Clothing: The feminist gray area

[theothermanoverthere]

Kiumaru

theothermanoverthere

Kiumaru

theothermanoverthere

its just a fact and the reason why there are not more women in jobs.

1) It doesn't really matter in the scheme of things for those jobs. (Besides, there are plenty of men, myself included, who also aren't fit for physical labour.)
2) I wasn't talking about jobs that involve physical labor.

like I said for any job you should give it to the best person for it.

And, like I said, a lot of this isn't because women aren't suited for these jobs, but that we have a culture that ends up discouraging women from pursuing them.

and i agree that shouldn't be done. but people look oddly on because it is so odd.

[Sexual Innuendo]

theothermanoverthere

Kiumaru

theothermanoverthere

Kiumaru

theothermanoverthere

its just a fact and the reason why there are not more women in jobs.

1) It doesn't really matter in the scheme of things for those jobs. (Besides, there are plenty of men, myself included, who also aren't fit for physical labour.)
2) I wasn't talking about jobs that involve physical labor.

like I said for any job you should give it to the best person for it.

And, like I said, a lot of this isn't because women aren't suited for these jobs, but that we have a culture that ends up discouraging women from pursuing them.

and i agree that shouldn't be done. but people look oddly on because it is so odd.

But that's what he's saying. It's only seen as odd because women are discouraged from doing it, and women are discouraged from doing it because it seems odd... So it's like a cycle.

[theothermanoverthere]

Sexual Innuendo

theothermanoverthere

Kiumaru

theothermanoverthere

Kiumaru

theothermanoverthere

its just a fact and the reason why there are not more women in jobs.

1) It doesn't really matter in the scheme of things for those jobs. (Besides, there are plenty of men, myself included, who also aren't fit for physical labour.)
2) I wasn't talking about jobs that involve physical labor.

like I said for any job you should give it to the best person for it.

And, like I said, a lot of this isn't because women aren't suited for these jobs, but that we have a culture that ends up discouraging women from pursuing them.

and i agree that shouldn't be done. but people look oddly on because it is so odd.

But that's what he's saying. It's only seen as odd because women are discouraged from doing it, and women are discouraged from doing it because it seems odd... So it's like a cycle.

yes it really starts to become a chicken an egg thing. The only thing to do really is stop caring were and what people think you should do but do what you feel is best for you in time things change but nothing is over night.

[The rose in spring]

Sexual Innuendo

The rose in spring

Sexual Innuendo

The rose in spring

Sexual Innuendo

The rose in spring

Statistics are not accurate either. I tend to not use them.

Well, when 260 different studies conducted by different people all confirm the same thing, its pretty safe to say that the said thing probably exists.

Any statistic can be manipulated, even a statistic that puts other statistics together.

Then why has not a single study ever shown that men and women are generally paid equal? Literally every single study I have seen shows that men and women are not paid equal salaries for equal work. Even if the difference is just a couple percentage points, a couple percentage points often translates to thousands of dollars.

Every statistic has bias. EVERY STATISTIC. Plus you can always find a way to warp data into however you want.

Obviously every statistic has bias, but when hundreds of statistics prove the exact same thing over and over and over again, it's pretty much obvious that it's a confirmed fact. Like, especially because this isn't even a study that's observing people or actions. These are studies that are observing numbers... hard, cold, unchanging numbers. You can only manipulate numerical data so much.

But then a statistic itself says that. Meaning it is a contradiction.

[Sexual Innuendo]

The rose in spring

Sexual Innuendo

The rose in spring

Sexual Innuendo

The rose in spring

Any statistic can be manipulated, even a statistic that puts other statistics together.

Then why has not a single study ever shown that men and women are generally paid equal? Literally every single study I have seen shows that men and women are not paid equal salaries for equal work. Even if the difference is just a couple percentage points, a couple percentage points often translates to thousands of dollars.

Every statistic has bias. EVERY STATISTIC. Plus you can always find a way to warp data into however you want.

Obviously every statistic has bias, but when hundreds of statistics prove the exact same thing over and over and over again, it's pretty much obvious that it's a confirmed fact. Like, especially because this isn't even a study that's observing people or actions. These are studies that are observing numbers... hard, cold, unchanging numbers. You can only manipulate numerical data so much.

But then a statistic itself says that. Meaning it is a contradiction.

Look. When analyzing a situation, it is necessary to look at all the possible evidence available. And in this case, the evidence consists of hundreds upon hundreds of studies all concluding the same thing. Saying "Well... it's impossible to prove for sure so you're wrong!" in the face of this huge amount of evidence is just a logical fallacy. It's like saying evolution is impossible to prove for sure, so it's not true.

Maybe if I had shown you 1 study and said "Lol well this study says this so I'm right," things would be different. But that's not the case. neutral

[Jorgunmandr]

Clothing is a very difficult issue because it is the most readily available form of expression to the external world. You can tell more about a person via the clothing they choose to wear than you can most anything else in first impression based on most common attire. The prospect of clothing is more about bodily expression which for all humans is quarrelsome no matter the time or place and since combating multiple issues via one bottleneck point is not a good idea this makes the storm surrounding clothing even worse; instead of just appearance it is now about social rights and liberties, personal and social values, and sexual interaction along with sexual rights. These are very different ideals and how they managed to maintained entangled is beyond me.

[Stinki_Soki]

To me, sexy is showing off your belly button, especially with a shirt that only shows it off when you move just a little, and showing the top of your cleavage. If your ribs are showing or the majority of your bra, that's slutty. I also think the whole bikini-under-the-hip-bone is really nasty looking. Just...ugh.

Leave something to the imagination.

About the full-coverage outfits, I hate religion. Hate it. So shoving that excuse aside, I personally think it's just weakness reflected on males. If a woman can't show her elbows for fear of provoking a man to a slobbering idiot, that's not her fault.

[The rose in spring]

Sexual Innuendo

The rose in spring

Sexual Innuendo

The rose in spring

Sexual Innuendo

The rose in spring

Any statistic can be manipulated, even a statistic that puts other statistics together.

Then why has not a single study ever shown that men and women are generally paid equal? Literally every single study I have seen shows that men and women are not paid equal salaries for equal work. Even if the difference is just a couple percentage points, a couple percentage points often translates to thousands of dollars.

Every statistic has bias. EVERY STATISTIC. Plus you can always find a way to warp data into however you want.

Obviously every statistic has bias, but when hundreds of statistics prove the exact same thing over and over and over again, it's pretty much obvious that it's a confirmed fact. Like, especially because this isn't even a study that's observing people or actions. These are studies that are observing numbers... hard, cold, unchanging numbers. You can only manipulate numerical data so much.

But then a statistic itself says that. Meaning it is a contradiction.

Look. When analyzing a situation, it is necessary to look at all the possible evidence available. And in this case, the evidence consists of hundreds upon hundreds of studies all concluding the same thing. Saying "Well... it's impossible to prove for sure so you're wrong!" in the face of this huge amount of evidence is just a logical fallacy. It's like saying evolution is impossible to prove for sure, so it's not true.

Maybe if I had shown you 1 study and said "Lol well this study says this so I'm right," things would be different. But that's not the case. neutral

Statistics are not evidence. They are numbers fabricated to influence political viewpoints.

[Kiumaru]

The rose in spring

Statistics are not evidence. They are numbers fabricated to influence political viewpoints.

They're evidence. Now whether that evidence is good or not is a different matter. If you simply off-handishly dismiss statistics, you could potentially dismiss anything which goes against the narrative that you're attempting to create. What, exactly, is admissible evidence to you?

[The rose in spring]

Kiumaru

The rose in spring

Statistics are not evidence. They are numbers fabricated to influence political viewpoints.

They're evidence. Now whether that evidence is good or not is a different matter. If you simply off-handishly dismiss statistics, you could potentially dismiss anything which goes against the narrative that you're attempting to create. What, exactly, is admissible evidence to you?

Evidence to me are numbers that I myself calculated to come up with a conclusion. I don't trust anyone but myself

[Sexual Innuendo]

The rose in spring

Kiumaru

The rose in spring

Statistics are not evidence. They are numbers fabricated to influence political viewpoints.

They're evidence. Now whether that evidence is good or not is a different matter. If you simply off-handishly dismiss statistics, you could potentially dismiss anything which goes against the narrative that you're attempting to create. What, exactly, is admissible evidence to you?

Evidence to me are numbers that I myself calculated to come up with a conclusion. I don't trust anyone but myself

Even you have bias. No matter how much you "trust yourself," you still have bias.

[The Willow Of Darkness]

The rose in spring

Kiumaru

The rose in spring

Statistics are not evidence. They are numbers fabricated to influence political viewpoints.

They're evidence. Now whether that evidence is good or not is a different matter. If you simply off-handishly dismiss statistics, you could potentially dismiss anything which goes against the narrative that you're attempting to create. What, exactly, is admissible evidence to you?

Evidence to me are numbers that I myself calculated to come up with a conclusion. I don't trust anyone but myself

You are lying here. You trust a whole lot of things that you did not calculate yourself.

Example one: that the calculations that run the computer you are using are correct and will result in a working computer.

[GuardianCentauri]

The rose in spring

Evidence to me are numbers that I myself calculated to come up with a conclusion. I don't trust anyone but myself

What if you unknowingly make a mistake with your calculations? Your numbers could be incorrect.

At least when groups of people work together, they typically double check each others' work. Hundreds of statistics do that by verifying the legitimacy of the data.

[The rose in spring]

The Willow Of Darkness

The rose in spring

Kiumaru

The rose in spring

Statistics are not evidence. They are numbers fabricated to influence political viewpoints.

They're evidence. Now whether that evidence is good or not is a different matter. If you simply off-handishly dismiss statistics, you could potentially dismiss anything which goes against the narrative that you're attempting to create. What, exactly, is admissible evidence to you?

Evidence to me are numbers that I myself calculated to come up with a conclusion. I don't trust anyone but myself

You are lying here. You trust a whole lot of things that you did not calculate yourself.

Example one: that the calculations that run the computer you are using are correct and will result in a working computer.

Except a computer is not a human. Plus computers can make errors.

[The rose in spring]

Sexual Innuendo

The rose in spring

Kiumaru

The rose in spring

Statistics are not evidence. They are numbers fabricated to influence political viewpoints.

They're evidence. Now whether that evidence is good or not is a different matter. If you simply off-handishly dismiss statistics, you could potentially dismiss anything which goes against the narrative that you're attempting to create. What, exactly, is admissible evidence to you?

Evidence to me are numbers that I myself calculated to come up with a conclusion. I don't trust anyone but myself

Even you have bias. No matter how much you "trust yourself," you still have bias.

People have bias myself included, but numbers do not. Numbers only lie when a human favricates them. Numbers are consistant. 2+2 always equals four, numbers have no emotion, they do not change without reason and they do not abandon you. Humans however are illogical and inconsistent (Not to mention backstabbers). For example, if I have 20 florescent lightbulbs in my office and they run for 8 hours for 7 days while each bulb is 40 watts, then my office will be running 198 killowatts in May. That number doesn't change. If it costs me .15 cents per killowatt an hour, then those lights will be costing me $29.70 that month. That doesn't change unless a bulb goes out or the company changes the price. Such money adds up to $311.6 per year assuming there is work 365 days a year. That is the evidence I am talking about. If you have doubts, then I can give you the numbers.