It just annoys me that some people who call themselves feminists but don't deserve to because they don't understand the real meaning puts a bad name out on all those who are big on equality, which is a word I hope these 'feminists' look up because it's giving the actual feminists a bad name.
Except most feminists are like that. Third wave feminism has become all about man hating and putting women above men. It's sad, but it's true. The whole "but it's about equality" argument of theirs is just so people think they're not all like that, that it's just a few bad apples who happen to identify as feminists, but the problem is, they're all bad apples.
I think it's time that this nonsense gender war stop. We have differences and similarities. That is not a bad thing, and it's doesn't say anything about our value and rights. We deserve the same rights, men and woman. It's no very complicate, be who the hell you want to be, do whatever you want, nobody should give a shit. Just try no to hurt other people and stop complaining.
And for the love of god, salary for the same work should be equal not matter gender.( now I am complaining, oh well)
Ps. English is my second language, be kind to me.
If a man works 10 hours in a labor job, and gets paid 10 bucks an hour for it, and a woman works eight hours for 12 dollars an hour, is it then sexism and systematic misogyny why the woman isn't making as much money?
▼
·
Edited 7 years ago
deleted
· 7 years ago
Wow guest has flawless grammar for a second tongue
The wage gap is indeed a myth. It accounts for all jobs, people of all age. Even if the men:women ratio was 1:1 in every job ever, the gap will always be there, for a simple reason - biologically, women have a higher life expectancy, which means there will always be more retired women than men. The wage gap statistic also counts them in. It is all part of the feminist propaganda, pushing their damn agenda with out of context statistics, making women feel inferior so they'll join their little man-hating cult. A stupid statistic doesn't mean we're inferior or superior. We're equal, damnit!
But why is it, that women in general (not each and every one of them) are way more often living in poverty than men, especially in their retirement ages? Do you really believe there is no life income and/or social and financial security gap between men and women? And do you REALLY believe, its really mainly feminists trying to make feel women inferior? I really think you're a smart, strong and probably economically successful person, and I can totally imagine that you refuse to see yourself, as a person, as a victim of society and especially men. But do you really think, each and every woman has all the options and premises, that you have? What if they are not way smarter than the average man? Why are jobs that women tend to choose paid so shitty? Are they not important in a society? Does It make sense to say: well, the choose other jobs. Who will do these jobs then? And why should women choose jobs, they probably don't like, to not be poor?
@bassinyoface : You are in my top list of stupid ass posters I won't discuss anything with anymore. This is your official notification. Fuck off and die.
And now you know you've got a clear, rational argument when someone tells you "Fuck off and die". If that's the high point of the argument against you, and they think you're stupid and not discussable, they have revealed their colors as unreasonable and unapproachable unless you side with them. @funsubstanceuser: You really beg the question. Could I see proof that women live in poverty more than men? The whole spiel about women and the jobs they choose is irrelevant. If they love their job, who cares? Plus, should I pay someone more for a gender or social studies as opposed to someone working an engineering job or something that actually brings in money on it's own merit? They chose the profession, if it's a job people want done, it will make money. It's simple supply and demand, and not sexism or a flawed system. The system is working perfectly. Idiots who think the world works idealistically stand by and scream how the world is biased against them.
tarotnathers13th, funsubstanceuser has already been destroyed earlier and that's the second time they've deflected on someones comments because they can't argue their point with logic. It's a lost cause
As to my comment to brassupyourass: I will not argue with an imbecile, easy as that.
.
As to my argument: would you agree that teaching kids and caring for old and/or sick persons are probably some of the most important jobs in a society? The paycheck doesn't agree. It favors jobs where men treat other men like enemies. How do you think these jobs would get paid, if teachers and nurses had an obligatory 50% male quote? Why does mothering do nothing for your pension? That's just the tip of the iceberg. We could discuss, what makes women prefer those types of jobs, but thats another topic.
You're just running from argument to argument, and while you address my point about necessity, you realize that when the market favors jobs where they have to compete for pay, that's how it's supposed to work? You compete to make money, that's a part of capitalism. What, should we all pay each other an equal amount no matter what kind of occupation there is? There would be revolt in the streets. And why the hell should a job have a mandatory 50/50 ratio of men and women? Is that not sexism in of itself? And gee, it'd be nice to have my employer tell me: "Oh sorry, Steveio, we cant hire you. The percentage of men to women would be 60/40, and we can't have that, need equality to make sure the government/moral authority figure doesn't come down on us, you understand, right?"
"That has NOTHING to do with your statement that more women live in poverty.." - that statement gets you on my list. See you... not.
If "the market" fiancially favours mens jobs, how is this not against women? And how do you not get that my 50% ratio example is a thought experiment and not a proposal? Are you people really only able to look at the very surface of things?
See, this is how feminists/feminazis are slightly sexist and racist themselves. They HAVE to divide people in race, sex, and class, to make it seem like there is a point to whatever it is they spew. "If "the market" financially favours men's jobs, how is this not against women?" Bait and switch. I never said those were "men's jobs". Those are simply jobs that pay more because they provide more in the long run, or have an element of bodily or fatal risk.
It doesn't take much to pay someone to sit behind a desk, but it takes a little more to persuade someone to build a bridge through a mountain.
Also returning to the teacher's pay thing, there is a HUGE pensioner's problem in Illinois. Tax rates are so high here because they want a large sum of money that the state doesn't have, and they aren't willing to negotiate to a lower price so taxes can go down and money can be spent on something other than a pension.
What too many americans simply don't understand: what you don't pay in taxes, you pay twice to corporations, only you get not half as much service in return. Shit needs to be done, so someone needs to get paid. A private company will need to make money with it, as much money as legally possible, so where is this money coming from?
Also if a country or state doesn't have enough tax income, the less can be spent on unnecessary communist bullshit like 911 emergency calls.
The switch and bait thing is just you loosing track: "I never said those were "men's jobs" - why say it again? If you follow the conversation back, this sub-topic started with my remark: "[the market] favors jobs where men treat other men like enemies." Can you still follow? How many female CEO in major companies are there, and how many male nurses, elementary school teachers and kindergarden workers?
I'm very, very, very sure that they make money akin to their work. I'm confident that they get paid the same wage if they are working the same hours and schedule, because it is illegal to pay anyone any less because of sex, race, or sexual orientation in the United States of America. The Bait and switch thing is not me losing track, it's me bringing it back from someone trying to paint the job hunt as a macho competition between men where they throw each other off cliffs for money, and claiming that no one else has any guts to pursue their choice of employment. It's a market. It's always supply and demand. There is no distinction between who you are if you are male, female, trans, gay, whatever. It's who can get the job done.
"[Teachers and nurses] make money akin to their work" - does that mean their salary reflects the importance of their job? And you mean, that only so many women can get the job as a CEO, or investment banker done? And discrimination can't exist, because that would be illegal?
The wage gap is indeed a myth. It accounts for all jobs, people of all age. Even if the men:women ratio was 1:1 in every job ever, the gap will always be there, for a simple reason - biologically, women have a higher life expectancy, Is this true?
User's just beating the same argument time after time when I've already addressed it, as if me saying anything further contradicts myself. EDIT: One last point User. Laws do not obstruct ANYTHING. They are not designed as barriers in any form or function. They are guidelines. The handrail you hold ascending the stairs. The stipulation is that when you live by those laws, there is punishment according to law broken. Laws do not magically erase unlikable things.
tarotnathers: I am asking you the same questions over and over because you have not answered any of them. By now, I believe that you think you did, though. So maybe we leave it at that.
.
yogithebear: your posting about the wage gap that is a myth and which must exist because.., wot?? Uhm.. where was I... yes: this posting kind of blew my mind too. Sort of. Its a little like that certain text message that would fuck up an Iphone or something...
There are shown that 141 women entrepreneurs got over $20 mil from VC's from 2009-2015, correct? So let's take this into account that the other 2,864 maybe some of them received an excess of over $100 mil+. Would that not raise the average significantly? If more men are in the market then there's a higher likelyhood that men would get the higher payouts.
An article clearly recapping another article from the same site that had nothing to do with sexism. Yeah, I sure didn't read the article after quoting numbers used in both articles. Are you a fucking dult?
Ahhhhh damn it all. I told myself i wouldn't post. Guess that's a lie. User, it's basic numbers and size comparison. There are more men by the truckloads in that market. If there are two women compared to eight men, of course they are going to be outearned on average in job on the market. if you want to get rid of the goddamned myth of the wage gap, you have to get more and more women into the kind of work men are doing. Another factor is if they even want to go into that business, and whether that business can turn an attractive profit. if it turns a profit, more people are willing to invest in that company, because it'll return that money back over and over as long as it sells.
Glad you're back. Now sod off and get some basic comprehensive skills. " companies founded by women pulled in an (!)average(!) of $77 million compared with $100 million raised by men" - means it doesn't bloody matter if 10 companies are run by women and 100 by men or if it's 50/50. And I don't even want to raise the question again, why there are so many more men in the ceo biz than women,. You're overstrained as it is already.
My god, User you are one unwelcoming person aren't you? If you could have a friendlier attitude, people would be a little less antagonizing towards you? And no, I'm not strained, I'm flabbergasted that every piece of "proof" you bring in is just shot down by simple facts, and you still pull more and more out from the cluster of internet articles. The writer of the article compares the thing to the fucking lie of the wage gap, which is spurious and the epitome of screwing with the data to get the results you want.And thankfully, Bass has completely explained the entire concept of why it isn't sexist that there are more Males Ceo's to you. Do you put your faith in the untested rookies, or in the veterans who know the game and all it;s angles, nuances, second meanings? For shareholders and the board, no they don't want to take a risk. In about maybe 10 or so years this will all change, because that's what it takes to get experience? There ARE women moving into the market.
But if you force the change, you get results but not optimal ones. What happens if Female CEO's have to cannibalize each other on the market, or just go out of business because they can't sell what they're advertising? Should we just write a law defending these start-ups in comparison to male-owned companies? Fucking no. That Law wouldn't stop the men already in high up positions and with money and prestige. You're just dicking over the people doing the same as those women, trying to start something they feel would sell, but it won't because the opposite sex needs the government to step in for them to be the dealers for their companies. And simply handing over the Job from a Man to a Women might seem like "The Next Big Step for Womankind" But it's just fucking the dynamics and the work other people have done to get there. "Hey Steve, you gotta step down from your job, we're getting Mary to replace you, don't want to be socially lynched for not being compliant with the Moral Authority"
I swear FS user used to not be this way when they first started out, did you find some overt liberal girl and started following whatever she told you or have you just decided to white knight for the uninformed?
Their attempt will either be rambling about a different point or something along the lines of you're stupid I end this conversation. Or they'll just completely ignore it like they never saw it.
This guy uses the word "cunt" in a complaint about a "derogatory term" about his gender, namely "man"? This man is either sarcastic as shit or a super misogynic asshole. Well, scandinavians don't know sarcasm and he is a gamer, sooo...
No, I can just actually cope with women. I don't hate them, I don't fear them. I chose my wife as a life partner, not a sandwich making sex-worker. And I try not to explain shit to women, when they know much better and/or don't ask me to do. Au contraire - competent women really kind of turn me on.
"Obviously she didn't know the correct definition and he posted it and she tried to be condescending.." Bull.Shit. English motherfucker, do you speak it?
Let me correct it then. She thinks it silences women and he said it's a sexiest term designed to silence women. She becomes condescending so he snaps back. I belive that's what I was trying to say.
Alright that's enough folks. Let Papa Dunk sort out this mess.
FSUser, there's nothing wrong with aeceus's comment. It makes perfect sense in the post's context. And I must agree with the majority, you are in the wrong here. Mr Persson isn't being misogynistic, he's cutting through the many layers of bullshit surrounding the word "mansplaining". He should be commended, because condescension is not fucking gender specific, as our friend Mr Bass mentioned in a previous comment. You can act high and mighty all you want with your "life partner" and your "competent women", but we all know that you're just trying to garner favour with strangers you'll never meet. Dunk out.
Yea, thanks for sorting out the mess. Its actually Papa Drunk, right? You on a bender with aeacus right now? Because you both are completely incoherent.
I think our work here is done. FSUser has squandered their chance to redeem themselves.
And I may be Papa Drunk, but that's because you're too hard to deal with sober
3
deleted
· 7 years ago
I look back on this thread, and I'm filled with pride. RIP SlamDunkey, not quite gone and not quite forgotten
This has gone too far folks
Funsubstanc
Funsubstan
Funsubst
Funsubt
Funsut
Fusut
usut
sut
ut
t
tu
tum
tumb
tumbl
tumblr
And for the love of god, salary for the same work should be equal not matter gender.( now I am complaining, oh well)
Ps. English is my second language, be kind to me.
.
As to my argument: would you agree that teaching kids and caring for old and/or sick persons are probably some of the most important jobs in a society? The paycheck doesn't agree. It favors jobs where men treat other men like enemies. How do you think these jobs would get paid, if teachers and nurses had an obligatory 50% male quote? Why does mothering do nothing for your pension? That's just the tip of the iceberg. We could discuss, what makes women prefer those types of jobs, but thats another topic.
If "the market" fiancially favours mens jobs, how is this not against women? And how do you not get that my 50% ratio example is a thought experiment and not a proposal? Are you people really only able to look at the very surface of things?
It doesn't take much to pay someone to sit behind a desk, but it takes a little more to persuade someone to build a bridge through a mountain.
Also if a country or state doesn't have enough tax income, the less can be spent on unnecessary communist bullshit like 911 emergency calls.
The switch and bait thing is just you loosing track: "I never said those were "men's jobs" - why say it again? If you follow the conversation back, this sub-topic started with my remark: "[the market] favors jobs where men treat other men like enemies." Can you still follow? How many female CEO in major companies are there, and how many male nurses, elementary school teachers and kindergarden workers?
.
yogithebear: your posting about the wage gap that is a myth and which must exist because.., wot?? Uhm.. where was I... yes: this posting kind of blew my mind too. Sort of. Its a little like that certain text message that would fuck up an Iphone or something...
From a well, actually
FSUser, there's nothing wrong with aeceus's comment. It makes perfect sense in the post's context. And I must agree with the majority, you are in the wrong here. Mr Persson isn't being misogynistic, he's cutting through the many layers of bullshit surrounding the word "mansplaining". He should be commended, because condescension is not fucking gender specific, as our friend Mr Bass mentioned in a previous comment. You can act high and mighty all you want with your "life partner" and your "competent women", but we all know that you're just trying to garner favour with strangers you'll never meet. Dunk out.
And I may be Papa Drunk, but that's because you're too hard to deal with sober