Femenists want to make masculinity a hate crime.

[Az]

Think. What's the difference between statement #1:

Most of the people who get killed in workplace accidents earn very little relative to people in nice safe white-collar jobs.

and statement #2?

most of the people who get killed in workplace accidents earned very little relative to people in nice safe white-collar jobs

The answer is: none.

Both say that men, the ones taking the risky jobs, are paid lower wages. Both counter your argument.

Sheesh. go get some sleep.

[Japher]

Actually, the first one says that the dead worker is currently making less money... I think that is a big duh..

While the second one says that they did earn money.

How can someone who is dead make any money?

Either way, I think we all got what he was saying.

[Tingkai]

All right, I'm all ready looking stupid on this so it don't make a diff if I looked even worse.

The first one was definitely an own goal. Obviously people who are dead earn less because they don't earn anything.

In the second one I'm saying in the past tense that they earned less.

But I'm not getting where it contradicts what Diss said. (admittedly, I am tired and I am drunk).

[Imran Siddiqui]

it is plainly obvious that a majority of women are chosing not to work for these large corporations. Instead they chose to work at home or at a store on the corner that is open for only 3 hours a day...

I hate this argument. Women are choosing these type of jobs so that must mean they don't want to be in corporate American. Please. They are 'choosing' these jobs because centuries upon centuries of practice have ingrained that women are supposed to be the nuturers and caretakers. So that's what they do. I don't doubt for one second though, that those women wouldn't mind switching places with someone that works in corporate America. However, back when they were younger, women weren't supposed to do that sort of thing.

The telling thing, however, is what happens when more and more oppertunities are available and you tell them they can take those oppertunities. The present generation of woman doesn't 'choose' nearly as much to stay at home or work only 3 hours a day. There are more women than men in law schools in the US today, they are a substantial minority in business schools, they make up a large number in medical schools. Women don't WANT to do what their mothers were told what they should do. Because of all these women presently in higher education, it seems that women want just what men want. They want to be in a big firm or climb up the corporate ladder. If women, as a group, REALLY chose to stay at home or work only a few hours a day, you wouldn't see nearly the amount of applications from women to grad school.

Most women I've met want to do something more than their mother's were told was proper woman work. They want to be involved in the corporate world, or in Washington.

Once you open up oppertunities and tell them they can make it, women flock to them, indicating they aren't happy with the prior constraints on their 'choices'.

[Japher]

There are more women than men in law schools in the US today, they are a substantial minority in business schools, they make up a large number in medical schools.

Looks like they are being given the opportunities. They are flocking to careers exponentially. Thus, where is this prejudism, this unfairness in employemnt?

Thanks for proving my point Imran. That:

it is plainly obvious that a majority of women are chosing not to work for these large corporations.

They are 'choosing' these jobs because centuries upon centuries of practice have ingrained that women are supposed to be the nuturers and caretakers. So that's what they do. I don't doubt for one second though, that those women wouldn't mind switching places with someone that works in corporate America

And that is where we disagree. I don't think that either of us can validate out opinions on this matter. However, I do agree that their decision making process is based on centuries of refined breeding and that they should all be given the opportunity if there happens to be a mutant woman out there who actually wants to be the CEO of a Fortune 500 company. My point, however, is that they have the opportunity, they have the ability, it is just that they aren't taking it (as you pointed out above). Why? You say discrimination, I say choice. Yet, I have seen nothing that shows it is discrimination, and the large majority of women in buisness go into less competitive markets, so it leads me to believe it is choice...

If I am wrong, and women are being discriminated by the boys club then that is wrong... Yet, I don't see it.

[Ben Kenobi]

"cooking, cleaning, and going to church"

You mean this has changed?

I can see that men and women being equal, but in a Yin-Yang way, not a "divide a circile stright down through the centre" way.

UR: Well said. Is this not the crux of the argument? Look at the area of both halves of the Yin and Yang. Are they not equal? Are they exactly the same? No. That's the point I am trying to get across, that equality of essence need not mean equality of type.

Women are different then men in many ways, yet they are equal in value. Some of these differences account for the preferences between men and women for which jobs they want to work.

Imran:

Where's the proof that women could not become the head of a fortune 500 company should they want to? Are women prevented from getting the same qualifications as the men for these jobs? No. Instead, we find that women prefer to start their own businesses.

Also, consider your argument against the lazy men who are not performing as well as the women. In this you cite that the problem is not the equality of opportunity, but in how the men and women differ in their application to the task. In a race, if we make everyone a winner, than no one is. You have to award those who make the best effort, who run the best race.

Now, all we have to do is to get everybody starting from the same line, which is an enormous task in itself.

MtG:

Some of us down home types even help out people just to be nice.

I don't know whether to quote this, or to quote what you said about anger. This seems more tongue in cheek rather than wise.

[Ben Kenobi]

About the radical feminists:

You don't know what you are missing.

At least the conservative women have hair. One thing I want to remind people is that there are two different groups of feminists, ordinary feminists, and radical feminists. One example of an ordinary feminist is Susan B. Anthony or Mary Wollenstonecraft. A good example of radical feminists are the current National Organisation of Women.

Now, it may surprise you, but Susan B. Anthony and Mary Wollestonecraft were prolife. Some quotes:

Mary Wollenstonecraft:

"Women becoming, consequently, weaker...than they ought to be...have not sufficient strength to discharge the first duty of a mother; and sacrificing to lasciviousness the parental affection...either destroy the embryo in the womb, or cast if off when born. Nature in every thing demands respect, and those who violate her laws seldom violate them with impunity."

Susan B. Anthony:

"Guilty? Yes. No matter what the motive, love of ease, or a desire to save from suffering the unborn innocent, the woman is awfully guilty who commits the deed. It will burden her conscience in life, it will burden her soul in death; But oh, thrice guilty is he who drove her to the desperation which impelled her to the crime!"

http://www.feministsforlife.org

[Imran Siddiqui]

You say discrimination, I say choice. Yet, I have seen nothing that shows it is discrimination, and the large majority of women in buisness go into less competitive markets, so it leads me to believe it is choice...

What 'choice' is there when women were being told they couldn't do that sort of thing. They weren't as good in those things as men were, so they decided to start their own company?

It's like someone telling you that you can't be a doctor because you aren't smart enough over and over again until you believe it. Then when you have the choice between medical school and business school, you choose business. Someone could just say, well, Japher's don't choose medical schools (even though the situation was created where you would never have gone).

If that's choice to you, then so be it. I think it is years of discrimination resulting in a forced choice.

HOWEVER, things are getting better now. For the past couple decades, we've been telling women that they can do whatever they want to do. They can do anything that a man can do, and you see more women, who have recently graduated, moving into those types of jobs. You can't look at ALL women and say they are making choices in certain areas, because the older women were told they couldn't be in certain areas. The younger women aren't choosing the same paths.

Yet it isn't done yet (as you think it is). There is still gender bias by some of the people running these corportations. After all, many of them are from the time where women were told that they couldn't do this job. They don't rise as high in the company as men do. Look at what Gibsie said earlier in this thread. At his company women only rise so high, and then promotions for them stop, even if they may deserve it. I don't think his company is the only one with this problem (and may be another reason why some women want to start their own organization... because at least their organization won't have glass ceilings or bars to promotion).

Btw, the stat is 42% of new businesses are started by women (at least as one of the partners). This means men start 58%, right? It seems you are saying that men are more likely to work for Fortune 500 companies because women make the choice not to. So say 50% of men work at established companies and 50% start new ones (very conservative estimate). This means that 50% of men, which are about 24% of the population (men make up 48% of population) start 58% of all new businesses! If women are less likely to work at Fortune 500 companies and would rather start their own businesses, lets estimate 25% work at these companies, so 75% of the female population, which is about 39% of the population start 42% of all new businesses. There is a fairly large discrepency there. You may say that more women prefer to stay home and watch over the kids. I'd say they have been socially conditioned to believe they MUST do so. And what do you think the decrying that both parents have to work and leave junior alone is saying? That women are neglecting their 'duties' by going to work. It doesn't seem to me that women want to stay at home. On the contrary, whenever they can and are able to, they seem to want to work.

[Ben Kenobi]

Finally, I want to answer Ned's question, which has been generally ignored:

Has Canada nothing equivalent to the 1st Amendment in its constitution?

From the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Section 2: Fundamental Freedoms

b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

The problem comes from Section 15:

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

What does it mean to have the equal protection of the law? In this case, we have to turn to the criminal code of Canada, and their descriptions of a hate crime.

There are two sections we are concerned with, 318, and 319: "Advocating Genocide."

Currently, the list of groups which may be protected from hateful speech include (4) colour, race, religion or ethnic origin. Nothing else counts.

http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/resources/legislation/canadian_law/federal/criminal_code/criminal_code_hate.cfm

In this, we have a criminal code provision that limits Section 2 of the Charter because Section 15 equality rights. There is no provision within the Charter of a hierarchy of rights between Section 2 and Section 15.

[blackice]

They are 'choosing' these jobs because centuries upon centuries

No once again because they want thier own fortune 500... You seem to be hell bent on making women follow men, why? Did it ever occure to you that in fact they do think they could do better?

What 'choice' is there when women were being told they couldn't do that sort of thing.

Come'on this arguement was in the 50's, for god sake man we are in 2003. Where are you getting this stuff from? Old woman's weekly? As for the rest are you in the practice of demeaning women? Seems so by reading you post... As for your made up stats pure assumptions no facts, what is your aim here to create more myth?... On the other hand thanks for agreeing with the facts in some of your statements.

Section 319(1): Public Incitement of Hatred

Nothing else counts.

incite hatred against an identifiable group,

That statement includes, gender...

But this is where this bias government funded, government section is way out of line. This part of the criminal code is the reason they put in the disclaimer, my bet is on the advice of lawyers. In reality this was simply a bad stab at trying to take the impact away from a very concise and factual report done by concerned citizens. Who happen to men, go figure. Read:

Section 319(2) defines the additional offence of communicating statements, other than in private conversation, that wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.

Section 319(3) identifies acceptable defences. Indicates that no person shall be convicted of an offence if the statements in question:

are established to be true
were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds it was believed to be true
were expressed in good faith, it was attempted to establish by argument and opinion on a religious subject
were expressed in good faith, it was intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

So I beg to differ, IF I UNDERSTAND YOU RIGHT? Both cover each other in such a way that in fact the provisions balance each other to the point of making frivilous acusations such as the one's made by these bias individuals, the government one's..

In reality the government funded sector, wing of the government, is saying, we have the right to make such claims, but you do not... it is hate. Weak at best the research done in the men's study is sound, well founded, backed up and what this group fears the most true...

The government funded gender bias wing are simply wrong and in fact such claims by Imran could be concidered hate for the simple reason they have no baises in fact and promote hate against an identifiable group, men. Let alone women... Unconstitutional and a crime under the Criminal Code of Canada section Section 319 subsection (1)

I think without saying too much what you are about to see is a major cultural shift. This move by this bias group, government wing, is a bad one and will have a major concequence for thier funding. On the other hand it is good for all concerned to deal with reality, today not the past. We all hope, I think this will put a cap on government fund gender bias. Although the disclaimed is the out....

[blackice]

WASHINGTON, DC, APRIL 11, 1995 -- Women-owned businesses now employ 35 percent more people in the U.S. than the Fortune 500 companies employ worldwide, according to a national study announced today by The National Foundation for Women Business Owners (NFWBO) and Dun & Bradstreet Information Services (DBIS)

This compounds my points and makes me ask you Irman, who is the fortune 500 and WTFC? Me no F500 is not the cream of the crop. The Fortune 500 is an objective way of ranking companies based on a quantitative list that measures revenues. It shows that a company has substantial clout in the market, but it does not, in any real way, measure how well a company is managed, how its employees are treated, and how well it is operated.

The list that more accurately measures this is the Most Admired list, also ironically compiled by Fortune. This list entails both quantitative and qualitative factors that draw a better picture of a company's overall outlook.

Now go figure the most admired and most profitable was created by,,,oh a woman.........go figure....

Now it is 2003 any idea Imran how 73% employ 35 percent more people in the U.S. than the Fortune 500 companies employ worldwide turns into 118% upstart as of 2000 that is employs and owns? Heh go back to sleep and get a new subsciptions to old woman's weekly.

This whole topic is churned out by women stuck in the stone age and people sorry to say like you.

Real feminist's make it happen are making it happen and could care less about the few feminist's nazi's and or government involvement.

After all they now employ more churn out over four billion dollars and do it the way that suits them, fortune 500 what ever show me the money and let me do it my way and a way that suits my life style...

You getting the point? how to go ladies

[blackice]

'

[johncmcleod]

That's the first time I've ever beat a moderator in an argument.

[Az]

What mod?

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Most of the people who get killed in workplace accidents earn very little relative to people in nice safe white-collar jobs.

Bu they usually earn at least twice as much as the women who work at Wal-Mart.