Feminists going full retard.

[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

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

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

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

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

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? 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? 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.

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]

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.