NationStates

You know, I keep coming back to this thread because I love women dearly and I always have. As a man, there are few greater rewards in life than loving a woman: body, mind, and soul. We have to push on and keep fighting to make a better world for women. A lot of times it's a thankless job but the reward is often times the service in of itself, to see her flourish.

Sundiata wrote:You know, I keep coming back to this thread because I love women dearly and I always have. As a man, there are few greater rewards in life than loving a woman: body, mind, and soul. We have to push on and keep fighting to make a better world for women. A lot of times it's a thankless job but the reward is often times the service in of itself, to see her flourish.

I always keep coming back to this thread because I'm afraid it's dead. Also, the summer posters are a blast to watch.

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

Sundiata wrote:You know, I keep coming back to this thread because I love women dearly and I always have. As a man, there are few greater rewards in life than loving a woman: body, mind, and soul. We have to push on and keep fighting to make a better world for women. A lot of times it's a thankless job but the reward is often times the service in of itself, to see her flourish.

I always keep coming back to this thread because I'm afraid it's dead. Also, the summer posters are a blast to watch.

It's alive now.

Which posts have you find more amusing?

Sundiata wrote:

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:I always keep coming back to this thread because I'm afraid it's dead. Also, the summer posters are a blast to watch.

It's alive now.

Which posts have you find more amusing?

Gendercritical Femland wrote:

Galloism wrote:"You must be sexist to be feminist"

Gg no re

I don't think you understand. I give zero fucks about men. Cry about it

No menz land wrote:The Radical Feminist Alliance is now open for women only.

It never fails to amuse me and erode my faith in humanity at the same time.

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

Sundiata wrote:It's alive now.

Which posts have you find more amusing?

Gendercritical Femland wrote:
I don't think you understand. I give zero fucks about men. Cry about it

No menz land wrote:The Radical Feminist Alliance is now open for women only.

It never fails to amuse me and erode my faith in humanity at the same time.

That's the thing about radical feminism, I get that it's a response to the most egregious abuses of male power but it's like, come on. Men also make sacrifices for women every single day.

Sundiata wrote:

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

It never fails to amuse me and erode my faith in humanity at the same time.

That's the thing about radical feminism, I get that it's a response to the most egregious abuses of male power but it's like, come on. Men also make sacrifices for women every single day.

Some people just want to make those who are different from them suffer, and those people are truly the lowest of the low.

West Leas Oros 2 wrote:

Sundiata wrote:That's the thing about radical feminism, I get that it's a response to the most egregious abuses of male power but it's like, come on. Men also make sacrifices for women every single day.

Some people just want to make those who are different from them suffer, and those people are truly the lowest of the low.

Exactly, the cruel aspects of our nature prevent so much of our prosperity.

Honestly though, for all of the sacrifices that many men make, I concede that many men unfortunately do take advantage of women. It breaks my heart to say, it breaks my heart even more to see women suffer at anyone's hands, in this case men.

I think more men should be noble, forthright, and loving towards women but there is so much cultural morass that needs to be overcome before that is achieved. Again, I might be saying this for the hundredth time in this thread, but women are lovely.

Are there biological differences between men and women?

If men and women are disposed as a matter of biology to certain career paths is a gender imbalance justifiable?

If men and women are not disposed as a matter of biology to certain career paths why is it not possible to draw a line betwixt gender equality and more equal distribution within career paths?

Des-Bal wrote:Are there biological differences between men and women?

Yes.

If men and women are disposed as a matter of biology to certain career paths is a gender imbalance justifiable?

Not when it comes to proportionate wages, dignity, human rights, or respect.

If men and women are not disposed as a matter of biology to certain career paths why is it not possible to draw a line betwixt gender equality and more equal distribution within career paths?

It certainly is.

Des-Bal wrote:Are there biological differences between men and women?

Yes.

If men and women are disposed as a matter of biology to certain career paths is a gender imbalance justifiable?

Men and women are disposed to certain career paths but it's more because of societal expectations rather than biology, although it does play a factor. It also depends on what you're defining "imbalance" as.

If men and women are not disposed as a matter of biology to certain career paths why is it not possible to draw a line betwixt gender equality and more equal distribution within career paths?

Probably because there are numerous factors at play here.

Sundiata wrote:Yes.

Not when it comes to proportionate wages, dignity, human rights, or respect.
It certainly is.

In this case I'm talking about the ratio to men and women in certain field.

The issue is proportionate wages and respect. There's different wages and different prestige associated with different fields.

It is not. In countries that score higher than the US in terms of gender equality there are less women in managerial positions. We see more women in government but fewer in business and STEM fields. Women seem to preferentially select part-time and public sector work and even with an abundance of benefits to support them they remain more likely to have gaps in their careers and if work history or networking are important to advancement those are absolute killers.

There's a whole bunch of shit to read on it, why not start here?
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20 ... of%2016%25.

Giovenith wrote:

Sundiata wrote:I'm disgusted by the recent actions of Florida Rep. Ted Yoho towards NY Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The demeaning epithets he uttered towards her will not be forgotten.

Shame on the Republican Party.

Her speech in response was pretty badass.

"Having a daughter does not make a man decent. Having a wife does not make a decent man. Treating people with dignity and respect makes a decent man."

Regardless of politics, she is right. I have never been fond of people who act like treating the women in their families well somehow absolves them of treating women in general like crap. "But I have a daughter" doesn't mean shit if you go around calling women bitches and whores unprovoked.

If anything you'd think it would regulate them more.

It is impressive how conservatives often place so much importance on "family" while doing very little to protect families, especially the farther down the economic hierarchy you go.

Des-Bal wrote:If men and women are not disposed as a matter of biology to certain career paths why is it not possible to draw a line betwixt gender equality and more equal distribution within career paths?

What would be the justification for drawing the line?

Jello Biafra wrote:What would be the justification for drawing the line?

I'm not talking about creating a barrier I'm talking about a line on a graph to show a positive relationship. If the reasons men and women are in different fields is purely about social issues, about gender inequality, then as we see less gender inequality we should see a smaller imbalance.

Des-Bal wrote:

Sundiata wrote:Yes.

Not when it comes to proportionate wages, dignity, human rights, or respect.
It certainly is.

In this case I'm talking about the ratio to men and women in certain field.

The issue is proportionate wages and respect. There's different wages and different prestige associated with different fields.

It is not. In countries that score higher than the US in terms of gender equality there are less women in managerial positions. We see more women in government but fewer in business and STEM fields. Women seem to preferentially select part-time and public sector work and even with an abundance of benefits to support them they remain more likely to have gaps in their careers and if work history or networking are important to advancement those are absolute killers.

There's a whole bunch of shit to read on it, why not start here?
https://www.bbc.com/worklife/article/20 ... of%2016%25.

I think this may actually come down to how we, as a society, measure gender equality. We often measure it by only women’s oppression or lack thereof (sometimes, explicitly so).

See, I don’t think “more gender equal” countries are actually more gender equal - but they have fewer oppressions against women and more gender privileges for women while leaving men’s oppression either unchanged or intensified. Consequently, they are not “more gender equal” but generally less, given compared to other western democracies (to which they can be compared) they are actually less equal.

Taken in that context, it makes sense that countries that have higher degrees of privilege for women would also have higher disparities in career choice.

Galloism wrote:I think this may actually come down to how we, as a society, measure gender equality. We often measure it by only women’s oppression or lack thereof (sometimes, explicitly so).

See, I don’t think “more gender equal” countries are actually more gender equal - but they have fewer oppressions against women and more gender privileges for women while leaving men’s oppression either unchanged or intensified. Consequently, they are not “more gender equal” but generally less, given compared to other western democracies (to which they can be compared) they are actually less equal.

Taken in that context, it makes sense that countries that have higher degrees of privilege for women would also have higher disparities in career choice.

That's an interesting perspective but the central point remains the same. If barriers and oppression are not what result in fewer women in certain fields then attacking those barriers and oppressions real or imagined cannot be the solution.

That thread proposing female genocide was pretty sickening to read.

Des-Bal wrote:

Galloism wrote:I think this may actually come down to how we, as a society, measure gender equality. We often measure it by only women’s oppression or lack thereof (sometimes, explicitly so).

See, I don’t think “more gender equal” countries are actually more gender equal - but they have fewer oppressions against women and more gender privileges for women while leaving men’s oppression either unchanged or intensified. Consequently, they are not “more gender equal” but generally less, given compared to other western democracies (to which they can be compared) they are actually less equal.

Taken in that context, it makes sense that countries that have higher degrees of privilege for women would also have higher disparities in career choice.

That's an interesting perspective but the central point remains the same. If barriers and oppression are not what result in fewer women in certain fields then attacking those barriers and oppressions real or imagined cannot be the solution.

That is correct - the real driver of it is who is required to be “breadwinner” in our society. Make it an equal chore, and less disparity would likely occur.

I have no idea how to accomplish this.

Sundiata wrote:That thread proposing female genocide was pretty sickening to read.

The opening post and everything else by the author was erased before I happened upon the thread, but the snippets that survived in posts quoting them were pretty nasty, like a reversed SCUM Manifesto.

ugh

Sundiata wrote:That thread proposing female genocide was pretty sickening to read.

The sexists are out there, just hiding behind keyboards... And paying too much money to pick up artists.

Sundiata wrote:That thread proposing female genocide was pretty sickening to read.

It was locked, done and dusted by the time I came back on here. Damn.

Galloism wrote:

Des-Bal wrote:
That's an interesting perspective but the central point remains the same. If barriers and oppression are not what result in fewer women in certain fields then attacking those barriers and oppressions real or imagined cannot be the solution.

That is correct - the real driver of it is who is required to be “breadwinner” in our society. Make it an equal chore, and less disparity would likely occur.

I have no idea how to accomplish this.

By paying parental leave for both parents, like Iceland.

By ignoring sex, gender and "traditional marriage". No more "gender reveal parties" no more forced gender roles.
We could adopt the Scandinavian "non gender" schools.
We could make it mandatory that everyone learn how to cook, clean, repair electrical sockets, etc.

Let's dismantle the hold big corporations have over people. It is sickening that a lot of people don't have enough income to live comfortably with 1 job.

Sundiata wrote:You know, I keep coming back to this thread because I love women dearly and I always have. As a man, there are few greater rewards in life than loving a woman: body, mind, and soul. We have to push on and keep fighting to make a better world for women. A lot of times it's a thankless job but the reward is often times the service in of itself, to see her flourish.

You know, I keep coming back to this thread because sometimes there's interesting discussions.

And sometimes there's you posting the exact same thing for the 7th time in a row.

Thepeopl wrote:By paying parental leave for both parents, like Iceland.

By ignoring sex, gender and "traditional marriage". No more "gender reveal parties" no more forced gender roles.
We could adopt the Scandinavian "non gender" schools.
We could make it mandatory that everyone learn how to cook, clean, repair electrical sockets, etc.

Let's dismantle the hold big corporations have over people. It is sickening that a lot of people don't have enough income to live comfortably with 1 job.

I was specifically referencing Scandinavian countries. Their superior gender equality scores, their paid parental leave, their non gender schools still leave them with MORE occupational inequality than the US.

Thepeopl wrote:

Galloism wrote:That is correct - the real driver of it is who is required to be “breadwinner” in our society. Make it an equal chore, and less disparity would likely occur.

I have no idea how to accomplish this.

By paying parental leave for both parents, like Iceland.

By ignoring sex, gender and "traditional marriage". No more "gender reveal parties" no more forced gender roles.
We could adopt the Scandinavian "non gender" schools.
We could make it mandatory that everyone learn how to cook, clean, repair electrical sockets, etc.

Let's dismantle the hold big corporations have over people. It is sickening that a lot of people don't have enough income to live comfortably with 1 job.

I’d have to look up in Iceland, but in Scandinavia there is actually more gender disparity in this regard than countries like the US, or even India.