The women can work as secretaries, receptionists, etc. until they get a new gig. The men? They won't even think of applying.

That's bollocks, because men will end up working manual labour in the same situation if money is tight. You won't get hired as a secretary or receptionist as a man, because... well let's be honest, most men aren't eyecandy and for secretary and receptionists jobs that is a job requirement. It is, don't deny it.

So, no I wouldn't apply for those positions, but I would apply for a bus driver or truck driver job. Men will chose the harder jobs over jobs that handle humans... which brings us to...

Just look at the ratio of male to female nurses as another example. A job where the extra strength of a man is an advantage, but they avoid it like the plague. Why? Fear. Fear of what other people will think.

I don't think it's fear. I wholly lack the empathy to care for people. I would be more than wrong on that place and I share this *mental* state with most other men. That's exactly what you've been saying: there is a mental difference and the nursing job simply doesn't match what men like to do. If I can avoid people and get machines instead, I will take that option every single time. Even if it's worse paid and more physicals. Humans are disgusting, humans are vile, interaction with them in undesirable.

I think you're too much of a victim to see these things clearly. Men, do not like jobs where you have to handle humans. Only in highly paid positions, they accept that burden. That's why a project manager is paid more than a good programmer, while doing much less for the project.

Or if a man says something to a woman at work and she takes it the wrong way, another lawsuit.

Perhaps that is a cultural problem. I have, in my career, never shunned perverted jokes, sexual innuendos, compliments ("sexy dress today, Jane"), etc. The worst I had was a little talk because on one I made a girl turn totally red and she complained to her superior (Blowjob joke, but damn, if you're kneeling in front of a coworker you're deserving that.). I merely, got a little stern talk about behaving a bit better -not around women- but around uptight PriceWaterHouseCooper consultants.

I have a cute dataminer sitting next to me at work, the rest of us are neckbeard developers and/or sysadmins. Male-jokes get made and she just laughs with us. It is not a problem. Now, it were different, if I'd be touching her inappropriately, but I'm not and I wouldn't want to.

Other example, my sister is a roadie/sound-engineer. That is pretty much a physical job and she is the only female. She handles well and her nickname is "pittbull". A women in these jobs just has to take up the culture, because it's just that: a culture and it's not against women, it's just in good fun. So, yes, she gets teased that she'll be sent in a pink dress to the client to make better sales, but she quips back hard and everything is in good fun.

Sueing? So North-American. Try "forgiving" and "adapting".

It is very simple, you are free to say that -let's say- black people and inferior people. Totally free in my eyes to say that. You'd be an idiot, but freedom allows you to be an idiot.

What you can't do is enforce your beliefs, because that is the actual discrimination.

The laws are there to protect minorities, not from vile speech, but from actual harm. However, even discrimination laws have their limits. Especially regarding to gender, because there *are* actual physical difference between men and women (feminists will never allow this to be true, but it's pretty much scientific fact). So, I can understand that an employer wouldn't hire a female truck driver, because in the event of a flat tire, she wouldn't be able to help herself because changing the tire would be too heavy. Of course, this would depend on the candidate. I know very physically strong women, but that is not how feminists think. That said, they're not battling for women to become truck drivers, but for women to get so called white collar jobs in management.

So, no, discrimination is not equal to political correctness. I am not politically correct, because I'm not afraid to say what I think even if it is contrary to popular beliefs, but I do not discriminate (at least, I try not to... it is apparently impossible not to discriminate at all)

Thank you for perpetuating the old joke that the Canadian national identity is based on Maple Syrup, Hockey, and 'not being America.'

No, that is not an issue at all. While you have to be 35 years old to be president of the US, the age of your mother when you were born is irrelevant. The text of the US constitution is readily available online for you to see for yourself: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

You seem to be vaguely referencing the requirements for citizenship at birth for someone who was born outside the US, but that's not an issue with Obama because he was born in the US, and is therefore a natural born US citizen.

There are some owner operators as described, but most are beholden.

The problem with swapping drivers has to do with hours of service requirements. A bit too much detail to get into right now, unfortunately.

I should actually correct myself slightly: Wal-Mart (and others) have some in house drivers and some outsourced.

BTW, in discussions of the transport industry, don't get distracted/lied to by the companies. Some drivers think they are owner operators, when in practice, they aren't. They will lease/buy a truck from (as an example, all of the bigs do this) Schneider. As part of the lease terms, they can only accept loads from Schneider. It should be obvious that the 'owner' is an employee who has assumed much of the risk that the company would usually take on.

ShanghaiBill has a decent reply, but he misses a point: if the automated truck is cheaper, the big companies will drive that change in a heartbeat. The trick is that someone has to be convinced that they will be cheaper. They are unlikely to automatically accept that an automated truck is safer, faster, etc. One area where they are likely to be impressed is the possibility of 24 hour operations, rather than the 10 hour per day (rough) limits of human operated trucks. In addition to (possibly) being cheaper, this will allow faster shipments for more mundane goods (there are already plenty of ways to have fast shipping, but it is cost prohibitive to do for everything) which would offer them a competitive advantage. I suspect this last point will be the thin edge of the wedge.

In my defense, I did a google search before I posted. And I usually keep an eye on fark, though this week I've been busy.
Thank you for the actual links.
I do have a question for you- are you one of those sorts who finds every criticism of Obama to be coded racism?

'5, Interesting' is a high score for bullshit.
I know you leftists hope and pray that every new mass murder is a right-wing terrorist attack. You must be constantly disappointed that nut jobs with leftist sympathies and Islamists are doing the actual killing.

Most large companies outsource their transport to JB Hunt, Schneider, etc. Sure, the big letters say 'WalMart', but in smaller, DOT minimum sized font, it often has another name.