Tiaexz does a girly job and why Kadagar prefers to be grappled by burly fireMEN

[Kadagar_AV]

Alternative Title: Women, Franchise and burly fireMEN


At the outset of our Republic, voters were restricted to those owning property of some sort: x value of land, x book value of business, # of employees, etc. Oh, and they had to have a penis -- or at least no one who questioned whether or not they possessed said male appendage.

Things have gone rather downhill since we started to let women vote.

I don't know about other countries, but here there are clear differences in how men and women vote. Women tend to fall for emotional arguments, whereas men go by logic to a further degree.

Basically, a politician just have to once in a while toss in "But Think Of The Children", regardless of relevance, and they automatically triple their female voting base.

[Papewaio]

In general the nations that are doing better per capita have the broadest voter participation.

Contrast say New Zealand with North Korea.

[Kadagar_AV]

In general the nations that are doing better per capita have the broadest voter participation.

Contrast say New Zealand with North Korea.

That is the example your bring up to prove your point? You won the debate? Want me to hand you the internet?

[Husar]

Things have gone rather downhill since we started to let women vote.

I don't know about other countries, but here there are clear differences in how men and women vote. Women tend to fall for emotional arguments, whereas men go by logic to a further degree.

Basically, a politician just have to once in a while toss in "But Think Of The Children", regardless of relevance, and they automatically triple their female voting base.

Indeed, a world where only men have a say is a cold, bleak, scary place and noone really wants that except men who can then rule over other men. But how many of the irrational men of the lower classes would support such a world anyway even though it would put them in a worse place? Exactly, quite a few. They should thank their women for making the world a better place.

[HoreTore]

Things have gone rather downhill since we started to let women vote.

I don't know about other countries, but here there are clear differences in how men and women vote. Women tend to fall for emotional arguments, whereas men go by logic to a further degree.

Basically, a politician just have to once in a while toss in "But Think Of The Children", regardless of relevance, and they automatically triple their female voting base.

What absolute rubbish.

With the introduction of feminism, western countries have seen the largest growth in human history. As Papewaio notes, the larger the franchise, the better the country does. Not just in purely economic terms, but also when it comes to human rights, lack of unrest etc.

The reason might be that the votes from people like you doesn't count as much. That's a definite benefit to a country.

[Papewaio]

That is the example your bring up to prove your point? You won the debate? Want me to hand you the internet?

You mentioned women voting, so I use the first nation to allow women to vote as a lead example. New Zealand doesn't have much in the way of oil, gas or minerals yet is a much better country to live in then the majority of nations.

On the negative side of the women's rights list are the likes of Saudi Arabia and if you take away their oil they don't have much of anything to say.

Simply look around the world and you will see that the nations that are nicer to live in have much more equality of freedom across sex, religion (or lack thereof) and race.

They don't need to be democracies to show the benefits of having women better educated or looked after. China has twice the GDP growth of India and they are almost parity for population. India is a democracy but China still out performs it. Why? Because one of the fundamentals is women's rights. And China's is far more advanced there.

[Greyblades]

Things have gone rather downhill since we started to let women vote.

I don't know about other countries, but here there are clear differences in how men and women vote. Women tend to fall for emotional arguments, whereas men go by logic to a further degree.

Basically, a politician just have to once in a while toss in "But Think Of The Children", regardless of relevance, and they automatically triple their female voting base.

I question how a product of the swedish education system could ever be this stupid.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Things have gone rather downhill since we started to let women vote.

I don't know about other countries, but here there are clear differences in how men and women vote. Women tend to fall for emotional arguments, whereas men go by logic to a further degree.

Basically, a politician just have to once in a while toss in "But Think Of The Children", regardless of relevance, and they automatically triple their female voting base.

To be fair to Kadagar, there is quite a bit of academic research that supports his premise that women are more likely to vote based on an "emotive" rather than a ratio-logical argument.

Research suggests that newly suffragized women in Western Democracies strongly paralleled the votes of their spouses. This persisted into the early 1970s.

With women increasingly employed in the workforce and taking an independent political voice, politicians did exploit their somewhat greater tendency (than men) to vote for the more attractive male candidate (note I said greater, this trend influences men as well since the advent of the television era) and the more "emotive" political issues that crop up. Security and social welfare programs have been shown to hold more appeal for women on average then for men.

What Kadagar did not note is that, over the last 20 years, this trend is decreasing -- not increasing. It is still fair to characterize women voters on average as the more "emotionally" motivated voter, but that becomes less and less true with each subsequent major election.

Another factor Kadagar did not mention is that males are more likely to be influenced by "emotive" issues than they were 25 and 30 years ago.


I'd point to traditional cultural values towards women and various cultural responses thereunto, and the media trend toward infortainment as much as I would focus on any sex issue per se.

[Montmorency]

Security and social welfare programs have been shown to hold more appeal for women on average then for men.

Of course, to emphasize this point would imply that social liberals by definition are "more emotional" than social conservatives, who prefer to rely on pure reason (whatever that might mean).

I reject that imputation.

And I wonder as to the relation to the larger trends you speak of, if single women are growing in proportion to partnered women and single women are also more liberal than partnered women.

[rory_20_uk]

What absolute rubbish.

With the introduction of feminism, western countries have seen the largest growth in human history. As Papewaio notes, the larger the franchise, the better the country does. Not just in purely economic terms, but also when it comes to human rights, lack of unrest etc.

The reason might be that the votes from people like you doesn't count as much. That's a definite benefit to a country.

Why is this not true of Eastern countries? China has done extremely well with little if any freedoms.

Likely this is becasuse thise things are collrelates not causitive.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

Why is this not true of Eastern countries? China has done extremely well with little if any freedoms.

Likely this is becasuse thise things are collrelates not causitive.

~:smoking:

As noted in a previous post, this holds true for China as well.

Women's rights in China are far more developed than they are in comparable countries.

[Montmorency]

Apparently, China is 35th on the UN's Gender Inequality Index, compared to India's 129th (of 146).

That's a big gap.

[Husar]

So basically Women's rights are far more developed in India than in China and HoreTore is really, really wrong here....

[HoreTore]

So basically Women's rights are far more developed in India than in China and HoreTore is really, really wrong here....

You read the score the wrong way around, methinks....

[rory_20_uk]

Apparently, China is 35th on the UN's Gender Inequality Index, compared to India's 129th (of 146).

That's a big gap.

They're unequal as in China no one has the vote. Not sure how that is better.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

They're unequal as in China no one has the vote. Not sure how that is better.

~:smoking:

Womens rights concern more issues than just the vote....

[Husar]

You read the score the wrong way around, methinks....

I didn't read it at all, he said inequality index and China is 35th, India 129th...

I suppose it means that China ranks 35th in terms of equality though, not in terms of inequality.

Communication, precision, etc. :soapbox:

[HoreTore]

I didn't read it at all, he said inequality index and China is 35th, India 129th...

I suppose it means that China ranks 35th in terms of equality though, not in terms of inequality.

Communication, precision, etc. :soapbox:

Ze Grammar!! Ze Nazis are coming!

[Papewaio]

Of course, to emphasize this point would imply that social liberals by definition are "more emotional" than social conservatives, who prefer to rely on pure reason (whatever that might mean).

I reject that imputation.

And I wonder as to the relation to the larger trends you speak of, if single women are growing in proportion to partnered women and single women are also more liberal than partnered women.


They're unequal as in China no one has the vote. Not sure how that is better.

~:smoking:

As I've already noted more equal rights works even in the absence of democracy. Ones rights does not begin and end in a single vote cast every three or four years.

Education, job access, marriage/divorce rights, gender safety etc.

Votes are headline stuff the rest is day to day life and in China women have more equality with men then they would in India.

[Kadagar_AV]

I didn't read it at all, he said inequality index and China is 35th, India 129th...

I suppose it means that China ranks 35th in terms of equality though, not in terms of inequality.

Communication, precision, etc. :soapbox:


Let me then as a teacher inform you... That if you find a result miles wide away from what you expected the outcome to be, you should go back and check if you haven't misunderstood the basic premise.

Also, pupils are encouraged to read it ALL before commenting on it.

This isn't really an outcome of imprecise wording, but of a failed German school system.

Schooled :verycool:



Regardless... ON WOMEN... I exaggerated. Of course women should have voting rights, they make up around 50% of the population for crying out loud!!

Gah, come one guys, I don't see them as kettle!! Just as sexdolls!!

Regardless, schools REALLY need to make a real effort to teach women in reasoning and logic thinking... As is, scarily many of them when will in the scenarios:

A) We need to help the refugees, with 10 Z money we can help 2 Y people.

B) We need to help the refugees, with 10 Z money we can help 1 Y people, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

Most women in my surroundings will go with option B. This is of course retarded. And I will blame them for it.

[Husar]

Let me then as a teacher inform you... That if you find a result miles wide away from what you expected the outcome to be, you should go back and check if you haven't misunderstood the basic premise.

Also, pupils are encouraged to read it ALL before commenting on it.

This isn't really an outcome of imprecise wording, but of a failed German school system.

Schooled :verycool:

I am, in fact, confused now.

I was not confused before, I knew exactly what Montmorency said, maybe you were confused about that and it led you to confuse me then. But you see, this is what I'm talking about. Precision in communication, getting your point across to people who read thoroughly. There are always two sides to communication. How often did you already feel as though people do not read your posts correctly? As though they gloss over words or ignore sentences that made their "point" moot before they even posted? And why could that be? Perhaps because people are sloppy when they write and just as sloppy when they read. And then both sides of the communication fail entirely and I've even seen people argue on this very forum when they were essentially agreeing with eachother, they just didn't realize it because of sloppy, imprecise communication. :creep:

If you want reasoning and logical thinking, then I hope you made a baby with each of your flags to spread your genetic material, because otherwise you only did it for an emotional high each time and that would be disgusting, no? Could we trust someone like that to vote?

[Kadagar_AV]

I am, in fact, confused now.

I was not confused before, I knew exactly what Montmorency said, maybe you were confused about that and it led you to confuse me then. But you see, this is what I'm talking about. Precision in communication, getting your point across to people who read thoroughly. There are always two sides to communication. How often did you already feel as though people do not read your posts correctly? As though they gloss over words or ignore sentences that made their "point" moot before they even posted? And why could that be? Perhaps because people are sloppy when they write and just as sloppy when they read. And then both sides of the communication fail entirely and I've even seen people argue on this very forum when they were essentially agreeing with eachother, they just didn't realize it because of sloppy, imprecise communication. :creep:

If you want reasoning and logical thinking, then I hope you made a baby with each of your flags to spread your genetic material, because otherwise you only did it for an emotional high each time and that would be disgusting, no? Could we trust someone like that to vote?

Let me see if I read you right.

1. I don't bother reading what Monty thinks much, until he gets off his high horse and start posting in a way people can interpret without dedicating their life to it. I find him as acting rude on an international board with often weak English skills. I responded to you Quoting HT.

2. Yadda yadda.

3. I answered the thoughts you put forward.

4. Weak attempt of claiming my youth sins in anyway would reflect on my thoughts today.

5. Weak attempt of personal attack. You can do better.

Did you have a point?

I answered the precise argument you put forward based on what you quoted as answering to.


PS: I did sex a lot for an emotional and, let's not forget, very PHYSICAL high. You know orgasms is a physical high, no? That's why we do it, it's fun. Also, rarely as fun as when you do sisters, AND have them to interact :2thumbsup:

Of course, sometimes the main allurure of the game is the psychological high, controlling someone's body is a rather cool experience :yes:

Since I'm not into bionics, I guess this was my only way to have a go at it...

I won't make any excuses for having been a 20-30 year old male.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Of course, to emphasize this point would imply that social liberals by definition are "more emotional" than social conservatives, who prefer to rely on pure reason (whatever that might mean).

I reject that imputation.

And I wonder as to the relation to the larger trends you speak of, if single women are growing in proportion to partnered women and single women are also more liberal than partnered women.

Traditionally, the greater support among women for social welfare programs has been ascribed to a greater interest in security (personal and familial, not national)issues. Many American conservatives do deride women as less logical for just the reason you note, but I've heard good arguments that an interest in personal economic security is eminently rational -- so I take such conservative lambastry with a goodly dollop of salt.

Single women are a growing segment of our society, as are divorcees choosing not to remarry. Moreover, a growing number of women are choosing to become single parents (as an active choice, mind, not some teenage "accident.").

[Husar]

Let me see if I read you right.

1. I don't bother reading what Monty thinks much, until he gets off his high horse and start posting in a way people can interpret without dedicating their life to it. I find him as acting rude on an international board with often weak English skills. I responded to you Quoting HT.

The point is that there WAS imprecise wording and I exaggerated it even though I knew what he actually meant. HoreTore actually got it as he responded in kind.




4. Weak attempt of claiming my youth sins in anyway would reflect on my thoughts today.

5. Weak attempt of personal attack. You can do better.

Did you have a point?

I answered the precise argument you put forward based on what you quoted as answering to.


PS: I did sex a lot for an emotional and, let's not forget, very PHYSICAL high. You know orgasms is a physical high, no? That's why we do it, it's fun. Also, rarely as fun as when you do sisters, AND have them to interact :2thumbsup:

Of course, sometimes the main allurure of the game is the psychological high, controlling someone's body is a rather cool experience :yes:

Since I'm not into bionics, I guess this was my only way to have a go at it...

I won't make any excuses for having been a 20-30 year old male.

Not my point(s) at all. The point is that if you think emotional people shouldn't vote, then 20-30 years old you should probably not have voted according to your own silly theory. That's not what I think, it's what you said. What I think is that your anti-emotion stance is wrong. Let's take your example:

A) We need to help the refugees, with 10 Z money we can help 2 Y people.

B) We need to help the refugees, with 10 Z money we can help 1 Y people, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

Most women in my surroundings will go with option B. This is of course retarded. And I will blame them for it.

Charity. Great topic to show how wrong men can be.
You may have noticed that a whole lot of men choose the charities they donate to according to the amount of overhead costs and the percentage that "actually gets through to people in need", assuming that the charity with the lowest overhead is the best one for those in need and the least money gets wasted there on not helping people. Well, this guy explains why that is wrong if you actually want to help people:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfAzi6D5FpM

[Sir Moody]

oddly good timing...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-29722848

seems Husar was right - China ranks better than India in Overall gender inequality.

[Husar]

oddly good timing...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-29722848

seems Husar was right - China ranks better than India in Overall gender inequality.

In overall gender equality or lack of gender inequality you mean.
What's actually interesting (if we ignore the wording for now) is that the difference between China and India is not as big as it is according to Montmorency's numbers.
UN has China 35:129 India
WEF has China 87:114 India

with 1 being the country with the least gender inequality.

So India looks better according to the WEF's numbers than according to the numbers of the UN, while China ranks a whole lot lower, though still in front of India. Could be different criteria of course, so the people who actually read the entire reports can discuss which criteria are better or how else the differences can be explained. Maybe someone can find a formula to calculate the average industrial growth of a country given its index rank and the GDP per capita.

[HoreTore]

Maybe someone can find a formula to calculate the average industrial growth of a country given its index rank and the GDP per capita.

Already done. (http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/table-4-gender-inequality-index)

[Papewaio]

As you can see in the two ways of capturing data it is fairly fuzzy.

What isn't fuzzy is the usual suspects are at each end of the table.

However the question is it the chicken or the egg? Does having more equality lead to improved economy or an improved economy lead to improved equality?

Because if it is the first the politicians should focus on improving equality to improve their economy.
If the second feminists should help improve the economy to increase equality.

I think it is in the middle ground where one enhances the other over time. There will be no instant rewards for increasing the number of women in leadership positions in government. It is the foundation pieces that make that happen (educated workforce) that increases the stats for economy and leadership. So in my view equality and economic performance are both outcomes of the same fundamentals, they also then reinforce each other for the next round of growth.

[HoreTore]

As you can see in the two ways of capturing data it is fairly fuzzy.

What isn't fuzzy is the usual suspects are at each end of the table.

However the question is it the chicken or the egg? Does having more equality lead to improved economy or an improved economy lead to improved equality?

Because if it is the first the politicians should focus on improving equality to improve their economy.
If the second feminists should help improve the economy to increase equality.

I think it is in the middle ground where one enhances the other over time. There will be no instant rewards for increasing the number of women in leadership positions in government. It is the foundation pieces that make that happen (educated workforce) that increases the stats for economy and leadership. So in my view equality and economic performance are both outcomes of the same fundamentals, they also then reinforce each other for the next round of growth.

A male-dominated society draws on the strengths of 50% of the population. A society focusing on equality draws from 100% of the population. Male domination is an extreme waste of resources, while equality does better at utilizing the resources in a society.

It's the egg.

[Husar]

A male-dominated society draws on the strengths of 50% of the population. A society focusing on equality draws from 100% of the population. Male domination is an extreme waste of resources, while equality does better at utilizing the resources in a society.

It's the egg.

You have a dictatorship where noone can vote and women earn 20% less for the same work, they can work in every area.
How high is the percentage of the strengths it draws from its population?

[HoreTore]

You have a dictatorship where noone can vote and women earn 20% less for the same work, they can work in every area.
How high is the percentage of the strengths it draws from its population?

Somewhere above 50%, but still far from 100.

Deliberate underpayment of a segment of society will also lead to spoiling resources(with the assumption that basic capitalism is true), but not to the same extent as chaining half the population to the kitchen sink.

[Kadagar_AV]

I don't know how it is in other countries...

But here in Sweden women only get about 90% of the mens salary.

We should however bear in mind they also have their own salary!!!






Sweden is rather equal, and I must honestly say that women just are not good enough.

Don't get me wrong, many women are super qualified, and many do a great job in the area they are in. HOWEVER, and this is important, it might just be so - that the female working force at large is NOT on par with the male one.

It might be that they only deserve 80-90% of the pay, given their work performance.

This isn't saying there are not remarkable women who do great, there are!! I talk about womankind at large.

We already know women are physically less able in most jobs. And let's face it, a lot of jobs are physical.

Women have however always claimed that they have mental capacities to make up for it. I then in return, WHERE THE HECK ARE THEY?

All chess masters, Gô masters, theoretical physicists... Yadda yadda yadda... Are all men.

If you look at the world renown chefs, women make up a negligible number. Heck, women can't even COOK better than men. A role they are traditionally seen as having had and should be proficient at.

I agree that women are better at being women than men... But on a open work market, where we value people after how they perform not who they are... Is there really a reason why women should take 50% of the lump sum, just because they are women? Even if they perform slightly worse than men at large?

When women start doing as good a job as men, I am ALL for them having equal monetary rights. Till then they should just STFU and try to improve themselves.

[Husar]

Would you rate white women below or above black males then and where can we place asian women? Should they earn the same as white males?

[Kadagar_AV]

Would you rate white women below or above black males then and where can we place asian women? Should they earn the same as white males?

No need for me to rate a thing.

Reality does it for me as well as you, see, that is the beauty of it :2thumbsup:

[Sir Moody]

... Kadager you are really plumbing whole new lows ...

There are currently 83 Female Chess Masters btw...

[Kadagar_AV]

... Kadager you are really plumbing whole new lows ...

There are currently 83 Female Chess Masters btw...

Source?

Sure, I'll grant you that regardless, as compared to how many men?

Also, how well do they do against the men?

I can call my dog a chess grand master, doesn't mean I don't beat him almost all of the time though (sometimes it's a tie because he flips the board).




Oooooh, and I meant Grand master...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_grandmasters

I'm not saying no woman can play chess. I am saying that men are DAMN better at it, and if we would spread the prize pot in chess 50/50 between women and men, women would do a comparatively less good job for the same money.

Is that fair?

Is it "equality" if women get payed based on gender, not results?

[Montmorency]

Kad, have you considered the possibility that the average woman is more intelligent than you but you're not intelligent enough to realize it?

[Kadagar_AV]

Kad, have you considered the possibility that the average woman is more intelligent than you but you're not intelligent enough to realize it?

I have. But then the average woman opened her mouth and talked about politics.

Did you know that the Feminist party in Sweden is for a "no arms defense", this with Russia as neighbour?

Don't read me wrong though, I am sure a HBTQ-Pride parade in force would scare Putin away :clown:

[HoreTore]

Yeah, I'm sure the Glorious Swedish army will scare Putin away (tihi).

Also, being good at chess is equaled with intelligence. Epic fail. Being intelligent isn't necessary for chess, a good geometric memory is. Magnus Carlsen doesn't have above-average intelligence, he has an above average geometric memory.

Meanwhile, medicine is currently the educational program requiring the highest grade. 3 out of 5 medicine students in Norway are women. Not surprising, considering that women graduate with a higher grade than men have.

Why are men so stupid?

[rory_20_uk]

Meanwhile, medicine is currently the educational program requiring the highest grade. 3 out of 5 medicine students in Norway are women. Not surprising, considering that women graduate with a higher grade than men have.

Why are men so stupid?

Same in the UK - and no one is decying this gender inequality and helping more men into the profession. Nor are white men being helped - which are a minority in some specialities such as GP.

When women are doing better it is ignored or held up as a good example. When men do it is gnashing of teeth and a heated discussion of how the playing field can be "levelled" - or more specifically altered to suit women's strengths.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

Same in the UK - and no one is decying this gender inequality and helping more men into the profession. Nor are white men being helped - which are a minority in some specialities such as GP.

When women are doing better it is ignored or held up as a good example. When men do it is gnashing of teeth and a heated discussion of how the playing field can be "levelled" - or more specifically altered to suit women's strengths.

~:smoking:

The question of male school performance is a subject throughout the teaching education. Causes of and solutions to male under-performance is a hot topic in every lecture dealing with achievement.

Your assertion is false.

[Husar]

Oooooh, and I meant Grand master...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chess_grandmasters

I'm not saying no woman can play chess. I am saying that men are DAMN better at it, and if we would spread the prize pot in chess 50/50 between women and men, women would do a comparatively less good job for the same money.

I only skimmed the list, but your claim that it's all men doesn't quite hold even then:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valentina_Gunina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tatiana_Kosintseva
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Polgar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zhu_Chen
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pia_Cramling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viktorija_Čmilytė
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elina_Danielian

And you probably never considered that women may just be less interested in a game such as chess, just like the average woman cares less about tanks and the average man cares less about knitting.
So let's have a look at this list: http://www.tkga.com/?page=MastersGraduates

See, it's mostly women, that must mean that men can't use their hands properly when they're not masturbating in a corner!
Obviously we can derive from this that men are physically inferior because they can't knit!

[rory_20_uk]

The question of male school performance is a subject throughout the teaching education. Causes of and solutions to male under-performance is a hot topic in every lecture dealing with achievement.

Your assertion is false.

Oh good, some teachers are wringing their hands about it. All sorted...

Funny that there are laws to have a percentage of CEOs who are women... and some teachers are having a think.

Sorry, having a hot topic is not the same as equal action.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

That's all a rather unfair characterization. Most feminists would argue that "toxic masculinity" and other such cultural trends are what underlie male underperformance in education., meaning that broad social change in line with feminist tenets will resolve it as well as any other of the current hot issues.

Also:
Women and minorities are systematically underprivileged and underrepresented? Meh. Men are beginning to lose some of their relative privilege to women and minorities here and there? What about equality!?!

I call that a suspect take on the state of affairs.

[HoreTore]

Oh good, some teachers are wringing their hands about it. All sorted...

Funny that there are laws to have a percentage of CEOs who are women... and some teachers are having a think.

Sorry, having a hot topic is not the same as equal action.

~:smoking:

There are laws to have a percentage of CEO's as men as well.

...And the "having a think" has resulted in several policies aimed at diminishing the gap. It was also a major focus in the last curriculum overhaul in Norway. I am unsure of what more you want.

Are you of the opinion that the education sector is a bad place to solve problems with education?

[rory_20_uk]

There are laws to have a percentage of CEO's as men as well.

...And the "having a think" has resulted in several policies aimed at diminishing the gap. It was also a major focus in the last curriculum overhaul in Norway. I am unsure of what more you want.

Are you of the opinion that the education sector is a bad place to solve problems with education?

It isn't education. It is decrying that when there are more men in a field this needs to be "fixed" and when there are more women this should be applauded.

One could start up with decrying the unequal number of primary school teachers as well as decrying the number of men in IT.
One could discuss equal opportunities rather than outcomes for persons leaving school.

Perhaps we should force girls to use guns, play with toy soldiers and play video games and force boys to pay with Barbie dolls etc. Or we cuold accept that that boys and girls are inherently different and will want to do different things. Making schooling to play to their strengths is good. Using schools to shoe horn both to be the same is bad.

~:smoking:

[Montmorency]

It isn't education. It is decrying that when there are more men in a field this needs to be "fixed" and when there are more women this should be applauded.

One could start up with decrying the unequal number of primary school teachers as well as decrying the number of men in IT.

Feminists will tell you that they want more women in IT and more men in childcare and education. Feminist goals are additive and synergistic, not subtractive.


One could discuss equal opportunities rather than outcomes for persons leaving school.

That's exactly what they want.


Or we cuold accept that that boys and girls are inherently different and will want to do different things.

If you believe in evidence-based practice, rory, then you will agree that the precise functional nature of these differences (and their sociobehavioral outcomes) are an open empirical question and not simply something that can be inferred from the gender situation at any given point in history. That is, their existence has been demonstrated but what they are and what they mean is not known to any extent, so don't make frivolous assumptions about "what girls/boys inherently like".

[Husar]

It isn't education. It is decrying that when there are more men in a field this needs to be "fixed" and when there are more women this should be applauded.

One could start up with decrying the unequal number of primary school teachers as well as decrying the number of men in IT.
One could discuss equal opportunities rather than outcomes for persons leaving school.

Perhaps we should force girls to use guns, play with toy soldiers and play video games and force boys to pay with Barbie dolls etc. Or we cuold accept that that boys and girls are inherently different and will want to do different things. Making schooling to play to their strengths is good. Using schools to shoe horn both to be the same is bad.

~:smoking:

Or we could call them stupid because they usually do not enjoy the activities we enjoy?

As for the decrying, it also depends on the country, HoreTore mostly talks about Norway while you probably have a mostly British take.
It should not be surprising to anyone that things are much worse in Britain than they are in Norway. ~;)

[HoreTore]

One could start up with decrying the unequal number of primary school teachers as well as decrying the number of men in IT.

We already are. There are several recruitment schemes to try to get more male teachers in the lower years, and a male applicant is more likely to get a primary teaching job than a woman, because the principals want more males teachers.

Do try to keep up with the world before decrying it, rory.

[rory_20_uk]

We already are. There are several recruitment schemes to try to get more male teachers in the lower years, and a male applicant is more likely to get a primary teaching job than a woman, because the principals want more males teachers.

Do try to keep up with the world before decrying it, rory.

I am aware that this is the case. I am able to perceive that these things are different - a scheme is not the same as enforced quotas.

Do you see the difference?

One penalises if you don't have the right numbers, the other is a wishy washy hope with no negative press regarding how women have over 70% of the jobs which is the case in professions with more men.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

I am aware that this is the case. I am able to perceive that these things are different - a scheme is not the same as enforced quotas.

Do you see the difference?

One penalises if you don't have the right numbers, the other is a wishy washy hope with no negative press regarding how women have over 70% of the jobs which is the case in professions with more men.

~:smoking:

Yes. And in other news, apples are round and hard while bananas are long, curved and soft.

CEO's are male because female candidates are not considered. Primary teachers are female because male candidates do not exist. Not one company failed to fill the gender quota in their boardrooms with qualified females after the law was passed. There was the usual doom&gloom hysteria before the law was passed on the unavailability of female candidates, but every did just fine.

If you introduce a law requiring 40% of either gender among the teaching staff, male teachers won't suddenly pop out of a hat. A teacher isn't something you can just be, you have to have the relevant education. And the people with that education as well as a penis simply do not exist, and a law won't suddenly create them.

Recruitment campaigns aimed at males are about as much you can do. You can't lower the entry requirements to get more males either, as the educational programs aren't full and anyone can get in anyway.

The only law you can pass to get more male primary teachers(which everyone wants by the way), you have to pass a law dictating which educational programs men can apply to. I'm not sure we should have laws like that.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Edit: I missed the point apparently.

[Montmorency]

Way to miss the point squared.

[HoreTore]

Men just don't like to teach. You heard from HoreTore first everyone. If women are not in a sector its because of sexism, if men are not its because men obviously are not applying.


Never mind the fact that men are treated as possible pedophiles from day 1 if they wish to work with little kids.

Men do not teach primary school because it's seen as womens work, just like women are not CEO's because that's seen as a mans job.

Still, similar causes can demand different solutions. I don't see where I've said that men don't like to teach. Which would be a little weird, considering how I'm a man who likes to teach...

[Kadagar_AV]

I found this old post of mine in another place:


Most hilarious discussion I have had up to date just happened, I do however warn that I will come off as a man chauvinistic pig, but then this woman was REALLY annoying and loud on the subway:
M) You REALLY say women are better than men?
F) Yes!
M) At what?
F) What do you mean?
M) Well you have to be more specific, what are they better at, icehockey?
F) Well, obviously not...
M) So what other physical activity then? I grant you desert survival, but not much else, or?
F) Well, men are obviously have a greater physical capability than women, but women have greater mental abilities!!
M) So the greatest chess players are all women?
F) ... uhmm...
M) The greatest gô players?
F) What?
M) Nevermind, you wouldn't know what that is. Regardless, how many women do you know that beat their male peers at any of the activities with which we measure mental capability with?
F) But that is just because we have been pushed down for centuries!!
M) Centuries? Try ages, but last I checked we have had a functional math institution for decades, girls do better than boys in math up to university level, but then somehow the greatest minds in math at the top levels are still, guess what, men.
F) *quiet, but boiling... staring angrily at me*
M) Should I take that as, if we set aside everything both physical and mental, girls are as good as boys?
F) *tries to slap my face*
M) *catch her hand mid air as I saw it coming, pump her hand up and down 3 times going "Tuut Tuut TUUUT" like a train, and then release her.*
F) *storms off, one of her fiends shooting me an angry stare as they take off, the other one kicking my leg before skipping a few steps (like if I would kick her back)*
Don't get me wrong, I can count SO many situations where I would prefer to have a woman as back up rather than a man. But really, I have had enough of rampant Swedish feminists...


I full heartedly agree that women are better than men in certain situations. Heck, I think our Air Force pilots should be ALL women ,as they demonstratively can take higher G-force than men, thus can out-turn the men they are faced against.

However, and this is important, I want an EQUAL society.

Not a society where the state or any corporate FORCE equality, but a society where everyone can blossom to whatever heights they can reach.

If we really believe in "equality of mankind", we have to STOP giving women excuses for being less successful.

[Husar]

Centuries? Try ages, but last I checked we have had a functional math institution for decades, girls do better than boys in math up to university level, but then somehow the greatest minds in math at the top levels are still, guess what, men.

Do you like the bubble you live in or when was the last time you seriously checked that?

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/12/3396151/women-bias-math-stem/


When the prospective employers were only shown a candidate’s physical appearance, making their gender clear, they were twice as likely to hire a man than a woman. This was because women were expected to perform worse on the math problems, even though it was a task they were equally like to do well.
[...]
All signs point to heavy bias against women getting in the way.

[Kadagar_AV]

Do you like the bubble you live in or when was the last time you seriously checked that?

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/03/12/3396151/women-bias-math-stem/


Could this mean employers, men as well as women, have an experience of women performing worse comparable to men?

Or are employers, male and female, automatically just chauvinistic pigs?

[rory_20_uk]

Could this mean employers, men as well as women, have an experience of women performing worse comparable to men?

Or are employers, male and female, automatically just chauvinistic pigs?

Women, although strong independant and probably better than men when placed in positions of power have been so crushed and brainwashed by the Establishment that they start to act like men and oppress other women. It is a travesty that society can so quickly damage women to act in this manner - women instincitively know that a career break of 5 years teaches more life skills than doing any job could possibly do (including being a father or indeed a mother with child care arrangements) and it is troubling that this knowledge is suppressed in some manner.

~:smoking:

[Husar]

Could this mean employers, men as well as women, have an experience of women performing worse comparable to men?

Or are employers, male and female, automatically just chauvinistic pigs?

Experience or social conditioning?
You seem like a fan of conditioning people to think women are inferior before they even get to know them.

The hurdles women face in entering these fields crop up at a young age. They are socialized to think women don’t go into science and math.

Also this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w

[Kadagar_AV]

My point is: Let's create an actual EQUAL society.

Letting women away with crazy whatever, trying to make everything 50/50 based solely on gender, excusing women for performing less well "as they are women"... IS JUST NO STEP FORWARD.

I as much cherish as look forward to a world where women are allowed to be women, and men are allowed to be men (and transgenders are allowed to do whatever transgenders do)... And we try to do our best for every individual to reach their individual capacity.

How damn hard can it be?

GAH!!

When my house burns down and I am about to die, I sure hope the fireMAN who carries me out have the muscles to do so.

When I leave my kid with a nurse for some treatment, I sure hope she has the emotional capacity to handle it well.

I'd hate to see that fireman or nurse out of a job because we would need some kind of gender equality.

I hope I have made myself clear.

[Montmorency]

As a male in a field that's over 95% women due to the same sorts of stupid assumptions you carry: your point is :daisy:.

[Kadagar_AV]

As a male in a field that's over 95% women due to the same sorts of stupid assumptions you carry: your point is :daisy:.

What assumption is stupid and flowery? That equality is good? Or what was your point?

[Husar]

When my house burns down and I am about to die, I sure hope the fireMAN who carries me out have the muscles to do so.

What a diva...

Also, unless you weigh 150+ kg, which seems unlikely for a ski instructor, I think pretty much all firepersons can carry you out. Sometimes it is also about technique, not all firemen are bodybuilders either and neither do they usually go into a burning house alone.

Noone is advocating that we fire-men or nurses, but when women are simply overlooked or ignored during promotions even if they do in fact have the same or better qualifications than the men who do get these promotions, then your ideal, equal society is obviously not what we currently have. And waiting for it to become better by itself eventually in 1000 years is not the American spirit, or that of any other modern nation.

[Rhyfelwyr]

As a male in a field that's over 95% women due to the same sorts of stupid assumptions you carry: your point is :daisy:.

What field are you in, if I may ask?

[Montmorency]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech-language_pathology

[Kadagar_AV]

I will try to put this as easy as I can.

Men and women are different.

If we try to create a 50/50 society, some women and some men will not be allowed to have the job they want.

Also, we would have to lower the demands on quite some jobs, to make the 50/50 dream feasible.

I prefer a world where the best candidate gets the job, regardless of gender.

[Montmorency]

How are they different? That's the point. Identify the ways in which they are different, without just making up stuff on the spot or resorting to vague stereotypes you learned in childhood.

And quit spouting that 50/50 trollop - it's such a red herring.

[Kadagar_AV]

How are they different? That's the point. Identify the ways in which they are different, without just making up stuff on the spot or resorting to vague stereotypes you learned in childhood.

And quit spouting that 50/50 trollop - it's such a red herring.

50/50 is what modern feminists aim for. It's not a red herring, it's the actual politics in, say, places as my country.

How men are different from women?

Geez, that's a large question. Why don't you read up? To begin with, men generally have a penis. Also more physical strength... Also our brains are not wired or made in the same way, so that of course also lead to differences.


Empirical evidence also shows that men tend to do better than women, at pretty much everything.

Take cooking as an example... Whereas this is a traditional female role, men still outperform women by huge margins, and the best chefs in the world are almost always men.

Women are by no means stupid or unable to do things, but as a group they definitely get out performed by men at the vast of situations in where we judge individual skill.

[Montmorency]

50/50 is what modern feminists aim for. It's not a red herring, it's the actual politics in, say, places as my country.

Equal representation is a target for things like professional employment and government, not lumberjacking or whatever you seem to be imagining. It's not a target for literally everything everywhere.


Also our brains are not wired or made in the same way, so that of course also lead to differences.

Yes, but we don't know what these are concretely, yet. That's why we should actually investigate the issue, rather than just fabricating drivel.


Women are by no means stupid or unable to do things, but as a group they definitely get out performed by men at the vast of situations in where we judge individual skill.

Your metrics are grotesquely invalid. This is consistently your worst point.

[Kadagar_AV]

Equal representation is a target for things like professional employment and government, not lumberjacking or whatever you seem to be imagining. It's not a target for literally everything everywhere.

Oh, I think teaching, police, firefighting, politics, yadda yadda yadda is important enough questions to fight for.

You don't?



Yes, but we don't know what these are concretely, yet. That's why we should actually investigate the issue, rather than just fabricating drivel.

We know quite some of it. Stop being ignorant and read up on the issue. You come off as just blatantly stupid. Difefrences between men and women exist. That's just how it is. You might not LIKE IT, but facts are facts.




Your metrics are grotesquely invalid. This is consistently your worst point.

My metrics says that 10 dm is a meter... And that in turn 10 cm is a decimeter. See, SCIENCE!!

If you argue that women in no way perform less well than men in most fields... Would you be so kind as to show me the fields, physical and mental, where they excel at?

I of course agree that those fields EXIST, my point is that men outperform women in way more fields, and thus it's quite fair that men also get paid more.

Sports is a easy way to reach at least some conclusions.. And before you all grab your guns or panties or whatever, NO, I don't mean pure physical sports.

But do note, that many jobs require physical skills, so mens dominance in physical sports kind of defends mens advantage on the physical work market.

REGARDLESS, look at sports like curling or shooting... Men still outperform the women, although physical strenght has little to nothing to do with the sport.

Women, imho, just tend to be less ready to go all-in in an area of expertise. They don't focus their energies 110% in the same way men do. This is a GOOD thing if you want a good mother, less of a good trait if you want a good worker.

And companies pays people to be good workers.

The 10-15% difference I see in salary in Sweden today can easily be explained with different life choices between the genders. All politics trying to prevent this is thus limiting peoples right to choose their own life.

[Montmorency]

We know quite some of it. Stop being ignorant and read up on the issue. You come off as just blatantly stupid. Difefrences between men and women exist. That's just how it is. You might not LIKE IT, but facts are facts.


Citation still needed.


Women, imho, just tend to be less ready to go all-in in an area of expertise. They don't focus their energies 110% in the same way men do. This is a GOOD thing if you want a good mother, less of a good trait if you want a good worker.

And companies pays people to be good workers.

I of course agree that those fields EXIST, my point is that men outperform women in way more fields, and thus it's quite fair that men also get paid more.

So now you're just blatantly inventing nonsense. It's like you live in a fantasy world or something.

But I'll bite - fields such as?


REGARDLESS, look at sports like curling or shooting

14718


The 10-15% difference I see in salary in Sweden today can easily be explained with different life choices between the genders. All politics trying to prevent this is thus limiting peoples right to choose their own life.

Do you have any legitimate support for such claims besides personal experience with being a pig-headed misogynist?

[Kadagar_AV]

I think I have made myself clear, you just come with nonsense.

Men on top is the current order of things, it's the one who wants a change who should merit why, no? That's a rule we followed since day 1 here in the backroom.

So, merit why women should be of equal number as men in our professions, and why they should have an equal amount of the monetary gains gained by said professions.

Current social, mental and physical mechanics clearly show women AND men to be less suited in certain areas, and also show that they seem inequal when it comes to how well they perform in shared areas.

Also, the way you argue, you kind of come off as an ****.

[Montmorency]

Men on top is the current order of things, it's the one who wants a change who should merit why, no? That's a rule we followed since day 1 here in the backroom.

:jawdrop:


So, merit why women should be of equal number as men in our professions, and why they should have an equal amount of the monetary gains gained by said professions.

Economic productivity is reduced by marginalizing half the population and pushing them out of careers in which they would otherwise do well.


Also, the way you argue, you kind of come off as an ****.

The intellectual degeneracy of the way you argue might have something to do with it.


Current social, mental and physical mechanics clearly show women AND men to be less suited in certain areas, and also show that they seem inequal when it comes to how well they perform in shared areas.

You have not been able to demonstrate that this is so. You have not even tried, in fact.

But I'll help you out.

One recent finding (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3767965/pdf/bhs253.pdf) is that the two cerebral hemispheres of female humans are more extensively interconnected than they are in male brains. In other words, the CCA of female humans is marginally-larger than the CCA in male brains when overall brain volume is taken into account. What this could mean is that females will have superior sensory integration of bilateral visual content.

[Kadagar_AV]

That's just stupid.

Economic productivity will be hampered if we start to give people equal money even though some perform less well. It will also be hampered if we force professions to have an equal gender balance, regardless of individual ability of the applicants.

I have already demonstrated that men are better than women in most tasks in which we measure capacity.

Heck, women don't even do well when it comes to interior design (http://www.homedit.com/top-10-interior-designers-who-have-changed-the-world/10/)

Hairstylists? (http://www.therichest.com/expensive-lifestyle/celebrity-beauty-2/the-best-hairstylists-in-the-world/)

Have a look at the worlds best chefs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Michelin_starred_restaurants)?

You have to be an imbecille not to clearly see that women tend to do less well than men, even in professions they are historically held as being the proficient gender at.

Also, there is the physical side, where men are just more able. And a lot of jobs require physical ability.

So CCA levels are marginally larger in women than men. So what? You cherry-picked ONE thing out of a long list.

It seems like you are thinking that I mean that women have no place in society, that's just stupid. Like, really stupid. Moronic even.

I do however think we should have a completely even playing field, where the best candidate not only get the job, but gets best paid. Women should in no way be helped "just because they are women". If anything, THAT is belittling the ability of the women who actually do well compared to men.

[Kadagar_AV]

I miss this show!!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXPLirJRGDQ

[Montmorency]

I have already demonstrated that men are better than women in most tasks in which we measure capacity.

No, you have not.


Heck, women don't even do well when it comes to interior design

Hairstylists?

Have a look at the worlds best chefs?

This is not a legitimate metric - not in a single way.


So CCS levels are marginally larger in women than men.

"CCS levels"? Did you even read what I wrote?


So what? You cherry-picked ONE thing out of a long list.

What list? You mean the one you haven't provided? :shocked:


I do however think we should have a completely even playing field, where the best candidate not only get the job, but gets best paid. Women should in no way be helped "just because they are women". If anything, THAT is belittling the ability of the women who actually do well compared to men.

What you endorse is the arbitrary repression of women "just because they are women".

[Kadagar_AV]

Meh, this is getting stupid.

Could someone else jump in please?

Monty, I have provided you with plenty of examples as to men doing better.

Where are your examples as to women being equal, or doing better?

I grant you everything concerning children, but then what?

You expect me to show example after example, but you don't have a single thought that YOU might actually have to bring some to the game?

Where are your examples of women out-performing men in their field? And, mind you, I don't talk about individual women, I talk about general trends.

Also, my students have a better grasp of what metrics are than you :rolleyes:

[Fragony]

Women are better at being absolutily ruthless, call it a quality if you insist that's a quality.

[Montmorency]

Kad, the examples you have shown are all invalid, as I have repeatedly explained. Obviously, I will not provide similar examples.


I grant you everything concerning children, but then what?

Kad, you have not provided evidence that women are inherently "better" with children. That's one of the major points we've been trying to get across.

You might want to start here (http://tamuweb.tamu.edu/faculty/payne/PA/Pulakos%20et%20al.%201996.pdf) for appropriate metrics of various types of performance between men and women. As you can see in the link's Table 1, men and women are not rated differently in terms of any measure, including job performance and ability.

[Kadagar_AV]

Kad, the examples you have shown are all invalid, as I have repeatedly explained. Obviously, I will not provide similar examples.



Kad, you have not provided evidence that women are inherently "better" with children. That's one of the major points we've been trying to get across.

You might want to start here (http://tamuweb.tamu.edu/faculty/payne/PA/Pulakos%20et%20al.%201996.pdf) for appropriate metrics of various types of performance between men and women. As you can see in the link's Table 1, men and women are not rated differently in terms of any measure, including job performance and ability.


Are you on drugs? You think I will read a 18 page report just to get your effin point, when I could most likely whiff it away with other facts if you just summarize it?

The examples I have shown are perfectly valid.

You want chefs to be paid equal by gender, I have shown you a list of the worlds best chefs, and they are pretty much all men.

That's just one example, sure. But it goes on.

Step off of your high horse, start to debate like someone who didn't go into linguistics in the vain hope of getting laid, and make a damn case for your point.

[Montmorency]

You think I will read a 18 page report just to get your effin point, when I could most likely whiff it away with other facts if you just summarize it?

More evidence that you do not read my posts closely. I referred you to Table 1 of the report. That is not too much for you, is it?


You want chefs to be paid equal by gender, I have shown you a list of the worlds best chefs, and they are pretty much all men.

The highest-paid chefs, you mean. Do you have any analyses of, you know, actual chefs or cooks in actual eateries, of which there are millions in the world? Perhaps you could look for a correlation between gender-ratios in kitchen staffs and quality-of-meal as reported by customers?

Or will you next claim that, because almost-all kings in world history have been men, men are therefore destined to rule over women?


Step off of your high horse, start to debate like someone who didn't go into linguistics in the vain hope of getting laid, and make a damn case for your point.

Debate like someone who doesn't view women as accessories to his dick.

[Kadagar_AV]

More evidence that you do not read my posts closely. I referred you to Table 1 of the report. That is not too much for you, is it?



The highest-paid chefs, you mean. Do you have any analyses of, you know, actual chefs or cooks in actual eateries, of which there are millions in the world? Perhaps you could look for a correlation between gender-ratios in kitchen staffs and quality-of-meal as reported by customers?

Or will you next claim that, because almost-all kings in world history have been men, men are therefore destined to rule over women?



Debate like someone who doesn't view women as accessories to his dick.

If I am to read a report, I will read the whole report to understand how they came up with the figures. Are you to stupid to summarize your own sources?

The highest paid chefs?

I presented you with a list of the best chefs, the Guide Michelin... And see, this is how we 2014 rate chefs in the world. It's also been for quite a while...

You can make any excuses that you want for women, but fact is they seem to perform rather ill on this list, as well as most other lists ranking professions.

You might want to fight the "metric", but this is the stuff that people GO TO RESTAURANTS AND PAY FOR... How's that metric?

That you accuse me of of seeing women as accessories to my dick is just rude. I admit I opened up for it, but let's try and stay civil here, shall we.

I believe in equality, that women should be judged by their individual worth. I have said that again and again, now that I said it once more, maybe you get it?

[Fragony]

Montmorecy doesn't understand women very well. He has an idea on them. Hey monty, find one.

[Montmorency]

If I am to read a report, I will read the whole report to understand how they came up with the figures. Are you to stupid to summarize your own sources?

As a matter of fact, I did - see the sentence after the linky one.


I presented you with a list of the best chefs, the Guide Michelin... And see, this is how we 2014 rate chefs in the world. It's also been for quite a while...

It's invalid firstly because you take a few-dozen head-chefs as representative of literally the entire world. That's shockingly stupid.

Second of all, you do not take into account non-meathead explanations for why women might be under-represented in the most prestigious and public* posts in an industry.

Third of all, it's categorically-invalid, unless you think women are somehow better-suited to being gynaecologists, optometrists, internal-med specialists, geriatricians, etc.

*High-ranked head chefs have much more skill with networking, presentation, and marketability than with actual cooking, which is mostly done by their subordinates


I believe in equality, that women should be judged by their individual worth. I have said that again and again, now that I said it once more, maybe you get it?

So why do you endorse the direct opposite of that?

[Tuuvi]

Meh, this is getting stupid.

Could someone else jump in please?

Sure I'll jump in.


We know quite some of it. Stop being ignorant and read up on the issue. You come off as just blatantly stupid. Difefrences between men and women exist. That's just how it is. You might not LIKE IT, but facts are facts.

Like Monty said, citation needed. If we really have a concrete, scientific idea of what the differences are between men and women (besides physical, as I would agree that there are obvious differences there), then prove it with credible sources. Otherwise we have no reason to believe you.


I have already demonstrated that men are better than women in most tasks in which we measure capacity.

Heck, women don't even do well when it comes to interior design

Hairstylists?

Have a look at the worlds best chefs?

Forgive me if there is a post of yours I've forgotten about, but from what I remember all you've done is point out that all chess grandmasters are men. This doesn't demonstrate anything. Neither do your lists of the top interior designers, hairstylists, and chefs. These are all fields in which capacity is hard to measure because the quality of work is largely subjective.

When I was 15 I went to go visit my gay uncle in Chicago. He decided I was due for a makeover so he forced my stubborn, teenage self to get a haircut from a french hairstylist that was worth $80. I hated it. I think the $10 haircuts I get from my barber are just as good if not better. But someone who is into fashion might like the $80 haircut better. Or they would think the French haircut was better just because they paid $80 for it.

Also, as Montmorency mentioned, there is more than just skill that goes into making it onto one of those lists.

If you were to show us a comparison of the performance reviews of hundreds of men and women in a variety of different fields and professions and those reviews showed that the majority of men performed better than the majority of women then you will have demonstrated your point.

[Sarmatian]

If I am to read a report, I will read the whole report to understand how they came up with the figures. Are you to stupid to summarize your own sources?

The highest paid chefs?



Best chefs in the world are more like managers than cooks - they rarely cook themselves, they organize the kitchen.

Number one reason why most top chefs are men is because the gender imbalance in the field itself. There's about 4 men for every women in the business. 25 years ago (the time when most of todays top chefs were learning the trade), the ratio was 9 men for every woman. Add to that the fact that, just like in almost all businesses, it's easier for men to reach top position than women, and the explanation is self-evident.

You're using anecdotal evidence to explain a very broad conclusion and you're wondering why you're failing.

[Husar]

Are you on drugs? You think I will read a 18 page report just to get your effin point, when I could most likely whiff it away with other facts if you just summarize it?

That's science, from the guy who tells others to read up on things so he doesn't have to provide any proof...

[Fragony]

That's science, from the guy who tells others to read up on things so he doesn't have to provide any proof...

Staccato barage tactics when it comes to intellectual integrity. Give the man the points he has to point out will ya, instead of burdening him with a 18 page read and declare victory because he simply can't be bothered with all that.

[HoreTore]

The world is in a dark place indeed when reading 18 pages is a burden.

[Fragony]

The world is in a dark place indeed when reading 18 pages is a burden.

A good point needs nothing more than a single sentence.

[HoreTore]

A good point needs nothing more than a single sentence.

In the eyes of the populists, I'm sure that's true. That's called a "soundbyte".

Proper arguments and real knowledge, however, takes more space.

[Fragony]

In the eyes of the populists, I'm sure that's true. That's called a "soundbyte".

Proper arguments and real knowledge, however, takes more space.

Populism is only an insult in the eye of the beholder, it's like the water that just flows of a duck without the duck getting wet.

[HoreTore]

Populism is only an insult in the eye of the beholder, it's like the water that just flows of a duck without the duck getting wet.

Yeah, why let silly things like facts ruin the day? Let's base our views on emotion instead of knowledge!

[Fragony]

Yeah, why let silly things like facts ruin the day? Let's base our views on emotion instead of knowledge!

Populism, first known mention was when Gaious Gracias protested against the latifundas, he protested against the theft of farmland by members of the senate. 'populist'. Times haven't changed all that much really, if you don't agree with the ruling elite you are a populist. I don't find it such a bad thing to be called really.

[HoreTore]

Populism, first known mention was when Gaious Gracias protested against the latifundas, he protested against the theft of farmland by members of the senate. 'populist'. Times haven't changed all that much really, if you don't agree with the ruling elite you are a populist. I don't find it such a bad thing to be called really.

You can be populist and rely on strong evidence and well-supported arguments.

You can also be a populist by relying on stuff that sounds good while ignoring everything called facts and knowledge.

You argued for the superiority of the latter. Which is another way of saying "learning makes muh brain hurts".


(and several times the "ruling elite" is populist, how can you then be populist by being opposed to yourself?)

[Fragony]

You can be populist and rely on strong evidence and well-supported arguments.

You can also be a populist by relying on stuff that sounds good while ignoring everything called facts and knowledge.

You argued for the superiority of the latter. Which is another way of saying "learning makes muh brain hurts".


(and several times the "ruling elite" is populist, how can you then be populist by being opposed to yourself?)

Being called a populist is nothing more than 'you can't come to my birthday party'. As if I want to. There is nothing more gracefull than being a populist, because it's a total rejection of the legitimacy of those that cling on their seats, claws on it.

[HoreTore]

Being called a populist is nothing more than 'you can't come to my birthday party'. As if I want to. There is nothing more gracefull than being a populist, because it's a total rejection of the legitimacy of those that cling on their seats, claws on it.

If you prefer a different term, then I suppose the word "idiot" covers the post you made earlier quite well.

[Fragony]

If you prefer a different term, then I suppose the word "idiot" covers the post you made earlier quite well.

That's ok, I have always been curious how it sounds with an Norwegian accent so you are really doing me a favour if you call me an idiot.

[Husar]

Staccato barage tactics when it comes to intellectual integrity. Give the man the points he has to point out will ya, instead of burdening him with a 18 page read and declare victory because he simply can't be bothered with all that.

Where were you when he told me to read all the relevant literature on Intelligence before I'd be allowed to discuss with him?

[Fragony]

Where were you when he told me to read all the relevant literature on Intelligence before I'd be allowed to discuss with him?

No doubt somewhere

[Kadagar_AV]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences

Male and female brains are built differently. To then assume they would function identically is just STUPID.

Sorry, thought this was common knowledge... I know I learnt it in biology class in high school.

[HoreTore]

All hail the glorious Wikipedia, bringer of truth!!



Also:

There are differences.

Therefore

All my prejudices based on anecdotal cherrypicking must be true and anyone who don't agree are stupid.


Brilliant logic. Just brilliant.

[Kadagar_AV]

References[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b c d Cahill L (June 2006). "Why sex matters for neuroscience". Nature Reviews. Neuroscience 7 (6): 477–84. doi:10.1038/nrn1909. PMID 16688123.
Jump up ^ Swaab DF, Hofman MA (1984). "Sexual differentiation of the human brain. A historical perspective". Progress in Brain Research 61: 361–74. doi:10.1016/S0079-6123(08)64447-7. PMID 6396708.
Jump up ^ Hofman MA, Swaab DF (1991). "Sexual dimorphism of the human brain: myth and reality". Experimental and Clinical Endocrinology 98 (2): 161–70. doi:10.1055/s-0029-1211113. PMID 1778230.
Jump up ^ Jacobs LF (February 1996). "Sexual selection and the brain". Trends in Ecology & Evolution 11 (2): 82–6. doi:10.1016/0169-5347(96)81048-2. PMID 21237767.
Jump up ^ Kansaku K, Yamaura A, Kitazawa S (September 2000). "Sex differences in lateralization revealed in the posterior language areas". Cerebral Cortex 10 (9): 866–72. doi:10.1093/cercor/10.9.866. PMID 10982747.
Jump up ^ Shaywitz BA, Shaywitz SE, Pugh KR, et al. (February 1995). "Sex differences in the functional organization of the brain for language". Nature 373 (6515): 607–9. doi:10.1038/373607a0. PMID 7854416.
Jump up ^ Sommer IE, Aleman A, Somers M, Boks MP, Kahn RS (April 2008). "Sex differences in handedness, asymmetry of the planum temporale and functional language lateralization". Brain Research 1206: 76–88. doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2008.01.003. PMID 18359009.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Ingalhalikar M, Smith A, Parker D, et al. (January 2014). "Sex differences in the structural connectome of the human brain". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 111 (2): 823–8. doi:10.1073/pnas.1316909110. PMID 24297904. Lay summary – ScienceDaily (December 2, 2013).
^ Jump up to: a b Cooke BM, Woolley CS (November 2005). "Sexually dimorphic synaptic organization of the medial amygdala". The Journal of Neuroscience 25 (46): 10759–67. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2919-05.2005. PMID 16291949.
Jump up ^ Hamann S (August 2005). "Sex differences in the responses of the human amygdala". The Neuroscientist 11 (4): 288–93. doi:10.1177/1073858404271981. PMID 16061516.
Jump up ^ Frings L, Wagner K, Unterrainer J, Spreer J, Halsband U, Schulze-Bonhage A (March 2006). "Gender-related differences in lateralization of hippocampal activation and cognitive strategy". NeuroReport 17 (4): 417–21. doi:10.1097/01.wnr.0000203623.02082.e3. PMID 16514369.
Jump up ^ Bowers JM, Waddell J, McCarthy MM (2010). "A developmental sex difference in hippocampal neurogenesis is mediated by endogenous oestradiol". Biology of Sex Differences 1 (1): 8. doi:10.1186/2042-6410-1-8. PMC 3016241. PMID 21208470.
Jump up ^ Koscik T, Bechara A, Tranel D (January 2010). "Sex-related functional asymmetry in the limbic brain". Neuropsychopharmacology : Official Publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology 35 (1): 340–1. doi:10.1038/npp.2009.122. PMC 2812861. PMID 20010707.
Jump up ^ Luders E, Gaser C, Narr KL, Toga AW (November 2009). "Why sex matters: brain size independent differences in gray matter distributions between men and women". The Journal of Neuroscience 29 (45): 14265–70. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2261-09.2009. PMC 3110817. PMID 19906974.
^ Jump up to: a b Overman WH (June 2004). "Sex differences in early childhood, adolescence, and adulthood on cognitive tasks that rely on orbital prefrontal cortex". Brain and Cognition 55 (1): 134–47. doi:10.1016/S0278-2626(03)00279-3. PMID 15134848.
Jump up ^ Swaminathan, Nikhil. "Study Says Brains of Gay Men and Women Are Similar". Scientific American, a division of Nature America, Inc.
Jump up ^ Owen, James. "Gay Men, Straight Women Have Similar Brains". National Geographic News.
Jump up ^ Levay, S (August 30, 1991). "A difference in hypothalamic structure between heterosexual and homosexual men". Science. 5023 253: 1034–1037. doi:10.1126/science.1887219. PMID 1887219.
^ Jump up to: a b c Simerly RB (February 2005). "Wired on hormones: endocrine regulation of hypothalamic development". Current Opinion in Neurobiology 15 (1): 81–5. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2005.01.013. PMID 15721748.
^ Jump up to: a b Genazzani AR, Pluchino N, Luisi S, Luisi M (2007). "Estrogen, cognition and female ageing". Human Reproduction Update 13 (2): 175–87. doi:10.1093/humupd/dml042. PMID 17135285.
Jump up ^ Korol DL (November 2004). "Role of estrogen in balancing contributions from multiple memory systems". Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 82 (3): 309–23. doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2004.07.006. PMID 15464412.
Jump up ^ Bakker J, Baum MJ (January 2008). "Role for estradiol in female-typical brain and behavioral sexual differentiation". Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology 29 (1): 1–16. doi:10.1016/j.yfrne.2007.06.001. PMC 2373265. PMID 17720235.
Jump up ^ Ackermann S, Spalek K, Rasch B, et al. (September 2012). "Testosterone levels in healthy men are related to amygdala reactivity and memory performance". Psychoneuroendocrinology 37 (9): 1417–24. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2012.01.008. PMID 22341731.
Jump up ^ Wu MV, Manoli DS, Fraser EJ, et al. (October 2009). "Estrogen masculinizes neural pathways and sex-specific behaviors". Cell 139 (1): 61–72. doi:10.1016/j.cell.2009.07.036. PMC 2851224. PMID 19804754.
^ Jump up to: a b Bowman RE, Micik R, Gautreaux C, Fernandez L, Luine VN (April 2009). "Sex-dependent changes in anxiety, memory, and monoamines following one week of stress". Physiology & Behavior 97 (1): 21–9. doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.01.012. PMID 19419681.
^ Jump up to: a b c Kimura, Doreen (July 31, 2000). Sex and Cognition. A Bradford Book. p. 28. ISBN 0262611643.

[Husar]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_sex_differences

Male and female brains are built differently. To then assume they would function identically is just STUPID.

Sorry, thought this was common knowledge... I know I learnt it in biology class in high school.

Montmorency already explained why female brains are superior.

[Kadagar_AV]

Montmorency already explained why female brains are superior.

Because it's politically correct? Was that it?

EDIT: It doesn't take much reading before you come to the conclusion that men seem to do better... Again...

[Kadagar_AV]

Highlights for the lazy:

in 2013, researchers at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania mapped notable differences in male and female neural wiring. The study, which used Functional magnetic resonance imaging, concluded that inter-hemispheric connectivity was much stronger in women's and girls' brains, whereas intra-hemispheric connectivity was much stronger in the brains of men and boys

Several functional differences have been observed in the male and female amygdala as well. One functional difference is emotional memory retention. On average, women retain emotional memories more vividly than do men. Sometimes, however, this can have a negative effect on women and they may have impaired memory at times due to strong emotional overlap

Several studies have shown the hippocampi of men and women to differ anatomically, neurochemically, and also in degree of long-term potentiation. Such evidence indicates that sex should influence the role of the hippocampus in learning. One experiment examined the effects of stress on Pavlovian conditioning performance in both sexes and found that males’ performance under stress was enhanced while female performance was impaired. Activation of the hippocampus is more dominant on the left side of hippocampus in females, while it is more dominant on the right side in males. This in turn influences cognitive reasoning; women use more verbal strategies than men when performing a task that requires cognitive thinking

Oestradiol has been found to influence hippocampal development. Studies have shown neurogenesis, or the formation of new neurons, to be higher in the male hippocampus than in that of the female. This may be due to the lower levels of estradiol in the male brain compared to the female brain. providing a more optimal environment for neurogenesis

The limbic brain displays sexual asymmetries. A brain region closely associated with the limbic system known as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VPMC), plays a key role in social emotional processing. In accordance with the sexual dimorphism of the amygdala, the right VPMC is more dominant in an active limbic system for males while the left is more dominant in females. These differences carry out to a behavioral level

On the basis of diffusion tensor imaging of 1,000 brain scans it has been shown that significant differences in wiring exist between male and female brains. Men's brains were shown to have stronger connections between the front and back regions of the brain, and were mostly confined to individual hemispheres, whereas women's brain had stronger connections between the left and right hemispheres.[8] The obtained maps of neural circuitry were supportive of old stereotypes according to which men's brains are more suited for perception and coordination, and women's brains are more suited for social skills and multitasking

Estradiol influences cognitive function, specifically by enhancing learning and memory in a dose-sensitive manner. Too much estrogen can have negative effects by weakening performance of learned tasks as well as hindering performance of memory tasks; this can result in females exhibiting poorer performance of such tasks when compared to males

Similar to how estrogen enhances memory and learning in women, testosterone has been found to enhance memory recall in men. In a study testing a correlation between memory a recall and testosterone levels in men, "fMRI analysis revealed that higher testosterone levels were related to increased brain activation in the amygdala during encoding of neutral pictures"


... And here's the money winner:

It was once thought that sex differences in cognitive task and problem solving did not occur until puberty. However, new evidence now suggests that cognitive and skill differences are present earlier in development. For example, researchers have found that three- and four-year-old boys were better at targeting and at mentally rotating figures within a clock face than girls of the same age were. Prepubescent girls, however, excelled at recalling lists of words. These sex differences in cognition correspond to patterns of ability rather than overall intelligence (although some researchers, such as Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland, have argued that there exists a small IQ difference favoring human males). Laboratory settings are used to systematically study the sexual dimorphism in problem solving task performed by adults.[26]

On average, Men excel over women at certain spatial task. Specifically, men have an advantage on test in which they are to imagine rotating or manipulating an object in some other technique. Men outperform women in mathematical reasoning as well as navigation. In a computer simulation of a maze task, men complete the task faster and with fewer errors than the women counterparts. Also, men have shown to be more accurate in test of targeted motor skills, such as guiding projectiles.[26]

On average, Women excel over men on test that measure recollection. Females are also superior at figuring out words that begin with a specific letter or meet some other criteria. They also perform better at matching items and precision task, such as placing pegs in a designated hole. In maze or path completion task, men learn the goal route in fewer trials than women, but women remember more of the landmarks presented. This shows that women use landmarks in everyday situations to orient themselves more than men. Women are better at remembering whether objects had switched places or not.[26]

Studies using the Iowa gambling task, or Iowa Card Task, have examined cognitive reasoning and decision-making in males and females. A study conducted on men and women of various age groups who were asked to perform the Iowa Card Task revealed data showing that man and women differ in their decision making processes on the neurological level. The study suggests that decision-making in females may be guided by avoidance of negativity while decision making in males is mainly guided by assessing the long term outcome of a situation. They also found that men outperformed women in the Iowa Card Task, but there was a negative correlation between elevated testosterone levels and performance in the card task which indicates gonadal hormones influence decision-making

[Husar]

Yes, the point is pretty obvious:


Women excel over men on test that measure recollection. Females are also superior at figuring out words that begin with a specific letter or meet some other criteria. They also perform better at matching items and precision task, such as placing pegs in a designated hole. In maze or path completion task, men learn the goal route in fewer trials than women, but women remember more of the landmarks presented. This shows that women use landmarks in everyday situations to orient themselves more than men. Women are better at remembering whether objects had switched places or not.[26]

[Kadagar_AV]

Yes, the point is pretty obvious:

Dude, that was ONE thing out of many. I have never said women are not better at certain things, however, it's the combined effect that is relevant for a general discussion on work capacity.

Since we are built differently, with different bodies and brains, I see no wonder we also perform different well in certain work areas.

This difference has lead to males generally earning slightly more.

[HoreTore]

Yes, women are clearly inferior in the workplace. (http://fortune.com/tag/teamwork/)




Stanford is a crap uni though.

[Ironside]

Ahem.

Fact: Sweden got better results than Norway on hockey.
Fact: Norway got better results than Sweden on skiing.
Fact: Sweden and Norway got genetical differences.

Clearly the difference in sport between the countries has to be answered by genetics. Can't have any other explaination can it, both sports have been available for both countries for many decades.
Or maybe you have to dig deeper for this.

Are there mental differences between the genders? Yes, but there's a significant overlap, so unless you study things in detail, you don't know if the average difference is 1 or 50 points out of 100.

Basically, unless the summary study goes into a depth study on both the average difference, median difference (not always needed) and the stdev, it says very little.

[Sarmatian]

Highlights for the lazy:

in 2013, researchers at the Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania mapped notable differences in male and female neural wiring. The study, which used Functional magnetic resonance imaging, concluded that inter-hemispheric connectivity was much stronger in women's and girls' brains, whereas intra-hemispheric connectivity was much stronger in the brains of men and boys

Several functional differences have been observed in the male and female amygdala as well. One functional difference is emotional memory retention. On average, women retain emotional memories more vividly than do men. Sometimes, however, this can have a negative effect on women and they may have impaired memory at times due to strong emotional overlap

Several studies have shown the hippocampi of men and women to differ anatomically, neurochemically, and also in degree of long-term potentiation. Such evidence indicates that sex should influence the role of the hippocampus in learning. One experiment examined the effects of stress on Pavlovian conditioning performance in both sexes and found that males’ performance under stress was enhanced while female performance was impaired. Activation of the hippocampus is more dominant on the left side of hippocampus in females, while it is more dominant on the right side in males. This in turn influences cognitive reasoning; women use more verbal strategies than men when performing a task that requires cognitive thinking

Oestradiol has been found to influence hippocampal development. Studies have shown neurogenesis, or the formation of new neurons, to be higher in the male hippocampus than in that of the female. This may be due to the lower levels of estradiol in the male brain compared to the female brain. providing a more optimal environment for neurogenesis

The limbic brain displays sexual asymmetries. A brain region closely associated with the limbic system known as the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (VPMC), plays a key role in social emotional processing. In accordance with the sexual dimorphism of the amygdala, the right VPMC is more dominant in an active limbic system for males while the left is more dominant in females. These differences carry out to a behavioral level

On the basis of diffusion tensor imaging of 1,000 brain scans it has been shown that significant differences in wiring exist between male and female brains. Men's brains were shown to have stronger connections between the front and back regions of the brain, and were mostly confined to individual hemispheres, whereas women's brain had stronger connections between the left and right hemispheres.[8] The obtained maps of neural circuitry were supportive of old stereotypes according to which men's brains are more suited for perception and coordination, and women's brains are more suited for social skills and multitasking

Estradiol influences cognitive function, specifically by enhancing learning and memory in a dose-sensitive manner. Too much estrogen can have negative effects by weakening performance of learned tasks as well as hindering performance of memory tasks; this can result in females exhibiting poorer performance of such tasks when compared to males

Similar to how estrogen enhances memory and learning in women, testosterone has been found to enhance memory recall in men. In a study testing a correlation between memory a recall and testosterone levels in men, "fMRI analysis revealed that higher testosterone levels were related to increased brain activation in the amygdala during encoding of neutral pictures"


... And here's the money winner:

It was once thought that sex differences in cognitive task and problem solving did not occur until puberty. However, new evidence now suggests that cognitive and skill differences are present earlier in development. For example, researchers have found that three- and four-year-old boys were better at targeting and at mentally rotating figures within a clock face than girls of the same age were. Prepubescent girls, however, excelled at recalling lists of words. These sex differences in cognition correspond to patterns of ability rather than overall intelligence (although some researchers, such as Richard Lynn of the University of Ulster in Northern Ireland, have argued that there exists a small IQ difference favoring human males). Laboratory settings are used to systematically study the sexual dimorphism in problem solving task performed by adults.[26]

On average, Men excel over women at certain spatial task. Specifically, men have an advantage on test in which they are to imagine rotating or manipulating an object in some other technique. Men outperform women in mathematical reasoning as well as navigation. In a computer simulation of a maze task, men complete the task faster and with fewer errors than the women counterparts. Also, men have shown to be more accurate in test of targeted motor skills, such as guiding projectiles.[26]

On average, Women excel over men on test that measure recollection. Females are also superior at figuring out words that begin with a specific letter or meet some other criteria. They also perform better at matching items and precision task, such as placing pegs in a designated hole. In maze or path completion task, men learn the goal route in fewer trials than women, but women remember more of the landmarks presented. This shows that women use landmarks in everyday situations to orient themselves more than men. Women are better at remembering whether objects had switched places or not.[26]

Studies using the Iowa gambling task, or Iowa Card Task, have examined cognitive reasoning and decision-making in males and females. A study conducted on men and women of various age groups who were asked to perform the Iowa Card Task revealed data showing that man and women differ in their decision making processes on the neurological level. The study suggests that decision-making in females may be guided by avoidance of negativity while decision making in males is mainly guided by assessing the long term outcome of a situation. They also found that men outperformed women in the Iowa Card Task, but there was a negative correlation between elevated testosterone levels and performance in the card task which indicates gonadal hormones influence decision-making

I still don't understand why are men better chefs.

[HoreTore]

The "Money winner" references Richard Lynn.


Apparently, we're talking monopoly money.

[Montmorency]

OK, so Kad neither reads our posts, nor the few sources he actually purports support his claims.

He's lost in his own fantasy world.

[Montmorency]

In hopes of salvaging critical thinking, here's what we're going to do:

I'm attaching links to 4 documents. These are:

*[14730] Halpern, Diane F. Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Chapter 3: Empirical Evidence for Cognitive Sex Differences. Psychology Press, 2013.
*[14732] Savic, Ivanka, Alicia Garcia-Falgueras, and Dick F. Swaab. "Sexual differentiation of the human brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation." Part I: General overview. Progress in brain research 186 (2010): 41.
*Fausto-Sterling, Anne. Sex/gender: Biology in a social world. Routledge, 2012. (http://occupytampa.org/files/tristan/fem/books/SexGender_nodrm.pdf) (Ch. 4 is our responsibility)
*[14731]Ah-King, Malin. Challenging popular myths of sex, gender and biology. Springer, 2013.

These are ~250 pp. of cutting-edge material on neurological sex differences, split evenly between agnostic perspectives and critical perspectives.

I suggest that this thread be locked for a couple of weeks while everyone becomes acquainted with the sourced materials. From there, we can discuss what we have learned and what possible directions for the future emerge.

Think of it as a book club.

Cuz if it's just going to be Kad repeating the same nonsense for us to refute over and over, then I'd be better served heading to a clinic and dealing with profound perseveration in person.

[Kadagar_AV]

I still don't understand why are men better chefs.

I don't know. I just pointed at almost all really successful chefs BEING men. This trend goes on in most ventures I bothered to look at.


OK, so Kad neither reads our posts, nor the few sources he actually purports support his claims.

He's lost in his own fantasy world.

Less stupid, more facts please. You're just being arrogant.


In hopes of salvaging critical thinking, here's what we're going to do:

I'm attaching links to 4 documents. These are:

*[14730] Halpern, Diane F. Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Chapter 3: Empirical Evidence for Cognitive Sex Differences. Psychology Press, 2013.
*[14732] Savic, Ivanka, Alicia Garcia-Falgueras, and Dick F. Swaab. "Sexual differentiation of the human brain in relation to gender identity and sexual orientation." Part I: General overview. Progress in brain research 186 (2010): 41.
*Fausto-Sterling, Anne. Sex/gender: Biology in a social world. Routledge, 2012. (http://occupytampa.org/files/tristan/fem/books/SexGender_nodrm.pdf) (Ch. 4 is our responsibility)
*[14731]Ah-King, Malin. Challenging popular myths of sex, gender and biology. Springer, 2013.

These are ~250 pp. of cutting-edge material on neurological sex differences, split evenly between agnostic perspectives and critical perspectives.

I suggest that this thread be locked for a couple of weeks while everyone becomes acquainted with the sourced materials. From there, we can discuss what we have learned and what possible directions for the future emerge.

Think of it as a book club.

Cuz if it's just going to be Kad repeating the same nonsense for us to refute over and over, then I'd be better served heading to a clinic and dealing with profound perseveration in person.

Or, you could just summarize the difference between your linked sources and what the wikipedia page says?

Really wouldn't take more than that to further the discussion in a meaningful way.



HT's source, btw, only state that smaller groups are better at team work than larger groups.

The very little info about women actually ADHERE to what I have been saying, that women are better at communicating. It says nothing, however, about the individual efforts of the different group members at the actual work being done by the group. Basically, a group could be 2 men and 2 women, the men do 70% of the work, but the women during the 10 minute meeting are better at making sure the information the men provide gets circulated to the others.

I'm not saying that's the case, I'm just saying that his source is absolute rubbish in this discussion. And the little thing that adhered to the discussion strengthens what I already said. So meh :shrug:

[HoreTore]

Excellent links. All saved and put in my to-read folder. I just finished a book, so this is perfect timing really. I can see from skimming them that I probably don't have the medical terminology and knowledge to fully understand all of it though(especially c.pdf).

Also, you bungled up the links to c.pdf and a.pdf.

Out of curiosity, where are these articles from? Jstor?


Or, you could just summarize the difference between your linked sources and what the wikipedia page says?

Yeah, why bother with learning when it's much easier to remain ignorant?

University of Google strikes again.

[Kadagar_AV]

I don't trust Montmorency's intellectual ability enough to have him dictate what I bother reading or not.

If he has half a brain he should be able to communicate the information he has in way more simple manners.

[HoreTore]

I agree, Wikipedia articles who reference Richard Lynn positively are clearly superior.

[Kadagar_AV]

So you are just going to ignore that your post #160 was stupid, and the little bit relevant adhered to what I claim?

How communistic of you.

I have no idea what your beef with Richard Lynn is, but there are 25 other sources sourced. Also, the citation of Richard Lynn isn't even sourced from him, but from Kimura, Doreen (July 31, 2000). Sex and Cognition. A Bradford Book. p. 28. ISBN 0262611643.

[Husar]

I don't trust Montmorency's intellectual ability enough to have him dictate what I bother reading or not.

If he has half a brain he should be able to communicate the information he has in way more simple manners.

Now that is bordering on a personal attack. And for the record, I have a feeling that Montmorency's intellectual abilities are excellent.
But hey, you probably rate me even lower by now, so what do I know...

[HoreTore]

How on earth it should matter that the Lynn-citation comes from a work written by someone else boggles my mind.

You have demonstrated zero knowledge and capability, so I don't really care what you make of the link I posted. I offered it mostly to the people in this thread with a higher intellectual capability than you.

Richard Lynn, by the way, is a qualified and debunked crank. His work on intelligence has zero weight. It's riddled with methodological errors, statistical cherrypicking and outright cheating.

Only white supremacists still cling to him.

[Kadagar_AV]

Now that is bordering on a personal attack. And for the record, I have a feeling that Montmorency's intellectual abilities are excellent.
But hey, you probably rate me even lower by now, so what do I know...

I would have to be extremely impressed with someone's intellectual ability to have them dictate what I read, especially without them even summarizing or explaining why it would be valid.

I have the same view on your as I've had the last years... Seem like a nice guy, but at times rather German, for good or bad ;)

[Kadagar_AV]

Ok, so let me summarize...

A) I have shown loads of examples that men in the real world do comperatively better than women. Be it curling, cooking, interior design, hairstyling, sharp shooting, chess, mathematics, physics...

B) I guess we all can agree that men are physically stronger.

C) I have shown that our brains are wired and constructed differently...

D) I have claimed that this all combined might very well explain the 10-15% gap of income between men and women.



The OTHER side, you guys, have contributed with:

A) Nuh uh!!




Damn it, if women are so damn good, it should be rather EASY to give loads of examples of fields they do great in, and beat their male peers. I already acknowledged "everything concerning children".

[Husar]

A) I have shown loads of examples that men in the real world do comperatively better than women. Be it curling, cooking, interior design, hairstyling, sharp shooting, chess, mathematics, physics...

B) I guess we all can agree that men are physically stronger.

C) I have shown that our brains are wired and constructed differently...

D) I have claimed that this all combined might very well explain the 10-15% gap of income between men and women.

Sigh...

A) No, you have not, you have shown the symptoms and claimed the causes fit your stereotypes, you have not proven any of that.

B) Horses are also physically stronger, doesn't mean that they were well-paid in the real world.

C) And ignored that that does not inherently make the wiring of men superior. Wikipedia having some vague reference to a bogus scientist doesn't count.

D) So you have claimed that a bunch of unsubstantiated hogwash and prejudices leads to more prejudices and unfair disadvantages. Congratulations!




The OTHER side, you guys, have contributed with:

A) Nuh uh!!

"Nuh uh" is a strange word to describe a bunch of links to interesting studies that disprove your claims.


Damn it, if women are so damn good, it should be rather EASY to give loads of examples of fields they do great in, and beat their male peers. I already acknowledged "everything concerning children".

Does that mean not paying slaves was also okay since they didn't really contribute anything anyway going by how much they were paid?

[Kadagar_AV]

wrote stuff

I'll answer you in full when I have time... But... Still no example of women doing better than their male peers, then? :rolleyes:

[Montmorency]

So, Kad, sorry to break it to you but we have given examples of fields in which women outnumber men, such as optometry, geriatrics, internal medicine, and gynaecology. These fields were all majority-male a generation ago. Obviously the reasonable explanation would be to posit a difference in social standards, but according to your hypothesis either women are somehow just better-suited to these specialties in some unspecified ephemeral way - in which case, why optometry and not ophthalmology? - or became so very suddenly over a handful of years. Either way, that's drivel. Furthermore, you have bizarrely misinterpreted the Wiki summary - or meretriciously, probably - in a way that takes tentative and value-neutral low-level differences and systematically attaches negative value to female differences and positive value to male differences, in addition to going on to posit further differences not supported by the data (and of course giving them skewed valuations along the way). You literally could not beg the question harder here.


You want a summary of my documents? OK, here: you're so wrong it's not even funny. What's worse, though, is that you're not even trying to find ways to support your core points besides the degenerate babblings you persist in posting. I'm done here speaking with someone who likely has impaired learning ability and very low-functioning communicative skills compared to the normal range of adults (including most of the Negroes and women you so demean).

HoreTore: Let's just say there are ways to take advantage of university database permissions.

Can't you download those files, "a" and "c"? I download them fine.

Try here:

14735
14734
14736

[Kadagar_AV]

So, Kad, sorry to break it to you but we have given examples of fields in which women outnumber men, such as optometry, geriatrics, internal medicine, and gynaecology. These fields were all majority-male a generation ago. Obviously the reasonable explanation would be to posit a difference in social standards, but according to your hypothesis either women are somehow just better-suited to these specialties in some unspecified ephemeral way - in which case, why optometry and not ophthalmology? - or became so very suddenly over a handful of years. Either way, that's drivel. Furthermore, you have bizarrely misinterpreted the Wiki summary - or meretriciously, probably - in a way that takes tentative and value-neutral low-level differences and systematically attaches negative value to female differences and positive value to male differences, in addition to going on to posit further differences not supported by the data (and of course giving them skewed valuations along the way). You literally could not beg the question harder here.


You want a summary of my documents? OK, here: you're so wrong it's not even funny. What's worse, though, is that you're not even trying to find ways to support your core points besides the degenerate babblings you persist in posting. I'm done here speaking with someone who likely has impaired learning ability and very low-functioning communicative skills compared to the normal range of adults (including most of the Negroes and women you so demean).


That women outnumber men does not mean they out-do men.

You STILL don't get it.

Guess what, eventhough women outnumber men in gyneacology, guess what a top 10 list of the worlds best shows (https://www.ratemds.com/doctors/?specialty=gynecologist-obgyn).

[Montmorency]

gyneacology...top 10 list

I'll just leave this here.

[Kadagar_AV]

I'll just leave this here.

Good, as I find you arrogant and incapable of having a civil conversation. Especially in a forum, not a university setting where nerds fling kneejerk reports at each other.

That women are majority might be because men are less interested in the field.

At the higher levels, though, men seem to outperform women even in fields where women are majority. Am I wrong?

Heck, look at horse jumping in Sweden... 95% of young practitioners are women, in the national team 6 out of 7 are men. Tell me again how women compare equally with their male peers?

You can look into pretty much whatever field, and in the top ranks men still outperform women.

[Husar]

Good, as I find you arrogant and incapable of having a civil conversation. Especially in a forum, not a university setting where nerds fling kneejerk reports at each other.

That women are majority might be because men are less interested in the field.

At the higher levels, though, men seem to outperform women even in fields where women are majority. Am I wrong?

Heck, look at horse jumping in Sweden... 95% of young practitioners are women, in the national team 6 out of 7 are men. Tell me again how women compare equally with their male peers?

You can look into pretty much whatever field, and in the top ranks men still outperform women.

And 7, as we all know, is a most representative sample size to make a scientific point...

In the german team it's apparently 2 out of 4, not counting the two trainers and the veterinarian, does that scientifically prove that our women are superior to swedish women now?

And that top 10 list was hilarious, as Monty already noted. :2thumbsup:

[Greyblades]

Are you people still feeding the troll?

[Kadagar_AV]

And 7, as we all know, is a most representative sample size to make a scientific point...

In the german team it's apparently 2 out of 4, not counting the two trainers and the veterinarian, does that scientifically prove that our women are superior to swedish women now?

And that top 10 list was hilarious, as Monty already noted. :2thumbsup:

How does it look among young participants in horse jumping? Still 50/50?

If not, it's yet another example of the trend I try to show here, no?

That top 10 list shows that 6 out of 10 who got people to vote for them, were men. I never said it showed anything else.

However, show me the damn lists where women do well?

I 100% agree that none of my examples individually PROVE anything. However, the sheer MASS of experience that men seem to come out on top makes a combined evidence.

Again, if women are equal to men, it should be damn easy to show it.

Yet all the people who declare equality actually DO, is throwing feces at anything showing men do better. Without being very good at showing that women can in fact do equally good or better.

And that reeks of political correctness.

[Sarmatian]

Ok, so let me summarize...

A) I have shown loads of examples that men in the real world do comperatively better than women. Be it curling, cooking, interior design, hairstyling, sharp shooting, chess, mathematics, physics...

B) I guess we all can agree that men are physically stronger.

C) I have shown that our brains are wired and constructed differently...

D) I have claimed that this all combined might very well explain the 10-15% gap of income between men and women.



The OTHER side, you guys, have contributed with:

A) Nuh uh!!




Damn it, if women are so damn good, it should be rather EASY to give loads of examples of fields they do great in, and beat their male peers. I already acknowledged "everything concerning children".

Actually, you've given examples of fields where (I presume) males take more top positions. Nothing about men being comparatively better.

[Kadagar_AV]

Actually, you've given examples of fields where (I presume) males take more top positions. Nothing about men being comparatively better.

So, why do men make more top positions?

Even in equal or female dominated fields?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Kadagar's turn on this topic would best be separated into its own thread -- id cards as racism is only tangentially connected to current focus issue.

[Kadagar_AV]

Kadagar's turn on this topic would best be separated into its own thread -- id cards as racism is only tangentially connected to current focus issue.

I welcome the proposition for the only reason that it would let the mods go bananas with the title.

They work for free, they deserve some fun :2thumbsup:

Give me some bets on "misogynic" being part, all odds are in... :yes:

[Husar]

How does it look among young participants in horse jumping? Still 50/50?

If not, it's yet another example of the trend I try to show here, no?

Again, you think 4 people are a valid sample size...
In other horse riding disciplines 4/4 are women.
And you also keep ignoring that you cannot take current placements as evidence for why current placements are the way they are, especially if current placements were caused by the very bias we are discussing here. That's circular reasoning.

[Beskar]

I welcome the proposition for the only reason that it would let the mods go bananas with the title.

They work for free, they deserve some fun :2thumbsup:

Done.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What absolute rubbish.

With the introduction of feminism, western countries have seen the largest growth in human history. As Papewaio notes, the larger the franchise, the better the country does. Not just in purely economic terms, but also when it comes to human rights, lack of unrest etc.

The reason might be that the votes from people like you doesn't count as much. That's a definite benefit to a country.

Piffle - The British Empire's moral and subsequent territorial decline is inextricable linked to the broadening and deepening of the franchise.

Which is to say - if you can do strawman, I can do better.

[Sir Moody]

So, why do men make more top positions?

Even in equal or female dominated fields?

The funny fact is you are the best example of why... you are looking at the top positions, seeing they are Men and thus concluding Men have to be better - which is exactly what said Men are doing when they "Promote from the Ranks" - its mostly a case of not questioning the Status Quo.

Our respective cultures have rammed the "Men are better than Women" line down our throats for thousands of years - cultural shifts like this take time and we are in the "shift" phase right now - hence Feminism is more about fighting the culture of Male dominance these days rather than Institutional abuse.

[Fragony]

Feminism isn't about equal treatment but about special treatment, ever heard women shriek about equal rights on a garbage truck. They want top positions equally distributed with no other reason that they are female and they feel they have the right on it, despite getting a hormonal overload every month and want a pregnant leave when hormones won. Women have their qualities, being much more ruthless and cruel being one of them. But alas, why hire someone who is mentally unstable once a month just because she is female.

[Husar]

Feminism isn't about equal treatment but about special treatment, ever heard women shriek about equal rights on a garbage truck.

And why would they if they dominate the field of wiping old or sick peoples' behinds? But neither position wields much power, while top positions in companies and politics are far more likely to give them some power to change policies and politics. The argument that "women can have the slave positions, they should just leave us with the master positions" makes no sense whatsoever.

[Fragony]

The argument that "women can have the slave positions, they should just leave us with the master positions" makes no sense whatsoever.

No that really doesn't make any sense. Femininists want high positions because they are in some twisted way entitled to it in their opinion. They are not not, having a vagina is a big plus imho as I like vagina's, but that doesn't necesarily mean they are the best person for the job just because they have a fleshwound between their legs. Some are very capable on their own merits.

[Husar]

No that really doesn't make any sense. Femininists want high positions because they are in some twisted way entitled to it in their opinion. They are not not, having a vagina is a big plus imho as I like vagina's, but that doesn't necesarily mean they are the best person for the job just because they have a fleshwound between their legs. Some are very capable on their own merits.

What they do not want is to be unfairly excluded from these positions, and they shouldn't be.

[HoreTore]

Piffle - The British Empire's moral and subsequent territorial decline is inextricable linked to the broadening and deepening of the franchise.

Which is to say - if you can do strawman, I can do better.

And life in Great Britain is better with feminism as well, and the economic growth you have seen in the last 50 years is stronger than any of what you saw during your "empire".

Face the facts, PVC: you traded your empire for feminism, and you're better off because of it.

[Sarmatian]

Face the facts, PVC: you traded your empire for feminism, and you're better off because of it.

That sounds so gay.

[HoreTore]

That sounds so gay.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlLG4NKrE1A

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And life in Great Britain is better with feminism as well, and the economic growth you have seen in the last 50 years is stronger than any of what you saw during your "empire".

Face the facts, PVC: you traded your empire for feminism, and you're better off because of it.

If by economic growth you mean City of London - sure.

If you mean the mines, the factories, the shipyards.

Try visiting the poor parts of the country - there are lots to choose from.

[HoreTore]

If by economic growth you mean City of London - sure.

If you mean the mines, the factories, the shipyards.

Try visiting the poor parts of the country - there are lots to choose from.

Maggie says 'ullo.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Maggie says 'ullo.

All she did was shoot a terminally ill patient - I blame Labour protectionism. Labour only won an election after women first got the vote you know, and Maggie was a woman.

Clearly, women are evil and want to grind good working men into the ground

[HoreTore]

I have no problems with women grinding on me....

Though I would prefer it not to be Maggie.

[Fragony]

What they do not want is to be unfairly excluded from these positions, and they shouldn't be.

Why not, they underperform 3 days a month, and there is always pregnancy hanging over the head. Ambitious women do fine because they acknowledge the limitations.

[Fragony]

Ipad fail scuzi

[Kadagar_AV]

From what I have seen, we only see negative results when we try to achieve a 50/50 gender ratio.

When we let women take 50% of the positions in a field, I have seen over and over and over how this leads to the bar being lowered, to accommodate them.

And no, I don't only talk physical strength.

If women were equal to men, 50/50 field would RAISE the bar, as they have more applicants to choose from. Yet this never seem to happen.

Am I wrong?

And no matter the efforts we do to try to make women on par, the best persons in the vast majority of given fields are still men.

The "it's because men push them down" argument gets more and more thin, specially here in Sweden, called the most feminist nation on earth.

We TRY it, it FAILS.

Heck, growing up the girls were better at math than boys. Our math teacher was a woman. At university, I had a woman.

Yet at the highest levels in math YOU STILL ONLY SEE MEN.

Why? Women have every chance, heck, they even get pushed along. But at the highest level only personal quality counts, and there women seem to fail.


I believe we are born different.

This means I believe that a strict 50/50 quota will mean that more able people will have to give way to less able people, to uphold some artificial balance. Is this really good?

Is this even a humane thing to do? Should we lock qualified people out of their dream jobs just because someone of the other sex is more entitled for the job, solely based on gender?

Geez.

I believe that each and every individual, men as well as women, should have the right to reach as far as they can. I do not, however, believe some of them should get an extra push forward solely based on what sex they happened to be born with.

[Husar]

Why not, they underperform 3 days a month

Any proof for that or just "personal experience" from the days when you were a woman?
What if two of those three days fall onto a weekend three times a year?
And by what measure do they underperform that would warrant 10-15% lower wages?


and there is always pregnancy hanging over the head.

Yeah, because that is really such a bad thing when the entire economic model is based on constant growth. And do they get more if they are sterilized or too old?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I have no problems with women grinding on me....

Though I would prefer it not to be Maggie.

I have, I admit, always looked at you with a "jaundiced" eye -- but I would NEVER assume that you were interested in "cracking a cold one."

[Seamus Fermanagh]

From what I have seen, we only see negative results when we try to achieve a 50/50 gender ratio.

When we let women take 50% of the positions in a field, I have seen over and over and over how this leads to the bar being lowered, to accommodate them.

And no, I don't only talk physical strength.

If women were equal to men, 50/50 field would RAISE the bar, as they have more applicants to choose from. Yet this never seem to happen.

Am I wrong?

And no matter the efforts we do to try to make women on par, the best persons in the vast majority of given fields are still men.

The "it's because men push them down" argument gets more and more thin, specially here in Sweden, called the most feminist nation on earth.

We TRY it, it FAILS.

Heck, growing up the girls were better at math than boys. Our math teacher was a woman. At university, I had a woman.

Yet at the highest levels in math YOU STILL ONLY SEE MEN.

Why? Women have every chance, heck, they even get pushed along. But at the highest level only personal quality counts, and there women seem to fail.


I believe we are born different.

This means I believe that a strict 50/50 quota will mean that more able people will have to give way to less able people, to uphold some artificial balance. Is this really good?

Is this even a humane thing to do? Should we lock qualified people out of their dream jobs just because someone of the other sex is more entitled for the job, solely based on gender?

Geez.

I believe that each and every individual, men as well as women, should have the right to reach as far as they can. I do not, however, believe some of them should get an extra push forward solely based on what sex they happened to be born with.

It is too early to say whether our collective efforts in the West have removed all of the implicit barriers to women advancing as equals in any number of fields. This kind of significant and lasting shift in cultural attitude is the work of 4-7 decades, not 10 years and a few government regulations. Internalizing such differences on a cultural level is a prolonged process.

Example: A military "generation" may be said to last 30 years -- the career span of a typical long-serving officer or NCO. The armed forces of the United States of America were integrated by executive order in 1948. Roughly 35 years later, people began to suggest that the US military was a fairly "color blind" organization. It was not until the mid-to-late 1990s that most participants agreed with that assessment -- and there are still vestigial "racisms" occurring even today -- 65 years later.

By comparison, the modern feminist movement cannot really show a start point any earlier than Friedan's "Mystique" of 1963. Moreover, cultural generations cycle on an even slower pace since people are active contributors on a cultural level from their mid-teens through their 60s or even longer. It would be reasonable to assume that a cultural "cycle" generation is roughly 50 years long.

If integrating the military took a cycle of a generation and a half, this suggests (by analogy, and I recognize that analogy is imperfect) that the influence of modern feminism -- to where it is a matter of fact new norm in thinking -- is still 25 years away.

In other words, rather than judging it as "already failed, let's move on and accept men are just better," it may well be that you are closing the curtain too early.

Perhaps women born ten years from now will grow up in a society where they do not have to think "I am working in a 'man's' field" and simply focus on reaching their potential -- because nobody will have any real thoughts about her plumbing mattering a damn. THEN, maybe we shall see if any genomic differences truly exist.

[Fragony]

Yeah, because that is really such a bad thing when the entire economic model is based on constant growth. And do they get more if they are sterilized or too old?

See it as a game, what would you do

Economy has a perk when consisting of men

[a completely inoffensive name]

In 25 years, there will not be anymore "male dominated" fields because fewer men are getting college degrees.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/03/31/poll-women-33-percent-more-likely-than-men-to-earn-college-degree-by-27/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/2012/02/16/the-male-female-ratio-in-college/

[a completely inoffensive name]

Also, you don't need to wait two decades to see if modern feminism is a success or not. Well, first of all there needs to be a definition of modern feminism. 1960s-1980s feminism is second wave feminism which we know ended more or less due to internal strife about pornography (among other topics) and the religious/conservative uprising of the 1980s. From the 1990s onward, "modern feminism" has been third wave. There are already growing backlashes to third wave feminism with varying degrees of extremist views (such as the misogynistic views of Kadagar). Whatever the actual products of "modern feminism" have been in the past 15 years, the image many have of it is akin to the view of Fragony. That is, that women deserve special treatment and to just be given positions and privileges for the sake of being a women. There seems to be (I put that in italics for a reason) very little discussion about men's issues from current strains of feminism (despite the assertion that feminism fights on behalf of both genders). Why is there no Federal council on men when men have successful suicide rates almost 4 times higher than women? Why do men make up 40% of college graduates when they are 51% of the 18-40something population? Why can't I paint my nails without having people look at me weirdly or questioning my sexuality?

Granted, even feminists I do not like will talk about the problem of "aggressive masculinity culture" repressing men from being able to express their feelings, which has a large degree of truth to it. However, most commentary about it features a lack of solutions or solutions that I feel won't actually connect with young men.

[HoreTore]

There seems to be (I put that in italics for a reason) very little discussion about men's issues from current strains of feminism (despite the assertion that feminism fights on behalf of both genders).

I don't know about the situation in the US(and the US is an extremely diverse country anyway), but from where I stand this is not true.

For the record, Norway does have a committee on men's rights. Proper rights, though, not the misogynist MRA bullshit.

[Kadagar_AV]

Also, you don't need to wait two decades to see if modern feminism is a success or not. Well, first of all there needs to be a definition of modern feminism. 1960s-1980s feminism is second wave feminism which we know ended more or less due to internal strife about pornography (among other topics) and the religious/conservative uprising of the 1980s. From the 1990s onward, "modern feminism" has been third wave. There are already growing backlashes to third wave feminism with varying degrees of extremist views (such as the misogynistic views of Kadagar). Whatever the actual products of "modern feminism" have been in the past 15 years, the image many have of it is akin to the view of Fragony. That is, that women deserve special treatment and to just be given positions and privileges for the sake of being a women. There seems to be (I put that in italics for a reason) very little discussion about men's issues from current strains of feminism (despite the assertion that feminism fights on behalf of both genders). Why is there no Federal council on men when men have successful suicide rates almost 4 times higher than women? Why do men make up 40% of college graduates when they are 51% of the 18-40something population? Why can't I paint my nails without having people look at me weirdly or questioning my sexuality?

Granted, even feminists I do not like will talk about the problem of "aggressive masculinity culture" repressing men from being able to express their feelings, which has a large degree of truth to it. However, most commentary about it features a lack of solutions or solutions that I feel won't actually connect with young men.

Has it?

I think around this Backroom and Frontroom, men have often shared their emotions and feelings, and been generally handed well.

Heck, looking around in my age group, 30-40 year olds... We have no problems discussing feelings. Neither with our spouse or with our friends.

I often heard women say they prefer to talk with men, as they are more sympathetic and less prone to backstab you afterwards.

I know me and the people around me are extremely open with stuff like this, so I don't understand where the idea that men cant handle feelings come from.

We don't act like ****ing drama queens around it though, but that's another issue entirely.


Also, we just had an accident in Sweden when some workers died. That's OK, it happens all the time and it's a known hazard of the job.

How come I never see feminists violently claim 50/50 gender balance in those jobs?

I agree with Frags, the feminist movement seem to only want a gender balance in the cool or finer jobs.

Men simultaneously go to the coal mine, gets killed once in a while, and frown some when they read about the new feminist ideas of equality in government and CEO boards.

[Husar]

Also, we just had an accident in Sweden when some workers died. That's OK, it happens all the time and it's a known hazard of the job.

You mean you never had an investigation or an improvement in safety standards?
And the families of the people who died just say it's okay?

[Kadagar_AV]

You mean you never had an investigation or an improvement in safety standards?
And the families of the people who died just say it's okay?

No no, that is done all the time. Men however accept that some jobs means you put your life at risk. Heck, in my own profession I have had 2 people I know get killed while training to further their profession.

However, some works will NEVER get a 0 rate in death numbers.

Construction and mining comes to mind, among others...

I dont' say we shouldn't do our utmost to protect these workers, you completely read me wrong.

I am saying that I find a lack of feminists fighting for females making up 50% of the work force.

[Montmorency]

Too easy. (http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/04/women-harassment-and-construction-sites/)

And of course, historically-speaking, feminism tried to integrate the construction industry back in the '70s. Unsurprisingly, the meathead population was resistant, and the attempt failed.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Too easy. (http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/04/women-harassment-and-construction-sites/)

And of course, historically-speaking, feminism tried to integrate the construction industry back in the '70s. Unsurprisingly, the meathead population was resistant, and the attempt failed.


That website is heavily SJW. Can you please directly link a boring, monotone study that proves your point.

[Kadagar_AV]

Too easy. (http://everydayfeminism.com/2013/04/women-harassment-and-construction-sites/)

And of course, historically-speaking, feminism tried to integrate the construction industry back in the '70s. Unsurprisingly, the meathead population was resistant, and the attempt failed.

Yeah... And here back in the real world you quote one, I will say it again, ONE, feminist blog.

At the same time the movement as a whole wage war on political positions and board of directors...

Do you seriously believe you get a cookie for being able to google "feminism + construction"?

That you then put it forward as some kind of argument seen to the whole, is embarrassing.

And OF COURSE the failed attempt yet again was the mens fault.

Heck, I practised as a emergency-nurse, in the nurse room there was this calendar with naked firemen.

Do you think I:

A) Made a whole debacle about unfair working conditions and quit, then wrote a blog about it.

Or:

B) Went to work and ****ed the cutest nurse there?





SIDENOTE: No I am not a nurse, practicing there was part of the officer training program for medical field helpers. Basically you get trained to in a pinch be able to assist the field medics. The training from there however helped me save a life in Vienna last year, something I am quite proud of.

[Montmorency]

Yeah... And here back in the real world you quote one, I will say it again, ONE, feminist blog.

At the same time the movement as a whole wage war on political positions and board of directors...

Do you seriously believe you get a cookie for being able to google "feminism + construction"?

That you then put it forward as some kind of argument seen to the whole, is embarrassing.

And OF COURSE the failed attempt yet again was the mens fault.

That you perceive no irony in saying this is profound. Really, really, low self-awareness here.


As for ACIN's more reasonable complaint (though still strange - after all, these are the very sorts of criticisms most-often used against SJWs):

Arriola - "What's the Big Deal - Women in the New York City Construction Industry and Sexual Harassment Law, 1970-1985". (1990)
Gale - "Women in Non‐traditional Occupations: The Construction Industry". (1994)
Law - ""GIRLS CAN'T BE PLUMBERS"--AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR WOMEN IN CONSTRUCTION: BEYOND GOALS AND QUOTAS". (1985)
Whittock - "Women's experiences of non-traditional employment: is gender equality in this area a possibility?". (2002)


I'm not going to upload these, as it's obvious Kad will refuse to see that they refute his point, let alone go to the trouble of reading them.

[Kadagar_AV]

That you perceive no irony in saying this is profound. Really, really, low self-awareness here.


As for ACIN's more reasonable complaint (though still strange - after all, these are the very sorts of criticisms most-often used against SJWs):

Arriola - "What's the Big Deal - Women in the New York City Construction Industry and Sexual Harassment Law, 1970-1985". (1990)
Gale - "Women in Non‐traditional Occupations: The Construction Industry". (1994)
Law - ""GIRLS CAN'T BE PLUMBERS"--AFFIRMATIVE ACTION FOR WOMEN IN CONSTRUCTION: BEYOND GOALS AND QUOTAS". (1985)
Whittock - "Women's experiences of non-traditional employment: is gender equality in this area a possibility?". (2002)


I'm not going to upload these, as it's obvious Kad will refuse to see that they refute his point, let alone go to the trouble of reading them.

Will you summarize?

I yet again say that I don't trust your intellectual ability enough to DIG IN DEEP with whatever notion you have.

A semi-intelligent person at the very least is able to summarize and explain his sources.

If I then would question THAT, you might ask me to dig in.

Have I mentioned I see you as an arrogant something something?

And as a sidenote: Swedish feminism is some XX years ahead of your feminism. Remember this is an international board, so you really should broaden your sources.

Back in gymnasium, we had this class of "builders" with about 40/60 female / male attendants. Sexual harassment is a SERIOUS issue in Sweden, unless a male is the victim.

So step off of your high horse, will you?

[Montmorency]

Here's the summary: the feminist movement in general has wanted women in construction for longer than you've been alive.


Remember this is an international board, so you really should broaden your sources.

Same point about irony, self-awareness.


Sexual harassment is a SERIOUS issue in Sweden, unless a male is the victim.

Maybe because people like you don't take it seriously? Who said this:


Heck, I practised as a emergency-nurse, in the nurse room there was this calendar with naked firemen.

Do you think I:

A) Made a whole debacle about unfair working conditions and quit, then wrote a blog about it.

Or:

B) Went to work and ****ed the cutest nurse there?

[Beskar]

I practised as a emergency-nurse, in the nurse room there was this calendar with naked firemen.


Against the rules here, possible disciplinary action. Nurses cannot even wear a charity ribbon for example, as it might cause offence to the patient.

That isn't a feminist issue, it is a lack of professional standards in the work place.

[HoreTore]

it is a lack of professional standards in the work place.

DING DING DING DING

If I had naked pictures on my office wall, the feminists who wanted to complain would have to wait in a very, very long line...

[Fragony]

Have yet to see a workplace that doesn't has a Playboy-calendar

[HoreTore]

Have yet to see a workplace that doesn't has a Playboy-calendar

Are you still living in the 80's?

[Fragony]

Are you still living in the 80's?

According to a personality-test I behave like a 15 year old, so yes.

[CrossLOPER]

I can't help but feel that Kadagar is the kind of person who sits around on /pol/ listening to this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6TJdRrZR_WacbxJWiRZ5_g


Are you still living in the 80's?
No, [snip].

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Maybe because people like you don't take it seriously? Who said this:

Kadagar is sexist because he only has sex with women, right?

Hang on...

Are you suggesting that Kadagar took advantage of the hot nurse?

Surely she's an autonomous actor can make her own decisions?

If Kadagar was a girl and proposed to fornicate with a male nurse, would you bring that up?

As usual, I'm going to assume Kad's heart is basically in the right place and that he's probably not expressing himself well, along with being slightly off bore with regards to his point. I've only skimmed the thread but my general impression is that, whilst I often disagree with him, people usually shout at Kad for what they think he meant, rather than what he actually meant.

I believe this is because you all eat too much chicken and not enough red meat, all the oestrogen is messing with your brain chemistry and therefore you can't properly appreciate Kad's point of view.

[Husar]

I can't help but feel that Kadagar is the kind of person who sits around on /pol/ listening to this guy:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6TJdRrZR_WacbxJWiRZ5_g


This is so, so, soooo wonderful, I can hardly thank you enough. He even has a piece on our topic (few bad words but nothing serious I think):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MNURDy_uGu8

[Kadagar_AV]

If I understood things right, men have a more diverse range of genes than women...

On the IQ bell curve, the mens curve is broader.

This means, that while the average or median IQ is the same, you will find more really stupid, and really smart men.

The left side of the curve doesn't effect the economy much in a male/female perspective, as you're probably on some sort of wellfare anyway (this basically mean that more men are REALLY retarded, not just retarded).

The right side however does affect economy, as the most intelligent ones will predominantly be men. Society has a tendency to reward ability on the right side more, so with a broader curve, the males comes out on top.

Can this be part of explaining why men tend to take the top positions in most endeavors? And partly explain why men tend to earn somewhat more?

[Fragony]

No, he has..

There are worse things, being you for example.

[a completely inoffensive name]

..

That's not very sex positive.



No, he has...

Amazing argument. You have truly shown where the high ground is.

[Ironside]

If I understood things right, men have a more diverse range of genes than women...

On the IQ bell curve, the mens curve is broader.

This means, that while the average or median IQ is the same, you will find more really stupid, and really smart men.

The left side of the curve doesn't effect the economy much in a male/female perspective, as you're probably on some sort of wellfare anyway (this basically mean that more men are REALLY retarded, not just retarded).

The right side however does affect economy, as the most intelligent ones will predominantly be men. Society has a tendency to reward ability on the right side more, so with a broader curve, the males comes out on top.

Can this be pat of explaining why men tend to take the top positions in most endeavors? And partly explain why men tend to earn somewhat more?

Not really. High IQ gives higher salary jobs on average, but it's not that notable for the very high IQ people (where such a difference is most notable). The top positions aren't help by people with very high IQ, those tend to top out as specialists.

This is a more probable reason. (http://www.pbs.org/speak/speech/prejudice/women/) Short version. In media and general conversations, if the male/female ratio is getting close to 50/50, the environment feels to be massivly female.
So a man and a woman contributing equally verbally will feel like the woman is heavily dominating (aka being pushy), while if they feel to be contributing equally, the man will be contributing more (aka contributing more on the percieved same amount of time).

[Rhyfelwyr]

In my experience, sexual harassment towards men is more frequent in the workplace, it just isn't regarded as harassment.

Now I've been compared variously to a gorilla and Lurch from the Adams family, and I've still experienced what many people would consider sexual harassment from colleagues and customers.

So its not surprise to see what wee guys like this (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/11/05/alex_from_target_watch_the_teen_idol_and_viral_twitter_meme_appear_on_ellen.html)experience just for packing shopping bags.

The exception to the above rule, again just from my experience, is Indian men. They don't hold back or try in the least to be subtle about it when it comes to harassing women. I don't say this to race bait, but just to highlight that our behaviour in these things is about the culture that is ingrained into us.

[Fragony]

Incredible India. Just hit them if they are being rude. But don't you really mean Asians. You know who I mean.

[a completely inoffensive name]

So its not surprise to see what wee guys like this (http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/11/05/alex_from_target_watch_the_teen_idol_and_viral_twitter_meme_appear_on_ellen.html)experience just for packing shopping bags.

He was asking for all that attention by wearing that tight shirt.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I recall something about how when going for a job interview men ask about salary and women argue about flexible hours, childcare etc. I forget the paper but the general thrust was that since the 1980's and the end of Second Wave Feminism many women have chosen children over career, so there aren't as many women in top positions as men now at least partly because of self imposed limits.

There's a strong argument that the men in these top positions are not leading "healthy" lives, either.

[HoreTore]

Men have shorter life spans not because of genetic difference or work difference(nurses, for example, is bloody hard physical work), but because we enjoy the finer things in life, like crashing our cars into each other, inserting sharp objects into our bodies and throwing tiny bits of metal at each other.

Discard those factors, and men and women have similar lifespans.

[Beskar]

Men have shorter life spans not because of genetic difference or work difference(nurses, for example, is bloody hard physical work), but because we enjoy the finer things in life, like crashing our cars into each other, inserting sharp objects into our bodies and throwing tiny bits of metal at each other.

Discard those factors, and men and women have similar lifespans.

Nurses lift approx 10 tons over the course of a long-day shift, it is why manual-handling is an annual/mandatory workshop every year to ensure they don't bust their backs by not working within safe or approved practise, for example. What is interesting, are these guidelines:
https://i.imgur.com/fHlcAUn.png
Now imagine patients are typically over 60kg, and they need to be moved, escorted, lifted, washed...

[Montmorency]

Kadagar is sexist because he only has sex with women, right?

Hang on...

Are you suggesting that Kadagar took advantage of the hot nurse?

Surely she's an autonomous actor can make her own decisions?

If Kadagar was a girl and proposed to fornicate with a male nurse, would you bring that up?

PVC, you made the same error that you accuse us of making with Kadagar.

The problem isn't the sexual encounter in itself, in other words. This is sexist because it says:

1. Men can be sexually harassed.
2. But that's no problem, cuz when I get harassed I go out and fuck chicks!
3. Only pussies complain about sexual harassment.

[Kadagar_AV]

1. Men can be sexually harassed.
2. But that's no problem, cuz when I get harassed I go out and fuck chicks!
3. Only pussies complain about sexual harassment.

Word ~:smoking:

See, now you finally GET me :2thumbsup:



EDIT: Sexual harassment of pussies is still WRONG though :stare:

[Kadagar_AV]

See it as a game, what would you do

Economy has a perk when consisting of men

See, what I love about Frags is that he is outspoken and once in a while absolutely kills the argument.

If anyone doesn't see the point in this, it's because you have worked in feminist controlled work settings, or have bent over for political correctness.




Another way to look at it:

When the ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE comes, who are the top 10 persons you have worked with in your life you would form a crew with? It is about survival, you know, much like anything else. EVER.

I know what my crew would look like, and trust me, it's not 50/50 based on gender.

[Montmorency]

If anyone doesn't see the point in this, it's because you have worked in feminist controlled work settings, or have bent over for political correctness.

he killed the argument by - not making any argument whatsoever but coincidentally agreeing with what you maintain? Interesting.


When the ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE comes

It's 0, because no one I know, male or female, is fit to survive an apocalypse by doing it the way you imagine. Stop deluding yourself, the only way to survive an apocalypse is to immediately form an ad-hoc community and utilize everyone's skills to the maximum. Making it a "NO GIRLZ CLUB" because teh menz are strong and brave and can shoot guns is wrong on literally every level.

[Beskar]

I know what my crew would look like, and trust me, it's not 50/50 based on gender.

You know, the survival of the human species requires fewer men than women.

If we are also speaking about the slow stumbler types, women can overpower them easy enough too. Force-equalizers like guns also level the playing field.

Anyway, you forget, the strongest parent is your mother, not the father.

[Kadagar_AV]

You know, the survival of the human species requires fewer men than women.

If we are also speaking about the slow stumbler types, women can overpower them easy enough too. Force-equalizers like guns also level the playing field.

Anyway, you forget, the strongest parent is your mother, not the father.

I think you read me wrong.

I said, what 20 people would you want to have in your CREW?

The CREW can pick up girls in the zombie apocalypse :2thumbsup:

Heck, the better the crew, the more girls we would be able to save. Ooooooooooooooooooooh PC incorrectness warning...

[HoreTore]

Why is it that bigots so often live in the world of a 13-year old?

[Sarmatian]

If anyone doesn't see the point in this, it's because you have worked in feminist controlled work settings, or have bent over for political correctness.


Is this a fancy way of saying that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong?

[CrossLOPER]

If I understood things right, men have a more diverse range of genes than women...

On the IQ bell curve, the mens curve is broader.

This means, that while the average or median IQ is the same, you will find more really stupid, and really smart men.

The left side of the curve doesn't effect the economy much in a male/female perspective, as you're probably on some sort of wellfare anyway i am talking out of my(this basically mean that more men are REALLY retarded, not just retarded).

The right side however does affect economy, as the most intelligent ones will predominantly be men. Society has a tendency to reward ability on the right side more, so with a broader curve, the males comes out on top.

Can this be part of explaining why men tend to take the top positions in most endeavors? And partly explain why men tend to earn somewhat more?
If you seriously think that "the top" is comprised of "elite" intellectual male substance...

[Kadagar_AV]

Is this a fancy way of saying that anyone who disagrees with me is wrong?

Congratulations!! :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader:

You picked out one sentence, to fight a position that has gone on for hundreds of lines of text.

And YOU WON!!

You want a cookie?

Or are you going to listen in, try to understand the point, follow some sources, and make an intelligent reply?


If you seriously think that "the top" is comprised of "elite" intellectual male substance...

Huh?

Where did you get that from?

You must have either misread me, or lacked the capacity to understand me, if you think I in anyway based any argument on the top of the bell curve.

I thought I was very precise when I talked about how the right side of the bell curve is what really matters, when it comes to who does well at what.

A broader range of genetic diversity in men means more men will excel generally, compared to women.

How is that wrong?

[Montmorency]

Congratulations!! :cheerleader: :cheerleader: :cheerleader:

You picked out one sentence, to fight a position that has gone on for hundreds of lines of text.

And YOU WON!!

You want a cookie?

Or are you going to listen in, try to understand the point, follow some sources, and make an intelligent reply?



Lol, that's precisely what you're doing. Sarmatian did no such thing. He's even posted earlier in the thread to correct you, if you'll recall.

[HoreTore]

It's wrong because the data is bogus and you don't understand a thing of what you're talking about.

I'm assuming you're on the left of the spectrum.

[Husar]

When the ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE comes, who are the top 10 persons you have worked with in your life you would form a crew with?


I said, what 20 people would you want to have in your CREW?

Yes, I know, but I laugh about it myself, I'm silly and pedantic and a lot of other bad things.
Deal with it.

[Fragony]

Why is it that bigots so often live in the world of a 13-year old?

I take it I am one of them.

Why do lefties always confuse what they want with what is simply so? Women do make it to the top if they have qualities that are required. Feminist movement should just shut up, you aren't entitled to special treatment just because you have a fleshwound between your legs.

The ZOMBIE APOCALYPSE is a fun one, if you consider the odds, what are your chances of survival. Just you, not the human species.

[Montmorency]

Feminist movement should just shut up, you aren't entitled to special treatment just because you have a fleshwound between your legs.

But they already are given special treatment. Feminists want you to stop giving them special treatment.

[Fragony]

But they already are given special treatment. Feminists want you to stop giving them special treatment.

Yeah, that is why they want quota for top-positions. A circular argument of a F5-tornado.

[Montmorency]

Yeah, that is why they want quota for top-positions.

Transitional phase. You don't want to stop treating them specially, so they offer to wean you off it.

[Fragony]

Transitional phase. You don't want to stop treating them specially, so they offer to wean you off it.

By demanding quota that are de facto discriminating men, yes that makes total sense. The able will get where they want to be, plenty of examples of incredibly capable women that are doing fantastic. But it's not to be taken for granted. As long as femininists refuse to shut the hell up when there is a perfectly fine level-playing field I am not going to be a shoulder to cry on.

[Montmorency]

By demanding quota that are de facto discriminating men

The able will get where they want to be

Wrong.


As long as femininists refuse to shut the hell up when there is a perfectly fine level-playing field I am not going to be a shoulder to cry on.

I know to take what you say very carefully, but - the meaning here is that you will not admit that women are disadvantaged unless they stop complaining that they're being disadvantaged.

And that's pretty messed up.

[HoreTore]

I take it I am one of them.

No, I wasn't talking about you Frags.

Anyway. As a white, heterosexual male, I will be preferred by employer before they even see my qualifications compared to those applicants who do not share those 3 traits.

I want that special treatment to end. I want to be judged on my qualifications, not on the way I use my penis.

[Fragony]

Wrong.



I know to take what you say very carefully, but - the meaning here is that you will not admit that women are disadvantaged unless they stop complaining that they're being disadvantaged.

And that's pretty messed up.

Kindly allow me to point out why fighting against sexual discrimination, or any discrimination, is more messed up; nobody is going to really believe you when you can rightfully claim you did it all by yourself.

[Husar]

Not all women are feminists.
Not all feminists want quotas.
Not all women want quotas.
Not all quotas are wanted by feminists.
Not all quotas are wanted by women.
Not all solutions are quotas.
Not all quotas are solutions.

But it's also not like quotas would necessarily force companies to choose unqualified women for those jobs, they would of course try to find the qualified ones. And in quite a few companies it may be the first time they seriously look for qualified women to promote to these positions. For women it would create an incentive to try to get there, because that incentive is much lower if you know you wouldn't really be considered anyway. That is incidentally also why all the arguments based on the status quo make no sense, because it has been proven time and again that the status quo is biased against women even if they have the same qualifications. Women even had to fight for the right to vote. To say that feminism is just about unfairly disadvantaging men is ridiculous, or are you also mad they your votes are only worth 50% of what they were before women could vote?

[Fragony]

Is offering 300 euro for having sex with me abuse as well, or just offering me 300 euro to have sex with them. Perfectly ok with me that's all fine. But that's what they are willing to pay for one hour of love. Two hours. Don't be so naive about what women really want. I know a lot better than that. Women aren't accidental unwilling victims, I am sure the Swedish skii instructer agrees.

And in case of a zombie-apocalypse, I'll take Kad over any of you, at least he got things right. With the rest of you, I won't survive. Women's rights, you have gotto be kidding me.

[Husar]

Is offering 300 euro for having sex with me abuse as well, or just offering me 300 euro to have sex with them.

Eh, what you said before and after that comma is exactly the same thing. :dizzy2:
Oh and if that is a question, you may want to put a question mark behind it, just saying.

And it's an anecdote that may say a lot about your social environment, not much in terms of proof for anything.

[HoreTore]

Let's all pretend sex trafficking doesn't exist.

[Fragony]

Eh, what you said before and after that comma is exactly the same thing. :dizzy2:
Oh and if that is a question, you may want to put a question mark behind it, just saying.

And it's an anecdote that may say a lot about your social environment, not much in terms of proof for anything.

It's no anecdote about my social enviroment, it's just how things are. What do you know about my social enviroment anyway? Yes that is what I sometimes do, I get payed to have sex, kill it with fire. But why would you, I am not harming anything with doing that. I don't really see any problem really. It has nothing to do with my social enviroment, my mom knows and she's perfectly ok with it. Old hippie, used to run naked through Amsterdam. My friends were always amazed that my mom would bring tea when we were smoking pot.

[HoreTore]

I think you need to look up the definition of anecdote, Frags.

[Fragony]

I think you need to look up the definition of anecdote, Frags.

I don't give a crap what an anacdote means, couldn't eat it even if I undertood what it is, so anecdotes are kinda useless when you really think of it.

[HoreTore]

I don't give a crap what an anacdote means, couldn't eat it even if I undertood what it is, so anecdotes are kinda useless when you really think of it.

It's fun to throw around words we don't know the meaning of.

Knowledge is for nerds!!

[Husar]

I don't give a crap what an anacdote means, couldn't eat it even if I undertood what it is, so anecdotes are kinda useless when you really think of it.

Exactly, and that is why your anecdote is useless.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Let's all pretend sex trafficking doesn't exist.

The sex industry has always existed and criminalizing it has had the usual effect common to most efforts at prohibiting a given personal behavior. Price increase through scarcity coupled with a criminal element seeking to maintain its criminality while minimizing actually policing efforts and thereby generate the greatest profits -- which generally never end up in the hands of the front line workers in the industry. Subsequent generations of the "money" behind such schemes turn legit and then continue the cycle as members of the establishment [cough] Joseph Kennedy [cough].

Even more shameful is that the sex industry is the central element in modern slavery -- wherein far more persons are enslaved than ever were enslaved during the height of legal (mostly of Blacks) slavery in the plantations era.

[Fragony]

Exactly, and that is why your anecdote is useless.

What do you know about it, who are you to judge it. For your information, I was only security beating up assholes and only being an asset myself only a few times. What is wrong with that, you provide a fun time without hurting anything. I don't see the problem. Sex is not a negative thing, quite the opposite really, just because you are payed to do it doesn't make you a pump-chump, it's perfectly possible to be really kind and considerate.

[Husar]

What do you know about it, who are you to judge it. For your information, I was only security beating up assholes and only being an asset myself only a few times. What is wrong with that, you provide a fun time without hurting anything. I don't see the problem. Sex is not a negative thing, quite the opposite really, just because you are payed to do it doesn't make you a pump-chump, it's perfectly possible to be really kind and considerate.

No, anecdote does not mean that you were exploited.

[Fragony]

No, anecdote does not mean that you were exploited.

Did I say I was

[Husar]

Did I say I was

If you think so, but why did you not stop then?

[Fragony]

Getting payed. It isn't as vicious as some think it is, it are the people who do their utmost best to provide these girls with a safe enviroment get the finger. The illegal industry is the tenth circle of hell.

[The Lurker Below]

I'll never forget 2004 when my mother-in-law said "What kind of names are those anyhow? (Kerry/Edwards) A president should have a good strong name like John." (her husbands name) Of course she never considered that those were surnames. She was going to vote like her pastor told her to and was grasping for any reason possible to justify it.

Not sure if it makes you feel any better, but most women will never vote for another woman. So they may not make the best voters, but at least they'll not promote female politicians.

[HoreTore]

but most women will never vote for another woman.

Where does this claim come from?

[Brenus]

"Where does this claim come from?" Probably the same sources that said once upon a time it was a waste of time to give women the right to vote as they will vote like their husband so it it will just double the paperwork.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Where does this claim come from?

Example (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/15/phyllis-chesler-delaware-odonnell-harry-reid-sharron-angle-republican-democrat/)

It's been around a while, note the author is an emerita, but though dated it was one of the saws of political wisdom in the late 20th.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I wish there were some new threads in the br, this is getting stale.

[Sarmatian]

I wish there were some new threads in the br, this is getting stale.

Be creative.