So a female posted this on Facebook

[fearom]

I heard no excuse from you.

Spending more money, having better health,better education, longer lifes, less likely to kill themself and less likely to be the victim of homicide

All institutionalized bias is gone the above stands what should we fight for?

How do these things point at women getting a better cut of the cake?

Spend more money (?)
Better health: women tend to give more of a shit
Better education: men tend to like cars more and drop out to become mechanics by their own choice than women do
Longer lives: I don't think this is entirely true, I believe this statistic is like "single men have shorter lives" the statistic (from memory) actually reverses in a relationship, probably due to the stress females deal with in our current overtly misogynistic world
Less likely to kill themselves: this is true from that statistic but it also states females 'TRY' to kill themselves twice as much as men due to the increase in depression in comparison to men.
Less likely to be the victim of homicide: perhaps this figure comes because men are idiots and decide to get involved in gangs more often (seems plausible)

Please understand the following however: whilst some statements I have made above may be incomplete or not 100% true I am pointing out the fact that a direct statistic does not provide you with a causation of the statistic. It is simply data. It needs to be interrupted correctly (and without bias) for the data to have any value at all.

[Budong]

Who's the chick?? Damn she's bangin HOT!!!

[Deleted]

You're joking, right? Politics and business are still boys' clubs. Even in female-dominated professions, males still make more in comparison to women, and are more likely to be promoted. Feel free to look it up.

So much ignorance in this thread.

Why though?

Are men more likely to ask for raises, even in female dominated professions? Or are you suggesting discrimination comes into play, even in traditionally female dominated areas.

If it's the former, why not ask for more?

[Windfury]

Care to point out where either of those BJS says 97% of rapists aren't convicted? According to what I was able to find in the first BJS study, over half were convicted. Table 23, conviction rates. A total of 67% of rape defendants were convicted. Which is, according to that table from your own source, higher than the conviction rates for robbery, assault, and other violent crimes.

To my knowledge, the 97% figure comes not from a study, but from the logic of a feminist organization. A figure that doesn't actually discuss any of the dynamics that lead to the numbers, and only sometimes cites their sources. They sure as hell don't actually explain the logic they use to arrive at 97%, and you're even misquoting it as it doesn't claim that 97% aren't convicted, just that 97% never spend a day in jail. It's also from a source that believes 100% of rape accusations are absolutely true, and anyone accused of rape is a rapist. It also doesn't even bother accounting for the fact that a rapist can have more than one victim. It assumes each case of rape has it's own unique perpetrator.

I'm not going to try to espouse the idea that feminism is bad, or that we don't have issues in dealing with rape properly, but using fallacious sources doesn't help your cause.

If you'd read further you'd see that this is due to the extremely low numbers of rape cases that ever proceed to trial (source http://www.alrc.gov.au/publications/...-assault-cases). So while 64% of trials may end in convictions (actually that was higher than I thought it was, certainly higher than it is here) there's still a whole bunch of rapes that never even make it to the courtroom and thus never result in convictions.

[Noomz]

While I partially agree with Josh, I also partially disagree with him. He's simplifying it to the exterme and doing very broad generalizations.
This Carson person is doing the same thing, just to the other side of the spectrum. Neither of them is correct nor entirely incorrect.

- - - Updated - - -

I heard no excuse from you.

Spending more money, having better health,better education, longer lifes, less likely to kill themself and less likely to be the victim of homicide

Almost all institutionalized bias is gone the above stands what should we fight for?

While you are correct, I'm sure women have things that work against them too.

[Deleted]

How do these things point at women getting a better cut of the cake?

Spend more money (?)

Yep woman decide how money gets spend. Thats why you have a male Ghetto in the hintermost corner of clothing stores.

Better health: women tend to give more of a shit

More of the cake. An ill man ? Pathetic.

Better education: men tend to like cars more and drop out to become mechanics by their own choice than women do

Pure sexists babbling of you

Longer lives: I don't think this is entirely true

Yes it is.

Less likely to kill themselves: this is true from that statistic but it also states females 'TRY' to kill themselves twice as much as men due to the increase in depression in comparison to men.

Even with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasuicide 2:1
Male just selfmedicate depression just include alcoholics and you break even or something like that.

Less likely to be the victim of homicide: perhaps this figure comes because men are idiots and decide to get involved in gangs more often (seems plausible)

For every gangster there is likely a woman who profits from the illegal money of said gangster.

While you are correct, I'm sure women have things that work against them too.

Sure on an personal scale and emotional.
On the level of our whole society not so much.

[Windfury]

Why though?

Are men more likely to ask for raises, even in female dominated professions? Or are you suggesting discrimination comes into play, even in traditionally female dominated areas.

If it's the former, why not ask for more?

Women asking isn't viewed positively in the way men ask though (it's considered pushy and negative by many people), so while you can say 'women don't ask' it's more relevant to look at the underlying reasons for that.

Fairly relevant is a recent study here of male business leaders attitudes to women in the workplace (http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Women_in_leadership_-_In_his_own_words/$FILE/EY-in-his-own-words-the-male-perspective-on-gender-diversity.pdf), which among other things notes some other problems:

“Firstly, I think there are some men who fear having to compete with women. I think these men are in the minority, but they do exist.

"Secondly, I think it is easier for everyone to go along with the norms of today than it is to challenge them."

Others said ignorance and a sense of entitlement also played a part.

Treasury Secretary Martin Parkinson said he remembered instances of unconscious bias at work, where "we had been picking people for positions who were like the people that were already in those positions".

"We were making assumptions about what people were able and willing to do, without speaking with them. This meant that, unintentionally, women were sometimes getting work that was perceived as being of lesser value, or being excluded from experiences that would enhance their development."

(Source: http://www.smh.com.au/business/some-...025-2w5i8.html)

It's pretty ridiculous to simplify it down to 'whelp women just don't ask' which is the current big excuse without also examining why they don't ask, and also looking at the structural/systemic/unconscious reasons that underlie choices.

[Aqua]

You're joking, right? Politics and business are still boys' clubs. Even in female-dominated professions, males still make more in comparison to women, and are more likely to be promoted. Feel free to look it up.

So much ignorance in this thread.

They don't listen to that kind of talk round here love. I applaud the effort but, it aint happening...and here I am going to try to connect some shred of empathy in them futility anyway. Urgh.


Yes we all go have babies(woops, disease, guess I'm out on that one), don't go to war (have you met my aunt?) smell funny, make your pee pee tingle because boobs.
Justifications as weak as the tissue paper it was crafted from.

Also irrelevant arguments. You are not women. You have not been subject to this kind of talk that even our own MOTHERS perpetuate as fact because it has been fed to them most of their lives. And they have been so scared of being different (a human weakness carried by both genders), not only in their own demographic, but to male expectations (whom we still love dearly) that they continue to believe it. Women are even scared and confused by their own emotions and chemistry because so many of us imply that it is a weakness...

The only point of these things is to make these falsehoods clear. To all. No one is attacking a gender here. BOTH are to blame. But women need to be the ones to break the chain if thought. And they are, slowly. Why do you feel the need to claim it's bullshit when you're not even in a position to MAKE such a claim? To...prove that a singular case proves all? What?
Why all this anger over a situation that you've never dealt with? "I have never noticed/seen/touched it, therefore it does not exist? And must all be some giant conspiracy or evil plot to take away my rights and self importance." Is that really what this boils down to?

[endgame619]

The ultimate song on sexism and equality

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axLLRSKOW8E


Also illustrates how stupid the arguments are about it.

[AeneasBK]

I'm so glad this thread delivered.

My reaction to something in my timeline that bothers me: I post "God sometimes people you know can be such fucking morons" and move on with my day.

What really bothers me about this "Timeline" thingie, is that it shows me things I'm NOT allowed to comment on. If I can't tell the people in a post they're all fucking idiots I don't want to read it.

[Velaniz]

You're joking, right? Politics and business are still boys' clubs. Even in female-dominated professions, males still make more in comparison to women, and are more likely to be promoted. Feel free to look it up.

Which is not necessarily a result of sexism, despite it being often furiously painted that way. Males gravitate toward an upward trajectory along the corporate ladder with a lot less apprehension than females. They're more forthcoming about pay-raises and promotions. Depending on the culture, there might even be gender-specific roles that might have to be looked after, something which often further fuels the impetus males have to succeed, being the quintessential 'breadwinner', and douses that of the female, because she knows she'll be relegated to a housewife at some point anyway.

Differences in a person's character, and the kind of inculcated gender-roles they subscribe to is entirely their choice, and while they might skew average figures significantly, one mustn't lose sight of the fact that if a woman so willed, most of the time she's every bit as free to shoot for the stars.

[MonsieuRoberts]

I pay no mind to feminists or anti-feminists. If you really care about equality and equal treatment, which is the right way to do things, you'd be an equalist.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

You're joking, right? Politics and business are still boys' clubs. Even in female-dominated professions, males still make more in comparison to women, and are more likely to be promoted. Feel free to look it up.

So much ignorance in this thread.

Teaching seems to be full of women(Or so I've seen >_>)

[Velaniz]

How do these things point at women getting a better cut of the cake?

Spend more money (?)
Better health: women tend to give more of a shit
Better education: men tend to like cars more and drop out to become mechanics by their own choice than women do
Longer lives: I don't think this is entirely true, I believe this statistic is like "single men have shorter lives" the statistic (from memory) actually reverses in a relationship, probably due to the stress females deal with in our current overtly misogynistic world
Less likely to kill themselves: this is true from that statistic but it also states females 'TRY' to kill themselves twice as much as men due to the increase in depression in comparison to men.
Less likely to be the victim of homicide: perhaps this figure comes because men are idiots and decide to get involved in gangs more often (seems plausible)

Please understand the following however: whilst some statements I have made above may be incomplete or not 100% true I am pointing out the fact that a direct statistic does not provide you with a causation of the statistic. It is simply data. It needs to be interrupted correctly (and without bias) for the data to have any value at all.

I enjoy how the reason for virtually every instance of a man being disadvantaged here boils down to basically "those men were idiots", yet the outrage if you reversed things would be phenomenal.

[Windfury]

Which is not necessarily a result of sexism, despite it being often furiously painted that way. Males gravitate toward an upward trajectory along the corporate ladder with a lot less apprehension than females. They're more forthcoming about pay-raises and promotions. Depending on the culture, there might even be gender-specific roles that might have to be handled, something which often further fuels the impetus males have to succeed, being the quintessential 'breadwinner', and douses that of the female, because she knows she'll be relegated to a housewife at some point anyway.

Differences in a person's character, and the kind of inculcated gender-roles they subscribe to is entirely their choice, and while they might skew average figures significantly, one mustn't lose sight of the fact that if a woman so willed, most of the time she's every bit as free to shoot for the stars.

This in itself is a pretty huge gender stereotype, and meaningless without examining *why* women are less likely to ask, or placing it in the context of structural and institutional issues.

[Deleted]

This in itself is a pretty huge gender stereotype, and meaningless without examining *why* women are less likely to ask, or placing it in the context of structural and institutional issues.

Because they don't need to biological perk of women is having a Plan B.
Just my pet theory. Woman wont get any personal happyness benefit after a certain point according to some studys

It changes the whole motivation dynamic what accounts for most gender differences.

[Windfury]

Teaching seems to be full of women(Or so I've seen >_>)

Interestingly enough while teaching is dominated by females, teaching management roles such as HOD/Deputy/school leaderships positions are dominated by males in almost the reverse ratio. It's something like 80% of teachers are women but 80% of school principals are men.

- - - Updated - - -

Because they don't need to biological perk of women is having a Plan B.
Just my pet theory.

It changes the whole motivation dynamic what accounts for most gender differences.

I'm honestly not sure what you mean by that. Language differences? Could you clarify?

[Lolretadin]

Agreed.

Here is a more complete survey:

http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/08...-support-data/

If I may ask, why are all of your sources from Blogs, which can be discarded almost immediately from evidence?

[Celista]

Why though?

Are men more likely to ask for raises, even in female dominated professions? Or are you suggesting discrimination comes into play, even in traditionally female dominated areas.

If it's the former, why not ask for more?

On a level, there's some evidence that there is in fact a bias. In one of my graduate courses, we read a paper written by a business school professor who had presented a case study for class discussion for a few sections of a management course. The case study involved a female manager who was asking for a promotion. When the classes broke out into groups for discussion, the manager was described very negatively by most of the class, with adjectives such as "pushy" and "aggressive" being used. The professor found this curious, and so the following year decided to change the gender (and nothing else) of the manager in the case study for his management courses. The professor was surprised to find that the male manager's behavior as described in the case study was overall described as "confident" and "assertive", with much more positive adjectives being attributed to the manager when presented as a male rather than female. The article was written by a male professor.

There were some other articles we had to read on the subject, essentially similar results. I'd look this stuff up now but I'm following this thread during a raid break LOL, I'll see if I can find the source(s) after this if anyone wants.

[Windfury]

On a level, there's some evidence that there is in fact a bias. In one of my graduate courses, we read a paper written by a business school professor who had presented a case study for class discussion for a few sections of a management course. The case study involved a female manager who was asking for a promotion. When the classes broke out into groups for discussion, the manager was described very negatively by most of the class, with adjectives such as "pushy" and "aggressive" being used. The professor found this curious, and so the following year decided to change the gender (and nothing else) of the manager in the case study for his management courses. The professor was surprised to find that the male manager's behavior as described in the case study was overall described as "confident" and "assertive", with much more positive adjectives being attributed to the manager when presented as a male rather than female. The article was written by a male professor.

There were some other articles we had to read on the subject, essentially similar results. I'd look this stuff up now but I'm following this thread during a raid break LOL, I'll see if I can find the source(s) after this if anyone wants.

It's safe to say I'd like to see it :P

I add stuff like that to my bookmarks.