Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i don't necessarily agree with the OP but i do feel like this is a nice "hot" topic for the pols to use mid term. no one actually agreed or disagreed with my previous point which i think is valid.
Agree. Most politicians will have their 'spin Meister' analysts 'selectively' pull statistical data to portray a picture without a large context if it enables them to stir the pot. Conflict, controversy, identifying flash point issues by demographic identifiers like gender are ideal tools the politician and their advertising / lobbyist ilk love to create dissension.
The WSJ article that did the comparison with the noted differences and status between the genders when 'normalized' essentially showed there is slight difference. As a few others wisely aptly pointed out, the priority choices women make (thank you to you wise women ) to raise children and be mothers or serve in capacities where their inherent nurturing nature can be fulfilled will lead to the discrepancies the 'selective' politically driven analyst will focus on. Putting it in context is not the thing - it's selling a story to create a voting bloc driven by single flash point issues (simplistic jingoistic slogans et al).
This dissension inherently is used to $ell $omebody $omething: political programs, products and services, you name it - to make someone money off of promoting discord. It's the same base level greed power corollary to the investment banker / hedge fund manager who drools at the thought of conflict in countries whereby they can make greater profits when their is blood in the streets. Destabilize, rebuild, coopt leaders, financing coercion, direct funding flows, control resources (lather rinse repeat....)
I'm thinking it's because the qualifications and necessary skills for the armed forces has evolved from brute force to something else. Nobody (with a brain) will argue there is no physical difference between men and women so obviously to take advantage of the talents of both we need a way to select the best that isn't based on one attribute alone.
When a 220 lb male soldier is wounded, the other male soldiers are dead and a 120 lb. female solider is left to carry him to safety as quickly as possible I suppose that we've evolved beyond her physical limitations in that scenario being an issue.
"So on one hand….
We say that men should be punished more severely under the law for domestic abuse or assault because men are stronger and more capable of harm.
Then, on the other hand, we say…
That women should be allowed equal opportunity in the armed forces, police, firefighting or EMTs because men and women are equally capable physically."
What? What does one have to do with the other? Honestly, I have no idea what you're saying there. Are you saying abuse & assault should be legal because there are female soldiers, police, firefighters & EMT's? Could that logic be any more faulty?
"So on one hand….
We say that men should be punished more severely under the law for domestic abuse or assault because men are stronger and more capable of harm.
Then, on the other hand, we say…
That women should be allowed equal opportunity in the armed forces, police, firefighting or EMTs because men and women are equally capable physically."
What? What does one have to do with the other? Honestly, I have no idea what you're saying there. Are you saying abuse & assault should be legal because there are female soldiers, police, firefighters & EMT's? Could that logic be any more faulty?
Not even close.
I was saying that if we have a society that says that women are capable of being soldiers, police officers, firefighters and EMTs because we have gender equality and recognize that women are capable of the same things that men are physically then our laws for things like domestic abuse and assault by female perpetrators should be applied equally as well. I am in NO WAY saying abuse and assault should be legal by anyone, I am saying that the punishment for such crimes should be applied equally REGARDLESS of gender.
You can't have it both ways. You can't have a women who is guilty of domestic assault given a lesser punishment than a man in the same circumstance just because she is a female while we also say that women are fully equal in the armed services, police and first responders.
In the case of females guilty of assault and crimes, as a society we really don't punish this as severely as we do with men, largely because we've held on to the old ideas that women are weaker and not as capable of violence or don't have the same strength or capability as a man would.
Meanwhile, we say that women are fully capable of being combat soldiers, police, firefighters and EMTS because they ARE as physically capable as men.
These are just examples, my argument is that gender equality is fine but it needs to TRULY be gender equality! There is no special treatment based on gender.
Women absolutely have the right to make the same wages and their male counterparts and be allowed to apply for any job or position they'd like to apply for, whether it's a combat solider or a business office.
BUT…
Female criminals should not be viewed or treated any differently than male criminals in cases of assault and female soldiers should not have modified physical requirements.
And then pop out a few babies. Why are women so up in arms stating that they dont get paid as much as men. Its a frivolous argument and makes good politics in a mid-term year but other than that, there are many underlying reasons why women do not make as much as men and it has nothing to do with prejudice.
Why do men feel they need to spawn and then dump the screaming brats on the wife?
If you don't want to raise your own kids, then hire a nanny and let your wife work. When you can't afford a fancy vacation because your wife is paid 70 cents on the dollar - I don't want too hear you whining.
And then pop out a few babies. Why are women so up in arms stating that they dont get paid as much as men. Its a frivolous argument and makes good politics in a mid-term year but other than that, there are many underlying reasons why women do not make as much as men and it has nothing to do with prejudice.
Not all women have babies. I'm 52 and never had kids. Should we apply different standards depending on whether or not one wants to reproduce? What about men who are stay at home dads, should they have to declare this intent early in their career, to make sure they are paid less as you feel female full-time caregivers should be? What about women whose kids are grown and gone? Who keeps track of all this, and how? Seems a lot simpler to just pay people the same salary range for the same job.
Seems a lot simpler to just pay people the same salary range for the same job.
Why, when it's too easy to be prejudiced and rationalize it all away with ridiculous arguments?
I heard a line in a movie (I think) about this issue and a man was justifying the disparity in pay between the genders. The woman's argument was that she shouldn't get paid less just because she *might* have children to which the guy said "You have the parts." She shoots back "Well, using that logic, you could be a rapist."
The reality is notwithstanding the differences in physical strength, there is no reason that women should not be paid equally for equal performance and the only people that believe that lie are the ones not getting the raw end of the deal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) to raise children and be mothers or serve in capacities where their inherent nurturing nature can be fulfilled will lead to the discrepancies the 'selective' politically driven analyst will focus on. Putting it in context is not the thing - it's selling a story to create a voting bloc driven by single flash point issues (simplistic jingoistic slogans et al).
What about men who are stay at home dads, should they have to declare this intent early in their career, to make sure they are paid less as you feel female full-time caregivers should be? What about women whose kids are grown and gone? Who keeps track of all this, and how? Seems a lot simpler to just pay people the same salary range for the same job.