What is the "Feminism"

[Newell Steamer]

Feminism is viewed as oppression, because men are being forced to treat women as equals.

We've been told that feminism is a bad thing. That it results in women killing their own children; http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/09/us/pat-robertson-facebook-remark/. Because, when a man kills his own children, he is just a crazy person. When a woman kills her own children, feminists put it into her head that she should act like this. So, you should stop listening to feminists.

Why, even supporting feminism is a bad thing! You are clearly doing it because you are a white knight. Or, because the media has brain washed you into thinking you are weak and less of a man. Or, some sub-par beta that has fallen prey to a conspiracy to ruin patriarchy.

Think about all of this - people are actually opposed to treating another human being equally. Furthermore, the very idea of such a thing is evil, murderous, manipulative, destructive.

Now, do feminist bash patriarchy? Oh, hell yes. There is clearly an assault!

But, because women are doing it, it's a bad thing. When Colonial American men fought for their freedom, they were heroes! Champions of liberty!! They were seeking equality. When the same efforts (sans fire arms, destruction of tea and an actual war) are done by women, they are evil.

Feminism is clearly not evil or even oppressive. It certainly is a fight, but it's a fight for something right; equality.

Men who attack feminism are weaklings themselves - jealous weaklings in fact. Because they have no control over their lives and hate on those who are actually doing something to have some change.

Opposition of feminism is perfectly fine,.. however, I have yet to see anything valid. Or, anything that doesn't immediately paint a feminist as a fascist, a wise and beautiful woman, a murderer or someone who deserves to be raped.

 

[kinev]

A youtube link to an American Enterprise Institute spokeswoman.

Brilliant.

Why don't you find a good old fashioned peer reviewed study with a documented methodology?

Another AEI "feminist" who writes about how tough men have it because women run the world.

https://www.aei.org/author/christina-hoff-sommers/

Another AEI "feminist" who writes about how tough men have it because women run the world.

https://www.aei.org/author/christina-hoff-sommers/

http://consad.com/index.php?page=an...-the-disparity-in-wages-between-men-and-women

U.S. Department of Labor Report - 2009

"Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

Good enough?

 

[highland145]

What is that? New trend or what/ Why i see articles about they every day?
Seventy percent of American males between the ages of 20 and 34 are not married, and many live in a state of “perpetual adolescence” with ominous consequences for the nation’s future...

It probably has to do with the fact that all girls are crazy.

lol

So, tomorrow...or not...I'll read the rest on the thread. Page 1 was hilarious.


OP, I was 31 and was never getting married. So many women with Daddy issues and not enough time. Smile, be nice, get laid.....wut? That's it? Rinse and repeat?

Yep. The nation be damned. There were mounds to climb.



Then....this woman....Married 19 years in May.

Feminism is viewed as oppression, because men are being forced to treat women as equals.

My wife has 2 jobs. What should I do?

 

[brycejones]

My wife has 2 jobs. What should I do?

If she has 2 jobs and you only have 1 then you need to start a second job to be equal.

 

[highland145]

If she has 2 jobs and you only have 1 then you need to start a second job to be equal.

I drink beer. That's my other job. She need to buck up and carry her share. Damned layabout.

 

[brycejones]

I drink beer. That's my other job. She need to buck up and carry her share. Damned layabout.

LOL

 

[Blue_Max]

Feminism is clearly not evil or even oppressive. It certainly is a fight, but it's a fight for something right; equality.

Men who attack feminism are weaklings themselves - jealous weaklings in fact.

Right... no oppression at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOjpZdi8HBQ

 

[mikeymikec]

I've never seen a job posted with separate wages for men and women. I can send you the link to my company's current postings, since I'm apparently missing something.

I imagine the reason why you haven't seen job postings with separate wages for men and women is because (at least in the UK, though I'm sure that there are some anti-gender discrimination laws in the US as well), they would be providing clear and obvious evidence of gender discrimination. In the same way that a company run by some racist people is unlikely to organise and mandate employee attendance to a KKK rally.

Here are some more subtle ways that a company that discriminates against a particular gender could try to do so without getting caught (assuming they don't leave an obvious paper trail or say really obvious things with enough witnesses about):

- Post a job with a salary range "depending on experience", but value the experience of one gender under the other.

- Minimise pay rises / bonuses for employees of said gender (assuming the employees don't brag about it)

- Minimise promotion opportunities for employees of said gender (where one gender is praised for being a "go-getter", speaking up at meetings, having ideas, being strong-willed, the other is criticised for the same traits as being say argumentative, not a team player, etc).

- If employees of said gender are having problems with say workplace bullying, or pretty much any workplace problem, doing as little as possible to try and fix the problem, or even to find another reason for punishing the employee for speaking out about it in the first place.

http://consad.com/index.php?page=an...-the-disparity-in-wages-between-men-and-women

U.S. Department of Labor Report - 2009

"Although additional research in this area is clearly needed, this study leads to the unambiguous conclusion that the differences in the compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action. Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers."

Good enough?

Your post was a little ambiguous but I'm proceeding with the assumption that your opinion is contrary to brycejones's and nickqt's.

Three points here:

"Although additional research in this area is clearly needed" - why, because they have enough evidence to come to the conclusion that there's little or no gender discrimination?

" compensation of men and women are the result of a multitude of factors and that the raw wage gap should not be used as the basis to justify corrective action" - corrective action such as the government getting involved to try and correct the balance, which would require a fairly obvious and single symptom to work on (or as few symptoms as possible), rather than a multitude of factors. This isn't saying "there isn't a problem", this is saying "there are a multitude of factors" and so there isn't a magic bullet solution from the government's perspective - do they bring in a law to try and fix a perceived problem or not.

Do you honestly think that all businesses and industries' attitudes towards women are the same? That they're all discriminating based on gender *in the same way* or that none of them are? Is that really how you think the real world works?

"Indeed, there may be nothing to correct. The differences in raw wages may be almost entirely the result of the individual choices being made by both male and female workers"

Two uses of the word "may", which leads right back to the first point/quote I raised.

Right... no oppression at all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOjpZdi8HBQ

Your sources of information are as solid as ever, now it's "some guy on YT said the feminists did it", posted by a guy who apparently only takes the piss out of feminism.

Please learn a bit of critical thinking. For example:

- If someone makes an assertion, and if you want to either consider it as a fact and/or present it as one in a related discussion in future, then you should be looking for evidence to determine its factual content.

- If you read something somewhere that you consider to be in some way relevant/important to opinions you hold, regardless of whether the article agrees with your opinions or not, then you should be looking for evidence to determine its factual content.

- Checking the information in question with say a number of different sources is important, and try to check whether those sources aren't all simply citing the same source. If it's a political news story, then do news sources of opposing political biases present a compatible view of the important points of the story? If it's one relating to another country, then how do domestic sources agree with ones from other countries?

- When someone asks you for a peer reviewed study with a documented methodology, the usual source of this information is from an educational establishment, and in the study, assertions or references to others' work are documented so that they can be checked. This is not in any way similar to a Time Magazine opinion piece!

Without demonstrating the ability to critically think about a given topic, you present yourself as someone who would readily believe this guy on YT if he claimed for example, "feminists saved the US government millions by faking the moon landing because they didn't want to draw attention to their feminist moon base, now the US government is eternally grateful and readily does their bidding". Well, maybe that would trigger your truthiness detector, but I wouldn't like to get my hopes up.

 

[Blue_Max]

All you had to do was click the nefty blue words in the Time article to find the info the "opinion" came from. It's not the only government data sheet showing it.

So you could stand to follow your own advice in regard to critical thinking.

I've met hundreds of men in person who've had their kids stripped from them and demanded astronomical child support payments by family courts, and read the official government documents showing that our provincial courts have a panel of feminists deciding how the laws should be implemented.

You can deny until you're blue in the face, it won't change the true reality that men (fathers especially) are getting royally screwed be feminists in power.

 

[brycejones]

All you had to do was click the nefty blue words in the Time article to find the info the "opinion" came from. It's not the only government data sheet showing it.

So you could stand to follow your own advice in regard to critical thinking.

I've met hundreds of men in person who've had their kids stripped from them and demanded astronomical child support payments by family courts, and read the official government documents showing that our provincial courts have a panel of feminists deciding how the laws should be implemented.

You can deny until you're blue in the face, it won't change the true reality that men (fathers especially) are getting royally screwed be feminists in power.

The womens are coming for you.

 

[Blue_Max]

The womens are coming for you.

Rule #1 - mock all detractors.


In addition, I've found that in many of the sources where feminists and non have based their studies have other details often ignored, like hours worked.

"Full Time" for all means 37.5h/w or greater. Women averaged about 40-42h/w. Men worked an average of 9h more than that. (I recall the feminist professor you didn't like said something similar?)

So instead of screaming about "men are paid more", how about you put in an extra shift like we men usually have to? Eh?

 

[mikeymikec]

All you had to do was click the nefty blue words in the Time article to find the info the "opinion" came from. It's not the only government data sheet showing it.

So you could stand to follow your own advice in regard to critical thinking.

The foreword of the linked report says that the raw data from 2007 shows that there was a pay gap of 21%, but that there are a number of variables that could explain the reason for the disparity, and that an analysis of the data suggests that the reasoning is plausible.

Furthermore, a quote from the report:

In principle, more of the raw wage gap could be explained by including some additional variables within a single comprehensive analysis that considers all of the factors simultaneously; however, such an analysis is not feasible to conduct with available data bases.

That was from the freaking foreword (page 4 of a 95-page report). So either when you attempted to back up this claim, you did so knowing perfectly well that it doesn't back up your claim at all, or you have some significant reading comprehension difficulties, or you failed to take the time out to do the sorts of things I recommended in my previous post.

If you had done anything more than to scan-read the opinion piece, you ought to have then realised that it was logical to provide a link to the report. My guess is, you didn't even click on the link.

So, to blow your logical fallacy out of the water:
"According to one report, there isn't sufficient data to declare as fact the reason for the pay gap" is not the same as "there is no pay gap".

I admit that when you posted an opinion piece in response to a request for a study, I rolled my eyes and moved on without bothering to read it, because frankly, when your idea of something factual typically involves some guy on YT ragging on feminism, it's very difficult to take you seriously, and since you probably didn't even bother to read any of the report (or you intentionally misrepresented the article and it by extension), there's no reason for me to re-examine my opinion of you.

As for my personal opinion on the topic of a gender pay gap, I agree with what I mentioned from the report, and that it would be a massive undertaking to collect enough data and to compare data sets across industries, levels of management, skill levels, age, experience, qualifications, etc. I think if a decent / accurate data collection was performed, I think it would show that in many businesses that both genders are treated fairly, but perhaps in certain industries, and perhaps at certain levels of businesses that there would be disparities, perhaps because a particular industry has a knack for attracting people who have no problem discriminating against a particular gender (due to say carbon-dated mindsets about gender roles), and that where there is disparity, it is shockingly significant, yet such 'statistical blips' cannot be honestly used as representative of the entire picture of 'salaries by gender' in a modern culture, however that doesn't change that there are such disparities and that thousands of people would be experiencing the effects of them. Documented cases where women were systematically discriminated against simply because companies could get away with it, ones I've heard of weren't from that long ago, and people on this forum still regularly trumpet stupid reasons why women should be paid less as justification for the practice (e.g. "they might get pregnant! - err, in an 'equal rights' culture, a man might want paternity leave, what's the difference?), so while some laws have been changed in an attempt to encourage gender equality, I think it's a reasonable sign that the ideal of equal pay for equal work regardless of gender is still some way off.

I've met hundreds of men in person who've had their kids stripped from them and demanded astronomical child support payments by family courts

Hundreds eh? That's either hyperbole, delusion, or it is a requirement of your line of work. Which is it?

, and read the official government documents showing that our provincial courts have a panel of feminists deciding how the laws should be implemented.

Citations needed, yet even then, I have a point or two regarding the validity of this assertion and its implication:

If you had said "our provincial courts have a panel of Christians", I would consider such an assertion without evidence to be more likely (yet still not that likely), however, your implication that because their beliefs fall in to a vague category, that their opinions are going to be the same on the relevant topics (e.g. some Christians are anti-homo, some think that abortion should be legal, and that's even though there's a book telling Christians what they should think on many topics and apparently a God who is supposed to guide them, these aren't things that feminists have, no club they're expected to join, etc - anyone can call themselves a feminist).

You can deny until you're blue in the face, it won't change the true reality that men (fathers especially) are getting royally screwed be feminists in power.

I live in the UK, so my basis for believing this statement is currently "a guy on an Internet forum who hates feminism with a passion said it", so hopefully you will understand my reticence in believing you without any evidence.

- edit - heh, I didn't initially notice that this particular point I've quoted was just a general point about the balance of power in the US. <smirk> Ok, I'll bite. What percentage of elected US politicians consider themselves to be feminists, and what laws or law changes have each of them pushed through, that could be considered to be something that feminists are likely to approve of (but aren't approved of by non-feminists in general)?

 

[pcgeek11]

All you had to do was click the nefty blue words in the Time article to find the info the "opinion" came from. It's not the only government data sheet showing it.

So you could stand to follow your own advice in regard to critical thinking.

I've met hundreds of men in person who've had their kids stripped from them and demanded astronomical child support payments by family courts, and read the official government documents showing that our provincial courts have a panel of feminists deciding how the laws should be implemented.

You can deny until you're blue in the face, it won't change the true reality that men (fathers especially) are getting royally screwed be feminists in power.

And those are the real facts. Not to mention the stupidity of alimoney payments.

 

[Andrew Chunis]

It probably has to do with the fact that all girls are crazy.

agree!

 

[Blue_Max]

So, to blow your logical fallacy out of the water:
"According to one report, there isn't sufficient data to declare as fact the reason for the pay gap" is not the same as "there is no pay gap".

1) All that effort over mincing words?? No one is denying the overall average male earned more. It's only drooling idiots who interpret that to mean "across the board" and that of two fry-cooks side by side, the male is still gaining that same advantage.
2) You didn't blow anything out of the water, you simply flapped your arms and screamed with more enthusiasm than me with your opinions.
3) You don't get to know my personal details, especially since it would only be used to attack at a personal level for your own cruel enjoyment.

I realize that my experience with so many people is easily (and often) done at any feminist meeting where hundreds or thousands of women will gather, hug each other, cry, and share tales of how they were SOOoooo abused by being whistled at or asked if they wanted coffee... so rapey! Men deserve to be abused back! He left the toilet seat up a hundred times, no matter how often I begged him not to! I'm leaving him! You go girl - take every cent he has!! YEAH!!!

I have not heard that from a single man I've spoken with... but I don't know any PUA's either.


I'll end on a fun experience one had;
One guy was dating a girl for a short time where she used her sexuality to try to manipulate him into giving her things. When he finally said no to something large, like moving in or something, she withdrew her "enthusiastic consent" and immediately went to the police with a sob-sob "rape" story. Unfortunately for her, he'd recorded the sexual activity with a hidden camera just to protect himself from this very thing. The video footage showed her 100% enthusiastic consent. Her tears immediately switched to flaming rage and she tried to charge him for the recording but failed - he was free to go.
The shame in all this? Neither she, nor almost any other woman, has ever been charged for that false accusation. (Can you imagine the feminist outrage if she had been? This is why feminists want you to just "Listen And Believe"... that whole "proof" thing is such a burden...)

 

[Nebor]

The womens are coming for you.

I don't give a damn about women coming.

 

[dainthomas]

I don't give a damn about women coming.

lol

 

[mikeymikec]

1) All that effort over mincing words?? No one is denying the overall average male earned more. It's only drooling idiots who interpret that to mean "across the board" and that of two fry-cooks side by side, the male is still gaining that same advantage.

Same old bullshit. THEY ARE PAID EQUALLY FOR THE SAME WORK.

Repeating the same bullshit doesn't make it true.

That's why I'm against feminism, it needs lies like this to feed the frenzy and keep women adversarial to men.

Goalpost shift, right there. No, you don't get to "clarify your position" (aka. backpedal) two pages later when it suits you, unless of course you would like to admit that you made a very silly statement.

2) You didn't blow anything out of the water, you simply flapped your arms and screamed with more enthusiasm than me with your opinions.

Mockery in lieu of any argument of substance.

3) You don't get to know my personal details, especially since it would only be used to attack at a personal level for your own cruel enjoyment.

You have a vivid imagination.

Saying what your job is and entails is not giving out anything that compromises your privacy. You also skipped past my questions about your usual baseless assertions (the "panel of feminists" and "feminists in power").

I realize that my experience with so many people is easily (and often) done at any feminist meeting where hundreds or thousands of women will gather, hug each other, cry, and share tales of how they were SOOoooo abused by being whistled at or asked if they wanted coffee... so rapey! Men deserve to be abused back! He left the toilet seat up a hundred times, no matter how often I begged him not to! I'm leaving him! You go girl - take every cent he has!! YEAH!!!

Do you realise that some of your posts on this thread fall exactly into what you're complaining about here? I guess not.

Snipping your cool story bro. You managed to write an entire post without even an attempt to add substance to your previous arguments, nor any attempt to counter any points I made or answer any questions I posed.

 

[Blue_Max]

You managed to write an entire post without even an attempt to add substance to your previous arguments, nor any attempt to counter any points I made or answer any questions I posed.

I only have time for a short reply, so I'll choose this bit.

I've quoted starts right from the government of Canada and you (or your friends) still waved them away as "unworthy". In short, no stat is credible to you unless it leans towards your preferences. It's not worth any effort to even try to prove otherwise. Even if I did dredge up all those stats again and proved you wrong, it wouldn't help any of us trying to get our kids back from greedy psychos who cry "oppression" while they are the oppressors. That's been addressed quite well by feminist leaders already when they said it's "RIGHT to harm those who have oppressed them for so long", etc.

There are real problems to be addressed, but just like muslims, you refuse to admit any of these issues are real and open fire on anyone who dares bring up the subject.


I might address more of your other stuff later if work is slow and I have the time to completely waste. (At least time wasted in a game is more pleasant than this drivel.)

 

[Victorian Gray]

I might address more of your other stuff later if work is slow and I have the time to completely waste. (At least time wasted in a game is more pleasant than this drivel.)

"Rule #1 - mock all detractors."

 

[mikeymikec]

(At least time wasted in a game is more pleasant than this drivel.)

Tip: Save yourself a tonne of time by not posting baseless assertions in the first place, because then you won't have to waste time flip-flopping between linking to crap (at least in the sense of how well it backs up your arguments) that you don't critically engage with and engaging in personal attacks aimed at people who call you out on said assertions.

Admittedly I'm morbidly curious to hear you elaborate on your "just like muslims" comment, but it's very likely to be more along the lines of how "the feminists" do this or that; the usual "us vs them" crap where you apparently honestly believe that the views and objectives of a multitude of people are all the same. That's really the main mistake you make, and it doesn't take much thought to conclude how ignorant a point of view it is.

 

[Blue_Max]

"Rule #1 - mock all detractors."

Did I call anyone names? Insult anyone's intelligence? No. "Drivel" was intended for the entire argument because feminists cannot see/accept any other point of view and get irrationally angry over any mildly-opposing points of view that cross their path. (Much like muslims in that regard, as I said before.)

Rather a desperate stretch to try and throw that statement back at me as if it were a grenade. Not that I'm at all surprised by it.

 

[Blue_Max]

Tip: Save yourself a tonne of time by not posting baseless assertions in the first place, because then you won't have to waste time flip-flopping between linking to crap (at least in the sense of how well it backs up your arguments) that you don't critically engage with and engaging in personal attacks aimed at people who call you out on said assertions.

You call any links that don't support your point of view "crap". It doesn't matter if the source is a researcher, professor, or government agency.

Stats showed the vast majority of the workforce is paid very close to the same hourly wage, but the men worked 9 hours longer, thus their final paychecks looked larger at then end of it.

The bottom line is that feminists ignored the "hours worked" portion to focus on the dollar difference to demand more for themselves, which is always, always, always the main goal. This has actually worked very well and some employers (that don't have salary set amounts) are actually paying their female staff about 1-2% more than their male counterparts just to keep them from going haywire.

I know you won't believe without citation. You won't believe WITH it, anyway.

I don't care.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Did I call anyone names? Insult anyone's intelligence? No. "Drivel" was intended for the entire argument because feminists cannot see/accept any other point of view and get irrationally angry over any mildly-opposing points of view that cross their path. (Much like muslims in that regard, as I said before.)

Rather a desperate stretch to try and throw that statement back at me as if it were a grenade. Not that I'm at all surprised by it.

"Rule #1 - mock all detractors."

 

[oobydoobydoo]

Is this the retarded re-incarnation of the gamergate thread?



Here's a clue: There are women who are smarter than you. There are men who are smarter than you. Women are actually more capable than men because they don't crack as easily, are less prone to mental illness, more likely to have a degree and attend college.

If, sight unseen, I have to fill an office with productive workers... I would probably go with women. Who knows when I'd be stuck with some violent or mentally ill man to babysit.


How any guy can talk like you guys and get any pussy at all is beyond me. In this day and age being a feminist is sortof a prerequisite to having a relationship with any halfway-decent looking, self-respecting female. My guess is you just don't get pussy... and you're pissed about it... hence the endless "women are opressing us because we are just too awesome" threads. Seriously, how does that even make any sense? If men are so much more intelligent and dominant then why the hell are we complaining about these lowly creatures called "women"??