-1=e^ipi

I thought that is what immigration is for. There is no responsibility to do so. Having children is a choice.

Lol, what an empty statement without supporting evidence. It is very easy to make absurd claims. Ad hominem fallacy and appeal to motive. Please refrain from logical fallacies. Yes it should. If someone chooses to take a year off work, by the end of that year they will have 1 year less experience relative to someone who did not take a year off of work. Because of lost potential experience. Yeah there is. The person who chose to have a baby now has a year less experience. I support freedom of choice. But those that choose certain actions should be subject to the consequences of those actions. And so does the flying spaghetti monster. Here is a question, if I claimed that matriarchy existed throughout Canada, how would you disprove my claim? This justification makes no sense. If the goal were to reduce 'skill shortages' in these fields, then you would give the scholarships to the best potential candidates, regardless of gender, and not restrict the pool of candidates. Discrimination based on sex is wrong. Completely untrue claim. If this were true, the different in life expectancy would not be so large and you would have more female representation than there currently in sectors of the economy that have greater health or mortality risks.

See, there is this thing called pregnancy. You may have heard of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnancy

I know an 80+ year old female computer programmer. Now she faced real gender discrimination. Yes, the idea is delusional. I try to encourage my sister to learn computer programming all the time. She never wants to. Though that said, with my experience tutoring and TAing people even 5 years younger, the changes in perception of computer programing & STEM by females is quite different. To quote my sister, "because it's boring".

Then you fail at logic. Inequality of outcome does not imply inequality of opportunity. Differences in choice of occupation could be due to a number of factors such as sexual dimorphism in humans or cultural pressures. The fact that women decide to get pregnant and take time off work (thus less experience for the rest of their careers) is a big factor to explain wage differences. Sigh, just use google. It's not hard. Here is a link (this one isn't even restricted to just urban areas). If you want more, they aren't difficult for me to obtain. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/02/24/childless-women-in-their-twenties-out-earn-men-so/ Females are overrepresented overall. As for what fields... there is no discrimination against women to enter STEM careers, there is just a lower tenancy to choose not to go in the STEM areas. Also, I don't hear anyone decrying the under-representation of male nurses. How does under-representation of females in one field negate over-representation of females in nearly all others? With respect to the claims regarding female earnings decrease relative to male earnings after children, that isn't due to discrimination. But apparently women are oppressed because they choose to get pregnant and take time off work, where as men are advantaged because they have societal pressures to work themselves to an early grave to support the family. You have made me see the light! *sarcasm* And people wonder why the soshoku danshi phenomenon is occurring in Japan... No, I understand. Only violence towards women matters. Violence towards men does not matter because they are the expendable gender. Apparently the fact that males are more likely to be murdered has nothing to do with gender. *sarcasm* Seriously? You need a cite to understand the concept of generational lag? The discrimination people face today isn't the same as the discrimination people faced 20 years ago, which isn't the same as the discrimination people faced 40 years ago. But the discrimination decades in the past will still have an impact on earnings today for older workers. Wait, let me guess! You want me to say patriarchy, right? It is discrimination. Anything other than 0% is discrimination. There should be no gender specific scholarships. Also, just because the scholarship is in STEM fields, doesn't mean it is somehow justified. Why should a female physics student have an advantage over a male physics student because of their gender? Wait, I think I got it! Patriarchy! Everything is the fault of the patriarchy! Do I have radical feminism figured out yet? I did not give any examples of patriarchy above. You are just associating blame for various social phenomena to a patriarchy that does not exist in the context where these social phenomena occur. Patriarchy exists in isolated locations, such as the households of Mormons, in Churches, in the Quran, etc. Similarly, matriarchy exists in many isolated locations across North America. However, North America is not homogeneous, there is not continent-wide Patriarchy nor Matriarchy.

The lower pay for same work is a myth perpetrated by those who cannot do math. It existed in the 1960's, sure. But not today in most parts of North America. The people who come up with these nonsense wage gap statistics (like Justin Trudeau and his 70% number), are not taking into account various factors such as occupation, number of hours worked, amount of experience, education level, effect of children, etc. and are often using outdated data (even using the retarded 'divide two numbers' methodology, you cannot get Justin Trudeau's absurd claims). Once you take into account these factors, the gap all but disappears. And actually, young women out earn young men in urban areas across North America. Women are also over-represented in universities, which has implications on future earning potential. Gender discrimination is more of a generation issue than anything (the older generations experienced discrimination so have some of this 'wage gap'). However, for the younger generation, there is either no discrimination or the discrimination favours women. You shouldn't treat the situation as homogeneous across different demographic groups. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_crime Males make up 76.8% of murder victims. But apparently only certain kinds of murder victims matter to you... That's mostly a generational lag issue. It does not justify sex-based discrimination towards younger generations. And furthermore, equality of outcome != equality of opportunity. Sigh, just use google. Look at what I get as the first results. http://dailycaller.com/2010/10/05/breast-cancer-receives-much-more-research-funding-publicity-than-prostate-cancer-despite-similar-number-of-victims/ http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/time-to-lead/designated-scholarships-overwhelmingly-favour-women/article1319477/ I made no such claim. Though why are there no efforts to reduce this 'gap'? Because men are the 'expendable gender'? The patriarchy DOES NOT EXIST (at least in most parts of North America)! In much the same way that unicorns or magic talking snakes do not exist. You are deluded.

Until? Please tell me what 'equalities' women do not have in Western society? I mean off the top of my head I can think of: not victim to institutionalized sexism via employment equity, shorter sentencing for the same crimes, more access to university scholarships, more funding for gender specific health issues (breast cancer funding vs prostate cancer funding for example), preference for custody of kids in many jurisdictions, longer life expectancy, etc. But I'm sure you weren't thinking of those. No, though I might have to go see an optometrist soon about an eye problem. The patriarchy exists in Saudi Arabia, sure. The patriarchy existed in Canada 100 years ago, sure. But it doesn't exist in Canada today. Some people just want to make up an enemy to fight.

Who claimed misandry had to be systematic or institutionalized? ... Though Canada does have state-institutionalized sexism under 'employment equity'.

No because 'muslim' countries aren't trying to overthrow their governments by definition. Furthermore, there is a difference between humanitarian aid and funding insurgency. Though that said, West should reconsider the aid it sends to Pakistan. Don't need insider information to understand the motive of the Harper government claiming the North Pole. See this is one of the problems. Too many westerners do not understand the importance of having the moral high-ground and not being hypocritical for the effectiveness of foreign policy in the long run. Putin understands this, which is why he is winning (ex. Syria). If any province or territory wishes to separate from Canada, I support their right to self-determination. Or... you could get your information from multiple sources (with their own biases) and make an informed decision about what you think the truth is. Rather than rely solely on western mainstream media. Where is your evidence of this claim? Yeah it does... Communism is sort of a bad economic system. Totalitarian communism is even worse.

I never implied such nonsense. Ah yes, the tumblr feminists... For the record, the patriarchy does not exist (at least in most western societies).

Yes. Feminism can mean anything from gender equalitism to misandric hate ideology.

Budget Surpluses aren't some magical property of the liberals. They can't just wave a magic wand and make money appear. Canada will be in budget surplus in ~4 years regardless of which of the 3 parties wins. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Scotland "The Scottish heraldic term for an X-shaped cross is a 'saltire', from the old French word saultoir or salteur (itself derived from the Latin saltatorium), a word for both a type of stile constructed from two cross pieces and a type of cross-shaped stirrup-cord." Way to demean your gender...

He's not trying to rebuild the soviet union. Trying to rebuild some sort of neo-russian empire, sure. But not the soviet union.

Every rebel group has islamists in it. Therefore giving money to rebels means giving money to islamists. Look, the Harper government is just using the 'incomplete mapping' as an excuse to claim the North Pole. There is more than sufficient information to know that it is not Canadian territory. As for being a normal tactic, just because it is normal does not mean it is right nor in the best interests of Canada. The West's position has weakened substantially over the past decade due to utter hypocracy. Let's not give more legitimacy to China's absurd territorial claims but instead work with our allies (ex. Denmark) to ensure fair territorial claims are established to ensure peace. Red Herring. I agree that the Crimean referendum was a bit of a joke. However, no western leaders would recognize the results of any Crimean referendum under any circumstances (especially Harper), as far as they are concerned it is Ukrainian territory and has no right to self determination. The truth is that even under more fair circumstances, the Crimean's would have most likely voted to separate from Ukraine. Right... If you really think this then you have been deluded by the western media. Really? What did he steal? Who did he kill (well he was in the KGB so you never know...)? We shouldn't have unnecessarily good relations with Russia. Especially not over issues like Syria or Ukraine where the West is being completely hypocritical. No trade with Russia? What protectionist nonsense is this? What will a trade embargo accomplish? The cold war is long over and Russia has a lot better human rights than many of our 'allies' (such as Saudi Arabia).

It doesn't matter if a knife is used? Seriously? Why are you trying to devalue the relevance of the use of violent weapons against rape victims? Are you secretly working for the patriarchy? I think you are being one of those people that needs to go away and learn how to think. Does saying 'being shot in the head 5 times is bad, being shot in the head 6 times is worse' minimize the impact of shooting people in the head? Does saying 'stealing $5 is bad, stealing $50,000 is worse' minimize the impact of stealing $5? Does saying 'aggravated assault with a potato is bad, aggravated assault with a machete is worse' minimize the impact of aggravated assault with a potato? To your first question... Do you really want me to go there? As for the second question, no. Many people can be offended for a variety of reasons, they are not necessarily radical feminists.

Apparently Richard Dawkins has said 'controversial' statements and people on twitter are upset: "Date rape is bad. Stranger rape at knifepoint is worse. If you think that is an endorsement for date rape, go away and learn how to think." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2709730/Richard-Dawkins-sparks-outrage-Twitter-debate-saying-date-rape-bad-stranger-rape-worse.html How is this controversial? I don't get it. Though this isn't the first time he's said stuff that angers radical feminists. http://www.thewire.com/national/2011/07/richard-dawkins-draws-feminist-wrath-over-sexual-harassment-comments/39637/

Except prior to 1956, the US was perfectly fine without 'In God We Trust' on their currency. How about 'In Humanity We Trust'? Is that better?

Can people get married without the consent of a Rabbi? How about working on the Sabbat? http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_article.php?id=18487

The cross is a very common geometric shape, so not necessarily religious. The Scottish and Jamaician flags have crosses, but these crosses are not religious. Admittedly, the Swedish, Norwegian, Danish, Icelandic, Finnish and English flags all have crosses that are religious in origin. Yes references to the God should be removed. But that doesn't mean that the UK is a theocracy on par with Iran. However, the monarchy should be abolished (having the head of state be the head of the Anglican Church is not very secular).

Or... arbitrary rules are all unacceptable, some are just less acceptable than others.

Personally, I would add an additional trait that religions tell people what their purpose in life is, but anyway... Sure there are irrational rules. But these irrational rules are not favoring 1 group of people over another to the extent that one group feels like second class citizens.

That isn't technically a religious law, even if it is inspired by religion. Though that law is pretty dumb and Canada isn't secular enough.

Secularism isn't a religion. The problem with non-secular states is that they give preference to a religion and make people of other religions feel like second class citizens. This doesn't help peace. The muslims in Israel for example must consult a Rabbi to get married, can't do certain things on the sabbat, etc. People should have equal rights under the state and should have freedom of religion. The state should not favour one religious group over another.

Democracies and theocracies aren't mutually exclusive.

The Israelis want peace. Many Palestinians also want peace. Maybe theocracy is not the right word, so I will retract my claim. What I meant was that there should be no non-secular states. Israel should abolish special status of Judaism. Look at the declaration of the state of Israel. Full of religion everywhere. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Dec_of_Indep.html "In order to be formally married in Israel, a Jewish couple has to be married by a Rabbi." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism_in_Israel Israel is about as secular as the crucifix in the Quebec legislature.