Coal mining, maybe; muscle mass could be important, but on the human scale, it isn't really that challenging for women to be sufficiently strong for these jobs. And what observed dimorphism makes men better at running large corporations? It's not "inconceivable" - the idea has been considered and rejected because there is no evidence for it.

Stacklebutt,

1. By making the claim that daycare should be subsidized, you are saying "it is worth people's time and money to have access to daycare," since obviously the money to pay for a subsidy comes out of the taxpayers' pockets. Since too few of them do it(for your taste), it ISN'T worth their time and money. If the problem is that the poor cannot afford what is best for their children, then you should be proposing wealth redistribution, NOT a subsidy.
2. There is no evidence that sexism in the workplace exists. You cannot assume that it exists, because it is not something which is obvious. There are a million unmeasurable factors influencing what you are attempting to study. Krellin is 100% right on this point(all of his other points too, incidentally).
3. Discrimination is ALWAYS decreasing in a free market, because it is, by definition, a poor business practice. Those who do not discriminate will always out-compete those who do. I have a hard time believing that you are an economist, if you refuse to accept this simple irrevocable truth.

It has been long-since empirically proven that central planning does not work. It did not work for the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or the U.S. during the Reagan years(no particular reason I picked Reagan, any US president would do). It does not work for large governments, and it does not work for small governments. Men who violently enforce their opinion upon others, only succeed in destroying the wealth that years of voluntary exchange have produced.

@jwoer. If I were sober I'd tLm to a fucking piece of shit dumbass like the intellectual troglodyte you are, but I'm not. I have less patience so I will just note thT you are wrong.

Stackelbutt -- huh....funny...drunk you are at least more amusing than when sober. OF course, you still don't make one shits worth of sense.

You should go flog yourself for a while and come back with some more brilliant statements.

Instead of subsidizing daycare, why don't we just PAY MOTHERS TO STAY HOME AND RAISE THEIR BABIES. Ever been to a daycare and seen the troglodytes there? And I'm not *just* talking about the daycare "workers"....I'm talking about the little ill-behaved, undisciplines pieces of shit that corporate mommies are dropping off...the little shits that have never felt the hand of discipline because Mommy and Daddy are too guilty about abandoning the little shits to a stranger every day that they don't raise them properly in the two or three conscious hours they have them at night, when they are ignoring them doing house chores, checking facebook, etc.

Fuck daycare. Daycare is destroying this country.

Stacklebutt - what makes men better at running corporation? Who can say, but since men and women are very different biollogically/chemically/hormones, etc, and men overall seem to have greater success in corporations (you have mentioned female CEO's in prior posts...I didn't have the heart to remind you what an *absolute fuck-up* many of these women have proven to be...) then even though we can't say specifically what make men beter at running corps, it certainly seems that they *are*...

Perhaps it is because they are more competitive...because instead of being "nurtureres" men are fighters by nature, and not content to share, but are driven to win. Corporations that succeed are about making money, not friends.

Facebook
Amazon
Apple
Microsoft
Google
etc
etc
etc

All the brilliant companies that have changed the world in my lifetime...all created by men...most of them men that never finished their education, but simply struck out on their own and made something and sold it, often starting in a dorm room (before dropping out), or in a gargare...

....in other words, in isolated places were NO SEXISM EXISTS because they are alone, or with their close friends.

I think the empirical evidence is clear that men are simply far superior in creating successful business adventures, at creating brilliant, life changing products and ideas.

Suck on that,Stacklebutt...unless your vacuum-producing mouth is currently occupied otherwise...

Like I stated in an earlier post, krellin is right. You need balls to make good decisions. Balls produce testosterone, which increases risk-taking. Risk taking is necessary for really good business decisions.
Of course, none of this really matters. We are currently not arguing about whether men are better than women, or vice versa. We are arguing, SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT COME IN AND POINT GUNS AT EVERYBODY AND SOLVE A PROBLEM.
But yes, back to the original thread post, I think it's possible. Men will always be at the very top, but women may someday outperform men in everything else.

haha I'm glad to see Stacklebutt caught on.

It's totally true that daycare is destroying this country. Why don't parents have enough money to raise their kids properly? MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE THEY'RE PAYING A 40% FUCKING INCOME TAX, AND THE MONEY GETS SPENT ON FUCKING WARS, WHICH JUST DESTROYS MORE SHIT AND FORCES FOREIGN PARENTS TO SEND THEIR KIDS TO FUCKING DAYCARE. OH WAIT THEY DON'T HAVE FUCKING DAYCARE, WE BLEW IT RIGHT THE FUCK UP

I would be okay with paying stay at home parents a salary instead of subsidizing daycare.

But that's not the point of the family, paying stay-at-home parents a wage would require a massive restructuring of the capitalism system.

The fact that this thread is a shitshow says so, so much about the denizens of this forum.

I hate to say it, but I know many of you will know I'm right.

Thucy, go feed your closeted captive babies. And no, more sperm and assjuice doesn't count.

You're right, I don't want them to turn out like you did.

I'll make sure they get some Vitamin C and an education.

Really? That's your best cumback? Sigh....you are becoming hardly worthy of my insults anymore.

I hope all the sexists on this thread realize that claiming that there is a biological basis for men to be leaders or empowered over women is morally equivalent to the windbags of 1850 who preached that black people were naturally suited to be slaves.

Try to envision what the denizens of the year 2513 would think of your discourse. Let that be your guide.

Assuming society doesn't collapse and become some kind of feudalist hell, that is.

Hahaha krellin said "cumback" I get it lololololol funny guy

"I hope all the sexists on this thread realize that claiming that there is a biological basis for men to be leaders or empowered over women is morally equivalent to the windbags of 1850 who preached that black people were naturally suited to be slaves."

Of course not. There is no formal scientific definition for race, but there is a very good formal scientific definition for gender. Whether men or women are better at running large corporations, it is inconceivable that they are exactly the same(due to the huge chemical difference between the brains of men and women).

Also, paying mothers to raise their kids has exactly the same kinds of flaws as paying mothers to send their kids to daycare. The market already balances everyone's interests, better than any other system is capable of doing. Subsidies only damage the market.

Thucy -- why are you such a racist douchebag? If you think that the difference between people of different skin color is the same as the difference between genders, then you *truly are a racist*.

Thucy think that people of different color have physically different bodies, and have a different biol-chemical make-up. So...for example...in Thucy's worldview, a black man, a white man, and a hispanic man apart from skin color ALSO have different body parts than each other, have different hormone balances than each other, different brain chemistry and brain geography from each other.

Wow Thucy -- you should probably publish a paper and tell us how different the races are from one another. This is quite some news you have made!

And now....back to a good old Liberal standpbuy: Homosexuality. Ask any good Liberal, such as Thucy, is Homosexuals have a choice. Are they gay by choice, or by birth. Well, naturally, all good Liberals say GAY is a choice....GAY is a physical characteristic, something that is a result of the way a Homosexual's brain is developed. a BEHAVIOR in a human being, and the "choices" they make, are strongly influenced by their brains...not the choices the brain makes, but simply by the way it is built, designed, whatever, based upon the bio-chemistry of said brain, etc.

BUT...ask the same Liberal if there is ANY difference between the thought processes of a Man and a Woman -- who have measurable, identifiable differences in brain chemistry, brain structure, hormones (not to mention all those icky body parts....)....and your moronic Liberal will say, "Men an Women are 100% behavioraly equivalent There is absolutely zero differnce, none, zip, nadda, between men and women except for their social brainwashing."

So what is it, Noble Male Liberals....are women the same as men except for social programming? Because if that's so, then all the guys out there that identify as pole-smokers are ALSO doing it BY CHOICE.

You can't have it both ways...

That made no sense.

What did you expect?

Well someone gave it a +1... maybe they can explain.

@Jowe, there was a time when work was centered around the home - all labour not just female labour; somewhat pre-industrialisation, households had to produce what they needed, but being self-sufficient they didn't need much from the market - as such their work had litte/no impact on the national economy (i'm thinking most of 1800, imagined colonial America here, largely outside of cities), "neither a consumer nor producer be"

Well, the move of men's work outside of the home had various economic effects, including marginalising and devaluing work done in the home (because it was now done almost exclusively by women, and slaves, neither having the right to vote, it is clear they were marginalised before housework became 'a womans job'; at least i think its clear) by getting women into the workforce and getting them to pay for childcare you turn a job (minding the child) into something which counts twice for GDP (once the woman out 'producing' childcare costs and a second time paying the employee caring for the child)

That is, we're talking purely about measures of economic growth, infact not much has changed in pure economic terms (though both wages can be taxed, so the government has gained power) BUT in measurable economic output the GDP has increased! (isn't the magic of economics fun)

So three things are happening, women are becoming empowered by joining the workforce and having their own money to spend; government is gaining sources of tax revenue and spending subsidisies to encourage more tax revenuee (empowering itself) and society (by way of economics) is placing a higher value on paid employment than unpaid labour.

That is capitalism i guess; though how this makes men second class i'm not sure... (haven't read all 8 pages)

"though how this makes men second class i'm not sure... (haven't read all 8 pages)"

Don't worry, it doesn't.

Thanks Bo;

@bollox: 'Like I stated in an earlier post, krellin is right. You need balls to make good decisions.
Balls produce testosterone, which increases risk-taking. '

Actually this is just oure biologically wrong. And you make it clear you don't knkw what you're talking about. Risk-taking is fairly interesting, there is a direct co-orelation between risk taking and the genes which code for dopamine receptors. That how the neurons in your brain respond to dopamine.

Dopamine is basically the anticipation of a reward, you feel this rush of excitment when you think you're about to win something - interestingly the rush gets dampened if there is no risk; once you know what the outcome will be - even though you may be getting the same reward - you feel less excited by it. Hence thrill seekers, gamblers, and people who take risks on the stock market (apparently at 50/50 odds you get the biggest consistant rush, if the odds are too high or low you get bored) That said, the point is not everyone responds to a rush of dopamine in the same way, the same dolamine release probably feels differently to people with different receptors (and the gene which codes for them)

Now testoterone does have a biological basis in behaviour studies aswell; it is widely known to mediate sexual and aggresive behaviour (in both males and females) With no testosterone (or indeed a receptor which doesn't detect testosterone) you still get about 10%* of the violent behaviour, so testosterone levels can indicate where between 10%-100% of aggressive tendencies a person has; it is like a dial, there is still violence without it, but it can ramp up or down the amount. (by the way women have testosterone too, on average 7-8 times less)

*numbers rough guide only