Equal equality for Women? - Page 5

Behave in this topic or face the consequences. There will be strict moderation and little leeway granted so think before you post.

-Nyovne

nemY

United States3119 Posts

February 21 2011 22:05 GMT

#81

On February 22 2011 03:15 Terrakin wrote:
I don't think this has to do with equality for women at all, just an easy way to make a bit more money. The people who are complaining would complain about anything so I wouldn't take what they say seriously. Those women on "fixed income" shouldn't be playing such an expensive sport then, or shouldn't be playing every week on the golfing grounds. There are alternatives and sometimes you can't have everything you want forever.

also @Drowsy do you have a reference for this? "Men happen to have more of the hormone correlated with drive, aggression, ignoring danger and discomfort, and leadership" I cannot believe this, or are you talking about something else?

Ah man didn't even see someone said what I wrote before me lol. The moral of this story is: IF YOU RAISE PRICES FOR A PRODUCT/SERVICE, PEOPLE WILL COMPLAIN

The author of this article is using the Retiree Female Golfers as a scapegoat for the Equality Act being ineffective. Seriously do you guys think Retiree Female Golfers are the majority of the people who are affected by this act?

Is the Equality Act in Great Britain that great? I don't know, I don't live in GB, ask someone who lives there. I'm sure you'll get different answers from different people there. We have similar laws in the USA (sup Affirmative Action) and everyone has a host of different opinions on it...

And the hormone Drowsy is talking? Testosterone. Manly Men have it, pussy men don'! (lol jk jk)

Alexson

Belarus293 Posts

February 21 2011 22:29 GMT

#82

On February 17 2011 04:14 Comeh wrote:

Show nested quote +

Fair enough.
Just spend every morning after you take a shower an hour and a half putting on make up, doing your hair, getting dressed, etc.

So many ignorant posts here, its pretty disgusting.

Lol, that's all a females fault. She can choose to do that and choose not to, just because someone is a female doesn't mean I'm going to waste time out of my day to help her.

3clipse

Canada2555 Posts

February 21 2011 23:10 GMT

#83

Every specific group organization or ideology serves to benefit its members- whether they're based on gender, race, religion, etc. Of course, for groups which have been disadvantaged in the past, pursuing equality IS beneficial, and is a much more effective way of marketing one's goals than claiming that they want preferential treatment to the exclusion of others. I'm not saying that these groups don't do good work and help build a better, more equitable society (they often do), but each of these groups supports their own demographic to the exclusion of others, and this often fragments society further than it already is. I would like to see the moderate proponents of womens rights, black rights, muslim's rights, etc. band together under a common association which recognizes that all of their differences are irrelevant when it comes to how they should be treated among each other and under the law.

Klockan3

Sweden2866 Posts

February 22 2011 09:22 GMT

#84

On February 22 2011 04:15 Cloud wrote:

Show nested quote +

On February 22 2011 04:02 Klockan3 wrote:

On February 22 2011 03:32 Half wrote:
I'm all for gender equality, frankly, I'd be a very sad person if my field was even more of a sausagefest then it already is, but is it altogether impossible that biology accounts for some of the statistical discrepancies between genders?

No not at all, but we aren't allowed to make that assumption since it could easily be used to hide injustices. You can keep it in the back of your head but never rely on it in any situation.

I'd argue that the biggest reason women don't go into stem fields, why they are paid less etc is risk aversion. Going into stem fields is a risk since you never know if you are smart enough to manage or so, much safer to go into a field where work ethics matters the most. Men are much more likely to take risks than women, taking risks is really important if you want to get anywhere especially if you want top positions in anything. You don't get a big pay increase if you don't take the risk asking for it, you don't get to lead the new juicy project if you don't take the risk embarrassing yourself by failing to run it and you wont major in a stem field if you don't want to take the risk to flunk the courses.

Women wants the same benefits without the risks, that will never happen. What happens instead is women seeing less qualified men going past them and they blame that on the system instead of looking at what makes those men walk past them. In general well qualified women who have a behavior more like men's will reach top positions. Well qualified women who just sits and wait for someone to notice how good they are will sit there for a really long time.

School is very straightforward so it fits them perfectly. Do your work and we give you good grades. In the real world things don't work that way. Insecure men gets pushed around at least as much as insecure women. It is common for extremely qualified men to sit in low paid positions basically doing everything. No one comes around to save these people. Women however thinks that this only happens to them for some reason, complaining that the only way to get further is to become more like men. Well, men at top positions have dominant personalities with a ton of confidence for a reason, because that is what is required by those positions! Women tends to lack those qualities.

What you should do is to teach women to be more dominant, assertive and less scared of risks. Men gets that from the boy culture where those characteristics are the key to determine status.

Boy does this man have women all figured out. I was thinking that there weren't as many women in high posts as men because it hasn't even been a century since the world has started to give women fairer opportunities. But turns out that it's because women aren't as ambitious!

I didn't say that they aren't ambitious, stop reading things that aren't there. It doesn't matter if it is nature or nurture that makes them more risk aversive, the fact is that they are.

Read this for example, it goes through a lot of examples of women being more risk aversive throughout society and then show that according to their data female executives are less risk aversive than their fellow males, which is quite in line with I want to say. Risk aversive women don't climb the status ladder. I didn't say that it was the only reason but I said that I think that it is the main reason today, since executive women were less risk aversive than their fellow males it shows that there is something more to it than just that but I never said that this was the only thing.
http://www.entrepreneur.com/tradejournals/article/167979586.html

Risk aversion is not a bad trait per se, it is just that if you want to get to top positions it is in the way.

foobuser

Vatican City State16 Posts

February 22 2011 11:15 GMT

#85

strict moderation on TL? nop, never thought that would happen

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 All

Please or register to reply.

Equal equality for Women? - Page 5

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming