Equality for Women

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Equality for Women

Well they wouldn't use race for socio-political reasons and because the uber-liberals have convinced enough people that race is a social contruct, as in race doesn't exist.

But they also claim that gender differences are social constructs. So even according to their own principles (much less according to reason), they are full of sh*t.

[Armanen]

Re: Equality for Women

This also highlights a wider problem: Its okay to emphasize the inherent genetic differences between men and women when its women who benefit. Child custody laws also reflect this. Try highlighting the inherent genetic differences in other spheres such as employment, education, structure of the nuclear family, and all of a sudden, "science" turns into "sexism".

This is part of the larger reason why I think western civilization is basically on its last leg.

[Siggie]

Re: Equality for Women

Even if it's nurture and not nature; a difference is a difference, no? I mean whether a difference between groups is caused by x or y is a separate issue. For instance, whether men are a bigger risk because of x y or z isn't so relevant to insurance companies as the fact that there is a difference. So, even if differences exist due to varying social influences, it doesn't change the fact that the difference exists.

Also, this is tangential, and I'm not trying to change the topic of discussion here, but I always hear guys talking about the unfairness of custody rulings... Has anyone actually looked at the law? I have not, but I wonder if the law itself favors women (unjustly) or if it's just that the application of the law favors women for proper reasons. E.g. If it's mostly women who are the primary caregivers, then isn't it proper for them to have custody? I think most of these cases actually award joint custody so both parents have rights, but the children just live with the mothers primarily.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Equality for Women

Even if it's nurture and not nature; a difference is a difference, no?

The way we nurture does not exist in a vacuum: It is based on nature.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Equality for Women

they should also consider who were, or what was the causes of these accidents.
Let’s say men are more likely gets involved in accidents, but usually when having sex while driving it’s men who does the driving. When women are driving with their husbands, husbands don’t bittch them till they arrive to their destination, they would be looking out checking chicks and agreeing to everything thier wives are telling them. The opposite is true when men are driving with their wives beside them, women will bring out things that happened 2-3 years before and bittch about them, then they will criticize their men on everything they do, “why did you take this road the other one is shorter”, “see if you have taken the other road, the one that i always take we wouldn’t be in this traffic right now” and it goes on and on. I think that’s why men are more involved in accidents then women.

lol!

[KanadaHye]

Re: Equality for Women

Even if it's nurture and not nature; a difference is a difference, no? I mean whether a difference between groups is caused by x or y is a separate issue. For instance, whether men are a bigger risk because of x y or z isn't so relevant to insurance companies as the fact that there is a difference. So, even if differences exist due to varying social influences, it doesn't change the fact that the difference exists.

Also, this is tangential, and I'm not trying to change the topic of discussion here, but I always hear guys talking about the unfairness of custody rulings... Has anyone actually looked at the law? I have not, but I wonder if the law itself favors women (unjustly) or if it's just that the application of the law favors women for proper reasons. E.g. If it's mostly women who are the primary caregivers, then isn't it proper for them to have custody? I think most of these cases actually award joint custody so both parents have rights, but the children just live with the mothers primarily.

More sexism... women who don't breast feed and let the men get up in the middle of the night to make the formula shouldn't be considered primary care givers but the courts don't really care who was the primary care giver.

[Siggie]

Re: Equality for Women

The way we nurture does not exist in a vacuum: It is based on nature.

Yes, believe me (I'm in psych) I'm aware that the answer to the question 'which is it?', is more often than not both.
I think the point remains though that often in application, the why is comparitively unimportant.

[ArmSurvival]

Re: Equality for Women

I didn't see the rest of your post aside from the part I quoted. You must have added it while I was responding.

Even if it's nurture and not nature; a difference is a difference, no? I mean whether a difference between groups is caused by x or y is a separate issue. For instance, whether men are a bigger risk because of x y or z isn't so relevant to insurance companies as the fact that there is a difference. So, even if differences exist due to varying social influences, it doesn't change the fact that the difference exists.

First of all I disagree with your implication that the root of gender differences is purely social. Yes, they are translated into social differences. But I think the root is genetic, and many of the social constructs we have are manifestations and expressions of genetic differences. Not all, but the most fundamental ones at least.

Back to insurance rates... I never actually disagreed that men engage in more risky behavior than women, although this in itself is a rather vague statement and needs more details to justify how it pertains to driving. I just don't like how many legitimate factors affecting driving skill which favor men like hand-eye coordination & focus are not part of these "scientific" studies.

I was also trying to apply this logic universally. If you agree there are differences between sexes and that these translate into social differences in some spheres (insurance rates), then why is it such a stretch to apply it to other spheres like employment, education and the structure of the nuclear family, where these differences make a more profound difference?

It also opens up the whole can of worms about race. If we can target gender differences, whats to stop us from targeting another genetic factor like race? If Blacks are found to be more aggressive it means they are at greater risk for road-rage, which causes many accidents. Maybe Blacks should pay higher premiums? It would not deviate one bit from the current policy. The only deviation is that of political correctness which, in contrast to sex/gender and race, is a purely social construct.

[Christina]

Re: Equality for Women

Well, there was a news article many many years ago that the dry cleaners were charging women customers
more than the men! There were similar shirts test done on a few stores.

I know, that was then and this is now.

Auto insurance is high where ever you go. Regardless.

Just my opinion. I know someone will comment and correct me.

[KanadaHye]

Re: Equality for Women

Well, there was a news article many many years ago that the dry cleaners were charging women customers
more than the men! There were similar shirts test done on a few stores.

I know, that was then and this is now.

Auto insurance is high where ever you go. Regardless.

Just my opinion. I know someone will comment and correct me.

Mechanics will definitely take advantage of women if they appear as though they don't know anything about cars.