Women belong in the kitchen. Women must raise babies to call themselves women. They can clean, but they should not participate in politics or debate. Women cannot do mathematics, but they should feel free to write in their journals.
These and other misogynistic ideas form the mentalities that comprise popular male opinion, so every femi-nazi would have you believe.
I am a rational person and I enjoy sharing unique ideas with others. I often find that many people have thoughts that never crossed my mind. Even when I�m engaged in a discussion where parties disagree, I find myself open and receptive to understanding how individuals arrived to a certain opinion. I like to take debate like caster oil, straight up and save the politically correct circus and bittersweet pretense for the businessman who wants your dollar or the politician who wants your vote.
In a few of my recent discussions with both men and women, I�ve found a general consensus in the lack of sympathy for this recent tumult concerning womyn�s studies that has littered the paper (by the way, as I type this essay, I see a bold red line under the word �womyn� for a good reason).
I like to compare opinion with my personal experience and research in order to verify ideas. I have only 21 years of age, but I have come to know hundreds of individuals. I can attest that only one fool from my high school even came close to the misconceived misogynistic mentality previously mentioned.
During my freshman year at Virginia Tech, I took an excellent course entitled World Politics and Economy. Toward the end of the semester, we addressed gender and I was told that a woman receives 75 cents to a man�s dollar. I thought that was a peculiar notion. My professor just threw out a few details about the study and went on. However, being a rational person, many questions were left unanswered. I spoke with him after class to address my curiosities. I asked him a series of questions that I will repeat for you.
In the real world, salaries are very subjective figures. The revenue of the company, the profession at hand, the demands placed on the worker, the demand for the profession, seniority, work performance, annual leave, and many other factors influence compensation.
Were all of these factors considered in the study? If so, how do you quantify a singular relationship between so many factors and compensation, for example determining salary as a function of all of these factors, and gender?
His answer to me was that none of those factors were considered in the study and that it would be virtually impossible to accurately make such a model. For instance, how do you quantify the demands placed on the worker, the demand for the profession or their work performance? Companies have different rating systems and different evaluators for many employees.
How would you compare unrelated systems of evaluation?
Only when you develop a mathematical model that relates salary as a monotonic function of all the variables involved can you begin to viably analyze a single variable, gender, and it�s overall influence on the multivariable function. These sociologists are hardly mathematicians.
It appears that they are hardly engineers either or they would approach problem solving in a comprehensive manner that does not neglect key factors.
As my girlfriend, who spent two years in the sociology department found out, many people conducting this type of research have predetermined motives and biases based on their misconceived views of the world.
The study is flawed so badly that it has no real significance. How am I to decide whether women really get paid less than men if the so-called experts can only produce garbage? Well, all I have left is my personal experience.
All I can say is that the people close enough to me to divulge that kind of information on a whole have shown me inconclusive results. I know men and women who get paid well for what they do. I know men and women who get paid poorly for what they do. But since sociology is not my field or my profession, I do not have the time to devote to a realistic study that includes all of the necessary variables. My opinion is admittedly speculation, and I do not hide behind a Ph.D., conducting fallible �research� to litter the world with misconceived views. It would be ethical of those scholars to admit that their writing is speculation as well.
Of course, there is a reason why sociology is considered an even softer social �science� than psychology, and why our sociology department has professors who have remained adjuncts for over 10 years with a salary that is less than a starting trucker. Even some of the best rated professors in that department have been held onto as adjuncts while they try conduct layoffs of those who are more qualified to teach material in favor of new minority faculty to address studies of minorities. Perhaps if they allowed for more concise, mathematical, rational, and unbiased works to be conducted, the world would put more money into it, placing a new value on a useful discipline.