Daughter Water [Gender Pay Inequality]

[quote=Searz][quote=The_Nameless_Bard]Well, I'm definitely not a feminist in the usual sense. I believe in gender equality, or, I suppose, equity to an extent. This includes many of the problems men deal with (here in the US, at least) due to stereotypes as well. Like the fact that men who are sexually assaulted rarely report it because they often aren't taken seriously or the idea that men can't be victims of domestic violence in heterosexual relationships because they are often stronger and, therefore, unlikely to be hurt by a woman. I think a lot of people fail to remember that there are upsides and downsides to both genders and that absolutely nothing is black and white.[/quote] We seem to be on pretty much exactly the same page :)[/quote]

[quote=astrolia]On that note, I don't know how "3rd wave" feminist hyper liberal SJWs can take themselves seriously or talk/type without laughing at themselves. They honestly come off as being misandrists. But according to them, it's okay if they talk like misandrists because sexism and harassment vs white men doesn't exist.[/quote]

[quote=jhoijhoi]^It's got something to do with "privilege". It is pretty miserable. The idea is that "men have always had the upper hand and there's no situation where men are affected negatively by anything". Let me be clear before anyone jumps on this and assumes this is how I think. I was actually blocked by an extreme feminist for proving that men in fact deal unfavorably with several things, such as allegations of rape and custody cases, just to name two.[/quote]

[quote=TROLLing1999][b]On the "why should the woman be the one to raise the kid and stay at home" arguement[/b] Nobody ever said that the woman is obliged to quit her job and raise the child. I see it more like a "natural habbit". Imagine those ancient/middle-age civilisations where the men had to go hunting, fishing or ultimately to war. These are all tasks that a woman cannot/does not want to do, not matter how racistic this sounds(see men-women ration in the military). The women were the ones who had to stay at home. Additionally, the only matriarchial civilisation I know is the Minoan Crete and even then it was not the women who made the money/the goods. They just were responsible for managing them and keeping the household at a healthy state(today's women do the same to some extent). Also note that women became a real workforce only after the 1st World War started, when men were fighting and hands were needed to preserve the economy. I know we are no longer at these times, but the world is conservative and there is little we can do (behind our pc screen) to change that. Pay inequality shouldn't exist. Period. [b]Also another thing that most people failed to highlight[/b] Men have been proven to be more productive at higher levels of pressure or when higher standards are set. As a teacher you might have experienced that even though girls tend to be more responsible and get the better grades, boys are usually the ones to solve the hardest physics/maths excercises. This yields in work environment too, I guess. That's probably why there isn't a female Albert Einstein or a female Bill Gates.[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=TROLLing1999]Nobody ever said that the woman is obliged to quit her job and raise the child. I see it more like a "natural habbit". Imagine those ancient/middle-age civilisations where the men had to go hunting, fishing or ultimately to war. These are all tasks that a woman cannot/does not want to do, not matter how racistic this sounds(see men-women ration in the military). The women were the ones who had to stay at home.[/quote] Caucheka brought up pretty much exactly the same point earlier in the thread, and I shot it down. The work a woman does is largely decided by the social environment she grows up in and lives. None of the tasks you listed are tasks a woman is unable to do. While a woman is more likely to do worse at them because of generally lower muscle-mass it doesn't mean that all women will do worse at them. And how you confuse race with sex and even write it grammatically incorrect is beyond me... [quote][b]Also another thing that most people failed to highlight[/b] Men have been proven to be more productive at higher levels of pressure or when higher standards are set.[/quote] Really now? Mind providing a source for that? Because I'm certainly not gonna accept that at face value. [quote]This yields in work environment too, I guess. That's probably why there isn't a female Albert Einstein or a female Bill Gates.[/quote] But there are women like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Johnson Your point only serves to prove my statements further: the reason why we don't have an extremely well-known woman in some field of science or math is because they are not generally encouraged to get into those fields, and even then men have a history of taking credit for the work of women.[/quote]

[quote=BlueArtist][quote=Searz]Mind providing a source for that?[/quote] http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mangeluc/ChoiceUnderStress.pdf Extract from it: "We find that acute stress reduces women’s productivity and changes their decisions, resulting in income losses of 18%, but has no effect on men on average" "Acute stress may therefore hurt women more than men. This difference may occur if the response to acute stress is exacerbated by negative life events and women are both more exposed and more sensitive to the latter."[/quote]

[quote=Searz][quote=BlueArtist]http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mangeluc/ChoiceUnderStress.pdf "We find that acute stress reduces women’s productivity and changes their decisions, resulting in income losses of 18%, but has no effect on men on average" "Acute stress may therefore hurt women more than men. This difference may occur if the response to acute stress is exacerbated by negative life events and women are both more exposed and more sensitive to the latter."[/quote] A bit too long for me to want to read, but sure, I can see that being true. I'm not convinced the difference is biological in nature though. Because I assume the people in their test groups weren't raised the same way, regardless of being male or female. I'm not convinced the difference is solely due to the nurtured environment either though. I'd be interested in seeing something regarding that.[/quote]

[quote=Latest Legend]To add to Searz's reaction to the post: [quote=TROLLing1999]Nobody ever said that the woman is obliged to quit her job and raise the child. I see it more like a "natural habbit". Imagine those ancient/middle-age civilisations where the men had to go hunting, fishing or ultimately to war. These are all tasks that a woman cannot/does not want to do, not matter how racistic this sounds(see men-women ration in the military). The women were the ones who had to stay at home.[/quote]But if you get fired/forced to quit(because of other people's (read: boss's) "natural habit") once you have a child it's an entirely different story. Searz already said plenty about "not being able to do something" so I won't bother repeating. I think it's a bit ironic that you first say most things happen out of cultural habit and then act like the men-women ratio in the military is to be taken as decisive, objective proof of something. Not that I think it has anything to do with this discussion, but for history's sake, AFAIK the books tell women were gatherers, not baby-sitters. At what home do you even imagine them to stay while "the men" were magically catching deers out of thin air with sticks? [quote=TROLLing1999]That's probably why there isn't a female Albert Einstein[/quote]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie_Curie[/quote]

[quote=Nighthawk][quote=astrolia]On that note, I don't know how "3rd wave" feminist hyper liberal SJWs can take themselves seriously or talk/type without laughing at themselves. They honestly come off as being misandrists. But according to them, it's okay if they talk like misandrists because sexism and harassment vs white men doesn't exist.[/quote] I would prefer if we didn't call those kinds of people feminists and SJW's, because they really aren't. They're extremists. Plain and simple. And "normal" feminists and SJW's, of which there are many, don't think like that at all. [quote=jhoijhoi]^It's got something to do with "privilege". It is pretty miserable. The idea is that "men have always had the upper hand and there's no situation where men are affected negatively by anything". Let me be clear before anyone jumps on this and assumes this is how I think. I was actually blocked by an extreme feminist for proving that men in fact deal unfavorably with several things, such as allegations of rape and custody cases, just to name two.[/quote] No, it has nothing to do with privilege. It has to do with people being fucking crazy extremists. While privilege (in a sense at least) exists, it doesn't have much to do with feminism.[/quote]

[quote=TROLLing1999][quote=Searz] The work a woman does is largely decided by the social environment she grows up in and lives. None of the tasks you listed are tasks a woman is unable to do. While a woman is more likely to do worse at them because of generally lower muscle-mass it doesn't mean that all women will do worse at them. And how you confuse race with sex and even write it grammatically incorrect is beyond me...[/quote] Correct but (social) environment does not yield for women exclusively. Actually, even bacteria can adapt to their surroundings and the conditions they're living in. In other words, social environment affects both men and women. Also another thing to note is that defining social environment in a research or survey is almost impossible because there are simply too many factors involved in it. For instance you could say that a person coming from a poor work-class family is less likely to get to university than a middle-class person with the same IQ and other mind-related capabilities. However, there are so many other elements in their life, which you do not/can not take into account. This could easily lead into inaccurate results. In addition to the former, the fact that a man usually has a greater muscle-mass straight away makes him more suitable for physical activities. My wording that women cannot take part in these things at all was not intentional. I wanted to express the opinion that in the huge majority of the times men are more suitable. [quote=latest legend] But if you get fired/forced to quit(because of other people's (read: boss's) "natural habit") once you have a child it's an entirely different story.[/quote] Exactly, whether it's fair on the employer's side to make somebody redundant because of them having an offspring, is indeed a completely different story. Unless he is limited by any contract, the boss has the right to sack people when he notices decrease in their productivity and their dedication to work. Why? Because this is fucking capitalism! It's not fair in any sense, but it also not a direct indicator of discrimination between women and men. [quote=latest legend]I think it's a bit ironic that you first say most things happen out of cultural habit and then act like the men-women ratio in the military is to be taken as decisive, objective proof of something.[/quote] The man-woman ratio in the military is there just to illustrate how women are usually not suitable for these type of jobs for reasons being mentioned earlier. [quote=latest legend]Not that I think it has anything to do with this discussion, but for history's sake, AFAIK the books tell women were gatherers, not baby-sitters. At what home do you even imagine them to stay while "the men" were magically catching deers out of thin air with sticks?[/quote] Depends on which history period and which place/civilisation you are reffering to. I probably did not make clear that I was reffering to post Stone Age civillisations( read Minoan Creta, Agypt, Sparta, Athens etc.). The woman was neither a babysitter nor a gatherer. On the contrary she was supervising the slaves' job in the household, which involved of course taking care of the children. Note that this is a very generalised statement for simplicity's sake and that the exact place of the woman in the family/society diverses from time to time and place to place. [quote=searz]But there are women like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katherine_Johnson Your point only serves to prove my statements further: the reason why we don't have an extremely well-known woman in some field of science or math is because they are not generally encouraged to get into those fields, and even then men have a history of taking credit for the work of women.[/quote] I never denied that fact that there are women who have exceled in whatever field of expertise whether it be science, literature, art etc. However, the men have always been and still are more. I do admit that external factors such as religion, tradition, family and so on affect one's choices but even today when the opportuinities in education have (theoretically) been equalized, there are more and more important "new era" male scientists than female ones. I assume (with the help of the source that BlueArtist provided, which proves my aforementioned point on men performing better under stress and at high levels) that men actually have a tendency to excel more at this field. To clarify everything, though, before more misapprehentions are formed, I am not claiming that the male brain is more evolved than the female one.[/quote]