Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Given the evidence that quality of life actually seems to go down with the advent of agriculture for quite a long time afterwards, I'm not sure I'm willing to buy into the notion that pre-agriculture egalitarianism is a case of everyone "Sharing a place at the bottom". I mean besides if everyone the bottom, everyone’s also at the top. Terms like that really only have meaning in a context where there is stratification.
Translate any of those people into an agricultural society and you get an un(or barely)skilled menial laborer, with the best anyone could aspire to being the respect of their peers through being a slightly better menial laborer. While horticulturists and hunter-gatherers rank as being happier in general than the average person in an early agricultural society, this isn't so much derived from the overall quality of life as it is from a lower population density and closer bond between members of a community; high population densities trigger a sort of subtle panic reaction, leading to stress, in addition to introducing more people to your general area than you can properly know.
Yes, certainly women did share in labor I mean they're a useful set of hands. However, it's plainly true that humans can only have 2 hands and can only be in place at time. There is a non-trivial amount of labor women just couldn't participate just on account of demands of turning out the brood. In addition had the demand to produce so many children not been there, the need to keep women in the home producing them would not be there, and the cultural barriers to taking on roles other than "Weave Fibers", "Make Children", "Cook Food" would have been lower or non-existent. I mean it's not like every piece of cultural baggage sprug up the instant someone came up with the idea to settle down permanently, it had to have been a gradual process taken incrementally. It was the severely limited options afford women by the practical realities of keeping the system going that allowed the tropes to come into being.
We can see that now, with amazingly low infant mortality rates and a much higher labour:production ratio in our post industrial society women have more freedom. Certainly social movements did have to fight for the current improving state, but I'd wager that argument wouldn't have been possible if the need for "humans produced per womb" was still at it's peak. It's OK to let women do whatever because we don't have to worry about wasting a uterus.
It should be noted that even in high infant mortality rate areas, women aren't constantly pregnant, and pre-agriculture there was every bit as much, or even more so, of an emphasis on reproduction.
I should point out, too, that technically speaking we are an agricultural society; agriculture is the turning point in food production that enables large populations, and minimizes the percentage of the population required to produce enough food. It is with agricultural societies that you get industry not related to food production on a non-trivial scale, jobs other than "menial-laborer", and anyone, including women, in positions of actual authority, or free to perform jobs of their choosing (note I'm not suggesting everyone is thusly free, just that only in agricultural societies is there anyone at all so free).
In many agricultural societies (agricultural in the sense that most people outside of some sort of upper class or aristocracy were subsistence farmers) women did field work as well as housework. When it was harvest time, everyone would be in the fields.
In a society like that, the differences in power would have a lot more to do with social or economic class than gender. Men and women who were subsistence farmers or peasants would probably have had a lot more in common with each other than people in the aristocracy or upper class.
It's a bit dubious to claim that someone who did hard work in the fields all day and also worked in the house when it was needed had more "power" than someone who did hard work in the house all day and also worked in the fields when it was needed. People back then didn't have careers or jobs where they were trying to get a promotion or get a raise. Their job was to not starve.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/27 23:18:10
According to my sociology and psychology courses most of the differences between men and women are mostly social, and if you were to map out the differences and similarities between men and women you would find there are more similarities than differences.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/28 00:20:32
And honestly, I'm going to retract my statements about women being morally superior... They're obviously superior... we're sitting here arguing dongs and their various appearances over the internet... Jesus... >_<
Edit: I'm going back to the Miss Teen Delaware winner doing porn...
Alright, I'll go first;
Your exact argument, from lessened UTI's, penile cancer, and reduced instances of HIV can be found in this article:
Schoen E. Is Circumcision Healthy? Yes. Priorities For Health [serial online]. December 1997;9(4):24. Available from: Alt HealthWatch, Ipswich, MA.
Mine can be found here:
Van Howe R. Is Circumcision Healthy? No. Priorities For Health [serial online]. December 1997;9(4):25. Available from: Alt HealthWatch, Ipswich, MA.
Since you likely don't have access to the journal, which is under copyright, I'll give a brief paraphrase:
Everything you know is wrong because the (single) study that showed positive results for circumcised individuals were: Not objective nor accurate because they only looked at circumcised and uncircumcised individuals and not other factors like poverty, race, sexual orientation (all of which are huge factors in they study of STI's.)
Furthermore, in a cross analysis of 28 studies, it was found that there is no difference in prevention of STI's no matter what's been done to your penis during unprotected sex, why they even went further and found that circumcised individuals are more susceptible to an even wider range of STI's when the obvious solution to both arguments was to just put a rubber on or abstain is beyond me... Nonetheless, circumcision also has a list of chronic health problems that arise later in life, not to mention mental issues that are caused by the extreme pain involved as an infant - one of which is increased aggression.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2013/02/28 01:25:09
Still arguing about dongs in a thread on behavioral and social tendencies? Yeah I'm going back to the girl doing porn thread, but before I leave....
The article you quoted is outdated and from more than a decade ago, please learn how to find valid sources. According to the American Academy of Pediatrics, they state that the health benefits far outweigh the risks associated with neonatal circumcision (new born circumcision), http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/3/e756.full
STIs are easily transmitable regardless of circumcision yes, I was merely providing that there is "some" medical benefit to refute your, "no medical benefit" assertion that you made earlier, and I would like to point out that I simply asked WHY he felt that it should be outlawed, and the poster has not replied to this question.
And while the only true way to avoid getting HIV/AIDS is to abstain from sex, and wearing a condom can lower your chances, the PROBLEM with that is that the place in the world they're talking about is Africa, a land where people don't have money for homes, let alone a piece of rubber to protect themselves from STIs...
Also, could you please tell me of these chronic health effects?
Actually nevermind, this is so far off topic, it's not even funny...
DR:80+S++G+M+B+I+Pwmhd11#++D++A++++/sWD-R++++T(S)DM+ Ask me about Brushfire or Endless: Fantasy Tactics
Ballot Measure in San Francisco to Ban Circumcision. (2011). Midwifery Today, (98), 64.
Stupid copyright makes me have to paraphrase this but:
Recent articles tell that there is a correlation between long term health effects and circumcision. They have been repressed, omitted, and ignored intentionally by the CDC - the main database where virtually every traditional/mainstream medical opinion is based. Further evidence to how the healthcare system is intentionally ignoring this evidence when they can continue to make huge profits off of their prenatal and natal care units is the stigmatization and banishment of midwives from public health centers (who generally don't perform circumcision and help give successful births for far cheaper) even though the newborn mortality rate of the US is one of the worst in the developed world.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/28 03:07:27
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
...........But, there is a lot of evidence that suggests women are on equal footing than men when it comes to being poorly behaved/bad people. One example is that it is not uncommon for women in a marrage to abuse their husband verbally, and then we have teenage schoolgirls...
I am currently in sixth form at my school (aka college, year 12) studying for A-levels, and I've noticed that when boys get into fights, it tends to be a short physical thing, and so long as you manage to fight back, it is taken well, and the entire thing is forgotten by the next day. But the girls seem to have a tendency to hold grudges, call names, and keep bitching about people they don't like for quite a long time..
I'm not arguing moral superiority (I don't believe in morals for starters and no one has bothered to establish a strong operational definition so all this discussion is pointless, but still) so much as that when men do reckless things it's more likely to be noticeably, outwardly criminal. We can also observe mental disorders that are more common for men or women and note which seems to be more self-destructive versus being regular ol' destructive.
At the end of the day, morals are a subjective and stupid concept unless enforced by something.
I both respect and loathe the "learn liberty" series because it may be educational, but it also champions the idea that developing countries should "earn their way" through sweatshops and the development of labor markets, in particular those that favor the United States. They seem to make the conclusion that our way of life is the best, therefore everyone should be like us and serve our interests until they basically become us.
Again, this plays right back into male privilege and the notion that one is better than the other, when in reality a simple saying pertaining to culture can also pertain to gender, and I finally answer the OP's question of the Morals of Women compared to Men with;
"It's not good, it's not bad, it's just different."
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/28 04:10:32
DemetriDominov wrote: I both respect and loathe the "learn liberty" series because it may be educational, but it also champions the idea that developing countries should "earn their way" through sweatshops and the development of labor markets, in particular those that favor the United States. They seem to make the conclusion that our way of life is the best, therefore everyone should be like us and serve our interests until they basically become us.
Again, this plays right back into male privilege and the notion that one is better than the other, when in reality a simple saying pertaining to culture can also pertain to gender, and I finally answer the OP's question of the Morals of Women compared to Men with;
"It's not good, it's not bad, it's just different."
I think this subject could be it's own thread. Which I would be happy to participate in. That said, the video I posted would seem to dispel the commonly touted theory that women make 70% of what men do.
I said what I did, because everything carries an agenda. From the feminist movement to the learn liberty series, everything has bias of some sort and cannot be seen only in a vacuum.
What do you wish to happen in the next 5 years? I'd like women to be paid the same as men so i can stop reading all this poor women/poor men bs.
Don't buy into the gender war. There is no gender war, there are just people.
That would actually appear to be false by and large.
-7 out of 10 Canadian part time workers are women
-Canadian women earn 85 cent for every dollar compered to there male counterpart
-Canadian women do about 15 hour a week of house hold chores where men do about 6.8 hours
-67% of all working Canadian women work (compared to 30% of working men) were employed in teaching, nursing and related healthcare occupations, clerical or administrative positions and sales and service occupations
-In Canada women make up 47% of workforce but only hold 17% of corporate positions in the country' top 500 companies and only 13% of the board seats
-22% of Canadian members of parliament are women
-In close to 100 years since Canadian women gained the right to vote federally, only 3 have been elected as part leaders
-Women are expected to spend more time with childcare, domestic duties and the family making it harder for women to maintain jobs with longer hours
-Most differences between men and women are socially constructed
-Women make up 51% of Canada's population
I'll let you decide if women are being treat equally in Canadian society.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/28 04:56:58
Cheesecat wrote: -7 out of 10 Canadian part time workers are women
-Canadian women earn 85 cent for every dollar compered to there male counterpart
-Canadian women do about 15 hour a week of house hold chores where men do about 6.8 hours
-67% of all working Canadian women work (compared to 30% of working men) were employed in teaching, nursing and related healthcare occupations, clerical or administrative positions and sales and service occupations
-In Canada women make up 47% of workforce but only hold 17% of corporate positions in the country' top 500 companies and only 13% of the board seats
-22% of Canadian members of parliament are women
-In close to 100 years since Canadian women gained the right to vote federally, only 3 have been elected as part leaders
-Women are expected to spend more time with childcare, domestic duties and the family making it harder for women to maintain jobs with longer hours
-Most differences between men and women are socially constructed
-Women make up 51% of Canada's population
I'll let you decide if women are being treat equally in Canadian society.
Umm, from just your list it looks like that's even treatment to me.
I mean, no-one is forcing women into nursing and teaching. There isn't a gun against any woman saying you will tear up that application to engineering and apply for nursing instead. Fact is, for a whole bunch of very complicated reasons, women tend towards jobs that are underpaid relative to the level of education required to perform those jobs.
At the same time, women tend not to enter politics. You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think this is because women are shut out of politics, the parties know that having women in prominent positions gets a massive positive response from the electorate. The problem is that when the parties target women they'd like in their parties, they get shot down way more often. And when it comes to finding women who are willing to work through the party from the ground up, going to boring ass social functions and making all the right connections, well they're even less common.
Now, we can spend a lot of time wondering why women choose to enter professions where job satisfaction is high and pay relatively low, while men often choose the opposite. And we can wonder why men will suffer through the tedium and nastiness of politics while women choose not to... but at the end of the day the choice is there. And we can wonder why women more than men prefer to be the part-time worker and look after the kids while the husband keeps working full time.
But for all the numbers posted that women use to shock us about this or that, what we no longer see is any profession denied to a person because of their gender. And that was always the point.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
What do you wish to happen in the next 5 years? I'd like women to be paid the same as men so i can stop reading all this poor women/poor men bs.
Don't buy into the gender war. There is no gender war, there are just people.
That would actually appear to be false by and large.
-7 out of 10 Canadian part time workers are women
-Canadian women earn 85 cent for every dollar compered to there male counterpart
-Canadian women do about 15 hour a week of house hold chores where men do about 6.8 hours
-67% of all working Canadian women work (compared to 30% of working men) were employed in teaching, nursing and related healthcare occupations, clerical or administrative positions and sales and service occupations
-In Canada women make up 47% of workforce but only hold 17% of corporate positions in the country' top 500 companies and only 13% of the board seats
-22% of Canadian members of parliament are women
-In close to 100 years since Canadian women gained the right to vote federally, only 3 have been elected as part leaders
-Women are expected to spend more time with childcare, domestic duties and the family making it harder for women to maintain jobs with longer hours
-Most differences between men and women are socially constructed
-Women make up 51% of Canada's population
I'll let you decide if women are being treat equally in Canadian society.
Nothing in your list says that they can't do anything that men can, nor that they are recipients of institutional discrimination. They had the chance to make the same choices as their male counterparts and simply chose not too. What your post basically boils down to is, to use an anology.
Men earn 50 dollars an hour fishing, women earn 42 dollars an hour sewing. At any point in time women can decide that they would prefer to fish rather then sew. They still choose not to, and then proclaim that it is because of discrimination and demand to be paid 50 dollars an hour for sewing, a job they knew going into would result in lower pay in the first place.
So yeah, meaningless griping founded on the spinning of data.
Cheesecat wrote: -7 out of 10 Canadian part time workers are women
-Canadian women earn 85 cent for every dollar compered to there male counterpart
-Canadian women do about 15 hour a week of house hold chores where men do about 6.8 hours
-67% of all working Canadian women work (compared to 30% of working men) were employed in teaching, nursing and related healthcare occupations, clerical or administrative positions and sales and service occupations
-In Canada women make up 47% of workforce but only hold 17% of corporate positions in the country' top 500 companies and only 13% of the board seats
-22% of Canadian members of parliament are women
-In close to 100 years since Canadian women gained the right to vote federally, only 3 have been elected as part leaders
-Women are expected to spend more time with childcare, domestic duties and the family making it harder for women to maintain jobs with longer hours
-Most differences between men and women are socially constructed
-Women make up 51% of Canada's population
I'll let you decide if women are being treat equally in Canadian society.
Umm, from just your list it looks like that's even treatment to me.
I mean, no-one is forcing women into nursing and teaching. There isn't a gun against any woman saying you will tear up that application to engineering and apply for nursing instead. Fact is, for a whole bunch of very complicated reasons, women tend towards jobs that are underpaid relative to the level of education required to perform those jobs.
At the same time, women tend not to enter politics. You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think this is because women are shut out of politics, the parties know that having women in prominent positions gets a massive positive response from the electorate. The problem is that when the parties target women they'd like in their parties, they get shot down way more often. And when it comes to finding women who are willing to work through the party from the ground up, going to boring ass social functions and making all the right connections, well they're even less common.
Now, we can spend a lot of time wondering why women choose to enter professions where job satisfaction is high and pay relatively low, while men often choose the opposite. And we can wonder why men will suffer through the tedium and nastiness of politics while women choose not to... but at the end of the day the choice is there. And we can wonder why women more than men prefer to be the part-time worker and look after the kids while the husband keeps working full time.
But for all the numbers posted that women use to shock us about this or that, what we no longer see is any profession denied to a person because of their gender. And that was always the point.
You're right women aren't denied these positions but gender stereotypes seem to discourage people from certain opportunities (such as father's frowning upon there son going into ballet) unless it can be proven men and women are naturally inclined to go to certain roles and it isn't
It's not like those professions have social stigma attached them. "OMG Therice just got accepted to MIT for Engineering, what a slut!" It's literally all their personal choices. Heck my sister was one of 5 girls in a COSC class of over 300, and the only stigma she has had attached is that she now knows the intimates of Starcraft and League of Legends without actually ever playing those games.
Ratbarf wrote: It's not like those professions have social stigma attached them. "OMG Therice just got accepted to MIT for Engineering, what a slut!" It's literally all their personal choices. Heck my sister was one of 5 girls in a COSC class of over 300, and the only stigma she has had attached is that she now knows the intimates of Starcraft and League of Legends without actually ever playing those games.
Maybe you're right, maybe I'm looking at these stats the wrong way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/28 05:41:34
You're right women aren't denied these positions but gender stereotypes seem to discourage people from certain opportunities (such as father's frowning upon there son going into ballet) unless it can be proven men and women are naturally inclined to go to certain roles and it isn't
society that causing these trends.
Cheesecat, people can find any reason to justify why their life is gak or how it didn't turn out like they planned. It is important not to buy it however, people can succeed if they wish to.
All this glass ceiling crap is a false justification, if women were succeeding in the 70's in management they can do it now.
Manchu - "But so what? The Bible also says the flood destroyed the world. You only need an allegorical boat to tackle an allegorical flood."
Shespits "Anything i see with YOLO has half naked eleventeen year olds Girls. And of course booze and drugs and more half naked elventeen yearolds Girls. O how i wish to YOLO again!"
Rubiksnoob "Next you'll say driving a stick with a Scandinavian supermodel on your lap while ripping a bong impairs your driving. And you know what, I'M NOT GOING TO STOP, YOU FILTHY COMMUNIST"
Cheesecat wrote: You're right women aren't denied these positions but gender stereotypes seem to discourage people from certain opportunities (such as father's frowning upon there son going into ballet) unless it can be proven men and women are naturally inclined to go to certain roles and it isn't
society that causing these trends.
Arguing that "unless it can be proven men and women are naturally inclined to go to certain roles and it isn't society that causing these trends" seems a particularly defensive way of holding on to your original assertion.
I mean, yeah, there's gender stereotypes and they've certainly got an impact. But you can't just dismiss the idea that men and women simply want different things, and this produces much of the impact we see in workplace demographics.
There is, I think, quite clearly a stronger desire for the women to stay with the kids than for the man to do so. This isn't the case for all people, but it is certainly a lot more likely than the alternative. That right there explains much of the income disparity (women then are more likely to work part time, move to jobs with flexible work hours instead of the highest pay, 'lose' some years out of their career progression etc)...
I think there is also a preference among women to choose jobs that pay well below their educational requirements would normally require. I can see how with teaching and nursing this might be dismissed as gender enforced stereotypes, but then consider the worst paid of them all - social worker. There's no gender stereotype there, social work as a profession in its modern form largely developed after the early battles of feminism were fought and won. And yet it is dominated by women far more than teaching is.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bullockist wrote: Cheesecat, people can find any reason to justify why their life is gak or how it didn't turn out like they planned. It is important not to buy it however, people can succeed if they wish to.
rah rah bootstraps
Yeah no seriously life doesn't guarantee success. gak goes wrong for people a lot, even if they work hard and apply their abilites as best they can.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/02/28 06:12:03
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Umm, from just your list it looks like that's even treatment to me.
I mean, no-one is forcing women into nursing and teaching. There isn't a gun against any woman saying you will tear up that application to engineering and apply for nursing instead. Fact is, for a whole bunch of very complicated reasons, women tend towards jobs that are underpaid relative to the level of education required to perform those jobs.
At the same time, women tend not to enter politics. You're absolutely kidding yourself if you think this is because women are shut out of politics, the parties know that having women in prominent positions gets a massive positive response from the electorate. The problem is that when the parties target women they'd like in their parties, they get shot down way more often. And when it comes to finding women who are willing to work through the party from the ground up, going to boring ass social functions and making all the right connections, well they're even less common.
Now, we can spend a lot of time wondering why women choose to enter professions where job satisfaction is high and pay relatively low, while men often choose the opposite. And we can wonder why men will suffer through the tedium and nastiness of politics while women choose not to... but at the end of the day the choice is there. And we can wonder why women more than men prefer to be the part-time worker and look after the kids while the husband keeps working full time.
But for all the numbers posted that women use to shock us about this or that, what we no longer see is any profession denied to a person because of their gender. And that was always the point.
First off, thanks to ratbarf for posting that video: it confirmed the general impression I had of the issue, but I've been curious about the specific details for quite a while.
So far as positions of power go: there is quite a bias towards height when it comes to selecting leaders. Which makes sense for a number of reasons, honestly: when selecting for leadership positions, whether you mean to or not, part of your brain is still thinking in more primitive terms where physical size and strength are important characteristics for a leader; further, I'd posit that a more imposing figure (who's also competent in the relevant field) is more suited to a leadership position than an equally competent but less imposing candidate, if only because of how much of leadership is purely psychological, both on the part of the leader (who needs confidence in their body language, and towering over people leads to feeling quite a bit of confidence when giving them instructions) and the followers. Being quite tall, I heartily approve of this bias.
While the issue of women disproportionately favoring lower paid careers at levels requiring a higher education has been discussed, what about the lower tiers? What's always occurred to me is that when speaking of uneducated labor, those careers that require more brute strength pay significantly higher than service industry jobs, sometimes being several times greater with the more technical ones.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/28 06:24:19
Cheesecat wrote: You're right women aren't denied these positions but gender stereotypes seem to discourage people from certain opportunities (such as father's frowning upon there son going into ballet) unless it can be proven men and women are naturally inclined to go to certain roles and it isn't
society that causing these trends.
Arguing that "unless it can be proven men and women are naturally inclined to go to certain roles and it isn't society that causing these trends" seems a particularly defensive way of holding on to your original assertion.
I mean, yeah, there's gender stereotypes and they've certainly got an impact. But you can't just dismiss the idea that men and women simply want different things, and this produces much of the impact we see in workplace demographics.
But couldn't it be argued that most people desires are socially determined? Even early movies children watch like Cinderella reinforce gender stereotypes the male prince is the one with money, high status and chooses who he wants to marry, Cinderella on the other hand is more
submissive and is pretty much only appreciated for her looks and kindness. Or pictures of models often depict women in vulnerable states such as lying on couch or backing into a walls with slim delicate bodies implying submissiveness is ideal and male models on the other hand have
powerful, muscular bodies often looking directly at the viewer implying control is important.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/28 06:23:10
Sir Pseudonymous wrote: So far as positions of power go: there is quite a bias towards height when it comes to selecting leaders. Which makes sense for a number of reasons, honestly: when selecting for leadership positions, whether you mean to or not, part of your brain is still thinking in more primitive terms where physical size and strength are important characteristics for a leader; further, I'd posit that a more imposing figure (who's also competent in the relevant field) is more suited to a leadership position than an equally competent but less imposing candidate, if only because of how much of leadership is purely psychological, both on the part of the leader (who needs confidence in their body language, and towering over people leads to feeling quite a bit of confidence when giving them instructions) and the followers. Being quite tall, I heartily approve of this bias.
I might be mistaken but I think the height thing only works with men. I think there's a whole other set of bizarre criteria that makes us believe a person is a leader when it comes to women.
While the issue of women disproportionately favoring lower paid careers at levels requiring a higher education has been discussed, what about the lower tiers? What's always occurred to me is that when speaking of uneducated labor, those careers that require more brute strength pay significantly higher than service industry jobs, sometimes being several times greater with the more technical ones.
Yeah, that's another good point. Unskilled women move to low paying service jobs, while a lot of unskilled men can get work in higher paying labour positions.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Cheesecat wrote: But couldn't it be argued that most people desires are socially determined? Even early movies children watch like Cinderella reinforce gender stereotypes the male prince is the one with money, high status and chooses who he wants to marry, Cinderella on the other hand is more submissive and is pretty much only appreciated for her looks and kindness. Or pictures of models often depict women in vulnerable states such as lying on couch or backing into a walls with slim delicate bodies implying submissiveness is ideal and male models on the other hand have powerful, muscular bodies often looking directly at the viewer implying control is important.
Yeah, it could, but I think the argument that differences are entirely socially determined is looking pretty weak these, scientifically speaking. Studies of brain patterns show that men's and womens brains really do function in different ways, and lead to making different choices.
Honestly, the best way forward from here, to me, is to worry less about getting an exact balance in income, and start looking at professions that are underpaid, like social work and nursing, and trying to get them what they deserve, whether its men or women working in them.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/02/28 07:11:52
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
sebster wrote: I might be mistaken but I think the height thing only works with men. I think there's a whole other set of bizarre criteria that makes us believe a person is a leader when it comes to women.
Probably. Though I recall a documentary on body language talking about Thatcher, among other things, speaking in a deliberately deeper voice (as opposed to her naturally high, and rather annoying voice), with this being one of a number of carefully developed mannerisms seen as related to her political rise (not that of her party, of course, but her own rise in it). I'm not completely sure what that would indicate, but it's somewhat interesting trivia, I guess.
>Raptors Lead the Way < 
