Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

[Siggie]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

Just in your previous post you said that the IQ test doesn't mean much, so I guess it won't be bragging.

I didn't say that IQ tests don't mean much nor did I say that differences in IQ don't mean much. I said 3-5pt differences don't mean much. I was hinting at a larger difference than that. But, alas, that's neither here nor there. Each person should be evaluated on the cogency and soundness of their argument and not on their intelligence nor their credentials. As the late, great, Sagan said, "there are no authorities in science."

The things they assert are not sound..? That is I assume solely based on your skepticism, correct?

You misunderstood. It is not based on skepticism alone because I READ the quotes that were attributed to them in the news article you posted. I said I disagreed with what they said in the quotes in the article you posted from a mass media source. So, I did indeed read that one. What I have not read is the article which should be given more weight because it is not susceptible to the misrepresentations of the less scientifically literate news reporter.

And I thanked Fed for doing so, but I asked you to present evidence so you don't continue your habit of making statements and presenting them as facts, without providing the proper evidence.

The source of the information was an acquaintance of Fed's and I asked him if he would support what I said, as he has been following this person's reports of the conditions in Armenia encountered in the course of the work with these orphanages for longer than I have. I did not fail to cite a source when you asked, I merely asked him to do it (1) for the reason above that he is more knowledgeable on this particular source and (2) because you seem predisposed to twist my words and disagree with everything I say because you have already made up your mind about me.

This point and intelligence are the only things you asked me to cite a source for, so I resent your implication that I, a scientist, mind you, need to be taught to cite my sources. Notice (see below) the sources I cite are scientific and yours were media articles.

Notice that I have never explicitly or implicitly clung to the 5 point difference. You claimed that men and women have equal intelligence and I pointed you to a study that didn't quite agree with your statement. Make what you want out of it.

You pointed to a single study when there is a vast body of research on the subject of sex differences in cognitive abilities/intelligence. So, finding one study to support what you say doesn't say much because replication and consideration of all the evidence as a whole is necessary before drawing conclusions. Note: there are also some studies which find an advantage for women, but I am not going to go there for the same reason above.

Even the researchers that argue that there is a difference, acknowledge that MOST researchers say there is not a meaningful sex difference.
Now, let's review some things that are clear from the literature. What is being argued about is general or fluid intelligence, so they are not talking about subtests or specific cognitive abilities because it is clear that these exist (e.g. men outperform on spatial tasks, a difference that has been demonstrated to be hormonal and a result of testosterone as there are gains made even in men after they are given more testosterone; On the flip side, women excel at verbal communication and memory tasks).

So, on to some sources...

Halpern, D.F. (2001). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. (3rd Ed). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

- discusses: problems with testing "ability" compared to "achievement" and why we need to be cautious about the extrapolations we make (i.e. the conclusions we draw), the important distinction between statistical and practical significance, and the methodological debate which is tied to the debate over whether or not there is a statistical difference or not.

Colom, R. & Garcia-Lopez, O. (2002). Sex differences in fluid intelligence among high school graduates. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 445-451.

- Found that when calculating fluid intelligence, there is no sex difference.

Halpern, D.F. & LaMay, M.L. (2000). The smarter sex: A critical review of sex differences in intelligence. Educational Psychology Review, 12, 229-246.

- A review article (meaning it's considering/summarizing/evaluating all the research up to this point) which concludes there are no meaningful differences.

Jensen, A.R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Also, concludes there no differences have been satisfactorily demonstrated

Let me pause to point out that what I am finding by reading the literature is that there is disagreement (methodological as I said above) about how general intelligence should be calculated. There is one way in which they can be calculated that has shown a difference, a very modest one (~3.8-5pts), and the majority of researchers argue that it is improper to calculate it this way. This is the way that Lynn calculates it, by the way (that's the professor the news article you linked quoted.)


Deary, I.J., Irwing, P., Der, G., and Bates, T.C. (2006). Brother-sister differences in the g factor in intelligence: Analysis of full opposite-sex siblings from the NLSY1979.Intelligence, 35,451-456.

- Even when calculated in the way that does show a statistically significant mean difference, the difference is tiny. It is 7% of the standard deviation. Further, there is significantly more variability in men's scores than in womens scores. This means predicting men's scores is more difficult and carries a larger estimation error. As an aside, note here that the second author, Irwing, is the co-author of the paper the news article you cited covered.

In summary, this is an issue that is far from settled and concluding that there is a difference in intelligence is not possible.

No profitable business can afford to say nay to qualified candidates. Armenian businesses and institutions don't have a problem with hiring women, so I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up.

Agreed, but that is not the only consideration. No optimally run business would do this. However the willingness of the business to hire qualified applicants is only one part of the problem. We must also encourage ALL qualified applicants to apply. So, the willingness of the business is irrelevant if women won't apply to some jobs (or men to different jobs for that matter) because of social stigma or social acceptance. Women may be hesitant to apply if society is going to label them as an irresponsible parent, bad wife, etc.

If you believe that men are equal to women then women cannot pick and choose the rights that men have and they want, as this would mean they can pick and choose which responsibilities they want and that would be privilege and not equality.

There is either absolute equality or no equality. It's an all or none deal.

I like your values towards family. But here is a thought. By giving yourself the ability to terminate your career "the moment my career affects my baby or my relationship" you are effectively giving yourself the ability to quit work anytime. Since you didn't mention that the move to quit your job will come from "mutual understanding" between you and your husband, nor whether your husband can stay home instead of you to take care of your baby, I am only going to assume that you are giving yourself the right to quit work any time and have the privilege of being supported by your husband whenever you so wish.

Since you give yourself the right to quit work anytime, it's only natural that your husband will have no say in it; therefore, he himself cannot have the right to quit work anytime, otherwise it would interfere with your right to do so. That is not equality, that is privilege. Which would be fine if you are not a proponent of equal rights. However, since you imply that you agree with Siggie's points, then it's a fair assumption that you, too are a proponent of equal rights.

If this assumption is true, then you correctly demonstrated the moral of the story I posted earlier, as you gained rights without the prior removal of privilege and the addition of responsibilities, and at any point reserve the right to pick and chose between responsibility and privilege.

The privilege I speak of is having a husband to support one whenever one wishes it to be so.

The responsibility I speak of is being a wage slave for the family and not having the luxury of quitting work whenever one wishes.

And the right I speak of, is the right not to consult one's husband before starting work, and as a result gaining the additional right of quitting whenever one wishes (May I say that that's a right that most responsible fathers can never have (except for the wealthy ones))

You are making assumptions about the family dynamic, or rather ignoring them, in the direction needed for you to disagree rather than asking for clarification.

I would think of the family as a unit rather than men and women individual. The family has needs. The members of the family can, amongst themselves, decide what is the best way for their family to meet these needs. For example, if they decide that it is not necessary or in their best interest to have two incomes, they may decide to keep the greater income (whether the man's or the woman's). Now the greater money is not the only consideration. They also need to consider who is better at maintaining the home, caring for the children, and preparing food. If the same person who earns the greater income is better at these things, they have to weigh one against the other and figure out what to do. Anyways, it's not necessary to get into these scenarios because it can go on and on...

The point I am trying to make is that we need to think of the family as ONE unit. With Lucin, when she said she would leave her job if it was negatively impacting her performance as a mother, you assumed that she would do so without consulting her husband. However, it never crossed her mind to have to explicitly state that this would be a family decision because it was an obvious given to her. Lucin jan, if I am wrong, please correct me; I don't mean to speak for you. Clearly, these decisions impact the family, so they are not individual decisions, but joint decisions.

You're the one that implied that Armenians don't make better parents than the Americans, and now you state that "On the whole it may be better." ......

I never said Armenia is without problems, but merely mentioned that there are elements of Western culture that I despise and elements of Armenian culture that I hold dear and don't want changed.

You said that my situation was an exception.

Again, congratulations, however, those same "crazy" western values have produced many many women (and as a result men) that are not fit to be parents of any kind. Exceptions to the rule don't make an argument.

Please cite your sources that demonstrates that Western culture produces more maladjusted children than well-adjusted ones.

And I think we haven't the need to rethink gender roles, because a man acting like a woman and a woman acting like a man are peculiarities that should stay out of Armenia.

Clarify this please. What do you mean by men acting like women and vice-versa and on what basis do you argue that it should not occur in Armenia? You are implying that there are negative consequences to this? What are they?
I didn't say that women should act like men. I don't even know what that means.

If you want to state points (not stated by others) then disagree with those for the general population of the readers of these forums, you're are welcome to start another thread, write things that others think/say in disagreement with you and then rebuke them. Otherwise, you can just state your point of view by saying "It's a good idea to have women participate in things that don't involve housework and child-rearing" rather than saying "I think people who want to limit women to the house are pig-heads" (or something similar)

I've been moderating without your help for years and I don't need it now. Please, do not tell me what is appropriate content for this thread. My post was on topic and therefore appropriate for the thread.

I only know what you have exposed, and I make my judgments based on that.

Perhaps, but my point was that it is unwise to make such broad judgments in light of very little information because the risk of being wrong is great. So, in essence, you are saying "I am doing A" and I am saying "Doing A is wrong."

I only judged you based what you posted. If I wrongly ascribed you (negative) qualities that are not yours, then I'm very happy to be told I'm wrong.

You say this, but when I tell you that you are wrong, you carry on just the same way and say that you are going based on "what [ I] exposed" which is the very thing I said it's erroneous to do. So, it sounds like you're saying that you are going to draw broad (often attributional) conclusions about the person regardless.

Well, words that one is much more likely to encounter on Verbal SAT than everyday speech would be fancy words. And to be honest, "Hostile and arrogant" just has that much more of a kick than "Belligerent and condescending", so in my opinion, it's hiding behind fancy words.

I don't know who you are speaking to, but this is what I encounter in everyday speech and it is how I normally speak. Have you considered that maybe we are exposed to different vocabulary? You can't conclude based on your own experience that I am being disingenuous. And you would first need to establish that I am communicating differently to even begin to speculate as to why.

Ok, I'm happy to hear your [sic] not a feminist.

I didn't say that either. People's criteria for "feminist" varies wildly and I just said that you should be careful not to assume that I subscribe to every belief you would associate with feminists. The label has come to be associated with such extreme views that most women hesitate to identify themselves as such because people assume they are part of that extreme.

[levon]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

Quit work because of the well-being of my loved ones, so it does come from 'mutual understanding'...

No. He will have a say in it. Decisions are made jointly based on your mutual benefits and interests.

That's understandable; however, you failed to mention whether he can quit his work for "the well being of your loved ones" and you continue working.

But why would he want to quit his work? The reason? In my opinion normal men love working and doing what they like to. Having a job, earning money gives them a sense of fulfillment, strength and accomplishment.

That's an unfair assumption.
It's one thing to work for fun, but the second one has to support more than himself the concept of failure becomes unthinkable and work becomes an obligation (or in other words, the father becomes a wage-slave for the family).

On a side note, by saying that "normal men love working" are you implying that the normal women don't love working? Does "Having a job, earning money give women fulfillment, strength and accomplishment?"

If both "men and women find having a job, earning money as sources of fulfillment, strength and accomplishment", then why only women would want to quit their job, and not men?

BTW
I agree with Siggie when she said the folllowing:

There's no reason why it needs to be a choice if women are able to make it work so that neither their career nor their performance as a parent suffer.

If it's not a choice then it's a responsibility; however, recall what Gegev posted on the subject of being a mother and working at the same time.

No, I believe the rights are naturally equal but the moment it starts seriously to affect my relationship, I'd rather sacrifice 'that right' to keep my relationship in a balance. As I said my primary goal to work is not only to earn money but to keep my brain active, contribute in a way and reach a certain psychological fulfillment. What's more women are just so different from each other... For a lot of women it's so hard to work, have babies, take care of them, cook and clean, spend time with their husbands, etc. Obviously women's physical, mental strength, agility and organizing abilities vary greatly from each other but if there are women who can do the task properly, then why deprive them?

As I said, since rights come with responsibilities. Rights cannot be naturally equal when one group can pick and choose which rights and responsibilities she wants and at what time.

Or maybe I reserve the right for him to tell me to quit my work based on solid arguments. And I'd rather do so, not to ruin the beautiful relationship.

If he has to right to tell you to quit your work, then you essentially neither have the right to work nor the right to quit work, in return for the privilege of being supported by him no matter what. If you give your husband those rights then you are indeed far from being a "modern woman"

I'm a proponent of beautiful traditional values. I may or may not be 'traditional' but I'm definitely not a 'modern' girl not much in terms of my appearance but my likes, dislikes, my values... I'm afraid to express my views on the issue and talk about my beliefs as it may pass off as 'self-promotion'. Again, the beauty of a relationship lies in the mutual understanding, love, respect, common values and the complementary nature of each partner in its own special way.

I can see how some of the points you make allude to traditional values; however, you need to careful when you ask for rights but decide to retain privilege.

OK, like what?

That would be a topic of another discussion.

Women of the same generation can sometimes be very different from each other. Sometimes I find things attractive about men that many women do not even notice or like it...

In that case you should have phrased your comment in a way so as not to imply a general statement about women. This would have been much better

Regarding the chores, as a woman I can tell you, it's so sexy when my man helps me do certain stuff every once in a while. It actually brings us closer together.

[Siggie]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

If it's not a choice then it's a responsibility; however, recall what Gegev posted on the subject of being a mother and working at the same time.

I am going to jump in here because she quoted what I said. I said that if a woman can juggle both a career and a family such that neither one suffers, then she should not have to choose one or the other.

Further, since you brought up Gegev's post. I am inclined to point out, that Gegev did not cite a single source and he certainly presented all of these things as fact. Why didn't you ask him for sources? You don't feel he needs to be "taught the lesson of citing sources?"

Not everything he said is relevant to the work issue either... Let's take a look, shall we?

I’m a former teacher; below are my/teachers/doctors advises (I know about) to parents, I consider them natural ones:

#1) while a female is pregnant she shouldn’t work: to give a birth to a healthy baby.

I have never heard this before. Does this not require a source? Let's see something that shows that women who worked while pregnant gave birth to less healthy babies.

#2) mother feeds her baby with human milk to grow up healthy babies: is another natural thing. But emancipated men/women say it doesn’t matter (doctors claim the contrary) what kind of milk it is: they want to do something “civilized” instead.

I think there was some confusion about this years ago, but a number of years it has been supported that for optimal immune functioning, breast feeding is recommended.
But I don't see the relevance, because women can still breastfeed even if they work. You can pump and bottle. There's no problem here.

#3) taking care with her baby until s/he becomes 3 years old, to insure the baby’s psychological health, instead of hiring a baby-sitter: is natural.

This requires a source too. I recall from my psych classes that there is no evidence that children who go to daycare are worse off then those who don't. If anything daycare provides social interaction that helps prepare children for school.

#4) Every day allowing 2-3 hours time to communicate with three High School children: help to learn lessons, council them and to take care/handle their problems for 12 years.
. etc.

I don't see the problem here either. Of course interacting with our children is important and this goes for fathers as well as mothers. Working does not mean that a parent cannot find a few hours a day to interact with their child.

To become educated:
High School, Univercity & Graduate study takes from woman – 24 years

I have no idea what this even means.

Time to spend on children:
High School takes 12 years.
Points from #1-#3 for 3 children makes at least 12 years.
In total for 24+12=36 years, if a woman is really devoted to her children, can’t work with the same workload as a man does. Provided poor living contitions don't stipulate working.
[/B]
So in this respect it is not natural to demand equal working rights for women before she is 36-40 years old. For the rest of the years nobody objects women working.



Among former USSR Republics in past and now Armenia is in the first place by the percentage of population with University/Collage education. And the distribution among male and female is approximately equal. It means women rights in education are respected, in fact, in Armenia.

Therefore even when women don’t work Armenians, in Armenia, highly appreciate educated women: because it reflects very positively on their children education too.
Therefore we don’t need such advises, that we need educated women: for about 90 years our women/men are explaining this others.

Are you suggesting we send women to college and even to graduate school and then have then ask to sit at home and only use that education for the benefit of their children? Again, there's no reason why they cannot get a good education, have a career, and have a family.

We love the pretty-educated-modest-reserved գեղեցիկ-կիրթ-համեստ-զուսպ women: What the Armenian men, in Armenia, dislike most (laugh at their husband): is the married woman, who is concerned about showing up her sexiness to other men, to attract/invite/force their attention on her.

Irrelevant, not talking about sexiness.

[levon]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

I didn't say that IQ tests don't mean much nor did I say that differences in IQ don't mean much. I said 3-5pt differences don't mean much. I was hinting at a larger difference than that.

A 3-5 pt difference in IQ can be the difference between a mentally challenged and somewhat normal person.

You misunderstood. It is not based on skepticism alone because I READ the quotes that were attributed to them in the news article you posted. I said I disagreed with what they said in the quotes in the article you posted from a mass media source. So, I did indeed read that one. What I have not read is the article which should be given more weight because it is not susceptible to the misrepresentations of the less scientifically literate news reporter.

Sounds like skepticism.

I did not fail to cite a source when you asked, I merely asked him to do it (1) for the reason above that he is more knowledgeable on this particular source

Federate did not state that he posted the source on your behalf nor did you mention that Federate will be posting the source on your behalf.

(2) because you seem predisposed to twist my words and disagree with everything I say because you have already made up your mind about me.

That's just your opinion.

This point and intelligence are the only things you asked me to cite a source for, so I resent your implication that I, a scientist, mind you, need to be taught to cite my sources.

Your resentment is yours alone.

You pointed to a single study when there is a vast body of research on the subject of sex differences in cognitive abilities/intelligence. So, finding one study to support what you say doesn't say much because replication and consideration of all the evidence as a whole is necessary before drawing conclusions.

This is a very political issue not unlike the global warming issue.

So, on to some sources...

Thanks for your sources.

So, the willingness of the business is irrelevant if women won't apply to some jobs (or men to different jobs for that matter) because of social stigma or social acceptance. Women may be hesitant to apply if society is going to label them as an irresponsible parent, bad wife, etc.

Now you are talking about social change rather than legal rights, and what evidence do you have to suggest that Women in Armenia are hesitant to apply for a job? However, if you really want to encourage women, make sure that the laws change that women are drafted into the army, and in equal numbers as men, and make sure no more men die at war than women.

You are making assumptions about the family dynamic, or rather ignoring them, in the direction needed for you to disagree rather than asking for clarification.

No, I'm merely stating that rights come responsibilities, and the removal of privilege is a necessity prior to the giving of rights.

I would think of the family as a unit rather than men and women individual. The family has needs. The members of the family can, amongst themselves, decide what is the best way for their family to meet these needs.

That would mean we should not encourage laws and social changes that concentrate on individuals, but rather encourage laws and social changes that concentrate on a family unit. If that is so, then encouraging women to work, and passing specific laws to make sure they can becomes irrelevant.

The point I am trying to make is that we need to think of the family as ONE unit. With Lucin, when she said she would leave her job if it was negatively impacting her performance as a mother, you assumed that she would do so without consulting her husband. However, it never crossed her mind to have to explicitly state that this would be a family decision because it was an obvious given to her.

To reiterate, one cannot arbitrarily pick and choose which rights and responsibilities she wants, and when.

You said that my situation was an exception.

Not sure how that relates to what I posted.

Please cite your sources that demonstrates that Western culture produces more maladjusted children than well-adjusted ones.

In your previous post you agreed that the situation in Armenia (parenting) may be better, and now you are asking me to cite my sources. Hmmmm..?

Clarify this please. What do you mean by men acting like women and vice-versa and on what basis do you argue that it should not occur in Armenia? You are implying that there are negative consequences to this? What are they?
I didn't say that women should act like men. I don't even know what that means.

If women don't act like men and have the same responsibilities, they cannot expect the same rights as men.
If men don't act like women and have the same responsibilities, they cannot expect the same rights as women.

Equality is an all or none deal.

I've been moderating without your help for years and I don't need it now. Please, do not tell me what is appropriate content for this thread. My post was on topic and therefore appropriate for the thread.

Notice, I never told you what appropriate content is, just state that in my opinion, my content is appropriate.

Perhaps, but my point was that it is unwise to make such broad judgments in light of very little information because the risk of being wrong is great. So, in essence, you are saying "I am doing A" and I am saying "Doing A is wrong."

There is never enough information. How much information is enough information in order to make a judgment?

You say this, but when I tell you that you are wrong, you carry on just the same way and say that you are going based on "what [ I] exposed" which is the very thing I said it's erroneous to do. So, it sounds like you're saying that you are going to draw broad (often attributional) conclusions about the person regardless.

.... see the above again.

I don't know who you are speaking to, but this is what I encounter in everyday speech and it is how I normally speak. Have you considered that maybe we are exposed to different vocabulary? You can't conclude based on your own experience that I am being disingenuous. And you would first need to establish that I am communicating differently to even begin to speculate as to why.

Your insult was directed at me, so I think I'm free to make conclusions based on my vocabulary, not yours.

I didn't say that either. People's criteria for "feminist" varies wildly and I just said that you should be careful not to assume that I subscribe to every belief you would associate with feminists. The label has come to be associated with such extreme views that most women hesitate to identify themselves as such because people assume they are part of that extreme.

Ok, so you're a feminist, but don't want to say it outright.

[Siggie]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

A 3-5 pt difference in IQ can be the difference between a mentally challenged and somewhat normal person.

Only if that difference occurs right at that cutoff in IQ. And they don't classify people as mentally retarded just based on IQ. They consider other factors as well since those who would be 1 point above or below the cutoff would not be very different and they also have to consider the error rate.

Sounds like skepticism.

I think you are confusing skepticism and cynicism. It's a common mistake.

Federate did not state that he posted the source on your behalf nor did you mention that Federate will be posting the source on your behalf.

He posted it before I replied. What's your point?

This is a very political issue not unlike the global warming issue.

They are not the same. Politics and science aren't the same thing. Politicians may argue about something all they want, but that does not change which direction the evidence points. There is consensus in the scientific community on global warming and on the issue of sex differences in intelligence, they're still arguing over the best way to measure intelligence.

Now you are talking about social change rather than legal rights, and what evidence do you have to suggest that Women in Armenia are hesitant to apply for a job? However, if you really want to encourage women, make sure that the laws change that women are drafted into the army, and in equal numbers as men, and make sure no more men die at war than women.

There you go with the army again. Okay, let's draft both parents and leave the children to work and fend for themselves. You don't see how military service is a little different from most jobs? Notice, I would never demand that equal number of female firefighters be hired. You keep making things black and white when they are not. I would say women should be allowed to apply. If they can perform the duties required for the job, then there's no reason why they shouldn't be hired.
What does saying that women should have the same employment opportunities have to do with the draft?

No, I'm merely stating that rights come responsibilities, and the removal of privilege is a necessity prior to the giving of rights.

This makes sense in your mind? I think I'm an intelligent person, and I don't follow this logic. Either it doesn't actually follow logically or you're not explaining it well.

Let's consider the right to freedom. What responsibility comes with that and privilege was removed to secure that right?

How about the right to vote?

The right to own land?

That would mean we should not encourage laws and social changes that concentrate on individuals, but rather encourage laws and social changes that concentrate on a family unit. If that is so, then encouraging women to work, and passing specific laws to make sure they can becomes irrelevant.

Individuals apply for jobs. It is up to individuals to consider what is best for their family. That's not for the government to supervise. That's impossible. Are you suggesting that there be laws that say that you must demonstrate that you're able to provide for your family before you can be permitted to have a job? Should the government likewise have to then establish that someone has the sufficient income to procreate? Sounds pretty crazy when it's stated more plainly like that, doesn't it?

To reiterate, one cannot arbitrarily pick and choose which rights and responsibilities she wants, and when.

See above. You have devised this semantic game about rights, privileges, responsibilities, etc and you keep stating a nonsensical rule and saying we're violating it.

In your previous post you agreed that the situation in Armenia (parenting) may be better, and now you are asking me to cite my sources. Hmmmm..?

I was speaking hypothetically to make the point that "better" doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. I said that Armenia may be better, but that doesn't mean making some changes couldn't improve things.

If women don't act like men and have the same responsibilities, they cannot expect the same rights as men.
If men don't act like women and have the same responsibilities, they cannot expect the same rights as women.

Again with the rights and responsibilities. Why don't you speak concretely rather than in these abstractions so people can make sense of what you're trying to say. I asked you what you mean by "act like men" or "act like women" and you still haven't defined those phrases.

Notice, I never told you what appropriate content is, just state that in my opinion, my content is appropriate.

Is telling me that my post should go in a separate thread not the same as saying it doesn't belong in this thread (i.e. it's not appropriate for this thread?).

There is never enough information. How much information is enough information in order to make a judgment?

Well the more information you base a decision on the more likely you are to be correct, so you can decide what chance of being wrong is acceptable to you. I believe people generally try to be wrong as little as possible.

Your insult was directed at me, so I think I'm free to make conclusions based on my vocabulary, not yours.

I missed the part where you decided to criticize my vocabulary because I insulted you. And while we're at it, what "insult" are you even talking about?

Ok, so you're a feminist, but don't want to say it outright.

You know if you continue on like this, people will assume you have poor reading comprehension. I didn't say I was and I didn't say I wasn't. You assumed that I was saying I wasn't a feminist (something I didn't say) and I clarified that I didn't say whether I would consider myself as such one way or the other. I am doing better than assigning a label about group membership and leaving it to people to guess what my views are based on that group membership. Instead, I am sharing those views/beliefs outright.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

I was going to post something but Siggie posted it with a different wording. I don't see it necessary to repeat certain things. As for me, I would like to maintain a career (doing what I like), take care of babies (if I have any someday) and spend time with my man. You do not get a degree to put it on the shelf and let it be buried by dust… I get a degree to be able to work, to have a presence in the society, to do what I like doing and fulfill my inner (non-material) needs. The moment my career affects my baby or my relationship; I'll put it away, no matter how much I 'earn' or anything. My family would be my absolute priority... And a relationship is based on mutual understanding, respect and love, it's not a matter of who's leading, who's following.
Regarding the chores, as a woman I can tell you, it's so sexy when a man helps the woman do certain stuff every once in a while. It actually brings them closer together, in my opinion.

I see a lot of women falling into this category... realizing it's too much to raise kids and maintain a career so they decide to stay home which puts a huge amount of strain on a family that is used to having 2 incomes. Where you had 2 people working to support 2 people, now you have 1 supporting 3 or 4 or more. That is where things usually start falling apart. Babies aren't cheap... do the math, you'd be surprised how much you spend on diapers alone. What is worse is the basic stuff like potty training and feeding, discipline, etc. that goes into raising a baby suffers if juggling work and that's why you see 3 or 4 or even 5 year olds still in diapers here in the wild, wild west.

I think rules should be, whoever has the highest income gets to stay home with the kids. I'm all for empowering women

Oh, and a degree doesn't necessarily translate into employment as there are thousands of people with bachelors and masters degrees looking for work at the moment. Not to sound pessimistic but this is reality.

[levon]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

1 point above or below the cutoff would not be very different

First, it was a 3-5 point difference that wouldn't matter, now it magically turned to a 1 point difference that wouldn't matter.

I think you are confusing skepticism and cynicism. It's a common mistake.

Call it what you want.

He posted it before I replied. What's your point?

The point is he didn't mention it was on your behalf, nor did you say that he will be posting on your behalf.

They are not the same. Politics and science aren't the same thing. Politicians may argue about something all they want, but that does not change which direction the evidence points. There is consensus in the scientific community on global warming and on the issue of sex differences in intelligence, they're still arguing over the best way to measure intelligence.

There is consensus..??? I guess the climategate scandal was just propaganda right?

There you go with the army again. Okay, let's draft both parents and leave the children to work and fend for themselves. You don't see how military service is a little different from most jobs? Notice, I would never demand that equal number of female firefighters be hired. You keep making things black and white when they are not. I would say women should be allowed to apply. If they can perform the duties required for the job, then there's no reason why they shouldn't be hired.
What does saying that women should have the same employment opportunities have to do with the draft?

I think you are failing to comprehend my point. If you demand equal rights, then also demand equal responsibilities. In your opinion, why should men die at war instead of women, if women are "fully qualified" to do the same job?

Why not just have women die at war, and let men stay at home and take care of the children? You want equal rights with men, but excuse women from mandatory draft by bringing children into the equation.

This makes sense in your mind? I think I'm an intelligent person, and I don't follow this logic. Either it doesn't actually follow logically or you're not explaining it well.

It never makes sense when in return for rights a woman is removed from privilege (or at least it never makes sense for the woman as she is so accustomed to the privilege that she no longer considers it a privilege, but a necessity - such as not dying at war)

Let's consider the right to freedom. What responsibility comes with that and privilege was removed to secure that right?

The responsibility that comes with it is that a free man is responsible for his protection, for his nutrition, and for his well being. The right that comes with it, is the right to live ones life anyway one wishes. The privilege that was removed, was the privilege of having others protect you, others care about your well-being, and having others provide your nutrition.

When a child becomes an adult, one loses the privilege of being supported, protected and taken care of ones parents, but in return gains the freedom to live one's life however one wishes.

Simple enough for ya?

How about the right to vote?

The right to vote comes from the responsibility of protecting one's homeland, at the expense of losing the privilege of having someone else do it for you.

The right to own land?

In many countries, the right to own land is reserved only for the countries citizens. Again, traditionally, those who fought to protect their homeland (or fought to acquire more land) were the ones granted the right to own land. Follows from the logic in the above explanation.

Individuals apply for jobs. It is up to individuals to consider what is best for their family. That's not for the government to supervise. That's impossible. Are you suggesting that there be laws that say that you must demonstrate that you're able to provide for your family before you can be permitted to have a job? Should the government likewise have to then establish that someone has the sufficient income to procreate? Sounds pretty crazy when it's stated more plainly like that, doesn't it?

You mentioned that one should considers families as units rather than individuals, and now you are bringing individuals back into the equation. I am not sure what you are arguing about here, as I merely poked a hole in your logic, and apparently it worked.

See above. You have devised this semantic game about rights, privileges, responsibilities, etc and you keep stating a nonsensical rule and saying we're violating it.

Your calling my logic a semantic game is all the more proof that you cannot distinguish between what a responsibility, a right, and a privilege are.

I was speaking hypothetically to make the point that "better" doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. I said that Armenia may be better, but that doesn't mean making some changes couldn't improve things.

One moment you're hypothetical, the next moment you are serious, and apparently the only one that can distinguish between the two is yourself. You asserted that Armenia is not better, then you said it may be better. This is more like a contradiction than a hypothetical situation.

Again with the rights and responsibilities. Why don't you speak concretely rather than in these abstractions so people can make sense of what you're trying to say. I asked you what you mean by "act like men" or "act like women" and you still haven't defined those phrases.

If one doesn't understand what are "rights, responsibilities, and privilege" then one cannot ask for rights, responsibilities, or privilege.

Act like men, here are two good ones: becoming a wage-slave for the family and being drafted to war and dying.

Is telling me that my post should go in a separate thread not the same as saying it doesn't belong in this thread (i.e. it's not appropriate for this thread?).

Oh, that's what you were talking about. In that case, I was, and still am suggesting that if you want to post stuff unrelated to the topic of the thread, you should start a new thread. I think that's pretty much common sense.

Well the more information you base a decision on the more likely you are to be correct, so you can decide what chance of being wrong is acceptable to you. I believe people generally try to be wrong as little as possible.

Again, how much is enough information. If fear of being wrong should keep one collecting more and more information, one will never form an opinion as there is always more information to come.

I missed the part where you decided to criticize my vocabulary because I insulted you. And while we're at it, what "insult" are you even talking about?

You essentially called me "Hostile and arrogant", but used longer words. That I believe is an insult I put forth that you were hiding behind fancy words, and because the comment was directed at me, I am free to form whatever opinion I want based entirely on my comprehension of the insult.

When did I criticize your vocabulary...? I have no idea if that happened in your mind, or you just made it up on the stop just for the sake of the argument.

You know if you continue on like this, people will assume you have poor reading comprehension. I didn't say I was and I didn't say I wasn't. You assumed that I was saying I wasn't a feminist (something I didn't say) and I clarified that I didn't say whether I would consider myself as such one way or the other. I am doing better than assigning a label about group membership and leaving it to people to guess what my views are based on that group membership. Instead, I am sharing those views/beliefs outright.

Ok, so I should change my approach so as to please you and other who might "assume that I have poor reading comprehension." Oh gosh, someone, somewhere might think I'm retarded, I should really stop what I'm doing, and be sure to please everyone around me, because by golly, how would I go to sleep at night if someone out there might think lowly of my intelligence.

Just to quote myself.

I've been given my intellect by God, and he so may chose to place me in front of another of superior intellect, be it male or female. That wouldn't phase me one bit.

Life is too short and waits for no one to sit around and contemplate whether someone somewhere is more intelligent than he.

And also,
Based on my posts, people are free to form whatever opinion of me they want. That's their opinion, and they're entitled to it. I couldn't care less. Unless, of coarse, they act like Haykakan and call me names that in no way can be derived based on what I've said.

[levon]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

Are you listening? The Aztec Empire is the common name for the Mexican Empire, the Mexica stopped calling themselves Aztec as the demand of Huitzilopochtli, so our old conquerers could not find us, we changed the name to Mexica (could mean navel of the moon, but it refers to the moon reflecting in Tenochtitlan's lake), hence it was called by the Spaniards the Mexican Empire.

Previously you said

Awe never called ourselves Aztecs as an Empire, we called ourselves Mexica

and now you're saying

The Aztec Empire is the common name for the Mexican Empire

So there.

Also I don't think you carefully read my source either, women COULD if they chose so work, work exactly the same jobs as men and study the same stuff too, there are millions of sources showing this.

Now what I am trying to explain to you is officially, I don't mean socially or religious, women had the right to work, to study and if so choosing stay in that situation without any form of judicial granite. Im not saying in the case of social or religious, yeah there we pretty much mirror Armenians, you won't see me denying that, I mean according to law and state policy.

I stated that there was social inequality between men and women in Aztec, Mayan and Olmec societies (in saying that men considered women their subordinates). You presented an article that more or less stated "There was social inequality between men and women, in light of some equality in the eyes of the law". It affirmed my position, so I'm not sure why you keep arguing when we both agree on the statement I posted

While the documents have racist dribble and false rumours, maybe you should consult a couple of codices man

I'm not sure which documents you are talking about, but please do point me to sources that you consider more genuine, as I like Meso-American history in general.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

Levon, indzi ge mertsenesgor I'd help out on your argument but doesn't look like you need any help. I'll just follow along and pick up the pieces left behind.

[Siggie]

Re: Armenian women: should play a bigger role in our economy, politics and military.

First, it was a 3-5 point difference that wouldn't matter, now it magically turned to a 1 point difference that wouldn't matter.

You didn't understand my point which was that small a difference only matters if it falls right on a cutoff in which case, even a 1 pt difference would become "important". Read it again. I'm getting pretty tired of repeating myself.
Enough with trying to trap me as being inconsistent by twisting things. The original point was that is not a practically significant difference between sexes IF it even exists. And I posted sources about that as well. So, move on already!

The point is he didn't mention it was on your behalf, nor did you say that he will be posting on your behalf.

And again I say SO WHAT? Why does it matter whether he did or I did? What would it have changed? Are you pointing that out to justify why you still felt like I needed to learn to cite sources or are you doubting whether I asked him to do it? Gawd, you just look for any opportunity to argue? This is so pointless and childish.

There is consensus..??? I guess the climategate scandal was just propaganda right?

Yes, there's consensus. You should look at the scientific literature when you want information and not at the more biased media.

I think you are failing to comprehend my point. If you demand equal rights, then also demand equal responsibilities. In your opinion, why should men die at war instead of women, if women are "fully qualified" to do the same job? It never makes sense when in return for rights a woman is removed from privilege (or at least it never makes sense for the woman as she is so accustomed to the privilege that she no longer considers it a privilege, but a necessity - such as not dying at war.

Why not just have women die at war, and let men stay at home and take care of the children? You want equal rights with men, but excuse women from mandatory draft by bringing children into the equation.

Qualified to die at war? Ability to die a qualification? Both men and women are free to enlist!
You just keep talking about draft. If that's the only condition under which your theory holds then say so.

Let's try this a different way...
If the draft only applies to men and women get the "privilege" of being exempt from mandatory military service, what right are you proposing we have to give up to enjoy that privilege? The right to equality in any sense? So, if women don't get drafted we have to be discriminated against in any and all regards because as you said "equality is all or nothing?"
What sort of sense does that make? By the way you keep pointing to draft, draft, draft, go die at war, etc. You're arguing that because women are not subject to the draft, then men have cart blanche to deny a woman every right, down to self-determination, because her government won't draft her?

The responsibility that comes with it is that a free man is responsible for his protection, for his nutrition, and for his well being. The right that comes with it, is the right to live ones life anyway one wishes. The privilege that was removed, was the privilege of having others protect you, others care about your well-being, and having others provide your nutrition.

When a child becomes an adult, one loses the privilege of being supported, protected and taken care of ones parents, but in return gains the freedom to live one's life however one wishes.

Simple enough for ya?

No not simple enough. This illustrates further that you're just making stuff up.

To be free we can't have anyone care about us? The way you state in your first example, the responsibility and privilege are opposites.

Your child example doesn't work. Parents have a legal and moral duty to care for their children. It is not a privilege of the child to be cared for. Yet you claim, it's me who doesn't understand what these words mean.

The right to vote comes from the responsibility of protecting one's homeland, at the expense of losing the privilege of having someone else do it for you.

So, the disabled and those who don't serve in the military have no right to vote? And in order to vote we give up the privilege of having someone else do what for us? Vote for us or protect the country for us? Neither follows logically (and I mean formal logic), such that that is the necessary conclusion.

In many countries, the right to own land is reserved only for the countries citizens. Again, traditionally, those who fought to protect their homeland (or fought to acquire more land) were the ones granted the right to own land. Follows from the logic in the above explanation.

Everything is about war and defense for you...
Again, so how is it that corporations and people who don't serve can own land then? By your logic this is impossible, yet they do... So, your premises are wrong.

You mentioned that one should considers families as units rather than individuals, and now you are bringing individuals back into the equation. I am not sure what you are arguing about here, as I merely poked a hole in your logic, and apparently it worked.

I said that people who form a family need to think of themselves as a unit and consider the well-being and interests of the family as well.
You said something ludicrous about needing laws to enforce that and the rights of the family and I pointed out that that doesn't make sense because, among other things, it's not feasible. You didn't poke a hole in anything. Your own rigidness of mind is confusing you.

Your calling my logic a semantic game is all the more proof that you cannot distinguish between what a responsibility, a right, and a privilege are.

Sure it is... That's why I'm the only one that can't make heads or tails of what you're saying. (note: that was sarcasm)

One moment you're hypothetical, the next moment you are serious, and apparently the only one that can distinguish between the two is yourself. You asserted that Armenia is not better, then you said it may be better. This is more like a contradiction than a hypothetical situation.

It's not a contradiction. You just keep trying to nail me down as having said something I didn't say. Keep trying.

If one doesn't understand what are "rights, responsibilities, and privilege" then one cannot ask for rights, responsibilities, or privilege.

Act like men, here are two good ones: becoming a wage-slave for the family and being drafted to war and dying.

So, women who are the providers are "acting like men"? And men who don't get drafted off to war are not men? Have I got that right?
And you wonder why people can't understand what you're saying?

Oh, that's what you were talking about. In that case, I was, and still am suggesting that if you want to post stuff unrelated to the topic of the thread, you should start a new thread. I think that's pretty much common sense.

UGH! Except it was related and by dragging this on, you're pulling things off topic. Knock it off!

Again, how much is enough information. If fear of being wrong should keep one collecting more and more information, one will never form an opinion as there is always more information to come.

I said how much. I said the amount is determined by what level of error is acceptable to us. We decide. If you don't care about being wrong a lot then you'd need very little information.

You essentially called me "Hostile and arrogant", but used longer words. That I believe is an insult I put forth that you were hiding behind fancy words, and because the comment was directed at me, I am free to form whatever opinion I want based entirely on my comprehension of the insult.

When did I criticize your vocabulary...? I have no idea if that happened in your mind, or you just made it up on the stop just for the sake of the argument.

Do you not realize that hostile and belligerent are not the same thing? Neither are arrogant and condescending. I chose the words I meant. And you may find it offensive that I said the tone of your post was belligerent and condescending, but that doesn't make it a personal insult. If I wanted to hide, I wouldn't have said anything at all. Does it seem like I'm intimidated by you in the least?

Enough about vocabulary, who insulted who, etc. I think we've both said enough about this already and I don't want to derail the thread by turning it into a personal argument. Just restate your views on the relationship betwee responsibility, privilege, and rights so they make sense or just say you've done the best you can and abandon it. Don't carry on about anything else.