"get back in the kitchen"

[quiet_samurai]

I completely agree that women don't have a place in combat, not because they aren't as capable of it as men can be, especially in modern times. I agree with it because men don't like to see women get blown apart or sustain grevious wounds on the batle field. This is genetic and goes all the way back to living in caves and beyond, It is hard wired into the brains of most males to protect females at all costs. And no matter how advanced we become and how much knowledge accumulates it will always be so. So it's not the womens lack of being able to contribute in combat, but the mens lack of being able to handle them as casualties as viewing them as regular soldiers.

well, i word argue that most men don't like seeing other men get blown apart either, and i've personally never felt that a woman's death is any worse than a man's, so i don't think it's hard-wired in my brain.

but aside from that, even if you're right, you're claiming that men, as a whole, treat women differently. if that's not sexism, i don't know what is.

And as far as income goes, the number of people in the workforce is absolutely relevant. If you have more men in the workforce then women, the chances of them having higher paying jobs is greater, it's odds and mathematics. My company is contracted out to one of the biggest insurance companies in the country (and the world), like one of the ones that have numerous commercials on television, and almost all the top brass including the CEO are all women. Most of the supervisors here are women, hell I report to a woman. Now I'm not saying those studies pertaining to sexist treatment in the workforce is completely untrue, I just think they are biased. I have worked the corporate world for years and have never seen a women not get a job because she was female or even hear about it happening, so I'm coming form a place where I have first hand knowledge and experience.

no, it's not relevant when determining median salary. increased sample size does not increase the median as long as the sampling is truly random.

it's nice that so many women have gotten ahead at your company, but that isn't necessarily true for every company in every industry. also, i was talking about pay inequality, not denying promotions.

And as far as stereotypes go, I merely just meant the usual things that men and women say about one another. Mostly pertaining to relationships and the dating scene. I also shouldn't have said "absolutely", maybe "mostly" would have applied better. And thank you for actually answering my questions, most people just rant and rave and go off without trying to make you understand or at least see their point.

oh sure. a lot of stereotypes are actually well-founded. it's only a problem when society forces people into those stereotypes.

I don't see treating women differently as automatically being sexist. If it is for hateful or derogutory (sp?) means, then yes, but men and women are different. They are not equal, I'm not saying one is better then the other, but we are not the same. If men and women were truly equal then I could haul off and punch any women that got in my face without the ramifications that come with hitting a girl. I don't see anything wrong with wanting to give a women extra protection as opposed to men, or shielding them from the harshness of war. And I find the concept of people finding this to be sexist and unnacceptable quite strange. How is wanting to protect someone wrong?

 

[quiet_samurai]

You told him to stop "shitting on the thread", I'm thinking it is that which pushed you over the edge.

Since he was shitting on the thread by trolling it, it was only natural that I told him to stop doing so.

The thing is that the call for 'sensitive' men comes from one part of women while others aren't up for that.

No. Again, there is a discrepancy between what women want and what they say they want. There are plenty of women who claim they want a sensitive nice guy but really don't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male-female_income_disparity_in_the_USA

You should read that more carefully.

women still aren't treated the same as men.

And vice versa, because men aren't women and women aren't men.

women are excluded from combat roles.

And there is a reason for that.

I completely agree that women don't have a place in combat, not because they aren't as capable of it as men can be, especially in modern times. I agree with it because men don't like to see women get blown apart or sustain grevious wounds on the batle field. This is genetic and goes all the way back to living in caves and beyond, It is hard wired into the brains of most males to protect females at all costs. And no matter how advanced we become and how much knowledge accumulates it will always be so. So it's not the womens lack of being able to contribute in combat, but the mens lack of being able to handle them as casualties as viewing them as regular soldiers.

Then there are the complications caused by men and women becoming romantically involved.

Yeah I have friends of both genders over in Iraq, one being my ex-GF. They are made to sign a waver and promise not to engage in any sexual activity with anyone at all when deployed over there or beware of being discharged. Also, if you do have a relationship with another member of the armed forces it is only allowed with a person of equal rank. I don't know how that is handled if one of them gets promoted though, especially if the couple has been together for a long time.

 

[cobra_ky]

I don't see treating women differently as automatically being sexist. If it is for hateful or derogutory (sp?) means, then yes, but men and women are different. They are not equal, I'm not saying one is better then the other, but we are not the same.

sexism need not be hateful or derogatory. you can be sexist and not even realize it. i think that's part of the reason these debates get so heated; people hear the word "sexism" or "racism" and think of bigotry, not the unconscious prejudices that all of us have to some degree.

If men and women were truly equal then I could haul off and punch any women that got in my face without the ramifications that come with hitting a girl.

this is exactly how i think it should be. of course, you still have the ramifications of committing assault.

I don't see anything wrong with wanting to give a women extra protection as opposed to men, or shielding them from the harshness of war. And I find the concept of people finding this to be sexist and unnacceptable quite strange. How is wanting to protect someone wrong?

it's wrong because it's not your responsibility to decide for them whether or not they need to be protected. women can and should make that decision on their own.

 

[sunpop]

What you need to do is not give a damn what any group says because they claim to want to make progress towards equality but then when something bad comes up like women being drafted they piss and moan. Second you need to avoid guys who are so stupid as to think the woman working somehow makes them less of a man because they are all kinds of stupid.

Accept help if you want because hey it's always a nice gesture and don't get all pissed off thinking they offer help because they think you're weak personally that's why I hate feminists they ***** when you do something nice and claim you are insulting them.

As for the get back in the kitchen thing mostly people say it joking but if they mean it give them a nice shiner as a stfu ^^ If you kick one of those guys asses they wont go to the cops because they are afraid to say a woman beat them up.

 

[quiet_samurai]

I don't see treating women differently as automatically being sexist. If it is for hateful or derogutory (sp?) means, then yes, but men and women are different. They are not equal, I'm not saying one is better then the other, but we are not the same.

sexism need not be hateful or derogatory. you can be sexist and not even realize it. i think that's part of the reason these debates get so heated; people hear the word "sexism" or "racism" and think of bigotry, not the unconscious prejudices that all of us have to some degree.

If men and women were truly equal then I could haul off and punch any women that got in my face without the ramifications that come with hitting a girl.

this is exactly how i think it should be. of course, you still have the ramifications of committing assault.

I don't see anything wrong with wanting to give a women extra protection as opposed to men, or shielding them from the harshness of war. And I find the concept of people finding this to be sexist and unnacceptable quite strange. How is wanting to protect someone wrong?

it's wrong because it's not your responsibility to decide for them whether or not they need to be protected. women can and should make that decision on their own.

Ok then. But if both genders were truly equal and society saw them as such, think off all the satire and playfullness which comes with being a human that would then be lost. It's a wonderul thing that the genders are opposites, the world would be a boring and stagnent place if we weren't.

 

[cobra_ky]

I don't see treating women differently as automatically being sexist. If it is for hateful or derogutory (sp?) means, then yes, but men and women are different. They are not equal, I'm not saying one is better then the other, but we are not the same.

sexism need not be hateful or derogatory. you can be sexist and not even realize it. i think that's part of the reason these debates get so heated; people hear the word "sexism" or "racism" and think of bigotry, not the unconscious prejudices that all of us have to some degree.

If men and women were truly equal then I could haul off and punch any women that got in my face without the ramifications that come with hitting a girl.

this is exactly how i think it should be. of course, you still have the ramifications of committing assault.

I don't see anything wrong with wanting to give a women extra protection as opposed to men, or shielding them from the harshness of war. And I find the concept of people finding this to be sexist and unnacceptable quite strange. How is wanting to protect someone wrong?

it's wrong because it's not your responsibility to decide for them whether or not they need to be protected. women can and should make that decision on their own.

Ok then. But if both genders were truly equal and society saw them as such, think off all the satire and playfullness which comes with being a human that would then be lost. It's a wonderul thing that the genders are opposites, the world would be a boring and stagnent place if we weren't.

i wouldn't say they're "opposites", but of course it's a good thing that the genders are different. it's even better that individual people are different. like i said before, it's only a problem when people are forced into stereotypes.

 

[EeveeElectro]

I just laugh at it. You have a much better life if you just take the piss out yourself and don't get worked up about everything. Don't be wanting to have a heart attack now!

 

[Satin6T]

[video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HeHUQAnzpF0[/video]

 

[sneakypenguin]

ok. any particular reason why?

For 2008 the U.S. Labor Department reported women's median wages to be 79.9% of men's, while women who have never married earn 94.2% of their unmarried male counterparts' earnings. This statistic does not take into account differences in experience, skill, occupation, or hours worked, other than meeting requirement for "full time" work.

Young women have started to outearn young men in some large urban centers with young women earning up to 20% more than their male counterparts

The study shows that firms apparently make an effort to balance gender inequities during staff shakeups. Women entered management ranks at rates up to 25 percent higher than men in some grade levels after downsizing.

A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job.

women who have never married earn 94.2 percent of their unmarried male counterparts' earnings[9] a figure that is within less than 6% of wage parity despite the fact that, "women, still..are more likely to choose jobs in education and healthcare, where earnings will tend to be lower.

Women and men often make different choices: in college major, in hours and years worked, and in what jobs to take.

And so on.

i would think that would go without saying.

Feminists don't seem to get it.

[

Wow someone here can read in depth rather than just seeing OMG women make 75% of what males do.

Thank you good sir I was getting annoyed with some of the lack of common sense in the thread. Cookie for you.



Median income disparity does not mean that hiring and salary is sexist. More women are in healthcare, education, clerical, office work etc. These are significantly lower paying jobs than the Engineering, Med, Law, Skilled labor, male dominated industries. So salary differences are to be expected. And even if it was somehow a sexist trend that kept salaries for women lower I could justify it.
They call is sick more.(almost twice as often (even among those without children)
They have maternity leave. They have higher insurance, they are less productive (both blue and white collar jobs) (women docs in the UK are 20% less productive)


Article about how the gap isn't as it seems.

Spoiler

The sex gap in earnings and the so-called glass ceiling are caused, not by employer discrimination or any other external forces, but by the evolved and internal sex differences in preferences, values, desires, dispositions, and temperaments. Just as there are a few exceptional women who are more single-mindedly motivated to earn money and attain higher status than the average man, so too are there a few women who make more money and attain higher status than most men.

From the 1960s through the 1980s, feminists claimed that women earned only 59 cents for every dollar earned by men. The precise figure has since been revised upward to 64 cents in 1986, 70 cents in 1987, and, according to President Clinton (if he counts as a feminist), 75 cents in 1999, but their claim is that women still earn substantially less than men do. However, all of these comparisons ignore the inherent sex differences in dispositions and temperaments, and the fact that most women are not interested in making money as much as men are because they have better things to do than make money. More careful statistical comparisons of men and women who are equally motivated to earn money show that women now earn 98 cents for every dollar men make, and sex has no statistically significant effect on workers’ earnings. Adjusted for occupation and motivation, men today do not earn significantly more than women do. Just as most women are not as single-mindedly motivated to earn money and attain higher status as the average man, most women do not earn as much money and attain as high status as men do. Browne rhetorically asks the question, “Once one breaks the glass ceiling, does it still exist?” His work convincingly demonstrates that the glass ceiling as an external constraint probably never existed in the first place. In liberal capitalist societies like the US and the UK, both men and women are free to pursue what they want. They just tend to want different things.

To argue that women make less money than men do because employers discriminate against them and “patriarchal forces” oppress them, is as absurd as arguing that men don’t own as many pairs of shoes as women do because shoe store clerks discriminate against them and prevent them from buying as many pairs of shoes as women do as a pernicious instrument of matriarchal oppression. The undeniable fact that the average woman owns more pairs of shoes than the average man does not at all mean that shoe store clerks discriminate against men. Women buy and own more pairs of shoes than men do simply because they want to (and men have better things to do than buy shoes). Similarly, men make more money than women do simply because they want to (and women have better things to do than make money).

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Hey, hoopyfrond, I'd love to debate with you about how all feminists hate males. Especially since I am a male feminist, and I really do not hate myself.

 

[FluffX]

Can I just ask, when did "wife" stop meaning "married women"?

 

[awesomebillfromdawsonville]

Hot pockets FTW!

 

[Russian_Assassin]

I don't know why such a topic exists in our community to be honest... Why does everyone have to point out the difference between a man and a woman? There is no difference (except the whole body structure, y'know)! There is no "normal" way to behave and the fact that some men believe that women must be stuck at home and never try anything are ridiculous poisonous fuckheads who need to retard themselves out of existence or go fuck themselves with a chainsaw. Seriously, If I ever have a friend who treats his wife like this I will personally kick the crap out of him!

I never discriminate sexes, to me, you are all the same shit. The only difference is, I can have romantic relationships with one kind of shit and I never will with the other (NEVER!) [small]The latter is male shit, just so we're clear[/small].

 

[thebobmaster_v1legacy]

Hey, hoopyfrond, I'd love to debate with you about how all feminists hate males. Especially since I am a male feminist, and I really do not hate myself.

"This generalization doesn't apply to me, so it can't be true!"

So, your entire argument is based on a generalization? Yep, don't see any flaws in that argument. Or an argument to have flaws at that point.

 

[cobra_ky]

Median income disparity does not mean that hiring and salary is sexist. More women are in healthcare, education, clerical, office work etc. These are significantly lower paying jobs than the Engineering, Med, Law, Skilled labor, male dominated industries. So salary differences are to be expected. And even if it was somehow a sexist trend that kept salaries for women lower I could justify it.

why do male dominated industries pay more?

They call is sick more.(almost twice as often (even among those without children)
They have maternity leave. They have higher insurance, they are less productive (both blue and white collar jobs) (women docs in the UK are 20% less productive)

Article about how the gap isn't as it seems.

i'd love to see a source for these statistics as well as the article.

--

Young women have started to outearn young men in some large urban centers with young women earning up to 20% more than their male counterparts

in New York, where 53% of young women were college-educated, compared to 38% of men.

The study shows that firms apparently make an effort to balance gender inequities during staff shakeups. Women entered management ranks at rates up to 25 percent higher than men in some grade levels after downsizing.

which would make perfect sense, if the men who get paid more were laid off first.

A study of the gender wage gap conducted by economist June O' Neill, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, found that women earn 98 percent of what men do when controlled for experience, education, and number of years on the job.

i'm interested in reading this study, but not enough to pay for it.

Feminists don't seem to get it.

every feminist i know does.

 

[teutonicman]

pfft! normal is highly overrated.