Feminism goes insane in Norway

[kengs333]

I started out with serious doubts about this policy in Norway, but the more I think about it (ie: the more I read the comments in this thread), the less objections I have-- and I'm starting to think it's necessary in order to help make things right, and hopefully the day will come when there is no longer a need for such policies.

I think we've gotten to the point where women are "equal" enough that they can start, run, and build up their own businesses, hire and fire whomever they want--all it takes is brains, money and an idea. There are women who have managed to do this--I've seen many who employee mostly women--and there's nothing out there stopping others from doing so as well. As far as I'm concerned, "equal" representation in executive positions is a non-issue. Why should anyone be forced to hire certain people to meet criterias on "equality" when it could undermine their ability to develop the team they want and which they believe will lead them to succeed? Having worked in a variety of work environments in which the ratio of male-to-female was either dominated by females, about equally mixed, and dominated by men, I found the latter to be the most efficient and productive. In one industry that I worked at, my line was near one that was ALL female, and despite the din of the machinery, you could ALWAYS hear them complaining. And they were doing work that was less strenuous and higher paid than mine. Regardless of at what level in the workforce, I think men work best in a male dominated environment. Forcing that to change will I think have negative consequences for both the economy and our society.

[kengs333]

Gee you mean if all of us women would have just stayed home the price of a house would be less?

It means that if the affordability of "a house" increases, then the market adjusts to that fact. If someone is selling "a house" that is in a middle class residential area, and the average middle class income is $50,000, there best bet would be to sell the house at a price that would attract people of that income; not a household that has an income of $500,000, or one that has $5,000. If, for instance, the $50,000 figure reflected a society that had 25% of women in the workplace, and the next year this changed to 30% thus causing the average household income to increase to $55,000, the price of 'a house' would adjust.

I still remember when women had to use wringer washers and hang the laundry outside... as items to ease life were invented (thanks to men as very few women were able to attain gainful employment let alone invent) more and more women were able to work outside the home. Doe that mean men invented feminism? Hmmm.... if it weren't for those men inventing those life-easing items...

Men have made life better for women, reduced the strain of household chores in order to free them up to deal with other issues; feminism was the product of daughters of wealthy men who were influenced by subversive and radical ideologies.

Yes the rhythm method. Just make sure to have sex only one week before menstration and one week after. What if hubby and wife get all hot and heavy on the wrong day?

Is that the best you can do?

As I stated before... all men do not like hockey -- all women do not want to have lots of children; some even only want one, or none.

You're comparing two totally different things. Bearing and raising children is not a sport, and playing hockey is not a biological predisposition.

Why is it self destructive? Why is it pathetic (for a woman) to like sex with different men? Do you feel the same way about a young man "sowing his oats"?

If you're asking these kinds of questions, you really don't get it.

1936 -- the sexual revolution had not come about then -- yet there it is -- a man screwed his daugher. Was he a product of feminism? Or was he asserting his "patriachal right" to bed this girl (the wife, my grandmother, had died in childbirth -- too many children). My father was 11, his older sister was 13 when she gave birth.

Sexual deviance has always existed; that it is becoming normalized once again, in our society is the result of the feminism and the sexual revolution.

He's a great kid! Very well rounded. Gets good grades. But the gist of your topic is men being feminized -- so I responded by laughing at you and telling you that my son is "feminized". LOL

Sorry for you.

Of course, you're his mother, you overlook his faults in some cases, and will only learn the true extent of your influence when he reaches his adulthood. I'm curious, though, what your opinion is about how he pursues his sex life, sleeping with multiple partners, being the victim of one-night-stands with women who behave just like you did (or still do...), possibly siring illegitimate children with multiple partners, etc. Do you even know who his father was?

Ah yes, I am a human being.

But in your mind because I am a human being of the female persuasion I should not have control over what I do with my vulva or my uterus. You believe that women should be controlled by their very sex organs. Are you controlled by yours? No? Then afford me the same respect.

It has nothing to do with control, rather people--both men and women--behaving in a manner that is proven to be the most functional, least self-destructive, and productive to society. You're trying to twist it into an issue of oppression, and that's not what it is at all. If there are people in my society that behave in a manner that lowers its level of morality, and in general makes it a worse place than it should be, I have every right to express my opinions on the matter.

Sexual enjoyment is purely human. God given (if you believe in the sky daddy) pure enjoyment.

Life is great!

Read the Bible before you consider it to be "God given" in the sense that you believe it to be "given".

Here is what I think you are trying to tell us:

"People who have sex are less human than those who do not engage in such activity"

"Women are supposed to want children, lots of them"

"Women suck money from men"

Wrong on all counts.

Have a nice day! I will be thinking of you while I work and earn money -- thinking of how you are so resentful that I, as a woman, have autonomy.

LOL

I'm not resentful of it at all, just how you've admitted that you misuse it. Moreover, my supposed "resentment" has to do with the ideology of feminism, not women in general. I don't know how to make it any more simple for you; is reading comprehension really that much of an issue for you? Maybe you should consider attending night school--oh, wait, that's not when you work, is it...?

[Guest American Woman]

I think we've gotten to the point where women are "equal" enough that they can start, run, and build up their own businesses, hire and fire whomever they want--all it takes is brains, money and an idea.

Of course they can. Whoever said they couldn't? That's not the issue of this thread; it has nothing to do with the policy being discussed.

Having worked in a variety of work environments in which the ratio of male-to-female was either dominated by females, about equally mixed, and dominated by men, I found the latter to be the most efficient and productive.

I found the latter to be the most efficient and productive.

There's a surprise.

However, in spite of what you've found, it's not true of the postion being disucssed. As I already posted:

"Having women well represented in the corporate boardroom can help improve financial performance, according to a new study by a group that promotes women in executive roles.

Catalyst Inc, a nonprofit organization focused on women in the workplace, is set to release a report later on Monday showing that big companies with the greatest number of female board members on average have significantly better financial performance than those with fewer women."

In one industry that I worked at, my line was near one that was ALL female, and despite the din of the machinery, you could ALWAYS hear them complaining.

Shcoking! Especially in light of the fact that men never complain about their jobs.

Regardless of at what level in the workforce, I think men work best in a male dominated environment.

Ummm. Wow. Some men, maybe. But that would be those men's problem, not womens'-- so they'd be the ones to have to get over it.

Forcing that to change will I think have negative consequences for both the economy and our society.

Again, as I already posted, you are wrong.

Edited October 20, 2007 by American Woman

[Drea]

Men have made life better for women, reduced the strain of household chores in order to free them up to deal with other issues; feminism was the product of daughters of wealthy men who were influenced by subversive and radical ideologies.

Yes and I thank those men for making the way easier for all the generations of women since.

Other issues? In your mind what other issues could a woman possibly have? Clean clothes are important. LOL Oh, you mean more time to cook and fetch things for you! I get it

You're comparing two totally different things. Bearing and raising children is not a sport, and playing hockey is not a biological predisposition.

Becqause a woman is biologically predisposed to have children does not mean she wants them. Does not mean she will automatically be a good mother hen to a bunch of little ones.

Again...why are men not ruled by their biology?

Sexual deviance has always existed; that it is becoming normalized once again, in our society is the result of the feminism and the sexual revolution.

So you figure it was normal for an old man to impregnate his daughter? I think not. Back then no one batted an eye. Try messing with your daughter these days and see what happens to you.

Of course, you're his mother, you overlook his faults in some cases, and will only learn the true extent of your influence when he reaches his adulthood. I'm curious, though, what your opinion is about how he pursues his sex life, sleeping with multiple partners, being the victim of one-night-stands with women who behave just like you did (or still do...), possibly siring illegitimate children with multiple partners, etc. Do you even know who his father was?

Wow, you are a nasty human being. Why would you even say such a thing? Yes I know who his father is, and no we are not with him. My son has never seen me date anyone but his stepfather.

Also (and you will sooo love this!) I raised him for his first seven years on my own! OoOooOO...

It has nothing to do with control, rather people--both men and women--behaving in a manner that is proven to be the most functional, least self-destructive, and productive to society. You're trying to twist it into an issue of oppression, and that's not what it is at all. If there are people in my society that behave in a manner that lowers its level of morality, and in general makes it a worse place than it should be, I have every right to express my opinions on the matter.

Read the Bible before you consider it to be "God given" in the sense that you believe it to be "given".

Not all people believe in the bible (I said IF you believe in the sky daddy). A woman's clitoris is meant for one thing only -- sexual pleasure. If you believe (obviously you do) that god created us then you must also believe that god gave women this built in sex toy.

To clarify -- we were not created by a sky daddy, there is no sky daddy. I thank evolution for that wonderful toy.

I'm not resentful of it at all, just how you've admitted that you misuse it. Moreover, my supposed "resentment" has to do with the ideology of feminism, not women in general. I don't know how to make it any more simple for you; is reading comprehension really that much of an issue for you? Maybe you should consider attending night school--oh, wait, that's not when you work, is it...?

You had better watch the insults or you will not be on this board very long. I apologized for calling you a mysogynist.

You have no respect for autonomous women -- we all know this. It is very very clear.

So in a nutshelll then... you have no respect for autonomous women. You believe women should be at home raising children and that if we all did so the price of housing would drop.

You believe that a woman is only valued as a virgin, then a wife, then a mother. Everything else a woman does is becasue of "feminism" and is "bad".

I do not agree with the original topic -- forcing corporations to hire women. At the same time, women who are interested in being on boards of directors should not be dismissed because of antiquated beliefs (such as Kengs333's).

I am a director of the board of a local business organization. The CEO is also a woman.

Edited October 20, 2007 by Drea

[jefferiah]

"Having women well represented in the corporate boardroom can help improve financial performance, according to a new study by a group that promotes women in executive roles.

Agreed. I am sure there are many women who would be a great asset in any field. That does not change the fact that these policies would take away the right of someone to hire who he/she wants to work in a business that he/she owns, on the basis that they "could" discriminate. And in many cases these policies are going to be responsible for sexual discrimination in hiring. The fact that women are not as well represented in the "board room" (which may not even be due to discrimination in many cases) is not the sort of emergency that would make me even consider superceding such freedoms.

Edited October 20, 2007 by jefferiah

[Rue]

Feminism is inherently insane.

Feminism is simply the study and analysis of how things specificaly effect women as a gender differently then they do men.

You mistake feminism for the specific manner in which it may be used by certain people.

Feminism like anything with the word "ism" at the end of it can be used in many manners and for many different reasons and purposes.

Sounds to me like you have a preconception of what feminism means to you and so make the above sweeping generalization.

Feminism may be quite sane for example if it contributes to understanding for example how medications react differently in a woman's body then they do a man's. Using it in this manner, it saves lives and makes perfect sense.

Feminism to me is an ambiguous word and until you specify what it means to you, its pretty difficult to address your perceptions of it.

Sounds to me like you have this stereotypical image of feminists being angry, ball busting diesel dykes.

Either that or sounds like you never had daughters or grand-daughters.

Ease up. It may be not all "feminists" are lookin for yer balls. In fact I the feminists I know don't need your balls, they got their own already.

My daughters understand certain issues effect women differently then men and there's implications to that they should be aware of. If that makes them insane, so be it.

[kengs333]

Yes and I thank those men for making the way easier for all the generations of women since.

Other issues? In your mind what other issues could a woman possibly have? Clean clothes are important. LOL Oh, you mean more time to cook and fetch things for you! I get it

Again, reading comprehension... reduce household chores so they can deal with "other issues," not reduce household chores so they can deal with other household chores? Are you intentionally trying to be dense?

Becqause a woman is biologically predisposed to have children does not mean she wants them. Does not mean she will automatically be a good mother hen to a bunch of little ones.

Again...why are men not ruled by their biology?

I think men are biologically predisposed to certain roles, too. This is implied in my statement. But apparently I have to spell everything out to you everytime I make a post, because you are just going to assume that I'm biased towards men.

So you figure it was normal for an old man to impregnate his daughter? I think not. Back then no one batted an eye. Try messing with your daughter these days and see what happens to you.

Where did I say that? I said that sexual deviance has always existed. Since the sexual revolution, sexual deviance has become more normalized. Chances are that incest will become "normal" given the way things are going. I don't like it, but evidently you feel that the rights of sexual deviants are more important to having a moral society.

Wow, you are a nasty human being. Why would you even say such a thing? Yes I know who his father is, and no we are not with him. My son has never seen me date anyone but his stepfather.

It's not nasty; it's something that you have forced others to think about you based on your conduct. The blame is on you and you alone.

Also (and you will sooo love this!) I raised him for his first seven years on my own! OoOooOO...

Not all people believe in the bible (I said IF you believe in the sky daddy). A woman's clitoris is meant for one thing only -- sexual pleasure. If you believe (obviously you do) that god created us then you must also believe that god gave women this built in sex toy.

Nope, read the Bible. God created man, not sinful pleasure. That's something that mankind brought upon itself.

To clarify -- we were not created by a sky daddy, there is no sky daddy. I thank evolution for that wonderful toy.

So you view parts of your body as "a toy"?

You had better watch the insults or you will not be on this board very long. I apologized for calling you a mysogynist.

You have no respect for autonomous women -- we all know this. It is very very clear.

I haven't insulted you, just made factual statements. You on the other hand have made direct insulting remarks, and you have not apologized for calling me a misogynist. The fact of the matter is that if you don't like the topic being discussed or what another member says, then no one is you--a supposedly autonomous woman--to continue in the discussion. Threatening to go to a mod is pretty pathetic.

Stop posting if you don't want to discuss the matter anymore

So in a nutshelll then... you have no respect for autonomous women. You believe women should be at home raising children and that if we all did so the price of housing would drop.

You believe that a woman is only valued as a virgin, then a wife, then a mother. Everything else a woman does is becasue of "feminism" and is "bad".

I have a rounded opinion on what it means to be a good person; you think that because I happen to be discussing just a few aspects as it relates to women, that I only view women in a negative light, and not men. Like every other feminist, you just can't stand the fact that a man has opinions about women, that a man does not view women as faultless perfection. Sorry, that's not how it is.

I do not agree with the original topic -- forcing corporations to hire women. At the same time, women who are interested in being on boards of directors should not be dismissed because of antiquated beliefs (such as Kengs333's).

I don't recall any discussion about people being "dismissed". Moreover, we're not talking about antiquated beliefs--people being good is never antiquated--rather allowing society to function based on the natural difference between men and women. Many women for instance are now starting to find that feminism has brainwashed them into thinking that they have to shirk their femininity and enter the corporate world, and they now prefer to stay at home and raise children.

I am a director of the board of a local business organization. The CEO is also a woman.

Sure you are.

[kengs333]

Catalyst Inc, a nonprofit organization focused on women in the workplace, is set to release a report later on Monday showing that big companies with the greatest number of female board members on average have significantly better financial performance than those with fewer women."

You provide no link to the study or no information about the organization. They don't seem to be very important as it takes a while to find them on google. And they don't seem to be that forthcoming about who they are on their website. But based on their publications, they're quite clearly radical feminists and, needless to say, they're "findings" are quite useless as a result.

[Guest American Woman]

You provide no link to the study or no information about the organization. They don't seem to be very important as it takes a while to find them on google. And they don't seem to be that forthcoming about who they are on their website. But based on their publications, they're quite clearly radical feminists and, needless to say, they're "findings" are quite useless as a result.

Yeah, they're so "unimportant" that Rueters picked up the story about their study. The article I cited was on Yahoo News. Again, proof of how unimportant they are. Furthermore, the article I linked to, the article I took the quote from, said who they are: Catalyst Inc, [is] a nonprofit organization focused on women in the workplace ... Wow. Obviously they are radical feminists!

A bit of information regarding their study:

The findings in this study were based upon the four-year average for ROE, ROS, and ROIC for 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004, and women board director (WBD) data for 2001 and 2003. Financial data for the companies examined were obtained from the Standard & Poor’s Compustat database. Because of movement into and out of the Fortune 500 each year, there are 520 companies in this analysis; the top quartile comprises the 132 companies with the highest percentages of women board directors while the bottom quartile comprises the 129 companies with the lowest percentages of women board directors. WBD data was obtained from the 2003 Catalyst Census of Women Board Directors and the 2001 Catalyst Census of Women Board Directors. Financial performance measures vary by industry. To account for this variability, standardized financial performance measures were used to make comparisons within the overall sample.

Sounds like a real useless study. Now if only it were conducted by a men's organization we'd have some totally useful findings!

More about the organization:

Founded in 1962, Catalyst is the leading nonprofit corporate membership research and advisory organization working globally with businesses and the professions to build inclusive environments and expand opportunities for women and business. With offices in New York, San Jose, Toronto, and Zug, and the support and confidence of more than 340 leading corporations, firms, business schools, and associations, Catalyst is connected to business and its changing needs and is the premier resource for information and data about women in the workplace. In addition, Catalyst honors exemplary business initiatives that promote women’s leadership with the annual Catalyst Award.

Could they BE more radical?

Sorry you don't like the results, but facts are facts, whether you like them or agree with them or not.

Link

P.S. I just did a Google search for "Catalyst" and this is the very first hit:

Catalyst - Expanding opportunities for women and business

Catalyst is the leading research and advisory organization working with businesses and the professions to build inclusive environments and expand ...

[Click for more information] Map of 120 Wall St # 5, New York, NY 10005

www.catalystwomen.org/ - 31k - Cached - Similar pages

That really took awhile to find! I believe it was a whole second.

[ScottSA]

Gee you mean if all of us women would have just stayed home the price of a house would be less?

Actually, yes. In fact, not only would houses cost less, but we wouldn't be relying on immigration to replace ourselves.

[Moxie]

May Canada never reach the Level of Socialism that inflicks Norway. I don't want special laws for my sex. If I can't achieve equality and promotions in the work place based on merit, than I haven't earned it and I don't deserve it. I do not agree with the feminist movement, in fact they make my skin crawl.

I don't give credit to feminists for the advancement of women in society, I give full credit to women in their late fifties and sixties for paving the way for my sex. Ordinary Housewives and Mothers. In the Maritimes, when our industries collapsed such as fishing and construction women had to go into the work force out of nessessity. Over time women realized they didn't have to stay in an abusive marrages because of welfare. Over time being a single parent lost it's stigmatation as shameful. In the past twenty five years I've watched my fair sex bloom with confidence and pride. Our identity is no longer contained to what our HUSBANDS career and earnings are and what kind of Mother we appear to be. We are free to follow our own chosen path. Education is a very powerful tool for women, it opens doors for us. Women are smashing steriotypes in Canada in the Construction trades, older males are less than accomading because they believe ( Usually Church Doctorine cult like horseshite) our role is the home cleaning and child rearing and making sure their dinner is on the table. Thankfully that group is slowly shrinking from death by old age.

Today women have the choice to decide their destiny, their future is no longer tied to who

she marries. Evolution is a grand thing.

For those males who's knuckles drag on the ground, here's some free advice: Women aren't on this earth to be nothing but breeders for males and mother's for your children. Tisk tisk. Regarding house prices, gals keep up the good work. I've flipped a few house because of you nar-do-wellers going into the workforce and driving up the prices of Realestate. Not that I believe Scot's analogy, it's more brown stuff for the composter.

[Guest American Woman]

(Drea @ Oct 19 2007, 08:35 AM) *

Gee you mean if all of us women would have just stayed home the price of a house would be less?

Actually, yes. In fact, not only would houses cost less, but we wouldn't be relying on immigration to replace ourselves.

So by the same line of thought, if men sayed out of the work force, house prices would fall-- and I would have been able to buy my house for less. So it's your fault I paid what I did for my house! :angry:

Edited October 21, 2007 by American Woman

[jefferiah]

Yeah, they're so "unimportant" that Rueters picked up the story about their study. The article I cited was on Yahoo News. Again, proof of how unimportant they are. Furthermore, the article I linked to, the article I took the quote from, said who they are: Catalyst Inc, [is] a nonprofit organization focused on women in the workplace ... Wow. Obviously they are radical feminists!

The honesty of your study is not my question, though. I never once questioned your sources myself. The question is should the government have the right to tell private corporations who they can and cannot hire, appoint, etc.

I am sure there are many women who are qualified to work in many fields. This does not prove that it is discrimination which creates uneven results in the workplace. And it does not prove that the government should be given control over the private property of business owners.

The fact that a woman may be good at a job is a good reason to hire her, but it is not a good reason to be forced to hire her.

Policies such as this create situations where the employer will be forced under rule of law to make sexual discrimination in hiring. Where you are not even sure there was so much discrimination before, you are going to be directly enforcing discrimination. If intervention is ever required by the gov, this is not a situation where it is. Not being on a Board of Directors is not an emergency situation in the welfare of women.

[luvacuppajoe]

The only thing about Norway's policy that surprises me is that they didn't set the quota at an even 50%. I guess they didn't want to appear pushy.

I can well envision the day when a government will refuse to grant business licences to men (particularly white men) if the quotas for women and minorities have not yet been filled.

Edited October 21, 2007 by luvacuppajoe

[ScottSA]

The only thing about Norway's policy that surprises me is that they didn't set the quota at an even 50%. I guess they didn't want to appear pushy.

I can well envision the day when a government will refuse to grant business licences to men (particularly white men) if the quotas for women and minorities have not yet been filled.

Well well well, look who is here...one of the best posters on the web!

[Guest American Woman]

The honesty of your study is not my question, though. I never once questioned your sources myself. The question is should the government have the right to tell private corporations who they can and cannot hire, appoint, etc.

I am sure there are many women who are qualified to work in many fields. This does not prove that it is discrimination which creates uneven results in the workplace. And it does not prove that the government should be given control over the private property of business owners.

The fact that a woman may be good at a job is a good reason to hire her, but it is not a good reason to be forced to hire her.

Policies such as this create situations where the employer will be forced under rule of law to make sexual discrimination in hiring. Where you are not even sure there was so much discrimination before, you are going to be directly enforcing discrimination. If intervention is ever required by the gov, this is not a situation where it is. Not being on a Board of Directors is not an emergency situation in the welfare of women.

The honesty of the study was questioned, albiet not by you, which is what I was responding to in the quote you cited.

Not being on a Board of Directors isn't, as you said, an emergency situtation in the welfare of women, but sitting in the back of the bus rather than the front wasn't an emergency situtation in the welfare of blacks either. Yet the government intervened because discrimination is wrong.

As for the government interference in companies-- the government does interfere in the form of tax breaks, for example, and as such, does have the right to make sure all citizens are being treated equally/fairly.

Furthermore, emergency situation or not, women should be able to aspire the same goals as men. A women who pays the same for a university education as a man should be able to achieve the same goals, and not be hindered by her sex. A woman should be able to aspire for the same high paying positions as men, and they have the right to expect equal opportunity to achieve it.

So your question apparently is whether or not women do desire these positions in the same numbers as men. In fields where one can achieve such goals, the answer is yes accoring to this study.

Why does the attainment of women at the top still lag so far behind that of men? Recent reports featuring well-credentialed women opting out of the work force to raise families seem to confirm a popular notion these days, that women simply don't share the same career aspirations as men.

That’s a myth. The hypothesis that women secretly aspire to full-time motherhood is debunked in a recent survey conducted by Catalyst, the research and advisory organization focusing on women’s leadership issues.

And it makes no difference whether women have children or not—they’re just as likely to hunger for the CEO job.

[ScottSA]

So your question apparently is whether or not women do desire these positions in the same numbers as men. In fields where one can achieve such goals, the answer is yes accoring to this study.

Why does the attainment of women at the top still lag so far behind that of men? Recent reports featuring well-credentialed women opting out of the work force to raise families seem to confirm a popular notion these days, that women simply don't share the same career aspirations as men.

That’s a myth. The hypothesis that women secretly aspire to full-time motherhood is debunked in a recent survey conducted by Catalyst, the research and advisory organization focusing on women’s leadership issues.

And it makes no difference whether women have children or not—they’re just as likely to hunger for the CEO job.

This kind of a priori conclusion crap study has been churned out by Faculties of "Women's Studies" since the late eighties, and by this and that axe grinding organization since. They bear no reflection to to reality in any way, shape, or form, and are merely thrown out there for political consumption. The particular study you cite? Well, lets take a look at it's "subjects":

"Catalyst’s 2004 study of 700 senior women and 250 senior men, sponsored by PricewaterhouseCoopers, found that both genders aspire to reach the top ranks in organizations—55 percent of female and 57 percent of male respondents. "

This is even more egregiously maipulated than most. Asking "700 senior women" (presumably hired by Price Cooper) if they aspire to reach the top ranks is like asking 700 lions if they aspire to eat gazelle or 700 pedophiles if they aspire to boink little boys. I'm surprised the stat is so low. It certainly doesn't reflect the general population, although it's clearly designed to pretend to.

Edited October 21, 2007 by ScottSA

[Guest American Woman]

It certainly doesn't reflect the general population, although it's clearly designed to pretend to.

It's designed to reflect the population that would aspire to become board members/CEOs--Those in those professions, men AND women. In other words, it doesn't reflect the general population of men, either. A study such as this would only be accurate in regards to what it's applicable to.

As for your comparison to "pedophiles who aspire to boink little boys," I find it totally disgusting, inappropriate, and irrelevant. All your comment does is speak ill of you.

Edited October 21, 2007 by American Woman

[ScottSA]

It's designed to reflect the population that would aspire to become board members/CEOs--Those in those professions, men AND women. In other words, it doesn't reflect the general population of men, either. A study such as this would only be accurate in regards to what it's applicable to.

As for your comparison to "pedophiles who aspire to boink little boys," I find it totally disgusting, inappropriate, and irrelevant. All your comment does is speak ill of you.

Whatever. It fits. This study is totally misrepresentative of the point you were making, given that you were talking about the general population of women. I find that dishonest and rather disgusting, although I'll chalk it up to your failure to read the actual article rather than an inherent dishonesty.

[Guest American Woman]

What part of "in fields where one can achieve such goals" didn't you understand? In other words, no. I was NOT "talking about the general population of women" as you claim I was.

For the record, I have no respect for your disgusting comments. Obviously you can't make it through a thread without resorting to this type of comment, much less the insults and accusations that followed, which is why your opinion means nothing to me.

[ScottSA]

What part of "in fields where one can achieve such goals" didn't you understand? In other words, no. I was NOT "talking about the general population of women" as you claim I was.

For the record, I have no respect for your disgusting comments. Obviously you can't make it through a thread without resorting to this type of comment, much less the insults and accusations that followed, which is why your opinion means nothing to me.

My opinion is irrelevant. Your 'facts' are misused and largely fabricated. That is not an insult, it is merely a fact.

[jefferiah]

Not being on a Board of Directors isn't, as you said, an emergency situtation in the welfare of women, but sitting in the back of the bus rather than the front wasn't an emergency situtation in the welfare of blacks either. Yet the government intervened because discrimination is wrong.

This is a faulty analogy.

Being forced to sit at the back of the bus is a clear cut case. Yours is not.

Allowing blacks to sit at the front of the bus is not a policy which would ever create discrimination. There is no requirement that so many blacks sit up front. They simply removed the rule that they must sit in the back. There is no rule that says women cannot be on a Board of Directors. Women are allowed to be on a board of directors, just as blacks are allowed to sit at the front of the bus.

The policies you promote enforce quotas which will create actual cases of sex-based hiring.

Edited October 21, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

Catalyst Inc. is a nonprofit organization focused on women in the workplace

So they are not just a run of the mill non-biased research group.

Do you think that the pro-marijuana lobby ever publishes studies which conclude marijuana can be harmful?

[Guest American Woman]

So they are not just a run of the mill non-biased research group.

Do you think that the pro-marijuana lobby ever publishes studies which conclude marijuana can be harmful?

I think you'll believe what you want to believe. It doesn't matter who did the research, it matters how the research was done. In spite of that fact, I think you'll believe what you want to believe.

Edited October 21, 2007 by American Woman

[jefferiah]

I think you'll believe what you want to believe. It doesn't matter who did the research, it matters how the research was done. In spite of that fact, I think you'll believe what you want to believe.

Oh yes apparently it does. Because when I had certain opinions that laws which seek to counter discrimination should not supercede freedoms, you attributed it to the fact that I was a white male, right?

You still have not proven that discrimination is the sole (let alone the predominant) reason for the difference in gender numbers, and you have not shown me a valid example of why we should allow the government freedom to make such quotas.

The back of the bus example is clearly inapplicable.

Edited October 21, 2007 by jefferiah