On January 18 2014 10:22 LastWish wrote: Boy it's so simple. Women hold together men don't. Men fight over whatever stupid things. Women join together, Our ancestors must have known because they didn't allow women the right we do. Our ancestor weren't the kind ones - racist and slavers, but perhaps even today if you use clear mind you realize that people are still slaves to wage and forever will be when there is less property than demand.
It has only began, the real hellfire is yet to come and we better all hide or fight(I assume we will do the former and the leftover "enlightened" women will win the war for all of us).
><
You must be living on a different planet than me. Women fight just as much as men, but they destroy their enemies from the inside out.
No what I mean is that men will lose or have already lost this war and it's best for them to hide away(or be persecuted if spoken aloud). The war after will be won by the females with the connection to nature if it makes any sense, but unltimately they will fight back the rights for true men. No, not today, not even tomorrow.. I guess the climax will be about 2030 - so the best bet for all the men is to hide in countries(east or west) that do not demand this of their children.
On January 15 2014 04:41 Dark_Chill wrote: Hah, I think I just got it. Light says that the company acted in what they believed to be their benefit, so it's not discrimination. They'd probably rather be safe than to have someone who may be impacted. Dj says it's bad because that's not how it should work, and you can't make these assumptions. If she's qualified, then she should get it.
So from what I understand, you're not disagreeing with each other? It's up to the company, and they had reason to believe they'd be better off with their decision, but it's still morally terrible and making somewhat baseless assumptions.
We're disagreeing about what constitutes discrimination and we're disagreeing on whether or not an enterprise owes something to the society.
I think that assuming a woman to be inferior because of her female traits is discrimination. He thinks it's fine because supply and demand justifies it. I think that enterprises need to be respectful too. He thinks enterprises should do whatever the fuck they want because profits are the only thing that matter.
He systematically denies specific instances of discrimination on the same basis. He also denies the very existence of inequalities. He wants papers on racial discrimination which can be acquired easily with google scholar, they're plentiful, and many of them are solid. Certain of those papers don't do a very good job of accounting for existing social inequalities, but they're interesting despite the inaccurate conclusions that they draw, because the preexisting social inequalities (that exist because of our history) are still social inequalities that need to be worked on.
Pregnancy is not a trait. If it's not acceptable to take a pregnancy to consideration, or maybe a personality flaw, when you're gauging someones future performance, you're also saying that if a female firefighter doesn't live up to the physical requirements, it's discrimation that she doesn't get the job. You're saying that we should use different performance standards for men and women, or rather, for men, women and pregnant women, and I completely disagree with you on that.
Sigh, you can measure someone's actual physical requirements... I don't think women should have other physical requirements for being firefighters.
Also, like I've said twice already, if a country have laws that states that being pregnant is never ever relevant to a persons performance, you're creating a system where businesses are unwilling to offer jobs to young women, especially those women who aren't willing to promise that they won't get pregnant in the near future.
In a pure free market capitalism system, which no country has, that's true. Luckily, anti-discrimination laws come with measures which prevent businesses from being driven entirely by profits - because if they were driven entirely by profits, like I said, they employed children to work 80 hours a week and they polluted like hell.
If a country has laws that states that being pregnant is never relevant, and this society is sensitive to human rights, it'll behave itself and benefit from consumer good will.
This isn't 1920
But you can't assume that you catch them. And besides, punishing companies for not hiring a less profitable working force doesn't serve anybody. Don't force them to hire pregnant women. That just makes young women into a risk group. You can't expect the companies to make moral decisions. For this reason the government needs to step up. If companies sees a pregnancy as a burden, it's the governments fault, because they've put too much responsibility on the companies.
I'm only going to respond to this post since your entire argument is summed up quite nicely here.
You write that "punishing companies for not hiring a less profitable working force doesn't serve anybody". This is, as history as shown, utterly false. The very reason labor protection laws exist is that the rationale through which businesses will tend to treat their labor force when the said businesses are left unchecked is detrimental to the labor force and therefore to society in general. Your entire argument against laws preventing discrimination against women based on the possibility of them getting pregnant, and those insuring parental leave, is that businesses should be left unchecked to make the decisions they feel are the most cost-effective for them. Again, we, as a society, have decided that our collective welfare, through the welfare of our workers, is more important than letting businesses make every decision they want with regards to their workforce.
Protected workers are virtually always "less profitable" than unprotected workers. Your exact argument could therefore be used to defend removing the minimum wage: "why should we punish companies for not hiring a workforce that is more expensive than the guys willing to work for 2$ an hour?". It could be used to defend removing every form of employer healthcare insurance: "why should we punish companies for not hiring a less profitable workforce because of insurance, and offering work to those willing to work without insurance?". It could be used to defend removing health and safety standards in dangerous work environments: "why should we punish companies for not hiring those who aren't willing to work in dangerous environments without their personal safety being insured?". It could be used to defend removing virtually every single progress we've made as a society in terms of the protection of vulnerable workers and of human beings engaged in professional work in general.
The answer to your "whys" is therefore that we, as a society, have deemed that we benefit from these laws both collectively and individually. In this case, we have deemed that the interest of women in general trumps the interest of businesses with regards to the issue of possible pregnancies. We have deemed that removing barriers towards more gender equality in terms of opportunities (without contradicting merit-based selection in any way) is a positive step. And I'm glad we have.
On January 18 2014 10:22 LastWish wrote: Boy it's so simple. Women hold together men don't. Men fight over whatever stupid things. Women join together, Our ancestors must have known because they didn't allow women the right we do. Our ancestor weren't the kind ones - racist and slavers, but perhaps even today if you use clear mind you realize that people are still slaves to wage and forever will be when there is less property than demand.
It has only began, the real hellfire is yet to come and we better all hide or fight(I assume we will do the former and the leftover "enlightened" women will win the war for all of us).
><
You must be living on a different planet than me. Women fight just as much as men, but they destroy their enemies from the inside out.
No what I mean is that men will lose or have already lost this war and it's best for them to hide away(or be persecuted if spoken aloud). The war after will be won by the females with the connection to nature if it makes any sense, but unltimately they will fight back the rights for true men. No, not today, not even tomorrow.. I guess the climax will be about 2030 - so the best bet for all the men is to hide in countries(east or west) that do not demand this of their children.
The problem isnt that either group sticks up together the problem is the media that constantly tells women that they have to fight against men because men are holding them down and are evil.
Most of the people of one sex hold biases against people of the other sex, it only becomes a serious problem if you work them up against eachother in the media. Right now the "prime evil" is the white man. Everybody can hate on the white man and blame all wrongs on him while they are totally innocent and the victims of the white man. This also doesnt mean that you can assume the opposite it just means that there is not just black and white.
60years ago this was the total opposite, the media told men and women that the women is there to exist for the home and the children. Women are emotional and not rational and therefore not suited for the job. Men always held the belief that women are more emotional and now the media tells them this is true, so why apply any more critical thinking.
Today it is just the other way round, everybody is told white men are evil and so they believe it. People always fall into the same trap, just because something is accepted or fashionable to do doesnt make it right.
Now if someone publically brings up issues why feminism is heading in the wrong direction he gets universally hated by everybody in the media. And those who agree keep their opinions to themselves because they dont want to stand in the line of fire. So very few speak up and then the false propaganda can be planted in the heads of people by the media which leads to all that absurd bullshit. The fight will only break out of things become unbearable and blatantly unfair.
Why are there not more documentations in the likes of "brainwash" by harald eia that put up genderstudies are other academic subject against eachother to stimulate critical thinking. This documentation had a huge impact on the genderstudies program in nordic countries. Most people had no clue what was going on in academics. I bet most people from other countries ever heard about this documentation, or ever heard about a similar documentation in their own country (even they even exist, what i seriously doubt). So why is that? How can there be two contradicting acadmic beliefs and nobody is talking about this?
All the intellectuals that are spreading this propaganda dont pay a price if it doesnt work out so they keep promoting this absurd ideas that are getting crazier every day.
So today women are told that if they have drunk sex they are raped and the man has to be the rapist, you even read that stufff here on the forum. Women are told that the only thing that keeps them from picking up a stem subject must be men holding them back. There is no personal responsibility involved, there are only victims and oppressors. But reality isnt that black and white.
On January 24 2014 13:45 Zaqwe wrote: Thomas Sowell Dismantles Feminism and Racialism in under 5 Minutes http://youtu.be/G_sGn6PdmIo
Now there's a blast from the past. RIP William F Buckley, Jr.
It's a reminder from ancient times to critically analyze conditions and causes, no matter the study. Single, never married different than somebody out of the workforce for 10-20 years.
It's a valid topic in society--women trying to have a highly paid career and marrying and having kids (or just having kids). Just let's keep dispassionate analysis of the data separate from some shock and awe wage gaps that ignore job experience.
Now if someone publically brings up issues why feminism is heading in the wrong direction he gets universally hated by everybody in the media. And those who agree keep their opinions to themselves because they dont want to stand in the line of fire. So very few speak up and then the false propaganda can be planted in the heads of people by the media which leads to all that absurd bullshit. The fight will only break out of things become unbearable and blatantly unfair.
The recent book Men on Strike really spoke to this. The kinda unsaid male reaction to the perceived new(ish) norms.
On January 18 2014 10:22 LastWish wrote: Boy it's so simple. Women hold together men don't. Men fight over whatever stupid things. Women join together, Our ancestors must have known because they didn't allow women the right we do. Our ancestor weren't the kind ones - racist and slavers, but perhaps even today if you use clear mind you realize that people are still slaves to wage and forever will be when there is less property than demand.
It has only began, the real hellfire is yet to come and we better all hide or fight(I assume we will do the former and the leftover "enlightened" women will win the war for all of us).
><
You must be living on a different planet than me. Women fight just as much as men, but they destroy their enemies from the inside out.
No what I mean is that men will lose or have already lost this war and it's best for them to hide away(or be persecuted if spoken aloud). The war after will be won by the females with the connection to nature if it makes any sense, but unltimately they will fight back the rights for true men. No, not today, not even tomorrow.. I guess the climax will be about 2030 - so the best bet for all the men is to hide in countries(east or west) that do not demand this of their children.
The problem isnt that either group sticks up together the problem is the media that constantly tells women that they have to fight against men because men are holding them down and are evil.
which media are you referring to? I don't hear the on the news or read this in the papers and when i watch television and movies women are represented mostly as novelty sex characters. Do you have an example of media saying men are evil?
Most of the people of one sex hold biases against people of the other sex, it only becomes a serious problem if you work them up against eachother in the media. Right now the "prime evil" is the white man. Everybody can hate on the white man and blame all wrongs on him while they are totally innocent and the victims of the white man. This also doesnt mean that you can assume the opposite it just means that there is not just black and white.
actually right now most people tune in to watch old white men report about old white men everyday on the news and old white men run most of the large companies in the country. they choose whats on tv and they and their products are shown in a good light. People are not hating on the white man in public forums other than protests like wall street, which on the news is portrayed negatively. I think the hereditary wealth and power scheme does deserve some criticism.
60years ago this was the total opposite, the media told men and women that the women is there to exist for the home and the children. Women are emotional and not rational and therefore not suited for the job. Men always held the belief that women are more emotional and now the media tells them this is true, so why apply any more critical thinking.
Today it is just the other way round, everybody is told white men are evil and so they believe it. People always fall into the same trap, just because something is accepted or fashionable to do doesnt make it right.
I don't know why you think your opinion is unpopular. there are pages and pages of people saying the exact same thing as you. Who is told white men are evil by whom. like are you reading srs or watching the news and in the schools. At least you can admit that up till 60 years ago and for the rest of history women were mistreated but you need to realize its not over yet. "Why apply more critical thinking?" what. how is it fashionable to hate on the white man more than its fashionable to hate on feminists. hating on feminists has been fashionable so long its almost out of style. most people agree with you its not the other way around.
Now if someone publically brings up issues why feminism is heading in the wrong direction he gets universally hated by everybody in the media.
example? cause im pretty sure feminist has a negative connotation to most people. and if you refer to feminists like they have some parliament and board of directors to decide what their next course of action should be you deserve to be corrected.
And those who agree keep their opinions to themselves because they dont want to stand in the line of fire. So very few speak up and then the false propaganda can be planted in the heads of people by the media which leads to all that absurd bullshit. The fight will only break out of things become unbearable and blatantly unfair.
it was blatantly unfair for hundreds of years already tho right. what is this fight breaking out you refer to? who do you think is spreading false propaganda in the media? like comercials are still telling women to buy kitchen appliances and be sex objects and movies are still telling women they need to be saved by prince charming. regardless of whether this is right or wrong its obvously not telling them white men are evil or feminists rule the world.
Why are there not more documentations in the likes of "brainwash" by harald eia that put up genderstudies are other academic subject against eachother to stimulate critical thinking. This documentation had a huge impact on the genderstudies program in nordic countries. Most people had no clue what was going on in academics. I bet most people from other countries ever heard about this documentation, or ever heard about a similar documentation in their own country (even they even exist, what i seriously doubt). So why is that? How can there be two contradicting acadmic beliefs and nobody is talking about this?
yes i also truely believe studying and being aware of gender issues is important! i personally lobbied to have gender studies remain in universities. but its getting cut from school programs all the time by the old white men that run them. and please dont think this is old white man bashing im just using it as a short form for the rich powerful people that own all the schools. im sure its just a coincidence that they are all old white men.
All the intellectuals that are spreading this propaganda dont pay a price if it doesnt work out so they keep promoting this absurd ideas that are getting crazier every day.
So today women are told that if they have drunk sex they are raped and the man has to be the rapist, you even read that stufff here on the forum. Women are told that the only thing that keeps them from picking up a stem subject must be men holding them back. There is no personal responsibility involved, there are only victims and oppressors. But reality isnt that black and white.
where do you see these messages can you give any examples of any of those statements in the media? It should be easy if we are being bombarded by it all the time. It sounds like you just took a few messages you read from an extreme feminist then critiqued them in extreme hyperbole as if they were on the public news. These messages you consider common place are rare and viewed by most people like you view them. These extremist views are unpopular for a good reason. most of them are dumb. hating based on colour or gender is always wrong. and neither gender is evil. feminism to me means anti-oppression against women. why not be a feminist and a masculinist. From my stand point the largest problem with feminism is that its viewed as some congealed mono-purpose organization where its actually mostly individuals.
Over half the global population is women and over half that population lives somewhere where women are treated worse than men.
If a quarter of the population of the planet being oppressed doesn't justify a movement to stop it i don't know what does. I don't assume someone would harass homosexuals just because they are christian even though there are people yelling about being christian and harassing homosexuals. there are people yelling about being feminists and that all men are evil. those are certainly stupid people. but I dont see that as evidence that a major clash is coming because there is an imbalance against men on the horizon or something. can you tell me how you arrived at this conclusion? And who is the master puppeteer behind the plot to brainwash the public with propaganda to make men suffer. Do you think wearing a tin foil hat will help?
On January 25 2014 05:28 rezoacken wrote: Maybe when both sides (feminists, masculists) heavily spit on the other group it means we have somewhat reached a state of equality...
A state of equality where both sides sucks just as much, just for different reasons.
Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
You will be surprised how little that means to more and more people unfortunately.
The SPLC does not classify the MRA subreddit as a hate group, but does list it as a site under the misogyny heading. Which I can't deny is very common in this subreddit, though there are some valuable things this community does.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
Prob only because it deemed unpolitical correct to support mens rights, right?
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
Prob only because it deemed unpolitical correct to support mens rights, right?
Though they aren't actually classified as a hate group, there is a strange bit of selective outrage. Men bitching about women/feminism is totally evil misogyny, but the equally common misandric comments on the feminism subreddit are totally fine.
On January 25 2014 06:51 KwarK wrote: Men's rights activists don't typically fight for men's rights. MRAs typically congregate on reddit and hate on women. I've not met any masculists but I suspect they'd be strongly against being grouped with MRAs, as would anyone else actually interested in gender equality.
nope.jpg
The MRA subreddit is classified as a hate group by the SPLC lol.
Prob only because it deemed unpolitical correct to support mens rights, right?
Though they aren't actually classified as a hate group, there is a strange bit of selective outrage. Men bitching about women/feminism is totally evil misogyny, but the equally common misandric comments on the feminism subreddit are totally fine.
Misandry isn't fine and it certainly isn't feminism. If you want MRAs to represent people who don't hate women go out there and reclaim them. I'll challenge any feminist who hates men.
EPT
