How is this statement contraversial?

[Bonam]

God, I love saying that. the number of times it has been said to me!

Glad you are enjoying yourself.

[WestCoastRunner]

Glad you are enjoying yourself.

It is a common phrase spoken disrespectfully to many members here.

[Bonam]

God, I love saying that.

It is a common phrase spoken disrespectfully to many members here.

Well, we all have our simple pleasures. If uttering common phrases is yours, by all means! But don't worry, if your intent was to disrespect me, I am not offended.

[Hal 9000]

You are not serious of course. You are baiting women.

Yes it was baiting, but it was no worse than what you display with every single post you make.

I've since deleted the comment, because its not the way I want to be. It's not the way genders should look at each other, I hope you'd see that your signature doesn't help, in fact its damaging.

That's all I'll say on the matter, unless of course you want to discuss further or start a new thread. But, 'I'm OK letting it go.

[-1=e^ipi]

Until we get the same equalities as men get both professionally and personally

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.

the patriarchy doesn't exist? Are you blind?

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.

Edited August 1, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[Black Dog]

That's crazy! Look at this statement;

A woman who knows her true value will only put up with a man's nonsense for so long, you either get right or get left.

This is a hateful statement, we all laugh, but it's totally hateful.

Now, If I said; "A man who know his true value will only put up with a woman's yapping, bitching, weight gain, spending (take your pick) for so long, you can shape up or ship out."

What would I be? Even drawing an example, I'm taking a chance at getting infracted or warned, but some misandrist poster actually spews this crap in her signature. It's a badge of honour for her and no one is even bothered, that's how bad things are.

You'd be a jerk, but not necessarily a misogynist. Do I even need to point out that your hypothetical example is actually a fairly common sentiment?

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.

I could respond with a laundry list of my own (including things such as lower pay for the same work, greater risk of sexaul assault, greater likelihood of being murdered by a spouse or partner or ex, lower representation in the political and business arenas), or I could go point for point (for example some evidence for claims about health care and university scholarships would be nice, to say nothing of the laughable notion that life expectancy is some kind of feminist plot) but that would fall into the trap of making it a tit for tat thing when its obvious you don't actually understand what the patriarchy is. Here's a hint: just because some men don't benefit from the patriarchy as much as others, doesn't mean it does not exist.

[-1=e^ipi]

lower pay for the same work

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.

greater risk of sexaul assault, greater likelihood of being murdered by a spouse or partner or ex

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...

lower representation in the political and business arenas

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.

some evidence for claims about health care and university scholarships would be nice, to say nothing of the laughable notion that life expectancy is some kind of feminist plot) but that would fall into the trap of making it a tit for tat thing when its obvious you don't actually understand what the patriarchy is. Here's a hint: just because some men don't benefit from the patriarchy as much as others, doesn't mean it does not exist.

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/

to say nothing of the laughable notion that life expectancy is some kind of feminist plot

I made no such claim. Though why are there no efforts to reduce this 'gap'? Because men are the 'expendable gender'?

Here's a hint: just because some men don't benefit from the patriarchy as much as others, doesn't mean it does not exist.

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.

Edited August 1, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[Bonam]

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.

Indeed. Much of the wage gap comes from the issue that so many senior executives are older men. These are people that started their careers in the 60s and 70s, when there really was gender discrimination. And so men starting their careers back then rose to higher positions. The women of today do not face this discrimination, and their careers progress as quickly as those of men, and the senior executives of 20-30 years from now will be the men and women in the early parts of their careers today. There is nothing else to do to address any wage gap but to wait for the current generation of young women, who entered the work force in an environment free of any real discrimination, to come to the climaxes of their careers.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Bonam

[TimG]

There is nothing else to do to address any wage gap but to wait for the current generation of young women, who entered the work force in an environment free of any real discrimination, to come to the climaxes of their careers.

What these silly "wage gap" discussions omit is that women and men have different interests. i.e. women, as group, may be less interested in the sacrifices required to get the top jobs so they could be perpetually underrepresented in that job category no matter how equal the opportunities are.

The inanity of the 'any difference is evidence of discrimination' thinking is illustrated by this paper that claims that wikipedia discriminates against women because only 17% of its editors are women:

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/02/wikipedia_is_maledominated_that_doesnt_mean_its_sexist.html

Edited August 1, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

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/

"How is tthis controversial?"

Well I guess it wouldn't be if he was speaking of his own experience.

But it's not clear how he is in any position to make those judgements.

It's also not logical to me:

Random crime by sickos is one horrible thing.

Being betrayed and violated by someone you trusted and cared about is a whole other type of horrible thing.

And starting a thread to ruminate on which is 'better' for the victim ... is a whole different steaming pile of crap.

.

Edited August 1, 2014 by jacee

[guyser]

And starting a thread to ruminate on which is 'better' for the victim ... is a whole different steaming pile of crap.

.

What thread are you talking about? Sure isnt this one.

[Bonam]

What these silly "wage gap" discussions omit is that women and men have different interests. i.e. women, as group, may be less interested in the sacrifices required to get the top jobs so they could be perpetually underrepresented in that job category no matter how equal the opportunities are.

The inanity of the 'any difference is evidence of discrimination' thinking is illustrated by this paper that claims that wikipedia discriminates against women because only 17% of its editors are women:

That may be true as well. Clearly, the goal should be equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Unfortunately, that is something that many people often forget. Different outcomes are not necessarily a result of a lack of opportunities.

[Black Dog]

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.

Are you suggesting that gender doesn't play a role in any of those things? Because outright discrimination isn't the only barrier to equality.

And actually, young women out earn young men in urban areas across North America.

Cite?

Women are also over-represented in universities, which has implications on future earning potential.

In what fields? For example, women are vastly underrepresented in STEM, which is where the money is at. Then there's the trade/technical schools in which men dominate.

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.

Cite?

Here's what Pew research has to say.

Yet there is no guarantee that today’s young women will sustain their near parity with men in earnings in the years to come. Recent cohorts of young women have fallen further behind their same-aged male counterparts as they have aged and dealt with the responsibilities of parenthood and family. For women, marriage and motherhood are both associated with less time spent on paid work-related activities. For men, the onset of family responsibilities has a reverse effect on their career.

http://en.wikipedia....rences_in_crime

Males make up 76.8% of murder victims. But apparently only certain kinds of murder victims matter to you...

That has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I was talking about a specific form of gender-based violence. Pointing that out does not mean I don't care about other forms of violence, and you're an asshole for saying otherwise.

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.

Cite?

On charities, from your link:

Kevin Johnson, the senior vice president of public policy for ZERO-The Project to End Prostate Cancer, chalks much of the disparity up to the differences between men and women, specifically the way each deals with their health concerns. Women, Johnson says, tend to be acutely aware and outspoken about their health concerns, while men shy away from such discussions.

“[Women] have been very vocal about being active in their health care. Men just aren’t like that. Men don’t talk about it,” Johnson told TheDC. “You’ve got to be tougher and everything else. You don’t talk about weaknesses like that.”

Hmm. I wonder what social force could be making men put their health at risk for the sake of appearances?

On university scholarships:

49,000 scholastic prizes offered in the country by colleges, universities, corporations and other private organizations, show 976 scholarships are designated exclusively for women - a number five times greater than the 192 prizes earmarked for men.

So about 2% of total scholarships are designated for women. Clearly this is gross discrimination.

And of the 47,832 undesignated scholarships, how many go to men vs. women?

Also:

Many of the scholarships for women, on the other hand, are designated in fields where they have traditionally been underrepresented such as the physical sciences, which offers 47 scholarships, and engineering, with 57. There are seven for women to be electricians, and in welding technology women have 10 scholarships and men have none.

I made no such claim. Though why are there no efforts to reduce this 'gap'? Because men are the 'expendable gender'?

Perhaps. I wonder why that is?

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.

So it does in fact exist. You've just demonstrated a few examples of it yourself.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

That may be true as well. Clearly, the goal should be equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. Unfortunately, that is something that many people often forget. Different outcomes are not necessarily a result of a lack of opportunities.

And do you think equality of opportunity has been achieved?

[Bonam]

And do you think equality of opportunity has been achieved?

I think that for men and women currently at the beginnings of their careers (in their 20s and 30s), there is indeed equality of opportunity. For older generations, due to historical discrimination, there may be some lingering differences in opportunity.

[Black Dog]

I think that for men and women currently at the beginnings of their careers (in their 20s and 30s), there is indeed equality of opportunity. For older generations, due to historical discrimination, there may be some lingering differences in opportunity.

I think you have to clarify what you mean by equality of opportunity. I wouldn't say such a thing exists when there are entire fields where people are both tacitly and openly discouraged from entering because of their gender

[TimG]

I wouldn't say such a thing exists when there are entire fields where people are both tacitly and openly discouraged from entering because of their gender

Such as?

[Bonam]

I think you have to clarify what you mean by equality of opportunity. I wouldn't say such a thing exists when there are entire fields where people are both tacitly and openly discouraged from entering because of their gender

I would think that it was obvious I meant as a generalization over the economy as a whole. Clearly there are some fields where women are over-represented for whatever reason, and others where men are. Reasons can be natural interests and inclinations, physical characteristics, working conditions, etc.

[Black Dog]

I would think that it was obvious I meant as a generalization over the economy as a whole. Clearly there are some fields where women are over-represented for whatever reason, and others where men are. Reasons can be natural interests and inclinations, physical characteristics, working conditions, etc.

Well, "natural interests and inclinations" can include a lot of gender-biased b.s, so I'd suggest that is an actual barrier to true equality of opportunity.

Such as?

How about computer sciences for women, nursing for men.

[TimG]

How about computer sciences for women, nursing for men.

Don't know about nursing but the idea that women are discouraged from entering computer sciences is delusional. Edited August 1, 2014 by TimG

[Bonam]

How about computer sciences for women, nursing for men.

So let's look at opportunities rather than outcomes.

What proportion of women with a certain GPA who apply get into computer science programs, compared to men with the same GPA?

What proportion of women with a computer science degree get accepted to jobs in computer science in industry, compared to men with the same degree?

Is there any significant difference there, or any evidence to believe that there might be? If anything, the results here are very likely higher for women, since companies are usually desperate to hire women for these kinds of positions.

If the reason that there are fewer women in computer science is because fewer women want to enter that field, you can't call that discrimination or lack of opportunity.

Edited August 1, 2014 by Bonam

[The_Squid]

I have to agree with Bonam. There is no inherent barrier to women entering computer science and there are no barriers to men being nurses. For some reason (that I don't necessarily fathom) these professions are preferred more by one gender than the other.

Nursing schools don't discriminate against men and neither do universities with respect to computer science degrees. However, I remain to be convinced if someone can show that this is happening.

Edited August 1, 2014 by The_Squid

[Black Dog]

Don't know about nursing but the idea that women are discouraged from entering computer sciences is delusional.

The idea that women re not discouraged from entering computer sciences is delusional.

You're right, this is easy!

So let's look at opportunities rather than outcomes.

What proportion of women with a certain GPA who apply get into computer science programs, compared to men with the same GPA?

What proportion of women with a computer science degree get accepted to jobs in computer science in industry, compared to men with the same degree?

Is there any significant difference there, or any evidence to believe that there might be? If anything, the results here are very likely higher for women, since companies are usually desperate to hire women for these kinds of positions.

If the reason that there are fewer women in computer science is because fewer women want to enter that field, you can't call that discrimination or lack of opportunity.

And why would fewer women want to enter the field? It's not like lobster fishing or something where there's physical barriers. What I'm saying is gender is a factor in these things long before (but also right up to) they make the choice to apply.

[TimG]

And why would fewer women want to enter the field?

Because women, as a group, have different interests than men. This should be obvious.

The link on the so-called sexism of wikipedia I posted above is a good illustration. No rational person can argue that an online volunteer project staffed by people hidden by screen names is discriminating against women yet only 13% of the wikipedia editors are women. The only plausible explanation for the low participation rate is women simply don't want to do it.

The same argument applies to any profession which is largely male today. Today women are free to make whatever career choice they want and there is no to reason expect women to make the same choices as men.

Edited August 1, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

It's not like lobster fishing or something where there's physical barriers.

The statistical distribution for the skills required for computer science (e.g. math) has a greater variance for men than women. This means that even though the means are the same for the two groups the set of people at both extremes will be dominated by men. As a consequence the pool of potential computer science workers is dominated by men.

You seem to accept that the statistical distribution of physical attributes is not equal among sexes. Why don't you accept that the statistical distribution of mental attributes is not equal as well?

Edited August 1, 2014 by TimG