|
|
|
| Dancelittleewok wrote: |
| Darth Henning wrote: |
| I would just like to note that I strongly support equal pay. But only when adjusted for years and time worked in a job. |
Can you provide your source for what you referenced in your post? When it comes to these things, I really like to read the articles too.
Based on what's posted, it seems you guys are making the case for reverse sexism. Do any other girls want to comment on this topic? |
I can. Pulled most of that from a paper I wrote for a class a few years back.
I'll dig up links to the sources that I can get online after my exam on Friday.
I'm not saying that reverse sexism is a huge issue, but its reaching the point where its making a difference. Its only about 1/3 as bad as regular sexism, but to me that just means that there are two issues. Yet one never seems to be addressed, when IMHO both should be sought to be eliminated.
More-so I wanted to make the point that some statistics used to show how "bad" sexism still is may be slightly overinterpreted.
| Autobon wrote: |
| Cerrinea wrote: |
| But that doesn't negate the fact that my three straight, white sons still get the lowest difficulty setting in Real Life. |
Cerrinea, I am going to have to agree with Caedus here; being a white male does not guarantee any privileges in life, and it is quickly becoming an increasing negative. Just try applying for a scholarship - you are effectively last on the list due to stereotypes and affirmative action policies.
|
I'm also going to have to side on this one here.
Being a white male, while certainly not a life-altering detriment, does not grant a person as many favors as one might think. The point about scholarships, or anything academic, is very VERY true.
As an example, I'm going to point to my own medical school class. In my city, the proportion of the population that is of a visible minority is 23.7%. Yet in my class, roughly 48% are visible minorities. I'll let you draw your own conclusions on that.
(For those wondering, we also have a slight female over-representation, but its only a 3% difference from population demographics, so easily explained by error)
On a more anecdotal point, out of boredom a few months back, I looked over graduation programs, course calendars, and the monthly newsletter for my four years of undergrad. Of the students photographed to represent the school: 10% caucasian male, 30% caucasian female, 35% visible minority males, 25% visible minority females.
You'll notice a bias for both females and visible minorities.
I fully support addressing the historical gender and racial discrimination that have existed. But there's also such a thing as being reactionary and going too far in the other direction.
| Cerrinea wrote: |
Well, yes, if it's for medicinal properties. Just as heroin for medicinal purposes is covered (in some countries but not the US which is a whole other issue I don't want to get into right now). You know there are a lot of drugs that have a recreational use and a medical use which are covered for medical usage.
Viagra isn't one of them. It is recreational use only. But it's still covered while birth control isn't. It is a double standard. |
Hold on. This is about medical insurance right? I'm Canadian so forgive my lack of knowledge about the American system, but Viagra is covered and BC isn't? That shocks me.
|
|
