Another "Big Misc" thread I think the 035 will enjoy

[Karl_Hungus]

Post that up in the thread. Unless you're a low test beta that is

I missed my window....Looks like I will have to sharpen my decorating skills and get in touch with my feelings.

Brb....searching for "The Notebook" on Netflix.

The problem with feminism is how it's evolved. It used to fight the system that was strongly tilted towards males. Women were held back. Now it's gone from fighting The Man to fighting men in general.

Many of these social movements begin with admirable intentions with sensible goals....but when many of those goals are met, the extremists take over and create new enemies to fight. It supplies a convenient reason for their continued existence.

[ElrondHubbard]

Did you really read my post?? I said (I'll rephrase my MEANING), MEN should be MEN with all their INHERENT MASCULINE TRAITS....and that women appreciate and are attracted to men, myself included, for many of these same traits. Personally, I have NO agenda to "push," other than wishing PEOPLE in general had, or wanted, to develop more empathy skills, because empathy is one of the most important interpersonal skills ANYONE could have, reflecting back on pre-social media history and especially now, in this crazy ass era. Empathy allows others to feel other people's pain, or at least, another person's point of view that may not be popular or agreed upon...but it's still "heard" because it's coming from another SOUL. Now, if people can "hear" that other view, but not "like" it or agree, but won't "bully" someone because of a difference in opinion.....that's just ONE example of exhibiting empathy.....it's NOT acting like a "pussy." A response is not being "demonized"- a BULLISH response should not be tolerated........that's the difference. At least, that's how I interpret, and others have, interpreted this whole big fukkinn "media" bad wagon. I agree the media shouldn't preach to anyone on how to act or "respond" in most circumstances. But all of us get a lot of info through all forms of media....that fact cannot be denied (good and bad!).

The grand thing about media in the age of the internet, is that when someone writes and posts a clueless essay, thousands of people can respond in kind.

My post was simply saying that being a socially moral, upstanding and kind (courteous) HUMAN BEING is what may make a difference for our children, grandchildren, nieces and nephews, students, etc. that we are raising or helping to mold.

Seems so simple -- and yet, seems so rare. We lead by example, whether we wish to or not.

[ElrondHubbard]

I missed my window....Looks like I will have to sharpen my decorating skills and get in touch with my feelings.

Brb....searching for "The Notebook" on Netflix.




Many of these social movements begin with admirable intentions with sensible goals....but when many of those goals are met, the extremists take over and create new enemies to fight. It supplies a convenient reason for their continued existence.

Not sure that the goals of feminism have actually been met. There's still that little wage gap thing going on.

There's still a lot of victim blaming going on with regards to sexual assault.

There's still that double standard that labels strong men as strong, but strong women as "bitchy".


I'd say, even for those of us who ARE good at decorating, we still have some work to do.

[Karl_Hungus]

Not sure that the goals of feminism have actually been met. There's still that little wage gap thing going on.

There's still a lot of victim blaming going on with regards to sexual assault.

There's still that double standard that labels strong men as strong, but strong women as "bitchy".

Agree with most points here except the wage gap. In order to truly demonstrate this, you would have to control for job type, hours worked, career stage, etc. Most of those who cite the wage gap don't take these things into consideration, but instead just do a broad comparison of men vs women average wage etc. If employers could get away with paying women less for the same work, I suspect you would see a rather lopsided distribution in favor of women -- after all, most corporations care about money above all else.

[ElrondHubbard]

Agree with most points here except the wage gap. In order to truly demonstrate this, you would have to control for job type, hours worked, career stage, etc. Most of those who cite the wage gap don't take these things into consideration, but instead just do a broad comparison of men vs women average wage etc. If employers could get away with paying women less for the same work, I suspect you would see a rather lopsided distribution in favor of women -- after all, most corporations care about money above all else.

Yes, you could. But some of those controlled studies have already been done, and the wage gap remains:

Some argue that women choose professions that traditionally pay less. Yet even in many female-dominated professions, guess what— men make more. Nearly 90 percent of nurses are women, yet they are paid, on average, 10 percent less than male nurses. Female secretaries, earn 84.5 cents of a white male secretary’s dollar. In fact women earn less than men, on average, in 99.6 percent of all occupations.

http://equalmeansequal.com/the-gender-pay-gap/

You could point to a lot of different reasons for this, and some might have some validity, but even there, we're still talking about cultural factors rather than natural factors. The United States ranks 65th in pay equality for similar work, according to the same source. Worse than Canada, UAE, Egypt, Botswana, and even Honduras.

Most of the arguments we have traditionally made for why women are disadvantaged in society have pointed to so-called natural differences. But those differences are arbitrarily chosen. Gender inequality is a social problem, not a natural one. It's really hard to justify any argument based on nature anyway, when our entire culture is focused on eliminating nature in our day to day lives and hinging our entire existence around artificial ingredients.

[Karl_Hungus]

Yes, you could. But some of those controlled studies have already been done, and the wage gap remains:



http://equalmeansequal.com/the-gender-pay-gap/

You have to look at studies that control for hours worked, job type, experience level, etc. Once you control for all of those things, the gap shrinks to near zero.

[Bando]

I have to ask. What specifically are you referring to? What do you think is going to happen?

The writing is on the wall. Cash gets banned from bridge tolls, welfare benefits now go on a card, you can pay for groceries by tapping your "phone" on an electronic device, your identification is scanned and logged if you buy a 6 pack of beer. Soon it will be just another logical step to just put the chip in the skin of your hand so no one can steal it or just use facial recognition to wear the mark on your forehead. Watched a movie in Church, maybe 1974 saying all this was coming, was LOL'ing thinking it was some sci-fi fantasy - it's no fantasy.

[etet1919]

See? I knew you and I would agree eventually. I'll go further and say that modern feminism causes SOME (maybe many) women to not only war against Men, but also have a self loathing for their own femininity. I find this very sad. Men should not be goaded into adopting qualities of a female, and Women shouldn't try to act like Men. CELEBRATE the differences. Each are strong. Each have their own strengths and weaknesses. That's why we are best when put together, Man and Woman, to make each other better through the combination of our strengths and recognition of our weaknesses. This philosophy of how nature works (God's plan?) is many thousands of years old.

I found your post intriguing.

It's funny...I've never considered myself a "feminist." Just a humble "humanitarian," and not in the political sense. I've always maintained closer friendships with men ever since my twenties. We've shared a similar sense of humor and they didn't "try to compete with me" or feel the need to put me down. It was just natural and fun being with them. But then work and family, naturally, became priorities.

I don't have a "self-loathing" for my femininity. I've always been proud of many of my attributes, even though I'm a perfectionist who is not perfect! The only times I think and "act like a man" are when I'm training (you guys are my beastly inspirations), physically looking after my female family members and joking around with the boys. Being assertive and self confident is not just a "masculine" trait.

I do agree we're all at our best when we can each communicate well with each other, and that's apparently going downhill at this moment in time.

[Iceman1800]

That's a minority view now and always has been. Just as misogynist men have always been in a minority.

True but those views seem to get the most media attention

[supramax]

The writing is on the wall. Cash gets banned from bridge tolls, welfare benefits now go on a card, you can pay for groceries by tapping your "phone" on an electronic device, your identification is scanned and logged if you buy a 6 pack of beer. Soon it will be just another logical step to just put the chip in the skin of your hand so no one can steal it or just use facial recognition to wear the mark on your forehead. Watched a movie in Church, maybe 1974 saying all this was coming, was LOL'ing thinking it was some sci-fi fantasy - it's no fantasy.

Was the movie based on Bible prophesy? You said: "What the Bible said". I never read the book, but i can't imagined it containing anything about what you said.

[7Seconds]

Was the movie based on Bible prophesy? You said: "What the Bible said". I never read the book, but i can't imagined it containing anything about what you said.

“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” Revelations 13:16-17

There is a group of Christians who believe the Apocalypse is near, and look for just about any sign they can use to prove they are right.

So any time some new piece of technology comes along that has anything to do with commerce, they jump all over it with this verse. It happened with UPC codes, credit cards, RFID chips, as well as Social Security #’s and I am sure it will happen with whatever comes next.

[supramax]

“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” Revelations 13:16-17

There is a group of Christians who believe the Apocalypse is near, and look for just about any sign they can use to prove they are right.

So any time some new piece of technology comes along that has anything to do with commerce, they jump all over it with this verse. It happened with UPC codes, credit cards, RFID chips, as well as Social Security #’s and I am sure it will happen with whatever comes next.

Got it. Thank you, very much.

[KeepItMoving]

I found your post intriguing.

It's funny...I've never considered myself a "feminist." Just a humble "humanitarian," and not in the political sense. I've always maintained closer friendships with men ever since my twenties. We've shared a similar sense of humor and they didn't "try to compete with me" or feel the need to put me down. It was just natural and fun being with them. But then work and family, naturally, became priorities.

I don't have a "self-loathing" for my femininity. I've always been proud of many of my attributes, even though I'm a perfectionist who is not perfect! The only times I think and "act like a man" are when I'm training (you guys are my beastly inspirations), physically looking after my female family members and joking around with the boys. Being assertive and self confident is not just a "masculine" trait.

I do agree we're all at our best when we can each communicate well with each other, and that's apparently going downhill at this moment in time.

Well, I don't know you, but you certainly don't sound like a feminist, at least the "some/many" that I was describing. You sound like a pretty reasonable, well adjusted Woman. You look damn good too! Cheers!

PS: I am an international man of intrigue. (YES, for all my haters, I am using humor here!)

[ElrondHubbard]

You have to look at studies that control for hours worked, job type, experience level, etc. Once you control for all of those things, the gap shrinks to near zero.

It depends, of course, on what you mean by control. I already quoted an example of an industry where that doesn't apply. As for job type, the very fact that women still tend to be concentrated into job types that earn less remains problematic, particularly since there's no obvious reason that those types of jobs should earn less.

The situation is improving, that much I agree on. In the geosciences, at least, the number of women entering and being promoted into high-level positions has increased notably during my career. But it still hasn't reached anywhere near parity. Particularly among field workers, my own specialty has seen precious few women, and when they do come out into the field, they have to endure behavior that is at best marginal. There's still a reservoir of misogyny among the ranks, unfortunately.

This applies to race as well. During my entire career, since the 1980's, I can count on one hand the number of black geologists I've worked with. And the most recent two weren't even African American, they were African. One was from Nigeria and one South Africa which is where they had their schooling and entry into the the field.

We have a long way to go, and the problem remains cultural and social, not "natural".

[ElrondHubbard]

“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.” Revelations 13:16-17

There is a group of Christians who believe the Apocalypse is near, and look for just about any sign they can use to prove they are right.

So any time some new piece of technology comes along that has anything to do with commerce, they jump all over it with this verse. It happened with UPC codes, credit cards, RFID chips, as well as Social Security #’s and I am sure it will happen with whatever comes next.

I remember reading a book in the 1970's about how bar codes are the work of the Devil.

[acrawlingchaos]

Was the movie based on Bible prophesy? You said: "What the Bible said". I never read the book, but i can't imagined it containing anything about what you said.

Using Hebrew Gematria or greek isopsephism (where numbers correspond to letters) the mark of the beast corresponds to Nero whose head appeared on Romes currency. The mark of the beast was a way to conceal political discourse regarding the emperor. In other much older texts the mark of the beast was 616, most likely corresponding to the initials of a ruler of that time.

The mark of Jesus is 888.

[Karl_Hungus]

It depends, of course, on what you mean by control. I already quoted an example of an industry where that doesn't apply.

The example you quoted doesn't factor in any of the variables I mentioned. There are studies that do, and it isn't that hard to do with an adequate data set. Take a look at this report by the Department of Labor -- in particular, the regression equations at the end. Once a number of relevant predictors are added to the model, the gap shrinks to ~5-6 percent. Even then, we can't make the unwarranted assumption that the leftover unexplained variance is the result of sexism, because there are yet other factors that were not added to the model. All things considered, the idea that women get paid less for the same work is largely false.

https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/public...l%20Report.pdf

[ElrondHubbard]

The example you quoted doesn't factor in any of the variables I mentioned. There are studies that do, and it isn't that hard to do with an adequate data set. Take a look at this report by the Department of Labor -- in particular, the regression equations at the end. Once a number of relevant predictors are added to the model, the gap shrinks to ~5-6 percent. Even then, we can't make the unwarranted assumption that the leftover unexplained variance is the result of sexism, because there are yet other factors that were not added to the model. All things considered, the idea that women get paid less for the same work is largely false.

https://www.shrm.org/hr-today/public...l%20Report.pdf

5-6 percent is not a trivial difference.

[Karl_Hungus]

5-6 percent is not a trivial difference.

It is 5-6 percent with the variables they included in the model. If they can explain nearly 3/4 of the gap (commonly ascribed to sexism) just by adding a few common sense predictors, it really calls in to question what additional variables might explain the remaining 5-ish percent -- it certainly doesn't follow that any unexplained variance should be automatically attributed to sexism.

[acrawlingchaos]

5-6 percent is not a trivial difference.

It really is trivial when considering for unknown factors that make a difference. It's also a FAR cry from the blatant lie of women making 75 cents on the mans dollar. I'd also wager 5-6% is narrowed even more when considering for a margin of error.

[7Seconds]

Using Hebrew Gematria or greek isopsephism (where numbers correspond to letters) the mark of the beast corresponds to Nero whose head appeared on Romes currency. The mark of the beast was a way to conceal political discourse regarding the emperor. In other much older texts the mark of the beast was 616, most likely corresponding to the initials of a ruler of that time.

The mark of Jesus is 888.

Both 666 and 616 refer to Nero. 666 is calculated using the Greek spelling of his name and 616 uses the Latin spelling.

There are other interpretations that the number is significant because the number six is less than seven—the number symbolizing perfection or completeness. The number six also represents man, since mankind was created on the sixth day of creation. The three sixes then may be a reference to the unholy Trinity.

Nero was not especially kind to early Christians, so it makes sense that there would be grandiose references to him in Christian writing at that time. There were also legends of Nero returning after death, which may have lent inspiration to the bizarre references to an anti-Christ and other stuff like that. So I tend to agree with the theory that the "mark of the beast" is likely a reference to Rome requiring identification papers stamped with the seal or "mark" of the Emperor in order to conduct financial transactions in Rome. It's just more persecution. I really don't think God was warning people in ~60 AD about one day needing RFID chips to buy stuff at Wal-Mart.

[tsoden]

I am one that does not really hold his emotions in. I never understood why people did this because honestly... it is NOT a sign of weakness. I did however at one time talk to someone... and was open to talking about family and relationships and stuff that the sterotypical "man's man" never talk about.. and I was asked by the individual what was wrong with me? I was a bit put off by this question so I asked "what do you mean by "what's wrong with me "". To which he responded that men don't talk the way I do about that sort of thing and that he found it fairly uncomfortable... To be honest... this guy came across as a "Hank Hill" kind of guy...


Anyway... I was a bit put off by this... and quite frankly told him that the modern man does not need to fall into the typical stereo types. We don't really talk much anymore.. but the point of all this is why should a man feel ashamed to talk about things that interest him?..even if it does not come across as typical "manly" stuff?

[ElrondHubbard]

It is 5-6 percent with the variables they included in the model. If they can explain nearly 3/4 of the gap (commonly ascribed to sexism) just by adding a few common sense predictors, it really calls in to question what additional variables might explain the remaining 5-ish percent -- it certainly doesn't follow that any unexplained variance should be automatically attributed to sexism.

The Bureau of Labor statistics are fine as far as they go, but they can be used to obfuscate as well as illustrate. Just as the unemployment figures don't count those who have given up searching in discouragement, making the numbers look lower than they are, predictors that the Labor Statistics don't include can be just as meaningful as those they do. If you look at the Bureau's own figures for occupation distribution, it shows clearly that the jobs that are overwhelmingly occupied by women tend to pay less, and those where women are poorly represented tend to pay more.

https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/occ_gen...m_1020_txt.htm

Dental Hygienists, Occupational Therapists, Nurses, Social Workers, Elementary School Teachers, are all female dominated, and tend to pay poorly. Database Administrators, Surgeons, Sales Representatives, Software Developers, Long Haul Truck Drivers, all tend to be male dominated, and pay more.

I think there's little doubt here that the amount of reward associated with these occupations is not truly representative of their value to society. What, then, is the cause of the pay discrepancy, and why would they be apparently more difficult for women to take part in?

You can point to a lot of reasons that are not sexism, and I would agree with you, but there are also causes related to sexism.

[acrawlingchaos]

The Bureau of Labor statistics are fine as far as they go, but they can be used to obfuscate as well as illustrate. Just as the unemployment figures don't count those who have given up searching in discouragement, making the numbers look lower than they are, predictors that the Labor Statistics don't include can be just as meaningful as those they do. If you look at the Bureau's own figures for occupation distribution, it shows clearly that the jobs that are overwhelmingly occupied by women tend to pay less, and those where women are poorly represented tend to pay more.

https://www.dol.gov/wb/stats/occ_gen...m_1020_txt.htm

Dental Hygienists, Occupational Therapists, Nurses, Social Workers, Elementary School Teachers, are all female dominated, and tend to pay poorly. Database Administrators, Surgeons, Sales Representatives, Software Developers, Long Haul Truck Drivers, all tend to be male dominated, and pay more.

I think there's little doubt here that the amount of reward associated with these occupations is not truly representative of their value to society. What, then, is the cause of the pay discrepancy, and why would they be apparently more difficult for women to take part in?

You can point to a lot of reasons that are not sexism, and I would agree with you, but there are also causes related to sexism.

Women are not forced into those occupations. This tells me that women are choosing lower paying jobs.

If you want to discuss the merit of why one occupation pays more than another, that's a discussion. You are avoiding the discussion and simply stating the discrepancy is due to sexism with no actual evidence. Where is your evidence that it is indeed due to sexism?

[Cass40]

Women are not forced into those occupations. This tells me that women are choosing lower paying jobs.

If you want to discuss the merit of why one occupation pays more than another, that's a discussion. You are avoiding the discussion and simply stating the discrepancy is due to sexism with no actual evidence. Where is your evidence that it is indeed due to sexism?

Okay, I have a question. Let's say women are biologically (is that the right word) more interested in people than things, for example.

So how are they supposed to want to be let's say an engineer, which is an occupation that appeals to more men, who tend to be more interested in things than people?

[Farley1324]

Okay, I have a question. Let's say women are biologically (is that the right word) more interested in people than things, for example.

So how are they supposed to want to be let's say an engineer, which is an occupation that appeals to more men, who tend to be more interested in things than people?

To make more money?

Or maybe women are less likely to pick a job they don't think they like on the basis of money, and more likely to do something they believe they will (or actually do) enjoy, even though it pays less than some other choices (then complain about making less)

[Cass40]

To make more money?

Or maybe women are less likely to pick a job they don't think they like on the basis of money, and more likely to do something they believe they will (or actually do) enjoy, even though it pays less than some other choices (then complain about making less)

Well it would be difficult to do something that totally goes against your interests just to make money. How would you even be able to do it if you have no interest in it.

[Farley1324]

Well it would be difficult to do something that totally goes against your interests just to make money. How would you even be able to do it if you have no interest in it.

I always thought that was called "work" lol

[acrawlingchaos]

Okay, I have a question. Let's say women are biologically (is that the right word) more interested in people than things, for example.

So how are they supposed to want to be let's say an engineer, which is an occupation that appeals to more men, who tend to be more interested in things than people?

I'd rather sit at home and play video games all day, but that doesn't make money. I've done jobs I don't like because it paid well for my skill level.

Though I guess I'm not understanding the question. There are a myriad amount of reasons someone would choose a lower paying job over a higher paying one.

Well it would be difficult to do something that totally goes against your interests just to make money. How would you even be able to do it if you have no interest in it.

Men do this all the time... I still don't understand your point.

[Mark1T]

Okay, I have a question. Let's say women are biologically (is that the right word) more interested in people than things, for example.

So how are they supposed to want to be let's say an engineer, which is an occupation that appeals to more men, who tend to be more interested in things than people?

Not sure if I understand your question, but, if I may give my opinion, it indicates that women over the past several decades have increasingly become more ambitious. With that ambition, I believe that women have a competitive edge with professional degrees such as engineering as a result of being more biologically interested in people, making them more empathetic, or more in tune to the needs of others, as in customers and colleagues. While men, not all men, tend to be more in tune with themselves and naturally compete versus working as a team.

This is why I promote and fully support women professionally. I love to work with women not because I need a date, but because they are very valuable.

These are my opinions based upon my experience and my attitude.

If I had any advice for women to make more money, it would be to ask for it. One reason some women do not get paid as much as men is because they are not aggressive enough in asking for more money. So, with that ambition, there should be confidence.