Male or Female

[arampl]

First programmer in the world:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace

(not counting Eve, of course)

[kikito]

In fact the cowardice of women is reflected in law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_ ... n_of_women

That only proves that the people writing the laws (guess what! mostly men) have certain prejudices.

Few women would ever sign there death warrant for what they believed in, Edward Snowden, Juilan Assange, Aaron Swartz all did exactly that not even a decade ago.

Assange, Snowden and Swartz did risky and brave things, but were hoping to get away with it without getting caught. I don't think either of them "signed a death warrant". Even if some (very vocal) groups have claimed for their deaths, I don't think they risked it under the US law or the Swedish law (which abolished capital punishment in 1910).

Swartz was never in danger of death, although he committed suicide. That's tragic and sad, but not brave.

There's plenty of examples of women doing brave things and risking their own lives in the world. You might not have heard about them if you look outside the tech bubble. The most recent case I know is Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag, who was jailed in Sudan and put in the death row for marrying a Christian man. She had to give birth in shackles, in a Sudan prison. I imagine that's worse than the embassy of Ecuador in London, even if they serve British food.

You can't force women to register for military service in the western world, you can't take there license and force them to sign away there freedom like you can do men. They have greater politcal power however do not have greater responsibility, I think that is reason to refer to them as cowards.

The western word isn't even the majority of the world.

There are some countries out there where women are treated as "second class citizens" (compared to men). In Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, women under the authority of their fathers while unmarried, and their husbands after marriage.

In India which is the second most populated country in the world, there's one rape report every 22 minutes - there's no way to tell how many go unreported. And marital rape is not a criminal offense (except when spouses are separated).

China, the most populated country in the world, has a long history of female infanticide and sex-selective abortion.

Without going to the extremes, even the "Western countries" that you mention don't fare super well when you consider gender equality as a whole (instead of conveniently picking some particular laws of some particular countries).Even the most-egalitarian country in the world (Iceland) scores only 0.85 in a scale where 1 is total equality and 0 total inequality. Canada and the US are in the 0.7 range (better than, say, Sudan, yes, but still non-equal).

By your own logic, if we had to judge women by what happens to them "on average", they would not qualify as "cowards", but "long-time victims of abuses, some times mortal". I will leave you to deduce how do men fare on that comparison.

Note that I am not a particularly fierce or well-informed feminist. I could find all this information with 3 or 4 google searches in around 20 minutes - it took me longer to write the post. I suggest you spend some time doing some research before giving your opinion about serious stuff like this in the future.

[Atton]

In fact the cowardice of women is reflected in law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selective_ ... n_of_women

That only proves that the people writing the laws (guess what! mostly men) have certain prejudices.

Few women would ever sign there death warrant for what they believed in, Edward Snowden, Juilan Assange, Aaron Swartz all did exactly that not even a decade ago.

Assange, Snowden and Swartz did risky and brave things, but were hoping to get away with it without getting caught. I don't think either of them "signed a death warrant". Even if some (very vocal) groups have claimed for their deaths, I don't think they risked it under the US law or the Swedish law (which abolished capital punishment in 1910).

Swartz was never in danger of death, although he committed suicide. That's tragic and sad, but not brave.

There's plenty of examples of women doing brave things and risking their own lives in the world. You might not have heard about them if you look outside the tech bubble. The most recent case I know is Mariam Yahia Ibrahim Ishag, who was jailed in Sudan and put in the death row for marrying a Christian man. She had to give birth in shackles, in a Sudan prison. I imagine that's worse than the embassy of Ecuador in London, even if they serve British food.

You can't force women to register for military service in the western world, you can't take there license and force them to sign away there freedom like you can do men. They have greater politcal power however do not have greater responsibility, I think that is reason to refer to them as cowards.

The western word isn't even the majority of the world.

There are some countries out there where women are treated as "second class citizens" (compared to men). In Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, women under the authority of their fathers while unmarried, and their husbands after marriage.

In India which is the second most populated country in the world, there's one rape report every 22 minutes - there's no way to tell how many go unreported. And marital rape is not a criminal offense (except when spouses are separated).

China, the most populated country in the world, has a long history of female infanticide and sex-selective abortion.

Without going to the extremes, even the "Western countries" that you mention don't fare super well when you consider gender equality as a whole (instead of conveniently picking some particular laws of some particular countries).Even the most-egalitarian country in the world (Iceland) scores only 0.85 in a scale where 1 is total equality and 0 total inequality. Canada and the US are in the 0.7 range (better than, say, Sudan, yes, but still non-equal).

By your own logic, if we had to judge women by what happens to them "on average", they would not qualify as "cowards", but "long-time victims of abuses, some times mortal". I will leave you to deduce how do men fare on that comparison.

Note that I am not a particularly fierce or well-informed feminist. I could find all this information with 3 or 4 google searches in around 20 minutes - it took me longer to write the post. I suggest you spend some time doing some research before giving your opinion about serious stuff like this in the future.

I think it would have been better if I simply restricted my posting to women in the first world. I think I should update my position in saying that I do have believe my statement applies to women of the third world. I have by orders of magnitude more respect and sympathy for women of the third world and china rather than the cretins in the first world.
http://news.yahoo.com/saudi-women-drive ... 31638.html
For example I could agree the above is fucked up. But you would be hard pressed to see many women with the bravery to drive in one of those countries who lives in the first world. But I do agree with you when it comes to women in the third world and places like china which are basically third world or at least as messed up.

"Assange, Snowden and Swartz did risky and brave things, but were hoping to get away with it without getting caught. I don't think either of them "signed a death warrant". Even if some (very vocal) groups have claimed for their deaths, I don't think they risked it under the US law or the Swedish law (which abolished capital punishment in 1910).

Swartz was never in danger of death, although he committed suicide. That's tragic and sad, but not brave."

The United States government could have killed the lot of them and got away with it. They have a history of secrecy and will do anything and everything they see fit. They made an example out of Swartz and push him to his death they basically executed him, they know exactly what they were doing. They knew how to break him and how to make him kill himself so I think he was at least at risk.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXr-2hwTk58
Do you also think that the government would not kill Snowden also or Assange, they started a fucking war that dug them deeper into debt they already cannot dig themselves out of.

"The western word isn't even the majority of the world.

There are some countries out there where women are treated as "second class citizens" (compared to men). In Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, women under the authority of their fathers while unmarried, and their husbands after marriage.

In India which is the second most populated country in the world, there's one rape report every 22 minutes - there's no way to tell how many go unreported. And marital rape is not a criminal offense (except when spouses are separated)."
Literately everyone agrees India is a fucked up country and rape is only one of a great many issues.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2209/174 ... d886_b.jpg
http://aphs.worldnomads.com/storytravel ... _1_big.jpg
http://addins.waow.com/blogs/weather/wp ... -India.jpg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im0tHRs9Bng

"China, the most populated country in the world, has a long history of female infanticide and sex-selective abortion."
So how is this any worse than being sent off to war and then gunned down by a foreign enemy.[WW1 & WW2] If abortion is to you an objectionable or amoral practice then I can understand where you are coming from. If you don't hold that stance than why the objection if you are prochoice then is it not their choice?

"Without going to the extremes, even the "Western countries" that you mention don't fare super well when you consider gender equality as a whole (instead of conveniently picking some particular laws of some particular countries).Even the most-egalitarian country in the world (Iceland) scores only 0.85 in a scale where 1 is total equality and 0 total inequality. Canada and the US are in the 0.7 range (better than, say, Sudan, yes, but still non-equal).
"
Below is the metric you use to figure out of a group of people is equal.

"Economic participation and opportunity – outcomes on salaries, participation levels and access to high-skilled employment
Educational attainment – outcomes on access to basic and higher level education
Political empowerment – outcomes on representation in decision-making structures
Health and survival – outcomes on life expectancy and sex ratio. In this case parity is not assumed, there are assumed to be less female births than male (944 female for every 1,000 males), and men are assumed to die younger. Provided that women live at least six percent longer than men parity is assumed, if it is less than six percent it counts as a gender gap"

If you are using this as a metric to determine if a group of people is being treated fairly in a society, then I think you need to rethink it. Not only is it unclear and confusing but it based on outcomes rather than policy, the fact is women's performance in society can be effect greatly by own decisions. You cannot determine if a group of people is being treated unfairly by using this metric. Women make different choices in their lives and that is simply their choice.

"By your own logic, if we had to judge women by what happens to them "on average", they would not qualify as "cowards", but "long-time victims of abuses, sometimes mortal". I will leave you to deduce how do men fare on that comparison."
I do not judge women based on what has happened to them but rather what they do. Like ignoring a law that could have their sons sent to their death in a war for oil. I exempt third world women from criticisms as their plight has legitimacy and I do appreciate you pointing that out.

"Note that I am not a particularly fierce or well-informed feminist. I could find all this information with 3 or 4 Google searches in around 20 minutes - it took me longer to write the post. I suggest you spend some time doing some research before giving your opinion about serious stuff like this in the future."
You bring up a pretty fair point when it comes to third world women.

[bartbes]

I know we're usually quite liberal with off-topicness here, but I'd rather we didn't go into such off-topic and controversial subjects on these forums. Of course you're welcome to continue discussing somewhere else, but this isn't the place.

[jjmafiae]

I know we're usually quite liberal with off-topicness here, but I'd rather we didn't go into such off-topic and controversial subjects on these forums. Of course you're welcome to continue discussing somewhere else, but this isn't the place.

Haha this is one of the least liberal forums I have seen, everything is finely organized into sub forums and mods insure people stay 95% on topic or so (don't get me wrong it's good this way however it would not be true to claim the other)

[Doctory]

so it seems the male to female ratio is 16:1.