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'?
I'm not saying that anything about this is sexists so I don't think you understood my comment at all. Women shouldn't blame men because many other women want to give up a career to be a stay at home mom.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
So what you're saying is that actually meeting the requirements of Kyoto was never your desire. Instead Kyoto was a way to push through your idea of needed social engineering.
If you use per capita energy usage then you're using a really poor statistic because you're ignoring the fact that China has millions of sustenance farmers that goose the average.
Think about it - the US could improve its per capita energy usage by importing people, putting them in 6x6 homes and giving them just enough food to survive. Surely you recognize now that your metric is flawed.
Even the comparison of emmisions vs GDP is a better metric.
"quite good" is a very strong description to use for the Bible's historical accuracy. A more suitable description would be "rarely but occasionally gets it right".
The original Red Dawn is also a movie "folks need to see". It portrays what would happen if the Russian's had been able to disable the American's nuclear arsenal through infiltration.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks! You made my point.
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'?
I'm not saying that anything about this is sexists so I don't think you understood my comment at all. Women shouldn't blame men because many other women want to give up a career to be a stay at home mom.
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.
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.
Could you also share your thoughts on the default de-facto legal position that women get primary custody of the children after a divorce?
Yet women tend to want to stay home with the babies instead of focusing on a career. This pressure also comes from other women.
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?
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.
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.
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?
So all women should get preferential treatment?
Maybe you could post some fact or numbers too? Remember, we're talking about opportunities not outcomes.
So what you're saying is that actually meeting the requirements of Kyoto was never your desire. Instead Kyoto was a way to push through your idea of needed social engineering.
If you use per capita energy usage then you're using a really poor statistic because you're ignoring the fact that China has millions of sustenance farmers that goose the average.
Think about it - the US could improve its per capita energy usage by importing people, putting them in 6x6 homes and giving them just enough food to survive. Surely you recognize now that your metric is flawed.
Even the comparison of emmisions vs GDP is a better metric.
Could you elaborate on how the US has recently become unfriendly toward steel production?
For example, take the battle of Jericho. This is an iconic story that is used as an example of the bible being a reliable history book.
The problem is that the latest evidence shows that the city of Jericho was abandoned at the time of the "battle".
Could you list out some examples of where the bible has been a reliable history book?
But all historical accounts don't claim to be infallible word of a supreme deity.
It's still vulnerable to survivor bias, ideological manipulations and political pressure.
"quite good" is a very strong description to use for the Bible's historical accuracy. A more suitable description would be "rarely but occasionally gets it right".
The original Red Dawn is also a movie "folks need to see". It portrays what would happen if the Russian's had been able to disable the American's nuclear arsenal through infiltration.
Have you also toured the gulags in Russia?
True, but this will be reported as proof against the Big Bang.
I don't think the word theory (in a scientific context) means what you think it does.
Your friend is suffering from selection bias. A hospice is hardly a representative sample.