I never said women should get promotions they haven’t earned. I just said that the “baby track”, and the choice women have to make regarding children, is responsible for men being dominant in most professions. Wolfe’s response actually is a good example of my issue with this website: He admitted the “baby track” kept women from advancing in their career, but said he wouldn’t write about it on this website. I was impressed by the concession, but my problem with this site is exactly that: Factors like the “baby track” are usually ignored. The men here implied women aren’t prevalent in the workplace because they’re incompetent, when there are obviously other forces involved. Other things are ignored too: Most women don’t fit the stereotype (I’m sure everyone here knows women that don’t), men exhibit a lot of the behavior attributed to women here, etc. A dose of rationality would make the arguments on this site a lot stronger. Also, Wolfe, can you give some examples of how the idea that men and women are equal is damaging?

christianj said:

and ofcourse we have this comment from the pretend follower of men……..
” I do think there is some validity in what Alex says with respect to women leaving work to have children”

Really did not take her long did it ?

Cannot trust them, simple as that. Stab you as fast as it takes to breath your next breath.

Christianj, I don’t think you are being fair. I don’t consider my comment to be against the men’s movements, nor pro-feminism. I was taking an argument and considering it valid for discussion, I don’t think I “stabbed” anybody in doing so, least of all Wolfe.

I don’t agree that men and women are the same

Women choose to leave a job and have kids, it’s a choice they make and it’s one they should well be aware of that it will affect their chances of promotion. I cannot see any issues here! it so obvious. But, women always make it one. They want automatic promotion according to their sex and not ability. This is exactly what happens right now.

But like the typical female, it’s not enough unless they have ensured that males will be removed from their hard earned positions just to make room for another female.

I cannot believe we get this same crap every time another feminist comes onboard and starts argueing this inane drivel. This is just so bloody boring. Read the bloody site you cretin and have a look around at the men’s rights sites on the web and learn instead of sprouting you moronic drivel.

Also the thousands of years ago women were restricted and held back from what you moron, everyone were dirt scratches you idiot, barely making a living.

and ofcourse we have this comment from the pretend follower of men……..
” I do think there is some validity in what Alex says with respect to women leaving work to have children”

Really did not take her long did it ?

Cannot trust them, simple as that. Stab you as fast as it takes to breath your next breath.

Enya: Alex’s argument is that men and women are not different (she’s modified that to now admit that men are physically stronger) and that differences are due to socialization.

This is the core of the most pernicious, stupid, and evil argument that feminists make. It’s a very damaging argument for women (and men).

Yes, women do tend to leave work to have (and raise) children. For women who choose to do so, this unfairly impacts their career progression. Want me to write about that? Sure. But not on http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com.

To suggest that women and men are essentially the same is at best asinine, and at worst evil.
-wolfe

DO NOT GROUP US FLAT-EARTHERS WITH THE LIKES OF FEMINISTS THANKS.

WOLFE I AM A FLAT-EARTHER.

Wolfe, although I can see where you are coming from with respect to the immigrant story - I do think there is some validity in what Alex says with respect to women leaving work to have children - that does have to have some effect upon how high up the career ladder a woman can climb.

Also, as I mentioned, the “baby track” also effects women’s prevelance in most occupations.

You don’t seem to understand my argument. What you cited was one individual’s very impressive story. You say his story “isn’t that rare”, but of course it is. The vast majority of immigrants coming into our country never obtain that level of success. The problem is that until recently, society believed women had no place at work, and TAUGHT women they had no place at work. It therefore takes time for that attitude to change enough that women can go from accounting for maybe 10% of those employed (and even then, only employed in certain fields) to 50% (employed in all fields).

Alex, are you illiterate? I begin to think that might be so.

Immigrant from country which isn’t even literate: 27 years to rise to top 1% of western society. Millennia of being excluded from workplace.

Women, by Alex’s argument, centuries of exclusion, unable to rise to top of western society… because… of the evil patriarchy.

Ok… Look, Alex, if it really gives you comfort to believe this kind of thing, that’s cool. Flat-earther’s and YEC’s should not be condemned either; you are all just special people who don’t grasp rationality like the rest of us.

Please don’t interrupt though when the big girls and boys talk.

Thanks,
-wolfe

After centuries of being excluded from the workplace, you expect that women as a whole will suddenly be equally represented in all professions after only forty years? Women are quickly becoming better represented, but yes, it does take more time than forty years. Also, men have much less trouble balancing a career with family, because they aren’t expected to stay home with children. Women are (usually) the primary caregiver, so women face a choice: either put their children in daycare, or stay at home/ work part time, etc., and acheive less in terms of a career. This alone accounts for men being the majority in most fields, capability has nothing to do with it.

Thanks Biff. And no, I don’t have daughters (or sons), as most long-time readers of the site know… but when Alex did her cute little “I hope to God you don’t have daughters”, the Lowtax prank and Skinner popped into my mind.

Big Al: Good one. 10 out of 10 for good thinking, plus several hundred man points for good style.

Ah, Alex. Now we have the argument that the evil patriarchy has kept women down for so long, only the last 40-odd years has there been freedom.

Well, let’s look at this. I had a friend at university who’s parents were functionally illiterate. Their country simply didn’t have a written language until the 1970’s. They made it to the US and worked incredibly hard. His mom worked as a cleaner; his dad worked any and every job he could, often holding down 2 at a time. Having spent the first 5 years of his life in his native country, he spoke with an accent.

In 27-odd years he went from being a 5-year-old first generation immigrant who could barely speak English to being near the top of his class, and then becoming a VP of the company he worked for, managing roughly 500 people.

He had a lot stacked against him. His accent, possibly his skin color, his religious beliefs, etc. Somehow, he managed to go from near bronze-age to near top of the post-industrial age in 27 years.

Now… he managed this, and, frankly, his story isn’t that rare. Nothing to take away from his achievements, but a lot of immigrants manage just that.

Yet native-born American women… don’t as a rule. Haven’t.

Doesn’t this give you slight pause for thought? Or are you going to robotically intone more flat-earth mantras from the feminist collective?

-wolfe

The reason men dominate most professions is that until 40 years ago, women rarely worked outside the home, and if they did, it was in a traditionally “female” job (nurse, teacher, secretary, etc.). However, women are just as capable. As for the more emotionally based thought process… I admitted genes will contribute to that tendency. But I know plenty of women who are very level-headed, so if women are brought up that way, the differences between men and women pyschologically are barely great enough to be significant.

Alex said:

Also, the entire premise of this site is ludicrous, because GENERALIZATIONS ARE NOT ACCURATE.

That’s a pretty general statement, Alex.

-Big Al

Wolfe- I nearly lost it when your link led to Mr. Skinner. Nice training method the box is.

Alex, we’ve all been over this many times. Anyhow, just for you…

Please, find me a profession that is dominated at the top by women. And because I am generous I will let you pick the profession. And when I say dominated I mean something like 75% of all the top people in this field are women. For example: child psychology = Dr. Spock or the child psychology faculty of Kent State where one half the profs are male.

If physical attributes are the only arena where men dominate this probably won’t be a problem for you. I just need something to counterbalance the overwhelming achievements by men in science, math, business, aeronautics, music, accounting, military science, space travel, biology, finance, art, engineering, architecture, psychology, medicine, etc etc etc.

Alex

Your notion on parental rewards are true to a degree, but there are plenty of cases where the grown adults have changed their behaviors without their parents.

Here’s a fact: Women have a thought process different then that of men. They have a more emotional based thought process. They can do nothing about it, its in their genes and they were born that way, just as they were born with a vagina.

This actually makes women more likely to cheat “if it feels right.”

And its not about stereotypes at all, its about females being female, simple as that.

Men are better than women, get over it.

ALEX IS OBVIOUSLY A WOMEN.
-UNCLE.

Do I really need to defend the effect of environment on personality? The concept has been well established. If a girl’s parents reward emotional, irrational behavior, she will grow up to be emotional and irrational. If, instead, she’s taught that logical behavior is rewarded, then she’ll act logically. People do what works. If nature were the sole force in personality, then women would be incapable of possessing “male” personality traits. You also misunderstood what I said about physical tasks: I readily admit men are physically superior, I was saying that physical tasks are the only area in which men are significantly more capable than women.
You have yet to touch on my main argument. All rationality is lost in this site. Women are called “cheating whores”, even though men are just as likely to cheat. There’s references to women letting themselves go and gaining weight, when men do the same. You mock women for the low literacy rate world-wide, even though the reasons for the difference are obvious (women don’t get equal access to education in less developed countries), and women actually have a higher literacy rate in America. Also, the entire premise of this site is ludicrous, because GENERALIZATIONS ARE NOT ACCURATE. I’ll say it again: The majority of women don’t fit the old female stereotype. If you have to ignore stuff like that to support your thesis, then your thesis is false.

ONE IN THREE? WHERE I COME WOMEN ARE SO ILLITERATE THEY CANNOT EVEN FORUMULATE FACIAL EXPRESSIONS LET ALONE SPEECH, WORDS, LETTERS.

Actually Alex is female. (And I’ll take her at her word, since we don’t yet have a category for men pretending to be women). I’m guessing she’s young (the lack of paragraphs and her use of language gives that away) and attending one of those third or fourth tier colleges and majoring in (or at least taking) Women’s studies.

There are women with masculine tendencies and men with feminine tendencies, and the obvious explanation is that they were socialized by, say, their family, to be that way.

Oh, this is fun. Let’s try this.

There are tall women, and short men, and the obvious explanation is that they were socialized by their family to be that way

Cool.

You mentioned children, I hope to God you don’t have daughters.

My dear, my daughters are raised with the latest solid psychological tools.

We are careful to use Box Learning with all the latest techniques including the “Box of Trial”. Young girls, like dogs and women, simply need clear limits in order to develop and thrive.

Men and women are capable of all the same tasks, with the exception of men being larger and stronger (making them better suited for tasks that require physical labor).

The key words here are ‘physical’ and ‘capable’. And the answers, for girls, are ‘no’ and ‘no’. Why do you think the NY fireman and policeman death rate was something like 100:1 for men on 9-11? If you’re in a burning building and only semi conscious do you really want to be met by a 5′2 130lb (30 lbs of fat) female ‘fireman’ or a 180lb (15 lbs fat) 6′0 male fireman? Besides, as South Park conclusively proves, men have the biological ability to put out fires at range; women don’t.

Facts are also constantly twisted and ignored on this site.

No, this site actually looks at facts and science quite closely, and embraces both. Unlike you and the flat-earther’s.

men sleep around as much as women do (if not more), and that that is just as immoral.

I’ll agree with that proposition.

Don’t say that women aren’t as intelligent when there’s absolutely no facts to support it

Well there are, but leaving that aside, this site doesn’t say that.

My dear girl, you are confusing relative comparisons with absolute valuations. Amusing, given that your teachers have surely taught you that there is no such thing as an absolute.

Remember that for every slutty, manipulative, nagging, incompetent woman, there is a moral, honest, content, capable woman, and that you only have a case against the former. As for the rest, there’s no reason they can’t be treated as equals to men and get along with men.

You are saying that we should only treat women who are not moral, honest, or capable as equal to men. I do not think this is what you intended to say. Again, that’s the problem with these ‘cow colleges’. Harvard they ain’t. Of course not even Harvard is Harvard any more.

Enjoy the flat earth demonstrations!
-wolfe