There's a small part of me that can't tell if you're trolling, so if you are I applaud you, I bit.

While I do agree that a lot of the psychological damage that rape does it perpetuated by the media it's not for the reasons you state. The issues people (yes, male and female) face after rape tend to be a feeling of uncleanliness and loss of power. You were forced, against your will, to take someone into your own being that you had no control over despite much struggle. It's that feeling of helplessness that is the problem, which the media then personifies and amplifies. When the courts and society then rules that it was your fault you were raped, whether by walking home alone or wearing heels it becomes even more of a psychological burden.

As for scientifically men and women being built different, yes we have different hormone cycles and physical equipment. Could this perhaps tamper with our day to day thinking? Sure. However let's consider the outliers, the 'butch woman' or the 'feminine man'. What do we classify these as other than outliers? If you have a woman who is fully capable of 'masculine' thinking should she be considered one of the women still and denied whatever rights it is you insinuate to deny (whether it is a job position or voting or validity in her rape claims) due to her physical equipment and would you consider the 'feminine man' to be in the same position however reversed? Should everyone be subjected to a mental evaluation?

Were they cheap, crappy heels by chance? You get what you pay for when you're walking on a 3-5" stiletto.

If we take power suits for example, in both gender's situations these are used to express their namesake - 'power'. A man's power suit is more likely to be well covering, not extremely form fitting, while a women's is more likely to be tight in the 'right' places, possibly expose a small amount of breast, could very well in more conservative fields be knee length {as opposed to pants} and definitely includes high heels. The woman of course has the option of wearing a blouse with a higher neck, pants, flat shoes and a less form fitting suit but most times this will make her less competitive in the field in terms of promotion or raises due to looking unkempt. Just as a woman with un-dyed hair (salt and pepper as the men say) or no makeup will always find her position or salary lacking in contrast to her well kept counterpart.

This being said I think both sides of the argument are valid. If you don't want to be robbed, don't go driving your $120k car through the ghetto flashing money out of your wallet. If you don't want to be shot, you don't go walking through a war zone, if you don't want to be raped you don't get black out drunk at a bar in a mini skirt. On the other hand, if women feel their 'dress code' is influencing their safety then change your dress code. I chose my profession because of it's relaxed attire. I don't dye my hair, I don't wear makeup to work, sneakers and jeans. I can be valued for my contribution not how pretty I look today or what push up bra I wear.

That being said, if any female was able to be considered a cross dresser it would be me, I don't dress very feminine really ever and I've gotten plenty of crap for it. Men say women who wear dresses, makeup and heels are 'asking for it', but then turn around and get pissed off when their wife doesn't dress up for them or 'try anymore'. So which way is it? Women who dress up are asking for it, or women who dress like men aren't trying and aren't serious?

I wouldn't know if it's harder to aim into a toilet bowl with the seat up or down, but from my turns cleaning the bathroom I can tell you most men seem to be terrible aim-ers or don't particularly care one way or the other. The only boyfriend I've ever lived with who didn't require the toilet being cleaned more often so to say, was one that sat down to pee.

It could be that women don't realize it could be something that interests them due to lack of exposure. I would be willing to bet there's a bit of societal pressure involved as well, I've met a lot of more women percentage wise that say things like "Haha math is hard!" versus men saying the same thing.

Over all it's a huge combination of items, from background and role models to societal pressures (if I say math is hard I'll fit in more and not be a 'nerd') and lack of appropriate exposure.

There's also the biological differences as well, I remember reading a study a long while back that women tended to better with languages because we apparently have a more build in need to communicate. Thus one would think women may not find computer based endeavors as rewarding due to the generic joking concept of anything computer related being a lonely nerd creeping in the building's basement not realizing how much interacting we all really must do. {I'm too lazy to look up the sources on that article because it was quite a while ago, anyone should feel free to prove me wrong.}

I was the AC that posted this (was at work / too lazy to login), and as a female I'd hope I had a good understanding of the female mind. =)

That being said I feel that kind of logic is absolute crap and a bit whiny, but I've seen it enough in others of my gender that I easily recognize it. If 'us' (read: females) leaving the toilet seat down isn't inconvenient for 'you' (read: men) when you have to piss, then 'you' leaving it up isn't inconvenient to 'us'. {I.e. if that's the worst thing I have to deal with today, I should probably STFU and stop complaining.}

I have to agree with this. As a female majoring in I.S. I feel I may not have had my interests had my parents not both been building desktops since I was a child. That being said, in my personal experiences I feel that for as many people that are willing to cut a female extra slack where she's undeserving whether it's in her coursework or the 'real world' applications, there's at least 2 people who won't give her credit regardless of her accomplishments.

I think it also depends a lot on location. A woman in a more liberal location or the right company might find she's met with less sexism than say a more southern location. (I don't say this to hate on the south, I say it as someone who lives in the south and has seen it with my own eyes.)

My honest opinion on the matter is that whether you're a female, a male, white, black, short, tall, thin, fat, ugly, attractive (the list goes on) there will always be some type of bias. The person recruiting you, your boss, whomever is 'above' you is always going to have something they dislike. Maybe they hate attractive people and pay them less because they feel inferior, maybe they're vain and only hire attractive people because they like the eye candy.

So realistically I don't think it's so much that women or men are the victim here (because women get preferential treatment), but that life is unfair and not everyone is completely unbiased. A lot of women don't go into STEM type fields because it doesn't interest them, or isn't something they think would interest them for one reason or another.

My sister and I would be a prime example of someone who just happens to hold weight vs. someone who just happens to be skinny. We've always been polar opposites in terms of personality, and are 8 years apart with myself being the oldest. We're the same height, I have wider hips and rib cage structure but I've always struggled much more with excess weight in general (all over proportionately).When I was 18 I would eat very healthy {I don't mean diet sodas when I say healthy, I mean boiled chicken and veggies, etc) and run at least 5+ miles per day, plus weights and other forms of being active (my job involved a lot of walking, I was a full time student, etc) and the absolute lowest I could attain was about 130 pounds (at 5'3") and a size 8 pant. She's turned 18 this year, she's not very active (she enjoys shopping and walking, but no real running, etc) and she eats whenever and however she wants. She's a size 2 on a bad day, about 110lbs at the same height.

I've always consider this to just be a bad luck draw on genetics (I have a lot of other health problems she's never encountered) but also my parents were dirt poor when I was growing up. It was until I was about 10, she was around 2 that we came into money. So as I was growing up food was very scarce and poor quality. It was stressful, and she's never dealt with that. She was able to go to the doctor and dentist every year, I wasn't. So I think lack of medical care, crap luck on genetic draw and poor early diet could all be contributing factors to instances of people with the same genetic line but very different results. It'd be interesting to see this type of situation we went through on genetically identical twins.

For some of the older readers, perhaps. Some of us came in right when the internet became readily accessible (1980's) and thus while we don't necessarily (at least not all of us) take it for granted, we also don't understand the true depth of our parent's generation who had to do their school papers via encyclopedia and printed texts. In that instance, the analogy of the corded phone to cell phones would be much more appropriate.

I can see the cop having a camera being a deterrent to certain criminals. I doubt that most criminal types are on the higher end of the intelligence spectrum (outliers and mob bosses aside), so the general thought process is probably akin to "I can refute a cop in court, it's my word against his, I'll just say it was profiling, etc etc" vs a camera. A camera records what it records, nothing more and nothing less.

If this were to become realistic where infinite or much extended life was provided I doubt it would be provided to everyone. Supply and demand dictates it would be very popular especially at the beginning and thus costly for one reason alone (if not cost of treatment and maintenance) and that is greed. I doubt this would be something you get 'taken care of' at your annual visit with your doctor for a $20 insurance copay.

That being said, it would be ideal to have an infinite life - sterilization trade off. Let's say at the age of 30 you want to opt into the procedure or treatment, then you must have not exceeded your maximum number of offspring (preferably set at zero) already and you must first undergo sterilization. This would help prevent any over population issues from occurring.

Some people feel an innate urge to reproduce, some just happen in that situation without proper planning (showing poor planning skills) and thus would be exempt from this everlasting or extended life. For a lot of people having a family is very important and a biological urge. They have to reproduce, it's ingrained into them. These people would obviously not opt for the life extension and would be coexisting with the extended living. Thus leaving the Earth in the case of mass extinction with two seperate parties, the breeders and the non-breeders. (Which would probably open an entirely different can of worms on it's own besides the concept of denying people treatment and dooming them to 'death' since they decided to have children. We all know people can't be expected to take responsibility for their decisions. They want their cake and to eat it too, as well as your cake.)

The only solution to 'population pressure problem' beside famine or plague is mandatory sterilization. Make it more readily available for those who don't want children (try being a 20 something female with no kids and ask for a tubal, see how far you get with that) and make it required for those who have met or exceeded their litter size or don't meet certain minimum qualifications (good luck getting a consensus on those standards).