Hello all...

I didn't want to Spam up the Election thread, not when KING KID is already doing such a great job of that. (Love you mate)

This is a topic I touched on with iron maiden and mikec and I wanted to circle back to it but the thread moved on.
It is a strange topic and I know I am already considered pretty much a cardboard cutout for Conservatism here, but I really wanted to talk about Equity, especially with Kamala Harris's record when speaking on the topic.
I am sure I have written about this before but I cannot seem to find it anywhere...

This is the picture that often does the rounds when speaking about Equality vs Equity:




There are a few along similar lines:




I will freely admit I wish the world could look like this, I love the idea of unlimited prosperity and everyone doing well.
In the election thread there were comments around directing more money to schools  with under-privileged kids.

Again, I would totally support this... But only to a point.
The hidden underbelly of the equity movement is that it is sold to the public under the idea that resources are limitless.
In the first picture with the apple tree, on the left hand side there are 3 crates and on the right there are 6.

Herein lies the problem, we don't have unlimited crates, so when we seek to lift some up, we do so at the expense of others.
The part that is annoying is that it is already happening without anyone agreeing to it.
My daughters school participates in a National Testing program, it is how the schools are measured.
The system is designed to judge a school poorly for underperforming students than recognizing a school with a high number of overperforming students.
This causes the curriculum to focus on the lowest placed students at the expense of the better performing ones.
My daughter isn't academically gifted, but I am convinced we could replicate her 5 days of school in 1 days of home schooling.

When we say equity is the goal and divert resources, we don't tend to check if the money is making a difference.
You could take a poor neighbourhood in a socio-economically disadvantaged part of town and throw tens of millions at it.
When the issue is systemic of single parent homes rife with drug abuse and alcohol there is a very little chance that any amount of money change that.


Here is the kicker, the wealth in a society exists because a very select few grab the ball and run with it.
They create businesses, jobs, wealth and the whole of society benefits.
There is a strong argument that redirecting resources to the very best and brightest would benefit everyone including the poor much more than burning it on programs with no results.
I am not advocating for that, I am advocating for a meritocracy, everyone deserves the same opportunities and it is not the place of society to put their finger on the scale and make it harder for the best and brightest.

Again, not a moral judgement... Just an analytical one.
When anyone talks to you about "Equity" just remember that they are talking about taking something from one person to give it to another in the name of "fairness"

Unfortunately, jealousy is a human condition.
When people see others doing well they don't think it is right for some to have more than others.
This is why governments bring in inheritance tax, capital gains tax, taxes on unrealised capital gains for billionaires, it is not about raising revenue, it is because the politics of envy is good business.

Aug 6, 2024 20:38:22 GMT iNCY said:

Herein lies the problem, we don't have unlimited crates, so when we seek to lift some up, we do so at the expense of others.

Or does it just seem that way to those of us who were fortunate enough to be born into privilege, whether that means first world countries, race, wealthy families or gender?

In season 1 of Explained on Netflix I watched two interesting 15-20m shorts on The Racial Wealth Gap and Why Women are Paid Less. www.netflix.com/ca/title/80216752

Now you can say these two things don't exist, but they do because centuries of inequality have made it impossible for minorities like women and blacks to ever be truly equal even in a meritocracy. They are already starting on an unfair playing field.

I'm going to take it one step further and upset you (remember I love and respect you)- and probably most everyone on here- and say that because the systems of the past (and still present) favoring white males, it's now making you cry injustice because you feel in the name of 'equality' it's taking away from you when in actuality you really aren't losing anything. 

Aug 6, 2024 20:38:22 GMT iNCY said:

hen we say equity is the goal and divert resources, we don't tend to check if the money is making a difference.
You could take a poor neighbourhood in a socio-economically disadvantaged part of town and throw tens of millions at it.
When the issue is systemic of single parent homes rife with drug abuse and alcohol there is a very little chance that any amount of money change that.

I don't disagree with this, because I've seen us doing this very thing for years with little change, but again this is due to centuries of inequality.  And I don't know that we can do anything now to fix it.

Thanos was right. 

Aug 6, 2024 21:48:20 GMT iron maiden said:

Aug 6, 2024 20:38:22 GMT iNCY said:

Herein lies the problem, we don't have unlimited crates, so when we seek to lift some up, we do so at the expense of others.

Or does it just seem that way to those of us who were fortunate enough to be born into privilege, whether that means first world countries, race, wealthy families or gender?

In season 1 of Explained on Netflix I watched two interesting 15-20m shorts on The Racial Wealth Gap and Why Women are Paid Less. www.netflix.com/ca/title/80216752

Now you can say these two things don't exist, but they do because centuries of inequality have made it impossible for minorities like women and blacks to ever be truly equal even in a meritocracy. They are already starting on an unfair playing field.

I'm going to take it one step further and upset you (remember I love and respect you)- and probably most everyone on here- and say that because the systems of the past (and still present) favoring white males, it's now making you cry injustice because you feel in the name of 'equality' it's taking away from you when in actuality you really aren't losing anything. 

Aug 6, 2024 20:38:22 GMT iNCY said:

hen we say equity is the goal and divert resources, we don't tend to check if the money is making a difference.
You could take a poor neighbourhood in a socio-economically disadvantaged part of town and throw tens of millions at it.
When the issue is systemic of single parent homes rife with drug abuse and alcohol there is a very little chance that any amount of money change that.

I don't disagree with this, because I've seen us doing this very thing for years with little change, but again this is due to centuries of inequality.  And I don't know that we can do anything now to fix it.

Thanos was right. 

That's fair when you talk about a system that favours white males.
I would argue and hope you would agree that historically, the power and wealth were held by a very small number of people who happened to be white males.

During the BLM riots there was an interview on TV with a very articulate black lady who said that when they were granted their rights it was like being asked to join a game of monopoly that had already been running for 200 rounds and all the homes etc. were already owned.
The fact that women couldn't own property etc. for most of history is 100% a disadvantage.

Even counting both of these facts as true, I am not sure how you are going to affect the outcomes by throwing money.
The gender pay gap is a 100% myth, in countries like Canada and Australia it is, where it is illegal to pay a woman less for a job than it is a man.
In fact, what the gender pay gap shows repeatedly is that women gravitate towards certain professions such as Teaching and Nursing, while men gravitate towards higher paid roles such as Engineering and Management.
Women also usually step out of the workforce to raise children, rejoining 1-5 years later and behind their peers.
In my POV we shouldn't say these women have been disadvantaged, Motherhood is a gift and we should treasure it as a society and if a woman chooses to have children and take time off work that is fantastic and should be celebrated, but it doesn't mean that they should re-enter the workforce in the same place as the men and women who were advancing in their absence.

This is what bothers me about terms like the "Patriarchy", the concept that there is an invisible social agenda stopping the progression of women.
Your daughter, my daughters, there are ZERO barriers to them achieving great things.
I see all the time through work at the moment that businesses are desperate for any halfway decent female manager to promote, but women still don't want to work in manufacturing... As a general rule.


If society is truly egalitarian the money would follow the merit, again I will agree that this doesn't always happen due to nepotism, politics etc.
Every attempt to skew the outcome though does not have a great track record.

This is why the current "DEI" mandate is alarming, I pick a demographic for no particular reason, but would you prefer the pilot of your plane was the 105th best available black woman, who might have ranked 50,000th overall amongst all applicants for the sake of inclusion?
Tipping the scales always has ramifications on output.
One of the many reasons the USSR fell was due to the disincentivizing of the workforce, without getting paid more for innovation and excellence, people fall into a rut.

I don't see this as a matter of not having unlimited resources per se, but rather misspending current resources. Spending on education per student has risen 192% since the 1970s, yet math and reading scores have only improved by 2% and <1%, respectively ... so basically flat. 81% of Americans under 45 can't pass a US citizenship test (and the questions are very basic US history), but 74% of those sixty-five or older can.

Department of Education has spent hundreds of billions on education since its inception during the Carter Administration. There are no results. That means, de facto, the money is misspent in terms of students; however, the fat cats who have hijacked the education industry to make themselves richer are doing just that regardless, which is what really matters.

The money would probably be best spent on afterschool programs, including various kinds of tutoring, clubs (e.g., chess and debate teams), and sports to give kids a place to develop themselves away from home, among adult mentors who can do a job that broken households aren't going to.

... The money is already there. There is just no intention to invest it appropriately. Idiots and feckless malcontents are easier to rule over, anyway.

Aug 6, 2024 23:25:35 GMT sting said:

I don't see this as a matter of not having unlimited resources per se, but rather misspending current resources. Spending on education per student has risen 192% since the 1970s, yet math and reading scores have only improved by 2% and <1%, respectively ... so basically flat. 81% of Americans under 45 can't pass a US citizenship test (and the questions are very basic US history), but 74% of those sixty-five or older can.

Department of Education has spent hundreds of billions on education since its inception during the Carter Administration. There are no results. That means, de facto, the money is misspent in terms of students; however, the fat cats who have hijacked the education industry to make themselves richer are doing just that regardless, which is what really matters.

The money would probably be best spent on afterschool programs, including various kinds of tutoring, clubs (e.g., chess and debate teams), and sports to give kids a place to develop themselves away from home, among adult mentors who can do a job that broken households aren't going to.

... The money is already there. There is just no intention to invest it appropriately. Idiots and feckless malcontents are easier to rule over, anyway.

That's the kicker though isn't it...
In the Olympics every 4 years athletes get faster and stronger.
Technology, nutrition, training all improve and the athletes with it.
Sports science has measurable metrics.

Education has become a slave to ideology and political agendas.
You could argue that with all of the improvements in technology etc. even results staying stagnant should be scene as a decline.
These beureaucrats that screwed up the education system are the same ones worming their way into HR roles and overseeing the DEI nightmare that is about to hit us.

Aug 7, 2024 3:01:07 GMT iNCY said:

Aug 6, 2024 23:25:35 GMT sting said:

I don't see this as a matter of not having unlimited resources per se, but rather misspending current resources. Spending on education per student has risen 192% since the 1970s, yet math and reading scores have only improved by 2% and <1%, respectively ... so basically flat. 81% of Americans under 45 can't pass a US citizenship test (and the questions are very basic US history), but 74% of those sixty-five or older can.

Department of Education has spent hundreds of billions on education since its inception during the Carter Administration. There are no results. That means, de facto, the money is misspent in terms of students; however, the fat cats who have hijacked the education industry to make themselves richer are doing just that regardless, which is what really matters.

The money would probably be best spent on afterschool programs, including various kinds of tutoring, clubs (e.g., chess and debate teams), and sports to give kids a place to develop themselves away from home, among adult mentors who can do a job that broken households aren't going to.

... The money is already there. There is just no intention to invest it appropriately. Idiots and feckless malcontents are easier to rule over, anyway.

That's the kicker though isn't it...
In the Olympics every 4 years athletes get faster and stronger.
Technology, nutrition, training all improve and the athletes with it.
Sports science has measurable metrics.

Education has become a slave to ideology and political agendas.
You could argue that with all of the improvements in technology etc. even results staying stagnant should be scene as a decline.
These beureaucrats that screwed up the education system are the same ones worming their way into HR roles and overseeing the DEI nightmare that is about to hit us.    

Horace Mann is the founder of the American public school system. He was a state senator in Massachusetts and president of the MA Board of Education ... He toured Europe, looking for a model to base an educational system for the States on. He settled on the Prussian model. There were three tiers to it: 1) 0.5% of students learn to become members of the managerial class; 2) 5.5 to 7.5% become a part of the professional class (e.g., doctors, lawyers, etc.); 3) 92-94% "learn obedience, cooperation and correct attitudes . . . along with . . . official state myths of history". (Per Nikhil Goyal's book "School's on Trial". He's quoting John Taylor Gatto here).

John Rockerfeller (yes, that Rockerfeller), established a philanthropic organization in 1902, the General Education Board, with a $1,000,000 donation. The president of that Board, Frederick Taylor Gates, echoed the sentiments of the model above--and was explicit about not manufacturing "critical thinkers". So when we talk about bureaucrats disfiguring education with political agenda and ideology, it's been going on a long time. DEI is the latest flavor of stupid. It's always a battle to just get students to be literate in both language and math, no matter what decade we're in.

I don't think I'd seen this mash up when I made this thread:

By posting that, there's a good chance this thread ends up a cesspool as well. 

Aug 7, 2024 12:51:25 GMT iNCY said:

In my POV we shouldn't say these women have been disadvantaged, Motherhood is a gift and we should treasure it as a society and if a woman chooses to have children and take time off work that is fantastic and should be celebrated, but it doesn't mean that they should re-enter the workforce in the same place as the men and women who were advancing in their absence.

Isn't that a disadvantage right there?

Aug 7, 2024 12:51:25 GMT iNCY said:

This is what bothers me about terms like the "Patriarchy", the concept that there is an invisible social agenda stopping the progression of women.
Your daughter, my daughters, there are ZERO barriers to them achieving great things.

They are going to achieve great things, but to say there is no invisible barriers for them to achieve those great things due to their gender is simply untrue and you can't see it because you are male. Or you don't want to see it, because you love your girls and don't want to admit that they could have a disadvantage in life simply for the fact they were born female. 

Aug 7, 2024 12:51:25 GMT iNCY said:

This is why the current "DEI" mandate is alarming, I pick a demographic for no particular reason, but would you prefer the pilot of your plane was the 105th best available black woman, who might have ranked 50,000th overall amongst all applicants for the sake of inclusion?

No, but I also don't think that's what's happening. I think DEI is a way for those educated disadvantaged to not have to adhere to unconscious bias and get a foot in the door they wouldn't have had before.

Aug 7, 2024 5:21:13 GMT sting said:

I don't see this as a matter of not having unlimited resources per se, but rather misspending current resources.

100%

I have no problem paying taxes. I have no problem paying high taxes. What I have a problem with is mismanagement of those taxes and resources by our government who forget they work for us and that isn't their money. 

Aug 7, 2024 5:21:13 GMT sting said:

Spending on education per student has risen 192% since the 1970s, yet math and reading scores have only improved by 2% and <1%, respectively ... so basically flat. 81% of Americans under 45 can't pass a US citizenship test (and the questions are very basic US history), but 74% of those sixty-five or older can.

So where is it going, right?

The government has no reason to educate the masses. If they keep them ignorant there's less chance for them to question them. 

In that same series I mentioned earlier, there was a short on Billionaires and wealth inequality that was interesting. 

I think you misunderstood my point on Motherhood iron maiden Yes, women re enter the work force and are behind their male and female colleagues. I think motherhood is amazing and the way women give life and nurture is about the best thing humans as a race have going for them.

I know that's a generalisation and not always unequivocally true, but it's awesome.
It should be valued as an amazing thing and seen as a woman as prioritising motherhood over her career but it doesn't mean people who worked during those years should be penalised so that woman can re enter the workforce into a position above them.


In terms of limitations on women, yes there is no doubt sexism is a thing. It's hard for a female trades person to be taken seriously. I also think male midwife's and preschool teachers face prejudice.

I don't think there is an invisible system holding down women, most of it comes down to the fact men and women are different "generally" in their physical capacity and areas of interest.

Men are 4 times more likely than women to commit suicide.
4 Times more likely to be homeless
95 out of every 100 work place deaths are men.

That's not due to a "matriarchy" it's just life.

I will also disagree with you on DEI, what you proposed which is a blind process that doesn't see colour or sex is great and what it should be. The issue with DEI is it seeks to manipulate the outcome. It's like saying that 50% of a board of directors must be women... What if 90% of the applicants are male?

Shouldn't we expect that board should reflect the weighting of the application rate rather than society?

If most people doing MBA's are men despite women being encouraged and almost pushed into traditional male dominated fields, why is there a requirement for equal representation at the highest levels?

Aug 7, 2024 12:52:16 GMT iNCY said:

I don't think I'd seen this mash up when I made this thread:

Harris is not a communist. Let's not disrespect Mao and Stalin, who killed tens of millions in their own countries through collectivization and the resultant famines, and jailed and excuted reactionaries, by trying to group her in with them. I think that she's an ideological vacuum who is filled by her staffers, handmaidens of Wall Street, who paint over their oligarchic politics with a veneer of democracy. That's what DEI is to them. They will bob some apples out of the barrel, who are minorities, and call it a day ... That's anti-equity, so we have nothing to worry about. Total PR.

I'm also going to say "microblogging" is an incredibly counterproductive way of participating in political discourse. This person really dropped some buzz words, and seemingly took Harris out of context to say that she is calling for "riots", and garnered a couple thousand likes. Comparing Marx with Harris is like comparing Mussolini with Trump, who is probably oblivious enough to think that Mussolini is some kind of pasta that you can order at an upscale version of the Olive Garden ... 🤦‍♂️

Aug 7, 2024 23:50:54 GMT iNCY said:

I think you misunderstood my point on Motherhood iron maiden Yes, women re enter the work force and are behind their male and female colleagues. I think motherhood is amazing and the way women give life and nurture is about the best thing humans as a race have going for them.

I know that's a generalisation and not always unequivocally true, but it's awesome.
It should be valued as an amazing thing and seen as a woman as prioritising motherhood over her career but it doesn't mean people who worked during those years should be penalised so that woman can re enter the workforce into a position above them.


In terms of limitations on women, yes there is no doubt sexism is a thing. It's hard for a female trades person to be taken seriously. I also think male midwife's and preschool teachers face prejudice.

I don't think there is an invisible system holding down women, most of it comes down to the fact men and women are different "generally" in their physical capacity and areas of interest.

I mean cmon iNCY, you’re citing the invisible system a paragraph above when you talk about how women in trades don’t get taken seriously, but then say it’s interests that determine career paths.

That ignores that there are any number of systemic things that tell women “these are women jobs” and tell men “these are manly non-women jobs”, and that those determinations have at least some relation to which industries are paid more, maybe someone just has an interest in being taken seriously.

You even cited programs begging women to get into business (or manufacturing trades is what I see typically), but all that stuff is useless. Nobody wants to be seen as the token or the DEI hire, so when you’re ALWAYS going to be considered as such (which this thread gives some wild examples that obviously no one wants but have become the stereotypes that just aren’t born out as true), they may as well stay where they (read: men) say they belong.

I’ve got a daughter just like you and just like IM, and I have already accepted that for her entire youth I’m going to have to be the only voice telling her explore the trades. As a man that’s spent a lot of time feeling underpaid for working in a traditionally female profession, I don’t want her to make that same mistake.

Aug 8, 2024 1:33:05 GMT mikec said:

Aug 7, 2024 23:50:54 GMT iNCY said:

I think you misunderstood my point on Motherhood iron maiden Yes, women re enter the work force and are behind their male and female colleagues. I think motherhood is amazing and the way women give life and nurture is about the best thing humans as a race have going for them.

I know that's a generalisation and not always unequivocally true, but it's awesome.
It should be valued as an amazing thing and seen as a woman as prioritising motherhood over her career but it doesn't mean people who worked during those years should be penalised so that woman can re enter the workforce into a position above them.


In terms of limitations on women, yes there is no doubt sexism is a thing. It's hard for a female trades person to be taken seriously. I also think male midwife's and preschool teachers face prejudice.

I don't think there is an invisible system holding down women, most of it comes down to the fact men and women are different "generally" in their physical capacity and areas of interest.

I mean cmon iNCY , you’re citing the invisible system a paragraph above when you talk about how women in trades don’t get taken seriously, but then say it’s interests that determine career paths.

That ignores that there are any number of systemic things that tell women “these are women jobs” and tell men “these are manly non-women jobs”, and that those determinations have at least some relation to which industries are paid more, maybe someone just has an interest in being taken seriously.

You even cited programs begging women to get into business (or manufacturing trades is what I see typically), but all that stuff is useless. Nobody wants to be seen as the token or the DEI hire, so when you’re ALWAYS going to be considered as such (which this thread gives some wild examples that obviously no one wants but have become the stereotypes that just aren’t born out as true), they may as well stay where they (read: men) say they belong.

I’ve got a daughter just like you and just like IM, and I have already accepted that for her entire youth I’m going to have to be the only voice telling her explore the trades. As a man that’s spent a lot of time feeling underpaid for working in a traditionally female profession, I don’t want her to make that same mistake.

I do think that women and men are fundamentally different.
That as always has to come with the statement that all generalizations have that I don't mean every single man and every single woman.
Saying that is not saying that I believe that men or women are better, just that on average and statistically they have a different skillset.
Men don't race against women at the Olympics... Well they haven't until recently, because there was a clear acknowledgement that there are differences in the biological capabilities of men and women.

I probably would discourage my daughters to be Concreters and Bricklayers as I know the toll that this takes on hardened male bodies, let alone female bodies.
For that matter there not trades that I would encourage a son to go into either.
People need to be where their strengths are, I am an electrician by trade, there are parts of my job that a woman would excel at physically and some that they would struggle with.
If they have a passion for a trade where there is an area that they can excel at I would encourage them to do so... But not to go into something where they would be biologically inhibited from achieving excellence in this field.
We can argue that Disney Princesses and Barbie's form the minds of impressionable girls, but ALL the science says that girls will gravitate towards dolls and boys towards guns and cars.

Is that a problem? I don't think so.
It is part of the problem with the world now, people start with the premise and then reverse the logic to come up with an ideology that explains the difference in the outcomes.
We can't have these discussions any more, because we have to pretend everything is the same.
I don't think it is a question of better or worse, only that there are differences.

People don't seem particularly phased that the majority of black stars in the NBA earned  $2.41 million, compared with $1.69 million for white veterans, neither should we.
A black person is probably going to win the gold medal in the men's marathon, so they should if they are the fastest.
For the same reason nobody seems to want to right the balances of it being 93% of the people who die at work being men.
People don't argue against something when the numbers support their side.

If more women trend towards nursing, teaching and hospitality while men gravitate to mining and construction.
Why are we to say that this is wrong?

Sexism holds women back in various careers and should be eliminated, I think this is accepted today and every year we get better at stamping it out.
If it is a belief that someone's sex disqualifies them automatically, it is sexism, if a woman can do a traditional male job and excel at it, everyone should let that happen.
That is sexism though... Not the invisible "Patriarchy"
I will encourage my daughters to choose a career that they enjoy and that they can excel in, whatever that is and I would be happy for that to be a traditionally male role, but I also accept it is statistically unlikely to be so and that is also fine.
I hope one of my girls takes over my business one day, but I would never push them to do so.
All the way along so far I have encouraged them to do what they love.
So many of my friends push their kids into their hobbies or try to live vicariously through their children and right all the perceived wrongs of their own lives.

I’m not sure of the science of girls pick Barbies and boys pick tanks that exists outside of the social constructs we’ve placed on gender roles, but I’d be happy to read some. If you don’t believe societal expectations have any part pushing women towards nurturing careers and men towards careers in the trades, then we can just shake hands and agree to disagree on that one.

But if education is really as important as I hear from my politicians on both sides, I’d sure expect that teachers got paid well. There’s a myriad of reasons they don’t, and one of which is definitely that those are women jobs.

All of what you say is true in terms of male/female physical capabilities, especially when you use Olympic level competition. But working in the trades is not exclusive to hard bodied men. There are plenty of out of shape guys working in masonry and there are plenty of trade jobs that are suited to not being muscle bound.

Obviously I want my daughter to do something she enjoys, but there are hundreds of career paths and you don’t get to truly consider them all, so easy disqualifiers like “that’s a man’s job” come in handy to whittle down the choices. And if the person themselves doesn’t do that whittling, you have parents, guidance counselors, and the media whittling it down for them. But in a generation trade workers will be kings and queens while white collar folks like me will get to pay more and more for their services due to the scarcity in the fields. I’d be doing a disservice to my daughter (and any other young person) if I didn’t at least provide them the information for what’s out there.

I’m not sure why you’re trying to draw a line between sexism and patriarchy, like sexism’s existence isn’t specifically a byproduct of patriarchy.

Aug 9, 2024 2:18:56 GMT mikec said:

I’m not sure of the science of girls pick Barbies and boys pick tanks that exists outside of the social constructs we’ve placed on gender roles, but I’d be happy to read some. If you don’t believe societal expectations have any part pushing women towards nurturing careers and men towards careers in the trades, then we can just shake hands and agree to disagree on that one.

But if education is really as important as I hear from my politicians on both sides, I’d sure expect that teachers got paid well. There’s a myriad of reasons they don’t, and one of which is definitely that those are women jobs.

All of what you say is true in terms of male/female physical capabilities, especially when you use Olympic level competition. But working in the trades is not exclusive to hard bodied men. There are plenty of out of shape guys working in masonry and there are plenty of trade jobs that are suited to not being muscle bound.

Obviously I want my daughter to do something she enjoys, but there are hundreds of career paths and you don’t get to truly consider them all, so easy disqualifiers like “that’s a man’s job” come in handy to whittle down the choices. And if the person themselves doesn’t do that whittling, you have parents, guidance counselors, and the media whittling it down for them. But in a generation trade workers will be kings and queens while white collar folks like me will get to pay more and more for their services due to the scarcity in the fields. I’d be doing a disservice to my daughter (and any other young person) if I didn’t at least provide them the information for what’s out there.

I’m not sure why you’re trying to draw a line between sexism and patriarchy, like sexism’s existence isn’t specifically a byproduct of patriarchy.

Sexism is real objective discrimination that women face.
Patriarchy is the imagined social construct used to explain every area where women on average don't achieve the same level as men.
It is important to draw the distinction because one can be solved and the other is imagined, if we focus only on the second then we miss the opportunity to truly address the first.

Why are men fascinated with boobs? Again... Not all men.
It is a fertility marker, hips, curves etc. Men have historically have been drawn to feminine women.
Women for the most part have been drawn towards masculine men, which is why men and women are the way they are now, hundreds of thousands of years of selective breeding.
The better a nurturer a woman, the more likely to pass on her genes.
The better provider the man the more likely he is to pass on his genes.

You need to read on the difference of male and female brains, we are way more alike than we are different, but not the same.
I am all about acknowledging that men and women are different and celebrating those differences and the amazing outcomes when we all play to our strengths, whatever those may be.

Aug 9, 2024 3:59:01 GMT iNCY said:

Why are men fascinated with boobs? Again... Not all men.
It is a fertility marker, hips, curves etc. Men have historically have been drawn to feminine women.
Women for the most part have been drawn towards masculine men, which is why men and women are the way they are now, hundreds of thousands of years of selective breeding.

Going back to my sociology studies from college to note that you’re a biological determinist while I’m being more of a social construct guy (though not really, I’m a conflict theorist at heart and probably a functionalist in practice). There’s no proof of the fertility marker as a reason for men to like boobs, it’s just one guess in a world of guesses of why men like boobs, hips, curves, etc. I mean it makes sense, that seems to be how birds and other species choose a mate (probably?), but it also reduces our capacity for change and shifts blame away from society and towards biology. Biological determinism can be used as a passing explanation for a lot of crappy things, many of them are part of the “patriarchy”.

My favorite (completely useless) thing I learned in college is that the truest outcome of biological determinism is the manliest man impregnates all the women, while the rest of us sit around watching. Because sperm can be regenerated so easily, we have an endless supply of it, and we can impregnate as many people as we want while women have a very finite opportunity to bear children so they should only use their eggs on the greatest of men.

Thats a long way away from the equity conversation you were wanting to have, just wanted to use my college degree for the first time in a few years.

Aug 9, 2024 11:45:52 GMT mikec said:

Aug 9, 2024 3:59:01 GMT iNCY said:

Why are men fascinated with boobs? Again... Not all men.
It is a fertility marker, hips, curves etc. Men have historically have been drawn to feminine women.
Women for the most part have been drawn towards masculine men, which is why men and women are the way they are now, hundreds of thousands of years of selective breeding.

Going back to my sociology studies from college to note that you’re a biological determinist while I’m being more of a social construct guy (though not really, I’m a conflict theorist at heart and probably a functionalist in practice). There’s no proof of the fertility marker as a reason for men to like boobs, it’s just one guess in a world of guesses of why men like boobs, hips, curves, etc. I mean it makes sense, that seems to be how birds and other species choose a mate (probably?), but it also reduces our capacity for change and shifts blame away from society and towards biology. Biological determinism can be used as a passing explanation for a lot of crappy things, many of them are part of the “patriarchy”.

My favorite (completely useless) thing I learned in college is that the truest outcome of biological determinism is the manliest man impregnates all the women, while the rest of us sit around watching. Because sperm can be regenerated so easily, we have an endless supply of it, and we can impregnate as many people as we want while women have a very finite opportunity to bear children so they should only use their eggs on the greatest of men.

Thats a long way away from the equity conversation you were wanting to have, just wanted to use my college degree for the first time in a few years.

It's a great conversation, it's also from what I've read why monogamy was the cultural norm in societies. It turns out having a majority of men without partners, horny and angry is detrimental to society.

It's likely a case of social factors shaping biological preferences while the biological traits also shape sociological standards.
The science is pretty settled on biology being the main indicator of which toys young children prefer.
I'm also pretty sure it's a good thing, the trans movement coinciding with a high degree of self harm is a pretty good indicator that strong and positive gender stereotypes can be helpful.

I have made no secret of my hatred of the term toxic masculinity, when there is no term for toxic femininity, there are just assholes of different genders.
Having men ready to run into burning buildings and help ladies change their car tyres is not something we want to lose.

But maybe we are regressing, people weren't so into butts not that long ago and now we have twerking which is pretty much a primate mating signal of fertility...
Seeing as we are talking about fertility indicators.

Aug 9, 2024 12:40:13 GMT iNCY said:

It's a great conversation, it's also from what I've read why monogamy was the cultural norm in societies. It turns out having a majority of men without partners, horny and angry is detrimental to society.

Look no further than 4chan for evidence of this.