Men's Rights Activism

DJS4000 said:
...
Click to expand...
so in other words, the females are "to weak" physicaly to achieve what is needed for your so called ranger training or they are always behind in the military?

Well. I wish I could give you a chance to do a training with a female judo trainer I knew. She was not physicaly different then most other females. Yet she is particularly for her age physicaly a lot more fit then most males which trained with her. On a regulary basis you know.

Again. I am not even saying there are no differences between males and females and I am not used with statistics in the military or what ever.

But comparing males and females in sport shows that they are not that far behind males. The differences are not as huge as people believe.

next youre going to tell me females are also worse in math compared to males but they can dress your hair better ...

Look I am sure you have your own experiences and all that stuff. But I AM thinking about the average male/female here and I do believe that both can achieve a lot with sufficient training.
 
Crni Vuk said:
But comparing males and females in sport shows that they are not that far behind males. The differences are not as huge as people believe.
Click to expand...
Actually they are.

Crni Vuk said:
Look I am sure you have your own experiences and all that stuff. But I AM thinking about the average male/female here and I do believe that both can achieve a lot with sufficient training.
Click to expand...
Agreed, both can achieve a lot with significant training but men on average are physically stronger and faster than women. It's a fact. Keep in mind that an average is not a statement of the ability of every man or woman.

Regarding physical standards, you generally are going to have more men able to pass the test than women, be it genetics or simply the group of people that lines of work with such requirements tend to attract. That isn't a problem, the problem is when those standards are set for a specific reason (fire fighters, some military personnel, etc.) and then adjusted because pass rates or employment distribution isn't equal among men and women. The other problem is that in most of those professions far fewer women apply than men, so that should probably be examined. Sometimes there are unsettling reasons for this discrepancy.
 
Crni Vuk said:
so in other words, the females are "to weak" physicaly to achieve what is needed for your so called ranger training or they are always behind in the military?
Click to expand...

they lack upper-body strength as well as the power and endurance to carry the same equipment as men over long distances. something along the lines of 40 to 50 kg over 60 kilometers after a week of almost no caloric intake and intense hand-to-hand training.

another thing: during basic i liked to have them bench press. observation: most men can press 50% of their own body weight right off the bat. women usually cannot.

Well. I wish I could give you a chance to do a training with a female judo trainer I knew. She was not physicaly different then most other females. Yet she is particularly for her age physicaly a lot more fit then most males which trained with her. On a regulary basis you know.
Click to expand...

no doubt in the slightest that she is capable. but so are male judo masters. or any long-time martials arts practitioner. neither jigoro kano or o sensei had a strong physical presence, yet i'd rather not have faced them one-on-one. also, again, ask yourself why during professional competition there are _always_ gender-specific match-ups.

Again. I am not even saying there are no differences between males and females and I am not used with statistics in the military or what ever.

But comparing males and females in sport shows that they are not that far behind males. The differences are not as huge as people believe.
Click to expand...

they are. in some disciplines more than others. off the top of my head i know that the javelin world records differ by around 25%.

next youre going to tell me females are also worse in math compared to males but they can dress your hair better ...
Click to expand...

no. never have, never will. please don't insinuate. there are a lot of things do be done regarding equality of genders, but saying that there is no, or little, physical difference between the genders...that's just wrong. i always treat everyone the same (uniform helps masking genders) and am very tolerant. but i also expect the same kind of performance, especially in my field of work.

Look I am sure you have your own experiences and all that stuff. But I AM thinking about the average male/female here and I do believe that both can achieve a lot with sufficient training.
Click to expand...

yes they can, no question. but given the same amount of physical training in the same timeframe, men will usually achieve more and faster results. testosterone is quite powerful.

keep in mind that i faced truly average men (conscripts fresh out of school) and NCOs, who already had taken a fitness test just to be admitted to this career. so they actually were above average.

UncannyGarlic said:
The other problem is that in most of those professions far fewer women apply than men, so that should probably be examined.
Click to expand...

this is correct. there was a study done recently in norway or sweden or something that examined this...even with maximum equality women still tend to have lower application rates for engineering and related fields. that's just the way it is. what now? you want to force them to take jobs in technical professions?
 
There is also this:

Women do not ask for raises. Men do.

Women do not pursue promotions and/or power. Men do.

(this is in general terms)
 
Ah, so it's all their fault.

The research focused on career paths of high-potential men and women, drawing on thousands of MBA graduates from top schools around the world. Catalyst found that, among those who had moved on from their first post-MBA job, there was no significant difference in the proportion of women and men who asked for increased compensation or a higher position.

Yet the rewards were different.

Women who initiated such conversations and changed jobs post MBA experienced slower compensation growth than the women who stayed put. For men, on the other hand, it paid off to change jobs and negotiate for higher salaries—they earned more than men who stayed did. And we saw that as both men’s and women’s careers progress, the gender gap in level and pay gets even wider.
Click to expand...


Source
 
Bux, from the source you linked:

Instead, men had greater compensation
increases when they conducted external scans to stay on top of their
market value and indicated their willingness to work long hours, blurring
the boundary between work and life.
Click to expand...

plus, that was a study of only MBAs
 
DammitBoy said:
There is also this:

Women do not ask for raises. Men do.

Women do not pursue promotions and/or power. Men do.

(this is in general terms)
Click to expand...

Wrong. I have two sisters that are lawyers that want and get raises and promotions. In general, their friends I've met are all girls and also very sucessful.
Maybe it depends where you live. Job climate is different from state to state.
 
I get "in general" and I'm saying thats bullshit. My "in general" was me just being snide.
Doesn't he have a daughter that is smart or something?
 
General: considering or dealing with overall characteristics, universal aspects, or important elements, especially without considering all details or specific aspects
 
bux, because they are comparing in-equal foundations.

the men by virtue of offering to put in more hours and sacrifice their social life vs women are showing a higher commitment. companies overall reward commitment.

as a comparison: guy works hard at Company A and puts in 80 hour work weeks for 5 years, busting his ass and getting promoted 5 times.

woman works at Company A and puts in 40 hour work weeks. gets 3 promotions in 5 years.

if you look at their promotions/earning on a 5 year stretch, the guy comes out very far ahead.

if you look at it as a function of "effort" put in, or more accurately, as hours worked, all of a sudden the women is getting faster promotions and faster money increases.

in 5 years 80 hrs a week, he has put in effectively 10 years of work, and gotten 5 promotions.

in 10 years of work, she has put in effectively 10 years of work, and gotten 6 promotions.

she has advanced further for the same "effort" or "commitment". that is not "equality".
 
Wow, the explicit sexism in that post is pretty damn amazing, TheWesDude. Men work harder than women? They're more committed? And women put in half the effort yet get rewarded more?

Are you actually basing those numbers on, well, anything?
 
no sander, it is to point out a hidden acknowledgement that the studies own methodology has flaws.

and it was to point out an example of said flaw.

they acknowledge in the study that men were willing to work longer hours than women, but then continue to compare based on a yearly progress. which when you consider said above flaw if you only look at 5 and 10 year marks, the flaw in their process hides the reality.

if you look at flat numbers, the guy gets more promotions faster. 5 in a 5 year term, 10 in a 10 year term. he thus makes more money faster theoretically.

the woman gets 3 promotions in 5 years, and 6 promotions in 10 years. it makes it look like women are being held down/back.

but when you look at hours invested and balance them against each other, while the initial premise that the man gets more money/promotions faster, it turns out that is actually incorrect when taking into account hours worked, the woman is actually making more money faster.

again, that initial quote was from the article. and i did not see them quantify the self-acknowledged flaw for their results in their study.

i was hoping people would be smart enough to understand that point without having to explain in detail why that could be a more important measuring stick.
 
It does not say any of that in the linked study, especially not on the supposed 80 hours vs. 40 hours difference you are assuming in your example. An explicitly sexist and completely baseless assumption. In fact, the study speaks explicitly to this statement, and found that communicating a willingness to work long hours did not help women nearly as much as it did men. So, had you read the study, you would realize that your assumption is nonsense.

Unless you can substantiate your sexism in ANY way (and you have not substantiated ANY of your other sexist statements in this thread despite repeated requests), you are full of it.

Comments like that echo many other sexist assumptions: maybe women are just stupider and hence earn less, maybe women just don't want to work, maybe women aren't as fit to work. Replace 'work' with 'vote' or other terms as you will.
 
the only way i can substantiate is via anecdotal experience. which is unprovable/unciteable.


if only we could get the "company's" reports on the employees for what they perceive/experience.

it appears this only provides one side of the story, the employee's story. you have to have both sides. ideally both sides where both women and men are at so you can compare, especially performance weather realized or potential.

they do not describe how they quantify their criteria. say a man goes to his boss and every week on friday asks if there is a need for them to work overtime this weekend. he considers that "offering to work more time and less personal", whereas a man who offers to only do it once a month does not. conversely a woman who offers once a month may mark it as such, and not offering at all consider it not.

this whole study smacks of persons self-evaluating which introduces bias.

im not sure this study should be taken as anything other than anecdotal experience.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top