JerrySeinfeld

Remember this? hahaa. I wonder what the Libs will come up with this time.

He still is: "There is also the problem of issues for the Democrats to run on. You're going to elect Democrats to control government spending? And you're going to marry Angelina Jolie for her brains. The privacy issue--government spying on U.S. citizens--isn't going to work. True, NSA has been collecting all our telephone information, but anyone who's answered the phone during dinner knows that every telemarketer on earth has that information already. Illegal immigration? When the Democrats were in charge, the illegal immigrants were from al Qaeda. And as for Iraq, the best the Democrats have been able to do is make the high school sex promise: "I'll pull out in time, honest.""

Here is an interesting exchange which I thought could fuel some discussion here: P. J. O'ROURKE: There's a certain kind of behavior in the Arab world that, to me, resembles the way young men behave when there is no significant influence from women in their lives. I won't say, Lord of the Flies or teenage gangs or even poker night at the deer hunting camp. But there is this absence of female influence in some of the behavior that I've seen in the Middle East. SECRETARY POWELL: I see it in our urban areas. I don't want to lay it all off on women. Men have a role to play, too. The intention was for two people to have children and raise them. P. J. O'ROURKE: Yes. But the Middle East does seem to be a world without the constraints that ... if I started acting like the Iraqis are acting, my wife would be after me: "You get right in here, stop looting and blowing up the car. If you blow up the car, how can I get the kids to school?" SECRETARY POWELL: You've heard the wonderful story about the elephants? This was at a game reserve in Botswana or somewhere. They had found a dead rhinoceros, and they couldn't figure out who had killed it. The rhinoceros doesn't have any natural enemies. They looked and looked and found that there were these elephants, male elephants, that were killing rhinoceros. They were young elephants that had been brought from another reserve far away, but they had been brought just as two adolescent male elephants, and— P. J. O'ROURKE: An elephant gang. SECRETARY POWELL: An elephant gang. And so the game keepers didn't know what to do. They didn't want to kill them. And it occurred to some guy, very early one morning he said, "I've got it." They just went and got some older male elephants. They brought two male elephants, adult male elephants in with these teenagers, and within a few months, problem solved. The teenagers didn't know how to act. The male elephants made it clear to them: "Excuse me, boy. This is not what elephants do. We don't go around chomping on rhinoceri." I've seen this in schools in Washington, D.C., where there are young men, about age eight or nine, who do not know the taboos of family, the shibboleths of the society, the expectations of a family, the need for self-restraint. They don't get it. And so what happens, they go bopping out, and they're out of control. And then the Army's the same way. That's what drill sergeants do. Young recruits hate their drill sergeants with a passion. It's unbelievable the first week. They want to kill him. By the second week, they're kind of relaxing a little bit. By the eighth week, there's one overpowering emotion in those recruits. Know what it is? They want to please him. They'll do anything to please him, and they will never forget his name. I was having dinner with Ted Kennedy once. We were kidding around. He was talking about some fight he had in the Army or something. And I said, "Ted, what was the name of your drill sergeant?" P. J. O'ROURKE: And he had it. SECRETARY POWELL: Instantly. P. J. O'ROURKE: You know, that drill sergeant could have been a useful influence at times during his life. But I won't go there. Something I really wanted to ask you about, because there's been so much whining about the war on terrorism. I don't have to tell you. Do you see any parallels between the early Cold War and the early part of the war against terrorism? It's not like we didn't make any mistakes then or didn't have any problems. SECRETARY POWELL: I don't know. What were you expecting? P. J. O'ROURKE: The way that Eastern Europe kind of got away from us and China fell. The Doctrine of Containment. I guess that wouldn't really apply. Mistakes we made in the Korean War. SECRETARY POWELL: Well, I think there's something to that. A dawning recognition of a new kind of threat. The President spoke about it in his—I guess it was his May 24 War College speech—that we have to see this terrorism problem not just as a temporary aberration that's going to go away. He really saw it in the very beginning, right after 9/11, when he said this is not just a fight against al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden, but against a persistent threat. And he took a little heat for it. We don't know when it's going to end. I mean, it took the Cold War forty years. It took World War II six. P. J. O'ROURKE: And very few people were ambivalent about the Nazis. SECRETARY POWELL: We were until 1941. P. J. O'ROURKE: People don't own up to it now. But the Communists, that was another matter. A lot of people styled themselves as some kind of Marxists or Socialists. To all of a sudden regard this as evil, as the late Ronald Reagan did, twinkle in his eye and all. When he said "Evil Empire," people gasped. SECRETARY POWELL: One of my colleagues thought all you had to do was détente them forever, and you'd do okay. But Reagan said no, they're evil. P. J. O'ROURKE: I think it's been hard for people to understand how Islam can be a good religion, and yet the Islamists are evil. Those of us who have had experience with Islam understand this, just as we understand the difference between snake handlers and people going to church on Sunday morning. But I think a lot of people are having trouble getting their head around who's the enemy. SECRETARY POWELL: There probably is a parallel to the Cold War. You need somebody like a George Bush to come along and say this is our challenge for this generation and then start to put together coalitions, as was done in the post-World War II period, with the creation of NATO, ANZUS, CETO and CENTO. There was a growing realization of the threat. Even though it was localized initially in Europe and the Soviet Union. Suddenly we saw it could be China. And remember, Greece almost fell. And the Italian Communist Party had a hell of a good time for a long time ... It was a real danger that could have swept everywhere. It was for real. P. J. O'ROURKE: This is why I don't feel as discouraged by events in Iraq as some people do, because looking back, none of our previous fights have been instantaneous victories. SECRETARY POWELL: No, and maybe we should never have characterized this thing as something that would be a tough fight but then it would all be over. P. J. O'ROURKE: I don't think anyone did say that. SECRETARY POWELL: I didn't. P. J. O'ROURKE: Yet the feeling grew. SECRETARY POWELL: The feeling grew. P. J. O'ROURKE: Do you think, as in World War II and the Cold War, it may take us a while to find out what the right policies are going to be—what's most effective? SECRETARY POWELL: Everybody thinks all you do is sit in a room and design a policy and that's it. But if you look at the experience of World War II and the Cold War, there was a great deal of trial and error, or as I like to call it, "audibling." You know, no plan—no military plan—survives first contact with a real enemy. Who was it who said that? Was it Clemens? Some humorist. "Even the most brilliant strategist must occasionally take into account the presence of an enemy." There's a thinking, breathing enemy out there and he's not subject to our policy whims. You have to respond to how he responds. Therefore, you are always modifying policy, changing policy, discarding that which doesn't work and looking for something that does work. Why this should shock and surprise people, I don't know. But it does. Everybody wants perfect answers right up front, and then they start criticizing right away if— P. J. O'ROURKE: They want all D-Day, no raid on Dieppe. SECRETARY POWELL: Yes.

Actually, closer is better. People have short memories, especially when it comes to things outside of their own backyeard. Drop the verdict a month ago and you blow your wad early. Now, it's fresh on people's minds. And really, why would the GOP want this to "sink in"? They thrive on visceral, emotional reactions, not thoughtful analysis. Yes, because as every good "thoughtful and analytical" lefty knows, one-off gay meth head republicans have a much more serious bearing on the world and are much more newsworth than the trial and conviction of internationally-known tyrants. Or maybe I'm wrong - maybe they're just relying on emotional reaction and not thoughtful analysis

So my question for you as a career woman is: do you experience a "glass ceiling" at work?

Actually it's extremely easy to argue, especially since your "pure...fact" is no such thing. First of all, your assumption is that Mulsim birthrates will remain the same. That in itself is a whopping great assumption. Can you point to any historical examples of immigrant birthrates remaining above the replacement rate over the course of several generations? Take a look at France, your favorite case study of how things are going downhill. Reliable estimates of France's Mulsim population peg it at around four million or seven per cent of th epopulation. Assuming a increase of 2 per cent per year for Muslims and a decrease of .5 per cent a year for non Muslims, it will take about 100 years for Muslims to reach parity with the rest of the population. Again, that's using articifically high and static rates of increase and decrease. Second, your argument also posits no change in Muslim culture itself over time and, indeed, implicitly suggest the existence of a uniform, homogenous (conservative, anti-western) Muslim culture: another highly dubious assumption. Going back to France, its mulsim population includes Muslims of Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian, Turkish, and Senegalese descent, among others. So you're suggesting that this population, diverse in cultural background, political beliefs and national origin is behind a massive cross-cultural conspiracy to overwhelm western culture. Given the sole unifying trend here is their faith (and even then we're talking about a highly polarized and sectartain faith), I think that's another dodgy assumption to make. Finally there's your total lack of belief in the durability of western culture, based on cherry-picked news stories highlighting some politically correct outrage or another. But can you name one society in history that was overwhelmed demographically by immigrants and subsumed? Because experience tells us the reverse is usually true: immigrants eventually assimilate into the host culture: they don't shape the host in their own image. And, more to the heart of the matter: can you name one real example of how European nations like France are "surrendering" to Muslims? France, again, is one of he most aggressively secular nations around: or did you forget about the whole "hijab ban" thing? Basically, you're theory asks us to ignore statistical realities (such as the very real possibility that birthrates wil decline over time), historically-proven social realities (such as the trend towards immigrant assimilation) and even the demographic realities within the Muslim community itself. And i haven't said anything about just how Mulsim the Muslims in question are. In short: your theory is bunk. What does that have to do with immigration? Ah, so scientific models of varying accuracy=bad. Totally made up trends based on no data using no model at all="OMIGOD THE ISLAMOFASCITSLIBRARIANS ARE TAKING OVER!!11!" 1. Muslims don't need parity - they're already starting to run the show. 2. Europe needs to accelerate immigration to finance it's lavish social programs so your numbers are way off. 3. Your assimilation argument is flawed because there has never in history BEEN a history like we're seeing now. 4. If muslim immigrants assimilate, why are 2nd and 3rd generation muslims (a) planning to behead the prime minister and blow up toronto ( bombing the london tube and planning to blow up transatlantuic flights ...etc. Muslims aren't getting more assimilated by the generation, they're getting LESS soa dn more and more aggressive. 5. No one needs to cherry pick news stories about agressive muslim immigrants. They're all over the place. Second - you make a common socialist multiculti mistake: you're a present tense thinker. It has been said George W Bush is the longest term thinker in Washington and it's true. You're worried about pantywasite social programs and appeasing the agressive muslims in our society to "feel good" today.

Actually it's extremely easy to argue, especially since your "pure...fact" is no such thing. First of all, your assumption is that Mulsim birthrates will remain the same. That in itself is a whopping great assumption. Can you point to any historical examples of immigrant birthrates remaining above the replacement rate over the course of several generations? Take a look at France, your favorite case study of how things are going downhill. Reliable estimates of France's Mulsim population peg it at around four million or seven per cent of th epopulation. Assuming a increase of 2 per cent per year for Muslims and a decrease of .5 per cent a year for non Muslims, it will take about 100 years for Muslims to reach parity with the rest of the population. Again, that's using articifically high and static rates of increase and decrease. Second, your argument also posits no change in Muslim culture itself over time and, indeed, implicitly suggest the existence of a uniform, homogenous (conservative, anti-western) Muslim culture: another highly dubious assumption. Going back to France, its mulsim population includes Muslims of Algerian, Moroccan, Tunisian, Turkish, and Senegalese descent, among others. So you're suggesting that this population, diverse in cultural background, political beliefs and national origin is behind a massive cross-cultural conspiracy to overwhelm western culture. Given the sole unifying trend here is their faith (and even then we're talking about a highly polarized and sectartain faith), I think that's another dodgy assumption to make. Finally there's your total lack of belief in the durability of western culture, based on cherry-picked news stories highlighting some politically correct outrage or another. But can you name one society in history that was overwhelmed demographically by immigrants and subsumed? Because experience tells us the reverse is usually true: immigrants eventually assimilate into the host culture: they don't shape the host in their own image. And, more to the heart of the matter: can you name one real example of how European nations like France are "surrendering" to Muslims? France, again, is one of he most aggressively secular nations around: or did you forget about the whole "hijab ban" thing? Basically, you're theory asks us to ignore statistical realities (such as the very real possibility that birthrates wil decline over time), historically-proven social realities (such as the trend towards immigrant assimilation) and even the demographic realities within the Muslim community itself. And i haven't said anything about just how Mulsim the Muslims in question are. In short: your theory is bunk. What does that have to do with immigration? Ah, so scientific models of varying accuracy=bad. Totally made up trends based on no data using no model at all="OMIGOD THE ISLAMOFASCITSLIBRARIANS ARE TAKING OVER!!11!"

Which is the first clue that everything is gonna be fine. Mmm...cross-posting makes me thirsty. Also: "objective viewers?" guess we can rule you out. Anyway, as to the substance, such as it is, of the fears of a Muslim takeover: projecting trends indefinitely into the future without accounting for the possibility of change may make good headline copy for World Nut Daily and may help Steyn keep himself in cupcakes and theatre tickets, but they seldom hold up over time. The Muslim conquest of Europe is base don so many shoddy, shitty assumptions and is so reminiscent of other historical conspiracy theories that its very hard to take it seriously. But again in lefty fashion your swear words and emotion (typical lefty behavior) don't present much of an argument. And it's hard to argue with pure demographic fact. I suppose in your world China and India don't hold much relevence for the future either - since you don't put much weight into demographics. But since you bring up hocus pocus trend extension, let's talk about global warming

The scary part is they're the nutters yet they're the self-confident an aggressive culture - we're the self-hating apologistic ones. Just listen to societal self loathers like Black Dog and many others on this site. In their world you'd think the WEST is the nutters and the muslims are the sane ones....lol

If any of you could actually answer a question, i wouldn't have to keep repeating myself. Sadly, I expect too much. JS: Uh..no. That stat is simply the percentage of female managers. That figure gives us no insight into the circumstances or choices of the other 92% of working women. Sure. Just as soon as you start producing some. I've provided numbers showing the disparity between women in the workforce and their representation in management. I could provide similar figures for education (ie the number of women in undergrad programs versus Bachelor or PHD, the proportion of male to female instructors recieving tenure etc etc.) My hypothesis is that these imbalances can be explained in part by lingering social attitudes that predjudice against the advacement of women. You're allegging something else altogether: that the gap is entirely due to women dropping out of the workforce to start families. But stop and do the math: if more women are joining the workforce and entering the education system, then more should be reaching the top, yet the increase tends to plateau the higher you go. However, given the declining birthrate, the gap is simply too large to be explained soley by women dropping out to start families. It's quite relevant, as your thesis rests on the idea that women are dropping out of the workforce to have kids, hence the gap at the higher levels. But the higher income and education she has, the less likely she is to have kids. In other words, you're thesis is the that the very women the stats tell us aren't having kids are the ones having kids. I didn't say anything their about barriers. I took two simple facts (the increase of women in the work force and the decrease in birth rates) and asked you to reconcile them with your theory. Upper management takes years if not decades to reach. So by your theory slightly birthrates should produce slightly higher participation rates of females in upper management. So talk to me in 15-20 years and we'll make the comparison. COME ONE DOGGY KEEP TRYING anyway - gotta run. my wife the CEO awaits

One is religious freedom, one is sexual.

Why do you think you're entitled to take up so much space? Because there is oodles of it (space).

This is a great post an I'm surprised there are no opinions - perhaps because it's too airtight

Dissemble much? You can quibble over the significance of the remark, question the reaction, or cast aspersions on the integrity and honsety of the Libeals for seizing on it, but it's impossible to deny the meaning of MacKay's remark. You are correct in that technically, all MacKay said was" you have her". But that remark makes no sense whatsoever except as a reference to Stronach (that he allegedly gestured at Stronach's seat is merely the icing on the cake). If Mackay had manned up and apologized, this would have blown over instantly. But he lied about it and continues to lie about it. I'm always uncomfortable when people talk about a heirarchy of issues because what's trivial to one person can be life or death for someone else. As a Jew, would you be comfortable with someone using an anti-Semetic epitepth? Would then be happy if that same person told you to get real and deal with substantive issues like the rise of anti-Semetic violence in Europe? Sometimes seemingly trivial issues are windows into much more serious ones. Now I wouldn't go as far to say that Peter MacKay's remarkes were anti-women or that he's a misogynist; he's just a gutless asshole. But I think it does say something about how our enlightened society views women. Your analogy makes no sense. The comment Mr. Mackay made was not directed at women in general. You may now be trying to turn it into that but it was not a comment as to all women, just one. Now since you were so disengenuine to try turn this into being akin to making an anti-semitic remark, let me put it to you this way bluntly. People like you and others make comments about Israel every day which can also be considered to be insulting to all Jews. Yet people like you are the first to claim its your right and freedom of speech and people like me should develop thick skin and not read into it when people like you insist in bringing the Jewish card into every debate no matter how ridiculous and far fetched your attempt to try make it relate appears. So I practice what I preach. I say to you, that as a Jew I can handle your comments and I won't fall apart nor do I need B'Nai B'rith or a caucus of Jewish MP's or for that matter you, to stand by me. I am a big boy. I can handle you and Figleaf. Now you read back your analogy and honestly explain to me and everyone else how Mr. McKay's stupid comment is an attack against all women in Canada. That is absolute and utter b.s. and its patronizing. God you must think women are idiots to refer to such a trivial and stupid issue with such importance. He does think women are stupid. He also earlier said that when you say to a woman "you are a bitch" what you are really saying is "you are a woman."

It's okay: I didn't actually expect you to back up your bullshit. Glad to see you didn't let me down. Keep ignorin' your lying eyes kiddo. Only a true DOGGY would use the civil rights movement to somehow justify Jihad

I know. And he's so bent on tearing down arguments h forgets to make any. Remember here- I'm not the one claiming the existence of a "barrier" for women. Nor have there been no examples given of this "barrier". Yet somehow DOGGY finds himself asking me to prove the non-existence of one.

Just as I can guarantee that if it was a Muslim organization that sent out the flyers, you'd be all over it like a fly on cowshit. Absolutely - and I certainly wouldn't try to silence it. I'd celebrate.

Sure. I believe the exact number, according to your stats is 8% of them make that choice. And hence, not refutable and therefore a load of hooey. Let's stick to facts. Again, 'm not the one claiming there is a problem or a barrier so the onus is not on me it's on you to prove there is a barrier since you are the one claiming it's existence. Your question about less women having babies is irrelevant and a red herring; we're talking about the comparison in workforce success between men and women. The fact that less women have babies now is now relevant in anyway to this focal point: Less women than men reach the upper levels of management because more women than men either stay home or have siginificant interruptions in their careers than do men. Whether or today's women have fewer interruptions or fewer women hav these interruptions in their careers does not in any way refute the comparison betwen men and women in the workforce. COME ON DOGGY!!! THINK I KNOW YOU CAN DO IT!!! Yet they clearly have changed. Once again: as education and income increases, fertility decreases. if things "are as they are" (the very definiton of a "just so" story fallacy, then fertility levels should be fairly constant, as should the proportion of women entering higher education and the workforce. Again this is a red herring and irrelevant. Women do not face barriers. That is the point. I have provided a clear explanation for your supposed "deficiency" of women in upper management.

The bottom line is, I think women are doing more than fine, thank you very much. Nowadays some women are even taking the place of men in male PGA events. Unlike men, they don't have to go to Q school and qualify like the rest of the field - they get invited merely on the basis that they are women. That's a pretty good gig if you can get it! It's gotten to the point where women even tried to FORCE Augusta National Golf Club to allow women. That is the sense of entitlement women have in today's world - to the point where the feminist movement believes it has the right to force a private club to allow women. That's the biggest joke I've ever heard. Has any male ever tried to join a "women only" fitness club? Good luck. But Hootie Johnson (president August National) would have none of it - good on him!!! Just because women have equality (and in some cases like PGA events even favoritism), doesn't mean their can't still be male sanctuaries in this world. Both women and men still have the right to sanctuary - to male or female only places to gather. Ooops. I wasn't referring to you Jerry. I agree with you. Lowering standards just so to qualify is actually an insult to women. Patronizing...doing the "little women" a favor...let's lower the standards, boys...so they'll have a chance. Exactly - hear hear and great to hea it from a woman. The patronizing "poor woman" mentality is insulting and unwelcome from most women I know. From my observatino, all women want is a fair shake and they are getting that. When they don't - trust me you hear about it.

This is where we disagree. The slaves always has the right to be free, they didn't need the owners to extend or grant them those rights. They simply needed the owners to respect those rights. You next question will be who gave them those rights? The rights are intrinsic to their being. They are not granted by anyone. I would suggest that Rights Organization's view of rights are more in line with my view than yours. How can rights be violated in China when (according to your interpretation) Chinese society never chose to grant the victims those rights. How many times must I say it. You have no right to nuttin. Get on with your lives and realize that life is NOT fair. I'd be willing to bet that there is a strong correlation between people who realize this and their high level of success. It's a chicken and egg thing when yuo think about it. If you EXPECT life to be fair, then you're probably not going to be driven, you will be a loser and then you will complain about how life isn't as fair as you expected it to be. Whereas if you start from the point of realizing that life isn't fair and you have to make your own breaks, then you bust your ass and make something of yourself. It's no coincidence all poor losers are socialists you know. They're either lazy or they're operating in their own self interest. Ironic, actually. I have never asserted that one group has a "right" to certain privleges or opportunities not available another group. They possess those priviliges by circumstances or possibly chance. What I object to is that a fundemental right is violated in the process of equalizing those opportunities. No one would have any objection to equalizing opportunities if society did not have to forcibly extort funds from some of its citizens to do so. In my view there is no fundamental right to "equal opportunity", so there is no violation if we don't provide equal opportunity to all individuals.

This is where we disagree. The slaves always has the right to be free, they didn't need the owners to extend or grant them those rights. They simply needed the owners to respect those rights. You next question will be who gave them those rights? The rights are intrinsic to their being. They are not granted by anyone. I would suggest that Rights Organization's view of rights are more in line with my view than yours. How can rights be violated in China when (according to your interpretation) Chinese society never chose to grant the victims those rights. How many times must I say it. You have no right to nuttin. Get on with your lives and realize that life is NOT fair. I'd be willing to bet that there is a strong correlation between people who realize this and their high level of success. It's a chicken and egg thing when yuo think about it. If you EXPECT life to be fair, then you're probably not going to be driven, you will be a loser and then you will complain about how life isn't as fair as you expected it to be. Whereas if you start from the point of realizing that life isn't fair and you have to make your own breaks, then you bust your ass and make something of yourself. It's no coincidence all poor losers are socialists you know. They're either lazy or they're operating in their own self interest. Ironic, actually. I have never asserted that one group has a "right" to certain privleges or opportunities not available another group. They possess those priviliges by circumstances or possibly chance. What I object to is that a fundemental right is violated in the process of equalizing those opportunities. No one would have any objection to equalizing opportunities if society did not have to forcibly extort funds from some of its citizens to do so. In my view there is no fundamental right to "equal opportunity", so there is no violation if we don't provide equal opportunity to all individuals.

And France's Muslims are? So where's the proof? I'll get you my copy of "Jihad 101 here's how we're gonna do it" when I have a free moment. Until then just watch the nightly riots, beheadings, suicide bombings and unrealistic demands for the removal of freedom of speech by Muslims throughout the world. Oh - and for you light reading here's Australias leading Muslim leader: "“Those atheists, people of the book (Christians and Jews), where will they end up? In Surfers Paradise? On the Gold Coast? Where will they end up? In hell and not part-time, for eternity. They are the worst in God’s creation.”

So there's a problem with poor immigrants in the slums. The leap is when THEY go from "French Muslim youth torching cars" right into "OMIGOD IT TEH JIHAD!!!11!" Again: it's the part where people overlook obvious motives for unrest (ie. poverty, unemployment and social marginalization) and go right for the fantasies of Islamic domination. Which is funny because, I recall the United States having many similar incidents of ethnic violence in the past few decades and few observers have ever sugessted that those incidents were part of some global conspiracy. That's because they weren't. And the old lefty line that the Muslims are "marginalized" or that the line up for the beheaded at the local national hospital was too long is getting...er...long in the tooth. Get some new rhetoric, boys.

I love this kind of suff. It throws the left into a confused tizzy when two of your favorite pet projcets are at odds with eachother It's even better when the source is a gay website - my gosh how in heavens name can a lefty ad hominem on that one? hahahahahha

Because reaching top level management usual involves extra hours, and takes decades of uninterrupted progress. Women tend to value more of a balance in life, balancing family, childeren, home, exciscise, social interraction. Men often rise to the top at the expense fo these things. Also, given a guy who stays on the job from 1988 to 2006 and a woman who takes mat leave a couple of times or even takes ten years or more off to raise childeren, then generally the uniterrupted male carer will flourish to the upper levels. Now this doesn't occur in every case. Women who apply themselves, work uninterruipted progressively toward the top reach the top just as men do. It just so happens that fewer of them make that choice. What barriers are you referring to? You still haven't provided me with one concrete example. Again the PHD numbers reflect the time commitment and prioritizing mentioned above. If your "barriers" actually existed, then no women would reach the top, period. The fact that those womenwho apply themselves and prioritize the in same fashion that driven men do, succeed as often as men do. Here are your stats: This year, the percentage was 50.1%. The most recent Canadian medical school classes have a range of 43%–74% women (mean 58%), compared with a range of 26%–57% men (mean 42%). The gender gap in medical schools no longer exists. link: http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=7916 Women are certainly NOT underrepresented. I already responded to that - read again. No, it's not. Great stats - and I agree with them all. And again (I repeat) this is because more women stay at home with the family!!! If you wanted to compare apples to apples you'd have to dig up stats about working women's share versus the working' men's share. C'mon DOG. Think here. THINK You can do it - i know it I'm not the on saying there is a problem here so the onus isn't on me to prove anything. I'm saying things are as they are and not likely to change despite "programs" and "advocacy groups" and other social engineering. In addition, you haven't shown me anything that says your trudeaupian world is any more natural.