What jobs do you think aren't perceived as available by young girls/boys in today's modern society? We're told from such a young age, and repeatedly, that we can be whatever we want to be. In this PC world also, it's unlikely that anyone would receive much flak for entering a field in which their gender is the minority. Society is so so so much more accepting of these kind of things nowadays.

Also, it seems like you disagree that some jobs are more suited for one gender over the other (you said that's not rational). Do you? Do you think that men and women are equally suited for all jobs?

Its a big mental stretch for a direct link between wearing pink baby clothes and therefore being less likely to become a CEO.

The actual differences between males and females are not insignificant, they have different hormones running through their brains and their brains are differently wired, females have more connections between hemispheres and males have more connections between the front and back of the brain. This affects how people think. Dont get me wrong, women are perfectly capable of any job I can think of, if that particular woman is good at the job and the subjects that lead to it and she wants to do both of the aforementioned things; but that does not mean that a skew in numbers of males and females in different jobs is a surprise, males and females are different and have different brains, this gives rise to the probability of a person being suited to a particular job in the way I mentioned above different for different sexes and different jobs.



In response to the last paragraph: Where do you think females get the short end of the stick, as you claim they do? You say societal pressures, but where should the line be drawn - should all tv characters be genderless to avoid giving children ideas about what they should be? Should clothing shops all be unisex since you mentiom baby clothes?

If a woman believes they are paid less for the same job, in the US AUS and UK (these are the countries I know it exists in not the only countries the law is present), there are laws in place so that the woman in question can take it to court and get what she deserves its illegal to pay people differently because of their gender.

Hoe exactly do you think clothing colour affects the development of a child? I dont expect the child to understand why their parents put them in blue or pink clothes, and I also dont expect it to affect their development much. Stereotypes are unavoidable, the average person from culture or gender x does thing y more often than the average person from gender or culture z, therefore the stereotype among gender or culture z is that culture x does thing y.

What gendered treatments other than clothing do you think are common? How do they affect the child?

In modern schooling the path is not narrow, from when you first start the teachers say you can be anything you want to be if you work at it. They also dont treat boys and girls differently. Girls are not brought up to fill job x or told they cant fill job y.



Also you seem to be skirting round all the questions asked - "I think everybody can be qualified for any job given the right training" doesnt answer the question "do you think that men and women are equally suited to all jobs". You also didnt answer any of my questions, youre writing well written short essays that dont answer the questions posed.

So, yes, you do believe there are jobs that men are more suited for than women, and visa versa. Why would you say that understanding this wasn't rational then?


Do you actually believe this or are you just playing devil's advocate?

You also mentioned wage discrimination. Are you aware of the wage gap myth?

When we talk about the "Wage Gap", people misquote an asinine statistic that women make .78 cents on the dollar that men do in the U.S. It's really bad math, because it willfully ignores the thousands of factors that contribute to how much money people make in their careers and does a raw comparison which isn't useful information. Whenever you actually select for equal candidates across the gender aisle, that gap diminishes to almost complete statistical significance.

The gap is as small as you can imagine as students get out of college, and widens in the early 30s where women tend to become mothers. Single women at this time are still making 98% of what men do. Blindly saying "All men period make this much, divide it, they make this much per hour, that's more than women" ignores the life choices that the two genders make. On average, men work more hours in a work week. When you do that, obviously most people also collect overtime in the process. Women take more vacation days without factoring in child rearing and maternity leave then men do, so obviously men are making more money by actually showing up. Women are less okay with traveling and leaving where they currently live for a better paying job than men. Men are willing to work in more dangerous work environments than women are and are usually compensated for it. When women are presented with tons of opportunities in college, they are far more likely to choose academic jobs than jobs in the STEM fields which have higher yields. Fun fact - when a woman applies to a STEM field job, they are 3 to 1 more likely to get that job over the male counterpart of equal qualification.

When you look at all overall earnings for women compared to men, at hourly wage, for 30 hour work weeks and above, women make 1.1% more than men do. That's how men and women need to be compared - if two people have the same job, how much more money does one gender make than the other, and the answer is almost nothing. If you just go "well who makes more total, oh man men do at 19%. Well who makes more at full time jobs, well 9.1% but still that's significant!" without accounting for those very real decisions women make, you're performing bad science and bad math. Time magazine reported that in 147 of the 150 most populated states in the US, the median full-time salary of women was 8.1% higher than that of men.

Before you make the jump and say "Well women are just offered the bad paying jobs, and those jobs are bad paying jobs because they are dominated by women", that's also very false. There are jobs that each gender gravitates more, whether it be for culture reasons, social and parental upbringings, or biological, and it's not that "women just happened to get the shit jobs" because they don't. Veterinary sciences make tons and tons of money, and that field is absolutely dominated by women. Nursing, again a field where people make a great deal of money, 92% of registered nurses are women. So yes there are tons more women teachers and women social workers not making fat stacks, but they also dominate representation in high pay yield jobs.

I believe that is what Ele is referring to Oracle.


*Edit* Because I want to make a relevant contribution to the whole "Modern Feminism" thread concept -

It's really really easy to find extremists in any population. When one does that, they may use that paint brush and coat the entire group with those stereotypes. Yes, some feminists aren't true feminists, they want female superiority. They don't want equality. They are violent, dangerous, and ignorant. However, the vast majority of feminists (and I do consider myself a very loud feminist), are just logical good-hearted people. We recognize the biological differences between men and women, we accept people for who they are, and we aren't ignorant to the fact that women are not our lesser and deserve equal everything.

Would you be able to find out what the multivariable adjustments were in the first study?

When writing reports, studies or findings its important (and common practice everywhere) to include details like this showing how results were obtained for good reason, and I dont know why the authors of that study havent done it. Or I could just as easily say "I made multivariable adjustments found women earn 29% more than men!"

While Im not saying thats necessarily what theyve done, when analysing a report you need that information.


I can go through the other article in a week or so, it has too many links which are a pain to navigate on my phone

To analyse you dont just need factors, all equations used should be listed, as this demonstrates the method. This is usually done in the 2nd section (which is usually introduction) and the equations would be referred back to.

Different hours worked could give a very significant difference so it does also seem odd for the investigator not to include that

You can point to individual examples of jobs where men earn more than women, and I can the same with with jobs where women earn more than men (architecture, social work, advertising etc.).

None of this means anything though. This data doesn't represent some greater evil. Are female architects 'more valuable' than male ones because they're women? No. That'd be a silly claim to make, wouldn't it? There'd be no reason to jump right to sexism for the cause.

Interesting to note that the times have changed so much in the last half-century that female adwomen out-earn their male counterparts now - Don Draper's spinning in his grave.

Modern feminism has turned into a cult of women hating on men, hell i've seen white male feminists hating on white males. A lot of the shit they say and quote isnt true, such as the pay wage gap, and how all white males are racist pigs, it just isnt true. And smaiva, it's easy not to be a feminist, all you have to do is: 1. Not be a vegan such as yourself. And 2. Take what feminists say with a grain of salt. And 3. Proof read some of the shit they claim, because i guarantee 95% of it can be disproved with a little googling.

I'm sure you're not referring to my posts!!

The 'feminazis' are the loudest group of feminists by far, which may be why the legitimate 1st-world feminist issues are ignored by most people, and why people identify 'feminazi' perspectives as the current hegemonic 1st-world feminist narrative. I'm fairly certain this is true.

If modern feminism wasn't perceived by everyone to be utterly insane, more people would label themselves feminists. You ask people if they support equality of the sexes and you get super high percentage, you ask that same group of people if they consider themselves feminist and there's a massive drop-off. Similar studies to the one I've linked have been conducted in different 1st world countries, all with similar results.

Turns out being a shrieking feminazi/extremist turns people away from your ideology, rather than converts them.

So really, I don't think the fault lies with larger society for not parsing feminazi feminism from the rest of feminism - rather, the fault lies with the actual feminazis themselves (and to a lesser extent, the rest of the 'sane' feminists who clearly aren't being loud enough to lead the modern 1st-World feminist narrative).

I could say a similar thing with Islam. The narrative of Islam is that they're terrorists who want us dead. This narrative comes about from a relatively (w.r.t the entire Islamic world) small amount of extremist Islamic adherents, yet they are so loud - Loud enough that we have to remind people that #notallmuslims are terrorists.

The loudest group creates the dominant narrative. Usually, outside forces will have a very hard time changing that narrative, so the changing of the narrative has to start from within (meaning it's up to sane feminists to battle the feminazis, and it's up to the non-'death-oriented' Muslims to battle the terrorists).