G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
I notice Blabo amended his post after the fact...when it dawned on him what he'd said.
Poor Blabo
Poor Blabo
Portrait of a Modern Feminist: Helen Smith
- Thread starter Socrtease
- Start date
christiefan915
Catalyst
I've read a stat of 75% but it related to chronic illness, not male or female consumption of resources. Why hasn't she provide her own proof via a link? I'm still trying to find back up for her statement.
It's not irrelevant if you're trying to determine whether her statement is true or false. Again, where's the source of the 75% comment?
Maybe she shouldn't have said it at all, but then again her statement was "I absolutely think", not "this is an absolute fact."
Then why don't you explain what she means, since she herself didn't. I know name-calling is so much easier for you, but get real. What "cahoots" is she talking about?
Men are also entitled to benefits, just not WIC. Are you saying that all the infants and children in that title are female? WIC is targeted specifically at a certain group, pregnant or nursing mothers and their children. An 80-year old grandma isn't going to get WIC. Maybe women need WIC because there's not enough money to feed their children under the age of 5. What kind of person are you that you think innocent children should have to pay for the sins of their parents?
I'm not implying anything, I'm calling her a liar and a provocateur. She's no more representative of mainstream feminism than her counterparts on the extreme left.
Yep, you're right. And I also have the right to point out factual inaccuracies when I see them. What is it with righties, that they can't express a viewpoint without descending into falsehoods? There may well be a discussion of how liberal and conservative women see and interpret feminism but Smith isn't contributing anything worthwhile to it.
And it's obvious Smith is relying on opinion, generalization, half-truths and lies, which is quite typical of conservatives today. (See Paul Ryan convention speech.)
"Life sucks", "I'm a victim", "mental illness" etc. are nothing but buzz words used to stir up feelings and it worked for you, didn't it. This clever but misguided woman had you come away with your viewpoint validated that liberal feminists are out there to take advantage of poor, defenseless men. You're not going to change now, you're just a product of all the dinosaurs who came before you. Maybe there's hope for your grandsons.
Disillusioned
New member
If my reaction is a matter of indifference, then why are you posting? Obviously you're trying to get some reaction, even if it's just "You win". I've had two feminists(at least I assume that's what they were) go down the "men are rapists" path, and, had I been smarter I'd have walked away.
I'm not sure what your "problem" thing is about, seems to be alluding to something and I can't figure out what. Ah well, at least I figured out the sarcasm, maybe I'll move on to metaphor one day.
Disillusioned
New member
Prove that I've told the OWS and Tea party people they're dumb. Interesting...
Well I could use your reaction here as an example of the OWS bit, get enraged when I compare you to the TP and request proof of the similarity. So should I wander off and find Dixie and call him an OWS guy to prove the inverse?
Here I thought legion was growing up and learning to make sense, ah well. Time to take Aoxo's advice.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
So you can't? Interesting.
Try it.
Did I say that?
Not sure who this 'legion' is.
If you want to cut n' run like the others who lack the ability to debate, what's stopping you?
christiefan915
Catalyst
Gender gap for pay in my county.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Doesn't the GOP oppose equal pay for equal work?
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Gender gap for pay in my county.
Are there any examples of women being paid less for doing the exact same job? That is illegal in the UK.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I'm not ignoring your posts, just trying to find some specific answers. So far this is what I found, from a PA legislator.
According to statistics released in 2009 by the U.S. Census Bureau, year-round, full-time working women in 2008 earned only 77 percent of the earnings of year-round, full-time working men, indicating little change or progress in pay equity. In Pennsylvania, women fare worse as they earn only 75 percent of their male colleagues...
According to an analysis of data in more than 300 classifications provided by the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics in 2001, women earn less in every occupational classification for which enough data is available, including occupations dominated by women (e.g., cashiers, retail sales, registered nurses and teachers)...
http://www.kathywatson144.com/PE_FastFacts.aspx
christiefan915
Catalyst
Yes, they do. Why else wouldn't they sign a measure that insured fairness for everyone?
WASHINGTON -- Senate Republicans on Tuesday blocked a bill that would have ensured women are paid the same amount as their male counterparts. The Senate failed to secure the 60 votes needed to advance the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would have required employers to demonstrate that any salary differences between men and women doing the same work are not gender-related. The bill also would have prohibited employers from retaliating against employees who share salary information with their co-workers, and would have required the Labor Department to increase its outreach to employers to help eliminate pay disparities.
The final vote was 52-47, with all Republicans opposing the bill. That included female Sens. Kelly Ayotte (N.H.), Susan Collins (Maine), Kay Bailey Hutchison (Texas), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) and Olympia Snowe (Maine).
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/paycheck-fairness-act-senate-vote_n_1571413.html
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Because it goes against the agenda she's been promoting and without that, her entire world collapses around her.
Thank God cooler heads prevailed.....its not what you get paid, its what you do to get that pay....
Do male nurses make more than female nurses ?... and if they do, are they doing something different in the job than the women do....
thats the important question.....
Government shouldn't start dictating what employees have to pay any one....if an employer isn't paying what you think you're worth, quit and find a better job.....thats the way its been since the beginning of civilization where people traded goods for services....and thats the way it should be.....
when you hire some one to paint you house, you don't get 10 estimates and hire the one that charges the most do you ?.....
Why should it be any different when the shoe is on the other foot....
You don't go for a new car and buy from the dealer that gives you the worst deal do you....?
according to my wife, the sociologist, women are routinely ill treated by doctors who consider their complaints hypochondria and bids for attention
i used to accompany my wife to doctor appointments to insure that her complaint was treated as real, however, i no longer have to as we both have the same lady doctor (an internists) who takes her time and listens
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
'...Oh, don't get me wrong...such places exist. But I don't hang in them...'
So it's our fault you're still here?
apple0154
MEOW
Excellent article, Aoxomoxoa.
(Excerpt) What has actually happened, it seems to me, is that society, far from being feminised, has in fact been made more masculine, as both men and women fight to claim the ground that was once the preserve of men - that of high-flying, well-paid careers and glamorous lifestyles. (End)
That, in my opinion, is exactly what happened and being a feminist supporter I say, "Go to work, Baby!" :lol:
As article after article have mentioned a man's role was to provide for his family and like any provider they simply assumed the role of boss. Whether it's the person who makes out your pay check (pay cheque) or gives you money for groceries it's understood they're the "boss". Now that women have their own money the man is no longer considered the boss. The woman has, in effect, become a partner in the family "business" and some men don't like that.
There are numerous other points the author makes such as, (Excerpt)The women's movement turned all the old assumptions about men and women's roles in society on their head - and that seismic shift coincided with a fundamental shift in the nature of work itself, as Western countries changed from labour-based to knowledge-based economies, thus eliminating the need for brawn and physical strength. Indeed, the new demands of the workplace, requiring multi-tasking and human interaction, positively favour women over men. (End)
And, (Excerpt) When I first began to campaign for a woman's right to work and to succeed in whatever profession she chose, I never imagined that one of the casualties would be the status given to those who rear children. In part, I think, this is the fault of a government which, unlike its equivalent in Scandinavian countries, has never made childcare a priority. (End)
I couldn't agree more with those conclusions which brings us to a very important point. Men have always been the chaser when it comes to relationships/getting the gal. Very few things are more hotly contested than who gets the gal so money, money and money were the three most important things.
That has changed. Now a gal can choose a man who offers other qualities. Now a man doesn't require a fat wallet to compete. Now the guy on the shop floor has just as much chance of "bonding" with the VP as does her co-worker. Now both sexes have an equal chance of acquiring a suitable partner and I, for one, would never want to turn back the clock.
One of my favorite lines is, "And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should." While there are adjustments to be made and snags to be worked out the realization of the passion two people have for each other is depending less and less on one's material worth. When it comes to disparaging woman's lib nothing can counteract the positive that has come about through birth control, sexual freedom and equal employment opportunities.
Cancel 2016.11
Darla
Well, well, well. Apple has hit on something very very important here, and I have to say I wouldn't have expected that.
"I couldn't agree more with those conclusions which brings us to a very important point. Men have always been the chaser when it comes to relationships/getting the gal. Very few things are more hotly contested than who gets the gal so money, money and money were the three most important things.
That has changed. Now a gal can choose a man who offers other qualities. Now a man doesn't require a fat wallet to compete. Now the guy on the shop floor has just as much chance of "bonding" with the VP as does her co-worker. Now both sexes have an equal chance of acquiring a suitable partner and I, for one, would never want to turn back the clock."
Yes. But what has been another side effect of this? Women can choose. Choose based on what they want rather than on what they need. THey can choose a sex partner strictly out of desire rather than for basic sustenance. Don't forget back in the 50's men pretty much had a woman assigned to fuck them. No matter how disgusting they were, (and I am not necessarily talking physical attributes, or at least not solely, here) our culture for all intent and purpose, assigned a woman to his bed every night. Because in order to have a home, to have security, to have food, to have children, indeed, even in order not to be one of society's outcasts (the old maid) women had to marry. And many did not marry from desire, or love.
You now have a lot of sexual losers out there in our brave new world. You can see them at any MRA site hatefully bitching that the woman of their choice refuses to go to bed with them. Why? Because she is in bed with someone she desires.
She is behaving like a man.
That's why men whining about women's liberation and feminism always make me smirk. Because I know. I know.
"I couldn't agree more with those conclusions which brings us to a very important point. Men have always been the chaser when it comes to relationships/getting the gal. Very few things are more hotly contested than who gets the gal so money, money and money were the three most important things.
That has changed. Now a gal can choose a man who offers other qualities. Now a man doesn't require a fat wallet to compete. Now the guy on the shop floor has just as much chance of "bonding" with the VP as does her co-worker. Now both sexes have an equal chance of acquiring a suitable partner and I, for one, would never want to turn back the clock."
Yes. But what has been another side effect of this? Women can choose. Choose based on what they want rather than on what they need. THey can choose a sex partner strictly out of desire rather than for basic sustenance. Don't forget back in the 50's men pretty much had a woman assigned to fuck them. No matter how disgusting they were, (and I am not necessarily talking physical attributes, or at least not solely, here) our culture for all intent and purpose, assigned a woman to his bed every night. Because in order to have a home, to have security, to have food, to have children, indeed, even in order not to be one of society's outcasts (the old maid) women had to marry. And many did not marry from desire, or love.
You now have a lot of sexual losers out there in our brave new world. You can see them at any MRA site hatefully bitching that the woman of their choice refuses to go to bed with them. Why? Because she is in bed with someone she desires.
She is behaving like a man.
That's why men whining about women's liberation and feminism always make me smirk. Because I know. I know.
apple0154
MEOW
Amen, Sister!! Damn, you're good!
Just recently we've seen the neanderthal hearings on birth control and whether it's a health matter. Gawd help us! And not one person who has a uterus on a panel discussing women's health issues.
It's so prima facie absurd/outrageous. Remember John Ashcroft having the statue showing a woman's breast covered up? Remember Congressional hearings on Janet Jackson's breast?
All they can do is discuss such issues because that's as close as they'll ever get to the real thing. Old men who have money and power but who will never obtain what the average guy on the street is getting and they know if they ever tried to pay for it they would be exposed and dragged through the media. In their envy and bitterness they want to cage women. Their wealth and position, rather than helping, is preventing them from obtaining what they desire.
To paraphrase Spock, "Sometimes wanting is preferable to having." May they deal with the down side of their prestige.
apple0154
MEOW
Exactly! And that benefits both sexes. The only one who doesn't benefit is the one who thinks they're the "boss". Just as women can choose which man she prefers the man in the sexless marriage can obtain a "mistress" without having to support her. While the wife can say, "No sex", the man can say, "No problem" and that's true equality.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
How many of those women drop out of the work force to have children and how does that impact their wages? Just because a person has attained a specific level of education doesn't mean that A. They have the same quality of education and B. That they have the same level of job experience. Many young women drop out of the work force to raise children and this has a significant impact on their wages when they go back into the work force. Is that fair? Well yes and no. It's certainly fair from an employers standpoint as those who reach a specified level of education and have substantially more work experience are generally more skilled and productive workers. Is it unfair to women that the job of child rearing isn't as valued economically in our society? Sure it is, but I don't know what the resolution to that problem is. Someone has to raise the kids. It's also been my experience that women with the same level and quality of education who remain in the work force usually have comparable earnings to their male counterparts.Gender gap for pay in my county.
For example, I work with 5 women in my group. All 5 make less than I do. Two of them have attained neither my level education, professional certification and have 12 to 15 years less experience in this job. One has my level of education but she only has an MBA and not a Masters in science degree and again has only 6 years experience to my 23. Of the two remaining that do have my level and quality of education only one has professional certification and both have around 10 years experience and they make slightly less than I do but only because I've been doing job at a higher level for a longer period of time. All these women except one are about my age. Why do I have substantially more experience then them? They all dropped out of the work force for about 10 years to raise children.
Last edited: