You're probably already married, and in the worse way possible (community of property). The reason I keep getting married is because I don't want to live with a woman for longer than the length dictated by my jurisdiction for cohabitation. The easiest thing is a prenup marriage. If I *don't* keep getting married then I don't get the protection that a prenup gives in the event of a breakup.

TLDR; if you cohabitate with your partner for a long enough length of time the laws decide that you *are* married in community of property.

It only serves no purpose if you never intend sleeping with this person again. If you want to play around a little more next time with this person, this condom absolutely serves a purpose.

One doesn't. The others do. You've simply displayed a link between lack of womens rights and their propensity for CS. Well Done!

There's no restrictions in the west either.

Just like the west.

Their young girls have fewer choices than western young girls. Western girls have many more choices, and are *encouraged* from birth to believe that they can do anything they want to, so they go ahead and do whatever they want to. "Follow your heart" is a western expression for kids, not a middle eastern one.

My point still stands: When young girls (like in the west) are told they can do whatever they want to they avoid CS like the plague. When they are not given a choice they can be found in CS. Did your Iranian friends forget to tell you that they didn't get to choose their major; that their parents did? Or is that a fact you conveniently "forgot"?

FWIW, I'm from a culture closely related to the eastern and middle-eastern ones, and the way it normally goes is that the parents choose on their childs behalf, for everything from spouse to college major. Next time you meet with your friends ask them about it - I very much doubt a culture with arranged marriages does not have parents arranging the majors too.

He said "I see no good reasons for $FOO". Almost by definition, it means that the ones you feel satisfy your minimum level for being "good" do not satisfy his. You're basically saying that if someone disagrees with your opinion of "good", then they haven't understood the issue.

By the same logic, if you disagree with someone else's opinion of "good", then does it mean that you don't understand the issue?

Nope. You are getting modded down for using creationist arguments. You, personally, keep getting asked for evidence. You haven't provided any.

When the

What leads you to believe that? All you've done is display a link between "countries with fewer rights for women" and "women in STEM/CS". This would lead a rational person to believe that when women have more options they exercise them (like in the west). When they have fewer options they are stuck with STEM/CS.

And you know for sure that this does not happen in those countries you listed? As far as I know of those cultures, they treat women much much more different than they do men, including toys and such.

You proved his point - even when attacked for their choices, boys still do whatever they are interested in.

If the best you can do is an online chat service open to all (not just men), then you've already lost. You keep getting asked for evidence. Repeatedly. And this is what you eventually come up with?

My boss is one.

I did. More than once. Never been to a single lecture.

So you now assume that any unattractive, short, homosexual, coloured male has the same privilege as good-looking, tall, straight, white males? The only differentiator from the "men-are-privileged" mob is the sex.

I agree, and it's because you played life on the easy mode that you have the opinions you do.

Holy Reading Comprehension Batman!

(What makes you think he doesn't understand the issues involved?)

That "massive drop" is almost exactly countered by the rise of women veterinarians, doctors and lawyers. So, you see a 25% drop of women in CS, then you see a cumulative 25% rise in those three fields listed above, and you still come up with "OMG SEXISM"?

The fact that there are more CS women (%) in female-oppressed countries than CS women (%) in liberal countries is not made up. You are free to use that fact when forming an opinion, but note that the existence of a contrary opinion is not enough to change that fact.

What makes you think that? A less-biased/more-rational person may have though "well, the ones that made gender-neutral toys made less money/went out of business". The problem I can see is that you want to enforce your present concept of fairness, and those who find it lacking in actual evidence get the name-calling/facetiousness/general abuse. The girls who want to play with girly stuff? Oh, they're just indoctrinated! Those who don't? They have good parents.

The irony (that you will get but probably ignore) is that the advertising in question lead to no girls wanting to play with the stuff (no, girls weren't into LEGO in the early 80's), providing further evidence that it is not nurture but nature that makes girls not want bare LEGO. This advertisement is proof that they tried it your way and your way did not result in more girls playing with LEGO.