I have long known from studies referenced that there is no such thing as a gender gap anymore, when you account for hours worked, and the assertiveness and value of women it essentially vanishes or turns insignificant. The prejudice is essentially gone, but the powerful narrative remains. The rhetoric feminists use is based on ancient obsolete studies, not objective and up to date ones such as Pewpew. When you account for men working 9 hours longer and generally get paid in overtime any difference is statistically irrelevant. It is true though that women are somewhat less likely to become major CEOs, enter hard science, or become programmers, and this can be explained in many ways (generally individual decisions by women to work less), which don’t require psychological guesswork, “a patriarchy” or a culture of “oppression.”
I got the “9 hour gap per week” figure from Pew Pew: “Among all people ages 16 and older, men spend an average 30 hours a week on paid work and women spend 21.”
If for some reason you don’t trust Pewpew, the BLS has its own set of numbers that show men work significantly longer. (Men worked an average of 41.1 hours per week. Woman worked an average of 36.4 hours per week in paid employment. More specifically, women are twice as likely to take part-time work as men.) I’m not concerned enough to find out whether Pewpew or the BLS have more accurate numbers, for me it’s enough to show that there is a material difference in hours worked, and both agree on the correlation.
Here’s another fun fact: women actually tend to make more per hour than men doing part time work.
Obviously there is still an absence among the largest CEOs at large companies, but those people live in a totally different world than what any of us are going to experience, where corruption and nepotism are rules governing their a parallel universe that government doesn’t yet have the strength to reset. Women lead fewer video game companies, because women don’t like video games as much, few study programming (except for the transgendered who are overly represented–if they count as women), and women lately have preferred to use video games as a medium to preach progressive messages
in a condescending and boring way rather than to make the interesting escapist fantasies that men actually want to play. (Famous feminists who don’t actually play video games
have waged a war on video games for the last few years, decrying the objectification of women because there have been too many sexy babes, in games that women don’t like to play.) Basically they’re highly irrational and part of the reason American games have been censored and boring lately to avoid controversy, with ugly women with monkey lips as protagonists
or on the covers
More women get college degrees these days (though they favor degrees that tend to pay less), and half of the students in my major were women. If the women from my major want to change upper management they can if they’re assertive and committed to their careers. We nearly had a female president and there were no serious indications that her sex would have been a liability rather than an asset for scoring votes by a large feminist and progressive base, so I consider fighting sexism flogging a dead horse when society should move on to bigger and more real controversies. Feminism is dead, and feminist activism should stay buried along with the 70’s. When the genders are nearly at parity in the workforce, the only way for women to rise further is to feminize men and cut mens’ dicks. (I think we’ve been going in that direction in the west, which has begun to drive men to join “the sexual right.”)
Kushner owes 1 billion in debt for a tower bought at height of Manhatten property boom, and has talked to foreigners (Russians, Chinese, Saudis, Israelis) to try and get them to buy it. Conflict of interest level: red flag.
Trumpcucks will tell you Trump is smart because he went through bankruptcy five times and came out rich, and he’s therefore smarter than you. Ask them, “If I went through bankruptcy ten times and came out richer than Trump would I be smarter than him?”
If they say no, ask why not, and demand they explain their unlogic.
Wait for them to struggle with it, but don’t waste much time or let them get distracted with Red Herrings before advancing beyond the question. Offer to grant for the sake of argument that he’s both smart and capable of leading acountry efficiently, and then ask them to demonstrate he will use those capacities for America rather than himself. (By this I mean that you are asking for proof of his morality; while all you need to know about Trump’s morality can be gleaned from Trump university where his first reaction to hearing about the scandal was to deny it and promise to fight it vigorously in court and give nothing away. A moral person would be horrified and immediately promise to make amends to defrauded students, even if he wanted to keep the amount from being unreasonable .)
Trumpcucks won’t offer proof and will end up stammering conspiracy theories like Scott Adams about how a persecution complex is out to hold good old Trump back. Circular reasoning. They haven’t proven he is good, or defined it, although it appears that they have an Ayn Rand sort of perspective where whenever Trump acts in his own self-interests it must be good for everyone else.
They’re immune to logic and won’t change their views, though fortunately the younger generation aren’t usually so stupid. I am of course citing the absolute unlogic that occurred in the Scott Adams vs. Sam Harris debate, though I have witnessed it firsthand with myriad other examples, and I wish I could be dismissed as exaggerating as Americans tend to do.
If I may speak the platitudes a little, I think people are more similar than different. Racists don’t really recognize this due to a variety of cognitive biases, and the tendency towards tribalism. Not long ago it was not even allowed to intermarry between “races” in America. We really behave like dogs, except I think there is much less variety between races than between dog breeds!
Often people who have no traveled ascribe large differences to other countries, treating them like they are a totally different species rather than just another breed raised in another environment. Our core desires are more similar than different, it’s a grand illusion, and lately I’ve realized that we generally all laugh at the same jokes.
When I say this I mean country to country comparisons. Variations of person to person differences within a country are much bigger than country to country comparions where we regress to the mean.
I will elaborate…
“Vouchers are in my opinion the single greatest threat to America as we know it. That is not hyperbole either.
When you look at the things that have made America great over the last 100+ years, one of the top reasons has been our ability to successfully socialize and integrate very large groups of immigrants into society. Our public education system has been a huge and underappreciated part of that.
Contrast the American public school system with many parts of Europe where they have allowed self-segregation by allowing students to attend religious schools instead of forcing all young people to go to school together.
In fact the communities we have failed the most have been where segregation remained. Specifically African-American’s.
If we break this system we will see an increase of racism and an increase of sectarian problems in America.
Vouchers should in fact be outlawed. If you leave a child’s education up to the parents, you will have unqualified uneducated people determining what is ‘true” and creating future generations of unqualified uneducated people.
This is the most pressing problem in America today.”
>The article you linked to shows that Private Religious Schools provide a better education in all regards. Also, not all Christians endorse creationism. In fact, the Catholic Church has explicitly endorsed evolution, but doesn’t mandate it’s members take a specific stance.
Obviously you haven’t dove into the study and are suffering a delusional confirmation bias. Any kind of regression analysis will show that when you account for the kids who have rich and educated white dads entering school, they would have done equally well and in fact better at a regular school. Skim the cream top and put them at a private school and they will perform well even if the class were taught by trained monkeys who teach by turning on tape recorders. However, public schools hire more qualified and effective teachers, and stick with standard curriculum better which can be measured.
Private school effectively hurts your education in America, as a general rule of thumb according to the metrics. If you send your kids to one you have done them a disservice.
So the new age people who collect healing stones (just rocks and gems)…..do they think they’re playing a RPG? I mean they seem to think certain stones will protect them from debuffs like cancer, poison, or bad energies that would power down their attack points.
Sounds like a great idea for a video game…picture yourself walking around Portland, Oregon fighting antifa, angry heavy metal fans, anarchist punks, Wiccans, and methheads on skateboards. Later you must collect the special rings from conservative sororities to unlock the seal on the dean’s heart and free Evergreen University from liberal tyranny.
There could even be a level where you have to escort RICHARD DAWKINS past crazy liberals and Muslims into the heart of irrational America: Berkley. In his radiant presence all of the magical rings lose their effect.