Feminists going full retard.

[mossy1200]

It really does not matter what you post in here. Nobody cares what anyone else's opinion is.

Could be just this thread but may also be the whole site.

[pritch]

It really does not matter what you post in here. Nobody cares what anyone else's opinion is.

Could be just this thread but may also be the whole site.

Or the whole Internet?

[husaberg]

It really does not matter what you post in here. Nobody cares what anyone else's opinion is.

Could be just this thread but may also be the whole site.

could be just you mossy.
First rule of the internet is we don't talk about the internet.

[TheDemonLord]

Skip the subgroups and just make it appealing to sub feild 2. That the disparity exists along gender lines is irrelevant.

Which is partly what they did, they also did it by making it more appealing to those more likely to enter into that specialisation - but since that favors Men, it's Sexist....

Physical strength is not required for large animal vets. OSH etc kind of discourage any practice which requires that in fact.

I've only got one experience - helping de-horn some Cows on a lifestyle farm (20-30 head of cattle) about 15 years ago - but physical strength was certainly required, and this requirement is backed up by the peer reviewed paper I linked....

It would be racist to say maori's are criminals.

But would it be racist to say that the represent a higher cost to the Justice system than a Pakeha? Would then (by that logic) it be racist to give an approximate figure, maybe pulled somewhat out of ones arse but accounting for known factors and based on personal experience?

The specificity and accuracy of the context are important, the 'women vets are worth 2/5ths of men' is neither specific nor accurate.

Accurate no, but the entire article IMO makes it clear he is referring to fairly specific situations within the industry that are in line with wider social behaviors.

Based on good data? where have you been hiding that then? Bad data, and bad context, is the beginning of treating individuals based on the average of that group; which is stereotyping.

Stereotyping, which actually has valid predictive capabilities...

The good data is what we know of Women, their work habits and work/family balances.

Is a statement made of bad data and bad context sexist/racist, I guess that is a little bit subjective on how much is read into it.

And that TBH is the nail on the head - Certain groups (Feminists) will often interpret something said by a member of 'the out-group' in a sexist light, thus reinforcing their own beliefs. Its the old 'if you look hard enough for something, you will find it'

There is no difference, not where females are treated as equals. You only say they should take action based on your value judgements of what needs doing;

There is a MASSIVE difference - because the a priori assumption is that Men have equal or superior rights in all areas. If this is correct then the advocacy of Womens rights Equal to that of mens would result in an equal society.

But what if - there are areas, where historically Men have not had equal or superior rights? If all you have done is raised Womens rights to be equal, then you are left with an area where Men have a historic inequality - which Feminism (both by Dictionary definition and also their actions) does not address - this results in Women have a superior set of rights to Men.

Case in point - it is impossible (under NZ legislation) for a Woman to rape a Man - the worst crime they can commit is Sexual assault (or the aggravated form) - If we have corrected every inequality where women had legal discrimination compared to Men, but we leave NZ's rape laws as is - we now have a situation of Female superiority.

In this instance - Feminism not only fails to achieve Equality, it has actually created a deeper inequality.

And this is just talking about rights, when we factor in Responsibilities - it gets even more fun.

they judge there to be no requirement to do anything.

So if they are okay with the current form of Feminism (as in there is "no requirement to do anything.") - with all its Sexist and unequal results (see above) - They MUST be okay with Sexism and gender inequality - and it is by that measure I damn them, yet you seem to think that I am overstepping a boundary for doing so?

The problem is not objective in his case, certainly not with regards to gender bias. The gender disparity occurs because of free choice and not oppression in both cases; what is the massive difference?

The shortage of Vets is objective. The gender choices is Objective - so what is not Objective here?

Again you are trying to setup a false equivalence, and they are completely different.

[TheDemonLord]

Or the whole Internet?

Or the whole of the Human condition?