Languish.org

I was listening to an interview on NPR with Lynn Povich, one of the women at the forefront of the Equal Rights Movement for women in the 1960s. She was bemoaning the idea that women today not only do not adopt the term "feminist", but eschway it as a negative term. And yet, when asked the basic questions of feminism - Do you believe in equal pay for women? Do you believe in equal opportunity for women? Do you believe in having control over your own body? - almost all women agree that they should. These, according to Ms. Povich, are the very core issues of feminism, so it's odd to her that young women aren't embracing the term.

Personally, I dislike the term because I dislike the reaction that comes from using it. In other words, I am very much a classic feminist - I believe strongly in equal rights for women - though I choose not to use the term because I don't want it turned around on me as, "I believe in better rights for women", which seems to be what feminism means today to most people.

How and why did that happen? And what are your opinions regarding the concept of "feminists" beyond the knee-jerk negative reactions? (I say that as one who has her own knee-jerk negative reaction to the term.)

Feminism, like Liberalism and Democrat, has been successfully rebranded and redefined as a naughty, naughty word for the last 30 years.  So there you go.  Pick another fucking word.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 11:52:21 AM
I was listening to an interview on NPR with Lynn Povich, one of the women at the forefront of the Equal Rights Movement for women in the 1960s. She was bemoaning the idea that women today not only do not adopt the term "feminist", but eschway it as a negative term. And yet, when asked the basic questions of feminism - Do you believe in equal pay for women? Do you believe in equal opportunity for women? Do you believe in having control over your own body? - almost all women agree that they should. These, according to Ms. Povich, are the very core issues of feminism, so it's odd to her that young women aren't embracing the term.

Personally, I dislike the term because I dislike the reaction that comes from using it. In other words, I am very much a classic feminist - I believe strongly in equal rights for women - though I choose not to use the term because I don't want it turned around on me as, "I believe in better rights for women", which seems to be what feminism means today to most people.

How and why did that happen? And what are your opinions regarding the concept of "feminists" beyond the knee-jerk negative reactions? (I say that as one who has her own knee-jerk negative reaction to the term.)

The trouble with the word "feminism" is that the major feminist figures and organizations, once they "won" the general debate over equal rights and equal pay for women, carried on into a very left-wing direction.  They started to define "feminism" very narrowly, which led to lots of people rejecting the term.

I think this is another cultural thing.  I dont think feminism is a dirty word around here.  Rather it is the norm.  Which is probably why it is not used as much.  To not be a feminist (ie to not believe in those ideals) would be considered pretty antisocial.  I will put a disclaimer in about Edmonton.  Cant really be sure about those types.

edit:  :lol: BBs post justified my disclaimer  :smarty:

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 11:59:40 AM
once they "won" the general debate over equal rights and equal pay for women, carried on into a very left-wing direction. 

Really.  They "won", did they.

As the goals of Feminism became increasingly accepted as mainstream, the term got associated fairly or not with what had been the fringe by some folks. I don't think it would raise eyebrows around here, but one may have to qualify it in some way to preemptively indicate one was not fringe - as in, "I'm an equal rights Feminist".

Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 12:06:32 PM
As the goals of Feminism became increasingly accepted as mainstream, the term got associated fairly or not with what had been the fringe by some folks. I don't think it would raise eyebrows around here, but one may have to qualify it in some way to preemptively indicate one was not fringe - as in, "I'm an equal rights Feminist".

Yeah, I think that is fair.

It is similar to environmentalists, most people are interested in protecting the environment, but the term is used for only the deep greens.

Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 12:06:32 PM
As the goals of Feminism became increasingly accepted as mainstream, the term got associated fairly or not with what had been the fringe by some folks. I don't think it would raise eyebrows around here, but one may have to qualify it in some way to preemptively indicate one was not fringe - as in, "I'm an equal rights Feminist".

But also the fringe became professionalised and co-opted the label. Most normal people of whatever gender don't want to be associated with Naomi Wolf and co. It doesn't help that many professional feminists seem to spend most of their time slagging each other off or telling other women what they should wear and how they should act.

@Meri, Another thought is that in your country abortion is still an issue of contention.  We still have some that are anti abortion but they are safely on the fringes now.

The right to access to abortion is one of the key planks in the feminist movement.  If one wishes to attack abortion rights then one needs to also attack feminism.

Well it is because it is not a very specific term I think.  I read lots of feminist blogs and so forth and while there are lots of great ones who I really respect and admire there are loads of total nutters which makes it easy to portray feminists as some sort of crazy radicals. 

A good example are the ones who flip over any indication of sexuality as oppression (one specific example that comes to mind is one feminist who had a throw away line about how she was going running in the park and she was glad the weather was getting nicer so she could admire all the attractive men out exercising and damn did she got piled on by the nutters as worse than Hitler).  Another one are the ones who insist marriage is anti-feminist and inherently unequal and should be abolished...unless it is gay marriage, kind a bizarre reversal of Christian nutters.  Then there is the whole debate about whether a man can call himself a feminist, or whether it is impossible since he can never really know teh horrah of being an oppressed woman.

To some it really does, I think, simply mean you answer yes to the questions: 'Do you believe in equal pay for women? Do you believe in equal opportunity for women? Do you believe in having control over your own body?'.  But it means alot of things to many people, and alot of the definitions are directly contradictory.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 12:03:39 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 11:59:40 AM
once they "won" the general debate over equal rights and equal pay for women, carried on into a very left-wing direction. 

Really.  They "won", did they.

Yeah, after the passage of the ERA they just went kinda nuts.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 12:03:39 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 11:59:40 AM
once they "won" the general debate over equal rights and equal pay for women, carried on into a very left-wing direction. 

Really.  They "won", did they.

Heh. My first thought on that, too.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2012, 12:20:25 PM
The right to access to abortion is one of the key planks in the feminist movement.  If one wishes to attack abortion rights then one needs to also attack feminism.

I do not think that is necessarily true.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:26:08 PM
Heh. My first thought on that, too.

You have to wait for the people who came up in the bad old days to retire at least.  Among the younger demographics it looks pretty good in that respect, equal pay anyway.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2012, 12:20:25 PM
@Meri, Another thought is that in your country abortion is still an issue of contention.  We still have some that are anti abortion but they are safely on the fringes now.

The right to access to abortion is one of the key planks in the feminist movement.  If one wishes to attack abortion rights then one needs to also attack feminism.

That's an interesting take on it. Especially because most women I know don't think of it as a "feminist" agenda, rather a "personal rights" agenda. That may be them trying to dodge the term, too, though, so it's kind of hard to tell.

Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 12:27:24 PM

You have to wait for the people who came up in the bad old days to retire at least.  Among the younger demographics it looks pretty good in that respect, equal pay anyway.

The CEOs of most companies are in their 50s and 60s now. They didn't grow up in the "bad old days". They were born during them.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 12:03:39 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 11:59:40 AM
once they "won" the general debate over equal rights and equal pay for women, carried on into a very left-wing direction. 

Really.  They "won", did they.

Yeah, they did.

Blame the radical feminists for tainting the movement/term.

But I just plain don't like the term.  It means you are promoting the interests of women-- implicitly at the expense of those of men.  I happen to believe we've achieved a sort of equality among the genders (some aspects of our society tend to favor women and others favor men, but overall I think it's more or less equal), so I see feminism as being anachronistic at best.

I don't think most people who use the term to describe themselves think it means man-hater, spicy. Some, yes.

I have a problem with the word "feminist".  It implies a struggle for female supremacy, not equality.  I think that to emphasize the struggle for equality, a gender neutral word should be used, like "sexist".

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 12:31:57 PM
Blame the radical feminists for tainting the movement/term.

But I just plain don't like the term.  It means you are promoting the interests of women-- implicitly at the expense of those of men.  I happen to believe we've achieved a sort of equality among the genders (some aspects of our society tend to favor women and others favor men, but overall I think it's more or less equal), so I see feminism as being anachronistic at best.

Yet, that's not true at all. Women are still passed over for promotions at an alarming rate. One of the things that this particular feminist talked about was that during a series of interviews with women in the news industry in 2010 (which is where Ms. Povich's focus was and is), women regularly get the lesser news stories, fewer "top" posts, etc. despite being equally as qualified as the men. The argument goes that they send men out because people are more comfortable discussing certain topics with them rather than women. Except that only seems to be the case on the kinds of stories that get the big headlines and the big paychecks.

Women are rarely chosen for top jobs in any company or industry. That's still very much the case, despite the vast number of them in middle management. Surely, by now, the numbers at the top would be more equal. It's been almost 50 years since the Equal Pay Act passed into law. Hell, I'd settle for even a quarter of them, yet it's still less than 10%. That, to me, doesn't show an equality of genders.

Before you go there, I'm not arguing for hiring a woman over a man simply because she has a vagina. I'm arguing that there are still plenty of men who refuse to hire a woman at all because of said vagina. There are men who refuse to promote women because they may take time off to have a child. There are men who refuse to even entertain the idea that a woman could - or should - have any of the top jobs because they are, after all, women.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:28:49 PM
The CEOs of most companies are in their 50s and 60s now. They didn't grow up in the "bad old days". They were born during them.

Yeah ok whatever.  My mother is in her 60s and when she was growing up she was told she could either be a nurse, a secretary, or a teacher :mellow:

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 12:36:45 PM
I have a problem with the word "feminist".  It implies a struggle for female supremacy, not equality.  I think that to emphasize the struggle for equality, a gender neutral word should be used, like "sexist".

Yes, that's how I feel, too, which is why I resist the use of the term. What I find sad is that most women do not want supremacy. They want to be on the save level playing field as the men. Sadly, too many honestly believe that we're there, when it's just not the case, which makes me wonder if the use of feminism is such a bad thing.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:39:50 PM
I'm arguing that there are still plenty of men who refuse to hire a woman at all because of said vagina. There are men who refuse to promote women because they may take time off to have a child. There are men who refuse to even entertain the idea that a woman could - or should - have any of the top jobs because they are, after all, women.

Yes indeed there are.  But those guys are fossils and are on the way out.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:41:35 PMSadly, too many honestly believe that we're there, when it's just not the case, which makes me wonder if the use of feminism is such a bad thing.

Well what I am  saying is the trends are there, things look to be going in the right direction.  It is going to take awhile to completely shake off the rust and rot of the old system.  I think most of the people who say 'we're there' are coming from the same place.

Women did very well in the last election for example.  But are they 'there' yet?  No but it is clearly a matter of time right now.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2012, 12:34:07 PM
I don't think most people who use the term to describe themselves think it means man-hater, spicy. Some, yes.

Yeah it is generally just a fight for gender equality which doesn't mean tearing men down - just improving things for everyone.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:39:50 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 12:31:57 PM
Blame the radical feminists for tainting the movement/term.

But I just plain don't like the term.  It means you are promoting the interests of women-- implicitly at the expense of those of men.  I happen to believe we've achieved a sort of equality among the genders (some aspects of our society tend to favor women and others favor men, but overall I think it's more or less equal), so I see feminism as being anachronistic at best.

Yet, that's not true at all. Women are still passed over for promotions at an alarming rate. One of the things that this particular feminist talked about was that during a series of interviews with women in the news industry in 2010 (which is where Ms. Povich's focus was and is), women regularly get the lesser news stories, fewer "top" posts, etc. despite being equally as qualified as the men. The argument goes that they send men out because people are more comfortable discussing certain topics with them rather than women. Except that only seems to be the case on the kinds of stories that get the big headlines and the big paychecks.

Women are rarely chosen for top jobs in any company or industry. That's still very much the case, despite the vast number of them in middle management. Surely, by now, the numbers at the top would be more equal. It's been almost 50 years since the Equal Pay Act passed into law. Hell, I'd settle for even a quarter of them, yet it's still less than 10%. That, to me, doesn't show an equality of genders.

Before you go there, I'm not arguing for hiring a woman over a man simply because she has a vagina. I'm arguing that there are still plenty of men who refuse to hire a woman at all because of said vagina. There are men who refuse to promote women because they may take time off to have a child. There are men who refuse to even entertain the idea that a woman could - or should - have any of the top jobs because they are, after all, women.

I'm not sure I agree with the severity of your claim here, but I will go ahead and concede that this is possibly one aspect of our society that favors men.  Others favor women.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:28:49 PM

Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 12:27:24 PM

You have to wait for the people who came up in the bad old days to retire at least.  Among the younger demographics it looks pretty good in that respect, equal pay anyway.

The CEOs of most companies are in their 50s and 60s now. They didn't grow up in the "bad old days". They were born during them.

Most of them were working in the 80s which was still a generally bad time for women in the workplace.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:39:50 PM
Women are rarely chosen for top jobs in any company or industry.

The top jobs are by definition outliers, which tend to be men. Boys are more likely than girls to be mentally retarded too. I don't know how much of a factor that is in the CEO world, but it has to be something. Probably not the amount that it is currently skewed.

I bet you will see it even out more in the future though. They are saying that in the younger demographics 20-30ish women are making more than men now.  That will probably translate to more women CEOs later just like how we now have sixty percent or so of college grads being female. Time will do it.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2012, 12:48:05 PM
I bet you will see it even out more in the future though. They are saying that in the younger demographics 20-30ish women are making more than men now.  That will probably translate to more women CEOs later just like how we now have sixty percent or so of college grads being female. Time will do it.

This absolutely.

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 12:31:57 PM
Blame the radical feminists for tainting the movement/term.

But don't blame Rush Limbaugh for 20 years of using "Feminazi" or other irrational hyperboles or anything.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2012, 12:48:05 PM
Boys are more likely than girls to be mentally retarded too. I don't know how much of a factor that is in the CEO world, but it has to be something. Probably not the amount that it is currently skewed.

:lol:

Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 12:41:24 PM
My mother is in her 60s and when she was growing up she was told she could either be a nurse, a secretary, or a teacher :mellow:

Don't worry, derspiess and others of his ilk will be telling his daughters that as well.

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 12:45:03 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2012, 12:34:07 PM
I don't think most people who use the term to describe themselves think it means man-hater, spicy. Some, yes.

Yeah it is generally just a fight for gender equality which doesn't mean tearing men down - just improving things for everyone.

I'm of the opinion that we've achieved a general equality, and that promoting women's interests is pretty much necessarily going to negatively affect those of men.

But I guess my larger quibble is with the term itself, sort of what DG said.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:41:35 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 12:36:45 PM
I have a problem with the word "feminist".  It implies a struggle for female supremacy, not equality.  I think that to emphasize the struggle for equality, a gender neutral word should be used, like "sexist".

Yes, that's how I feel, too, which is why I resist the use of the term. What I find sad is that most women do not want supremacy. They want to be on the save level playing field as the men. Sadly, too many honestly believe that we're there, when it's just not the case, which makes me wonder if the use of feminism is such a bad thing.

I think, defined the way you put it, the vast vast vast majority of people would call themselves feminist.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 12:50:12 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 12:31:57 PM
Blame the radical feminists for tainting the movement/term.

But don't blame Rush Limbaugh for 20 years of using "Feminazi" or other irrational hyperboles or anything.

Heh. I was thinking that as well.  Which came first, the reaction against Feminism or equal pay for women?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 12:52:12 PM

Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 12:41:24 PM
My mother is in her 60s and when she was growing up she was told she could either be a nurse, a secretary, or a teacher :mellow:

Don't worry, derspiess and others of his ilk will be telling his daughters that as well.

Well, I can't see myself actually encouraging her to enter a non-traditional career for a woman.  But on the other hand I can't see myself getting in the way if that's what she really wants.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2012, 12:48:05 PM
Time will do it.

That's what the Founding Fathers thought about slavery, too: that slavery would disappear over time, discouraged by the natural maturation of the enlightened progressiveness of the nation.

And then, the cotton gin.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:39:50 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 12:31:57 PM
Blame the radical feminists for tainting the movement/term.

But I just plain don't like the term.  It means you are promoting the interests of women-- implicitly at the expense of those of men.  I happen to believe we've achieved a sort of equality among the genders (some aspects of our society tend to favor women and others favor men, but overall I think it's more or less equal), so I see feminism as being anachronistic at best.

Yet, that's not true at all. Women are still passed over for promotions at an alarming rate. One of the things that this particular feminist talked about was that during a series of interviews with women in the news industry in 2010 (which is where Ms. Povich's focus was and is), women regularly get the lesser news stories, fewer "top" posts, etc. despite being equally as qualified as the men. The argument goes that they send men out because people are more comfortable discussing certain topics with them rather than women. Except that only seems to be the case on the kinds of stories that get the big headlines and the big paychecks.

Women are rarely chosen for top jobs in any company or industry. That's still very much the case, despite the vast number of them in middle management. Surely, by now, the numbers at the top would be more equal. It's been almost 50 years since the Equal Pay Act passed into law. Hell, I'd settle for even a quarter of them, yet it's still less than 10%. That, to me, doesn't show an equality of genders.

Before you go there, I'm not arguing for hiring a woman over a man simply because she has a vagina. I'm arguing that there are still plenty of men who refuse to hire a woman at all because of said vagina. There are men who refuse to promote women because they may take time off to have a child. There are men who refuse to even entertain the idea that a woman could - or should - have any of the top jobs because they are, after all, women.

I think you're wrong.

The income and "top job" disparities have greatly shrunken.  That they continue to exist is due to something you touch on - women taking themselves out of the work force to raise children.  Now I'm coming from a lawyer's perspective, but I've seen how female lawyers have their career damaged (not fatally, but damaged) by taking themselves out of the office for 12 months once or twice. 

Quote(Source) (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/07/fortune-500-female-ceos_n_1495734.html)

This year's Fortune 500 has made history with the female 18.

The 2012 ranking of the 500 largest corporations in the United States includes a record 18 firms helmed by female CEOs, up from 12 companies in 2011.

The previous record for women-led companies in the Fortune 500 was set in 2009, and included 15 firms run by female executives. Just seven Fortune 500 companies had female CEOs in 2002 and 2003.

Though this year marks a new high for female CEOs, women still run just 3.6 percent of Fortune 500 companies. And one in 10 Fortune 500 corporations have no women on their boards, according to research by Catalyst, a non-profit organization that seeks to expand women's roles in the workplace.

Fortune executive editor Stephanie Mehta said she expects the ratio to continue its shift given the growing number of high-level female executives at U.S. corporations.

"The good news is that while we have 18 today, there's a pipeline of women coming into leadership positions that's very, very deep and very, very wide," Mehta said. "There are women sitting just below the CEO position at these Fortune 500 companies and many of them are poised to lead Fortune 500 companies when there are openings and movement."

Though Silicon Valley is often described as a boys' club where female CEOs are few and far between, the two largest Fortune 500 corporations run by women are both in the tech industry: Hewlett-Packard, which ranked 10th on Fortune's list and named Meg Whitman CEO last fall, and IBM, which ranked 19th and has been run by Ginni Rometty since January.

But don't expect to see parity between the sexes on the Fortune 500 anytime soon, cautions Mehta, who argues that an even ratio on the Fortune ranking should not be the benchmark for equality in the workplace.

"I don't think we'll get to 50/50 in the near future, but I'm not necessarily sure that that's the goal. Running a Fortune 500 company is just one of the options available to strong women in leadership positions," Mehta said. "We may see a growing number of women take the choice to become leaders in non-Fortune 500 companies. And when we have choices and when women are in control of their careers and decision making in their careers, that's true equality. It doesn't necessarily need to be measured in number like 50/50."

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 12:52:24 PM
I'm of the opinion that we've achieved a general equality, and that promoting women's interests is pretty much necessarily going to negatively affect those of men.

But I guess my larger quibble is with the term itself, sort of what DG said.

Well for me the other bit really has to do with our gender roles that are still a bit confining.

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 12:55:21 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 12:52:12 PM

Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 12:41:24 PM
My mother is in her 60s and when she was growing up she was told she could either be a nurse, a secretary, or a teacher :mellow:

Don't worry, derspiess and others of his ilk will be telling his daughters that as well.

Well, I can't see myself actually encouraging her to enter a non-traditional career for a woman.  But on the other hand I can't see myself getting in the way if that's what she really wants.

What's a "non-traditional career"?  Are you talking about heavy engine mechanic, or doctor?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 12:50:12 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 12:31:57 PM
Blame the radical feminists for tainting the movement/term.

But don't blame Rush Limbaugh for 20 years of using "Feminazi" or other irrational hyperboles or anything.

Rush makes it a point to remind his listeners that he only uses that term for fringe feminists, and he doesn't have any problem with the "equal pay for equal work"-type feminists.  It's people like you who never listened to him but cherry-pick things out of context from secondary sources to make him out to be more irrational than he really is.

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 12:58:19 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 12:55:21 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 12:52:12 PM

Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 12:41:24 PM
My mother is in her 60s and when she was growing up she was told she could either be a nurse, a secretary, or a teacher :mellow:

Don't worry, derspiess and others of his ilk will be telling his daughters that as well.

Well, I can't see myself actually encouraging her to enter a non-traditional career for a woman.  But on the other hand I can't see myself getting in the way if that's what she really wants.

What's a "non-traditional career"?  Are you talking about heavy engine mechanic, or doctor?

Yes.

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 12:58:23 PM
Rush makes it a point to remind his listeners that he only uses that term for fringe feminists, and he doesn't have any problem with the "equal pay for equal work"-type feminists.  It's people like you who never listened to him but cherry-pick things out of context from secondary sources to make him out to be more irrational than he really is.

Dittohead.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2012, 12:48:05 PM
The top jobs are by definition outliers, which tend to be men. Boys are more likely than girls to be mentally retarded too. I don't know how much of a factor that is in the CEO world, but it has to be something. Probably not the amount that it is currently skewed.

I bet you will see it even out more in the future though. They are saying that in the younger demographics 20-30ish women are making more than men now.  That will probably translate to more women CEOs later just like how we now have sixty percent or so of college grads being female. Time will do it.

There are thousands of companies with CEOs, and yet less than 4% of them are women. That's not really an outlier, imo.

I don't doubt that in time it will happen. What I question is how long it will take, especially if women can be and often are shamed for continuing to demand equality.

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 12:45:03 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2012, 12:34:07 PM
I don't think most people who use the term to describe themselves think it means man-hater, spicy. Some, yes.

Yeah it is generally just a fight for gender equality which doesn't mean tearing men down - just improving things for everyone.

Except for the men who are displaced by the women CEOs.

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 12:55:21 PM
Well, I can't see myself actually encouraging her to enter a non-traditional career for a woman.

Why not?

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 12:58:55 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 12:58:19 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 12:55:21 PM
Well, I can't see myself actually encouraging her to enter a non-traditional career for a woman.  But on the other hand I can't see myself getting in the way if that's what she really wants.

What's a "non-traditional career"?  Are you talking about heavy engine mechanic, or doctor?

Yes.

:lol:

"Daddy, I want to go to medical school and be a doctor when I grow up."
"Meh."

"Daddy, I want to be an administrative assistant when I grow up."
"That's my girl!"


And you assholes call me the misogynist around here.  Too fucking funny.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 01:00:42 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 12:58:23 PM
Rush makes it a point to remind his listeners that he only uses that term for fringe feminists, and he doesn't have any problem with the "equal pay for equal work"-type feminists.  It's people like you who never listened to him but cherry-pick things out of context from secondary sources to make him out to be more irrational than he really is.

Dittohead.

Another misunderstood term.  It does not actually mean someone who agrees with Rush all the time.

Quote from: Neil on November 20, 2012, 01:03:11 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 12:45:03 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2012, 12:34:07 PM
I don't think most people who use the term to describe themselves think it means man-hater, spicy. Some, yes.

Yeah it is generally just a fight for gender equality which doesn't mean tearing men down - just improving things for everyone.

Except for the men who are displaced by the women CEOs.

They'll just have to be more competitive.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:01:50 PM

There are thousands of companies with CEOs, and yet less than 4% of them are women. That's not really an outlier, imo.

I meant a CEO is an outlier. What percentage of the entire population are CEOs? It's got to be really tiny unless you include every little S-corp laundromat. Fortune 500 CEOs are exactly 500 presumably. In a population of 310 million.

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 12:58:55 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 12:58:19 PM
What's a "non-traditional career"?  Are you talking about heavy engine mechanic, or doctor?

Yes.

Good grief.

If I had a daughter I might caution her about entering heavily male-dominated industries - not because she counted do it, but just because life is tough enough without having to take on even more battles.

But spicey, you surely recognize that medical school and law school now have more women than men, and it's been that way for several years now, don't you?

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:03:29 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 12:55:21 PM
Well, I can't see myself actually encouraging her to enter a non-traditional career for a woman.

Why not?

Because I generally believe in the validity of traditional gender roles.  And I'll note for the record that you cut out my part about not getting in her way.

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 12:57:17 PM
I think you're wrong.

The income and "top job" disparities have greatly shrunken.  That they continue to exist is due to something you touch on - women taking themselves out of the work force to raise children.  Now I'm coming from a lawyer's perspective, but I've seen how female lawyers have their career damaged (not fatally, but damaged) by taking themselves out of the office for 12 months once or twice.

Statistics bear out that I'm correct while you are not. As for the parenting thing, were things more equal (career-wise and socially), I would guess that fathers would have the ability to take more time off to raise their children. As it is, women are generally paid less, so it makes more sense for them to take the time off than to have the man do so. That would require a huge shift in social customs, however, and I just can't see it happening anytime soon.

That, to me, is the biggest problem. It's unfair to both fathers and mothers, and yet because of social custom, it's rarely addressed in any fashion.

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 01:10:28 PM
Because I generally believe in the validity of traditional gender roles.

What does that mean? That they should be adhered to? Which ones, like women staying home and raising the kids?

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 01:10:28 PM
And I'll note for the record that you cut out my part about not getting in her way.

That's only because you know her personally.

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 01:08:25 PM

Good grief.

If I had a daughter I might caution her about entering heavily male-dominated industries - not because she counted do it, but just because life is tough enough without having to take on even more battles.

You realize that this is no better than what derspiess is suggesting, right?

QuoteBut spicey, you surely recognize that medical school and law school now have more women than men, and it's been that way for several years now, don't you?

Do you think he cares? He strongly believes in the idea that men and women have their places, and ne'er the two shall meet.

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 01:08:25 PM
Good grief.

If I had a daughter I might caution her about entering heavily male-dominated industries - not because she counted do it, but just because life is tough enough without having to take on even more battles.

Cool.

QuoteBut spicey, you surely recognize that medical school and law school now have more women than men, and it's been that way for several years now, don't you?

Yeah.

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 01:13:02 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 01:10:28 PM
Because I generally believe in the validity of traditional gender roles.

What does that mean? That they should be adhered to? Which ones, like women staying home and raising the kids?

That sounds pretty good.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 01:13:17 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 01:10:28 PM
And I'll note for the record that you cut out my part about not getting in her way.

That's only because you know her personally.

So?

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 01:10:28 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:03:29 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 12:55:21 PM
Well, I can't see myself actually encouraging her to enter a non-traditional career for a woman.

Why not?

Because I generally believe in the validity of traditional gender roles.  And I'll note for the record that you cut out my part about not getting in her way.

There's a huge difference to a girl on how her father handles what she wants. If you "won't get in her way", you're effectively saying, "don't do it." So, in order to step outside your antiquated view of the world, she'll not only have to combat society, she'll have to deal with disappointing the most important man in her world. That's why I cut that part out. It's no different than actively discouraging her.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:16:11 PM
There's a huge difference to a girl on how her father handles what she wants. If you "won't get in her way", you're effectively saying, "don't do it." So, in order to step outside your antiquated view of the world, she'll not only have to combat society, she'll have to deal with disappointing the most important man in her world. That's why I cut that part out. It's no different than actively discouraging her.

I'm sure his daughter will be raised to be open-minded, independent, and strong-willed, so the "won't get in her way" part is the only thing that counts.

My intent was not for this to be a "bash derspiess" thread. I was expecting his responses and not in the least surprised by them.

I'm more interested in those who truly believe that women have arrived, so to speak, and how the term "feminism" could be used to foster a more positive view of the entire situation.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:13:27 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 01:08:25 PM

Good grief.

If I had a daughter I might caution her about entering heavily male-dominated industries - not because she counted do it, but just because life is tough enough without having to take on even more battles.

You realize that this is no better than what derspiess is suggesting, right?

Why's that?

There aren't a ton of male-dominated industries any more.  The ones that remain are typically some of the physically demanding trades.  There aren't a lot of women welders or pipe-fitters.  Assuming that's still the case whenever my fictional daughter turns 18 I'd caution against going into those fields.  There'd be a lot of comments and unwarranted assumptions, and just in general be tougher than it would need to be.  I'd probably caution my sons about going into nursing or admin assistant (about the only remaining female dominated careers).

If they wanted to do it great and I'd support it, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 01:18:31 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:16:11 PM
There's a huge difference to a girl on how her father handles what she wants. If you "won't get in her way", you're effectively saying, "don't do it." So, in order to step outside your antiquated view of the world, she'll not only have to combat society, she'll have to deal with disappointing the most important man in her world. That's why I cut that part out. It's no different than actively discouraging her.

I'm sure his daughter will be raised to be open-minded, independent, and strong-willed, so the "won't get in her way" part is the only thing that counts.

Then she'll lop off her own breasts.

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 01:19:26 PM
Why's that?

There aren't a ton of male-dominated industries any more.  The ones that remain are typically some of the physically demanding trades.  There aren't a lot of women welders or pipe-fitters.  Assuming that's still the case whenever my fictional daughter turns 18 I'd caution against going into those fields.  There'd be a lot of comments and unwarranted assumptions, and just in general be tougher than it would need to be.  I'd probably caution my sons about going into nursing or admin assistant (about the only remaining female dominated careers).

If they wanted to do it great and I'd support it, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Because that attitude is why there are still gender-dominate fields. If a son wanted to be a nurse, there is no reason for him not to, other than antiquated notions of "male roles" and "female roles", something you claim to want to get rid of, and that, in time, will be gone. How will that happen if you - a self-described enlightened modern man - perpetuates them?

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:01:50 PM
I don't doubt that in time it will happen. What I question is how long it will take, especially if women can be and often are shamed for continuing to demand equality.

I think it will be faster than you think.  At least wait for the first generations to come up with idea that a woman could be a CEO reach CEO age.  I mean, as I said, the women who are in that age bracket now were entering the work force at a time when that just was not in the cards.  Look at the lower levels of management and I think the picture gets better.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:16:11 PM
There's a huge difference to a girl on how her father handles what she wants. If you "won't get in her way", you're effectively saying, "don't do it." So, in order to step outside your antiquated view of the world, she'll not only have to combat society, she'll have to deal with disappointing the most important man in her world. That's why I cut that part out. It's no different than actively discouraging her.

You're reading the wrong things into that.  It's not like I'm cutting her off if she decides to major in pre-med or anything.  I just want to raise her to be a proper young lady (albeit one that can appreciate sports, shoot accurately, and generally think for herself) is all.

But don't let any of that get in the way of your FEMINAZI RAGE :P

Troll SUCCESSFUL

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:21:31 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 01:19:26 PM
Why's that?

There aren't a ton of male-dominated industries any more.  The ones that remain are typically some of the physically demanding trades.  There aren't a lot of women welders or pipe-fitters.  Assuming that's still the case whenever my fictional daughter turns 18 I'd caution against going into those fields.  There'd be a lot of comments and unwarranted assumptions, and just in general be tougher than it would need to be.  I'd probably caution my sons about going into nursing or admin assistant (about the only remaining female dominated careers).

If they wanted to do it great and I'd support it, but I wouldn't recommend it.

Because that attitude is why there are still gender-dominate fields. If a son wanted to be a nurse, there is no reason for him not to, other than antiquated notions of "male roles" and "female roles", something you claim to want to get rid of, and that, in time, will be gone. How will that happen if you - a self-described enlightened modern man - perpetuates them?

It's antiquated to think that being a doctor is a "male role".

But it's just plain factual to point out that in the "trades, transportation equipment operators" fields women only made up 8% of the work force in Alberta in 2007 (Google FTW!).

I don't think I claimed to be a "enlightened modern man".  I'm just a man.  I want what's best for my kids, not for my kids to necessarily be blazing social pioneers.

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 01:19:26 PM
There aren't a ton of male-dominated industries any more.  The ones that remain are typically some of the physically demanding trades.

An exception to this is the field of Computer Science, it has actually gone "backward" from I think 20% of graduates being women in the 80s to around 10% today. And there is absolutely no reason for it. There's no physical component, there's not even a strong tradition-- the field barely existed 100 years ago and arguably the very first computer programmer was a woman.

I'd like to encourage my daughter to go into it. She has the mind for it and the personality to be a leader. But I don't want to pressure her. I don't think anything good can come of parents trying to push their children into certain careers.

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 01:19:26 PM
I'd probably caution my sons about going into nursing

Don't know why:  nursing is big bucks especially as a traveling nurse, and it's tons of ass soup.

Quote from: Maximus on November 20, 2012, 01:27:26 PM
An exception to this is the field of Computer Science, it has actually gone "backward" from I think 20% of graduates being women in the 80s to around 10% today. And there is absolutely no reason for it. There's no physical component, there's not even a strong tradition-- the field barely existed 100 years ago and arguably the very first computer programmer was a woman.

Well, it is a field that strongly relies on mathematics and logic. :unsure:

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:26:08 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 12:03:39 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 11:59:40 AM
once they "won" the general debate over equal rights and equal pay for women, carried on into a very left-wing direction. 

Really.  They "won", did they.

Heh. My first thought on that, too.

I don't think that the Feminists "won" in that the sexes currently share equality on a statistical basis, so much that their aspirations - that equality was a desireable goal, that people should have control over their own sexuality, bodies and destiny unhindered by gender - became mainstream and so uncontroversial (at least, among most people).

In short, in the pre-Feminist past, Spicy's side of the argument would have appeared closer to the social consensus. Now, it's the outlier. In that sense, Feminism has "won", but obviously in so "winning" it did not necessarily eliminate actual existing inequalities.

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 01:29:10 PM

Quote from: Maximus on November 20, 2012, 01:27:26 PM
An exception to this is the field of Computer Science, it has actually gone "backward" from I think 20% of graduates being women in the 80s to around 10% today. And there is absolutely no reason for it. There's no physical component, there's not even a strong tradition-- the field barely existed 100 years ago and arguably the very first computer programmer was a woman.

Well, it is a field that strongly relies on mathematics and logic. :unsure:

Right, and the intersection with Mathematics is probably why it has become more dominated by men. Math does have a long tradition of male dominance.

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 01:24:27 PM
You're reading the wrong things into that.  It's not like I'm cutting her off if she decides to major in pre-med or anything.  I just want to raise her to be a proper young lady (albeit one that can appreciate sports, shoot accurately, and generally think for herself) is all.

But don't let any of that get in the way of your FEMINAZI RAGE :P

You can't have it both ways. You can't have her think for herself, yet discourage her from being whatever she chooses to be because it doesn't fit your idea of what a "proper young lady" should be.

Quote from: Maximus on November 20, 2012, 01:27:26 PM
An exception to this is the field of Computer Science, it has actually gone "backward" from I think 20% of graduates being women in the 80s to around 10% today. And there is absolutely no reason for it. There's no physical component, there's not even a strong tradition-- the field barely existed 100 years ago and arguably the very first computer programmer was a woman.

That's interesting. What do you think accounts for it?

In contrast, lawyering is I think around 50/50 these days.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:31:31 PM
You can't have it both ways. You can't have her think for herself, yet discourage her from being whatever she chooses to be because it doesn't fit your idea of what a "proper young lady" should be.

You're the one using the word "discourage", toots.  Not me.

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 01:26:44 PM

It's antiquated to think that being a doctor is a "male role".

But it's just plain factual to point out that in the "trades, transportation equipment operators" fields women only made up 8% of the work force in Alberta in 2007 (Google FTW!).

I don't think I claimed to be a "enlightened modern man".  I'm just a man.  I want what's best for my kids, not for my kids to necessarily be blazing social pioneers.

Just because there are few of either gender in a field does not mean that they have to be a social pioneer in order to go into it. They just have to show a desire and an aptitude to do so. That's what equality really is, and it's the kind of attitude that you're showing here that is holding society back far more than people that derspeiss. He can be dismissed as fringe. You, on the other hand, claim to believe in equality, yet live your life in a way that perpetuates the problem.

Quote from: Maximus on November 20, 2012, 01:31:16 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 01:29:10 PM

Quote from: Maximus on November 20, 2012, 01:27:26 PM
An exception to this is the field of Computer Science, it has actually gone "backward" from I think 20% of graduates being women in the 80s to around 10% today. And there is absolutely no reason for it. There's no physical component, there's not even a strong tradition-- the field barely existed 100 years ago and arguably the very first computer programmer was a woman.

Well, it is a field that strongly relies on mathematics and logic. :unsure:

Right, and the intersection with Mathematics is probably why it has become more dominated by men. Math does have a long tradition of male dominance.

Why though would it go from 20% to 10%? It always had a high math component.

Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 01:33:01 PM

Quote from: Maximus on November 20, 2012, 01:27:26 PM
An exception to this is the field of Computer Science, it has actually gone "backward" from I think 20% of graduates being women in the 80s to around 10% today. And there is absolutely no reason for it. There's no physical component, there's not even a strong tradition-- the field barely existed 100 years ago and arguably the very first computer programmer was a woman.

That's interesting. What do you think accounts for it?

In contrast, lawyering is I think around 50/50 these days.

For junior lawyers I'd say it's 60/40 in favour of women.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 01:28:36 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 01:19:26 PM
I'd probably caution my sons about going into nursing

Don't know why:  nursing is big bucks especially as a traveling nurse, and it's tons of ass soup.

Yeah. Nursing is actually a great gig on the money front.

Quote from: Maximus on November 20, 2012, 01:31:16 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 01:29:10 PM
Well, it is a field that strongly relies on mathematics and logic. :unsure:

Right, and the intersection with Mathematics is probably why it has become more dominated by men. Math does have a long tradition of male dominance.

This is an area that just infuriates me, in particular the bolded part. Logic is not something that women are traditionally bad at, even in the classical sense. In fact, in my logic class in college, women scored the highest grades.

The math thing is still something that grates on my nerves because I've yet to find a logical, conclusive reason for why women, in general, have a harder time in math than men, and yet individual women can succeed so well in it and individual men can fail miserably. Obviously, it's not an XX thing, or it would be the same across the board for all men and women. There is a reason this happens, and the only thing that I can imagine is the way that it is taught.

I'm new to the thread. Summary, please?

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 01:33:04 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:31:31 PM
You can't have it both ways. You can't have her think for herself, yet discourage her from being whatever she chooses to be because it doesn't fit your idea of what a "proper young lady" should be.

You're the one using the word "discourage".  Not me.

My earlier post was meant to illustrate how your lack of encouragement equated to discouragement. Whether you choose to actively do so or not, your attitude will effectively dissuade your daughter from being anything she wants. That is discouragement.

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 01:33:04 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:31:31 PM
You can't have it both ways. You can't have her think for herself, yet discourage her from being whatever she chooses to be because it doesn't fit your idea of what a "proper young lady" should be.

You're the one using the word "discourage", toots.  Not me.

So you'd be entirely mute on the subject if your daughter wanted to become a doctor or was not behaving like a "proper young lady"?

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 01:38:37 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 01:28:36 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 01:19:26 PM
I'd probably caution my sons about going into nursing

Don't know why:  nursing is big bucks especially as a traveling nurse, and it's tons of ass soup.

Yeah. Nursing is actually a great gig on the money front.

Bump it up to "nurse practitioner", you get much better pay, and you don't have to clean out bedpans so much as well.  ;)

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:01:50 PM
There are thousands of companies with CEOs, and yet less than 4% of them are women. That's not really an outlier, imo.

I don't doubt that in time it will happen. What I question is how long it will take, especially if women can be and often are shamed for continuing to demand equality.

Or more to the point, especially as the overwhelming majority of women would have no shot at these quota CEO slots.  Women are a slight majority of the electorate; if they were to all unify and state that the condition for their electoral support is legislation that mandates a distribution of CEO positions according to demographic distribution of the genders, that would be the law.

But what's in it for the waitress, the stripper, the retiree, or any of the other 99.99% of women that would have no possible expectation of being handed a CEO position by the Committee on Gender Fairness in the Workplace?

There's also the issue of principle.  Women are now a majority of enrolled undergraduates and enrolled law school students.  Either women are acting on the principle of purely equal outcome, in which case they would also have to support a *reduction* in women in school, or they would be acting out of brute political strength.  That might further erode your hypothetical support.

It would be analogous to affirmative action for blacks: a tiny elite minority would benefit from the support of the majority, except that in this case the ratio of beneficiaries to supporters would be even smaller.

Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 01:34:26 PM
Why though would it go from 20% to 10%? It always had a high math component.

My guess is that these days, the kinds of people who go into computer science are the kinds of people who grew up tinkering with computers.  That habit strikes me as hugely male-dominated.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:40:10 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 01:33:04 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:31:31 PM
You can't have it both ways. You can't have her think for herself, yet discourage her from being whatever she chooses to be because it doesn't fit your idea of what a "proper young lady" should be.

You're the one using the word "discourage".  Not me.

My earlier post was meant to illustrate how your lack of encouragement equated to discouragement. Whether you choose to actively do so or not, your attitude will effectively dissuade your daughter from being anything she wants. That is discouragement.

Yeah but thankfully children aren't entirely dependent on the scaffolding their parents provide.

Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 01:33:01 PM
That's interesting. What do you think accounts for it?

In contrast, lawyering is I think around 50/50 these days.

Partly the traditions of the Math profession as I mentioned above. More recently, I think the Gamer Geek culture.

And it is cultural, I have the benefit of being able to observe a world-class Computer Science department. This is my observations only, but from what I can tell the disparity does not exist at all among East Asians and exist to a much lesser degree among South Asians and Eastern Europeans.

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 01:40:30 PM
So you'd be entirely mute on the subject if your daughter wanted to become a doctor

Probably depends on the context, but yeah.

Quoteor was not behaving like a "proper young lady"?

Now here I would not be mute. 

Quote from: Maximus on November 20, 2012, 01:42:22 PM

Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 01:33:01 PM
That's interesting. What do you think accounts for it?

In contrast, lawyering is I think around 50/50 these days.

Partly the traditions of the Math profession as I mentioned above. More recently, I think the Gamer Geek culture.

And it is cultural, I have the benefit of being able to observe a world-class Computer Science department. This is my observations only, but from what I can tell the disparity does not exist at all among East Asians and exist to a much lesser degree among South Asians and Eastern Europeans.

Even that is changing as girls get more into gaming.

QuoteAnd what are your opinions regarding the concept of "feminists" beyond the knee-jerk negative reactions?

No opinion beside the knee-jerk reaction :P

Actually, I have nothing against the whole "burning the bra" thing, or the naked protests.  By all means, all women who so desire shall be free ;)

I'm all for equal pay-equal work, it's common sense to me, I don't believe in discrimination for things you can't change like sex, handicap, sexual orientation, etc.

I do mind however when we strecth those definition and we mostly base it on scholarity.  All degrees are not equal.

I do mind when some feminist bitch about a calendar of sexy girls being "exploitation of women" while they approve of those covered from toe to heard under a veil.  That's just silly.

I also do mind when they say we need women quotas in some jobs to insure equality between men and women.  There ain't a lot of women on construction sites, but there ain't a lot of men in schools and hospitals.  If we want 50-50 construction workers or mechanics, we will need 50-50 teachers, doctors and nurses.

I also think it's silly to compare annual wages between men and women.  In many couples, the woman is still the one caring for the kids.  When they are sick, she is the one missing work to take care of them. She is the one getting pregnant and having the 1 year unempoyment benefit.  After 3-4 kids, I think it's unfair to penalize those who stayed in the business continuously while a woman was raising her family.

So, basically, yeah, I disagree with modern feminism on many issues. 

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 01:44:39 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 01:40:30 PM
So you'd be entirely mute on the subject if your daughter wanted to become a doctor

Probably depends on the context, but yeah.

Quoteor was not behaving like a "proper young lady"?

Now here I would not be mute. 

So both involve her doing things you think are not a good idea but you'd only speak up about the "proper young lady" bit? Sorry if I keep putting that in quotes, but I'm not really sure what that entails.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:38:55 PM
The math thing is still something that grates on my nerves because I've yet to find a logical, conclusive reason for why women, in general, have a harder time in math than men, and yet individual women can succeed so well in it and individual men can fail miserably. Obviously, it's not an XX thing, or it would be the same across the board for all men and women. There is a reason this happens, and the only thing that I can imagine is the way that it is taught.

:hmm:  I think I know why this individual woman is not good with probability and statistics.  There is a very simple statistical explanation that fits everything that you've observed, but you have to be willing to accept an explanation that doesn't fit your "the way it is taught" preconceived notion.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 20, 2012, 01:41:34 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:01:50 PM
There are thousands of companies with CEOs, and yet less than 4% of them are women. That's not really an outlier, imo.

I don't doubt that in time it will happen. What I question is how long it will take, especially if women can be and often are shamed for continuing to demand equality.

Or more to the point, especially as the overwhelming majority of women would have no shot at these quota CEO slots.  Women are a slight majority of the electorate; if they were to all unify and state that the condition for their electoral support is legislation that mandates a distribution of CEO positions according to demographic distribution of the genders, that would be the law.

But what's in it for the waitress, the stripper, the retiree, or any of the other 99.99% of women that would have no possible expectation of being handed a CEO position by the Committee on Gender Fairness in the Workplace?

There's also the issue of principle.  Women are now a majority of enrolled undergraduates and enrolled law school students.  Either women are acting on the principle of purely equal outcome, in which case they would also have to support a *reduction* in women in school, or they would be acting out of brute political strength.  That might further erode your hypothetical support.

It would be analogous to affirmative action for blacks: a tiny elite minority would benefit from the support of the majority, except that in this case the ratio of beneficiaries to supporters would be even smaller.

You must have missed my earlier posts where I said that I am for gender equality, not supremacy of one over another. I offered the CEO example as proof that we are nowhere near that, despite the assertion by several on here that we had reached it. 

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:40:10 PM
My earlier post was meant to illustrate how your lack of encouragement equated to discouragement. Whether you choose to actively do so or not, your attitude will effectively dissuade your daughter from being anything she wants. That is discouragement.

I don't really follow your logic.  I think you're being too emotional.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 20, 2012, 01:41:34 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:01:50 PM
There are thousands of companies with CEOs, and yet less than 4% of them are women. That's not really an outlier, imo.

I don't doubt that in time it will happen. What I question is how long it will take, especially if women can be and often are shamed for continuing to demand equality.

Or more to the point, especially as the overwhelming majority of women would have no shot at these quota CEO slots.  Women are a slight majority of the electorate; if they were to all unify and state that the condition for their electoral support is legislation that mandates a distribution of CEO positions according to demographic distribution of the genders, that would be the law.

But what's in it for the waitress, the stripper, the retiree, or any of the other 99.99% of women that would have no possible expectation of being handed a CEO position by the Committee on Gender Fairness in the Workplace?

There's also the issue of principle.  Women are now a majority of enrolled undergraduates and enrolled law school students.  Either women are acting on the principle of purely equal outcome, in which case they would also have to support a *reduction* in women in school, or they would be acting out of brute political strength.  That might further erode your hypothetical support.

It would be analogous to affirmative action for blacks: a tiny elite minority would benefit from the support of the majority, except that in this case the ratio of beneficiaries to supporters would be even smaller.

Interesting argument from you.  A same case could be made for several taxes, like estate taxes or higher bracket taxation.  What's in it for the 99.99% who have no possible expectation of getting a benefit from it?

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2012, 01:45:48 PM
Even that is changing as girls get more into gaming.

Maybe. I haven't seen it yet, but a lot of people are working very hard to change it as there is a chronic shortage of people in the field.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2012, 01:45:48 PM

Quote from: Maximus on November 20, 2012, 01:42:22 PM

Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 01:33:01 PM
That's interesting. What do you think accounts for it?

In contrast, lawyering is I think around 50/50 these days.

Partly the traditions of the Math profession as I mentioned above. More recently, I think the Gamer Geek culture.

And it is cultural, I have the benefit of being able to observe a world-class Computer Science department. This is my observations only, but from what I can tell the disparity does not exist at all among East Asians and exist to a much lesser degree among South Asians and Eastern Europeans.

Even that is changing as girls get more into gaming.

I dunno about that - there's a shocking amount of misogyny surrounding gamer culture.

Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 01:41:27 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 01:38:37 PM
Yeah. Nursing is actually a great gig on the money front.

Bump it up to "nurse practitioner", you get much better pay, and you don't have to clean out bedpans so much as well.  ;)

Hell, get a MSN in Nursing Management, and you never have to wear scrubs ever again.

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 01:47:51 PM
:hmm:  I think I know why this individual woman is not good with probability and statistics.  There is a very simple statistical explanation that fits everything that you've observed, but you have to be willing to accept an explanation that doesn't fit your "the way it is taught" preconceived notion.

What is it? I've asked in the past and not been given a decent answer beyond, "Well, women aren't good at it, and men are."

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 01:51:21 PM
I dunno about that - there's a shocking amount of misogyny surrounding gamer culture.

Yeah. Not just in the culture, but in the production. Games are still made by men for men. So long as that's the case, that culture will belong to men, putting women at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to programming, etc.

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 01:48:23 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:40:10 PM
My earlier post was meant to illustrate how your lack of encouragement equated to discouragement. Whether you choose to actively do so or not, your attitude will effectively dissuade your daughter from being anything she wants. That is discouragement.

I don't really follow your logic.  I think you're being too emotional.

If you make encouraging noises when she says the "right" things but go 'mute' when she the "wrong" things, you're putting out a vibe on which things you approve of.

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 01:47:10 PM
So both involve her doing things you think are not a good idea but you'd only speak up about the "proper young lady" bit?

Once she's old enough to make a real career decision she'll be an adult.  Most of my effort to raise her the right way will come before that.

QuoteSorry if I keep putting that in quotes, but I'm not really sure what that entails.

I'll let you know once she's grown ;)

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 01:54:12 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 01:48:23 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:40:10 PM
My earlier post was meant to illustrate how your lack of encouragement equated to discouragement. Whether you choose to actively do so or not, your attitude will effectively dissuade your daughter from being anything she wants. That is discouragement.

I don't really follow your logic.  I think you're being too emotional.

If you make encouraging noises when she says the "right" things but go 'mute' when she the "wrong" things, you're putting out a vibe on which things you approve of.

He understands, garbon. He's pushing for a response that I refuse to give him.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:51:54 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 01:47:51 PM
:hmm:  I think I know why this individual woman is not good with probability and statistics.  There is a very simple statistical explanation that fits everything that you've observed, but you have to be willing to accept an explanation that doesn't fit your "the way it is taught" preconceived notion.

What is it? I've asked in the past and not been given a decent answer beyond, "Well, women aren't good at it, and men are."

I think he's getting out how probability and statistics aren't used to explain all cases but the more likely cases (or certain group of cases).

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 01:54:12 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 01:48:23 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:40:10 PM
My earlier post was meant to illustrate how your lack of encouragement equated to discouragement. Whether you choose to actively do so or not, your attitude will effectively dissuade your daughter from being anything she wants. That is discouragement.

I don't really follow your logic.  I think you're being too emotional.

If you make encouraging noises when she says the "right" things but go 'mute' when she the "wrong" things, you're putting out a vibe on which things you approve of.

Maybe a weak vibe that will ultimately have negligible effect.

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 01:54:49 PM
Once she's old enough to make a real career decision she'll be an adult.  Most of my effort to raise her the right way will come before that.

Except that some career planning starts during the education stage when she won't be. ;)

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 01:54:49 PM
I'll let you know once she's grown ;)

Unless of course you fail on whatever it is you're molding her to be.

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 01:55:49 PM

I think he's getting out how probability and statistics aren't used to explain all cases but the more likely cases (or certain group of cases).

Right. I understand that. What I want to know is how to fix the underlying problem that created the statistics in the first place.

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 01:57:31 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 01:54:12 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 01:48:23 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:40:10 PM
My earlier post was meant to illustrate how your lack of encouragement equated to discouragement. Whether you choose to actively do so or not, your attitude will effectively dissuade your daughter from being anything she wants. That is discouragement.

I don't really follow your logic.  I think you're being too emotional.

If you make encouraging noises when she says the "right" things but go 'mute' when she the "wrong" things, you're putting out a vibe on which things you approve of.

Maybe a weak vibe that will ultimately have negligible effect.

I guess if your daughter is incapable of discerning differences in mood and tone.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:57:52 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 01:55:49 PM

I think he's getting out how probability and statistics aren't used to explain all cases but the more likely cases (or certain group of cases).

Right. I understand that. What I want to know is how to fix the underlying problem that created the statistics in the first place.

I think it was just a play on that. :D

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 01:58:35 PM
I think it was just a play on that. :D

:mad:

Well that's not helpful. :glare:

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 01:58:09 PM
I guess if your daughter is incapable of discerning differences in mood and tone.

...or if she's ultimately smart enough to put things in proper context.  Her mother's not a drama queen, so hopefully she won't be either.  Though she does have red hair... :hmm:

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 01:47:51 PM
:hmm:  I think I know why this individual woman is not good with probability and statistics.  There is a very simple statistical explanation that fits everything that you've observed, but you have to be willing to accept an explanation that doesn't fit your "the way it is taught" preconceived notion.

Let's assume for a moment that my observations are representative. Does your explanation fit the data showing that the disparity is radically different among different cultures?

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 02:00:53 PM
Her mother's not a drama queen,

How the hell that happened with a South American chickadee, I'll never know.  :P

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 02:00:53 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 01:58:09 PM
I guess if your daughter is incapable of discerning differences in mood and tone.

...or if she's ultimately smart enough to put things in proper context.  Her mother's not a drama queen, so hopefully she won't be either.  Though she does have red hair... :hmm:

Well wouldn't you ultimately rather have her pick the types of careers you think are suitable?  Exempting career choice from your "proper lady" training seems a little odd, no? I mean choice of career has a pretty big impact on a person's life.

Quote from: Maximus on November 20, 2012, 01:42:22 PM
And it is cultural, I have the benefit of being able to observe a world-class Computer Science department. This is my observations only, but from what I can tell the disparity does not exist at all among East Asians and exist to a much lesser degree among South Asians and Eastern Europeans.

Wait so cultures who commit infanticide and selectively abort baby girls in vast numbers encourage the survivors to go into Computer Science?  Well I guess there is that.

Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 02:03:37 PM

Wait so cultures who commit infanticide and selectively abort baby girls in vast numbers encourage the survivors to go into Computer Science?  Well I guess there is that.

That actually makes sense. If being female is a negative, it follows that those who allow their daughters to grow up are going to make them more male than female, culturally speaking. At least those women who succeed enough to escape to the US for an education would.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 02:02:46 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 02:00:53 PM
Her mother's not a drama queen,

How the hell that happened with a South American chickadee, I'll never know.  :P

Most South American women I know are not what I would call drama queens.  A raging temper if you set them off, for sure.  But they don't necessarily go around looking for things to get pissed off about.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:51:54 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 01:47:51 PM
:hmm:  I think I know why this individual woman is not good with probability and statistics.  There is a very simple statistical explanation that fits everything that you've observed, but you have to be willing to accept an explanation that doesn't fit your "the way it is taught" preconceived notion.

What is it? I've asked in the past and not been given a decent answer beyond, "Well, women aren't good at it, and men are."

From my admittedly anecdotal experience I don't think the average man and women differ much in mathematical abilities, it appears more that fewer women have the exceptional (and often "difficult") personality traits that are associated with truly exceptional ability at math.

Though admittedly that wouldn't explain the computer science thing.  ;)

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:51:54 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 01:47:51 PM
:hmm:  I think I know why this individual woman is not good with probability and statistics.  There is a very simple statistical explanation that fits everything that you've observed, but you have to be willing to accept an explanation that doesn't fit your "the way it is taught" preconceived notion.

What is it? I've asked in the past and not been given a decent answer beyond, "Well, women aren't good at it, and men are."

Mathematical ability, like most things in nature, are distributed on a bell curve.  The mathematical abilities of men have their bell curve, and the mathematical ability of women have their bell curve, if we use Math SAT scores as a proxy for mathematical abilities.

On average, male and female performance on isn't too different.  The two bell curves do not overlap, but they're not too far apart from each other;  the difference is only a third of a standard deviation.  If you take two people at random, the odds are close to even as to who would be better at math.

However, such small differences on average tend to leverage themselves as you get to higher and higher math skill.  As you move into abilities many standard deviations above the mean, the ratio of males to females above the threshold can grow to infinity, and can easily be 10:1 at realistic levels.  That's the reason why on average, you won't see much difference in math abilities for males and females, but at the extremes, males dominate.

Here is a graph illustrating this leveraging effect:  http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sat23.jpg

Equal does not mean same.

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 02:08:22 PM
Mathematical ability, like most things in nature, are distributed on a bell curve.  The mathematical abilities of men have their bell curve, and the mathematical ability of women have their bell curve, if we use Math SAT scores as a proxy for mathematical abilities.

On average, male and female performance on isn't too different.  The two bell curves do not overlap, but they're not too far apart from each other;  the difference is only a third of a standard deviation.  If you take two people at random, the odds are close to even as to who would be better at math.

However, such small differences on average tend to leverage themselves as you get to higher and higher math skill.  As you move into abilities many standard deviations above the mean, the ratio of males to females above the threshold can grow to infinity, and can easily be 10:1 at realistic levels.  That's the reason why on average, you won't see much difference in math abilities for males and females, but at the extremes, males dominate.

Here is a graph illustrating this leveraging effect:  http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sat23.jpg

:mellow:

I understand all of that. The question is why, not what.

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 02:07:03 PM
Most South American women I know are not what I would call drama queens.  A raging temper if you set them off, for sure.  But they don't necessarily go around looking for things to get pissed off about.

Maybe it's just the farther one gets from the equator  :lol:

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 01:55:49 PM
I think he's getting out how probability and statistics aren't used to explain all cases but the more likely cases (or certain group of cases).

That's a good point as well.  Because most attributes in nature are distributed on a bell curve, anecdotal examples are an extremely bad counter-argument.  The existence of bell curves implies variability in the attributes.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 02:06:22 PM

That actually makes sense. If being female is a negative, it follows that those who allow their daughters to grow up are going to make them more male than female, culturally speaking. At least those women who succeed enough to escape to the US for an education would.

I wouldn't go that way. The corollary would be that if Asian girls could do whatever they wanted, they'd be bad at math too. Seems flawed.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:47:55 PM

You must have missed my earlier posts where I said that I am for gender equality, not supremacy of one over another. I offered the CEO example as proof that we are nowhere near that, despite the assertion by several on here that we had reached it.

I did not miss it.  But you do seem to be confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 02:03:12 PM
Well wouldn't you ultimately rather have her pick the types of careers you think are suitable?

Yes.  And I'd rather have a Republican president right now.  And I'd rather my football teams not suck so bad.  But I realize there are things I ultimately can't control.

QuoteExempting career choice from your "proper lady" training seems a little odd, no?

No.

QuoteI mean choice of career has a pretty big impact on a person's life.

Correct.  I'm not sure it's a parent's role to push particular careers on their kids, though.  I'm sure both my kids will decide their career path when the time is right. 

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 02:14:19 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 01:55:49 PM
I think he's getting out how probability and statistics aren't used to explain all cases but the more likely cases (or certain group of cases).

That's a good point as well.  Because most attributes in nature are distributed on a bell curve, anecdotal examples are an extremely bad counter-argument.  The existence of bell curves implies variability in the attributes.

Which is why using 500 CEOs in a population of 300 million is a bad way to measure gender equality.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 20, 2012, 02:14:32 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 01:47:55 PM

You must have missed my earlier posts where I said that I am for gender equality, not supremacy of one over another. I offered the CEO example as proof that we are nowhere near that, despite the assertion by several on here that we had reached it.

I did not miss it.  But you do seem to be confusing equality of opportunity with equality of outcome.

My argument is that there is not an equality of opportunity.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 02:12:27 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 02:08:22 PM
Mathematical ability, like most things in nature, are distributed on a bell curve.  The mathematical abilities of men have their bell curve, and the mathematical ability of women have their bell curve, if we use Math SAT scores as a proxy for mathematical abilities.

On average, male and female performance on isn't too different.  The two bell curves do not overlap, but they're not too far apart from each other;  the difference is only a third of a standard deviation.  If you take two people at random, the odds are close to even as to who would be better at math.

However, such small differences on average tend to leverage themselves as you get to higher and higher math skill.  As you move into abilities many standard deviations above the mean, the ratio of males to females above the threshold can grow to infinity, and can easily be 10:1 at realistic levels.  That's the reason why on average, you won't see much difference in math abilities for males and females, but at the extremes, males dominate.

Here is a graph illustrating this leveraging effect:  http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sat23.jpg

:mellow:

I understand all of that. The question is why, not what.

If you understand all that, then why did you bring up all those points as if they were logically inconsistent with the notion than men are slightly better than women at math?  If you understood all that, then you would not be dumbfounded by things you claimed to be dumbfounded by.

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 02:08:22 PM
Mathematical ability, like most things in nature, are distributed on a bell curve.  The mathematical abilities of men have their bell curve, and the mathematical ability of women have their bell curve, if we use Math SAT scores as a proxy for mathematical abilities.

On average, male and female performance on isn't too different.  The two bell curves do not overlap, but they're not too far apart from each other;  the difference is only a third of a standard deviation.  If you take two people at random, the odds are close to even as to who would be better at math.

However, such small differences on average tend to leverage themselves as you get to higher and higher math skill.  As you move into abilities many standard deviations above the mean, the ratio of males to females above the threshold can grow to infinity, and can easily be 10:1 at realistic levels.  That's the reason why on average, you won't see much difference in math abilities for males and females, but at the extremes, males dominate.

Here is a graph illustrating this leveraging effect:  http://www.aei-ideas.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/sat23.jpg

But that doesn't address at all the cause behind the different distributions, which is where the "how it's taught" argument is applied.

My personal belief is that it isn't innate ability(which is generally overrated IMO) nor how it's taught, but rather how it's valued, in particular among your peer group. 

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 02:13:34 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 02:07:03 PM
Most South American women I know are not what I would call drama queens.  A raging temper if you set them off, for sure.  But they don't necessarily go around looking for things to get pissed off about.

Maybe it's just the farther one gets from the equator  :lol:

Just one data point, but my future sister-in-law is certainly no drama queen.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 02:13:34 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 02:07:03 PM
Most South American women I know are not what I would call drama queens.  A raging temper if you set them off, for sure.  But they don't necessarily go around looking for things to get pissed off about.

Maybe it's just the farther one gets from the equator  :lol:

Dunno if that makes a difference.  I'm including Venezuelans, a Colombian, an Ecuadorian, and a few Peruvians in my analysis (in addition to Argie women of course).  They're all passionate and sometimes ill-tempered women, but none are what I would call drama queens.

My best friend's sister is to me the penultimate drama queen.  She will create a major controversy out of the slightest issue, and if none exists she'll actively stir shit up.  She does happen to be a redhead, FWIW.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2012, 02:15:29 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 02:14:19 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 01:55:49 PM
I think he's getting out how probability and statistics aren't used to explain all cases but the more likely cases (or certain group of cases).

That's a good point as well.  Because most attributes in nature are distributed on a bell curve, anecdotal examples are an extremely bad counter-argument.  The existence of bell curves implies variability in the attributes.

Which is why using 500 CEOs in a population of 300 million is a bad way to measure gender equality.

The article I provided was the top 500 companies. The statistics holds across the US for all CEOs, which numbers in the thousands, with only 4% being women.

Well, then again, crazy knows no geographical boundaries.  :lol:

Quote from: Maximus on November 20, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
My personal belief is that it isn't innate ability(which is generally overrated IMO) not how it's taught, but rather how it's valued, in particular among your peer group.

Yeah I think this is right. With also the desire component Meri brought up, which is affected in part by how it's valued and in part by other things.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 02:20:35 PM
Well, then again, crazy knows no geographical boundaries.  :lol:

Neither does retardation. I think we may be on to something here.  :P

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 02:17:19 PM
If you understand all that, then why did you bring up all those points as if they were logically inconsistent with the notion than men are slightly better than women at math?  If you understood all that, then you would not be dumbfounded by things you claimed to be dumbfounded by.

I'm dumbfounded on the why, not what.

I can say it again, as it seems to be lost on you, but I'm not sure there's much point. :unsure:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on November 20, 2012, 02:20:35 PM
Well, then again, crazy knows no geographical boundaries.  :lol:

But there are many different flavors of crazy.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2012, 02:20:39 PM

Quote from: Maximus on November 20, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
My personal belief is that it isn't innate ability(which is generally overrated IMO) not how it's taught, but rather how it's valued, in particular among your peer group.

Yeah I think this is right. With also the desire component Meri brought up, which is affected in part by how it's valued and in part by other things.

That seems like the most valid reason that I've heard. (And now that I read Max's response, I recall him saying something similar before. I just forgot. :blush:) I wonder if this falls in line with the idea that it's better to stick with what others deem okay for you rather than be a "social trailblazer" and step outside that.

In short, it seems to be a microcosm of the bigger issue with equality between the genders. Women can be as much in the way of their success as men can be, and it will require a massive shift in society toward gender equality for it to ever come to fruition.

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 02:20:00 PM
Dunno if that makes a difference.  I'm including Venezuelans, a Colombian, an Ecuadorian, and a few Peruvians in my analysis (in addition to Argie women of course).  They're all passionate and sometimes ill-tempered women, but none are what I would call drama queens.

My best friend's sister is to me the penultimate drama queen.  She will create a major controversy out of the slightest issue, and if none exists she'll actively stir shit up.  She does happen to be a redhead, FWIW.

I'm curious. Do you consider me to be a drama queen?

Quote from: Maximus on November 20, 2012, 02:02:13 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 01:47:51 PM
:hmm:  I think I know why this individual woman is not good with probability and statistics.  There is a very simple statistical explanation that fits everything that you've observed, but you have to be willing to accept an explanation that doesn't fit your "the way it is taught" preconceived notion.

Let's assume for a moment that my observations are representative. Does your explanation fit the data showing that the disparity is radically different among different cultures?

No.  Computer science doesn't require such an exceptional level of math ability that it would lead to a gender disparity that severe.  I think cultural preferences dominated there.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 02:27:10 PM
I'm curious. Do you consider me to be a drama queen?

Well, you do seem to have your buttons :ph34r:

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 02:30:20 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 02:27:10 PM
I'm curious. Do you consider me to be a drama queen?

Well, you do seem to have your buttons :ph34r:

That's not how you described a drama queen, and you said that your wife had hers, and yet wasn't a drama queen.

So, I ask again: Do you consider me to be a drama queen?

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 02:26:23 PM
I wonder if this falls in line with the idea that it's better to stick with what others deem okay for you rather than be a "social trailblazer" and step outside that.

The early to mid teens is where mathematical ability is most easily developed. And I would guess that early to mid teen girls are one of the least likely groups to defy their peers.

Quote from: Maximus on November 20, 2012, 02:31:59 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 02:26:23 PM
I wonder if this falls in line with the idea that it's better to stick with what others deem okay for you rather than be a "social trailblazer" and step outside that.

The early to mid teens is where mathematical ability is most easily developed. And I would guess that early to mid teen girls are one of the least likely groups to defy their peers.

Well, I know how to fix that with Riley. We'll just tell her that she can't do it. :P

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 02:31:31 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 02:30:20 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 02:27:10 PM
I'm curious. Do you consider me to be a drama queen?

Well, you do seem to have your buttons :ph34r:

That's not how you described a drama queen, and you said that your wife had hers, and yet wasn't a drama queen.

So, I ask again: Do you consider me to be a drama queen?

I don't know how you are in your day to day life, but going by your Languish persona I'd say yeah, sorta.  But don't take that the wrong way-- you have many other redeeming qualities and you're definitely not alone.

Oh, I don't. I am most certainly not a drama queen in real life, but I wondered if it seemed so on Languish, where the conversation is almost always provoking in some sense or another.

Meri, I'd say yes. Mostly because Languish is full of men that consistantly push your buttons for kicks.

Things would be different if, for example, our aims was to get in your pants.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 02:22:29 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 02:17:19 PM
If you understand all that, then why did you bring up all those points as if they were logically inconsistent with the notion than men are slightly better than women at math?  If you understood all that, then you would not be dumbfounded by things you claimed to be dumbfounded by.

I'm dumbfounded on the why, not what.

I can say it again, as it seems to be lost on you, but I'm not sure there's much point. :unsure:

I think the point of what you said is lost on you.  Here's what you said, broken down by sentence:

QuoteThe math thing is still something that grates on my nerves because I've yet to find a logical, conclusive reason for why women, in general, have a harder time in math than men, and yet individual women can succeed so well in it and individual men can fail miserably.

So you understood my statistical point all along, and at the same time you have yet to find a logical conclusive reason why those two things can both be true?  Something is definitely lost on me here.

QuoteObviously, it's not an XX thing, or it would be the same across the board for all men and women.

Again, it's another statement that inconsistent with truly understanding the point I made.  There is variance in nature, hence the bell curve and not bell singular point, so even in cases where there are fundamental gender differences, you are still unlikely have that difference manifested across the board for all men and women.

QuoteThere is a reason this happens, and the only thing that I can imagine is the way that it is taught.

And this statement made me believe that you found all the previous points to be inconsistent with the existence of fundamental differences in math ability by gender, which is why I brought up the statistical point as a refutation.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 02:16:30 PM
My argument is that there is not an equality of opportunity.

The only support you've offered so far for this assertion is the outcome.

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 02:20:00 PM

My best friend's sister is to me the penultimate drama queen.  She will create a major controversy out of the slightest issue, and if none exists she'll actively stir shit up.  She does happen to be a redhead, FWIW.

Interesting. So by the above definition, you think that I'm a drama queen? You believe that I create a major controversy out of the slightest issue or if none exists at all?

I'm honestly not being defensive. I just find the perception on here to be interesting, because it is kind of the opposite of who I am in real life. I will try to avoid drama at all costs, and usually downplay most things even when others wouldn't. The exception is when I see something that appears to be unfair or discriminatory. But I don't consider that "stirring shit up". YMMV

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 02:42:11 PM
I think the point of what you said is lost on you.  Here's what you said, broken down by sentence:

QuoteThe math thing is still something that grates on my nerves because I've yet to find a logical, conclusive reason for why women, in general, have a harder time in math than men, and yet individual women can succeed so well in it and individual men can fail miserably.

So you understood my statistical point all along, and at the same time you have yet to find a logical conclusive reason why those two things can both be true?  Something is definitely lost on me here.

QuoteObviously, it's not an XX thing, or it would be the same across the board for all men and women.

Again, it's another statement that inconsistent with truly understanding the point I made.  There is variance in nature, hence the bell curve and not bell singular point, so even in cases where there are fundamental gender differences, you are still unlikely have that difference manifested across the board for all men and women.

QuoteThere is a reason this happens, and the only thing that I can imagine is the way that it is taught.

And this statement made me believe that you found all the previous points to be inconsistent with the existence of fundamental differences in math ability by gender, which is why I brought up the statistical point as a refutation.

:sleep:

I stand corrected, thoroughly. I can see why you said what you did. I DO understand what you're saying, even if my post shows otherwise.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 02:53:16 PM
:sleep:

I stand corrected, thoroughly. I can see why you said what you did. I DO understand what you're saying, even if my post shows otherwise.

:hug:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 20, 2012, 02:44:22 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 02:16:30 PM
My argument is that there is not an equality of opportunity.

The only support you've offered so far for this assertion is the outcome.

Okay. Here's an article  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/10/25/the-u-s-is-catching-up-to-europe-on-gender-equality/) that I came across earlier. It helps support my assertion.

QuoteThe U.S. is catching up to Europe on gender equality
Posted by Max Fisher on October 25, 2012 at 11:06 am
  Text Size PrintReprintsShare:More »
FacebookTwitterStumbleUponDiggDeliciousWestern European countries have long led the world on gender equality, but the latest annual Gender Gap Report, just issued by the World Economic Forum, shows that the U.S. is making significant gains in an area where it has often lagged the Western world.

The annual WEF report grades countries on five metrics to measure the degree of gender equality or inequality: economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment. Countries are scored between 0.0 for most unequal, meaning that women have zero access, or 1.0 for fully equal.

The 2012 report ranks the U.S. 22nd in the world. The only non-Western nations that rank higher than the U.S., meaning their societies are more equal for women, are South Africa, Cuba, Lesotho, Nicaragua, and the Philippines. American society has been catching up to its historical leaders, as this chart of WEF gender equality scores across Western Europe since 2006 shows.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fworldviews%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F10%2Fwef-data-usa-weurope.jpg&hash=0bdd73472cc1c130d832fd528533e2c4a2571d5f)

(Source: World Economic Forum)

I haven't included Scandinavian countries in this chart. Their scores are so high that it would make it to difficult to portray the U.S.'s relative gains against the rest of Western Europe. But what's also striking about this is the relatively poor gender equality in two of Western Europe's largest economies and more liberal societies: France and Italy.

In the broader European context, the U.S. is in fact a better place for women, judging by the WEF data, than is the majority of the continent. Here's a map of Europe, color-coded by gender equality. The blue countries are, according to the WEF data, more accessible societies for women than is the United States, with darker blue signifying better scores. The red countries are less friendly societies for women, with darker red signifying worse scores.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fworldviews%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F10%2Feurope-map-gender21.jpg&hash=f65f7b44d180bace4ade106b20b6705bcffa1d4d)

(Source: World Economic Forum)

This map tells a few different stories. The first is the striking degrees of inequality that remain in Western Europe. In the cases of Spain and France, that has worsened considerably over recent years. The second is the remarkable successes that women have found in Scandinavian countries, by far the most equal for women in the world. And perhaps the third would be the deep problems of gender inequality that persist in much of the former Soviet Union. I'll be looking more into several of these issues throughout the day, so check back.

Quote from: Maximus on November 20, 2012, 02:17:39 PM
But that doesn't address at all the cause behind the different distributions, which is where the "how it's taught" argument is applied.

My personal belief is that it isn't innate ability(which is generally overrated IMO) nor how it's taught, but rather how it's valued, in particular among your peer group.

I think "innate ability" is less significant than "how its taught" and "how it's valued" for good average performance, but that the reverse is true for the true outliers at the edge.

In that an average person can be taught to be a competent lawyer or a good programmer if they value those things enough, but you can't teach the average person to be an outstanding mathematician or musical composer even if they really, really want to be one.  At that level, innate ability above the norm is a necessary but not sufficient requirement.

Timmay maps :bleeding:

Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 03:01:32 PM
In that an average person can be taught to be a competent lawyer or a good programmer if they value those things enough, but you can't teach the average person to be an outstanding mathematician or musical composer even if they really, really want to be one.  At that level, innate ability above the norm is a necessary but not sufficient requirement.

Isnt all you are saying is that one cannot be taught to be creative.  People can be given the opportunity to be creative but not everyone given that opportunity will succeed.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 02:47:28 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 02:20:00 PM

My best friend's sister is to me the penultimate drama queen.  She will create a major controversy out of the slightest issue, and if none exists she'll actively stir shit up.  She does happen to be a redhead, FWIW.

Interesting. So by the above definition, you think that I'm a drama queen? You believe that I create a major controversy out of the slightest issue or if none exists at all?

Well, you did start this thread :mellow:

QuoteI'm honestly not being defensive. I just find the perception on here to be interesting, because it is kind of the opposite of who I am in real life. I will try to avoid drama at all costs, and usually downplay most things even when others wouldn't. The exception is when I see something that appears to be unfair or discriminatory. But I don't consider that "stirring shit up". YMMV

I think a lot of us here say & do things on Languish that they wouldn't often say or do in the real world.  For example in the real world I don't often discuss politics or social issues, and if I do it's only with close friends & family.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2012, 03:03:54 PM

Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 03:01:32 PM
In that an average person can be taught to be a competent lawyer or a good programmer if they value those things enough, but you can't teach the average person to be an outstanding mathematician or musical composer even if they really, really want to be one.  At that level, innate ability above the norm is a necessary but not sufficient requirement.

Isnt all you are saying is that one cannot be taught to be creative.  People can be given the opportunity to be creative but not everyone given that opportunity will succeed.

I guess that's true, depending on how you define "creative". I think everyone is creative to some extent, but to go beyond established wisdom and truly blaze new ground in fields like mathematics involves I think having a certain high level of innate ability.

Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 03:09:51 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2012, 03:03:54 PM

Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 03:01:32 PM
In that an average person can be taught to be a competent lawyer or a good programmer if they value those things enough, but you can't teach the average person to be an outstanding mathematician or musical composer even if they really, really want to be one.  At that level, innate ability above the norm is a necessary but not sufficient requirement.

Isnt all you are saying is that one cannot be taught to be creative.  People can be given the opportunity to be creative but not everyone given that opportunity will succeed.

I guess that's true, depending on how you define "creative". I think everyone is creative to some extent, but to go beyond established wisdom and truly blaze new ground in fields like mathematics involves I think having a certain high level of innate ability.

What do you mean by "innate".  That seems to be a self referential definition - those that are able have it and those that dont dont.

You can teach anyone who wants to learn how to do math problems.  The kids who pull a Mono and spend all their time doing homework will get 100%.  But to be a great mathematician takes more than rote learning.  It takes creativity.

Same thing with Musicians.  You can teach anyone willing to learn how to play a song from a song sheet.  Again, the kids that pull a Mono and practise that song over and over again will get very good at playing it.  But improvisation may elude them.  That takes creativity.

I liked your examples of math and music because they are so closely linked.

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 03:09:22 PM

Well, you did start this thread :mellow:

Huh. I thought I started a discussion, not stirred shit. That is what Languish is meant to be, I thought. That is, actually, why I asked the question. I think of Marti as the only drama queen on Languish now, and I wondered if I appeared to be the same here. You've answered that question. Thanks. :)

Quote
I think a lot of us here say & do things on Languish that they wouldn't often say or do in the real world.  For example in the real world I don't often discuss politics or social issues, and if I do it's only with close friends & family.

I start conversations here I wouldn't start in the real world, but I don't think that beyond that I handle things any differently. I have noticed, however, that I am often perceived as being upset or "screaching" when I'm not in the least bothered by a particular topic. I put that down to the limitations of online discussion, but now I wonder if it's not more because that's actually how many of you see me.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2012, 03:14:36 PM
What do you mean by "innate".  That seems to be a self referential definition - those that are able have it and those that dont dont.

You can teach anyone who wants to learn how to do math problems.  The kids who pull a Mono and spend all their time doing homework will get 100%.  But to be a great mathematician takes more than rote learning.  It takes creativity.

Same thing with Musicians.  You can teach anyone willing to learn how to play a song from a song sheet.  Again, the kids that pull a Mono and practise that song over and over again will get very good at playing it.  But improvisation may elude them.  That takes creativity.

I liked your examples of math and music because they are so closely linked.

Except we're not talking about amazing, world-class mathemeticians.  We're wondering why women don't go into university-level computer science programs.  I think that qualifies as part of the "you can teach anyone who wants to learn how to do math problems".

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 03:24:32 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2012, 03:14:36 PM
What do you mean by "innate".  That seems to be a self referential definition - those that are able have it and those that dont dont.

You can teach anyone who wants to learn how to do math problems.  The kids who pull a Mono and spend all their time doing homework will get 100%.  But to be a great mathematician takes more than rote learning.  It takes creativity.

Same thing with Musicians.  You can teach anyone willing to learn how to play a song from a song sheet.  Again, the kids that pull a Mono and practise that song over and over again will get very good at playing it.  But improvisation may elude them.  That takes creativity.

I liked your examples of math and music because they are so closely linked.

Except we're not talking about amazing, world-class mathemeticians.  We're wondering why women don't go into university-level computer science programs.  I think that qualifies as part of the "you can teach anyone who wants to learn how to do math problems".

You might be talking about that.  Malthus said something that I found interesting and I am exploring that with him.

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 03:24:32 PM

Except we're not talking about amazing, world-class mathemeticians.  We're wondering why women don't go into university-level computer science programs.  I think that qualifies as part of the "you can teach anyone who wants to learn how to do math problems".

Malthus veered off slightly, but that's Languish. :)

The point remains that it appears to be a cultural reason behind the lack of women in that particular field. That leads one to question how to change that, and if it should, in fact, be changed. Should we just allow the cultural pressures to stand, or is it worthwhile to try to shift them for a more equitable market for women?

I like feminists and feminism. I agree with feminist ideas in 9 cases out of 10. It is a refreshing perspective and ideology. I think only idiots think it is evil or fundamentally wrong.

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2012, 03:33:27 PM
I like feminists and feminism. I agree with feminist ideas in 9 cases out of 10. It is a refreshing perspective and ideology. I think only idiots think it is evil or fundamentally wrong.

Well, I would argue that the recent (as in the past 10-20 years) use of the word has tainted it to mean something other than what you're thinking of. At least, that's true in the US. That's why I asked the questions I asked. :)

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 03:24:32 PM
Except we're not talking about amazing, world-class mathemeticians.  We're wondering why women don't go into university-level computer science programs.  I think that qualifies as part of the "you can teach anyone who wants to learn how to do math problems".

I think you're going too far the other way.  When I was in college, many CS majors hit the wall at the point where they had to take discrete math, algorithms, and data structures courses.  While they were not rocket science courses, and I aced them without too much effort, a lot of CS majors were totally lost in them.  There is a pretty high floor on the math ability required to be a computer scientist.  It won't explain 10:1 gender ratio you see with math professors, but it will easily explain 2:1 ratio.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2012, 12:48:05 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 12:39:50 PM
Women are rarely chosen for top jobs in any company or industry.

The top jobs are by definition outliers, which tend to be men. Boys are more likely than girls to be mentally retarded too. I don't know how much of a factor that is in the CEO world, but it has to be something. Probably not the amount that it is currently skewed.

I bet you will see it even out more in the future though. They are saying that in the younger demographics 20-30ish women are making more than men now.  That will probably translate to more women CEOs later just like how we now have sixty percent or so of college grads being female. Time will do it.

The thing is, most CEOs are not super-smart. I think many women do not choose high levels of professional career as they have different priorities (notwithstanding the old boys' network bias). I worked with female bosses and I worked with male bosses, and they are just... different. I think the best bosses I had were women. But also the worst bosses I had were women. But I generally welcome more women as they offer an entirely different perspective.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 03:34:51 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2012, 03:33:27 PM
I like feminists and feminism. I agree with feminist ideas in 9 cases out of 10. It is a refreshing perspective and ideology. I think only idiots think it is evil or fundamentally wrong.

Well, I would argue that the recent (as in the past 10-20 years) use of the word has tainted it to mean something other than what you're thinking of. At least, that's true in the US. That's why I asked the questions I asked. :)

Oh it's the same here in Poland - to call someone a feminist is often an insult and there are many stupid women who make it a point of pride to claim that they are not feminists. I just think most people are stupid.

The point is, while your local social progress mileage may vary, the conservative right everywhere makes it a point to deride and denigrate feminists, so the general public begins to question feminist goals and demands and distances itself from them. Are feminists ever wrong? Sure. But they are pushing in the right direction.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 02:12:27 PM
I understand all of that. The question is why, not what.

There is extreme male brain theory - as exemplified by the arguable connections between Asperger's and mathematics ability.  I think that was what Malthus was driving at earlier.  All very speculative IMO but perhaps there is something to it.

My guess is that the broader disparity in tech/engineering/comp sci is a combination of conforming to adoloscent stereotyping and social bonding (younger girls are less likely to "get into" the techgeek or hacker subculture than younger boys) and - for individuals of a given level of intelligence and ambition - better perceived comparative opportunities in professions like law, medicine, or politics, where there is a greater concentration of potential same-sex role model/mentors, less risk of pack hostility, and (more speculatively) more room to take advantage of possible advantages in emotional intelligence or interpersonal interaction.

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 03:39:17 PM
I think you're going too far the other way.  When I was in college, many CS majors hit the wall at the point where they had to take discrete math, algorithms, and data structures courses.  While they were not rocket science courses, and I aced them without too much effort, a lot of CS majors were totally lost in them.  There is a pretty high floor on the math ability required to be a computer scientist.  It won't explain 10:1 gender ratio you see with math professors, but it will easily explain 2:1 ratio.

But the same requirements are not there for computer programmers. Only computer scientists.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2012, 03:42:40 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 02:12:27 PM
I understand all of that. The question is why, not what.

There is extreme male brain theory - as exemplified by the arguable connections between Asperger's and mathematics ability.  I think that was what Malthus was driving at earlier.  All very speculative IMO but perhaps there is something to it.

My guess is that the broader disparity in tech/engineering/comp sci is a combination of conforming to adoloscent stereotyping and social bonding (younger girls are less likely to "get into" the techgeek or hacker subculture than younger boys) and - for individuals of a given level of intelligence and ambition - better perceived comparative opportunities in professions like law, medicine, or politics, where there is a greater concentration of potential same-sex role model/mentors, less risk of pack hostility, and (more speculatively) more room to take advantage of possible advantages in emotional intelligence or interpersonal interaction.

Well but that does not explain why lawyering is male dominated. And I have seen female M&A negotiators who were brilliant and completely in control of a room full of men with bloated egos (and not through "female wiles" or whatnot, but simply the ability to compromise).

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 03:34:51 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2012, 03:33:27 PM
I like feminists and feminism. I agree with feminist ideas in 9 cases out of 10. It is a refreshing perspective and ideology. I think only idiots think it is evil or fundamentally wrong.

Well, I would argue that the recent (as in the past 10-20 years) use of the word has tainted it to mean something other than what you're thinking of. At least, that's true in the US. That's why I asked the questions I asked. :)

Thats because you live in different countries. Without knowing jack about the feminism movement in either the US or Poland I´m guessing in Poland its still on a more 70ies demand our rights as equal citizens level while in the US its become more of the Swedish norm where much of the vocal feminist movement has taken an extremist path which have served to alieanate it from the mainstream. Over here in the 90ies everyone would call themselves feminists but lately its become almost a swearword with people calling themselves feminist being considered to be part of said extremist groups.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 03:17:11 PM

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 03:09:22 PM

Well, you did start this thread :mellow:

Huh. I thought I started a discussion, not stirred shit. That is what Languish is meant to be, I thought. That is, actually, why I asked the question. I think of Marti as the only drama queen on Languish now, and I wondered if I appeared to be the same here. You've answered that question. Thanks. :)

Quote
I think a lot of us here say & do things on Languish that they wouldn't often say or do in the real world.  For example in the real world I don't often discuss politics or social issues, and if I do it's only with close friends & family.

I start conversations here I wouldn't start in the real world, but I don't think that beyond that I handle things any differently. I have noticed, however, that I am often perceived as being upset or "screaching" when I'm not in the least bothered by a particular topic. I put that down to the limitations of online discussion, but now I wonder if it's not more because that's actually how many of you see me.

Can we just pretend I said no?

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2012, 03:45:32 PM

Well but that does not explain why lawyering is male dominated. And I have seen female M&A negotiators who were brilliant and completely in control of a room full of men with bloated egos (and not through "female wiles" or whatnot, but simply the ability to compromise).

That's definitely changing in the US. As was stated earlier in this thread, there are more women than men in law school today, by quite a bit.

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 03:39:17 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 03:24:32 PM
Except we're not talking about amazing, world-class mathemeticians.  We're wondering why women don't go into university-level computer science programs.  I think that qualifies as part of the "you can teach anyone who wants to learn how to do math problems".

I think you're going too far the other way.  When I was in college, many CS majors hit the wall at the point where they had to take discrete math, algorithms, and data structures courses.  While they were not rocket science courses, and I aced them without too much effort, a lot of CS majors were totally lost in them.  There is a pretty high floor on the math ability required to be a computer scientist.  It won't explain 10:1 gender ratio you see with math professors, but it will easily explain 2:1 ratio.

I was a geology major in undergrad.  In high school I aced every and all math classes.

I took 100-level statistics, and aced that as well (and statistics is just a specialized form of math).  For some reason I decided to take a 200-level stats course, even though it was an elective.  Holy shit the difficulty on that one was turned up to 11.  Only course I ever dropped.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 03:43:11 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 03:39:17 PM
I think you're going too far the other way.  When I was in college, many CS majors hit the wall at the point where they had to take discrete math, algorithms, and data structures courses.  While they were not rocket science courses, and I aced them without too much effort, a lot of CS majors were totally lost in them.  There is a pretty high floor on the math ability required to be a computer scientist.  It won't explain 10:1 gender ratio you see with math professors, but it will easily explain 2:1 ratio.

But the same requirements are not there for computer programmers. Only computer scientists.

Don't you need a computer science degree to be a programmer

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2012, 03:45:32 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2012, 03:42:40 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 02:12:27 PM
I understand all of that. The question is why, not what.

There is extreme male brain theory - as exemplified by the arguable connections between Asperger's and mathematics ability.  I think that was what Malthus was driving at earlier.  All very speculative IMO but perhaps there is something to it.

My guess is that the broader disparity in tech/engineering/comp sci is a combination of conforming to adoloscent stereotyping and social bonding (younger girls are less likely to "get into" the techgeek or hacker subculture than younger boys) and - for individuals of a given level of intelligence and ambition - better perceived comparative opportunities in professions like law, medicine, or politics, where there is a greater concentration of potential same-sex role model/mentors, less risk of pack hostility, and (more speculatively) more room to take advantage of possible advantages in emotional intelligence or interpersonal interaction.

Well but that does not explain why lawyering is male dominated. And I have seen female M&A negotiators who were brilliant and completely in control of a room full of men with bloated egos (and not through "female wiles" or whatnot, but simply the ability to compromise).

But it isn't.  I'm a 12 year lawyer, and when I started out it was 50/50 male/female in law school.  In the years since it has tilted in favour of women.  Of our junior to mid-level lawyers we have more women than men.  It's only once you get up to the most senior ranks (think 50-60 year olds) is it dominated by men.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 03:46:54 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2012, 03:45:32 PM

Well but that does not explain why lawyering is male dominated. And I have seen female M&A negotiators who were brilliant and completely in control of a room full of men with bloated egos (and not through "female wiles" or whatnot, but simply the ability to compromise).

That's definitely changing in the US. As was stated earlier in this thread, there are more women than men in law school today, by quite a bit.

There are more women than men in law schools in Poland too. There are *many* more male partners than female partners in lawfirms, both in Poland and the US, too.

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 03:46:21 PM

Can we just pretend I said no?

Would you mean it? ;)

derspeiss, I'm not insulted or hurt. Honest. I was simply curious, that's all. :hug:

Quote from: Barrister on November 20, 2012, 03:49:47 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2012, 03:45:32 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2012, 03:42:40 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 02:12:27 PM
I understand all of that. The question is why, not what.

There is extreme male brain theory - as exemplified by the arguable connections between Asperger's and mathematics ability.  I think that was what Malthus was driving at earlier.  All very speculative IMO but perhaps there is something to it.

My guess is that the broader disparity in tech/engineering/comp sci is a combination of conforming to adoloscent stereotyping and social bonding (younger girls are less likely to "get into" the techgeek or hacker subculture than younger boys) and - for individuals of a given level of intelligence and ambition - better perceived comparative opportunities in professions like law, medicine, or politics, where there is a greater concentration of potential same-sex role model/mentors, less risk of pack hostility, and (more speculatively) more room to take advantage of possible advantages in emotional intelligence or interpersonal interaction.

Well but that does not explain why lawyering is male dominated. And I have seen female M&A negotiators who were brilliant and completely in control of a room full of men with bloated egos (and not through "female wiles" or whatnot, but simply the ability to compromise).

But it isn't.  I'm a 12 year lawyer, and when I started out it was 50/50 male/female in law school.  In the years since it has tilted in favour of women.  Of our junior to mid-level lawyers we have more women than men.  It's only once you get up to the most senior ranks (think 50-60 year olds) is it dominated by men.

This is not age based. This is rank based. There is a lot of junior or mid-level female lawyers in Poland too. But most of them do not make to a partner.

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 03:49:01 PM
Don't you need a computer science degree to be a programmer

No. You need a computer science degree to be a computer scientist. You can be a programmer with a degree in computer science, computer programming, English but knowledge in seven different programming languages, Physics, etc.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 03:29:15 PM

Malthus veered off slightly, but that's Languish. :)

The point remains that it appears to be a cultural reason behind the lack of women in that particular field. That leads one to question how to change that, and if it should, in fact, be changed. Should we just allow the cultural pressures to stand, or is it worthwhile to try to shift them for a more equitable market for women?

I would go as far as possible without using coercion. Forcing girls into professions they aren't interested in is hardly a feminist thing to do, after all.

Also that map looks like a map of obesity levels too. The fatter the bluer.  :lol:

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2012, 03:50:01 PM
There are more women than men in law schools in Poland too. There are *many* more male partners than female partners in lawfirms, both in Poland and the US, too.

That is changing pretty rapidly.  And you also have to look at in house (corporate) counsel positions and senior prosecutorial slots where schedules can be a little more flexible.

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2012, 03:50:01 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 03:46:54 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2012, 03:45:32 PM

Well but that does not explain why lawyering is male dominated. And I have seen female M&A negotiators who were brilliant and completely in control of a room full of men with bloated egos (and not through "female wiles" or whatnot, but simply the ability to compromise).

That's definitely changing in the US. As was stated earlier in this thread, there are more women than men in law school today, by quite a bit.

There are more women than men in law schools in Poland too. There are *many* more male partners than female partners in lawfirms, both in Poland and the US, too.

I dunno man.  From where I sit by the time I retire law will be heavily female-dominated.  The fact that the partnership (and in particular the senior partnership) is male dominated merely reflects the gender situation of 30 years ago.

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2012, 03:51:21 PM

This is not age based. This is rank based. There is a lot of junior or mid-level female lawyers in Poland too. But most of them do not make to a partner.

That would fall in line with the idea that it's a matter of time/work, and if women take time off to have a family, they "fail". That's why the Scandanavian countries are so far ahead of anyone else in the Western countries with gender equality. Men AND women get parental leave when a child is born. And, in general, it's not uncommon for men to stay home for a portion of the child's infancy.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 03:57:31 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2012, 03:51:21 PM

This is not age based. This is rank based. There is a lot of junior or mid-level female lawyers in Poland too. But most of them do not make to a partner.

That would fall in line with the idea that it's a matter of time/work, and if women take time off to have a family, they "fail". That's why the Scandanavian countries are so far ahead of anyone else in the Western countries with gender equality. Men AND women get parental leave when a child is born. And, in general, it's not uncommon for men to stay home for a portion of the child's infancy.

It's actually that plus the fact that women tend to choose more expert specializations (labour, antitrust, environmental etc) rather than more adversarial ones (M&A, litigation) and the latter are better rewarded. And there is the old boys' network.

You'd need to change the way the industry works. Right now the "objective" criteria are heavily rigged against women. And I'm not talking Poland as I work for a global lawfirm with decisions on partnership taken in the UK and the US.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2012, 03:52:37 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 03:29:15 PM

Malthus veered off slightly, but that's Languish. :)

The point remains that it appears to be a cultural reason behind the lack of women in that particular field. That leads one to question how to change that, and if it should, in fact, be changed. Should we just allow the cultural pressures to stand, or is it worthwhile to try to shift them for a more equitable market for women?

I would go as far as possible without using coercion. Forcing girls into professions they aren't interested in is hardly a feminist thing to do, after all.

The thing is that they are not intersted as this interest is not awoken in them during early education which relies on stereotypical gender roles. It's the same reason why people from poor backgrounds are less likely to enjoy classical music.

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2012, 04:05:00 PMThe thing is that they are not intersted as this interest is not awoken in them during early education which relies on stereotypical gender roles. It's the same reason why people from poor backgrounds are less likely to enjoy classical music.

Yeah, I would change those things. I would do everything up to and not including coercion.

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2012, 04:05:00 PM
The thing is that they are not intersted as this interest is not awoken in them during early education which relies on stereotypical gender roles. It's the same reason why people from poor backgrounds are less likely to enjoy classical music.

Oh, I don't know about that. Statistics show girls are better (grades-wise) than boys up until middle school. At that point, girls' scores drop drastically. (Interestingly, boys' don't generally go up.) This is the age where it matters more what your peers think than adults. It's not that girls aren't interested or aren't exposed. I think it's more that those who show an interest are mocked or otherwise made pariah (or think they would be).

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2012, 04:02:01 PM
It's actually that plus the fact that women tend to choose more expert specializations (labour, antitrust, environmental etc) rather than more adversarial ones (M&A, litigation) and the latter are better rewarded.

This is anecdotal but in my  litigation/office group, the split is 1/3 women at the partner level and 50-50 at the associate level.
I'd like to think part of that is that my firm is better than average on this but it also reflects the emerging reality of distribution of talent in the marketplace.

Quote from: Maximus on November 20, 2012, 02:31:59 PM
The early to mid teens is where mathematical ability is most easily developed. And I would guess that early to mid teen girls are one of the least likely groups to defy their peers.

I have to say Max I have not noticed this cultural difference in gender ratios in my engineering department.  Sure there are East Asian and South Asian women but not in any greater ratios than among the locals.  And we are EE which is not that much different than CS.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2012, 04:12:28 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2012, 04:02:01 PM
It's actually that plus the fact that women tend to choose more expert specializations (labour, antitrust, environmental etc) rather than more adversarial ones (M&A, litigation) and the latter are better rewarded.

This is anecdotal but in my  litigation/office group, the split is 1/3 women at the partner level and 50-50 at the associate level.
I'd like to think part of that is that my firm is better than average on this but it also reflects the emerging reality of distribution of talent in the marketplace.

Yeah, when I go to court I see a pretty even distribution of female and male litigators.

Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 04:14:11 PM

I have to say Max I have not noticed this cultural difference in gender ratios in my engineering department.  Sure there are East Asian and South Asian women but not in any greater ratios than among the locals.  And we are EE which is not that much different than CS.

Is the disparity between genders as obvious there as it is here?

I also wonder if that's because UIUC, as one of the top five engineering universities in the country, has a higher percentage of international students in general, too. Max's class was roughly half white, half others.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 04:08:11 PM
Oh, I don't know about that. Statistics show girls are better (grades-wise) than boys up until middle school. At that point, girls' scores drop drastically. (Interestingly, boys' don't generally go up.) This is the age where it matters more what your peers think than adults. It's not that girls aren't interested or aren't exposed. I think it's more that those who show an interest are mocked or otherwise made pariah (or think they would be).

Well puberty is hard it could be any number of things.  I know it was awhile since I was a kid but I do not recall it being less cool for a girl to be smart than a boy.  The smart boys certainly got crap for being nerds.  But to be fair I was not a girl so it could have been hard indeed.  I will ask around.

Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 04:21:57 PM

Well puberty is hard it could be any number of things.  I know it was awhile since I was a kid but I do not recall it being less cool for a girl to be smart than a boy.  The smart boys certainly got crap for being nerds.

You wouldn't have noticed. The pressure would come from other girls, not from the boys. Though, I do remember at least one fist fight that I got into in sixth grade with a boy who punched me for beating him on some test or something. (No idea what it was in; I did better than him in everything, and he hated it.)

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 04:08:11 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2012, 04:05:00 PM
The thing is that they are not intersted as this interest is not awoken in them during early education which relies on stereotypical gender roles. It's the same reason why people from poor backgrounds are less likely to enjoy classical music.

Oh, I don't know about that. Statistics show girls are better (grades-wise) than boys up until middle school. At that point, girls' scores drop drastically. (Interestingly, boys' don't generally go up.) This is the age where it matters more what your peers think than adults. It's not that girls aren't interested or aren't exposed. I think it's more that those who show an interest are mocked or otherwise made pariah (or think they would be).

The one problem I always had with that theory is that it seems to be so disconnected from reality, at least the kind of reality I experienced.  Are girls after a certain age really ostracized for doing well in school?  If anything, in my experience, it was much harder for a boy to be cool and good in school at the same time.  In my experience, it was quite easy for girls to do well in school without coming off as a nerd.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 04:24:54 PM
You wouldn't have noticed. The pressure would come from other girls, not from the boys. Though, I do remember at least one fist fight that I got into in sixth grade with a boy who punched me for beating him on some test or something. (No idea what it was in; I did better than him in everything, and he hated it.)

Ah yeah.  Just jealousy.

Can it not just be that female and male minds are just wired differently?

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 04:20:09 PM

Quote from: Valmy on November 20, 2012, 04:14:11 PM

I have to say Max I have not noticed this cultural difference in gender ratios in my engineering department.  Sure there are East Asian and South Asian women but not in any greater ratios than among the locals.  And we are EE which is not that much different than CS.

Is the disparity between genders as obvious there as it is here?

I also wonder if that's because UIUC, as one of the top five engineering universities in the country, has a higher percentage of international students in general, too. Max's class was roughly half white, half others.

UT has the largest number of international students of any University in the US, easily half of every class is foreigners.  My lab group last semester was me, a Russian, and an Indian.  Yeah there is a big desparity but there.  In my current class there are about 50 students, roughly split 50-50 between Americans and Foreigners and there are three white women and three Indian women.

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 04:31:02 PM
Can it not just be that female and male minds are just wired differently?

Well there are some physical differences but what exactly that means we do not know yet.  I suspect in the future we will understand this better.

Quote from: derspiess on November 20, 2012, 04:31:02 PM
Can it not just be that female and male minds are just wired differently?

Well yeah. But it doesn't really help on a macro level when it comes to making an effort to create equal opportunity. That's another problem with trying to measure the results of these things.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 03:00:15 PM
Okay. Here's an article  (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2012/10/25/the-u-s-is-catching-up-to-europe-on-gender-equality/) that I came across earlier. It helps support my assertion.

Quote
The annual WEF report grades countries on five metrics to measure the degree of gender equality or inequality: economic participation and opportunity, educational attainment, health and survival, and political empowerment. Countries are scored between 0.0 for most unequal, meaning that women have zero access, or 1.0 for fully equal.

The 2012 report ranks the U.S. 22nd in the world. The only non-Western nations that rank higher than the U.S., meaning their societies are more equal for women, are South Africa, Cuba, Lesotho, Nicaragua, and the Philippines. American society has been catching up to its historical leaders, as this chart of WEF gender equality scores across Western Europe since 2006 shows.

I'm not sure this article supports your argument as convincingly as you seem to believe.

Economic participation can be lower as a result of systemic discrimination, or it can be a choice.

I've already pointed out that in certain areas of educational attainment women outperform men in the US.  That hardly supports your assertion.

Health and survival can again mean one of two things--lack of basic prenatal and postnatal care and contraceptives, or stupid behavior.  Another one that doesn't support your argument.

That leaves "economic opportunity" and "political empowerment."  Now it's theoretically possible that the wizards who wrote this report did in fact try to analyze levels of opportunity qua opportunity and empowerment qua empowerment, but I'd be happy to bet money that they just looked at outcome data: things like the ratio of female to male CEOs and the ratio of female to male legislators and heads of government.

So, stripped of the verbiage, your support reduces to proving inequality of opportunity through unequal outcomes.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2012, 04:12:28 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2012, 04:02:01 PM
It's actually that plus the fact that women tend to choose more expert specializations (labour, antitrust, environmental etc) rather than more adversarial ones (M&A, litigation) and the latter are better rewarded.

This is anecdotal but in my  litigation/office group, the split is 1/3 women at the partner level and 50-50 at the associate level.
I'd like to think part of that is that my firm is better than average on this but it also reflects the emerging reality of distribution of talent in the marketplace.

I've worked at Malthus' big lawfirm, but as big as it is it's not like a Magic Circle firm.

So maybe it's possible that they remain highly male-dominated - that the insane billable requirements drive out women at disproportionate rates unlike the wider legal profession.

Or maybe Marti doesn't know what he's talking about, and it's just Poland that is the exception.

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 04:30:24 PM
The one problem I always had with that theory is that it seems to be so disconnected from reality, at least the kind of reality I experienced.  Are girls after a certain age really ostracized for doing well in school?  If anything, in my experience, it was much harder for a boy to be cool and good in school at the same time.  In my experience, it was quite easy for girls to do well in school without coming off as a nerd.

It appears that you're correct on that. At least, that you're correct on that for today's girls. Not so much for girls when you went to school.

Source (http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/chapter-1-women-and-girls-in-science-18040707)

QuoteMath skills are considered essential to success in STEM fields. Historically, boys have outperformed
girls in math, but in the past few decades the gender gap has narrowed, and today girls
are doing as well as boys in math on average (Hyde et al., 2008). Girls are earning high school
math and science credits at the same rate as boys and are earning slightly higher grades in
these classes (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007)
(see figures 1 and 2).

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 04:47:26 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 04:30:24 PM
The one problem I always had with that theory is that it seems to be so disconnected from reality, at least the kind of reality I experienced.  Are girls after a certain age really ostracized for doing well in school?  If anything, in my experience, it was much harder for a boy to be cool and good in school at the same time.  In my experience, it was quite easy for girls to do well in school without coming off as a nerd.

It appears that you're correct on that. At least, that you're correct on that for today's girls. Not so much for girls when you went to school.

Source (http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/chapter-1-women-and-girls-in-science-18040707)

QuoteMath skills are considered essential to success in STEM fields. Historically, boys have outperformed
girls in math, but in the past few decades the gender gap has narrowed, and today girls
are doing as well as boys in math on average (Hyde et al., 2008). Girls are earning high school
math and science credits at the same rate as boys and are earning slightly higher grades in
these classes (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007)
(see figures 1 and 2).

How is the quoted paragraph supporting or refuting what I said?

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 03:57:31 PM

Quote from: Martinus on November 20, 2012, 03:51:21 PM

This is not age based. This is rank based. There is a lot of junior or mid-level female lawyers in Poland too. But most of them do not make to a partner.

That would fall in line with the idea that it's a matter of time/work, and if women take time off to have a family, they "fail". That's why the Scandanavian countries are so far ahead of anyone else in the Western countries with gender equality. Men AND women get parental leave when a child is born. And, in general, it's not uncommon for men to stay home for a portion of the child's infancy.

Here's the thing--raises and, to a lesser extent, promotions in most fields are more about putting in your time than merit or anything else, especially at the lower levels where most people are working.  This is even more true in unionized workplaces and the like, where senority isn't just the normal, run-of-the-mill practice, but is codified.  "Bob, Joe, Mark, Kate, and Susan, here's your annual raise.  Mary, Penny, and Betty, you took last year off to spend with with your newborns, and Mike, you took off last year on a sabbatical to the Holy Land, so no annual raise for you."  "Hey, gang!  Larry's retiring!  Everybody chip in to buy him a retirement present.  Bob, you have 12 years of service time here, so you get to move up to his position.  Congradulations, Bob!  Let's have a round of applause for Bob!  I'm sure he'll do a great job as your new supervisor."  What's left unsaid is that Mary would have 2 more years of service than Bob if she hadn't taken 3 years off to have kids, and Mike would have 8 months more service time than Bob if it weren't for that sabbatical.  So the men end up, on average, making more than the women, and Bob got the promotion instead of Mary, but nobody made a decision to pay the guys more or pass over Mary for promotion because she's a woman.  It's just about service time.  I don't claim that this explains all differences in pay rates, but it does explain a lot.  If more men took off after the birth of a child (and I don't just mean for a week or so) it would even things out a lot.

Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 04:57:12 PM
If more men took off after the birth of a child (and I don't just mean for a week or so) it would even things out a lot.

This. But it would require a huge shift for this to happen, probably some legislation. Because so long as women are paid less for giving birth, they will always be the ones to take the year off to care for the children since it will make the most sense financially.

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 04:53:31 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 04:47:26 PM

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 04:30:24 PM
The one problem I always had with that theory is that it seems to be so disconnected from reality, at least the kind of reality I experienced.  Are girls after a certain age really ostracized for doing well in school?  If anything, in my experience, it was much harder for a boy to be cool and good in school at the same time.  In my experience, it was quite easy for girls to do well in school without coming off as a nerd.

It appears that you're correct on that. At least, that you're correct on that for today's girls. Not so much for girls when you went to school.

Source (http://www.nature.com/scitable/content/chapter-1-women-and-girls-in-science-18040707)

QuoteMath skills are considered essential to success in STEM fields. Historically, boys have outperformed
girls in math, but in the past few decades the gender gap has narrowed, and today girls
are doing as well as boys in math on average (Hyde et al., 2008). Girls are earning high school
math and science credits at the same rate as boys and are earning slightly higher grades in
these classes (U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2007)
(see figures 1 and 2).

How is the quoted paragraph supporting or refuting what I said?

It wasn't a theory. It was fact. Girls did worse than boys in math and science. That gap has changed dramatically in the last decade and a half, erasing the gap, but the gap definitely existed.

My personal experience was that yes, girls were ostracized for doing well in school. Not by the boys, as I said, but by other girls. I was constantly called a know-it-all, told that I was a show-off, and otherwise treated poorly because I was at the top of my class in middle school.

My wife and I have struggled mightily over this issue of 'feminism.'  My wife feels that feminism allows her stay home, cook, and clean, and rear the kids.  I feel that feminism allows her to work and make money while I stay home, cook, and clean, and rear the kids.

I am not sure that we are in agreement, but I am not sure that we are in disagreement.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 05:06:14 PM

Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 04:57:12 PM
If more men took off after the birth of a child (and I don't just mean for a week or so) it would even things out a lot.

This. But it would require a huge shift for this to happen, probably some legislation. Because so long as women are paid less for giving birth, they will always be the ones to take the year off to care for the children since it will make the most sense financially.

I think it should be left up to the individual to decide how to prioritize between family and career.  I wouldn't want to see it legislated.

Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 05:14:39 PM

I think it should be left up to the individual to decide how to prioritize between family and career.  I wouldn't want to see it legislated.

That doesn't make sense. So long as women make less than men, it will make sense for the woman to stay home with the children while the man goes to work. Financially, that's the responsible thing to do. It will never change that the woman has to give birth, and with each birth, she will be required to stay off work for at least six weeks. If that same time off isn't extended to the husbands, how will the woman ever catch up? It's just not possible.

Basically, a woman can choose to have a child or a career. It's the same choice that's been around for decades. Without legislation, it's not going to change.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 05:13:04 PM

My personal experience was that yes, girls were ostracized for doing well in school. Not by the boys, as I said, but by other girls. I was constantly called a know-it-all, told that I was a show-off, and otherwise treated poorly because I was at the top of my class in middle school.

In other words, girls, just like boys, were treated badly by their peers for doing well in school.  Hmm.  Kind of knocks a hole in the idea that differences in school performance were/are due to peer pressure.

Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 05:14:39 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 05:06:14 PM

Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 04:57:12 PM
If more men took off after the birth of a child (and I don't just mean for a week or so) it would even things out a lot.

This. But it would require a huge shift for this to happen, probably some legislation. Because so long as women are paid less for giving birth, they will always be the ones to take the year off to care for the children since it will make the most sense financially.

I think it should be left up to the individual to decide how to prioritize between family and career.  I wouldn't want to see it legislated.

The biggest shift that would require would be cultural if you ask me.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 05:18:05 PM

Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 05:14:39 PM

I think it should be left up to the individual to decide how to prioritize between family and career.  I wouldn't want to see it legislated.

That doesn't make sense. So long as women make less than men, it will make sense for the woman to stay home with the children while the man goes to work. Financially, that's the responsible thing to do. It will never change that the woman has to give birth, and with each birth, she will be required to stay off work for at least six weeks. If that same time off isn't extended to the husbands, how will the woman ever catch up? It's just not possible.

Basically, a woman can choose to have a child or a career. It's the same choice that's been around for decades. Without legislation, it's not going to change.

The generation of women currently having kids are not making less than men though.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 05:06:14 PM

Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 04:57:12 PM
If more men took off after the birth of a child (and I don't just mean for a week or so) it would even things out a lot.

This. But it would require a huge shift for this to happen, probably some legislation. Because so long as women are paid less for giving birth, they will always be the ones to take the year off to care for the children since it will make the most sense financially.

Nah, my father made substantially less so he gave up his job in toto.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 05:13:04 PM
It wasn't a theory. It was fact. Girls did worse than boys in math and science. That gap has changed dramatically in the last decade and a half, erasing the gap, but the gap definitely existed.

I'm not questioning the gender difference in math achievement, I'm questioning the "ostracism" theory behind the reason for the differences.  Frankly, I think it's utter bullshit, and that it's popular only because it is a useful kind of lie.  And the achievement gap in math SAT scores hasn't gone anywhere:  http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/2012-sat-test-results-a-huge-gender-math-gap-persists-with-a-33-point-advantage-for-high-school-boys/ .

QuoteMy personal experience was that yes, girls were ostracized for doing well in school. Not by the boys, as I said, but by other girls. I was constantly called a know-it-all, told that I was a show-off, and otherwise treated poorly because I was at the top of my class in middle school.

And this kind of things never happens with boys?  Do the other boys revere the ones who get the highest math scores?

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2012, 03:14:36 PM

Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 03:09:51 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2012, 03:03:54 PM

Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 03:01:32 PM
In that an average person can be taught to be a competent lawyer or a good programmer if they value those things enough, but you can't teach the average person to be an outstanding mathematician or musical composer even if they really, really want to be one.  At that level, innate ability above the norm is a necessary but not sufficient requirement.

Isnt all you are saying is that one cannot be taught to be creative.  People can be given the opportunity to be creative but not everyone given that opportunity will succeed.

I guess that's true, depending on how you define "creative". I think everyone is creative to some extent, but to go beyond established wisdom and truly blaze new ground in fields like mathematics involves I think having a certain high level of innate ability.

What do you mean by "innate".  That seems to be a self referential definition - those that are able have it and those that dont dont.

You can teach anyone who wants to learn how to do math problems.  The kids who pull a Mono and spend all their time doing homework will get 100%.  But to be a great mathematician takes more than rote learning.  It takes creativity.

Same thing with Musicians.  You can teach anyone willing to learn how to play a song from a song sheet.  Again, the kids that pull a Mono and practise that song over and over again will get very good at playing it.  But improvisation may elude them.  That takes creativity.

I liked your examples of math and music because they are so closely linked.

Yeah, I can agree with that. Greatness requires creativity, which can be encouraged (or discouraged) but cannot be taught - you can either do it or not, meaning it is based on innate ability.

I suck at music, but if I wanted to, I could study and practice very, very hard - Mono-like as it were - and play Mozart. But I could never in a million years compose like Mozart no matter how hard I practiced.

Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 05:18:26 PM
In other words, girls, just like boys, were treated badly by their peers for doing well in school.  Hmm.  Kind of knocks a hole in the idea that differences in school performance were/are due to peer pressure.

Guess it does for where you went to school. Not to discount what you saw, I witnessed the opposite with the boys in my class. There was always a competition for who did best in class, which is why I got punched for winning all the time.

I do think that the close in the gap has more to do with the way that math and science are now taught. There was a huge study some 20-25 years ago that showed that teachers favored boys in those courses over girls, and would actively dissuade girls from succeeding. (Cameras were used in the classroom, not anecdotal stuff.) Since that study came out, there have been a ton of changes in how things are handled in the classroom.

I just can't imagine that there's a single thing that's going on. There has to be dozens of reasons why girls don't choose to go into STEM coursework in college. I, personally, believe that it's worth exploring and potentially fixing. I'm not sure that everyone agrees with that, however.

Quote from: Malthus on November 20, 2012, 05:22:05 PM

Yeah, I can agree with that. Greatness requires creativity, which can be encouraged (or discouraged) but cannot be taught - you can either do it or not, meaning it is based on innate ability.

Currently we discourage all hell out of it.

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 05:20:12 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 05:13:04 PM
It wasn't a theory. It was fact. Girls did worse than boys in math and science. That gap has changed dramatically in the last decade and a half, erasing the gap, but the gap definitely existed.

I'm not questioning the gender difference in math achievement, I'm questioning the "ostracism" theory behind the reason for the differences.  Frankly, I think it's utter bullshit, and that it's popular only because it is a useful kind of lie.  And the achievement gap in math SAT scores hasn't gone anywhere:  http://www.aei-ideas.org/2012/09/2012-sat-test-results-a-huge-gender-math-gap-persists-with-a-33-point-advantage-for-high-school-boys/ .

QuoteMy personal experience was that yes, girls were ostracized for doing well in school. Not by the boys, as I said, but by other girls. I was constantly called a know-it-all, told that I was a show-off, and otherwise treated poorly because I was at the top of my class in middle school.

And this kind of things never happens with boys?  Do the other boys revere the ones who get the highest math scores?

You're probably right.

So what explains it?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 20, 2012, 03:42:40 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 02:12:27 PM
I understand all of that. The question is why, not what.

There is extreme male brain theory - as exemplified by the arguable connections between Asperger's and mathematics ability.  I think that was what Malthus was driving at earlier.  All very speculative IMO but perhaps there is something to it.

Yeah I haven't read up on it or anything but anecdote seems to suggest there is something to it.

From personal experience: I'm pretty average(and suck at math), but my older brother is a mathematical genius - he's a professor of physics now (mind you, at the University of Iowa, not Harvard, but still). When we were kids though, it was sidely assumed he was retarded (these days, "developmentally challenged") and the school authorities attempted to "stream" him into the stream that teaches basic vocational skills. 

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 05:18:05 PM

Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 05:14:39 PM

I think it should be left up to the individual to decide how to prioritize between family and career.  I wouldn't want to see it legislated.

That doesn't make sense. So long as women make less than men, it will make sense for the woman to stay home with the children while the man goes to work. Financially, that's the responsible thing to do. It will never change that the woman has to give birth, and with each birth, she will be required to stay off work for at least six weeks. If that same time off isn't extended to the husbands, how will the woman ever catch up? It's just not possible.

Basically, a woman can choose to have a child or a career. It's the same choice that's been around for decades. Without legislation, it's not going to change.

First, I've known of cases where the doctor has cleared a woman to go back to work in less than 6 weeks.  Second, men now have the choice to take paternity leave as well, and in theory can stay on paternity leave even after the woman has returned from maternity leave.  In fact, I know of 1 case in which the mother took 12 weeks maternity leave starting with the birth of the child, and as soon as that was up, the father took 12 weeks paternity leave.

More importantly, the 12 weeks leave that FMLA requires most employers to grant most employees isn't really going to make much difference in most people's careers.  What hurts a woman's career is when she decides to stay at home until the child is 2 or starts school or something.  At that point, most places aren't going to grant leave for that long, and she's quit her job.  There's no guarantee that she'll get it back, and even if she does, she's lost a lost of senoirity at that point.

Besides, choices have consequences.  You want legislation that would change that.  I seems to me that to accomplish that, you'd need legislation that both extends the amount of leave that companies are required to give, which, OK, not great for business but then again requiring the employer to grant leave at all isn't great for business and how much time they are required to grant is arbitrary anyway, but it would also seem that you would have to make it mandatory for both parents to take the maximum amount of time allowed.  Still, we'd have to come up with a number.  What is it?  6 months, 1 year, 2, more?  If we're mandating that both parents have to take the max, are we going to provide everybody taking that leave an income for that period?  If yes, how are we going to pay for that?  Beyond that, I can see the point with regards to raising a child, but what about someone who wants to take extended periods of time off for other reasons?  Say somebody wants to go on a trip to the Holy Land, or just wants to not work and chill for a year.  Or someone wants to not work for a while to care for their elderly parents, such care maybe being required for a few months, but hey, if the old folks prove stouter than expected, maybe it's the next 20 years.  Do we make a value judgment that those choices have less merit than taking time off to have a child and deny those people leave while giving it to those who want to have a baby?  Maybe?  I don't know, but either way, it seems to lead back to the suggestion someone made earlier that you're not just demanding equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome as well.

I looked at the raw data from College Board referenced by the guy I quoted, because I don't exactly trust people from conservative think tanks.  One thing that I realized is that not only is male average math SAT score about a quarter of the standard deviation higher than female average, but also the male standard deviation is higher.  That would exacerbate the gender differences at the right tail of the distribution even further.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 05:23:12 PM

Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 05:18:26 PM
In other words, girls, just like boys, were treated badly by their peers for doing well in school.  Hmm.  Kind of knocks a hole in the idea that differences in school performance were/are due to peer pressure.

Guess it does for where you went to school. Not to discount what you saw, I witnessed the opposite with the boys in my class. There was always a competition for who did best in class, which is why I got punched for winning all the time.

There was a certain amount of competition among the smart kids, yes, but also a certain amount of hostility towards them by those who weren't considered to be in that group. 

Quote from: DGuller on November 20, 2012, 06:23:38 PM
I looked at the raw data from College Board referenced by the guy I quoted, because I don't exactly trust people from conservative think tanks.  One thing that I realized is that not only is male average math SAT score about a quarter of the standard deviation higher than female average, but also the male standard deviation is higher.  That would exacerbate the gender differences at the right tail of the distribution even further.

Okay, but why?

Actually, the coefficient of variation is identical for both genders.  :hmm:  The standard deviation is higher by exactly the same proportion that the average is higher.  :hmm:

In my experience as a teacher, girls do a lot better in grades 9 - 10, though by grades 11 - 12 it evens out a bit.  I believe this is because girls simply mature faster than boys and are able to handle things like organization, study habits, listening in class, etc. better than boys in the younger grades.

In another vein, girls still do far better than boys on average in certain fields, such as English and literary studies, though this receives no attention.  What's more, girls do better than boys overall academically.  So while some question of why girls perform worse than boys in math and science is valid and warranted, to my mind, the bigger question should now be why do girls do better than boys overall in school? 

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 20, 2012, 06:50:32 PM
In another vein, girls still do far better than boys on average in certain fields, such as English and literary studies, though this receives no attention.

Because those lead to dead-end jobs, if they even lead to a job?

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 20, 2012, 06:50:32 PM
In my experience as a teacher, girls do a lot better in grades 9 - 10, though by grades 11 - 12 it evens out a bit.  I believe this is because girls simply mature faster than boys and are able to handle things like organization, study habits, listening in class, etc. better than boys in the younger grades.

In another vein, girls still do far better than boys on average in certain fields, such as English and literary studies, though this receives no attention.  What's more, girls do better than boys overall academically.  So while some question of why girls perform worse than boys in math and science is valid and warranted, to my mind, the bigger question should now be why do girls do better than boys overall in school?

Good point, it seems like this kind of questioning of differential results is a one-way ratchet.

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 06:59:28 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 20, 2012, 06:50:32 PM
In another vein, girls still do far better than boys on average in certain fields, such as English and literary studies, though this receives no attention.

Because those lead to dead-end jobs, if they even lead to a job?

Nice how you cropped out my main point, which was that questions of why girls do better in school overall (and in specific fields like English) largely go unasked.

Besides, don't you have a degree in art history?  Are you working a dead end job now?   ;)

I object that my non-sequitur has been marginalized!

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 20, 2012, 08:09:47 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 20, 2012, 06:59:28 PM

Quote from: Pitiful Pathos on November 20, 2012, 06:50:32 PM
In another vein, girls still do far better than boys on average in certain fields, such as English and literary studies, though this receives no attention.

Because those lead to dead-end jobs, if they even lead to a job?

Nice how you cropped out my main point, which was that questions of why girls do better in school overall (and in specific fields like English) largely go unasked.

Besides, don't you have a degree in art history?  Are you working a dead end job now?   ;)

Because I wasn't interested in your main point. :P

Nope, only a minor. Besides, I went to a school whose name recognition goes far.

God, I can't believe I missed this thread.

Well, I am out of here!

Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 06:10:07 PM
First, I've known of cases where the doctor has cleared a woman to go back to work in less than 6 weeks.  Second, men now have the choice to take paternity leave as well, and in theory can stay on paternity leave even after the woman has returned from maternity leave.  In fact, I know of 1 case in which the mother took 12 weeks maternity leave starting with the birth of the child, and as soon as that was up, the father took 12 weeks paternity leave.

Yes, some women are released to go back to work, but certainly not the majority. As for time off, that's almost all unpaid. FMLA requires that you use up your paid vacation and sick leave first, and then the rest is all unpaid. So, while in theory, they can both take time off, the reality is that in order for one or both of them to take that time, they have to give up one or both incomes. If the woman is making less, which one do you think is going to take that time?

QuoteMore importantly, the 12 weeks leave that FMLA requires most employers to grant most employees isn't really going to make much difference in most people's careers.  What hurts a woman's career is when she decides to stay at home until the child is 2 or starts school or something.  At that point, most places aren't going to grant leave for that long, and she's quit her job.  There's no guarantee that she'll get it back, and even if she does, she's lost a lost of senoirity at that point.

I would argue that 12 weeks (aka three months) will make a difference to a person's career if it's every couple of years. Many employers will consider that an "unreliable" employee. Otherwise, you're absolutely right. Leaving the job for a couple of years will definitely affect a person's career. My point is that most of the time, it's the woman who makes the decision because she has the lower paying job. Financially speaking, it usually makes the most sense for her to stay home. Now, it may be her choice, which, hey, good on her. But when the financial disparity is what it is, that's not really a choice she's making as one that finances dictate for her.

QuoteBesides, choices have consequences.  You want legislation that would change that.  I seems to me that to accomplish that, you'd need legislation that both extends the amount of leave that companies are required to give, which, OK, not great for business but then again requiring the employer to grant leave at all isn't great for business and how much time they are required to grant is arbitrary anyway, but it would also seem that you would have to make it mandatory for both parents to take the maximum amount of time allowed. 

:huh:

When did I ever say that I would make it mandatory for both parents to take the maximum amount of time allowed? In fact, I don't remember ever saying anything at all on what I would legislate.

The FMLA was a huge step in the right direction because it finally allows fathers the opportunity to be home when their kids are born/adopted. I think that it can go a bit further by allowing fathers short-term disability time when their kids come home, just like some women get. I think Sweden's model is ideal, to be honest, but I know that would never fly in the US. Instead, what needs to happen is that we take seriously a father's role in the early months of a child's life and make that time accessible to as many fathers as possible. I think that would do the most toward creating an egalitarian society for both men and women. That's going to require that there be some form of income while they're home, something that isn't always an option.

QuoteStill, we'd have to come up with a number.  What is it?  6 months, 1 year, 2, more?  If we're mandating that both parents have to take the max, are we going to provide everybody taking that leave an income for that period?  If yes, how are we going to pay for that? 

As I said, I wouldn't mandate that parents are required to take any time off. As for how much time off would I suggest that we allow? I think 12 weeks is fine per year. If someone wants to take additional time off, they can request it of the employer, but I don't think that the employer should be required to hold the spot for them.

QuoteBeyond that, I can see the point with regards to raising a child, but what about someone who wants to take extended periods of time off for other reasons?  Say somebody wants to go on a trip to the Holy Land, or just wants to not work and chill for a year.  Or someone wants to not work for a while to care for their elderly parents, such care maybe being required for a few months, but hey, if the old folks prove stouter than expected, maybe it's the next 20 years.  Do we make a value judgment that those choices have less merit than taking time off to have a child and deny those people leave while giving it to those who want to have a baby?  Maybe?  I don't know, but either way, it seems to lead back to the suggestion someone made earlier that you're not just demanding equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome as well.

I'm not sure how this is different from having a child. At this point, due to the financial disparity, women take on the responsibility of caring for their children and their parents because most of the time it's their income that is most easily foregone. If men and women could have partial pay through some form of paid-in insurance, it would be easier for a couple to opt for the best person to stay home, not the most expendable one.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 09:28:37 PMMy point is that most of the time, it's the woman who makes the decision because she has the lower paying job.

Except that's not true for women of childbearing age in 2012. They make more than the men. Women in their 50s are generally not having children.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 09:28:37 PM

Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 06:10:07 PM
First, I've known of cases where the doctor has cleared a woman to go back to work in less than 6 weeks.  Second, men now have the choice to take paternity leave as well, and in theory can stay on paternity leave even after the woman has returned from maternity leave.  In fact, I know of 1 case in which the mother took 12 weeks maternity leave starting with the birth of the child, and as soon as that was up, the father took 12 weeks paternity leave.

Yes, some women are released to go back to work, but certainly not the majority. As for time off, that's almost all unpaid. FMLA requires that you use up your paid vacation and sick leave first, and then the rest is all unpaid. So, while in theory, they can both take time off, the reality is that in order for one or both of them to take that time, they have to give up one or both incomes. If the woman is making less, which one do you think is going to take that time?

But, at the time the woman has her first child, why is she necessarily making less?  Wage disparity was largely the result of 2 things--female workers being concentrated in lower-paying fields, and women having less time on their current job because of having taken time off to have children.  But female workers being concentrated in lower-paying fields is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, and it it's a first child, assuming that the man and woman are the same age, the time on the job disparity wouldn't have kicked in yet--so why would the woman be earning less at that point? 

Quote

QuoteMore importantly, the 12 weeks leave that FMLA requires most employers to grant most employees isn't really going to make much difference in most people's careers.  What hurts a woman's career is when she decides to stay at home until the child is 2 or starts school or something.  At that point, most places aren't going to grant leave for that long, and she's quit her job.  There's no guarantee that she'll get it back, and even if she does, she's lost a lost of senoirity at that point.

I would argue that 12 weeks (aka three months) will make a difference to a person's career if it's every couple of years. Many employers will consider that an "unreliable" employee. Otherwise, you're absolutely right. Leaving the job for a couple of years will definitely affect a person's career. My point is that most of the time, it's the woman who makes the decision because she has the lower paying job. Financially speaking, it usually makes the most sense for her to stay home. Now, it may be her choice, which, hey, good on her. But when the financial disparity is what it is, that's not really a choice she's making as one that finances dictate for her.

That would depend somewhat, I think, on a couple's prior economic status.  Going with examples where the man is making more:  If the father is making $35,000/yr and the mother $30,000/yr, then it's likely that yes, the choice is, if not dictated, at least heavily influenced, by economic.  If the father is making $700,000/yr and the mother $600,000/yr, then they probably have a lot more leeway financially.

Quote

QuoteBesides, choices have consequences.  You want legislation that would change that.  I seems to me that to accomplish that, you'd need legislation that both extends the amount of leave that companies are required to give, which, OK, not great for business but then again requiring the employer to grant leave at all isn't great for business and how much time they are required to grant is arbitrary anyway, but it would also seem that you would have to make it mandatory for both parents to take the maximum amount of time allowed. 

:huh:

When did I ever say that I would make it mandatory for both parents to take the maximum amount of time allowed? In fact, I don't remember ever saying anything at all on what I would legislate.

What you said was, "It will never change that the woman has to give birth, and with each birth, she will be required to stay off work for at least six weeks. If that same time off isn't extended to the husbands, how will the woman ever catch up? It's just not possible.

Basically, a woman can choose to have a child or a career. It's the same choice that's been around for decades. Without legislation, it's not going to change."

How else do you propose to allow women to catch up?  If they have to take 6 weeks off, the to equalize things, so will the men.  What else could you legislate in this case? 

And as far as choosing between family and career, well, at least women have a choice now.  For most of the 20th century, men didn't have any real choice--they had to put the job first, because they had be the provider for their family.  A man didn't have the choice to stay at home with his family and not work, unless he was independently wealthy or wanted to watch his children starve.  A woman who's forced to choose between having children or having a career gets a choice my grandfather and stepfather never had.  Their choice was either to have children but have to put the job first, or to not have children and only have the job.

QuoteThe FMLA was a huge step in the right direction because it finally allows fathers the opportunity to be home when their kids are born/adopted. I think that it can go a bit further by allowing fathers short-term disability time when their kids come home, just like some women get. I think Sweden's model is ideal, to be honest, but I know that would never fly in the US. Instead, what needs to happen is that we take seriously a father's role in the early months of a child's life and make that time accessible to as many fathers as possible. I think that would do the most toward creating an egalitarian society for both men and women. That's going to require that there be some form of income while they're home, something that isn't always an option.

QuoteStill, we'd have to come up with a number.  What is it?  6 months, 1 year, 2, more?  If we're mandating that both parents have to take the max, are we going to provide everybody taking that leave an income for that period?  If yes, how are we going to pay for that? 

As I said, I wouldn't mandate that parents are required to take any time off. As for how much time off would I suggest that we allow? I think 12 weeks is fine per year. If someone wants to take additional time off, they can request it of the employer, but I don't think that the employer should be required to hold the spot for them.

QuoteBeyond that, I can see the point with regards to raising a child, but what about someone who wants to take extended periods of time off for other reasons?  Say somebody wants to go on a trip to the Holy Land, or just wants to not work and chill for a year.  Or someone wants to not work for a while to care for their elderly parents, such care maybe being required for a few months, but hey, if the old folks prove stouter than expected, maybe it's the next 20 years.  Do we make a value judgment that those choices have less merit than taking time off to have a child and deny those people leave while giving it to those who want to have a baby?  Maybe?  I don't know, but either way, it seems to lead back to the suggestion someone made earlier that you're not just demanding equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome as well.

I'm not sure how this is different from having a child. At this point, due to the financial disparity, women take on the responsibility of caring for their children and their parents because most of the time it's their income that is most easily foregone. If men and women could have partial pay through some form of paid-in insurance, it would be easier for a couple to opt for the best person to stay home, not the most expendable one.

Still haven't addressed what you would change legislatively.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2012, 10:04:17 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 09:28:37 PMMy point is that most of the time, it's the woman who makes the decision because she has the lower paying job.

Except that's not true for women of childbearing age in 2012. They make more than the men. Women in their 50s are generally not having children.

That's only true if they're working in similar industries. Women still, on average, choose much lower paying careers than men do. I understand that this is the "fault" of the women for the choices that they make, but it's nonetheless disingenuous to claim that there is no wage disparity.

On top of that, there's still, according to americanprogress.org (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/labor/news/2012/04/16/11391/the-top-10-facts-about-the-wage-gap/), a lot more to it than even that.

QuoteMore than 40 percent of the wage gap cannot be explained by occupation, work experience, race, or union membership. More than one-quarter of the wage gap is due to the different jobs that men and women hold, and about 10 percent is due to the fact that women are more likely to leave the workforce to provide unpaid care to family members. But even when controlling for gender and racial differences, 41 percent is "unexplainable by measureable factors." Even if women and men have the same background, the wage gap still exists, highlighting the fact that part of the discrepancy can be attributed to gender-based pay discrimination.

http://www.aauw.org/media/pressreleases/GraduatingtoaPayGap_102412.cfm

QuoteThe American Association of University Women (AAUW) today released a new study showing that just one year out of college, millennial women are paid 82 cents for every dollar paid to their male peers.

...

Among all full-time workers, women are paid about 77 cents for every dollar paid to men — a figure that hasn't budged in 10 years. While the disparity is narrower among young, college-educated, full-time workers, the persistent pay gap suggests that educational achievement alone will not fix the problem.

I've read the results of similar studies that claimed once all measurable factors were accounted for, women were actually being paid more than men.

Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 10:14:41 PM
But, at the time the woman has her first child, why is she necessarily making less?  Wage disparity was largely the result of 2 things--female workers being concentrated in lower-paying fields, and women having less time on their current job because of having taken time off to have children.  But female workers being concentrated in lower-paying fields is rapidly becoming a thing of the past, and it it's a first child, assuming that the man and woman are the same age, the time on the job disparity wouldn't have kicked in yet--so why would the woman be earning less at that point? 

The bolded part. Women workers are still concentrated in lower-paying fields. That may be getting better, but it certainly hasn't changed that much. (Source) (http://jobs.aol.com/articles/2010/07/27/where-women-work/)

Yes, that is the women's fault for choosing lower-paying jobs. I accept that, and I accept that it wouldn't matter much whether they stayed in the job or not. They would probably still make less because an administrative assistant is never going to make as much money as an accountant or an engineer. I don't know the answer to that, or even if there is one. Maybe there won't ever be a way to "fix" things because what's going on now works for the majority of people. I really don't know.

However, so long as the majority of single-parent homes are headed by women, and they are making far less than men, we're going to be a nation in poverty. Something has to give. Maybe it's the culture. Maybe it's the way traditionally female jobs are weighed in the work force. Maybe it's making sure that women have options when a divorce happens. (I didn't. When my first marriage broke up, I'd been a stay-at-home parent for eight years. The only job I could get was as a waitress, even though I had a degree. It took me two years to finally land an office job, and that barely paid more than the waitressing gig.) Like I said, I don't pretend to have the answers. I only see that it's a major problem for not just individual families and individual women, but our nation as a whole.

QuoteThat would depend somewhat, I think, on a couple's prior economic status.  Going with examples where the man is making more:  If the father is making $35,000/yr and the mother $30,000/yr, then it's likely that yes, the choice is, if not dictated, at least heavily influenced, by economic.  If the father is making $700,000/yr and the mother $600,000/yr, then they probably have a lot more leeway financially.

Okay, but when most of the population (98%) falls closer to your first example than your second, it's a major factor, isn't it? I know that $5000/year is a HUGE amount for my household, and for most of the people I know. So if Hubby makes $55,000/year and Wifey makes $30,000/year, and they can only afford for one to stay home, it's a no-brainer on who it will be.

When my twins were born, it wasn't just that I could stay home, it was that I had to stay home because I couldn't make enough money to cover childcare with any job I could get. I would have been paying to work.

Quote
What you said was, "It will never change that the woman has to give birth, and with each birth, she will be required to stay off work for at least six weeks. If that same time off isn't extended to the husbands, how will the woman ever catch up? It's just not possible.

Basically, a woman can choose to have a child or a career. It's the same choice that's been around for decades. Without legislation, it's not going to change."

How else do you propose to allow women to catch up?  If they have to take 6 weeks off, the to equalize things, so will the men.  What else could you legislate in this case? 

I think the legislation should be to make the country a more family-friendly nation. Again, on par with Sweden (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/10/world/europe/10iht-sweden.html?src=me&ref=general) would be ideal for me, but I recognize that something like that is unlikely to ever happen here. Partly because we have a much larger GDP and population to consider, and partly because our imbedded gender roles wouldn't allow it. But surely we could have something more in that direction than what we have now.

QuoteAnd as far as choosing between family and career, well, at least women have a choice now.  For most of the 20th century, men didn't have any real choice--they had to put the job first, because they had be the provider for their family.  A man didn't have the choice to stay at home with his family and not work, unless he was independently wealthy or wanted to watch his children starve.  A woman who's forced to choose between having children or having a career gets a choice my grandfather and stepfather never had.  Their choice was either to have children but have to put the job first, or to not have children and only have the job.

That's my point. I think that that disparity is just as unfair as the salary discussion that's constantly brought out. Men get the shaft when it comes to putting family first in our country. THAT'S equally as important to me as anything else in this discussion, which is why I've brought it up repeatedly in this discussion. Without recognizing and encouraging the man's role in parenting, there will never be real and lasting change.

Quote

Still haven't addressed what you would change legislatively.

I said that I would like our laws to move in the direction of Sweden. I didn't give specifics because I don't know what would work or pass in the US. I like their model, but being realistic, I don't know how much could be brought over here.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 20, 2012, 10:53:46 PM
I've read the results of similar studies that claimed once all measurable factors were accounted for, women were actually being paid more than men.

Citation?

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on November 20, 2012, 10:04:17 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 09:28:37 PMMy point is that most of the time, it's the woman who makes the decision because she has the lower paying job.

Except that's not true for women of childbearing age in 2012. They make more than the men. Women in their 50s are generally not having children.

You've said this twice, but I haven't seen anything that shows it to be true. Can you provide something that proves what you're claiming?

It makes sense to pay women less, because whenever you have more than a couple, you have to put up with their catty bullshit.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 11:03:56 PM
Citation?

I can't remember.  It was a long time ago.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 21, 2012, 01:06:42 AM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 11:03:56 PM
Citation?

I can't remember.  It was a long time ago.

I seem to recall it being posted on this forum.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 11:03:01 PM

Okay, but when most of the population (98%) falls closer to your first example than your second, it's a major factor, isn't it? I know that $5000/year is a HUGE amount for my household, and for most of the people I know. So if Hubby makes $55,000/year and Wifey makes $30,000/year, and they can only afford for one to stay home, it's a no-brainer on who it will be.

This actually goes to a problem I had with what might be called "classic" feminism (as opposed to the extreme or "feminazi" stuff, like all male-female sex being rape), as it was presented in the early 70s--it's elitist.  At the time, feminist leaders talked a lot about women's right to a fulfilling career outside the home.  I was just a kid at the time, of course, but I thought that was nuts--not the women working outside the home, but the "fulfilling" part.  I looked at my stepfather, my mom's brothers, and even my mom (who worked until my younger brother was born when I was 7).  None of them really had fulfilling careers, or for the most part, careers at all--they had jobs.  They worked as coal miners, factory workers, salesmen in furniture stores, stuff like that.  They didn't get fulfilment from those jobs, they got paychecks.  Any fulfilment they got in their lives was from their families, their hobbies and other interests, not from their jobs.  The only person even in our extended family who might have gotten much fulfilment from their job was one of my mom's cousins who was a schoolteacher--I can see how that can be fulfilling, but it's both a relatively low-paying job (even moreso then) and a traditional field for women.  Feminist leaders were talking about women's rights to pursue careers as doctors, lawyers, writers, etc.  Well, that's all well and good, but it didn't have much to do with the types of jobs that most people are going to have.  "Hey, Woman!  You've been liberated!  You have the right to be a doctor or lawyer if you want.  Oh, don't have the grades to get into medical school, or the money to go to college at all.  That's OK--you're still liberated!  You now have the right to perform backbreaking labor all day digging coal, just like your brothers.  Enjoy the next methane explosion, and the black lung disease 30 years down the road."  Should a woman have the right to seek employment as a miner, and be given the same opportunity to find a job in that field as a man?  Absolutely.  Should she get the same pay as a male miner if she does the same work and has the same amount of time on the job?  Of course.  Are most women in the workforce working because they can pursue careers that they really enjoy and get a lot satisfaction out of?  No--they're just working because they need the money, the same reason that most men are working.

My grandmothers, and probably yours, too, would have had very limited opportunities for employment if they had tried to find work outside the home--but they didn't have to work outside the home, either.  You and my wife have a lot more opportunities--but you pretty much have to work outside the home, whether you want to or not.

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 05:06:14 PM
This. But it would require a huge shift for this to happen, probably some legislation. Because so long as women are paid less for giving birth, they will always be the ones to take the year off to care for the children since it will make the most sense financially.

It is required to take a year off to care for children?  Damn we have been doing it wrong.  I fail to see how it makes any sense financially for anybody to be taking a year off. 

Quote from: dps on November 21, 2012, 09:29:08 AM
This actually goes to a problem I had with what might be called "classic" feminism (as opposed to the extreme or "feminazi" stuff, like all male-female sex being rape), as it was presented in the early 70s--it's elitist.  At the time, feminist leaders talked a lot about women's right to a fulfilling career outside the home.  I was just a kid at the time, of course, but I thought that was nuts--not the women working outside the home, but the "fulfilling" part.  I looked at my stepfather, my mom's brothers, and even my mom (who worked until my younger brother was born when I was 7).  None of them really had fulfilling careers, or for the most part, careers at all--they had jobs.  They worked as coal miners, factory workers, salesmen in furniture stores, stuff like that.  They didn't get fulfilment from those jobs, they got paychecks.  Any fulfilment they got in their lives was from their families, their hobbies and other interests, not from their jobs.  The only person even in our extended family who might have gotten much fulfilment from their job was one of my mom's cousins who was a schoolteacher--I can see how that can be fulfilling, but it's both a relatively low-paying job (even moreso then) and a traditional field for women.  Feminist leaders were talking about women's rights to pursue careers as doctors, lawyers, writers, etc.  Well, that's all well and good, but it didn't have much to do with the types of jobs that most people are going to have.  "Hey, Woman!  You've been liberated!  You have the right to be a doctor or lawyer if you want.  Oh, don't have the grades to get into medical school, or the money to go to college at all.  That's OK--you're still liberated!  You now have the right to perform backbreaking labor all day digging coal, just like your brothers.  Enjoy the next methane explosion, and the black lung disease 30 years down the road."  Should a woman have the right to seek employment as a miner, and be given the same opportunity to find a job in that field as a man?  Absolutely.  Should she get the same pay as a male miner if she does the same work and has the same amount of time on the job?  Of course.  Are most women in the workforce working because they can pursue careers that they really enjoy and get a lot satisfaction out of?  No--they're just working because they need the money, the same reason that most men are working.

My grandmothers, and probably yours, too, would have had very limited opportunities for employment if they had tried to find work outside the home--but they didn't have to work outside the home, either.  You and my wife have a lot more opportunities--but you pretty much have to work outside the home, whether you want to or not.

Brilliant post. And you're aboslutely right. To the average person, the only thing that changed was the expectation that women work now, when before the expectation wasn't there.

But with that came opportunities, too. My sister is a director at ADP, THE largest human resources company in the US. She wouldn't have had that chance 50 years ago. She's a single mom with two kids, and she makes pretty good bank. She got her degree while she was working (the company paid for it), and she's now considering getting her MBA (again, the company paying for it) so that she can keep moving up. Again, something that just wasn't an option back when we were kids. She could have been a secretary, but not a director with two administrative assistants under her. We came from a very poor background, so she got there entirely on her own merit.

That being said, she had to leave two different jobs because her boss at one of them (a man) didn't think she was up for more of a challenge than just a team lead. He felt that as a single mom, she was better off in that position. The next company hamstringed her as a manager, for the same reason. It wasn't until she moved to ADP that she finally got the chance to really show what she could do, and she's exceeded. She's one of their top directors - her team of 200+ international employees consistently out-perform the other departments. That was despite being held back in two other jobs.

For the Walmart employees out there, yeah, women's liberation didn't do much, unless they also take the initiative.

Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2012, 09:37:27 AM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 05:06:14 PM
This. But it would require a huge shift for this to happen, probably some legislation. Because so long as women are paid less for giving birth, they will always be the ones to take the year off to care for the children since it will make the most sense financially.

It is required to take a year off to care for children?  Damn we have been doing it wrong.  I fail to see how it makes any sense financially for anybody to be taking a year off. 

Well, arguably it takes 18 years.  My mom might tell you that it's taken 50 years so far, and the job's not finished yet.

Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2012, 09:37:27 AM

Quote from: merithyn on November 20, 2012, 05:06:14 PM
This. But it would require a huge shift for this to happen, probably some legislation. Because so long as women are paid less for giving birth, they will always be the ones to take the year off to care for the children since it will make the most sense financially.

It is required to take a year off to care for children?  Damn we have been doing it wrong.  I fail to see how it makes any sense financially for anybody to be taking a year off.

The assumption was that IF one of the two of them were to take a year off.... etc

Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 10:01:53 AM

Quote from: dps on November 21, 2012, 09:29:08 AM
This actually goes to a problem I had with what might be called "classic" feminism (as opposed to the extreme or "feminazi" stuff, like all male-female sex being rape), as it was presented in the early 70s--it's elitist.  At the time, feminist leaders talked a lot about women's right to a fulfilling career outside the home.  I was just a kid at the time, of course, but I thought that was nuts--not the women working outside the home, but the "fulfilling" part.  I looked at my stepfather, my mom's brothers, and even my mom (who worked until my younger brother was born when I was 7).  None of them really had fulfilling careers, or for the most part, careers at all--they had jobs.  They worked as coal miners, factory workers, salesmen in furniture stores, stuff like that.  They didn't get fulfilment from those jobs, they got paychecks.  Any fulfilment they got in their lives was from their families, their hobbies and other interests, not from their jobs.  The only person even in our extended family who might have gotten much fulfilment from their job was one of my mom's cousins who was a schoolteacher--I can see how that can be fulfilling, but it's both a relatively low-paying job (even moreso then) and a traditional field for women.  Feminist leaders were talking about women's rights to pursue careers as doctors, lawyers, writers, etc.  Well, that's all well and good, but it didn't have much to do with the types of jobs that most people are going to have.  "Hey, Woman!  You've been liberated!  You have the right to be a doctor or lawyer if you want.  Oh, don't have the grades to get into medical school, or the money to go to college at all.  That's OK--you're still liberated!  You now have the right to perform backbreaking labor all day digging coal, just like your brothers.  Enjoy the next methane explosion, and the black lung disease 30 years down the road."  Should a woman have the right to seek employment as a miner, and be given the same opportunity to find a job in that field as a man?  Absolutely.  Should she get the same pay as a male miner if she does the same work and has the same amount of time on the job?  Of course.  Are most women in the workforce working because they can pursue careers that they really enjoy and get a lot satisfaction out of?  No--they're just working because they need the money, the same reason that most men are working.

My grandmothers, and probably yours, too, would have had very limited opportunities for employment if they had tried to find work outside the home--but they didn't have to work outside the home, either.  You and my wife have a lot more opportunities--but you pretty much have to work outside the home, whether you want to or not.

Brilliant post. And you're aboslutely right. To the average person, the only thing that changed was the expectation that women work now, when before the expectation wasn't there.

That's also one of the reason that feminism fractured as already working women (and minority women) got their voices out there that what certain middle-upper class white women were agitating for - wasn't of much use to them.

Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 10:02:38 AM
The assumption was that IF one of the two of them were to take a year off.... etc

Yeah but today that is probably a tiny minority.  You have to be doing really well to afford to have a family with only one income.

Quote from: garbon on November 21, 2012, 10:06:29 AM

Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 10:01:53 AM

Brilliant post. And you're aboslutely right. To the average person, the only thing that changed was the expectation that women work now, when before the expectation wasn't there.

That's also one of the reason that feminism fractured as already working women (and minority women) got their voices out there that what certain middle-upper class white women were agitating for - wasn't of much use to them.

Yeah, makes sense.

Of course, there was more to women's rights than just the right to work. It was also the right to succeed beyond where they had been before. That's been a benefit for all women, and, arguably, men, too. It's loosened the stranglehold on both genders. Men were no longer expected to be the sole wage-earner, and could stay home if they chose. And women had more opportunities to move up the corporate ladder. (Well hell, actually get ONTO the corporate ladder!)

Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2012, 10:11:56 AM

Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 10:02:38 AM
The assumption was that IF one of the two of them were to take a year off.... etc

Yeah but today that is probably a tiny minority.  You have to be doing really well to afford to have a family with only one income.

Like I said, it wasn't worthwhile for me to work when my boys were born. Childcare cost more than I would have made. I'm sure other families have found that to be true, too, once they have more than one kid.

Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 10:13:43 AM
Men were no longer expected to be the sole wage-earner, and could stay home if they chose.

But again, there is only a very small percentage of men who actually have that choice in practice.  Even with couples where the wife makes more than the husband, they generally need both paychecks.

Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 10:14:30 AM

Quote from: Valmy on November 21, 2012, 10:11:56 AM

Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 10:02:38 AM
The assumption was that IF one of the two of them were to take a year off.... etc

Yeah but today that is probably a tiny minority.  You have to be doing really well to afford to have a family with only one income.

Like I said, it wasn't worthwhile for me to work when my boys were born. Childcare cost more than I would have made. I'm sure other families have found that to be true, too, once they have more than one kid.

That's what grandparents are for.

Of course, that's not a realistic option for a lot of people, but there are lot of people who go that route.  If not a grandparent, maybe an aunt or the like who doesn't work outside the home.

Nuclear families make sense with stay-at-home moms.  With working moms, extended families are actually a lot more reasonable.

Quote from: dps on November 21, 2012, 10:20:13 AM

Quote from: merithyn on November 21, 2012, 10:13:43 AM
Men were no longer expected to be the sole wage-earner, and could stay home if they chose.

But again, there is only a very small percentage of men who actually have that choice in practice.  Even with couples where the wife makes more than the husband, they generally need both paychecks.

Yeah. This really is theoretical in a lot of ways, because most families can't afford for either to be off work.

Well, feminism isn't necessary in France, anyway, according to "Her Ladyship" Sarkozy.

:lol:

Quote
'My generation doesn't need feminism': Former French first lady Carla Bruni says a woman's place is in the home
Carla Bruni-Sarkozy told Vogue magazine that she is not an active feminist
While she shares many of her husband's conservative views, she admits that the pair disagree over gay marriage
By Steve Nolan

Former French first lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy has said that she believes a woman's place is in the home with her children and her generation of women 'don't need to be feminist'.

The 45-year-old, a self-styled champagne socialist famed for her one-time Bohemian lifestyle, waded into the debate about a woman's role in society in an interview for Vogue magazine, with her views sure to outrage feminists.

Mrs Bruni-Sarkozy said: 'There are pioneers who opened the breach.

'I'm not at all an active feminist. On the contrary, I'm a bourgeois. I love family life, I love doing the same thing every day.'

Before marrying former French President Nicolas Sarkozy in 2008, the former singer and model admitted that she found monogamy boring.

She had previously been romantically linked with rock stars Mick Jagger and Eric Clapton as well as a number of famous politicians and businessmen.

However, she soon turned into a conservative wife who shared her husband's right wing views on everything.
But she admits that the couple disagree when it comes to gay marriage.

She said: 'I'm rather in favour of homosexual marriage and adoption, I've lots of friends - women and men - who are in this situation and I don't see anything unstable or perverse in homo-parental families.'

Mrs Bruni-Sarkozy says that her 58-year-old husband is opposed to gay marriage because he 'sees people in groups of thousands rather than as groups of people we know.'

She has one child with Mr Sarkozy, a baby girl called Giulia, and an 11-year-old son, Aurelian, from her relationship with the philosophy professor Raphael Enthoven.

Her life in the limelight has escalated since Mr Sarkozy lost the May presidential election to his Socialist rival, Francois Hollande.

She is currently on billboards all over Paris advertising headphones, is appearing on glossy magazine covers, and has a new album out in February.

All of this coincides with Mr Sarkozy being implicated in a number of fraud scandals, including one in which he is accused of illicitly accepting cash in contravention of electoral rules from Lilian Bettencourt, the l'Oreal heiress and France's richest women.


Conservative: Mrs Bruni-Sarkozy shares many of husband Nicolas Sarkozy's views, but she admits that they disagree when it comes to gay marriage. The pair are pictured together earlier this year
It led to the Paris home Ms Bruni-Sarkozy shares with her husband being raided by police in July, but she refused to be drawn into questions about her husband's legal problems.

'I don't feel like talking about all that, and I won't do any more,' said Ms Bruni-Sarkozy, adding: 'The adventure was fun, but now I want to go back to being an ordinary citizen like everybody else.

'I no longer feel the desire nor the obligation to answer questions about a world that has enriched me humanly, which opened my eyes and mind, but in the end is not mine.'

Mr Sarkozy has denied 'taking a penny' from Mrs Bettencourt, but was last week made an assisted witness in a case which could see him end up in a criminal trial.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238515/My-generation-doesnt-need-feminism-Carla-Bruni-Sarkozy-says-womans-place-home.html#ixzz2DXi1hmVO  (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238515/My-generation-doesnt-need-feminism-Carla-Bruni-Sarkozy-says-womans-place-home.html#ixzz2DXi1hmVO)

Wow she named her son Aurelian? :wub:

Dominus et deus!  Restitutor orbis invictus!

Glad France is off the hook. :wub:

This is from several years ago, and I couldn't remember where I had first seen it. It seems like all these "end of men" articles we've been seeing in the culture tabs recently has mentioned it too. Anyway, imperfect analysis, obviously, but there's lots of progress for the young single girls.



Wages for Women (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704421104575463790770831192.html#articleTabs%3Darticle) vs. Male Peers (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2010/09/01/cities-where-women-outearn-male-counterparts/)


Metro Area       Wage Ratio   
Atlanta, GA    121%
Memphis, TN-AR-MS    119%
New York City-Northeastern NJ    117%
Sacramento, CA    116%
San Diego, CA    115%
Miami-Hialeah, FL    114%
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC    114%
Raleigh-Durham, NC    114%
Los Angeles-Long Beach, CA    112%
Phoenix, AZ    112%
Richmond-Petersburg, VA    112%
San Francisco-Oakland-Vallejo, CA    111%
Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN    111%
Oklahoma City, OK    110%
Riverside-San Bernardino, CA    109%
Salt Lake City, UT    109%
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX    108%
St. Louis, MO-IL    108%
Kansas City, MO-KS    108%
Columbus, OH    107%
Washington, DC-MD-VA    106%
San Antonio, TX    106%
Milwaukee, WI    106%
Jacksonville, FL    106%
San Jose, CA    105%
Houston-Brazoria, TX    104%
Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL    104%
Portland, OR-WA    104%
Cleveland, OH    104%
Orlando, FL    104%
Las Vegas, NV    104%
Austin, TX    104%
Providence-Fall River-Pawtucket, MA-RI    104%
Nashville, TN    104%
Louisville, KY-IN    104%
Birmingham, AL    104%
Chicago, IL    103%
Norfolk-VA Beach-Newport News, VA    102%
Philadelphia, PA-NJ    101%
Boston, MA-NH    100%
Detroit, MI    100%
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN    100%
Baltimore, MD    100%
Denver-Boulder, CO    100%
Pittsburgh, PA    100%
Indianapolis, IN    100%
Hartford-Bristol-Middleton-New Britain, CT    100%
Seattle-Everett, WA    96%
New Orleans, LA    93%
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY    92%



I guess we should move to Seattle, guys.  :lol:


Edit: Probably highly attributable to this--

Quote
Between 2006 and 2008, 32.7% of women between 25 and 34 had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared with 25.8% of men, according to the Census.

No kidding;  best option of the 3.

New Orleans:  too hot.
Buffalo: too Buffalo.

Also from your article:

QuoteWhile these particular women earn more than their male peers, women on the whole haven't reached equal status in any particular job or education level. For instance, women with a bachelor's degree had median earnings of $39,571 between 2006 and 2008, compared with $59,079 for men at the same education level, according to the Census.

At every education level, from high-school dropouts to Ph.D.s, women continue to earn less than their male peers.

Also, women tend to see wages stagnate or fall after they have children.

I've not read all of this thread so I may be about to repeat a lot of points.

I think one of the problems feminism has had has been that a lot of the most prominent recent feminists have been academics writing for an academic audience.  The most successful modern 'feminist', in my view, is Paglia precisely because she doesn't.  Germaine Greer (:wub:) and Simone de Beauvoir (I don't know Betty Friedan at all) were passionate, seething with anger and writing books that could be easily read and understood by millions.  Those books were, they all became best-sellers.  I think many modern feminist writers and thinkers are addressing an audience of a handful of likeminded academics and otherwise sit, unread, in university libraries.

Having said that I love feminism and inwardly cringe when I see women distancing themselves from it, because I think the fight's still essential and unwon.  It's easy to talk about equality of opportunity in jobs as being something that we've attained (I don't think it's the case, but we're on our way) but that, to me, seems to be based on equality of opportunity in social role which we haven't achieved and I don't think are close to.

At this point I think there is still a social stigma attached to, for example, a man leaving his job to look after the children - at best there's a wondrous admiration.  For any sense of equality there should surely be indifferent.  It should be as natural and understood that a man would be the one to leave his job.  In certain parts of our society I think there's still a social pressure on women to give up their work and become 'mothers' as if they're somehow not because they can't afford to.  So I don't think that socially a man is as defined by 'fatherhood' as a woman is by 'motherhood' (and I don't think there's a similar pressure to become a parent) which creates a difference that makes equality of opportunity a bit of a figment.

Similarly, incidentally, I think there are less and less 'male' jobs out there - though eyebrows are still raised at a female engineer or whatever.  But I don't think the same exists for men.  There are definite 'female' jobs.  I think primary school teaching, nursing and so on are still viewed as 'female' roles and a man being in that job is almost viewed with suspicion (especially the teaching, but that's probably partly down to paedophilia-mentalism).  Again this is a problem that narrows choice for men and women.  The goal, in my view, in both cases isn't that everything's 50/50 but that our reaction is indifference.  That men can be fathers and women mothers, in any jobs or not, without social judgement, stigma, pressure or whatever else.

Also I think I'm uncomfortable with aspects of 'post-feminism'.  I think my problem is that it seems like women are allowed to be more empowered in their sexuality than was the case in the pre-feminist age.  But the setting of the terms of that sexuality, culturally, still seems to be done by men.  It often looks to me that 'post-feminism' is a lot like 'pre-feminism' with pre-marital sex and so on.  I'm not sure that's a victory for feminism. 

I think the terms of feminism like empowerment and liberation have been coopted by a still very unfeminist society.  While feminism itself has been turned into a negative which I think is very sad.

As an aside I also think the judgement of women in the media is as bad as ever if they fail to fit into a narrow definition of what a woman should look at.  Every time I read a piece about Adele showing it doesn't matter what you look like I want to scream.  It makes her sound like some sort of monstrous swamp-beast when in fact she is, to my eyes, a slightly larger but relatively pretty girl.  I remember the, perhaps perfect, Daily Mail line after Lady Gaga put on weight on tour: 'despite piling on the pounds, Lady Gaga still managed to find times to greet her fans' :lol: :bleeding:

So while that's going on I think feminism's got a long way to go and rather than shy from 'feminism' I think we all need to get our copies of the Female Eunuch out and burn some bras  :menace: :w00t:

I :wub: you, Sheilbh.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2012, 07:40:20 PMThe goal, in my view, in both cases isn't that everything's 50/50 but that our reaction is indifference.

The man is a wordsmith.

Wait a minute.  People make fun of fat guys all the time.  Apparently Val Kilmer was seen in a wetsuit, and everyone laughted at him.  And we always laugh at fat Martinus.

Quote from: Neil on November 30, 2012, 09:37:34 PM
Wait a minute.  People make fun of fat guys all the time.  Apparently Val Kilmer was seen in a wetsuit, and everyone laughted at him.  And we always laugh at fat Martinus.

And yet we'll still elect a Chris Christie and Bill Richardson. Sorry ain't buying it.

Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 08:03:14 PM
I :wub: you, Sheilbh.

Really?

I think his attitude is exactly what is wrong with feminism.

The idea that men and women are the same is, just, well...boring.

Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2012, 09:55:30 PM

Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 08:03:14 PM
I :wub: you, Sheilbh.

Really?

I think his attitude is exactly what is wrong with feminism.

The idea that men and women are the same is, just, well...boring.

Having the opportunity to do whatever one wants without judgement is boring? :unsure:

Quote from: dps on November 20, 2012, 05:14:39 PM
I think it should be left up to the individual to decide how to prioritize between family and career.  I wouldn't want to see it legislated.

Over here we've paid maternity and paid paternity leave (David Cameron took off the two weeks when his daughter was born).

What Scandinavia and other Northern European welfare states do is, in addition to those days which can't be transferred between parents, there's 'family leave' (I think that's the name) which the parents can split as they want.  From memory it lasts for up to 12 months but the amount of pay you get tapers off - so if a family uses the full amount many of those days would be unpaid leave.  But the mum could take all of that time off, the dad could, they could split it equally, they could even use it to do flexible working for a year or two (dad takes of Mondays and Tuesdays, mum is at home the rest of the week) and there's also shared days which are basically sort-of part-time.  I think you can use those days, between the parents, until they're in school (so 4-5), but once they're used up that's it.

I think we're planning to adopt something similar but far, far, far less generous and a bit simpler.  You'll get x amounts of week paid leave and unpaid leave, a certain number of weeks have to be taken by the woman (or lost) and a certain number must be taken by the men (or lost) aside from that it's how the family choose to split it.  Personally I think it makes a lot of sense.

QuoteThe idea that men and women are the same is, just, well...boring.

Where did I say they were the same?

QuoteFor any sense of equality there should surely be indifferent.  It should be as natural and understood that a man would be the one to leave his job.

Seems to be what that is suggesting.

I don't think most men are as equally built to be primary caregivers as most women, and hence it will never be as natural and understood. Not because we are not feminist enough, but simply because men and women are in fact different, and hence we should not expect or demand indifferent results.

Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2012, 09:55:30 PM
Really?

I think his attitude is exactly what is wrong with feminism.

The idea that men and women are the same is, just, well...boring.

I think you misunderstood what he wrote. He never said that they were the same. He said that the choices made should be so mundane as to be non-news. That isn't the same as making men women and vice-versa. It's always about choices, and those choices - in whatever direction by whichever gender - should be so dull as to be non-news.

Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2012, 10:01:07 PM
I don't think most men are as equally built to be primary caregivers as most women

Sorry but this strikes me as an opinion that will go into the dustbin of history. After all, if that's true - then we probably shouldn't have gay male couples adopting kids. They aren't as well fit to the task as most women.

Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2012, 10:01:07 PM
Seems to be what that is suggesting.

I don't think most men are as equally built to be primary caregivers as most women, and hence it will never be as natural and understood. Not because we are not feminist enough, but simply because men and women are in fact different, and hence we should not expect or demand indifferent results.

I would totally argue this. Men may not be equipped to breast feed, but otherwise, there's no reason that men couldn't or shouldn't stay home with the children if that's what they choose.

The thing is, when it comes to equality, everyone should have the right to decide for themselves - without fear of judgment - what works for them. I hate that there are men who would make the better stay-at-home parent who choose not to because they feel like they'd be judged harshly if they did. That's sad, and wrong, imo.

Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2012, 09:50:29 PM

Quote from: Neil on November 30, 2012, 09:37:34 PM
Wait a minute.  People make fun of fat guys all the time.  Apparently Val Kilmer was seen in a wetsuit, and everyone laughted at him.  And we always laugh at fat Martinus.

And yet we'll still elect a Chris Christie and Bill Richardson. Sorry ain't buying it.

And they'll elect a hag like Hillary Clinton, or the WoW lady.

Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2012, 10:04:05 PM
Sorry but this strikes me as an opinion that will go into the dustbin of history. After all, if that's true - then we probably shouldn't have gay male couples adopting kids. They aren't as well fit to the task as most women.

I entirely agree, it basically is the argument against gay adoption.  My dad had gone from a very poor area of Liverpool to being in the merchant navy for 30-40 years - so he was from probably the most masculine of backgrounds but for a number of practical reasons he was the man who raised my little brother (and to a lesser extent me) while my mum worked.  He was as able to be a caregiver and as good at that as other people's mums seemed to be.

QuoteThat's also one of the reason that feminism fractured as already working women (and minority women) got their voices out there that what certain middle-upper class white women were agitating for - wasn't of much use to them.

This is very true.  The voice was there but just not heard.  There's a brilliant book on Virginia Woolf and her servants which deals with this.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v29/n16/rosemary-hill/why-we-have-them-i-cant-think
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/01/imperfect-union/307221/

I always think, when I see pictures of Suffragettes, of how many thousands of women were in service to those on the marches.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2012, 10:37:30 PM
I entirely agree, it basically is the argument against gay adoption.  My dad had gone from a very poor area of Liverpool to being in the merchant navy for 30-40 years - so he was from probably the most masculine of backgrounds but for a number of practical reasons he was the man who raised my little brother (and to a lesser extent me) while my mum worked.  He was as able to be a caregiver and as good at that as other people's mums seemed to be.

Yeah, I think the same of my father staying at home with my siblings and I.

That book sounds interesting - I'll have to check it out. :)

Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 10:07:20 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2012, 10:01:07 PM
Seems to be what that is suggesting.

I don't think most men are as equally built to be primary caregivers as most women, and hence it will never be as natural and understood. Not because we are not feminist enough, but simply because men and women are in fact different, and hence we should not expect or demand indifferent results.

I would totally argue this. Men may not be equipped to breast feed, but otherwise, there's no reason that men couldn't or shouldn't stay home with the children if that's what they choose.

The thing is, when it comes to equality, everyone should have the right to decide for themselves - without fear of judgment - what works for them. I hate that there are men who would make the better stay-at-home parent who choose not to because they feel like they'd be judged harshly if they did. That's sad, and wrong, imo.

I agree with both you and Berkut here.  You did not actually refute anything he said.

Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2012, 10:04:05 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2012, 10:01:07 PM
I don't think most men are as equally built to be primary caregivers as most women

Sorry but this strikes me as an opinion that will go into the dustbin of history. After all, if that's true - then we probably shouldn't have gay male couples adopting kids. They aren't as well fit to the task as most women.

I don't agree with that at all.

There are a lot of variables that go into evaluating the fitness of people as parents, gay or otherwise. More than enough that the tendencies of gender are largely irrelevant in general, and certainly irrelevant in the particular.

Quote from: merithyn on November 30, 2012, 10:07:20 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 30, 2012, 10:01:07 PM
Seems to be what that is suggesting.

I don't think most men are as equally built to be primary caregivers as most women, and hence it will never be as natural and understood. Not because we are not feminist enough, but simply because men and women are in fact different, and hence we should not expect or demand indifferent results.

I would totally argue this. Men may not be equipped to breast feed, but otherwise, there's no reason that men couldn't or shouldn't stay home with the children if that's what they choose.

Who are you arguing with?

I never said they should not if they choose, nor did I say they would not be capable, if they so chose to do so.

Quote
The thing is, when it comes to equality, everyone should have the right to decide for themselves - without fear of judgment - what works for them. I hate that there are men who would make the better stay-at-home parent who choose not to because they feel like they'd be judged harshly if they did. That's sad, and wrong, imo.

The three of you are in violent agreement that you have thoroughly denounced the strawman you have created. Congratulations.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2012, 10:37:30 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 30, 2012, 10:04:05 PM
Sorry but this strikes me as an opinion that will go into the dustbin of history. After all, if that's true - then we probably shouldn't have gay male couples adopting kids. They aren't as well fit to the task as most women.

I entirely agree, it basically is the argument against gay adoption.  My dad had gone from a very poor area of Liverpool to being in the merchant navy for 30-40 years - so he was from probably the most masculine of backgrounds but for a number of practical reasons he was the man who raised my little brother (and to a lesser extent me) while my mum worked.  He was as able to be a caregiver and as good at that as other people's mums seemed to be.

Nothing you or garbon said refuted even a tiny bit of my point.

Hell, I did the stay at home dad thing. You aren't listening to what I say, and instead are arguing against something you imagine I am saying.

QuoteHaving said that I love feminism and inwardly cringe when I see women distancing themselves from it, because I think the fight's still essential and unwon.

Ok I have alot of things to say to this sentence but here are a few points.

First yes the fight is still essential and unwon.  But I think a tipping point has been reached and a gender equal society is coming, maybe not as quick as alot of us would like but with vigilance and hard work I think we are on the right track.

Secondly are women really distancing themselves from feminism?  It was never like it was a majority thing among women.

But I think Feminism does have some problems, they are hardly unique to Feminism though and basically all movements of this kind have these issues.  A big one is that, despite the fact I have taken classes and read books and articles on the subject, I am not sure what exactly Feminism is and I do not think anybody else does either.  It is a huge mass of different agendas that are often directly contradictory towards one another.  If I were to announce that I, Valmy, am a Feminist what that probably means to me would mean something different to each person I was announcing it to.  Nevermind the big controversy as to whether a man could even be a Feminist...which is sort of ridiculous if you consider it simply the idea that men and women are equal.  And of course, again like most movements of this type, fanatics and crazies are out front in center and have a disproportionate impact with regard to their numbers.  But in general these issues are not a huge deal, the good ideas of feminism are seeping into the culture.  The primary impact is the majority of women are probably never going to eagerly embrace the title of Feminist unless it is a very watered down definition.

QuoteEvery time I read a piece about Adele showing it doesn't matter what you look like I want to scream.  It makes her sound like some sort of monstrous swamp-beast when in fact she is, to my eyes, a slightly larger but relatively pretty girl.

LOL.  Yeah we are all supposed to be inspired and she is this big role model to women everywhere for making it despite being horribly ugly.

Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2012, 03:07:01 AM
despite the fact I have taken classes and read books and articles on the subject,

WTF

Quote from: Valmy on December 01, 2012, 03:07:01 AM
LOL.  Yeah we are all supposed to be inspired and she is this big role model to women everywhere for making it despite being horribly ugly.

I guess the thing there is that she can be successful and talented without being hot. I think it's always been true, even for women. I mean, dudes aren't lining up to have sex with Aretha Franklin either. The stereotype that women have to be pretty to be successful is wrong. But it's still out there because some did make it by being hot. (Guys too.) Adele has legit pipes and didn't make it big because of her looks.

I think some people have a complex about their looks and examples like her make them feel better. So there's a market for that.

Aretha and Adele would both have been much bigger had they been HOTT.

Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2012, 01:50:27 AM
Nothing you or garbon said refuted even a tiny bit of my point.

Hell, I did the stay at home dad thing. You aren't listening to what I say, and instead are arguing against something you imagine I am saying.

Can you reiterate what you meant then? I don't think that the 3 of us purposefully misread what you said - so it must have been unclear to us.

Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2012, 10:19:55 AM

Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2012, 01:50:27 AM
Nothing you or garbon said refuted even a tiny bit of my point.

Hell, I did the stay at home dad thing. You aren't listening to what I say, and instead are arguing against something you imagine I am saying.

Can you reiterate what you meant then? I don't think that the 3 of us purposefully misread what you said - so it must have been unclear to us.

Not to speak for him, but I think that what he was saying was that on average, women make better caregivers then men, but individual differences are more important than the average differences between men and women.  So, overall, maybe in, say, 65% of heterosexual couples, the woman might be the better caregiver, but in the other 35%, the men shouldn't fell ashamed to be the primary caregiver.

I don't really disagree with him on either point.

Quote from: dps on December 01, 2012, 10:54:01 AM
Not to speak for him, but I think that what he was saying was that on average, women make better caregivers then men, but individual differences are more important than the average differences between men and women.  So, overall, maybe in, say, 65% of heterosexual couples, the woman might be the better caregiver, but in the other 35%, the men shouldn't fell ashamed to be the primary caregiver.

I don't really disagree with him on either point.

Based on what evidence? And what counts as better?

Also, it seems to me if that you think on average women will be better caregivers - I don't see how you can escape judging the men who "substitute" themselves in. After all, how do you know the situation wouldn't be improved if their wives were to stay home to raise the children?  It feels a bit two-faced to say "Well in general, I think women are better at raising children, but Mike, I think you're probably doing a bang-up job."

Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2012, 11:22:03 AM

Quote from: dps on December 01, 2012, 10:54:01 AM
Not to speak for him, but I think that what he was saying was that on average, women make better caregivers then men, but individual differences are more important than the average differences between men and women.  So, overall, maybe in, say, 65% of heterosexual couples, the woman might be the better caregiver, but in the other 35%, the men shouldn't fell ashamed to be the primary caregiver.

I don't really disagree with him on either point.

Based on what evidence? And what counts as better?

Also, it seems to me if that you think on average women will be better caregivers - I don't see how you can escape judging the men who "substitute" themselves in. After all, how do you know the situation wouldn't be improved if their wives were to stay home to raise the children?  It feels a bit two-faced to say "Well in general, I think women are better at raising children, but Mike, I think you're probably doing a bang-up job."

Why is that?  In general, taller people make better basketball players, but that doesn't mean that someone 7'1" is automatically a better player than someone 6'9".  Same here.  I don't have a way to "score" childraising ability, but say on average, women score at 5.5 on a 0-10 scale, while men on average score at 4.5--that doesn't mean that there aren't men who score 9.9, or women that score 0.

As for what evidence I have, it's purely anecdotal.  There probably is some study out there somewhere that compares the abilities of men and women in this regard--several of them actually, with contradictory and inconsistent conclusions.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 01, 2012, 05:03:57 AM
I guess the thing there is that she can be successful and talented without being hot. I think it's always been true, even for women. I mean, dudes aren't lining up to have sex with Aretha Franklin either. The stereotype that women have to be pretty to be successful is wrong. But it's still out there because some did make it by being hot. (Guys too.) Adele has legit pipes and didn't make it big because of her looks.

I think some people have a complex about their looks and examples like her make them feel better. So there's a market for that.

Not to get totally off the subject, but I think Adele IS hot! She's bigger than a size 2, though, and so it's supposed to be this huge thing that she's gotten famous despite that.

And Aretha was a pretty woman when she was younger. She just got big, and so no one sees that anymore.

Adele
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuserserve-ak.last.fm%2Fserve%2F252%2F58297223.png&hash=685174cdf1624ae46f2369987b07d4d2554cce37)

Aretha Franklin
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fuserserve-ak.last.fm%2Fserve%2F_%2F28023911%2FAretha%2BFranklin%2Baretha%2B30.jpg&hash=b9f3e2e744acb2662099dc8a457d8d1908f66313)

Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2012, 01:50:27 AM
Nothing you or garbon said refuted even a tiny bit of my point.

Hell, I did the stay at home dad thing. You aren't listening to what I say, and instead are arguing against something you imagine I am saying.

Then we're obviously missing your point. Care to rephrase so that we're a little more clear on what it is? :)

Quote from: dps on December 01, 2012, 11:31:06 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2012, 11:22:03 AM

Quote from: dps on December 01, 2012, 10:54:01 AM
Not to speak for him, but I think that what he was saying was that on average, women make better caregivers then men, but individual differences are more important than the average differences between men and women.  So, overall, maybe in, say, 65% of heterosexual couples, the woman might be the better caregiver, but in the other 35%, the men shouldn't fell ashamed to be the primary caregiver.

I don't really disagree with him on either point.

Based on what evidence? And what counts as better?

Also, it seems to me if that you think on average women will be better caregivers - I don't see how you can escape judging the men who "substitute" themselves in. After all, how do you know the situation wouldn't be improved if their wives were to stay home to raise the children?  It feels a bit two-faced to say "Well in general, I think women are better at raising children, but Mike, I think you're probably doing a bang-up job."

Why is that?  In general, taller people make better basketball players, but that doesn't mean that someone 7'1" is automatically a better player than someone 6'9".  Same here.  I don't have a way to "score" childraising ability, but say on average, women score at 5.5 on a 0-10 scale, while men on average score at 4.5--that doesn't mean that there aren't men who score 9.9, or women that score 0.

As for what evidence I have, it's purely anecdotal.  There probably is some study out there somewhere that compares the abilities of men and women in this regard--several of them actually, with contradictory and inconsistent conclusions.

My issue with this line of thinking is that I believe that care-taking isn't innate, but rather taught. In general, girls are taught to take care of things while boys are taught to compete for and against things. So long as we see that as just how things are rather than a societal thing, like Berkut said, it's not likely to change.

Here's an interesting excerpt from a fairly well-known book on Child Development (http://www.education.com/reference/article/similarities-differences-boys-girls/?page=3):

QuoteSome researchers suggest that male infants are more emotionally reactive than female babies, but that culture socializes boys to express less emotion as they get older (with the possible exception of anger). As a result, boys become less skilled at understanding both their own and others' emotions. As this view predicts, research shows that by adolescence there are clear gender differences in the expression of emotions, particularly of negative ones.

There's a lot more at that link, but this, to me, says more about why boys are less likely to be care-takers than girls.

Quote from: dps on December 01, 2012, 11:31:06 AM
Why is that?  In general, taller people make better basketball players, but that doesn't mean that someone 7'1" is automatically a better player than someone 6'9".  Same here.  I don't have a way to "score" childraising ability, but say on average, women score at 5.5 on a 0-10 scale, while men on average score at 4.5--that doesn't mean that there aren't men who score 9.9, or women that score 0.

As for what evidence I have, it's purely anecdotal.  There probably is some study out there somewhere that compares the abilities of men and women in this regard--several of them actually, with contradictory and inconsistent conclusions.

Unlike in your basketball scenario, where there are clearer metrics to tell whether or not a shorter player is performing as well as a taller - the same doesn't exist for child rearing.  With it being hard to objectively judge a person's parenting skills (short of catastrophic things like killing their child), you've opened up males for criticism if they try to take on a role that you know the average woman to be better at.  The question lingers on whether or not the children would be better off with their mother (or in the cases of gay male adoption - whether they would be better with a mother)*.

And then there's always the chicken and egg bit if one accepts the premise that the average woman is a better caregiver than her husband.  Are women innately better caregivers or is that we encourage women in the direction of caregiving? There isn't a clear cut answer to that question (as it is a mix) but I think it needs to be factored in if one is going to make the statement that men aren't equally built to be primary caregivers. We do part of the building! :D

*incidentally, this is what Sheilbh said that he wants us to be indifferent about - not that the goal is to have 50/50 split of caregivers across genders.

Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2012, 11:22:03 AM

Quote from: dps on December 01, 2012, 10:54:01 AM
Not to speak for him, but I think that what he was saying was that on average, women make better caregivers then men, but individual differences are more important than the average differences between men and women.  So, overall, maybe in, say, 65% of heterosexual couples, the woman might be the better caregiver, but in the other 35%, the men shouldn't fell ashamed to be the primary caregiver.

I don't really disagree with him on either point.

Based on what evidence? And what counts as better?

What evidence?

Seriously - you are asking what evidence suggests that overall women are better caregivers than men?

If you can't see the evidence for that in basic biology, temperament, attitude, and the evidence of your eyes, then nothing I can do will convince you.

Gotcha, so we (Meri, Sheilbh and I) weren't really wrong in how we interpreted your post.

Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2012, 01:46:43 PM

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 01, 2012, 05:03:57 AM
I guess the thing there is that she can be successful and talented without being hot. I think it's always been true, even for women. I mean, dudes aren't lining up to have sex with Aretha Franklin either. The stereotype that women have to be pretty to be successful is wrong. But it's still out there because some did make it by being hot. (Guys too.) Adele has legit pipes and didn't make it big because of her looks.

I think some people have a complex about their looks and examples like her make them feel better. So there's a market for that.

Not to get totally off the subject, but I think Adele IS hot! She's bigger than a size 2, though, and so it's supposed to be this huge thing that she's gotten famous despite that.

And Aretha was a pretty woman when she was younger. She just got big, and so no one sees that anymore.

Are you a straight male? No?

Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2012, 05:37:59 PM
Gotcha, so we (Meri, Sheilbh and I) weren't really wrong in how we interpreted your post.

Yes, you were completely wrong.

Saying that women, in general, are more interested in and better at caregiving in general than men says absolutely nothing about whether men should or should not be caregivers in particular. And it sure as hell isn't saying anything about gay adoption.

Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2012, 10:35:13 PM
Saying that women, in general, are more interested in and better at caregiving in general than men says absolutely nothing about whether men should or should not be caregivers in particular. And it sure as hell isn't saying anything about gay adoption.

But if women are naturally better at caregiving, in general, then aren't you conceding the criticism of gay adoption that it's not right to place a child in a family without a man and a woman.  There's a lack of feminine care there which makes - on average, in general terms - a gay couple less able to offer the same level of care as an average, general straight couple.

To use your terms it seems like you're saying gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt in general, but perhaps should in particular.

Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2012, 10:35:13 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2012, 05:37:59 PM
Gotcha, so we (Meri, Sheilbh and I) weren't really wrong in how we interpreted your post.

Yes, you were completely wrong.

Saying that women, in general, are more interested in and better at caregiving in general than men says absolutely nothing about whether men should or should not be caregivers in particular. And it sure as hell isn't saying anything about gay adoption.

If you say that women are better caregivers in general, how does that not impinge upon particulars? After all, if the average man is worse at caregiving than the average woman, what business does a particular man have being a caregiver unless he is confident that his parenting skills are better than average?  And similarly, why should a society countenance men who chose to be caregivers? After all, on average they'll be inferior caregivers.

And when you talk about interest, would be surprising that the average woman might show more interest in caregiving than the average man in a society that believes that women are better suited to being caregivers?

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 01, 2012, 10:45:18 PM

Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2012, 10:35:13 PM
Saying that women, in general, are more interested in and better at caregiving in general than men says absolutely nothing about whether men should or should not be caregivers in particular. And it sure as hell isn't saying anything about gay adoption.

But if women are naturally better at caregiving, in general, then aren't you conceding the criticism of gay adoption that it's not right to place a child in a family without a man and a woman. 

If the only variable that went into a couple fitness for parenting where gender, then that would be true.

Conversely, for YOUR claim to be true, it must be the case that gender has NO role whatsoever - that in fact the observed reality that overall women across cultures, time, income levels, and education are consistently more likely to be the primary caregivers is 100% a function of poor resource allocation and screwed up social norms.

Maybe that is true - maybe it is the case that men and women have no biological or mental difference between them when it comes to raising children, and in fact in general either are exactly equally capable and interested in caregiving, and the only reason we observe that women do it at a vastly greater rate than men is totally a figment of every single culture ever being screwed up in the exact same way.

Occams razor suggests that this is not the case however. Common sense suggests that this is not the case. Biology, history, simple science, and basic logical reasoning suggests that if you wish to make that claim, you are going to need some pretty substanital evidence to back it up.

And "Gee, we would like to believe it to be true because it seems ever so much more fair and 'equal' if it were true" is not evidence.
[/quote]


There's a lack of feminine care there which makes - on average, in general terms - a gay couple less able to offer the same level of care as an average, general straight couple.
[/quote]

On average, that might be true. But in reality, there are so many other variables involved that it makes no difference. Not the least of which is that a gay couple that wants a child has already shown probably the most important variable in effective child-rearing. Interest in doing so.

Quote

To use your terms it seems like you're saying gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt in general, but perhaps should in particular.

No, acknowledging that women are in fact biologically more suited to being primary caregivers in general means absolutely nothing to the issue of gay adoption, unless you believe that the difference is extreme, which I do not. By far the damage done to society by denying a portion of the population the right to raise children in a equal manner is a much graver concern than trying to measure some particular couples fitenss to raise a child based on their *particular* abilities as caregivers.

It is simply bizarre to me that this discussion has somehow become about gays. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. Kind of weird that you two immediately try to force into that kind of debate.

Adele is not hot and obviously she's bigger than size 2.  She may be bigger than size 20 FFS.

I tend to sort of go for the type of gal who doesn't fit the conventional definition of beauty.  And I don't mind one with curves, either.   But, eh, no thanks...

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa57.foxnews.com%2Fglobal.fncstatic.com%2Fstatic%2Fmanaged%2Fimg%2FEntertainment%2F2010%2F660%2F371%2FAdele640.jpg&hash=0791ead1345eac2efafa052ce241c3441a859839)

Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2012, 11:18:16 PM
Conversely, for YOUR claim to be true, it must be the case that gender has NO role whatsoever - that in fact the observed reality that overall women across cultures, time, income levels, and education are consistently more likely to be the primary caregivers is 100% a function of poor resource allocation and screwed up social norms.

I'm not making a claim.  I'm saying that men and women should be equally able to leave work and become full-time parents - if their circumstances allow - without any social stigma or judgement or poverty shaming.  Similarly if they decide not to there shouldn't be any shaming.  In addition I think that men should be as defined by their roles as a 'father' as women often are as a 'mother'.  As I said I think many househusbands are treated with a sort of wondrous admiration precisely because the perception is that that's not a male role and aren't they wonderful and special for doing it.  In my view the goal should be that that's seen as an entirely normal thing for them to do - that there's nothing special about it, same for a mum who stays at home or who chooses to work.

As it happens I do think men are as a rule equally able to be good full-time parents.

QuoteBy far the damage done to society by denying a portion of the population the right to raise children in a equal manner is a much graver concern than trying to measure some particular couples fitenss to raise a child based on their *particular* abilities as caregivers.

I look at it from a different perspective.  With adoption there is no right to raise a child.  The state or an adopting agency has, for whatever reason, that child in their care.  They have a duty to find the child a home (which is as close as people get to a right to have a child) and a duty to ensure, as much as possible, that it will be a loving, stable and successful home.  Any policy they have will inevitably be exclusionary.

QuoteIt is simply bizarre to me that this discussion has somehow become about gays. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. Kind of weird that you two immediately try to force into that kind of debate.

But it does.  If women are better at caring for children for men then it seems appropriate to say that only families that include women should be able to adopt, or that they should be given preference.

QuoteAnd when you talk about interest, would be surprising that the average woman might show more interest in caregiving than the average man in a society that believes that women are better suited to being caregivers?

This is very true as well.

Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2012, 11:04:10 PM

Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2012, 10:35:13 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 01, 2012, 05:37:59 PM
Gotcha, so we (Meri, Sheilbh and I) weren't really wrong in how we interpreted your post.

Yes, you were completely wrong.

Saying that women, in general, are more interested in and better at caregiving in general than men says absolutely nothing about whether men should or should not be caregivers in particular. And it sure as hell isn't saying anything about gay adoption.

If you say that women are better caregivers in general, how does that not impinge upon particulars?

For the same reason that observing that in general men who are faster make better wide receivers than men who are slower does not mean that every man who is slightly faster is a better wide receiver.

There are a lot of variables that go into what makes a good receiver - speed is an important one, but is often balanced by many others.

Same thing with raising children. Women may tend to be better at it, but since we allow women who clearly suck at it to raise kids anyway, I think we can safely let the men do it as well if they want.

Quote
After all, if the average man is worse at caregiving than the average woman, what business does a particular man have being a caregiver unless he is confident that his parenting skills are better than average?

Myabe his skills are better than average?

And what difference does it make anyway?

We let people who suck at raising kids raise kids all the time.

Quote

  And similarly, why should a society countenance men who chose to be caregivers? After all, on average they'll be inferior caregivers.

Actually, I would guess that on average, men who *choose* to be caregivers are probably quite a bit better than the average man, and maybe even the average women. You've already selected for a subset that has overcome one of the oprimary hurdles to why men are not as good as women, on average - most men don't care for it.

Quote
And when you talk about interest, would be surprising that the average woman might show more interest in caregiving than the average man in a society that believes that women are better suited to being caregivers?

Of course.

And why is it that society believes that women are better caregivers?

Could it be because...they are?

Your argument demands that we accept that nearly every single human society across history, cultures, demographics, languages, religions, etc., etc. - have all gotten it wrong. They've all been mis-allocating resources for all of human history in a manner that actively harms humans ability to survive and procreate by mis-aligning capabilities and responsibilities.

I suppose that is possible. But it seems rather unlikely, and really makes no sense from a biological standpoint. I think it much more likely that in fact women, as a result of simple evolution, are in fact better caregivers in general, simply because it makes biological sense for them to be so. I think you are almost exactly right, except with the exactly wrong stimulus. It is not society that has reinforced the role of women as caregivers, and made women more interested in caregiving, but evolution. You cannot completley separate the two obviously, and we are fortuante that as a species we have reached a point where we can choose to ignore those biological pressures if we so choose. Men do not HAVE to provide for their families in a manner that demands greater physical ability than women possess, and women can provide just as well as men.

So it is a good thing that we can in fact allow men to take the primary caregiver role if that is what they wish, and women to have the flexibility to NOT take that role if that is what THEY wish.

But to pretend that somehow millions of years of evolution can be wiped away because we are so enlightened that we want it to be so is folly.

I know a lot of men, and I know a lot of women, all in my basic age group. All with a few kids. In a few cases, the men in the couple by inclination of simple fisdcal reality are the primary caregivers. But it is a very, very small fraction of the whole. I don't buy the idea that that is completely a fiction of a screwed up society.

I don't find the argument of appealing to all of history convincing because that's the lesson of feminism: society got it wrong.  From Europe and the US, through most of Latin America, the majority of Africa and from the Islamic world to China there's been a historic patriarchy that goes way beyond parenting and into every aspect of a woman's life.  Ultimately they were always subject to her father or her spouse?  Subversion from that rule was socially censured across those societies and that that was wrong.

In response to feminism you could cite 16th century English manuals on huswifery, and the position of women in Ancient Greece.  You'd find support for a conservative view of women's role as much in Saladin's Egypt as in Naguib's, and similarly in India and, from my understanding, most East Asian cultures.  But all of that was wrong and didn't and shouldn't amount to much.

I can understand the conservative argument of learned human experience if what someone's arguing for is a seismic shift - as feminism was - but all we're saying is that men should be equally able to be 'dads' as women are 'mums' and society shouldn't care.

Edit:  As an evolutionary aside I've read that most scientists now think it takes place over the long-term and in sudden spurts over relatively few generations.  But it's a good view of things like political correctness in my view, I'm less racist than my parents and will probably be more racist than any children I have.  I think PC and that sort of thing are trying to speed up evolution over fewer generations.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 01, 2012, 11:30:43 PM

Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2012, 11:18:16 PM
Conversely, for YOUR claim to be true, it must be the case that gender has NO role whatsoever - that in fact the observed reality that overall women across cultures, time, income levels, and education are consistently more likely to be the primary caregivers is 100% a function of poor resource allocation and screwed up social norms.

I'm not making a claim.  I'm saying that men and women should be equally able to leave work and become full-time parents - if their circumstances allow - without any social stigma or judgement or poverty shaming.

No argument with me then. I simply noteed that your demand that society treat the issue with indifference was wrong - it IS different, and hence there is no reason to pretend it is not different.

Of course men should be allowed to do so. I think for the most part they are though, aren't they? I know several men who are stay at home dads. I think a couple of them even like it.

Quote

Similarly if they decide not to there shouldn't be any shaming.  In addition I think that men should be as defined by their roles as a 'father' as women often are as a 'mother'.

I agree - although those roles are not the same. A father and  a mother are both critically ijportant roles, but they are not the same role.

Going back to the sports analogy, it is like saying that both the quarterback and the running back are important - they both are - but they are not the same, and the same skill sets do not apply to each of them.

Quote
  As I said I think many househusbands are treated with a sort of wondrous admiration precisely because the perception is that that's not a male role and aren't they wonderful and special for doing it.

I fail to see the great crime in that. I don't know if they are wonderful and special, but they are relatively unusual.

Quote
  In my view the goal should be that that's seen as an entirely normal thing for them to do - that there's nothing special about it, same for a mum who stays at home or who chooses to work.

Meh. I don't think it is entirely 'normal' from a statiscial standpoint, and don't think it is any big dela to notice that. Certainly when I was being a stay at home dad, even hanging out with other stay at home dads we were all pretty much "Damn, this is fucking weird. How in the hell do women do this all the time???"

Quote

As it happens I do think men are as a rule equally able to be good full-time parents.

I think that is simply obviously not true - if for no other reason than as a rule men are not as equally interested in being full time parents. And since I think that interest in doing so is a primary indicator of ability in doing so, I don't think ti can possibly follow that in general men can in fact make as good full time parents.

Now, if you are selecting out the fraction of men who in fact do WISH to do so, then you are no longer comparing apples to apples.

Quote

QuoteBy far the damage done to society by denying a portion of the population the right to raise children in a equal manner is a much graver concern than trying to measure some particular couples fitenss to raise a child based on their *particular* abilities as caregivers.

I look at it from a different perspective.  With adoption there is no right to raise a child.

I disagree, I think people should have equal rights to basic human activities. Raising a child is certainly a basic human activity, and barring some *particular* reason to beleive that a couple cannot do so in a fit manner, all couples should have equal opportunities to adopt.

Quote

  The state or an adopting agency has, for whatever reason, that child in their care.  They have a duty to find the child a home (which is as close as people get to a right to have a child) and a duty to ensure, as much as possible, that it will be a loving, stable and successful home.  Any policy they have will inevitably be exclusionary.

There is nothing there that precludes them from placing a child with a gay couple, or suggests that they should prefer a straight couple over a gay couple.

Quote

QuoteIt is simply bizarre to me that this discussion has somehow become about gays. It has nothing to do with homosexuality. Kind of weird that you two immediately try to force into that kind of debate.

But it does.  If women are better at caring for children for men then it seems appropriate to say that only families that include women should be able to adopt, or that they should be given preference.

No, that doesn't follow at all.

You might as well say that since in general, people over 30 have higher incomes than people under 30, and people with higher incomes make better parents, so therefore nobody under 30 should be allowed to adopt, even if they can show that in fact they do have higher incomes than the average 30 year old couple.

Your claim makes no sense. In particular, there are many variables that going into fitness to raise a child. The gender of the proposed parents is one variable, and when you have already selected for specific people who want to raise children, that variable is even less consequential.

But all of this is irreelvant to the argument - you are essentially saying something is true because you want it to be true, and you don't care for the implications if it were not true.

I don't agree with you that if my claim is true, then gay couples would make poorer choices than straight when it comes to adoption. But even if I did agree with you, that would not actually refute my claim one bit/

QuoteAnd when you talk about interest, would be surprising that the average woman might show more interest in caregiving than the average man in a society that believes that women are better suited to being caregivers?

This is very true as well.
[/quote]

Right, so we are back to this idea that every single human society for all recorded human history has gotten this wrong, despite incredible pressure to get it right, and in fact all along humans have been poorly allocating precious resources towards survival because...what?

Isn't it more likely that in fact human societies ahve encouraged women to be primary caregivers and men to be primary bread winniers because in fact that was the most optimal structure to ensure survival? And hence the interst in caregiving amongst women is, for the greater part, a result of basic biology that directly selects for women who are interested caregivers, and hence today, even though the environmental reality is that there is no need for that kind of specialization, we are still creatures of our biology, and hence men still, in general, are wired to be praimry resource gatherers, and women are, in general, wired to be primary caregivers?

And yes, society of course reinforces those very tendencies, for obvious reasons. Now, we can certainly argue (and we should) that those environmental imperatives no longer apply, and we should hardly be slaves to them, and we should actively attempt to change societal norms to reflect that.

But we should also recognize that this is NOT simply social pressure, and demand that women become something they are not, or demand that men become something they are not.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 01, 2012, 11:40:25 PM
I don't find the argument of appealing to all of history convincing because that's the lesson of feminism: society got it wrong. 

From an anthropological perspective, that is simply not possible.

Societies do not "get it wrong" over tens of thousands of years, and in every single case.

All societies are set up to help ensure the survival of their members. You cannot possibly argue that in a critical aspect of survival (optimal resource allocation) nearly every single human society across all of human history has been wrong in a manner that would result in them non-optimally allocating the very resources that are critical to their own survival.

There are certainly plenty of cases where humans are wrong, and consistently wrong. But in all those cases, you can generally see why being wrong was "right" - why thinking that the earth was flat made sense, or why thinking that other tribes were worthy of enslavement in fact helped them survive. Racism is wrong, but it is easily understood as an anthropological construct. What is the explanation for forcing 50% of the population into non-optimal resource allocation roles, and how does it apply to every single human society throughout all human history?

In this case, you are claiming that men and women are equally capable of being primary caregivers, despite the fact that throughout human history it is always the woman who is the primary caregiver in general. Why is that? What force could create such an error that would actively work against social survival?

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 01, 2012, 10:45:18 PM

Quote from: Berkut on December 01, 2012, 10:35:13 PM
Saying that women, in general, are more interested in and better at caregiving in general than men says absolutely nothing about whether men should or should not be caregivers in particular. And it sure as hell isn't saying anything about gay adoption.

But if women are naturally better at caregiving, in general, then aren't you conceding the criticism of gay adoption that it's not right to place a child in a family without a man and a woman.  There's a lack of feminine care there which makes - on average, in general terms - a gay couple less able to offer the same level of care as an average, general straight couple.

Quote from: garbon
If you say that women are better caregivers in general, how does that not impinge upon particulars? After all, if the average man is worse at caregiving than the average woman, what business does a particular man have being a caregiver unless he is confident that his parenting skills are better than average?  And similarly, why should a society countenance men who chose to be caregivers? After all, on average they'll be inferior caregivers.

You 2 and Meri are acting as if you have no understanding of what the term "average" means.  The average poster here may be 34 years old, but that doesn't impinge in any way on what age any particular poster here is--there might not even be any individual here who is exactly that age.

And to address this point made by Sheilbh

Quote
To use your terms it seems like you're saying gays shouldn't be allowed to adopt in general, but perhaps should in particular

my understanding of the adoption process is that anyone seeking to adopt is looked at very carefully by CPS (or the equivalent), so I guess people in general aren't allowed to adopt, only particular people.

Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2012, 01:46:43 PM
Not to get totally off the subject, but I think Adele IS hot! She's bigger than a size 2, though, and so it's supposed to be this huge thing that she's gotten famous despite that.

Man I totally agree.  But if I think they are hot that usually means society thinks they are a whale.  I love Christina Hendricks as well and the response I tend to get is 'ewwwww fatty fat fat'.

Quote from: Valmy on December 02, 2012, 01:01:33 AM

Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2012, 01:46:43 PM
Not to get totally off the subject, but I think Adele IS hot! She's bigger than a size 2, though, and so it's supposed to be this huge thing that she's gotten famous despite that.

Man I totally agree.  But if I think they are hot that usually means society thinks they are a whale.  I love Christina Hendricks as well and the response I tend to get is 'ewwwww fatty fat fat'.

Christina Hendricks IS hot while Adele well not so much. Not even comparable IMo and I´ve yet to meet anyone who thinks that comparison has merit.

Quote from: dps on December 02, 2012, 12:21:32 AM

Quote from: garbon
If you say that women are better caregivers in general, how does that not impinge upon particulars? After all, if the average man is worse at caregiving than the average woman, what business does a particular man have being a caregiver unless he is confident that his parenting skills are better than average?  And similarly, why should a society countenance men who chose to be caregivers? After all, on average they'll be inferior caregivers.

You 2 and Meri are acting as if you have no understanding of what the term "average" means.  The average poster here may be 34 years old, but that doesn't impinge in any way on what age any particular poster here is--there might not even be any individual here who is exactly that age.

First - mean, median and mode.

Second - Age isn't really comparable (given that you can't change your age but you can decide whether or not to become a caregiver) but let's go with it anyway. If the average age of the board is 34, it could be the case that we have a lot of posters somewhere in the 30s and up. If that's true, such will play a role in whether younger posters want to sign up and participate. Content geared to an older crowd will have less appeal to the typical younger individual. (And similarly if you tell everyone that on average a women is better at caregiving - fewer men are going to show up as caregivers.)

Third - You can't really have it both ways. You can't have it that the average difference between men and women at caregiving is significant enough that "it will never be as natural and understood" when men choose to be caregivers over career -- but not significant enough to look askance at particular men who choose to be caregivers. If it is the latter, than one should be indifferent when a man leaves his job to care for his children.

Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2012, 12:00:15 AM
In this case, you are claiming that men and women are equally capable of being primary caregivers, despite the fact that throughout human history it is always the woman who is the primary caregiver in general. Why is that? What force could create such an error that would actively work against social survival?

Always, in general? :P

Anyway, who is talking about social survival? As far as I can tell, you're the only one discussing that angle.  Sheilbh and I aren't even saying that there society should make it so that there are more men who opt for child-rearing over their careers but simply that we should look on with indifference when a man chooses to do so.

Quote from: dps on December 02, 2012, 12:21:32 AM
You 2 and Meri are acting as if you have no understanding of what the term "average" means. 

:huh:

WTF? I haven't been involved in this discussion for pages! How the hell did I get dragged into that comment?

For what it's worth, I think Berkut makes some compelling arguments, but like Sheilbh said, we know that societal norms have been awful in a lot of ways throughout history. There were reasons for it, as Berk says, but that doesn't mean that we can't fix it now. Which is, from my understanding, the whole mission at hand. And we'll know that it's fixed when people can do as they wish, regardless of gender, without being subjected to comments and judgments.

Basically, when - ON AVERAGE - no one gives a shit who's doing what based on gender. Things are just getting done.

Woah, you guys are discussing mean, median, and mode?  How did I miss out on that conversation?

Probably out stalking derspeiss or something.

Quote from: merithyn on December 02, 2012, 11:06:39 AM

Quote from: dps on December 02, 2012, 12:21:32 AM
You 2 and Meri are acting as if you have no understanding of what the term "average" means. 

:huh:

WTF? I haven't been involved in this discussion for pages! How the hell did I get dragged into that comment?

It's Languish.

Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2012, 09:19:35 AM

Quote from: dps on December 02, 2012, 12:21:32 AM

Quote from: garbon
If you say that women are better caregivers in general, how does that not impinge upon particulars? After all, if the average man is worse at caregiving than the average woman, what business does a particular man have being a caregiver unless he is confident that his parenting skills are better than average?  And similarly, why should a society countenance men who chose to be caregivers? After all, on average they'll be inferior caregivers.

You 2 and Meri are acting as if you have no understanding of what the term "average" means.  The average poster here may be 34 years old, but that doesn't impinge in any way on what age any particular poster here is--there might not even be any individual here who is exactly that age.

First - mean, median and mode.

Second - Age isn't really comparable (given that you can't change your age but you can decide whether or not to become a caregiver) but let's go with it anyway. If the average age of the board is 34, it could be the case that we have a lot of posters somewhere in the 30s and up. If that's true, such will play a role in whether younger posters want to sign up and participate. Content geared to an older crowd will have less appeal to the typical younger individual. (And similarly if you tell everyone that on average a women is better at caregiving - fewer men are going to show up as caregivers.)

I guess maybe I don't see it that way because I just don't really care all that much what people in general think of me.  I remember that when I first started working in retail, the first store I was at I was helping the sales clerks put women's clothing on the racks, and they told me that I was the first male assistant manager who had ever been willing to help them put out women's lingere--other male assistant managers had helped with women's jeans or tops or dresses, but not with lingere.  My attitude was that it all was just cloth, so wtf?  If anybody thought better of me for helping, or worse of me for helping, I didn't give a shit--I was just doing my job.

Quote
Third - You can't really have it both ways. You can't have it that the average difference between men and women at caregiving is significant enough that "it will never be as natural and understood" when men choose to be caregivers over career -- but not significant enough to look askance at particular men who choose to be caregivers. If it is the latter, than one should be indifferent when a man leaves his job to care for his children.

Well, that's kind of a strawman, because I've never asked to have it both ways--I never said that "it will never be as natural and understood".  For one thing I don't really give a fuck if it's understood.

Again, an example from my own personal experience--in my family, my mother took the primary child-raising role (and that's a good thing, because however good or bad she was at it, and "average" aside, my stepfather was absolutely terrible with kids), but my stepfather did most of the cooking.  My stepfather may have been a poor parent (and an all-around horrible person, but that's another issue) but he was a great cook--much better than my mom.  Now, I'm not going to say that women are better cooks than men on average--I don't think there's any real difference there, certainly not any innate difference--but at the same time, it was unusual for a man to do the bulk of the cooking (especially at that time, the late 60s to late 70s) but none of us cared what other people thought about it.

Quote from: merithyn on December 02, 2012, 11:06:39 AM

Quote from: dps on December 02, 2012, 12:21:32 AM
You 2 and Meri are acting as if you have no understanding of what the term "average" means. 

:huh:

WTF? I haven't been involved in this discussion for pages! How the hell did I get dragged into that comment?

For what it's worth, I think Berkut makes some compelling arguments, but like Sheilbh said, we know that societal norms have been awful in a lot of ways throughout history. There were reasons for it, as Berk says, but that doesn't mean that we can't fix it now. Which is, from my understanding, the whole mission at hand. And we'll know that it's fixed when people can do as they wish, regardless of gender, without being subjected to comments and judgments.

Basically, when - ON AVERAGE - no one gives a shit who's doing what based on gender. Things are just getting done.

There were very good reasons for it, infant mortality, maternal mortality, high death rates beyond infancy. It is not that our ancestors were politically incorrect morons, for most of history the prime job of a woman was to bear children, any society that ignored that would perish.

However, that came to an end relatively recently and now we can afford to move away from gender stereotyping. I'm actually amazed that people can still make a fuss about it nowadays, there are no real reasons to discriminate between men and women in a modern economy.

Quote from: dps on December 02, 2012, 04:09:27 PM
I guess maybe I don't see it that way because I just don't really care all that much what people in general think of me.  I remember that when I first started working in retail, the first store I was at I was helping the sales clerks put women's clothing on the racks, and they told me that I was the first male assistant manager who had ever been willing to help them put out women's lingere--other male assistant managers had helped with women's jeans or tops or dresses, but not with lingere.  My attitude was that it all was just cloth, so wtf?  If anybody thought better of me for helping, or worse of me for helping, I didn't give a shit--I was just doing my job.

I guess that's nice to hear that your actions in this matter are not affected by societal pressures. Not sure the relevance though. :P

Quote from: dps on December 02, 2012, 04:09:27 PM
Well, that's kind of a strawman, because I've never asked to have it both ways--I never said that "it will never be as natural and understood".  For one thing I don't really give a fuck if it's understood.

Not a strawman though. It's what Berkut said immediately after being questioned on why Sheilbh's ideal result from feminism is boring. I think it is directly connected then to B's statements in this thread.

Now if you are saying you don't agree with that piece and only the bit about the average ability - what difference does a purported average that at best has inconclusive evidence make if you don't think it should inform our opinion's on male and female caregivers? Why hold a position that can't be proven and you don't think should play a role in policy or attitudes?

Quote from: dps on December 02, 2012, 04:09:27 PM
Again, an example from my own personal experience--in my family, my mother took the primary child-raising role (and that's a good thing, because however good or bad she was at it, and "average" aside, my stepfather was absolutely terrible with kids), but my stepfather did most of the cooking.  My stepfather may have been a poor parent (and an all-around horrible person, but that's another issue) but he was a great cook--much better than my mom.  Now, I'm not going to say that women are better cooks than men on average--I don't think there's any real difference there, certainly not any innate difference--but at the same time, it was unusual for a man to do the bulk of the cooking (especially at that time, the late 60s to late 70s) but none of us cared what other people thought about it.

Again that's nice but I'm not sure what anecdotes about how you and your family don't care about what other people think add to the discussion.  Only think I can think is that you're suggesting that attitudes towards male caregiving don't actually impact whether or not males become caregivers - and I don't think you are doing that, so I'm not sure what the anecdotes are for.

Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2012, 05:55:28 PM
Why hold a position that can't be proven and you don't think should play a role in policy or attitudes?

I guess it boils down to this--I'm too honest to pretend that I don't believe that, on average, women are better caregivers than men.  I can't prove it, and I'll acknowledge that I may be wrong, but I think that I'm correct, and I'm not going to lie about what I believe.

And, I'll try one more time to illustrate why, even if I'm correct, it doesn't really matter with regards to the choices made by any individual parents.  Suppose that, on average, afternoon temperatures here in mid-March are 65 degrees.  Well, if on March 15, I decide to walk down to the supermarket after lunch, knowing that the average temperature that I can expect is 65 degrees doesn't really do me any good when it comes to deciding whether I should wear a jacket or not--I need to know the actual temperature.  I don't need to know the exact temperature, but I need to know roughly what it actually is on that specific afternoon, not what it is on average on that date.  It could easily be unseasonably warm and up in the 80s, or unusually cold for the date and down near (or even below) freezing.

Yes, there are differences (which is why this is only an analogy), the most important one of which is while I can find out the actual temperature, it's a lot more difficult to find out which of 2 people are the better caregiver, unless one is obviously terrible at it or something.

But that's not true. General temperature trends can be useful. It's why people have the habit of putting away their summer clothes in fall and likewise putting their winter clothes away in spring.

Similarly, attitudes that women are typically better at raising children are self reinforcing in that they encourage gender role behavior which in turn bolsters those same attitudes.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 02, 2012, 04:54:48 PM
There were very good reasons for it, infant mortality, maternal mortality, high death rates beyond infancy. It is not that our ancestors were politically incorrect morons, for most of history the prime job of a woman was to bear children, any society that ignored that would perish.

However, that came to an end relatively recently and now we can afford to move away from gender stereotyping. I'm actually amazed that people can still make a fuss about it nowadays, there are no real reasons to discriminate between men and women in a modern economy.

I agree on all counts. :)

Quote from: Cecil on December 02, 2012, 06:00:06 AM
Christina Hendricks IS hot while Adele well not so much. Not even comparable IMo and I´ve yet to meet anyone who thinks that comparison has merit.

I don't think I was comparing them.

Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2012, 08:01:45 PM
But that's not true. General temperature trends can be useful. It's why people have the habit of putting away their summer clothes in fall and likewise putting their winter clothes away in spring.

Similarly, attitudes that women are typically better at raising children are self reinforcing in that they encourage gender role behavior which in turn bolsters those same attitudes.

While your last statement is true, it is not evidence that there are not innate gender role tendencies.

And I've provided a lot of arguments to show that in fact there are - arguments that I think are pretty much irrefutable, or at least nobody has even bothered trying to refute them.

Going back to the basketball analogy, your argument is basically this:

"Because society doesn't think short people make very good basketball players compared to tall people, short people are in fact discouraged from playing basketball, which just reinforces the bias."

That may be perfectly true and accurate.

The error you make is the implied conclusion you are drawing however:

"Therefore, we can conclude that in fact short people are actually in general just as good of basketball players as tall people. In fact, I have many example of excellent short basketball players, like Mugsy Bowes".

That is NOT true. Short people are in fact not as good in general, even if some in particular are excellent.

The fact that society encourages gender roles does not in any way "prove" that those gender roles are only created as a result of societal pressure. In fact, if there were non-societal reason for gender specific roles, one would *expect* any functional society to reinforce those roles. Your argument actually argues AGAINST the conclusion you claim. Something as consistent and ubiquitous across myriad societies as gender specific care-giving roles cannot, almost by definition, be something that is created solely on the basis of some particular societal pressure absent any outside cause. If gender specific care-giving roles were really only a function of societal pressure, where are the examples of societies that for whatever reason have not created that pressure, and hence have gender neutrality in care-giving expectations and capabilities?

You have provided zero evidence or reason to believe that the observed gender bias in child rearing is *solely* the result of societal pressure. Basic science, biology, and anthropology argues against your claim. It is in fact an extraordinary claim that would require extraordinary evidence to even consider, much less prove.

Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2012, 10:43:45 AM
The error you make is the implied conclusion you are drawing however:

"Therefore, we can conclude that in fact short people are actually in general just as good of basketball players as tall people. In fact, I have many example of excellent short basketball players, like Mugsy Bowes".

That is NOT true. Short people are in fact not as good in general, even if some in particular are excellent.

Only I'm not drawing that conclusion. I think I've already stated that I don't think height of basketball players to ability is a good comparison for gender to caregiving ability.

Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2012, 10:43:45 AMThe fact that society encourages gender roles does not in any way "prove" that those gender roles are only created as a result of societal pressure. In fact, if there were non-societal reason for gender specific roles, one would *expect* any functional society to reinforce those roles. Your argument actually argues AGAINST the conclusion you claim. Something as consistent and ubiquitous across myriad societies as gender specific care-giving roles cannot, almost by definition, be something that is created solely on the basis of some particular societal pressure absent any outside cause. If gender specific care-giving roles were really only a function of societal pressure, where are the examples of societies that for whatever reason have not created that pressure, and hence have gender neutrality in care-giving expectations and capabilities?

I think we've a lot of people in our society who have gender neutrality in care-giving expectations and capabilities. I think RH already spoke to why it would be the case that societies in the past organized themselves the way they did - women had to focus on childbirth and rearing or society would perish. He also explained that in our relatively recent moment that we are no longer facing the same issues and don't need to rigidly follow said roles.

And again - if the typical woman is better than a man at raising children, why do you shrink from the corollary that we should probably have women raise kids and be skeptical of men who adopt that role when the chance to have the mother raise them is available?  If the difference is significant, why would we turn our backs on it?

Quote from: dps on December 02, 2012, 07:34:02 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 02, 2012, 05:55:28 PM
Why hold a position that can't be proven and you don't think should play a role in policy or attitudes?

I guess it boils down to this--I'm too honest to pretend that I don't believe that, on average, women are better caregivers than men.  I can't prove it, and I'll acknowledge that I may be wrong, but I think that I'm correct, and I'm not going to lie about what I believe.

I don't even think that is under debate - at least not honestly.

Even the "evidence" provided by anyone in this thread, anecdotal evidence, does not argue against that claim. Noting that there are particular examples of men who are excellent caregivers means nothing when talking about the general tendencies, just like pointing out that there are some relatively short NBA players doesn't mean that taller players make better basketball players.

Would anyone be willing to contest the following claim?

I claim that if one were to go out and randomly select 1000 men and 1000 women between the ages of 18 and 50, and then studied their competency at raising children, the result would show that overall the women are much, much better at it than the men.

Hell, you could do it even without actually studying anything - just have a survey, and ask the following question:

"To what extent do you agree with the following statement:

'I would look forward to and enjoy spending the bulk of my time raising and caring for children rather than working in a career'

Strongly Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
"

I bet the difference in answering that one question would be stark between men and women. Now, that doesn't prove my contention, but it is strongly suggestive when combined with the observation that one of the primary needs for being an effective care-giver to children is simply the desire to do so. I know men and women both who are terrible care-givers, and the one consistent thread in those who are crappy parents is that they almost universally don't want to be care-givers, or never thought about it and are now stuck in it.

This is why the repeated observations of some particular dad being great at it are so irrelevant. That doesn't tell us anything other than that it is *possible* for a man to be an excellent caregiver. I don't think anyone would debate that. And in fact, if you select out men who answer "Agree" or "Sttrongly agree" to that question, I bet they are on average *better* care-givers than the average woman.

But that is comparing apples and oranges. You are comparing a subset of men in that case to all women. I think the result when comparing all men to all women would be very, very obvious.

I think you see it every day. I know literally dozens of couples with children. In almost all cases, the wife is the one who is doing the primary care-giving, and it isn't because the dad is an asshole who keeps his poor wife down. It is because that is how they want it to be.

Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2012, 10:54:16 AM
I think you see it every day. I know literally dozens of couples with children. In almost all cases, the wife is the one who is doing the primary care-giving, and it isn't because the dad is an asshole who keeps his poor wife down. It is because that is how they want it to be.

I don't think anyone is arguing against this. :mellow:

Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2012, 01:49:25 AM

Quote from: Cecil on December 02, 2012, 06:00:06 AM
Christina Hendricks IS hot while Adele well not so much. Not even comparable IMo and I´ve yet to meet anyone who thinks that comparison has merit.

I don't think I was comparing them.

Well maybe you should have :angry:

Quote from: garbon on December 03, 2012, 10:52:16 AM
And again - if the typical woman is better than a man at raising children, why do you shrink from the corollary that we should probably have women raise kids and be skeptical of men who adopt that role when the chance to have the mother raise them is available?  If the difference is significant, why would we turn our backs on it?

First of all, what difference does the answer to your question make?

Even if your assumption is valid (it isn't, but I will adress that in a moment), it doesn't argue against the predicate. Just because a fact has a consequence you don't like doesn't make it less true. Your entire argument is basically that if what I say is true, then it leads to something you don't like, therefore lets just assume it isn't true. That is logically lazy.

Now, like I've said over and over and over and OVER again, just because the average women is better than the average man at primary care-giving, that doesn't mean that any particular man is necessarily a poorer choice than any particular woman. There are lots of variables involved beyond gender.

I don't know how I can make this anymore clear. The basketball analogy works great.

If you take 1000 random people, and sort them by height, on average those who are taller will be better basketball players than those who are shorter. That does not mean that you can reliably predict between any two players who will be the better basketball player based only on height, because there are more variables involved than just height. One guy might be 6' tall, but have an incredible shot, while the 6'4" guy might not be able to dribble or shoot.

If you were a coach looking to pick the best team possible, you would be an idiot to just grab the tallest players at each position, and refuse to consider those who are shorter. Just like society would be foolish to demand that only women be care-givers, because plenty of men will be perfectly fine at it.

*Further*, as a society we aren't even looking for the *best* care-givers anyway - as a society we simply ask that the care-giver have some baseline of adequacy. The bar for having a child is pretty damn low - damn near anyone can do it. We don't demand that every care-giver be excellent at it, just that they don't let the kid starve to death.

Quote from: garbon on December 03, 2012, 10:58:10 AM

Quote from: Berkut on December 03, 2012, 10:54:16 AM
I think you see it every day. I know literally dozens of couples with children. In almost all cases, the wife is the one who is doing the primary care-giving, and it isn't because the dad is an asshole who keeps his poor wife down. It is because that is how they want it to be.

I don't think anyone is arguing against this. :mellow:

Of course not - it is blindingly obvious.

I gotta say I'm with Berkut on this one.

An average woman is a better caregiver than an average man - whether it is because of socialization or some sort of natural traits is not what is being debated. That does not mean that in any particular marriage, a guy cannot be a better caregiver than a girl, or that two gay guys cannot be very good caregivers. But for example, I think that there are, statistically, fewer gay male couples fit to be good caregivers than there are lesbian couples (of course there is an adverse selection in case of gay couples who have children, with the ones who have them being probably stastically more likely to be above-average caregivers than an average straight couple, simply because their choice to have a kid is much more conscious and is not an accident or even going "with the flow" of biology).

Quote from: Berkut on December 02, 2012, 12:00:15 AM
From an anthropological perspective, that is simply not possible.

Societies do not "get it wrong" over tens of thousands of years, and in every single case.

Bad news for liberal democracy.
Good news for warlord kleptocracies though.

QuoteThe basketball analogy works great.

I disagree.  There are objective and observable physical reality that confer an advantage for height in basketball.  Height and reach makes it easier to obstruct another players shot on the basket, to shoot over a defender, and to get rebounds.  Other than the ability to breast feed, there is no similar physical connection between gender and ability to child rear.

We still have the powerful corrupt leading the masses. We just get to pick and choose our powerful corrupt leaders :P

Since this was completely ignored the first time I posted it... :glare: ... I'm bringing it back up. It's a part of an actual study that shows that boys are just as emotionally reactive as girls until they are taught not to be. Since I believe that empathy and emotional reaction are the two most important aspects of parenting, it falls in line with my assertion that women being better care-givers is TAUGHT, not INNATE.

Quote from: merithyn on December 01, 2012, 02:01:59 PM
My issue with this line of thinking is that I believe that care-taking isn't innate, but rather taught. In general, girls are taught to take care of things while boys are taught to compete for and against things. So long as we see that as just how things are rather than a societal thing, like Berkut said, it's not likely to change.

Here's an interesting excerpt from a fairly well-known book on Child Development (http://www.education.com/reference/article/similarities-differences-boys-girls/?page=3):

QuoteSome researchers suggest that male infants are more emotionally reactive than female babies, but that culture socializes boys to express less emotion as they get older (with the possible exception of anger). As a result, boys become less skilled at understanding both their own and others' emotions. As this view predicts, research shows that by adolescence there are clear gender differences in the expression of emotions, particularly of negative ones.

There's a lot more at that link, but this, to me, says more about why boys are less likely to be care-takers than girls.

I'd hardly consider that conclusive evidence, Meri.

Quote from: merithyn on December 03, 2012, 02:12:06 PM
it falls in line with my assertion that women being better care-givers is TAUGHT, not INNATE.

That is impossible to prove though.  Besides what if there was compelling evidence your assertion was wrong.  Would that change anything on how you view things?  I do not see how it is relevent in my mind one way or the other because people vary on the individual level.  I have seen researchers that suggest just the opposite on the sensitivity part.

I do find it frustrating that somehow I am subconciously but decisively and every effectively teaching my kids gender roles while I seem to have so much trouble getting them to stop throwing food off the table <_<

It ain't you that is doing the teaching, society itself immerses us in itself and we absorb it starting from day 1.

Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2012, 04:51:02 PM
I do find it frustrating that somehow I am subconciously but decisively and every effectively teaching my kids gender roles while I seem to have so much trouble getting them to stop throwing food off the table <_<

Yeah, that's a fun one.  Tommy never really did that (he's clumsy but at least that's unintentional) but once Lola has decided she's had enough to eat she will drop her food on the floor, piece by piece.  And she'll do it with a big old smile on her face.  And as cute as she is trying to eat with a fork or spoon you might as well lay out some newspaper on the floor underneath her.

Quote from: PDH on December 03, 2012, 04:58:10 PM
It ain't you that is doing the teaching, society itself immerses us in itself and we absorb it starting from day 1.

Society should be more anti-throwing of food!  I am also glad I am off the hook if I feel guilty for gender-pigeonholing my kids.

But anyway I fail to see how you can prove that decisively before we can better understand how the brain works or doing social experiments that cross ethical boundaries :P

I just do not see how it is relevent.  Should our goals change when it comes to gender if we could prove that decisively one way or the other?  If we discovered evidence there are profound biological reasons for differences in levels of care giving would we be all 'forget this Feminism thing, back to pre-industrial values!'?  Of course not.

Don't need to prove anything.  Just a look at various human societies show a wide range of gender roles (from women hunters in some tribes in the Philippines to male day-care type situations in some New Guinean groups) that highlight that these roles are quite likely not simply human biology based but biology and culture mixed.  The best thing is that people in each culture know that their system is natural and other systems are weird.

One of the basic elements of culture is this naturalizing of the society into something basic and internalized, we are the fish in water with culture.

Quote from: PDH on December 03, 2012, 05:31:36 PM
Don't need to prove anything.  Just a look at various human societies show a wide range of gender roles (from women hunters in some tribes in the Philippines to male day-care type situations in some New Guinean groups) that highlight that these roles are quite likely not simply human biology based but biology and culture mixed.  The best thing is that people in each culture know that their system is natural and other systems are weird.

One of the basic elements of culture is this naturalizing of the society into something basic and internalized, we are the fish in water with culture.

But the two examples you cited are outliers, aren't they?

The physical, social, economic, and technological qualities of human existence have changed so drastically and so rapidly in the last 200 years, that any concept based on socially evolved characteristics has to be reconsidered.  The millions of years of advanced primate and later human evolution involved social adaptations to an environment that has ceased to exist, and many of  those adaptations may be dangerous or counterproductive for the new society humans have created for themselves.  Fortunately, human beings have these things called self-consciousness and a capacity to reason, so that we don't have to be passive prisoners of our cultural and social heritage.  This is why whenever I hear an argument about social arrangements that proceeds from "nature" or alleged inherent cultural characteristics, I grab my intellectual wallet.

Quote from: PDH on December 03, 2012, 05:31:36 PM
Don't need to prove anything.  Just a look at various human societies show a wide range of gender roles (from women hunters in some tribes in the Philippines to male day-care type situations in some New Guinean groups) that highlight that these roles are quite likely not simply human biology based but biology and culture mixed.  The best thing is that people in each culture know that their system is natural and other systems are weird.

One of the basic elements of culture is this naturalizing of the society into something basic and internalized, we are the fish in water with culture.

Well you do if you assert it is taught and not innate period (or, you know, the opposite).  If you say some wishy washy statement about it not simply being one thing but a combination of things you can probably get away with not needing to prove it. :P

Quote from: derspiess on December 03, 2012, 05:45:17 PM

But the two examples you cited are outliers, aren't they?

Indeed, but that is not what is being argued.  Cultural anthropology looks to such outliers because they refute the very "naturalization" of culture that is innate in people.  In the present such naturalizing views have taken on biological elements (at least since the mid 19th century) for support.  To show that cultures can indeed function without a defined "natural" system points out that different cultures are indeed always outliers from our own, but that does not make them unnatural.  Indeed, as a human social system they are the definition of natural.

Any anthropologist worth their salt will talk about both biology and psychology as what makes up society.  To argue one or the other is to make totalizing statements that do not stand up to scrutiny.  As Valmy said, it is all wishy washy, but it does seem to be far more accurate than the alternatives.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 03, 2012, 05:56:56 PM
This is why whenever I hear an argument about social arrangements that proceeds from "nature" or alleged inherent cultural characteristics, I grab my intellectual wallet.

After you grab said wallet, remember to donate some intellect to me...it is tax deductible.

Quote from: derspiess on December 03, 2012, 05:13:22 PM

Quote from: Valmy on December 03, 2012, 04:51:02 PM
I do find it frustrating that somehow I am subconciously but decisively and every effectively teaching my kids gender roles while I seem to have so much trouble getting them to stop throwing food off the table <_<

Yeah, that's a fun one.  Tommy never really did that (he's clumsy but at least that's unintentional) but once Lola has decided she's had enough to eat she will drop her food on the floor, piece by piece.  And she'll do it with a big old smile on her face.  And as cute as she is trying to eat with a fork or spoon you might as well lay out some newspaper on the floor underneath her.

:lol:

Cold. Blooded.

Quote from: PDH on December 03, 2012, 08:00:05 PM
As Valmy said, it is all wishy washy, but it does seem to be far more accurate than the alternatives.

Well, true to my nature, it is the angle I agree with.  I just get tired of the 'it's all a social construct!' or 'it is all the natural way of things' as if it must be one or the other entirely.

Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2012, 12:50:43 AM

Quote from: PDH on December 03, 2012, 08:00:05 PM
As Valmy said, it is all wishy washy, but it does seem to be far more accurate than the alternatives.

Well, true to my nature, it is the angle I agree with.  I just get tired of the 'it's all a social construct!' or 'it is all the natural way of things' as if it must be one or the other entirely.

I don't think anyone is arguing the latter.  Some are obviously arguing the former.

Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 12:58:36 AM

Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2012, 12:50:43 AM

Quote from: PDH on December 03, 2012, 08:00:05 PM
As Valmy said, it is all wishy washy, but it does seem to be far more accurate than the alternatives.

Well, true to my nature, it is the angle I agree with.  I just get tired of the 'it's all a social construct!' or 'it is all the natural way of things' as if it must be one or the other entirely.

I don't think anyone is arguing the latter.  Some are obviously arguing the former.

I don't think so. I think most of us recognize it's a combination thereof. The question is: how much of each? I would argue that it's more social construct than innate, while Berkut seems to be arguing that it's more innate than social construct.

As in all arguments regarding nature vs nurture, it's a matter of degrees rather than absolutes.

Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 10:02:29 AM
As in all arguments regarding nature vs nurture, it's a matter of degrees rather than absolutes.

You seemed pretty absolute in this statement:

Quoteit falls in line with my assertion that women being better care-givers is TAUGHT, not INNATE.

Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 10:26:55 AM

Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 10:02:29 AM
As in all arguments regarding nature vs nurture, it's a matter of degrees rather than absolutes.

You seemed pretty absolute in this statement:

Quoteit falls in line with my assertion that women being better care-givers is TAUGHT, not INNATE.

I believe that men would be a different type of care-taker than the average woman based on their innate nature, not better or worse. That's where the nature part fits in for me, rather than on whether they'd be any good at it.

And here's where I get frustrated with women's groups. Either women (and men) have the right to do with their bodies what they want or they don't. There's no picking and choosing like this. Laws already in place protect prostitutes - or would, if it were legalized - so the idea that making it illegal will somehow make things better is insanity, imo.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-20591726

QuoteMore than 200 women's rights groups are calling for laws to make paying for sex a crime across the European Union.

Campaigners will present key policy recommendations for legislation to MEPs in Brussels on Wednesday.

"Prostitution is a form of violence, an obstacle to gender equality and an open door for organised crime to develop," a campaign spokeswoman told the BBC.

But opponents say the move is likely to drive the prostitution industry further underground.

The European Women's Lobby (EWL), which leads the campaign, wants EU member states to implement six key policies, including the criminalisation of all forms of procuring, and the creation of effective exit programmes for sex workers.

"The most important thing to understand about prostitution is that imposing sexual intercourse with money is a form of violence that shouldn't be accepted," EWL spokeswoman Pierrette Pape told the BBC.

"If we understand that, we can then put comprehensive policies into place that will change mentalities and respect gender equality between women and men."

'No boundaries'

EWL cites Sweden as a successful example, saying that street prostitution had halved there since paying for sex was outlawed a decade ago.

In contrast, there has been no significant improvement of the conditions of sex workers in the Netherlands where the sector has been decriminalised, Ms Pape said.

She said the issue now needed regulating on an international level, beyond country-specific laws.

"It is a problem that knows no political and geographical boundaries," she said, adding that EU policies on human trafficking would not be effective unless they also addressed prostitution.

"There is a legal base in the treaties to address the transnational crime of the sexual exploitation of women and children."

So far 36 European MEPs are already supporting the proposal, Ms Pape said.

Critics, however, argue that criminalising prostitution also increases the risk of rape and violence. The International Union of Sex Workers believes that the move would be dangerous because, instead of stopping the industry, it would drive it underground.

Many sex workers' associations say the sector needs more transparency and better regulation, the BBC's Maddy Savage reports from Brussels.

In the Netherlands, Austria and Germany, prostitutes register their services in return for the same rights and responsibilities as people running other kinds of businesses.

The EU currently does not have the power to legislate on prostitution. But new laws designed to reduce human trafficking are set to come into force next year and EU officials told the BBC both issues are closely linked.

They are currently analysing different countries' approaches and are expected to report back on their findings in 2016.

Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 10:39:38 AM
Either women (and men) have the right to do with their bodies what they want or they don't.

Would you extend that to self-harm and more pointedly - suicide?

Your life is not the same thing then your body.

Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 10:39:38 AM
And here's where I get frustrated with women's groups. Either women (and men) have the right to do with their bodies what they want or they don't. There's no picking and choosing like this. Laws already in place protect prostitutes - or would, if it were legalized - so the idea that making it illegal will somehow make things better is insanity, imo.

Well to be fair the proposed law would stick it to men who pay or attempt to pay for sex.  I'm assuming the prostitute wouldn't face criminal charges, though obviously it would affect her business.

A while ago I came around to the position that prostitution should be legal, sequestered to certain areas and regulated.  It's just gonna happen whether you want it to or not. 

Can we really use Sweden as a model for anything?  The Nordic countries are always weird outliers.  If they managed to reduce prostitution in half in a normal country then I would be listening.

Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 11:05:33 AM

A while ago I came around to the position that prostitution should be legal, sequestered to certain areas and regulated.  It's just gonna happen whether you want it to or not.

Between that and the idea that there are laws about the circumstances of who can have sex when (legal, consenting adults), I find the idea of making it illegal just plain stupid.

Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 10:47:33 AM

Would you extend that to self-harm and more pointedly - suicide?

I don't think either should be illegal, if that's what you're asking.

Obviously, there are other factors at work on these, and mental stability is high on that list. I believe that the reason suicide is illegal is so that someone who is attempting - or threatening - suicide can be taken into custody for treatment. I would hope that we could come up with a better way than saying, "Not legal."

Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 11:22:30 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 10:47:33 AM

Would you extend that to self-harm and more pointedly - suicide?

I don't think either should be illegal, if that's what you're asking.

Obviously, there are other factors at work on these, and mental stability is high on that list. I believe that the reason suicide is illegal is so that someone who is attempting - or threatening - suicide can be taken into custody for treatment. I would hope that we could come up with a better way than saying, "Not legal."

But there are other factors at work on prostitution as well. Intimidation by one's pimp which could easily lead prostitutes to saying that they are willingly consenting as well as the individual mistakenly thinking that they don't have any better career choices (similar to those who think suicide is the only option).

Not that I disagree that prostitution should be legal - but I don't think it is as cut and dried as people have the right to do whatever they want to their bodies and our other laws already cover any problems.

Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 11:22:30 AM
I believe that the reason suicide is illegal

Suicide is illegal?  :huh:

Quote from: Martinus on December 04, 2012, 11:28:51 AM

Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 11:22:30 AM
I believe that the reason suicide is illegal

Suicide is illegal?  :huh:

Yeah if you botch a suicide you are going to prison for a long time.  The trials are especialy intense:

'Mr. Jones if you would please point out the man who tried to overdose you on painkillers'

'It was him!  That is the man!'

'Let the record show that Mr. Jones was pointing at the defendent Mr. Jones.'

Actually I was wrong. Apparently it isn't.

Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 11:26:37 AM
But there are other factors at work on prostitution as well. Intimidation by one's pimp which could easily lead prostitutes to saying that they are willingly consenting as well as the individual mistakenly thinking that they don't have any better career choices (similar to those who think suicide is the only option).

Not that I disagree that prostitution should be legal - but I don't think it is as cut and dried as people have the right to do whatever they want to their bodies and our other laws already cover any problems.

So long as prostitution is illegal, those situations are far worse than they would be otherwise. Not saying that it will get rid of pimps and all of that crap, but it will lower the incidence rates and give prostitutes more options to get out from underneath such a person.

Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 11:34:59 AM
Actually I was wrong. Apparently it isn't.

It is in some places, according to Wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_views_of_suicide

Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 11:19:46 AM

Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 11:05:33 AM

A while ago I came around to the position that prostitution should be legal, sequestered to certain areas and regulated.  It's just gonna happen whether you want it to or not.

Between that and the idea that there are laws about the circumstances of who can have sex when (legal, consenting adults), I find the idea of making it illegal just plain stupid.

Why do you always have to keep digging when we initially agree on something??  :P

Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 11:47:25 AM

Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 11:19:46 AM

Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 11:05:33 AM

A while ago I came around to the position that prostitution should be legal, sequestered to certain areas and regulated.  It's just gonna happen whether you want it to or not.

Between that and the idea that there are laws about the circumstances of who can have sex when (legal, consenting adults), I find the idea of making it illegal just plain stupid.

Why do you always have to keep digging when we initially agree on something??  :P

To be fair, you do the same. :P

I don't know what I would do if I agreed with derspiess.  :hmm: I'll probably do some soul-searching.

Quote from: DGuller on December 04, 2012, 01:51:52 PM
I don't know what I would do if I agreed with derspiess.  :hmm: I'll probably do some soul-searching.

There has to be something you agree on.

Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 01:10:27 PM

Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 11:47:25 AM

Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 11:19:46 AM

Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 11:05:33 AM

A while ago I came around to the position that prostitution should be legal, sequestered to certain areas and regulated.  It's just gonna happen whether you want it to or not.

Between that and the idea that there are laws about the circumstances of who can have sex when (legal, consenting adults), I find the idea of making it illegal just plain stupid.

Why do you always have to keep digging when we initially agree on something??  :P

To be fair, you do the same. :P

I suppose that's true. 

Quote from: garbon on December 04, 2012, 01:54:13 PM

Quote from: DGuller on December 04, 2012, 01:51:52 PM
I don't know what I would do if I agreed with derspiess.  :hmm: I'll probably do some soul-searching.

There has to be something you agree on.

I suspect there are actually quite a few.  :P


Also, the whole human trafficking issue needs to be taken into consideration here. I know it's way overblown, but it's still a factor. It might actually get better if legalization happens, but I have no way to support that theory.

Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 10:37:15 AM

I believe that men would be a different type of care-taker than the average woman based on their innate nature, not better or worse. That's where the nature part fits in for me, rather than on whether they'd be any good at it.

Personally, I'm one of those who believes that the different styles are complementary and partially innate. And I think it's a good thing for the kids to get both. I know it would have been better for me if my dad had been around, because he's actually a pretty smart dude and could have helped me not make some of the mistakes I did. Mom never tried to be in love with a woman, if you know what I mean.

That said, I don't think that there is any reason that the different styles necessarily have to be provided by a person of a specific sex (I never use the word gender in reference to a person. My 7th grade English teacher thrashed that out of me). Just that Berkut's average makes it more likely that the man style will be provided by a man.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 04, 2012, 02:18:09 PM

Quote from: merithyn on December 04, 2012, 10:37:15 AM

I believe that men would be a different type of care-taker than the average woman based on their innate nature, not better or worse. That's where the nature part fits in for me, rather than on whether they'd be any good at it.

Personally, I'm one of those who believes that the different styles are complementary and partially innate. And I think it's a good thing for the kids to get both. I know it would have been better for me if my dad had been around, because he's actually a pretty smart dude and could have helped me not make some of the mistakes I did. Mom never tried to be in love with a woman, if you know what I mean.

That said, I don't think that there is any reason that the different styles necessarily have to be provided by a person of a specific sex (I never use the word gender in reference to a person. My 7th grade English teacher thrashed that out of me). Just that Berkut's average makes it more likely that the man style will be provided by a man.

I agree with you.

And going back to the gay couple example, those families that I know with two dads or two moms, it's pretty clear that each of them parent differently than one another. It's not really that one takes on a more feminine role or a more masculine role, but rather there's a different mix of both in each parent. The very aspects that make them good couples in turn make them good parents.

It's very hard to believe that there is half of the population who are built - through evolution - to be less capable parents. It seems more likely that the innate aspects makes them different parents, and that maybe we've, in a way, downplayed the importance of that type of parenting through societal pressure.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2012/12/study-sluttiness-is-a-state-of-mind.html

QuoteSluttiness Is a State of Mind

Mixed news pertaining to your sex life out of the University of Michigan psychology department last week: Unfortunately, you're still a slut. On the plus side, it's society's fault you're seen that way.

According to a new study by U of M's Terri Conley, reported by Pacific Standard, the sexual double standard is alive and kicking. Women who have casual sex are still perceived to be "more promiscuous, less intelligent, less mentally healthy, less competent and more risky" than men who do the same. The silver lining is that all those sexist judgments comprising the slut stigma are the reason women are less likely to accept offers of casual sex. In other words, sluts aren't sluts because they're slutty. They're only slutty relative to the prudes who act prude because they're afraid of looking like a slut!

We much prefer this social explanation of the slut stigma to the evolutionary canard about men being hard-wired to spread their seed and women being hard-wired to entrap males to pay child support for the fetus they're gestating. Conley's previous research suggested that women turned down offers of casual sex more often than men because they knew how unlikely it was that a new dude would get them off on the first go around — not because they were saving themselves for the father of their future children. "Women's perception that their heterosexual casual sex partners will be unlikely to give them pleasure is not unwarranted," Conley wrote.

You see that? Women went from biologically burdened financial parasites to rational, risk-assessing sexual aesthetes overnight. All it took was one woman scientist designing the study.

Here's more on the study: http://www.psmag.com/blogs/news-blog/double-standard-persists-for-male-female-promiscuity-50053/

Men are evolutionarily hardwired to be bad in bed.

QuoteThe silver lining is that all those sexist judgments comprising the slut stigma are the reason women are less likely to accept offers of casual sex.

That sounds like a lining rivaling that of the deepest most depressing gray  :mad:

I blame Spicey and Legbiter, they are determined to make life miserable for younger men. Manhaters the lot of them.

Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2012, 04:25:01 PM
Men are evolutionarily hardwired to be bad in bed.

QuoteThe silver lining is that all those sexist judgments comprising the slut stigma are the reason women are less likely to accept offers of casual sex.

That sounds like a lining rivaling that of the deepest most depressing gray  :mad:

I blame Spicey and Legbiter, they are determined to make life miserable for younger men. Manhaters the lot of them.

Sorry.  You're married though so get over it :P

Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 04:29:42 PM
Sorry.  You're married though so get over it :P

But...but...my sons :cry:

Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2012, 04:33:57 PM

Quote from: derspiess on December 04, 2012, 04:29:42 PM
Sorry.  You're married though so get over it :P

But...but...my sons :cry:

They'll find their own way.  Lord knows I did :ph34r:

Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2012, 04:25:01 PM

QuoteThe silver lining is that all those sexist judgments comprising the slut stigma are the reason women are less likely to accept offers of casual sex.

That sounds like a lining rivaling that of the deepest most depressing gray  :mad:

:D

Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2012, 04:25:01 PM
Men are evolutionarily hardwired to be bad in bed.

QuoteThe silver lining is that all those sexist judgments comprising the slut stigma are the reason women are less likely to accept offers of casual sex.

That sounds like a lining rivaling that of the deepest most depressing gray  :mad:

I blame Spicey and Legbiter, they are determined to make life miserable for younger men. Manhaters the lot of them.

Don't discount the "one-nighters can't get me off" faction. ;)

I think I'd probably criminalise self-harm, assisting suicide and prostitution.  I've never bought into this 'we can do whatever we want with out bodies' line of thinking.

Quote from: Valmy on December 04, 2012, 04:25:01 PM
I blame Spicey and Legbiter, they are determined to make life miserable for younger men. Manhaters the lot of them.

:lol:

I say it's not a double standard. It's different standards, based on skill.  :contract: Men looking down on sluts (except for a quick pump and dump) is the same as women looking down on male losers with absolutly no prospects and no mojo to speak of.

Women are the gatekeepers of sexual access, men are the gatekeepers of commitment. Women look to a man's perceived social status and mojo (explains why Bill Gates can get laid even while looking and acting the way he does) and men (at least men with options) pay particular attention to a woman's looks and subtle signs of sexual fidelity. Given the staggeringly high divorce rates for women with "modest" prior notches, a wise choice.

I love the idea that Bill Gates can get laid because of his immense personal charisma and raw pheremones that just don't translate across camera.  Probably not though :(

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 05, 2012, 08:22:57 PM
I love the idea that Bill Gates can get laid because of his immense personal charisma and raw pheremones that just don't translate across camera.  Probably not though :(

You never know though. Maybe he runs a tight ship with his wife after the lawyers laid down the exact Do's & Dont's of the marriage.

Quote from: Legbiter on December 05, 2012, 08:19:53 PM
Given the staggeringly high divorce rates for women with "modest" prior notches, a wise choice.

You realize that the study posted never explained why there was an increase in divorces for those women, right? We don't know if the women walked out on the men, the men on the women, if it was just decided it wasn't going to work, etc.

I find it amusing that you immediately jump on the "women who sleep around obviously cheat and get dumped by their husbands" wagon. I would argue that it's just as likely - if not more so - that women with experience aren't going to put up with bullshit and will kick an asshole out the door quicker than one who doesn't know any better.

But then, with your view of things, I doubt you care.

Only issue I see Meri is if they know better, why are they getting married?

Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Only issue I see Meri is if they know better, why are they getting married?

Optimism?

I never understood why divoce rate = bad, failure.

Some people change. Some people no longer get along. In the past, people stuck together nonetheless because divorce was difficult to get and social disapproval high. Why was that "good"?

It is obvious that someone with limited experience of prior relationships is more likely to stick around even if the relationship has gone to shit: that's all they know. Without a basis of comparison, leaving and starting again would be frightening, so they stick where another with more experience would go.

OTOH, some people just aren't into long-term: they are "in love with falling in love", they like that initial rush at the start of a relationship, and having lots of relationships may be a sign of that - male or female.

Quote from: Jacob on December 06, 2012, 01:12:14 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Only issue I see Meri is if they know better, why are they getting married?

Optimism?

I could understand them having more cohabiting relationships and then you would think they would figure it out flaws before marrying.

Quote from: Malthus on December 06, 2012, 09:17:59 AM
I never understood why divoce rate = bad, failure.

Some people change. Some people no longer get along. In the past, people stuck together nonetheless because divorce was difficult to get and social disapproval high. Why was that "good"?

It is obvious that someone with limited experience of prior relationships is more likely to stick around even if the relationship has gone to shit: that's all they know. Without a basis of comparison, leaving and starting again would be frightening, so they stick where another with more experience would go.

OTOH, some people just aren't into long-term: they are "in love with falling in love", they like that initial rush at the start of a relationship, and having lots of relationships may be a sign of that - male or female.

Because marriage is supposed to be the ultimate long-term thing?

Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2012, 09:26:04 AM

Quote from: Malthus on December 06, 2012, 09:17:59 AM
I never understood why divoce rate = bad, failure.

Some people change. Some people no longer get along. In the past, people stuck together nonetheless because divorce was difficult to get and social disapproval high. Why was that "good"?

It is obvious that someone with limited experience of prior relationships is more likely to stick around even if the relationship has gone to shit: that's all they know. Without a basis of comparison, leaving and starting again would be frightening, so they stick where another with more experience would go.

OTOH, some people just aren't into long-term: they are "in love with falling in love", they like that initial rush at the start of a relationship, and having lots of relationships may be a sign of that - male or female.

Because marriage is supposed to be the ultimate long-term thing?

Long-term isn't the same as permanent. People should go into marriage thinking that yes, this is a long-term thing ... but if it doesn't work out, pecause people have changed in different ways, or have fallen out of love, or whatever, I see no value in permanence just for the sake of it. Particularly if it makes people miserable.

I say this, and I've been with the same woman for 25 years - but I've been lucky.

Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2012, 12:32:03 AM
Only issue I see Meri is if they know better, why are they getting married?

People change? Sitatuations change? He cheated on her? She cheated on him? Kids came into the picture and that changed everything? Kids didn't come into the picture and that changed everything?

There are a ton of reasons for a couple to decide not to be married anymore. The idea that it's because a woman had more than 2 or 3 partners before the wedding doesn't chage those facts. What it may change, however, is how long she's willing to put up with a certain set of circumstances once they occur.

Quote from: merithyn on December 05, 2012, 11:44:04 PM
I would argue that it's just as likely - if not more so - that women with experience aren't going to put up with bullshit and will kick an asshole out the door quicker than one who doesn't know any better.

Disagree.  I don't see how women "without experience" are going to be more likely to put up with bullshit.  I know my ex-sister-in-law had an awfully low tolerance for that.

Quote from: Malthus on December 06, 2012, 09:50:44 AM
Long-term isn't the same as permanent. People should go into marriage thinking that yes, this is a long-term thing ... but if it doesn't work out, pecause people have changed in different ways, or have fallen out of love, or whatever, I see no value in permanence just for the sake of it. Particularly if it makes people miserable.

I say this, and I've been with the same woman for 25 years - but I've been lucky.

I'm not saying that people should stick around if their marriage makes them miserable. But then again, I'm not a big fan of marriage / don't really understand the idea of making vows to a lifelong commitment that isn't lifelong.

Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 10:24:26 AM

Quote from: merithyn on December 05, 2012, 11:44:04 PM
I would argue that it's just as likely - if not more so - that women with experience aren't going to put up with bullshit and will kick an asshole out the door quicker than one who doesn't know any better.

Disagree.  I don't see how women "without experience" are going to be more likely to put up with bullshit.  I know my ex-sister-in-law had an awfully low tolerance for that.

Because they don't know how it could be better?

Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2012, 10:32:04 AM

Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 10:24:26 AM

Quote from: merithyn on December 05, 2012, 11:44:04 PM
I would argue that it's just as likely - if not more so - that women with experience aren't going to put up with bullshit and will kick an asshole out the door quicker than one who doesn't know any better.

Disagree.  I don't see how women "without experience" are going to be more likely to put up with bullshit.  I know my ex-sister-in-law had an awfully low tolerance for that.

Because they don't know how it could be better?

Nah, don't see it.

Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2012, 10:31:27 AM

I'm not saying that people should stick around if their marriage makes them miserable. But then again, I'm not a big fan of marriage / don't really understand the idea of making vows to a lifelong commitment that isn't lifelong.

Max and I had issues with that, as well. Instead of making a lifelong commitment, our vows said something like, "for as long as I am able." Basically, we recognize that changes happen and things can be different 5, 10, 15, even 20 years down the line. We weren't going to make a vow for something that we just didn't know could or would happen.

Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 10:37:49 AM
Nah, don't see it.

Okay? Doesn't make it any less valid of a point.

Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2012, 10:31:27 AM

Quote from: Malthus on December 06, 2012, 09:50:44 AM
Long-term isn't the same as permanent. People should go into marriage thinking that yes, this is a long-term thing ... but if it doesn't work out, pecause people have changed in different ways, or have fallen out of love, or whatever, I see no value in permanence just for the sake of it. Particularly if it makes people miserable.

I say this, and I've been with the same woman for 25 years - but I've been lucky.

I'm not saying that people should stick around if their marriage makes them miserable. But then again, I'm not a big fan of marriage / don't really understand the idea of making vows to a lifelong commitment that isn't lifelong.

Wait, on the one hand you don't think marriage is a good thing, and on the other, you are criticizing people for not taking their marriage vows seriously enough?  :lol:

My opinion is this: marriage is a good thing for three very basic reasons:

1. It is an unequivocal signal to each other and to the outside world that you have chosen to make a committment;

2. It straightens out a bunch of legal stuff that you *can* do another way, but which requires a lot more tedious and expensive legal drudgery to do without marriage (right of survivorship, automatic entitlement to various benefits, etc.) - most people fail to get around to dealing with that stuff until it is too late; and

3. It acts as a positive milestone in people's lives and social memories, including the rest of one's family. As in "remember uncle Robert's wedding, when we all went to England ..."? These milestones and rituals tie people together, acts against the atomizing/anonymizing effect of modern society. 

None of this requires that marriage be permanent, with is sort of a leftover from religious nuttery that was traditionally associated with marriages.

Quote from: merithyn on December 06, 2012, 10:58:08 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2012, 10:31:27 AM

I'm not saying that people should stick around if their marriage makes them miserable. But then again, I'm not a big fan of marriage / don't really understand the idea of making vows to a lifelong commitment that isn't lifelong.

Max and I had issues with that, as well. Instead of making a lifelong commitment, our vows said something like, "for as long as I am able." Basically, we recognize that changes happen and things can be different 5, 10, 15, even 20 years down the line. We weren't going to make a vow for something that we just didn't know could or would happen.

Hmm, sounds almost like the Iranian-style contracts that have end dates.

Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 11:02:48 AM

Quote from: merithyn on December 06, 2012, 10:58:08 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2012, 10:31:27 AM

I'm not saying that people should stick around if their marriage makes them miserable. But then again, I'm not a big fan of marriage / don't really understand the idea of making vows to a lifelong commitment that isn't lifelong.

Max and I had issues with that, as well. Instead of making a lifelong commitment, our vows said something like, "for as long as I am able." Basically, we recognize that changes happen and things can be different 5, 10, 15, even 20 years down the line. We weren't going to make a vow for something that we just didn't know could or would happen.

Hmm, sounds almost like the Iranian-style contracts that have end dates.

:lol:

Now you are just trolling her.

Really, it sounds like someone who takes the mumbo-jumbo of the ceremony seriously - as if the actual content of the vows made the slightest difference.

In my wedding, I didn't speak a word of the language the ceremony was conducted in.  :D

Quote from: Malthus on December 06, 2012, 10:59:01 AM
Wait, on the one hand you don't think marriage is a good thing, and on the other, you are criticizing people for not taking their marriage vows seriously enough?  :lol:

Well yes when marriage becomes downgraded to a chance to have a party and for legal benefits then I'm not particularly a fan of it. The commitment part seems a bit odd if you're just saying "hey we're committing to each other for as long as we feel like being together." What useful information does such a commitment impart?

Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2012, 11:07:02 AM

Quote from: Malthus on December 06, 2012, 10:59:01 AM
Wait, on the one hand you don't think marriage is a good thing, and on the other, you are criticizing people for not taking their marriage vows seriously enough?  :lol:

Well yes when marriage becomes downgraded to a chance to have a party and for legal benefits then I'm not particularly a fan of it. The commitment part seems a bit odd if you're just saying "hey we're committing to each other for as long as we feel like being together." What useful information does such a commitment impart?

I sense an excluded middle here.

A "committment" can be serious even if it is conditional, right? There's a range between a one-night-stand on the one hand, and death do us part on the other?

How about "we are committed until something changes such that we really cannot go on together"?

Quote from: Malthus on December 06, 2012, 11:05:48 AM
:lol:

Now you are just trolling her.

Honestly, when she started quoting 5, 10, 15, etc. year timeframes that's the first thing that came to mind.  Though I know some of theirs can expire in a matter of days.

QuoteReally, it sounds like someone who takes the mumbo-jumbo of the ceremony seriously - as if the actual content of the vows made the slightest difference.

Well... I do :unsure:

QuoteIn my wedding, I didn't speak a word of the language the ceremony was conducted in.  :D

Ours was in English and Spanish.  The priest seemed pretty enthusiastic about the English part, though he messed up and had his thumb in the wrong part of the page when he was pointing out where my wife was supposed to speak.  Though she probably should have thought about it before she said, "I take thee to be my wife."

Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 11:22:13 AM

Honestly, when she started quoting 5, 10, 15, etc. year timeframes that's the first thing that came to mind.  Though I know some of theirs can expire in a matter of days.

She's just saying things can change after some years, not that their relationship had automatic expiry clauses.  :D

Quote
Well... I do :unsure:

Well, fore someone who does, the whole "death do us part" thing can seem incompatible with divorce. Hence, the necessity to change vows.

For those of us who think the important thing is the fact of marriage and not the words of the ceremony, it really isn't important - keep the religious stuff and "death do us part" in for tradition's sake, but divorce in nonetheless a possibility.

QuoteOurs was in English and Spanish.  The priest seemed pretty enthusiastic about the English part, though he messed up and had his thumb in the wrong part of the page when he was pointing out where my wife was supposed to speak.  Though she probably should have thought about it before she said, "I take thee to be my wife."

And despite her vow, you failed to get a sex change? Tisk tisk.

I no longer believe you really take the words of the vows seriously.  :P

Quote from: Malthus on December 06, 2012, 11:33:36 AM

Quote from: derspiess on December 06, 2012, 11:22:13 AM

Honestly, when she started quoting 5, 10, 15, etc. year timeframes that's the first thing that came to mind.  Though I know some of theirs can expire in a matter of days.

She's just saying things can change after some years, not that their relationship had automatic expiry clauses.  :D

Exactly. Though the Pagan Year-and-a-Day thing would have been cool, too, if we didn't need the legality of marriage for his papers. :cool:

Quote

Quote
Well... I do :unsure:

Well, fore someone who does, the whole "death do us part" thing can seem incompatible with divorce. Hence, the necessity to change vows.

For those of us who think the important thing is the fact of marriage and not the words of the ceremony, it really isn't important - keep the religious stuff and "death do us part" in for tradition's sake, but divorce in nonetheless a possibility.

Exactly. If I'm going to stand before the man I love, friends, family, and my personal god, then I'm going to mean exactly what I say. Another part of my vow was to work very hard, doing all that I can for as long as I can, to make my commitment to my husband work. (It was prettier than that, but same idea.) It wasn't just a "yeah, let's be together until we can't anymore. Amen." My vow was something that I could commit to in its entirety, while recognizing that things happen and lives change.

Quote from: merithyn on December 06, 2012, 11:47:57 AM
Exactly. If I'm going to stand before the man I love, friends, family, and my personal god, then I'm going to mean exactly what I say. Another part of my vow was to work very hard, doing all that I can for as long as I can, to make my commitment to my husband work. (It was prettier than that, but same idea.) It wasn't just a "yeah, let's be together until we can't anymore. Amen." My vow was something that I could commit to in its entirety, while recognizing that things happen and lives change.

Heh, ironically, non-lawyers tend to be more legalistic about these things - to me the ceremony was just, well, ceremonial. The actual words did not change what I was intending to do one jot (fortunately, as I did not understand them - they were in Ukranian, and related to a religion I do not follow. I might well have been agreeing to sell my soul to Cthulthu for all I knew).  ;)

That said, I know people who put a lot of time and thought into crafting their vows, for the reasons you cite.

Surely an oral contract is an oral contract?

Quote from: The Brain on December 06, 2012, 01:56:09 PM
Surely an oral contract is an oral contract?

Clearly a new career is in order - suing people who get divorced for breach of contract. Why, pretty well everyone who gets divorced is guilty! It's a sure thing!  :D

Quote from: merithyn on December 06, 2012, 11:47:57 AM

Exactly. If I'm going to stand before the man I love, friends, family, and my personal god, then I'm going to mean exactly what I say. Another part of my vow was to work very hard, doing all that I can for as long as I can, to make my commitment to my husband work. (It was prettier than that, but same idea.) It wasn't just a "yeah, let's be together until we can't anymore. Amen." My vow was something that I could commit to in its entirety, while recognizing that things happen and lives change.

Huh. I didn't want to write my own vows, so we used the traditional ones. And yes, she said "obey".  :P

Honestly, I can't imagine ever divorcing her though, so committing to forever is not a problem for me.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 06, 2012, 05:46:39 PM

Huh. I didn't want to write my own vows, so we used the traditional ones. And yes, she said "obey".  :P

Honestly, I can't imagine ever divorcing her though, so committing to forever is not a problem for me.

I couldn't imagine divorcing my first husband either. I wasn't going to break another vow.

I suppose that makes sense.

Quote from: Malthus on December 06, 2012, 11:11:49 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2012, 11:07:02 AM

Quote from: Malthus on December 06, 2012, 10:59:01 AM
Wait, on the one hand you don't think marriage is a good thing, and on the other, you are criticizing people for not taking their marriage vows seriously enough?  :lol:

Well yes when marriage becomes downgraded to a chance to have a party and for legal benefits then I'm not particularly a fan of it. The commitment part seems a bit odd if you're just saying "hey we're committing to each other for as long as we feel like being together." What useful information does such a commitment impart?

I sense an excluded middle here.

A "committment" can be serious even if it is conditional, right? There's a range between a one-night-stand on the one hand, and death do us part on the other?

How about "we are committed until something changes such that we really cannot go on together"?

I guess so, but sure feels like less it's less deserving of expensive wedding gifts...though sadly will probably last just along as those weddings of those who plan on staying together forever.

Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2012, 05:51:53 PM

I guess so, but sure feels like less it's less deserving of expensive wedding gifts...though sadly will probably last just along as those weddings of those who plan on staying together forever.

I vowed forever with my first husband, and it lasted five years. I vowed as long as I am able with Max, and we're on almost 8 years and going strong. :)

Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2012, 05:51:53 PM
I guess so, but sure feels like less it's less deserving of expensive wedding gifts...though sadly will probably last just along as those weddings of those who plan on staying together forever.

I'm not a big believer in expensive wedding hoopla in general. Our culture is a bit out of wack on that issue. In some cases, potlatch-like displays of conspicuous wealth seem to have become the point, not gathering together family and friends. Expectations of the gifts have inflated accordingly.

The original point of wedding gifts was to give the young couple the basic stuff they needed to set up a household - dishes, blankets, pots and pans. Nowadays, not so much.

In the Jewish community, the same process can be observed with bar/bat mitzvahs. One of my relations held a bat mitzvah for their daughter that was an embarrasing saturnalia of wealth - just as an example of the excess, they flew a candy-making artisan in from Japan to make candies on the spot at the party.

I favored spending the cash on the reception. The ceremony, not so much. I hated that part.

Quote from: Malthus on December 06, 2012, 06:58:54 PM

The original point of wedding gifts was to give the young couple the basic stuff they needed to set up a household - dishes, blankets, pots and pans. Nowadays, not so much.

Yeah, when my brother got married, he and his wife needed a lot of household stuff, because she was still living with her parents, and while he had lived on his own for a while, he had had a tiny apartment that came furnished, so he had very little of his own.

OTOH, aa and I specifically requested that we NOT get any kitchen stuff, since while I had been living with my mom for the past 4 years before aa and I hooked up, I had lived on my own for 15 years before that, and had all my stuff stored at my mom's.

Quote from: Malthus on December 06, 2012, 06:58:54 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2012, 05:51:53 PM
I guess so, but sure feels like less it's less deserving of expensive wedding gifts...though sadly will probably last just along as those weddings of those who plan on staying together forever.

I'm not a big believer in expensive wedding hoopla in general. Our culture is a bit out of wack on that issue. In some cases, potlatch-like displays of conspicuous wealth seem to have become the point, not gathering together family and friends. Expectations of the gifts have inflated accordingly.

The original point of wedding gifts was to give the young couple the basic stuff they needed to set up a household - dishes, blankets, pots and pans. Nowadays, not so much.

In the Jewish community, the same process can be observed with bar/bat mitzvahs. One of my relations held a bat mitzvah for their daughter that was an embarrasing saturnalia of wealth - just as an example of the excess, they flew a candy-making artisan in from Japan to make candies on the spot at the party.

You're Jewish AND stingy? :huh:

Quote from: The Brain on December 07, 2012, 08:42:31 AM

Quote from: Malthus on December 06, 2012, 06:58:54 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2012, 05:51:53 PM
I guess so, but sure feels like less it's less deserving of expensive wedding gifts...though sadly will probably last just along as those weddings of those who plan on staying together forever.

I'm not a big believer in expensive wedding hoopla in general. Our culture is a bit out of wack on that issue. In some cases, potlatch-like displays of conspicuous wealth seem to have become the point, not gathering together family and friends. Expectations of the gifts have inflated accordingly.

The original point of wedding gifts was to give the young couple the basic stuff they needed to set up a household - dishes, blankets, pots and pans. Nowadays, not so much.

In the Jewish community, the same process can be observed with bar/bat mitzvahs. One of my relations held a bat mitzvah for their daughter that was an embarrasing saturnalia of wealth - just as an example of the excess, they flew a candy-making artisan in from Japan to make candies on the spot at the party.

You're Jewish AND stingy? :huh:

:D

I tell young friends thinking about getting married to go into it absolutely knowing it's going to be forever, but with practical (i.e. mainly financial)  precautions in place in case somehow it isn't.

Like a bank account in the Cayman islands.

Edit: I'm suffering from Timmayosis bad spellinus

Quote from: Malthus on December 06, 2012, 10:59:01 AM
Wait, on the one hand you don't think marriage is a good thing, and on the other, you are criticizing people for not taking their marriage vows seriously enough?  :lol:

How is this funny, especially to a lawyer? Believing in pacta sunt servanda does not mean you have to believe it is wise to enter into any particular contract, no?

garbon position is pretty clear to me.  :huh:

Quote from: Martinus on December 07, 2012, 10:00:13 AM

Quote from: Malthus on December 06, 2012, 10:59:01 AM
Wait, on the one hand you don't think marriage is a good thing, and on the other, you are criticizing people for not taking their marriage vows seriously enough?  :lol:

How is this funny, especially to a lawyer? Believing in pacta sunt servanda does not mean you have to believe it is wise to enter into any particular contract, no?

garbon position is pretty clear to me.  :huh:

Well, for one, a lawyer ought to know that marriage isn't like "other contracts". Its terms are, in most countries, set by the specialized laws relating to family law (which allow for some private contracting in the form of pre-nups and the like) - thus, for legal purposes, the actual words of the vows exchanged are in fact totally irrelevant (all that matters is that you are "legally married") and you can't, in point of fact, be sued for failing to keep one's vowed promise of "until death do us part" because you sought a divorce, in a country where divorce is legal (these days, pretty well everywhere in the 1st world).

Though, as I said above, it would be amusing to try it on.  :D

In any event, marriage vows as an oral agreement would not be enforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2012, 10:15:32 AM
In any event, marriage vows as an oral agreement would not be enforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

However breach of promise to marry would appear to still be a valid cause of action, no matter how dusty and rarely-used it may be. :nerd:

Quote from: Barrister on December 07, 2012, 10:25:20 AM
However breach of promise to marry would appear to still be a valid cause of action, no matter how dusty and rarely-used it may be. :nerd:

Still good in some US states; others have abolished by statute.

Abolished in the UK by statute much to the disgust of writers of farces.

Quote from: Barrister on December 07, 2012, 10:25:20 AM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2012, 10:15:32 AM
In any event, marriage vows as an oral agreement would not be enforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

However breach of promise to marry would appear to still be a valid cause of action, no matter how dusty and rarely-used it may be. :nerd:

buying girls fancy engagement rings took care of that. Now you can promise marriage, do what you really want to do, and leave. She'll sell the ring as compensation of your lies instead of suing you. Diamond rings: the 100 plus year old virginity insurance :D

Quote from: HVC on December 07, 2012, 01:57:01 PM
do what you really want to do,

Get to know her as a person?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2012, 10:15:32 AM
In any event, marriage vows as an oral agreement would not be enforceable under the Statute of Frauds.

If we ever find a way to become physically immortal, they would also run afoul of the prohibition of creating a perpetuity.