No, I had to round DOWN to 4 times. My numbers actually support them working rather harder than 4x as much.

Yes to ALL your flips.
A teacher is an position of authority and there is NO scenario where ANY sexual acts or treatment or prefferential activity to ANY student is acceptable behavior.
Indeed there is no situation where sexual advances to somebody over whom you have authority can ever be acceptable.

There have been numerous such experiments, I gave one as an example.

They all confirmed what I said, there hasn't yet BEEN one that found the opposite.

So I could say that I know EVERYTHING about the studies that questioned my beliefs - they all ended up confirming them when tested.

>Of course you can make sweeping generalizations about biological sexes: Men have a penis, women have a vagina.

And you would be dead wrong on every level. Firstly there are NOT two biological sexes, - humans have at least 8 and every biologist will tell you it's probably more. There are 14 possible ones, we've actually OBSERVED 8 - and xx/xy is definitely not the only one. A lot of transgender and intersex people have chromosomic combinations like xxy or xyy for example - so when she says she's a woman with a penis, or he tell you he is a man with a vagina that is, in fact, a biological truth.

Your example of an "obvious" sweeping generalization has been disproven by science for decades.

Empirical fact proves it does. Denmark gives 2 years by law - which you can choose to take in full for one parent or split up as 1 year each for both parents - and since instituting the policy many, many years ago Denmark has achieved the closest to 50/50 gender splits across ALL careers of any nation in the world. It's probably the least sexist country on earth.

Most families in Denmark choose to take one year each for both parents.

There is of course a cultural difference there, that is only just beginning to take hold in America - that fathers are, in fact, proper co-parents who should be just as involved in the child's life as their mothers and that their careers are NOT more important than their wives and that EITHER's career is less important than the wellbeing of the life they chose to create.

Yes, in the interest of brevity I rounded down a bit. Big whoop.

>The problem you run into when talking about merit is that merit is based on value and value varies based on who assigns the value.

So if you can recognize this as a reality of the product market, how come people can't see it as a reality of labour markets ? Those who try to dismiss complaints about sexism by shouting meritocracy never considers the fact that in an industry vastly dominated by one social group - members of other social groups have a MUCH harder time proving their merit - even when they have more of it. This is because the people doing the evaluating have a certain perception of merit, an expectation of what it looks like based on themselves and their colleagues - and the idea that greater merit could come looking different is alien to them.

Without sufficient diversity a meritocracy is not, in fact, possible.

You dismiss the idea that some successful people might be bullies too ?

Lol.

Actually a LOT of people talk about that, its one of the most common topics of conversation... among feminists. I'm a member of a feminist group on facebook (many men are feminists too) - though I mostly prefer to just lurk - and that's one of the things female feminists talk about the most. The urgency of giving male rape victims the same support - because the lack of support for male rape victims come from the SAME patriarchal sexist ideas that punish female rape victims and the unjustness of a court system that assumes women to be more nurturing - a role any feminist will protest having foisted on her. Some women are very nurturing. Some men are very nurturing. Custody cases ought to be determined SOLELY based on the individuals concerned with no regard for their genders - THAT is the feminist position loud spoken by them ALL THE TIME.
And child support should be paid by the higher earning parent - that this is mostly a man is a consequence of that paygap I bet your about to deny exists.

Except that every empirical experiment proves you are wrong about that.
Vet schools on average admit 4 males for ever female student admitted. But when the personal details on applications are obscured, so that the selection committees do not know the gender of applicants - it switches to 60/40 female selection !

What this means is that every woman who does become a vet had to work 4 times as hard and be 4 times as talented as the men who became vets. No amount of bullshit will make that NOT sexism or something the students can control.
3 quarters of the women who would be great vets are excluded to allowed in twice as many men who will at best be mediocre vets.

That's sexism in action.

>we control how many throws of the dice we get. Successful people are those who are smart, hard-working and persistent

Which is, in fact, believe it or not the number one advantage of a solid social safety net. If you look at businesses - 80% fail in their first year. More importantly - looking at the successful ones the average owner of a successful business has had 3 failed businesses in the past (remember that's an average so for half of them it's twice that).

What this means is that entrepreneurship is an incredibly high risk investment one you can only make if you can afford to lose -repeatedly before you win. Without a social safety net, the only people who can afford that are the ones who are already rich (which is why so many of America's rich folk started with large chunks of inherited wealth. Gates had rich parents, Trump - in fact of the top 10 richest American business founders the only one who didn't have rich parents were Steve Jobs and that's only because he was adopted - his adoptive parents were not poor).
For everybody else - entrepreneurship is basically a near-guarantee of being destitute. If you'll be destitute after trying once, no way are you able to try enough times to get it right. It makes is almost impossible for somebody who is poor to ever be a successful entrepreneur.

But if you have a solid social safety net, you change the risk factor. Now - you can try a business, fail at a business, and not be destitute. You can fall back on the safety net, rebuild your capital and try again - you can be a successful entrepreneur without being rich BEFORE you start.

The link was shared with me on social media several months ago, I didn't save it unfortunately. But google found it really quickly: http://www.scientificamerican....

Quoting the article in Scientific American: "The risk of a febrile seizure following the MMR is approximately one case in 3,000 doses for children aged 12 to 15 months but one case in 1,500 doses for children aged 16 to 23 months"

Double the risk of the most common side effect.

Actually some people did do what you ask. Their findings were that spreading vaccines out actually INCREASES the risk of negative complications.

To answer your question - because it's more dangerous. A recent study compared incidences of side effects and injuries between those who got the usual schedule and children who had delayed or spread-out schedules - and found 80% more injuries in the latter group. Spreading vaccines out actually INCREASES the risks. They are extremely minor risks, but when spread out - they become much more significant.
Furthermore it increases the risk of actually getting one of the diseases the vaccines are meant to protect against by a huge margin as the delay period extends how long you are vulnerable before being vaccinated.

Those laws do not, in fact, exist. What DOES exist is laws that say if you think your child was injured by a vaccine and the injury is anywhere on a long list of things which we know MIGHT happen, even if they only happen on a one in a billion cases - you don't have to prove your claim, you get paid. No need for lawyers, no need for expensive court cases, no need to deal with the incredible scientific complexity of actually proving causality - you win, guilt by the vaccine producer is ASSUMED.

The reason you get paid from a big fund is so that the vaccine producers can actually afford to pay these "guilty with no chance to prove innocence" claims against them. The reason the claimants get these "assumption that the other guy is guilty" benefits is because vaccines are often mandatory - and like all medicine they do have risks. Those risks may be incredibly minor but they exist and may hit some people - so those people are simply given the benefit of the doubt.