Page #2
Pages: #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10 ...#94
New Comment Rating: 0 Similar topics: 1.Cum isn't stored in the balls!!! 2.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF 3.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF II 4.NEW STUFF, OLD STUFF, ANY STUFF III 5.Is this about you 🤷♂️, those that live in glass houses should not throw stones. Comments: | ||
You must be logged in to post here. Log in
Nurses walking off their jobs in the middle of winter during flu season. people whine about health care cost, doesn't matter if it's free or a million bucks if the damn nurses aint there to work!, Shame on them,
only registered users can see external links
a nurse anymore. Unions are just a way for employees to organize themselves,
so they can demand respect from their employer. Why do you hate that so much?
Why do you always fight for the powerful to exploit the powerless?
Don't you think that the little guy has been exploited enough already?
Besides ,being a nurse, a dr,or a teacher is a calling to do better for your neighbor ,it's not supposed to make you a millionaire, it's supposed to better your community
The strike isn’t just about higher pay (though that’s part of it). It’s a broad labor action driven by multiple long‑standing workplace and patient‑care concerns.
Here’s what the nurses are striking for:
-Safe staffing levels: Nurses want limits on how many patients one nurse is expected to care for at a time, so care is safer and less exhausting. Many say chronic understaffing threatens patient and worker safety.
- Workplace safety protections: They’re demanding stronger measures to protect against violence from patients or visitors, a significant and growing concern on hospital units.
- Healthcare benefits: The union says hospitals have resisted guaranteeing full healthcare coverage for nurses and are proposing changes that could reduce benefits.
- Wages/Pay: Nurses also want pay that better reflects their workload and the high cost of living in NYC, though the precise numbers being discussed are disputed between unions and hospital management.
What triggered the strike now?
Contracts for nearly 15,000 nurses at major New York private hospitals (like Mount Sinai, Montefiore, and NewYork‑Presbyterian) expired December 31, 2025, and months of negotiations failed to resolve core issues before the nurses formally walked out in early January 2026.
So that's why they did that "in the middle of winter during flu season".
Yes, "it's supposed to better your community", that's mostly the reason for their strike.
If these jobs are not supposed to make anyone a millionaire, then why do allow them under private ownership, which is exactly intended to enrich the owners.
You are literally telling me that education and healthcare should be exempt from
private wealth creation, while you always argue that they should be privately owned.
Did you not even think of that, before you wrote it?
But to me for those folks to strike when people need them the most,they are putting lives at risk,that is uncalled for.
If folks die because they don't receive proper care,it is not the hospitals fault it's the stikers fault
You don’t approve that these nurses should be paid more. Do you think that these employers should fire them all and start all over with new nurses?
There are hardly any laws or regulations left, restricting them.
When a system is publicly owned, there is no profit incentive. The only incentive is efficiency; maximizing benefit for the user and minimizing cost for the tax-payer.
When the user and the tax-payer are the same group, it's up to them to decide the quality of service vs the cost. They get what they pay for.
The only limits on private companies robbing their employees and their customers is them losing all their employees and customers. Since there are ever more monopolies in both market and employment, private companies are getting away with ever more robbing. The customer is not getting what they pay for, and the employee is not getting what they work for, they are both getting the scraps that are left, after the private owners satisfied their hunger.
And then you would gleefully forbid employees from organizing themselves and striking, making it even easier for companies to rob their employees.
I see no argument from you for why an employer should be allowed to become a millionaire or billionaire from maximizing profit and minimizing the benefit for your neighbor. You will allow them to exploit the need of the community as much as they can, while you simultaneously deny their responsibility, saying that it is on those nurses when people die.
Understand that companies will always do the maximum possible or allowed harm,
to maximize their profits. It's up to citizens to push back, to protect their community.
If you want to take away the right of workers to strike, because they have a responsibility for people's lives, then you should come up with alternatives for them not getting exploited.
When those nurses are spread to thin, over way too many patients, it's also their responsibility to act, because patients are not receiving proper care.
This is not a auto assembly line that if it stops we can just drive our current cars until they get something worked out.
This is sick and injured people depending on a system to take care of them that suddenly the people walk out and leave them stranded.
Do I think they should be fired and replaced by the temp workers that have the sense of personal responsibility to do their jobs without the brain washing of a union to do it? HELL YES. Fire the strikers ASAP. Teach them a lesson, don't put peoples lives at stake for your purses sake. If you don't make enough as a fucking nurse get your ass out of there and get another job!
Why is it not the owners of the hospital putting peoples lives in jeopardy by understaffing?
If there is a responsibility for the nurses, there is at least as much responsibility for the owners.
Firing those nurses will make the understaffing even worse. It's the responsibility
of the owners and management to provide the sick and injured people with enough nurses to take care of them. A strike is temporary, but if the nurses don't get their demands of better staffing, that's a permanent risk for the patients.
I think that it's not about the patients for you, it's only about workers being obedient and never asking for anything.
I don't understand why you want to live in feudalistic society. It doesn't serve you,
it will only make the system disrespect you even harder.
1. The Core Report
Ford’s CEO, Jim Farley, has said Ford dealerships in the U.S. have about 5,000 open mechanic/technician jobs that can pay up to roughly $120,000 per year.
Farley and some articles frame this as a sign of a broader workforce issue in America — especially in skilled trades like mechanics, electricians, plumbers, manufacturing, and emergency services.
The headline you’re seeing — “I’m offering $120,000 jobs but nobody wants them” — seems to be an Internet exaggeration or social-media meme of that underlying claim.
💬 Public and Media Reactions
A. Business & Economic Coverage
Fortune and other business outlets note the shortage is not about laziness but about skills and training: auto technician jobs require years of apprenticeship/training before many workers hit the six-figure level.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the six-figure pay is not typical for people starting out; many techs start much lower and only reach high pay after years of experience and working conditions that are physically demanding.
B. Worker and Public Commentary
Many people online push back against the simplistic headline and offer alternative explanations:
Pay isn’t really “$120 k” right away: comments and threads point out that the phrase “up to $120k” can be misleading — that figure is often top end after many years on the job, not starting pay.
Training and tools cost time and money: many skilled trades require upfront investment in education, certification, and tools, which adds barriers.
Work Conditions Matter: some workers note that physically demanding jobs with long hours and limited flexibility are less attractive even with high pay.
Online critics also argue that employers sometimes inflate pay numbers for headlines or list jobs they’re not actively hiring for yet, contributing to confusion.
📊 Why These Jobs Are Hard to Fill (Beyond the Headline)
Experts and labor analysts point to several real reasons beyond “no one wants to work”:
1. Skills and Qualification Gaps
A lot of jobs that pay well require specialized skills, certifications, or years of experience — and there simply aren’t enough trained workers currently. Labour market research shows that mismatches between job requirements and worker skills are a major challenge today.
2. Training Time
Becoming proficient as a mechanic or skilled technician often takes multiple years of training or apprenticeships, and that delay means many people don’t enter the field immediately.
3. Job Conditions and Expectations
Even if compensation is good in the long run, the day-to-day reality — physically demanding work, safety risks, less flexible hours, and uncertain overtime — can deter applicants.
4. Labor Market Dynamics
In some sectors and roles, there are simply fewer open positions overall, or employers are very picky about qualifications, which can make openings linger even when workers exist. Research on hiring finds employers sometimes list broader skill “wish lists” that discourage applicants.
5. Broader Trends
Some data shows job openings overall have declined in late 2025, and hiring rates are sluggish even as claims of worker shortages persist — indicating structural complexity in the market.
📌 So Why Do People Say “Nobody Wants These Jobs”?
That interpretation tends to come from simplistic media memes or social posts, not detailed economic analysis. On deeper inspection:
✔ It’s not that Americans categorically refuse to do these jobs —
❌ It’s that the jobs may require skills many workers don’t yet have, or pay structures that aren’t transparent or worth it for people just starting.
✔ Many workers are interested in well-paid, sustainable careers, but they also value flexibility, training investment, and workplace conditions — and if those aren’t aligned, even high nominal salaries aren’t enough.
🧠 Conclusion
The viral story you linked is essentially a viral spin on a real labor market issue — namely, a shortage of trained workers in certain industries, including high-paying mechanic jobs. But the idea that “people don’t want to work these $120 k jobs” is too simple and misleading. The real challenges include:
The need for skills and training pipelines
Physical demands of jobs
Misleading salary framing (“up to $120k” vs starting pay)
Broader hiring and labor market mismatches
In short, it’s not that “no one wants them.” It’s that there aren’t enough traders with the right training, the pay ladder is long and opaque, and labor market dynamics are complex — a more nuanced picture than the meme-style headline suggests.
only registered users can see external links
I thought I would post this to help people understand the different races of people.
"The living peoples of the world are generally grouped into three major divisions: Caucasoid or “white”, Mongoloid or “brown” and Negroid or “black”
For centuries, people have tried to divide humanity into a small number of “races”—sometimes three, sometimes five, sometimes dozens. These classifications were often presented as scientific facts. Modern biology, genetics, and anthropology, however, show that there are no biologically distinct human races. All attempts to divide humans into races are arbitrary, historically contingent, and unsupported by genetic evidence.
1. Where the Idea of Human Races Came From
The concept of race emerged primarily in Europe between the 17th and 19th centuries, long before genetics existed. Naturalists such as Carl Linnaeus and Johann Friedrich Blumenbach classified humans much as they classified plants and animals, relying on visible traits like skin color, hair texture, or skull shape.
Crucially:
- Different scholars proposed different numbers of races (3, 4, 5, 6, or more).
- The boundaries between races were never agreed upon.
- These systems often reflected colonial, political, and social ideologies, not biological discoveries.
If race were a natural biological division, scientists would have converged on a stable, consistent classification. They never did.
2. What Genetics Reveals About Human Variation
Modern genetics allows us to directly measure human biological diversity. Its findings are decisive:
- All humans share about 99.9% of their DNA.
- Of the small fraction that varies, most variation occurs within local populations, not between so-called races.
- Roughly 85–90% of genetic variation is found within any given population, and only a small fraction distinguishes populations from different continents.
This means that two people from the same “race” can be more genetically different from each other than either is from someone classified as belonging to a different race.
3. Human Differences Are Gradual, Not Categorical
Biological races, when they exist in other species, are defined by clear genetic boundaries. Humans do not show this pattern.
Instead:
- Human traits vary gradually across geography, forming what biologists call clines.
- Skin color, for example, changes slowly from the equator toward the poles, correlating with ultraviolet radiation—not with racial categories.
- There is no point where one “race” ends and another begins.
Any line drawn between races is therefore a human decision, not a biological fact.
4. The Arbitrary Nature of Race Classifications
The history of race science exposes its arbitrariness:
- Some systems grouped Indigenous Australians with Africans; others with Asians.
- People from North Africa have been classified as Black, White, or Middle Eastern depending on time and place.
- In the United States, Irish and Italian immigrants were once considered non-White; today they are considered White.
A classification system that changes with politics, geography, and culture cannot be a biological one.
5. Ancestry Is Real; Race Is Not
Rejecting biological race does not mean denying human diversity.
- Ancestry refers to genealogical and geographic history and can be studied scientifically.
- Population genetics can identify patterns related to migration, isolation, and adaptation.
- These patterns do not form discrete racial boxes.
Race, by contrast, simplifies continuous variation into rigid categories and assigns social meaning to them.
6. Why the Myth of Biological Race Persists
The idea of race persists because it is socially powerful, not scientifically accurate. It has been used to:
- Justify slavery, colonialism, and segregation
- Naturalize inequality by portraying it as biological
- Provide simple explanations for complex social differences
Science does not support these uses.
7. Scientific Consensus
Today, there is broad agreement among:
- Geneticists
- Anthropologists
- Evolutionary biologists
- Medical researchers
Humans form a single, interbreeding species with no biological races. Race is a social classification imposed on biological variation, not a natural division within it.
Conclusion
All attempts to divide humanity into three races, five races, or any other number fail for the same reason: human biological diversity does not come in discrete units. The boundaries are invented, the numbers are arbitrary, and the categories change over time.
What unites humanity is far more fundamental than what superficially distinguishes us. From a biological perspective, race is not a fact of nature—it is a story societies tell.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
What the fuck is this woman talking about?
"people who own private property were enabling “white supremacy”"
"“Impoverish the *white* middle class,” she wrote in a 2018 post. “Homeowenership is racist / failed public policy.”"
" Weaver, who argues that landlords who are being bankrupted by their inability to remove delinquent tenants are just the cost of doing business"
Ananas, this lady is just right up your alley aint she?
it is talk like this that prompts hatred of socialism and proof it's followers are idiots
Is that what you are outraged over now?
But, when I criticize Trump, a person backed by the most power military in the world,
for threatening the sovereignty of multiple countries at the same time, that's TDS.
By the way, I looked it up. This is the complete quote: “Private property including and kind of ESPECIALLY homeownership is a weapon of white supremacy masquerading as ‘wealth building’ public policy.”
She was OBVIOUSLY not talking about citizens owning their OWN homes, she was talking about private rich and wealthy people, who own multiple houses, that they rent out.
Her reactions to this post surfacing are:
“some of those things are certainly not how I would say things today, and are regretful.”
She emphasized that her focus in her current role is on addressing racial inequalities in housing and ensuring that everyone has a safe, affordable place to live, whether they rent or own. She also noted that “for many years, people have been locked out of the property market, that has produced systemic and racial inequalities in our system.”
The Director of the FBI made a video of him cutting off the heads of his political enemies. That was more recent too; 2022. That is far more deranged and he is in a position of far greater power. If it was the only thing, we could discard it as a joke, but he has a wild history of promoting “deep state” conspiracies, directly engaging with QAnon–linked messaging and hashtags, sympathy with the convicted criminals of the January 6 Capitol attack, labeling officials as Government Gangsters on an enemy list and threatening to “come after” journalists and perceived political enemies.
If a few posts from her are evidence that the followers of socialism are idiots,
than Kash Patel fully justifies me in calling all of your side DANGEROUS LUNATICS.
only registered users can see external links
Don't they have tape measures Up there?
for people who want to follow religious books literally:
A hundred years from now, scholars will have trouble differentiating the terms
“butt dial” and “booty call”. Can you only imagine what we have been missing
in translation for the last two thousand years?
Ode to Winning So Much It Hurts
I love him loud.
I love him best.
He says he’s rich, so he must be blessed.
He talks about himself for hours on end,
That’s leadership, friend, not narcissism.
If he forgets what he said last week,
That’s strategy, not a mind gone weak.
They say he hates the working folk,
But he sells us hats, so that’s a joke.
Sure, they’re cheap, and cost us rent,
But that’s not greed, that’s commitment.
I bought the book with his holy name,
Printed overseas, but it’s not the same
As corruption, no, it’s faith you see,
Capitalism wrapped in divinity.
The Constitution? Optional text.
Rules are for losers, he knows what’s next.
When he breaks them all, it shows his might,
Real kings don’t read, they feel what’s right.
They cry about soldiers, medals, the dead,
But he loves them best when they’re useful, not red.
If they fall for oil or profit or pride,
That’s freedom’s price,don’t ask who decides.
He flirts with danger, threatens the globe,
Not because he’s scared, but bold, so bold.
If secrets leak and questions grow,
Just shout at the world,that’s strength, you know.
They whisper of friends he shouldn’t have had,
Of parties and tastes that look real bad.
But powerful men get misunderstood,
If it was wrong, he meant it good.
So let them talk, let truth offend,
I’ll love him louder till the very end.
Because if he’s guilty, corrupt, or cruel,
Then I’ll just say: that’s how you rule.
only registered users can see external links
The Dutch Republic (c. 1600s) developed some of the first fully modern capitalist institutions. The Dutch were pioneers in scaling and institutionalizing capitalism:
1. First permanent stock exchange
- Amsterdam (1602) hosted the world’s first stock exchange with continuous trading.
2. First modern multinational corporation
- The Dutch East India Company (VOC) issued tradable shares, paid dividends, and had limited liability.
3. Advanced financial markets
- Futures, options, short selling, and sophisticated credit markets existed in 17th-century Amsterdam.
4. Capitalist state structure
- The Dutch Republic protected property rights, enforced contracts, and kept relatively low feudal interference.
- Economic power was largely in the hands of merchants rather than nobles.
5. Capital accumulation on a national scale
- Profits from global trade, shipping, and finance were reinvested systematically.
That's why I get annoyed when people call my country "socialist".
We were one of the most successful capitalist countries in the world for hundreds of years, and still are. To me, socialism is the only way to save capitalism. We are heading towards feudalism, and socialism is the only stabilizer to prevent the system from collapsing.
The worst of these Leftist feudalists are the members of the WEF. These billionaire elitists are the main culprits. They are attempting to eliminate economic self-determination for everyone outside their neo-Leftist elite inner circle.
Everyone else outside this circle who advocates for Socialism, believing it to be a panacea to allegedly cure all the world's ills, are nothing more than the latest version of Lenin’s useful idiots. Every nation that has attempted to establish the varying degrees of Socialism have quietly backed away from it after it had, time and time again, failed to live up to its promises.
Pure Socialism is impossible. That’s why no one has ever attempted it.
The problem with Socialism is that it ignores human nature. People like to have nice stuff. They do not want to have to ask anyone else for permission to get it.
People also don’t want to support leeches who refuse to contribute anything back into the economy. Forcibly distributing the fruits of someone’s labor to others who only take and who give nothing back is theft, and it guarantees the collapse of any country that attempts to practices the purist forms of this theft: Marxist Socialism.
But of course, I’m sure you’ll have the mental gymnastics sufficient to come up with a justification as to how wrong I am for being against the overt coercive theft of someone else’s property gained through their own labor.
Or were you just triggered by my comment below it?
Do you even understand the terms 'left' and 'right'?
These originate from the French revolution, where the commoners sat on the left side
and the ruling elites sat on the right side. The 'left' was fighting for their freedom,
while the 'right' was defending their dominance (FEUDALISM).
The WEF is a global convening of elites dedicated to safeguarding and steering capitalism. How the hell can you call that 'Leftist'?
Billionaire elitists support the system that created their wealth: capitalism.
I agree that pure socialism is not possible, neither is pure capitalism.
We need something in between, that will not collapse.
This current state of predatory capitalism is collapsing.
To keep it from collapsing, we need a whole lot MORE socialism.
When you are saying "Socialism ignores human nature", are you referring to selfishness? That's based on the idea that humans evolved to the 'top predator' through 'survival of the fittest', which in itself is a mischaracterization of evolution. (Ask ChatGPT to explain why).
Humans became the dominant species on Earth, because of COOPERATION. We are not the strongest animal, not the fastest animal, we don't have the best eyesight, we are the smartest animal and used that to effectively COOPERATE. We survived all odds,
by developing bigger and bigger tribes. Those tribes had leaders, but they only accepted the leaders that were trusted to protect their common interests.
You obviously don't believe that billionaires are protecting our common interests, otherwise you wouldn't have accused the left of propping them up. Now, please tell me
if you remember me saying anything that supports the billionaires transitioning us all to feudalism. Is taxing them going to help them do that? Will it enrich billionaires to change private health insurance to a democratically controlled single payer healthcare system?
Who is supporting leeches? Do you think the wealthiest man in the world is contributing much? Elon Musk is going to be the first Trillionaire. Why is he not re-investing at least $800 billion back into the economy? He stole Paypal, he stole Tesla, and SpaceX is dependent on massive funding from the government. Can't he afford it himself?
What labor is Elon Musk doing? He is distributing the fruits of lots of other people's labor towards himself. He made electric cars cool. Is he now making them affordable for everyone? Is he really that useful to humanity now? How about Jeff Bezos?
You are using lots of terms, that I don't think you understand much. To you, those terms are arguments by itself, because they are "scary words". Inform yourself about the ideas behind them, instead of the straw-men of them.
It's the billionaires who are paying the media to tell you that taxes are theft. That resulted in them paying less taxes, and you making up the difference, either by paying more taxes, or getting less back. It is estimated that between 1975 and 2023, roughly $79 TRILLION
was redistributed from the bottom 90% to the top 1%. Why isn't that theft?
And did the 'Leftist feudalists' do that? HOW?
And it is easy to believe that taxes are theft when you don't get anything worth a damn for what you pay.Our roads are failing, our bridges falling,But we have a "diverse work force" and multigender bathrooms, oh boy! They don't teach what kids need to know in school anymore, they indoctrinate them and send them out the door not even understanding what a loan is or that they have to pay it back.
Did you see the video?
The Netherlands is 270 times smaller than the US.
Still our GDP is only 24 times smaller than yours.
I think we are still pretty strong, for such a small country.
Beating back the sea, that's our spirit of ingenuity and tenacity.
When the US needs to build a dike or sea-wall, you call the Dutch.
That's the result of 400 years of entrepreneurial thinking.
It's very likely that your country is the result of our merchant culture.
The US adopted it and turned it BIG. But now you're failing, because you don't adapt.
The term MAGA works for a reason; you have passed your peak, now you're failing.
Instead of understanding why, you are blaming everyone but yourself.
You fail to see that you did not become big by (just) exploitation,
but by giving everyone a chance to maximize their potential.
That's the real ideal of capitalism, not your perverted version of it.
How much debt did you leave school with? Do you know anyone of your age,
who studied and left school with a debt like kids today?
You are normalizing something that wasn't normal in your time.
It's also not normal in countries that are beating your ass,
because they understand that education is strengthening their country.
only registered users can see external links
What is the etymology of left and right?
Therefore the dominant hand (for the majority of people) became known as the “right” hand, literally meaning the correct hand. The word “left” comes from the Old English lyft, meaning “weak”, and was used to designate the weaker, non-dominant hand.Nov 1, 2016
only registered users can see external links
“the right” came to mean defenders of tradition and “the left” came to mean people who wanted to change the system to make it more fair." I will add, fair as in their opinion of what is fair
only registered users can see external links
There is no mention of politics being called 'left' or 'right' from before the French revolution, while the those bible text are much much older.
Funny that you are not referring to what Grok says this time, because that confirms my claim and not yours.
Here are some official sources:
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
is a case of stolen valor."
only registered users can see external links
That's because you have the luxury to not have to care about anything else.
Unlike people who cannot afford groceries, rent / their mortgage, healthcare
and a decent education for their kids.
They are just stupid distractions, from him failing as president.
What rock did you just crawl out from under?
or stealing their resources, while letting Putin doing the same.
He wants to steal those resources from the people who own them
and let the billionaires have them. IT'S STEALING!!!
Drugs are only dangerous to the stupid people who put them in their body.
If you didn't have those people, there would be no drugs cartels.
Or, if drugs were just made legally, there would also be no drugs cartels.
When it's guns, you say: "Guns don't kill people, people kill people!".
At least that someone putting a bullet in someone else's body.
With drugs, it's you own decision to put it into your body.
That's purely your failure as a country. Don't blame other countries.
because if he was, Trump would have protected him.
Owning MAGA snowflakes IS one of my hobbies.
only registered users can see external links
only registered users can see external links
Of course, and everyone who denies it is an idiot.
That doesn't mean that all boys are the same and all girls are the same.
Some girls are behaving very much like boys.
Some boys are behaving very much like girls.
And that is based in the exact development that he is explaining.
People have a tendency to confuse the (large) majority for the standard, or even the norm.
When you're ripping a doll from the hands of your little boy and say "Boys don't play with dolls!", you are denying that some boys have developed differently, and you are enforcing "the norm". It is not preventing that boy growing up into a "sissy", it is forcing the boy into a male stereotype, that is probably not his strength, and preventing him to develop his real strengths. Parents like that will push their son into the life of being a sub-par plumber, instead of letting him develop into a great psychiatrist (just an example).
And if your daughter has interests and skills that doesn't fit your stereotype of girls,
you can end up harming her development, crush her confidence, and probably deny
your country a great engineer, entrepreneur, or top female athlete.
In the end he says: "The freer the society, the bigger the sex differences".
That is definitely not accurate, in general. It's a mixed bag.
Factors/Characteristics Where the Statement Has Some Support (Sex Differences Larger in “Freer” / More Gender-Equal Contexts):
1. Personality Traits
Differences in many Big Five personality dimensions (e.g., agreeableness, neuroticism, extraversion) tend to be larger in more gender-egalitarian, high-income societies.
2. Basic Personal Values and Preferences
Some studies find that men’s and women’s values and preferences (e.g., risk attitudes, prosocial preferences) differ more in gender-equal and wealthier contexts than in less egalitarian ones.
3. Educational / Occupational Choices in Some STEM Fields
Patterns termed the gender equality paradox sometimes show greater differentiation in field choice (e.g., proportions of men vs. women in certain academic tracks) in countries with higher gender equality indices.
4. Cognitive Abilities Where Women Tend to Excel
Differences in areas such as episodic memory and verbal ability have been reported to increase in societies with better living conditions, often correlated with gender equality.
Factors/Characteristics Where the Statement Is Not Supported or the Pattern Is Absent/Inconsistent:
1. Sexual Behavior
Differences in sexual behavior (e.g., likelihood of casual sex) have been found to be smaller in more egalitarian or high-income societies, likely due to permissive norms and access to contraception.
2. Cognitive Abilities Where Men Tend to Excel
For abilities like mathematical performance and semantic memory, sex gaps decrease in societies with higher living conditions and equality measures.
3. General Cognitive Measures and Some Sociodemographic Outcomes
Some research suggests that many sex differences don’t substantially vary with gender equality, so for traits like overall intelligence or school achievement, differences are relatively stable.
4. Some Well-Being and Emotional Outcomes
Studies find little or no consistent “paradox” effect for gender differences in emotional well-being or mental health outcomes across gender-equal vs. unequal contexts.
5. Methodological and Cultural Qualifications
Some researchers argue that the gender-equality paradox itself may not be a universal causal effect, but rather an artifact of measurement, social norms, or Western research bias, meaning it doesn’t necessarily reflect a simple link between freedom and sex differences.
When you take a doll from a boy, you may have prevented him from growing up being indoctrinated to thinking it is ok to not work a physical job and may leave him with college debt for a education for a field of work there is no money to be made in. How much college debt do most plumbers have?
Most I know have a bass boat out back, 36 foot 5th wheel camper and a F350 to tow it with, nice house they bartered work for most of the custom rock work,and granite counter tops, while your psychiatrist drives a prius and will never get out of debt.
It IS OK to not work a physical job. WTF are you talking about?
When you take a doll from a boy, you are the one indoctrinating the boy with your ideology. There is no good reason to let children not find out for themselves what they like and are good at. If they have interests and skills that would make them good plumbers, they will be drawn to that, without your narrow-minded meddling.
Are you saying that technical jobs require less education than non-physical jobs?
That's damn disrespectful to craftspeople.
You are also shitting on your own stupid education system, that inhibits people
to make the best of themselves, because of the ridiculous costs associated with it.
Only in your dumb country.
Sure throw around some caricatures. The idea that real men need to drive a pick-up truck and sissy men drive a Prius, is all conservative nonsense. If you drive a big pick-up truck, when you don't need one for work, I assume you have a micropenis. If you see a man step out of a small, fuel economical car, you know he has nothing to compensate for.
That's also caricaturing/stereotyping, but much more accurate.
Psychiatrists in the US generally make very good money, with average annual salaries typically ranging from $240,000 to over $300,000. That's worth the education.
But no amount of education can turn an Neanderthal into a psychiatrist. It requires
a special mix of character traits to be good at that job. If you have a boy with those character traits, he is likely not attracted to toys that you associate with boys.
Ripping the toys he likes from his tiny hands, will probably damage him for life.
All because of your conservative indoctrination, or downright homophobia.
New Comment Go to top