When does the search for gender "equality" become gender discriminiation.

djsfantasi

Joined Apr 11, 2010
7,911
Your attitude is rare and I thank you for it. Unfortunately social engineering starts early... and begins in the family. The societal expectations are there requiring us to submit to certain roles and really there is nothing wrong with it as long as that is what you want. But we do not get to choose do we? But this striving for equality is one sided. We celebrate a woman who took up woodworking, but what would happen to a man who decides to take up quilting? Both require equal amount of skill and creativity
Your thoughts and my experience suggest to me that perhaps it is males who face the challenge.

In the following question I have my own opinion but would like to see others. Who do you think will, in general, will succeed? A man who quilts or a woman woodworker?

My issue is that defining “gender equality” is has to consider many more dimensions than are usually addressed. This particular topic is multi-dimensional and quantum mechanics may be able to teach us something. How about a vector describing “adaptability”? How about “visual” versus “concrete”? And many others.
 

justtrying

Joined Mar 9, 2011
435
Your thoughts and my experience suggest to me that perhaps it is males who face the challenge.

In the following question I have my own opinion but would like to see others. Who do you think will, in general, will succeed? A man who quilts or a woman woodworker?

My issue is that defining “gender equality” is has to consider many more dimensions than are usually addressed. This particular topic is multi-dimensional and quantum mechanics may be able to teach us something. How about a vector describing “adaptability”? How about “visual” versus “concrete”? And many others.
I think right now, in western society it is males that faces a challenge in many ways. I like your questions. It would have been easier if this was a quantum mechanics problem...

A man entering a woman dominated field right now would potentially face a backlash both from women and men. So a male quilter might not fare that well. Of course this is a generilizarion and depends on people involved.

From my personal experience, the perceived "discrimination" is simply treatment any newbie would get as they are seen as an unwanted intrusion and they seemply need to prove themselves. I have experienced that. Mechanics rip off both men and women once thet figure out that the client is clueless. So do all other contractors.

The one true setback for women is childbearing. But that is a toxic topic. I truly think it is easily solved if we just worked together.

V
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
This is an absurd statement. For the record, I'm male, and I'm interested in people who are interested in ideas.
Generally speaking ... look at the population on the +2d areas in the bell curve. Why can't a tech company have proportional gender equality? Interested in ideas? What is the idea? Something that garners MONEY?

Your male. Your interested in people. Interview 100 people. Group those people by gender. Look at the graduation rates .... in STEM. How's the gender distribution? Look at the graduation distribution in Social Sciences, How's the gender distribution? STEM would be things, Social Sciences would be people.

So you believe that humans are born competent in STEM, that those who succeed in technical fields are wired differently than those who don't show aptitude or interest? Does education/opportunity/mentorship play any role?
I never said they were BORN with STEM interests, nor have I said they were BORN with Social Science interests. Look at the occupational distribution in egalitarian countries, by gender. Explain the gender differences? Do you think the social scientists really liked finding that tidbit out? Boil it down to interests.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
Ugh.

To any young women reading this thread: You're going to run into people who think like this; it sucks, but unfortunately we still have cavemen living among us. Just remember that they are ignorant and scared of you. Math doesn't discriminate, so devour as much of it as you can. And don't listen to anyone who tries to tell you what you are or are not capable of.
You don't know anything about me. Of the five women that worked for me in the 1980s, 60% went on to complete their career in the service. One took advantage of an early discharge for pregnant women to be at home with her child, and the other was NOT recommended for retention. I suspect if the one who hadn't left early, would have continued with her career.

Is there equal gender distribution in bricklaying, construction, bomb disposal, and commercial fishing in Alaska?

The gender rarity is not because of any discrimination. In a society where you get to choose what you want to do, you choose what piques your interests. Equality of opportunity is the rule, equality of outcome can have an adverse effect on competence.

Do you think we should grab women off the street and force them into STEM? Good luck with that idea.

At best, you can identify talent and encourage them to maximize that talent. Where ever that interest leads them. To do otherwise, they are NOT FREE individuals. FREEDOM.
 

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
7,513
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I'd rephrase this:
The gender rarity is not because of any discrimination.
to: "The gender rarity is not only because of discrimination."

There really is gender discrimination out there, but it's far from being the only factor involved in the way genders are distributed throughout the industries.
 
Last edited:

justtrying

Joined Mar 9, 2011
435
Generally speaking ... look at the population on the +2d areas in the bell curve. Why can't a tech company have proportional gender equality? Interested in ideas? What is the idea? Something that garners MONEY?

Your male. Your interested in people. Interview 100 people. Group those people by gender. Look at the graduation rates .... in STEM. How's the gender distribution? Look at the graduation distribution in Social Sciences, How's the gender distribution? STEM would be things, Social Sciences would be people.



I never said they were BORN with STEM interests, nor have I said they were BORN with Social Science interests. Look at the occupational distribution in egalitarian countries, by gender. Explain the gender differences? Do you think the social scientists really liked finding that tidbit out? Boil it down to interests.
There is a lot wrong with these statements. Consider going back to our early pioneering days and whether women were able to perfom the same function as men? Hunt, fish, build a homestead, protect their family. Where I come from, the answer to all those questions is yes.

Regarding STEM, everyone finds it hard. I am a woman and I mostly tutored men. It is less acceptable for them to fail in those areas. And that is the social pressure and the discriminating factor.

For those wondering about Alaska, I live close to Haida Gwaii, a wet rugged island, and I would challenge you to go out there and check out how many women are living alone building cabins for themselves. I actually feel that this is becoming a reverse pressure - to drop the "feminine" and swing the other way. Never a happy medium.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
I never said the early humans didn't have it rough. We are talking about today. Yes, there are women who do many tasks equally with men. They are NOT the norm today. The same is said for men working in the fields dominated by women.

To cmartinez point, of including discrimination in my statement, I prefer to rid the world of discrimination where I see it. I call it out, as it is a right vs wrong issue. Yes, the world still has assholes who use discrimination. That doesn't make it right. I hate people who accentuate the difference as it only keeps discrimination alive and well in society.

More power to the women who do what they choose to do, irrespective of the social engineers desires.

I'm for equality of opportunity. I'm against equality of outcome. Given a list of standards, those who meet the standards are competent, those who don't aren't competent. I hope all notice the discrimination was based on competence and competence alone. Equality of opportunity is also the equality to either succeed or fail.
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
I agree with most of what you're saying, but I'd rephrase this:


to: "The gender rarity is not only because of discrimination."

There really is gender discrimination out there, but it's far from being the only factor involved in the way genders are distributed throughout the industries.
Where are the supervisors of those who discriminate? Tacit agreement, unpunished, will allow discrimination to flourish. This is where an individual takes the stand. Of course, they could be considering their cushy job and don't want to make waves, only demonstrating their weak ass leadership skills.
 

justtrying

Joined Mar 9, 2011
435
I never said the early humans didn't have it rough. We are talking about today. Yes, there are women who do many tasks equally with men. They are NOT the norm today. The same is said for men working in the fields dominated by women.

To cmartinez point, of including discrimination in my statement, I prefer to rid the world of discrimination where I see it. I call it out, as it is a right vs wrong issue. Yes, the world still has assholes who use discrimination. That doesn't make it right. I hate people who accentuate the difference as it only keeps discrimination alive and well in society.

More power to the women who do what they choose to do, irrespective of the social engineers desires.

I'm for equality of opportunity. I'm against equality of outcome. Given a list of standards, those who meet the standards are competent, those who don't aren't competent. I hope all notice the discrimination was based on competence and competence alone. Equality of opportunity is also the equality to either succeed or fail.
In theory there is equality of opportunity. True division is based on access to money. I have met my share of priveldged people. Why were they priveleged? They came from stable, established, well to do upper middle class families. Greater access to money generally means greater privelege.

However, children of today are faced with different challenges:

https://www.vancouversun.com/news/l...tle-over-treatments-for-transgender-youth/amp

Talk about destroying young lives.
 

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
7,513
Greater access to money generally means greater privelege.
I have nothing against privilege... hell, I wish I had been privileged myself, and in a certain way, I was. What I dislike is when privileged people are not humble enough to admit they were privileged, and when they know they're privileged and yet they waste and squander their unique opportunities and resources.

And when one comes to think of it, all smart people are privileged. Be them rich or poor. None of us actually deserve the intelligence we were given, or the good looks, or whatever ... what matters is what you do with them and how you put them at the service of others.
 

justtrying

Joined Mar 9, 2011
435
I have nothing against privilege... hell, I wish I had been privileged myself, and in a certain way, I was. What I dislike is when privileged people are not humble enough to admit they were privileged, and when they know they're privileged and yet they waste and squander their unique opportunities and resources.

And when one comes to think of it, all smart people are privileged. Be them rich or poor. None of us actually deserve the intelligence we were given, or the good looks, or whatever ... what matters is what you do with them and how you put them at the service of others.
Humility is not a skill that most posess unfortunately. That I think creates many of the issues. But so does the fact that many are not open to learning, often due to prior negative experiences I find. I find it interesting thou to read about other cultures and how much worse it can get... S. Korea or Japan... for conformity for example
 

JoeJester

Joined Apr 26, 2005
4,390
Access to money is a non-issue. With all the grants out there, money should be no problem.

There are some grants that are means tested, specifically to assist lower incomes.

I use to think anyone could be trained. Then I reviewed the classification systems of the armed services. It appears I drew an incorrect conclusion.

The AFQT, armed forces qualification test, discriminates on those capable of being trained to those who are not. There is a minimum score to be qualified for enlistment. Then there is the ASVAB test to see if your likely to be successful in the different schools. Of course, you can go the other way and get a congressional appointment to the Army, Navy, or Air Force Academies. The Coast Guard Academy still is based on an exam.

Like it or not, there have been many in the military who used their GI benefits to attend college. Of course they earned that benefit.

When I hear the words "white privilege" my thought about my life and no "privilege existed. My mom worked hard to send me to a parochial school. Hell, we were on welfare also. White privilege statements remind me of racism. Once you discriminate by any of the EEOC categories, you earned that title.

So, if you give someone who isn't competent to attend college the money to attend, are you not setting them up for failure? Why are there so many remedial courses in college for people who didn't get those skills in high school? I'm talking about those who went directly from high school to college. That too is a set up for failure.

Look at the drop out rates, I mean the graduation rates. There was equality of opportunity on the front end. There is no equality of outcome on the back end. We can fix that. Stop measuring competence.
 

justtrying

Joined Mar 9, 2011
435
Access to money is a non-issue. With all the grants out there, money should be no problem.

There are some grants that are means tested, specifically to assist lower incomes.

I use to think anyone could be trained. Then I reviewed the classification systems of the armed services. It appears I drew an incorrect conclusion.

The AFQT, armed forces qualification test, discriminates on those capable of being trained to those who are not. There is a minimum score to be qualified for enlistment. Then there is the ASVAB test to see if your likely to be successful in the different schools. Of course, you can go the other way and get a congressional appointment to the Army, Navy, or Air Force Academies. The Coast Guard Academy still is based on an exam.

Like it or not, there have been many in the military who used their GI benefits to attend college. Of course they earned that benefit.

When I hear the words "white privilege" my thought about my life and no "privilege existed. My mom worked hard to send me to a parochial school. Hell, we were on welfare also. White privilege statements remind me of racism. Once you discriminate by any of the EEOC categories, you earned that title.

So, if you give someone who isn't competent to attend college the money to attend, are you not setting them up for failure? Why are there so many remedial courses in college for people who didn't get those skills in high school? I'm talking about those who went directly from high school to college. That too is a set up for failure.

Look at the drop out rates, I mean the graduation rates. There was equality of opportunity on the front end. There is no equality of outcome on the back end. We can fix that. Stop measuring competence.
On paper, access to money is a non issue. In real life it always will be. I think this discussion became one on whether there is equality of opportunity and I suppose there is as long as everyone is aware of what opportunities are out there to get the money. But are they? I certainly was not when I was starting out. I could have been in much better position now...
 

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
7,513
On paper, access to money is a non issue. In real life it always will be.
yeah ... I was going to comment on that too, but I didn't want to digress ... in most other countries, money is a very big issue ... take for instance, the interest rate ... what's its current value in the US ... about 2.25 to 2.25%? Down here it's around 30 to 35% per year. So money is not at all easy to come by, even if the borrower has all the necessary guarantees for a loan.

But I'm not complaining ... that's just the way it is. And one needs to find ways to play the system.
 
Last edited:

justtrying

Joined Mar 9, 2011
435
yeah ... I was going to comment on that too, but I didn't want to digress ... in most other countries, money is a very big issue ... take for instance, the interest rate ... what's its current value in the US ... about 2.25 to 2.25%? Down here it's down to around 30 to 35% per year. So money is not at all easy to come by, even if the borrower has all the necessary guarantees for a loan.

But I'm not complaining ... that's just the way it is. And one needs to find ways to play the system.
I completely agree with one fact - whoever plays the system best will get the most out of it. In our world that is the key competency to master. I personally do not have it.
 

oz93666

Joined Sep 7, 2010
737
Gender equality is social manipulation by satanic controllers who (try to) run the world .... they now have transgender freaks coming into schools telling children they can choose their sex ... and have sex change operations free ( in the UK)

To fully understand what is going on study the work of David Icke or Alex Jones.
 

cmartinez

Joined Jan 17, 2007
7,513
... I personally do not have it.
Most people don't have it ... but it's not their fault. It's because, by design, the System purposely hides all pertinent information required to get inside it. The System has back doors especially designed to make it easier to get in for politicians and interest groups.
 

justtrying

Joined Mar 9, 2011
435
Most people don't have it ... but it's not their fault. It's because, by design, the System purposely hides all pertinent information required to get inside it. The System has back doors especially designed to make it easier to get in for politicians and interest groups.
I think you left out sociopaths (of course some politicians are sociopaths, but not all psychopaths are politicians) :eek:
 
Top