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

[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/...-degree-by-27/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ccap/201...io-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.

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.

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.

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/UC6T..._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/UC6T..._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):

[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.