Where as the studies I've seen show a significant pay gap even for graduates (so that rules out an experience difference for either sex). That men work more hours is itself a result of a sexism society that expects them to devote more time to work and less to family while demanding and allowing the opposite of women. The fix isn't to have women work harder but to respect the role of fathers more so men work less - which should conveniently reduce unemployment because when you can't expect two men to do the job of three you need to actually hire a third. Feminists in general would agree with all I just said. Feminism however is decidedly not a homogeneous group. Eve Ensler is considered a hero by second wave feminists and hugely problematic by third wave. Third wave feminists want sex work legalised and 2nd wave fights them on it. I mostly identify as a third wave sex-positive choice respecting polyamorous feminist and I also identify as male. There is no conflict there. You say feminists don't police the crazies: perhaps but we definitely call them out. It's the most infighting movement I've ever been in. Feminists spend more time arguing with other feminists than they do anything else. For every article a feminist writes about rape three gets written attacking TERFS who consider themselves feminists and tend to respond with horrified no true Scotsmen. But we don't censor them. Anymore than we censor anybody else. We just call them out and deny them platforms. In the end a few misandrists are a tiny problem next to massive systemic misogyny. Every feminist I know would be appalled at what happened to that man. But I can imagine some of the more militant second wave feminists doing that. Luckily second wave is a dying breed. They lost the sex wars with third wavers and what's left now is just a few old battle scarred soldiers still fighting a long lost war afraid of their own irrelevance. And like every old soldier in the bar - they are loud. Loud but best ignored until death finally brings them the peace they never found in life.
My daughter is one year old. I'm a feminist because I want her to have a safer life than her mother does and true freedom to pursue her dreams and never be told "girls can't do thst'. She is not and never will be my pretty girl (despite being gorgeous ) she's my clever girl.
When she is old enough to have sex who she fucks is none of my business. I'll never threaten her partners with a shotgun. It's her body and I respect her right to exclusively choose who she shares it with. I'm a feminist because I demand everybody else respects that right too. Whether that's one or one thousand it's her choice and I don't believe anybody has the right to shame her for it.

Here - Eat your words: you said more than one comment floated to +3 If you aren't prepared to eat your words, you shouldn't say them!

Ah. So when you claimed that comments about women being unsuitable for tech were at +3, you meant in a different story?

That's actually quite funny, I assumed that you were making claims about that story. Why on earth would I suddenly post comments about different stories?

You made the claim that numerous such posts exists. I couldn't find even one. Neither can you, it seems. There's no point in replying anymore - you can't find an example of such a comment/post, and neither can I.

You said :

yeah, I don't believe you: prove me wrong and link to one, please.

Okay, that's more detail and a correction, duly acknowledged. Teach me to double-check numbers and not quote from memory :P

It's got everything to do with fear. Man I tell you, if I was part of a demographic that was the majority in college degree's awarded and minority in deaths, incarceration, fatal disease, dangerous occupations, victim of violence, etc ... well, I'd keep my mouth shut :-)

All the evidence we have suggest those things are epigenetic not genetic.

It's similar to why I refuse, as a matter of principle, to ever buy name-brand clothes.
If Calvin Klein wants to advertise his jeans on MY ass - he'll damn well pay me for the right to use my ass as advertising space, I refuse to pay HIM a premium for the privilege of LETTING him advertise on my ass.

>You know what ACTUAL theft is? Consuming someone's product (ie. visiting an ad-supported web site) and then refusing to pay (ie. allow the ads to be shown). If you want a moral and ethical ad-blocker, implement a plug-in that refuses to let you visit any site whose ads you don't want displayed, or which allows you to pay micro-payments per visit.

This may have been true once when most ads were shown on a pay-per-view basis, but nobody does that anymore because it's to easy to cheat and it costs too much. These days ads are shown on a pay-per-click basis - which is a lot more realistic in terms of value gained by the advertiser, it also means that adblockers in fact represent ZERO lost revenue or theft since those who enable them has an almost 100% overlap with "people who wouldn't have clicked on the ad anyway". If you put "people with adblockers" and "people who don't click on ads" as a red and blue circle on a VENN diagram what you get is a giant purple blob with maybe a tiny red and blue line on either side.
It's very much the same as the reason the do-not-call list hasn't significantly impact the profitability of telemarketing, if anything it made it slightly more profitable as they can avoid wasting time and money phoning people who would never buy something from a telemarketer anyway.

The illusion that you would make more money if people didn't have adblockers is based on a completely false assumption about human behavior. Ads can be very effective at creating want - but not when their mere existence has already created dislike. Those who hate ads, are the ones least likely to buy anything based on that type of advertising - simply because the negative emotions associated with seeing the add overwhelms whatever emotional effect the ad was intended to produce.

>Not very effective coercion, then, since I have NEVER found myself buying something based on an ad. Not once in the last half century....

That's what you think. You are almost definitely wrong. Studies have found that the vast majority of people sincerely believe they make rational purchasing decisions - based on considering price and value, but when you observe their actual behavior they invariably buy the things with the prettiest packaging even if it costs a ton more to offer no additional value.
You aren't AWARE of how manipulated you are by ads, that's exactly why they work.

>If it's applied to copyright infringement (and it is, linguistic purist desires be damned),
It's not linguistic purists - it's legal purists, copyright violation isn't theft because the law specifically says it's not theft. Theft is prosecuted by the government, a prosecution that can happen without the consent of the victim (even if you "drop charges" for a theft - the government can still choose to prosecute) - copyright violation is a civil matter, where the plaintif has to bring a case themselves, in civil court, and you can't go to jail for it.

>Just because someone agrees to a purchase/sale contract doesn't preclude it being theft.
I absolutely agree with you but the /. libertarian crowd just got their hackles raised - because if they admit that, then their whole world collapses. If they recognize even the most remote possibility of that - then their defense of sweatshops for example falls apart. Their denial of the possibility of exploiting workers becomes logically unsupportable.
If they ever acknowledge the (bleeding obvious) conclusion that somebody can be deceived into making a decision against their own best interest - their entire world and economic philosphy is shattered to bits.

>and the advertising is basically true

Which is true of about one in ever 5000 ads in the world. If we actually legislated that as a requirement and enforced that legislation actively - then it would be a different story. Frankly the penalty for a false add should be to go to jail - for fraud, because a false ad is doing business using deceptive practices - the very definition of fraud. No, free speech does not enter into the discussion - no definition of free speech every covered fraud.

>A little over a decade ago the first human genome was sequenced at a cost of 3 billion dollars. Now, you can spit in a tube, FedEx it to a sequencing facility (at room temperature - no ice required), and a few weeks later FedEx will deliver a USB drive with your genome sequence on it - all for just a bit over a $1000 dollars

Bad example - because the human genome didn't need to cost that back then. It was one of science's greatest mistakes, and it's correction was the biggest breakthrough in genetics since the discovery of DNA. Long before we sequenced the human genome we had sequenced a bunch of "simpler" animals like frogs and newts and things - and they were coming in at around 80-billion genes.
So naturally we assumed that a much more complicated being like a human would have a much longer genome - many orders of magnitude more. So we built a super-computer for the kind of load we were expecting: that's where the 3 billion dollars went.
Except when we were done - it turns out the human genome was much, much shorter. In fact it only had about 32-billion genes. Figuring out why and how a more complicated creature can have much simpler genes completely changed our ideas of how genes worked. The entire science of genetics was turned on it's head - it was an expensive mistake but it paid off - it also made all the ideas that linked racism, sexism or classism to genetic inheritance thoroughly disproven - it's literally not POSSIBLE for them to be true, in order to BE true - human genes would have to contain significant brain structure encoding which they definitely do not and cannot because there aren't even enough of them to program 1% of our brains. The genetic contribution to human brains consist of "suck nipple when inserted" - that's about it.

That said - they never needed that 3-billion dollar computer, which is why this is a bad example.

There is nothing the least bit socialist about either Clinton or Obama - as a socialist, believe me I wish there WAS.
Please educate YOURSELF about what "socialism" means before spouting nonsense and calling "independent thought".

Hint: if the words "authoritarian", "state" or "government" is anywhere in the sentence, it's NOT socialism. There is even a very large branch of socialism called "anarcho-socialism" which is completely stateless yet socialist - in fact, anarcho-socialism would be more correctly called "classic-libertarianism" as that is what "libertarian" meant until the 1920's and it's STILL what Libertarian means anywhere OUTSIDE Britain and America: anti-state anarchistic socialists.