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

Alternative Title: Women, Franchise and burly fireMEN

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

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.

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

Contrast say New Zealand with North Korea.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

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

That's a big gap.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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.").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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

oddly good timing...

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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.

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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:

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

There are currently 83 Female Chess Masters btw...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

... 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?

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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?

---

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:

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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:

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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

---

That's exactly what they want.

Quote:

---

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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.

Edit: I missed the point apparently.

Way to miss the point squared.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

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...

I found this old post of mine in another place:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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/201...ias-math-stem/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Researchers

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.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

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

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/201...ias-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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Researchers

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

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.

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:.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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:.

---

What field are you in, if I may ask?

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

REGARDLESS, look at sports like curling or shooting

---

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Attachment 14718

Quote:

---

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?

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 ****.

Quote:

---

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:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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 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.

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

Hairstylists?

Have a look at the worlds best chefs?

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.

I miss this show!!

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

Quote:

---

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

---

No, you have not.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

So CCS levels are marginally larger in women than men.

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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".

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:

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

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

Quote:

---

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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 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.