NationStates Jolt Archive

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.


I just had to address this one....

I have absolutely no preference about being naked before men or women. Large groups or small groups, it's irrelevant.

If there are enough people to make me feel uncomfortable, I'll feel uncomfortable whether I'm naked or clothed.


This is more of Vault's apparent obsession with everything being about the inability for ANYTHING to exist that doesn't involve people fucking.

I did reply to it. You made a comment about it being a CHOICE between 'smooth operation' and 'equality'.
I answered, it's believed that a single-gender unit can operate smoother.

Disband the army?
Well, yes. You see, our society does agree that women deserve equal salary etc., but at the same time it also still holds that women should be protected from harm, at least have priority over men.
So when men are abused, it's "Bad, our army is still brutal" [of course it is, it's a killing machine, not a civility school]. When a woman is abused, it's "ZOMG, bastards, disband the military!".


Sure it is. Video cameras.
ROFLMAO!


Where it happens, the military still has hazing because they ALLOW it to happen.
I'm sure the commander in chief, at least the former one - William Jefferson Clinton - didn't want it to happen.

Too bad his actions didn't carry all that much weight for the specific sergeant who's been doing things his way for two decades.


Which would make it non-consensual by the victims - thereby making a lie of your consent argument.
Oh, no. It is consensual. Completely. But in exchange, you get a higher status.

You are, in effect, arguing that rape is 'only bad the first time'. You don't get it. There isn't the second time.

You only get fucked up the first time you cross the equator.

That makes you a shellback, and every next time you're the one to fuck up the noobs.


'Traditions' are irrelevant. If an action is ILLEGAL, it doesn't matter if it's also 'traditional'.
Tell that to those doing it, not to me.

Tell that to those doing it, not to me.

Wait... didn't you say you WERE one of the one's doing it?

I can address the rest later - I've been arguing under the delusion that you were arguing from experience... no?

Engineering. Oh, and an IT one.
So - there are 6 'serious' jobs?
Just a few examples. I could give more.


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.
But to which benefits are you referring, where you say women are underpaid? 401(k)? No. Maybe, free medical insurance? Certainly no.


And men get better compensation, on average, even in highly skilled fields, than women do. But nowhere near "75 female cents for each male dollar". Just a little bit better.


So - externally enforcing change is natural... but externally enforcing change is NOT natural. When something comes from the people up to the employers, it works. When it comes down from the government, everyone only looks for ways to circumvent it.

If the gov't forces the employers to give women long paid leaves and other benefits, it will only be an economic incentive to avoid hiring them.

I answered, it's believed that a single-gender unit can operate smoother.

Well, yes. You see, our society does agree that women deserve equal salary etc., but at the same time it also still holds that women should be protected from harm, at least have priority over men.
So when men are abused, it's "Bad, our army is still brutal" [of course it is, it's a killing machine, not a civility school]. When a woman is abused, it's "ZOMG, bastards, disband the military!".

ROFLMAO!

I'm sure the commander in chief, at least the former one - William Jefferson Clinton - didn't want it to happen.

Too bad his actions didn't carry all that much weight for the specific sergeant who's been doing things his way for two decades.

Oh, no. It is consensual. Completely. But in exchange, you get a higher status.

You don't get it. There isn't the second time.

You only get fucked up the first time you cross the equator.

That makes you a shellback, and every next time you're the one to fuck up the noobs.

Tell that to those doing it, not to me.

This reminds of me of Winston Churchill's famous statement:

You say that I am ignoring the time-honored traditions of the Royal Navy? And what might they be? I shall tell you in three words. Rum, buggery, and the lash! Good morning sirs.

Wait... didn't you say you WERE one of the one's doing it?

I can address the rest later - I've been arguing under the delusion that you were arguing from experience... no?
This fun is generally reserved for the enlisted. Well, the having fun part.


This reminds of me of Winston Churchill's famous statement:

You say that I am ignoring the time-honored traditions of the Royal Navy? And what might they be? I shall tell you in three words. Rum, buggery, and the lash! Good morning sirs.
+1.

All too many times people have unrealistic illusions about the military.

When something comes from the people up to the employers, it works. When it comes down from the government, everyone only looks for ways to circumvent it.


Wow. Hard to work out if you really believe it, or if you're just making up random crap to try to support an argument.

As someone who has BEEN both an employee and an employer, I have to say I don't believe you when you say "...everyone only looks for ways to circumvent it." I think most people just get the fuck over it, and do whatever 'it' is.

As for this idea of 'coming up from the people' and 'coming down from the government' - apart from clearly marking you as a 21st century Republican - it's pretty much useless. The enforcement of quotas, etc trickle down from government BECAUSE of the pressure from below - the two things are parts of the same process.

If the pressure 'upwards' is natural, then so is the pressure 'downwards'. The only 'unnatural' element in that equation, then - is those stuck in the middle that REFUSE to stop discriminating. If they didn't exist, there would BE no 'pressure from above'.


If the gov't forces the employers to give women long paid leaves and other benefits, it will only be an economic incentive to avoid hiring them.

Then make the quotas mandatory. Ta da.

This fun is generally reserved for the enlisted. Well, the having fun part.


Which isn't a yes or a no.

About par for the course, perhaps - but not helpful.

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?
Correlation doesn't imply causation. I really don't see the reasoning that would suddenly make the sort of extreme sexism of decades ago reappear, just because people stop getting paid for not doing any work.

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:
I don't think I am likely to benefit. Is there an opt-out option for me? What about old taxpayers who didn't get the benefit of this scheme?

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.
So if I had a child, and 15 months into my two-year leave there's another pregnancy, with the child being born as the leave ends, I wouldn't get another two years' leave because I haven't worked during the previous X weeks?

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.
Disability is slightly different because it's not really much of a choice. But having a child involves an opportunity cost to the family - the time and effort you spend on raising it can't be spent on something else. A scheme paid by others that compensates you as for this "something else" that you're not doing is unfair. When you, knowingly and willingly, incur a cost to yourself, it can't be the responsibility of anyone else to pay it. They might choose to, but they don't have the obligation. Hell, we might think we want more children being born and use such a scheme to subsidise families to produce more, but that's a decision made for a different reason.

You're obviously right when you're saying that women in general bear a greater share of this cost. That's not a good thing, though one would also have to be careful about treating being with one's child purely as a cost. It seems feasible to me that there are plenty of fathers out there who'd rather be with their kid than behind a desk. But whatever the case may be, how the cost is distributed within the family is not something that can be legislated. And as far as feminism is concerned, I think that's where the battle would have to be fought today, rather than in court rooms or on the streets.

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):
I never said there's no income difference. As the neutral ones of your sources show, there's been 22% income difference in 2002.

And decreasing, as this says.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswom2002.pdf

What I said is that most of this income difference is due to different jobs, rather than due to discrimination. And the report you've given confirms that.
For instance, 57% of men and 62% of women work in wage jobs. Wage jobs pay less.
25% of women work part-time, but only 10% of men. Full-time jobs pay more, even per hour.
And women are less represented in high-paying fields.

BTW, it also says that 47.5% of workers in executive, administrative and managerial occupations were women in 2002.

It's first of all low-paying fields, wage workers, and part-timers which drag the women' median income down, and only second bias and discrimination.



(2) societal pressure against gender biases.
Which should be the primary factor. Not blind regulation.

For instance, 57% of men and 62% of women work in wage jobs. Wage jobs pay less.
25% of women work part-time, but only 10% of men. Full-time jobs pay more, even per hour.
And women are less represented in high-paying fields.


So - women are discriminated against in the HIRING phase...

Which isn't a yes or a no.
Well, if you insist. I've only been on the receiving end of the stick. The giving end is reserved to the enlisted.


As someone who has BEEN both an employee and an employer, I have to say I don't believe you when you say "...everyone only looks for ways to circumvent it." But IIRC you've been an 'employer' of some non-profit, not say Walmart or CostCo. And for some reason AIUI you aren't now.


As for this idea of 'coming up from the people' and 'coming down from the government' - apart from clearly marking you as a 21st century Republican - it's pretty much useless.
Actually, I'm more of a Libertarian than a Republican. My position is that the government should only intervene when it is confirmed that its intervention will help both the free society and the economy, not sacrifice economic prosperity for a forced illusion of equality or trade personal freedoms for a few extra caps.


The only 'unnatural' element in that equation, then - is those stuck in the middle that REFUSE to stop discriminating. If they didn't exist, there would BE no 'pressure from above'.
Of course. "In the victory of Communism's deathless ideal, we see the future of our dear land".

Then make the quotas mandatory. Ta da.
Or ban private enterprise altogether.

Just as stupid, but reaches your goal faster.

So - women are discriminated against in the HIRING phase...
Oh, yes, they're apparently refused full-time jobs.

Well, if you insist. I've only been on the receiving end of the stick. The giving end is reserved to the enlisted.


Wasn't your argument that those 'on the receiving end' are only doing so because it lets them be the one 'giving' next time?

Wasn't that why you were arguing it is 'consensual'?

Because otherwise, and I'm not sure what the legalistic definition would be when other materials are used - but it SOUNDS like rape.


But IIRC you've been an 'employer' of some non-profit, not say Walmart or CostCo. And for some reason AIUI you aren't now.


Nope. I ran a definitely-for-profit business.

As for why I'm not now - geographical change is one factor, and changing field is another.


Actually, I'm more of a Libertarian than a Republican.


You're talking a good McCain line, there.


My position is that the government should only intervene when it is confirmed that its intervention will help both the free society and the economy, not sacrifice economic prosperity for a forced illusion of equality or trade personal freedoms for a few extra caps.


Yes, you already said you were a libertarian. You don't have to expand on that by proving you have no idea how business works in the real world.


Of course. "In the victory of Communism's deathless ideal, we see the future of our dear land".


Err... okay.


Or ban private enterprise altogether.


Why? And.. what does that have to do with quotas?


Just as stupid, but reaches your goal faster.

The goal of equality? Maybe. I'm surprised to see you offer it as the ideal model, though.

Oh, yes, they're apparently refused full-time jobs.

I've seen EXACTLY that happen, actually. For no reason OTHER than gender.

[/silly word games]

Ignoring the reason that women are hired cheaper because they're paid less because they're women.
Your circular logic is showing.
Actually, I was pointing this out. It's the employers' circular logic. A lot of them would like to treat everyone equally, but as long as you can get a worker for less, paying more makes you less profitable and the shareholders angry.


It would what? Sorry, multi-replying. Forcing equal pay even if economic benefit is not equal would make the employers seek out people with greater benefit, and attempt to deny employment to those with less benefit. This is economically inefficient.

And a nation where men and women are paid equally for doing the exact same type of work would be even better.
My thoughts exactly. But, such a nation would still not have everything 50/50. It would still have a male/female income disparity - at least as long as the certain traditions towards selecting occupations persist. Just less disparity, say, 5% rather than 20%. Or maybe reverse disparity, if the traditions change.


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.
Surely. I personally support greater acceptance of nudity. But so far we as a society are far from that - to the point that driving in your own car half-naked can get you behind bars (see another thread). We should deal with that idiocy first.


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.
What if there are (and now there are) more of those who want to serve than needed? The military these days is being used a tool for doing dirty work for oil companies, and dirty work doesn't have to be done in white clothes. What does the job more efficiently, does it.
There's also a lot of other discrimination in the military which has nothing to do with gender and orientation, for instance based on physical conditions, even for purely desk positions.


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.
Yes, they should. I'm not arguing with this. And to achieve that, women and men should be treated equally. Not with extra work rights to "compensate for inequality", just equally.

Yes, they should. I'm not arguing with this. And to achieve that, women and men should be treated equally. Not with extra work rights to "compensate for inequality", just equally.

Again, what are you calling "extra work rights"?

Are you against laws that require equal pay for equal work?

Are you against laws that ban gender discrimination?

BTW, you bragged earliery about how the gap was narrowing. Is this not largely due to pay equity and anti-discrimination laws? Or has the magic "free market" fairy suddenly decided gender bias is wrong?

Yes, they should. I'm not arguing with this. And to achieve that, women and men should be treated equally. Not with extra work rights to "compensate for inequality", just equally.
Um... if there is inequality, then the rights that compensate for that are not "extra." They are equal.

Wasn't your argument that those 'on the receiving end' are only doing so because it lets them be the one 'giving' next time?
Wasn't that why you were arguing it is 'consensual'?
For two reasons, because it lets them be on the giving end later, and because it lets them to fit in.

For officers, being on the giving end is uncommon, except for the skipper, but it's considered that they're on the giving end of all sticks the rest of the time anyway. So it's when the men get their revenge.


Because otherwise, and I'm not sure what the legalistic definition would be when other materials are used - but it SOUNDS like rape.
Sexual assault. Like regular assault, but twice more fun.

That happened in the Aussie Navy on a sub; it's by no means a common practice.



I've seen EXACTLY that happen, actually. For no reason OTHER than gender.
A bit of advice, change your employer. It seems to suck.

You're talking a good McCain line, there.
Actually I'm nearly equally opposed to both. Osama and Biladen will ruin the economy, McSame and Appalin' the personal freedoms. Ultimately, though, I'm more concerned about freedom.

You don't have to expand on that by proving you have no idea how business works in the real world.
Oh, but I have. It works with maximum gross profits when the regulators GTFO.

Why? And.. what does that have to do with quotas?
Taking down free enterprise, one step a time.
Quotas are a good one.

The goal of equality? No, the goal of "regulate the hell out of them".

Um... if there is equality, then the rights that compensate for that are not "extra." They are equal.
But there isn't equality. There is still some inequality. My position is that we should work to eliminate all non-natural (bias) causes of that inequality. But we shouldn't try to patch it with enforced preferential treatment, such as extra rights, because that will only harm the goal of equality.

Life isn't algebra, fixing inequality with more inequality (only in reverse direction) won't lead to equality.


Again, what are you calling "extra work rights"?
For instance, the right to leave for a couple years and have a guaranteed return to the same position at the same salary, regardless of whether it has been just temporary filled in or replaced by a better specialist.


BTW, you bragged earliery about how the gap was narrowing. Is this not largely due to pay equity and anti-discrimination laws? Or has the magic "free market" fairy suddenly decided gender bias is wrong?
The laws didn't work. The market is one of the forces that actually do. It doesn't decide, it just brings the things to optimality.
When a woman can do the man's work for less cost, it's profitable to hire women. Those who don't go out of the business. And, as demand for female workers grows, so does their price, i.e. wage or salary.

For two reasons, because it lets them be on the giving end later, and because it lets them to fit in.


So - it's okay for people to buttfuck you, provided they let you feel like one of them?

I'm becoming increasingly convinced you're not in a position to even discuss equality...


For officers, being on the giving end is uncommon, except for the skipper, but it's considered that they're on the giving end of all sticks the rest of the time anyway. So it's when the men get their revenge.


By raping each other?


That happened in the Aussie Navy on a sub; it's by no means a common practice.


There you go again, making a liar of your earlier arguments.

Jesus - If I leave you alone long enough, you'll end up ripping all your own arguments to shreds....


A bit of advice, change your employer. It seems to suck.


It wasn't my employer...


Actually I'm nearly equally opposed to both. Osama and Biladen will ruin the economy, McSame and Appalin' the personal freedoms. Ultimately, though, I'm more concerned about freedom.


'Osama' was the best you could do?


Oh, but I have. It works with maximum gross profits when the regulators GTFO.


In other words... no, you really don't.

What happens when the regulators 'GTFO' is that maximum greed takes effect, and there's a short honeymoon period for a few people, and then a big crash that hurts everyone.

I'd rather see the regulators in there on the ground floor, and see some stability.


Taking down free enterprise, one step a time.
Quotas are a good one.


'Free enterprise' doesn't need taking down. It's a fairytale.


No, the goal of "regulate the hell out of them".

That's not one of my goals...

But there isn't equality. There is still some inequality. My position is that we should work to eliminate all non-natural (bias) causes of that inequality. But we shouldn't try to patch it with enforced preferential treatment, such as extra rights, because that will only harm the goal of equality.

Life isn't algebra, fixing inequality with more inequality (only in reverse direction) won't lead to equality.

I meant "inequality." I made a typo, which I've fixed. Here is the corrected statement:

Um... if there is inequality, then the rights that compensate for that are not "extra." They are equal.

If the rules say that everyone is supposed to be treated equally, but when you do something, you are rewarded with two apples, and when I do the same thing, I am rewarded with only one apple, that is not equality.

Making the person who hands out the rewards give the same number of apples to everyone who does the same thing, no matter who they are, is NOT inequality. It is treating everyone equal, and that, by definition is "equality."

And if the rules say that everyone is supposed to be treated equally, then giving me getting two apples for something that other people already get two apples for is not giving me anything "extra." It's just giving me what the job is worth.

So your claim that equal pay for equal work is somehow inequality is nonsense.

you can't argue, atleast in the west, within the united states, that white upper-class men have held and still to a degree hold power. Yet, you also can't blatantly say women are inequal at every level. There is discrimination towards both and reverse discrimination to both.

Right now, if a mother doesn't want the father of her child to see the kid, the father can do very little about that. In court, men are typically given harsher and longer punishments and african americans are treater even more harse than that, due to cultural racial stereotypes.

But this 'women make 77 cent per every man's dollar,' I don't think isn't afair statistic. Right now the highest paying jobs of ceos, out of 500, only 9 are women. I don't think that's because of inequality, yes, to some extent, but maybe it's because not every woman wants to be a ceo? When did becoming a ceo of a company become some thing everyone wants? I believe that is a major upset in the wages. In other occupations, they do start women out with less, I don't know why, it doesn't make sense if two people are equally skilled and I hope this changes, but ultimately what matters the most in this country is class.

I'm a white male, but I'm also of the working class. So I'm offended that people think I've had an easy ride. I work a minimum wage job for ends meet. After all stratification only occurs when you accumulate wealth, the lower class and working class don't have enough wealth to be stratified, we're all equal in our lack of wealth.

I do apologize though, I am aware that there still is racial and gender discrimination that I haven't experienced because of my race and my gender. I'm aware that it has a horrible and profound effect on people. I'm egalitarian, I believe everyone is equal or should be treated equally, or atleast treated by their own merit and character and not something that has been ascribed to them. But I still feel a sort of discrimination, because white males seemed to be labeled as a group of racist, sexist, homophobes, who somehow have an easy ride. I know some are and I know some have, but please don't imply every man has an easy ride, or every white man, or anything like that, because that is discrimination.

Right now the highest paying jobs of ceos, out of 500, only 9 are women. I don't think that's because of inequality, yes, to some extent, but maybe it's because not every woman wants to be a ceo?

I don't want to be a CEO - and yet my gender has the other 491 CEO positions...

you can't argue, atleast in the west, within the united states, that white upper-class men have held and still to a degree hold power. Yet, you also can't blatantly say women are inequal at every level. There is discrimination towards both and reverse discrimination to both.

Right now, if a mother doesn't want the father of her child to see the kid, the father can do very little about that. In court, men are typically given harsher and longer punishments and african americans are treater even more harse than that, due to cultural racial stereotypes.

But this 'women make 77 cent per every man's dollar,' I don't think isn't afair statistic. Right now the highest paying jobs of ceos, out of 500, only 9 are women. I don't think that's because of inequality, yes, to some extent, but maybe it's because not every woman wants to be a ceo? When did becoming a ceo of a company become some thing everyone wants? I believe that is a major upset in the wages. In other occupations, they do start women out with less, I don't know why, it doesn't make sense if two people are equally skilled and I hope this changes, but ultimately what matters the most in this country is class.

I'm a white male, but I'm also of the working class. So I'm offended that people think I've had an easy ride. I work a minimum wage job for ends meet. After all stratification only occurs when you accumulate wealth, the lower class and working class don't have enough wealth to be stratified, we're all equal in our lack of wealth.

I do apologize though, I am aware that there still is racial and gender discrimination that I haven't experienced because of my race and my gender. I'm aware that it has a horrible and profound effect on people. I'm egalitarian, I believe everyone is equal or should be treated equally, or atleast treated by their own merit and character and not something that has been ascribed to them. But I still feel a sort of discrimination, because white males seemed to be labeled as a group of racist, sexist, homophobes, who somehow have an easy ride. I know some are and I know some have, but please don't imply every man has an easy ride, or every white man, or anything like that, because that is discrimination.
1) I don't think working class people have an easy ride of it.

2) I don't want to be a CEO, even though I'm female.

3) I don't think women are discriminated against in every part of life in the US.

4) However, I do not want to work for less money than a man does. I don't want my pay scale to be sex-based. I want to be paid what the job I do is worth. If I do the job, then I do want to be paid the same as everyone else who does that same job, regardless of gender.

So - it's okay for people to buttfuck you, provided they let you feel like one of them?
No, it's not OK. But that's a "tradition". Well, a tradition, really.


By raping each other?
Mostly it's regular assault, not involving specific organs. And you're not getting what the tradition is about.


That happened in the Aussie Navy on a sub; it's by no means a common practice.
There you go again, making a liar of your earlier arguments.
It's not a common practice, and I never said it is.
But it happens.
And a single incident with a non-PC victim can cost billions.



'Osama' was the best you could do? Picking on a 'typo' was the best you could do in response to that one will ruin the economy and another the free society?

In other words... no, you really don't.
No, I do. And that's why the relatively libertarian US is the world's leader and the pro-regulatory USSR is not even there anymore.

What happens when the regulators 'GTFO' is that maximum greed takes effect, and there's a short honeymoon period for a few people, and then a big crash that hurts everyone.
Using the crisis to your advantage was the best you could do?

The big crash was caused by the government continually bailing out any failing businesses, freeing them from the consequences of their actions. That prevented small crises, and collected them into one big snowball, which is rushing down an avalanche now.
As for crises - yes, they do happen in a free economy - all the time - and are followed by new growth to a higher level.


'Free enterprise' doesn't need taking down. It's a fairytale.
We're not yet in your dreamland.

That's not one of my goals... Well, at least it's one of your suggested means, and I'm horrified to think how bad should be the ends if the means are that terrible already.

I meant "inequality." I made a typo, which I've fixed. Here is the corrected statement:
Quote:
Um... if there is inequality, then the rights that compensate for that are not "extra." They are equal.
I know, I got the idea.


So your claim that equal pay for equal work is somehow inequality is nonsense.
How hard can it be to actually read the posts before responding to them? Of course it would be nonsense, but it's not my claim, or show where I supposedly claimed it. My claim is this:

There is still some inequality. My position is that we should work to eliminate all non-natural (bias) causes of that inequality. But we shouldn't try to patch it with enforced preferential treatment, such as extra rights, because that will only harm the goal of equality.

And I said explicitly, many times, right in this thread, that I support equal pay for equal work (work as in generated gross profit), and that is the only way to have equality.

What I do not support is looking "Aha, women earn less!" and compensating with "Let's then give them a two-year paid leave to make it even!".

an aside ...

Did you know that Sweden used to hold the record for having the greatest equality in national Parliament ?

47% of the members of Parliament were female ..the highest ever ..



until recently where Rwanda beat them..

yes the same Rwanda where the mass genocides took place about 14 years ago ...

where the ethnic race were sheltered in a church by priests, who then called the murderers and the murderes then showered the church with bullets ..none survived ...

but now 14 years later and 52 % of the Parliament are made up of women !!!

more than half ..never has it happened before .....

it is the highest in africa, and the highest in the world ....even their speaker of parliament is now a female ..

fancy that uh ???

I know, I got the idea.



How hard can it be to actually read the posts before responding to them? Of course it would be nonsense, but it's not my claim, or show where I supposedly claimed it. My claim is this:
I admit I just skipped over all the posts in which you are just trolling GnI.

I know that is your claim. It was a claim that you made, at least in part, in reference to equal pay for equal work. I am responding to it in that context.


And I said explicitly, many times, right in this thread, that I support equal pay for equal work (work as in generated gross profit), and that is the only way to have equality.

What I do not support is looking "Aha, women earn less!" and compensating with "Let's then give them a two-year paid leave to make it even!".
Perhaps I skipped the proof in one of your trolly argument posts, but does that actually happen? I mean is that a policy of any country or community?

I'm not asking you to dig out old posts.

EDIT: Also, I think defining "work" as "generated gross profit" is nonsense, btw. I define "work" in two ways:

1) You hire me to do a task for a certain amount of pay; I do it; you pay me; repeat. Your profit is your problem.

2) I work; I sell the product of my work; I pay off my expenses, then I pay me; repeat. My profit is my problem.

an aside ...

Did you know that Sweden used to hold the record for having the greatest equality in national Parliament ?

47% of the members of Parliament were female ..the highest ever ..



until recently where Rwanda beat them..

yes the same Rwanda where the mass genocides took place about 14 years ago ...

where the ethnic race were sheltered in a church by priests, who then called the murderers and the murderes then showered the church with bullets ..none survived ...

but now 14 years later and 52 % of the Parliament are made up of women !!!

more than half ..never has it happened before .....

it is the highest in africa, and the highest in the world ....even their speaker of parliament is now a female ..

fancy that uh ???
I did not know that. That's actually a pretty big amazing thing.

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).



First women are the poorer of the poor because men are better financially. More men a) accept that they need to work harder and bitch less they also b) better at working in general. Also 50% of people are women. So if half the population is women then obviously half of poor people will be women. It's either the poorest are men or the poorest are women. It's not gonna be the same so by saying there's more poor women, theres prbly more women.

A women gets many more breaks than a man. As for abuse women are smaller then men. Deal with it, I bet that most of the abused women are small. Dikes don't get abused, either women get jacked or shut the fuck up.

First women are the poorer of the poor because men are better financially. More men a) accept that they need to work harder and bitch less they also b) better at working in general. Also 50% of people are women. So if half the population is women then obviously half of poor people will be women. It's either the poorest are men or the poorest are women. It's not gonna be the same so by saying there's more poor women, theres prbly more women.

A women gets many more breaks than a man. As for abuse women are smaller then men. Deal with it, I bet that most of the abused women are small. Dikes don't get abused, either women get jacked or shut the fuck up.

Obvious troll is obvious. :rolleyes:

Kay, Vault 10, I'm done trying to argue with you. If I attempt to do so anymore, I will go apeshit due to how angry you're making me.

You're now on ignore.

Women don't WANT to work in 'x profession!'. Women don't WANT to join the upper echelons of management! Women don't WANT pay equity, otherwise they'd stop being baby factories...

Thank you folks, for proving my point that the problems with gender inequity come down to sexist attitudes that have NOT been overcome, despite the illusion of legal equity.

Women don't WANT to work in 'x profession!'. Women don't WANT to join the upper echelons of management! Women don't WANT pay equity, otherwise they'd stop being baby factories...

Thank you folks, for proving my point that the problems with gender inequity come down to sexist attitudes that have NOT been overcome, despite the illusion of legal equity.

Have you stopped to consider that perhaps in average your assessment of the role of women have a hint of truth in them?

It could explain why women - whose perfomance is superior to men at schools across the board - choose non-technical areas at college/uni level even though they perform at least as well as men even at math based studies.

It could also explain why the ajority of teachers, which is also a highly educated profession (req. university level degree here), are women.

It would also explain why the majority of soldiers are male.

Why would anyone voluntarily graduate or settle for a profession that doesn't pay as well as another unless his or her personal preference is such that the higher paying career doesn't interest him or her enough?


I personally think the biological bias is this: Men in average are stupid and value posessions and studliness over well being of oneself, thus selecting careers that fulfill the purpose of earning mucho dinero the best at the cost of personal well being. While women choose careers and lives they think they will enjoy the best...whether it is the caricatural child factory or a career teaching others.

As for earning different amount for the same work, it's something that is categorically illegal here - but perhaps the willingness to sacrifice the quality of life, eg. by doing more overtime work, might explain why men are paid more for similar job.

As a poor man's proof for my rather pointless op-ed I present to you the suicide statistics (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_sui_rat_gen_rat-health-suicide-rate-gender-ratio) which are heavily in favour of men (that's men per women statistic). Why do men outdo women so heavily in this area of life? Could it be that earning money, success defines men more than it does women and through this biological difference - inherent value of status - the genders behave differently in society? Perhaps being unsuccesful - or failing dramatically while being successful - is harder to cope for men because being shamed they have virtually no chance of procreating - beyond using another biological trait which is in average being stronger than women... :(

Perhaps the best way to tackle the issue would be to encourage male students to do what they want instead of doing what earns them the most, encouraging female students to not look better paying technical areas as undesirable and telling them all straight off that being an unsuccesful, ugly, shy, unambitious bum doesn't make you a bad person. :tongue:

Have you stopped to consider that perhaps in average your assessment of the role of women have a hint of truth in them?

It could explain why women - whose perfomance is superior to men at schools across the board - choose non-technical areas at college/uni level even though they perform at least as well as men even at math based studies.

It could also explain why the ajority of teachers, which is also a highly educated profession (req. university level degree here), are women.

It would also explain why the majority of soldiers are male.

Why would anyone voluntarily graduate or settle for a profession that doesn't pay as well as another unless his or her personal preference is such that the higher paying career doesn't interest him or her enough?


I personally think the biological bias is this: Men in average are stupid and value posessions and studliness over well being of oneself, thus selecting careers that fulfill the purpose of earning mucho dinero the best at the cost of personal well being. While women choose careers and lives they think they will enjoy the best...whether it is the caricatural child factory or a career teaching others.

As for earning different amount for the same work, it's something that is categorically illegal here - but perhaps the willingness to sacrifice the quality of life, eg. by doing more overtime work, might explain why men are paid more for similar job.

As a poor man's proof for my rather pointless op-ed I present to you the suicide statistics (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_sui_rat_gen_rat-health-suicide-rate-gender-ratio) which are heavily in favour of men (that's men per women statistic). Why do men outdo women so heavily in this area of life? Could it be that earning money, success defines men more than it does women and through this biological difference - inherent value of status - the genders behave differently in society? Perhaps being unsuccesful - or failing dramatically while being successful - is harder to cope for men because being shamed they have virtually no chance of procreating - beyond using another biological trait which is in average being stronger than women... :(

Perhaps the best way to tackle the issue would be to encourage male students to do what they want instead of doing what earns them the most, encouraging female students to not look better paying technical areas as undesirable and telling them all straight off that being an unsuccesful, ugly, shy, unambitious bum doesn't make you a bad person. :tongue:
You know what else could explain all that?

Mind control rays from space.

Also, thetans.

Also, the Easter bunny.

Logical-sounding arguments could be built around any of those (individually or in combination) to "explain" your fantastical imaginings about what goes on with working men and women.

:rolleyes:

Also, thetans.

You know, just this thursday, I found one in my backyard. Had to spend a dozen of .338 to drive it away. So it's no laughing matter.