On September 07 2012 11:47 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: “You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can’t visit the Olympics w/o insulting our closest ally.”
Amazing.
It's like he knows no one has any clue about all the things he's done to England over the last three and a half years. Then again, I'm certain he considers an iPod with his speeches the greatest gift of all.
You posted this already. They seemed like fairly mild offenses (for the most part) then, too.
Also, do you have like a compendium of these links or something? You post a link to something relevant (barely, usually) in almost every post, usually about 2 minutes apart. It's as if you had a direct line to every talking point that's already been brought up, discussed, and debunked here since before the thread started. \
I read a lot and I remember most of what I read. That makes it easy to search and find.
And can you explain how correctly noting the problems London had with its Olympics is worse than dissing the Queen and the Prime Minister and Winston?
That sounds like an incredibly useful skill toi have. I'm unfortunate enough to only remember specific words and wording, but I not to key in on titles and headlines -- unless they're titled with made-up words or "foreign" patterns, -- so it takes me a bit longer to find things.
Honestly, I'd prefer not to talk about how Michelle Obama was being so blatantly disrespectful by putting her hand on the Queen, because that isn't interesting to me.
I'd actually much rather talk about education reform, if possible, both because it's something I actually like discussing, and since you posted this earlier:
On September 07 2012 11:42 JinDesu wrote: I'll agree with the education statement here. I am very pro-education. The Republicans don't talk about education enough for me.
I thought it was interesting that you claimed this was a reason for conservatives not to talk about education. Care to elaborate a bit more, or give thoughts on an "ideal" system, maybe?
Forgive me for not having paid much attention to Rice's & Jeb Bush's speeches at the RNC, but reading over excerpts from them makes it it seem that they both kindof avoided talking about one of my biggest issues with the system as-is, so I'm curious to see how people with differing views & politics think about it.
(This thread moves too quickly for me, I think I'm already four or five pages behind now. >_<)
On September 07 2012 14:32 Risen wrote: Sunprince is everything this thread should be. Anyone who disagrees with him needs to go get some actual sources that are relevant. No one cares about your anecdotal evidence or how you feel, we want studies and research.
On September 07 2012 13:37 sunprince wrote: Am I the only one getting sick and tired of listening to Dems harp on the wage gap myth?
I know they need the woman vote and the support of feminist groups to win the election and all, but do they really think women are gonna run to the GOP if the Dems stop buying into failboat statistics on a single issue?
Anyone with a good forum memory knows that you really don't enjoy discussions of the wage gap lol. You think it is a myth, and many others do as well, but, believe it or not, large numbers of people do not agree with your judgement
It's not a matter of opinion, it's fact. The GOP is the party of bogus math, climate change denial, and the evolution "controversy", and it's pathetic that the Dems are at their level of math.
On September 07 2012 13:42 farvacola wrote:I really don't think many swing voters are going to be too swayed either way in regards to the issue.
That would be my point. The most important women's issue is protecting abortion rights from the Christian Right, so it's sad to see the Dems throwing around bad math like the GOP does.
This is not true. The number one women's issue is jobs and economy, just like men's. At some point it would be nice if both parties (and I actually think the Republicans are closer to this) stopped treating women like a special class of citizen that needs to be protected and realize they are multiple issue voters, just like men.
All of the Planned Parenthood/Abortion talk at the DNC was about shoring up the base it was not about bringing in independent women voters. It's why you didn't really see much of it during the 10 o'clock hour during the week.
I'm using the term "women's issue" here to mean what it typically does in American discourse: issues pertaining specifically to feminism, women's equality, and gender issues. Substitute the term "gender issues" if it makes it easier to understand.
Obviously, women's political preferences are defined by far more than gender issues.
On September 07 2012 13:37 sunprince wrote: Am I the only one getting sick and tired of listening to Dems harp on the wage gap myth?
I know they need the woman vote and the support of feminist groups to win the election and all, but do they really think women are gonna run to the GOP if the Dems stop buying into failboat statistics on a single issue?
do you have compelling research suggesting that it is indeed a myth?
The “pay gap” is probably the most widely-cited example of supposed disadvantages faced by women today. It is also totally misleading, as it is only a snapshot of average yearly full-time incomes that does not account for overtime (about 90% male), type of work, or other non-discriminatory, voluntary factors.
This was further supported in the book “Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell, who examined 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times, etc.) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that showed how men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents, an option men still largely don’t have. That is why never-married childless women outearn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now outearn their male counterparts.
Farrell also lists dozens of careers, including fields of science, where women outearn men. Women simply have more options than men to be primary parents, and many of them exercise that option rather than work long, stressful hours. That is why 57% of female graduates of Stanford and Harvard left the workforce within 15 years of entry into the workforce. This is an option few men have (try being a single male and telling women on the first date that you want to stay home).
TL;DR: The 77 cents to a dollar wage gap myth is based on the unadjusted wage gap, which means it does not take into account factors like hours worked, occupation, education, or experience.
However, at the same time, the legislation proposed doesn't FORCE unjust equal pay by the same criteria. It gives women the ability to confront employers in a reasonable time frame. Saying the law is unnecessary is really just saying the law is redundant. The cost of implementation is relatively nothing. This would be the equivalent of killing a fly with a fly swatter.
In practice, the act encourages employers to overpay women to reduce the likelihood of a potentially costly lawsuit.
The main issue, though, is that the Dems are deliberately perpetuating a feminist myth, which further plays into the false (not to mention misogynistic) narrative of women as victims rather than equals.
I'd think companies would attempt to pay women fairly before they would pay them in excess...
This isn't a new issue, it was basically true 10 years ago too. What makes it worse is that sexism still exists in other areas and people misdirect their focus on this tired-ass talking point about a nonexistent "wage gap." Having said that, however, I honestly don't know what's worse, that certain people still buy into the myth you're talking about, or that people who realize it's a myth routinely give the issue far more meaning and attention than it deserves. You sound like you're considering a reactionary vote against this talking point.
On September 07 2012 13:37 sunprince wrote: Am I the only one getting sick and tired of listening to Dems harp on the wage gap myth?
I know they need the woman vote and the support of feminist groups to win the election and all, but do they really think women are gonna run to the GOP if the Dems stop buying into failboat statistics on a single issue?
do you have compelling research suggesting that it is indeed a myth?
The “pay gap” is probably the most widely-cited example of supposed disadvantages faced by women today. It is also totally misleading, as it is only a snapshot of average yearly full-time incomes that does not account for overtime (about 90% male), type of work, or other non-discriminatory, voluntary factors.
This was further supported in the book “Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell, who examined 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times, etc.) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that showed how men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents, an option men still largely don’t have. That is why never-married childless women outearn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now outearn their male counterparts.
Farrell also lists dozens of careers, including fields of science, where women outearn men. Women simply have more options than men to be primary parents, and many of them exercise that option rather than work long, stressful hours. That is why 57% of female graduates of Stanford and Harvard left the workforce within 15 years of entry into the workforce. This is an option few men have (try being a single male and telling women on the first date that you want to stay home).
TL;DR: The 77 cents to a dollar wage gap myth is based on the unadjusted wage gap, which means it does not take into account factors like hours worked, occupation, education, or experience.
However, at the same time, the legislation proposed doesn't FORCE unjust equal pay by the same criteria. It gives women the ability to confront employers in a reasonable time frame. Saying the law is unnecessary is really just saying the law is redundant. The cost of implementation is relatively nothing. This would be the equivalent of killing a fly with a fly swatter.
In practice, the act encourages employers to overpay women to reduce the likelihood of a potentially costly lawsuit.
The main issue, though, is that the Dems are deliberately perpetuating a feminist myth, which further plays into the false (not to mention misogynistic) narrative of women as victims rather than equals.
I'd think companies would attempt to pay women fairly before they would pay them in excess...
I don't know shit all about this issue, but personally, I think ...
Women are often treated more favorably and given more attention in a workforce full of men. Women seem to benefit from groupthink and 'sisterhood' in a workforce full of woman. Men are often marginalized in a workplace full of women. Men are often so competitive that they gain no real advantage from working with other men. All we do is bust each others chops.
I will now hide behind my computer and wait for my wife to throw tomatoes at me.
Obviously guys, the DNC failed because of no balloons. We will all remember the day when only confetti fell as an obvious sign the economy wasn't good enough to support balloons like in other American decades. Obama will lose by 20 points, surely.
On September 07 2012 14:40 WoodLeagueAllStar wrote: Obviously guys, the DNC failed because of no balloons. We will all remember the day when only confetti fell as an obvious sign the economy wasn't good enough to support balloons like in other American decades. Obama will lose by 20 points, surely.
The latex lobby has unknown power, power the likes of this world has never seen. We will rue the day we crossed this fateful line.
On September 07 2012 13:37 sunprince wrote: Am I the only one getting sick and tired of listening to Dems harp on the wage gap myth?
I know they need the woman vote and the support of feminist groups to win the election and all, but do they really think women are gonna run to the GOP if the Dems stop buying into failboat statistics on a single issue?
do you have compelling research suggesting that it is indeed a myth?
The “pay gap” is probably the most widely-cited example of supposed disadvantages faced by women today. It is also totally misleading, as it is only a snapshot of average yearly full-time incomes that does not account for overtime (about 90% male), type of work, or other non-discriminatory, voluntary factors.
This was further supported in the book “Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell, who examined 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times, etc.) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that showed how men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents, an option men still largely don’t have. That is why never-married childless women outearn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now outearn their male counterparts.
Farrell also lists dozens of careers, including fields of science, where women outearn men. Women simply have more options than men to be primary parents, and many of them exercise that option rather than work long, stressful hours. That is why 57% of female graduates of Stanford and Harvard left the workforce within 15 years of entry into the workforce. This is an option few men have (try being a single male and telling women on the first date that you want to stay home).
TL;DR: The 77 cents to a dollar wage gap myth is based on the unadjusted wage gap, which means it does not take into account factors like hours worked, occupation, education, or experience.
However, at the same time, the legislation proposed doesn't FORCE unjust equal pay by the same criteria. It gives women the ability to confront employers in a reasonable time frame. Saying the law is unnecessary is really just saying the law is redundant. The cost of implementation is relatively nothing. This would be the equivalent of killing a fly with a fly swatter.
In practice, the act encourages employers to overpay women to reduce the likelihood of a potentially costly lawsuit.
The main issue, though, is that the Dems are deliberately perpetuating a feminist myth, which further plays into the false (not to mention misogynistic) narrative of women as victims rather than equals.
I'd think companies would attempt to pay women fairly before they would pay them in excess...
This isn't a new issue, it was basically true 10 years ago too. What makes it worse is that sexism still exists in other areas and people misdirect their focus on this tired-ass talking about. Having said that, however, I honestly don't know what's worse, that certain people still buy into the myth you're talking about, or that people who realize it's a myth routinely give the issue far more meaning and attention than it deserves. You sound like you're considering a reactionary vote against this talking point.
No, in my mind the Christian Right/Tea Party infested GOP would be worse for the United States. I actually have far more to say against the GOP when it comes to issues like separation of church and state, gay marriage, or trickle down economics, but in a generally liberal place like TL others will usually cover those for me. Even within gender issues specifically, I have much more opposition to the GOP's attempts to restrict abortion rights than my distaste for the state of modern feminism.
We've reached the point in now where women demand the government give them anything and everything under the sun for free, just because they think they deserve it, and if you're against them getting it for free you hate women.
That Sandra Fluke buffoon is off her rocker. She thinks the government should provide free horomonal drugs for transgender people and anyone against it is a "bigot"
That's how bad entitlement has gotten these days. Demand something, claim it's your right and demand society supply it, anyone who says other wise is anti-whatever (anti woman, anti black, anti gay, anti poor, anti immigrant, etc.)
On September 07 2012 13:37 sunprince wrote: Am I the only one getting sick and tired of listening to Dems harp on the wage gap myth?
I know they need the woman vote and the support of feminist groups to win the election and all, but do they really think women are gonna run to the GOP if the Dems stop buying into failboat statistics on a single issue?
do you have compelling research suggesting that it is indeed a myth?
The “pay gap” is probably the most widely-cited example of supposed disadvantages faced by women today. It is also totally misleading, as it is only a snapshot of average yearly full-time incomes that does not account for overtime (about 90% male), type of work, or other non-discriminatory, voluntary factors.
This was further supported in the book “Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell, who examined 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times, etc.) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that showed how men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents, an option men still largely don’t have. That is why never-married childless women outearn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now outearn their male counterparts.
Farrell also lists dozens of careers, including fields of science, where women outearn men. Women simply have more options than men to be primary parents, and many of them exercise that option rather than work long, stressful hours. That is why 57% of female graduates of Stanford and Harvard left the workforce within 15 years of entry into the workforce. This is an option few men have (try being a single male and telling women on the first date that you want to stay home).
TL;DR: The 77 cents to a dollar wage gap myth is based on the unadjusted wage gap, which means it does not take into account factors like hours worked, occupation, education, or experience.
However, at the same time, the legislation proposed doesn't FORCE unjust equal pay by the same criteria. It gives women the ability to confront employers in a reasonable time frame. Saying the law is unnecessary is really just saying the law is redundant. The cost of implementation is relatively nothing. This would be the equivalent of killing a fly with a fly swatter.
In practice, the act encourages employers to overpay women to reduce the likelihood of a potentially costly lawsuit.
The main issue, though, is that the Dems are deliberately perpetuating a feminist myth, which further plays into the false (not to mention misogynistic) narrative of women as victims rather than equals.
I'd think companies would attempt to pay women fairly before they would pay them in excess...
This isn't a new issue, it was basically true 10 years ago too. What makes it worse is that sexism still exists in other areas and people misdirect their focus on this tired-ass talking about. Having said that, however, I honestly don't know what's worse, that certain people still buy into the myth you're talking about, or that people who realize it's a myth routinely give the issue far more meaning and attention than it deserves. You sound like you're considering a reactionary vote against this talking point.
No, in my mind the Christian Right/Tea Party infested GOP would be far worse for the United States. I actually have far more to say against the GOP when it comes to issues like separation of church and state, gay marriage, or trickle down economics, but in a generally liberal place like TL others will usually cover those for me. Even within gender issues specifically, I have far more opposition to the GOP's attempts to restrict abortion rights than my distaste for the state of modern feminism.
Yeah, sounds like we're very much on the same page.
People really shouldn't give so much thought to social issues. Things like abortion, gay marriage, they are just wedge issues used to inflame passions and pit groups against each other.
Those things pale in comparison of importance and impact to monetary policy IMO.
If we fall into another great depression do you think the 25% of people unemployed would give a rat's ass about any of that?
an issue is a politically actionable issue because it attaches to people. it's easy to see why the wage gap issue is a highly effective issue when it is effective. as you yourself have mentioned, women care about jobs and if they think they are being cut because they are women, then this issue will grab them very strongly. if they do not think this issue is occurring in their lives, then it is still not a negative. thus it gets to have its time because it is effective.
as for the issue itself, in competitive industries yes women are fairly paid according to labor product. but feminists will argue that the major trend of women 'choosing' to work less is in fact a result of social condition and thus something to be remedied. human action can either be seen as choice or themselves products of larger processes and feminists take the latter. you have yet to argue why they are wrong in taking this point of view. it is rather hard to deny that traditional gender roles are still predominant and that's pretty restrictive upon people who are being restricted by it. whether politics proper is the right place to voice these concerns, one cannot judge too harshly a participatory gesture like this.
now and then again, the issue is rather simple and it is not about the data.
On September 07 2012 14:20 oneofthem wrote: feminists would say that these 'choices' are not really genuine choices etc etc. you can go on forever about this.
And we have studies which show that they actually are. So the feminists are wrong. To repaste something I posted earlier:
passes for interpretative analysis then well, it's not a very good one. reading some actual feminist theory might help. the basics, not the winged angels.
On September 07 2012 13:37 sunprince wrote: Am I the only one getting sick and tired of listening to Dems harp on the wage gap myth?
I know they need the woman vote and the support of feminist groups to win the election and all, but do they really think women are gonna run to the GOP if the Dems stop buying into failboat statistics on a single issue?
do you have compelling research suggesting that it is indeed a myth?
The “pay gap” is probably the most widely-cited example of supposed disadvantages faced by women today. It is also totally misleading, as it is only a snapshot of average yearly full-time incomes that does not account for overtime (about 90% male), type of work, or other non-discriminatory, voluntary factors.
This was further supported in the book “Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell, who examined 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times, etc.) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that showed how men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents, an option men still largely don’t have. That is why never-married childless women outearn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now outearn their male counterparts.
Farrell also lists dozens of careers, including fields of science, where women outearn men. Women simply have more options than men to be primary parents, and many of them exercise that option rather than work long, stressful hours. That is why 57% of female graduates of Stanford and Harvard left the workforce within 15 years of entry into the workforce. This is an option few men have (try being a single male and telling women on the first date that you want to stay home).
TL;DR: The 77 cents to a dollar wage gap myth is based on the unadjusted wage gap, which means it does not take into account factors like hours worked, occupation, education, or experience.
However, at the same time, the legislation proposed doesn't FORCE unjust equal pay by the same criteria. It gives women the ability to confront employers in a reasonable time frame. Saying the law is unnecessary is really just saying the law is redundant. The cost of implementation is relatively nothing. This would be the equivalent of killing a fly with a fly swatter.
In practice, the act encourages employers to overpay women to reduce the likelihood of a potentially costly lawsuit.
The main issue, though, is that the Dems are deliberately perpetuating a feminist myth, which further plays into the false (not to mention misogynistic) narrative of women as victims rather than equals.
I'd think companies would attempt to pay women fairly before they would pay them in excess...
This isn't a new issue, it was basically true 10 years ago too. What makes it worse is that sexism still exists in other areas and people misdirect their focus on this tired-ass talking about. Having said that, however, I honestly don't know what's worse, that certain people still buy into the myth you're talking about, or that people who realize it's a myth routinely give the issue far more meaning and attention than it deserves. You sound like you're considering a reactionary vote against this talking point.
No, in my mind the Christian Right/Tea Party infested GOP would be worse for the United States. I actually have far more to say against the GOP when it comes to issues like separation of church and state, gay marriage, or trickle down economics, but in a generally liberal place like TL others will usually cover those for me. Even within gender issues specifically, I have much more opposition to the GOP's attempts to restrict abortion rights than my distaste for the state of modern feminism.
I know the feel. I'm taking an African American Studies class at my university, and this week I read some stuff about how MLK and other civil rights leaders are figureheads and sell outs and how the movement was infiltrated by whites, how non-violent protest was a myth, and how black artists in music worked in plantation-like conditions. While I agree many injustices have been perpetrated, some people push it so far it leaves a nasty taste in even the mouth of "fair" people.
On September 07 2012 14:47 Zaqwert wrote: People really shouldn't give so much thought to social issues. Things like abortion, gay marriage, they are just wedge issues used to inflame passions and pit groups against each other.
Those things pale in comparison of importance and impact to monetary policy IMO.
If we fall into another great depression do you think the 25% of people unemployed would give a rat's ass about any of that?
One of the important aspects of a truly free society is a degree of subjective authority when it comes to deciding what is important and what isn't, and believe me when I say that many consider topics like the right to one's own body or to love who they wish more important than the economy. Are they wrong to think that? Perhaps, but it is not our place to tell them.
On September 07 2012 13:37 sunprince wrote: Am I the only one getting sick and tired of listening to Dems harp on the wage gap myth?
I know they need the woman vote and the support of feminist groups to win the election and all, but do they really think women are gonna run to the GOP if the Dems stop buying into failboat statistics on a single issue?
do you have compelling research suggesting that it is indeed a myth?
The “pay gap” is probably the most widely-cited example of supposed disadvantages faced by women today. It is also totally misleading, as it is only a snapshot of average yearly full-time incomes that does not account for overtime (about 90% male), type of work, or other non-discriminatory, voluntary factors.
This was further supported in the book “Why Men Earn More" by Warren Farrell, who examined 25 career/life choices men and women make (hours, commute times, etc.) that lead to men earning more and women having more balanced lives, and that showed how men in surveys prioritize money while women prioritize flexibility, shorter hours, shorter commutes, less physical risk and other factors conducive to their choice to be primary parents, an option men still largely don’t have. That is why never-married childless women outearn their male counterparts, and female corporate directors now outearn their male counterparts.
Farrell also lists dozens of careers, including fields of science, where women outearn men. Women simply have more options than men to be primary parents, and many of them exercise that option rather than work long, stressful hours. That is why 57% of female graduates of Stanford and Harvard left the workforce within 15 years of entry into the workforce. This is an option few men have (try being a single male and telling women on the first date that you want to stay home).
TL;DR: The 77 cents to a dollar wage gap myth is based on the unadjusted wage gap, which means it does not take into account factors like hours worked, occupation, education, or experience.
However, at the same time, the legislation proposed doesn't FORCE unjust equal pay by the same criteria. It gives women the ability to confront employers in a reasonable time frame. Saying the law is unnecessary is really just saying the law is redundant. The cost of implementation is relatively nothing. This would be the equivalent of killing a fly with a fly swatter.
In practice, the act encourages employers to overpay women to reduce the likelihood of a potentially costly lawsuit.
The main issue, though, is that the Dems are deliberately perpetuating a feminist myth, which further plays into the false (not to mention misogynistic) narrative of women as victims rather than equals.
I'd think companies would attempt to pay women fairly before they would pay them in excess...
I don't know shit all about this issue, but personally, I think ...
Women are often treated more favorably and given more attention in a workforce full of men.
Ehh, my personal experience on this is that it varies between occupations. My engineering friends strongly favor their female coworkers, but my friends in the military generally don't respect their female peers much...
On September 07 2012 14:39 Defacer wrote: Women seem to benefit from groupthink and 'sisterhood' in a workforce full of woman. Men are often marginalized in a workplace full of women.
On September 07 2012 14:39 Defacer wrote: Men are often so competitive that they gain no real advantage from working with other men. All we do is bust each others chops.
My personal experience on this varies as well. If you put men in a team against other teams, our competitive drives can help us work together better. Men also tend to have a hard time accepting guys as members of their group, but once they do that membership is undisputed; by contrast, female groups easily accept others but are more likely to engage in passive-aggressive behavior towards each other. The main issue with men in the workplace is simply figuring out how to get them to see each other as "bros", and the military has solved this to perfection.
On September 07 2012 14:47 oneofthem wrote: as for the issue itself, in competitive industries yes women are fairly paid according to labor product. but feminists will argue that the major trend of women 'choosing' to work less is in fact a result of social condition and thus something to be remedied. human action can either be seen as choice or themselves products of larger processes and feminists take the latter. you have yet to argue why they are wrong in taking this point of view. it is rather hard to deny that traditional gender roles are still predominant and that's pretty restrictive upon people who are being restricted by it. whether politics proper is the right place to voice these concerns, one cannot judge too harshly a participatory gesture like this.
So according to you, feminists believe that women are children who are incapable of making decisions like adult human beings. Who are the misogynists now? "Feminists" are wrong in taking this view because women are rational adults who possess agency and free will. I suggest you watch the following video and re-examine why you treat women as objects:
On September 07 2012 14:47 oneofthem wrote: now and then again, the issue is rather simple and it is not about the data.
In other words, you're a fanatic and no amount of evidence can persuade you.
On September 07 2012 14:20 oneofthem wrote: feminists would say that these 'choices' are not really genuine choices etc etc. you can go on forever about this.
And we have studies which show that they actually are. So the feminists are wrong. To repaste something I posted earlier:
passes for interpretative analysis then well, it's not a very good one. reading some actual feminist theory might help. the basics, not the winged angels.
I can assure you that I'm more well-read and better versed in feminist theory than nearly anyone in this forum, so save yourself the mansplaining.
All you've done so far is respond to my very well-sourced posts with one-liners that don't even pass for logical arguments.
On September 07 2012 12:29 Supert0fu wrote: Democrats just tore the republicans a new one with this convention. Told the American public how it was regarding their proposals. That's what you get for not explaining how your policies work.
Honestly, the enduring legacy of this convention is likely going to be the faux pas with the party platform.
I imagine it will be pretty minor within America, simply because there just isn't as much focus on foreign policy, which is what the dispute centred on. On the other hand, if you're looking for one thing to point to that went poorly in the convention, it's probably your best pick.
Normally, you're right. However, the one key problem with your analysis is that the democrats crapped on Israel, thereby pissing off all of the Jewish voters in Florida. I think Florida's a lock for Romney now.
xDaunt, if you really think Romney has Florida locked just because of one incredibly inconsequential thing like this, then you really are as delusional as most of us already believe you are.
Why do you think Obama and the democrats tripped over themselves to get that shit fixed yesterday? Do you think that they enjoyed looking like a bunch of retards when Villaraigosa had to violate parliamentary procedure to ram the platform amendment through?
You're clearly the one who is delusional about the significance of what happened.
It didn't take long for Florida politicians to to start making this argument:
On September 07 2012 12:22 dvorakftw wrote: It's like he knows no one has any clue about all the things he's done to England over the last three and a half years. Then again, I'm certain he considers an iPod with his speeches the greatest gift of all.
dvorakftw I just want to say reading your posts and trying understand your positions would be much easier and this thread would be improved a lot if you would explain and incorporate the articles you are linking to in your posts.
1. Obama insults Romney for insulting the British. 2. StealthBlue rah-rahs like it's this clever hit. 3. I link a post detailing some of the things Obama has done that offended Brits, showing the line StealthBlue found "Amazing" is in fact a stupid thing for Obama to say.
Did I honestly need to spell that out? Am I giving people here too much credit?
See, because Obama thinks Romney's Olympic "gaffe" shows his inability to be diplomatic and then I give all these links to suggest Obama is by his own standard many, many times worse than Romney.
Or maybe I could just go back to not making any effort and you can all go back to dismissing me as someone who just says random stuff with no backup because I don't know what I'm talking about?
Please go the extra step and expand a little bit when you are posting these links, and give us a frame of reference. The goal of this thread should be to debate and ultimately come to a point where we are all better informed and prepared to make a decision in November, not to slap down articles with every post as if to say "This proves it! This is why I'm right!"
I replied to a post where StealthBlue quoted Obama and added one word: Amazing. How much work am I supposed to put into responding to that to met your standards?
Oh and hey, on the subject of one word posts, want to see a warning I got a few days ago? From StealthBlue? Hope it isn't against the rules to share something from a PM. He wrote me: "Please put some effort into your posts. One word replies and other low content posts are not appreciated here."
Here is a link. It is a skit from the Daily Show mocking people who hold their opponents to a higher standard than they have for themselves. I link it because StealhBlue's treatment of me in that situation compared to his own actions tonight seems as hypocritical as the situation discussed in the linked video. It's funny. Don't hate it because I linked it.
(btw to explain my response in the post that got me the warning, someone suggested Romney's relative lack of a convention bounce was worrying and had results from God knows where saying '88 Democratic Presidential Candidate Michael Dukakis got a 34 point bounce from that year's convention. I quoted that result and responded "lol" because Dukasis lost that election BADLY and it wasn't worth the effort figuring out what the hell that "34" number was actually supposed to mean. I admit that could have been a bit prejudiced of me since the first thing that comes to mind for everyone I know when they hear "Michael Dukakis" is "lol" but that may not be the case around here.
The post xDaunt made a few pages ago about "The Price of Politics" had its flaws, but he went out of his way to explain and try to persuade. Please make that extra effort, because reading your posts is becoming tiring.
edit: Point being, I didn't necessarily agree with xDaunt's interpretation of the article, but he put forth a standpoint that warranted looking into, and as a result I'm planning on picking up that book to better inform myself. That's a positive result and the sign of a quality post.
If you can't take my reply and figure out I'm calling Obama shameless with no room to talk but who is nonetheless secure in the knowledge that the press and popular culture will magnify and at times create problems for Romney while hiding and excusing similar problems for Obama... well, I just don't know.
And as long as I'm making this so long, regarding the purpose of this thread being to inform and explain and persuade, I've been keeping a collection since my last temp-ban. Here's some choice quotes from this thread in only the two or three days. Maybe you've seen it all before but it really flows when you put it all together.
On September 07 2012 14:47 oneofthem wrote: an issue is a politically actionable issue because it attaches to people. it's easy to see why the wage gap issue is a highly effective issue when it is effective. as you yourself have mentioned, women care about jobs and if they think they are being cut because they are women, then this issue will grab them very strongly. if they do not think this issue is occurring in their lives, then it is still not a negative. thus it gets to have its time because it is effective.
as for the issue itself, in competitive industries yes women are fairly paid according to labor product. but feminists will argue that the major trend of women 'choosing' to work less is in fact a result of social condition and thus something to be remedied. human action can either be seen as choice or themselves products of larger processes and feminists take the latter. you have yet to argue why they are wrong in taking this point of view. it is rather hard to deny that traditional gender roles are still predominant and that's pretty restrictive upon people who are being restricted by it. whether politics proper is the right place to voice these concerns, one cannot judge too harshly a participatory gesture like this.
now and then again, the issue is rather simple and it is not about the data.
btw, if you think this
On September 07 2012 14:21 sunprince wrote:
On September 07 2012 14:20 oneofthem wrote: feminists would say that these 'choices' are not really genuine choices etc etc. you can go on forever about this.
And we have studies which show that they actually are. So the feminists are wrong. To repaste something I posted earlier:
passes for interpretative analysis then well, it's not a very good one. reading some actual feminist theory might help. the basics, not the winged angels.
I can assure you that I'm more well-read and better versed in feminist theory than nearly anyone in this forum, so save yourself the mansplaining.
All you've done so far is respond to my very well-sourced posts with one-liners that don't even pass for logical arguments. I'm done with you.
I will out-Judith Butler or out-bell hooks you any day yo! I'm ready to go all personal on your politics
More to the topic at hand, what sort of bump do people think the Democrats will receive?
On September 07 2012 14:47 oneofthem wrote: as for the issue itself, in competitive industries yes women are fairly paid according to labor product. but feminists will argue that the major trend of women 'choosing' to work less is in fact a result of social condition and thus something to be remedied. human action can either be seen as choice or themselves products of larger processes and feminists take the latter. you have yet to argue why they are wrong in taking this point of view. it is rather hard to deny that traditional gender roles are still predominant and that's pretty restrictive upon people who are being restricted by it. whether politics proper is the right place to voice these concerns, one cannot judge too harshly a participatory gesture like this.
Sunprince has no need or reason to argue that this is wrong. His point was that there was not a wage gap to be addressed. Breaking down social conditioning is another issue altogether.
now and then again, the issue is rather simple and it is not about the data.
On September 07 2012 14:20 oneofthem wrote: feminists would say that these 'choices' are not really genuine choices etc etc. you can go on forever about this.
And we have studies which show that they actually are. So the feminists are wrong. To repaste something I posted earlier:
passes for interpretative analysis then well, it's not a very good one. reading some actual feminist theory might help. the basics, not the winged angels.
You were the one who provided interpretations of feminist viewpoints. Sunprince just pointed out that there is strong evidence against the statement that you attributed to feminism.
EPT
