Feminists going full retard.

[WristTwister]

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]

[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 ; 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.