Sandycane wrote:

I would say more but I'll pass. I really don't want to hurt your feelings.

Adorable.

I'm all done listening to your gas.

Now I remember why I took such a long break from RRS.

... 

I have known women who were in an abusive relationship, got away, and then went back - voluntarily.  Yes, they were able to read and write, hold a reasonably intelligent conversation - but they were idiots.  And brain washed.  It actually is an emotional dependency almost as strong as some drug addictions.  Was the guy she was in the relationship with ever going to change?  The odds are very much against it.  So you are going to spend your life with someone who puts you down emotionally, puts you in the hospital frequently, and some day manages to kill you?  These women almost always wind up at the morgue.  I'll hunt up stats if you really need to see them.

But wait - that is not the discussion at hand.  We are talking about equal pay.  Women get pregnant and that makes them not only worth less, but more expensive.  So a woman who can not have children for whatever reason - hysterectomy, tubal ligation, menopause, etc - still doesn't get paid the same as the men.  hmmm...  But we can't ask if you are permanently infertile, so we just assume that if you are 60 <naming no names> and post menopausal you could still get pregnant as a surrogate mother and still cost the company hundreds of thousands of dollars.  Yeah, that makes sense!

Aggression:  http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/lawreview/downloads/304/kelly.pdf

If you can't read this file, I'll post a few highlights.  It is 65 pages long so it is too long to quote in its entirety. 

 

Quote:

Over the last twenty-five years, leading sociologists have repeatedly
found that men and women commit violence at similar rates.
The 1977 assertion that “the phenomenon of husband battering” is
as prevalent as wife abuse is confirmed by nationally representative
studies, such as the Family Violence Surveys, as well as by numerous other sources.

Quote:

In her 1977 work entitled The Battered Husband Syndrome, sociologist
Suzanne Steinmetz was among the first to bring public and
academic attention to the “phenomenon of husband battering.”

...............................

In four out of the five studies reported, Professor Steinmetz found
that husbands and wives are roughly equal in their use of any form
of physical violence.

..................................

The comparable use of physical violence by spouses marks only
the beginning of the similarities evidenced by these comprehensive
first studies of intimate violence. Arguably, husband abuse can be
discounted in comparison to wife abuse if women are found to utilize
physical violence against their spouses in a much more sparing fashion
than men. However, the various surveys consistently reported
that women not only use violence at rates similar to men, but that
women match, and often exceed, husbands in the frequency with
which they engage in violent behavior.20

............................................

Some differences per type of violence utilized by each sex are certainly
evident. Women were found to be twice as likely to throw
something at their husbands.24 Wives were also more likely than
husbands to kick, bite and punch.25 They were also more likely to hit,
or try to hit, their spouses with something and more likely to
threaten their spouses with a knife or gun.26 Husbands, on the other
hand, rated higher in the four categories of pushing, grabbing and shoving;27 slapping or hitting;28 beating up;29 and actually using a
knife or gun.

........................................

 

This one is a little shorter: http://www.economist.com/node/7245949/print?story_id=7245949

the last quarter of the article wrote:

Not surprisingly, on average men were physically more aggressive (d=0.6). But in this case other work shows the danger of jumping too rapidly to a conclusion. A study done in 1994 hints that if women think nobody is watching and judging them, and there are no physical consequences, they might be more aggressive than men.

In this study, participants played a video game in which they defended themselves from attackers, and the number of bombs they chose to drop was a measure of aggression. When participants thought they were known to the experimenter and were having their performance assessed, men dropped more bombs than women did. But when those same participants were given the impression that they were anonymous, women became the more enthusiastic bombers.

Violent or not, women have as many angry thoughts as men, if not more. In a study carried out in 2004, Robin Simon, of Florida State University, and Leda Nath, of the University of Wisconsin, found no difference between the sexes in the reported frequency of incidents of feeling angry over a period of time. However, women tended to report anger that was more intense and prolonged.

A similar result on the greater intensity of female anger was reported earlier this year by Nicole Hess, of the Max Planck Institute in Berlin, and Edward Hagen, of the same city's Humboldt University. Dr Hess and Dr Hagen, however, took the matter one stage further by asking their participants what they wanted to do about it.

The researchers read the participants, who were undergraduate students, an “aggression-evoking scenario”. They were told they had just overheard a physically smaller classmate of the same sex making false and serious attacks on their reputation to a teacher. Once again, the women were angrier than the men. The real difference between the sexes, though, was in the way they proposed to retaliate. Women usually said that they would get their own back with gossip. Men were more evenly divided, with roughly half wanting to punch the slanderous classmate.

One idea to explain this is that in animals such as humans, where there is a lot of maternal care, females find physical aggression less affordable. And just because a smear is not physical does not mean that it is less damaging than a punch. Indeed, research suggests that girls find such indirect or social aggression much more hurtful than boys do.

 

Be rational, do some research, get educated.

 

EXC wrote:

I think the answer is get rid of the whole concept of 'employee', just make everyone an independent contractor. Everyone responsible for their own negotiations and benefits.

This is not a bad idea, sure would make things easier for business owners....just send out a 1099 at the end of the year.

Women are fully capable of being motivated for making money - I'm one- and my motivation IS NOT to get laid by hot men.

The problem is the Fairy Tale life style that society (and religion) has brainwashed women into believing - and your comment is living proof that men are also fed and propagate this lie: that women are meek and inferior to men, who by their nature are genetically born to be the bread winners. What a load of shit!

Your attitude, in a nut shell, is exactly what feminists are fighting against: men are by nature the dominant gender who are driven to succeed by the reward of getting laid by 'hot women' (not ugly women...like hot women are, by nature, gold-diggers and ugly women have to settle for bums) who themselves are genetically designed to be submissive and bear his offspring - and by Blake's opinion, loose their job or be fired for being pregnant... 'Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant because that's how Nature/god designed them'.

Nature/god designed men to be knuckle-draggers, too but, some have evolved beyond that stage.

I think that this is one of those threads where people are arguing when their disagreements are probably more a reflection on the medium, than their opinions... I bet if we were all in a bar having a few drinks, that we'd reach a reasonable consensus regarding this issue.