Well my post just deleted itself, so that's always nice lol. I'll be a lot briefer, and if I skip over pertinent points, so please come back so we can address them.
Here is the reason that I repeatedly bring up outcomes while arguing for equality of opportunity: I'm operating under the premise that men and women are roughly equal in terms of intelligence, capability, ambition, desires, etc. I am operating under this premise because we have the same brain. We are both homo sapiens sapiens. Therefore, if my premise is correct, differences in outcome in most situations imply differences in opportunity. If evidence can be shown that men and women have radical differences (apart from physical) that clearly indicate that men are predisposed towards engineering and women are predisposed towards teaching, then I will gladly retract my argument.
Two parts here.
First, differences. Every child has different physical features, arms, legs, height, hair, clavicle length, etc etc etc. Overwhelming inductive evidence points to this fact. It follows then, peoples brains are also different, gender irrespective. So if people are so entirely different (yes some people share similarities, such as height, etc, but by and large we are all quite different), then it follows that these small differences will lead to inequality of outcome as I have said prior. This is all gender irrespective mind you.
Second, radical. Following on from what I just said, you said that unless there are radical differences, then this difference in outcome is due to differences in opportunities. This cannot be. An analogy. When building a house, when measurements are milimetres off, the walls, angles, etc, will be off by a significantly larger margin. Likewise, when people have subtle differences, they will be treated differently, act differently, etc, just by virtue of their existence. It follows then that small differences can lead to inequality of outcome. The burden is on you to show that why small differences cannot lead to such inequality of outcome (not for me to sure that there are radical differences). I don't think there are radical differences, I think there are small differences, just that these small differences can have significant effects on outcome.
Again note this is all gender irrespective (except perhaps the parts of the second point). So, people are different, and thus their outcomes will be difference. Thus you cannot look to outcomes as indicators of opportunity, becuase you haven't set up a valid modus tollens.
So you're saying:
If equality of opportunity, then equality of outcome.
Not equality of outcome,
Therefore not equality of opportunity.
The point is, there is not ever going to be equality of opportunity, no matter how hard you try. That doesn't at all mean we shouldn't strive for equality of outcome, we should. It just means you can't look to outcome statistics to evaluate differences in opportunities. It may be that there is equal opportunities with a 7:3 MF engineering split. That is a logical possibility, but you would always conclude unequal outcome therefore unequal opportunity. No, that is a fallacious line of reasoning.
I'll be more cursory now.
It is a problem because, if I am correct, women are shoehorned into low-paying positions while men are able to grab the lucrative positions.
If women want those positions that are low paying, and the opposite for men, I don't see a problem. Why should I pay you more for doing what you want when you aren't worth that?
I never claimed that all opportunities were equal. My claim is that opportunities have equalized to an extent, but progress remains to be made.
This was in the context of outcome statistics from memory. Again, you would be begging the question by assuming there are no differences from my first paragraphs.
There are subtle differences between individual brains, sure, but recent research shows that the "male/female" brain concept is vastly over simplified. Nobody has a "male" brain or a "female" brain.
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/male-female-brain-valid-distinction-study-35496259
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/health/sc-male-female-brain-health-1201-20151201-story.html
Definitely, only way we'll know is if we socialize men and women the same.
This is actually impossible, and therefore unfalsifiable. Unfalsifiable things tend to be unscientific. Why is it unfalsifiable? For one, people are located on different points in the cartesian co-ordinate system. But more generally, and obviously... people have different parents, are born into different cultures, speak different languages, interact with different people, experience different life events (death, natural disaster, prosperity, etc). If you're theory can only be falsified by equal socialisation, and that equal socialisation cannot ever occur, then your theory is unfalsifiable; or perhaps it has to be falsified in a different manner, but either way, your statement cannot be correct, or worthwhile.
If it's what they actually want, I have no problem. However, parents exert a lot of influence on their children, and children can be socialized through other means (media, school, etc.).
Not sure if you meant children or parents here.
There are too many confounding variables to make that conclusion. It could be anything from better data collection to envy from seeing your friends supposedly have it all on Facebook.
Note that men were also subect to the same confounding variables, and as far as I'm aware, although I might be wrong, the rate of decrease in womens happiness is higher than mens.
If that were the case, I don't see how your argument would follow. Which measures to help women have handicapped men? Note - I'm talking about measures that were specifically enacted to help women.
Things don't have to be specifically enacted to help women in order to help women. As an example, see reproductive rights. Being cursory, women get to choose parenthood independent of what a man wants, thinks, or has said or done prior to sex, or at the time. Even if this is justified in a woman's right to their own body (which I agree with), a privilege is a privilege.
Just an example, but I would say the right to choose parenthood, is a huge right, considering it has probably the largest affect on one's life.
How do women have more opportunities/assistance?
Not including the above, but see below on affirmative action and 'targets'.
Since men tend to have the higher-paid positions, I don't see why many people would be protesting for men's rights when it comes to job opportunities.
Men also do the grubbier, and more physically demanding jobs. Don't see government instituting affirmative action to meet targets for laborers though, do you? I understand why people want the high paying jobs, I'm not stupid. I also understand why people don't want the hard jobs also. Just saying though, if you actually wanted equality, you would petition equally for both. Alas, people just want equality in the areas that benefit them most. Perhaps they just want to benefit themselves, and use equality as a means to get there.
Anecdotal evidence isn't much use to me, but if you have statistics to back that up I'd gladly take a look.
Ayn Rand: “The hardest thing to explain is the glaringly evident which everybody has decided not to see.”
Come back if you want more on this point.
Quotas for affirmative action are not only a myth, they're completely illegal:
http://www.columbia.edu/content/seven-myths-about-affirmative-action-universities.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#Quotas
Affirmative action only works when people are equally qualified. So, if you have 100 black men and 100 white men who are equally qualified, it's to stop the company from only hiring the whites.
If we didn't kick people out of the dark ages, we'd still have segregated school systems and water fountains.
I had alot more on this. But, the judgment in the case cited in columbia, the Bakke case, was that quotas are illegal yes, but using race as a factor was not illegal. If we were analogise to gender, than using gender as a facotr is not illegal. Now, you are right that quotas are illegal, but this is just mere plays on language. Entities strive for 'targets' now in order to diversify their workforce. Affirmative action allows companies to discriminate, insofar as they are using gender or race, etc, as a factor in order to reach these targets. Call it a quota or a target, the result is the same, they are allowed to discriminate in favour of gender or race.
I've only been arguing here against people who say that men are now the oppressed gender. If there's somebody posting about how men have zero problems, I'll gladly argue with them as well.
Skipping over this.
In the U.S. it varies by state, what the divorcing couple agree on, what the kids want, who the breadwinner was, what their financial situation was before the marriage, the list goes on and on. In short, there's no clear-cut answer.
I don't really have time to watch a whole movie. If you want to post the statistics they quote and their sources here, though, I'd be glad to read through them.
Skipping over this.
I care. I'm not sure what I can do to fight against it, though.
Unfortunately, you're a minority. I had more here, but the response in favour of womens rights, even if justified (which I think it isn't per comments here), is entirely disproportionate, and a waste of our resources. I'd rather spend the money on scientific research, or helping the third-world so they can be productive, than allowing Sally go to HR cause her co-worker called her sweetie.
Sure, women can be part of the problem too. We should all view men and women as equals, and not one as more or less deserving of leniency.
Going to skip over this, but I generally agree.
"Old white dudes" is a bit of a derogatory name for out-of-touch legislators, and no, strictly speaking, neither their age nor their race should matter. I do think it's a bit rich of men to legislate on an entirely female problem, though.
If the issue is one of morality and politics, then it doesn't matter who is doing the reasoning. If the reasoning is sound, it doesn't matter that it was a male behind that reasoning. I see where you're coming from, but ultimately I think it's irrelevant.
To be fair, the FBI definition was only for crime statistic collection purposes. I'm not a law expert, so I don't know how it would hold up in court.
FYI then, it is irrelevant in court. Also note that the FBI updated it to reflect sexual penetration. But also note any differences for 'crime statistic collection purposes' and the actual law, will result in an obvious mismatch.
Going by the definition you linked to, though, it's possible for a female to rape a male. It doesn't specify that the penetration has to be of the raped party, just that penetration has to occur.
In the case of intoxication, that is different. Intoxication can render one's consent not freely given. So you clearly have a penetration. But then if a male says I was raped, and a female says they were raped guess who's side is going to be taken? Even non-legally, people aren't sympathetic to male rape victims.
Apologies - I misread your post. I don't know of any legal mechanisms that could prevent this sort of thing, since you can't really prove "a week ago I was drunk" beyond "he said/she said".
I haven't done evidence law yet, but just think, who would you believe? I think it goes to the jury, and so quite literally, who would you believe?
