Women in corporate positions.

[ballzac]

There's actually been a lot of research done on this topic. And what has been pretty much universally found is that the lack of women in high-level positions is due to confirmation bias, not lack of ability.

Just one example off the top of my head - there was a big famous orchestra in the USA which had less than 10% female musicians. It was claimed that there just weren't as many good female musicians as male ones. But when they switched to doing blind auditions (ie didn't see or know anything about the person who was auditioning) women's acceptance into the orchestra jumped to around 50%.

There was also a study I remember which sent out the same resume under different names (which were clearly White, Hispanic or Black names) and found that the white-named resume got significantly more calls for interviews that either of the others, even though it was exactly the same resume. I'm pretty sure the same kind of study was done with male/female names, with the same result.

So it appears that the solution is not to randomly employ 50% women regardless of ability... the solution is to level the playing field by reducing or removing the opportunity for confirmation bias which disadvantages the people who actually do have the necessary skills.

I think it's amusing that there has been "a lot of research done on this topic", yet here you are citing the same example that is the only one that ever seems to be brought up. I'm sure there is more research on this out there, but perhaps not as much as you might think. Also, I'm not sure that the claim ever was that women are poorer musicians. I could be wrong about this because it's been a while since I've read the study, but I seem to remember the claim being that female musicians tend to be more temperamental, and more difficult to work with, than male musicians, and that in spite of talent, male musicians are preferred. This is totally consistent with the results of the study, because it didn't compare how easy people are to work with, only how good they are at playing the instrument. (ETA: Just had a quick peruse of the article, and apparently we are both right. i.e. it has been said that female musicians are more difficult to work with, but also that they are worse musicians)

But, this brings up another question as to whether discrimination is always wrong. If it's not true that female musicians tend to be more difficult to work with, then your solution of removing the bias is a good one. But if it is true (I don't know one way or the other, and I haven't seen any research on this), then we also have to go one step further and ask whether it is fair for orchestras to make their own decisions on who to hire based on who would statistically be less likely to be a problem. There are two sides to that coin, and I don't think you can discount either side without thoroughly considering the pros and cons.

 

You seem to be contradicting yourself here. Or are you one of the people you mention who don't think about the causes and just think that all women are just not suited to certain positions because you've seen certain women do their jobs poorly?

Edited to add: I do think you are making a valid point that some people generalise about all women based on the abilities (or lack of) of one. I'm just not sure how you reconcile that contradiction with your original statement.

I'm not sure exactly why you think that is contradictory. The first statement is that there are differences in what men and women strive for. For example, only a small number of women enter engineering. I've already done the stats thing, but lets do it again. For argument's sake, let's say that 10% of engineering graduates are women, but engineering companies are forced to take 50% women and 50% men. Then there may be 90 male, and 10 female applicants for a job. There are 20 positions available. Now, let's say the ability can be scored out of ten. There is, on average, on woman at each ability level: One at level 10, one at level 9, one at level 8, etc. Assuming women and men are equally capable in engineering (a fairly reasonable assumption I would think, though it might not apply to all industries) then there would be, on average, 9 men at each ability level: 9 at level 10, 9 at level 9, 9 at level 8, etc. If the company hires people based on ability, they will hire the 10 people at level 10 (9 men and 1 woman), and the 10 people at level 9 (9 men and 1 woman). Then, the other people who work with these people will be aware that the male and female employees are equally competent, which is accurate based on the prior assumption we've made. However, if the company is forced to hire equal numbers of male and female employees, they will have to hire all ten women, and pick the best 10 men (9 at level 10, and 1 at level 9). Now, people will be aware that women in the industry have an average ability level of 5.5, whereas men have an average ability level of 9.9. They will conclude that women are less capable than men, even though this is incorrect based on the assumption that was used to construct this scenario. This takes care of my second statement, which is that people will think that women are not suited to these kinds of positions. There is no contradiction: In fact, my second statement follows logically from the first.

And how could you possibly arrive at the conclusion that I "think that all women are just not suited to certain positions because (I've) seen certain women do their jobs poorly" based on what I've said? Where did I ever indicate anything along those lines?

[Gimbal]

Hey Ballzac, I didn't come to that conclusion - I asked you a question so that you could clarify it yourself. Big difference.

There's also a big difference between saying there are 'real' biological differences which determine what jobs people strive for, and saying there are less people of a certain gender in specific jobs. Those are two very, very different things. I'd agree with you though that there are social differences. These structural and societal differences have a profound effect on which industries people choose to go into, but they're not related to innate biological differences between genders. I don't know why you decided to do the stats thing again. I read it the first time. You don't seem to have understood my response to it.

I pulled that example off the top of my head because it's simple but yes, there really is a lot of research. I know, because I've read a lot of it. There's probably a lot more than you might think.

The 'females are more difficult to work with' is a very common and boring trope, but again, a lot of that is to do with confirmation bias. That's been studied too. Are you also aware of the commonly known management study, where people were given the content of a conversation and described it differently depending on whether they thought a man or a woman was the manager?

[Gimbal]

In case I wasn't clear - the reason I asked you that question was to try and get you to think about what you said. Because it came across as saying that you believe in biological determinism, but don't think it's a good idea to try and achieve gender parity by filling positions with underqualified women because it might lead other people to believe in biological determinism, which would be detrimental to women. It really sounded contradictory. Whereas in your reply to me, you dropped the biological determinism bit altogether, which made your point a completely different one (and, incidentally, much closer to the point I've been trying to make).

But I actually agreed with you that playing a pure numbers game is not the way to achieve true gender parity. That's why it made no sense for you to repeat your example, and is pretty clear that you missed my point altogether.

[ballzac]

Hey Ballzac, I didn't come to that conclusion - I asked you a question so that you could clarify it yourself. Big difference.

Okay, I'll answer it then. No.

 

There's also a big difference between saying there are 'real' biological differences which determine what jobs people strive for, and saying there are less people of a certain gender in specific jobs.

 

There's also a big difference between saying there are 'real' biological differences which determine what jobs people strive for, and saying there are less people of a certain gender in specific jobs. Those are two very, very different things. I'd agree with you though that there are social differences. These structural and societal differences have a profound effect on which industries people choose to go into, but they're not related to innate biological differences between genders. I don't know why you decided to do the stats thing again. I read it the first time. You don't seem to have understood my response to it.

I did the stats thing again because you said it appeared I was contradicting myself, and the line of reasoning I used shows how my second statement leads from the first. If there's a problem with my reasoning, you could show me where. If the only aspect you take issue with is that I said there are both evolutionary and societal differences that cause men and women to make different choices, then that's another matter. I don't know how much is biological and how much is not, but I don't think it's unreasonable to think the fact that, for example, more women chose to go into 'nurturing' fields, and more men go into physically demanding fields may be more than just due to our societal constructs of gender. But, that's neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. Regardless of whether the determining factors are mostly societal or mostly biological, it still comes down to the fact that men and women do, on average, make different career choices, for whatever reasons, and this is not taken into account in simplistic 'anti-discrimination' policies.

 

There's also a big difference between saying there are 'real' biological differences which determine what jobs people strive for, and saying there are less people of a certain gender in specific jobs. Those are two very, very different things. I'd agree with you though that there are social differences. These structural and societal differences have a profound effect on which industries people choose to go into, but they're not related to innate biological differences between genders. I don't know why you decided to do the stats thing again. I read it the first time. You don't seem to have understood my response to it.

I pulled that example off the top of my head because it's simple but yes, there really is a lot of research. I know, because I've read a lot of it. There's probably a lot more than you might think.

The 'females are more difficult to work with' is a very common and boring trope, but again, a lot of that is to do with confirmation bias. That's been studied too. Are you also aware of the commonly known management study, where people were given the content of a conversation and described it differently depending on whether they thought a man or a woman was the manager?

[ballzac]

In case I wasn't clear - the reason I asked you that question was to try and get you to think about what you said. Because it came across as saying that you believe in biological determinism, but don't think it's a good idea to try and achieve gender parity by filling positions with underqualified women because it might lead other people to believe in biological determinism, which would be detrimental to women. It really sounded contradictory. Whereas in your reply to me, you dropped the biological determinism bit altogether, which made your point a completely different one (and, incidentally, much closer to the point I've been trying to make).

But I actually agreed with you that playing a pure numbers game is not the way to achieve true gender parity. That's why it made no sense for you to repeat your example, and is pretty clear that you missed my point altogether.

It's not really about biological determinism*. That would imply that the individual doesn't have a choice. In most cases it is simply factors that influence an individual's decision making process. But there's no denying that there are differences between men and women, and even subtle biological differences can sway the numbers significantly when combined with societal differences.

*Although in some cases it is. Employing a person to be a surrogate mother would be one example. It doesn't matter how much a man wants to be a surrogate mother, he doesn't have a hope in hell of actually doing the job well, and that's all down to biology.

[Gimbal]

Okay, I'll answer it then. No.

I did the stats thing again because you said it appeared I was contradicting myself, and the line of reasoning I used shows how my second statement leads from the first. If there's a problem with my reasoning, you could show me where.

I did.

I don't think it's unreasonable to think the fact that, for example, more women chose to go into 'nurturing' fields, and more men go into physically demanding fields may be more than just due to our societal constructs of gender.

Not unreasonable, if you are looking only at your own culture and extrapolating that to assume that all people are the same everywhere. But if you look at the broader picture of people in all their variations of culture, you'll find that work is coded differently in different places and times. The nurturing fields were dominated by men a century ago; while a lot of physically demanding work is actually coded as women's work in some cultures. In fact pretty much every job you can think of has been coded as both men's work and women's work in some place or other. Other than giving birth and breastfeeding of course - but that isn't what this post is about.

[mutant]

I think this thread is shit.

The OP said he wants the right person in the right position , and this is justice

what about handicapped, crazy fuckers and plain stupid people??

fuck capitalism, careers and fuck the relatated ideas

PC gets on my nerves yeah

but sexism posing as anti-PC philosphy is really worse.

so is watching the same persons getting involved in these discussions

We hear ya: you got hurt from some female along the way! Happens to the best of us.

Peace

and let the women take over the world: they cant fuck it up as richly as we men did, and in any case they deserve the chance!

[Idon'tstudydinosaurs]

The male species will be deemed useless at some point in time. Women in corporate positions will be inevitable either way. A time will come when we will be asking 'men in corporate positions?'

superiority and inequality is a part of life, the argument will always be there.

[mutant]

let them come then mate

I doubt anyone has the integrity to judge in 20.000's of years.

we have had enough man dominionship. let them rule

it could be even worse than what we're living now, but

y'know they have to have chance. But reality says they have to get it themselves though, earn it.

I quote George Carlin, from memory, more or less:

[on atheism and god]

" If there's is a god, its a "HE" , no woman could ever fuck up things so badly "

[mutant]

and yeah superiority and inequality will always exist, so will inferiority and superiority complexes

which make things even more complicated

I am against free-market , because its not 'free' and it certainly never began 'free' or 'equally' for everyone.

So is life you will say.

True.

But I am not trying to make an ideology out of nature's laws.

Neo-liberals try to convince us the economy is the most natural way of measuring our dicks and our worthiness.

which is , of course, bollocks.

Women are by nature more sensitive and more conservative, but conservative in an non-agressive way which tends to have people settle down due to the reality of birth giving and child raising.

[ballzac]

We hear ya: you got hurt from some female along the way! Happens to the best of us.

Most popular non-argument ever.

 

and let the women take over the world: they cant fuck it up as richly as we men did, and in any case they deserve the chance!

Yeah, cos Margaret Thatcher was the best Prime Minister ever. No-one is arguing that women don't deserve the chance. The argument is about whether women already have the chance, or if they need a leg up via some kind of affirmative action. Considering that we live in a democracy, and that women make up roughly half the voters in western countries, it is nonsensical to argue that women aren't given the opportunity to be in the highest political positions.

When women are asked if they would date a man who earns less than them, the majority say "no". This means that men who want to have more options when it comes to a choice of mate have an incentive to work harder, and strive for higher, better paying positions. Then we decide that women must be discriminated against because they earn less and are not in as high positions as men, so we give them help by forcing companies to conform to quotas and to make sure they are paying their male and female employees equally. Then, the number of men earning less than women increases, and the majority of women will then consider these men to be undatable. So again, there is an incentive for men to work harder to earn more money, which they do, and again we assume that the difference is due to sexism in the workplace. Regardless of how much assistance women are given to get high-paying, high-status positions, we will always reach an equillibrium in which men earn more than women, unless our views, as a society, change to be more accepting of men who earn less.

[Darklight]

PC gets on my nerves yeah. but sexism posing as anti-PC philosphy is really worse.

Yeah, I'm with you. I'm not sure it's worse, but it's the other side of that fugly coin

We hear ya: you got hurt from some female along the way! Happens to the best of us.

Worst justification for domestic violence. Ever. To anyone.

and let the women take over the world: they cant fuck it up as richly as we men did, and in any case they deserve the chance!

Oh fuck no. Please. No. The sorts of women who would think this is a good idea are as impossible to live with as the sort of men who think that this 'payback' constitutes some kind of equality. No. How about we look after the place together?

The male species will be deemed useless at some point in time.

No

Women in corporate positions will be inevitable either way. A time will come when we will be asking 'men in corporate positions?'

Maybe. Given enough time. Not that this is a good thing.

I am old enough to remember having to push the agenda for equality in early education because girls were significantly underperforming when compared to boys all the way through school. Think it was the early 70's- my mum was a teacher and a bit political, so I got to pay attention to those stats growing up. Seems the pendulum has swung the other way now. Extremes are rarely a good thing, especially for the ppl at the extreme end of the dowsing line

superiority and inequality is a part of life, the argument will always be there.

Instead of concentrating on this being a gender issue, why aren't we concentrating on why inequality exists at all? Is it a biological hangover from being monkeys? Is it the effect of scarcity focussed economics? Is it inevitable for large social groups? We know what some people gain from inequality but do we know yet what those same people lose? I like it as a question but I don't have answers

and yeah superiority and inequality will always exist, so will inferiority and superiority complexes

Maybe. But that's no excuse not to encourage learning in how to overcome this in ourselves, identify it as a phenomenon and rectify it instead of sitting back proclaiming some kind of moral high ground via our powerlessness and oppression by the 'other party'

[Darklight]

superiority and inequality is a part of life, the argument will always be there.

Instead of concentrating on this being a gender issue, why aren't we concentrating on why inequality exists at all?

I had to break this up a bit because of the quoted text blocks, sorry. And then I double posted some bits. And now I have to check all my original text block and see what I missed. Bugger it, 2 hours to write a reply I'm happy with is why I stay out of these things

[Darklight]

 

and yeah superiority and inequality will always exist, so will inferiority and superiority complexes

 

Maybe. But that's no excuse not to encourage learning in how to overcome this in ourselves, identify it as a phenomenon and rectify it instead of sitting back proclaiming some kind of moral high ground via our powerlessness and oppression by the 'other party'

 

Neo-liberals try to convince us the economy is the most natural way of measuring our dicks and our worthiness.

 

Well, I dunno about the dicks bit, but other than that you are spot on. It's a bullshit argument

 

Women are by nature more sensitive and more conservative, but conservative in an non-agressive way which tends to have people settle down due to the reality of birth giving and child raising.

 

I don't know any of these women. I certainly wouldn't date them. Is your sample group skewed?

No-one is arguing that women don't deserve the chance. The argument is about whether women already have the chance, or if they need a leg up via some kind of affirmative action. Considering that we live in a democracy, and that women make up roughly half the voters in western countries, it is nonsensical to argue that women aren't given the opportunity to be in the highest political positions.

Bits of me are equivocal about this statement. Most of you have grown up in times and maybe even places where these actions are a fait accomplis, at least in theory. Few of you would remember why they were necessary in the first place. I'm old enough to remember winning significant battles, like equal pay for equal work, and the debates and change around that. Affirmative action definitely helped many ( but not all ) overcome real blocks to becoming members of the workforce after marriage ( because prior to that many private employers/ small businesses would simply not have the culture to think that employing marrried women was a good idea, and immediately after that change it was considered an economic disadvantage to pay them equally within the same culture )

Comprehensive social change, as I understand it, is a multigenerational phenomenon. We're what- three, four generations ( given a generation is biologically measured at 15 years ) into it? We still have a culture where it is accepted that women are the default choice for staying at home and looking after kids, though exceptions are tolerated more than they were when I was a tacker. We have had many other workplace changes in that time which have affected the balance within the workforce and family- not all of them were gender based in intent but the outcome has affected one gender more than the other ( increased casualisation of the workforce for example ). I don't think that we have quite achieved gender equality in the workplace yet- the laws are there but the culture is still changing- but I believe the best way forward for this is IMO is for men to recapture some missing emphasis on their family and caring roles

Etc. There are other examples. I won't follow them up cos I don't usually contribute to these discussions, luck for me today the power is off and I have time to think about it

Looking at younger blokes I definitely- very definitely see an attitude shift. And the older ones as well, a little less. And over that time I've seen similar changes in the expectations and behaviour of a lot of different women too. We are well into a transitory phase re gender equality- and I think some questions have now changed. But some remain.

I don't see many women saying "The battle is won, let's go home". I do see few more men saying " You got enough now, time to stop ". Neither of these is a good statement of definition to a problem which still exists regardless. The question is how we move forward to fix it

When women are asked if they would date a man who earns less than them, the majority say "no". This means that men who want to have more options when it comes to a choice of mate have an incentive to work harder, and strive for higher, better paying positions.

Ya, I've met some of these chicks. Why any bloke would want to fuck one of them is a total mystery. This should be taught in sex ed classes. You blokes should breed them out of existence by choosing partners with a brain that's not directly connected to mass media. It's up to us chicks to express abject horror whenever we hear this shit, unfriend them on FB, warn our bloke mates and never be seen in the company of these women again

As long as there are hetero chicks who feel this way, and blokes who are willing to shack up with them, some people of both sexes will find this acceptable

Regardless of how much assistance women are given to get high-paying, high-status positions, we will always reach an equillibrium in which men earn more than women, unless our views, as a society, change to be more accepting of men who earn less.

Yay! And in this instance, for me, is a fundamental gender equality issue these days. As well as the one which addresses how to get those men out of the workforce who would much rather be staying at home caring for kids and other family. What stops you? How do we fix that? How can you negotiate that prior to the birth of your kids? How can we help teach that in schools and workplaces

Every time the media phrases a family issue around 'mothers think..' or ' mothers disadvantaged by..' I get the screaming horrors. This language needs to be reclaimed urgently to reinforce the notion that men are parents as well. For everyone's sake. Etc.

@Ballzac I don't buy into your arguments on this too often and am selective in replying. Often it's cos I don't read them Partly that's cos I take exception to your argument style and think you chop and change your focus and standpoints. But mostly because I don't want to waste lots of negative energy nitpicking at you. I respect you and suspect that in person I would rather like you. I don't require your full consensus on any issue any more than I require anyone else's. And I'm hoping you don't require mine

[Idon'tstudydinosaurs]

No

There have been articles written on this subject. The Y chromosome is continually degrading. If humans are not extinct in the next few million years then a new sex determining gene will evolve.

[mutant]

Look I dont know in what kind of society you are living in. I also dont know what kind of society you think I live in.

Ballzac>>

because you might forget where I am coming from, I will project various shit to your country to show you australia is not the most representativ place on earth, so making big statements makes you look a bit like the 'redneck variant of americanism' of the world.

In my country stuff simply are not that equal as you make it to be in oz.

Additionally I never said women dont have the chance now. All I am saying is that anyone who feels he is oppressed should fight back to earn what he feels he deserves and some people or a social / political situation prevents him from having

We hear ya: you got hurt from some female along the way! Happens to the best of us.

Worst justification for domestic violence. Ever. To anyone.

well that's nice arguement. I am to blame for australian domestic violence , lol !!!!

Darklight I think your absolutely right: youdont know what you're talking about!!

well hear that. I drink lots of alcohol. LOTS of it. Often. I never become violent. Ok one time i broke an object. But never to humans or living shit. Know why? I am a non violent guy!

IMO alcohol drinking does not excuse violent behaviours. And of course nor does a bad behaviour from some girl or you being butthurt off some girl, allowing to hurt her back.

I think the reason for you ozzies having so much domestic violence is the same for you ozzies being so much druggies, managing to get every legal high illegal : it might be the fact that you are descendants of prisoners

Like many people outside Australia seem to think about you.

 

Women are by nature more sensitive and more conservative, but conservative in an non-agressive way which tends to have people settle down due to the reality of birth giving and child raising.

 

I don't know any of these women. I certainly wouldn't date them. Is your sample group skewed?

That's your problem. I got several female friends that befriend males mostly. They are the less sensitive type, more confident, more male in the behaviour, but still , especially when reaching their 30's they are still conservative in the child birth giving sense.

Most normal women [not overly political in left/anarchist ideologies, not feminist, no PC] admit that.

We got different bodies and the bodies direct that.

No skewing in my stats, I am a monster of objectivity.

hey aren't you a female?

[mutant]

 

yeah superiority and inequality will always exist, so will inferiority and superiority complexes

Maybe. But that's no excuse not to encourage learning in how to overcome this in ourselves, identify it as a phenomenon and rectify it instead of sitting back proclaiming some kind of moral high ground via our powerlessness and oppression by the 'other party'

I dont know where exactly you are disagreeing. Life is personal. Skills are personal. There are indeed differences between females and males. I just dont think latently sexist ballzac crowd is objective enough to know whats the score. That's why they're always trying to cook up some stats to prove what?? another troll-like thread about males VS females.

I believe in the power of self , ego and various such stuff, not the power of certain individual teams of persons who share a common treat like having dicks or cunts or anything. THere's a power of humanity, collective and other shit, but this is Aquarius, Pisces, humanitarian shit, I am an egoistical bastard.

 

why aren't we concentrating on why inequality exists at all? Is it a biological hangover from being monkeys?

 

a biological reality, not hangover. I can comment further , writing a 10 page essay about that, but instead look at some herd animals natual history, wolves, chimps you name it. Alpha, Beta, Omega. These are ranks, y'know. Superiority and inferiority. You might not wanna call it like that. Call it ranking. Truth is hierarchy in herd animals is a biological reality. Even in those groups, the inferiors have the chance to climb the ladder, so there's more justice to the animal social fare, than ours.

[mutant]

 

 

 

Is it the effect of scarcity focussed economics?

the social conditioning plays a role underlining the inequalities, but its not the basic reason as most fanatic anti-capitalists seem to think. IMO there's an animal/biological basis in this.

 

 

Is it inevitable for large social groups?

its inevitable in small and normal groups.

large groups are not natural anywayz. IMO, stacking human [still animals though] in large population densities can only increase the false competition, and create new ranges of antagonism in un-natural degree and in an un-natural complex social group.

 

 

We know what some people gain from inequality but do we know yet what those same people lose? I like it as a question but I don't have answers

Maybe you should start from reading Max Stirner. Being a bad person doesn't not have some special biological lock that makes you explode after a degree of lots bad actions. A bad person can live this way and never seeminglyfeel bad.

The truth is that if you mistreat people, in time, this will come back to you. You might get this in the most discreet form, like people avoiding you.

I believe that in time bad behaviour is understood and unwanted and paid back in a more natural proceedure than direct revenge. At least this is one of the last idealisms I allow myself as a big egoist myself.

a couple stuff about homosexuality

couple years ago I regarded homosexuality ab-normal, aka not a a natural thing. Just like mouth fucking, I thought its a sex fantasy thing, man made

Then I found out that of course it exists in nature. SO its useful. So it plays a significant role.

Maybe if we accepted homosexuality as a norm in the first place

we wouldn't have many issues to discuss about sexism related subjects .

I do believe a male and a female are pretty different beings

but on the other hand, homosexuality proves there's a middle ground of [not only] choice, but also a biological reality in the range of homosexuality that proves that sexism and sex/gender racism is stemming mainly from strict gender roles.

And yeah, I know what I am saying presents a contradiction. Life is contradictory. Astrology natal charts are contradictory. Well most of the time.

[whitewind]

/ double post

[whitewind]

To respond to Darklight. This is a huge thread!

Re. Gender roles in parenting

Being a stay for the few months that I did was just brilliant it helped strengthen the bond I had with a beautiful child I never expected or even wanted. I wanted to stay at home but the ridiculous financial system we have in place dictated 2 incomes, and guess who was expected to work full time?

"A child really needs her mother at this age" despite no biological necessity ie breast-feeding. It annoyed me that my feminist girlfriend expected such rigid role models and didn't seem to accept my importance in my childs life.

My close cousin ( we are both just under 40 btw ) works from home for his 3 little ones while his wife works full time. Works really well for them!

[Darklight]

well that's nice arguement. I am to blame for australian domestic violence , lol !!!!

Perhaps this we have a translation issue? Or are you being deliberately abstruse?

Darklight I think your absolutely right: youdont know what you're talking about!!

Pfft. Like I care what you think

well hear that. I drink lots of alcohol. LOTS of it. Often. I never become violent. Ok one time i broke an object. But never to humans or living shit. Know why? I am a non violent guy!

Um, what has this got to do with anything? Were we talking about your drinking? I'm sure you are as charming under the influence as you are the rest of the time. If I recall correctly my reply was to your statement where you suggested that another member here should just get over a DV issue

Most normal women [not overly political in left/anarchist ideologies, not feminist, no PC] admit that.

Most of the normal women I know are all of these. Except maybe PC. That's a neocon term for 'considering other ppl before you speak'. In the old days it was called politeness. Sometimes it is possible to be too polite and thus obscure or subvert the meaning of the discussion. It's not a circumstance I am prone to ;)

No skewing in my stats, I am a monster of objectivity.

Oh, right. When I'm having an objective discussion I like to throw in a bit of astrology too, just to be objective

hey aren't you a female?

Hell yes :D

[Darklight]

To respond to Darklight. This is a huge thread!

I thought you'd like it and am glad you are here

I wanted to stay at home but the ridiculous financial system we have in place dictated 2 incomes, and guess who was expected to work full time?

Yeah, that sucks. That's why I think it's really important to teach ppl to negotiate this stuff in advance. Were you happy about the discussions you had around this?

"A child really needs her mother at this age" despite no biological necessity ie breast-feeding. It annoyed me that my feminist girlfriend expected such rigid role models and didn't seem to accept my importance in my childs life.

I've seen chicks get away with this statement ( and blokes too ) for their own ends. It isn't pretty

Tucked away in that issue is the problem of who-gets-to-say-they-speak-for-whom. Anyone can say they are just about anything and be taken as a credible member of that group, whether or not their actions bear that out. Personally I wouldn't call her a feminist, I'd call her a person who chops about her beliefs to her personal benefit, especially if the negotiation process left you unhappy and excluded. But she probably sees no inconsistencies in that particular belief

It's an interesting and ongoing problem in all aspects of public life. FFS I can call myself a supporter of the Liberal Party, or a member of the Sydney Bulldogs Football Club, or a pot smoker ( no- to all of the above ). Extra points for getting quoted in the media as an authority on the same. Public discussion can rage on subsequently ( and it often does, for other people, in other circumstances, check your local media franchise ). Self definition is a powerful and important tool in public debate but is always open to interpretation once it's out ( ie Right-To-Lifers reclaiming the term Feminist in the abortion debate )

[whitewind]

Hi Darklight. No they were more like statements of fact than genuine discussions. You're right, it wasn't pretty and I worry about that attitude still, though the power of distance seems to be working in my favour which is a relief, hopefully not temporary.

Mutant, you made me laugh when you suggested that homosexuality was abnormal and you were against it. I'm coming out (ha) on a limb here to ask why you call yourself mutant if not to celebrate chromosome changes that make people different?

It's also somewhat arrogant to assume that such difference is bad, wrong or whatever until you know more about it but kudos to you for doing your research. Perhaps you should do some on gender difference between sexes too? I often find there's not a lot between men and women and it's certainly variable across the ranges, most of the problems stem from cultural or other ingrained belief systems. The brain / mind is quite malleable and while hormones and biological expressions do have their impact, so do belief systems and it's trying to untangle the two when we get our problems.

I like to think the mind is powerful enough to see where it is being impacted, but that often takes training which a lot if people don't have. Empathy helps too.

[mutant]

Mutant, you made me laugh when you suggested that homosexuality was abnormal and you were against it.

I was against it? Really?

Well , I will come back later

[mutant]

he doesn't have a hope in hell of actually doing the job wellhe doesn't have a hope in hell of actually doing the job well

this is bollocks that a father cannot be a pretty good father, at least compared to a 'mediocre' mother.

Astrology (for those who can accept a part of it) underlines this by bringing forth female/mother/motherhood qualities in men and male/father/fatherhood qualitites in females.

So a male with bold Cancer birth chart is gonna be pretty good at being a father, while a woman with a bold Capricorn birth chart is gonna have lots of father qualities, and she's gonna be probably less warm and sensitive as a mother than say, a range of other signs.

Regarding the objectivity of astrology, Darklight, I cannot accept lessons of objectivity from someone who is of the mentality :

"why can't we just live together"

"why are there inequalities"

and the like.

Besides, you should have confronted astrology in the appropriate thread, but I remember you believe in the stars, so the smartass comment about the monolithic objectivity of mine got smashed on the monolith.

If you can though, I urge you to challenge my objectivity using any of my written stuff here.

If I recall correctly my reply was to your statement where you suggested that another member here should just get over a DV issue

No translation issue, yeah I was being ironic

You brought it up, DV, I just said that sexism is usually / probably stemming from butt-hurt males . Some female hurt them sometime and they decided to hate all women.

Plus yeah I did not understand your comment "worse justification for DV" , which is total shit, cause this aint no justification, nothing justifies a man beating his wife, apart from the very nature of humans + social conditioning of a sexist and crypto-misogynistic society. Maybe we can agree on something ?

But for sure, being hurt from a lady in the past, is no justification for no violent act.

whitewind

Mutant, you made me laugh when you suggested that homosexuality was abnormal and you were against it. I'm coming out (ha) on a limb here to ask why you call yourself mutant if not to celebrate chromosome changes that make people different?

I never said I was against it. Not very nice of you.

But yeah I thought it was abnormal AKA man-made, I thought it's simply a kind of neurosis, and in a way it really is!

At least you give me credit for doing research and finding out this is 100% natural and pretty widespread too

So in my mind it's important whether a phenomenon is natural, AKA happens in the wild, compared to a clearly man/civilisation based phenonomenon.

But it's not that I am "against" the un-natural, because then I would be against myself communicating through a computer. ALso check comments about my nick.

But because I am a naturalist (AKA nature is the law) , it really helps the categorisation of why we do what we do, it really helps explain the behaviour of the human animal, by dividing our acts in instinctive/natural and other types.

You're asking why I have the name mutant, then. Well its not about the natural evolution mutations.

The name is coming from my and also other peoples state, but I will explain it for me. Its mutant as a hybrid of the natural and the mechanic, the technology, you name it. Its a hybrid like Robocop, that kind of mutant I mean.

I love nature and all natural. And I love synthersizer sounds, electronics, I learn through computers and I am very curious about why is this and why is that and how this functions and shit..

So its a concept of bonding between worshipping nature and using lots of technology , and being able to still feel a natural hybrid of this world at the end of the day, where the natural becomes one with the un-natural.

Or something like that....