Male discrimination?

[Punish_her]

I do nthink this is 'anybody's' double standard. There are different examples of bad behaviour.

Just think for a second 5 men sitting around on national television laughing about a man cutting off his wife's clitoris and breasts and throwing them in the garbage disposal. The only place that would ever happen is afghanistan.

[Thorne]

That can't happen because men and women are different. It's not a social construct that I am stronger than 99% of all women, it's biology because of differing hormone levels. Jobs that require enormous amounts of physical exertion will always be male dominated fields. It is not a social construct that says my girlfriend can't lift me upp if I were unconscious on the floor. Therefore, there are certain jobs that will always require much more male input than female input. 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.

This has got to be the greatest load of horse shit I've seen in quite a while. Just because you're stronger than most women (and maybe even most men for all I know) doesn't mean a woman can't do most of the jobs that you can do. And some jobs they will do better than you. You might have a steroid-enhanced physique that makes you look (and act) like the Hulk! But just try soldering a delicate component onto a circuit board in a field repair and see how well your strength helps. Need to haul a deuce-and-a-half up a hill? Great, grab a pile of muscle-bound jocks and have them haul their hearts out. OR you can grab a power-winch and let Twiggy do the job a lot faster.

As for women in combat, I suggest you rethink! Just look at the Israeli Army. They've had women in combat units for decades, and they can fight just as well and just as hard and just as long as any of the men. Sure, there may be situations where brute strength works best. And there are situations where being small, quick and quiet will work better. BOTH kinds of soldiers are needed, working as teams.

It's this kind of thinking, that women are less than men, that make women targets in society. They aren't looked upon as real people but as property, to be used at the whim of the man. If you treat women as equals, and really understand, deep down, that they are equals, you and they will be far better off. Give women the respect they deserve, the same kind of respect you think YOU deserve. They've earned it.

[Thorne]

Just think for a second 5 men sitting around on national television laughing about a man cutting off his wife's clitoris and breasts and throwing them in the garbage disposal. The only place that would ever happen is afghanistan.

While I have to agree that those women laughing over that man getting his penis cut off is in very bad taste, and reflects badly on those women, the comparison you mention is not anywhere near the same thing.

Why did that woman cut off his penis? My guess would be that he beat her up and raped her one too many times, just because he could, and she'd had enough. I say, good for her. He deserved it.

Now let's look at your hypothetical case in Afghanistan: What would cause that to happen? Well, maybe it was a father who decided to disfigure his 14 year old daughter because she didn't want to be forced into marriage with the 70 year old Imam. Or maybe it was the abusive husband who was angry when his wife asked him to stop beating her. Or maybe it was the prison official who felt that she didn't scream loud enough when his men raped her. Yeah, I can see a bunch of Taliban assholes sitting around the fire laughing about it. Funny thing, though, I can see you there just as easily.

[lucy]

nobody seems to understand the blinding flash of irony here.
Lucy says, and i quote, "@punish_her: If men go at each other because they drink too much and don't know what to do with their testosterone or just because they are gangsters, that's their problem and isn't really discrimination, because, you know, men can't discriminate other men because of their sex."

What you are saying here is quite simply, "men get attacked because they put themselves in situations where they are more likely to get attacked."
you are completely excusing violence against men just because other men are doing it. That is discrimation. You are discriminating against men by saying that they are the reason they are attacked.

We are, in this thread, discussing discrimination (well, most of us are, anyway). Originally, it was about discriminating males. I said that males beating males can't really be discrimination, because, you see, it is inherently impossible for one group of people to discriminate itself. At least that's what I understand.
Also, if guys get drunk/do drugs/use weapons on each other, that's horrible, but still not discrimination. If anything, it's stupidity.
Anyway, I don't expect you to understand my argument the third time around when you didn't get it the first two times.

Still: I did not excuse any violence. Not violence against women, nor violence against men. If you read that in my post, I'd say you should go have some reading classes.
I said that this is a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not discrimination, but bad luck. Not topic of this thread, though.
And, also, you're right about one thing: it's not one of the things I care too much about. I didn't even care too much about when it happened to me. Put a plaster on my forehead, swore and cried for some time, shrugged it off as bad luck, took the same way home the next day (with the phone in hand and the emergency number already punched in, though )
So why should I give a rat's ass if some drunk guys smash in each other's head?

[js207]

Why did that woman cut off his penis? My guess would be that he beat her up and raped her one too many times, just because he could, and she'd had enough. I say, good for her. He deserved it.

Interesting - your "guess" is that he was the abusive one in the relationship, even though he's the one who ended up mutilated with life-threatening injuries - why? What information do you have, besides the victim's gender and the nature of the terrible injuries inflicted by the spouse? Look back in the thread ... note that statistically, from that study, women are as likely as men to be guilty, just much less likely to get caught.

Can you actually give us any excuse for your glib "he deserved it", besides prejudice?

[Punish_her]

While I have to agree that those women laughing over that man getting his penis cut off is in very bad taste, and reflects badly on those women, the comparison you mention is not anywhere near the same thing.

Why did that woman cut off his penis? My guess would be that he beat her up and raped her one too many times, just because he could, and she'd had enough. I say, good for her. He deserved it.

Now let's look at your hypothetical case in Afghanistan: What would cause that to happen? Well, maybe it was a father who decided to disfigure his 14 year old daughter because she didn't want to be forced into marriage with the 70 year old Imam. Or maybe it was the abusive husband who was angry when his wife asked him to stop beating her. Or maybe it was the prison official who felt that she didn't scream loud enough when his men raped her. Yeah, I can see a bunch of Taliban assholes sitting around the fire laughing about it. Funny thing, though, I can see you there just as easily.

biggest load of bullshit i ever heard.
he asked for a divorce

[Punish_her]

this is a pathetically stupid argument you're making
yes, there are machines that allow women to do jobs that men can do. a woman can operate a forklift just like a man. then next time you move, instead hiring movers, rent a forklift if you feel the need to
Or maybe if I'm unconscious in a burning building, and the average female fire fighter can't pick my limp body up, should she just call ahead for a forklift or the jaws of life?
and no, women cannot fight just as long as men can and just as hard as men can, but because you seem to love living in a nice, oblivious place, i'll spell it out for you why:
1) upon completion of basic training, the average male can throw a grenade 40 yards, and a female can throw it 15 yards. a grenade's blast radius is about 15 yards
2) women have lower bone density, and a statistically significant portion of women fail to complete basic training because of stress fractures that come from heavy physical exertion
3) a statistically significant portion of women are combat ineffective during their periods
and while israel may conscript women, they rarely, if ever, serve on front line duty

[Punish_her]

We are, in this thread, discussing discrimination (well, most of us are, anyway). Originally, it was about discriminating males. I said that males beating males can't really be discrimination, because, you see, it is inherently impossible for one group of people to discriminate itself. At least that's what I understand.
Also, if guys get drunk/do drugs/use weapons on each other, that's horrible, but still not discrimination. If anything, it's stupidity.
Anyway, I don't expect you to understand my argument the third time around when you didn't get it the first two times.

Still: I did not excuse any violence. Not violence against women, nor violence against men. If you read that in my post, I'd say you should go have some reading classes.
I said that this is a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Not discrimination, but bad luck. Not topic of this thread, though.
And, also, you're right about one thing: it's not one of the things I care too much about. I didn't even care too much about when it happened to me. Put a plaster on my forehead, swore and cried for some time, shrugged it off as bad luck, took the same way home the next day (with the phone in hand and the emergency number already punched in, though )
So why should I give a rat's ass if some drunk guys smash in each other's head?

misandrist

[Punish_her]

This has got to be the greatest load of horse shit I've seen in quite a while. Just because you're stronger than most women (and maybe even most men for all I know) doesn't mean a woman can't do most of the jobs that you can do. And some jobs they will do better than you. You might have a steroid-enhanced physique that makes you look (and act) like the Hulk! But just try soldering a delicate component onto a circuit board in a field repair and see how well your strength helps. Need to haul a deuce-and-a-half up a hill? Great, grab a pile of muscle-bound jocks and have them haul their hearts out. OR you can grab a power-winch and let Twiggy do the job a lot faster.

As for women in combat, I suggest you rethink! Just look at the Israeli Army. They've had women in combat units for decades, and they can fight just as well and just as hard and just as long as any of the men. Sure, there may be situations where brute strength works best. And there are situations where being small, quick and quiet will work better. BOTH kinds of soldiers are needed, working as teams.

It's this kind of thinking, that women are less than men, that make women targets in society. They aren't looked upon as real people but as property, to be used at the whim of the man. If you treat women as equals, and really understand, deep down, that they are equals, you and they will be far better off. Give women the respect they deserve, the same kind of respect you think YOU deserve. They've earned it.

and yea, you're right,women are victims in our society
they don'tget drafted(not a single woman died in combat from america in the 20th century)
they got rushed off the titanic first, and are usually given preferential treatment even now in disasters
and oh yea, the stimulus package was heavily skewed towards women despite most jobs lost were male dominated fields
98% of alimony payments go from male to female despite 40% of women outearning men
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

yup, victims indeed

[Thorne]

Can you actually give us any excuse for your glib "he deserved it", besides prejudice?

I never said "he deserved it", merely postulated it as a likely scenario. Similar to the Lorena Bobbitt case, I'm speculating that it may have been the result of continuous abuse by the husband. I didn't bother looking up the case, though. If I was wrong and the woman was the abuser, I apologize.

women are as likely as men to be guilty, just much less likely to get caught.

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!

[lucy]

misandrist

You still didn't get it, right?

[js207]

I never said "he deserved it", merely postulated it as a likely scenario. Similar to the Lorena Bobbitt case, I'm speculating that it may have been the result of continuous abuse by the husband. I didn't bother looking up the case, though. If I was wrong and the woman was the abuser, I apologise.

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?

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!

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?

[Thorne]

(not a single woman died in combat from america in the 20th century)

Absolutely not true!
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.

they got rushed off the titanic first, and are usually given preferential treatment even now in disasters

There were 316 women who survived the Titanic, and 338 men. Doesn't sound so preferential to me!

and oh yea, the stimulus package was heavily skewed towards women despite most jobs lost were male dominated fields

Fields in which women who perform the same tasks as men make significantly less pay!

98% of alimony payments go from male to female despite 40% of women outearning men

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!

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

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.

[Punish_her]

Absolutely not true!
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!


Fields in which women who perform the same tasks as men make significantly less pay!


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!


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.

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 difference

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

[Punish_her]

You still didn't get it, right?

yes i do, you're a misandrist

[js207]

Fields in which women who perform the same tasks as men make significantly less pay!

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!

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.

[lucy]

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:

One is female and took a five year career break to raise children, the other is male and did not.

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.

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.

[Punish_her]

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.

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 idiocy
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

[js207]

is pretty fucked up, isn't it? Women being punished for raising children.

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?

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.

You have a point there. Of course, most measures that promote child-bearing make that problem worse...

[thir]

[I][B]Thanks thir!

And I agree that we "shouldn't" have too carry a gun to feel safe.

All that aside....whats wrong with sexual segregation?

Segregation means forcibly seperating people, yes? No, I think people have a right to choose.

We all know that making everything completely co-ed is a non starter... right?

Co-ed??

[thir]

Do it anyway and reclaim the streets. Just like with slut walks. Maybe we should go out and walk this streets and let the idiots know that those streets aren't theirs.

Depending on where you live - or how many you are walking together..

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 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?'

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Well, our feminists apparently felt the men were discriminated against here..

[thir]

Jobs that require enormous amounts of physical exertion will always be male dominated fields.

Are there any left?

It is not a social construct that says my girlfriend can't lift me upp if I were unconscious on the floor.

Nor could many men. That's why paremedics work in pairs.

[quote]
Therefore, there are certain jobs that will always require much more male input than female input.
[/quote

Input?? Lost you there.

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.

Aren't there male marines? There are fem soldiers in many countries, DK and Israel for instance, and in Israel women are drafted.

[thir]

This has got to be the greatest load of horse shit I've seen in quite a while. Just because you're stronger than most women (and maybe even most men for all I know) doesn't mean a woman can't do most of the jobs that you can do. And some jobs they will do better than you. You might have a steroid-enhanced physique that makes you look (and act) like the Hulk! But just try soldering a delicate component onto a circuit board in a field repair and see how well your strength helps. Need to haul a deuce-and-a-half up a hill? Great, grab a pile of muscle-bound jocks and have them haul their hearts out. OR you can grab a power-winch and let Twiggy do the job a lot faster.

As for women in combat, I suggest you rethink! Just look at the Israeli Army. They've had women in combat units for decades, and they can fight just as well and just as hard and just as long as any of the men. Sure, there may be situations where brute strength works best. And there are situations where being small, quick and quiet will work better. BOTH kinds of soldiers are needed, working as teams.

It's this kind of thinking, that women are less than men, that make women targets in society. They aren't looked upon as real people but as property, to be used at the whim of the man. If you treat women as equals, and really understand, deep down, that they are equals, you and they will be far better off. Give women the respect they deserve, the same kind of respect you think YOU deserve. They've earned it.

What I like about your post is that you do not confuse 'equal' with 'identical', as many people seem to do.

[thir]

this is a pathetically stupid argument you're making
yes, there are machines that allow women to do jobs that men can do. a woman can operate a forklift just like a man. then next time you move, instead hiring movers, rent a forklift if you feel the need to
Or maybe if I'm unconscious in a burning building, and the average female fire fighter can't pick my limp body up, should she just call ahead for a forklift or the jaws of life?
and no, women cannot fight just as long as men can and just as hard as men can, but because you seem to love living in a nice, oblivious place, i'll spell it out for you why:
1) upon completion of basic training, the average male can throw a grenade 40 yards, and a female can throw it 15 yards. a grenade's blast radius is about 15 yards
2) women have lower bone density, and a statistically significant portion of women fail to complete basic training because of stress fractures that come from heavy physical exertion
3) a statistically significant portion of women are combat ineffective during their periods
and while israel may conscript women, they rarely, if ever, serve on front line duty

"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."

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.

[thir]

Just think for a second 5 men sitting around on national television laughing about a man cutting off his wife's clitoris and breasts and throwing them in the garbage disposal. The only place that would ever happen is afghanistan.

The comments and attitudes of the women in question (earlier post) were callous and inexcusable. But not, I would like to think, representative.

[thir]

and yea, you're right,women are victims in our society
they don'tget drafted (not a single woman died in combat from america in the 20th century)

In your society, not everybodies.
But, according to you that is not discrimination against men, but because they cannot do the job, right?

they got rushed off the titanic first,

That would be the first and second class women, the rest never got a chance, men or women.

and are usually given preferential treatment even now in disasters

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?

and oh yea, the stimulus package was heavily skewed towards women despite most jobs lost were male dominated fields

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?

98% of alimony payments go from male to female despite 40% of women outearning men

There are think you have a point in a number of situations.

and there are now about 10 states that have mandatory arrest laws for police responding to domestic disturbances,

Well, obviously

and the male is always arrested, by law,even if he called the police saying his wife was attacking him

Now that is just plain wrong!

[thir]

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!

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.

I think there are several factors which are mixed up:

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

[thir]

so if a woman's not working, she should still be paid? that's complete idiocy
how fair is it for a company to have to give a woman time off, hire someone to replace the woman,

I guess that depends entirely on whether this country wants more people or not..
However, many employers are happy to do this, in order to keep a valued employee.

then fire the new guy the second the woman comes back?

Yes, of course. He would have know that when he took the job.

[thir]

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?

Why several years? There are day care institutions, and a father, mostly.

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?

So, we should stop having children?

[denuseri]

Segregation means forcibly seperating people, yes? No, I think people have a right to choose.



Co-ed??

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.