50.8% of the US population is female, leaving 49.2% as male. Males are born at a slightly higher rate, women live a few years longer. We exist in a period now where people complain often about the male dominant status quo and embrace feminism. You have to ask yourself, how did we get here in the first place. Often women complain about men dominating society and boxing them out, but there are only two reasons that this could occur and allow men to accumulate marketshare: inferiority(which I doubt) or complacency. Blaming men is highly illogical as women did not have to follow the male driven path, they could have paved the way to greater market holdings and status power, yet apparently didn't.
And yet often I hear specific women ask for the rule of law to create equality for both sexes, yet this is just an admission that females need a handicap in order to keep up with males.. a notion that I find highly contradictory. TBH, many of the females that are often preaching for equality typically tend to be the most subservient of their gender. This is far from a coincidence. The truth is, women do not need the handicap. Instead they need to evolve out of their comfort zones. Women are stuck in an evolutionary envelope, screaming for change, but never actually changing themselves. The more they feel trapped by their circumstances, the more they rage against the machine. Equality for women will only be achieved via individuation. Women can only change the status quo by becoming a part of it by elevating themselves at an individual level.
50.8% of the US population is female, leaving 49.2% as male. Males are born at a slightly higher rate, women live a few years longer. We exist in a period now where people complain often about the male dominant status quo and embrace feminism. You have to ask yourself, how did we get here in the first place. Often women complain about men dominating society and boxing them out, but there are only two reasons that this could occur and allow men to accumulate marketshare: inferiority(which I doubt) or complacency. Blaming men is highly illogical as women did not have to follow the male driven path, they could have paved the way to greater market holdings and status power, yet apparently didn't.
And yet often I hear specific women ask for the rule of law to create equality for both sexes, yet this is just an admission that females need a handicap in order to keep up with males.. a notion that I find highly contradictory. TBH, many of the females that are often preaching for equality typically tend to be the most subservient of their gender. This is far from a coincidence. The truth is, women do not need the handicap. Instead they need to evolve out of their comfort zones. Women are stuck in an evolutionary envelope, screaming for change, but never actually changing themselves. The more they feel trapped by their circumstances, the more they rage against the machine. Equality for women will only be achieved via individuation. Women can only change the status quo by becoming a part of it by elevating themselves at an individual level.
So, women need to become men?
It is probably worthwhile to ask why there developed (and survived) separate individuals with "man" and "women" characteristics in the first place, since evolutionary splitting is inefficient and imposes costs on the individual. Having two variants (male and female) of one type (human) evidently confers some benefit which makes the costs worthwhile.
Rather than trying to reverse a process which seems to have been almost universally successful, it might still be better (depending on the added costs and resulting benefits) to simply address women's concerns about respect and equal opportunity and access. This process starts with women filing complaints, then there being a general change of attitude about this topic, and then codifying the required changes into law. The last is necessary because a system without these laws did not produce the desired results.
You could compare this to the process of giving the right to vote to people in this country who don't own property. When innovation was slow, this worked well enough because it excluded people who were transient from affecting a community. When the economic situation changed and innovation increased, giving people who change jobs frequently (and who might therefore not own property) a say in shaping a community's laws produced better results for the community. Not so subjectively good for the people whose power was reduced, though, no matter how much the change increased their material wealth.
Last edited by Adam Strange; 07-22-2016 at 12:36 PM.
It is probably worthwhile to ask why there developed (and survived) separate individuals with "man" and "women" characteristics in the first place, since evolutionary splitting is inefficient and imposes costs on the individual. Having two variants (male and female) of one type (human) evidently confers some benefit which makes the costs worthwhile.
Rather than trying to reverse a process which seems to have been almost universally successful, it might still be better (depending on the added costs and resulting benefits) to simply address women's concerns about respect and equal opportunity and access. This process starts with women filing complaints, then there being a general change of attitude about this topic, and then codifying the required changes into law. The last is necessary because a system without these laws did not produce the desired results.
You could compare this to the process of giving the right to vote to people in this country who don't own property. When innovation was slow, this worked well enough because it excluded people who were transient from affecting a community. When the economic situation changed and innovation increased, giving people who change jobs frequently a say in shaping a community produced better results.
So basically you are trying to argue that women need help because they are nonequivalent when it comes to career? If you feel the evolutionary process has somehow left women with inadequate tools in order to survive, then by all means lets pass some laws. I do not believe that women are in-equivalent, I simply believe that both males and females entered into hyper polarized arrangements. This did not have to happen, though it did. There are many instances of very equal societies in human history. As a matter of fact, many of the first civilizations were quite equal(both men and women worked, and both men and woman helped raise the children). There are many instances of this also in tribal cultures as well. One of the biggest disturbances of equality, has and will always be religion, which creates the hyper polarized status quo and the overly idealistic notion of the nuclear family. Women are just as complicit in this inequity producing ritual as their male counterparts.
"A striking example is to be found in the field of recreation — working in parks or leading camps — which went from predominantly male to female from 1950 to 2000. Median hourly wages in this field declined 57 percentage points, accounting for the change in the value of the dollar, according to a complex formula used by Professor Levanon. The job of ticket agent also went from mainly male to female during this period, and wages dropped 43 percentage points.
The same thing happened when women in large numbers became designers (wages fell 34 percentage points), housekeepers (wages fell 21 percentage points) and biologists (wages fell 18 percentage points). The reverse was true when a job attracted more men. Computer programming, for instance, used to be a relatively menial role done by women. But when male programmers began to outnumber female ones, the job began paying more and gained prestige."
It is probably worthwhile to ask why there developed (and survived) separate individuals with "man" and "women" characteristics in the first place, since evolutionary splitting is inefficient and imposes costs on the individual. Having two variants (male and female) of one type (human) evidently confers some benefit which makes the costs worthwhile.
Rather than trying to reverse a process which seems to have been almost universally successful
evolutionary:
sex
1
: either of the two major forms of individuals that occur in many species and that are distinguished respectively as female or male especially on the basis of their reproductive organs and structures
not evolutionary:
gender
2
a : sex <the feminine gender>
b : the behavioral, cultural, or psychological traits typically associated with one sex
Males will always dominate certain areas (and likewise, women in other areas) because of how our brains are genetically wired. Bringing politics into this either way is just dehumanizing and creates division. Hybrid male and females (which is where I consider the GLBT community to be ) also have our own strengths and weaknesses.
Idk, you make some good points- but a lot of what you say just sounds trolly and/or projection lol. Women were shitted on for being a housewife with kids, and they also were shitted on for trying to compete in high power positions of society. Well they could, but it's like it was too 'dykey' and they lost their femininity in the process. So kind of something inbetween worked for them... but the thing is, people get tired of being stuck in the middle. And of course, part of them subconsciously likes being shitted on because they are sexually masochistic by nature. But it goes both ways, with men wanting to "evolve" women to be stronger- but women wanting to "evolve" men to be nicer. Penis envy is real, but so is womb envy.
When the typical asshole straight guy fucks a typical victimy str8 female - subconsciously they are trying to be more complete themselves by temporarily absorbing the energy from the other. They need the opposite quality that they lack in themselves. The women needs the man's cock to be stronger (because the harsh truth the only way to cut down the forest and make a path is with an axe), and the man needs the pussy to be more emotionally available and less of the villain. (more elegance and better social skills, since women evolve so much better in that arena than men.) I think when people use the word 'equality' they are really just trying to say that we need to be kinder and more compassionate and less of a dick to each other- regardless of gender, which is something I can get behind 110%. I guess it sounds too over the top sweet, but I wish they would just say that then use politically correct terms like 'equality.'
I would get brutally bullied a lot for being gay by certain straight people and the only way I got it to stop was by cruelly mocking their heterosexuality the way they cruelly mocked my homosexuality. I didn't really get through to them by being balanced in this fake political way... which is what a lot of well meaning liberals just don't get. I mean true balance/equality is just boring anyway when you think about it from a higher level. It's just pure stagnation.
Last edited by Hot Scalding Gayser; 07-22-2016 at 02:03 PM.
"A striking example is to be found in the field of recreation — working in parks or leading camps — which went from predominantly male to female from 1950 to 2000. Median hourly wages in this field declined 57 percentage points, accounting for the change in the value of the dollar, according to a complex formula used by Professor Levanon. The job of ticket agent also went from mainly male to female during this period, and wages dropped 43 percentage points.
The same thing happened when women in large numbers became designers (wages fell 34 percentage points), housekeepers (wages fell 21 percentage points) and biologists (wages fell 18 percentage points). The reverse was true when a job attracted more men. Computer programming, for instance, used to be a relatively menial role done by women. But when male programmers began to outnumber female ones, the job began paying more and gained prestige."
So, something is happening to wages in industries which change from one employee gender of the other, controlling for the job itself.
What initially comes to mind here is the differences in pay negotiating styles between men and women. Testosterone causes individuals to become more competitive, and estrogen causes them to be more cooperative and better negotiators. It may be that men are negotiating higher pay because they don't value the job so much and don't feel like compromising (this job sucks, so the only way I'm doing it is if I'm well-paid), while women may compromise on pay in order to win a job that they find rewarding in other ways. I think women can bring more factors into play when making decisions.
"A striking example is to be found in the field of recreation — working in parks or leading camps — which went from predominantly male to female from 1950 to 2000. Median hourly wages in this field declined 57 percentage points, accounting for the change in the value of the dollar, according to a complex formula used by Professor Levanon. The job of ticket agent also went from mainly male to female during this period, and wages dropped 43 percentage points.
The same thing happened when women in large numbers became designers (wages fell 34 percentage points), housekeepers (wages fell 21 percentage points) and biologists (wages fell 18 percentage points). The reverse was true when a job attracted more men. Computer programming, for instance, used to be a relatively menial role done by women. But when male programmers began to outnumber female ones, the job began paying more and gained prestige."
I do think there is a pay gap, but over time the pay gap has shrank quite considerably... and the majority of the numbers that people quote all the time that give it like a 30 cent pay gap have been pretty much thorougly disputed. These substantial pay increases and decreases though quoted in this article are not being thought about properly.
The 'parks and camps', know that National Parks have pretty much greatly thinned out their employees since 1950. This isn't a gender issue, it's practicality. Many of the jobs that were once done by park rangers and park workers are now done by machines and surveillance equipment. The parks aren't going to pay their small base of employees more for doing less.
In contrast to the 1950's there is only one hard sciences related field that pays well now, that is physics. Both Biologists and Chemist salaries have suffered. Also in the 1950s there were more job openings in the science field for those with Bachelors degrees, now these degrees bring you to lab tech hell.
Computer programming... probably the most hilarious on the list. Do I even need to explain why computer programmers make more money now?
I'm not quite sure what is meant by "housekeepers" and "designers", I can definitely see why housekeeping salaries have gone down? Do you know anyone that has one? More than likely these are people that work part time or as supplemental salary as the households cannot afford the workers.
Never in my life have I ever felt "oppressed" for being a woman. Then again, I also grew up in a society where I wont be stoned to death for being raped.
So, something is happening to wages in industries which change from one employee gender of the other, controlling for the job itself.
What initially comes to mind here is the differences in pay negotiating styles between men and women. Testosterone causes individuals to become more competitive, and estrogen causes them to be more cooperative and better negotiators. It may be that men are negotiating higher pay because they don't value the job so much and don't feel like compromising (this job sucks, so the only way I'm doing it is if I'm well-paid), while women may compromise on pay in order to win a job that they find rewarding in other ways. I think women can bring more factors into play when making decisions.
Four experiments show that gender differences in the propensity to initiate negotiations may be explained by differential treatment of men and women when they attempt to negotiate. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants evaluated written accounts of candidates who did or did not initiate negotiations for higher compensation. Evaluators penalized female candidates more than male candidates for initiating negotiations. In Experiment 3, participants evaluated videotapes of candidates who accepted compensation offers or initiated negotiations. Male evaluators penalized female candidates more than male candidates for initiating negotiations; female evaluators penalized all candidates for initiating negotiations. Perceptions of niceness and demandingness explained resistance to female negotiators. In Experiment 4, participants adopted the candidate’s perspective and assessed whether to initiate negotiations in same scenario used in Experiment 3. With male evaluators, women were less inclined than men to negotiate, and nervousness explained this effect. There was no gender difference when evaluator was female.
I do think there is a pay gap, but over time the pay gap has shrank quite considerably... and the majority of the numbers that people quote all the time that give it like a 30 cent pay gap have been pretty much thorougly disputed. These substantial pay increases and decreases though quoted in this article are not being thought about properly.
The 'parks and camps', know that National Parks have pretty much greatly thinned out their employees since 1950. This isn't a gender issue, it's practicality. Many of the jobs that were once done by park rangers and park workers are now done by machines and surveillance equipment. The parks aren't going to pay their small base of employees more for doing less.
In contrast to the 1950's there is only one hard sciences related field that pays well now, that is physics. Both Biologists and Chemist salaries have suffered. Also in the 1950s there were more job openings in the science field for those with Bachelors degrees, now these degrees bring you to lab tech hell.
Computer programming... probably the most hilarious on the list. Do I even need to explain why computer programmers make more money now?
I'm not quite sure what is meant by "housekeepers" and "designers", I can definitely see why housekeeping salaries have gone down? Do you know anyone that has one? More than likely these are people that work part time or as supplemental salary as the households cannot afford the workers.
I considered myself that there are likely outside factors that at least partially explain this phenomenon, but it's worth noting that Its not as if women haven't tried entering the status quo.
I considered myself that there are likely outside factors that at least partially explain this phenomenon, but it's worth noting that Its not as if women haven't tried entering the status quo.
Actually have been doing much better in certain key areas in the last 10 years. One I consider to be of utmost importance is small business ownership. If you want equal stake in the status quo, this is one of the most important things. Female small business ownership is up exponentially. I don't think we have strong fundamentals though in the economy, most of the top businesses are monopolies that have been in existence for many years. We don't have free trade, we have rampant corporatism, so the majority of these small businesses are probably failing. The fact that women are more willing to start businesses though is a rather good omen. Most of the business owners are still overwhelmingly men, hopefully this will balance out over time. The reason men have more businesses though, isn't because of laws, it's because women were housewives for such a long period of time.
male-based standards of complacency =/= female-based standards. as long as it takes an overwhelming amount of aggression to get anywhere women probably won't do as well as men.
an equal society by nature would recognize that people have different levels of aggression by nature... this can apply to men as well as women as some men are not very aggressive either (while some women are highly aggressive). it's just that on average men are more aggressive than women.
capitalist society values aggressive pushing ahead, selling yourself, pushing yourself in everyone's face and just about fighting your way to the top of the heap. these are "masculine values" are they not?
an equal society would try to be equal in its underlying values... as in, some avenues work well for that kind of aggression; others are low aggression... but no matter how aggressive (or not aggressive) you are, you're not going to be at a disadvantage because of it.
I think the prevalent factor not in the original post is that women used to get tuned up with dem hands if they stepped out of place. And even today, ultimately the final stance someone can take if someone is telling them what to do is accepting physical confrontation and proceeding anyway. Women can't have the same confidence men do in this regard, physiologically its dangerous to stand their ground against domineering men.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
How exactly is it a false premise? Give me an alternative scenario, I don't believe that they exist. You could argue that women were the child raisers, men were the workers, but I think there are pretty clear examples of civilizations where this definitely wasn't necessary. I don't think women ever had to get sucked into the hyper polarized relationships that occur between the different gender roles, but they did. They accepted these workings for hundreds of years without ever putting a foot down about the order of things. And now, after things have became so instinctive and indoctrinated, women have decided randomly out of nowhere "hey... this sucks". Just looking over how different societies ordered themselves, it is fairly obvious to me how much religion had a role in this... giving such strict and unforgiving definitions to the nuclear family. Men were like "we have to make up some sort of random rule in order to tell women that if they leave us, or don't do our bidding... that they are breaking God's rule" , and sadly... it worked. And if you want to blame someone for this, women should blame themselves, they fell for the ruse.
i thought she was saying @Hitta that just because it's not inferiority doesn't mean it must be complacency... your premise that it's one of these is false. and they almost mean the same thing anyway because if it's "complacency" that has been going on for thousands of years as you say, then it sort of = inferiority.
if men are doing better in the system, it favors them: my explanation. (: and let's be honest, it doesn't even favor all of them, only the most aggressive ones.
i thought she was saying @Hitta that just because it's not inferiority doesn't mean it must be complacency... your premise that it's one of these is false. and they almost mean the same thing anyway because if it's "complacency" that has been going on for thousands of years as you say, then it sort of = inferiority.
if men are doing better in the system, it favors them: my explanation. (: and let's be honest, it doesn't even favor all of them, only the most aggressive ones.
I definitely do not think that women are inferior, so I mean I'm just going to remove that from the discussion cause I think any notion of that is just ridiculous. I think more likely the case is that we conjured up these idiotic ideologies because of the desire to reproduce more effectively, so women as a result ended up late to the party. The reason that I stated that it is complacency or inferiority, is that I think women as a group have far more control over their outcome than they realize. Many women take the mindset that they are trapped by circumstance, but they aren't. Women are behind when it comes to the status quo for one reason.... they didn't make as big of a push for it as men did. They became too comfortable in their gender role, and didn't see those unconscious needs bubbling under the surface. I'm not faulting women for that, but they did make that choice collectively. IMO the only thing that is needed for equality is about 20 years of increased small business production from women. Changing the laws or the system is only going to make things worse(we probably will though and will spend the next 100 years having extreme conflicts based around sex and gender).
The reason that I stated that it is complacency or inferiority, is that I think women as a group have far more control over their outcome than they realize. Many women take the mindset that they are trapped by circumstance, but they aren't. Women are behind when it comes to the status quo for one reason.... they didn't make as big of a push for it as men did. They became too comfortable in their gender role, and didn't see those unconscious needs bubbling under the surface. I'm not faulting women for that, but they did make that choice collectively.
well, as it turns out, men are on average more pushy (and are also on average larger and stronger). this is true not just in humans but in all the other primates and in most mammals. i don't really understand why the entire burden must be placed on women to become more pushy just because men can't control their own pushy impulses.
i realize you just want all women to be your SLE dual, @Hitta.
it's not a "collective choice." i'm amazed really that you seemingly don't want to acknowledge that this results from patriarchy as well... that it is in our culture. it began with the most aggressive of the two sexes controlling societies and then was passed through culture. by now it is very elaborate, having manifested in a variety of ways in different cultures throughout time.
IMO the only thing that is needed for equality is about 20 years of increased small business production from women. Changing the laws or the system is only going to make things worse(we probably will though and will spend the next 100 years having extreme conflicts based around sex and gender).
in other words you reject attempts to curb and correct the culture that created the thing you have a problem with. i don't know how we would create this 20 years of increased small business production from women either or how this would be the magic fix.
i honestly think this is all just part of a larger web of issues... when society values certain human qualities/traits/tendencies over others, all those with those qualities are at an advantage. this of course always creates groups at a disadvantage. we're trying to create an equal society, but we still don't understand the huge range of human nature and how it manifests. we still try to use models that favor certain traits over others and thus do not embrace all of humanity. it's also often unclear what is by nature and what is learned and how the two play off one another. it's just an interesting large scale social experiment because the question of "what is an equal society" is really fucking hard to answer.
i think that movements towards equality have occurred not because women or any other disadvantaged group suddenly found their mojo but because survival has become easier... when things are going well for society it can loosen up and allow time and space for these sorts of questions, considering not only the well-being of all humans but also even of animals.
i would also guess that some of the most patriarchal cultures that arose in history arose out of great hardship and scarcity, and in which aggression was necessary. the old testament is incredibly harsh and patriarchal for instance, and so were the lives of those people. the other ingredient to this, imo, is that the population needs to be sufficiently large... if it's like a group of 100 people for instance, they'd probably still favor egalitarianism even in harsh conditions.
well, as it turns out, men are on average more pushy (and are also on average larger and stronger). this is true not just in humans but in all the other primates and in most mammals. i don't really understand why the entire burden must be placed on women to become more pushy just because men can't control their own pushy impulses.
i realize you just want all women to be your SLE dual, @Hitta.
it's not a "collective choice." i'm amazed really that you seemingly don't want to acknowledge that this results from patriarchy as well... that it is in our culture. it began with the most aggressive of the two sexes controlling societies and then was passed through culture. by now it is very elaborate, having manifested in a variety of ways in different cultures throughout time.
in other words you reject attempts to curb and correct the culture that created the thing you have a problem with. i don't know how we would create this 20 years of increased small business production from women either or how this would be the magic fix.
i honestly think this is all just part of a larger web of issues... when society values certain human qualities/traits/tendencies over others, all those with those qualities are at an advantage. this of course always creates groups at a disadvantage. we're trying to create an equal society, but we still don't understand the huge range of human nature and how it manifests. we still try to use models that favor certain traits over others and thus do not embrace all of humanity. it's also often unclear what is by nature and what is learned and how the two play off one another. it's just an interesting large scale social experiment because the question of "what is an equal society" is really fucking hard to answer.
i think that movements towards equality have occurred not because women or any other disadvantaged group suddenly found their mojo but because survival has become easier... when things are going well for society it can loosen up and allow time and space for these sorts of questions, considering not only the well-being of all humans but also even of animals.
i would also guess that some of the most patriarchal cultures that arose in history arose out of great hardship and scarcity, and in which aggression was necessary. the old testament is incredibly harsh and patriarchal for instance, and so were the lives of those people. the other ingredient to this, imo, is that the population needs to be sufficiently large... if it's like a group of 100 people for instance, they'd probably still favor egalitarianism even in harsh conditions.
You state that women are smaller, have less strength and are less pushy, but women maintain that they are equal and should be treated equally.If women do not have the tools to ascertain power in society, then by definition they are not equal and society will always eventually devolve into a patriarchal society without massive amounts of help or male changes. It's fascinating to me how some women are sexists against themselves. They sit back and deny their own tool kits and just whine about how men are bigger or stronger.
Either women are equal and don't need any help in achieving their goals if they put their effort forth, or women aren't equal and need help in order to succeed... you can't have both.
Something I'd like to point out also, is extreme aggression is not conducive to success. Success is the result of picking your fights. Women have talents just as men have talents, and the idea that they can't be as successful as men because they don't have mass amounts of testosterone pumping through their body is ignorant. An individual has to have some will and drive to be successful, but creativity and the ability to strategize are far more important to success. When I hear someone say that women can't be as successful as men cause they don't have the aggression, I kinda want to puke. It really is like the most misogynistic thing that a person can possibly say.
You state that women are smaller, have less strength and are less pushy, but women maintain that they are equal and should be treated equally.If women do not have the tools to ascertain power in society, then by definition they are not equal and society will always eventually devolve into a patriarchal society without massive amounts of help or male changes. It's fascinating to me how some women are sexists against themselves. They sit back and deny their own tool kits and just whine about how men are bigger or stronger.
oh bla, hitta. if you think sexual dimorphism makes women inferior in some way, you can eat it. it does mean though if you pit 100 randomly selected men vs. 100 randomly selected women in a stone lifting competition, the men may well perform better at it (assuming there are no crafty alternative ways to do it without relying so much on physical strength). but if you think that this means women are "inferior" (which is an idea more supported by what people value than by anything else), this is your problem.
it's kind of irrelevant anyway since i support high manual labor jobs as paying more since they are high risk and often lead to injury (one can wreck their body permanently... sometimes one could even die). not sure this applies to pro sports though (i think that's perhaps an excessive amount of pay).
ps. i know you don't really think it makes women inferior, but i'm just going to throw that in your face as your position since you were kind of an asshole by making "women are doomed to be less successful than men because testosterone" my position. if you disregard my nuances, i can disregard yours.
Originally Posted by Hitta
Either women are equal and don't need any help in achieving their goals if they put their effort forth, or women aren't equal and need help in order to succeed... you can't have both.
the idea, hitta, is that certain things in society still put men at an advantage and the stuff you're against is trying to level the playing field. i don't think it's fair to twist it the way you have rather than getting at the heart of your issue, which is that you seem to disagree that things are still putting men at an advantage (on the whole) and you are against government taking certain actions regarding it.
i would agree that it's hard trying to pinpoint how to apply fixes... but everyone can scream on social media when things aren't working. there is a public displeasure meter to be read.
Originally Posted by Hitta
Something I'd like to point out also, is extreme aggression is not conducive to success. Success is the result of picking your fights. Women have talents just as men have talents, and the idea that they can't be as successful as men because they don't have mass amounts of testosterone pumping through their body is ignorant. An individual has to have some will and drive to be successful, but creativity and the ability to strategize are far more important to success. When I hear someone say that women can't be as successful as men cause they don't have the aggression, I kinda want to puke. It really is like the most misogynistic thing that a person can possibly say.
oh, i think it [the bolded] matters in terms of pushing ahead for promotions and pushing your way up to CEO. i also think you're reading too much into what i said. i think a male or female ceo can be equally successful. that's not really what i'm talking about. i'm talking about how often the avenues to advancement respond best to those who aggressively shove themselves to the head of the pack (this reflects a value in society that is stereotypically masculine). it seems to work better for men on the whole as they are on average more aggressive. it clearly doesn't work for all men. but it favors the most aggressive humans, and most of that group is male.
women still aren't doing as well as men (i realize you may disagree) and i think the favoring of aggression in advancement may be one of the reasons. women tend to also deliberate over if their qualifications warrant trying to make a demand (like for a promotion) where as it seems more men tend to not fret over such things as much and are more often even over-confident about their qualifications. you could just blame women for not being as you want them to be in this, and be like "yup 20 years of small business will fix it," but it seems unhelpful to me. i'm annoyed if all the pressure to change one's nature must be placed on women (whether that nature results from biological reasons or socially conditioned ones - though it's probably both) while men can just sit back and wait for us to transform into the creatures they would prefer. (they all prefer a slightly different female creature so it's kind of hard to work out anyway.)
also, i feel like i need to bring in the equal =/= same argument again. the main gist of what i've been trying to say is that men and women are not wholly the same and i think that often the male model is taken as how everyone should be. (but see below*)
a lot of your reaction is being sick by how you have interpreted my position, so you're really just sick off of your own words & thoughts imo. anyway even if you think i'm some insidious misogynist chugging away at life with my bad program, you say numerous sexist remarks often so i think you just pull yourself into the light of scrutiny by making such an accusation. i am after all of the two of us not the one who is complaining about women. "why can't women be more X way????" *whines* (i feel okay attributing such whining to you in revenge for you indirectly attributing whining to me that i was not guilty of.)
--
btw, i am not saying that i don't want anything to favor aggression. i just would like for this to be recognized when a system or path inside one (e.g. the path to promotion or advancement) favors one sex more than the other (*and i'd note that a system could remain unchanged while society changes around it and could end up later favoring the opposite sex despite having not changed at all itself - these things are fluid, iow). my ideal world would recognize all of human nature... some jobs will favor more aggressive personalities; others will favor less aggressive personalities. but overall you should not be at a disadvantage for having either type of personality (or what is in between). i don't know how to create that, but i'm saying it would be ideal. and again, i think a truly equal society would be really hard to create. there's probably always going to be some small amount of inequality along some lines no matter what we do.
and it goes well beyond women vs. men.
i mean, i think i'm largely centered on hiring and promotions in considering this... how does one hire or promote in a non-biased way? it doesn't make sense to only promote the loudest or most aggressive people in jobs where those qualities aren't important in the position description. you should always be promoted for your amazing work with what actually is in your position description and it should speak for itself... or perhaps promoted into a position that better matches the sophisticated work you do (if you are already doing much more than is in your position description). mainly at every step, from application, to interviews, to hiring and promotions, it should be pretty transparent what is going on.
it's just so complicated because you could also have a person you hired for having the best qualifications - which that's another tricky one. sometimes without being able to use any of one's intuition in hiring as that is where all the biases hide, it ends up being hiring only the most qualified... and sometimes i don't think it should be because if a job for instance has a short learning curve if someone has met the base qualifications, then making a final determination on having the most exceptional qualifications seems actually biased lol. (it can promote the catch 22 where people have no experience so struggle to get a job but can't gain exp. because they struggle getting a job.)
once you've hired "the most qualified" person it could turn out their personality clashes with everyone else. this is something people could sense with their intuition but if you are being unbiased your intuitive hands are tied... but you were right... however, it could be this "clash of personalities" is just a cover for actual prejudice against sex or religion or race or whatever. if it was based on working style--it would good to recognize what the reigning working style is and to just somehow be upfront about how things are done in your workplace that make it unique but also incompatible with certain working styles...
and if one person is being difficult then perhaps their social skills (would need to be listed more specifically what "social skills" are desired) are too shitty for the job. but it's clearly context dependent too.
anyway, i feel like all of these considerations just make everything too systematized. but maybe if in the end AIs did all the hiring it would actually be better? but i just feel like hiring processes are in a way often out-dated for what is trying to be accomplished. and i think job mobility and matching is a problem. so it would really be nice to have a standardized system including all jobs where you can place yourself and then see your matches (but not in the vague ways available now). if it was all coordinated through AI it could make it possible to move quickly and tweak things as you go along. so if an AI didn't put you in a compatible job you could adjust some things. it's just that this would make us less innovative as a society probably... so i guess i don't think everything could be done by AI... it would be important for some companies to not do that in fact.
"A striking example is to be found in the field of recreation — working in parks or leading camps — which went from predominantly male to female from 1950 to 2000. Median hourly wages in this field declined 57 percentage points, accounting for the change in the value of the dollar, according to a complex formula used by Professor Levanon. The job of ticket agent also went from mainly male to female during this period, and wages dropped 43 percentage points.
The same thing happened when women in large numbers became designers (wages fell 34 percentage points), housekeepers (wages fell 21 percentage points) and biologists (wages fell 18 percentage points). The reverse was true when a job attracted more men. Computer programming, for instance, used to be a relatively menial role done by women. But when male programmers began to outnumber female ones, the job began paying more and gained prestige."
I wonder in which direction the causality flows, in both cases.
Did men move out (or in, for computer programming) from those jobs because they were noticing a decline (or rise) in wages, or did the decline in wages happen because women entered the market.
Up to the 80s men were still very much the breadwinner so I guess they might have been more sensitive to declining wages.
oh bla, hitta. if you think sexual dimorphism makes women inferior in some way, you can eat it. it does mean though if you pit 100 randomly selected men vs. 100 randomly selected women in a stone lifting competition, the men may well perform better at it (assuming there are no crafty alternative ways to do it without relying so much on physical strength). but if you think that this means women are "inferior" (which is an idea more supported by what people value than by anything else), this is your problem.
it's kind of irrelevant anyway since i support high manual labor jobs as paying more since they are high risk and often lead to injury (one can wreck their body permanently... sometimes one could even die). not sure this applies to pro sports though (i think that's perhaps an excessive amount of pay).
ps. i know you don't really think it makes women inferior, but i'm just going to throw that in your face as your position since you were kind of an asshole by making "women are doomed to be less successful than men because testosterone" my position. if you disregard my nuances, i can disregard yours.
the idea, hitta, is that certain things in society still put men at an advantage and the stuff you're against is trying to level the playing field. i don't think it's fair to twist it the way you have rather than getting at the heart of your issue, which is that you seem to disagree that things are still putting men at an advantage (on the whole) and you are against government taking certain actions regarding it.
i would agree that it's hard trying to pinpoint how to apply fixes... but everyone can scream on social media when things aren't working. there is a public displeasure meter to be read.
oh, i think it [the bolded] matters in terms of pushing ahead for promotions and pushing your way up to CEO. i also think you're reading too much into what i said. i think a male or female ceo can be equally successful. that's not really what i'm talking about. i'm talking about how often the avenues to advancement respond best to those who aggressively shove themselves to the head of the pack (this reflects a value in society that is stereotypically masculine). it seems to work better for men on the whole as they are on average more aggressive. it clearly doesn't work for all men. but it favors the most aggressive humans, and most of that group is male.
women still aren't doing as well as men (i realize you may disagree) and i think the favoring of aggression in advancement may be one of the reasons. women tend to also deliberate over if their qualifications warrant trying to make a demand (like for a promotion) where as it seems more men tend to not fret over such things as much and are more often even over-confident about their qualifications. you could just blame women for not being as you want them to be in this, and be like "yup 20 years of small business will fix it," but it seems unhelpful to me. i'm annoyed if all the pressure to change one's nature must be placed on women (whether that nature results from biological reasons or socially conditioned ones - though it's probably both) while men can just sit back and wait for us to transform into the creatures they would prefer. (they all prefer a slightly different female creature so it's kind of hard to work out anyway.)
also, i feel like i need to bring in the equal =/= same argument again. the main gist of what i've been trying to say is that men and women are not wholly the same and i think that often the male model is taken as how everyone should be. (but see below*)
a lot of your reaction is being sick by how you have interpreted my position, so you're really just sick off of your own words & thoughts imo. anyway even if you think i'm some insidious misogynist chugging away at life with my bad program, you say numerous sexist remarks often so i think you just pull yourself into the light of scrutiny by making such an accusation. i am after all of the two of us not the one who is complaining about women. "why can't women be more X way????" *whines* (i feel okay attributing such whining to you in revenge for you indirectly attributing whining to me that i was not guilty of.)
--
btw, i am not saying that i don't want anything to favor aggression. i just would like for this to be recognized when a system or path inside one (e.g. the path to promotion or advancement) favors one sex more than the other (*and i'd note that a system could remain unchanged while society changes around it and could end up later favoring the opposite sex despite having not changed at all itself - these things are fluid, iow). my ideal world would recognize all of human nature... some jobs will favor more aggressive personalities; others will favor less aggressive personalities. but overall you should not be at a disadvantage for having either type of personality (or what is in between). i don't know how to create that, but i'm saying it would be ideal. and again, i think a truly equal society would be really hard to create. there's probably always going to be some small amount of inequality along some lines no matter what we do.
and it goes well beyond women vs. men.
i mean, i think i'm largely centered on hiring and promotions in considering this... how does one hire or promote in a non-biased way? it doesn't make sense to only promote the loudest or most aggressive people in jobs where those qualities aren't important in the position description. you should always be promoted for your amazing work with what actually is in your position description and it should speak for itself... or perhaps promoted into a position that better matches the sophisticated work you do (if you are already doing much more than is in your position description). mainly at every step, from application, to interviews, to hiring and promotions, it should be pretty transparent what is going on.
it's just so complicated because you could also have a person you hired for having the best qualifications - which that's another tricky one. sometimes without being able to use any of one's intuition in hiring as that is where all the biases hide, it ends up being hiring only the most qualified... and sometimes i don't think it should be because if a job for instance has a short learning curve if someone has met the base qualifications, then making a final determination on having the most exceptional qualifications seems actually biased lol. (it can promote the catch 22 where people have no experience so struggle to get a job but can't gain exp. because they struggle getting a job.)
once you've hired "the most qualified" person it could turn out their personality clashes with everyone else. this is something people could sense with their intuition but if you are being unbiased your intuitive hands are tied... but you were right... however, it could be this "clash of personalities" is just a cover for actual prejudice against sex or religion or race or whatever. if it was based on working style--it would good to recognize what the reigning working style is and to just somehow be upfront about how things are done in your workplace that make it unique but also incompatible with certain working styles...
and if one person is being difficult then perhaps their social skills (would need to be listed more specifically what "social skills" are desired) are too shitty for the job. but it's clearly context dependent too.
anyway, i feel like all of these considerations just make everything too systematized. but maybe if in the end AIs did all the hiring it would actually be better? but i just feel like hiring processes are in a way often out-dated for what is trying to be accomplished. and i think job mobility and matching is a problem. so it would really be nice to have a standardized system including all jobs where you can place yourself and then see your matches (but not in the vague ways available now). if it was all coordinated through AI it could make it possible to move quickly and tweak things as you go along. so if an AI didn't put you in a compatible job you could adjust some things. it's just that this would make us less innovative as a society probably... so i guess i don't think everything could be done by AI... it would be important for some companies to not do that in fact.
also i think now i may have overshot this in how "mean" i was trying to be... i might have been wrong.
This whole argument basically blows my mind, because you basically took pieces of what I said and didn't really grasp the point of what I was saying. For starters, I'm not saying that sexual dimorphism, means that women are inferior. I was actually arguing the opposite. Despite the differences between men and women, I still think women can be just as successful in society due to the exact point you stated "equal =/= same". I'm simply saying that women, being equal, do not need special handicaps in order to get there. Is the status quo predominated by men in its current situation? Sure. Does this probably give women unfavorable disadvantages within the status quo? You betcha. The status quo came to exist by male driven ideologies that ran a muck in society and basically placed women on the bench(Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, Muslim... these all have a very similar theme to them in regards to women). There is only one way that women will ever have equality in the workforce, and that's having improvements in their business ownership numbers. Women only have ownership in 29% of business in the US. Changing wage numbers is only going to make women more subservient to their male bosses, as it gives them a reason to keep employed. This is just a path to having a massive societal conflict between the sexes. You don't make things equal by asking for a raise from your boss, you become equal by becoming the boss. When all of the businesses are run by men, you think there's not going to be some sexism that exists?
The idea that women also just need to be more education is also just as highly laughable. Women have been consistently enrolled more in universities for the last 30 years. As a matter of fact, over 70% of female high-school graduates go to school, which topples the amount that males go to college by over 30%. Problem solved right? Women now earn more Masters degrees than they do Bachelors. The degrees that women get in college, typically have incredibly low salary numbers(Social Work, Elementary Education). This isn't helping, and it's quite preposterous to say that it is.
... TBH, many of the females that are often preaching for equality typically tend to be the most subservient of their gender. This is far from a coincidence.
ANY evidence supporting this claim, besides your own squirrely opinion, that a woman speaking up about the problems of gender inequality is inherently "subservient" and "submissive" to other women?
Capabilities of women and Market share
:" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Hitta
there is a public displeasure meter to be read.
