Feminists going full retard.

[yokel]

When I was a young fella , I thought feminists were ugly women with armpit hairs that couldn't get a husband.

Somewhere along the lines things have changed.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/87553995/massey-university-chancellor-steps-down-after-sexism-controversy

Where do people get this stupid idea that the "genders" are equal?

[Oakie]

Where do people get this stupid idea that the "genders" are equal?

True. Women are obviously much better than men at everything (except peeing standing up ... although I have a granddaughter who seems to be pretty adept)

[yokel]

True. Women are obviously much better than men at everything (except peeing standing up ... although I have a granddaughter who seems to be pretty adept)

Of course women are better at everything or you're fired.

Who the hell is putting these insane feminists in charge of anything?

[Jin]

Oakie and yokel. Geniuses at work.

[bogan]

Who the hell is putting these insane feminists in charge of anything?

I am; now fuck off back to 1932 so your views can feel at home.

This one is a 68% chance for PD within the day I reckon.

[yokel]

I am; now fuck off back to 1932 so your views can feel at home.

This one is a 68% chance for PD within the day I reckon.

So you're part of the problem, well done you stupid cunt.

Notice how PD is pink ya dumb arse.

[Katman]

This one is a 68% chance for PD within the day I reckon.

Best you get reporting then.

[bogan]

So you're part of the problem, well done you stupid cunt.

Notice how PD is pink ya dumb arse.

I don't think women in positions of power and responsibility is any sort of problem. I can empathise with the outrage caused by the Chancellor's comments, all vets put in a shit-ton of work and effort.

You'd almost think it's designed that way to piss of misogynistic fuckwits perhaps :whistle:

[yokel]

I don't think women in positions of power and responsibility is any sort of problem. I can empathise with the outrage caused by the Chancellor's comments, all vets put in a shit-ton of work and effort.

You'd almost think it's designed that way to piss of misogynistic fuckwits perhaps :whistle:

Your misandry is duly noted.

Perhaps some women are capable for those knida positions , but they're like hens teeth.

[Grumph]

Your misandry is duly noted.

Perhaps some women are capable for those knida positions , but they're like hens teeth.

Given the original quote refers to vets, staying on topic (a novelty...) our secondary income is small animal breeding.
I consider therefore I have an expert opinion on the matter....
90% of the time we deal with female vets. I'd sooner have a female vet attend to our stock than a male.

The only male vet in our area I'll work with is almost as old and decrepit as me....and is a bloody good greyhound tuner I'm told.

When it comes to large animal vets, just as many male vets have physical problems as female when handling stock.
It's impossible to generalise in that area.

[TheDemonLord]

The most annoying thing is that when Men try and talk about Men's issues - the other side brings up people like Yokel to discredit us.

[Moi]

... Perhaps some women are capable for those kinda positions, but they're like hens teeth.

You have evidence for this statement?

[Oakie]

Oakie and yokel. Geniuses at work.

I've had so many female bosses I could hardly think otherwise.

[Ocean1]

Not having read the offending articule I understand the offence was caused by the dude pointing out that female vets spend less time actively in the profession than male vets?

Which, if so is perfectly correct.

[yokel]

The most annoying thing is that when Men try and talk about Men's issues - the other side brings up people like Yokel to discredit us.

It should be quite obvious that you can't reason with these entitled and /or indoctrinated muppets.

After all feminism/ gender equality is a religious belief.

[bogan]

Not having read the offending articule I understand the offence was caused by the dude pointing out that female vets spend less time actively in the profession than male vets?

Which, if so is perfectly correct.

Not so 'perfectly correct' when he tries to say it is 40% though...

[Crasherfromwayback]

You have evidence for this statement?

They guy is just bitter and twisted that no female will have him without him slipping them some ketamine he stole from the local vet.

[Ocean1]

Not so 'perfectly correct' when he tries to say it is 40% though...

No idea, all I saw was his comment re training costs vs professional longevity, which is a perfectly valid comment.

The actual numbers aren't really relevant to the quantity of moral indignation the observation usually elicits.

[bogan]

No idea, all I saw was his comment re training costs vs professional longevity, which is a perfectly valid comment.

The actual numbers aren't really relevant to the quantity of moral indignation the observation usually elicits.

Likely because times are changing, and the numbers no longer support such discrimination.

If training costs vs professional longeivity (and the wider efficiency) were a real issue, BA class sizes would be cut right down, and poorly performing students would get the boot or see higher fees.

[HenryDorsetCase]

the only full retard here is you. And that fuckwit from Maaaassey. He should have been sacked, not allowed to resign.

And you appear to not even understand what the issue is. I despair some (most) days.

[mossy1200]

Problem I have with feminists is they only seem to want to fight for 50% of the glamour jobs.

They do not seem to want to work in the city sewer system with me and be on call 24hrs a day every 4th week.

Pointless man rant

[Ocean1]

Likely because times are changing, and the numbers no longer support such discrimination.

If training costs vs professional longeivity (and the wider efficiency) were a real issue, BA class sizes would be cut right down, and poorly performing students would get the boot or see higher fees.

What discrimination? All I saw from my brief perusal was a simple statement of fact. My point was that when such statements get the reaction this one did the problem is with the reaction, not the statement.

And as long as the ones paying for the training are the ones benefiting from it nobody else really has anything to bitch about, do they?

[PrincessBandit]

The whole thing keeps coming back to the perennial issue of women training (often at great expense and for many years) for jobs which at some point will be interrupted by having children.
Having kids is obviously not the sole reason for a woman to leave their job but traditionally childbirth and rearing has caused much angst when in competition with employment.
Women who choose to forgo having children in order to focus on a career often given a hard time; women who put careers on ice for the years they feel necessary to bring up children get it in the neck for having the audacity to take jobs off blokes and then toss it in to pop out sprogs.
Ya just can't win!

[Ocean1]

Women who choose to forgo having children in order to focus on a career often given a hard time; women who put careers on ice for the years they feel necessary to bring up children get it in the neck for having the audacity to take jobs off blokes and then toss it in to pop out sprogs.
Ya just can't win!

Really? I've rarely heard either viewpoint expressed.

[bogan]

What discrimination? All I saw from my brief perusal was a simple statement of fact. My point was that when such statements get the reaction this one did the problem is with the reaction, not the statement.

And as long as the ones paying for the training are the ones benefiting from it nobody else really has anything to bitch about, do they?

We both know that sort of thinking leads to discrimination. 40% is not a statement of fact, he has since acknowledged he had no basis for such a figure, and stepped down. The problem is most certainly with the statement, as it was incorrect, and could be taken as basis for discrimination.

I'm not quite sure what you mean there, all student's studies are subsidised by the tax payer, though the student themselves bears a large amount of cost also.

[yokel]

the only full retard here is you. And that fuckwit from Maaaassey. He should have been sacked, not allowed to resign.

And you appear to not even understand what the issue is. I despair some (most) days.

Please explain why you believe he's a "fuckwit" ?

[yokel]

We both know that sort of thinking leads to discrimination. 40% is not a statement of fact, he has since acknowledged he had no basis for such a figure, and stepped down. The problem is most certainly with the statement, as it was incorrect, and could be taken as basis for discrimination.

I'm not quite sure what you mean there, all student's studies are subsidised by the tax payer, though the student themselves bears a large amount of cost also.

Imagine if feminists had to step down after making non factual statements?

There'd be f#&k all left in no time.

[WristTwister]

The full quote:

“When I went through vet school, many years ago, it was dominated by men; today it’s dominated by women. That’s fine, but the problem is one woman graduate is equivalent to two-fifths of a full-time equivalent vet throughout her life because she gets married and has a family, which is normal. So, though we’re graduating a lot of vets, we’re getting a high fallout rate later on.”

It reinforces the stereo-type that women give up their careers when starting a family and his two-fifths figure was made-up. He has since made a retraction and apology, I guess he felt he had to resign because Veterinarian studies is a major subject for Massey.

[Oakie]

Imagine if feminists had to step down after making non factual statements?

There'd be f#&k all left in no time.

And if we applied that to KB it would be a much quieter place too I'd imagine ... :)

[yokel]

The full quote:

“When I went through vet school, many years ago, it was dominated by men; today it’s dominated by women. That’s fine, but the problem is one woman graduate is equivalent to two-fifths of a full-time equivalent vet throughout her life because she gets married and has a family, which is normal. So, though we’re graduating a lot of vets, we’re getting a high fallout rate later on.”

It reinforces the stereo-type that women give up their careers when starting a family and his two-fifths figure was made-up.

You know last time I checked, women gave birth to 100% of human babies.

Funny thing is there was a chick studying to be a vet when doing our antenatal class. Wonder how she's doing right now?

[WristTwister]

You know last time I checked, women gave birth to 100% of human babies.

Funny thing is there was a chick studying to be a vet when doing our antenatal class. Wonder how she's doing right now?

Yep, and men are completely capable of raising those babies.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Really? I've rarely heard either viewpoint expressed.

it might not be expressed that often, but the attitude is there. Talk to some women lawyers some time. I have.

[mossy1200]

Yep, and men are completely capable of raising those babies.

Unless there is a custody battle in which case men would want to start a maninist group.

[mossy1200]

When a company promotes a women over a man solely to avoid being labeled sexist then that is a win for the Feminist movement.
Most feminists are not about equality at all.

[WristTwister]

When a company promotes a women over a man solely to avoid being labeled sexist then that is a win for the Feminist movement.
Most feminists are not about equality at all.

Feminism has always been about giving women the same rights and opportunities as men. You may not have realised this, but for centuries men have been promoted over women because women were considered less capable than men. Now more women are getting offered these opportunities and you cry foul?

[TheDemonLord]

Feminism has always been about giving women the same rights and opportunities as men. You may not have realised this, but for centuries men have been promoted over women because women were considered less capable than men. Now more women are getting offered these opportunities and you cry foul?

Men get promoted over women because Penis = Sexism
Women get promoted over Men because Vagina = Yay! Equality!

D'yah see the double standard?

I prefer this system:

Competent person gets promoted over less competent person because meritocracy.

And out of curiosity - since it's about Equal rights - can you name some rights that I have (as a Man) that you lack as a woman?

Cause I can think of a few rights you as a Woman have that I don't - but I don't seem to remember any Feminists marching down Queen Street to protest this...

[husaberg]

Given the original quote refers to vets, staying on topic (a novelty...) our secondary income is small animal breeding.
I consider therefore I have an expert opinion on the matter....
90% of the time we deal with female vets. I'd sooner have a female vet attend to our stock than a male.

The only male vet in our area I'll work with is almost as old and decrepit as me....and is a bloody good greyhound tuner I'm told.

When it comes to large animal vets, just as many male vets have physical problems as female when handling stock.
It's impossible to generalise in that area.

I will, generally the female vets shy away from large animal practice after having a family, likely due to the hours and nights and on call etc.
Also genarally they are it seems not willing to buy into the pratices, this along with economies has lead to the almagmations of practices.



The most annoying thing is that when Men try and talk about Men's issues - the other side brings up people like Yokel to discredit us.
Unfortunately true.

The whole thing keeps coming back to the perennial issue of women training (often at great expense and for many years) for jobs which at some point will be interrupted by having children.
Having kids is obviously not the sole reason for a woman to leave their job but traditionally childbirth and rearing has caused much angst when in competition with employment.
Women who choose to forgo having children in order to focus on a career often given a hard time; women who put careers on ice for the years they feel necessary to bring up children get it in the neck for having the audacity to take jobs off blokes and then toss it in to pop out sprogs.
Ya just can't win!

Princess as you are a teacher, maybe you can shed some light.
20-30 Years ago the academic achievement was pretty similar regardless of gender.
There were pretty similar ratios of male to female teachers within primary schools.
Nowadays i have noticed there is very few male primary teachers (actually only two at my children’s 400 child school, and one of those rarely teaches)
The male children, now seem to perform academically poorly, compared to the female children.
Is it the curriculum changes not suiting the male children? or could it be the teachers not being able to relate to how male children learn differently?
I realise there was a push to impove the females academic performance, Has it gone to far?
There is no difference between IQ or gender as far as i am aware.
What are your observations?

[WristTwister]

Men get promoted over women because Penis = Sexism
Women get promoted over Men because Vagina = Yay! Equality!

D'yah see the double standard?

I prefer this system:

Competent person gets promoted over less competent person because meritocracy.

And out of curiosity - since it's about Equal rights - can you name some rights that I have (as a Man) that you lack as a woman?

Cause I can think of a few rights you as a Woman have that I don't - but I don't seem to remember any Feminists marching down Queen Street to protest this...

Meritocracy is ideal, provided the merits aren't biased towards one gender. As for rights, how about the right to be paid the same as a male (all things being equal of course). The right to be selected for a senior position without having sexist comments assuming things like "she only got the job because 'vagina=yay'". The right to a job without the risk of being turned down if I decide to have a child sometime in the future. Generally just the right not to have to defend why women deserve the same pay and opportunities as men without men making snide remarks about feminism.

[TheDemonLord]

Meritocracy is ideal, provided the merits aren't biased towards one gender.

And what about the Nordic Paradox then? The most free and egalitarian societies on earth, that have undergone nearly 30 years of social engineering - And yet - Most Nordic women are more happy to go into lower paid caring fields (nursing, Child care etc.) or stay home with the kids.

Compare it to say India (where there is most definitely something that could be described as a Patriarchal society) where women are entering the field of Engineering at an equal rate as Men (because getting a degree in Engineering is a means to an end)


As for rights, how about the right to be paid the same as a male (all things being equal of course).

You have that - Equal pay act of 1972. Not only that, but assuming you are referring to the Wage Gap - once you factor in all the relevant factors which would determine an individuals worth to a company (education, Hours worked, Years experience etc. etc.) the wage gap shrinks to virtually nothing.


The right to be selected for a senior position without having sexist comments assuming things like "she only got the job because 'vagina=yay'".

So a real world example - in the STEM fields, I believe the hiring bias is something like 2:1 - ie a Woman has twice the likelyhood of being hired vs an equally qualified Male (once all other factors have been accounted for) - this is as a direct result of various 'Affirmative Sexism' policies - I put it to you then, if you want that 'right' - then stop demanding preferential hiring/treatment because 'vagina'. Earn you place like everyone else does, and people will stop questioning how you got the job.


The right to a job without the risk of being turned down if I decide to have a child sometime in the future.

You have that right already - Human Rights act of 1993.

On a related note - You have the right to Maternity leave and to have your job held open for you. Guess how much Paternity leave a father is entitled to in NZ? I'll give you a clue - its between 1 and -1.


Generally just the right not to have to defend why women deserve the same pay and opportunities as men without men making snide remarks about feminism.

When women work the same job, with the same qualification, with the same years experience, for the same hours, taking the same amount of holiday - Guess what?

You get paid the SAME!

The snide remarks about Feminism is because Feminism is still trying to tell you that you earn 77c on the dollar - despite this being based on the most lazy averaging method, that completely disregards any of the factors that can influence what you get paid.

Sources can be provided if needed.

[Akzle]

it might not be expressed that often, but the attitude is there. Talk to some women lawyers some time. I have.

ja dude, i think he meant actual humans...

[Akzle]

Feminism has always been about giving women the same rights and opportunities as men. You may not have realised this, but for centuries men have been promoted over women because women were considered less capable than men. Now more women are getting offered these opportunities and you cry foul?

it's not the opportunities being bemoaned, it's the outcomes. a vagina is not a qualificiation, and pandering to fill a vagina quota (or a black one, or a retard one, or whatever else) is discriminatory.

now get back in the kitchen, byatch. men are talking about serious shit.

[mossy1200]

Feminism has always been about giving women the same rights and opportunities as men. You may not have relised this, but for centuries men have been promoted over women because women were considered less capable than men. Now more women are getting offered these opportunities and you cry foul?

I really do not care who has what job and at what pay rate because what they negotiate is none of my business.
I find it interesting that feminist groups fight for equality at the top end of the workplace and ignore other workplace positions in less desirable jobs.
I find it interesting when workplaces feel pressure to promote based on anything other than skills.
I think its interesting that Hillary Clinton tried using the vote for Americas first lady President as if that was a Trump card.

[mossy1200]

<iframe width="854" height="480" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/cIjNjkBc3eI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

:eek5::crazy::sweatdrop

[yokel]

Feminism has always been about giving women the same rights and opportunities as men. You may not have realised this, but for centuries men have been promoted over women because women were considered less capable than men. Now more women are getting offered these opportunities and you cry foul?

Yes that's what the feminist brochure says.
But the reality is quite different.
It does not mean women somehow should be paid the same or work the same jobs as men, because they are less capable.

Having the same number of female CEOs or God forbid politicians makes about as much sense as having the prison population being 50% female compared to the current 6%

The male role is providing resource, the female role is pumping out and taking care of the kids.

It's what women are designed for, the wife freaks out when I try to breast feed the baby.

The fact is women are overly emotional illogical insane insecure weak the list goes on creatures.

People with a functional brain will realise that I'm speaking in the general.

Look at the social damage this feminist bull shit has done, people don't even know what a female is anymore.

And the idiots are teaching that gender identity nonsense to innocent kids for fuck sake.

http://generator-meme.com/inc/media/memes/grind-my-gears.jpg

[bogan]

And what about the Nordic Paradox then? The most free and egalitarian societies on earth, that have undergone nearly 30 years of social engineering - And yet - Most Nordic women are more happy to go into lower paid caring fields (nursing, Child care etc.) or stay home with the kids.

Compare it to say India (where there is most definitely something that could be described as a Patriarchal society) where women are entering the field of Engineering at an equal rate as Men (because getting a degree in Engineering is a means to an end)



You have that - Equal pay act of 1972. Not only that, but assuming you are referring to the Wage Gap - once you factor in all the relevant factors which would determine an individuals worth to a company (education, Hours worked, Years experience etc. etc.) the wage gap shrinks to virtually nothing.



So a real world example - in the STEM fields, I believe the hiring bias is something like 2:1 - ie a Woman has twice the likelyhood of being hired vs an equally qualified Male (once all other factors have been accounted for) - this is as a direct result of various 'Affirmative Sexism' policies - I put it to you then, if you want that 'right' - then stop demanding preferential hiring/treatment because 'vagina'. Earn you place like everyone else does, and people will stop questioning how you got the job.



You have that right already - Human Rights act of 1993.

On a related note - You have the right to Maternity leave and to have your job held open for you. Guess how much Paternity leave a father is entitled to in NZ? I'll give you a clue - its between 1 and -1.



When women work the same job, with the same qualification, with the same years experience, for the same hours, taking the same amount of holiday - Guess what?

You get paid the SAME!

The snide remarks about Feminism is because Feminism is still trying to tell you that you earn 77c on the dollar - despite this being based on the most lazy averaging method, that completely disregards any of the factors that can influence what you get paid.

Sources can be provided if needed.

It seems that, while you recognise yokel is a poor/extremist advocate for 'anti-feminism' (or other name of your choice); your arguments put forward the views of extremist feminists as strawmen.

NZ has got it pretty right in regard to the legal aspects, women do desrve special treatment around the issue of childbirth to ensure they have equal opportunities. What some people in NZ haven't yet figured out (and this would be the thread topic), is that women are worth the same as men, and there should be no distinction between them made throughout the education or employment process to affect their career prospects besides that based purely on aptitude.

I would like to see that 2:1 STEM hiring bias data, and think it worth re-stating that not all feminists push the 77c on the dollar thing.

[yokel]

It seems that, while you recognise yokel is a poor/extremist advocate for 'anti-feminism' (or other name of your choice); your arguments put forward the views of extremist feminists as strawmen.

NZ has got it pretty right in regard to the legal aspects, women do desrve special treatment around the issue of childbirth to ensure they have equal opportunities. What some people in NZ haven't yet figured out (and this would be the thread topic), is that women are worth the same as men, and there should be no distinction between them made throughout the education or employment process to affect their career prospects besides that based purely on aptitude.

I would like to see that 2:1 STEM hiring bias data, and think it worth re-stating that not all feminists push the 77c on the dollar thing.

News flash. Women don't spontaneously get pregnant.

The last misses I had wanted kids but I refused because I know full well how the system fucks you over, plus I kinda knew something was up with her, turned out she had a bad case of feminism.

Which explained the stupid shit that come out her mouth, kinda like what you're doing right now.


I also had my problems that I've since sorted out.

The whole gender pay gap is complete bullshit.
How much of men's pay go to women?
It's the man's responsibility to take care of his wife and kids, everyone else's? Not so much.

[Ocean1]

We both know that sort of thinking leads to discrimination. 40% is not a statement of fact, he has since acknowledged he had no basis for such a figure, and stepped down. The problem is most certainly with the statement, as it was incorrect, and could be taken as basis for discrimination.

I'm not quite sure what you mean there, all student's studies are subsidised by the tax payer, though the student themselves bears a large amount of cost also.

So, we're thought police now? And what is the difference in training / professional tenure between sexes?

Exactly my point. That subsidy removes the risk of losing one's own investment in their training. Classic case is the current baby doc's strike, they want to be paid commensurate with other professionals and their off shore cohorts, but the undisclosed fact there is that unlike either; they're still training, the cost of which is subsidised to the tune of around $1m each by the taxpayer.

[Ocean1]

it might not be expressed that often, but the attitude is there. Talk to some women lawyers some time. I have.

Stand by... She says she encounters misogynistic arseholes occasionally, but, under further questioning she admits they don't outrageously outnumber the concave equivalent.

Again, while the observation that women trend to fewer professional hrs than men isn't unheard of I've almost never heard it said with any derogatory intent.

But then, y'know, they're a notoriously thin skinned lot...

[PrincessBandit]

Princess as you are a teacher, maybe you can shed some light.
20-30 Years ago the academic achievement was pretty similar regardless of gender.
There were pretty similar ratios of male to female teachers within primary schools.
Nowadays i have noticed there is very few male primary teachers (actually only two at my children’s 400 child school, and one of those rarely teaches)
The male children, now seem to perform academically poorly, compared to the female children.
Is it the curriculum changes not suiting the male children? or could it be the teachers not being able to relate to how male children learn differently?
I realise there was a push to impove the females academic performance, Has it gone to far?
There is no difference between IQ or gender as far as i am aware.
What are your observations?

This is something I will spend some time looking at rather than giving an off-the-top-of-my-head reply to. (Just to satisfy your curiosity my off-the-top-of-my-head thoughts go something like "pay for teachers is not that high when you start out so perhaps less men in the profession could be indicative of looking to higher earning jobs especially when there is a family to support; boys still do very well in the education system - I'm not sure where you get your views on that from - but in my experience boys can easily get caught up in their hormone and testosterone issues when girls are in the classroom equation so that is something to consider". Like I said, that's only my knee jerk response. I will look into it further.


...a vagina is not a qualificiation...

Neither is a penis.

[TheDemonLord]

This is something I will spend some time looking at rather than giving an off-the-top-of-my-head reply to. (Just to satisfy your curiosity my off-the-top-of-my-head thoughts go something like "pay for teachers is not that high when you start out so perhaps less men in the profession could be indicative of looking to higher earning jobs especially when there is a family to support; boys still do very well in the education system - I'm not sure where you get your views on that from - but in my experience boys can easily get caught up in their hormone and testosterone issues when girls are in the classroom equation so that is something to consider". Like I said, that's only my knee jerk response. I will look into it further.

A couple of things - if you compare the performance of boys in School from now with about 50 years ago, boys today are performing worse. On your comments about they get caught up with Hormones - The teaching method of today is biased towards girls - Boys are expected to sit still and read for extended periods of time because this is what girls do and is easier for the Teacher.

I actually attended an All boys school and a Mixed school - and Objectively - we were doing things 2-3 years ahead of the Mixed school in the All boys school. I'd suggest that was because the Teachers could specialize on how to Teach boys (who tend to learn in different ways than girls).

There has also been a shift from a single end of year exam (where Boys perform better on average than girls) to micro-assessment throughout the year (which girls perform better on average than boys)

I'm not sure about the secondary school demographics, but in primary and pre-school classes, Male teachers are virtually non-existent - This has been suggested as due to a cultural Stigma that if a Man wants to interact with young children, they must be a Pedophile (despite the rates of Pedophilia occurring approximately equally between Men and Women)

[Ocean1]

if you compare the performance of boys in School from now with about 50 years ago, boys today are performing worse.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/22/AR2007062201668_pf.html

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/education/9650581/School-ditches-rules-and-loses-bullies

[PrincessBandit]

A couple of things - if you compare the performance of boys in School from now with about 50 years ago, boys today are performing worse. On your comments about they get caught up with Hormones - The teaching method of today is biased towards girls - Boys are expected to sit still and read for extended periods of time because this is what girls do and is easier for the Teacher.

I actually attended an All boys school and a Mixed school - and Objectively - we were doing things 2-3 years ahead of the Mixed school in the All boys school. I'd suggest that was because the Teachers could specialize on how to Teach boys (who tend to learn in different ways than girls).

There has also been a shift from a single end of year exam (where Boys perform better on average than girls) to micro-assessment throughout the year (which girls perform better on average than boys)

I'm not sure about the secondary school demographics, but in primary and pre-school classes, Male teachers are virtually non-existent - This has been suggested as due to a cultural Stigma that if a Man wants to interact with young children, they must be a Pedophile (despite the rates of Pedophilia occurring approximately equally between Men and Women)

Agreed, when I applied for a job at an all boys school I did some research into how teaching at a school such as that might be different from a mixed school. My assumption was that teaching methods would most likely be different - a decile 10 boys school compared to the decile 1 mixed school (roll of about 2000 students) I currently teach at. Not that the decile rating is necessarily significant, it was simply a factor of my interview preparedness.
In the classroom I try to even the playing field as much as possible by using a combination of techniques that are supposedly best suited to each gender including lots of hands-on practical/exploration stuff which generally suits boys more.
For the most part my own experience is that boys tend to push the boundaries harder and more overtly than female students (and indulge more in inappropriate behaviour for whatever reasons) and I've learned to chill out considerably more than when I started out! I have a much better relationship with all students as I've grown into the role although dickheads still are an occupational annoyance, as in any job.
The pedophilia thing is sadly an issue that isn't confined to teaching positions - I'm sure there are fathers who would say they face suspicion simply because of their gender in their role of parent. It's a sad indictment on society that men feel they should avoid a job because of this; but also that women miss out on jobs as "they might get pregnant and leave"

[TheDemonLord]

It seems that, while you recognise yokel is a poor/extremist advocate for 'anti-feminism' (or other name of your choice); your arguments put forward the views of extremist feminists as strawmen.

Okay, Lets pick some choice quotes from various Academic feminists and Feminists who have published books/works on Feminism:

Julie Bindel (Lesbian Radical Feminist, Journalist for the Guardian, publisher of several Feminist books)


It won’t, not unless men get their act together, have their power taken from them and behave themselves. I mean, I would actually put them all in some kind of camp where they can all drive around in quad bikes, or bicycles, or white vans. I would give them a choice of vehicles to drive around with, give them no porn, they wouldn’t be able to fight – we would have wardens, of course! Women who want to see their sons or male loved ones would be able to go and visit, or take them out like a library book, and then bring them back.

I hope heterosexuality doesn’t survive, actually. I would like to see a truce on heterosexuality. I would like an amnesty on heterosexuality until we have sorted ourselves out. Because under patriarchy it’s shit.

That's right - lets put Men in a concentration camp for the crime of being Male - but it's okay, Women can take them out like Library books (lolwut Objectificaiton much?)

Link to interview (http://www.radfemcollective.org/news/2015/9/7/an-interview-with-julie-bindel)

Andrea Dworkin (Lesbian Radical Feminist, publisher of several Feminist books)


She simply understood that women are unspeakably vulnerable in intercourse because of the nature of the act—entry, penetration, occupation; and she understood that in a society of male power, women were unspeakably exploited in intercourse.

To summarise the chapter from her book Intercourse - she is arguing that ALL heterosexual sex is forced and therefore Rape, regardless of whether the Women consents or not.

link to book (http://faculty.cbu.ca/sstewart/sexlove/dworkin.htm)

Elizabeth Sheehy (Professor of Law at the University of Ottawa and a declared Feminist)


Professor Sheehy’s thesis is that women who experience extreme chronic abuse from their male partners should have the right to kill them pre-emptively — in their sleep, say, or when they least expect it — without fear of being charged with murder.

Now, this one on the face of it - this one seems reasonable - except when you realise it will give anyone carte blanche to kill their Husband (what about Lesbian couples, who by the way have the highest rate of Domestic Violence) and then claim abuse after the fact. With no trial to determine the validity of the claims or threat faced

Article on Thesis here - Thesis is behind Paywall (http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-prof-makes-bizarre-plea-to-place-battered-women-above-the-law)


NZ has got it pretty right in regard to the legal aspects, women do desrve special treatment around the issue of childbirth to ensure they have equal opportunities.

I'm happy with Materinity Leave (although where the fuck is my Paternity leave NZ?) and other bits and pieces of sensible legislation - however Equal opportunities because of Child Birth? If you are going to grant Men the same rights (to exit from the workplace for 1-2 years on average per child at a time) and come back into the workforce - then sure. But that isn't what is being advocated, is it?



What some people in NZ haven't yet figured out (and this would be the thread topic), is that women are worth the same as men, and there should be no distinction between them made throughout the education or employment process to affect their career prospects besides that based purely on aptitude.

The problem is with that statement is that the data shows that when Women work as hard as men, they are valued as much as men.


I would like to see that 2:1 STEM hiring bias data, and think it worth re-stating that not all feminists push the 77c on the dollar thing.


Ask and ye shall recieve (http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract)

And whilst not all Feminists push the 77c Myth, enough do (Academic, Popular and journalistic) that we get this happen:


https://youtu.be/MZm2iog8kSM?t=31

[TheDemonLord]

For the most part my own experience is that boys tend to push the boundaries harder and more overtly than female students (and indulge more in inappropriate behaviour for whatever reasons) and I've learned to chill out considerably more than when I started out!

Do you think there may be a reason for this tendancy to push harder and more overtly? Perhaps young males attempting to assert a pack hierarchy (like every other highly social mammal)?

In evolutionary psychology terms, this behavior makes perfect sense - I've read a piece (which for the life of me I can't find) by an older Male teacher about how he made sure to allow a lot of room for them to sort things out themselves, but every once in a while reasserted himself as the Dominant male (at the head of the Pack) - this in turn resulted in the respect of the students.


The pedophilia thing is sadly an issue that isn't confined to teaching positions - I'm sure there are fathers who would say they face suspicion simply because of their gender in their role of parent. It's a sad indictment on society that men feel they should avoid a job because of this;

Something Something Feminism pushing the narrative that Men are always the abusers, Men are always the rapists something something Patriarchy something.

(Fun Fact - in NZ, if you are a Women, it is legally impossible for you to Rape a Man - worst you can do is Sexual Assault - as Rape is defined as a penis entering by force, Envolpment is not rape according to our Legislation)


but also that women miss out on jobs as "they might get pregnant and leave"

Whilst I have some compassion to this - assume you are a small business, there is a very real cost for you:

Assume that for any given reasonably technical job, where casual labourers aren't sufficient - there will be a period of 3-6 months for a person to gain enough experience with the nuances of the company in the role to be truly competent.

Assume that one has to be in a role for at least 1-2 years to 'pay off' so to speak this period of initial inneficiency.

Assume also that there is a cost associated with Hiring a new candidate - some companies I have worked in put the dollar figure (once all the time is accounted for, reviewing CVs, doing interviews, paying for Slave Traders, adverts on Seek/Trademe etc.) at around $5-10K to hire a new person.

So scenario 1 - you interview a Woman in her late twenties, early 30s, shes been married for 1-2 years. You spend the initial $5k on the hiring process to hire her, you then spend the 3-6 months getting her up to speed (so we will assume a net loss of productivity of $100 a week) - so for a 6 month training period - thats around $2.4K - if she stays working for you for the next 2-3 years, no problem, if she gets pregnant, you then have to spend another $5k (and possibly more as you are now on a time limit to fill the position) and then for the replacement you have to spend another 6 month training period - so another 2.4K

All up - as a Small business, you have lost productivity of around $15K (possibly more) - and considering the rates at which professional women come back to the work force full time (which is something like only 19% I think - I worked it out in another post) - you as a small business are left footing the bill for someone else's life choices.

Scenario 2 - you interview a Man, same situation - same initial hiring cost, same loss of productivity for the first 6 months - if his partner gets pregnant - he might take 3-4 weeks holiday (because lol - no Paternity leave in NZ for men!) but most importantly - he will come back to work for you - your net loss is around $7.5k BUT! because he comes back to work, he eventually pays off that initial loss to the company in the way of productivity.

In short - would you be happy to spend $15-20K to fund someone elses life choices?

If so - then please deposit the funds to the "Demon needs a new bike because reasons' registered Charity*.






*may not be actual charity.

[Akzle]

(despite the rates of Pedophilia occurring approximately equally between Men and Women)

hey fuck you! women have just as much right to be paedophiles! what fucken next?? they can't be charged with rape?! o// wait on...

[Akzle]

.



Neither is a penis.

exactly, which is why men go and get shit done instead of baaaaawwwing about how shit's unfair and they're disadvantaged or repressed. sitting back and expecting to have shit handed to them cos bbbaaaawwwww.

[Big Dog]

Psst, you can get paternal leave funded via IRD.
Only pays minimum wage for 6 weeks unless your partner medically unfit to work but it does exist.

Every employer I have had when one of my kids had arrived had traded me 5 days sick leave for a paid month off.

Sent from Tapatalk. DYAC

[TheDemonLord]

Psst, you can get paternal leave funded via IRD.
Only pays minimum wage for 6 weeks unless your partner medically unfit to work but it does exist.

Every employer I have had when one of my kids had arrived had traded me 5 days sick leave for a paid month off.

Sent from Tapatalk. DYAC

Soooo, it's not really Paternity leave - is it?

When you compared it to 14 weeks leave that you get as the Mother.

Also another fun fact - Mothers are automatically the legal guardian of a child in NZ, but the Father - well fuck him, he only gets to be the Legal guarding if he meets certain criteria....

[yokel]

As the biological father how do I fit in?
If l wasn't the child's "natural" parent would that mean I would qualify??

And what the fuck is a "different sex partner"?

"Leave may be available to:

female employees having a baby, and to their spouses or partners (includes a married, civil union or de facto relationship with a different or same-sex partner)

employees, and their spouses or partners (includes a married, civil union or de facto relationship with a different or same-sex partner), who begin permanently caring for a child under six years who is not their natural child (this includes permanent care such as adoption (external link) and home for life (external link) , but not foster care)."

I got 5 days off, took annual leave and was lucky to get the days off I did.

Then back to work.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Neither is a penis.

[Austin Powers voice]Mine is, baby. I'll send you a picture.[/Austin Powers voice]

[HenryDorsetCase]

A couple of things - if you compare the performance of boys in School from now with about 50 years ago, boys today are performing worse. On your comments about they get caught up with Hormones - The teaching method of today is biased towards girls - Boys are expected to sit still and read for extended periods of time because this is what girls do and is easier for the Teacher.

I actually attended an All boys school and a Mixed school - and Objectively - we were doing things 2-3 years ahead of the Mixed school in the All boys school. I'd suggest that was because the Teachers could specialize on how to Teach boys (who tend to learn in different ways than girls).

There has also been a shift from a single end of year exam (where Boys perform better on average than girls) to micro-assessment throughout the year (which girls perform better on average than boys)

I'm not sure about the secondary school demographics, but in primary and pre-school classes, Male teachers are virtually non-existent - This has been suggested as due to a cultural Stigma that if a Man wants to interact with young children, they must be a Pedophile (despite the rates of Pedophilia occurring approximately equally between Men and Women)

blah schools.

fuck that. Schools are prisons for subhuman scum. People finish school and may or may not start to become human.

[PrincessBandit]

All sorts of shit can get emotionally charged when outspoken extremists vent their opinions. Extreme feminists are only pushing their blinkered tunnel-visioned barrow, and I have no time for them. I'm all for equal recognition for a job done equally well by either gender

326814326815

[TheDemonLord]

All sorts of shit can get emotionally charged when outspoken extremists vent their opinions. Extreme feminists are only pushing their blinkered tunnel-visioned barrow, and I have no time for them. I'm all for equal recognition for a job done equally well by either gender

Same - my contention is that Feminism is not for Equality.

[yokel]

All sorts of shit can get emotionally charged when outspoken extremists vent their opinions. Extreme feminists are only pushing their blinkered tunnel-visioned barrow, and I have no time for them. I'm all for equal recognition for a job done equally well by either gender

326814326815


With the feminist rhetoric about "gender equality" I thought they'd start taking testosterone, I didn't see the "gender identity" thing coming where delusional c&#ts think they're the opposite sex.

[Big Dog]

Soooo, it's not really Paternity leave - is it?

When you compared it to 14 weeks leave that you get as the Mother.

Also another fun fact - Mothers are automatically the legal guardian of a child in NZ, but the Father - well fuck him, he only gets to be the Legal guarding if he meets certain criteria....
Not identical no, but then we don't push a watermelon out of our penis.
We are both able and usually willing to have new sex same day.
Sun roof or hatchback makes no difference, most women can't walk properly let alone look after a child alone for 2 weeks. No chance at returning to work.
She has to take some time off, you taking time off is optional.

If you are that worried about it negotiate it in your next pay discussion... just don't be surprised if wanting 14 weeks paid parental leave available to you reduces the size of your package.

Sent from Tapatalk. DYAC

[mossy1200]

Interesting

Cost of living is set by affordability.

When most family income was based on one wage housing prices matched affordability.
When family income changed to double income housing prices adjusted themselves to the affordability of this.
The addition of large workforce per head of population created an increase in people unable to find work.
This caused a increased pressure on those working to support those who could not find work.
It also caused double income families to not be able to afford to go down to one income for raising families.
Now we have a culture of people having children when they are older, not at all or people on benefits having children who
are breading children who are less likely to succeed due to poor upbringing.

Feminism and equal rights are all good but the planing and introduction was poor.
Natural structure of family group by species was disrupted with out consideration to the end result.

[husaberg]

boys still do very well in the education system - I'm not sure where you get your views on that from - but in my experience boys can easily get caught up in their hormone and testosterone issues when girls are in the classroom equation so that is something to consider". Like I said, that's only my knee jerk response. I will look into it further.
.

I am basing it from observing the year 9 prize givings for the last 5 years (as we have to sit through the lot) but i could be wrong or biased, but there seems to be a trend at our school at least.
The girls are consistantly out performing the boys, certainly in the results.
The school my kids go to has a "boys only" year 8 and and 9 class.(with a male teacher)
So i don't think hormones really explains it fully.
I consider its might engagement of another kind. or a circulum that doesn't seem to suit the boys
Yes i have noticed there is more equal male teachers ratios at high school, likely as a result of higher pay rates, but i have also noticed most of the new teacher are female.

[TheDemonLord]

Not identical no, but then we don't push a watermelon out of our penis.

Do we as fathers then not have the right to be present at our childrens most critical stage of development - when they first experience life?


She has to take some time off, you taking time off is optional.

And who then looks after her if (as you say) she is unable to walk/look after a child? Seems like you have refuted your own argument


If you are that worried about it negotiate it in your next pay discussion... just don't be surprised if wanting 14 weeks paid parental leave available to you reduces the size of your package.

Except that Parental leave is paid by the IRD, not the company. I pay my taxes - I'm just wanting the same rights to raise my child as my partner has, yah know - that whole 'equality' thing - I mean, if your argument is that we should treat Men and Women differently because women have children, you may as well be saying we should keep them barefoot and pregnant (afterall, that IS the logical extreme of your position)

Another Fun fact:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2375926

Women consume more in public resources (tax) than they contribute - and yet somehow Feminists think that society oppresses women, despite the fact that it is Men who have to pay to maintain the choices of Women. (http://judgybitch.com/2016/08/16/reblog-research-find-that-as-a-group-only-men-pay-tax/)

[WristTwister]

Parental leave can be paid to the mother or primary carer (father or not-maternal mother). If parental leave is biased at all, it's biased against those people who will not have their own children.

Transferring your paid parental leave to your spouse or partner

You can transfer your PPL to your spouse or partner, as long as they also qualify for PPL from their employer (s) or self-employment.
[Source: IRD Website]

What's with the idea that women have it sooo good? Is it because we get more support in society than men; like rape crisis or women's refuge?

[jonbuoy]

It's a bit unfair to single women out for getting extras at childbirth - it's supposed to be a mutual decision and responsibility. Here's a controversial idea- how about (as a couple) not breeding without thinking about the impact it will have on your career and income. If fathers want maternity leave too - save up and take unpaid leave when you have a child. Everyone has the right to reproduce - we just shouldn't do it without looking at the long term consequences, and we shouldn't expect other people to step in and offer "freebies" because you (as a couple) decided to breed and now realise you can't afford to look after them.

And don't whinge that your career has been damped down because you can't work late or do weekends anymore or expect the people who don't have children to do all the unsociable hours. I will add it's a lot easier for fathers to walk away from their responsibilities and start a new life leaving a family behind. I have very little sympathy for people paying large child support sums - unless they were trapped by someone deliberately getting pregnant.

[Big Dog]

Do we as fathers then not have the right to be present at our childrens most critical stage of development - when they first experience life?



And who then looks after her if (as you say) she is unable to walk/look after a child? Seems like you have refuted your own argument



Except that Parental leave is paid by the IRD, not the company. I pay my taxes - I'm just wanting the same rights to raise my child as my partner has, yah know - that whole 'equality' thing - I mean, if your argument is that we should treat Men and Women differently because women have children, you may as well be saying we should keep them barefoot and pregnant (afterall, that IS the logical extreme of your position)

Another Fun fact:

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2375926

Women consume more in public resources (tax) than they contribute - and yet somehow Feminists think that society oppresses women, despite the fact that it is Men who have to pay to maintain the choices of Women. (http://judgybitch.com/2016/08/16/reblog-research-find-that-as-a-group-only-men-pay-tax/)

We have the right. We just have to accept it will impact our income.
Damn straight she will need help.
Traditionally this was provided by "the village", usually by the parents of the new mum. Modern era most grandma's are still working or cbf.
In recent decades men have been taking a more active role in that first period.
Mum still needs help with meals, washing up, nappies, bathing, more nappies, someone to talk to that uses words, more nappies and generally making her available for feeding.
There is evidence that your presence makes a difference to the child in the first 48 when smell is everything. Beyond that it is about you and your spouse, not your child. Your child only needs some interaction daily. Not even a fixed amount. More quality that time is the less they need.


Of course you should be able to stay at home and play with your child for the next 20 years but someone has to pay the bills... and there are a lot of them.
Much like chipsets the bills double about every 2 years.

I would love to stay at home and look after the kids while my wife goes and earns the bacon... but if that were the case there would be a lot less bacon.

My wife hasn't had a job in 8 years, but she often works harder than me... just don't tell her that.

Sent from Tapatalk. DYAC

[Akzle]

. Schools are prisons for subhuman scum. People finish school and may or may not start to become human.

or they completely devolve and become lawyers, jews, politicians, or otherwise cunts...

[Akzle]

Same - my contention is that Feminism is not for Equality.

must spread, apparently. and i dont even remember the last one.
shit's succinct, and i'm all about succinct.




What's with the idea that women have it sooo good? Is it because we get more support in society than men; like rape crisis or women's refuge?

according to whom? the gripe is women pissing and moaning they they DON'T.
y'know, instead of just geting the fuck on with shit like grown ups.

[TheDemonLord]

Parental leave can be paid to the mother or primary carer (father or not-maternal mother). If parental leave is biased at all, it's biased against those people who will not have their own children.

But it is assigned to the Mother. There is no allowance for the Father, unless the Mother deigns it.

Compare to say Sweden where collectively Parents are allocated a total of 480 days, of which 90 days is dedicated to both the Mother and Father


What's with the idea that women have it sooo good? Is it because we get more support in society than men; like rape crisis or women's refuge?

Lets see...

You live longer than Men
You have a disproportionate amount spent on your health care than men (look at the dollar figure amounts spent on Breast cancer Vs Prostate cancer - despite both killing about the same amount of people a year)
You have special interest groups that have social and political clout that are taken seriously when they raise an issue.
You have Rape crisis and Womens Refuge centres - If as a Man I got Raped (or sexually assaulted by a Woman, because it is impossible for a woman to Rape a man in NZ) - where do I go? None of the crisis centres accept Men. The DV shelters in AKL - there are 8 of them - guess how many offer assistance to Men? Zero. And yet - various studies show that Men get abused by their partners at about the same rates that women do.
You have special scholarships and university courses designed specifically with you in mind, to the exclusion of Men, despite the fact that Women are entering higher education in larger numbers than Men.
You have the right to keep your children as the de-facto arrangement after a divorce/seperation without having to pay several thousand dollars for a 10% chance to gain custody of your own damned Children.
You have the right to opt out of Parenthood after the fact with no regard for the Fathers input.
You also have the right to fleece the income of the Father (who has no say in your decision to keep the child or not) for 18 years, with no measures put in place to ensure that income is spent on the child.
You have the right to avoid Prison when committing a crime, when compared to a Man (all other factos being equal - women go to prison about 40% of the time when compared to Men,)
You have the right to lower insurance premiums (can you imagine the outrage if Men decided to tax women more because they cost more....)
You have the right to Women-only spaces, without someone demanding that you admit men on the grounds of 'equality'
You have the right to keep your labia and clitoris and not worry about bits of your genitals being hacked off (without a sound medical reason) thanks to some barbaric and ancient customs.
You have groups lobbying for you to entire high paid, safe, influential and socially prestigious jobs (which are typically dominated by men) without the responsibility of entering the low paid, dangerous, forgotten and socially stigmatized jobs.

Shall I go on?

[Katman]

I'm beginning to understand how there can be such bitterness between races.

Clearly some of us are that fucking regressive that they can't even get on with the other gender.

[TheDemonLord]

We have the right. We just have to accept it will impact our income.

But not in the same way that Women have the right - see my comment above about the Swedish Model.


Damn straight she will need help.
Traditionally this was provided by "the village", usually by the parents of the new mum. Modern era most grandma's are still working or cbf.
In recent decades men have been taking a more active role in that first period.
Mum still needs help with meals, washing up, nappies, bathing, more nappies, someone to talk to that uses words, more nappies and generally making her available for feeding.

Cool - so you agree then, Men should play a bigger role in the first few months of a Childs life - simple solution, give everyone a fair and equal amount of Parental leave allocated directly to them - see the Swedish model.


There is evidence that your presence makes a difference to the child in the first 48 when smell is everything. Beyond that it is about you and your spouse, not your child. Your child only needs some interaction daily. Not even a fixed amount. More quality that time is the less they need.

And the way to get good quality time is?

(pssst - the answer is equal parental leave for both the Mother and Father)


Of course you should be able to stay at home and play with your child for the next 20 years but someone has to pay the bills... and there are a lot of them.
Much like chipsets the bills double about every 2 years.

I would love to stay at home and look after the kids while my wife goes and earns the bacon... but if that were the case there would be a lot less bacon.

My wife hasn't had a job in 8 years, but she often works harder than me... just don't tell her that.

I got no problem with that - I just want my role as a Father to be equal to that as the Mother in the eyes of the Government, not treated like a second class citizen when it comes to my own goddamn kids.

[husaberg]

long list of differences..............



I think you missed the multiple orgasms as well:shutup:

[TheDemonLord]

I'm beginning to understand how there can be such bitterness between races.

Clearly some of us are that fucking regressive that they can't even get on with the other gender.

You mistake bitterness for objective observation. Reality is that Men get screwed, they've always been screwed - some of it we have brought on ourselves, others we have given away for the greater good of the community, but if we are to make the next major evolution of our Society, we need to realise that Men have issues and there are areas where Women have always had an advantage - these need to be addressed in the same way that we addressed the legal issues where Men had the advantage. Horses for Courses.

I have several issues with Modern Feminism as it stands - chiefly that it has won all the battles it claims to be fighting for when it comes to Women, yet pays lip service at best when it comes to Men's issues - despite reminding us at every opportunity that Feminism is about Equality.

[Katman]

Cool - so you agree then, Men should play a bigger role in the first few months of a Childs life - simple solution, give everyone a fair and equal amount of Parental leave allocated directly to them - see the Swedish model.

I don't give a fuck how much time a mother or father wants to spend with their kids.

Just don't expect someone else to pay for it.

[TheDemonLord]

I think you missed the multiple orgasms as well:shutup:

They can keep that one - my Balls get sore after #4 or 5.

[TheDemonLord]

I don't give a fuck how much time a mother or father wants to spend with their kids.

Just don't expect someone else to pay for it.

So your position would be no Paternity or Maternity leave for anyone?

If so - whilst I disagree with this, it is at least a fair and equal ruling.

[Katman]

So your position would be no Paternity or Maternity leave for anyone?

Absolutely.

If you want to have kids then they should be your financial burden.

[TheDemonLord]

Absolutely.

If you want to have kids then they should be your financial burden.

Fair enough, at least it meets my criteria that it should be Equal for both genders.

[Katman]

Fair enough, at least it meets my criteria that it should be Equal for both genders.

And to be frank, I'm surprised to see you so vocal for a handout.

[TheDemonLord]

And to be frank, I'm surprised to see you so vocal for a handout.

I'm about equality.

And besides - I've got no problem with paying for things - so long as there is a net gain.

Where I take issue is when good money after bad is being thrown at a problem without fixing the root cause of the problem or when there is no net gain (from my perspective).

[Katman]

I'm about equality.

Especially when there's a handout to be had.

[bogan]

So, we're thought police now? And what is the difference in training / professional tenure between sexes?

Exactly my point. That subsidy removes the risk of losing one's own investment in their training. Classic case is the current baby doc's strike, they want to be paid commensurate with other professionals and their off shore cohorts, but the undisclosed fact there is that unlike either; they're still training, the cost of which is subsidised to the tune of around $1m each by the taxpayer.

Thought police? nobody is policing anything, there was backlash toward a statement that was factually incorrect, and promotes a way of thinking that leads to discrimination. The difference is certainly one which should be clearly outlined and supported when making statements about it having a significant effect.

Since it is only a subsidy, the removal is only partial. Not really seeing the link to the baby doc's strike tbh, is the difference is training cost paid by them here vs there really so great as to justify the wage difference over an average career expectancy?

[TheDemonLord]

Especially when there's a handout to be had.

Not really - I just happen to think that Fathers play an important role in Childrens lives and shouldn't be treated irrelevantly by the State.

I even agreed that your alternative was fair and equal and so fulfills my criteria.

[Katman]

I even agreed that your alternative was fair and equal and so fulfills my criteria.

So would you agree to pay back what your partner has been paid in Parental Leave?

'Cos I don't think you would.

I think you're happy that your partner is getting a handout but you want your handout too.

[Akzle]

But it is assigned to the Mother. There is no allowance for the Father, unless the Mother deigns it.

Compare to say Sweden where collectively Parents are allocated a total of 480 days, of which 90 days is dedicated to both the Mother and Father



Lets see...

You live longer than Men
You have a disproportionate amount spent on your health care than men (look at the dollar figure amounts spent on Breast cancer Vs Prostate cancer - despite both killing about the same amount of people a year)
You have special interest groups that have social and political clout that are taken seriously when they raise an issue.
You have Rape crisis and Womens Refuge centres - If as a Man I got Raped (or sexually assaulted by a Woman, because it is impossible for a woman to Rape a man in NZ) - where do I go? None of the crisis centres accept Men. The DV shelters in AKL - there are 8 of them - guess how many offer assistance to Men? Zero. And yet - various studies show that Men get abused by their partners at about the same rates that women do.
You have special scholarships and university courses designed specifically with you in mind, to the exclusion of Men, despite the fact that Women are entering higher education in larger numbers than Men.
You have the right to keep your children as the de-facto arrangement after a divorce/seperation without having to pay several thousand dollars for a 10% chance to gain custody of your own damned Children.
You have the right to opt out of Parenthood after the fact with no regard for the Fathers input.
You also have the right to fleece the income of the Father (who has no say in your decision to keep the child or not) for 18 years, with no measures put in place to ensure that income is spent on the child.
You have the right to avoid Prison when committing a crime, when compared to a Man (all other factos being equal - women go to prison about 40% of the time when compared to Men,)
You have the right to lower insurance premiums (can you imagine the outrage if Men decided to tax women more because they cost more....)
You have the right to Women-only spaces, without someone demanding that you admit men on the grounds of 'equality'
You have the right to keep your labia and clitoris and not worry about bits of your genitals being hacked off (without a sound medical reason) thanks to some barbaric and ancient customs.
You have groups lobbying for you to entire high paid, safe, influential and socially prestigious jobs (which are typically dominated by men) without the responsibility of entering the low paid, dangerous, forgotten and socially stigmatized jobs.

Shall I go on?

dude, but... fanny.

[bogan]

Okay, Lets pick some choice quotes from various Academic feminists and Feminists who have published books/works on Feminism:

Julie Bindel (Lesbian Radical Feminist, Journalist for the Guardian, publisher of several Feminist books)



That's right - lets put Men in a concentration camp for the crime of being Male - but it's okay, Women can take them out like Library books (lolwut Objectificaiton much?)

Link to interview (http://www.radfemcollective.org/news/2015/9/7/an-interview-with-julie-bindel)

Andrea Dworkin (Lesbian Radical Feminist, publisher of several Feminist books)



To summarise the chapter from her book Intercourse - she is arguing that ALL heterosexual sex is forced and therefore Rape, regardless of whether the Women consents or not.

link to book (http://faculty.cbu.ca/sstewart/sexlove/dworkin.htm)

Elizabeth Sheehy (Professor of Law at the University of Ottawa and a declared Feminist)



Now, this one on the face of it - this one seems reasonable - except when you realise it will give anyone carte blanche to kill their Husband (what about Lesbian couples, who by the way have the highest rate of Domestic Violence) and then claim abuse after the fact. With no trial to determine the validity of the claims or threat faced

Article on Thesis here - Thesis is behind Paywall (http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-prof-makes-bizarre-plea-to-place-battered-women-above-the-law)


Aren't those all exactly the sort of extremist examples I was referring to you using as strawmen?



I'm happy with Materinity Leave (although where the fuck is my Paternity leave NZ?) and other bits and pieces of sensible legislation - however Equal opportunities because of Child Birth? If you are going to grant Men the same rights (to exit from the workplace for 1-2 years on average per child at a time) and come back into the workforce - then sure. But that isn't what is being advocated, is it?

There is no biological reason for paternity leave.





The problem is with that statement is that the data shows that when Women work as hard as men, they are valued as much as men.




Ask and ye shall recieve (http://www.pnas.org/content/112/17/5360.abstract)

And whilst not all Feminists push the 77c Myth, enough do (Academic, Popular and journalistic) that we get this happen:


https://youtu.be/MZm2iog8kSM?t=31

What is wrong with working as hard as, and being valued the same?

"tenure-track assistant professorships" is the scope of that study really wide enough to justify the 2:1 STEM hiring bias claim, correct me if I'm wrong, but that experiment used hypothetical applicants, so no actual hiring was done.

Yes, but considering nobody is pushing that fake fact here, that too, is a strawman.

[Katman]

I mean, Parental Leave is not even a hand up.

It is nothing but a handout.

[Ocean1]

Thought police? nobody is policing anything, there was backlash toward a statement that was factually incorrect, and promotes a way of thinking that leads to discrimination. The difference is certainly one which should be clearly outlined and supported when making statements about it having a significant effect.

Since it is only a subsidy, the removal is only partial. Not really seeing the link to the baby doc's strike tbh, is the difference is training cost paid by them here vs there really so great as to justify the wage difference over an average career expectancy?

Promotes a way of thinking that leads to what? :laugh: Sorry dude, I'm afraid that's thought police shit. And again, if his numbers are wrong, (and I suspect they may be) then you can't believably call him out on them without stumping up with alternative numbers, duly referenced etc.

They're baby doc's, residents, apprentices, a sort of hangover from when they really did live on site. The cost to train them to that point is massively subsidised, and if that subsidy were included in their remuneration then yes, they're already hugely overpaid compared to overseas models.

Same with any tertiary training, if you're paying for it yourself then you're the only one that should benefit from the eventual revenue the training allows. If, as is the case with many professions the training is substantially subsidised then the taxpayer has every right to expect that training to benefit the community as well.

In which case the fact that female vets are less productive is certainly relevant to any discussion on that funding.

[bogan]

Promotes a way of thinking that leads to what? :laugh: Sorry dude, I'm afraid that's thought police shit. And again, if his numbers are wrong, (and I suspect they may be) then you can't believably call him out on them without stumping up with alternative numbers, duly referenced etc.

They're baby doc's, residents, apprentices, a sort of hangover from when they really did live on site. The cost to train them to that point is massively subsidised, and if that subsidy were included in their remuneration then yes, they're already hugely overpaid compared to overseas models.

Same with any tertiary training, if you're paying for it yourself then you're the only one that should benefit from the eventual revenue the training allows. If, as is the case with many professions the training is substantially subsidised then the taxpayer has every right to expect that training to benefit the community as well.

In which case the fact that female vets are less productive is certainly relevant to any discussion on that funding.

I disagree, it is not the thoughts that are the problem, it is that they are based on erroneous data presented as facts. That is illogical, the burden of proof must always be on the person making the claim, not on the one questioning it. Thinking otherwise is why we get fake news and stupid worlders etc.

I think numbers should be provided for the rest of your points, I mean, it's all just conjecture based on what the numbers might be at this point. Another bit to add to the conjecture is ROI, what if female vets still return that subsidsed value back to society, and then some, but male vets simply return a little bit more.

[TheDemonLord]

Aren't those all exactly the sort of extremist examples I was referring to you using as strawmen?

When they are invited to Debates, Cited in Feminist academia - have a column in a national Newspaper - how can you say they are extremists when they are influential authors? Unless of course you want to concede that the movement has a problem with too many extremists in it's ranks.


There is no biological reason for paternity leave.

There's a good societal reason though.



What is wrong with working as hard as, and being valued the same?

Nothing at all - and that is what currently happens, problem is for the majority, Women don't work (in paid employment) as hard as Men. They work less hours, opt for flexitime, rarely work overtime etc.


"tenure-track assistant professorships" is the scope of that study really wide enough to justify the 2:1 STEM hiring bias claim, correct me if I'm wrong, but that experiment used hypothetical applicants, so no actual hiring was done.

The hypothetical applicants were vetted in the same way that real applicants would be - so the decision on which application to accept justifies the claim - the only difference is that no one actually turned up to take the job.


Yes, but considering nobody is pushing that fake fact here, that too, is a strawman.

If we were having an argument about religion, and I said 'but many Christians are against gay rights' - and you said 'but no Christians here are arguing that' - would that also be a Strawman if my point was that most Christians are against Gay rights?

[TheDemonLord]

So would you agree to pay back what your partner has been paid in Parental Leave?

'Cos I don't think you would.

I think you're happy that your partner is getting a handout but you want your handout too.

I take one look at my PAYE returns, and in this year alone, I've already paid back all the Parental leave... With interest.

You can think what you like, but as usual, you are way off the mark.

[Katman]

There's a good societal reason though.

And what would that be?

[Katman]

I take one look at my PAYE returns, and in this year alone, I've already paid back all the Parental leave... With interest.

:killingme

Unbefuckinglievable.

[TheDemonLord]

And what would that be?

Oh I don't know - the crucial bonding process that takes place in the first 6 months of a Babies life?

[TheDemonLord]

:killingme

Unbefuckinglievable.

Yes Katman, Yes you are.

[Katman]

Oh I don't know - the crucial bonding process that takes place in the first 6 months of a Babies life?

Seriously dude, pay for your fucking 'crucial bonding process' yourself.

[bogan]

When they are invited to Debates, Cited in Feminist academia - have a column in a national Newspaper - how can you say they are extremists when they are influential authors? Unless of course you want to concede that the movement has a problem with too many extremists in it's ranks.



There's a good societal reason though.




Nothing at all - and that is what currently happens, problem is for the majority, Women don't work (in paid employment) as hard as Men. They work less hours, opt for flexitime, rarely work overtime etc.



The hypothetical applicants were vetted in the same way that real applicants would be - so the decision on which application to accept justifies the claim - the only difference is that no one actually turned up to take the job.



If we were having an argument about religion, and I said 'but many Christians are against gay rights' - and you said 'but no Christians here are arguing that' - would that also be a Strawman if my point was that most Christians are against Gay rights?

Of course it has too many extremists. Many actual feminists prefer not to be associated with the label for that reason.

Debatable, you can still work 9-5 and spend a lot of time with your kid. Wristtwister pointed out the partner can assign their leave to the husband.

Completely disagree, in our workplace the women work just as hard as the men; to come to the conclusions you did, I think you are guilty of handpicking some averages similar to the 77c claim you decry.

No one turned up to the interviews either. And it focused solely on "tenure-track assistant professorships". This is not a conclusive study.

Christians are a bit different since they have a central gospel to follow, and its verse is interpreted a certain way to cause the beleif; feminism has no such central gospel or doctrine. If the point you are trying to make is that most feminists are feminist extremists, you would need to get away from specific examples, and go to some data reflective of such a population.

[Big Dog]

And the way to get good quality time is?

(pssst - the answer is equal parental leave for both the Mother and Father)



You seem to have missed my point... quantity is not quality. The solution is better parenting, not more time.
I'll take an hour a night of play and learning and some well chosen shared times on the weekend over 16 hours of largely trying to ignore a child any day.

Sent from Tapatalk. DYAC

[Akzle]

Oh I don't know - the crucial bonding process that takes place in the first 6 months of a Babies life?

debatable .

[TheDemonLord]

Of course it has too many extremists. Many actual feminists prefer not to be associated with the label for that reason.

Which kinda proves my point....


Debatable, you can still work 9-5 and spend a lot of time with your kid. Wristtwister pointed out the partner can assign their leave to the husband.

But there is no dedicated to allowance for the Father - does this look like equality?


Completely disagree, in our workplace the women work just as hard as the men; to come to the conclusions you did, I think you are guilty of handpicking some averages similar to the 77c claim you decry.

Okay - in both my current workplace and my previous workplace - the only people that were on less than 40 hour weeks were..... the Ladies! but in seriousness - I think the average male working week is 44 hours, the average female working week is 35.

So the issue is that if you both earn $20/hr - for the Average hours worked, Men are going to earn more - this is cited as 'Sexism' when really it isn't.


No one turned up to the interviews either. And it focused solely on "tenure-track assistant professorships". This is not a conclusive study.

Suppose I say that more studies would be nice - does it not suggest that due to affirmative Sexism, there is now a definitive bias against Men?


Christians are a bit different since they have a central gospel to follow, and its verse is interpreted a certain way to cause the beleif; feminism has no such central gospel or doctrine. If the point you are trying to make is that most feminists are feminist extremists, you would need to get away from specific examples, and go to some data reflective of such a population.

Patriarchy theory, Rape Culture and the Gender wage gap - I'd say those are the central doctrines of modern Feminism.

[Akzle]

You seem to have missed my point... quantity is not quality. The solution is better parenting, not more time.
I'll take an hour a night of play and learning and some well chosen shared times on the weekend over 16 hours of largely trying to ignore a child any day.

Sent from Tapatalk. DYAC

aaaaaaaaand, your old.

hell even the fucking government has caught up with "a child's sense of time"

[TheDemonLord]

You seem to have missed my point... quantity is not quality. The solution is better parenting, not more time.
I'll take an hour a night of play and learning and some well chosen shared times on the weekend over 16 hours of largely trying to ignore a child any day.

Sent from Tapatalk. DYAC

I agree that Quality is preferable - but tell me - how do you get better at doing something? Is it by doing it regularly?

[Big Dog]

I agree that Quality is preferable - but tell me - how do you get better at doing something? Is it by doing it regularly?
Not necessarily.
Sometimes to get better at something you must first stop doing what you are doing.
Sometimes you need to take time to learn something new.
Plan better.

If I was to try to learn to side kick like Chuck Norris... just standing there doing side kicks may make me better at them or it may make me worse at them. Depending how bad my techniques and understanding are to start with.

Taking a step back, getting some independent advice, trying again slowly and with more focus on good technique and removing bad habits is far mote likely to be successful.

Parenting is the same. Blindly doing whatever comes to mind and hoping for the best might work...
Repeating the same action won't make it better but it might maker it easier to get it wrong.

If you want an expert opinion just keep reading different authors until you find one you agree with.

Sent from Tapatalk. DYAC

[Big Dog]

aaaaaaaaand, your old.

hell even the fucking government has caught up with "a child's sense of time"
Oh so when it suits you the govt is a shining example?

Sent from Tapatalk. DYAC

[bogan]

Which kinda proves my point....



But there is no dedicated to allowance for the Father - does this look like equality?



Okay - in both my current workplace and my previous workplace - the only people that were on less than 40 hour weeks were..... the Ladies! but in seriousness - I think the average male working week is 44 hours, the average female working week is 35.

So the issue is that if you both earn $20/hr - for the Average hours worked, Men are going to earn more - this is cited as 'Sexism' when really it isn't.



Suppose I say that more studies would be nice - does it not suggest that due to affirmative Sexism, there is now a definitive bias against Men?



Patriarchy theory, Rape Culture and the Gender wage gap - I'd say those are the central doctrines of modern Feminism.

Not at all, vocal minorities often create a misrepresentation of the majority.

Equality of outcomes or opportunities? Where do you draw the line on biological need, the father can't breastfeed naturally, should we pay for them to get some sort of implant for better bonding? Of course not, so equality of outcomes is already off the table.

Women as as whole group working less hours reflects nothing about how hard women in the workplace work. That's just shonky stats, like the 77c figure. What are the comparative average hours like for full time employment in the same field of work?

No, it suggests that more studies are required before anything can be concluded definitive.

And I'd say that is complete bullshit, the central doctrine of feminism is equal rights and opportunities for men and women (with the obvious exemption of biological needs, which can be considered to come under the umbrella of rights to an equally healthy life).

[TheDemonLord]

Not at all, vocal minorities often create a misrepresentation of the majority.

Then where is this Majority?

Because the Majority in Academia are batshit crazy, the Majority at protests are batshit crazy, the majority on Feminist websites such as Jezebel and Everydayfeminism are batshit crazy - so I have to ask where are they?

It sounds like you're trying to say that they aren't Scotsmen, even though they come from Scotland....


Equality of outcomes or opportunities? Where do you draw the line on biological need, the father can't breastfeed naturally, should we pay for them to get some sort of implant for better bonding? Of course not, so equality of outcomes is already off the table.

It's equality of Opportunity - to have the same allowance for Paternity leave.


Women as as whole group working less hours reflects nothing about how hard women in the workplace work. That's just shonky stats, like the 77c figure. What are the comparative average hours like for full time employment in the same field of work?

Full time work for Men per working day: 8.9 hours
Full time work for Women per working day: 8.2 hours (so nearly an hour difference per day)

Source (https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/time-spent-working-by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.htm)


For full time workers, men still worked longer than women, with 8.3 hours compared to 7.7 hours

Different Source (https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-average-hours-per-week-worked-in-the-us-2060631)

Average full time hours for men - between 39.1-39.4 (take a note of the difference
Average full time hours for Women - between 33.9-34.5 (much larger spread)

Different again source (https://www.statista.com/statistics/280749/monthly-full-time-weekly-hours-of-work-in-the-uk-by-gender-year-on-year/)

What more do you need?


No, it suggests that more studies are required before anything can be concluded definitive.

In the absence of an opposing study, it indicates that there is good evidence to there being a hiring Bias.


And I'd say that is complete bullshit, the central doctrine of feminism is equal rights and opportunities for men and women (with the obvious exemption of biological needs, which can be considered to come under the umbrella of rights to an equally healthy life).

WAS.

What you have described is known as 2nd wave Feminism, 3rd wave Feminism (which is the current wave, and the one I have serious issues with) has as a central tenant of Patriarchy Theory (which is a Conspiracy theory), The Wage Gap (also a conspiracy theory) and Rape Culture (see previous)

[Akzle]

Oh so when it suits you the govt is a shining example?

Sent from Tapatalk. DYAC

not at all. More that, even the old white niggery of government has grasped (legislated, even) the concept of time as (believed to be) perceived by children.

"quality over quantity" is an adult rationalisation (as applies to time) to justify your forfeiture of the only thing you'll ever own. cos reasons.

[Akzle]

feminism - /ˈfɛmɪnɪz(ə)m/
noun
1. the advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of
the sexes.


just for those struggling without shared understanding :laugh:

[Akzle]

Patriarchy Theory (which is a Conspiracy theory),

not reeeeeally bro. white society has pretty much been by-men for-men. recognising that a woman's place is amongst your other chattel property: at home.
lest you forget, a lot of the horseshit societal structures came from the christian church, and we know how inclusive they are.

and yes it's changing now (so is the recognition of "genders", or lack of) but even that basic tenet of marriage, was to transfer ownership of a woman from father to husband...

and while there have been great changes (they can vote and hold title and stuff)... that's still within the patriarchal framework, much of which is outmoded one way and another, so from that perspective, i'm actually pro-feminism.

but given that all women are bat shit crazy most of the time, and on the fucking moon one week a month, probably not a good idea to actually vest too much in them. (well, that and THE GENDERS AREN'T EQUAL)

[Katman]

not reeeeeally bro.

Everything's a conspiracy theory to TDL.

I blame his autism.

[yokel]

Seen as the female brain sucks at maths and science, as emotion kills logic.
the increase in insane bitches in teaching is affecting supply & demand.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11463757

Add to that the housing crisis,
Can anybody tell me how many houses females build?
You don't hear much about gender equality in relation to the construction industry, except when it comes to CEO and shit, being a builer? Not so much.

[yokel]

just for those struggling without shared understanding :laugh:

And adults are equal to children right?

[Akzle]

And adults are equal to children right?

no, children are heaps smarter.

[Akzle]

Everything's a conspiracy theory to TDL.

I blame his autism.

i blame his stupid. :niceone:

[WristTwister]

Seen as the female brain sucks at maths and science, as emotion kills logic.
the increase in insane bitches in teaching is affecting supply & demand.

http://m.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11463757


The irony with you making that comment and then posting that article is that both the scientists quoted in that item were female (Dr Ngaire Hobden & Dr Megan Lourie) while the male in the item was someone who was unwilling to apply for a middle management position (another area with a staff shortfall).

[bogan]

Then where is this Majority?

Because the Majority in Academia are batshit crazy, the Majority at protests are batshit crazy, the majority on Feminist websites such as Jezebel and Everydayfeminism are batshit crazy - so I have to ask where are they?

It sounds like you're trying to say that they aren't Scotsmen, even though they come from Scotland....



It's equality of Opportunity - to have the same allowance for Paternity leave.



Full time work for Men per working day: 8.9 hours
Full time work for Women per working day: 8.2 hours (so nearly an hour difference per day)

Source (https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2015/time-spent-working-by-full-and-part-time-status-gender-and-location-in-2014.htm)



Different Source (https://www.thebalance.com/what-is-the-average-hours-per-week-worked-in-the-us-2060631)

Average full time hours for men - between 39.1-39.4 (take a note of the difference
Average full time hours for Women - between 33.9-34.5 (much larger spread)

Different again source (https://www.statista.com/statistics/280749/monthly-full-time-weekly-hours-of-work-in-the-uk-by-gender-year-on-year/)

What more do you need?



In the absence of an opposing study, it indicates that there is good evidence to there being a hiring Bias.



WAS.

What you have described is known as 2nd wave Feminism, 3rd wave Feminism (which is the current wave, and the one I have serious issues with) has as a central tenant of Patriarchy Theory (which is a Conspiracy theory), The Wage Gap (also a conspiracy theory) and Rape Culture (see previous)

Content with the gender equality in NZ. Your extremists are still the more active part since they still have work to do, the for-equality feminists get righteously pissed off at antiquated bullshit that occasionally comes forth as per the channcellors remarks, then have nothing more to do, so you don't hear from them.

No, I'm saying that not all Irish are IRA terrorists, even though they come from Ireland.

One partner has the right to maternity leave, this defaults to the one which has been through the physical ordeal of childbirth, and is physically required for natural breastfeeding. If the couple decides both partners need leave, then they should take responsibility and ensure financial sufficiency for the duration of that leave.

What I asked for, a comparison in the same field of work.

It suggests a hiring bias for "tenure-track assistant professorships", you could stretch it to suggesting wider studies are required; but it in no way suggests a 2:1 hiring bias is present for STEM based careers.

IS, redefining feminism to focus on the extremists (which we agree are wrong) is pretty much the definition of a straw-man argument. If you want to qualify your disagreement with feminsim as that of 3-rdwave feminism, or feminist extremists, then by all means go ahead; but as far as I can tell, you're the only one bringing them into the discussion.

[yokel]

The irony with you making that comment and then posting that article is that both the scientists quoted in that item were female (Dr Ngaire Hobden & Dr Megan Lourie) while the male in the item was someone who was unwilling to apply for a middle management position (another area with a staff shortfall).

It's not irony you stupid woman, it's narrative journalism.
They choose to talk to women scientists.
And the irony in this article is that is a male that's seen as being part of the shortage issue, when the reality is it's females with their chick logic.

Women are intellectually inferior to men.


https://youtu.be/1asn8jBoJhw

[WristTwister]

It's not irony you stupid woman, it's narrative journalism.
They choose to talk to women scientists.

Women are intellectually inferior to men.


https://youtu.be/1asn8jBoJhw

It was ironic that you chose to share that item, considering they choose to talk to women scientists.

https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0639/4369/products/t-shirt-youuuu-stupid-woman-5_1024x1024.jpg?v=1478499318

[mashman]

Men are different to women... quick, pay them differently. Humans aren't different, pay them the same :wari:

[yokel]

Men are different to women... quick, pay them differently. Humans aren't different, pay them the same :wari:

You get paid what you're worth or people are willing to pay.
It's the difference between a 2 dollar and high class hooker.

Feminism is a communist ideology, it's why it's fucking retarded.

[husaberg]

Seen as the female brain sucks at maths and science, as emotion kills logic.

.

Thats especially ironic, given your long standing, well documented, profound inability, to be able to apply logic and indeed understand, basic math and science.

[yokel]

Thats especially ironic given your long standing well documented inability to be able to apply logic and understand basic math and science.

You're brainwashed beta male.
It's why you call certain things "conspiracy theory" and what not.
My maths is correct numb nuts

[Akzle]

You're brainwashed beta male.
It's why you call certain things "conspiracy theory" and what not.
My maths is correct numb nuts

now i think you've gone off the deep end there bud...

i don't know how applicable 'beta' is to that cunt.
...nor 'male'.

...and if you were looking for a brain to wash you'd be shit out of luck... the prick's dumber than two short hammers.

[bogan]

Please keep it civil and stay on the discussion topic.

[TheDemonLord]

Content with the gender equality in NZ.

So why are they still Feminists? Why are they still fighting for Equality - when they have won?

To use an Analogy, it would be like the USAF deciding to carpet bomb Munich after the German surrender. Does that not tell you that perhaps they aren't content with the state of Equality? And this malcontent is why they are still Feminists and it's why it's not a strawman to lump them in with other Malcontent (and batshit crazy) Feminists?

The second issue you have to account for, is that presumably All Feminists are guided by Feminist theory and Feminist discussion - which takes place in Feminist Academia.

Case in point - Duke University (widely regarded as a hotbed of Feminist/SJW thought and discussion) has produced this gem of a paper:

Black Anality (http://glq.dukejournals.org/content/20/4/439.abstract)

There's a TL;DR video on it (where I lazily sourced it from) that goes through the article in full Link to the video - if you are interested (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56bhvW0DCR8)

Thus the Logic follows that if Feminist Academia is producing radical or extreme view points, these eventually trickle down into mainstream Feminist view points. All you need to do is look at what happened between the 2nd and 3rd waves.


Your extremists are still the more active part since they still have work to do, the for-equality feminists get righteously pissed off at antiquated bullshit that occasionally comes forth as per the channcellors remarks, then have nothing more to do, so you don't hear from them.

That would be fine, if we didn't hear more from them - but we do. Constantly. To the point where the Head of state of one of the most powerful nations on earth repeats their message, despite his own government going 'yeah that isn't actually true')


No, I'm saying that not all Irish are IRA terrorists, even though they come from Ireland.

And I'm saying that they won, Ireland is now a sovreign nation, Northern Ireland is no longer a thing, and the IRA are still blowing up Buses in Manchester.


One partner has the right to maternity leave, this defaults to the one which has been through the physical ordeal of childbirth, and is physically required for natural breastfeeding. If the couple decides both partners need leave, then they should take responsibility and ensure financial sufficiency for the duration of that leave.

The problem with this argument is by that logic, Maternity leave should be a couple of weeks only - at which point you can take it out of your Holiday allowance and there is no need for Maternity leave.

Now, that would be a fair and equitable solution - as per my remarks to Katman, I think there is societal good that comes from Parental leave, problem is in NZ, Fathers are treated as inferior to the Mother by the state/government/legal system etc.


What I asked for, a comparison in the same field of work.

I don't have that Data - but the Data I do have shows a massive imbalance, I can also give you anecdotal evidence that every job I've worked - if anyone was on part time or flexitime hours, they would be Female.

I would concede an extrapolation of your point that if you compare a Male ER DR and a Female ER DR, they probably work the same silly hours - however if you do that, you must concede the counter point that in that case a statistically relevant number of Women are opting out of these positions as they don't want to have that type of Work/life balance.

Problem then becomes when you look at the earnings disparity and try to claim that it is due to Sexism, when in fact it is down to personal choice.


It suggests a hiring bias for "tenure-track assistant professorships", you could stretch it to suggesting wider studies are required; but it in no way suggests a 2:1 hiring bias is present for STEM based careers.

And why is then this Hiring Bias for Professorships? Could it be because if someone looks at a room and sees a bunch of Old White Men - they scream Racism and Sexism at the top of their lungs with no regard for examining if each individual was in fact the best candidate for the job?

Real world example - in my current company, all the Systems Administrators team are Male (which matches up with the Masculine predilection for things) - yet our HR director in a speech to the company said straight out that the next SA they want to hire will be a Female. With no reference to their skillset - that was the most important factor as dictated by HR.

Does this not suggest that the tenants of 'Affirmative Sexism' are completely at odds with the concept of Meritocracy? And when you have companies such as Google committing to have a more 'Diverse work force' - the only way this can be achieved is by discriminatory hiring practice....

Which is the very thing that they are complaining about!!!!


IS, redefining feminism to focus on the extremists (which we agree are wrong) is pretty much the definition of a straw-man argument. If you want to qualify your disagreement with feminsim as that of 3-rdwave feminism, or feminist extremists, then by all means go ahead; but as far as I can tell, you're the only one bringing them into the discussion.

Nope. Was.

Back in the 80's Feminist Academia needed new Dragons to slay in order to justify both it's existence and the power that they had acquired.

Cue the Theory of Intersectionality - which was swallowed hook, line, sinker, rod, Angler, Boat, Port and country. This theory (which btw was never subject to any real world expriment, was just asserted and then pyramid cited ad nauseum) has formed the basis for ALL feminist academia, public discourse etc. of the last 30 years.

The funny thing is that there are several 2nd Wave Feminists still active - such as Christina Hoff Summers - who has been excommunicated for daring to say that Maybe the Modern version of Feminism is a little bit nuts.

Then there people such as Germaine Greer - one of the most influential Feminists of the 2nd wave, she's been a persona non grata for daring to say that Trans-women, by virtue of not having an XX chromosome, a Uterus, breasts etc. aren't real women.

The principle of Feminism - that of Equality for all - is good, noble and laudible. However this does little to describe the actions of the group. Just like Communism (which btw - a large percentage of Feminist Academics identify as Marxist - yah know - that Ideology that has been responsible for the MOST amount of Genocide in the 20th century - you may want to think on that) - the idea says nothing of the actions of the group.

I would suggest checking out the works of Jordan Peterson

I'll leave this here, in particular - I want you to contrast what someone (who is an Academic Gender studies professor) says about Biological Sex. If this does not show how far up their own assholes the Academic Feminists have gone, then I guess nothing will. You are welcome to your opinion (as always), just as I am welcome to disagree.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc&t=11s

[husaberg]

Seen as the female brain sucks at maths and science, as emotion kills logic.

.

Thats especially ironic given your long standing well documented inability to be able to apply logic and understand basic math and science.




My maths is correct numb nuts

Your maths, your science and your logic are many many things, Correct is not one of them.
So using your own YOKEL logic stated above, does that make you less of a man.

[bogan]

So why are they still Feminists? Why are they still fighting for Equality - when they have won?

To use an Analogy, it would be like the USAF deciding to carpet bomb Munich after the German surrender. Does that not tell you that perhaps they aren't content with the state of Equality? And this malcontent is why they are still Feminists and it's why it's not a strawman to lump them in with other Malcontent (and batshit crazy) Feminists?

The second issue you have to account for, is that presumably All Feminists are guided by Feminist theory and Feminist discussion - which takes place in Feminist Academia.

Case in point - Duke University (widely regarded as a hotbed of Feminist/SJW thought and discussion) has produced this gem of a paper:

Black Anality (http://glq.dukejournals.org/content/20/4/439.abstract)

There's a TL;DR video on it (where I lazily sourced it from) that goes through the article in full Link to the video - if you are interested (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56bhvW0DCR8)

Thus the Logic follows that if Feminist Academia is producing radical or extreme view points, these eventually trickle down into mainstream Feminist view points. All you need to do is look at what happened between the 2nd and 3rd waves.



That would be fine, if we didn't hear more from them - but we do. Constantly. To the point where the Head of state of one of the most powerful nations on earth repeats their message, despite his own government going 'yeah that isn't actually true')



And I'm saying that they won, Ireland is now a sovreign nation, Northern Ireland is no longer a thing, and the IRA are still blowing up Buses in Manchester.



The problem with this argument is by that logic, Maternity leave should be a couple of weeks only - at which point you can take it out of your Holiday allowance and there is no need for Maternity leave.

Now, that would be a fair and equitable solution - as per my remarks to Katman, I think there is societal good that comes from Parental leave, problem is in NZ, Fathers are treated as inferior to the Mother by the state/government/legal system etc.



I don't have that Data - but the Data I do have shows a massive imbalance, I can also give you anecdotal evidence that every job I've worked - if anyone was on part time or flexitime hours, they would be Female.

I would concede an extrapolation of your point that if you compare a Male ER DR and a Female ER DR, they probably work the same silly hours - however if you do that, you must concede the counter point that in that case a statistically relevant number of Women are opting out of these positions as they don't want to have that type of Work/life balance.

Problem then becomes when you look at the earnings disparity and try to claim that it is due to Sexism, when in fact it is down to personal choice.



And why is then this Hiring Bias for Professorships? Could it be because if someone looks at a room and sees a bunch of Old White Men - they scream Racism and Sexism at the top of their lungs with no regard for examining if each individual was in fact the best candidate for the job?

Real world example - in my current company, all the Systems Administrators team are Male (which matches up with the Masculine predilection for things) - yet our HR director in a speech to the company said straight out that the next SA they want to hire will be a Female. With no reference to their skillset - that was the most important factor as dictated by HR.

Does this not suggest that the tenants of 'Affirmative Sexism' are completely at odds with the concept of Meritocracy? And when you have companies such as Google committing to have a more 'Diverse work force' - the only way this can be achieved is by discriminatory hiring practice....

Which is the very thing that they are complaining about!!!!



Nope. Was.

Back in the 80's Feminist Academia needed new Dragons to slay in order to justify both it's existence and the power that they had acquired.

Cue the Theory of Intersectionality - which was swallowed hook, line, sinker, rod, Angler, Boat, Port and country. This theory (which btw was never subject to any real world expriment, was just asserted and then pyramid cited ad nauseum) has formed the basis for ALL feminist academia, public discourse etc. of the last 30 years.

The funny thing is that there are several 2nd Wave Feminists still active - such as Christina Hoff Summers - who has been excommunicated for daring to say that Maybe the Modern version of Feminism is a little bit nuts.

Then there people such as Germaine Greer - one of the most influential Feminists of the 2nd wave, she's been a persona non grata for daring to say that Trans-women, by virtue of not having an XX chromosome, a Uterus, breasts etc. aren't real women.

The principle of Feminism - that of Equality for all - is good, noble and laudible. However this does little to describe the actions of the group. Just like Communism (which btw - a large percentage of Feminist Academics identify as Marxist - yah know - that Ideology that has been responsible for the MOST amount of Genocide in the 20th century - you may want to think on that) - the idea says nothing of the actions of the group.

I would suggest checking out the works of Jordan Peterson

I'll leave this here, in particular - I want you to contrast what someone (who is an Academic Gender studies professor) says about Biological Sex. If this does not show how far up their own assholes the Academic Feminists have gone, then I guess nothing will. You are welcome to your opinion (as always), just as I am welcome to disagree.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc&t=11s

Not at all, the correct application of that analogy would be for the USAF to continue to exist after the german surrender, which it did. Just like feminists now are still feminists, in order to maintain the equality they have gained.

Incorrect, there is no feminism high council or centralised power structure based in academia. They're for equality, it is a simple concept.

Which is why your problem is with feminist extremists, 3rd wavers, or whatever other label for their sub-group of feminism you use.

Nah that doesn't stick, cos even were Ireland a sovereign nation, not all of them would be IRA.

Then maybe a couple of weeks maternity leave is all it should be then. I still do not think it greatly inequitable at the longer duration since maternity leave can be transferred to the father though.

Then get some better numbers, and throw away all your anecdotal flex-time stuff because that is irrelevant to the point, women have the right to chose what job they work. If their choices (or hiring) are somehow biased towards lower hour careers or jobs, you've no basis to say they don't work as hard; just as you rightly point out they've no basis to say they do not get paid as much. Compare apples with apples, data from the same field of work is required. Hiring data from actual hires is required. Chances are it was sexism that got the old male professors there, some of them were probably alive when women got the vote :laugh: ; it's not an excuse, but it does point to a situation in which the specific hiring practices of that field and position (why I suggest the data is not extensible to other fields) have swung the other way in sexism.

Not sure if you've ever personally hired anyone, but it isn't all about best performance on paper; personality and how well the candidate gets on with the interviewer/s also plays a large part in the final choice. Guys often have more in common (why friend groups are still fairly gender biased). At some point you've got to be analytical and say, are we not employing women because there are no suitable applicants, or are they not making the final cut because of personal bias. If HR looks through and sees the last 10 hires had plenty of female applicants who were just as good on paper, yet there were ten male hires, it pretty much justifies an affirmative sexism hiring directive to counter the existing sexist hiring practices. Not saying that's what is happening, some HR people do get carried away with affirmative sexism, just saying that it could actually be justified.


The principle of Feminism - that of Equality for all - is good, noble and laudible.

Which is why an anti-feminist stance is like pushing shit uphill with a rake, do yourself a favor and become anti-3rdwave-feminist, or anti-feminist-extremist instead.

[yokel]

So why are they still Feminists? Why are they still fighting for Equality - when they have won?

To use an Analogy, it would be like the USAF deciding to carpet bomb Munich after the German surrender. Does that not tell you that perhaps they aren't content with the state of Equality? And this malcontent is why they are still Feminists and it's why it's not a strawman to lump them in with other Malcontent (and batshit crazy) Feminists?

The second issue you have to account for, is that presumably All Feminists are guided by Feminist theory and Feminist discussion - which takes place in Feminist Academia.

Case in point - Duke University (widely regarded as a hotbed of Feminist/SJW thought and discussion) has produced this gem of a paper:

Black Anality (http://glq.dukejournals.org/content/20/4/439.abstract)

There's a TL;DR video on it (where I lazily sourced it from) that goes through the article in full Link to the video - if you are interested (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56bhvW0DCR8)

Thus the Logic follows that if Feminist Academia is producing radical or extreme view points, these eventually trickle down into mainstream Feminist view points. All you need to do is look at what happened between the 2nd and 3rd waves.



That would be fine, if we didn't hear more from them - but we do. Constantly. To the point where the Head of state of one of the most powerful nations on earth repeats their message, despite his own government going 'yeah that isn't actually true')



And I'm saying that they won, Ireland is now a sovreign nation, Northern Ireland is no longer a thing, and the IRA are still blowing up Buses in Manchester.



The problem with this argument is by that logic, Maternity leave should be a couple of weeks only - at which point you can take it out of your Holiday allowance and there is no need for Maternity leave.

Now, that would be a fair and equitable solution - as per my remarks to Katman, I think there is societal good that comes from Parental leave, problem is in NZ, Fathers are treated as inferior to the Mother by the state/government/legal system etc.



I don't have that Data - but the Data I do have shows a massive imbalance, I can also give you anecdotal evidence that every job I've worked - if anyone was on part time or flexitime hours, they would be Female.

I would concede an extrapolation of your point that if you compare a Male ER DR and a Female ER DR, they probably work the same silly hours - however if you do that, you must concede the counter point that in that case a statistically relevant number of Women are opting out of these positions as they don't want to have that type of Work/life balance.

Problem then becomes when you look at the earnings disparity and try to claim that it is due to Sexism, when in fact it is down to personal choice.



And why is then this Hiring Bias for Professorships? Could it be because if someone looks at a room and sees a bunch of Old White Men - they scream Racism and Sexism at the top of their lungs with no regard for examining if each individual was in fact the best candidate for the job?

Real world example - in my current company, all the Systems Administrators team are Male (which matches up with the Masculine predilection for things) - yet our HR director in a speech to the company said straight out that the next SA they want to hire will be a Female. With no reference to their skillset - that was the most important factor as dictated by HR.

Does this not suggest that the tenants of 'Affirmative Sexism' are completely at odds with the concept of Meritocracy? And when you have companies such as Google committing to have a more 'Diverse work force' - the only way this can be achieved is by discriminatory hiring practice....

Which is the very thing that they are complaining about!!!!



Nope. Was.

Back in the 80's Feminist Academia needed new Dragons to slay in order to justify both it's existence and the power that they had acquired.

Cue the Theory of Intersectionality - which was swallowed hook, line, sinker, rod, Angler, Boat, Port and country. This theory (which btw was never subject to any real world expriment, was just asserted and then pyramid cited ad nauseum) has formed the basis for ALL feminist academia, public discourse etc. of the last 30 years.

The funny thing is that there are several 2nd Wave Feminists still active - such as Christina Hoff Summers - who has been excommunicated for daring to say that Maybe the Modern version of Feminism is a little bit nuts.

Then there people such as Germaine Greer - one of the most influential Feminists of the 2nd wave, she's been a persona non grata for daring to say that Trans-women, by virtue of not having an XX chromosome, a Uterus, breasts etc. aren't real women.

The principle of Feminism - that of Equality for all - is good, noble and laudible. However this does little to describe the actions of the group. Just like Communism (which btw - a large percentage of Feminist Academics identify as Marxist - yah know - that Ideology that has been responsible for the MOST amount of Genocide in the 20th century - you may want to think on that) - the idea says nothing of the actions of the group.

I would suggest checking out the works of Jordan Peterson

I'll leave this here, in particular - I want you to contrast what someone (who is an Academic Gender studies professor) says about Biological Sex. If this does not show how far up their own assholes the Academic Feminists have gone, then I guess nothing will. You are welcome to your opinion (as always), just as I am welcome to disagree.



Rights - responsibility = privilege.

Women want the same rights as men but not the responsibilities that go with them.

Because....... Well they're women.

The fempocalypse, coming to a western civilization near you.


https://youtu.be/w__PJ8ymliw

[Crasherfromwayback]

It's the difference between a 2 dollar and high class hooker.

.

How much did you pay for your hooker import?

[pritch]

Please keep it civil and stay on the discussion topic.

I did note that after OAB's little tune up people were using the word "egg" rather than more abusive alternatives.

Some years ago I read the biography of the former Police Inspector who used to run that Auckland crime show, Police 10/7, on TV. There was quite a bit of toilet level humour but that's OK, the book wasn't a bad read.

One story concerned the trial of a gang member. The gang member had became annoyed at one of the lawyers in the court and went off his head at him. The Judge interrupted and told the gang member that he couldn't talk to the lawyer like that. The gang member said, "Sorry sir, but the cunt's an egg."

The irony being that the worst insult in the sentence was the reference to an egg.

That particular lawyer has since been elevated to the judiciary. Sometimes in the course of my work I had cause to sit in his court while he did his dignified, commanding, judicial thing. Inwardly though I was smiling recalling the gang member's appraisal of his performance. Probably just as well the judge didn't know I'd read the book.

Meanwhile back on topic...

[WristTwister]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kasiov0ytEc&t=11s

This is way off topic. The discussion was about transgender pronouns, specifically the debate around what pronouns should be used and if there should be legislation to enforce the correct usage (in the work place). The lawyer tried to state that the law is focused on transitioned men/women who want to be referred to by the correct pronoun for their transitioned gender.

[TheDemonLord]

This is way off topic. The discussion was about transgender pronouns, specifically the debate around what pronouns should be used and if there should be legislation to enforce the correct usage (in the work place). The lawyer tried to state that the law is focused on transitioned men/women who want to be referred to by the correct pronoun for their transitioned gender.

It's not off topic - its the result of the same Ideology that calls for Men (and only Men, such as Matt Taylor or Tim Hunt) to resign/step down (or in some cases just get's them fired) - as in the OP post.

My point is that Feminism is not about Equality anymore, that it's academic figureheads are so divorced from reality that they would claim something so clearly and demonstrably false that 'biological sex doesn't exist' in order to maintain their narrative.

That shit be fucking Crazy.

My follow up issue with this, is once you have an otherwise intelligent, rational and sane person prepared to bend reality to suit their beliefs to that degree - this is Cult-like thinking - and we know what happens to Cults....

But seeing as you are okay with Compelled speech,

I identify as a Demon, You are now legally obliged to address me as:

'His high malevolence, The lord of Demons'

Except on Wednesdays, when you must address me as 'The Supreme leader of the Demonic host'

and for Sundays, you must use the Epithet 'The most regal of the demonic host, opposer of christendom'

There are other salutations that you must use - but only when I feel like you must use them, I won't tell you what they are or when you must use them, but if you get them wrong, I'll lodge a Human rights violation, haul you in front of a Kangaroo court (that is already biased towards my minority status as a Demon) and sue you back to the stone age.

[Katman]

But seeing as you are okay with Compelled speech,

I identify as a Demon, You are now legally obliged to address me as:

'His high malevolence, The lord of Demons'

Except on Wednesdays, when you must address me as 'The Supreme leader of the Demonic host'

and for Sundays, you must use the Epithet 'The most regal of the demonic host, opposer of christendom'

There are other salutations that you must use - but only when I feel like you must use them, I won't tell you what they are or when you must use them, but if you get them wrong, I'll lodge a Human rights violation, haul you in front of a Kangaroo court (that is already biased towards my minority status as a Demon) and sue you back to the stone age.

Dude, your autism's showing again.

[Akzle]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqXi8WmQ_WM

[Akzle]

think i'll rather call you the high shitlord of distracto-bullshit.


...demonstrably false that 'biological sex doesn't exist'

wwwweeellllll, actually......

even science (SCIENCE!!!011!) is starting to realise their ignorance and reliance on oversimplification of shit liek XX v XY...

(amongst several other shit which science is realising it's fucked up)

but don't bother looking that up, you might have to think, and we'd all hate to see that.

[TheDemonLord]

Not at all, the correct application of that analogy would be for the USAF to continue to exist after the german surrender, which it did. Just like feminists now are still feminists, in order to maintain the equality they have gained.

It really isn't - since Feminists are still fighting - hence my analogy is more accurate.


Incorrect, there is no feminism high council or centralised power structure based in academia. They're for equality, it is a simple concept.

Ah yes, the old 'Feminism isn't a Monolith' defence - issue here being that what is thought up in Academia gets taught to that generation of students, who go on to form theories based upon that - which is then taught to the next generation of Students.

Bonus joke that a High council is a heirachical patriarchal structure that clearly oppresses women.


Which is why your problem is with feminist extremists, 3rd wavers, or whatever other label for their sub-group of feminism you use.

except they AREN'T the subgroup - they ARE the majority. It's like me saying 'oh you have a problem with Jesus Christ, well you don't have an issue with Christianity, you have a problem with a subset of christianity'

However to make a clarification - if a word describes a group and you then attribute the actions of that group to the word, if you can't do that - the word becomes meaningless.


Nah that doesn't stick, cos even were Ireland a sovereign nation, not all of them would be IRA.

It does if they are still fighting for something they have achieved.


Then maybe a couple of weeks maternity leave is all it should be then. I still do not think it greatly inequitable at the longer duration since maternity leave can be transferred to the father though.

It's that's your position, that's fine, but there is still an inequality - and I'm against that.


Then get some better numbers, and throw away all your anecdotal flex-time stuff because that is irrelevant to the point, women have the right to chose what job they work. If their choices (or hiring) are somehow biased towards lower hour careers or jobs, you've no basis to say they don't work as hard; just as you rightly point out they've no basis to say they do not get paid as much.

My original point was - that if a Women works the same job, hours etc. as a Man, she earns the same as a Man. There is NO Pay gap - if 2 people are paid $20/hr and one works a 50 hour week and the other works a 30 hour week - are they not being paid the same for the same work?

Yet according to Feminist logic, if the person working a 30 hour week is a Women, this is sexist. Which it isn't.



Compare apples with apples, data from the same field of work is required. Hiring data from actual hires is required. Chances are it was sexism that got the old male professors there, some of them were probably alive when women got the vote :laugh: ; it's not an excuse, but it does point to a situation in which the specific hiring practices of that field and position (why I suggest the data is not extensible to other fields) have swung the other way in sexism.

There is a 2 fold problem here:

1: The current data suggests there is a bias (which needs more investigation)
2: the field of Social science has some serious biases, which prevents research into these areas.


Not sure if you've ever personally hired anyone, but it isn't all about best performance on paper; personality and how well the candidate gets on with the interviewer/s also plays a large part in the final choice. Guys often have more in common (why friend groups are still fairly gender biased). At some point you've got to be analytical and say, are we not employing women because there are no suitable applicants, or are they not making the final cut because of personal bias.

I've been involved in the Technical assessment for hiring. I can barely remember the names of the applicants whose CVs I reviewed - but I can remember my assessment of their technical skills - cause that was the one and only thing that mattered.


If HR looks through and sees the last 10 hires had plenty of female applicants who were just as good on paper, yet there were ten male hires, it pretty much justifies an affirmative sexism hiring directive to counter the existing sexist hiring practices. Not saying that's what is happening, some HR people do get carried away with affirmative sexism, just saying that it could actually be justified.

The assumption there is that they were just as good on paper - the reality is that since so few women enter IT, very few get to the stage where they have acquired enough skills/experience to be competent


Which is why an anti-feminist stance is like pushing shit uphill with a rake, do yourself a favor and become anti-3rdwave-feminist, or anti-feminist-extremist instead.

See my point about Jesus Christ and Christianity.

[TheDemonLord]

think i'll rather call you the high shitlord of distracto-bullshit.

I'm down with Shitlord.




wwwweeellllll, actually......

even science (SCIENCE!!!011!) is starting to realise their ignorance and reliance on oversimplification of shit liek XX v XY...

(amongst several other shit which science is realising it's fucked up)

but don't bother looking that up, you might have to think, and we'd all hate to see that.

There is much debate and research in this field - but some findings are pointing that Testosterone levels (particularly in the 2nd and 3rd trimester) can have have some very distinct changes - both physically and mentally. Testosterone levels are generally higher in Boys - which means on average, there are some physical and mental traits which occur at a significantly greater frequency in Men.

This is not to say that they can't occur in Females.

XX vs XY is oversimplification for sure - but things like on average 50% greater muscle mass, denser bones, location and storage of Fat (the infamous Beer gut), larger adrenal glands, better spacial awareness, propensity for risk taking etc. all appear to have a strong link to Males.

[TheDemonLord]

Dude, your autism's showing again.

Not mine, I'm a tad surprised TBH - I thought you'd be up in arms about compelled speech....

[Katman]

I thought you'd be up in arms about compelled speech....

Dude, my plate's full already.

[Akzle]

There is much debate and research in this field - but some findings are pointing that Testosterone levels (particularly in the 2nd and 3rd trimester) can have have some very distinct changes - both physically and mentally. Testosterone levels are generally higher in Boys - which means on average, there are some physical and mental traits which occur at a significantly greater frequency in Men.

This is not to say that they can't occur in Females.

XX vs XY is oversimplification for sure - but things like on average 50% greater muscle mass, denser bones, location and storage of Fat (the infamous Beer gut), larger adrenal glands, better spacial awareness, propensity for risk taking etc. all appear to have a strong link to Males.

which is well and good until those "men" decide that they actually want cock IN them (decidedly female trait - even dykes buy plastic cocks), or, perhaps, "they were born in the wrong body"

having a "typically male body" (and F your I: adipose fat is more prevalent in women, not that there aren't fat men, just that the actual genetic expression shit leans that way. fat men are a disgrace to the species.) doesn't mean you'll identify as a male...

and then you get hermaphrodites, which scientifically, physiologically cannot be lumped into either, a DNA test could prove which is biologically more apt...BUT...

[yokel]

I'm down with Shitlord.





There is much debate and research in this field - but some findings are pointing that Testosterone levels (particularly in the 2nd and 3rd trimester) can have have some very distinct changes - both physically and mentally. Testosterone levels are generally higher in Boys - which means on average, there are some physical and mental traits which occur at a significantly greater frequency in Men.

This is not to say that they can't occur in Females.

XX vs XY is oversimplification for sure - but things like on average 50% greater muscle mass, denser bones, location and storage of Fat (the infamous Beer gut), larger adrenal glands, better spacial awareness, propensity for risk taking etc. all appear to have a strong link to Males.

The difference between XX and XY is the internal combustion engine, putting a man vs what ever it is that women have done.

Men's studies has a name, it's called his'story

The female brain is about the size of a bar of soap Smaller than a male brain. And has less grey matter.

[bogan]

It really isn't - since Feminists are still fighting - hence my analogy is more accurate.



Ah yes, the old 'Feminism isn't a Monolith' defence - issue here being that what is thought up in Academia gets taught to that generation of students, who go on to form theories based upon that - which is then taught to the next generation of Students.

Bonus joke that a High council is a heirachical patriarchal structure that clearly oppresses women.



except they AREN'T the subgroup - they ARE the majority. It's like me saying 'oh you have a problem with Jesus Christ, well you don't have an issue with Christianity, you have a problem with a subset of christianity'

However to make a clarification - if a word describes a group and you then attribute the actions of that group to the word, if you can't do that - the word becomes meaningless.



It does if they are still fighting for something they have achieved.



It's that's your position, that's fine, but there is still an inequality - and I'm against that.



My original point was - that if a Women works the same job, hours etc. as a Man, she earns the same as a Man. There is NO Pay gap - if 2 people are paid $20/hr and one works a 50 hour week and the other works a 30 hour week - are they not being paid the same for the same work?

Yet according to Feminist logic, if the person working a 30 hour week is a Women, this is sexist. Which it isn't.




There is a 2 fold problem here:

1: The current data suggests there is a bias (which needs more investigation)
2: the field of Social science has some serious biases, which prevents research into these areas.



I've been involved in the Technical assessment for hiring. I can barely remember the names of the applicants whose CVs I reviewed - but I can remember my assessment of their technical skills - cause that was the one and only thing that mattered.



The assumption there is that they were just as good on paper - the reality is that since so few women enter IT, very few get to the stage where they have acquired enough skills/experience to be competent



See my point about Jesus Christ and Christianity.

Not all of them, so it's a bit of both, at which point the analogy falls over.

Which would simply be propagation of 3rdwave or extremists ones, the core of femenism remains about equality.

There is no evidence that these vocal extremist feminists are the majority, all you've provided is anecdotes and a few crazy academics; this is completely inadequate.

But not all of them would be IRA, just as not all feminists want inequality in their favor.

I've never said there was a pay gap. I took exception to your claim that women do not work as hard as men. Please refrain from these strawmen arguments.

Good science (even social) can remove such bias.

The technical assessment is often just part of the process, after which you may be left with a number of applicants who are just as good as each other on paper.

Christ/Christianity has fragmentation of followers, despite being an organisation, based on a gospel. Feminism is based on a simple concept, the main parallel I see is that the extremists in both have lost site of the core ideals. Anyone pushing inequality does not deserve the feminist title, just as anyone pushing bigotry and hate does not deserve the christian one.

[mashman]

You get paid what you're worth or people are willing to pay.
It's the difference between a 2 dollar and high class hooker.

Feminism is a communist ideology, it's why it's fucking retarded.

You sound like the bipolar bastard love child of ocean and akzle.

[yokel]

How much did you pay for your hooker import?

Quite the pretty penny as it was still in it's original wrapping.

[yokel]

You sound like the bipolar bastard love child of ocean and akzle.

And Stalin is your daddy.

[husaberg]

The female brain is about the size of a bar of soap Smaller than a male brain. And has less grey matter.
Odd this files against your logic........
326910326911

[mashman]

And Stalin is your daddy.

Or mummy...

[yokel]

This is way off topic. The discussion was about transgender pronouns, specifically the debate around what pronouns should be used and if there should be legislation to enforce the correct usage (in the work place). The lawyer tried to state that the law is focused on transitioned men/women who want to be referred to by the correct pronoun for their transitioned gender.


Feminist theory is a complete crook of shit.

I use sex pronouns, not dumb arse gender pronouns.

[husaberg]

You sound like the bipolar bastard love child of ocean and akzle.

Nah If he originated from some of oceans DNA he might be better at maths and science.

[Akzle]

just as anyone pushing bigotry and hate does not deserve the christian one.



“And the slain of the LORD shall be at that day from one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth: they shall not be lamented, neither gathered, nor buried; they shall be dung upon the ground.”




“And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.”




27 The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister.

28 They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which was in the city, and that which was in the field,

29 And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house



20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished.

21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

tis a fucking jolly book, that one. m0ar ppl should believe in God™



The female brain is about the size of a bar of soap Smaller than a male brain. And has less grey matter.

and elephant's can communicate across the fucking desert with a brain the size of my ballsack. birds can circumnavigate tho globe, on time, with the smallest brain-to-body ratio out (willing to be corrected, i suspect some southlanders compete for that one) and dolphins have bigger brains than the men you so adore, but still only ever eat sushi.

did you have a point? or just felt like pointing out biology?

[Akzle]

Quite the pretty penny as it was still in it's original wrapping.

your going to not want her to get citizenship.
or leave the house.

cos as soon as she realises there's more to offer in this country than, well, you, she's going to be off like a shot.

[yokel]

tis a fucking jolly book, that one. m0ar ppl should believe in God™



and elephant's can communicate across the fucking desert with a brain the size of my ballsack. birds can circumnavigate tho globe, on time, with the smallest brain-to-body ratio out (willing to be corrected, i suspect some southlanders compete for that one) and dolphins have bigger brains than the men you so adore, but still only ever eat sushi.

did you have a point? or just felt like pointing out biology?

Yes it's all about biology, you know it should be immediately apparent the men are smarter than women.
Yes men act "stupid" but that's more to do with social conditioning.

The human brain is not the same as a whale brain.


https://youtu.be/-0XVuU-iF5U

[Akzle]

Yes men act "stupid" but that's more to do with social conditioning.and you feel the need to reinforce this, frequently. eh.


The human brain is not the same as a whale brain.

whales are arguably smarter. not that i mentioned whales, but// ohhh, right, i geddit. your proving that point again.

[Akzle]

Yes it's all about biology, you know it should be immediately apparent the men are smarter than women.

says the guy that bought-and-paid-for, a woman.

and not just a rental, you paid to keep a cook at your house.

(while most men accomplish the same without paying - directly)

[Crasherfromwayback]

says the guy that bought-and-paid-for, a woman.

and not just a rental, your paid to keep a cook at your house.

(while most men accomplish the same without paying - directly)

No woman (simple or not) would ever stay with him if not for payment. He's just lucky that our dollar is so much stronger than the currency in the countries he shops. Those same countries are also used to small dicks. So it's a double win for him.

[yokel]

You manginas can make it about me all you want, but it doesn't change the fact I'm right.

[Akzle]

You manginas can make it about me all you want, but it doesn't change the fact I'm right.

except for the fact that that isn't a fact. as a matter of fact.
and being stupid, ignorant AND stubborn about it... well, not very SMART, innit.

and makes no less the *actual* fact, that you had to pay (upfront, like), to get a woman.
...which is pretty much the definition of irony, given how you carry on about them.

(although if you want another arrow in your quiver, men typically have higher IQs...(but then, men invented IQ, so go figure.))

[jonbuoy]

except for the fact that that isn't a fact. as a matter of fact.
and being stupid, ignorant AND stubborn about it... well, not very SMART, innit.

and makes no less the *actual* fact, that you had to pay (upfront, like), to get a woman.
...which is pretty much the definition of irony, given how you carry on about them.

(although if you want another arrow in your quiver, men typically have higher IQs...(but then, men invented IQ, so go figure.))

Who are you and what have you done with Alzle???

[Akzle]

Who are you and what have you done with Alzle???

what the fuck cunt

[Katman]

what the fuck cunt

I think I see a Merry Xmas. :love:

[Akzle]

Please keep it civil and stay on the discussion topic.

your not a fucking mod, faggot.

what a wannabe.

[Katman]

your not a fucking mod, faggot.

what a wannabe.

Go easy on him.

http://pad1.whstatic.com/images/thumb/8/84/Stop-Wet-Dreams-Step-1.jpg/aid1883341-728px-Stop-Wet-Dreams-Step-1.jpg

He can't get past Step 1.

[bogan]

your not a fucking mod, faggot.

what a wannabe.

Oops, wrong login :whistle:

[jonbuoy]

what the fuck cunt

You've made at least 5 decent posts in a week. Something isn't right - there's a disturbance in the matrix.

PS - I love you too xx

[Katman]

Something isn't right - there's a disturbance in the matrix.

The mods have him running scared.

[Akzle]

You've made at least 5 decent posts in a week. Something isn't right - there's a disturbance in the matrix.

PS - I love you too xx

i've said it before. i am the epitome of correctness and awesomeness, and if you ever disagree, your wrong.


The mods have him running scared.

what the fuck cunt. i basically own the mods.

[WristTwister]

Yes it's all about biology, you know it should be immediately apparent the men are smarter than women.
Yes men act "stupid" but that's more to do with social conditioning.

The human brain is not the same as a whale brain.


it's not the size that counts, it's how you use it! Anyway, the obvious fallacy in the size arguement is that one man can have an IQ of 90 and another can have an IQ of 150 with brains the same size.

[yokel]

it's not the size that counts, it's how you use it! Anyway, the obvious fallacy in the size arguement is that one man can have an IQ of 90 and another can have an IQ of 150 with brains the same size.




So what you're saying is that not all men are created equal but women are equal to men?

[yokel]

Things are going to get a little bit weird.


https://youtu.be/zzo5nQQZqpU

[Akzle]

Things are going to get a little bit weird.


things are going to get a lot weird, if you're desperate to cling to outmoded societal "norms".

vive lá revolcione! :ar15:

[WristTwister]

So what you're saying is that not all men are created equal but women are equal to men?

No it's not what I'm saying, I'm saying that "bigger brains are smarter" is not a true statement. There are more factors that determine IQ than brain size alone.

[Akzle]

. There are more factors that determine IQ than brain size alone.

such as whether there's a vagina connected directly to it? :laugh:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vagus_nerve

[WristTwister]

The NatGeo article isn't just about transgender kids, in fact Avery Jackson (the child on the cover) is the only transgender child they feature.

A doctor in the field gives the best explanation of gender and sex, not some conspiracy theorist who thinks it's part of a globalist agenda:crazy:.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rzbtSeVZeEE

[Indiana_Jones]

https://youtu.be/BW2raNlIOQg?t=1m55s

[TheDemonLord]

Not all of them, so it's a bit of both, at which point the analogy falls over.

Depending on your PoV, of course.


Which would simply be propagation of 3rdwave or extremists ones, the core of femenism remains about equality.

This is predicated on the notion that the actions of modern Feminists are inline with this Core value, and that this core value remains unchanged.

It is my contention that this is not the case.


There is no evidence that these vocal extremist feminists are the majority, all you've provided is anecdotes and a few crazy academics; this is completely inadequate.

At what point does it become adequate? I've discussed issues with numerous Feminists - I can count on one hand the ones who were reasonable. The 'few crazy academics' are sadly not the few, they are the Majority. 40 or so years ago, these were indeed the crazy and radical feminists, now - they are the mainstream feminists.

I can post up some more Academic Feminists doing some truly insane things in order to preserve their narrative. At what point do you concede that maybe there is a rotten core that has corrupted the ideology?


But not all of them would be IRA, just as not all feminists want inequality in their favor.

I don't doubt that not all want inequality in their favour. Some demonstrably do, the rest however either:

a: don't consider Men as having an issues (because Patriarchy and privledge)
b: Consider that Men do have issues, but Womens issues are clearly more important (because muh vagina)
c: accept that Men have issues but pay lip service to them or blame men entirely for them (because Feminism has never actively tried to shut down conferences about Male suicide rates....)


I've never said there was a pay gap. I took exception to your claim that women do not work as hard as men. Please refrain from these strawmen arguments.

When I say they don't work as hard - I mean that they work less hours, often take part time jobs, generally are absent from roles that have an intense physical element to it or a danger element to it.

This is not a Strawman - This was born about by my contention of one of the central tenants of Modern Feminism (The Wage Gap) is complete BS as it is presented by Feminism. That the claim that this 77c on the dollar is due to Sexism when in actuality it's due to life choices that women (on the majority) make vs Men.

The data shows that for women under 30, working the same hours, in the same field as men get (cue drum roll) paid the same. I did read an article that showed in some fields (especially those where Salary negotiation was common) that men tended to earn a little more - and this was theorized to be due to men being more aggressive negotiators.)


Good science (even social) can remove such bias.

When something like 70% of the social scientists describe their political leanings as Left wing, and you are dealing with political topics, it is almost impossible to remove that Bias, especially when dealing with subjects of Morality - essentially because the publishers a priori position is never validated. This is compounded when the peer reviewer (given the near 70% prevalence) is also likely to hold the same a priori position. This is the perfect example of an Academic Echo Chamber.

Article on this (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-social-science-politically-biased/)

Actual scientific paper on this. (https://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/Duarte-Haidt_BBS-D-14-00108_preprint.pdf)


The technical assessment is often just part of the process, after which you may be left with a number of applicants who are just as good as each other on paper.

I think you are stretching that very very thin, I can't think of 2 candidates who on paper were as good as each other, I can think of a few who were close, but when we did the tech assessment there was a very clear difference (which is why we do a Tech assessment)


Christ/Christianity has fragmentation of followers, despite being an organisation, based on a gospel. Feminism is based on a simple concept, the main parallel I see is that the extremists in both have lost site of the core ideals. Anyone pushing inequality does not deserve the feminist title, just as anyone pushing bigotry and hate does not deserve the christian one.

So we are back to the no true scotsman:

"They aren't a real feminist as they are pushing inequality"

Problem is that you have to reconcile the inequality being pushed in the name of Feminism, by prominent Academic Feminists, by cited Feminist Authors, by Pop-Feminists with large youtube followings, By Tumblrina Feminists.

Just like Islam - when you have 50% or more of UK Muslims saying that Homosexuality should be a Crime, is it not a reasonable position to say that Muslims have a problem with Homophobia?

[TheDemonLord]

which is well and good until those "men" decide that they actually want cock IN them (decidedly female trait - even dykes buy plastic cocks), or, perhaps, "they were born in the wrong body"

having a "typically male body" (and F your I: adipose fat is more prevalent in women, not that there aren't fat men, just that the actual genetic expression shit leans that way. fat men are a disgrace to the species.) doesn't mean you'll identify as a male...

and then you get hermaphrodites, which scientifically, physiologically cannot be lumped into either, a DNA test could prove which is biologically more apt...BUT...

Sure, there are exceptions - but the occur at about a 1-2% rate when compared to the rest of the population.

Jordan Peterson (who was on the YT vid I posted) has another somewhere, where he talks about (from a Psychologist PoV) the Masculine traits and the accuracy of them - but for the life of me I can't find it.

If you are interested - there is a good video (it's in Norwegian, so you'll have to have the Subtitles on for it) that discusses this topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5LRdW8xw70

[Akzle]

Sure, there are exceptions - but the occur at about a 1-2% rate when compared to the rest of the population.



making them...? irrelevant? unimportant?

more, i'd suggest they occur at a higher rate, but go unrecognised cos men feel the societal pressure to be "manly" men, and so probably don't bother asking their doctor if it's normal to enjoy wearing silk panties.

the "traditional" gender roles are based on nignorant christian bullshit, and largely -negative- stereotyping, women, rather than nurturing/compassionate are called weak, rather than receptive are "easily mislead".
...where more pagan ideas embraced the yin and yang, the mother earth (rather than the sky father), and probably most importantly. didn't let women out of the cave to start developing stupid ideas about equality.

[yokel]

making them...? irrelevant? unimportant?

more, i'd suggest they occur at a higher rate, but go unrecognised cos men feel the societal pressure to be "manly" men, and so probably don't bother asking their doctor if it's normal to enjoy wearing silk panties.

the "traditional" gender roles are based on nignorant christian bullshit, and largely -negative- stereotyping, women, rather than nurturing/compassionate are called weak, rather than receptive are "easily mislead".
...where more pagan ideas embraced the yin and yang, the mother earth (rather than the sky father), and probably most importantly. didn't let women out of the cave to start developing stupid ideas about equality.

What a load of shit, the words 'man' and 'woman' were around long before 'gender'

'gender' roles come about because of human behaviour, human behaviour is the result of human male and female sexual biology.

[yokel]

The NatGeo article isn't just about transgender kids, in fact Avery Jackson (the child on the cover) is the only transgender child they feature.

A doctor in the field gives the best explanation of gender and sex, not some conspiracy theorist who thinks it's part of a globalist agenda:crazy:.


It's a ........intersex it's that simple.
That "doctor" is full of shit, probably a pedophile.

How much medical attention with theses mentality ill people need.

Do you not think letting a kid believe that they're born in the wrong body is going to fuck them up?

It's Gatorade on crops level of thinking.

https://weethnutrition.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/what-plants-crave.jpg

Perhaps I've been born on the wrong fucking planet?

[bogan]

Depending on your PoV, of course.



This is predicated on the notion that the actions of modern Feminists are inline with this Core value, and that this core value remains unchanged.

It is my contention that this is not the case.



At what point does it become adequate? I've discussed issues with numerous Feminists - I can count on one hand the ones who were reasonable. The 'few crazy academics' are sadly not the few, they are the Majority. 40 or so years ago, these were indeed the crazy and radical feminists, now - they are the mainstream feminists.

I can post up some more Academic Feminists doing some truly insane things in order to preserve their narrative. At what point do you concede that maybe there is a rotten core that has corrupted the ideology?



I don't doubt that not all want inequality in their favour. Some demonstrably do, the rest however either:

a: don't consider Men as having an issues (because Patriarchy and privledge)
b: Consider that Men do have issues, but Womens issues are clearly more important (because muh vagina)
c: accept that Men have issues but pay lip service to them or blame men entirely for them (because Feminism has never actively tried to shut down conferences about Male suicide rates....)



When I say they don't work as hard - I mean that they work less hours, often take part time jobs, generally are absent from roles that have an intense physical element to it or a danger element to it.

This is not a Strawman - This was born about by my contention of one of the central tenants of Modern Feminism (The Wage Gap) is complete BS as it is presented by Feminism. That the claim that this 77c on the dollar is due to Sexism when in actuality it's due to life choices that women (on the majority) make vs Men.

The data shows that for women under 30, working the same hours, in the same field as men get (cue drum roll) paid the same. I did read an article that showed in some fields (especially those where Salary negotiation was common) that men tended to earn a little more - and this was theorized to be due to men being more aggressive negotiators.)



When something like 70% of the social scientists describe their political leanings as Left wing, and you are dealing with political topics, it is almost impossible to remove that Bias, especially when dealing with subjects of Morality - essentially because the publishers a priori position is never validated. This is compounded when the peer reviewer (given the near 70% prevalence) is also likely to hold the same a priori position. This is the perfect example of an Academic Echo Chamber.

Article on this (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-social-science-politically-biased/)

Actual scientific paper on this. (https://journals.cambridge.org/images/fileUpload/documents/Duarte-Haidt_BBS-D-14-00108_preprint.pdf)



I think you are stretching that very very thin, I can't think of 2 candidates who on paper were as good as each other, I can think of a few who were close, but when we did the tech assessment there was a very clear difference (which is why we do a Tech assessment)



So we are back to the no true scotsman:

"They aren't a real feminist as they are pushing inequality"

Problem is that you have to reconcile the inequality being pushed in the name of Feminism, by prominent Academic Feminists, by cited Feminist Authors, by Pop-Feminists with large youtube followings, By Tumblrina Feminists.

Just like Islam - when you have 50% or more of UK Muslims saying that Homosexuality should be a Crime, is it not a reasonable position to say that Muslims have a problem with Homophobia?

No, not depending on PoV, since it should be clear that the feminism group contains both those who just want equality, and those who want more.

You need to consider that inaction is an action that aligns with the core value as well. You seem to think the only feminists are those who are vocal, which is an unfounded assumption. What we know is that the feminism ideal was created as a way to get equal rights for women, and has made great progress in this area. We also know these extremist muppets are getting fuck all traction, so you might even think the number of feminists supporting them was vastly less than the number supporting the equal rights that have gone through.

The point where it stops being anecdotal evidence, skewed by your already demonstrated notion that only the loud/active ones are actually feminists. The few crazy academics are most certainly in the minorty, as academics as a whole group are only a very small part of society, for the crazy feminist ones to be in majority of the feminist movement, the whole thing couldn't be larger than what, about 10,000 people? which clearly not the case.

That's not the core ideology at all, equality is (it's documented with the rise of feminism).

You missed one, 0) cos men actually don't have issues. (ascribing that to patriachy and priveledge is an assumption based on the opinion you already hold, this is circular logic).

Gainful employment is not the only place work gets done, to say they work less hard is insulting and incorrect; because the implication is that at the same job they would also work less hard. I've not put forward the pay inequality argument at all, so it is a strawman by the most basic definition.

Utterly incorrect, science does remove political bias, that is why they show their working. The science I asked for is only a simply survey, and would be a trivial matter to show (or remove) any bias; as I've already shown the bias/unsuitability in some of your previous figures.

Regardless, the interview still plays a very important part of the hiring process.

You've stated 'feminism is not for equality' though. That is not the same as saying Feminism has a problem with inequality. It's the typical way in which people predisposed to disliking a group will attribute the actions of a subgroup (be it a 1%, 10%, 50%, 80% portion) as representative of the entire group to further their cause. It's abhorent when bigots do it against race, when done against religion, when done to generate hate towards the 'upper class'; and you should take a good look at yourself and why you are doing it here, the illogic you're using here is out of character with your normally logical and well grounded posts.

[Grumph]

Perhaps I've been born on the wrong fucking planet?

Congratulations, you've finally posted something I can agree with - now if only they'd take you back......

[yokel]

No, not depending on PoV, since it should be clear that the feminism group contains both those who just want equality, and those who want more.

You need to consider that inaction is an action that aligns with the core value as well. You seem to think the only feminists are those who are vocal, which is an unfounded assumption. What we know is that the feminism ideal was created as a way to get equal rights for women, and has made great progress in this area. We also know these extremist muppets are getting fuck all traction, so you might even think the number of feminists supporting them was vastly less than the number supporting the equal rights that have gone through.

The point where it stops being anecdotal evidence, skewed by your already demonstrated notion that only the loud/active ones are actually feminists. The few crazy academics are most certainly in the minorty, as academics as a whole group are only a very small part of society, for the crazy feminist ones to be in majority of the feminist movement, the whole thing couldn't be larger than what, about 10,000 people? which clearly not the case.

That's not the core ideology at all, equality is (it's documented with the rise of feminism).

You missed one, 0) cos men actually don't have issues. (ascribing that to patriachy and priveledge is an assumption based on the opinion you already hold, this is circular logic).

Gainful employment is not the only place work gets done, to say they work less hard is insulting and incorrect; because the implication is that at the same job they would also work less hard. I've not put forward the pay inequality argument at all, so it is a strawman by the most basic definition.

Utterly incorrect, science does remove political bias, that is why they show their working. The science I asked for is only a simply survey, and would be a trivial matter to show (or remove) any bias; as I've already shown the bias/unsuitability in some of your previous figures.

Regardless, the interview still plays a very important part of the hiring process.

You've stated 'feminism is not for equality' though. That is not the same as saying Feminism has a problem with inequality. It's the typical way in which people predisposed to disliking a group will attribute the actions of a subgroup (be it a 1%, 10%, 50%, 80% portion) as representative of the entire group to further their cause. It's abhorent when bigots do it against race, when done against religion, when done to generate hate towards the 'upper class'; and you should take a good look at yourself and why you are doing it here, the illogic you're using here is out of character with your normally logical and well grounded posts.

Thing is men have the "Y" chromosome, it's the difference between making a space craft vs making sandwiches.

How about you hop in that car dive on that road and over that bridge that women designed and built, let's see how far you get?

[WristTwister]

It's a ........intersex it's that simple.
That "doctor" is full of shit, probably a pedophile.

How much medical attention with theses mentality ill people need.

Do you not think letting a kid believe that they're born in the wrong body is going to fuck them up?

It's Gatorade on crops level of thinking.

Perhaps I've been born on the wrong fucking planet?


That "doctor" is the Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and is an internationally recognised specialist in the treatment of transgendered youth. An opinion that being transgendered is "fucked up" is no substitute for research into the clinical and psychological treatment.

Most transgendered kids get beaten and bullied. 35% of Dr Spack's patients had self-harmed or attempted suicide before seeking medical care. That sounds like they already strongly believe they are in the wrong body before they even seek out treatment.

You haven't been born on the wrong planet, you just need to consider the feelings of people that genuinely feel at their core that they're a different gender to the set of genitals they were born with. Don't you care about their happiness, the harassment they have to endure daily from something they feel defines them as a human being? No one is saying we should perform sex changes on every young adult that thinks they might be in the wrong body, the purpose of Dr Spack's work is to determine if that's even necessary, he even states that around 80% of young people who show transgender tendancies return to their cisgender around puberty. But for the small few who need it, why should we stand in the way of them living a happy and fulfilling life as the gender they identify with.

[yokel]

That "doctor" is the Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and is an internationally recognised specialist in the treatment of transgendered youth. An opinion that being transgendered is "fucked up" is no substitute for research into the clinical and psychological treatment.

Most transgendered kids get beaten and bullied. 35% of Dr Spack's patients had self-harmed or attempted suicide before seeking medical care. That sounds like they already strongly believe they are in the wrong body before they even seek out treatment.

You haven't been born on the wrong planet, you just need to consider the feelings of people that genuinely feel at their core that they're a different gender to the set of genitals they were born with. Don't you care about their happiness, the harassment they have to endure daily from something they feel defines them as a human being? No one is saying we should perform sex changes on every young adult that thinks they might be in the wrong body, the purpose of Dr Spack's work is to determine if that's even necessary, he even states that around 80% of young people who show transgender tendancies return to their cisgender around puberty. But for the small few who need it, why should we stand in the way of them living a happy and fulfilling life as the gender they identify with.

I don't give a fuck about peoples "feelings" .
A male can never know what it's like to be a female and vice versa.

Gender is not science you stupid woman, it's an ideology like Santa or the Easter bunny.

Anyone that makes my kids question whether they're male or female will get my fist in their fucking face.

If you want to consider someone's "feelings" what about mine?

[Akzle]

What a load of shit, the words 'man' and 'woman' were around long before 'gender'
correct. back in the ignorant age, before dna and shit, when the only real indicator was whether a human had dangly bits in their crotch.
most of the species has developed somewhat since then. you might catch up one day.


'gender' roles come about because of human behaviour, human behaviour is the result of human male and female sexual biology.

you realy do have a loose association with reality, dont ya.

[Akzle]

That "doctor" is the Associate Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School and is an internationally recognised specialist in the treatment of transgendered youth.

pah! yokel is WAY more qualified than that, he has broadband and youtube!

[yokel]

pah! yokel is WAY more qualified than that, he has broadband and youtube!

I'm identify as an attack helicopter, so I'm clearly more qualified than that human that thinks he's an actual doctor.


https://youtu.be/WPMDCJrRpT8

[TheDemonLord]

making them...? irrelevant? unimportant?

Statistically speaking - yes, they are an outlier.


more, i'd suggest they occur at a higher rate, but go unrecognised cos men feel the societal pressure to be "manly" men, and so probably don't bother asking their doctor if it's normal to enjoy wearing silk panties.

Wanting to wear silk panties =/= Transgender.

If you identify as a Woman - Fine.
If you want to wear silk panties - Fine.
If you want to redefine words to fit your narrative and then say some wholy retarded shit in order to maintain that narrative - we got problems.


the "traditional" gender roles are based on nignorant christian bullshit, and largely -negative- stereotyping, women, rather than nurturing/compassionate are called weak, rather than receptive are "easily mislead".
...where more pagan ideas embraced the yin and yang, the mother earth (rather than the sky father), and probably most importantly. didn't let women out of the cave to start developing stupid ideas about equality.

Traditional Gender roles can be bad, they can also be good.

For sure there are societies that brutally enforce them, however there is work being done in the field of Evolutionary Psychology that suggests our biology informs our Society - which is why universally amongst all cultures they started from a position of Men go off to work/fight and the Women look after the kids.

My position (so as to be clearly distinct from Yokels) is that there is more Gender Roles than purely society (as claimed by Feminists) and that there is a good biological foundation for the way things are. This does not mean that Society should in turn enforce compliance with these roles and neither should society seek to artificially redress a perceived imbalance with people choosing to by and large conform to these roles.

[yokel]

Statistically speaking - yes, they are an outlier.



Wanting to wear silk panties =/= Transgender.

If you identify as a Woman - Fine.
If you want to wear silk panties - Fine.
If you want to redefine words to fit your narrative and then say some wholy retarded shit in order to maintain that narrative - we got problems.



Traditional Gender roles can be bad, they can also be good.

For sure there are societies that brutally enforce them, however there is work being done in the field of Evolutionary Psychology that suggests our biology informs our Society - which is why universally amongst all cultures they started from a position of Men go off to work/fight and the Women look after the kids.

My position (so as to be clearly distinct from Yokels) is that there is more Gender Roles than purely society (as claimed by Feminists) and that there is a good biological foundation for the way things are. This does not mean that Society should in turn enforce compliance with these roles and neither should society seek to artificially redress a perceived imbalance with people choosing to by and large conform to these roles.

Feminists be like , we need to destroy gender stereotypes.
Nek minnit, look a girl wants to wear boys clothes, he must be a boy trapped in a girl's body.

Gender is science fiction.

Btw I'm being an outrageous cunt on purpose.

[Akzle]

Statistically speaking - yes, they are an outlier.
ahhhh. statistics, where if it doesn't give the esult you want, you discard it. hurrah man-society.


If you want to redefine words to fit your narrative and then say some wholy retarded shit in order to maintain that narrative - we got problems.

oh irony!


...there is a good biological foundation for the way things are. This does not mean that Society should in turn enforce compliance with these roles and neither should society seek to artificially redress a perceived imbalance with people choosing to by and large conform to these roles.

quite. quite.

[TheDemonLord]

No, not depending on PoV, since it should be clear that the feminism group contains both those who just want equality, and those who want more.

Again, you are predicating your position on the notion that Feminism the group is conforming to Feminism the definition. By that same standard, Communism was a lovely society to live in.


You need to consider that inaction is an action that aligns with the core value as well. You seem to think the only feminists are those who are vocal, which is an unfounded assumption. What we know is that the feminism ideal was created as a way to get equal rights for women, and has made great progress in this area.

Yes - in the 1970s, when they won all the rights they asked for.


We also know these extremist muppets are getting fuck all traction, so you might even think the number of feminists supporting them was vastly less than the number supporting the equal rights that have gone through.

Getting fuck all traction?!? They invited Anita Sarkesian to the UN FFS for saying Video games cause sexism! This alone would be bad enough except for the fact for nearly 20 years the Moral brigade had been trying to say Video games cause Violence (and was debunked as Horse Shit). It's the same argument, made upon the same flawed premise.

Please tell me how this constitutes 'getting fuck all traction'.


The point where it stops being anecdotal evidence, skewed by your already demonstrated notion that only the loud/active ones are actually feminists.

Fundamentally false - I've only judged those who self-identify as Feminists.


The few crazy academics are most certainly in the minorty, as academics as a whole group are only a very small part of society, for the crazy feminist ones to be in majority of the feminist movement, the whole thing couldn't be larger than what, about 10,000 people? which clearly not the case.

They really aren't though - that is your issue, in fact one estimate from one university alone suggested that over the course of 20 years it will have turned out nearly 300,000 radicalised Feminist Activists.


That's not the core ideology at all, equality is (it's documented with the rise of feminism).

At this point - you are just committing the Appeal to Dictionary Fallacy.


You missed one, 0) cos men actually don't have issues. (ascribing that to patriachy and priveledge is an assumption based on the opinion you already hold, this is circular logic).

Except Men do have issues - for example - the leading cause of death for a young male adult in the UK is suicide. Men have issues with the state treating them as inferiors when it comes to their rights as a parent. Men have issues with recieving much harsher sentances than Women for the exact same crime.

And remember - it's not ME that's ascribing it to Patriarchy or Privledge - it's Feminists: (Take it away Big Red!)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80



Gainful employment is not the only place work gets done, to say they work less hard is insulting and incorrect;

When we are talking about a Wage gap - it's the only place that is relevant. Come on Bogan - you know better than to try and setup that strawman!


because the implication is that at the same job they would also work less hard. I've not put forward the pay inequality argument at all, so it is a strawman by the most basic definition.

But Feminists DO put forward the Pay inequality argument. In Vast numbers and on a regular basis. They are putting forward a Theory that is based on bad statistics, and using this as at base to try and gain inequality.


Utterly incorrect, science does remove political bias, that is why they show their working.

Social Science has a real problem with 30 years of Political Bias. It doesn't mean all it's research is wrong, but of some of the social science papers I've read, there are some massive a priori beliefs that are never quantified or tested, thus pulling the entire paper into question.

Some more proof for you:

Social scientists actively discriminate against peers who hold conservative views (http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf)


The science I asked for is only a simply survey, and would be a trivial matter to show (or remove) any bias; as I've already shown the bias/unsuitability in some of your previous figures.

As always - I'm all for More science to be done on most issues - but considering this:

I made a point,
You made a counter point asking for Citation
I provided a Citation
Your position is now trying to downplay the scope or range of the citation, without a citation of your own.


Regardless, the interview still plays a very important part of the hiring process.

It depends on the field TBH, for some highly technical fields, the interview is more a formality than anything else.


You've stated 'feminism is not for equality' though. That is not the same as saying Feminism has a problem with inequality.

That is correct, I have stated that, because of what I see Feminists campaigning for both on the Micro and Macro scales. Tie this in to the fact that in the West, we have Equality for Women (but not for men) - so if it was about equality, it would stop.

I should add a Caveat - if Me and you were to go to India or Saudi Arabia - I'd happily declare myself a Feminist as they need a good dose of the Bra Burning liberation we saw in the 60s/70s.


It's the typical way in which people predisposed to disliking a group will attribute the actions of a subgroup (be it a 1%, 10%, 50%, 80% portion) as representative of the entire group to further their cause.

You assume a predisposition, which you have zero evidence for, in my case my dislike of Feminism is due to seeing What Feminism claims for itself, then seeing what it actually does - that was what has caused my Dislike. At some point one has to look at what the majority of the individuals within a group believe, and if one has a disagreement with that believe, it is entirely reasonable to say 'I disagree with this ideology as a whole'


It's abhorent when bigots do it against race, when done against religion, when done to generate hate towards the 'upper class'; and you should take a good look at yourself and why you are doing it here, the illogic you're using here is out of character with your normally logical and well grounded posts.

I'm doing it here because there are parts of Feminism that IMO are actively harming young men and Boys - and this fucks me off.

If that makes me a bigot - then so be it, I'll wear that label as there are more important issues other than myself.

[TheDemonLord]

ahhhh. statistics, where if it doesn't give the esult you want, you discard it. hurrah man-society.

Not at all - it's simply a statement that one model has a very high degree of accuracy for between 97-99% of the population.


oh irony!

Like for example Feminist redefinition of Racism (Power+privledge) then using that as justification for the phrase 'I can't be racist, I'm black! Now lets go kill all those crackers' (last bit may be paraphrased)

To everyone else - that statement is clearly racist, but to a Feminist (thanks to the conspiracy theory of Intersectionality) it's not.


quite. quite.

Quite (http://www.mit.edu/~6.s085/papers/sex-differences.pdf)

From a Evolutionary Psychology perspective - there is a very simple explanation for this - the more linear pathways in the Male brain are more suited to make quick decisive decisions, which for Hunting and Fighting makes perfect sense. Conversely when you have a large group of Females and Children (where problems can't be resolved via a fight to the death) much better social pathways are advantageous.

This is not to say this is definitive - there is still a lot of research to be done and still a lot of debate in this area, There is also the possibility that Transgender people feel the way they do because their brains are pathed independently of their genetic sex.

There is also the Mosaic brain theory too.

But from my PoV it comes down to this - as a species, there are certain biological and neurological traits needed in order to form a society (which is why Lions form prides and Tigers don't), extending that logic out, it isn't a large leap of logic to suggest that these certain biological and neurological traits may also inform other behaviors too.

[Akzle]

Not at all - it's simply a statement that one model has a very high degree of accuracy for between 97-99% of the population.

.

...because you discard the data that doesn't suit it :duh:

[bogan]

Again, you are predicating your position on the notion that Feminism the group is conforming to Feminism the definition. By that same standard, Communism was a lovely society to live in.



Yes - in the 1970s, when they won all the rights they asked for.



Getting fuck all traction?!? They invited Anita Sarkesian to the UN FFS for saying Video games cause sexism! This alone would be bad enough except for the fact for nearly 20 years the Moral brigade had been trying to say Video games cause Violence (and was debunked as Horse Shit). It's the same argument, made upon the same flawed premise.

Please tell me how this constitutes 'getting fuck all traction'.



Fundamentally false - I've only judged those who self-identify as Feminists.



They really aren't though - that is your issue, in fact one estimate from one university alone suggested that over the course of 20 years it will have turned out nearly 300,000 radicalised Feminist Activists.



At this point - you are just committing the Appeal to Dictionary Fallacy.



Except Men do have issues - for example - the leading cause of death for a young male adult in the UK is suicide. Men have issues with the state treating them as inferiors when it comes to their rights as a parent. Men have issues with recieving much harsher sentances than Women for the exact same crime.

And remember - it's not ME that's ascribing it to Patriarchy or Privledge - it's Feminists: (Take it away Big Red!)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvYyGTmcP80




When we are talking about a Wage gap - it's the only place that is relevant. Come on Bogan - you know better than to try and setup that strawman!



But Feminists DO put forward the Pay inequality argument. In Vast numbers and on a regular basis. They are putting forward a Theory that is based on bad statistics, and using this as at base to try and gain inequality.



Social Science has a real problem with 30 years of Political Bias. It doesn't mean all it's research is wrong, but of some of the social science papers I've read, there are some massive a priori beliefs that are never quantified or tested, thus pulling the entire paper into question.

Some more proof for you:

Social scientists actively discriminate against peers who hold conservative views (http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf)



As always - I'm all for More science to be done on most issues - but considering this:

I made a point,
You made a counter point asking for Citation
I provided a Citation
Your position is now trying to downplay the scope or range of the citation, without a citation of your own.



It depends on the field TBH, for some highly technical fields, the interview is more a formality than anything else.



That is correct, I have stated that, because of what I see Feminists campaigning for both on the Micro and Macro scales. Tie this in to the fact that in the West, we have Equality for Women (but not for men) - so if it was about equality, it would stop.

I should add a Caveat - if Me and you were to go to India or Saudi Arabia - I'd happily declare myself a Feminist as they need a good dose of the Bra Burning liberation we saw in the 60s/70s.



You assume a predisposition, which you have zero evidence for, in my case my dislike of Feminism is due to seeing What Feminism claims for itself, then seeing what it actually does - that was what has caused my Dislike. At some point one has to look at what the majority of the individuals within a group believe, and if one has a disagreement with that believe, it is entirely reasonable to say 'I disagree with this ideology as a whole'



I'm doing it here because there are parts of Feminism that IMO are actively harming young men and Boys - and this fucks me off.

If that makes me a bigot - then so be it, I'll wear that label as there are more important issues other than myself.

It's a pretty solid notion though. Communism is a political movement with forced participation, so is not even close to being an applicable analogy.

And she makes the same mistakes you are, some video games are sexist, but not all of them. What has she managed to change? that's what I mean by getting fuck all traction.

So how do you survey those who are feminists, but have not identified themselves to you that way? The loud/active ones do, so your sample is skewed; so your judgement that the loud/active ones asking for favorable inequality make up the majority of feminists is invalid.

Surveys show around 10-20% consider themselves feminists, even in NZ that would make your 300k a minority; and I'm fairly sure that university wasn't in NZ...

As opposed to your, 'ignore reality and substitute my own' fallacy it looks rather good. You simply have no basis to say the majority goal of feminists has diverged from the documented and shown by result, original goal. Anecdotal evidence and loudmouthed 1 percenters is inadequate when you are trying to show majority info.

Sexual discrimination issues is what I was referring to when I said men don't have issues.

We are not talking about wage gap though, why do you persist in putting forward this strawman? (go look up strawman, just because other's make the argument doesn't mean it applies to me, since I am not making it) We are talking about the perception that women do not work as hard as men, both from the original article, and things you've said since.

The citation does not address my point, nor did I ask for it.

The majority of feminism has stopped in the west. You can't not be a feminist in one country, and then be one in another due to a change in circumstance; as that would require the definition of a feminist to change (and to a near polar opposite) with circumstance also.

And you're back to the majority belief circular logic again.

'There are parts', so how about you focus on those parts instead of the movement as a whole.

[TheDemonLord]

...because you discard the data that doesn't suit it :duh:

If my contention was ALL, then you would have a point, but my Contention is the Majority.

And last I checked - 97% was definitely considered an overwhelming majority.

[TheDemonLord]

It's a pretty solid notion though. Communism is a political movement with forced participation, so is not even close to being an applicable analogy.

Well, if I was to use your logic against you - I'd say that in the core idea of Communism there is no reference to Forced participation....

Do you see the problem?

We define Communism by what it's actions are, not solely by what it's theory states.

Same with Feminism.


And she makes the same mistakes you are, some video games are sexist, but not all of them. What has she managed to change? that's what I mean by getting fuck all traction.

Some video games ARE sexist, however the claim was that they CAUSE Sexism. She's also been invited to speak at numerous Feminist conventions and conferences, TEDx talks, She also raised hundreds of thousands of dollars - so clearly she IS getting some traction.


So how do you survey those who are feminists, but have not identified themselves to you that way? The loud/active ones do, so your sample is skewed; so your judgement that the loud/active ones asking for favorable inequality make up the majority of feminists is invalid.

Which would be entirely valid if Feminist theory from Academia was in conflict with those who identified as Feminist, If it was in conflict with major figureheads of the Feminist movement, If it was in conflict with what was written in Feminist Books, If it was in conflict with what is posted on Feminist websites.

Again - what Metric is acceptable to you? Because TBH - I think you are shifting the Goal Posts.


Surveys show around 10-20% consider themselves feminists, even in NZ that would make your 300k a minority; and I'm fairly sure that university wasn't in NZ...

That survey is for Women, only 10-20% of Women consider themselves Feminists - Wonder why that is? Maybe because they know they have the same rights as Men and are not oppressed? But what would 80-90% of the Female population know... They're just women right...


As opposed to your, 'ignore reality and substitute my own' fallacy it looks rather good. You simply have no basis to say the majority goal of feminists has diverged from the documented and shown by result, original goal. Anecdotal evidence and loudmouthed 1 percenters is inadequate when you are trying to show majority info.

Okay, define the Metric that you will accept to prove that it has moved from it's original intent.


Sexual discrimination issues is what I was referring to when I said men don't have issues.

And yet, they do....


We are not talking about wage gap though, why do you persist in putting forward this strawman? (go look up strawman, just because other's make the argument doesn't mean it applies to me, since I am not making it) We are talking about the perception that women do not work as hard as men, both from the original article, and things you've said since.

My original stance was there are some deep seated issues within Feminism - my proof of this claim was in the Wage Gap as put forward by Feminists. You said a couple posts ago that when talking about how hard (or not) women work, we shouldn't be focussing on Paid employment - but when that is the Metric raised in the original comment, it seems acceptable to reference it. The issue here is that on the whole a large portion of Women choose to not work, to work part time or to not go into careers/roles with high commitments.

From this PoV, even if the percentage is pulled from his arse, the original speaker has a point. I personally have no problem with them opting not to work full time or work at all - it's their choice afterall, but

However, we appear to arguing cross-purposes, I shall reframe the discussion:

Is the Wage Gap (as described by the majority of Feminists) the result of Sexism (as is claimed)
If not, then is it fair to say that this majority of Feminists believe in a Myth?
If they Believe in a Myth, is it then fair to say that there is some serious problems with Feminism, in that it believes in things that aren't real?


The citation does not address my point, nor did I ask for it.

Yeah, yah did:


I would like to see that 2:1 STEM hiring bias data,


The majority of feminism has stopped in the west. You can't not be a feminist in one country, and then be one in another due to a change in circumstance; as that would require the definition of a feminist to change (and to a near polar opposite) with circumstance also.

Modern Feminism wants to take down the Patriarchy - in Saudi Arabia, there is objectively a Patriarchal system, with legal discrimination against Women. On that basis, I'd be happy to call myself a Feminist as the goal of Feminism has not yet been achieved in that country.


And you're back to the majority belief circular logic again.

'There are parts', so how about you focus on those parts instead of the movement as a whole.

If we can't define a group by what the majority of it's members believe - then what is the point? Seriously?

It would be like me trying to argue that we shouldn't say Motorcyclists ride Motorbikes, because there are some people who have Trikes....

You are trying to pass the buck of the issues with the majority held opinions onto a subset or an imagined Minority.

[bogan]

Well, if I was to use your logic against you - I'd say that in the core idea of Communism there is no reference to Forced participation....

Do you see the problem?

We define Communism by what it's actions are, not solely by what it's theory states.

Same with Feminism.



Some video games ARE sexist, however the claim was that they CAUSE Sexism. She's also been invited to speak at numerous Feminist conventions and conferences, TEDx talks, She also raised hundreds of thousands of dollars - so clearly she IS getting some traction.



Which would be entirely valid if Feminist theory from Academia was in conflict with those who identified as Feminist, If it was in conflict with major figureheads of the Feminist movement, If it was in conflict with what was written in Feminist Books, If it was in conflict with what is posted on Feminist websites.

Again - what Metric is acceptable to you? Because TBH - I think you are shifting the Goal Posts.



That survey is for Women, only 10-20% of Women consider themselves Feminists - Wonder why that is? Maybe because they know they have the same rights as Men and are not oppressed? But what would 80-90% of the Female population know... They're just women right...



Okay, define the Metric that you will accept to prove that it has moved from it's original intent.



And yet, they do....



My original stance was there are some deep seated issues within Feminism - my proof of this claim was in the Wage Gap as put forward by Feminists. You said a couple posts ago that when talking about how hard (or not) women work, we shouldn't be focussing on Paid employment - but when that is the Metric raised in the original comment, it seems acceptable to reference it. The issue here is that on the whole a large portion of Women choose to not work, to work part time or to not go into careers/roles with high commitments.

From this PoV, even if the percentage is pulled from his arse, the original speaker has a point. I personally have no problem with them opting not to work full time or work at all - it's their choice afterall, but

However, we appear to arguing cross-purposes, I shall reframe the discussion:

Is the Wage Gap (as described by the majority of Feminists) the result of Sexism (as is claimed)
If not, then is it fair to say that this majority of Feminists believe in a Myth?
If they Believe in a Myth, is it then fair to say that there is some serious problems with Feminism, in that it believes in things that aren't real?



Yeah, yah did:





Modern Feminism wants to take down the Patriarchy - in Saudi Arabia, there is objectively a Patriarchal system, with legal discrimination against Women. On that basis, I'd be happy to call myself a Feminist as the goal of Feminism has not yet been achieved in that country.



If we can't define a group by what the majority of it's members believe - then what is the point? Seriously?

It would be like me trying to argue that we shouldn't say Motorcyclists ride Motorbikes, because there are some people who have Trikes....

You are trying to pass the buck of the issues with the majority held opinions onto a subset or an imagined Minority.

The problem is you're getting bogged down with all these analogies and anecdotes; instead of addressing the two main points:

1) extremist feminism is a subgroup of feminism, and the whole group should not be judged by their actions, especially considering you have no evidence showing them to be in majority
2) that women work as hard as men

Now, if you'd like to have a go at debating those without getting into communism and the wage disparity strawman that'd be great.

[TheDemonLord]

The problem is you're getting bogged down with all these analogies and anecdotes; instead of addressing the two main points:

1) extremist feminism is a subgroup of feminism, and the whole group should not be judged by their actions, especially considering you have no evidence showing them to be in majority

I've posted evidence to show that both the Academic and Populist sectors have common elements, you've simply asserted that these aren't representative of the Majority, without showing what the Majority is, but since you still ask for proof - name your standard of proof?


2) that women work as hard as men

By what Metric?
If you are talking about raw output and productivity for a company, then sorry Ladies, but on Average men work harder.
If you are talking about hard work in terms of risk factor, then again Men far exceed the ladies here.
If you are talking about productivity per hour worked - then I'd agree on average they work as hard as men - I'd posit that in some industries they work harder in others, not as hard - but I'd be happy to say on average using this metric, they work as hard.


Now, if you'd like to have a go at debating those without getting into communism and the wage disparity strawman that'd be great.

Considering much of Modern Feminist theory is built upon Marxist ideology, Communism is entirely relevant, and further considering that the Wage Gap is one of the 3 fundamental issues discussed by Modern Feminism, I'd say also - it is entirely relevant.

[bogan]

I've posted evidence to show that both the Academic and Populist sectors have common elements, you've simply asserted that these aren't representative of the Majority, without showing what the Majority is, but since you still ask for proof - name your standard of proof?



By what Metric?
If you are talking about raw output and productivity for a company, then sorry Ladies, but on Average men work harder.
If you are talking about hard work in terms of risk factor, then again Men far exceed the ladies here.
If you are talking about productivity per hour worked - then I'd agree on average they work as hard as men - I'd posit that in some industries they work harder in others, not as hard - but I'd be happy to say on average using this metric, they work as hard.



Considering much of Modern Feminist theory is built upon Marxist ideology, Communism is entirely relevant, and further considering that the Wage Gap is one of the 3 fundamental issues discussed by Modern Feminism, I'd say also - it is entirely relevant.

The standard of proof would be representative surveys, which are not biased towards activity, just self identification. Ie, are you a feminist? yes, do you believe women should be treated differently and preferentially to men as part of the feminism principals (or words to that effect).

The third metric is the only one that is applicable as a generalised statement. If the chancellor had kept this in mind he would still have a job.

It is relevant to your opinion of feminism, and the shortfalls in it you perceive. It is not relevant to the current discussion points.

[Katman]

Fuck me, this thread looks like some sort of Autistics Anonymous meeting.

[bogan]

Fuck me, this thread looks like some sort of Autistics Anonymous meeting.

:laugh: Actually thought about making a bet to see how long it would take the fan club to come out with that 'gem'.

[yokel]

Finally, a solution to the gender pay gap.
Because you know women are equal to men.


https://youtu.be/c7uVxHLT-aY

[Grumph]

Fuck me, this thread looks like some sort of Autistics Anonymous meeting.

Can you be infracted for excessive use of the multi-quote button ?

If not, why not ?

[bogan]

Can you be infracted for excessive use of the multi-quote button ?

If not, why not ?

Like sands through the hourglass; these are, the questions of our time.

[Akzle]

Can you be infracted for excessive use of the multi-quote button ?

If not, why not ?

these aren't multi-quotes bra'
just slipping some [/quote] s in. it actually improves continuity and makes it less of a guessing game which of bog's irrelevant points shitlord is addressing.

[FJRider]

Well, if I was to use your logic against you - I'd say that in the core idea of Communism there is no reference to Forced participation....

Do you see the problem?

We define Communism by what it's actions are, not solely by what it's theory states.

Same with Feminism.

I'd say that in the core idea in a communist society ... is ... there is no reference to having a choice about your participation. The foundation of a free society is ALL about freedom of choice.

The sticking point in a free society is ... some (many) are offended by the vocal and public choices of other members of that "free" society. Thus ... you are free to choose ... but NOT free to offend.

Although this thread is about feminists ... the main basis of any activist group is to gain activity in areas ... the people in authority say they cannot.

There are still gender specific occupations in NZ ... that women (and men) are barred from, simply because it may cause offense to those they work for and with. Many men in employment roles (formally women only) ... do not get paid more than women. Should it not be a case of the proven ability to do the job ... not your sex ... that determines how much you are paid .. ??

Perhaps ... those that wish to change the "Patriarchal Systems" in another country ... should attempt the start of the process in that country.

How a group is defined is based usually on its members common goal(s). Not just their personal beliefs in what they think they should be allowed to do as a group. Motorcyclists included. Remember ... motorcyclists are a minority in this country. Even if the majority of that minority wants change ... it doesn't automatically make those changes right.

[yokel]

Feminists are not the brightest lot, this chick sounds just like Bogan.


https://youtu.be/GuTWMMpv4yk

[TheDemonLord]

The standard of proof would be representative surveys, which are not biased towards activity, just self identification. Ie, are you a feminist? yes, do you believe women should be treated differently and preferentially to men as part of the feminism principals (or words to that effect).

So I've got a few surveys:

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3570070/Vox_Poll_Toplines__2_.0.pdf

Note, it's not a very good survey (small sample size) - what I do find interesting is that 18% of respondents self identify as Feminist, and 85% believe in the Equality of Women. I think its a fair assumption that all of the 18% of Feminists agree with this goal - which means there is 67% of people who by proxy don't believe that Feminism (as it currently stands) is about the equality of Women.

Additional survey here - http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/toplines_gender_0411122013.pdf again - with very similar numbers (20% Feminists, 82% gender equality)

A Further Survey (which directly play into my point about Universities churning out Feminist Activists) http://www.hercampus.com/life/hcs-feminism-campus-survey-2015?mc_cid=d74bddad50&mc_eid=e897e01d9f

Also this rather interesting stat - 89.5% of the respondents believe in a Wage Gap.

I'd say that's a rather large nail in your argument that it's a small minority and most Feminists don't believe it and that Feminist Academia isn't representative of Feminism as a whole/key in driving Feminist theory.

But I would be interested in a better surveys - however the Data on hand does line up with the positions I hold.


The third metric is the only one that is applicable as a generalised statement. If the chancellor had kept this in mind he would still have a job.

And what if the Chancellor was referring to the First Metric?


It is relevant to your opinion of feminism, and the shortfalls in it you perceive. It is not relevant to the current discussion points.

Disagree - it is relevant to understanding what Feminism is, how it behaves (as a group) and why it behaved in that manner.

[bogan]

So I've got a few surveys:

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/3570070/Vox_Poll_Toplines__2_.0.pdf

Note, it's not a very good survey (small sample size) - what I do find interesting is that 18% of respondents self identify as Feminist, and 85% believe in the Equality of Women. I think its a fair assumption that all of the 18% of Feminists agree with this goal - which means there is 67% of people who by proxy don't believe that Feminism (as it currently stands) is about the equality of Women.

Additional survey here - http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/toplines_gender_0411122013.pdf again - with very similar numbers (20% Feminists, 82% gender equality)

A Further Survey (which directly play into my point about Universities churning out Feminist Activists) http://www.hercampus.com/life/hcs-feminism-campus-survey-2015?mc_cid=d74bddad50&mc_eid=e897e01d9f

Also this rather interesting stat - 89.5% of the respondents believe in a Wage Gap.

I'd say that's a rather large nail in your argument that it's a small minority and most Feminists don't believe it and that Feminist Academia isn't representative of Feminism as a whole/key in driving Feminist theory.

But I would be interested in a better surveys - however the Data on hand does line up with the positions I hold.



And what if the Chancellor was referring to the First Metric?



Disagree - it is relevant to understanding what Feminism is, how it behaves (as a group) and why it behaved in that manner.

Now those surveys do make a compelling point that the public opinion of feminism does not align well with the original goal of equality. That third link showing feminist beliefs seems to be the closest to what I was after, "What does feminism mean to you?" got 5% anti-men, the other options were all equality based with the lowest getting 66%. So while I'll concede the public opinion seems to be much closer to your own, what they themselves actually stand for, still appears to be equality, and it remains what their majority stand for that is being discussed, not the public opinion of that.

Which raises an interesting notion, by grouping the 5% (this particular number is likely low due to the negative tone in the answer choice, but the point remains) of anti-men feminists with the other 95%, surely you've just increased the apparent following of the extremists. Would it not be better to take just that 5% out, so they remain a smaller number, thus a lesser force/issue?

If he was referring to the first metric he should have a) made certain to qualify it as such b) not done so, since it is not applicable.

An unsuitable analogy, and strawman argument may be relevant to your understanding, but my contention is that your understanding is wrong due to such illogic, so those things are certainly not relevant to me.

[TheDemonLord]

Now those surveys do make a compelling point that the public opinion of feminism does not align well with the original goal of equality.

And why is that? Either the entire public are under some shared delusion, or Feminism has some 'splaining to do...


That third link showing feminist beliefs seems to be the closest to what I was after, "What does feminism mean to you?" got 5% anti-men, the other options were all equality based with the lowest getting 66%. So while I'll concede the public opinion seems to be much closer to your own, what they themselves actually stand for, still appears to be equality, and it remains what their majority stand for that is being discussed, not the public opinion of that.

Yes..... I never said they didn't believe they stood for equality, I said by their actions they AREN'T standing for Equality. So whilst 5% said they were anti-men, 90% said they believed in a Pay Gap - which is a Myth. Based on that erroneous belief, they then go out and try to enact policy to redress a non-existent inbalance - and by extension, that ends up being Anti-Men.


Which raises an interesting notion, by grouping the 5% (this particular number is likely low due to the negative tone in the answer choice, but the point remains) of anti-men feminists with the other 95%, surely you've just increased the apparent following of the extremists. Would it not be better to take just that 5% out, so they remain a smaller number, thus a lesser force/issue?

Who is Strawmanning who? I've made no claims as to the 5% who are openly anti-men. only that 90% of them believe in something that isn't real, then use this belief to push legislation and policy that is discriminatory which as a practical result of the groups actions, makes it anti-men.


If he was referring to the first metric he should have a) made certain to qualify it as such b) not done so, since it is not applicable.

Would it not be prudent to seek clarification before sending someone to the gallows? Or is his crime of Heresy so grave as to warrant execution without a trial?


An unsuitable analogy, and strawman argument may be relevant to your understanding, but my contention is that your understanding is wrong due to such illogic, so those things are certainly not relevant to me.

You are entitled to that position, as I am entitled to say that the formation of it was as a result of interacting with Feminists.

[bogan]

And why is that? Either the entire public are under some shared delusion, or Feminism has some 'splaining to do...



Yes..... I never said they didn't believe they stood for equality, I said by their actions they AREN'T standing for Equality. So whilst 5% said they were anti-men, 90% said they believed in a Pay Gap - which is a Myth. Based on that erroneous belief, they then go out and try to enact policy to redress a non-existent inbalance - and by extension, that ends up being Anti-Men.



Who is Strawmanning who? I've made no claims as to the 5% who are openly anti-men. only that 90% of them believe in something that isn't real, then use this belief to push legislation and policy that is discriminatory which as a practical result of the groups actions, makes it anti-men.



Would it not be prudent to seek clarification before sending someone to the gallows? Or is his crime of Heresy so grave as to warrant execution without a trial?



You are entitled to that position, as I am entitled to say that the formation of it was as a result of interacting with Feminists.

Or a vocal minority is distorting popular opinion of the group.


my contention is that Feminism is not for Equality.

Nothing about actions there? And since equality has pretty much been achieved, the actions of those simply after equality have dried up; so it is illogical to use action as a measure of majority opinion for the group.

It was an interesting notion, not a counterargument, so not a strawman either.

He resigned, so he wasn't sent to the gallows. Simply adding such an inapplicable statement to the mix shows gender bias, clarification does not remove that; so I believe the public response was justified.

[yokel]

Or a vocal minority is distorting popular opinion of the group.



Nothing about actions there? And since equality has pretty much been achieved, the actions of those simply after equality have dried up; so it is illogical to use action as a measure of majority opinion for the group.

It was an interesting notion, not a counterargument, so not a strawman either.

He resigned, so he wasn't sent to the gallows. Simply adding such an inapplicable statement to the mix shows gender bias, clarification does not remove that; so I believe the public response was justified.

Hey dummy, do you know where babies come from?
When someone gives birth, why is it called "going into labour" ?

An overly vocal minority is not a public response.

[TheDemonLord]

Or a vocal minority is distorting popular opinion of the group.

Which would be a valid option, if 90% of them didn't believe in something proven false. 90% is not a minority.... Not to mention this is in Academia...


Nothing about actions there? And since equality has pretty much been achieved, the actions of those simply after equality have dried up; so it is illogical to use action as a measure of majority opinion for the group.

Or the other options - people that were feminists saw what Feminism had become and walked away or they had achieved their goals and hung up their laurels - you don't see many abolitionists round these days....


He resigned, so he wasn't sent to the gallows. Simply adding such an inapplicable statement to the mix shows gender bias, clarification does not remove that; so I believe the public response was justified.

Jump or be pushed - The public response would be justified if that same public acted the same way when a woman in power says something ill-thought out and can be construed as Sexist, but they don't. That is my issue here:

Man says something that could be interpreted as sexist: "FETCH THE PITCHFORKS! BURN HIM! BUUUUUURN!"
Woman says something that could be interpreted as sexist: ~the sound of crickets and tumbleweed rolling by~

[yokel]

this adds some balance, kinda unusual for Stuff.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/87711786/chris-kelly-has-been-hung-out-to-dry-for-his-comments-on-gender

At the end of the day , men's words get held to a higher standard than women because men are more important. all women have to say is pointless drivel.(well most of the time)


https://youtu.be/Qqswbt85iBg

[bogan]

Which would be a valid option, if 90% of them didn't believe in something proven false. 90% is not a minority.... Not to mention this is in Academia...



Or the other options - people that were feminists saw what Feminism had become and walked away or they had achieved their goals and hung up their laurels - you don't see many abolitionists round these days....



Jump or be pushed - The public response would be justified if that same public acted the same way when a woman in power says something ill-thought out and can be construed as Sexist, but they don't. That is my issue here:

Man says something that could be interpreted as sexist: "FETCH THE PITCHFORKS! BURN HIM! BUUUUUURN!"
Woman says something that could be interpreted as sexist: ~the sound of crickets and tumbleweed rolling by~

Strawman again, it doesn't matter that they believe in false info, since we are asking what their goal is; not what their actions are contributory to. Because you can fix false information, but not an inequitable goal.

Being a feminist doesn't mean one must do action; you showed 18% still identify as feminist, what actions have you seen from them?

Obviously there remains a double standard when it comes to sexist comments; that doesn't excuse males making sexist comments simply cos females get away with it. Oh, and it was sexist, there is no other reasonable interpretation.

[TheDemonLord]

Strawman again, it doesn't matter that they believe in false info, since we are asking what their goal is; not what their actions are contributory to.

BS. Anyone can state what their goal is, however it is the Actions that speak to their true intentions.


Because you can fix false information, but not an inequitable goal.

Except you can't fix inequality with a Lie that generates MORE inequality. I could maybe give it a slight pass if there was a group of Figurehead Feminists or Academic Feminists who were actively working to dispel this myth. But there isn't, those who have (Christina Hoff Summers or Janice Fiamengo) are cast out of Heretics and branded as not Feminists by the Majority of Feminists.


Being a feminist doesn't mean one must do action; you showed 18% still identify as feminist, what actions have you seen from them?


Blocking attempts to expand the definition of Rape so that a Woman can rape a man (http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape)
Twice (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Activists-join-chorus-against-gender-neutral-rape-laws/articleshow/18840879.cms)
Actively opposing Shared Parenting as the Default situation for seperated couples with Children (http://www.nownys.org/archives/leg_memos/oppose_a00330.html)
The owner of the only Men's Abuse shelter in Canada committed Suicide after repeatedly failing to get Federal assistance for the ONLY Men's shelter in canada (http://womenspost.ca/owner-of-shelter-for-abused-men-and-children-commits-suicide-after-financial-ruin-ridicule/)
Meanwhile, the Feminist lobby group has managed to secure $90 million Canacian for some 3000 odd shelters for Women in Canada. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/federal-budget-womens-shelters-1.3510308)

Not to mention the protest clip of Big Red (not an isolated incident) where Feminist hate mob have protested events to talk about Men's issues.


Obviously there remains a double standard when it comes to sexist comments;

Glad you agree - can you point me to the Feminists (those who according to you are so ardently striving for equality) that are re-dressing this imbalance? The good Majority of Feminists who only want equality who speak either defend men in leadership positions when they make a poor comment or condemn Women in leadership positions for the same crime?

You can't? Something Something clearly not for equality something.


that doesn't excuse males making sexist comments simply cos females get away with it.

Well, it depends on which standard you want to apply - I for one think there should be quite a bit of leeway in the interpretation of ones speech, one should be given the opportunity to clarify and give context to statements, as opposed to the kneejerk, baying for blood reaction that we see.


Oh, and it was sexist, there is no other reasonable interpretation.

In the same way that it's racist to say Maoris are over-represented in the Prison population....

[husaberg]

There are currently billions of women who are smarter than you - so does that make you a substandard, below par male?

That would only be one of the reasons, the others are pretty obvious.

[bogan]

BS. Anyone can state what their goal is, however it is the Actions that speak to their true intentions.



Except you can't fix inequality with a Lie that generates MORE inequality. I could maybe give it a slight pass if there was a group of Figurehead Feminists or Academic Feminists who were actively working to dispel this myth. But there isn't, those who have (Christina Hoff Summers or Janice Fiamengo) are cast out of Heretics and branded as not Feminists by the Majority of Feminists.




Blocking attempts to expand the definition of Rape so that a Woman can rape a man (http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Womens-groups-Cancel-law-charging-women-with-rape)
Twice (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Activists-join-chorus-against-gender-neutral-rape-laws/articleshow/18840879.cms)
Actively opposing Shared Parenting as the Default situation for seperated couples with Children (http://www.nownys.org/archives/leg_memos/oppose_a00330.html)
The owner of the only Men's Abuse shelter in Canada committed Suicide after repeatedly failing to get Federal assistance for the ONLY Men's shelter in canada (http://womenspost.ca/owner-of-shelter-for-abused-men-and-children-commits-suicide-after-financial-ruin-ridicule/)
Meanwhile, the Feminist lobby group has managed to secure $90 million Canacian for some 3000 odd shelters for Women in Canada. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/federal-budget-womens-shelters-1.3510308)

Not to mention the protest clip of Big Red (not an isolated incident) where Feminist hate mob have protested events to talk about Men's issues.



Glad you agree - can you point me to the Feminists (those who according to you are so ardently striving for equality) that are re-dressing this imbalance? The good Majority of Feminists who only want equality who speak either defend men in leadership positions when they make a poor comment or condemn Women in leadership positions for the same crime?

You can't? Something Something clearly not for equality something.



Well, it depends on which standard you want to apply - I for one think there should be quite a bit of leeway in the interpretation of ones speech, one should be given the opportunity to clarify and give context to statements, as opposed to the kneejerk, baying for blood reaction that we see.



In the same way that it's racist to say Maoris are over-represented in the Prison population....

It is better to evaluate actions as a measure of true intentions where practical; but in this case inaction must be considered an action in its own right, and you do not seem to understand this point so keep focusing on the actions coming from feminist extremists instead of balancing this against the millions of feminists who see that with their equality achieved, it is time for inaction.

That's why you fix the false information with enlightening information, as is being done with the wage gap (non)issue.

Total number of activists in all those articles, less than 100k right? So the other hundred million or so have chosen inaction. Something something majority? :scratch:

Can you point to the 80% who are also for equality but not feminists who are getting up in arms about females making sexist comments? no, then maybe being for equality doesn't mean doing that. We've come from a time of sexist discrimination against woman, so kid gloves are required around statements and actions which could regress that situation.

Not in the same way at all, since Maori's are statistically over-represented in the prison system (stats can be provided), but female vets careers being working 40% the duration of male vet careers? stats cannot be provided.

[TheDemonLord]

It is better to evaluate actions as a measure of true intentions where practical; but in this case inaction must be considered an action in its own right, and you do not seem to understand this point so keep focusing on the actions coming from feminist extremists instead of balancing this against the millions of feminist who see that with their equality, it is time for inaction.

Consider your argument:

"I'm a Metal head!"
So you listen to Metal?
"No."
So you go to see Metal Bands live?
"No."
So you wear Metal T-Shirts?
"No."

Not much of a Metalhead then....

You are trying to claim (without evidence or citation mind) that there is this vast majority, who don't participate in Feminist lobbying/activism, that don't participate in Feminist theory or discussion, that aren't part of Feminist academia, that do nothing associated with Modern Feminism - are in fact Feminists.

It's a laughable argument, especially when we look at what 90% of self identified Feminists actually believe.


That's why you fix the false information with enlightening information, as is being done with the wage gap (non)issue.

And what then, do you do, when the very structure(s) that should be fixing the False information are actively disseminating it? Does that not suggest there is something very wrong at the Core of what Feminism is today?


Total number of activists in all those articles, less than 100k right? So the other hundred million or so have chosen inaction. Something something majority? :scratch:

Define how you derived that number? Considering that the NOW orgnanization (just one organization referenced) boasts numbers on their site (for various Feminist protests) of 500,000 - 1.15 Million, and revenue between 260-330 Million USD per annum.

Something Something Majority indeed.


Can you point to the 80% who are also for equality but not feminists who are getting up in arms about females making sexist comments? no, then maybe being for equality doesn't mean doing that.

They are the 80% who aren't getting up in arms when Men do it. See? Equality - don't care what Men say, don't care what Women say.


We've come from a time of sexist discrimination against woman, so kid gloves are required around statements and actions which could regress that situation.

So what you are saying is - that Women are so weak and feeble that a few ill-thought out words will revoke their right to vote, their right to equal pay and will send them straight back into the Kitchen to be bare-foot and pregnant.

Funnily enough - I happen to think that Women are stronger than that and can actually handle a little verbal critique.


Not in the same way at all, since Maori's are statistically over-represented in the prison system (stats can be provided), but female vets careers being working 40% the duration of male vet careers? stats cannot be provided.

And when we know that 90% of employed Men are full time, whereas around 66% of employed Women are full time in NZ, which by some quick and dirty maths gives a figure approximately around 40% if you take full time working men to be a value of 1, it's suddenly not quite as sexist as it first appears.

I don't know for certain if this extends to the Veterinary world - but based on what we know of other industries, it's closer to the statement that Maoris are over represented in the prisons rather than the racist statement 'All Maoris are criminals'

[bogan]

Consider your argument:

"I'm a Metal head!"
So you listen to Metal?
"No."
So you go to see Metal Bands live?
"No."
So you wear Metal T-Shirts?
"No."

Not much of a Metalhead then....

You are trying to claim (without evidence or citation mind) that there is this vast majority, who don't participate in Feminist lobbying/activism, that don't participate in Feminist theory or discussion, that aren't part of Feminist academia, that do nothing associated with Modern Feminism - are in fact Feminists.

It's a laughable argument, especially when we look at what 90% of self identified Feminists actually believe.



And what then, do you do, when the very structure(s) that should be fixing the False information are actively disseminating it? Does that not suggest there is something very wrong at the Core of what Feminism is today?



Define how you derived that number? Considering that the NOW orgnanization (just one organization referenced) boasts numbers on their site (for various Feminist protests) of 500,000 - 1.15 Million, and revenue between 260-330 Million USD per annum.

Something Something Majority indeed.



They are the 80% who aren't getting up in arms when Men do it. See? Equality - don't care what Men say, don't care what Women say.



So what you are saying is - that Women are so weak and feeble that a few ill-thought out words will revoke their right to vote, their right to equal pay and will send them straight back into the Kitchen to be bare-foot and pregnant.

Funnily enough - I happen to think that Women are stronger than that and can actually handle a little verbal critique.


Your analogies are getting worse. Try firemen instead.

On the contrary, I am pointing out that there is no evidence to say the majority of feminists has diverged from the original intent of equality. The burden of proof is on you to support your claim that they have. As I said, you still do not understand that a feminist can see their goal achieved, and decide to do no more; think of the fireman, they stop once the fire is put out, as that is their goal.

Nope, fake news is fucking everywhere, you can't put that on feminism.

Just made a wild guess since your articles rambled on about some other shit. Even if you consider all of those in that organisation to be extremists, they're still by far in the minority since 100>>1.15

How do you know the 80% for equality aren't getting up in arms when sexist comments are made by males?

I'm say that the disproportionate reaction to male/female sexist comments is because those things happened (rather disproportionately one could say). They still happen in some countries, and there are still people who wish to see it happen again in ours.


I don't know for certain if this extends to the Veterinary world

Neither did the chancellor... And your maths must have been pretty dirty to get 66/90 equal to 40% (it's 73 btw).

[TheDemonLord]

Your analogies are getting worse. Try firemen instead.

So, you don't go to fight a fire, you don't don a firesuit, you don't operate a hose, you don't drive a firetruck, you don't pull people from a burning building - you aren't a fireman.


On the contrary, I am pointing out that there is no evidence to say the majority of feminists has diverged from the original intent of equality. The burden of proof is on you to support your claim that they have. As I said, you still do not understand that a feminist can see their goal achieved, and decide to do no more; think of the fireman, they stop once the fire is put out, as that is their goal.

90%.

You need to bring some proof of your counter claim.


Nope, fake news is fucking everywhere, you can't put that on feminism.

Not news, Academia. So yes, I can put that on Feminism.


Just made a wild guess since your articles rambled on about some other shit. Even if you consider all of those in that organisation to be extremists, they're still by far in the minority since 100>>1.15

Where did you get 100 from? And are you really trying to say that the biggest Feminist organization/lobby group in the US is somehow an extremist off-shoot?

I mean, it certainly proves my point that the Majority are in fact 'the extremists'


How do you know the 80% for equality aren't getting up in arms when sexist comments are made by males?

The same way that you don't.

That plus these hate brigades are usually spearheaded by the same group of people.


I'm say that the disproportionate reaction to male/female sexist comments is because those things happened (rather disproportionately one could say).

So, Women are incapable of fending off a few choice remarks, and this will see them back to Victorian standards of living... As I said, I think women are a lot more capable than that - it's why I treat them as Adults and not children.


They still happen in some countries, and there are still people who wish to see it happen again in ours.

Yes and if we lived in those countries or those people held a majority position, you might have a point.


Neither did the chancellor... And your maths must have been pretty dirty to get 66/90 equal to 40% (it's 73 btw).

Ooooooh Bogan, I am disapoint - The comparison was for part time women to full time men - you forgot to take the inverse: 33/90 - which is 36.6% (hence my quick and dirty maths was actually pretty accurate)

[bogan]

So, you don't go to fight a fire, you don't don a firesuit, you don't operate a hose, you don't drive a firetruck, you don't pull people from a burning building - you aren't a fireman.



90%.

You need to bring some proof of your counter claim.



Not news, Academia. So yes, I can put that on Feminism.



Where did you get 100 from? And are you really trying to say that the biggest Feminist organization/lobby group in the US is somehow an extremist off-shoot?

I mean, it certainly proves my point that the Majority are in fact 'the extremists'



The same way that you don't.

That plus these hate brigades are usually spearheaded by the same group of people.



So, Women are incapable of fending off a few choice remarks, and this will see them back to Victorian standards of living... As I said, I think women are a lot more capable than that - it's why I treat them as Adults and not children.



Yes and if we lived in those countries or those people held a majority position, you might have a point.



Ooooooh Bogan, I am disapoint - The comparison was for part time women to full time men - you forgot to take the inverse: 33/90 - which is 36.6% (hence my quick and dirty maths was actually pretty accurate)

Perhaps analogies aren't really your thing. Let's look at the point you are trying to make, that 'the majoirty of feminists want more than equality', you've now got to the point where you are trying to exclude any feminist who doesn't want more than equality from that definition. That is very illogical.

Believing fake stats does not change their motivations, please stop with this strawman.

Which simply shows bias on your part.

18% of people identify as feminists right? 100mil is thus a low estimate of their total numbers. 100 remains vastly bigger than 1.15, so no, it does not show majority at all. I putting some ballpark figures in so we don't have to get bogged down with exactly what those 1.15mil people stand for; they're simply not a majority.

That I don't what? Get up in arms when sexist comment are made by males?

Why would it have to be women who fend off the remarks? and isn't fending off the remarks what was done to the chancellor?

You're losing the plot, why the fuck would you compare the part time women with the full time men to try and show relative career durations? With all this illogic, occams razor is starting to show...

[James Deuce]

Men have been actively discriminatory and violent toward women for centuries, operating from a position of privilege that has become so entrenched that it takes an active effort to understand what you are looking at.

There is no such thing as "misandry". Feminism is just treating everyone the same, irrespective of gender. It's not that hard to understand, but that privilege bias, which isn't any individual male's "fault" in western society, really just about makes it impossible to understand where women are arguing from. We've had 40+ years to get our heads around the issue, plus an increasing number of scientific studies that have confirmed that the only difference between men and women is plumbing and social programming.

There is no argument that supports "men's rights". We start out with all the social advantage. You just need firstly to understand that there is a problem, frame the issue and understand that addressing it doesn't mean you've lost "power. But you can only come to that understanding yourself. There's no activist movement that ever "converted" an individual to their own viewpoint, they are an echo chamber of like-minded individuals, just like Homo Mysogynist.

Stop playing the man and play the ball. No one was ever convinced they were wrong by being told they were a cunt.

[Katman]

No one was ever convinced they were wrong by being told they were a cunt.

I'm determined to prove you wrong.

[James Deuce]

I'm determined to prove you wrong.
You are honest, I'll give you that:)

[Akzle]

an increasing number of scientific studies that have confirmed that the only difference between men and women is plumbing and social programming.

not a fact.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Are boobies plumbing? Mmmmmmm...boobies.:drool:

[yokel]

Men have been actively discriminatory and violent toward women for centuries, operating from a position of privilege that has become so entrenched that it takes an active effort to understand what you are looking at.

There is no such thing as "misandry". Feminism is just treating everyone the same, irrespective of gender. It's not that hard to understand, but that privilege bias, which isn't any individual male's "fault" in western society, really just about makes it impossible to understand where women are arguing from. We've had 40+ years to get our heads around the issue, plus an increasing number of scientific studies that have confirmed that the only difference between men and women is plumbing and social programming.

There is no argument that supports "men's rights". We start out with all the social advantage. You just need firstly to understand that there is a problem, frame the issue and understand that addressing it doesn't mean you've lost "power. But you can only come to that understanding yourself. There's no activist movement that ever "converted" an individual to their own viewpoint, they are an echo chamber of like-minded individuals, just like Homo Mysogynist.

Stop playing the man and play the ball. No one was ever convinced they were wrong by being told they were a cunt.

I use to kinda think like that, but after working and having a few relationships with em, I don't think like that anymore.

Women are completely different to men, just watch a chick try and throw a ball, that's some fucked up shit.

When I was much younger, it was well known that women sucked at things like maths and science, somewhere along the lines I forgot/ conditioned out of that knowledge.

"what's a feminism?" - Bill English.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/87753835/minister-for-women-paula-bennett-says-shes-a-feminist-most-days--pm-doesnt-know-what-feminism-is

And who exactly is the minister of men?

[yokel]

Are boobies plumbing? Mmmmmmm...boobies.:drool:

How about some side boob action?
http://ll-media.tmz.com/2015/11/11/1111-caitlyn-jenner-getty-4.jpg

[PrincessBandit]

Are boobies plumbing? Mmmmmmm...boobies.:drool:

They are when you're breastfeeding - and not always controllable!!!

[TheDemonLord]

Perhaps analogies aren't really your thing. Let's look at the point you are trying to make, that 'the majoirty of feminists want more than equality', you've now got to the point where you are trying to exclude any feminist who doesn't want more than equality from that definition. That is very illogical.

I'm saying that anyone who doesn't do anything related to Feminism isn't a Feminist. It's really simple - you are trying to claim (with no evidence mind) that there is the vast group of Feminists who represent the Majority who don't actually do anything related to Modern Feminism.

I'm not ignoring anyone who doesn't want more than Equality - I'm saying the current majority in Feminism says they want equality, but by their belief in disproven theories (which are still actively disseminated by both Popular and Academic Feminists as truth) they end up acting for inequality.

If you've got some proof of this silent majority - then by all means post it up, until then - I met your burden of proof.


Believing fake stats does not change their motivations, please stop with this strawman.

How are they Fake? This was a survey done by Feminists, for Feminists - if anything, it is biased in favour of the Feminist viewpoint - and yet it still shows 90% believing in something that factually is not true. This is not a Strawman, this is Feminists hanging themselves by their own rope.


Which simply shows bias on your part.

'Bias' formed by investigating what was being generated by Academic Feminism - it's like saying that you are biased against Pedophilia because you know what Pedos do....


18% of people identify as feminists right? 100mil is thus a low estimate of their total numbers. 100 remains vastly bigger than 1.15, so no, it does not show majority at all. I putting some ballpark figures in so we don't have to get bogged down with exactly what those 1.15mil people stand for; they're simply not a majority.

Completely wrong - the 18% stat is for WOMEN who identify as Feminist - a quick goggle shows that in the US, there are about 115 Million Adult women, so 18% is about 23 million (so your figure of 100 mil is out by a factor of 4). The problem however is that the organization I cited is the BIGGEST feminist organisation in the US - and they demonstrate clear discrimination against Men and Fathers.

You are trying to claim that they are a minority, as if they are akin to the Westboro baptist church, when in fact they are more like the Vatican (since they are the biggest Feminist organization and all)


That I don't what? Get up in arms when sexist comment are made by males?

You clearly missed the point - which was that you don't have any solid data for that claim


Why would it have to be women who fend off the remarks? and isn't fending off the remarks what was done to the chancellor?

The comment was made against women - who I think are capable of dismissing it as poorly thought out, whereas you are insinuating that comments like that will set them back.


You're losing the plot, why the fuck would you compare the part time women with the full time men to try and show relative career durations? With all this illogic, occams razor is starting to show...

Well, for starters - we are both assuming what the the Chancellor was actually meaning - From my perspective, it sounds like he is talking about the fact that on average women will seek less work hours, often forgo jobs where there is a large on-call/after-hours component, will opt to work part time at a greater rate than men - not to mention taking time out of the workforce for children (again on average)

IF (and that is a big if for which I don't have proof, I'm not a mind reader - but then neither are you) he is extrapolating the global working averages of Women's work preferences and applying them to the Veterinary profession, then his comment is not sexist, but simple a statement that on average women do less gross work than Men. Was it poor form to give a figure (estimated, extrapolated or otherwise devised without proper investigation)? I'll agree that it was, but to force him to step down as a result of it - I draw the line here, I think he should be given the opportunity to clarify his remarks before being dragged over the coals.

[Akzle]

acres

and

acres

and

acres

of shit
dude. i realise you're probably getting your autistic jollies off bog. but for the love of all things good (and internets, and pandas, and life)
:stop encouraging the stupid cunt.

[TheDemonLord]

Men have been actively discriminatory and violent toward women for centuries,

I agree.


operating from a position of privilege that has become so entrenched that it takes an active effort to understand what you are looking at.

This privledge however, was not formed solely on the basis of Sex - Class and Wealth were much much MUCH more important- which is why you have people such as Queen Elizabeth the 1st, Boudicea etc.


There is no such thing as "misandry".

Okay 2 arguments:

1: it has a definition in the Dictionary - so is clearly a thing
2: Man does something to a Woman because he hates Women = Misogyny, Women does something to a Man because she hates Men = Nope, doesn't exist.

Are you really going to try and make that argument?


Feminism is just treating everyone the same, irrespective of gender.

That is what it says on the Sales brochure, however - Sales people lie. You'll note that the Communism sales brochure doesn't mention the hundreds of millions of people murdered.


It's not that hard to understand, but that privilege bias, which isn't any individual male's "fault" in western society, really just about makes it impossible to understand where women are arguing from.

It really is possible - they have every right that Men have, then realized the grass wasn't any greener.


We've had 40+ years to get our heads around the issue, plus an increasing number of scientific studies that have confirmed that the only difference between men and women is plumbing and social programming.

Bull. Fucking. Shit.

Even if I grant you that there is a shit tonne of debate about the Neurological differences between the sexes and to the varying extent that they may or may not influence behaviors between the Sexes, there is a whole host of sexually dimorphic characteristics between the Sexes.

Did you read any of the published papers I cited? Or are you just reading from Scripture?


There is no argument that supports "men's rights".

Because Fuck Men, they aren't important amiright? What was it you were saying a moment ago - no such thing as Misandry? It's right there, in your post.

If a Man lacks a right that a Woman has - this is a Men's Rights issue. If your position that this discrimination is okay, I'm going to call you a sexist (and a massive hypocrite)


We start out with all the social advantage.

Yeah, tell that to the 90% of Homeless people (who btw are Men) - Go on, tell them about their Social Advantage.


You just need firstly to understand that there is a problem,

There IS a problem.


frame the issue

I have.


and understand that addressing it doesn't mean you've lost "power.

How can one loose power that they currently don't have?

This IS the problem: That there are legal and governmental discrimination against Men and Men's issues.

Why don't you take your advise - Understand there is a problem, frame it correctly and understand that Society in a multitude of ways is fucking over Men and Boys - and in some cases, it's doing it based on a Myth perpetuated by a group whose very existence is dependent on them having a boogeyMAN to fight against.

[pritch]

C'mon Stewart, what salary are you on, then we can decide how smart you really are.

:lol: Gotta share the love.

[TheDemonLord]

dude. i realise you're probably getting your autistic jollies off bog. but for the love of all things good (and internets, and pandas, and life)
:stop encouraging the stupid cunt.

Must Spread etc.

[bogan]

I'm saying that anyone who doesn't do anything related to Feminism isn't a Feminist. It's really simple - you are trying to claim (with no evidence mind) that there is the vast group of Feminists who represent the Majority who don't actually do anything related to Modern Feminism.

I'm not ignoring anyone who doesn't want more than Equality - I'm saying the current majority in Feminism says they want equality, but by their belief in disproven theories (which are still actively disseminated by both Popular and Academic Feminists as truth) they end up acting for inequality.

If you've got some proof of this silent majority - then by all means post it up, until then - I met your burden of proof.



How are they Fake? This was a survey done by Feminists, for Feminists - if anything, it is biased in favour of the Feminist viewpoint - and yet it still shows 90% believing in something that factually is not true. This is not a Strawman, this is Feminists hanging themselves by their own rope.



'Bias' formed by investigating what was being generated by Academic Feminism - it's like saying that you are biased against Pedophilia because you know what Pedos do....



Completely wrong - the 18% stat is for WOMEN who identify as Feminist - a quick goggle shows that in the US, there are about 115 Million Adult women, so 18% is about 23 million (so your figure of 100 mil is out by a factor of 4). The problem however is that the organization I cited is the BIGGEST feminist organisation in the US - and they demonstrate clear discrimination against Men and Fathers.

You are trying to claim that they are a minority, as if they are akin to the Westboro baptist church, when in fact they are more like the Vatican (since they are the biggest Feminist organization and all)



You clearly missed the point - which was that you don't have any solid data for that claim



The comment was made against women - who I think are capable of dismissing it as poorly thought out, whereas you are insinuating that comments like that will set them back.



Well, for starters - we are both assuming what the the Chancellor was actually meaning - From my perspective, it sounds like he is talking about the fact that on average women will seek less work hours, often forgo jobs where there is a large on-call/after-hours component, will opt to work part time at a greater rate than men - not to mention taking time out of the workforce for children (again on average)

IF (and that is a big if for which I don't have proof, I'm not a mind reader - but then neither are you) he is extrapolating the global working averages of Women's work preferences and applying them to the Veterinary profession, then his comment is not sexist, but simple a statement that on average women do less gross work than Men. Was it poor form to give a figure (estimated, extrapolated or otherwise devised without proper investigation)? I'll agree that it was, but to force him to step down as a result of it - I draw the line here, I think he should be given the opportunity to clarify his remarks before being dragged over the coals.

A claim which I have to completely disagree with you on. Evidence is provided in those who self identify as feminists but do not do anything (according to your standards of action).

You did not even get close to meeting my burden of proof, which was clearly outlined, and just as clearly missed.

Wage gap is the fake stats. It is a strawman because I do not dispute the invalidity of the wage gap argument, and do not accept it's acceptance by feminists as evidence they do not want equality.

23million then, your 1.15million group is still short by a factor of 10. They literally are a minority, since 1.15 is vastly less than 23. This is simple numbers bro.

That was the point I made a couple of posts ago, you made the claim earlier the the 80% weren't getting up in arms about sexist comments made by males, with no solid data for that; hence my questioning of how you knew they weren't getting up in arms...

Don't try and play the 'by defending them you are insulting them' card, it's up to fuck all.

Extrapolating womens averages would end up at the 73% mark I got, not the 40% you and he got though, what is your justification for a figure nearly half that it actually is? He was not forced to step down either.

[TheDemonLord]

A claim which I have to completely disagree with you on. Evidence is provided in those who self identify as feminists but do not do anything (according to your standards of action).

But since being a Feminist is predicated on an active belief, inaction disqualifies one...


Feminism means revolution and I am a revolutionist.

- Frances Perkins

I've also heard first hand from numerous Feminists that not doing Activism is not being a real feminist.


You did not even get close to meeting my burden of proof, which was clearly outlined, and just as clearly missed.

Wait, what?


That third link showing feminist beliefs seems to be the closest to what I was after,

So now you are shifting the Goalposts.


Wage gap is the fake stats. It is a strawman because I do not dispute the invalidity of the wage gap argument, and do not accept it's acceptance by feminists as evidence they do not want equality.

If you believe in something (that you agree is false) that says there is an imbalance, and you then undertake activism to rectify that imbalance (where none existed) - the net result is inequality.

Considering how many times it's been pointed out to Feminists that the Wage Gap (as it is presented) is BS this leaves us with the following options:

1: They know it's fake, but don't care - thus they want inequality
2: They've seen the evidence that it's fake, but reject it because it interferes with their beliefs that women are oppressed - thus they must want inequality if they refuse to abandon this idea

Can you suggest an alternative explanation?

Bearing in mind - this isn't even bringing up The Patriarchy or Toxic Masculinity (both which IMO demonstrate higher levels of inequality - but I don't have the stats as to the percentage of Feminists that believe - based on my interaction with Feminists - I'd say the Patriarchy is probably close to 95% and Toxic Masculinity is probably in the high 80s)


23million then, your 1.15million group is still short by a factor of 10. They literally are a minority, since 1.15 is vastly less than 23. This is simple numbers bro.

That's a pretty damn good turnout for a protest when compared to the size of the group and again you ignore that NOW is the biggest Feminist organization in the US - being the biggest means it is literally impossible for it to be in the minority.


That was the point I made a couple of posts ago, you made the claim earlier the the 80% weren't getting up in arms about sexist comments made by males, with no solid data for that; hence my questioning of how you knew they weren't getting up in arms...

When you look at who is spearheading various campaigns, it is curious that all of them self-identify as part of the same group.

It's a reasonable assumption then that those who aren't spearheading the various campaigns is comprised of those who aren't in that group.


Don't try and play the 'by defending them you are insulting them' card, it's up to fuck all.

No, I'm playing the 'By infantalising them, you are insulting them' card - slightly different.


Extrapolating womens averages would end up at the 73% mark I got, not the 40% you and he got though, what is your justification for a figure nearly half that it actually is? He was not forced to step down either.

So, me and him arrived at a roughly the same figure through valid means....

Again - I don't know if his is what he was inferring or basing his 40% on, but it fits and is the most likely explanation.

Reading between the lines, he was most likely given the option to jump or be pushed - hence my comment.

[bogan]

But since being a Feminist is predicated on an active belief, inaction disqualifies one...



- Frances Perkins

I've also heard first hand from numerous Feminists that not doing Activism is not being a real feminist.



Wait, what?



So now you are shifting the Goalposts.



If you believe in something (that you agree is false) that says there is an imbalance, and you then undertake activism to rectify that imbalance (where none existed) - the net result is inequality.

Considering how many times it's been pointed out to Feminists that the Wage Gap (as it is presented) is BS this leaves us with the following options:

1: They know it's fake, but don't care - thus they want inequality
2: They've seen the evidence that it's fake, but reject it because it interferes with their beliefs that women are oppressed - thus they must want inequality if they refuse to abandon this idea

Can you suggest an alternative explanation?

Bearing in mind - this isn't even bringing up The Patriarchy or Toxic Masculinity (both which IMO demonstrate higher levels of inequality - but I don't have the stats as to the percentage of Feminists that believe - based on my interaction with Feminists - I'd say the Patriarchy is probably close to 95% and Toxic Masculinity is probably in the high 80s)



That's a pretty damn good turnout for a protest when compared to the size of the group and again you ignore that NOW is the biggest Feminist organization in the US - being the biggest means it is literally impossible for it to be in the minority.



When you look at who is spearheading various campaigns, it is curious that all of them self-identify as part of the same group.

It's a reasonable assumption then that those who aren't spearheading the various campaigns is comprised of those who aren't in that group.



No, I'm playing the 'By infantalising them, you are insulting them' card - slightly different.



So, me and him arrived at a roughly the same figure through valid means....

Again - I don't know if his is what he was inferring or basing his 40% on, but it fits and is the most likely explanation.

Reading between the lines, he was most likely given the option to jump or be pushed - hence my comment.

Again, I must disagree, and assert that feminism is simply the movement toward equal rights for women.

Closest, which showed only 5% were anti-men and thus supported my conclusion. Since you've obviously discarded that result, I thought it prudent I would too (the question was worded with bias, so it is acceptable to discard).

Separate result from motivation, action from the core belief; and we can get on the same page, until then, there is no point reiterating the same shit over and over.

23million (give or take) self identify as feminist; stop trying to skew the numbers with illogic, 1.15 is vastly less than 23, that's a minority.

What valid means? you misapplied and misinterpreted some numbers and call that valid? (I still await why full time men is compared against part time women numbers) And also assume he was given an ultimatum, then round that up to being forced to step down. Demon, mate, you're supposed to be better than this; most of it is simply a difference of opinion, but your numbers stuff here is surprisingly poor.

[Jeff Sichoe]

I dunno I just treat women the same as men but I tend to treat the ones with bigger tits a bit better so I dunno maybe an indication i'm into fat dudes?

[yokel]

C'mon Stewart, what salary are you on, then we can decide how smart you really are.


I don't but thats what the thread is about, Women being paid less than Men.

That's not what your question was about was it cock box.

I will tell you what I've spent on getting edumacated, zero K.

What stink shit do you do for a crust?


See this shit on newshub tonight, the story is non-existent on their website so this will have to do.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/provincial/87810266/wellington-rugby-football-union-open-to-return-of-losi-filipo

Apparently this was the fault of males and rugby now needs more womenz on their boards and shit.

The pussyfaction of everything is about to go ......Well full retard.

[Grumph]

That's not what your question was about was it cock box.

I will tell you what I've spent on getting edumacated, zero K.

What stink shit do you do for a crust?


See this shit on newshub tonight, the story is non-existent on their website so this will have to do.


Apparently this was the fault of males and rugby now needs more womenz on their boards and shit.

The pussyfaction of everything is about to go ......Well full retard.

I'm sorry to tell you but life in NZ has been as you'd say "pussyfied" for some time now...

Go to your GP, you're likely to see a female doctor. Go to court, likely to be in front of a female Judge/Magistrate - represented by a female lawyer too.
Picked up for speeding or arrested for drunken behavior - likely to be a female copper....
Race a motorcycle and the Steward and CoC may well be female - as might the rider who's just beaten you.
Die and the embalmer may well be female as may be the Funeral Director....

There is no escape. Good luck with your solitary life.

[Voltaire]

That's not what your question was about was it cock box.

I will tell you what I've spent on getting edumacated, zero K.

What stink shit do you do for a crust?


See this shit on newshub tonight, the story is non-existent on their website so this will have to do.

http://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby/provincial/87810266/wellington-rugby-football-union-open-to-return-of-losi-filipo

Apparently this was the fault of males and rugby now needs more womenz on their boards and shit.

The pussyfaction of everything is about to go ......Well full retard.


If you feel pussy whipped its probably of your own making:girlfight:, at least you can get away from it all here eh.
Heard this on the radio, thought of you:love:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bp-KeVBNz0A
Sing along with the chorus " Vaginas where I'm from... Vagina"
:lol::lol::lol::lol:

[yokel]

I'm sorry to tell you but life in NZ has been as you'd say "pussyfied" for some time now...

Go to your GP, you're likely to see a female doctor. Go to court, likely to be in front of a female Judge/Magistrate - represented by a female lawyer too.
Picked up for speeding or arrested for drunken behavior - likely to be a female copper....
Race a motorcycle and the Steward and CoC may well be female - as might the rider who's just beaten you.
Die and the embalmer may well be female as may be the Funeral Director....

There is no escape. Good luck with your solitary life.

Giving women positions of authority is civilisational suicide.

We've gone from "free love" to "rape culture".

At some point we made the tranny from being somewhat egalitarian to full blown feminism.
I've noticed this change, maybe last 5 years or so.

You'll never hear a women's rights advocate talking about equal responsibility.

Dennis from accounts is now a rapist.



https://youtu.be/dKJIg3EXHOs

[Katman]

Dennis from accounts is now a rapist.

Is that the message you got from that ad?

[yokel]

Is that the message you got from that ad?

No, that add was pre third wave feminism.