females, feminists and femininity.

Gender quotas really hurt my wife.

My wife is very good at math, and after being accepted into a difficult to get into finance school, the university decided they wanted her to go into engineering instead. At the time it was 7-1 males to female as freshman and 11-1 at graduation.

So they courted her, convinced the 17 year old girl this was the field for her, and she flunked out being that being good at math doesn't mean you are going to be a good engineer. Then she couldn't get into the business finance school because her grades were too low from the engineering college.

(she later took classes in it after she graduated with a useless BS and set the curves)

Now some would argue that the "male" oriented field of engineering was just a bias thing but university bent over backwards trying to get females to enter the program, including extra tutoring.

Now I want you to think outside the box here. Engineers have a greater chance of having a children with autism. If both parents are engineers the number is even higher. Autism tends to effect males more often than females. The theory currently is that somehow what makes someone a good engineer can, in "high doses" for lack of a better understanding lead to autism.

Would it be shocking to think that more engineers are male because more males are going to be good at engineering?

 

How do you think men become better engineers in the first place?
--- merged: Dec 3, 2013 at 3:59 PM ---


That's it for today I promise.

 

Great attitude.

Cheers.

 

It's not so bad, so women should shut the fuck up? Like racial discrimination is not so bad either because it occurs a lot less than in the past? Is the standard "a little discrimination" is not so bad?

As a result of the laws that have corrected these discriminatory practices - the '64Civil Rights Act and the Equal Pay Act - women and minorities have made a significant progress BUT employment discrimination based on gender still exists. And no one is talking "quotas" but simply ending discriminatory practices.

The Small Business Administration has numerous (non-grant) programs to support women owned small businesses and there are numerous non-governmental organizations that do provide grants but neither will remove the glass ceiling in the larger corporate world.

I recall the story from the '12 London Olympics that, for the first time, the US team had more women than men. This was due large part to the Title IX of the Civil Rights Act that required public universities to end discrimination in funding athletic scholarships where 9 out of 10 scholarships went to high school boys. Why was a high school girl basketball, softball or lacrosse athlete less qualified for a scholarship than a high school boy?

BTW, Title IX also covers gender discrimination in the areas of science and math higher education.

Your response is simply the same old argument that affirmative action (not quotas) is no longer needed because the country has come so far as to almost eliminate gender discrimination.

 

@redux

1. Calm down and don't insinuate things I never said.

2. I didn't say at all that women need to shut the fuck up about gender wage gap. I don't know why it seems to rub you guys in such a wrong way to call out bullshit statistics and keep discourse factual. I always thought you a proponent of fact-based discussion.

3. I am discussing the present state of economic and social equality in the West. Past policies and the progress they caused are great, but it doesn't make sense to not question and discuss whether they are still necessary.

4. I have made no statement that affirmative action is no longer needed. The onus is on the proponents of affirmative action to show that specific policies are still necessary. Not the other way around.

5. Personally, I fully agree that there is a need for affirmative action. However, it should be proportionate to the current need for the same. How that is assessed with the convoluted scene that the plethora of political groups and their agendas produce, I have no idea. The current state of misinformation (on both sides) in North America is an unacceptable state of affairs, though.

 

1. I am calm but as a guy, I still smile when I hear "I am woman, hear me roar"

2. What dont you find factual about the DOL/BLS data?

3. IMO, those making the case against pay equity are more strident and less fact based (not directed specifically at you), suggesting that issues of pay equity are a result of "women's choices" and/or the "males are more experienced and more suited" argument.

4. The above data is pretty compelling as are the numerous cases that come before the EEOC every year.

5. See all of the above.

 

My attitude is perfect.

 

@redux

No worries. Lately I really have been preferring to keep emotions outside of discussions.

1. Regarding point 2: I have no qualms with the DOL/BLS data itself. I take issue with data being misrepresented for political campaigns and slogans (i.e. the 77% figure).

I've looked at the DOL/BLS data and the arguments you presented with it, and saw the glaring issue that the document does not specify any qualifier for the average weekly earnings. Are they average weekly earnings of all women/men, or have the numbers been adjusted to average earnings for a -say- 40-hour work week?

It also appears that the DOL and BLS lump all full-time employees into the 35 hours/week category and are not taking into account real hours worked, which has me concerned. Especially when BLS data shows that in full-time positions men work, on average, 3 hours (or 8%) longer per week than women.

Lastly, it has also been asserted that in part-time jobs women earn more than men. What do you say about this?


2. Regarding point 3: I have seen it happen multiple times, and I agree with you. There are very few professional roles where men are genetically better suited than women. One of the topics in this respect are military offense-based roles, and gender-based physical fitness requirements. This is something that has enough material to warrant its own dedicated thread, though.

Sure thing. Incorrigibility is a common Western show of arrogance.

Wear your pride to the fullest!

 

It is true ever in some other countries. Which is very bad. Teachers should be paid much better so that talents are sustained. Otherwise talent will eitger migrate to other jobs or live low standards of life than they deserve.

Rat hole: I got offer to teach in the University where I graduated but my mentors in the University advised not to take it but go places earn get rich both in money and experience and then return to teaching.

 

lol, I'm not going to play mental rock em sock em robots with you on a subject that we will never agree on and for that you have the balls to call me incorrigible and arrogant? I don't think so.

You've got, what, three or four convos going on right now on just this one thread. I think your dance card is full already.

 

Data alone is never enough which is why I also mentioned the EEOC wage discrimination cases.

Here a a few of the more recent cases:
EEOC  Sues Checkers for Pay Discrimination (see additional cases in the sidebar).

And the Walmart case (from2010) I posted in another thread:
Walmart To Pay More Than $11.7 Million To Settle EEOC Sex Discrimination Suit

Do we still need an EEOC? Absolutely! It is the only remedy that many women have to fight pay discrimination unless you expect a female worker with few personal resources or experience in dealing with wage discrimination (and facing likely intimidation in the workplace) to take on the Walmart and Checkers abuses alone.

I suspect the hire pay for women in part-time work is that many of these jobs were full-time reclassified as part time so that women could continue to work in professional positions and at the same time be the primary family care giver... or corporations supporting gender stereotyping?

 

Ah yes, those honest-to-goodness luxuriant part-time positions that everyone's after all the time. Amazing pay and benefits, I hear!!

Why bring that into the debate? Am I wrong in stating that part-time jobs are generally acknowledged to be shittier and exist mainly so employers don't have to pay benefits and can keep wages lower??

Another way of saying this is "out of the men and women get shit sandwiches, women get more shit sandwiches."

 

Hey! I recall you once calling yourself incorrigible in the PA thread. And then you described your attitude as perfect a few posts earlier. Maybe we have different understandings of arrogance, but that stuff gets along with it beautifully. And it certainly doesn't take any balls to call someone that. I suffer from acute lack of testicles, so there.

Anyway, I don't see the point you're making. I asked for a clarification of what you meant, and you refused. That's not rock em sock em anything.

My line of arguments disappeared when you claimed -for the second time- that I didn't understand what you said, so it would have been very nice, and involved much less time than we have already spent, simply to have explained what you meant. Can't fault me for trying. *shrug*

Honestly, I haven't had any idea who or what the EEOC is. Looking at them as a government body, I see no reason why they shouldn't exist.

I also don't understand why you pose that question to me. Again, I agree there is a gender wage gap. I also purport that in some areas a reverse gender wage gap exists. Additionally, with the EEOC covering employment/pay discrimination against race, religion, age and disability as well, I don't see what argument exists for the EEOC not to exist unless all forms of work-related discrimination has been abolished.

As long as the EEOC is neutral in who it fights for when people are discriminated against, I see it as a great thing to have.

Maybe you're not wrong to assert that. However, it's certainly not gonna be a happy day for you if you're a man working part-time, making $300 per week, and then finding out the woman at the register next to you (holding the same position and doing the exact same work as you) has been getting $350 per week. Missing out on up to 20% of pay is a huge deal to people in the lower-income bracket.

If there's unfairness in an all-around shitty situation, is there still unfairness?

 

I am glad you agree on the need for a governmental body to address pay equity grievances, which btw, are nearly all on behalf of women (and minorities) because that is where the overwhelming majority of cases exists.

Unfairness all around?

If you are attempting to suggest some sort of equivalence in pay discrimination against men in part-time jobs (some of which may be the result of gender stereotyping by pushing women into "well paying" part-time work) to the glass ceiling women face in corporate America and nearly all full time professions and occupations, I have nothing more to add.

 

I just realized recently how this term has a bad and wrong impression in not just me but also in my entire circle. This is caused mostly by women.
But I corrected this in me and my wife yesterday.

Words are better if used in their true meaning and only in their true meaning.