Since, at least where I'm from, women are still the discriminated group,
1) Please enumerate any government-granted rights which men enjoy that do not apply to women in equal or greater measure. 2) Please enumerate any government-imposed responsibilities which women endure that do not apply to men in equal or greater measure.
Now please reverse those questions.
Which gender is being discriminated against? Small hint: it's not women.
You're going to claim that the discrimination which is important is social? Women make up 52-54% of the population. If women are, in fact, "equal" then social discrimination will end as soon as women want it to end.
Are you going to claim that women are disadvantaged in money or spending power? Women make 80% of spending decisions (I can cite this if you actually care).
I want to give the same rights to women that men already have.
Equal rights without equal responsibilities or privilege is NOT equality.
Traditionally: A) Men had greater rights. B) Women had less responsibilities. C) Women had greater privilege.
Feminism wants to correct A and ignore B and C... again proving Feminism is not a movement for equality.
The only real question remaining is if Feminism is a lie or a hate movement.
I think it's quite appropriate that you cited the President of Harvard.
Did you read past the title? Apparently not.
So a racist misogynistic asshole says women are dumber then men,
No, but nice try to make his comment what you need it to be so you can actually debate it.
What he said was: [paraphrased]"There are more smart men than women (and more dumb men than women.) When we look at people who are skilled at math enough to apply to our math-heavy science college, there will be more men than women in the group."
While you'll of course find a segment of the population agreeing with you,
The entire scientific community agrees with me. SAT scores agree with me. Nature agrees with me. Reality agrees with me.
See, mother nature was a smart cookie. She decided that it wasn't wise to waste reproductive capacity on environmental testing.
However, since the standard deviation is about 14 points, k8to would say that the difference in gender distributions is not significant in predicting an individual's IQ
Actually, there is a difference in standard deviation depending on gender as well. Men have larger standard deviations than women in just about every physiological trait. IQs 20+ points away from norm (120 and above or 80 and below) are 6:1 male:female. IQs 70+ points away from norm have a gender ratio of 30:1. So, yes, to say that one gender is "superior" to another, even in IQ would be incorrect. However, to say that the superior people are much more likely one gender (male) is truth no matter how politically incorrect it is.
So you are correct that knowing one's gender is insignificant about predicting their IQ, but knowing one's IQ can help significantly in predicting their gender.
Unless you're in a niche market, such as modeling women's clothing, or lifting heavy cargo/equiment, where the ratio will swing dramatically, but not completely eliminating the opposite gender, then your ratios should hit about 50/50.
Actually, no. This false belief is one of the biggest problems in today's society. The truth of the matter is that men are more diverse than women, even if the averages are the same. What that means is that you'll only see 50/50 gender split if the job is something that 50% of the population could qualify for. As soon as you have a job/role/whatever that less than 50% of the population could do, you will see more men than women who are capable of doing said job.
For example: Have a job that requires nothing other than a 50th percentile math ability? You'll see 50/50. Have a job that requires nothing other than a 95th percentile math ability? You'll see 64/36 in favor of males. Have a job that requires nothing other than a 99th percentile math ability? You'll see 71/29 in favor of males. http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm
It's really that simple. A job that requires skills that only one out of a hundred people have, and you're already seeing a massive gender disparity on who is even capable of doing the job.
An authoritative law review article debunked the canard that only two percent of all rape claims are false -- the author traced this number to its baseless source. See http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf.
As reported by "False Rape Allegations" by Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81 (12), Professor Kanin’s major study of a mid-size Midwestern U.S. city over the course of nine years found that 41 percent of all rape claims were false. Kanin also studied the police records of two unnamed large state universities, and found that in three years, 50 percent of the 64 rapes reported to campus police were determined to be false, without the use of polygraphs.
In addition, a landmark Air Force study in 1985 studied 556 rape allegations. It found that 27% of the accusers recanted, and an independent evaluation revealed a false accusation rate of 60%. McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.
Comments like that always make me wonder about the mental well-being of the person making them. Would you really kick somebody's ass because they tried to get in front of you?
I always wonder about the mental capacity of people willing to make idiotic statements like this.
What would you do in the situation? Nothing? Or would you inform management? And if the person who cut in line tells management to F-off? Then the cops are called. And if that person tells the cops to F-off? Then violence is used to keep the person in line.
The only difference between you (assuming you do something other than nothing) and the person you are criticizing is that they are willing to handle the problem themselves rather than pass the buck to someone else. If you do anything to stop the person from getting in line, you ARE justifying having their ass kicked, or the threat thereof, to keep that person "in line" with social norms. Morari is willing to admit to himself that this is what is being done, while you hide behind the power of "socially acceptable" violence in the form of police action (and hide behind being an AC).
Anarchy is mob rule. Democracy is mob rule on a national level.
The difference between anarchy and civilization:
Under Anarchy, you must project the threat of violence to keep yourself safe. Under Civilization, you pay taxes to people who will project the threat of violence to keep you safe.
These statements are the truth of the matter, no matter how much you want to pretty them up. Violence is what makes the world go 'round.
And religious zealots are known for respecting non-combatants and avoiding collateral damage? Give me a break.....
I can't respect someone that leaves a child vulnerable in order to save his own ass. As an adult you have an obligation to defend that child to your death. That's been part of our social contract going back to the plains of Africa. Most people realize and accept this. Those that don't aren't deserving of anything other than scorn. I only wish that I had the opportunity to meet this man so I could tell him to his face what a spineless pussy he is.
That same 'social contract' that states you don't kill someone over a disagreement?
But let's look at the root here: WHO put that child in danger? A) The guy who "didn't do enough" (in your opinion) to protect the child. B) The guy with the fucking axe invading the house with the intent to do harm on person A.
Out of those two, who really deserves your scorn? Since you chose A, I can tell how fucked up your moral code is.
That is the common counterpoint, but for it to be more than a hypothesis, it must look at (probably) childless career oriented women and compare their salaries to career oriented men. Does the book show the wage gap disappearing there? If so, I should consider borrowing it.
When you compare never-married childless women to never married childless men (and control for education and work experience) you will find that the average woman's wage is 118% of the average man's wage.
Well the trick is to define "sexist" and "racist" in manners that don't cause one to be an idiot if they refrain from being racist and/or sexist.
Is the average black man different from the average white man? Yes. This is truth. So if "being non-racist" means that you have to ignore truth, then you are being an idiot.
Is the average man different from the average woman to the point where one would be stupid to not treat them differently unless given reasons to believe otherwise? (i.e. would you be very likely to get a different response for cracking a lewd joke in front of a unknown random male co-worker than a random unknown female co-worker?) Again this is yes. So to treat them the same rather than make best guesses means you must refuse to use deductive reasoning... again making yourself an idiot for "being non-sexist"
So I have no problem with being "racist" or being "sexist" as I am not an idiot. If someone wants to define racism or sexism in a way that doesn't make someone an idiot for conforming, please feel free to make the attempt... I haven't seen success yet.
Oh, and yes there is such a thing as bigotry, but that's a separate issue and can apply to much more than race or gender. There is no need for a special word to mean "bigotry in regards to race" or "bigotry in regards to gender" when just plain bigotry will work.
(Damn, this is worth losing the mod points used) what is interesting from a science standpoint is that a simple deletion of some 26 genes of the 7th chromosome can result in extreme, but uniform social difference from neurotypical people.
It's not really interesting once you realize that genetics works above the neck as well as below. That it's ok to say Blacks are more likely to get sickle cell, but not state their average IQ is lower. It's fine to think the subset of Cacusians called Jews are more likely to get Tay-Sachs, but to say they are more likely to be good with money is bad. Nobody would disagree with "boys have penises and girls have vaginae" but everyone gets up in arms if you state men prefer to go do things while women prefer to leave work and stay home once they have babies.
People don't want to allow the admission of a genetic driven behavior. It entirely destroys many of the "progressive" movements which are based on the fallacy of equality. But, unfortunately, we as a society have decided to put the goal of equality over the reality of human existence... and we'll eventually pay the price for that.
I've been thinking about this, and here's my "this just might work" answer.
Remove any and all DRM other than a simple "CD in tray" check or Steam-like authorization (one time at install, possibly periodic infrequent after).
Every game comes with a "key" of some sort, and register online.
That key grants the first 1 thru X DLC free for that user, even if it's total crap like the multiplayer "patch" for Bioshock2. If the registered user gets it for free, they don't care because it "came with the game" even if it came out later. Have an activation method for installing the DLC and authorizing it online.
Yes, this idea does hamper the second-hand sales market, but I'm honestly not as concerned about that. But what it does do is get people to buy the game and get a few DLC free (bringing them back to the game and getting another chance to get re-interested in it), while not being draconian and hampering the end-user.
Ahh, but that would be taxing the people rather than the big bad corporations. It matters not that it would change what the corporations do to cater to the new market (and be more effective, to boot).
And the average voter, who isn't responsible for their own decisions, would have no part of that and replace any incumbent who dared to say that the voters are responsible for their choices.
I don't see anything in there that would contradict Unwin's work. Was there anything in particular that you saw?
(The fact that some men are attracted to other men does not diminish that the vast majority of men are attracted to women. Those women, in turn, require a level of "success" aproximated by social norms before they'll engage in sex with the man.)
Anyway why does your statement pertain only to females? Males not held to the same standards re pre-marital chastity? Chauvinist much?
No, I'm a realist.
Civilization is built by successful men, standing on the backs of unsuccessful men, all of them doing it in the quest for women and reproduction.
Men build society, women don't.
Therefore, when women are promiscuous and no longer require high standards for sex, the average man only works hard enough to achieve the new, lower, standard. Society slows in advancement.
Men seeking sex, on the other hand, is the very thing that drives the advancement of civilization.
So no, I'm not a chauvinist, I'm a person who recognizes that men and women are different; they have different biological drives. This should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, but unfortunately PC-ism has caused many brains to become dysfunctional.
this is just standard crap that crops up every generation
Perhaps you would have to know something about the book to critique it.
It's a historical analysis, from Babylonia to (at the time) modern history, documenting the (at the least) correlation between female promiscuity and decline of societal advancement.
So, yes. Gravity hasn't changed since 1600, but world history pre 1930 hasn't changed that much since 1930 either.
Casual sex (degradation of standards that hold women to pre-marital chastity) is an indicator of the decline of a society.
You'll be very interested to read "Sex and Culture" by J.D. Unwin, published 1934 in the UK (should be out of copyright now and there might be a few places you can DL it).
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, it's been a while since I've cited that. I had to look it back up. Unfortunately, I can only find an article discussing the study in the limited time I have right now: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/dr-paul-irwing-there-are-twice-as-many-men-as-women-with-an-iq-of-120plus-426321.html
And, also, I must correct myself: 20+ points away from norm is 2:1. 70+ points away from norm is still 30:1
Since, at least where I'm from, women are still the discriminated group,
1) Please enumerate any government-granted rights which men enjoy that do not apply to women in equal or greater measure.
2) Please enumerate any government-imposed responsibilities which women endure that do not apply to men in equal or greater measure.
Now please reverse those questions.
Which gender is being discriminated against? Small hint: it's not women.
You're going to claim that the discrimination which is important is social? Women make up 52-54% of the population. If women are, in fact, "equal" then social discrimination will end as soon as women want it to end.
Are you going to claim that women are disadvantaged in money or spending power? Women make 80% of spending decisions (I can cite this if you actually care).
I want to give the same rights to women that men already have.
Equal rights without equal responsibilities or privilege is NOT equality.
Traditionally:
A) Men had greater rights.
B) Women had less responsibilities.
C) Women had greater privilege.
Feminism wants to correct A and ignore B and C... again proving Feminism is not a movement for equality.
The only real question remaining is if Feminism is a lie or a hate movement.
I think it's quite appropriate that you cited the President of Harvard.
Did you read past the title? Apparently not.
So a racist misogynistic asshole says women are dumber then men,
No, but nice try to make his comment what you need it to be so you can actually debate it.
What he said was: [paraphrased]"There are more smart men than women (and more dumb men than women.) When we look at people who are skilled at math enough to apply to our math-heavy science college, there will be more men than women in the group."
While you'll of course find a segment of the population agreeing with you,
The entire scientific community agrees with me. SAT scores agree with me. Nature agrees with me. Reality agrees with me.
See, mother nature was a smart cookie. She decided that it wasn't wise to waste reproductive capacity on environmental testing.
However, since the standard deviation is about 14 points, k8to would say that the difference in gender distributions is not significant in predicting an individual's IQ
Actually, there is a difference in standard deviation depending on gender as well. Men have larger standard deviations than women in just about every physiological trait. IQs 20+ points away from norm (120 and above or 80 and below) are 6:1 male:female. IQs 70+ points away from norm have a gender ratio of 30:1. So, yes, to say that one gender is "superior" to another, even in IQ would be incorrect. However, to say that the superior people are much more likely one gender (male) is truth no matter how politically incorrect it is.
So you are correct that knowing one's gender is insignificant about predicting their IQ, but knowing one's IQ can help significantly in predicting their gender.
Unless you're in a niche market, such as modeling women's clothing, or lifting heavy cargo/equiment, where the ratio will swing dramatically, but not completely eliminating the opposite gender, then your ratios should hit about 50/50.
Actually, no. This false belief is one of the biggest problems in today's society. The truth of the matter is that men are more diverse than women, even if the averages are the same. What that means is that you'll only see 50/50 gender split if the job is something that 50% of the population could qualify for. As soon as you have a job/role/whatever that less than 50% of the population could do, you will see more men than women who are capable of doing said job.
For example:
Have a job that requires nothing other than a 50th percentile math ability? You'll see 50/50.
Have a job that requires nothing other than a 95th percentile math ability? You'll see 64/36 in favor of males.
Have a job that requires nothing other than a 99th percentile math ability? You'll see 71/29 in favor of males.
http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/math.htm
It's really that simple. A job that requires skills that only one out of a hundred people have, and you're already seeing a massive gender disparity on who is even capable of doing the job.
False allegations of rape occur just as often as false allegations of robbery
So robbery has a 40% false allegation rate*? I never knew.
*"False Rape Allegations" by Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81 (12)
Well I don't know about your species, but humans tend to keep their reproductive organs quite a bit lower than between their ears.
An authoritative law review article debunked the canard that only two percent of all rape claims are false -- the author traced this number to its baseless source. See http://llr.lls.edu/volumes/v33-issue3/greer.pdf.
As reported by "False Rape Allegations" by Eugene Kanin, Archives of Sexual Behavior Feb 1994 v23 n1 p81 (12), Professor Kanin’s major study of a mid-size Midwestern U.S. city over the course of nine years found that 41 percent of all rape claims were false. Kanin also studied the police records of two unnamed large state universities, and found that in three years, 50 percent of the 64 rapes reported to campus police were determined to be false, without the use of polygraphs.
In addition, a landmark Air Force study in 1985 studied 556 rape allegations. It found that 27% of the accusers recanted, and an independent evaluation revealed a false accusation rate of 60%. McDowell, Charles P., Ph.D. “False Allegations.” Forensic Science Digest, (publication of the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations), Vol. 11, No. 4 (December 1985), p. 64.
Comments like that always make me wonder about the mental well-being of the person making them. Would you really kick somebody's ass because they tried to get in front of you?
I always wonder about the mental capacity of people willing to make idiotic statements like this.
What would you do in the situation? Nothing?
Or would you inform management? And if the person who cut in line tells management to F-off? Then the cops are called. And if that person tells the cops to F-off? Then violence is used to keep the person in line.
The only difference between you (assuming you do something other than nothing) and the person you are criticizing is that they are willing to handle the problem themselves rather than pass the buck to someone else. If you do anything to stop the person from getting in line, you ARE justifying having their ass kicked, or the threat thereof, to keep that person "in line" with social norms. Morari is willing to admit to himself that this is what is being done, while you hide behind the power of "socially acceptable" violence in the form of police action (and hide behind being an AC).
The difference between democracy and anarchy:
Anarchy is mob rule.
Democracy is mob rule on a national level.
The difference between anarchy and civilization:
Under Anarchy, you must project the threat of violence to keep yourself safe.
Under Civilization, you pay taxes to people who will project the threat of violence to keep you safe.
These statements are the truth of the matter, no matter how much you want to pretty them up. Violence is what makes the world go 'round.
And religious zealots are known for respecting non-combatants and avoiding collateral damage? Give me a break.....
I can't respect someone that leaves a child vulnerable in order to save his own ass. As an adult you have an obligation to defend that child to your death. That's been part of our social contract going back to the plains of Africa. Most people realize and accept this. Those that don't aren't deserving of anything other than scorn. I only wish that I had the opportunity to meet this man so I could tell him to his face what a spineless pussy he is.
That same 'social contract' that states you don't kill someone over a disagreement?
But let's look at the root here: WHO put that child in danger?
A) The guy who "didn't do enough" (in your opinion) to protect the child.
B) The guy with the fucking axe invading the house with the intent to do harm on person A.
Out of those two, who really deserves your scorn?
Since you chose A, I can tell how fucked up your moral code is.
That is the common counterpoint, but for it to be more than a hypothesis, it must look at (probably) childless career oriented women and compare their salaries to career oriented men. Does the book show the wage gap disappearing there? If so, I should consider borrowing it.
When you compare never-married childless women to never married childless men (and control for education and work experience) you will find that the average woman's wage is 118% of the average man's wage.
Source: Why Men Earn More, by Warren Farell
Actually, Google should sue the country of Brazil for damages for allowing the Internet inside their domain.
I mean, if it's Google's fault for allowing an anonymous posting, then it's Brazil's fault for allowing Google to be seen.
Well the trick is to define "sexist" and "racist" in manners that don't cause one to be an idiot if they refrain from being racist and/or sexist.
Is the average black man different from the average white man? Yes. This is truth. So if "being non-racist" means that you have to ignore truth, then you are being an idiot.
Is the average man different from the average woman to the point where one would be stupid to not treat them differently unless given reasons to believe otherwise? (i.e. would you be very likely to get a different response for cracking a lewd joke in front of a unknown random male co-worker than a random unknown female co-worker?) Again this is yes. So to treat them the same rather than make best guesses means you must refuse to use deductive reasoning... again making yourself an idiot for "being non-sexist"
So I have no problem with being "racist" or being "sexist" as I am not an idiot. If someone wants to define racism or sexism in a way that doesn't make someone an idiot for conforming, please feel free to make the attempt... I haven't seen success yet.
Oh, and yes there is such a thing as bigotry, but that's a separate issue and can apply to much more than race or gender. There is no need for a special word to mean "bigotry in regards to race" or "bigotry in regards to gender" when just plain bigotry will work.
(Damn, this is worth losing the mod points used)
what is interesting from a science standpoint is that a simple deletion of some 26 genes of the 7th chromosome can result in extreme, but uniform social difference from neurotypical people.
It's not really interesting once you realize that genetics works above the neck as well as below. That it's ok to say Blacks are more likely to get sickle cell, but not state their average IQ is lower. It's fine to think the subset of Cacusians called Jews are more likely to get Tay-Sachs, but to say they are more likely to be good with money is bad. Nobody would disagree with "boys have penises and girls have vaginae" but everyone gets up in arms if you state men prefer to go do things while women prefer to leave work and stay home once they have babies.
People don't want to allow the admission of a genetic driven behavior. It entirely destroys many of the "progressive" movements which are based on the fallacy of equality. But, unfortunately, we as a society have decided to put the goal of equality over the reality of human existence... and we'll eventually pay the price for that.
I've been thinking about this, and here's my "this just might work" answer.
Remove any and all DRM other than a simple "CD in tray" check or Steam-like authorization (one time at install, possibly periodic infrequent after).
Every game comes with a "key" of some sort, and register online.
That key grants the first 1 thru X DLC free for that user, even if it's total crap like the multiplayer "patch" for Bioshock2. If the registered user gets it for free, they don't care because it "came with the game" even if it came out later. Have an activation method for installing the DLC and authorizing it online.
Yes, this idea does hamper the second-hand sales market, but I'm honestly not as concerned about that. But what it does do is get people to buy the game and get a few DLC free (bringing them back to the game and getting another chance to get re-interested in it), while not being draconian and hampering the end-user.
Ahh, but that would be taxing the people rather than the big bad corporations. It matters not that it would change what the corporations do to cater to the new market (and be more effective, to boot).
And the average voter, who isn't responsible for their own decisions, would have no part of that and replace any incumbent who dared to say that the voters are responsible for their choices.
Look up the post.
The only time "all" was used was in the post he quoted.
The only time he used a similar word "always" he prefaced it with "pretty much"
So your proposition is that a witty reply to me is going to change fundamental human behaviors?
So, basically, you admit I'm right but you just can't stomach the truth. That's ok. Message received.
I don't see anything in there that would contradict Unwin's work. Was there anything in particular that you saw?
(The fact that some men are attracted to other men does not diminish that the vast majority of men are attracted to women. Those women, in turn, require a level of "success" aproximated by social norms before they'll engage in sex with the man.)
Anyway why does your statement pertain only to females? Males not held to the same standards re pre-marital chastity? Chauvinist much?
No, I'm a realist.
Civilization is built by successful men, standing on the backs of unsuccessful men, all of them doing it in the quest for women and reproduction.
Men build society, women don't.
Therefore, when women are promiscuous and no longer require high standards for sex, the average man only works hard enough to achieve the new, lower, standard. Society slows in advancement.
Men seeking sex, on the other hand, is the very thing that drives the advancement of civilization.
So no, I'm not a chauvinist, I'm a person who recognizes that men and women are different; they have different biological drives. This should be obvious to anyone with a functioning brain, but unfortunately PC-ism has caused many brains to become dysfunctional.
this is just standard crap that crops up every generation
Perhaps you would have to know something about the book to critique it.
It's a historical analysis, from Babylonia to (at the time) modern history, documenting the (at the least) correlation between female promiscuity and decline of societal advancement.
So, yes. Gravity hasn't changed since 1600, but world history pre 1930 hasn't changed that much since 1930 either.
So because 90+% of a group behave a certain way, that must not be true because you can find a handful who don't?
Ya.. um.. sure... I'm glad you think you have a point there.
A completely different time? So you've found work since then that demonstrates Unwin's work as incorrect?
I guess gravity is "[from] a completely different time" as it was published back in the 1600's, right?
Casual sex (degradation of standards that hold women to pre-marital chastity) is an indicator of the decline of a society.
You'll be very interested to read "Sex and Culture" by J.D. Unwin, published 1934 in the UK (should be out of copyright now and there might be a few places you can DL it).