Leaderboard

Yes, we do.

Yes, there are multiple variable at play. Women tend to naturally be more Agreeable if considering the OCEAN framework. Agreeable people won't get the same results in a salary negotiation as non-agreeable people (e.g. accepting the first low ball offer, or not pushing for a raise or developing other options to leverage their position). If we're considering the pay gap between professions, interestingly this is widest in the most egalitarian societies (such as Norway) where, given the choice, women statistically choose professions that are lower paying such as nursing, teaching, etc, or they don't work at all and choose to stay home and raise their children instead. And yes, I used the work choose, since the evil Patriarchy didn't force them to enter professions against their will.

A Thousand Splendid Suns by Khaled Hosseini. The best novel I've read in several years. He also wrote Kite Runner which I also very much enjoyed.

Once we move into the realm where salaries become a matter for negotiation rather than a set hourly rate do women earn as much as men? It seems to be a common claim that they do not, although I don't have links to demonstrate. They also appear less likely to be employed in those senior positions - some of which will, on the face of it, be her choice, possibly in negotiation with her husband, to not pursue such careers, in favor of more traditional roles such as child raising. But some won't really be choosing freely. I also think they don't get career advancement equality when they do choose such a career path. Some of those jobs seem to require an absolute job before family mentality and I suspect just being female leads to doubts (in predominately male selection processes) that they will in fact let someone else... care for sick kids or whatever, so the male applicants will be preferred.

Melodrama, much? Stop caricaturizing. You are getting old.

I have considered myself a feminist since my days at university in the 1970s. (I am a man.) But today in N America, paradoxically as the social status of women has gradually improved, sexual politics has become a confusing snake pit. One false move and you get bitten. So I am staying well out of it.

Contextualists miss nothing. Onus is on you to be clearer in your communication. I've asked you to clarify multiple times. Can you link me to the literature that is currently inspiring you. I want to understand, however if you will do me the courtesy of reading back some of your own writing from a different perspective, you will find that you have contradicted yourself a few times and that there are a few terms you use that need to be better defined. I agree with the sentiment of this, however there is a diversity of modal qualities to every value expressed and clear conflicts of prioritization between values. Security/Freedom is one such conflict. There is also a diversity of thought in meta-ethical dialogical positions and reducing them to something simpler than that, eliminates the subtle but profound impacts of the differences in nuance has on the modal quality of values. That's the problem we have been addressing. Your reductionism isn't helping. If we cannot discuss diversity and how it relates to equality and equity, then we cannot have the discussion at all. This is about barriers to education. Now, you can express your view, but if you cannot recognize the influence concepts or social constructs and how others view and use them, have on the barriers to equal opportunity in education, then you are ignoring the majority of the problem. A few facts to keep this all on track. F1. Not everyone shares your view on how things are, or how they ought to be. F2. Bigots exist. F3. Bad faith decisions made by biased individuals on who does or does not get into a certain school, happen. F4. There are a few different degrees and types of discrimination, direct and indirect, conscious and subconsciously. F5. Some people believe diversity exists and has value in a number of different areas. F6. Public discourse does not take these concepts lightly. Conclusion: It is not pragmatic to take the fringe belief that diversity is the antithesis of equality and claims like that require proof. Especially since the concepts 'Equality and 'Diversity have uses in a multitude of different situations. Here, we are discussing equality of opportunity. Believing in the values of equality and diversity are not mutually exclusive. There is even a way to be pro-life and pro-choice based on pragmatic modalities of the underlying values involved.

Why do you think that's what I'm laying out here? I was talking about an experiment with an electronic circuit. You've pointed out how in chemistry you can do non-electronic experiments. Something I know already, but, thanks anyway. Obviously something has wooshed straight over that head of yours. I'm trying to examine what information there is in any experiment and how you would encode that information, not necessarily on paper or an electronic circuit. I know how scared some people are of Shannon entropy, but it is what it is. So I point out something about how you can choose 0V in a circuit, and this doesn't seem to you, to be something you can do in every experiment. Well, you could be right about that.