(December 25, 2017 at 5:26 pm)Grandizer Wrote:(December 25, 2017 at 11:28 am)SaStrike Wrote: You're just nitpicking in order to skew the stats into favouring the point you are trying to force. A job is a job, it was only an example anyway. Why not mention the many ads that require PA's or secretary which state female only? Had it said male only I'm sure somehow those would be included in your range of things to point out. But all of a sudden it's "prob not a loss" (just one example of the excuses and selective logic made by both feminists and mra).
Actually, yes, I am nitpicking. Because my argument here isnt that women cant get relatively low-status jobs like secretary or nurse. Its that they are less likely to be CEOs or surgeons. And in the example you provided earlier, even in the case of a low status job like bouncer, you wouldve still gone for men over women in most cases. You were being selective yourself by conveniently selecting between two specific members.
Perhaps women are "less likely" to be those things because less women WANT to be those things. I don't see why you would immediately rule that out as a possibility.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh