It's an unintended consequence of feminist idealogy.

My point EXACTLY... Thanks for summing it up with a single sentence... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Rush,

How on Earth is it a free choice? How on Earth are people to treat each other as equals if they aren't even aware that they are socially conditioned not to?

The only reason women have the vote today is because they used force. Are you seriously telling me that if they hadn't the men would suddenly have gone "oh dear, it's not quite right that women don't have a say in the way our society is run, let's give them the vote."

But let's have a little talk about this so called respect for women in the 50s:

Women could not hold a bank account in their own name. If they did, their husband still had the right to take all their money without question.
If a women wanted to get a divorce she ran the very real risk of losing her children. If you ask me that is not a free choice at all.
Women found it very difficult to find someone to employ them once they were married.
It was perfectly acceptable for a husband to beat his wife.
Any women who decided to make a choice (unless she was very wealthy) and live an independent life ran the risk of being labelled insane and locked up in a mental institution.
Any woman who was discontent with the role she was allowed in society was put on medication.
Woman who were raped were often locked up in mental institutions.
Woman were taught a different curriculum at school that prepared them for the life of a secretary or nurse (until they got married) and then as a wife. (It is not much of a choice if you are denied access to the training that can get you a better job, or if no employer would employ you anyway.)
Woman were discouraged from having too strong opinions or being too intelligent. Such aberrant behaviour was quickly punished (beatings, medication and a trip to the Looney bin)
There was no reliable birth control and a woman did not have the right to refuse to have sex with her husband. (100s of woman died every year while having illegal abortions)

I could go on, the 50s was one of the most oppressive eras for woman and I am so thankful for the feminist movement for giving me the chance to live a different life. The thought of living back then makes me shudder in horror.

Rush, I don't know what to say to you when you deny that there is discrimination towards women. You are wrong. When a whole society is structured so that a woman has the 'choice' of either having children or a career there is something seriously wrong with that society. It's a 'choice' that men don't seem to be faced with. So how comes so many men still don't see that raising the next generation is just as much their responsibility as a woman's? After all, a woman is only required by biology to carry the child for 9 months.

I do agree with force in this issue. Come the day when they try to take away my vote, my right to work, my right to leave a violent partner, my right to have control over my own body, my right to talk to who ever I want to and say whatever I want to without fear of reprisal, I will fight. Because none of these rights were won in the first place without a fight

I would not go back to the horror that was the 50s anymore than I would want to live in Saudi Arabia.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Women could not hold a bank account in their own name. If they did, their husband still had the right to take all their money without question.

FALSE. I don't know what country you're talking about here.

If a women wanted to get a divorce she ran the very real risk of losing her children. If you ask me that is not a free choice at all.
Women found it very difficult to find someone to employ them once they were married.

FALSE....Earth calling ES99. Come in, ES99....

It was perfectly acceptable for a husband to beat his wife.
Any women who decided to make a choice (unless she was very wealthy) and live an independent life ran the risk of being labelled insane and locked up in a mental institution.
Any woman who was discontent with the role she was allowed in society was put on medication.

Totally false. Don't know what country you've been talking about but it certainly is NOT THE U.S.
At this point in your rant I can think of one person here that might have skipped their meds....

Woman who were raped were often locked up in mental institutions.
Woman were taught a different curriculum at school that prepared them for the life of a secretary or nurse (until they got married) and then as a wife. (It is not much of a choice if you are denied access to the training that can get you a better job, or if no employer would employ you anyway.)

I've read alot of old microfiche of newspapers. People took rape very seriously then as they do today even if then, like now, some choose not to report it out of fear of embarassment. In the U.S. many women were in the workforce. This remained true because of the necessity of WWII.

Woman were discouraged from having too strong opinions or being too intelligent. Such aberrant behaviour was quickly punished (beatings, medication and a trip to the Looney bin)

ibid. 3 paragraphs above.

I do agree with force in this issue. Come the day when they try to take away my vote, my right to work, my right to leave a violent partner, my right to have control over my own body, my right to talk to who ever I want to and say whatever I want to without fear of reprisal, I will fight. Because none of these rights were won in the first place without a fight

Rush's point was the INITIATION of force, not force per se. Don't worry though, if the kind of government you seek gets its way all of the fears you expressed in the above paragraph have a chance of materializing out of your Socialist theories into hard cold facts of reality. If that happens you may just find yourself electing for Saudi Arabia after all. At least the weather there is a bit warmer than London's. That's always a plus.

I'd like to personally thank you for raising my B.P. a wee bit. I won't need as much coffee this morning.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Gize, gize, gize ... and a few Dolls!
I thought the title of this thread was "FUN with ... "
Seems to me we are gettin real serious here.
(Though for the life of me, I cannot see how one can have "Fun" with such a serious subject.)
I aint postin no more here for fear of being banned!

Women could not hold a bank account in their own name. If they did, their husband still had the right to take all their money without question.

FALSE. I don't know what country you're talking about here.

If a women wanted to get a divorce she ran the very real risk of losing her children. If you ask me that is not a free choice at all.
Women found it very difficult to find someone to employ them once they were married.

FALSE....Earth calling ES99. Come in, ES99....

It was perfectly acceptable for a husband to beat his wife.
Any women who decided to make a choice (unless she was very wealthy) and live an independent life ran the risk of being labelled insane and locked up in a mental institution.
Any woman who was discontent with the role she was allowed in society was put on medication.

Totally false. Don't know what country you've been talking about but it certainly is NOT THE U.S.
At this point in your rant I can think of one person here that might have skipped their meds....

Woman who were raped were often locked up in mental institutions.
Woman were taught a different curriculum at school that prepared them for the life of a secretary or nurse (until they got married) and then as a wife. (It is not much of a choice if you are denied access to the training that can get you a better job, or if no employer would employ you anyway.)

I've read alot of old microfiche of newspapers. People took rape very seriously then as they do today even if then, like now, some choose not to report it out of fear of embarassment. In the U.S. many women were in the workforce. This remained true because of the necessity of WWII.

Woman were discouraged from having too strong opinions or being too intelligent. Such aberrant behaviour was quickly punished (beatings, medication and a trip to the Looney bin)

ibid. 3 paragraphs above.

I do agree with force in this issue. Come the day when they try to take away my vote, my right to work, my right to leave a violent partner, my right to have control over my own body, my right to talk to who ever I want to and say whatever I want to without fear of reprisal, I will fight. Because none of these rights were won in the first place without a fight

Rush's point was the INITIATION of force, not force per se. Don't worry though, if the kind of government you seek gets its way all of the fears you expressed in the above paragraph have a chance of materializing out of your Socialist theories into hard cold facts of reality. If that happens you may just find yourself electing for Saudi Arabia after all. At least the weather there is a bit warmer than London's. That's always a plus.

I'd like to personally thank you for raising my B.P. a wee bit. I won't need as much coffee this morning.

Sorry Brooke, you're in denial.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Yes, I deny your fantasies and falsehoods. You mean to tell me my mother didn't have her own bank accounts 11 years before the year 1970? Get real!

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Yes, I deny your fantasies and falsehoods. You mean to tell me my mother didn't have her own bank accounts 11 years before the year 1970? Get real!

Ask her about it. Ask her how easy it was to get a bank account.

---

Reality Internet Personality

Yes, I deny your fantasies and falsehoods. You mean to tell me my mother didn't have her own bank accounts 11 years before the year 1970? Get real!

Ask her about it. Ask her how easy it was to get a bank account.

You don't have to go back 11 years ...
Try getting a bank account TODAY!!!!!

Yes, I deny your fantasies and falsehoods. You mean to tell me my mother didn't have her own bank accounts 11 years before the year 1970? Get real!

Ask her about it. Ask her how easy it was to get a bank account.

You don't have to go back 11 years ...
Try getting a bank account TODAY!!!!!

lol, Probably very difficult. My Ex kindly f***ed up my credit for me as a parting gift.

---

Reality Internet Personality

How on Earth is it a free choice? How on Earth are people to treat each other as equals if they aren't even aware that they are socially conditioned not to?

For one, people aren’t equals, except under the law (and that’s another discussion altogether), and they never will be. Nevertheless, because social conditioning is nothing more than an aspect of the fact that humans interact socially, gov't force cannot exterminate it. If people cannot exterminate the effects of social interaction (i.e. individuals having their own opinion and expressing it), then it will always be there, and will always be in flux. Furthermore, it is a free choice because humans are conscious beings and still make their own choices, e.g. you chose to become a physicist. Oprah becomes one of the richest women on earth. Maggie Thatcher ran the U.K. Those women were never “treated equally” anymore than anyone else. They were “socially conditioned” as was everyone else and they ignored it.

The only reason women have the vote today is because they used force. Are you seriously telling me that if they hadn't the men would suddenly have gone "oh dear, it's not quite right that women don't have a say in the way our society is run, let's give them the vote."

Though I’ve said it before, you misunderstand the use of force. It is wrong to initiate force against another, but once that has been done, the use of force in response is perfectly moral and likely necessary.

But to address your comment more specifically: the gov’t is/was not run from a rational set of principles. The only principle is, “he who gets the most gov’t guns stuck into the most faces, wins.” For a gov’t to be valid, it must provide equal protection under the law for all of its citizens. Since in actuality all it is/was doing was letting group A stick a gun into group B’s face, the result is that women couldn’t vote. Group A initiated force, using the gov’t, to prevent you from voting and denying women equal protection/opportunity under the law.

There is nothing wrong with responding in kind, demanding the right to vote, which was the proper thing to do. However, women today aren’t demanding equality under the law, which they should have, they are demanding aggregate statistical equality, which is impossible, and claiming that aggregate numbers are proof of discrimination.

The aggregate statistics fail as a method for determining any kind of discrimination in individual cases as my article demonstrated. Using the arguments of women today, colleges are discriminating against men, period. According to the article, at Florida Atlantic University, women made up 64 percent of this year's graduates, 75 percent of the honors degrees, 79 percent of the highest honors, summa cum laude. According to so-called feminist arguments those number are prima facie proof of gender discrimination and the EEOC (in the U.S.) should sue the skool. Their argument is that since the numbers aren’t in line with their egalitarian idea of the bell curve, this is discrimination, pure and simple. “Only 20% percent of the men earned highest honors!? That’s not possible! We’re all equal, so men should have earned 50% of them!!”

The reality, as the article also suggests, is quite different.

In essence, by demanding that the gov’t “do something” or in your words, use "artificial means to ensure equality and create a level playing field," (a euphemism if I’ve ever seen one) you/women are doing exactly what the men did when they used the gov’t to prevent you from voting: initiating gov’t force because they agree with it.

This is wrong. And it’s wrong whoever does it, and it’s wrong whatever the goals, because the reason society has so many troubles is that it’s just a battle over who can stick more gov’t guns in more faces. This half-assed “principle” is what fails us because it means we have war in Iraq and we create nuclear weapons and corporate welfare and the WHISC and “free” health care, all of which the gov't took from people at the point of the gun held by those that supported their pet program.

I could go on, the 50s was one of the most oppressive eras for woman and I am so thankful for the feminist movement for giving me the chance to live a different life. The thought of living back then makes me shudder in horror.

The fight for equal opportunity and equality under the law was correct and moral. The fight for equal outcome or equal representation is the initiation of force and therefore incorrect, immoral, and no different that what went on earlier, just another gender trying to skrew the first.

Rush, I don't know what to say to you when you deny that there is discrimination towards women. You are wrong.

I’m not wrong, because I’ve never denied that there is discrimination against women. There is. Just as there is against men, (my article is proof of that, right?) Fat people. Dumb people. Smart geeks. Rich people. Poor people. The list is infinite and unassailable.

What I have said is that you haven’t provided an argument for A) how aggregate statistics that are nothing more than the result of trillions of decisions made every day can demonstrate unjust discrimination in individual cases; or B) how you can justify the use of gov’t force when used in the same manner you decry, i.e. voting rights.

When a whole society is structured so that a woman has the 'choice' of either having children or a career there is something seriously wrong with that society. It's a 'choice' that men don't seem to be faced with. So how comes so many men still don't see that raising the next generation is just as much their responsibility as a woman's? After all, a woman is only required by biology to carry the child for 9 months.

Again, this just comes down to you not being happy with what individual people choose and how those decisions disagree with your worldview.

In your mind, there is something seriously wrong with a society that says a woman has a choice of children over family. That’s untrue. It very much is a choice that men are faced with. As I said before, these choices (like all choices) are simple cost/benefit analyses. Regardless of the gender, the person that takes, say, 10 years off, to raise kids has likely sacrificed their career. Not because of their gender, but because they have given up 10 years of experience to do so. Just as the parent freely chooses to raise that child, the employer freely chooses to hire someone else--who hasn't been out of the workforce and who has 10 years more experience. That's just rational.

Now you, and everyone who feels as you do, are free to hire someone who has been out of the workforce for ten years, and pay them whatever you please, more power to you. Even those that believe as you do, rarely if ever do these things. You can understand why many employers freely choose not to do that, regardless of gender.

Many men do see that raising the next generation is just as much their responsibility as a woman's and more often than not, the family chooses accordingly, which means, she stays home with the child and he goes to work. How would you ever know that they don’t see this? Your opinion? More aggregate statistics? In this case, she sacrifices her career and he sacrifices his time and input in raising his children. That you aren’t happy that people often choose that way is not a rational reason to initiate gov’t force.

I do agree with force in this issue. Come the day when they try to take away my vote, my right to work, my right to leave a violent partner, my right to have control over my own body, my right to talk to who ever I want to and say whatever I want to without fear of reprisal, I will fight. Because none of these rights were won in the first place without a fight.

Most of these are just the right of equality under the law, which is fine.

Well, you are still conflating force with the initiation of force. More importantly, here is the interesting point. You said you would fight to prevent others from taking these things away from you. If you can understand why you fight against the initiation of force, you can understand why others do the same thing. You can understand why it’s wrong and yet you advocate the very same thing.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Well, it's clear I can now retire from ever posting in the forums again as Rush seems to have everything nicely under control. My skills are no longer needed. The force of REASON is strong with him it is. Mmmm.

I'll just take some pills and cross over the river and rest under the shade of the trees.


0316 UTC Account 278698 deleted

Joined: May 21, 2001
Posts: 7647
ID: 278698
Credit: 20,560
RAC: 66

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

For one, people aren’t equals, except under the law (and that’s another discussion altogether), and they never will be. Nevertheless, because social conditioning is nothing more than an aspect of the fact that humans interact socially, gov't force cannot exterminate it. If people cannot exterminate the effects of social interaction (i.e. individuals having their own opinion and expressing it), then it will always be there, and will always be in flux. Furthermore, it is a free choice because humans are conscious beings and still make their own choices, e.g. you chose to become a physicist. Oprah becomes one of the richest women on earth. Maggie Thatcher ran the U.K. Those women were never “treated equally” anymore than anyone else. They were “socially conditioned” as was everyone else and they ignored it.

They are unusual. They were successful despite the system, not because of it.

Though I’ve said it before, you misunderstand the use of force. It is wrong to initiate force against another, but once that has been done, the use of force in response is perfectly moral and likely necessary.

Sad but true, I agree. I never like it, and it is better to use as little as possible.

But to address your comment more specifically: the gov’t is/was not run from a rational set of principles. The only principle is, “he who gets the most gov’t guns stuck into the most faces, wins.” For a gov’t to be valid, it must provide equal protection under the law for all of its citizens. Since in actuality all it is/was doing was letting group A stick a gun into group B’s face, the result is that women couldn’t vote. Group A initiated force, using the gov’t, to prevent you from voting and denying women equal protection/opportunity under the law.

I agree with you here too, but you know we both that neither of us like the idea of government anyway.

There is nothing wrong with responding in kind, demanding the right to vote, which was the proper thing to do. However, women today aren’t demanding equality under the law, which they should have, they are demanding aggregate statistical equality, which is impossible, and claiming that aggregate numbers are proof of discrimination.

Not all women are, and there is always a lot of confusion as to what statistics actually mean. To use the old quote "There are lies, damn lies and statistics"

However, if an imbalance shows up in statistics the first step should be to examine it. They are not evidence on their own, but they can be a warning sign that something is up.

The aggregate statistics fail as a method for determining any kind of discrimination in individual cases as my article demonstrated. Using the arguments of women today, colleges are discriminating against men, period. According to the article, at Florida Atlantic University, women made up 64 percent of this year's graduates, 75 percent of the honors degrees, 79 percent of the highest honors, summa cum laude. According to so-called feminist arguments those number are prima facie proof of gender discrimination and the EEOC (in the U.S.) should sue the skool. Their argument is that since the numbers aren’t in line with their egalitarian idea of the bell curve, this is discrimination, pure and simple. “Only 20% percent of the men earned highest honors!? That’s not possible! We’re all equal, so men should have earned 50% of them!!”

but perhaps men really aren't equal anymore? It's worth investigating. I would hate to see a world where men are treated as 2nd class citizens.

The reality, as the article also suggests, is quite different.

In essence, by demanding that the gov’t “do something” or in your words, use "artificial means to ensure equality and create a level playing field," (a euphemism if I’ve ever seen one) you/women are doing exactly what the men did when they used the gov’t to prevent you from voting: initiating gov’t force because they agree with it.

I'm sorry, I don't see a problem with that..and I'm not sure where you get the gov't force thing from. I though law suits were a civil thing.

This is wrong. And it’s wrong whoever does it, and it’s wrong whatever the goals, because the reason society has so many troubles is that it’s just a battle over who can stick more gov’t guns in more faces. This half-assed “principle” is what fails us because it means we have war in Iraq and we create nuclear weapons and corporate welfare and the WHISC and “free” health care, all of which the gov't took from people at the point of the gun held by those that supported their pet program.

A lot of things weren't forced on people at gun point. However, the manufacture of general consent it a whole nother topic if you want to start a thread on that.

The fight for equal opportunity and equality under the law was correct and moral. The fight for equal outcome or equal representation is the initiation of force and therefore incorrect, immoral, and no different that what went on earlier, just another gender trying to skrew the first.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure what you are saying here.

I’m not wrong, because I’ve never denied that there is discrimination against women. There is. Just as there is against men, (my article is proof of that, right?) Fat people. Dumb people. Smart geeks. Rich people. Poor people. The list is infinite and unassailable.

Very true, but discrimination is only a real problem when there is a power imbalance involved. Who has more power? A rich man or a poor man? So who is more effected by any discrimination?

What I have said is that you haven’t provided an argument for A) how aggregate statistics that are nothing more than the result of trillions of decisions made every day can demonstrate unjust discrimination in individual cases; or B) how you can justify the use of gov’t force when used in the same manner you decry, i.e. voting rights.

Those decisions are based on Hobson's choice. There is no such thing as 'free choice'

Again, this just comes down to you not being happy with what individual people choose and how those decisions disagree with your worldview.

Hobson's choice. No choice at all.

In your mind, there is something seriously wrong with a society that says a woman has a choice of children over family. That’s untrue. It very much is a choice that men are faced with. As I said before, these choices (like all choices) are simple cost/benefit analyses. Regardless of the gender, the person that takes, say, 10 years off, to raise kids has likely sacrificed their career. Not because of their gender, but because they have given up 10 years of experience to do so. Just as the parent freely chooses to raise that child, the employer freely chooses to hire someone else--who hasn't been out of the workforce and who has 10 years more experience. That's just rational.

Yet why do so many more men walk away from their families and responsibilities than women?

Now you, and everyone who feels as you do, are free to hire someone who has been out of the workforce for ten years, and pay them whatever you please, more power to you. Even those that believe as you do, rarely if ever do these things. You can understand why many employers freely choose not to do that, regardless of gender.

If that is the case, then this society is not working for everyone and needs to be changed.

Many men do see that raising the next generation is just as much their responsibility as a woman's and more often than not, the family chooses accordingly, which means, she stays home with the child and he goes to work. How would you ever know that they don’t see this? Your opinion? More aggregate statistics? In this case, she sacrifices her career and he sacrifices his time and input in raising his children. That you aren’t happy that people often choose that way is not a rational reason to initiate gov’t force.

Again, why do so many more men than women walk away from the responsibilities and their families? Why are they able to make that choice so easily? Please explain it to me, because I am mystified.

Most of these are just the right of equality under the law, which is fine.

Well, you are still conflating force with the initiation of force. More importantly, here is the interesting point. You said you would fight to prevent others from taking these things away from you. If you can understand why you fight against the initiation of force, you can understand why others do the same thing. You can understand why it’s wrong and yet you advocate the very same thing.

Yes. I shouldn’t have to. You are aware that by fight I mean protest, use the courts, lobby, strike, throw my self under horses etc...and not literally take up arms against my oppressors?


Thanks Rush, for your very long and thoughtful post.

What it shows me is that there are some strange things going on over in America and you have a very odd view of the goal of feminism. :-)

---

Reality Internet Personality

Es, Rush is using a colorful metaphor when he speaks of "guns in people's faces."

The reason that civil cases have any relevance at all is because they have the weight of the law behind them. The law has weight because it has armed security forces behind it.

For example, if you resist paying you taxes, you'll get a letter. Ignore that and someone shows up at your house with a summons. Ignore that and people with guns show up to take you to court. Resist that and those guns will be pointed at you. Resist that and you will become coffin filler.

EDIT: typo

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Es, Rush is using a colorful metaphor when he speaks of "guns in people's faces."

The reason that civil cases have any relevance at all is because they have the weight of the law behind them. The law has weight because it has armed security forces behind it.

For example, if you resist paying you taxes, you'll get a letter. Ignore that and someone shows up at your house with a summons. Ignore that and people with guns show up to take you to court. Resist that and those guns will be pointed at you. Resist that and you will become coffin filler.

EDIT: typo

ok...I just know how much you guys like your guns over there so I never know if it's a metaphor or not.

..but as Rush points out, it's a choice whether you obey your government or not. After all, there's more of you than there are of them ;-)

---

Reality Internet Personality

Thanks Rush, for your very long and thoughtful post.

We aim to please and I will let your response stand on it's own.

I would add, however, that though something may be a so-called Hobson's Choice, that is not an argument for bringing the force of gov't down upon someone.

What it shows me is that there are some strange things going on over in America and you have a very odd view of the goal of feminism. :-)

Then you missed it almost entirely. 8^[

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

I'd be happy with equality in the courts. How can a 37 year old only get six months for sexual assault of a 15 year old?!

More prima facie proof, the DISCRIMINATORS are EVERYWHERE!!

From Reuters:

Left-handed men see better paychecks
Thu Aug 10, 10:34 PM ET

Left-handed men, often seen as having an advantage over right-handed counterparts in sports like tennis, also enjoy much better paydays, a new study says.

Left-handed men with at least some college education earned 15 percent more than similarly educated right-handers, while those who finished college earned about 26 percent more, wrote Christopher S. Ruebeck of Lafayette College, and Joseph Harrington and Robert Moffitt of Johns Hopkins University in a paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

There are "several suggestive and economically and statistically significant results that suggest further support for the notion that handedness matters," they wrote. "We do not have a theory that reconciles all of these findings."

The researchers did not find a similar effect among women.

The data used for the study were hourly earnings taken from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, a set of surveys including individuals aged 14-21 in 1979 who were interviewed every year until 1994 and every other year thereafter.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

More prima facie proof, the DISCRIMINATORS are EVERYWHERE!!

From Reuters:

Left-handed men see better paychecks
Thu Aug 10, 10:34 PM ET

Left-handed men, often seen as having an advantage over right-handed counterparts in sports like tennis, also enjoy much better paydays, a new study says.

Left-handed men with at least some college education earned 15 percent more than similarly educated right-handers, while those who finished college earned about 26 percent more, wrote Christopher S. Ruebeck of Lafayette College, and Joseph Harrington and Robert Moffitt of Johns Hopkins University in a paper published by the National Bureau of Economic Research.

There are "several suggestive and economically and statistically significant results that suggest further support for the notion that handedness matters," they wrote. "We do not have a theory that reconciles all of these findings."

The researchers did not find a similar effect among women.

The data used for the study were hourly earnings taken from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, a set of surveys including individuals aged 14-21 in 1979 who were interviewed every year until 1994 and every other year thereafter.

Oh for goodness sake, is this really a problem on a par with women's pay inequalities?

---

Reality Internet Personality

This just in!!

PepsiCo today named President and Chief Financial Officer Indra Nooyi as chief executive, effective Oct. 1. Pepsi will be the second-largest U.S. firm to be headed by a woman, behind Archer Daniels Midland, where Patricia Woertz is CEO.

How does this work again? Weren't these two socially-conditioned not to succeed? Wasn't the board socially-conditioned to crush these two? Because they're eeeevil?

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...

Oh for goodness sake, is this really a problem on a par with women's pay inequalities?

No, of course not. It's a comment on taking aggregate statistical findings in comparison to irrelevant aspects thereof, i.e. left- or right- handedness in relation to income. That statistical inequalities are not proof of discrimination in general, let alone when applied to individuals.

---

Cordially,
Rush

elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com
Remove the obvious...