2 ms·

What did I say about women that you disagree with? If I said that men tend to be just the supplemental earners in a family it would be false. At least for the p

by Tichy 14y ago

What did I say about women that you disagree with? If I said that men tend to be just the supplemental earners in a family it would be false. At least for the present time. I don't understand what you might find offensive about that - I didn't say that women are incapable of earning a lot of money, just that they often voluntarily choose to not do so. And I don't think it is going to change, because women get pregnant and breast-feed their children, which impedes their flexibility in making money. Don't blame me (or society) for biology. Edit: if you are at all interested, I started reading a book yesterday that sounds very promising - "Why Men Earn More" http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000TE6BDW?ie=UTF8&camp=213733&creative=393177&creativeASIN=B000TE6BDW&linkCode=shr&tag=notyetregiste-20&qid=1362914034&sr=8-2-spell&keywords=why+men+earn+mor http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000TE6BDW?ie=UTF8&camp... I only read the free kindle intro so far, but it is supposed to help both men and women to make better choices, and it explains the pay gap. The intro was already a very interesting read - it's short, and it's free, highly recommended.

TheZenPsycho 14y ago
I am not offended. I am just surprised at the level of stupidity on display here. The same level of stupidity that exists for generalising /anything/ about 50% out of a collection of things. Let's try it with men. Men are tend towards being incapable of feeling emotions. Men are very violent, and drunk. Men are afraid of commitment. Men hate talking about things. Men are very impersonal toward children. Men enjoy sports. Men only care about money. How useless are these sorts of statements? How does it help anyone to pigeonhole a class of people as having certain stereotypical attributes? It's not science, it's bigotry.
- Tichy 14y ago
  If you read carefully, I never made any claims like the ones you listed. I never said men and women have different mental capabilities or emotional preferences. To assume such things is unnecessary for understanding the difference. I claim there is one relevant difference between men and women: women can get children, men can't. That is sufficient to explain everything because it gives women more options. Therefore they can be more laid back in life, because they can have children even if they are not economically successful (women just have to get pregnant, men have to convince women to carry their babies, usually by offering economic stability). (The "laid back" part is of course very simplified, of course women work and try hard, but with focus on other things than earning a lot of money). If you bother to read that book I linked to, you may be shocked to find that unmarried women actually earn more than unmarried men. So of course women can choose whatever they want to, including to earn more than men. It's just that very often they chose not to. Honestly, this conversation makes me a bit desperate, because it is always the same in politics: people only see what they want to see, jump to conclusions and never question anything, and arrive at completely detrimental policies. I bet you will not read that book, not even the short kindle sample, because your opinion is already fixed. I was just thinking that the only hope might again be more education, education, education, teaching people to think critical in school (and especially maths, which is about finding truth and being a skeptic). But my hopes are not high.
  - TheZenPsycho 14y ago
    >Nurses and nannies don't earn as much money as IT specialists, but women don't need so much money. They tend to be the supplemental earners in a family, not the main breadwinners. Simple as that. Really, honestly. Think about what you are saying here.
    - Tichy 14y ago
      Explain it? You take offense by the "don't need so much money" or the "supplemental earners" thing? The latter is presumably simply a current statistical fact? Don't need so much money - well I explained it. And as I said, any women who feels she needs more money is free to earn it, even today, and even in IT. Earning more money usually comes at a price. I don't understand why you find it offensive to assume that some people have different priorities? Women in IT: why do you think the recent "geekettes Hackathon" in Berlin felt it necessary to offer Yoga classes alongside the Hackathon? Is it a bad thing?
      - TheZenPsycho 14y ago
        It's problematic that you are using dubious uncited statistics to make broad statements about the status and desires of over 50% of the human population. You may as well say "Jews make plenty of money" or "Negros are happy to work for free", for how intelligent it makes you sound.
        Tichy 14y ago
        Contrary to you I actually provided a citation, you just refused to look at it. Or have you? So I am curious about your definition of "dubious uncited statistics". Do you believe my statistics are wrong, and what makes you think so (citations?)?. The only thing that's dumb is arguing with a psycho. I guess we are done, unless you can provide any substantial arguments at all.
        TheZenPsycho 14y ago
        You provided a link to a shitty looking book on amazon. That doesn't make you credible.
- im3w1l 14y ago
  >How useless are these sorts of statements? they are useful. >How does it help anyone to pigeonhole a class of people as having certain stereotypical attributes? we understand the world better and can make better predictions and decisions. >It's not science sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. >it's bigotry. that word doesn't even mean anything except that you disagree.

by Tichy 14y ago

TheZenPsycho 14y ago

I am not offended. I am just surprised at the level of stupidity on display here. The same level of stupidity that exists for generalising /anything/ about 50% out of a collection of things. Let's try it with men. Men are tend towards being incapable of feeling emotions. Men are very violent, and drunk. Men are afraid of commitment. Men hate talking about things. Men are very impersonal toward children. Men enjoy sports. Men only care about money. How useless are these sorts of statements? How does it help anyone to pigeonhole a class of people as having certain stereotypical attributes? It's not science, it's bigotry.

Tichy 14y ago
If you read carefully, I never made any claims like the ones you listed. I never said men and women have different mental capabilities or emotional preferences. To assume such things is unnecessary for understanding the difference. I claim there is one relevant difference between men and women: women can get children, men can't. That is sufficient to explain everything because it gives women more options. Therefore they can be more laid back in life, because they can have children even if they are not economically successful (women just have to get pregnant, men have to convince women to carry their babies, usually by offering economic stability). (The "laid back" part is of course very simplified, of course women work and try hard, but with focus on other things than earning a lot of money). If you bother to read that book I linked to, you may be shocked to find that unmarried women actually earn more than unmarried men. So of course women can choose whatever they want to, including to earn more than men. It's just that very often they chose not to. Honestly, this conversation makes me a bit desperate, because it is always the same in politics: people only see what they want to see, jump to conclusions and never question anything, and arrive at completely detrimental policies. I bet you will not read that book, not even the short kindle sample, because your opinion is already fixed. I was just thinking that the only hope might again be more education, education, education, teaching people to think critical in school (and especially maths, which is about finding truth and being a skeptic). But my hopes are not high.
- TheZenPsycho 14y ago
  >Nurses and nannies don't earn as much money as IT specialists, but women don't need so much money. They tend to be the supplemental earners in a family, not the main breadwinners. Simple as that. Really, honestly. Think about what you are saying here.
  - Tichy 14y ago
    Explain it? You take offense by the "don't need so much money" or the "supplemental earners" thing? The latter is presumably simply a current statistical fact? Don't need so much money - well I explained it. And as I said, any women who feels she needs more money is free to earn it, even today, and even in IT. Earning more money usually comes at a price. I don't understand why you find it offensive to assume that some people have different priorities? Women in IT: why do you think the recent "geekettes Hackathon" in Berlin felt it necessary to offer Yoga classes alongside the Hackathon? Is it a bad thing?
    - TheZenPsycho 14y ago
      It's problematic that you are using dubious uncited statistics to make broad statements about the status and desires of over 50% of the human population. You may as well say "Jews make plenty of money" or "Negros are happy to work for free", for how intelligent it makes you sound.
      - Tichy 14y ago
        Contrary to you I actually provided a citation, you just refused to look at it. Or have you? So I am curious about your definition of "dubious uncited statistics". Do you believe my statistics are wrong, and what makes you think so (citations?)?. The only thing that's dumb is arguing with a psycho. I guess we are done, unless you can provide any substantial arguments at all.
        TheZenPsycho 14y ago
        You provided a link to a shitty looking book on amazon. That doesn't make you credible.
im3w1l 14y ago
>How useless are these sorts of statements? they are useful. >How does it help anyone to pigeonhole a class of people as having certain stereotypical attributes? we understand the world better and can make better predictions and decisions. >It's not science sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. >it's bigotry. that word doesn't even mean anything except that you disagree.