likelihood of having a child is virtually irrelevant to the risk the firm takes when taking on an employee.

You could also apply your argument to worker safety rules, environmental rules, and other things that society currently demands of employers. Why do we allow these policies to continue but not other measures that would go towards gender equity?
I allow them to continue under the proviso that firms that don't like it are free to leave, that is under the absence of barriers to trade of any form. Then you would get fair bargaining between those that demand social protections (voters) and those that supply them (employers) and would arrive at some optimal level of protection.

But the particular problem that I have with your plan is that it is unfeasably generous, and devised purely 100% with the recipient in mind with not a thought going to the person who has to pay for it.

That would depend on how it was organised. I'm using the Quebec model: http://www.rqap.gouv.qc.ca/conditions-admissibilite/index_en.asp
Using this, as long as you made a certain amount of income that could be taxed to go into that fund during a certain period of time, you could then do it again.
Well, how long is that period of time? Your link also doesn't say whether parental leave money counts as income.

You do seem to be ignoring that society has an interest in good future citizens and that valuing families arguably should be a societal goal that extends to workplace accomodations. Especially as the lack of such accomodations tends to have a disparate impact on women.
Well, I really don't see that the link is strong enough between the expenses and the gains. Many people are bad citizens despite having grown up with parents who cared full-time. There's a myriad of factors interfering, and so by destroying huge amounts of economic welfare by generating dead-weight losses through government legislation I'm not convinced that you'd be getting all that much back.

As for the impact on women, all I'm saying is that it's going to be bad for them regardless of what you do. Do no maternal leave, and they don't get paid if they take time off to raise children. Introduce maternal leave, and they'll get paid less or be employed less because of the extra cost it imposes on employers. Having a child is a cost/benefit calculation, and there is no way to reduce the cost in absolute terms - as Mr. Friedman said, there is no such thing as a free lunch. You can distribute the cost across more people, but you wouldn't be justified morally in doing so, nor do I see it as being particularly effective since it likely produces extra losses on the side.

The question is whether women should be the ones paying the higher cost, and I don't see a reason why it should be so. But the answer to that would be to have a man pay most of them by taking time off to raise the kid - certainly possible, but not as common. That's where you'd want to adress issues of equity, but it's not something you can do with workplace laws (unless you'd want to scrap maternal leave and only pay paternal leave).

Further, it's all very nice that you "don't think gender makes a big difference in the workplace," but I've shown numerous studies (including the reprort of the Glass Ceiling Commission) that show that view is, at best, naively ignorant.
I was being very specific to the experiences I have made in the industry I know a little bit about. Financial trading is a male-biased industry, for whatever reason (some people suggest hormonal or emotional differences), but the pressure to perform and the ease with which performance can be determined in economic terms mean that recruitment biases impact a bottom line directly and immediately. Unless you can show evidence to the contrary, I see no reason why a woman who is a good trader can't get paid as much as a man would, and rise in the organisation in the same manner.

Nope - that's horseshit.

I don't know whether you didn't understand it, you're bad at explaining, the experiment was poorly conducted... or the program made stupid claims, but that's not even vaguely true.
I guess I can't do any more than direct you to watching it. It was really quite interesting, as were the other two episodes.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/guide/netw/200502/highlights/250301.htm

Having kids is a choice, and it is okay that this choice continues to negatively impact women, and actually justifies the pay gap, the glass ceiling, and any other associated discrimination against women.
Well, let's see:
1. Is having kids is a choice? That's pretty obvious.
2. Does having a child impact a woman negatively? Yes, but the positives can outweigh the negatives, in which case having a child is a good thing for her.
3. Does this justify the pay gap? Not all of it, one would have to do some more in-depth analysis. But if there is a risk that a firm will have to pay you to do no work for them, then I think it makes sense for them to try and account for that in the amount they pay you, just as they pay less when they know they can't fire someone without a lengthy waiting period. That's a crappy arrangement though, and there are much better ways: without maternity leave the only thing a firm might lose (temporarily, perhaps) is the specific skills and experience of the employee, with a contract that states that she won't have a child she can either receive full pay or choose to get paid less and run up an insurance policy of sorts that will get paid out in the form of maternity leave. And this goes for men as well, which brings me to one of my central points: the unfairness is not in working arrangements (other than perhaps the opaque way it's being done at the moment), but in the way raising children is done at this point. That's what needs to be more flexible, which is a matter of education and teaching kids different views of family life rather than of law.
4. Does it justify the glass ceiling? Absolutely not.

Why OUGHT there be?

I notice that you did not include intelligence in your list of discriminations that OUGHT not to exist, but intelligence is just us much a matter of pure chance as race or gender and maybe more so than sexual orientation. Why ought we not to differentiate between individuals using the characteristics of those individuals. If we can't do that then we have to either differentiate purely at random, or judge all to be equal - which is patently untrue.

Now I agree that certain characteristics should not be the basis for differentiation, but I am not clear what criteria are used to determine if this characteristic or that one can be justifiably used to differentiate between people.

If it is acceptable to differentiate on the basis of intelligence (not education note) then why is it not acceptable to differentiate on the basis of gender?

Meh, whatever, at least your posts are intelligent, which is more than I can say for some people here. Carry on.

Ok, I'll attempt to give my take on the bolded. The areas we choose to 'protect' are areas that tend to have historical significance as being criteria for denying rights to certain people. Disability, by the way, mental and physical, are often 'protected' areas in many jurisdictions now. As is 'source of income', oddly enough.

The enumerated, prohibited grounds of discrimination are there because we as a society have recognised that these criteria have been used to deprive people of the opportunities that would have otherwise been available to to them, and there is no real justification for this.

Your claims about height, I believe, need some sources to back them up.

Uh, because mashing everything together might make for a more delicious fruit medley, but splitting up the issues a bit allows for a more in-depth analysis?

I regularly do threads on racial inequality, I have done threads on issues dealing with age, in various contexts, I don't give a shit about inequality due to weight or shoe size...so if your intention is to paint me as a one issue woman, I wonder where the hell you've been over the past three years, buttplug:p

I never accused you of being a one issue woman - I know that you have at least two issues of obsession - gender and sex :p

The point is that while you give a shit about gender, race and maybe a little about age, you limit your attention to these 'popular' issues and maybe don't see other forms of injustice that are just as problematic. Inequality of opportunity is, following your position, unjust if the motive for inequality is gender. My position is that if this is the case then it must also be unjust for whatever reason if that reason is beyond the control of the individual concerned. Now that leads to some difficult conclusions that maybe you would like to avoid, such as discrimination on the basis of intelligence.

As to where I've been - Brazil. Watching 'as chicas nas praias' ;)

I think the main problem with discrimination is that people don't realize that there's a difference between understanding something and respecting something. I don't understand how or why my friend is gay, but I still respect him, because just because someone's different doesn't mean they're bad. So many people don't understand the differences between men and women, so they misinterpret; whether it's that women are inferior, or that men want women to fail, or even that there's no difference. It's called sexual dimorphism. Men and women ARE NOT THE SAME. What needs to change is how society places value on certain traits, because when you get down to it, everybody has their strengths and weaknesses; true equality is not treating everyone like they're the same, it's treating everyone with respect to their strengths and weaknesses.
And by the way, I don't think it's sexist to say that men are generally more physical and concrete, whereas women are generally better at the abstract, like social communication and art. The problem is that people forget the word 'generally', because these aren't rules, they're guidelines. Everyone is different, it's just that some differences are more noticeable than others. Take my views. They're obviously not your typical views. But does that make them wrong? Of course not.
So please, even if you don't understand me, at least respect me. It's the right thing to do.
EDIT: Just so you know, this is about ALL discrimination, whether it's gender, race, religion, political party, sexual preferences, income, job/joblessness, IQ, height, weight, hair/eye color, or mental status. I just wanted to make sure to cover everything ;)

Yeah, I love his logic.

"Here's a list of rights that women don't actually have, and a list of obligations that men aren't in any way bound to meet, so that's why men should always get paid more than women."

Never mind that it was only UPPER CLASS women who got on lifeboats first.

Or that women traditionally didn't pay for meals because traditionally women weren't allowed to own property and therefore couldn't have money in the first place.

Or that the whole "go check out the bump in the night" bullshit has never been true, since throughout much of history women were maintaining the home alone for long extended periods.

Or that if you want to get paid to hold doors open you probably should put on a bellhop uniform and get to work.

Or that punching your wife in the face was LEGAL until very recently, and STILL carries far, far less severe penalties than if you punched a total stranger in the face. Punch another man in the face? That's assault. Punch your girlfriend in the face? Statistically speaking, you're more likely to win the lotto than to see a week behind bars.


But hey, we're talking about a guy who's demanding that he be given a bonus for not shoving people out of lifeboats or punching women in the face.

Not to mention that passenger vessels are required to have enough lifeboats for everyone now...

But yes, in general the "man tax" is a silly argument.

As for punching people in the face, while not really socially acceptable these days, as far as strangers go, punching a female stranger is less socially acceptable than punching a male stranger. I think this is simply because women in general are usually physically smaller than men. Though it has something to do with perceptions of them being more fragile and needing to be protected and all that kind of crap.

It's probably not a good idea to punch anybody in the face. You can go to prison for that. I hear that's not fun.

I'd like to think that if there was a bump in the night, we'd both go and check it out. Two sets of eyes and ears are better than one.

And as for holding doors, I hold doors for people, regardless of what equipment they've got downstairs. Because, well, maybe I like being nice sometimes. It's especially rewarding when there's a whole string of people and my holding the door for the first one starts a whole chain of people holding the door for each other. That makes me happy.

But you're affecting all people who want to work negatively to do it. You could ensure equitable treatment better by just not having any parental leave at all, because then the likelihood of having a child is virtually irrelevant to the risk the firm takes when taking on an employee.

When there wasn't any parental leave at all, gender disparity was at its worst. Why would I deliberately create the conditions that have caused the disparity in the first place?

But the particular problem that I have with your plan is that it is unfeasably generous, and devised purely 100% with the recipient in mind with not a thought going to the person who has to pay for it.

Who, the taxpayer? The same taxpayer that gets to take two years off to spend with their newborn, and then can easily re-enter the workforce? Yeah. No-one's thought of them.:rolleyes:

Well, how long is that period of time? Your link also doesn't say whether parental leave money counts as income.

When I did it, it was 26 weeks. I know it has changed. When I did it, it was based on how many hours you worked, rather than how much money you made. Parental leave money shouldn't count as it's not taxable, but I may be wrong.

Meh, whatever, at least your posts are intelligent, which is more than I can say for some people here. Carry on.

Ok, I'll attempt to give my take on the bolded. The areas we choose to 'protect' are areas that tend to have historical significance as being criteria for denying rights to certain people. Disability, by the way, mental and physical, are often 'protected' areas in many jurisdictions now. As is 'source of income', oddly enough.

The enumerated, prohibited grounds of discrimination are there because we as a society have recognised that these criteria have been used to deprive people of the opportunities that would have otherwise been available to to them, and there is no real justification for this.

Your claims about height, I believe, need some sources to back them up.

Taking the last point first, just the first of many items if you search for correlation between height and status:

To be sure, the correlation between such an anthropometric measure as height and economic conditions was noted as far back as 1829. Louis R. Villermé, a statistician of public health was the first to realize that the height of a population correlated positively with wealth: physical stature is greater, and men grow faster, the wealthier is the country
source (http://epub.ub.uni-muenchen.de/381/1/Anthropometrics_and_Economic_Development_Literature.pdf)

There are many more such documents.

"We choose to protect" is a strange phrase here. We being who, and protect in what sense. Protect legally against discrimination - is that what you mean? If so, then I can see your point, but would have to question why religious discrimination is not one of the primary concerns in the USA for example. Even where we try to justify the selection of issues on the basis of 'correcting past errors' we still appear to cherry pick the issues.

My view, without having given this any extensive consideration, is that the issues that are protected now may be those that have been vigorously advocated by some individuals or groups, issues that are not necessarily different in any fundamental way to other issues that are not protected.

I never accused you of being a one issue woman - I know that you have at least two issues of obsession - gender and sex :p *is outraged* You've forgotten aboriginal issues, my hatred of sandwiches, the way I delight in anti-smoking threads whilst puffing away on a stale bidis, my love of alcohol and my constant threads about how NSG sucks (though I never leave). Bastard. Making me look all shallow.

The point is that while you give a shit about gender, race and maybe a little about age, you limit your attention to these 'popular' issues and maybe don't see other forms of injustice that are just as problematic. Because I don't see them AS problematic or pervasive. They are 'popular' issues because they are still extremely prevalent reasons to deny people rights and opportunities.

Are ugly people discriminated against? For sure. Are there situations where policies and procedures deny ugly people the same opportunity as good looking people? Possibly. "Ugly" is not an enumerated ground, but then again, ugly, unlike gender, sexuality, or ethnic origin is not a particularly objective criteria. Even defining 'ugly' in order to do a study on how said ugliness impacts a person's opportunities would be difficult.

Do issues overlap? For sure. That's why you can bring a case based on gender, sexual orientation AND colour if those things are being used against you.

Unless you can show me that height, or any of the other things you've come up with even come close to being as big a problem in terms of discrimination as the enumerated grounds then I'm not going to feel too bad about not giving a shit about them.


Inequality of opportunity is, following your position, unjust if the motive for inequality is gender. My position is that if this is the case then it must also be unjust for whatever reason if that reason is beyond the control of the individual concerned. Now that leads to some difficult conclusions that maybe you would like to avoid, such as discrimination on the basis of intelligence.

As to where I've been - Brazil. Watching 'as chicas nas praias' ;) Inequality of opportunity should not be based on characteristics that absent the discrimination would not in any way impact that person's ability to access said opportunity.

A man in a wheelchair should not be prevented from accessing services simply because there is no way he can enter the building where they are housed.

A woman should not be forced to retire based on some arbitrary age cut-off if she is still able and willing to perform her duties.

Is it fair if a really tall guy has to duck everywhere he goes? Maybe not. But it would be too expensive to retrofit all public buildings to accommodate him, and most buildings are built on the 'large' side as it is. Would it be wrong of an employer to forbid him to have a chair tha he actually fit in...using this as an excuse to fire him? Hell yes. Reasonable accommodations can be made, and ARE made even for those who are not 'covered' under one of the enumerated grounds.

So I'm not actually sure what your point is. All 'involuntary characteristics' are NOT equal when it comes to historical and present discrimination. I'm not championing ugly people, because frankly, I don't believe they are unduly discriminated against in any verifiable way. Etc.

Examine as much as you like. Just don't pull phrases out of the context, and respond to what I said, not what you wish I said. And I addressed the issue of mixing genders, not genders per se.


You made a comment about responsibility... which you've still not addressed.


Not only abuse is harmful to the mission. Just internal romantic affairs. Especially these resulting in pregnancy - and yes, there's a lot of it in mixed-gender units.


A horseshit argument, and you know it. If the risk was pregnancy, contraception is cheap and easy. Hell - if the problem is pregnancy on submarines, get female submariners to sign on to contraceptive IMPLANTS as part of their signing on detail.

So - it's not pregnancy. As well you knew.

It's because the military KNOWS that guys are fucking each other, but rpetends it doesn't happen. It's harder to pretend that guys and girls are doing it.


You talk like some law-debating theorist. Sorry, it's not the way it works in warfare.


Clearly you've never been in an actual war.


The military cares about what actually happens, not about whose fault it is, or who makes whom act on which desires.
And what happens is that people do act.


That's an excuse. You're saying 'we have to allow it to happen, because it does'. That's a bullshit excuse.


Where are they now? But whatever. Tell it to the command, not me. So far, it's believed that "office affairs" in the army are no less harmful than in an office. The military tolerates it in most positions, but is reluctant about some where the issues would be exacerbated.


More nonsense. What you mean is, they use it as an EXCUSE in some areas, to stop women being involved. The fact that there are gay men in the military means that relationships ARE happening in ALL positions. They're just pretending it doesn't happen, by discriminating against women.


Surely there are. But not on a scale to cause problems, and actually the DADT policy tends to keep them in the closet, that is, at least being discreet if pursuing affairs. And, also, male homosexuals don't get pregnant.


Rubbish. At a CONSERVATIVE estimate, at least one in every ten soldiers prefers someone with the same tackle as him(her)self. A greater proportion are quite happy to fight for either saide, so to speak.

It's more than likely that an institution like the military actually encourages greater than proportional gay participation, precisely BECAUSE of all the closeness and cameraderie.

All of which adds up to the fact that your 'scale'argument is bullshit.


Well, you could do it when you were young enough. But you didn't.


I didn't live in America when I was 'young enough'.


A lot of left-wingers like you didn't. A lot of people with much more conservative views did. Which is why the military doesn't consist entirely of left-wing college graduates with liberal values.


I interviewed for the British Army, actually. In the end, I went on to University instead, and ended up working in the civilian market - so don't make stupid generalisations about why I'm not a soldier because I support social permissiveness.


No, it isn't, stop using strawmen.


You keep making arguments about the fact that sexual abuse DOES happen in the military, and about how it WOULD happen to women.

It's not a strawman if it's what you said.


The issue is that the military will be fucked big-time in the media for every such incident happening to a woman, and much worse than it is for simply refusing women.


The answer, surely, is to actually get a grip on the discipline problems, rather than pandering to discrimination in case the 'wrong person' gets raped.


Well, you see, when men do it to other men, it's hazing, which is no news.


Fuck that bullshit. Someone sticks something in my ass that I didn't SPECIFICALLY ask for, and that's not 'hazing'.

Maybe that's not your idea of news...


When men do it to women, it's sexual harassment, abuse, assault, the army is a horrible horde of misogynists, and it all makes news.


When men do it to men it's sexual harassment, assault and the army is (apparently) a horrible horde of rapists with a hard-on for anything with an anus.

Not a strawman - my wording for YOUR arguments.


It's just one of the reasons, another is that even consensual relationships aren't problem-free.

Neither is submarine warfare. Yet, strangely, that's 'allowed'.

The point is that while you give a shit about gender, race and maybe a little about age, you limit your attention to these 'popular' issues and maybe don't see other forms of injustice that are just as problematic. Inequality of opportunity is, following your position, unjust if the motive for inequality is gender. My position is that if this is the case then it must also be unjust for whatever reason if that reason is beyond the control of the individual concerned. Now that leads to some difficult conclusions that maybe you would like to avoid, such as discrimination on the basis of intelligence.

Why would opposing discrimination on the basis of arbitrary and irrelevant factors necessarily lead to opposing discrimination on the basis of any and all factors?

Taking the last point first, just the first of many items if you search for correlation between height and status:

Correlation is not causation.

One could possibly explain a correlation between height and wealth by saying that height helped one get wealth. Of course, it could also be explained by the fact that children of the wealthy generally get better nutrition and healthcare and thus would be likely to grow taller.

Taking the last point first, just the first of many items if you search for correlation between height and status:


There are many more such documents.
Until you can point me to a specific situation where policies and procedures have the effect, intended or otherwise, to deprive people of opportunities based on height, then I'm not going to worry about it that much. Sorry.


"We choose to protect" is a strange phrase here. We being who, We, as a society, through our legal and legislative systems. and protect in what sense. Protect legally against discrimination - is that what you mean? Yes..we provide a way to challenge that discrimination, and measures to correct said discrimination.

If so, then I can see your point, but would have to question why religious discrimination is not one of the primary concerns in the USA for example. I'm not sure what you mean. Discrimination based on religion is a prohibited ground. There is even a case in the Supreme Court right now dealing with Hutterites who object to being photographed for licenses, on the basis that it offends their religion. I can't speak for the US, but religious discrimination is an extremely litigated issue here.

Even where we try to justify the selection of issues on the basis of 'correcting past errors' we still appear to cherry pick the issues. That's right. We cherry pick the issues that have had, and continue to have the most impact. I'm not sure why this is problematic for you.

My view, without having given this any extensive consideration, is that the issues that are protected now may be those that have been vigorously advocated by some individuals or groups, issues that are not necessarily different in any fundamental way to other issues that are not protected.
Sexual orientation was not an enumerated ground in Canada until the Vriend case (http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0009197). What is awesome about constitutional protections is that new grounds can be included if enough evidence is presented to merit it.

So yes, certain groups vigorously advocate certain issues. They provide extensive studies, facts, and research that shows clearly how a certain characteristic is used to unjustly deprive people of opportunities. Other issues don't get as much attention now, but that doesn't necessarily mean they will not. I can not, however, really think of any major areas that are NOT covered by the Charter, or our human rights legislation, and the height argument isn't particularly convincing.

*snip*

Can I just ask you a question? Is your general position that there should be no subsidised mat/disability/or other leave at all? That instead, there should be private pension schemes which would cover these needs? That seems to be the real gist of your argument, but I want to clarify.

all this shit started happening when we let them bitches vote.

all this shit started happening when we let them bitches vote.

Oh, I thought it was when men stopped fucking little boys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Greek_pederasty) and started getting pussy whipped instead.

Yes, but equal without disregard for circumstances. Women are not "men with boobs", they have somewhat different hardware, firmware and software, as loaded by our society, starting from baby boys in blue pants with toy cars to play with and baby girls in pink dresses with dolls to play with. Start THERE. Change it, make it not so.
I agree that gender roles are as ludicrous as the idea that women are inferior to men. Any children I have will not be gender rolled, you can take that to the bank. (Preferably one that's not about to collapse.)


First make steps to load women with the same firmware, then try to achieve 50/50 representation in jobs, equal salaries, et cetera.
Anything else is begging for a reactionary response. If you put rules in place that make hiring women unprofitable, employers will quietly look for ways not to hire them at all. And they're not all fat cats, who can, as one poster suggested, increase female pay 25% at no loss - many companies today are struggling to just get by. Legislation will penalize exactly those open-minded employers who do hire a lot of women in "male" positions.

And how else do you suggest we try to achieve that fifty-fifty representation and equal salaries? You say we should try to achieve them but at the same time you would have us turn down the one method we'd be able to use!


My view as well. But, reserving for certain exceptions, where having men and women working together can lead to complications.

No. Those complications are as much a result of our society as gender roles are. People can deal with their sexuality and so on and so forth. The reason we have a lot of problems dealing with our sexuality is that we discourage all rational thought and discussion about it! If we'd just--excuse me for lack of a better phrase--chill out about it and discuss it openly, honestly, and allow ourselves ways of relieving sexual tension and stress, we'd be a lot better off as a society, and I would further argue it's necessary to do this in order for women to have the equal rights they deserve, because the male dominance occurs as much in the bedroom as anywhere else.

First, I don't think there's all that many of them.
Second, Navy SEAL is a job on the extreme of human abilities, starting from the tests, and a high-responsibility one. Our society is not yet ready to subject women to the same physical mistreatment as considered acceptable for men. Our men are still more protective about women than about other men. Finally, and this won't change soon, our men still view women as potential sex partners, and can fall in love or lower desires, all of which would compromise the system. I simply don't see, and I think you don't either, in 2008, a SEAL team operating with a woman in its midst, and not bothering to notice that she's not a man.
An all-female troop could be more workable, but I doubt it would be possible to organize. Plus, it's simply too much trouble.

Excuses, excuses, excuses. That's all that bullshit you just spun was. We're never going to get past these issues if we never do anything to go against them and challenge them.

Besides which, you missed my point anyway. My point was that women who are fully capable of meeting the standards are denied because of their gender, and I, because I have a penis, have more of a chance, despite the fact that I'll never fully physically qualify to be a SEAL, nor would I even WANT to be a SEAL anyway.

And accepting women into ALL service roles, no exception, without ensuring that they'll be seen and treated with no sexual element, is begging for trouble. Remember the rapes on the Aussie boats. We can't put women's heads (restrooms) and showers on subs, and the society is not yet ready to share showers between genders without sexual reaction. Not when there's a hundred men who are bored as hell and hadn't got a fuck in two months. Believe me, I've been there, although on the surface, and it was bad enough already; you'll soon see for yourself too.
I agree. If we were that stupid, we'd be making a mistake.

That's not what I'm suggesting.

I'm suggesting we put women in the position they deserve: full outright equality. Not sex objects, not as weak people to be protected, but simply to be treated like we would treat men: as full complete equals.

(Besides, a lot of the problems with rape in the military actually has a great deal to do with women not being anywhere near as well represented in the higher ranks and so on as they should be. With a lot more women in the higher ranks and so on, women of lower ranks will have more people to trust, and a much more hostile atmosphere towards sex objectivism and rape will develop automatically even without the further attempts we must take to ensure that atmosphere develops.)

As for this height argument, there actually is a bit of subconscious influence of height. It's a primate thing, really. We're still primates, and while we're conscious, we're only conscious to a certain extent. Our instincts still influence us heavily.

In the setting where we evolved, the most powerful male was generally the leader, not only because said male could influence everyone more easily through his strength, but he could also bring down game more easily, fight off attackers more easily, and so on and so forth. And generally speaking, the taller you are, the stronger you are.

It's subtle, and it doesn't really have THAT much of an impact, but it IS there. It doesn't come from nowhere as is suggested.

As for this height argument, there actually is a bit of subconscious influence of height. It's a primate thing, really. We're still primates, and while we're conscious, we're only conscious to a certain extent. Our instincts still influence us heavily.

In the setting where we evolved, the most powerful male was generally the leader, not only because said male could influence everyone more easily through his strength, but he could also bring down game more easily, fight off attackers more easily, and so on and so forth. And generally speaking, the taller you are, the stronger you are.

It's subtle, and it doesn't really have THAT much of an impact, but it IS there. It doesn't come from nowhere as is suggested.Good looking, socially apt people also tend to have higher status, but unless you can show that there are actually policies or procedures that have the effect of depriving short, unattractive, or socially inept people from opportunities they would otherwise have, there's not really much you can do about it.

And by the way, the taller you are, the harder you fall. Especially when you don't expect to get knocked the fuck out by a short chick:p

Women are just choosing to be abused more...


Some chicks are into that sort of thing...

Good looking, socially apt people also tend to have higher status, but unless you can show that there are actually policies or procedures that have the effect of depriving short, unattractive, or socially inept people from opportunities they would otherwise have, there's not really much you can do about it.
True. It's an issue I suspect we as a species will get past if/when we get to the point where we can actually increase our consciousness level(so to speak, assuming this is even possible) but until then, it just is, so let's just cope with it.

And by the way, the taller you are, the harder you fall. Especially when you don't expect to get knocked the fuck out by a short chick:p
:D

Some chicks are into that sort of thing...

There is a big difference between a paternalistic pat on the head and a 'sorry, you just aren't a right fit for management' ...and a much enjoyed 'on your fucking knees, mouth open bitch'.

There is a big difference between a paternalistic pat on the head and a 'sorry, you just aren't a right fit for management' ...and a much enjoyed 'on your fucking knees, mouth open bitch'.

Let me guess, one leaves you frothing at the mouth and one leaves froth in your mouth?



Right?

There is a big difference between a paternalistic pat on the head and a 'sorry, you just aren't a right fit for management' ...and a much enjoyed 'on your fucking knees, mouth open bitch'.

Yet, shockingly, sex is always involved.

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-music024.gif

Good looking, socially apt people also tend to have higher status, but unless you can show that there are actually policies or procedures that have the effect of depriving short, unattractive, or socially inept people from opportunities they would otherwise have, there's not really much you can do about it.

And by the way, the taller you are, the harder you fall. Especially when you don't expect to get knocked the fuck out by a short chick:p

Could you not extrapolate by saying women are as a rule shorter, and therefore would be disproportionally disadvantaged by a preference for height.

Or that part of women's problems is that recruiters subconsciously (or consciously) associate them with weakness relative to men and discriminate against them on that basis.

Therefore is trying for female equality likewise inherently limited in its possible success.

I've never understood this.

I think weight classes make sense for many sports. Height classes make sense for a lot of sports. But segregating by gender? Nah.

I know plenty of women who can easily compete against men who are of similar physical size. The only reason these women have trouble competing against men in general is because men are, on average, physically larger. Of course, this is exactly the same problem that small men have competing against larger men. It's got buggerall to do with gender.

I say use weight/height classes for all sports, and integrate the genders. If it turns out that women actually cannot compete against men in equal weight classes, then I'll be happy to eat my words. But I don't think that will be the case.

You would still effectively have gender separation in professional basketball, because there aren't any women that tall and heavy compared to the average NBA player.

I don't think that US football would be any different either - maybe a quaterback or two - but no defensive players, no center, no running backs.

Below the professional level, you could have the weight classes - and it would probably work. But as you progressed to college, the women would vanish from the integrated sport, and at the professional level, sports like basketball, US football, and rugby would be completely dominated by men, and your "equality" in sport would be intentionally eliminating women from sport at the professional level.

Right now, women have their own professional basketball league in the US, and it employs a lot of women, and it's fairly popular now. Your idea would make that vanish completely.

Your idea would make that vanish completely.
Indeed.

Just look at the results between genders in sports WITH weight classes like weightlifting.

I never understood segregation by height and weight, or any segregation at all in sports. I want to see the best vs the best, not the best of everyone in this little category. Seems counter-intuitive to the principle of sport.

Guess you define "best" differently than I do. Personally, I don't think it's much of an achievement if a 7-foot-tall 280-pound guy can punch out a 5'6" guy who's 180 dripping wet. I see that as a dull contest, and uninteresting "sport."


It's also impractical for large numbers of sports where either (in team sports) varying heights and weights are needed for different positions or size and weight can have varying advantages rather than just 'bigger is better'.

Not really, no. My school used weight classes for football and it worked fine. Instead of having a "girl's team" and a "boy's team," they simply had the heavyweight and the lightweight teams. Heavyweight only had one girl, but lightweight actually was about 50-50. Lots of smaller guys enjoyed the chance to play.


Have no segregation in sports, if women make up a disproportionally low % then so be it. Just as in NFL for example white players are disproportionally rare and black players over-represented. So be it. I want to see the best against the best with no gerrymandering.
We design sports, my friend, not the other way around.

For instance, what if the basket in basketball were set two feet lower instead? Gee, suddenly being 8 feet tall isn't nearly as much of an advantage...almost as if "best" is arbitrarily defined based on the rules that WE SET UP for the given sport...hmm.

But hey, at least your honest about being a sexist. That puts you a bit a head of most.

More bullshit. I've been to nightclubs with shared 'heads'. I've worked places with shared showers. And you know what, we managed to not fuck each other.

My HIGHSCHOOL had unisex bathrooms, and it worked just fine.

If HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, the most over-sexed and crazed creatures known to this Earth, are capable of handling uni bathrooms, I think it's not too much to ask for grown-ups to manage it.

You would still effectively have gender separation in professional basketball, because there aren't any women that tall and heavy compared to the average NBA player.

Sure, and in your "featherweight" class you'd have almost entirely females, since few males would be of that size. I don't have a problem with that.


I don't think that US football would be any different either - maybe a quaterback or two - but no defensive players, no center, no running backs.

Again, yes, your "heavyweights" would probably be almost all male. That's fine.

I think Boxing has pretty well established that having a Heavyweight class does not suddenly make people stop watching all other weight classes. :D


Below the professional level, you could have the weight classes - and it would probably work. But as you progressed to college, the women would vanish from the integrated sport, and at the professional level, sports like basketball, US football, and rugby would be completely dominated by men, and your "equality" in sport would be intentionally eliminating women from sport at the professional level.

Because...women aren't interested in playing sports? Huh?

Women wouldn't be in the heavyweight class much. So? The whole point is that there should be weight or height classes (for appropriate sports) so that the many, many women who WANT to be able to go pro have the option of doing so, and the many, many men who would like to go pro but are physically too small can have a shot.

I had a male friend in college who was told that he would have to put on 45 pounds in order to compete seriously. He was already on a ridiculous diet, working out whenever he wasn't in class or asleep, and there simply was no way for him to gain that kind of weight. Note: his SKILL and ABILITY were fine. The single factor barring him from success was his physical size. I think that's a shame. I don't see why sports are improved by locking out talented athletes that way.


Right now, women have their own professional basketball league in the US, and it employs a lot of women, and it's fairly popular now. Your idea would make that vanish completely.
Well, yeah, and the men's basketball league would also vanish. There would be one NBA, with classes available to both men and women. Am I supposed to be seeing a downside to that?

Indeed.

Just look at the results between genders in sports WITH weight classes like weightlifting.
What's the problem there?

I'm sure there are sports where men will excel more than women, just like there will be sports where women excel more than men. The whole reason we have DIFFERENT sports is because they're different competitions which rely on different skills or strengths.

I don't have a problem with that.

Guess you define "best" differently than I do. Personally, I don't think it's much of an achievement if a 7-foot-tall 280-pound guy can punch out a 5'6" guy who's 180 dripping wet. I see that as a dull contest, and uninteresting "sport."
Neither do I. For me sport is about competition, I don't want to see a fight to determine the 'best of everyone except those other guys who are in a different category so don't compete with this lot'. The competition to be the 'fastest human ever' is a whole lot more interesting than 'the fastest ever guy under 6ft and between 180 and 230lbs'. Strange as that may seen.


Not really, no. My school used weight classes for football and it worked fine. Instead of having a "girl's team" and a "boy's team," they simply had the heavyweight and the lightweight teams. Heavyweight only had one girl, but lightweight actually was about 50-50. Lots of smaller guys enjoyed the chance to play.
So there'd be no women at the top level?



We design sports, my friend, not the other way around.

For instance, what if the basket in basketball were set two feet lower instead? Gee, suddenly being 8 feet tall isn't nearly as much of an advantage...almost as if "best" is arbitrarily defined based on the rules that WE SET UP for the given sport...hmm.

Sports generally evolve rather than being manufactured. And height would still be an advantage. You won't find many sports where height and weight don't generally constitute an advantage no matter how you try and alter them for non-sporting reasons.



But hey, at least your honest about being a sexist. That puts you a bit a head of most.
Oh fuck off. You do this every time one of these threads comes up.

I specifically said I wanted to see the best against the best irrespective of gender, race or anything else, and you use that as evidence of me being sexist.

Do you even come into these threads to debate or just look to slap an accusation on the first person to disagree with you? Does that feeling make you so happy it doesn't matter whether your accusation is vaguely plausible or not? But I like how you call me friend just before telling me I'm sexist, real classy that.

My HIGHSCHOOL had unisex bathrooms, and it worked just fine.

If HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS, the most over-sexed and crazed creatures known to this Earth, are capable of handling uni bathrooms, I think it's not too much to ask for grown-ups to manage it.

I went to Catholic school. Everything in the bathrooms were sinful anyway, nevermind both sexes sharing them.
Having unisex bathrooms would have parents/teachers heads explode.

What's the problem there?

I'm sure there are sports where men will excel more than women, just like there will be sports where women excel more than men. The whole reason we have DIFFERENT sports is because they're different competitions which rely on different skills or strengths.

I don't have a problem with that.
Indeed, so why not acknowledge that men and women are fundamentally better equipped for different sports and that the best way for both sexes to enjoy competitive sports is to segreate them into different events?

The problem with unisex sports is that average woman, in strength, endurance and even accuracy based events, has to work in order to obtain the level of average man. This derives from a fundamental biological difference.

However, I DO agree that in exercises whose primary goal is to improve the health of the person, ie. in non-competitive sports where the result is not important like PE, mixed sports make a ton of sense because then both parties could enjoy from the best available training and would grow to appreciate the strengths of the other sex and have a healthier relationship towards the opposite gender.

My HIGHSCHOOL had unisex bathrooms

I find this very difficult to believe. This would be the first time I've ever heard of such a thing.

I find this very difficult to believe. This would be the first time I've ever heard of such a thing.

I do too. Maybe Bottle was just confused and kept wandering into the wrong bathroom. I know guys dont care really if a girl is in their bathroom.

My daughter's elementary school has a unisex bathroom.

I am assuming that we are discussing bathrooms for more than a single occupant.

My daughter's elementary school has a unisex bathroom.

I am assuming that we are discussing bathrooms for more than a single occupant.

Yes but I'm just very surprised at the fact that it was a high school bathroom, I've heard about it being used in certain places (I've never seen one in my life), but never in high school. Personally I don't see the problem with single sex bathrooms, having a type of bathroom which is more urinal based, and one which is just cubical based, is quite useful as it will likely create less queues and less overcrowding.

Yes but I'm just very surprised at the fact that it was a high school bathroom, I've heard about it being used in certain places (I've never seen one in my life), but never in high school. Personally I don't see the problem with single sex bathrooms, having a type of bathroom which is more urinal based, and one which is just cubical based, is quite useful as it will likely create less queues and less overcrowding.

To be honest, it makes more sense in an elementary school, due to the fact that everyone is prepubescent, than in a high school, where teenagers would be...well, I know what I would have been up to back in the day.

I find this very difficult to believe. This would be the first time I've ever heard of such a thing.
Funny, cause I was shocked when I got to college and learned that my high school was unusual in that way. I assumed it was standard. :D

You made a comment about responsibility... which you've still not addressed.
In high-responsibility situations, smooth operation of the unit comes before equality. Single-gender vessels have proven to have fewer issues than mixed-gender.

However, women are allowed almost everywhere, with one of the few exceptions being subs.


A horseshit argument, and you know it. If the risk was pregnancy, contraception is cheap and easy. Hell - if the problem is pregnancy on submarines, get female submariners to sign on to contraceptive IMPLANTS as part of their signing on detail. But... RIGHT TO THE BODY. This might cause worse PR than maintaining status quo.

It's because the military KNOWS that guys are fucking each other, but rpetends it doesn't happen. It's harder to pretend that guys and girls are doing it.
Not everyone is fucking each other. There is a small proportion of gays, like in the general population, but it's not representative of the military as a whole.

Navy doesn't pretend there's no sex aboard ships. It admits it, and admits it's a problem.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jun/15/20040615-115647-8125r/

Clearly you've never been in an actual war.
No, I'm not 80 years old, so I haven't. However, you neither.

The only difference between war and peace in the Navy is that you actually do press a couple more buttons and do load live bombs and missiles. Well, and that you *really* have to do things right this time. Otherwise, a seaman might not even be aware whether it's a drill or a war.



Like it or not, most men are straight, and DO have sexual and love desires. Which is irrelevent on TWO levels.
1) No one MAKES you act on those desires, and The military cares about what actually happens, not about whose fault it is, or who makes whom act on which desires.
And what happens is that people do act. That's an excuse. You're saying 'we have to allow it to happen, because it does'. That's a bullshit excuse. It's not what I'm saying; quote chain restored.

I'm saying "Men and women DO have romantic and not so romantic relationships when serving together. The military doesn't want these relationships at least on subs. Thus, they are preventing them in the only way they can."
It's not discrimination, since the problem is not women, the problem is gender relationships.



The fact that there are gay men in the military means that relationships ARE happening in ALL positions.
There is maybe 10% of gays. The military tolerates it because the impact is not that severe. If, however, 90% people are engaged in romantic relationships, the command structure will simply no longer exist - if the XO is married to a seaman, their relationship won't be strictly professional. And now that all over the vessel. It won't be a solid hierarchy, it will be a clusterfuck.


It's more than likely that an institution like the military actually encourages greater than proportional gay participation, precisely BECAUSE of all the closeness and cameraderie.
If it was encouraged, there wouldn't be DADT policy.
And "all the closeness and cameraderie" works only until cheating, jealousy, and breakups come in play; relationships aren't all pink happy closeness.


The answer, surely, is to actually get a grip on the discipline problems, rather than pandering to discrimination in case the 'wrong person' gets raped.
Go and get a grip, if you think it's easy to do. They're trying. It doesn't work. Crossing the line, for one, is considered a "long established and sacred tradition". It's illegal, but what are you going to do.


Fuck that bullshit. Someone sticks something in my ass that I didn't SPECIFICALLY ask for, and that's not 'hazing'.
So what exactly would you do if you were a pollywog about to be initiated?


When men do it to men it's sexual harassment, assault and the army is (apparently) a horrible horde of rapists with a hard-on for anything with an anus.
It's not about sex, the sexual incidents are simply the ones to get the publicity. It's about maximum humiliation and pain. The most common rituals are crawling through a long pipe filled with rotting trash, beating with fire hoses, swimming across a pool of trash-filled gray or even black water while holding an object in your mouth.


Neither is submarine warfare. Yet, strangely, that's 'allowed'.
Of course it's not. You would face felony charges if you tried to engage in submarine warfare in US waters.

Indeed, so why not acknowledge that men and women are fundamentally better equipped for different sports and that the best way for both sexes to enjoy competitive sports is to segreate them into different events?

Because I don't believe that's true?

And because my whole point is that it's not the GENDER that is making the difference? Unless we're talking about a literal pissing contest, the person's biological sex is irrelevant. What's relevant is their physical size, muscle mass, etc. Women may not often have the size or mass to make the Heavyweight division...but if a woman does, why shouldn't she compete? And what about men who don't make the Heavyweight division? Why shouldn't they compete against individuals of similar stature?


The problem with unisex sports is that average woman, in strength, endurance and even accuracy based events, has to work in order to obtain the level of average man. This derives from a fundamental biological difference.

So?

If we're talking about pro sports, we're not talking about the average man or the average woman any more.

It's funny to hear you saying, "A woman will have to try harder to compete, therefore we shouldn't allow her to compete." Why the hell not? If a woman wants to compete against men, why not let her? If she is good enough, why not let her play? There are countless men who try to make it as pro athletes and fail, but we don't use that as a reason why no men should be allowed to compete.


However, I DO agree that in exercises whose primary goal is to improve the health of the person, ie. in non-competitive sports where the result is not important like PE, mixed sports make a ton of sense because then both parties could enjoy from the best available training and would grow to appreciate the strengths of the other sex and have a healthier relationship towards the opposite gender.
Are there really places where PE isn't gender-integrated still?! That's just insane.

So there'd be no women at the top level?

Why do you assume "heavyweight" is the "top level"?

I'm sure all the boxers out there will be delighted to know that only "heavyweights" are top-level competitors. :D


Sports generally evolve rather than being manufactured. And height would still be an advantage. You won't find many sports where height and weight don't generally constitute an advantage no matter how you try and alter them for non-sporting reasons.

Which is why no smaller individuals have ever become famous athletes.

Kurt Browning, 5'7"

Martina Hingis, 5'7"

Spud Webb (won 1986 NBA slam dunk competition), 5'7"

Theoren Fleury (NHL, 2nd highest in points, Jan/2001), 5'6"

Earl Boykins (currently shortest in the NBA), 5'5"

Eva Jones-Young (Female Welterweight Boxing Champion), 5'3"

Debbie Black (shortest wnba player), 5'2"

Josia Thugwane (winner of '96 Olympics marathon), 5'2"

Tara Lipinski, 5'1"

Olga Korbut, 4'11"


It's almost as if there are plenty of short or small-statured individuals who DO compete in "big sports," and there are also many sports in which being tall or heavy is not necessarily a big advantage...hmmm...

Oh fuck off. You do this every time one of these threads comes up.

Well, yeah. I do tend to point out people are being sexist in threads where people are being sexist. Boo hoo?



I specifically said I wanted to see the best against the best irrespective of gender, race or anything else, and you use that as evidence of me being sexist.

That was my error, I confused your post with another persons. My bad and I apologize.

Why do you assume "heavyweight" is the "top level"?

I'm sure all the boxers out there will be delighted to know that only "heavyweights" are top-level competitors. :D
Because that's where the money is. The purse for the WBA or IBF Bantamweight Championship is a bit smaller than the Heavyweight Championship.



Kurt Browning, 5'7"


Spud Webb (won 1986 NBA slam dunk competition), 5'7"

Theoren Fleury (NHL, 2nd highest in points, Jan/2001), 5'6"

Earl Boykins (currently shortest in the NBA), 5'5"

Eva Jones-Young (Female Welterweight Boxing Champion), 5'3"

Debbie Black (shortest wnba player), 5'2"

Josia Thugwane (winner of '96 Olympics marathon), 5'2"

Tara Lipinski, 5'1"

I guess "famous" is subjective.

Because I don't believe that's true?

And because my whole point is that it's not the GENDER that is making the difference?
It is EXACTLY the gender that's the difference.

Peak performance per mass favours men, just look at weightlifting records per weight class per gender.

On the other hand, for example, flexibility and elasticity of the body favours teen girls.

You can't have as strong a girl or as flexible a man because of the fundamental differences between genders....Even if you would measure things per weight or height.
Why shouldn't they compete against individuals of similar stature?
They can compete against persons of similar stature & level of skill, infact most sports rely on having relatively evenly matched teams or individuals compete against each other.

However, the downside - driven by markets, people following the sports - is that in professional sports only the best suited are qualified to compete at the highest level.

If we're talking about pro sports, we're not talking about the average man or the average woman any more.

It's funny to hear you saying, "A woman will have to try harder to compete, therefore we shouldn't allow her to compete." Why the hell not?
That was not my argument.

My argument is that at the very peak only very few women could compete in sports which require strength and endurace - Thus if you closed down gender segreted competitions you would end up with a DRASTIC drop in weaker sex (at that particular sport) participating in those sports because the gender would make them less fit for top level competition.

My point makes sense, because the average situation describes the situation at the top very well: You can't assume that it's natural for one gender to be able to achieve peak performance of 110% compared to the 100% of other gender, where the 10% is an arbitrary number describing fundamental biological differences, which is in my opinion reflected well in the difference between average condition.

The biological differences between genders also apply to certain unexpected sports like golf, not a strength sport by any means, where the female top golfer Michele Wie has never made the cut in open PGA (not LPGA) tournament.
If a woman wants to compete against men, why not let her? If she is good enough, why not let her play? There are countless men who try to make it as pro athletes and fail, but we don't use that as a reason why no men should be allowed to compete.
FYI quite a few "men only" leagues and sports aren't infact legislated to be men only, ie. there is no rule that forbids women to enter. For example, IIRC an NHL team has had a woman as a goalie (not sure if she got any games though) and back here there has been a female hockey player @ 2nd highest ("male") hockey league level.

Infact in many strength and endurance sports there's the "open division", dominated by men but not exclusive to men, and the women only division in order to give them a chance to compete against more equal peers.

edit:
To make my point clear, if a woman is capable of playing at the highest level with men she should be allowed to that. HOWEVER, a weaker male should not be allowed to play in a women only league, because that could very well lead to abuse of the ruling.
Are there really places where PE isn't gender-integrated still?! That's just insane.
Are there many places where majority of PE teamsports, like football (soccer), volleyball, etc..., are played gender mixed?

I agree that gender roles are as ludicrous as the idea that women are inferior to men. Any children I have will not be gender rolled, you can take that to the bank. (Preferably one that's not about to collapse.)


[QUOTE]And how else do you suggest we try to achieve that fifty-fifty representation and equal salaries? You say we should try to achieve them but at the same time you would have us turn down the one method we'd be able to use!
Well, first of all the point is that we shouldn't try to achieve it - 50/50 distribution is not needed. People should be given the freedom to pursue whatever career they like, if there's an employer ready to take them, not pushed into roles. Trying to get a 50/50 or whatever else arbitrary distribution is no better than trying to get 100/0 or 0/100. It will always vary, some jobs will have more men, some more women.

Similarly, salaries or wages should reflect the usefulness of an employee to the company - his/her participation in generating gross profit. They don't have to be equal. All that matters is that we make sure the employer pays one employee less than another only because of economic concerns, rather than because of race/gender/sexuality/other inconsequential detail. This is, for instance, the case in engineering and IT.

If there actually is significant difference between the profit-generating potential between races/genders/etc, and if the government wants them still earn the same, it's the government's desire, not business efficiency, so the gov't should give them tax breaks, if it wants it.


No. Those complications are as much a result of our society as gender roles are. People can deal with their sexuality and so on and so forth. The reason we have a lot of problems dealing with our sexuality is that we discourage all rational thought and discussion about it! If we'd just--excuse me for lack of a better phrase--chill out about it and discuss it openly, honestly, and allow ourselves ways of relieving sexual tension and stress, we'd be a lot better off as a society, and I would further argue it's necessary to do this in order for women to have the equal rights they deserve, because the male dominance occurs as much in the bedroom as anywhere else.

Well. Perhaps. So let's just do it. That will eliminate or greatly reduce the complications, and then we won't need to bother about them.


My point was that women who are fully capable of meeting the standards are denied because of their gender, and I, because I have a penis, have more of a chance, despite the fact that I'll never fully physically qualify to be a SEAL, nor would I even WANT to be a SEAL anyway.
So frogmen are still frogmen. Well, what's your suggestion specifically - take a few females into otherwise all-male teams, or create separate female squads?


I'm suggesting we put women in the position they deserve: full outright equality. Not sex objects, not as weak people to be protected, but simply to be treated like we would treat men: as full complete equals.
As equals, of course. But not as "more equal than others". We need to cut down the discrimination, which is already most times just because you can get away with paying less (and if you don't, you'll be outcompeted). So we should make sure there's equal pay for same work, although not equal pay despite different work.

Why do you assume "heavyweight" is the "top level"?

I'm sure all the boxers out there will be delighted to know that only "heavyweights" are top-level competitors.

Because that's where the money is. The purse for the WBA or IBF Bantamweight Championship is a bit smaller than the Heavyweight Championship.

Generally people who actually enjoy boxing (pick me, pick me!) don't really like watching heavyweight bouts. My favourite division has always been welterweight. You've got enough mass and speed there to make for a great show of skill.

Fair enough, if we're 'rewarding' the sluggers at the heavy end, we seem to be saying that the heavyweight levels are more important, but irrespective of whether women would participate at that level or not, that has ALWAYS pissed real boxers off.

I really don't see the problem with the suggestion that sports NOT be segregated by gender, but that instead, we group by divisions. You've got a lot of slender, fast guys in hockey, and you've got big bruisers too. There are any number of amateur league co-ed teams that work just fine....it's like we're saying at the professional level, we just don't want to see women competing because it's less interesting?

Well that's easy. Fucking get over it.

it's like we're saying at the professional level, we just don't want to see women competing because it's less interesting?

Well that's easy. Fucking get over it.

Except for the problem that the business of professional sports is funded by people who want to see it.

Except for the problem that the business of professional sports is funded by people who want to see it.

I want to see white men in black face having sex with clowns. If I were a millionaire, should I be able to get that shit on prime time?

People are not going to stop watching professional sports just cuz the 'titties' are playing too.

People are not going to stop watching professional sports just cuz the 'titties' are playing too.


Problem is, we dont know that. And since things like thw WNBA have vastly lower ratings than their male counterparts, its a risk executives are not likely to take.

Never underestimate the stupidity of people.

I really don't see the problem with the suggestion that sports NOT be segregated by gender, but that instead, we group by divisions. You've got a lot of slender, fast guys in hockey, and you've got big bruisers too. There are any number of amateur league co-ed teams that work just fine....it's like we're saying at the professional level, we just don't want to see women competing because it's less interesting?

Well that's easy. Fucking get over it.

Frankly, I'd LOVE to see women playing football. Mmmm...:wink:

Well, first of all the point is that we shouldn't try to achieve it - 50/50 distribution is not needed. People should be given the freedom to pursue whatever career they like, if there's an employer ready to take them, not pushed into roles. Trying to get a 50/50 or whatever else arbitrary distribution is no better than trying to get 100/0 or 0/100. It will always vary, some jobs will have more men, some more women.
This is true.

So why did you advise it? You're not finding us advising an exact ratio here. What we want is not necessarily equal representation so much as equal opportunity and equal treatment. We want women to be treated the exact same way as men when it comes to considering them for a job. (And please don't come back with the bits about occasionally some women being unsuitable for certain jobs. We're speaking in general here and you know it.)

Similarly, salaries or wages should reflect the usefulness of an employee to the company - his/her participation in generating gross profit. They don't have to be equal. All that matters is that we make sure the employer pays one employee less than another only because of economic concerns, rather than because of race/gender/sexuality/other inconsequential detail. This is, for instance, the case in engineering and IT.

Then stop making it the women all the time. If someone has to earn a lower income wage, then fine. Don't have it be women just because their women. Set the lower wage because their work is honestly and truly less valuable than those with higher wages.

And if it's not less valuable, pay them the damned same.


If there actually is significant difference between the profit-generating potential between races/genders/etc, and if the government wants them still earn the same, it's the government's desire, not business efficiency, so the gov't should give them tax breaks, if it wants it.

Whatever. So long as we fix the issue. I'm more concerned about the equality here than I am about the GDP. The GDP does not measure a nation's value. How they treat their citizens is the measure of a nation's worth.


Well. Perhaps. So let's just do it. That will eliminate or greatly reduce the complications, and then we won't need to bother about them.

Exactly.


So frogmen are still frogmen. Well, what's your suggestion specifically - take a few females into otherwise all-male teams, or create separate female squads?

I'm actually not sure what the precise best way to go about it is, but I honestly am not sure how it's currently set up to begin with. Probably it would be best to mix the genders rather than making them all-male versus all-female teams, if only because the whole idea here is to treat the genders equally, and you can't do that if you continue to separate them. Separate but equal is a faulty concept, remember.



As equals, of course. But not as "more equal than others". We need to cut down the discrimination, which is already most times just because you can get away with paying less (and if you don't, you'll be outcompeted). So we should make sure there's equal pay for same work, although not equal pay despite different work.
I agree. The problem is, you're ignoring what connotes different work versus different exact duties in a job. Different work would be something like an engineering student working on nuclear reactors versus a steam engine. Different duties would be working on a nuclear reactor's coolant supply while another works on the reactor's energy output.

I want to see white men in black face having sex with clowns. If I were a millionaire, should I be able to get that shit on prime time?


Maybe on HBO.....

I really don't see the problem with the suggestion that sports NOT be segregated by gender, but that instead, we group by divisions. You've got a lot of slender, fast guys in hockey, and you've got big bruisers too. There are any number of amateur league co-ed teams that work just fine....it's like we're saying at the professional level, we just don't want to see women competing because it's less interesting?

Well that's easy. Fucking get over it.

The reason is that at top level women simply are not competitive in eg. hockey because of the physical aspect of the game.

AFAIK there is NO RULE that forbids women from playing eg in NHL, except for natural selection: Very few, if any, women has the physical attributes for top level hockey.

I would definitely like to see women play hockey with men, but I *fear* only the lower league teams would *benefit* from having women in the roster.

edit:
Consider one of the best female hockey players around Haley Wickenheiser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haley_Wickenheiser). She played here on the 3rd highest ("male") hockey league - Her talents, skill and physical prowess didn't allow her to play any higher, even though she's a professional athlete.
Frankly, I'd LOVE to see women playing football. Mmmm...:wink:
There are already women's leagues all over the world...

Oh wait, are you talking about American Handoblate (http://www.lingeriebowl.com/)?

You all are forgetting something, what about the women employers that give male employees lower wages? I worked at a crappy cashier job and got almost minimum wage, while a female started there with nearly a dollar or two more than me. I know a dollar isn't much, but every female employee got a higher starting wage than I did. If I was female my employer would have also looked into the promotion I asked about. I kept reminding her for six months before she gave me an answer...I did all of the hard work and got paid less. Both sides seem to discriminate when it comes to wages.

BTW female tennis is 100000000x better than male tennis. You don't even need video...

If, however, 90% people are engaged in romantic relationships, the command structure will simply no longer exist - if the XO is married to a seaman, their relationship won't be strictly professional. And now that all over the vessel. It won't be a solid hierarchy, it will be a clusterfuck.

A commanding officer should never be in a relationship with someone she commands.

In fact, in most jobs, a romantic relationship between someone in charge and someone under them is grounds for disciplinary action. Often, any familial relationship between supervisor/supervisee is avoided.

You all are forgetting something, what about the women employers that give male employees lower wages? I worked at a crappy cashier job and got almost minimum wage, while a female started there with nearly a dollar or two more than me. I know a dollar isn't much, but every female employee got a higher starting wage than I did. If I was female my employer would have also looked into the promotion I asked about. I kept reminding her for six months before she gave me an answer...I did all of the hard work and got paid less. Both sides seem to discriminate when it comes to wages.

How about you back this up? Because your anicdotal evidence means jack shit, especially because there are various other factors that could have been going on.


So, lets see some satistics. Otherwise your full of crap.

Are there really places where PE isn't gender-integrated still?! That's just insane.

I don't know - I would have loved it if my high school PE classes had been gender-segregated. It would have meant a lot fewer testosterone-addled idiots screaming, "HOW THE FUCK COULD YOU MISS THAT BALL?! FUCKING USELESS GIRLS!" at me. :rolleyes:

I don't know - I would have loved it if my high school PE classes had been gender-segregated. It would have meant a lot fewer testosterone-addled idiots screaming, "HOW THE FUCK COULD YOU MISS THAT BALL?! FUCKING USELESS GIRLS!" at me. :rolleyes:

In middle school we segregated the genders in PE. I think it was mostly to protect the girls though.


We had a lot of sexual harrassment and assualt going on.

I don't know - I would have loved it if my high school PE classes had been gender-segregated. It would have meant a lot fewer testosterone-addled idiots screaming, "HOW THE FUCK COULD YOU MISS THAT BALL?! FUCKING USELESS GIRLS!" at me. :rolleyes:

I think it was definitely justified to segregate in many sports at my school, especially ones like football or rugby, since at least in my school, none of the girls could even hope to compete with the boys at those sports, and they would end up just staying back and not taking part properly, which means they wont be getting any exercise.

I had a male friend in college who was told that he would have to put on 45 pounds in order to compete seriously. He was already on a ridiculous diet, working out whenever he wasn't in class or asleep, and there simply was no way for him to gain that kind of weight. Note: his SKILL and ABILITY were fine. The single factor barring him from success was his physical size. I think that's a shame. I don't see why sports are improved by locking out talented athletes that way.

No one wants to see midgets play US football or NBA basketball. By your logic, we should have a midget league. Or do you enjoy finding new ways to celebrate mediocrity?

Let's change the way Nobel Prizes are awarded, and have "intellect leveling" so that even the people with cerebral palsy can win an award.

No one wants to see midgets play US football or NBA basketball. By your logic, we should have a midget league. Or do you enjoy finding new ways to celebrate mediocrity?

Let's change the way Nobel Prizes are awarded, and have "intellect leveling" so that even the people with cerebral palsy can win an award.

Explain Muggsy Bogues.

Explain Muggsy Bogues.

Statistical outlier.

Statistical outlier.

You were saying players need to be tall or people won't watch them. Bogues wasn't tall yet he was very popular.

Maybe people are more interested in talent than height?

You were saying players need to be tall or people won't watch them. Bogues wasn't tall yet he was very popular.

Maybe people are more interested in talent than height?

He was only interesting because he was unique, and in a position where he was greatly challenged.

It would be like being the only woman in the NBA, with her weighing 80 pounds soaking wet, and just under 5' tall.

And he was nowhere near as popular as the larger player stars - nowhere close.

In high-responsibility situations, smooth operation of the unit comes before equality.


So - equality can't be smooth operation?


Single-gender vessels have proven to have fewer issues than mixed-gender.


No they haven't. Your own arguments on other points makea liar of you.

Single gender vessels might have less issues that MAKE THE MAINSTREAM MEDIA, maybe.


But... RIGHT TO THE BODY. This might cause worse PR than maintaining status quo.


So - good PR scores above rape and pregnancy?


Not everyone is fucking each other. There is a small proportion of gays,


Which is irrelevent - since you have already asserted that 'straight' men are sexually harassing each other.


...like in the general population, but it's not representative of the military as a whole.


How do you KNOW? It's not open knowledge, is it?

In the general population, about 10% of the male population ADMITS to only sexually being attracted to other men. How many are NOT admitting it? How many closet cases do you think there are for every 'out' homosexual?

How many bisexuals?


No, I'm not 80 years old, so I haven't. However, you neither.


You wouldn't have to be 80 to have been in 'nam.

And, of course I haven't been in an actual war, we already addressed how I interviewed for the military, but didn't end up enlisting. What - you think I was going to go merc?


The only difference between war and peace in the Navy is that you actually do press a couple more buttons and do load live bombs and missiles. Well, and that you *really* have to do things right this time. Otherwise, a seaman might not even be aware whether it's a drill or a war.


There is the small matter of being actually at war, also.


I'm saying "Men and women DO have romantic and not so romantic relationships when serving together. The military doesn't want these relationships at least on subs. Thus, they are preventing them in the only way they can."


Which is bullshit on a whole host of levels. Men and women do have those relationships... but so do men and other men, and women and other women... and sometimes, people and pets. So what?

The military is not preventing those relationships - it's pretending the same sex ones DON'T happen.

They're not preventing them in the only way they can, that's lame-as-fuck, and you know it. The military doesn't 'prevent' these things - it pretends they don't happen.


It's not discrimination, since the problem is not women, the problem is gender relationships.


It's not the gender relationship either - I call bullshit again. It's the inappropriate contact. Gender relationships be damned.


There is maybe 10% of gays.


I call bullshit. If 10% of the population is out and gay, and not every gay guy is out, the 10% figure MUST be bullshit.


The military tolerates it because the impact is not that severe. If, however, 90% people are engaged in romantic relationships, the command structure will simply no longer exist


You're really piling it on, now. The military has a pretty mixed make-up, now - certainly, in comparison to earlier. If you weren't talking out of your ass, the whole military structure would no longer exist.

It does.

Therefore, you're talking crap. Again.

QED.


...if the XO is married to a seaman, their relationship won't be strictly professional.


Which is why most workplaces act to oppose such nepotistic arrangements.

I have all kinds of faith in the US military, I'm just sure they could impose such a policy, if they really tried.


And now that all over the vessel. It won't be a solid hierarchy, it will be a clusterfuck.


What, you think as soon as women get onboard, it's going to turn into a partner-swapping-orgy? Hell - maybe I will enlist, after all.


If it was encouraged, there wouldn't be DADT policy.


I think you fail to understand the use of the word 'encouraged' in that respect.


And "all the closeness and cameraderie" works only until cheating, jealousy, and breakups come in play; relationships aren't all pink happy closeness.


They also aren't all breakups, jealousy and cheating.


Go and get a grip, if you think it's easy to do. They're trying. It doesn't work. Crossing the line, for one, is considered a "long established and sacred tradition". It's illegal, but what are you going to do.


Pressing charges would be a good start, don't you think? Courtmartial and dishonourable discharges. Hmmm, and I ain't even got started yet.


So what exactly would you do if you were a pollywog about to be initiated?


So the problem is the victim?

You probably think rape victims 'asked for it', right?


It's not about sex,


Which makes a liar of all your arguments so far, that it is.

Like I said, you're arguing both ends against the middle.


...the sexual incidents are simply the ones to get the publicity. It's about maximum humiliation and pain. The most common rituals are crawling through a long pipe filled with rotting trash, beating with fire hoses, swimming across a pool of trash-filled gray or even black water while holding an object in your mouth.


Hey, whatever you want to do for kicks, is cool. So long as it's consensual.

If it's not... well, then it doesn't matter if there are boys and girls, or just boys, now, does it?

I would sing James brown to you.

Just want to note that he did.

:D

My dad lived in Canada in the 70s, and he said it was incredibly sexist.

My dad lived in Canada in the 70s, and he said it was incredibly sexist.

That's Sexy. Canada is incredible sexy.


:)

This is true.
So why did you advise it? You're not finding us advising an exact ratio here. What we want is not necessarily equal representation so much as equal opportunity and equal treatment. We want women to be treated the exact same way as men when it comes to considering them for a job.
Yes, but most times, they are. The fact that women on the average earn less is maybe 10% discrimination, and 90% pure economic decisions.
In companies that are barely scraping by, it often comes simply from that women can be hired cheaper. In more serious jobs, this factor is [virtually] eliminated, and what salary difference remains comes from men tending to work longer hours and to leave the company at a later age.


Then stop making it the women all the time. If someone has to earn a lower income wage, then fine. Don't have it be women just because their women. Set the lower wage because their work is honestly and truly less valuable than those with higher wages. And if it's not less valuable, pay them the damned same.
But it's not women all the time.

For instance, in my profession:

http://www.payscale.com/chart/63/Median-Salary-by-Gender---Job-Marine-Engineer-or-Naval-Architect-United-States_USD_20081025074744-v1.0.jpg
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Marine_Engineer_or_Naval_Architect/Salary/by_Gender

Most other serious engineering occupations have a fairly small salary disparity.


Whatever. So long as we fix the issue. I'm more concerned about the equality here than I am about the GDP. The GDP does not measure a nation's value. How they treat their citizens is the measure of a nation's worth.
But there's a reasonable limit to everything. Trying to get a 50/50 income and wealth distribution between genders is well over that limit. It would

On a sidenote, IMHO, a nation where men earn $140,000 and women $70,000 is ultimately a better place to live than one where both earn $20,000. Equal treatment, where people are paid based on their work and not their race/gender/family status/age/etc, is good for GDP. [BTW, it's possible that women entering workforce was more due to the businesspeople realizing that more workforce is good for economy and for them, than to grassroots feminism]. Forced equality, where people are paid the same just because they had no choice over being born with one or another mindset, isn't.

If this is still a big deal, the problem should be fixed at the source.


I'm actually not sure what the precise best way to go about it is, but I honestly am not sure how it's currently set up to begin with. Probably it would be best to mix the genders rather than making them all-male versus all-female teams, if only because the whole idea here is to treat the genders equally, and you can't do that if you continue to separate them. Separate but equal is a faulty concept, remember.
Well... not necessarily. Separate but equal restrooms, separate but equal showers, separate but equal public baths. It's not discrimination, it's just that people of both genders feel more comfortable not being naked before a lot of strangers of the opposite sex.


Also, on a sidenote, the point of the military is to get the job done as cost-efficiently as possible. It's not about employment. Despite what most people think of it today, due to the Chairforce, at its heart military is not a guaranteed employment service, not a social support network, and not even a free roller-coaster. It's a machine for perpetrating what would otherwise be considered aggravated robbery and mass murder. That makes criticizing it for discrimination a bit ironic, like accusing a gangster of tax evasion.


I agree. The problem is, you're ignoring what connotes different work versus different exact duties in a job. Different work would be something like an engineering student working on nuclear reactors versus a steam engine. Different duties would be working on a nuclear reactor's coolant supply while another works on the reactor's energy output.
But different duties might also entail different pay. It often takes different specialists to work on the cooling system and the core, and even if not, duties differ in their level of responsibility.

I think the biggest myth being perpetrated right now is that in the West, there is real (versus legal) gender equity. Apparently overall national prosperity means that we should ignore the fact that the poorest of the poor are still women (http://www.policyalternatives.ca/index.cfm?act=news&do=Article&call=753&pA=A2286B2A&type=2,3,4,5,6,7)...that women suffer disproportionate amounts and levels (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2005/07/14/domestic-violence-050714.html) of domestic violence at the hands of men, and that women continue to lag behind men in terms of wages (http://www.womensmedia.com/new/confronting-gender-wage-gap.shtml) and representation in politics (ihttp://www.ipu.org/pdf/publications/wmnmap05_en.pdf).

Feminists won, the battle is over right? Women are just choosing to be abused more, to be less affluent, less well paid, and less involved in politics than men.

Just a reminder of the topic we are discussing. Those who are saying "OMG, GIRLS CAN't PLAY SPORTS" are, in addition to being wrong and obnoxious, trivializing some very serious issues.

And I'm not going to climb into the tit-for-tat on women in the military (GnI needs no help), but I do think the "women can't serve because men can't control themselves" argument is an insult to all genders.

...the "women can't serve because men can't control themselves" argument is an insult to all genders.

And not just that - it's either a REALLY serious indictment of the military, or it's a pretty horrible insult to those who fight for the country.

Yes, but most times, they are. The fact that women on the average earn less is maybe 10% discrimination, and 90% pure economic decisions.

I'm curious as to what gender-neutral "economic decisions" justify paying women less, promoting women less, etc.

Regardless, it is a pity that this opinion on your part isn't supported by any reputable data and is refuted by copious studies cited in this thread.

There is active discrimination in the workplace that is actually economically disadvantageous to us as a whole as well as harmful to individual businesses, but persists because of gender biases. That was a large part of what the Glass Ceiling Commission was about.

In the general population, about 10% of the male population ADMITS to only sexually being attracted to other men.

More like 2-4%.

So - equality can't be smooth operation? Equality isn't operation at all.

So - good PR scores above A single loud incident can cost billions in lost funding.

How do you KNOW? It's not open knowledge, is it?

In the general population, about 10% of the male population ADMITS to only sexually being attracted to other men.
Actually, they don't.
http://www.adherents.com/adh_dem.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation#Top_US_Cities


It's not the gender relationship either - I call bullshit again. It's the inappropriate contact. Gender relationships be damned. Slice off your cock then.

You're really piling it on, now. The military has a pretty mixed make-up, now - certainly, in comparison to earlier. Not nearly equally represented.

Which is why most workplaces act to oppose such nepotistic arrangements.
I have all kinds of faith in the US military, I'm just sure they could impose such a policy, if they really tried.
Of course they couldn't. They can't stop hazing, which is a much more obvious thing.


What, you think as soon as women get onboard, it's going to turn into a partner-swapping-orgy? Hell - maybe I will enlist, after all.
Go on. Sexual activity is reported to be out of control, especially on support vessels.

They also aren't all breakups, jealousy and cheating.
They aren't.
But when they aren't, they're also an alternate relationship system to the formal one.

Pressing charges would be a good start, don't you think? Courtmartial and dishonourable discharges.
For both parties, of course. Participation is voluntary. And why would you press charges, if you're now the one with the superiority over the slimy pollywogs? People consider it fun. Plus, whatever happens to you in the future, you already had the worst day in your life.

So the problem is the victim? No, I'm asking what exactly would you do.


Hey, whatever you want to do for kicks, is cool. So long as it's consensual. Hey, I want to discriminate the hell out of you for sh1ts and giggles!

It is consensual, of course. But if you don't participate, you're not a team player and won't really fit in.

I'm curious as to what gender-neutral "economic decisions" justify paying women less, promoting women less, etc.
As long as they work exactly the same, none. So it doesn't happen in serious jobs.

Regardless, it is a pity that this opinion on your part isn't supported by any reputable data
Median salaries are not enough?


There is active discrimination in the workplace that is actually economically disadvantageous to us as a whole as well as harmful to individual businesses, but persists because of gender biases.
There is, I don't say there isn't. But not in every workplace. And the number of workplaces where it remains is constantly decreasing. That process should be assisted.

Accelerate the natural process. But don't build scaffolding which will ultimately only stop or reverse it, because "the legislation takes care of that now".

Equality isn't operation at all.


Quibbling over the wording, not answering the question at all.

I make that 1-0 to me.


A single loud incident can cost billions in lost funding.


Then don't let the incidents happen? Or - at least be seen to be actively acting against them?


Slice off your cock then.


Irrelevent, and doesn't address the point I made, or add to the point you made.

I make that 2-0.


Not nearly equally represented.


Irrelevent. Doesn't make any difference to the argument.

I make that 3-0.


Of course they couldn't. They can't stop hazing, which is a much more obvious thing.


They don't. That doesn't mean they can't.


They aren't.


Right. You agree. Good.


You are standing near a bulkhea


Yes, I am.

Wait... what?


For both parties, of course. Participation is voluntary. And why would you press charges, if you're now the one with the superiority over the slimy pollywogs? People consider it fun.


They consider having random stuff shoved up their arses, against their will, to be fun?

Either you're bullshitting now... or you were bullshitting earlier. Or both.


Plus, whatever happens to you in the future, you already had the worst day in your life.


Wow. Clearly you've had a charmed life.


No, I'm asking what exactly would you do.


Which is irrelevent, surely?

If the point is about equality, and your (apparent) claims that the military is incapable of instilling discipline?


Hey, I want to discriminate the hell out of you for sh1ts and giggles!


Would be okay.

I've had consensual sexual relationships based on just such dynamics.


It is consensual, of course. But if you don't participate, you're not a team player and won't really fit in.

Okay, you're all over the map, now.

Seriously - try reading back over some of your other posts, and see if YOU can reconcile what you are saying now, with what you were saying then.

As long as they work exactly the same, none. So it doesn't happen in serious jobs.


'Serious jobs'? What the hell is a 'serious job'?


Median salaries are not enough?


No, actually... since 'salary' is only part of a compensation package.


There is, I don't say there isn't. But not in every workplace. And the number of workplaces where it remains is constantly decreasing. That process should be assisted.

Accelerate the natural process. But don't build scaffolding which will ultimately only stop or reverse it, because "the legislation takes care of that now".

There is no 'natural process'. Women are gaining equality (still gaining, not gained) because people FORCED the issue.

Quibbling over the wording, not answering the question at all.
The question of what are the issues was answered before. You have read it, and even replied to my answer.

Then don't let the incidents happen?
And the cheapest and most reliable way to do it is...

Irrelevent. Doesn't make any difference to the argument.
Relevant.

They don't. That doesn't mean they can't.
They're trying. It's not as easy to do over 5,000 miles as it is in an office.

Wait... what? Was fixed a moment later.

They consider having random stuff shoved up their arses, against their will, to be fun?
No, the fun is had by those shoving it.

You'll be surprised how many people say, "Oh, it was terrible the first time, but then it was one hell of fun each time we crossed the line!"


Which is irrelevent, surely?
If the point is about equality, and your (apparent) claims that the military is incapable of instilling discipline?
Which is surely relevant. It takes time for traditions to change, and even the command can't change them at will.

Okay, you're all over the map, now. It doesn't matter. Debating with you is inherently pointless - you're only ever interested in "scoring", rather than finding the truth of the actual matter.

There are already women's leagues all over the world...

Oh wait, are you talking about American Handoblate (http://www.lingeriebowl.com/)?

Oh my yuck...nevermind! Ew! That is just...ugh!

'Serious jobs'? What the hell is a 'serious job'?
One that takes a degree in a serious practical subject, at least.
Here are a few:
http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14150373&postcount=114


No, actually... since 'salary' is only part of a compensation package.
Well, certainly. But a major part, most of the times. And at least where I am, bonuses are based on actual work done, not arbitrary, so there's no discrimination.


There is no 'natural process'. Women are gaining equality (still gaining, not gained) because people FORCED the issue.
There is a natural process. People forcing something from the ground up is a natural process.

And they'll force it further. Help the process, but don't replace a moving process with "alternate benefits" scaffolding which will only make it less desirable for the employers.

As long as they work exactly the same, none. So it doesn't happen in serious jobs.

Median salaries are not enough?

There is, I don't say there isn't. But not in every workplace. And the number of workplaces where it remains is constantly decreasing. That process should be assisted.

Accelerate the natural process. But don't build scaffolding which will ultimately only stop or reverse it, because "the legislation takes care of that now".

1. I must have missed the part where you refuted the studies in my earlier post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14150025&postcount=108):


In January 2005, the American Association of University Women (AAUW) Educational Foundation reported that nationally, college-educated women earn only 72 percent as much as college-educated men, a wage gap of 28 cents on the dollar. In every state, a persistent and significant gap exists between the earnings of college-educated, full-time working women and college-educated, full-time working men. The AAUW Educational Foundation’s Gains in Learning, Gaps in Earnings: A Guide to State and National Data (http://www.aauw.org/research/statedata/) is an online resource that examines these discrepancies.


June 4, 2004: Unequal pay takes a significant toll on working women and their families, reports the Institute for Women's Policy Research. "Still a Man's Labor Market: The Long-Term Earnings Gap" (http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/C355.pdf) finds women's total earnings over their prime working years average only 38 percent of what prime-age men earn due to a combination of lower pay, more part-time work and time out of the workforce to care for children. The typical prime-age working woman earned $273,592 between 1983 and 1998 while the typical working man earned $722,693.


June 2004: A Census Bureau report, "Evidence From Census 2000 About Earnings by Detailed Occupation for Men and Women," (http://www.census.gov/prod/2004pubs/censr-15.pdf) shows men earning more than women in all 20 of the highest-paid occupations for both sexes as well as in all 20 of the lowest-paid. Overall, among full-time, year-round workers, women's median earnings were 74% of men's, the report shows.


April 20, 2004: The Institute for Women's Policy Research issued a report on Equal Pay Day titled Women's Economic Status in the States: Wide Disparities by Race, Ethnicity, and Region (http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/R260.pdf) which shows that women are paid 68 cents for every dollar white men get.


November 20, 2003: The General Accounting Office's Oct. 2003 report, Women’s Earnings (http://www.house.gov/maloney/issues/womenscaucus/2003EarningsReport.pdf), shows the pay gap is real. Women working full-time today earn an average of 80 cents for every dollar that men earn, even when accounting for demographic and work-related factors such as occupation, industry, race, marital status and job tenure. This 20 percent earnings gap cannot be explained due to differences in work patterns or histories.


June 2002: A study by the National Women's Law Center, "Title IX and Equal Opportunity in Vocational and Technical Education: A Promise Still Owed to the Nation's Young Women," (http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/career%20ed%20report%20for%20june%206%20press%20event3.pdf) finds pervasive sex segregation in high school level vocational and technical programs across the country that results in substantial wage disparities between male and female graduates of these programs and inferior educational opportunities for women and girls enrolled in "traditionally female" programs. To illustrate the resulting wage disparities, electricians in a predominantly male field earn a median wage of $19.29 per hour, while the median wage for cosmetologists, in a predominantly female field, is $8.49 per hour.


2004 - Statistics about Professional Women (http://www.pay-equity.org/PDFs/ProfWomen.pdf) from the AFL-CIO's Department for Professional Employees


U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Highlights of Women’s Earnings in 2002 (http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2002.pdf), September 2003


AFF-CIO, Equal Pay for Working Families: National and State Data (http://www.aflcio.org/issues/jobseconomy/women/equalpay/EqualPayForWorkingFamilies.cfm) & (2004 & 1999)


The President's Council of Economic Advisers, EXPLAINING TRENDS IN THE GENDER WAGE GAP (http://clinton4.nara.gov/WH/EOP/CEA/html/gendergap.html), June 1998


The President's Council of Economic Advisers, OPPORTUNITIES AND GENDER PAY EQUITY IN NEW ECONOMY OCCUPATIONS (http://clinton4.nara.gov/media/pdf/pay_equity_paper_final.pdf), May 11, 2000


2. What "natural process"? Regardless, the gains that have been made by women in the workforce are due largely to (1) government laws and influence against discrimination and (2) societal pressure against gender biases. Yes, economic self-interest helps fight gender bias, but it isn't enough -- and never has been enough.

The question of what are the issues was answered before. You have read it, and even replied to my answer.


I did reply to it. You made a comment about it being a CHOICE between 'smooth operation' and 'equality'.

I questioned that. You prevaricated.


And the cheapest and most reliable way to do it is...


Disband the army?


Relevant.


You know you're getting your ass kicked when you start hitting on the spelling...


They're trying. It's not as easy to do over 5,000 miles as it is in an office.


Sure it is. Video cameras. Guys with guns. Any amount of answers.

Where it happens, the military still has hazing because they ALLOW it to happen.


No, the fun is had by those shoving it.


Which would make it non-consensual by the victims - thereby making a lie of your consent argument.


You'll be surprised how many people say, "Oh, it was terrible the first time, but then it was one hell of fun each time we crossed the line!"


You are, in effect, arguing that rape is 'only bad the first time'.


Which is surely relevant. It takes time for traditions to change, and even the command can't change them at will.


Utter bullshit, and you know it.

'Traditions' are irrelevant. If an action is ILLEGAL, it doesn't matter if it's also 'traditional'.

Like Is aid, if it's allowed, it's because it's ignored, rather than because of an incapacity to deal with it.


It doesn't matter. Debating with you is inherently pointless


Yes.

If you mean that you are 'engaging in a battle of wits, for which you are clearly unarmed'...


...you're only ever interested in "scoring", rather than finding the truth of the actual matter.

No, I'm only interested in exposing your bullshit as bullshit.

The 'truth' of the matter... is equality and whether it really exists, or we just pretend it does.

You've come up with page after page of nonsense about institutionalised rape, the need to maintain good PR, the fact that women would make it more likely for sailors to commit sexcrimes... the fact that women aren't NEEDED for sailors to commit sexcrimes, and now - apparently - the fact that there ARE NO sexcrimes, because they all like it really...

You're all over the shop. You're not interested in truth, you're interested in presenting contradiction - and THAT is NOT a debate.

And they'll force it further. Help the process, but don't replace a moving process with "alternate benefits" scaffolding which will only make it less desirable for the employers.

What is this "scaffolding" you keep babbling on about? Pay equity laws? Anti-discrimination laws?

One that takes a degree in a serious practical subject, at least.
Here are a few:
http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14150373&postcount=114


Engineering. Oh, and an IT one.

So - there are 6 'serious' jobs?


Well, certainly. But a major part, most of the times. And at least where I am, bonuses are based on actual work done, not arbitrary, so there's no discrimination.


Bullshit on many levels.

Often, direct financial remuneration turns out to be less than half of the total compensation package of skilled work. Bonuses are still only a fraction of that package, also.

And men get better compensation, on average, even in highly skilled fields, than women do.


There is a natural process. People forcing something from the ground up is a natural process.

And they'll force it further. Help the process, but don't replace a moving process with "alternate benefits" scaffolding which will only make it less desirable for the employers.

So - externally enforcing change is natural... but externally enforcing change is NOT natural.

Got it.

You have NO idea, do you.

Yes, but most times, they are. The fact that women on the average earn less is maybe 10% discrimination, and 90% pure economic decisions.
In companies that are barely scraping by, it often comes simply from that women can be hired cheaper. In more serious jobs, this factor is [virtually] eliminated, and what salary difference remains comes from men tending to work longer hours and to leave the company at a later age.

Ignoring the reason that women are hired cheaper because they're paid less because they're women.

Your circular logic is showing.


But it's not women all the time.

For instance, in my profession:

http://www.payscale.com/chart/63/Median-Salary-by-Gender---Job-Marine-Engineer-or-Naval-Architect-United-States_USD_20081025074744-v1.0.jpg
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Marine_Engineer_or_Naval_Architect/Salary/by_Gender

Most other serious engineering occupations have a fairly small salary disparity.

Statistical outlier, ignoring the actual overall trend.


But there's a reasonable limit to everything. Trying to get a 50/50 income and wealth distribution between genders is well over that limit. It would
It would what?

On a sidenote, IMHO, a nation where men earn $140,000 and women $70,000 is ultimately a better place to live than one where both earn $20,000. Equal treatment, where people are paid based on their work and not their race/gender/family status/age/etc, is good for GDP. [BTW, it's possible that women entering workforce was more due to the businesspeople realizing that more workforce is good for economy and for them, than to grassroots feminism]. Forced equality, where people are paid the same just because they had no choice over being born with one or another mindset, isn't.

If this is still a big deal, the problem should be fixed at the source.

And a nation where men and women are paid equally for doing the exact same type of work would be even better.

You seem to be missing that.


Well... not necessarily. Separate but equal restrooms, separate but equal showers, separate but equal public baths. It's not discrimination, it's just that people of both genders feel more comfortable not being naked before a lot of strangers of the opposite sex.

An attitude that should change. Nudity is nothing to be ashamed of, and these hang-ups make it a lot harder to deal with our own sexuality and the sexuality of others.

We artificially create a lot of the stress in our lives due to these outdated notions.

Also, on a sidenote, the point of the military is to get the job done as cost-efficiently as possible. It's not about employment. Despite what most people think of it today, due to the Chairforce, at its heart military is not a guaranteed employment service, not a social support network, and not even a free roller-coaster. It's a machine for perpetrating what would otherwise be considered aggravated robbery and mass murder. That makes criticizing it for discrimination a bit ironic, like accusing a gangster of tax evasion.

I'm aware of that.

That's why everyone ought to be able to serve their country equally, men and women alike. For that matter, homosexuals ought to be fully integrated too, and any other American citizen who wants to serve.


But different duties might also entail different pay. It often takes different specialists to work on the cooling system and the core, and even if not, duties differ in their level of responsibility.
I'm aware of this, but you're ignoring the point. The point is that women are paid less for doing the exact same work, and they should be paid the same.