The NationStates Feminist Thread III

[Totenborg]

Plenty of women lack that same drive but the impact is not equal.

Men are ultimately more responsible for the state of relationships between the sexes, as well as the world because they have more authority than women. The majority of congresspeople and parliamentarians are men. Most world leaders have, and in some places, always been men. Therefore, if men are lazy, dishonorable and weak, the world become lazy, dishonorable, and weak.

With authority comes responsibility.

Bollocks. I can be lazy, dishonorable and weak, but that doesn't mean that Trump will be that too, despite both of us supposedly being men.

But, he is those things...

[The BlAAtschApen]

Bollocks. I can be lazy, dishonorable and weak, but that doesn't mean that Trump will be that too, despite both of us supposedly being men.

But, he is those things...

[Sundiata]

Plenty of women lack that same drive but the impact is not equal.

Men are ultimately more responsible for the state of relationships between the sexes,

Sounds like women need to step up their game then.

as well as the world because they have more authority than women. The majority of congresspeople and parliamentarians are men. Most world leaders have, and in some places, always been men. Therefore, if men are lazy, dishonorable and weak, the world become lazy, dishonorable, and weak.

lol.
Do you really think that lazy and weak people are the same people who end up holding powerful government and economical positions?
And honor? Dishonorable people have held powerful positions since the dawn of time.

With authority comes responsibility.

No, with authority comes power. Power which is often abused.
If you think that somehow people where better in the past I suggest you open a history book now and again.

With regards to your first question, plenty of people who inhabit powerful positions aren't there on the basis of merit, they're there due to inherited nepotism. A great deal of lazy people inhabit powerful positions, the modern military largely being the exception to this rule.

Secondly, the abuse of power has and always will have repurcussions. It isn't might that makes right but the other way around. That's how the world works.

David can beat Golliath.

[Sundiata]

Sounds like women need to step up their game then.

It's absurd for men and women to even compete.

[Sovaal]

Sounds like women need to step up their game then.

lol.
Do you really think that lazy and weak people are the same people who end up holding powerful government and economical positions?
And honor? Dishonorable people have held powerful positions since the dawn of time.

With authority comes responsibility.

No, with authority comes power. Power which is often abused.
If you think that somehow people where better in the past I suggest you open a history book now and again.

With regards to your first question, plenty of people who inhabit powerful positions aren't there on the basis of merit, they're there due to inherited nepotism. A great deal of lazy people inhabit powerful positions, the modern military largely being the exception to this rule.

In some cases sure, but it's hardly a general rule, and it's hardly something unique to our modern era. Hell for most of human history power was hereditary.

Secondly, the abuse of power has and always will have repurcussions.

Didn't for Stalin or Mao or the other countless other tyrants. Unless you mean Hell, but that's little consolation for the millions they killed and tortured and wronged.

It isn't might that makes right but the other way around. That's how the world works.

It's really not. Often throughout history the government that has the most power at it's commanded is usually recognized as the legitimate one.

David can beat Golliath.

Sure, but Goliath can also beat David to a pulp.

[Sovaal]

Sounds like women need to step up their game then.

It's absurd for men and women to even compete.

Why is that?

[Sundiata]

It's absurd for men and women to even compete.

Why is that?

Because we compliment each other.

[Sovaal]

Why is that?

Because we compliment each other.

Well I imagine women can still do that while also actively approaching men.

[Sundiata]

Because we compliment each other.

Well I imagine women can still do that while also actively approaching men.

Women actively do approach men, just not all men.

[Sovaal]

Well I imagine women can still do that while also actively approaching men.

Women actively do approach men, just not all men.

So is it absurd or not? You contradict yourself.

[Sundiata]

Women actively do approach men, just not all men.

So is it absurd or not?

Not at all.

[Sovaal]

So is it absurd or not?

Not at all.

So I take it you contradict yourself often.

[Sundiata]

Not at all.

So I take it you contradict yourself often.

I didn't contradict myself.

Men and women are complimentary. That being said, men don't approach all women just as women don't approach all men.

[Sovaal]

So I take it you contradict yourself often.

I didn't contradict myself.

Men and women are complimentary. That being said, men don't approach all women just as women don't approach all men.

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about your reply

Sounds like women need to step up their game then.

It's absurd for men and women to even compete.

[Sundiata]

I didn't contradict myself.

Men and women are complimentary. That being said, men don't approach all women just as women don't approach all men.

I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about your reply

It's absurd for men and women to even compete.

I'm sorry?

[Chestaan]

So I recently found this article and to be perfectly honest the results have baffled me:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/2193-9012-1-6

So, basically the gender wage gap is not only present in normal paid occupation, but also in self-employment. That means women pay themselves less/earn less than men who are self-employed. In fact the gap in self-employment is larger than gap in traditional employment. One possibility put forward is that it is due to discrimination by customers, people preferring men over women to do work for them, that the gap exists but the authors point out that there is little empirical evidence to support this.

Can anyone help with this? I am baffled as to how this can be the case.

[Fahran]

So I recently found this article and to be perfectly honest the results have baffled me:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/2193-9012-1-6

So, basically the gender wage gap is not only present in normal paid occupation, but also in self-employment. That means women pay themselves less/earn less than men who are self-employed. In fact the gap in self-employment is larger than gap in traditional employment. One possibility put forward is that it is due to discrimination by customers, people preferring men over women to do work for them, that the gap exists but the authors point out that there is little empirical evidence to support this.

Can anyone help with this? I am baffled as to how this can be the case.

It could be that women who transition from working under an employer to working for themselves have become accustomed to lower wages/salaries and are thus willing to accept less pay for similar work even when they have power over payroll. It could likewise be that men and women possess somewhat different styles of leadership overall. We'd need more studies with more rigid controls to arrive at a more perfect answer to this question.

[Chestaan]

So I recently found this article and to be perfectly honest the results have baffled me:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/2193-9012-1-6

So, basically the gender wage gap is not only present in normal paid occupation, but also in self-employment. That means women pay themselves less/earn less than men who are self-employed. In fact the gap in self-employment is larger than gap in traditional employment. One possibility put forward is that it is due to discrimination by customers, people preferring men over women to do work for them, that the gap exists but the authors point out that there is little empirical evidence to support this.

Can anyone help with this? I am baffled as to how this can be the case.

It could be that women who transition from working under an employer to working for themselves have become accustomed to lower wages/salaries and are thus willing to accept less pay for similar work even when they have power over payroll. It could likewise be that men and women possess somewhat different styles of leadership overall. We'd need more studies with more rigid controls to arrive at a more perfect answer to this question.

Its got quite a lot of controls already in, although perhaps not the first one you mentioned. I did see before that the risk aversion levels of men may play a role, men being more risk averse earn more on average. I'm also not sure about the fact that women would become accustomed to lower pay and hence accept low self-employment pay. Afterall, if self-employed surely they would just receive the profit made. If instead they invested more than men then this should show up in increasing wages later on down the line.

[New haven america]

So I take it you contradict yourself often.

I didn't contradict myself.

Men and women are complimentary. That being said, men don't approach all women just as women don't approach all men.

No they're not.

They're damn near polar opposites, with homosexual relationships tending to be the happiest or most well off, while straight women also tend to be the least happiest in relationships (In contrast to straight men tending to be the happiest in relationships).

[Union of Pepe]

I’m all for equality & I’m a guy. Just not loco-sjw white privilege is a thing person. I am picked on mostly for thinking differently politically and spiritually then most people.

[Ors Might]

I’m all for equality & I’m a guy. Just not loco-sjw white privilege is a thing person. I am picked on mostly for thinking differently politically and spiritually then most people.

I think you might be getting picked on for having such a basic Pepe as your flag mate

[Sundiata]

I didn't contradict myself.

Men and women are complimentary. That being said, men don't approach all women just as women don't approach all men.

No they're not.

They're damn near polar opposites, with homosexual relationships tending to be the happiest or most well off, while straight women also tend to be the least happiest in relationships (In contrast to straight men tending to be the happiest in relationships).

Men and women aren't total opposites, let alone near totally opposite.

You're right that men and women generally have different strengths and weaknesses. However, when these strengths and weaknesses work together in a complimentary way, husbands and wives realize the greatest good and highest happiness.

[Totenborg]

No they're not.

They're damn near polar opposites, with homosexual relationships tending to be the happiest or most well off, while straight women also tend to be the least happiest in relationships (In contrast to straight men tending to be the happiest in relationships).

Men and women aren't total opposites, let alone near totally opposite.

You're right that men and women generally have different strengths and weaknesses. However, when these strengths and weaknesses work together in a complimentary way, husbands and wives realize the greatest good and highest happiness.

Marriage is fine, sometimes, but you're acting like a nondrinker who is trying to tell a bartender what the best whiskey is. Get married, then you can speak with authority.

[Hirota]

Men and women aren't total opposites, let alone near totally opposite.

You're right that men and women generally have different strengths and weaknesses. However, when these strengths and weaknesses work together in a complimentary way, husbands and wives realize the greatest good and highest happiness.

Marriage is fine, sometimes, but you're acting like a nondrinker who is trying to tell a bartender what the best whiskey is. Get married, then you can speak with authority.

I've been with my missus for 21 years. We are not married.

Thinking some piece of paper gives you some instant magic level of insight over that of unmarried people is a stupid baseless argument.

[Totenborg]

Marriage is fine, sometimes, but you're acting like a nondrinker who is trying to tell a bartender what the best whiskey is. Get married, then you can speak with authority.

I've been with my missus for 21 years. We are not married.

Thinking some piece of paper gives you some instant magic level of insight over that of unmarried people is a stupid baseless argument.

And my point was completely missed. I'm saying that marriage is not some magic state of being separate from that of non-marriage. I'm actually agreeing with you.