So a woman threatening to hurt a man is not a matter of concern? Gotcha.

So out of all I said... that's what you gathered?  

But I'll humor you. Not as much, no.  

You hear some guy wants to rape your daughter.  You also hear some girl wants to rape your son.  Which are you more concerned about?

Well first of all, I dunno about you, but I'm more powerful than most random women.  And the comment you're quoting is about three year old kids and 20 year old men...

YAY FOR STRAWMAN ARGUMENTS!!!

I don't think military service should be compulsory for anyone. 

By the way, you seem to be bringing every example I make back to women, whether or not they were particularly about woman.  Methinks the man doth protest too much.

Except I did not say that everyone should be equal.  And I don't know what it means that we should "treat accept them being treated unequally in some cases".  Don't got it.  Doesn't make sense.

Thanks for playing.

Nobody specified political power.  That's not an analogy, it's a strawman.  And I never said anything about being equal under the law.

I have no interest in talking with you further, but I would appreciate it if you apologize for calling me a supremacist.

I never said anything about gay people being a collective.   Again, it seems like you have something that you want to say, whether or not it relates to what I've said.

Where did I say you did? I was highlighting that I was talking about my individual opinion from my experiences of being gay, and you proceeded to talk about the opinions of other gay people. That is why I emphasized how gayness does not make us one bloc. 

 If you honestly think that sexuality should be a factor in hiring or not hiring someone then all I can say is that I vehemently disagree.  I personally don't care if homophobes are outed or not.  I don't have any real problem with a person being as homophobic, racist, sexist, or whatever as they please.  I disagree, and I'd much rather they weren't, but that's their right, and noone can control that.  There are no thought crimes.  We can only address their actions.

When did I say it should be? There is a difference between saying something should be legal, and endorsing the practice. I don't think people should use the n-word, but that doesn't mean I think it should be illegal to use the n-word. I want them outed so that the majority of sensible people avoid them. This hurts them much more than secretly pretending to not fire people for being gay, and doing it anyway. 

Freedom of association does not include freedom of discrimination as per the 14th ammendment.  Freedom of association does not, as a matter of law, supercede someone's right to a job.  As a matter of morality, I can't see the argument that someone's right to not be around a certain group of people should be viewed as more important to a person's right to enjoy the fruit of their hard work.  If someone can deny you a job for any arbitrary reason, doesn't that take away the incentive to work hard? 

Sure it does. If somebody chooses to not associate with another person, why does the reason matter? The 14th amendment only applies to government-granted priveleges and natural rights. As for "enjoy the fruit of their hard work" when there is discrimination who is preventing that? What prevents somebody from "enjoying the fruit of their hard work" with somebody who is more respectful? Why are standards so low that people want others whom don't like them to be forced into relationships they know is destined for disaster? For example, let's talk about the people that are fired for being gay in the modern world. Most of them worked for catholic institutions. Does not common sense tell people that catholics are not kind to endorsing our "lifestyle"? What in the world convinces them to work for their institutions? 

http://www.advocate.com/year-review/2013/12/18/meet-people-fired-being-lgbt-2013

This article was highlighting 10 cases of gay people being fired for being gay. Three of the cases were because of specific actions and one can contest whether or not it was because they were gay, and the other seven was because they chose to work at catholic schools. I would think they could have found better and more diverse examples than that. 

I would consider motivation part of capabilities.  And when you lay the statement across the whole group, you are making assumptions about the whole group that will likely influence your view on individuals.  I'm using you in a generic sense here, so don't feel as though I'm attacking you.

I wouldn't, especially since it can change with time. Since we are talking about averages (average earnings), what is the problem with explaining the reasons for the averages? Are we talking about a specific individual case? No, if I talked about a specific case then yes that would be sexist, but we are talking about the average of all women. 

Women are less prevalent in STEM but is that because they are less interested, or less encouraged?  I'm a teacher, so I've looked into this quite a bit.  But, without getting into the research, in your gut do you think a bright young girl is more likely to be pushed into dance or science?  The assumption that a girl will be better at dancing or poetry than she will be at math or science is in most cases made when she is born and gets a pink onesie instead of a blue one.

Women outnumber men in biology and medical fields -- both sciences. Were they pushed into these fields specifically? Why can't they do it in physics, mathematics, engineering and computer science? I think girls are interested in different things from boys. Whether this is purely biological or cultural, I would dispute (it is a little bit of both.) Being a STEM major (Physics/Computer science) there is strong encouragement for girls in science at the university level at least. Heck, there are entire organizations made for that purpose. I do think encouragement is part of it, but the numbers are so disproportionate can it explain all of it? I am interested, but also skeptical of the research. 

Another thing to consider is that interestingly the more egalitarian the society the less women choose these fields. In developing, but inequal country, like China and India women major in stems at a disproportionate amount greater than in developed countries. But when they have more freedoms and comfort to decide otherwise, in more egalitarian societies, they seem to go for other fields. 

Here is an interesting study about where girls feel more comfortable in math and science than boys. 

http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/there-are-only-3-countries-where-girls-feel-more-comfortable-with-math-than-boys/284272/

Egalitarian societies like the Netherlands, Norway, Austria, Germany, and Switzerland are at the bottom in terms of inequality between boys and girls in stem degrees and performance. Places like Jordan, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates are the only places where girls perform better than boys, and these are vastly more inegalitarian Islamic countries, where women are experiencing pretty bad sexism. Girls also perform only 2% less than boys on average. Is that significant enough to have such a disproportionate interest in STEM degrees? 

If we placed no judgment on girls, would they still lean towards those fields?  Maybe, maybe not.  But we can't really know.  So when you say things like they're not motivated to be breadwinners, you have a chicken and an egg situation.  Don't you think it's possible that women being barred from public life for centuries may have something to do with whether or not they'd perceive themselves as breadwinners?  And that's to say nothing of the attitudes of those who are doing the hiring who also may be influenced by these ideas, whether it applies to the individual candidate or not.

How significant  the judgement is also an important  question. Certainly there would be more girls going into these fields without negative judgement, but to say the whole gap will be closed  relies on the assumption that there is an immensely strong push against girls doing these things. How strong is that push, really though? For example, half of my high school and the other high school's science olympiad teams (consisting of 40 different schools in my state) were made up of girls. Sure, girls tended to choose subjects like geology, environmental science, epidemiology, anatomy, etc, etc. Is it purely cultural? Maybe, but I doubt it. Very few things are purely cultural. Women are biological designed to be mothers afterall, whereas men are not. We see this in mammalian nature with females taking care of the habitat while males having various other tasks. 

Being underweight actually puts you more at risk than being overweight.  https://consumer.healthday.com/senior-citizen-information-31/misc-death-and-dying-news-172/underweight-even-deadlier-than-overweight-study-says-686240.html  There is not really a good reason for viewing underweight people more positively.  And the negativity is often directed at people within the normal range.  I'd normally try to find something, but the fact that we view underweight people are healthier than normal weight people is so prevalent it should be easy to verifty.

The problem with those statistics is that the sample sizes have different lurking variables. A sizable portion of people who are underweight are anorexic or bulimic. There is much more variation in the population of overweight people. I doubt people view somebody who suffers from end-stage anorexia or bulimia as beautiful and healthy. And when it comes to men, muscular or bulky physiques are definitely more socially acceptable. I can't tell you how many times I've been told I need to put meat on my body or that I looked too skinny, or I was asked if I have enough money for food/if I eat well, and my BMI is 19 (although in the past it was as low as 17.) 

But health is kind of besides the point.  The point is that weighing less is preferred (for women at least), so mocking someone for being underweight generally isn't very offensive.  When the overwhelmingly prevalent message in society is towards lower weight, one comment against skinny people probably won't do much harm.

Many women (of all weights) suffer from eating disorders. I personally think people should be more considerate of that when they judge people for being skinny. Skinny women are also self-conscious of not having fat enough butts and boobs, which larger/normal-weighted woman probably have less problems with. 

"The "power" sociological position is ridiculous and holds very little force behind it for everyday people." I'm not going to get into a whole thing about wording, but you were definitely and severely downlplaying the importance of power structures in that entire paragraph.

I am not downplaying it, in my opinion. You might see it that way, but I think people who argue for a power-weight in race/gender/etc generally overrate how important it is. I say that as a multi-ethinic hispanic, autistic, gay male who grew up in poverty with a single white mother who was sexually and physically abused and I have multiracial brothers and black step-sisters. If privelege exists, and there is a power-structure that helps white people, I do not see it in how my life turned out in comparison to my white mother's , or a plethora of other cases of poor white people. The power-thing seems to me quite similar to how stormfronters think of the "jewish conspiracy." Sure, a lot of people in history who held power were jewish (and/or white) that does not mean there is some conspiracy to keep other races and people down. 

It's not a matter of morality and one being more "right" than the other.  It's a matter of us recognizing as a society, that when a group that holds actual power is making a negative statement against a group that they have power over, that's something that we should take much more seriously than the reverse. By definition we treat statements made by those with power more seriously.  Because those statements actually have the potential to do harm.  

The issue I have with that is individuals in the less powerful group who hold more power than those in the "more powerful" group can abuse the weak in the "more powerful" group and get away with it. And yes, this includes real harm. It also never lets the issues hit the backburner and let people see people for who they truly are. Instead it creates a cycle of resentment, and reinforces the group identities of both parties. 

It's not a generalization, it's an example.  And dude, why did you put football in quotes?  

It was an example meant to generalize all of human activity. And if it wasn't meant to generalize all of human activity, then what is your point? I conceded that groups and group identity exist, but that does not mean it is stronger than individual identity in every context like it is in football. As for why I put it in quotes, that was to emphasize that it was the example you gave, a specific type of group sport. 

The Stanford Prison experiment is not really about authority and obedience, it's about how we act to the expectations placed upon us.  Neither is the bystander effect experiment.  These are examples of how often our behavior is altered in group settings.  

Can you connect this to the topic at hand? I never disputed that people alter their behavior in group settings. I am not seeing the connection. 

As for your point about more people looking at individual merits, I didn't address it because it's not worth addressing.  You see the world that way.  I don't.  Where exactly do we go from there?  Saying a majority of people view the world that way seems to be an arbitrary assertion.  Unless you have some kind of backing to that, I don't see what conversation there is to be had.

So you don't think more people today care less about whether somebody is black or not, gay or not, woman or not, than fifty or a hundred years? I really don't think this is something that has empirical evidence for it because it seems obvious enough that nobody would attempt. 

But the reason that the Milgram experiment in general is relevant to this is because there is already a group that has authority.  If the "victim" in the experiment were real and was yelling "shock that prick scientist" then nothing bad really happens. What he says, mean as it may be, is inconsequential and not worth getting upset about. If the person with the authority says "shock that prick" then the victim is likely going to get hurt.

Is this true? Again, it is reminding me of the stormfronters "jewish conspiracy."  For example, every single white person holds authority over every single black person? No non-white person, not even the president of the United States of America has authority over white people? A black person can't incite hatred that affects the lives of white, asian, or any other group of people? If the president of the United States of America said, let's purge all people of Chinese descent, do we not take him seriously because he is part of a group that is historically oppressed?