Are religions unfair to women?

Post Reply New Topic

Ok religious followers open your book of SNORT and turn to page 69 and read snort:16 And so she snorted for 40 days and 40 nights as the hunchback of Notre Dame amusith thine feminist with rediculous comments! Snort you maketh me and snortith i shall!

Aspie Otaku, your perseveration on the snort meme approaches trollishness.

Well..considering that perseverance on restrictive and repetitive interests is a characteristic of autism and this is a support site for Autism one could expect this from a few folks here..without considering nefarious intention..

That is..If.. considering nefarious intention when there is not nefarious intention.. was also not a characteristic of the Autism spectrum.. which it also is..according to clinical studies....

Catch 22..IT IS here..for folks on the spectrum attempting to express themselves freely in peace..without getting shot down for who they inherently are..as autistic folks.....


It seems like this would be obvious to me..but apparently it goes amiss often...but that takes cognitive empathy demonstrated to understand that..so as usual..simple human autistic reality is the problem here...with cognitive empathy demonstrated in deficit.. another characteristic of the autism spectrum...

Anyway just throwing that out here..as the guy's just expressing himself in his natural autistic way...

I for one do not want to tell him in metaphor...'quite hands' dude.....been on the receiving end of that quite a bit here..and expect it 2..for the logical inferences as claimed here NOW..in this very logical post per the science of what is known about the folks..in general who post here...autistic folks....

Autistic folks are natural trolls...it's just the way they are..but there is usually no nefarious intention..as part of their mission..just to express themselves..and be part of something..anything...in life..

So in other words..the guy ain't hurting no one here..for just expressing himself freely..since no one else will stand up for folks bullied for who they are..UNINTENTIONALLY SADLY ENOUGH..BY OTHERS..often.......on this site..but i WILL cause my hands or feet.. are no longer 'quieted' anywhere....by anyone..i am FREE! to be my own autistic self....

I was hoping to mak you laugh with that post.

I appreciate the thought.

It was funny at first, on the one thread, but having it follow me from thread to thread to thread starts to make it annoying. If you bring it up a few months from now, I'll probably laugh again, but right now I'm tired of it. It starts to feel like I can't say anything without the thread getting hijacked.

I do.



I see my mistake. I meant the tables of charges and convictions on pages 5 and 6. My PDF reader counted the cover and index pages. Sorry.



I'm cool with using that definition, but I'm not sure why we're on the topic of mercenaries. Did you read the job titles of the dead above? Also, I'll re-quote you:



If it isn't pejorative, then what point were you making? We'd already covered whether women were treated as well as male soldiers in similar jobs, and you didn't seem offended by the comparison. Why would comparing them to mercenaries - if I had done so - be any more offensive, unless it were pejorative?

In the list that I posted earlier, I specifically picked contractors whose jobs would be very similar to women in the Army, except for the fact that all of the men were unarmed civilians. Some of the jobs are almost drop-in replacements for military positions.



Which is moot because I didn't say that, nor did I say anything like it. I hadn't brought up mercenaries at all. You could have mistaken "civilian contractors" (my actual words) for military or security contractors. But why would you have leapt to that conclusion? News reports of contractor deaths were full of just the kind of unarmed civilians that I named earlier. And the list should have cleared that up.

None of the men that I named were mercenaries, private security contractors or PMCs. They were truck drivers, translators, engineers, construction foremen, mechanics, electricians and quality control technicians.



A little bit ago you rolled your eyes at the distinction between risk and fortune; now you're completely comfortable making a graveside argument that it's really the specific bureaucratic entity that a person could find a job with that determines whether their widow(er) and children deserve survivor benefits. Wow.



Yep, I saw that also when looking into XFilesGeek's response. Retracted.



I would support that.



I don't make everything that I need, so I have no problem saying that I need other people, and that's plural regardless of gender.



Look into it? I've participated in it. I used to work as a Democratic organizer. The Republicans couldn't win a Soil and Water Board seat in my district if they fielded a black, bisexual, woman with a doctorate from Yale, the personal blessing of the Dalai Lama, her own non-profit whale sanctuary, the endorsement off all of the world's puppies, and Ryan Gosling as her campaign spokesman. We're as blue as a Smurf on downers.



Indeed I have. I used to know most of the elected Democratic women in my state. They included the speaker of the state house, who is in some ways more powerful than the governor. I may have spent more talking about policy with her than some of her advisors.



What do you mean by "entirely unelectable"? Winning elections is hard. I've had my candidates win 60:40 and lose 60:40. In both of those cases I had the best candidate by a wide margin. I could excuse my failure to get the latter one elected by saying that voters were biased against a Jew, but that would be lame. He had fewer negatives by whatever standard you applied. The opponent had great name recognition, which we didn't, but we could still have won.

It's been done: My councilwoman for eight years is now the mayor of my city, which has a population of half-a-million. That's not a bad gig. Her council successor is also a woman. My US House rep. is a black Muslim. One of my state's two senate seats has been held by three consecutive Jews for a total of 36 years, starting in 1978. That's not a bad result in a German-Lutheran state with a tradition of grumbling anti-Semitism. My state senator for the last decade is gay. The chief of police is a lesbian, as was the fire chief until recently. Several of them have survived scandals that might have sunk "more electable" politicians.

If you're upset that not enough [insert your favorite flavor of candidate] get elected, then get your butt out there and bust it. That's so much better than making a statement.



The inverse of your statement is that if you do support equality, then you do have the right to complain about equality when the scales shift. I'm complaining.



I did say that they were succeeding in rolling back freedoms that I don't have by way of an opening, and that's true. What about the word "opening" implies love of something that isn't the object of the sentence, and isn't mentioned in said sentence? An example: The EU couldn't bring itself to offer Ukraine a path to membership, and their aid package was sparing. Putin took advantage of that opening to pitch his Eurasian Customs Union. That doesn't mean that he was infatuated with Ukrainians and planning to marry every single one of them, men and women alike. It means that he had an opening. And when the US saw the protests as convenient, that didn't mean that we were going to offer Ukraine a super-duper-extra-special aid package, or even export more gas so that Kiev doesn't freeze in the winter. (We very much haven't.) It means that we had an opening.

A political candidate has to give red meat to her base while looking like the lesser evil to everyone else. Whatever she manages beyond that is icing. You only need to neutralize an issue as long as you can win on other issues, and that applies to winning a demographic as well as an office. The polling on abortion has been 50:50 for decades, so they only need to swing a few seats. That's it.



Congress can't eliminate the draft in any meaningful way. The US didn't have a "peacetime" draft until the Selective Service Act of 1917, which was a preparation for entry into World War I (we hadn't declared war yet). Before that, Congress would pass a bill if they could claim a need to conscript soldiers. The only thing that you could "eliminate" would be the legislative authority of Congress. (Pause on that for a moment.) If it's true that we'll never need the draft, then it should be no problem to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting conscription.



I would be a bit surprised if you found a male soldier who'd been given the bronze star for cussing-out his commanding officer. I do see that the Air Force caused a stir by giving them out too easily, but this woman was an Army colonel.

Besides, how far will you go with this? What if it's an officer back-stabbing subordinates? (That was her other adorable quality.) What if the back-stabbing left subordinates unsure of what they could report up their chain of command without provoking her? What if some civilians really can't advance without robbing people?

Sorry my repetitionts get the best of me its an aspie trait of mine and I get hyper.After all repetition is the foundation of humor like death from soul eater says! These two are definately aspies annoying an NT[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqHQPUE42_w[/youtube]

Ok. That makes more sense
There was only one charge of labor trafficking. It looks like there was no conviction for that, but it's not a statistically significant sample to show that labor trafficking isn't taken seriously by the system. As for why there was only one charge, there are at least the following two possibilities: first, that there is virtually no labor trafficking in that state, or second, that there is labor trafficking but the front line of law enforcement is ignoring it. I still haven't seen any evidence for the latter.


A soldier and a mercenary, while doing the same job, are not in the same position. Female soldiers and male soldiers doing the same thing should receive the same pay and have the same benefits. Mercenaries get paid better and can quit any time; female soldiers, like male soldiers, get paid poorly and cannot quit. The only potential compensation for being a soldier is the potential for recognition and promotion gained, in part, but being in combat - something that the female soldiers weren't recognized as doing, even when they were. All of the costs, none of the benefits.


Yeah, you did. I said, 'female soldiers don't get promotions or recognition for their service the way male soldiers do,' and you said, 'Well, yeah, but neither do mercenaries {whoops: "civilian contractors."}.' That's a pretty direct comparison.


We were talking about women on the front lines, in combat, and whether or not they were recognized for being there.


That's the way the world works. My pay and benefits if I work at one hospital (or 'bureaucratic entity') will be different than if I work for another hospital, or for the VA, or for the department of public health, or for a pharmacy chain. If you want to compare pay and benefits between men and women, you have to compare within companies.

Sure. Would it make a difference to you, though, if all of the other people were men, or if all of them were women? Say they're all the same people with the same jobs and the same relationship to you, except that their gender had changed.

Personally, I kind of like having a mixture; I'd rather have some men and some women, rather than all of one or the other, even if all of my needs as a social human could be met by one or the other.

Ok, I admit: you got me to LOL with that.
If you're upset that not enough [insert your favorite flavor of candidate] get elected, then get your butt out there and bust it. That's so much better than making a statement.

How do you see the scales shifting against men? There *are* men's rights issues that I currently see as problems, some of them emergent, but so far you haven't listed anything modern besides the fact that women's reproductive rights have improved faster than mens.'



It's not the word, "opening," it's the phrase, "...it hands all control to women while leaving men with almost-equal consequences."


So you're saying that the swing voters against abortion are men who think, 'If I can't have it, neither can you'? I personally don't think that most men are that selfish.


It's far more likely that, should a draft actually be applied, public pressure will force an end to exceptions for wealth, education, gender, etc. Congress might not be able to end the draft, but it can control how it's applied.
Tbh, I'm not so sure that a completely random draft is a bad idea, even in peacetime. It would mix up the types of people and the skills of people who got drafted, and put more 'skin in the game' for legislators and the wealthy.


How about officers raping subordinates and then refusing to allow them to report up the chain? You're taking one very bad example and extrapolating out to all female soldiers.
http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2013 ... yKgq9zH38s
https://xkcd.com/385/

Yes we have, and no, they can't. The Reaper isn't a fighter, and isn't meant to be. It's slower than a WWII Wildcat. It has no gun, so unless it's carrying Sidewinders, a 70-year-old old prop-driven fighter would be a serious threat to it. At the moment, it's not even a complete replacement for a Vietnam-era bomber.

Comparing an old A-6 Intruder to a new Reaper drone:

Speed: 648 mph vs. 300 mph (respectively)
Rage: 3,245 mi. vs. 1,151 mi.
Payload: 18,000 lbs. vs. 3,800 lbs.

Predators and Reapers flying near Iran have to be escorted by fighters because Iranian pilots (in Vietnam-era fighters) have lots of fun shooting them down.

The Global Hawk is claimed to be trivially cheaper to fly than the venerable U-2, but it was the other way around until pretty recently.

There's been quite a bit of debate in the DoD and the Obama administration about which programs to kill. I was clued into the above issue by one of Chuck Hagel's statements, and while trying to look it up again I came across this:

http://www.aviationweek.com/Article.asp ... 669902.xml

I support simpler systems. You can make the same less-is-more argument about about bloated consumer products, and simplifying them would take a big bite out of CO2 emissions. British Colombia has a home insulation program that cuts more CO2 than giving all of those people a Prius would, is dirt-cheap in terms of direct costs, and also requires no research grants because it doesn't rely on miracle technologies.

Strategic Neurological Oppressive Religious Testimonies!

That would apply only to the conviction rate for labor-trafficking prosecutions, where the sample size is one. The sample size for prosecutions is 990 in 2006 (the year that I cited), and the lowest was 678 (2009). I've seen two-way state elections called to (a claimed) +/-4% on a sample of no more than 800. Even an uncertainty of +/-20% would be good enough when the ratio is 989:1.



That principle applies to a lot of things (see comments on vehicle insurance below).



Apply that to your previous point, then: (a) The risk of a draft is non-zero. (b) I'm paid nothing in return. If (a) is false, then a constitutional ban on conscription should be better than the alternative that you suggested. If (a) is true, then the the correct comparison is pay-for-risk. (b) is not false.

I have not looked at pay for submarine crews. As recently as 5 years ago, pay for Coast Guard was decent, especially considering that the benefits included dental care and housing as well as health coverage, and that college experience was only required for some positions (like helicopter pilots). I was compensated less-well overall while working as a volunteer coordinator at a non-profit when I was younger. It's not that I don't respect national or public service, but that I've done it. The Coast Guard pay scale looked better.



In that case, you said that we were 'officially recognizing the work that women already do in the same dangerous roles as men.' Which you know is wrong, by ten-fold.

After which you said: "I was pointing out that women are doing the front-line work that they are considered physically qualified for by the armed services. If you, or the army, wants them to do more, they're going to have to change some of the physical requirements."

Which brings us to the doozy: You know that further gender integration will be by executive order, just as racial integration of the military was (President Truman's Executive Order 9981 (1948)). The president has already promised to do this for the submarine service. He's very friendly to your position; so friendly that he's willing to fudge facts to give WRAs red meat (see below). He's not running again, so he has nothing to lose. Furthermore, he has more support among women than men, so why not reward his base on the way out?

Therefore this thread of our debate is moot:



Even if you extend it to "MRAs and patriarchs," you're still hiding behind them. As noted earlier, the president can easily make the change without Congress, and without my vote. He probably will, after he's milked some more mid-term votes out of it. Right now that's the only thing holding up promotions and pay for female soldiers.

You also tried to inch back to your original position by bringing up a Panetta quote that sounded like the same thing:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sophism

Perhaps that was deliberate. You've said that you work in medicine, so you would know the difference between a risk and an outcome. At least I hope you would. A patient with a risk-factor (like smoking) is a lot different from a dead patient. If you roll your eyes at that difference on the job, too, I would definitely not want you as my clinician.



Sure, and you defined the front line as any road in Iraq, and combat as driving convoy trucks.



Probably not, and I would have a good idea given that my family was gender integrated. Right now not many women work in the nastier jobs. (The ones who do are really cool.) Most of those jobs have even less glamor than infantry work, hence my nausea over making a press-op of putting women in special forces before the really hard, unloved stuff. And saying that they may fight in infantry doesn't mean that they will. If they're just doing the cool stuff like flying planes, that won't be equal at all.



1: The marital estate is split 50:50 on the assumption that a domestic spouse contributed as much to the household wellbeing, whether that's true or not. You could say that it's too hard to measure, but the value of traditionally male work isn't easy to measure either. We don't even try. We just leave it to the tender mercies of the market. That could work for both roles.

2: I would have paid a higher rate for auto insurance than a girl of the same age until I was 24, purely because of my gender. That was justified with raw statistics from the time. A lot of landmark women's rights measures (like Title IX) wouldn't have passed if the decision had been made by those statistics. Ditto for current efforts to get girls into STEM programs. How do you know that men wouldn't drive at least as safely as women if we were encouraged to take better care of ourselves? When my mom asked me to open jars, it wasn't because I had a higher grip-strength (I was a kid, so I didn't), it was because it hurt. When I'm gentler with my body, I drive more gently. That's not because of some wisdom about the risk of accidents, but because driving hard jerks you around. Further, how do you know that we don't drive as safely already? The data come from insurance claims and police reports. Insurance companies don't directly care if I get in wrecks; they care if they get billed. The same argument that you made above about enforcement-rate and prevalence being separate applies here, too.

3: In my state, the mother is given 100% custody by default. She can raise the kid to hate me, while billing me for it. I can be thrown in prison if a judge thinks that I should make more money. Even a deadbeat mother who fails to take care of her kid is unlikely to go to jail. The kid might be taken away, but the state picks up the tab.

4: Free trade has hit male-dominated industries hardest. Quite a few others are protected by certification requirements: Medicine, dentistry, accounting, teaching, law, etc. Those certifications often fail to protect consumers. Consumer Reports demonstrated that with the ADA. I hear often that old-school industry can't compete, when it's actually one of the few sectors that has to. The consumer-protection arguments for certification by the ADA, AMA and ABA apply just as well to the design and manufacture of a toaster: anything that plugs into wall current has enough voltage and amperage to electrocute people or start fires. They're one of the most frequent causes; in fact five children were just killed in my city in a house fire that was started by a space heater. It would be just as reasonable to require that home appliances be designed and manufactured in a US jurisdiction and under US law and regulatory scrutiny. Ditto for drugs.

5: Education is slanted away from boys' strengths. Good students usually have tunnel-awareness and a knack for solving problems with deductive logic over many steps. There are boys who have high proximal awareness and a gift for solving problems with inductive logic drawn from lots of data. Maybe as we do more with GPU clusters and sensor networks, we'll realize that we've been flunking kids who kick-butt at some of the toughest problems.

Given your earlier question:



...it's fair to bring up shaming:

1: "Women make 77 cents for every dollar a man makes." Both you and the president know that this is wrong. If you correct for the degrees that people pursue, it's just a few cents. Even that doesn't capture it: both of my parents have the same degree, but my dad works in a much tougher specialty. He's an attending physician on an inpatient cancer ward; she's a internist who worked part-time. Yes, he made more. No, that's not unfair.

1: The "glass ceiling/good old boys" argument - Sure. My grandfather was a successful industrialist. As far as I'm aware, he never got a promotion. When he wanted to move up from a factory job, he had to quit and found his own company. It took 40 years to build it into something worthwhile. That was common.

3: "Women who flew target-tugs (WASPS) were unfairly denied jobs as airline pilots after the war." Being an airline pilot was a prestigious job, and lots of fliers came back from the war with much more experience (like flying the hump). Air travel wasn't as safe. Planes didn't have the service ceiling to fly above storms, so forced landings were more common. A military transport pilot would have landed on dirt runways and in fields. He would have flown more at night and in bad weather. Picking a proven pilot is no more unfair than colleges accepting only the applicants with the best scores, even though that doesn't always translate into top performance at a higher level or in real life.

4: "College girls are frequently raped." I roomed with a bunch of freshman girls when I was in my mid-20s. They giggled about tricking a male student into undressing by making a fake sexual offer. Those aren't girls who are afraid of being raped; those are girls who know damn' well that they almost certainly won't be, because the guys are effectively deterred by draconian laws. These girls had older friends. If the "one in three" accusation were even close, they would have had enough forewarning to be unlikely to do what they did. They were constantly drrinking. It wasn't the bogus stereotype of sober guys "getting them drunk" and f*****g them. Not even close. They put on the parties and procured the booze. (I would know: They tried to get me to buy the keg for them.) They encouraged the guys to drink.

5: "Men have always been in charge." Bull. I was raised by a Catholic dad and a feminist mother. I'm still de-programming from Catholicism, but the maternalistic brainwashing was worse, hands down. Even if feminists "came out" in the 70s, it's not that new. My grandfather did lots of things that made no sense if you knew his emotions, and most of them fit his mother's morals much better. She was exercising proxy-power over an influential member of a supposedly male dominated generation, all from her grave. Not bad. I recommend H.L. Mencken's "Damn!" as a beginner's guide to de-programming.



Opening: that which can be passed through

Hapless Dumbocrats: those who left it open

You've confused the doorway with the doorman, the tunnel with the dynamite.



The Purple Heart isn't quite the same. British generals in WWII made fun of Americans for giving them out at all (prior medals having been mostly for valor). Getting a sacrifice-medal for a mild injury is inflation. What she did isn't even related to what the medal was meant for, and isn't admirable.



And the men in my family are innocent of most feminist accusations: my great-grandfather (you know, back when evil men with horns and hooves ran the world) was willing to hire women into professional positions before 1920, before women in most states could vote, when most women didn't have jobs in the market. My grandfather continued that tradition. He arranged for my mother to be born at a hospital run by women, in the early 1950s. Before that, they lived on frontiers where you couldn't have kept prisoners or controlled people of either gender if you had wanted to. Just keeping your own hide intact was hard enough.

Last edited by NobodyKnows on 16 Mar 2014, 10:43 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Touche.



I agree completely.

Good luck to you, sir.

Just to be clear, I don't think men really ever had it "easier" than women, at least not lower and middle-class men.

reposting your link for easier access:
https://dps.mn.gov/divisions/ojp/forms- ... 0final.pdf

Those numbers don't appear on the charts on pages 5-6 of the source you cited.
There is one *charge* of labor trafficking, and no convictions, for a conviction rate of zero and an n of 1.


the risk of draft is non-zero in the same way that lim-> 0 is non-zero.


If you got paid for the time it took you to fill out a card and mail it, at, say, $20/hour, how much do you think that you'd make? $5 maybe, if you did it really, really slowly.

What I said was that the Army "allowing" women to serve on the front lines is simply acknowledging that women are already on the front lines.


What?
You think that the Pres. is going to open up all military occupations to all people, regardless of fitness? One thing he is, is pragmatic; that's not going to happen. Hell, even most feminists don't want physical limitations changed; as much as we love, for example, the ADA, we're not advocating that corporations should be forced to hire people with Aspergers for PR positions.


Uh, no. The Panetta quote was 1)part of a larger article that supported my position better than the quote itself, and 2)tangential, rather than direct support for my position. I don't have to find someone parroting my exact words for them to still be in basic agreement with what I'm arguing.


I'm well aware of the difference between a risk and an outcome, but what you don't seem to get is that the difference is irrelevant to this argument. You not only have risk -> zero of being drafted, you have risk -> zero of actually dying in combat afterward; women on submarines, or on the front lines (even as medics) in Afghanistan, have both higher risk than you and higher death outcomes than the average, undrafted, unenlisted US male.


Oh? Where did I do that? I certainly didn't *think* it, so it's hard for me to see where I *defined* it as such.


Agreed... but I think that you don't know much about women in the military if you think that they're 'just doing the cool stuff' right now.


Uh... what? You think that the default assumption should be other than 50:50?

2: I would have paid a higher rate for auto insurance than a girl of the same age until I was 24, purely because of my gender. That was justified with raw statistics from the time.
A lot of landmark women's rights measures (like Title IX) wouldn't have passed if the decision had been made by those statistics...
What? Title IX was largely about women's opportunity in sports and education What does that have to do with an actual differential in lethal car crashes between young men and young women?


That sounds like a feminist talking point
We want young men better socialized to recognize their own needs, as well as those of others, rather than dismissing reckless and insensitive behavior as 'boys will be boys.'


That's kind of a bitchy thing for a mom to do.

The same way that medical insurance people 'know' that I'll cost more because I've been diagnosed with asthma. Not that I've ever had an asthma attack that has landed me in the ER, or even urgent care, in the 25 years since I was dx'd, but they still treat me as 'uninsurable' (or 'insure only with lots of hoops' since the ACA). They don't care about you; they care about some non-existent generalized person who looks a little bit like you.
Really? What state is that? I'm surprised; I thought that the default these days was joint custody.
You're right that this should be changed; joint custody is better for the kid, assuming that both parents are competent. I've only ever lived where joint custody was the default, or joint custody with *primary* custody given to the 'primary care giver,' regardless of the primary care giver's gender.

Yeah, being paid more for the same-level of job sucks when the cuts come down, eh?


How does any of that relate to men supposedly being disadvantaged vs. women (and do you know for certain that said space heater was manufactured outside the US)?

Personally I think that the medicalization of normal kid behavior is a greater threat to boys, and to kids in general, than any change in teaching plan. Some schools have taken out recess, and then tell the parents to dope their kids up with Adderall when he or she can't sit still in class.
Wrt. test scores, afaIk boys' scores haven't gone down, but girls' scores have increased to the point that they have surpassed boys; it's not that boys are doing worse, but that girls are doing better.
I, as a guy, should do about past hardships borne by women. It's your call.

First off, that's not "shaming." Your shame and embarrassment does nothing for me or anyone else. When I say that 'white people benefit from white privilege,' I'm not feeling ashamed of my whiteness or trying to shame other people; I'm admitting that, if I were exactly the same person that I am now, except for having black skin and black features, my life would have been a hell of a lot harder.

Not exactly. It's not the whole story, but it's not incorrect either.
This is not correct. It's fewer percentage points, but it's still a hell of a lot more than 'a few cents.'
[img][800:720]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/US_Gender_Pay_Gap_by_industry_.001.png[/img]
see also:
http://www.catalyst.org/knowledge/women ... and-income
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/ ... -wage-gap/
http://content.time.com/time/nation/art ... 85,00.html

A couple of questions: one, does she make a similar amount per hour? Is her actual skill level similar to his? And did he receive encouragement that she didn't get, or was she actively discouraged, for going into a more difficult specialty?


It's also common for men to get promoted over similarly- or better-qualified women. The stereotypical story is the woman who trains her own replacement, who will be paid twice as much as her to do the same job.


Ok, so no affirmative action for boys in college admissions, because that would be unfair. Got it.
http://articles.latimes.com/2013/feb/20 ... s-20130221
http://goodmenproject.com/good-feed-blo ... ve-action/

And never mind that a lot of women were fired from jobs that they already had, and were skilled at, after the war, to make room for GIs coming home who had never done what they did.
http://kcts9.org/sites/default/files/un ... erwwii.pdf
(totally, completely OT but very cool: http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2011 ... ar/100180/ )


Couple of points.
First, it doesn't matter why or how they got drunk; if you have sex with a person who is too drunk to say no, then you have raped them. That applies to me turning down an attractive guy from my dojo who propositioned me at his birthday party, after drinking himself into the inability to walk straight, as much as if it had gone the other way; I had no idea if he was actually interested, or if he was just too drunk to think straight (incidentally, the answer to both was yes; we got in contact the next day, after he had slept it off).
Second, and I don't know if this is the point that you are making or not, the rate of 'false rape accusations' is pretty much exactly in line with the rate of false accusations of other crimes, ~ 5%, give or take 5% depending on your source (ie, 0-10%). Third, the numbers (what I have heard are 1 in 4 or 1 in 5, not 1 in 3 are based on questionnaires given to college students that did not use the word 'rape.' They asked questions like, 'has a man ever used physical force to intimidate you into having sex when you didn't want to,' or 'has a man ever had sex with you when you were unconscious.' Using that kind of question (both of which fit the legal definition of rape), you get a lot more 'yes' answers than if you use the actual word, 'rape.' So a lot of those women don't think of themselves as having been raped, even though what happened to them fits the legal definition. Fourth, the fact that young women don't think that they personally are in danger when they engage in potentially risky behavior with young men means about as much as the fact that young men driving down the freeway at 100mph don't think that they, personally, are in danger.



Seriously? Your personal family experiences challenge the statistics of the last several thousand years?
Let's look at typical measures of who is "in charge."
Who controls the money flow, on average (see earnings, above)?
Who controls the government, on average?
Who controls industry, on average?
Who controls religion, on average?

Not to say that women don't have their own, lesser, sources of power within a patriarchal system, but on average the true power has been held by men for a very long time.


Uh, no. You haven't made your case.


That was very advanced of him. Did he pay them as much as he paid the men in the same jobs? If so, kudos to him for being a statistical outlier.

Whew LKL didnt catch my acronym! I am safe for now teehee!...Weeeeee!!

It is not about going head to head anymore. A series of drone attacks can wipe out an airfield and every plane there before they can even get a pilot in the cockpit. Why wait until the jets scramble before engaging them. The capability is in the elimination of enemy threats, not in head to head aerial combat.



^I am in total agreement with this.