You still didn't get it, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Punish_her
Printable View
You still didn't get it, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Punish_her
That's better - it sounded earlier very much as if you had leapt to precisely that conclusion. Why the speculation in the first place? If a woman had been horribly mutilated, would you have been suggesting it was her fault?Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
As noted earlier in the thread, there are far worse examples in the opposite direction. In how many such cases does the woman end up getting arrested?Quote:
I will grant you that men are much less likely to report such abuse, generally as a matter of pride I would think. But women who do report being abused aren't guaranteed to get protection, either. I know of one woman who called the police on her abusive husband only to have the responding officer stand out in the yard talking and joking with the husband, then driving off, telling him not to do it any more, without even talking to her!
Absolutely not true!Quote:
Originally Posted by Punish_her
Marion G. Crandall, Alameda, California, killed by enemy shell in March 1918 at Ste. Menehould, France.
Winona Martin, Rockville Center, N.Y. killed in a Paris air raid in March 1918.
Ruth Landon, NYC, New York, killed by a shell fired on St Gervais Church, Paris, France, March 1918.
One hundred and eleven Army Nurses died overseas and one hundred and eighty six died stateside, all while serving their country in WWI. Twenty two or more U.S. Navy Yeoman (F) died during the World War. Twenty seven Navy Nurse Corps women died while serving. Dieticians, telephone operators, YMCA volunteers, Red Cross and Salvation Army women, and women in military intelligence also lost their lives.
And that's only one year! Check the link for women who died serving their country in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Desert Storm and on into the 21st century. Just because they weren't allowed to shoot back doesn't make them any less casualties of war.
There were 316 women who survived the Titanic, and 338 men. Doesn't sound so preferential to me!Quote:
they got rushed off the titanic first, and are usually given preferential treatment even now in disasters
Fields in which women who perform the same tasks as men make significantly less pay!Quote:
and oh yea, the stimulus package was heavily skewed towards women despite most jobs lost were male dominated fields
But the number of women paying alimony is rising. And how many men actually seek alimony from their wives, even when those wives have earned more. There are many reasons for this discrepancy, many of the based on social prejudices which men have perpetuated!Quote:
98% of alimony payments go from male to female despite 40% of women outearning men
That sounds suspicious. I'd like to see a citation on that. Not saying it couldn't happen, but I'd be surprised to find it to be built into the law. That would, indeed, be discrimination. What springs to my mind (more speculation, based on TV cop shows) is the husband who strikes his wife, then calls the cops when she fights back. I've also seen the other way, her calling the cops, then being arrested because she attacked him first.Quote:
and there are now about 10 states that have mandatory arrest laws for police responding to domestic disturbances, and the male is always arrested, by law,even if he called the police saying his wife was attacking him
being a civillian and having a bomb dropped on you is not dying in combat. the people who died on 9/11 did not die in combat, it's dying as a result of war. there's a differenceQuote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
women making less money for the same job is the biggest load of horseshit ever. women earn less than men because they're less likely to commute or travel as far, less likely to work overtime, and far more likely to take a huge portion of time off for maternity leave, and that was a lame response
there were far more men on the tiitanic. 1,347 men died, 103 women died
Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin all have mandatory arrest laws, where police are required to arrest the bigger, strongerof the two which will almost always be male. In new jersey, the wording of the law addresses the aggressor in masculine pronouns only
yes i do, you're a misandristQuote:
Originally Posted by lucy
Almost all of which is explained by different working pattern and career choices, rather than discrimination. Given two, say, software developers aged 35. One is female and took a five year career break to raise children, the other is male and did not. Which do you expect to earn more? Then, when you look at computer programmers aged 30-40, of course the women have a lower average pay - because they've got less experience on average, despite being the same age!Quote:
Fields in which women who perform the same tasks as men make significantly less pay!
There are other issues too, different priorities: for example, I expect female employees are more likely to take an option with slightly lower pay for greater flexibility or other benefits. My own mother recently switched to 90% employment in a condensed working week - 10% less salary and longer days on those four, in exchange for having every Friday free. 10% less pay - for more free time. The job also pays less money in the first place, in exchange for better vacation and flex-time (which, for example, lets you get an additional 18 days off through the year by working extra hours on other days if you wish) - and as it happens, that setup has attracted more female than male staff, while men tend to choose the higher salaries and harder hours of other employers in the same field.
So far that's about right. Women do make different choices. In general, women aren't as hot for careers as are men, for a lot of different reasons.
However this:
is pretty fucked up, isn't it? Women being punished for raising children. An economic system that treats women like this and punishes them for raising kids should be changed, and changed asap, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by js207
Because it's a very bad move, in the long run. It might sooner or later keep well educated women from having kids at all. As a matter of fact, that's what's already happening. Which leaves procreation to the idiots/uneducated masses/trailer park folks/immigrants.
Kind of an evolutionary downwards spiral, imho.
so if a woman's not working, she should still be paid? that's complete idiocyQuote:
Originally Posted by lucy
how fair is it for a company to have to give a woman time off, hire someone to replace the woman, then fire the new guy the second the woman comes back?
oh, well, you'd be all for that because fuck men, women need everything
No - it is fucked up that you think it is "punishment" to lose salary for not doing a job for several years. If I suddenly decide I want to become an airline pilot now, should I get paid the same as someone who has been doing it since leaving school, i.e. has well over a decade more experience than me? You think if someone takes several years off, they should step back in as if they'd been working and gaining experience in the job all that time, even though they haven't? Would you be happy to be operated on by a surgeon who hasn't actually held a scalpel in years, but wants to pretend otherwise?Quote:
Originally Posted by lucy
You have a point there. Of course, most measures that promote child-bearing make that problem worse...Quote:
Because it's a very bad move, in the long run. It might sooner or later keep well educated women from having kids at all. As a matter of fact, that's what's already happening. Which leaves procreation to the idiots/uneducated masses/trailer park folks/immigrants.
Kind of an evolutionary downwards spiral, imho.
Segregation means forcibly seperating people, yes? No, I think people have a right to choose.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Co-ed??Quote:
We all know that making everything completely co-ed is a non starter... right?
Depending on where you live - or how many you are walking together..Quote:
Originally Posted by lucy
I do not know if it happens so much nowaday in courts - ? It used to for sure. But I did not mean legally, I meant people's opinions often go in the direction of 'if you know it might be dangerous, why do it?'Quote:
I don't know whether that still happens in other countries. But I don't see that courts her can afford to "minimize" the guilt of a perpetrator with the "she's guilty too because she was wearing a short skirt"-approach (insert here any dumbass excuse for an asshole committing a crime). Any judge pulling such a shit would have been a judge for the longest time in a matter of minutes.
I agree - we seem to think (in our part of the world) that one can ensure safety, and if safety isn't there, someone must be to blame! But though there are many things we can do, life can never be safe.Quote:
If anything, I think we're moving too much into the wrong direction, i.e. trying to establish full security by way of law. That will never be possible and if it is possible at all, it will cost us most or all of our freedom. I'd rather get beaten down and mugged than have that.
In DK the board of equality are trying to take more power than they should have - in fact, they should be cancelled! But they cannot decide what the hotel should do. The courts have to decide if the hotel broke the laws against prejudice, and my guess is they would say no problem.Quote:
As for the example given in this thread; I fully agree with StrictMaster. It's a privately owned company. If they want to have a floor reserved to women, they should have the freedom to do that. If someone doesn't like it, I'm pretty sure there are lots of other hotels in Copenhagen to choose from.
Well, our feminists apparently felt the men were discriminated against here..Quote:
There's a whole hotel reserved for women only in Zurich. That's totally ok and none of my business. What I don't like as much is that there surely would be an outcry by the same women who hail the idea of a women-only hotel if someone opened a men-only hotel. That's the point where feminists get annoying.
Are there any left?Quote:
Originally Posted by Punish_her
Nor could many men. That's why paremedics work in pairs.Quote:
It is not a social construct that says my girlfriend can't lift me upp if I were unconscious on the floor.
[quote]
Therefore, there are certain jobs that will always require much more male input than female input.
[/quote
Input?? Lost you there.
Aren't there male marines? There are fem soldiers in many countries, DK and Israel for instance, and in Israel women are drafted.Quote:
These jobs happpen to be dangerous. Women won't be drafted because the average woman would not be as effective in combat as the average man.
What I like about your post is that you do not confuse 'equal' with 'identical', as many people seem to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
"From the beginning of the 1970s, most Western armies began to admit women to serve active duty.[2] Only some of them permit women to fill active combat roles, including Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy, Germany, Norway, Israel, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland."Quote:
Originally Posted by Punish_her
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_military
In Russia they have done it for ages. Also, women were serving on the convoys during ww2, where many ships and lives were lost.
I am no friend of war, which in most cases are idiotic in the extreme and not neccesary. But if men are drafted, women should be too. Equal rights, equal responsibilities.
I do not like the draft etiher. I think people should vote whether they want to go to war or not, if they agree with it or not. to be forced to fight for something you might think is stupid or maybe just plain wrong, is not democratic.
As for non-military uprisings or revolutions, women are have been there in a many cases.
The comments and attitudes of the women in question (earlier post) were callous and inexcusable. But not, I would like to think, representative.Quote:
Originally Posted by Punish_her
In your society, not everybodies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Punish_her
But, according to you that is not discrimination against men, but because they cannot do the job, right?
That would be the first and second class women, the rest never got a chance, men or women.Quote:
they got rushed off the titanic first,
What disasters are you talking about? Wars? They die as everybody else, and get raped. Floods, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcano eruptions? What preferential treatment can you do in those situations?Quote:
and are usually given preferential treatment even now in disasters
I do not know about that. An American law? And what does it matter if jobs are in male dominated fields? Surely males can take female dominated jobs too?Quote:
and oh yea, the stimulus package was heavily skewed towards women despite most jobs lost were male dominated fields
There are think you have a point in a number of situations.Quote:
98% of alimony payments go from male to female despite 40% of women outearning men
Well, obviouslyQuote:
and there are now about 10 states that have mandatory arrest laws for police responding to domestic disturbances,
Now that is just plain wrong!Quote:
and the male is always arrested, by law,even if he called the police saying his wife was attacking him
I think there are several factors which are mixed up:Quote:
Originally Posted by js207
One is equal pay for equal work, the fact that in many countries and many areas women earn less than men for doing the exact same job.
Another is what kinds of jobs women are allowed into, and if they pay better or worse than the rest.
A third is what kinds of jobs women typically choose, and the fact that those jobs are typically payed less
I guess that depends entirely on whether this country wants more people or not..Quote:
Originally Posted by Punish_her
However, many employers are happy to do this, in order to keep a valued employee.
Yes, of course. He would have know that when he took the job.Quote:
then fire the new guy the second the woman comes back?
Why several years? There are day care institutions, and a father, mostly.Quote:
Originally Posted by js207
So, we should stop having children?Quote:
You think if someone takes several years off, they should step back in as if they'd been working and gaining experience in the job all that time, even though they haven't? Would you be happy to be operated on by a surgeon who hasn't actually held a scalpel in years, but wants to pretend otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thir
No.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregation
Force isn't required at all...we already for the most part in one way or another live in a gender stratified-sexually segregated society.
IE: separate locker rooms, bathing facilities and bathrooms in most public places.
The trend appears to be one of slowly becoming more and more de-segragated however. Not too long ago men and women sat on opposite sides of the Church for instance...in some societies they didn't eat meals at the same time or in the same room. In ancient Greece women were not even allowed to view any of the male events at the Olympic games.
Co-ed simply means shared...like Co-ed dorms where males and females live next too each other or in some cases even share a room.
punish_her: Stop putting things in my mouth which I never said or shut the fuck off. I didn't say a woman should be paid when she's not working. I said that it's a short-sighted policy to punish (and yeah, I agree with js207 that punish is the wrong word. I don't have a better one, though) a woman just because she has to take a time-out to raise her kids.
Also, even though I am apparently a misandrist, I call discrimination for males on this, too. If a father decides to have children and take some time off, he faces the same problem as a mother. Having a career and spending more than just a few minutes with your kids is virtually impossible. It just happens much less that it's the father and not the woman, so we don't get to hear about it as much.
Might make sense for the individual company. Yeah, I guess it definitely does. But for a society, it's a dead end in the long run.
i'm not putting anything in your mouth that didn't come from it first. when men get atttacked, it's their own fault, when women get attacked, it's a great injustice. that's your viewQuote:
Originally Posted by lucy
males and females do share rooms at more liberal colleges. I had a friend who lived with 3 girls in collegeQuote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
also, the first olympics were in the nude, maybe the athletes got a bit shy
just imagine the five man bobsled
Well, it's obvious that men and women aren't identical. There are physical and even mental differences. That doesn't make either sex inherently better than the other, just means that there are some things one sex can generally do better than the other. However, there are a hell of a lot more things that both can do equally well, with or without testosterone. Regardless, if you're doing the same job you should be getting the same compensation.Quote:
Originally Posted by thir
Considering that the bobsled is done in winter, on a frozen course, with the icy breeze from your speed causing every exposed nerve to shrivel, I don't think it would have been a problem. (Of course, they didn't HAVE bobsleds then, OR Winter Olympics.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Punish_her
Because in this country, "gentlemen's clubs" have become a way for male politicians and businessMen to network out of reach of female colleagues who might be competitors for promotions or deals. In a culture where you can only get ahead by meeting the right people, making sure you can only meet them if you're the right sex is blatant discrimination.Quote:
Originally Posted by IAN 2411
Basically, follow the money.
It's about looking at the person and not the average or the stereotype. Women on average have less muscular strength (though more stamina), but professions that need strength, like the fire service, have long ago accepted that they should let anyone take the tests, and not assume that a candidate must be too weak because she doesn't have balls.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
A lot of basketball players are black, because some African subraces are markedly taller than average, but that doesn't mean white men can't jump.
Something I noticed yesterday while checking up about women casualties in war: it was always assumed that women couldn't handle modern fighter jets because their lower bone density and other physical aspects would make them less able to handle high-G maneuvers. When tested, though, it was determined that women (on average) could handle such stresses better than their male counterparts! Makes you wonder just how many of those things that "men can naturally do better" have been tested.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
The average female firefighter can pick your limp body up. If she couldn't, she wouldn't have qualified for the job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Punish_her
You're making the textbook mistake of confusing the average with the individual. On average, women are better at organisation, but that doesn't mean you should be ruled out from any administrative post because of your sex. You might be as good as a woman...
Thanks for that fascinating tip! And yes, there are a lot of those assumptions that nobody has checked.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
I'm reminded of a case in the '60s where a black guy was refused a job in a frozen food warehouse because, you know, black people are from Africa so they can't stand cold like us.
Most mothers - and indeed fathers - seem to want to spend time with their kids. Even if it means taking a cut in pay to do so. For various reasons, it's more likely to be the mother than the father doing this, particularly in the early stages: men tend not to be very good at breast feeding.Quote:
Originally Posted by thir
In my own family, my mother switched to working part-time as a languages teacher after I was born, having previously been a full time export manager. As a new and part-time teacher, of course she'd have been paid less than one with more experience, male or female - and that will have pulled the average for female teachers her age down slightly. I see Lucy agrees this is not "punishment"; I'm hoping we can now agree this isn't wrong, either? (Ban that, she'd have had to choose between being away from young children much more than she wanted as well as paying a babysitter, or not working at all. Obviously neither of those appealed to her.)
No - though that would reduce the "problem" being complained of in the short term, and eliminate it (and humanity) long term. What we should do first is understand that there are factors besides the salary at work - that, as already confirmed in academic research years ago, a large part of the "gap" in salaries is the result of different choices. Just as German cars tend to be more expensive than Korean: not because of some anti-German import tariffs, but because the German manufacturers sell into a more luxurious market segment: Mercedes, Audi, BMW versus Hyundai and co.Quote:
So, we should stop having children?
Back on the employment area: I have known very capable supersonic pilots, some of them female. There certainly are women who are perfectly capable of doing that job - but do as many women as men want to? I bet if you sit near a military recruiting office, you'll see more men than women going in; go to a nursing school, you'll see the opposite. Now, if you see a job advertised as "men only" or "women only" (and there are far, far more of the latter) for a reason besides actual biology (for example, sperm donation, surrogacy etc) I will agree it's wrong - but point to an occupation being largely one or the other gender as "proof" of discrimination and you'd better think again.
Not so sure about that. Proposing a return back to gender-segregated schools is still considered a sacrilege around here, but there are more and more articles and studies being published about the topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
All, or at least most, of those studies show that nobody profits from coeducation. Not the boys, and certainly not the girls, for whose benefit coeducation first was demanded.
The problem is that going to separate schools brings back the old problem of "separate but equal", which was anything but equal! I went to a co-ed high school while my brothers went to boys only high schools. I can't see any difference in the quality of education, nor did I ever notice any difficulty on my part related to being in a class with girls. I'd like to see who's doing these studies, and how comprehensive they are, before I say whether they were good or bad.Quote:
Originally Posted by lucy
It's a bigger problem than that, really. Some of it has it's basis in childhood, where girls are steered towards the pretty pink toys and the dolls, while the boys are led to the trucks and sports. I recall a story (comment on a forum somewhere) about a guy who took his daughter into a toy store and she was upset because they didn't have any of the "cool" toys in the girls' section.Quote:
Originally Posted by js207
Even in schools, girls are encouraged to participate in traditionally girl classes, or into cheer leading instead of playing sports. That's changing, now, but some of the old stereotypes still prevail. So naturally, when a woman goes searching for work, she's going to gravitate towards more familiar areas. It may not be discrimination by the employers, but by society at large which is holding them back.
But the primary issue in the work force is the fact that, on average, women who do the same job as men, who have the same qualifications and skills, are still frequently paid at a lower rate. THAT is discrimination.
Actually, one of those studies found that girls from girl-only schools ventured more often into "male-dominated" professions like engineers, technicians or other fields where natural sciences play a large role.
Also, I heavily doubt that girls are told to go for pink and boys are taught to like guns. At least a large part of that behaviour is not nurture but nature. Or epigenetics.
And here some of the studies: ftp://ftp.iza.org/RePEc/Discussionpaper/dp4026.pdf
ftp://ftp.iza.org/RePEc/Discussionpaper/dp2037.pdf
http://www.hausarbeiten.de/faecher/vorschau/98149.html (in German)
they did it "cool runnings style," more of a go kart, and greece has a shit ton of hills!Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
I would say that's because the type of education was still the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
current education in the US is based on the Prussian system: one person dictating to a larger group of students, standardized tests, and so on.
studies typically show that boys learn better in small groups that are competitive
there'sno reason that it wouldn't "seperate, but equal" and be different. In an ideal environment, girls would not be as successful in a boys class, as boys are not as successful in a girls class, bt both classes maximize the ahcievement of the individual sexes
a few more points,Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
1) when you account for differences within the same field, ie a woman who takes no time off and has the commute roughly equal to a man and both work nearly identical hours, there is almost no variation in wage. think about it logically, if a business can hire a man for 10 $ an hour OR hire a woman for 7.50 $ an hour, nobody would ever hire a man. it does not make sense unless there'smore factors at work
2) I saw the video of the girl complaining about the toys, in my opinion, it's scripted. the father prompts her when she gets off topic.
3) Look up the Brenda/Brian case. I'll give a quick synopsis- a mother gave birth to twin boys. during circumcision, one of the boys had his penis essentially destroyed beyond all hopes of repair. the solution was to construct an artifical vagina, give the now her hormones, and raise her as a girl. in short, it was a train wreck, despite societal conditioning towards "girly" things, brenda (formerly brian) resisted tremendously- she (formerly he) insisted on peeing standing up, refused to wear dresses, and, in middle school, wanted to be a heavily tattooed, well muscled mechanic. society could not force this natural born boy to act like a girl
this assumes that the qualifications are the same for men and women. in chicago, due to political pressure and accusations of discrimination, the fire department had to remove whole sections of the test to allow more females to pass. in the us military, at every age bracket, men are required to perform at least double the amount of pushups as women, and run 2 miles in at least 3 less minutes.Quote:
Originally Posted by leo9
while some women undoubtedly can perform as well as men, they are in the extreme minority, and it usually requires much more taining to bring them up to the same level as men.
west point monitors the physical progress of cadets, and not only do men enter with more physical ability, when they graduate, that gap has actually widened.
and yes, i hope i would not be ruled out of administration jobs because of my sex, but it would be just as wrong to lower my standards because i am a man
The point of this thread, when it started, was to discuss the possibility that there exists male discrimination. At the end of the day, our society is structured in such a way that female imperatives are valued greater than male equivalents. Feminism may have started with women’s suffrage, but it has grown to a political and societal agenda that does not seek equal treatment, but preferential treatment.
1. “Women like sports just as men” leads to Title IX, which has resulted in cutting many MENS sports program throughout the country both at the high school and college level.
2. 98% of alimony payments are from men to women though 40% of women outearn men, 90% of mothers get sole custody of the children after a divorce, 75% of women initiate divorce – the courts are fully stacked against men
3. Despite men being the victim of violence three times as often as women, there is no Violence Against Men Act.
4. Despite the majority of jobs lost during the crash in 07-08, the stimulus plan was heavily skewered towards female dominated fields
5. Despite women earning the majority of college degrees and high school, yet classroom policies and federal spending favor women’s education.
6. Despite women living longer, government spending on healthcare favors women.
7. Women can choose to keep or abort a pregnancy, but men have no say in the matter whatsoever, despite having steep implications. Legally forfeited paternity laws have been consistently struck down.
8. Women want equality in the workplace, yet they are also entitled to maternity leave
9. Women want the same privileges as men, but not the responsibilities – women may serve in the military but do not register for selective service, and before a unit is deployed, there is a considerable increase in the amount of females who become pregnant and are pardoned from deployment.
10. Many states have or are legislating for mandatory arrest laws which almost always result in men being jailed, despite physical abuse levels being nearly identical.
Think about a few situations for a minute.
1. When a girl hits a man, it’s cute or funny, excuses are made for negative behavior. When a man strikes a woman, it’s assault.
2. A woman can say in public “women are smarter than men” and it’s empowering, a man saying the opposite is a misogynist.
3. Men’s Right’s Groups are considered “extremists” by the Southern Poverty Law Center, while feminist movements are pandered to by politicians.
Women went from the PROTECTED SEX, that’s right, not abused, to equal, but they retain permission to switch back to defenseless at anytime they wish.
In short, the average American woman wants to be fiercely independent, but men are still expected to be chivalrous.
That is all I am going to say, you see that the deck is stacked against men, or you don't.