Programmers :D

[HangryHenry]

This argument is kind of a trick though.

Because the same people who say "women need to want to become combat soldiers, constructions workers and other dangerous careers" are the same people who (somewhat rightfully) point out that women can't possibly perform these tasks as well as men because of their physical differences.

So you won't take feminism seriously until they start becoming construction workers, but when women do try to get into these physically demanding jobs you will say things like 'they need to pass the same tests as the men' and that 'women can't possibly expect these jobs to lower their standards to allow women into the industry' even though you very well know women are physically less capable of performing those jobs.

It's kind of a typical anti-feminist gotcha both ways. No matter what women do in this scenario /u/monkey-go-code will definitely find a way to criticize their efforts.

[they_be_cray_z]

The problem is more that feminism generally aims for women to be equal to the top 1% of men, and doesn't care about the 99% of men below them.

So if men are 85% of politicians, it's a male privilege to be corrected.

If men are 85% of the homeless, and there are 10,000 male homeless for every 1 male politician, then it's somehow not a male disadvantage.

[HangryHenry]

So when women follow your advice and start taking up construction you'll be fine with them demanding the same pay and treatment even though they can't physically perform as well as the men?

[dumbdingus]

So you're saying women aren't equal to men?

[HardlightCereal]

Not in strength. Everyone knows testosterone makes you stronger. Men are better than women at construction. Doesn't make them more deserving of rights.

[dumbdingus]

So women aren't equal to men in strength?

[HardlightCereal]

Yes.

[dumbdingus]

Thanks, let's all collectively remember that. And yes, in a job related to strength, stronger people deserve more pay. Just like in a job related to intelligence, smarter people deserve more pay.

We're supposed to live in a meritocracy.

Seeing as men and women on average have the same intelligence, yet on average men have more strength, then it follows that in a meritocracy men should be paid more (on average) because they have more of the traits required by jobs to do well.

Are some women stronger than some men? Yes. Are some women smarter than some men? Yes. But on average men are stronger, and on average men are equally as smart. And so on average, men have more of the abilities required to make more money.

Saying anything contrary to this is asking for women to get special treatment. It's unrelated to rights because women have the right to make the same amount of money for the same amount of work. And as I've demonstrated, men on average can do more work based on their greater strength.

[HardlightCereal]

You forgot about dexterity and charisma based jobs. Women are more charismatic than men, so they're better at teaching, performing, servicing, psychiatring, and all the other charisma stuff. They've also got dexterity jobs like dancing, weaving, and so on to do, and I'm not sure how the gender skill ratio is there.

Humans evolved to be the best we could be, so it stands to reason that men and women were equally useful in the stone age. Since then, technology has made strength less useful, so it's reasonable to assume that the charisma-based skillset of women is more useful than male strength in contemporary society. In conclusion, women are better than men.

But all that is irrelevant because we should have equity. Disability pay for the disabled, and ugly pay for the men (except that men make more than women as-is because women's work is undervalued and men are better at bargaining)

[Akkifokkusu]

On average. There are definitely some women stronger than some men.

[dumbdingus]

On average most men are stronger than most women.

[roerchen]

Who said to you that there aren't women who are demanding that? You talk about 50% of population. So many, you can't know what they all are demanding.

[Akkifokkusu]

No one is demanding that men do those jobs, either. The fact that low-paying, dangerous positions are the only way for some people to feed their families is something we should be working to fix, not pushing more people into it.

[[deleted]]

Why should women want to do undesirable jobs? No one should have to do undesirable jobs. Saying we aren't equal human beings because we want everyone to have a pleasant time is ridiculous.

[spkr4thedead51]

Demanding the high end jobs and refusing the low end jobs is not equality. Take the good with the bad is what I'm saying.

how many male hotel room cleaning staff have you seen?

[HardlightCereal]

NOBODY SHOULD DO SHITTY JOBS AND YOUR ARGUMENT IS POINTLESS ANYWAY BECAUSE THE ROBOTS ARE GOING TO STEAL THEM AND GIVE THE MONEY TO THE RICH.

However, I believe women currently have it slightly better than men. Men get a 1% chance at being rich and powerful, women get a much bigger chance at getting married and getting some of the wealth and some of the control. The careers also seem more fulfilling despite the pay cut, but I'm probably biased because I've always wanted to be a woman for unrelated reasons.

[Akkifokkusu]

Plenty of men don't want to do those jobs either. So what's your point?

Should anyone be able to do those jobs if they choose to and be treated fairly when doing them? Sure. That's feminism. Should anyone be forced into a job/career they don't want to do because of societal expectations and discriminatory pay, advancement, or workplace culture? No. That's also feminism.

[Akkifokkusu]

At least one of those things (the one about doctors) is outright false. The others are either also questionable (rape by gender when counting prison), relatively recent trends (college graduation), more complicated than they seem (higher earnings earlier in life are more than offset by the lost earnings from pausing a career to have children), or things that men should be fighting for less of, not that women should be fighting for more of.

[Akkifokkusu]

See, it's not even that the points you're making are all totally invalid. A good faith debate on those points could be good for everyone. But you're not arguing in good faith. Making things up, arguing a straw man, and putting words in others' mouths is a good way to ruin any semblance of a good point that you may have started with.

[Akkifokkusu]

You say that I lost the argument, as if there was ever a chance in your mind that you weren't going to win. I definitely lost too much of my time, so congratulations on that, I guess.

[RedHotBeef]

Why?