Slashdot Mirror
Emma Watson Leaked Photo Threat Was a Plot To Attack 4chan
ideonexus writes: After Emma Watson gave a speech on the need for feminism (video) to the United Nations, 4chan users threatened to release nude photos of the Harry Potter star in retaliation, setting up the emmayouarenext.com website with a countdown clock. Now it has been revealed that the site was an elaborate hoax intended publicize a movement to shut down 4chan.
"Join us as we shutdown 4chan and prevent more pictures from being leaked."
Yeah, that is definitely going to prevent anyone from posting any more photos.
I agree- we should shut down 4-Chan. And all of the other sites posting naked pictures of women without their consent. And all of the sites demeaning women or ethnic minorities. And the forums providing a conduit for homophobia and racist slurs and.......guys......anyone still there?
You're gonna need to provide some facts and numbers for that absurd claim.
Otherwise we assume you're not taking your crazy meds.
pretty much the whole western world where the vast majority of women nearly always get equal or preferential treatment.
FYI, the debate is about turning "vast majority" to "all" and removing the "nearly".
You know, otherwise it's like having: ...
Right to self-determination on most cases.
Right to liberty, usually.
Right to due process of law, for the vast majority.
Right to freedom of movement, in almost all circumstances.
Right to freedom of thought, except when it's inconvenient.
The company that wants 4chan shut down also doesn't seem to exist; it looks like this was a publicity stunt by a social media agency.
http://www.theguardian.com/fil...
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
You forgot the right to register for selective service and conscription.
Or at the very least a /sarcasm tag....
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Maybe you could post some fact or numbers too? Remember, we're talking about opportunities not outcomes.
Yeah, but don't you feel sorry for that poor oppressed girl? She was being attacked and threatened by a website that her publicist paid someone to create! She's a VICTIM!!!!!
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
They are all in a single place and mostly keeping to themselves. Do you really want that kind of people roaming around without a place made to accommodate their behavior?
It's like destroying a prison to stop crime.
How about 'Photoshopped pictures' because it never happened?
Really, the Internet needs a drain. Support 4Chan...
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
FYI, the debate is about turning "vast majority" to "all" and removing the "nearly".
So you admit that it's all about tinkering round the edges, not achieving some paradigm shift or anything major, then. Frankly, not really UN material.
You know, otherwise it's like having: ...
Right to self-determination on most cases.
Right to liberty, usually.
Right to due process of law, for the vast majority.
Right to freedom of movement, in almost all circumstances.
Right to freedom of thought, except when it's inconvenient.
In practice, that's pretty much all anyone gets.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
I know I give mine the finest cashmere tea towels to wear.
...wait, what were we talking about again?
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
"Basically" meaning "I prefer to think she said this, because what she actually said isn't something I'm intellectually equipped to argue against".
Sticking to what we can actually measure and not some airy, hand-wavey idea of what constitutes an opportunity, skills-matched cohorts of male and female employees show a wage and career security discrepancy in favour of men in almost any study you care to mention. That discrepancy skirts zero a but it conspicuously never flips around the other side.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Have you ever considered that many women often choose being a mother instead of focusing on a demanding career?
Also, in other categories where men get the short end of the stick statistically, do you automatically assume its because of some big conspiracy?
If they were, what else would explain (at least a closer) 50/50 split of male and female people in high powered jobs?
Higher desire to drop out of a job and raise a family. More ambition to do stuff that doesn't require dedicating your whole life to it to be successful. More desire to do "social" jobs like teaching or nursing and not "unsociable" jobs like CEO or garbage collection.
== Jez ==
Do you miss Firefox? Try Pale Moon.
I think the elephant in the room is that most women have babies. They love those babies and they want to stay home with them. The opportunity is there it is up to them to make a decision in their life what they want to do. I know plenty of women in high positions that do and do not have kids. I also know more women that have had a few babies and decided to stay home. Regardless if they could financially or not, the family made it work because it is what she wanted.
. By displaying the results front and center and tweeting about emmayouarenext.com's viral success, the campaign's organizers are perhaps more focused on promoting their own brand and services than issues of privacy and gender equality.
Forget the brand, forget the event, and forget this firm ever existed. We're talking about a fairly controversial site but what needs to be respected is the tenacity and seemingly endless realm of their users. after a cat was abused, they tracked down a fourteen year olds full name and address in under 24 hours. They tracked down a bomb threat in 2007 to a student in a High School in Pflugerville, Texas in under 6 hours and have a laundry list of relatively high profile internet attacks. Both Verizon and AT&T have banned the site at some time during its existence. Speaking as someone who works in hosting, What this ad agency fails to realize is once you become a target of 4chan we questionlessly invoke our right to terminate your service at any time. Its either a chargeback at worst on our credit card processing or we watch everything from signup to shared/vps hosting go up in flames.
Good people go to bed earlier.
Maybe it was an elaborate hoax to publicize 4chan by publicizing an elaborate hoax to attack 4cahn.
I'm sorry but you clearly don't have even the first bit of experience in the field if that's what you believe.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
And you don't think there might be some factors that might contribute to that number not being zero other than lack of opportunity? How about the fact that a significant number of women still care more about building a family than a career? To be clear, I'm glad this trend is changing.
Instead of trying to push for legal change, you guys should push for a cultural change where women don't pressure other women to get married young and start having babies.
"Oh it's so unfair, that women don't have to register for the draft, in spite of the fact that volunteer female soldiers have been fighting for decades to even have the chance at front-line combat duties"
Come on man. Selective service is pretty outdated as a concept and should probably be binned for men, but this is an argument that just ignores the pragmatic reality that it's sexism against women not "for" them that creates the situation you're whining about.
I bet she even showers naked...
Well, yes. That's what you tend to see in societies where one group or another is underpaid - in economic crises, they're more heavily employed because they're cheaper. In the US it's illegal immigrants due to a reluctance to establish wage laws for migrant workers; in the UK it's young workers because our minimum wage adjusts with age; I guess in Romania there's enough of a wage discrepancy that businesses could cash in.
In crystallography circles, there's a slightly higher percentage of women than in other chemistry fields. The story is that one of the early pioneers needed to stretch his research budget and he was allowed to pay women less, so he hired more.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
If only there was some sort of cultural moment dedicated to changing the perception and social role of women. We could call it "feminism".
(Improved childcare opportunities are one of the great equality demands in the sciences right now. You're on a different side than you realise.)
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Whose fault is it when you have 50% of the voters and can't fill 50% of the seats? Either women don't care and are too stupid to vote themselves in. Or they are smarter vote for men because they know they are the better choice. Which is it?
I think the elephant in the room is that most women have babies. They love those babies and they want to stay home with them.
Where I work - medium-sized development shop - I can recall one or two females who went on maternity leave and never came back, and several who dropped to part-time after they had kids. Not one single male changed working patterns after fatherhood.
So you want women to always "get equal or preferential treatment"? Since women do get preferential treatment in many areas, that isn't a campaign for equalitiy, it's a campaign for treating men worse than women.
Most of the feminist agenda these days isn't about government discrimination, it is about private conduct. So, the positions you mock are actually pretty much the positions feminists take: right to self-determination in most cases (except when it interferes with feminist notions of equality), right to liberty usually (except when we need to restrict it in order to achieve feminist goals), right to due process (except when rape, harassment, or other crimes feminists care about are involved), freedom of though except if it is inconvenient (because people don't believe what feminists believe).
Couldn't happen to a nicer site.
Best Slashdot Co
Yes, nobody has ever thought to adjust for hours worked and wonder if the issue was underemployment of women. It's not like that's one of the major issues that employment equality is concerned with right now.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
It will never be "all" because we will never live in a perfect world. There will always be cases of SOME men, women, blacks, whites, Indians, etc. who are legitimately oppressed or discriminated against for many various reasons, even in the best countries. So if you can say "the vast majority of X are treated fairly" then you're doing about as good as is humanly possible.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Did you know that men are roughly 50% of the population, but only 13% of elementary education teachers in the United States are men?
Help, help, we're being oppressed!!
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
It tells me that women are more risk averse than men on average. Something that is pretty well established in most studies of male and female psychology.
Remember that for every high profile politician or CEO there are thousands of failures. Just because someone has an opportunity does not mean they are going to take it. Nor does it mean they have to take it.
You don't get it. The biggest problem is that women pressure other women to settle for less careerwise in order to put a priority on getting married and having a family. Mothers are the worst at this as they want grand babies.
Look, the fact is that the lost opportunities are self inflicted. You and other women need to change the culture among women.
Women are 50% of the population, yet only 25% of CS majors. Oh wait, the ratio of women who WANT to do CS to men who WANT to do CS is 25:75. Nothing to see here.
My numbers are probably a bit off, but the ratio of women who show interest in CS based on random population surveys, matches the actual women who have a CS related job nearly perfectly. Men express more interested in CS than women, go figure. We don't need more women in CS, we need a more favorable environments, but I think the who "IT" industry needs that in general.
The logical answer is that gender-biased hiring patterns are overriding the market's inherent rational balancing mechanisms. I mean, clearly it's not the free hand of the market making the call if you have an inequality that disadvantages both one group and market efficiency, while acting to the advantage of another group.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
This was discussed on a local talk show in Austin and several HR folks from major tech companies here called in.
They claimed that for graduate level positions, they receive hardly any applications from women and very few from American born men. Mostly foreign born applications here on work visas or in the naturalization process.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Oh, I'm not female. I do, however, work in an environment where I'm having to think carefully about how childcare needs can be balanced with future career prospects. People drop out all the time and it's not because they choose to.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
You can't really believe that every single man who believes in "Men's Rights" is "dedicated to opposing introspection and protecting established norms at all costs."?
That's like believing that all women who are feminists believe 90% of men should be phased out.
Get some perspective.
[John]
Shit better not happen!
That's kind of like planting evidence of tax evasion on a convicted murderer.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
Inequality that disfavours men is because of a set of social norms and conventions around gender that need to be challenged by men and women alike. That's what the modern feminist movement is about, no?
Men face a much higher arrest and conviction rate for sexual assaults. They also face stiffer penalties when convicted. So what you're saying is that modern feminists are working to correct this imbalance?
Those users move on, find another site, and rise up again. Or, they just go on a spree with no central site at all.
Did shutting down P2P sites stop torrents? Shutting down 4chan as a site won't help, we need to address the underlying social issues.
False. Completely false. Why do you persist in this nonsense?
Women, in the same career field as a man, almost always makes less. They only place it's close is in a wage controlled environments. Where a person doing X classification makes the same by contract. Even in those case women rise through the class slower then men.
This is a real problem. Why does this scare you? Probably for the same reason a woman wanting for all people to be equally made people on 4chan angry.
Did you listen to her speech? She talks about men and women.
She also talks about inequality men face as well as women.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
There's a difference between men who believe in men's rights, and the Men's Rights Movement. Unfortunately it's the latter who are allowed to control the issues.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
I don't know. I will say that men have exactly the same opportunities when it comes to being convicted of sexual assault, so what is there to complain about? The law's perfectly even-handed, and it'd be churlish to ask for special treatment because of one's gender. :)
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Those are two different issues: you're conflating the issue of females who want to fight being allowed to do so with the issue of females who don't want to fight being allowed to refrain from doing so -- a right they have that males do not. What reason, other than hypocrisy, could feminists have for consistently leaving that latter particular aspect of equal rights out?
"We want to be equal except where being unequal suits us" is not an argument that would advance the cause.
(Note: I'm in favor of women having equal rights... in all cases.)
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Once 4chan is shut down, there will be no way for leaked photos to be made available on the Internet.
You have got to be kidding me.
Of course I'm fucking conflating them. They're caused by the same phenomenon. People perceiving women as being incapable of taking care of themselves in war.
So those CEOs of HP and Yahoo must be some sort of hallucination then?
Let us not forget multiple heads of state, secretaries of state, and multiple chief justices.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
That's not entirely true. There are lots of "fraternal organizations" that are men-only. These could be booster clubs for things like sports spring training, where the members are all male "civic leaders", could be golf country-clubs that do not permit women to hold memberships and bar women guests of members from certain areas, and mens' clubs (not to be confused with gentlemens' clubs) that bar women from membership or even admittance to the facility. These private clubs are where powerful men socialize with each other and that human-networking, whether we like it or not, paves the way for career opportunity and advancement.
One such organization in my area that was involved with spring training finally got their men-only rule broken when they took municipal money for the stadium, which also was built on city-owned grounds. The courts ruled that they must admit women that meet all of their other existing requirements. I was doing tech support at the new membership banquet (boss at the time was a member) and there were a lot of old white men with fake smiles plastered on their faces that were grumbling about "this uppity bitch" as they were going through the ceremony.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Yet women tend to want to stay home with the babies instead of focusing on a career. This pressure also comes from other women.
Yes, and that's one of the ideas that keeps coming up: it's not a men-vs-women issue, anyone can hold these problematic preconceptions about women's roles in society.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Whose fault is it when you have 50% of the voters and can't fill 50% of the seats?
With voting age limited to 18 and over and with a highly unbalanced incarceration rate, there are far more eligible female voters than male. For example, in the United States, there are 8 million more women eligible to vote than men.
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
Yes, and? 98% and 99% are both vast majorities, but that's the difference between 200 million people getting the short end of the stick and 100 million people getting the short end of the stick.
You might as well say "the vast majority of people live past reproductive age" and say that we can pack in modern medicine.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Here is a list of your arguments thus far:
1. Women are underpaid compared to men absolutely (no other reasons given other than sexism)
2. Women are underemployed compared to men in the face of criticism of 1 (no other reason given than sexism)
3. Hand-waved criticism of 1 and 2 by claiming that when economies are in crisis (all of ours are arguable capitalist economies always are, nature of capitalism), the lowest paid are over employed relative to other groups.
This seems like a pretty clear contradiction.
Makes me think:
1 is false, there is no real pay disparity overall and claiming the opposite such is disingenuous
2 is false, there are roughly equal employment opportunities or more so per 3, and claiming otherwise is disingenuous
3 is false, but this seems most likely to be true given our economy of the past few years
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
Could you also share your thoughts on the default de-facto legal position that women get primary custody of the children after a divorce?
No doubt. I'm talking in very, very broad strokes here.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Um, women are not "cheaper," they are willing to work for cheaper. If men agreed to work for the same wage, they'd have a similar level of employment. It's not like if you hire a man you are required to pay him 110% of what a woman gets paid.
A large part of the reason a pay gap exists (in America) between women and men is because men are more aggressive. They are more likely to negotiate a higher wage when being hired, to demand raises or to switch jobs for more pay. Women expect that if they work hard they'll be noticed and "rewarded," but business doesn't work like that. If you're willing to work hard for less money, that's good for the employer. Yes please, give me more of these high-output, low-wage employees!
This is not the fault of employers. This is the fault of women. Ladies, if you want higher pay, demand it. If they won't pay you more, jump ship to another company who will. But nobody's going to just show up and shower you with cash. They don't "give" it to men, either. Men demand it.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Yes, you need to control for the fact that women often take time out to raise children, whereas men are more likely to continue to work through it. Once you've done that, come back with some new figures.
This has been allowed for in the various studies of the subject. Even among childless women there is a significant discrepancy in salaries for similar jobs. Thoug, from one article in the Economist, the discrepancy almost disappears for childless women not in any relationship.
This, as has been pointed out, the discrepancy never flips the other way, as would be the case in a truly fair environment, In such an environment, necessarily finite studies should show results randomly either side of equality.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
Or that she didn't have any interest in giving some random jackasses attention.
Then shouldn't women get their own house in order before they start blaming the men? Especially since women are the primary pressurers of other women to focus more on getting married and having babies.
I'm sorry you clearly can't tell I'm taking the piss out of a position that you advanced earlier.
Yes, the "women first" bias in the UK court system's awards of custody certainly needs to be addressed. If people who claimed to stand up for men's rights spent their time addressing these issues and not nit-picking feminists we'd probably have that licked by now.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
If that was the only issue, then you would be correct. However the gender hiring bias and gender income gap aren't that intertwined. They are part of the same problem, but they don't directly affect each other.
Regarding the gender income gap, I support the idea of legislation that would reward equal work with equal pay.
However, the gender hiring bias can't be simply solved with legislation, and potential income gap legislation could cause the hiring bias to worsen. This is quite possibly one of those problems that won't be solved in our generation simply due to how ingrained we are in our beliefs. Hell, as a woman who has been in IT for 15 years, I look at other women in the field differently than I look at the men; it's as if the men belong there and the women have to prove themselves. It's rather humbling to realize this. I think everyone should read this and re-examine how they view their colleagues.
1) I wasn't aware that Emma Watson was blaming men.
2) There's no logical path from "both sides are at fault" to "one side needs to do this first before the other side needs to address it".
3) You've not actually substantiated your premise, but I'm going to let that slide because the downstream arguments are more interesting.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The phenomenon obviously exists, but why do you attach such negativity to it? Without babies the humanity will cease to exist pretty soon no matter how successful "freed" women are at their other pursuits.
And pregnancy — and subsequent child-rearing — do cost women professionally. Not because anybody is "sexist", but simply because you can not give a promising assignment to an employee, who just is not there (because she is on maternity leave).
Some women may view this as unfortunate, others — as a privilege, but whatever you feel about it, there is no one to blame for it any more, than we can prosecute someone for gravity...
Maybe, some day, we'll have incubation centers freeing women from the need to carry the burden for months. But I'm not very optimistic, given that we are yet to solve even the much simpler problem of breast-feeding.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
False. Completely false. Why do you persist in this nonsense? Women, in the same career field as a man, almost always makes less. They only place it's close is in a wage controlled environments. Where a person doing X classification makes the same by contract. Even in those case women rise through the class slower then men. This is a real problem. Why does this scare you?.
This is just not true. Once you factor in time & effort on the job, the gap nearly closes. Women choose to place domestic priorities higher than men. Why does this scare you?
Dark Reflection
Of course it's not going to flip around because there is pressure among women to focus on making a family instead of pursuing a demanding career. This pressure will result in the slanting of the talent pool in favor of the men.
To be clear, this doesn't mean that the situation isn't fair. It just shows that many women disqualify themselves not that the opportunity wouldn't be there if they didn't give in to pressure from other women.
Its like the pedo stories they used to do on tv news shows. Lure offenders to a home and take pictures of their creepy activities and show them to the public. The only thing they didnt do was show who the creepy offenders are. Why 75% of slashdotters want to debate feminism and womens rights in the workplace only shows just how uncomfortable people are discussing this issue. The 25% who are discussing the actual article are apparently the creeps she/they are trying to expose (or at least awaken their moral compass)
Except that the latest recession has been called the Mancession for a reason. More women than men are working, and making more money.
More women are earning degrees at all levels. Women are CHOOSING to work fewer hours. They choose quality of life because they CAN. Men do not have this option. Women simply have more choice of what they do.
Today's feminist propaganda/dogma has noting to do with reality. Victim mentality. Total absolution from personal responsibility.
Instead of trying to push for legal change, you guys should push for a cultural change where women don't pressure other women to get married young and start having babies.
Because the only thing that matters in the world is a "career" and "money"? Wholly fuck you need to really evaluate what life is about and gain some perspective.
I'm not against women having a career mind you, I'm against this bullshit that life is all about a career and money. Fact: If society has no mothers, fathers, or families, society dies. Fact: Parents are the biggest influences on their children. Governments don't make children that have concern for their neighbors and work towards bettering the world, parents do.
Stop trying to minimize the importance of being a parent and actually attempt to use your brain.
After you do that, think really really hard about the statement I quoted. It's okay for you to pressure them to have a job and career? So pressuring people is not an issue to you, it's that you don't believe that parenting is important. My, what great ethics and logic you demonstrate. That last sentence is sarcasm and disdain, just in case you didn't catch it.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Wouldn't the logical inference from that be that men in technologically advanced, socially developed Western societies deserve at least some proportion of feminist women?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The Feminazis are already doing that. They can't stand it that other people make different choices. People choose to do things that they don't approve of. This could include motherhood or making nude photos. Feminists want to interfere with the choices of others as much as "church lady" types do.
People should be free to do what they want. That was kind of the point of Emma's speech.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Worse! A pure 100% of people, who've ever given birth, are women... Until the Feminist movement acknowledges that giant elephant in the room, they can not be taken seriously harping on any other petty "imbalances".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
From TFA:
Instead visitors to emmayouarenext.com were pointed to a marketing company's homepage, its black background bearing a crossed-out version of 4chan's four-leaf clover logo, and the hashtag #shutdown4chan written in large white letters. The site was a hoax, designed to draw as many eyes as possible not to actual pictures of Watson but to an apparent campaign set up to attack 4chan.
Wow! IANAL, but I'd think that anyone intentionally trying to shut down another business could be guilty of restraint of trade, various competition law violations like the Sherman Antitrust law.
I guess when they get shut down and assets liquidated to cover fines, legal costs and damage awards, moot is going to get some new server hardware to host more image boards.
Have gnu, will travel.
My point is that studies have allowed for this pressure, and have been conducted only amongst women who have not disqualified themselves. If you compare only women without children to men, men still get paid more for the same jobs.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
I'm sorry - but unsurprised - to hear that the only women who will tolerate your company for more than a few minutes at a time require some form of payment for their service.
You should try being a better person, I bet you'd find that you meet much nicer girls as a result.
Right, but the problem is that most feminists -- other than the ones who want to join the military anyway -- appear to be okay with it. Otherwise, whenever they make a list of grievances, "women should be allowed to fight on the front lines" would appear as a line item right alongside "women should be required to register for the draft" (or alternatively, "men should not be required to register for the draft, since women are not" -- either way works). I assert that the latter item is very often omitted, and that said omission is due to (conscious or unconscious) hypocrisy.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
You should work on reading comprehension. My point was that it is cultural pressure among women to primarily focus on marriage and babies that leads to narrower career opportunities, not some grand sexist conspiracy.
I have to ask, do you understand what the concept of "context'?
So you are asserting that biology has absolutely no role in behaviour and that even more absurdly, there's no difference on average between male and female biology? You are literally asserting that "male" and "female" are social constructs with no grounding in biology that might explain their different preferences, wants and needs?
I know the termites have been busy eating the building that is intellectual honesty in this debate, but that is really beyond stupid.
Actually I think you'll find that I didn't weigh in on average, hourly, or per-capita wages. In brief:
1/2) Women are variously underemployed and underpaid (this is observational) due to a complex web of social, cultural, economic, and other factors, including but not limited to normative gender roles and opportunities for childcare (the accepted concensus)
3) Is my hypothesis to explain the exceptions, local as they are in time and space. There does seem to be a surge in female employment when traditionally patriarchal societies become capitalistic; indeed, I've heard it argued that the garment factories of Asia are inadvertently driving female emancipation because they're hoovering up all of the cheap female labour that couldn't get into stereotypically male jobs, and those women are then becoming independent.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
The 4chan crowd ain't known for its ability to take stuff like that lightly. If I was that marketing company, I'd make sure my servers are hardened against any kind of onslaught.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The latest recession was never called the mancession.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Emma Watson's opportunities are better than yours.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
Market efficiency isn't the only factor that controls markets. Animal spirits, remember?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
What crime did we commit to deserve militant feminists?
I know, I know. We're MEN...
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Thanks! You made my point.
Yeah, the society it's not equal because we actually have gender discrimination but it's actually favoring woman and feminists are all alright with it. Is this the fair system they preach about?
How can we support quotas that make shitty professionals get in front of more qualified ones, just because they are woman and we need to fill quotas? Where is the fairness in this?
I don't see woman asking for conscription quotas when a 1st world country that doesn't make gender discrimination goes to war. I don't see them to get the same percentage of incarcerated people. You may say it's ridiculous that we expect the same number of woman and men to be incarcerated since that depends on their attitude and they don't commit so many crimes. But why exactly isn't it ridiculous to expect the same number of woman and men to have top administration jobs? Seriously, why do we accept a difference in attitude for incarceration, but not for leadership or any other are where we start to have more and more quotas demands?
What's more ridiculous it's that men actually support them, or at least shut up about the fact, since the social and media pressure is so high for them to support this completely unfair system that they can't actually state their mind.
Nobody it's capable of stating the simple truth that most woman simply don't give so much to their job as men do. Sure, it's true, they get pregnant and that takes an heavy toll on them physically and psychologically some times. But that's the thing. They are not equal, and they claim benefits (even better) for them when they are pregnant... but what's the reverse of the medal? Shouldn't there be one? We are only allowed to make exceptions for woman when that favors them even if unfairly?
Funny thing is that Slashdot it's all about technology. But we don't even see the obvious. Why are there so much more project in new technologies, in new IT services, in start ups for new ideas and application in this area made by men than by woman? All you need is some hard work, a computer and knowledge. So what, are we going yet again to blame society in some way for this and forget the obvious, that perhaps it's just because they don't invest as much time as men in this?
And nobody is seeing all these harassment cases being used as a weapon? I mean, they don't even need proof, they have some problem at work, here it comes an harassment suit, even if totally made up and the social pressure is so high that even if the guy it's innocent, there the woman get's what she wants. Just think about what happened to Strauss Kahn (not that the guy wasn't an idiot), but still there weren't' profs about anything, but everyone in the media automatically sided with the girl and the guy had to ask for his resignation even without a trial.
Nope, I'm not.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
What's the wage gap?
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
While that's true, it's still not a simple issue. If you look at the whole it looks like a big, pervasive problem, but having worked in several jobs in financial positions I can tell you that none of them used gender as criteria for salary. If you were in position X, you made $Y regardless of your gender. So it's largely not the case that men make more than women who are equally qualified and employed.
So what's going on?
First, many women stop work to have children. This interrupts their career progress, resets their salary, and prevents them from ascending as high as men. This is the reason that women who stop work to raise children and later divorce still get alimony. There is also a perception that women will do this, of course, and that is a problem.
Second, the careers that men choose tend to pay more. A carpenter, an electrician, a plumber, an engineer, a doctor, a tool and die machinist, a computer programmer or administrator, etc. The careers that women choose tend to pay less. A teacher, an administrative assistant, a nurse, a librarian, medical data entry, child care. Now the reason for this is actually pretty complicated. Professions that men worked were paid a salary to support an entire family wife and kids. That amount of money was simply what a man cost, since any job he took necessarily had to support his family due to cultural standards of the day. If he wasn't getting paid that amount, then he could neither support his existing family, nor could he marry a woman and start a family. Professions that women worked were paid a salary to support a single person or possibly a single person with one child. Today, those salaries remain affected by those historic amounts due to market forces. That's why professional jobs designed to attract men have reasonably good salaries even if they largely didn't exist when the workplace was divided on gender lines (i.e., computer programmers).
The key to take away here is: women and men are voluntarily choosing their own professions and we still see a salary discrepancy. The professions they choose have salaries determined by market forces, which includes how people were paid in the past. Programs exist which encourage women to take college paths that lead to better paying careers, but in spite of the fact that women now consistently and significantly outnumber men in annual college enrollment numbers, men still outnumber women in technical and professional degrees and women are still not choosing degrees which result in better paying careers.
So who is to blame? On the one hand you have people saying that women don't make as much and that's a problem for society as a whole. Women are also not taken as authoritatively as men are, so men tend to get hired into positions of higher authority which, of course, pay more. On the other, you have people saying that women made voluntary choices that resulted in them earning less so they should bear the responsibility for the consequences of their own choices rather than expecting society to fix it for them.
Fundamentally, none these problems can be easily solved through government policy or regulation. Are we expecting the government to step in an force salaries for jobs to be increased or decreased? That you have to pay a teacher and an engineer the same? That's not equality. That's parity. Are we going to say that the woman who worked 5 years, quit 10 to raise kids, and then returns deserves the same salary and opportunities as a man who has worked for 15 years? How is that fair to devalue 10 years of relevant experience? What about the increasingly common situation where the man quits his job to raise the kids? Does he deserve the same considerations?
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
shutdown 4chan and leaked photos no longer have a place to live on the internet? news flash little miss Granger celeb nudes leaked used to round the world via dial up modem on BBS', when a hot slut is dumb enough to let her nudies get out, they will find a way.
That she didn't call their bluff...
Means that she probably did take some nudies at some point.
She is not obliged to call anyone's bluff.
Not everyone has a mind as adolescent as the geek who mods up craptastic sexist comments like yours as "Interesting."
Those fraternal organizations probably shut out more qualified men than they do women. To be clear, fraternal organizations are a real problem, but it's not really a sexist one.
I don't claim to understand just what 4chan wants, but I'm fairly sure, 4chan doesn't know what 4chan wants.
"What do they have to gain" is probably not the right question to ask on a board where the usual answer to why is "4 teh lulz".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
My point is that they haven't allowed for this pressure and it leads to survivor bias.
Those are outcomes not opportunities. That there are female members of parliament and CEOs indicates that there is some opportunity (but not whether or not it is equal).
It's pretty well known that Psychopaths make up a higher percentage of business and government leaders - and business more than government - than the they do in the general population. Psychopathy is also more common in men than women. So there's one possible (though unlikely to be the entire story) other explanation - psychopaths make better (taking better to mean more successful and measuring success merely by being there) CEOs and politicians, psychopaths are mostly men, those two factors that have nothing to do with "equal opportunities" result in the vast majority of CEOs and politicians being men.
May your soul rest in peace now that you have angered 4chan. Sincerely The Internet
-- Slashdot, making the Left look conservative since 1997.
Finally someone hits the nail on the head. Men ask for a raise, even demand one, far more often than women do.
I speculated about that argument a couple years back on another forum, and the other guy challanged the premise.
I googled back then and found a study that confirmed it. I don't have the link now. But here's an article that discusses it.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
And then there's the SJW's who troll the shit out of MRA's for shits and giggles. Ask anyone who calls themselves an MRA and they'll tell you that fairness in custody and divorce court are in his top three issues.
Have you ever heard of the concept of "context"? We're discussing factors that contribute to the perceived wage disparity among women and men.
So what does "problematic preconceptions about women's roles" refer to, if not the idea that women don't have preferences and priorities that (on average) are different from men's? If they do, why not celebrate that rather than seek to change it through some social engineering experiment that must be to the detriment of men through some kind of discrimination against them?
I am saying this notwithstanding issues of individual liberty prevalent in many societies around the world that should be the focus of the feminist movement but that are often ignored through political correctness.
Evidence?
Nice to know you are dating all the 'bitches' because that leaves all the nice ones for me. Go dutch dumbass. Ask up front and they are usually shill about it. Even at the end of a lunch/dinner I've had most women ask the waiter/waitress for separate checks as if they thought I was going to pay in the first place. As the other responder said, you'd probably find nicer girls if you acted like a better person.
"That's right...I said it."
Evidence? Peer reviewed studies would be even better, but at least some evidence?
Which would go the other way: of only the most determined stick to the workplace, they should be the best. That pressure would weed out underachievers, leaving a biased population of high achievers to be compared to men.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
This is a real problem. Why does this scare you? Probably for the same reason a woman wanting for all people to be equally made people on 4chan angry.
You did read the title of this post at least - right? This wasn't "angry 4-chan" it was "asshole marketing team."
Have you considered homosexuality? I hear it's a choice. If all the girls you meet are such tightwads, maybe you might want to choose to stick with people like yourself? Who knows, if you give it a chance, you might be happier?
I'm confused - what exactly was the point of Emma's speech?
I'd really like to see some peer reviewed studies on this.
My reading comprehension is just fine, it is your perspective which is broken (in fairness it's not just you, you just happened to invoke a response). It was your text I quoted the first time, and you state the same thing again in different terms again in this post.
If the premise is broken the conclusion is also broken, that is the way logic works.
Stop trying to claim that being married and having children is a bad thing, then re-evaluate your position.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
If you don't understand what a word means, there's no shame in simply asking.
Bill Burr explains it well... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
There was a fancy golf course in our town that didn't admit women. Private club, legally they can do what they want. An absolutely hilarious interview exists with a sweet young lady from the local news interviewing the 70 year old dinosaur president of the club. She implies in the broadest terms that the club is for gay men only, (In this day and age you guys don't have to pretend any more.....You are a bunch of men who don't like the company of women, we get that.......It's ok, no one is going to judge you... etc) The old guy absolutely doesn't pick up on it and looks like a total fool. Eventually the younger club members outvoted the old farts and change the policy to admit women. (Probably rich white women only, but you know.... baby steps..)
None of them can see the clouds; The polished wings don't care.
You realize you're swapping choice for responsibility, right? Lots of men chose to volunteer for the military before they were drafted, does that mean that millions weren't drafted into service?
Stop trying to claim that being married and having children is a bad thing, then re-evaluate your position.
I never said that - that is where your reading comprehension is failing you. I was writing in the CONTEXT of perceived wage disparity between men and women. High paying careers are usually very demanding and many women think focusing on getting married and having children should be a higher priority. That was not a judgement but simply pointing out a major factor in the statistics.
You really should re-evaluate the position that your reading comprehension is "just fine" because it's clearly not.
- and other Feminists have said that rape can be instructive for males, and even that false rape allegations are good for them.
I'm gonna let you know that anyone who has ever said that is not a feminist, they are an asshole.
She is blaming men - she was just subtle about it. What exactly does she expect the UN to do?
This has been allowed for in the various studies of the subject. Even among childless women there is a significant discrepancy in salaries for similar jobs. Though, from one article in the Economist, the discrepancy almost disappears for childless women not in any relationship.
Looking at only childless women is clearly not enough to remove all non-discriminatory factors that create the mythical gender pay gap. An American Association of University Women study and US Department of Labor research put the pay gap at 6.6% and 5.9% respectively. And they admit they could not adjust for some of the biggest elephants in the room, such as the lack of salary negotiation among women or women giving higher priority to their family than their career (they only adjusted for industry and education, not job position).
My wife is a good example of both phenomena. When she was offered her previous job the salary was about $58k. With negotiation she raised that to $69k. Studies show that women don't negotiate for salary as much as men, and if my wife was like the over 4 in 5 women who don't negotate salary her pay would have been 16% less.
On the other hand, I went back to school to improve my career while she held off on her MBA to have our children. It was a decision she made because she wanted to, but it will likely cost her tens of thousands if not possibly hundreds of thousands in lost wages. On top of the lack of an MBA (which honestly may not cost her any wages), she spends more time raising kids than I do because we both know my career is now the breadwinning one. I now make 70% more than I did 5 years ago while she makes about 25% more. And I am not objectively smarter or more determined than my wife, we just went down different paths.
On top of this, she even fits another gender stereotype by cleaning more than I do. I do far more cleaning than I did as a bachelor, but she needs to have an immaculate house. While I am reading journals, writing side projects, or just learning a new technology, she is tidying up the house. If she was willing to live in a house that didn't always look like it was being staged to sell, like I am, she would be able to spend more time on her career.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
False. Completely false. Why do you persist in this nonsense?
Women, in the same career field as a man, almost always makes less....
I've heard this a lot, and have seen a lot of statistics that show both ways, depending on the data view and metrics considered. But there seems to be a stronger opinion for the side that you mention in the quote above, at least in the public eye. So, and I really do want to know: If this was true, why don't multinational or traded companies only hire women? If a woman can preform as well or better than a man, and almost always makes less, then it would be folly for any board not to hire only women. Reducing the labor expense by 10-20%+ while maintaining the same productivity would put any large company way out in front competitively.
It's this simple question that makes me think that it's actually more complex than that, and that the versions of the reports showing it are ignoring non-gender factors. (hours worked in a week, time off for children, etc)
No, I could tell you were trying to be cute but it just came across as silly so I moved on.
Have you considered that men would be much more open to your brand of feminism if it pushed for equal rights under the law for men as well as women?
My point is that studies have allowed for this pressure, and have been conducted only amongst women who have not disqualified themselves. If you compare only women without children to men, men still get paid more for the same jobs.
He wasn't just talking about childless women. If women without children choose lower paid professions, and put higher emphasis on things like work-life balance than men do. They also don't negotiate for salary as hard.
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
They may shut-out more men that make a serious effort to join than women that have interest, but without there being opportunity for women to join, we're still stuck with no women being allowed, while some men are allowed.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
You mean an hours-worked discrepancy. Men put in the majority of overtime hours, and the vast majority of 60+ hour work weeks. The "76 cents on the dollar" canard is based on ignoring overtime and focusing on "skills" and "positions". If you're a woman, and you worked 10 hours more per week than a male colleague in the same position, you'd damn well expect to be paid more money as well.
Another one gone
Another one gone
Another meme bites the dust
I see the best corrective action we can take as society is to remove all beneficial tax exemptions and all other courtesies that these groups receive. They should pay commercial real estate tax rates. They should not be allowed to claim charity status, and their contributions to charity need to be scrutinized. When they sponsor events, they need to pay full price for permitting and public safety services instead of receiving discounts. They need to be subject to building and fire codes and ADA compliance. This isn't some small group meeting in a member's house, this is a professional guild, for lack of a better term, a business in its own right, and it needs to be regulated and operated as such.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Actually it's the opposite as it would reduce the number of women in the talent pool. That would lead to many women being hired for positions that they aren't as qualified for.
The problem though is any man (or woman) who dares to question any feminist "facts" is labeled a MRA. It's almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion with either side to understand the facts without being called an MRA or a Feminist. I've been called both based on the assumptions I question at the time. It would be quite funny if it wasn't so tragic. The folks who actually are interested in equal opportunity are being herded to the MRA sites because of the toxic responses to questions.
I have a question about what you're saying here ...
You're a misogynistic rapist scumbag and need to die in a fire.
Okaaayyy, maybe I'll head over here and ask instead ...
[John]
Shit better not happen!
That discrepancy skirts zero a but it conspicuously never flips around the other side.
First, about this claim, you're just Wrong. Don't make claims you can't back. Construction workers & supervisors, painters, teachers, bakers, bartenders, servers... all jobs that women make more than men. Though "hooker" is not listed in Forbes, I'd guess female sex workers make more than men too.
It is true that women make less than men, but the OP very specifically stated opportunities, not outcomes. The salary rankings are outcomes. The Pew Research Center produced much different numbers (.84 up to .93 per 1.00; .93 is for younger women) than the white house (.77 per 1.00) just by ranking hourly wages instead of weekly wages. This brings in all the part-time workers and full-time workers that work 35+ hours into the same boat as those that work 40 hours+. Furthermore, what research like the white house study fails to account for is things like: 39% of women took a significant amount of time off work to care for their family, 42% have reduced their hours for the same, 27% have quit altogether; while only 24% of men have taken a significant amount of time off work for family. You don't even need the research that shows large breaks hurt your salary. Anybody that has taken a break from work knows that. Perhaps that is why the .93 cents per dollar for younger women; they haven't yet had the chance to drop work for family?
Obviously I have not proven the OP claim, that there are equal or more opportunities for women, the hopefully I have shown that the issue is not so open & shut as you think. Nobody, to my knowledge, is counting Opportunities. Nobody here has even defined them. But with 42% of women not taking full advantage of their opportunity to work full time once they have a job, compared to only 27% percent of men, the argument seems plausible enough to warrant some thought.
Indeed - they make more money than their male colleagues.
Evidence. The classic "wage gap" complaint has always been based on ignoring the "hours worked" gap. Men work most overtime hours, whereas women hold most part time jobs. So in reality, the claimed goal of "equal pay for equal work" has been with us for quite some time.
Solution is to legalize prostitution. The prohibition of prostitution creates an artificial scarcity that allows women to demand free drinks and meals in exchange for the possibility of sex.
Legalize prostitution and those women will be lowering their standards significantly in face of cheaper, market-regulated, and guaranteed sex.
I'd never heard the term before, but a quite google query shows that it has been used.
http://dictionary.cambridge.or...
I keep seeing feminists assert that women are being treated unfairly, and yet, they have to cherry pick the statistics and fixate on pay, which is a relatively minor part of the total cost of employing somebody. It's not unheard of for health insurancy to be a quarter of the cost of hiring somebody. And those studies make no effort to control for the choices that people make in how they're compensated. If a man chose a job which had no health insurance in order to get a larger pay check, he was counted as getting unfair compensation compared with a woman that opted to get health insurance even though it meant a lower salary.
But, anybody with a brain can tell that health insurance does cost money and the woman may very well wind up wtih more money than the man did if he needed to pay out of pocket for health care.
Try
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
Hopelessly pedantic since 1963.
Only if there were positive discrimination. If there is no discrimination, employers would hire, or not hire, unqualified men in the same proportion as unqualified women,
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
So, did you read just one paragraph and miss out the rest of the article? A 33% gap does not appear to be "equal" in my dictionary.
While these particular women earn more than their male peers, women on the whole haven't reached equal status in any particular job or education level. For instance, women with a bachelor's degree had median earnings of $39,571 between 2006 and 2008, compared with $59,079 for men at the same education level, according to the Census.
At every education level, from high-school dropouts to Ph.D.s, women continue to earn less than their male peers.
Not if she's working the same hours and has the same experience, she's not. Men get paid more because they work more.
The latest recession was never called the mancession.
How is this rated informative? It is plain wrong.
You could find the same few examples (among many others) with a simple Google search, but since that is obviously too much work ...
Mancession Definition
The Mancession
Thanks to the “mancession,” metrosexuals have become “manfluencers”
One Mancession Later, Are Women Really Victors in the New Economy?
Economy: The Man-cession and the He-covery
It's Not Just a Recession. It's a Mancession!
-- All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke
Because that's what discrimination is....treating someone differently not based on their qualifications (or cost effectiveness in this case), but on factors that the individual has no control over.
You really needed someone to point this out to you?!?
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/10/the-mancession/
Not supporting the overall argument laid out above, but it is true this last recession hit men hard. Not going to venture into any wider context / conclusions then that...
Did you even read the article?!? Yes, women as a whole are making more, because more are going to college
From your own damn article:
"These women have gotten a leg up for several reasons. They are more likely than men to attend college, raising their earning potential.
Between 2006 and 2008, 32.7% of women between 25 and 34 had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared with 25.8% of men, according to the Census."
and more importantly:
"women on the whole haven't reached equal status in any particular job or education level. For instance, women with a bachelor's degree had median earnings of $39,571 between 2006 and 2008, compared with $59,079 for men at the same education level,"
No, the claimed goal of "equal pay for equal work" is still not with us.
But this assertion isn't accurate. Another post downthread cited a study where childless women in their 20s do get paid more than their male counterparts. That sort of blows away the whole premise.
I tend think it's a combination of issues. Some can be offset or fixed by teaching women differently (negotiation for more money), some possibly can be offset through a combination of law and working with their employers (maternity leave), but prejudice is the bug bear that's so hard to fix since it raises hackles (putting some on the defensive), is hard to teach & is misattributed as the cause when it's actually a different cause.
Women not asking for more money
http://www.womendontask.com/qu...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
http://hbr.org/2003/10/nice-gi...
-
Women deciding to have children
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M...
http://www.pewresearch.org/fac...
-
Prejudice
http://www.forbes.com/sites/wo...
It is pressure but not as much sociological as it is biological. If women don't start a family before menopause, then that family will never start for that woman. So women literally do have a biological clock they are listening to unlike men. But having a family shouldn't stop a woman from having a good career with equal pay. Many if not most middle class families do have both parents working if only to keep on top of the bills especially since wages have stagnated or in some fields fallen. That isn't a choice. That is a necessity.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
No, "jedidiah" is right. Debunked here.
Really? You never said these things?
Instead of trying to push for legal change, you guys should push for a cultural change where women don't pressure other women to get married young and start having babies.
My point was that it is cultural pressure among women to primarily focus on marriage and babies that leads to narrower career opportunities, not some grand sexist conspiracy.
Did a Gremlin knock you out, type those statements, and press submit while you were out cold? More likely, you are attempting to make a real statement can't or won't accept that the root cause you portray is absolutely wrong. Repeatedly claiming that career is more important than family does not make your statement true, it means that you have a warped sense of priority.
You should really try and read for yourself instead of passing blame to others, who actually read what you wrote and responded in kind. If you don't realize what you are writing, don't do it. As stated, reevaluate your position without the assumption that being a mother and having a family is bad and try again.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Here at Slashdot most of us have realized that not all bachelor's degrees are created equal. A bachelor of science and a bachelor of arts may be the same "education level" but they are not the same education nor do they qualify you for the same jobs and definitely not the same pay.
"Heforshe". You know: women first. Normal equality stuff.
Before getting to articles, did you read the first and second sentences in a three sentence post?
The classic "wage gap" complaint has always been based on ignoring the "hours worked" gap. Men work most overtime hours, whereas women hold most part time jobs.
If you're a woman, would you expect to earn more at a full-time job than a man working part-time? Of course you would.
If you're a woman, would you expect to earn more than a man if you work overtime while he works 9 to 5? Of course you would.
Of course, now you have your "wage gap", which in reality is a "work gap".
Did you? It's comparing equal pay for equal work and education.
The pressure to marry and have children young is probably the most damaging to prospects of a high paying career. I read about a study not too long ago that found that women who wait until they're 30 to marry and have children fare far better in salary than those that directly after high school or college.
ok and how many women tend to have babies, and take off a few years at a time. So if i start the same job as her, and she takes off a few years to raise a child and comes back. she is now not as experienced as I am (out of work for 2 years) and she will never be able to make as much as me staying in the same field. Did your numbers take that into account?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Apologies for not mentioning this as well. You did, just now, do a much better job of conveying the problem without the implied negative context toward Mothers and Families.
High paying careers are usually very demanding and many women think focusing on getting married and having children should be a higher priority. That was not a judgement but simply pointing out a major factor in the statistics.
Is a very different statement from what you stated previously.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Did you??? The whole damn point was that the pay is the same - or even more - when you're actually looking for equal pay for equal work, instead of equal pay regardless of position or education or hours worked on the job.
why? the statement was so ridiculous, anybody taking it seriously clearly has been whooshed!
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Be careful of that broad brush you're painting with. My girlfriend is a feminist. She has exactly the same issues with what she considers a vocal minority within the feminist movement (much like the "all penis-in-vagina-sex-is-rape" crowd) that Emma has. What's the point of giving women empowerment over their own bodies if you're going to turn right around and shame back into a niqab? It's lunacy. Mainstream feminism, as opposed to the Fox News sensationalist headlines feminism, isn't about what *you* think it is. It's a tired trope, but the loudest 2-3% gets all the press for just about any group you can think of, and that 2-3% is generally batshit crazy.
If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
Most feminists are not in the military; therefore, a group representing only people in the military cannot possibly represent most feminists. Moreover, of course people who volunteered to serve in the military would be willing to serve in the military!
To prove your case, you need to find some feminists saying something to the effect of "I don't want to be in the military (you can tell because I didn't volunteer), but I believe, in the name of equality, that I should be required to register for the draft anyway."
There are "purely biological and existential reasons" for a lot of things, but such arguments don't seem to count if they're contrary to the feminist agenda.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
When the father stays home, the mother gets a divorce and the law sides with the mother nearly all the time. Omg, the father wants to stay home with his children? I bet he's a perv! I bet he weighs at much a duck, kill him!
No problem - we're good :)
It goes far beyond peer pressure. Look around you next time you're in any store and look at how things are marketed toward men and women, girls and boys. For the strongest example, look no further than the toy section. Boys toys are all about building, destroying, superheroes, sports, and other stereotypical toys. Girls toys are more about Barbie, princesses, cooking, cleaning, etc...
I say this as a father of a young daughter. I want her to explore her interests without pressuring her in any particular direction. I also would rather her have toys that encourage her to learn and explore. By and large, that means going to specialty toy shops to find gender neutral toys. Things like K-nex, assorted Legos (that aren't focused on kitchens, princesses and horses), or more science-oriented toys.
To let your kid go to their toy isle and pick out their own is likely to just reinforce the stereotype of women being "princesses", waiting for their prince to come pay for their pampering.
NASA officially calls it "Human Space Program", it is in their writing styleguide and has been for awhile.
http://history.nasa.gov/styleg...
Manned Space Program vs. Human Space Program:
All references referring to the space program should be non-gender specific (e.g. human, piloted, un-piloted, robotic). The exception to the rule is when referring to the Manned Spacecraft Center, the predecessor to the Johnson Space Center in Houston, or any other official program name or title that included "manned" (e.g. Associate Administrator for Manned Spaceflight).
More than 19 out of 20 people killed on the job in America are men - are we interested in squaring that up as well?
Fo shizzle
Not if they're working the same positions with the same hours, they aren't.
problem is, most of the folks interested in doing such a study would have such confirmation bias to begin with, you wouldn't get a reliable study. :)
It's amazing to me how badly everyone hates the idea of government regulation. Don't get me wrong, it's important to restrict what we allow government to do. But it CAN be a force for good. Why everyone balks at the idea right from the start and refuses to even CONSIDER a government solution to any problem is beyond me. This (the gender equality issue) CAN be solved by government, at least to a greater degree than any private entity can. And it can be solved the same way as any other problem: with money. 1) Restrict federal grants to AS/BS/sciences degrees instead of arts degrees, or at least skew them 70:30 in favor of sciences majors. Forbid grant recipients from changing their majors once grant money is accepted. America doesn't need more writers, artists, and poets. We need more engineers. There is way more than ample precedent for government steering people's decisions with money. 2) Give women preference for these grants just like minorities already do. Why this isn't already the case, I cannot fathom. The sad fact is that if a low-income family has access to a single grant, and they have both a son and a daughter, they're almost always going to choose their son to get the grant, because they're playing the numbers, and the numbers say the son will make more money. You HAVE to solve this problem at the root. Give them a good reason to pick the daughter by making her more likely to receive the grant. 3) Mandate the separation of "trade schools" and "community colleges." This was a mistake on day one and it remains one. AC Repair Men and Research Lab Technicians should not be trained in the same building. Women often simply don't want to spend 4 years being hit on by gruff idiots going to school to learn how to rebuild a car engine. And they shouldn't have to. While we're at it, the guy trying to rebuild car engines shouldn't be forced to learn Biology 101 in order to get a certificate in car repair, so this benefits everyone. 4) Enact strict penalties for police officers for improperly handling rape accusations, and equally enforce existing laws for making false accusations. There are already laws against making false accusations of any criminal offense, rape included. These should be prosecuted to thew fullest extent of the law, and yes, lairs should go to jail. On the other hand, there is no equivalent law or regulation to counter this. Genuine rape victims have the deck stacked against them. If a cop tries to convince them not to file charges, they have no recourse against that cop. Nor do they have any recourse against their aggressor if the cop outright refuses. This is wrong. With the alarming rise in campus rape in the past 10-15 years, this problem is only getting worse, and I can imagine a woman might very well choose not to attend college for safety reasons alone. Handling this is a simple matter of enacting guidelines - which the president or attorney general can do themselves without congress - that create penalties against any officer of the law if they pressure a rape victim not to press charges. These are a few simple, specific solutions that can tackle a large part of the problem. This could be done by a dozen men in Washington in a single day. Why it hasn't been done is unfathomable.
because bachelors degrees are definitely definitely equal. What's the gender difference in STEM fields (which pay more at the bachelor's level) compared to social sciences/education etc?
Do female EE's make more or less than men with the same degree, same level of experience? That's a valid comparison.
Females with a BA in sociology or anthropology making less than a man with a bachelors in computer science? Less so.
Wrong.
When you control for things like experience / seniority, hours worked (overtime / full time / part time), there is no wage gap.
When you include all forms of compensation, women come out ahead because they get better medical benefits and family leave benefits.
FTFY. That organization clearly represents a subset of feminists, namely, those who chose serve in the military. I see no reason to believe that their view is representational of non-military feminists. In other words, I reject the notion that I committed the "no true Scotsman" fallacy and instead posit that you committed an assortment of inductive fallacies, such as fallacy of composition or cherry picking.
Besides, I already clarified that I'm trying to claim that most feminists don't argue for it.
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
or we could just re-write the taxcode so that everyone is treated equally instead of trying to punish a group you dont like.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Your conclusion is complete bullshit. Her role in a movie doesn't preclude her from being able to give voice to a real and pertinent issue. You asked the question... now go seek the answer. Why is some teen actress giving speeches at the UN representing women? Go find out and let us know what you find, rather than using it as a rhetorical question which implies she has no right to do so.
Which has more power: the hammer, or the anvil?
That isn't oppression that is called freedom.
On a serious note. I can't imagine dealing with 30 little sacks of shit from other people every day, at least without the "board" of education. I hear the stories from my wife and her fellow teachers and I probably would have ended up in jail.
Time to offend someone
Not sure why you appear to be complaining. It is a great business opportunity for you.
1. Start any labour intensive business.
2. Employ lots of women.
3. You get 40% more return on capital than your competitors.
4. ???
5. Profit
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
According to this, it appears that women earn 91.3% of men's salaries among elementary and middle school teachers and make up 81% of the workforce.
ASCII tastes bad dude.
Binary it is then.
Also, your use of "feminazi" really gives away the game about your true feelings on this issue. You don't really believe that feminists have any real political power, do you?
Great, so people here using the word grammar nazi have given themselves away too. They must be thinking grammar teachers have real political power.
Bingo Dictionary - Pragmatist, n. A myopic idealist.
Further, Emma Watson's speech wasn't so much about "the need for feminism" as it was about how so many women distort feminism and turn it into man-hating instead.
So in your mind it couldn't possibly be that women actually *want* children?
"A teacher, an administrative assistant, a nurse, a librarian, medical data entry, child care."
How many of those are 'chosen' by women, as opposed to being effectively closed to men?
Teacher, nurse, child care... any man who wants to pursue those careers is likely to be automatically suspected of being a pedophile.
"Over the course of the official recession, men lost twice as many jobs as women," says Heather Boushey, senior economist at the Center for American Progress.
I had never heard of the term either but googling it before you claim it doesn't exist would be prudent.
First they attack the gamers with the whole gamergate thing. All of which was shown to be a scam by political elements using every dirty trick they could think of to get power... literally sleeping with people to gain influence... extortion... bribery... baiting people to attack them and then playing the victim.
Second, they go after 4chan which while a wretched hive of scum and villainy is hardly worth a national campaign.
I mean seriously... wtf? Who the fuck are these people are do they really want to the nerd culture to respond in kind? Because... if they want to be stalked... we have stalkers... we have people that can trace all their silly little stories back to the roots... keep spreadsheets on all their activities... and cross reference all claims. Do they really want to start a fight with millions of aspi under employed men? It just seems like pissing on a bee hive.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
You are absolutely correct. Clearly, with voter turnout tilted towards women (around 53% in 2012), they should control far more than 20% of the available seats. The fact that they don't points to factors limiting women's opportunity to run for elected office, such as having less access to campaign finances. What keeps women from running for top elected offices? There are many factors involved, but it certainly seems that women don't have a fair opportunity for representation. They are being persuaded by the people with the money to run for office that men are the "better choice," which is the very definition of inequality. That, or they "don't care, and are too stupid" to vote for a candidate who represents their interests.
One study I heard about found that women ask for raises less often than men do. So even a woman that chooses to not have children may be found to make less money. It may not always be that men are holding women back. There was another study of women scientists (I think) that found that women rate each other much more harshly than men will rate them. So even other women are a detriment to women in the workplace. That's not even getting into any cat-fight like behavior that some women might enjoy.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
While this response is cute, and I'm very much in favor of rectifying the very real discrepancies in pay for men vs. women, the denial that women enjoy any social advantages--usually though attacks on the men who point it out--helps no one.
I highly suspect many women would trade those advantages to resolve equal pay and other difficulties, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, or that many women don't make use of them.
Kythe
Instead of impersonating 4chan, why not impersonate an imposter? It would be a lot easier...
This is a thoughtful comment. One possible reason: the same beliefs that potentially lead to less pay for many women (e.g. an assumption women will bail for kids at some point, or that they're less competent in general, or that men really should be in the jobs because they're the family breadwinners) might also lead to preferential hiring of males.
Kythe
These are all good points, but they do raise the question as to what advances in pay should be based upon, if not performance and time in job.
The problem, as I see it, is women who do NOT leave for childrearing or other pursuits still being paid less on the basis that males are the breadwinners in their families.
Kythe
Actually, this isn't true. Several years back, men's rights groups and feminist groups actually joined forces in an attempt to make Selective Service gender-neutral. They failed.
Kythe
If 99% of people make it through their entire lives without ever getting treated unfairly, discriminated against, or oppressed in any way that would absolutely fucking amaze me. I doubt the number is even close to 50% now even in the most advanced countries.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Trying to ruin 4chan's rep. Hilarious. They must be new to this internet thing.
I think you missed the GP's point. Big corporations exhibit almost insatiable greed, and will do just about anything to save money, from H1Bs to outsourcing. Yet they don't hire women more than men. There are two possible explanations:
In theory, they are both equally plausible. And in practice, that's also true, at least up until the first study was published. But these days, given the sheer number of studies that all say that women are cheaper, you'd expect a significant number of the more forward-thinking execs to take it to heart and hire mostly women as a cost-saving measure. If that is not happening, it suggests the possibility that they have studied those cost differences internally and have come to different conclusions based on more complete information.
The only way to know for sure would be to find an exec willing to disclose a company's own internal studies on the subject, and that's not likely to happen. With that said, the longer we go without corporations deciding to hire more women, the greater the chances that those studies are flawed. After all, the alternative requires us to believe that something matters more to a corporation than money, which for most companies would require an almost unimaginable suspension of disbelief.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
...believed 4chan when it came to GamerGate. When it came to the massively unfair, unethical, immoral, and repugnant "Reporting" practices of the games industry - but you were so quick to white-knight and presume that women can do no evil. Here we see what is likely the SAME group of people - the extreme leftists and "feminists" who are not egalitarian - who are willing to burn books and hubs of information and opinion - all in the name of equality, and you supported them. For all of you who disagreed with GamerGate because you dismissed the evidence, I hope you feel like you've been slapped. Your perspectives, your ethics that you so "valiantly" defended, and your presumptions about 4chan being nothing but a cesspool were entirely wrong - for all of your keyboard-warrior prowess and mod points. Your support led to the censorship of 4chan regarding the gamergate issue on ALL boards - new moderators that worked (for free) for m00t after he spoke with Anita Sarkeesian were perma-banning people (myself included) who posted in or about GamerGate on grounds of "child pornography" because that's one of the most offensive and pungent ways to perma-ban somebody on the website. All of this, the majority of the Slashdot wise-men supported. I'm sickened.
And if you are very careful about which cherries you pick, you will find that they are all red.
My bad I posted the same link as you, I guess thats what I get for not refreshing my page very often.
You are correct, her role in a movie doesn't preclude her from being able to give voice to a real and pertinent issue. But it also raises a question: Why are we listening to her over any other random person pulled off the street? She's famous for being an actress, that doesn't make her an expert on gender roles or sociology. Oh, right now she's an actress using her fame to advance a good cause - but have already forgotten that elevating another actress to a position of self-proclaimed expert lead to the rise of the anti-vax movement and a significent number of avoidable deaths? We have something of a problem in current culture with the veneration of celebrities: When a famous person talks, people listen, even if they are no way qualified to speak on that topic.
Based on their source of data, I question whether the numbers have been adjusted for experience, years of service, and qualification.
Teaching is largely a unionized job. In a union, compensation is more or less set in stone based on years of service and certain qualification criteria (degree, etc.). There's not much wiggle room. Administration is a bit different, as is higher education teaching, but for K-12, I'd imagine the difference in salary is not related to discrimination whether conscious or subconscious.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
"...skills-matched cohorts of male and female specimens show a baby rearing discrepancy in favour of women in almost any study you care to mention."
there are dozen more factors, but i believe solving this one will bring us one large step forward to making all females be just like males.
Rich
Uh. Help me out here. You wrote:
The classic "wage gap" complaint has always been based on ignoring the "hours worked" gap.
and as evidence you pointed me to: http://online.wsj.com/articles...
which does not discuss this at all. How does the article back up your argument again? Would you like to find another article from a reputable source or a peer reviewed journal?
Also, you claim:
It's comparing equal pay for equal work and education.
and the article you are using as evidence says:
At every education level, from high-school dropouts to Ph.D.s, women continue to earn less than their male peers.
I am unable comprehend how you managed to read "equal pay for equal work and education" from "At every education level, from high-school dropouts to Ph.D.s, women continue to earn less than their male peers."
Thanks.
I'm not sure you understand how debating works. OP made a claim. I asked for evidence. The onus is on OP to provide the evidence.
If you have evidence to back up your position, by all means, please do share.
For anyone interested, here are the (preliminary) stats for 2013: http://www.bls.gov/iif/oshwc/c... 302 Female fatalities, 4101 male. Not quite 19 out of 20 but close.
Slaves don't have opportunities to work as non-slaves. What on earth are you talking about.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/...
Huff post version, no paywall- references both the American Association of University Women and US Dept of Labor studies that showed the 23 cent distinction nearly vanishes when you control for Job Role, and the number of women working full time.
As a single dad, I've got to say that's by primary caregiver has these problems. It's not sexism, necessarily, except in the sense that women are still the most common primary caregivers.
Let's solve the problem of overpopulation first.
>Without babies the humanity will cease to exist pretty soon no matter how successful "freed" women are at their other pursuits.
No, it won't. Certainly not any time soon. IIRC world population is expected to hit 11 billion by 2020. Having a child in this world, now, is a supremely selfish act when we're already struggling with extremely limited resources.
Sure, why not?
Decrease the men's fatality rate down the women's rate. That would be a good thing right?
Or are you comfortable that so many men get killed at work? Is it just the price we pay for profits or something?
Females can't even imagine this perspective,
Out of interest, what is the ping time from Ferenginar like?
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Hundreds of comments questioning whether women are still second class citizens* and nobody comments on the apparent fact that SocialVEVO trolled the entire internet, terrorising both Emma Watson and threatening hundreds of thousands of other women involved in activism are still trolling us, having duped everyone from the BBC to /. a second time.
*They are, it's bloody obvious and you're an ignorant douche if you say otherwise.
The timing of this BusinessWeek story is quite amusing. It tells about a startup founder who is hiring mostly women because they're cheaper.
So there you go.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I used to work as a dev manager at a software company a few years ago. A young Asian woman was hired as a developer, fresh out of school. She did not seem to have any idea of the dress norms in the US and would come to work dressed in cocktail dresses and high heels. During the first 3 months, she reported two of our long-time developers for sexual harassment. Top management was so sensitive to the issue that they fired the guys pretty much immediately. This despite the fact that there had been no complaints about them from anybody till then, and the one other woman in the group claimed that they had never said or done anything that was even remotely questionable in her presence.
The woman in question resigned about 6 months after she had been hired; she had an offer at another company for a 50% bump in salary which we could not match.
We don't know whether the two guys really did anything bad or whether she was over-sensitive. But look at the cost to the company; over the period of 6 months, she contributed nothing to the company (was mostly ramping up) and was at least indirectly responsible for us losing two valuable developers who had a blemish-less record until then.
There's more to the value of labor than how much education someone has. I know it's hard for you to imagine what those other factors could be, but just because you can't imagine something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
It seems to have backfired though, after Rantic was outed.
I don't see woman asking for conscription quotas when a 1st world country that doesn't make gender discrimination goes to war.
Actually, here in Norway last year we became the first country in Europe and NATO to introduce gender-neutral conscription. It was quite amusing to see how first those opposing it was accused of feminism by grabbing all the perks but not doing the same duties of being a citizen. Then as the public opinion turned those in favor were accused of feminism by disregarding the differences between the sexes and weakening our military through physically less able women, like they were only there to fill a gender equality quota. If you didn't want military service you were a feminist, if you wanted military service you were a feminist. Go figure.
I think we made the right choice though, whether you're male or female if you're young and fit you're certainly "good enough" for military service. We're not training people for the elite specials division here, most of them will go into our version of the National Guard and have one or two refresher sessions a year, just enough to remind people what end to shoot the bad guys with. And there's plenty jobs in a modern military that takes more brains than brawn. Yes, I know carrying equipment and supplies still matters but the type of service should go by physical requirements, there'll be something for everyone.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Women are roughly 50% of a populace and yet less than 5% of Fortune 500 company's CEOs are women.
http://www.catalyst.org/knowle...
I knew a power woman who always flaunted the same numbers as she was working up the ranks. When she started making a real headway in her career she bailed out and is now at home popping out and looking after an endless stream of babies while her husband has overtaken her in salary and career.
Is it because women want to take this path?
Is it because men can't take this path? (What's the level of maternity support men get in a typically working contract?)
Who knows, but in the principles of Root Cause Analysis you can't start at the end and work backwards in a linear way. You need to explore all possibilities on the way.
Have you ever considered that many women often choose being a mother instead of focusing on a demanding career?
[emphasis mine]
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
So? I've taken nudies of myself and others. It's a natural result of technology combined with curiosity. Nudies are more prolific than ever since with digital cameras you aren't implicitly sharing your pictures with the minilab operator. Why do people make such a big deal of it?
Sure, why not?
Decrease the men's fatality rate down the women's rate. That would be a good thing right?
Or are you comfortable that so many men get killed at work? Is it just the price we pay for profits or something?
Okay, let's follow the logic. 19 of 20 people killed on the job in America are men, which means 1 in 20 people killed on the job in America are women. If we decrease the men's fatality rate down to the women's rate, we've got 1 in 20 people killed on the job being men and 1 in 20 people killed on the job being women. That leaves 18 in 20 people killed on the job being neither women nor men. Seems you're biased against asexual people.
Yes. I'm kidding.
But seriously, while I applaud your feel-good sentiment of "make working safe", it's not (entirely) realistic. The disparity is likely caused by more men doing dangerous jobs, for instance long-distance truck driving. You're inherently more likely to end up dead on the job if you drive 8 hours a day than if you sit behind a desk in an office 8 hours a day. It doesn't matter what you do for the truck driver safety-wise, that job isn't ever going to be as safe per-hour-worked as an office job. Sure, you could pad trucks in 50 feet of rubber foam, but that's clearly ridiculous as a safety measure. Effective but impractical.
Somewhere there's an acceptable balance between risk and reward? Here's the crux of my reply to you: how you do you know we're not already at that balance for most jobs in most places?
"Oh no... he found the
I felt compelled to log in and comment, as I recently saw this for the first time in my life a few weeks ago. I know this is only my one small anecdotal story, however it is true, and has made me reconsider how widespread the problem actually is.
I was out drinking with a small group of friends a few weeks back. Out camping. We'd done this many times before, and were really good friends. One is a single female, and she hangs with our group because she can drink beer and shoot the shit with guys pretty damn well, although you wouldn't be able to tell looking at her. As it turns, one night she drank too much (as we all did), and started crossing the line with one of my friends, who is married. She just got drunk and couldn't control herself. She was all over my friend, kissing his neck and they ended up making out. Maybe a little nudity involved. Anyway, somewhat awkward but not a big deal to us as it was pretty tame (relatively) and hey, people do stupid things they don't normally do when drunk. However, I could tell SHE was extremely ashamed by her actions.. she remembered what she did, I could tell in her eyes. We had no problems, SHE was visibly upset by HER behaviour. Things were fine for the rest of the trip, but when we got back she threatened to press assault charges if we ever told anyone what happened. She used this tactic just to avoid the embarrassment of anyone hearing what she did (she was quite a 'conservative' girl).
Long story short, I hate to say this but women will do extreme things when they feel shamed or hurt. I'm sure anyone who's had a long term relationship or especially a divorce knows this. Thinking about it, though I was a pure gentleman the entire weekend, and none of us would ever hit on this girl, she could have caused significant damage to me with the mere accusation. We are all too ready to point fingers and take sides on these issues. People ARE to quick to judge.
Technically from an objective point of view, men getting paid more around certain age brackets is good business sense.
Women go on maternity leave for long periods of time, men don't.
Thats fine for certain jobs (teaching, nursing, insert more stereotypes here) but if you have an employee you've invested a lot of time in to training working on a 12 month project and then she has a kid, the project is screwed. With a man in the exact same role it is a minor disruption.
I'm all for equality, but there is a reason behind some of it, its not just misogyny (although there is a bit of that too)
Now, you're starting to get into the entire "CEOs are psychopaths" pop psychology that appears here every once in a while. A successful leader has to be able to make unpopular choices. Some people just can't seem to get that.
More than 19 out of 20 people killed on the job in America are men - are we interested in squaring that up as well?
Aren't most Darwin Award winners also male? Just saying...
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
So your theory is that women make less because their employers deduct maternity benefits insurance premiums from their wages?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Remember, we're talking about opportunities not outcomes.
Given a man and a woman with equal qualifications applying for the same scholarship, school, or job, which is likelier to get it?
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
I think you might have a branding problem with that name. It's sometimes been associated with anti-intellectual post-modern garbage (such as this), transphobia (such as this), and various bits of misandry. ranging from the subtle (bell hooks's claim that rich and rewarding inner lives that have historically been the exclusive province of women) to the absurd (Dworkin's claim that "Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of contempt for womenâ(TM)s bodies.").
Of course there are wingnuts in any group, but it seems that feminist leaders have not done an adequate job of disassociating from them. Since the majority of women reject the feminist label, it seems to me that those of us interested in gender equality -- which would include listening to women's opinions, no? Including the majority of women who reject the label "feminist", right? -- might want to find a new one. (I've been thinking "gender libertarianism" might cover it, but the American so-called "libertarian" movement has been working hard for decades to degrade that term. Maybe "gender anarchy"?)
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
The woman
Except if you actually look into the numbers it's easy to disprove. inb4 lul aei, except that they explain their methodology. And try as people might, they've yet to successfully disprove it.
Om, nomnomnom...
You assume an awful lot there, which I think is more telling of your attitude than anything. Maybe it's time you dropped the victim angle and tried to address the actual issue being discussed here.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
It's not much of a stretch to guess that I'm less likely to hire someone who is more likely to bail out on the job for months at a time.
I bet they're French! They probably have choices words about our mothers and elderberry reeking fathers!
Care to substantiate that? I can make the opposite assertion just as easily.
I don't think you should give up. Forget how the other person looks and love how you look. Attractive people seek secure opposites than pretty ones, because survival has ingrained that deep within.
The moment you think you there's anything not to love about how you look, or that you pay more attention to anyone by virtue of their beauty, will @justly@ be discarded.
unfinished: (adj.)
You have no idea how wrong you are, do you?
> And you don't think there might be some factors that might contribute to that number not being zero other than lack of opportunity? How about the fact that a significant number of women still care more about building a family than a career? The studies still show the discrepancy if you only count women who don't have a family.
> Indeed - they make more money [wsj.com] than their male colleagues. No, they're earning less than their male colleagues. They're earning more as graduates than male blue collar workers who just lost their job.
That study did correct for job or education. From your link:
These women have gotten a leg up for several reasons. They are more likely than men to attend college, raising their earning potential.
Between 2006 and 2008, 32.7% of women between 25 and 34 had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared with 25.8% of men, according to the Census.
And men have been disproportionately hit by heavy job losses in blue-collar industries.
[...]
At every education level, from high-school dropouts to Ph.D.s, women continue to earn less than their male peers.
Of course, now you have your "wage gap", which in reality is a "work gap".
This is not true. Any sane methodology used to compare wages excludes over time hours (which are paid separately, at least in EU). See for example the Methodology paragraph on this site, which describes how they do it in UK.
The problem is this all too often extends into not giving women promising assignments because she just got married and might start making babies soon, or because she is about the age that society expects her to want to do that. That is why even in superficially equal societies such as we have in the West, women are still far from equal.
Look, the fact is that the lost opportunities are self inflicted.
Wow... That is such a crazy load of bull.
I am personally acquainted with someone who, at one time in his life, didn't want to employ women. He changed around since then, but if you were a woman, at that point in his life, you would have no chance of getting a job with him, if there was an equally qualified man available for the position.
And I'm aware of enough of second-hand stories to be able to spot a trend.
I am strongly against quotas that force gender-equality (as I am against most all other quotas), but it's difficult to change mindsets in the short term.
I literally don't believe you. They are certainly more rare, but I've had lots of male teachers, I've seen male child care specialists. Nurses is the least, but then, I've spent less time at hospitals.
Let's just start by pointing out that we have copious examples of the fact that markets are not actually efficient (eg. http://www.newyorker.com/news/...).
We'd also need to explain why the wage gap has been closing. Have women become more competent / men more incompetent? Has industry moved toward things that women are relatively better at? Were businesses not insatiably greedy 50 years ago?
I propose that discrimination against women in, say, the 1950s, was worse than it is now, and that these changing attitudes can, at least partially, account for the closing pay gap.
On a related note -- what is the right "natural" level? Why is the assumption that the world is right today, when there is clear evidence of change that has continued into very recent history? To be perfectly fair it is plausible that we could keep asking this question after we've overshot some omniscient objective notion equality.
There's also the fact that businesses are composed of people rather than perfectly rational actors with infinite loyalty to their business principles. It's perfectly plausible for the business as an abstract whole to explicitly preferentially hire women, but a critical mass of employees are dickheads. I'm not saying that's true in any particular case, just that it's a plausible explanation for why the invisible hand isn't working.
Do you think this is sufficient to explain the gender pay gap?
Anyway, I wouldn't be opposed to efforts at spreading safe and dangerous jobs more evenly. Be my guest.
As a man working in a job with about as low risk of death as you can get, I don't happen to feel particularly pressured to take dangerous jobs due to my gender.
Cultural change is the keyword here. Legally women have the same chances (in the west), yet they still have different society pressures. Who gets called when the child is sick? Who is expected to tend to the children?
But that does not only apply to women. The same pressure, although the other way around, is put onto men. I am in a happy marriage and although our burden (childcare/job) is unevenly split because of financial reasons, I try to take on as much child care as I can. For example we split the sick days evenly and I regularly bring my daughter to school or to violin lessons. This means that I need to organize my work days around these activities (as does she). And for that I am occasionally called a wimp, I should man up and tell her where her place is. This is insane. I like how the current situations works out... (I only work 4 days a week.)
I am absolutely for equal rights and opportunities. People should chose what they want to do and not be forced into a stereotype. And yet there are some modern feminist that piss me off. The blow everything out of proportion and are not open to reasonable debate. In some cases there are even accounts of false flag operations to make them look like the victim of harassment.
The current meme of 4chan are bunch of evil mysandric trolls is appalling. Especially since, although not tame and not political correct, most people there where somewhat reasoned. Sure they had fun trolling habbo hotel and had a really odd sense of humor ("The pool is closed because of aids"). But they also spearheaded the movement against Scientology and other rather noble causes. Suddenly (after some allegations) people turned up to rally against certain feminists individuals and the tone changed. The timing of the events seem odd; an other false flag operation? This would tie in with the current tun of events...
(Oh... that comment took an odd turn...)
OK how about some appearance equality. Why wasn't that speech presented by an old, unattractive muslim women with daughters, a person who has experienced gender inequality her whole life and is seeing her daughters undergo the exact same thing. Why is some mass media defined skinny person with limited knowledge and experience given preference at the UN ahead of, well, tens of millions of more knowledgeable and experienced women. Apparently for certain people inequality in their favour is A OK, number 1 but when it even hints going against them it's terrible.
So UN appearance inequality A OK because it fucking sells, screw you! This from grumpy fat bearded old geek (not really all that grumpy but certainly bloody cheeky enough).
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
What about explanation 3: Recruitment processes are hugely inefficient at choosing the correct candidate based on the benefit they will bring to the company?
It is trivially easy for companies to be *both* greedy and incompetent, as recent incidents will again and again suggest.
It's just as likely that women are more risk averse than men because girls are not encouraged to take the risks that boys are.
You cannot just claim things are "just as likely". You need a reason to justify that claim. Especially since the lack of encouragement for girls is simply not true. Girls have gotten nothing but encouragement for the last 30 years at least. They definitely have not gotten less encouragement than boys.
Illegitimate oppression = "My boss, that prick, just doesn't like me. He's holding back my brilliance."
Legitimate oppression = "My boss fired me because he said he hates working with niggers like me."
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
That was exactly my thought. My wife is a "tenured" high school science teacher with a master's degree. The school district publishes their salary chart and there are salary adjustments for years of service, education and nothing else. You can get side jobs like coaching or sponsoring an organization, but gender just isn't on there. Seems like most salary analysis is flawed in fundamental ways.
ASCII tastes bad dude.
Binary it is then.
How about the fact that a significant number of women still care more about building a family than a career?
Sockatume said "skills-matched employees", not working men versus women staying at home. Of course women staying at home make less than working men. But even in the same kind of job, with the same education and skills, women still make less.
Instead of trying to push for legal change, you guys should push for a cultural change where women don't pressure other women to get married young and start having babies.
Why do you think it's the women who push each other? I've seen plenty of men who originally promised to work less so they too could take some of the care of the children, and once the children were born, they claimed they really couldn't work a day less. And it's also men at their office who push them to continue working full time and push the child care on their wife.
We absolutely do need a cultural change, but it's a broader one than you're implying.
A big part of the problem here is of course that the burden of child care falls most often on women. Too many dads don't pull their weight in that area. More equality in the home will lead to more equality at work.
I disagree with this. Whether it's right or not, or whether feminists wish to make use of them, there are social advantages women enjoy that men do not. The expectation that men should pay (at least for the first date) is widespread among women, according to polls. Eventual equality between the genders (and an honest assessment, I think would find that western culture affords a remarkably egalitarian approach already, though of course a few things remain to be addressed) will of necessity mean such conventions will need to be abandoned.
Kythe
Incidently, you might want to take this one seriously -- in addition to poll after poll indicating women feel men should pay not only for the first date, but repeating down the line, more people felt rape was OK if the man pays for everything.
Obviously, that's screwed up, but clearly if one believes in equality, there's a couple of reasons to address all the forms it comes in--not just the forms that disadvantage you.
Kythe
"Help, help, we're being oppressed!!"
Well, son, you should report your teacher to the principal.
Research says this is one of many factors that taken together almost explain the "pay gap" away. It's not politically popular when research goes down this road though, or when anyone brings it up.
The Gallery belonging to that Forbes article starts with "Bakers Women earn 104% more than men in this job." I'd think someone would have noticed if women rally earned more than twice as much as men.
There is a rally for women that earn more than twice as much as men?
The selection pressures that you're referring to no longer exist in the developed world so there is no longer any compelling reason for a woman to rush getting married or having babies before age 30 though.
In the past, finding a mate and having offspring as early as possible was almost a necessity - now it has a strong correlation with poverty.
That's like saying since people volunteer to pick cotton, it's ok to enslave other people to do it.
I can only speak from my experience. In my company, there is one CEO (male, probably will be succeeded by a female SVP), there are two male SVPs, and 5 female SVPs. In the technology department, there are only three women, and ten men. The woman I directly work with , and has the same job level as me, makes slightly more than me with slightly more seniority.
Unless there's some insidious "but they should make more!" thing going on, then I don't see it.
Doesn't mean it's not happening, just means I don't observe it.
I will add that it's also quite common for women to go out on maternity leave for 6 months to a year. I have yet to see a male employee out when having a child for more than a few weeks. That HAS to affect pay rates/experience/ability to perform a job at some level. Not accounting for that is ignoring the elephant in the room.
Maybe, some day, we'll have incubation centers freeing women from the need to carry the burden for months. But I'm not very optimistic, given that we are yet to solve even the much simpler problem of breast-feeding.
What is this, some sort of dystopian future?
Seriously, if you're going that route, why not just eliminate children altogether and have robots.
And they are absolutely correct — that risk does exist, there is no way out of it. That's how mammals are — bearing and rearing the young is primarily the females' burden...
They aren't — 100% of births are given by women. 100%! Think about it...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I don't know... Nor do I really care, because I am not running my own business. What I do know, however, is that any attempts to legislate salary increases will both be unfair and backfire...
In a free-market society, one gets the salary one is able to negotiate — regardless of one's gender.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I can send you my nudies if you send me yours.... :P
That says only, women are paid less then men. It does not account for the fact, that women are also far more likely than men to give birth or to take weeks (and months and years) away from work (and the labor force altogether) to be a mother.
A woman returning into labor force after years will be — justifiably and justly — paid a newby's salary — which will drag down the entire gender's statistics. Indeed, the link you so kindly provided (but, evidently, failed to read) says so upfront:
It then cites some anonymous economist, who claimed, even after adjusting for such differences in experience, men still end up paid more, which some explain by discrimination...
Much too often the entire "wage gap" is blamed on discrimination, while, in fact, even that much smaller fraction of it can not be linked to discrimination indisputably...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Simply keeping a home used to take so much time, a woman could not work on anything else. Nowadays, with electricity, indoor plumbing, vacuum cleaners, dish- and laundry-washing machines and other labor-saving appliances, it is much simpler and many women do have careers.
But pregnancy remains, for the time being at least, something, that must be done personally — and many women do consider it a burden.
Some day, one hopes, they'll have the option of using an incubator the way today's woman has an option of reheating dinner in a microwave rather than cooking it anew in a brick oven heated by fine firewood.
Those, who consider such future "distopian", will still be welcome to carry the child themselves — and accept the concomitant pains, health-risks, and lost wages...
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
That's like believing that all women who are feminists believe 90% of men should be phased out.
Ah yes! I remember SCUM :-)
In general, the benefits do not adequately or evenly compensate for the discrepancies.
That isn't oppression that is called freedom. On a serious note. I can't imagine dealing with 30 little sacks of shit from other people every day, at least without the "board" of education. I hear the stories from my wife and her fellow teachers and I probably would have ended up in jail.
Oh look, another pedophile!
Seriously, I'm just kidding.
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
To let your kid go to their toy isle and pick out their own is likely to just reinforce the stereotype of women being "princesses", waiting for their prince to come pay for their pampering.
Only when you are a bad parent. Why is the girl's isle "their toy isle"? Because you coached her so. Bad parenting.
My son preferred the "girls isle" until he went to school. He went to 1st grade with the pink Dorthoy the Dinosaur bag, rather than the blue Wiggles bag, so people made fun of him. Before that, I didn't coach him on what a "real man" should do, and steer him to specific isles in stores. He still has more dollhouses than Lego. But new is more likely to be Lego, because of all the other bad parents like you that teach their children that gender brings with it many rules that must be followed.
Learn to love Alaska
We're discussing factors that contribute to the perceived wage disparity among women and men.
Well, thanks for letting us know it's only "perceived", and doesn't actually happen.
Learn to love Alaska
So a married man with kids is getting full pay because it's expected that they will put their career above their family? But a woman in the same situation is paid less because she's expected to put her kids first? And not because of actual actions that lead to this conclusion? Women who miss more work (caring for their children) should get paid less, but women with the same results shouldn't get paid less because people expect some future impairment.
Learn to love Alaska
She starts. 2 years later, you start. 5 years later, she has 7 years experience, and you 5, and she takes off 2 for family. Then she comes back. 3 years later, she has 10 years experience, and you 10 years experience. And she's paid less. The numbers take that into account.
Learn to love Alaska
Well, clearly the answer is to hurl vague insults instead of looking for a solution.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
No problem. Glad I could help.
Bahahaha! Feminists are more than happy to throw women under the bus if they step out of line. You know what did more to helpfully change the social role of women than all of the demented harpies in feminism? The movie Aliens. Ripley didn't need a collective to kick ass, but then again there's no paycheque for the unemployable in that.
Once again, Geekoid ends up covered in egg. You must like the taste.