Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-10-2014, 01:49 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2014 01:56 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 12:46 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 12:22 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Because, on the whole, wage, advancement, and power inequality are a far bigger issue that affects far more people with a much greater impact on society. As of right now, in most instances of gender inequality, the vast majority of issues have women getting the short end of the stick; and thus that's where the majority of attention is focused. We can acknowledge that the inequality you're bitching about exists, while also realizing that is small-fucking-potatoes in the bigger picture.

But seriously, we'll get right on it right after woman have equal opportunity, equal pay for equal work, and fair representation in positions of power and government (which are still overwhelmingly male dominated).
This kind of response is exactly what is wrong with some feminists. I don;t think all or most are like you.

Well, fuck you too. Drinking Beverage


(20-10-2014 12:46 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 12:22 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We can acknowledge that the inequality you're bitching about exists, while also realizing that is small-fucking-potatoes in the bigger picture.
This is a great example of belittling and diminishing the legitimacy a complaint by someone who experiences discrimination as just "bitching" or complaining. It is the same tactics male critics used a lot in the early days (and sometimes today) of the feminist movement by the way. The numbers I cited in education don't lie. Perhaps you should challenge this claim of a male achievement gap in education with, you know, actual arguments if you have any.

Well fuck me, I guess the concept of 'priority' really is just too much for you to grasp. You're worried about burning your microwave popcorn while the house itself is on fire...

There is only so much time, effort, and energy that these organizations can bring to bear on a very limited number of issues and fronts. So the much larger and systemic inequality, which almost always favors men over women, takes priority. While we agree that what you pointed out is an inequality, it is not one that currently demands the attention when there are larger problems that need fixing first. So yeah, 'bitching' about it is apt, as it is meant to me dismissive when one of the most privileged creatures in human history (the American male) happens to fall behind in one instance. So yes whining about that, in light of the bigger picture, is 'bitching'.

Pass that one on to the MRA guys, they're generally not doing anything more constructive than trolling reddit and 4chan anyways.


(20-10-2014 12:46 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 12:22 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  right after woman have equal opportunity
Are you blind? Did you not see the stats of all levels of college education?

Great, so women are slightly ahead in one particular instance. Does this mean that gender inequality is now behind us, or that men are anywhere near as disadvantaged as women currently are on the whole? What am I saying, that requires more than a myopic view of the whole situation, silly me.




(20-10-2014 12:46 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 12:22 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  equal pay for equal work
And an equal work place injury and death rate as well? Or are we not to be paid risk premiums for working jobs that have more risk of death and injury? And what about taking time away from career to raise a family? I would like to see the earning potential of men who choose to stay home and put career on hold to raise family compared to women who choose the same. Also, those wage stats that women make 81% of the pay men do for "the same work" are crap. They compare median wages of all men with all women, and make no adjustment for hours worked, risk premium for dangerous work, career choices, and so on. This Forbes story isn't the full set of statistics I would like to see addressing my questions, but it does give you some background on why I say that 81% wage gap claim is questionable http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/201...-pay-myth/ .

Right, so a Forbes article (a site that skews heavily conservative and establishment, which ironically are those most threatened by women's advancement) with zero citation or statistics. So it's effectively a self-gratifying opinion piece.

Pro-Tip: Finding the first link in Google that agrees with you is not research.

Guess what, I can do that too!

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2014/04...-gap-myth/


Also, did you ever stop to think that maybe because women don't have the same access (or conversely, the same desire) to low-education/high-risk/high-paying jobs, that just maybe that could be the reason why more women are seeking higher education? That they're trying to offset the pay and opportunity gap with education? Also, those stats showed that while women did earn more degrees and certificates, they also had a lead in enrollment. Men can't get degrees that they're not going to school for. Now whether or not there is discrimination against men in favor of women is an honest question, but I'd be surprised if it was anything more than men not needing to seek higher education as often because they already have better access to low-education jobs with better wages.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_pay_...ted_States

In the United States, the gender pay gap is measured as the ratio of female to male median yearly earnings among full-time, year-round (FTYR) workers. The female-to-male earnings ratio was 0.77 in 2009, meaning that, in 2009, female FTYR workers earned 77% as much as male FTYR workers. Women's median yearly earnings relative to men's rose rapidly from 1980 to 1990 (from 60.2% to 71.6%), and less rapidly from 1990 to 2000 (from 71.6% to 73.7%) and from 2000 to 2009 (from 73.7% to 77.0%).[22][23]

The raw wage gap data shows that a woman would earn roughly 73.7% to 77% of what a man would earn over their lifetime. However, when controllable variables are accounted for, such as job position, total hours worked, number of children, and the frequency at which unpaid leave is taken, in addition to other factors, the U.S. Department of Labor found in 2008 that the gap can be brought down from 23% to between 4.8% and 7.1%.[7]

The gender pay gap has been attributed to differences in personal and workplace characteristics between women and men (education, hours worked, occupation etc.) as well as direct and indirect discrimination in the labor market (gender stereotypes, customer and employer bias etc.).[24][25][26]

The estimates for the discriminatory component of the gender pay gap include 5%[27] and 7%[28] for federal jobs, and in at least one study grow as men and women's careers progress.[28] One economist testified to Congress that hundreds of studies have consistently found unexplained pay differences which potentially include discrimination.[28] Another criticized these studies as insufficiently controlled, and opined that men and women would have equal pay if they made the same choices and had the same experience, education, etc.[27] Other studies have found direct evidence of discrimination. For example, fewer replies to identical resumes if sent by women with children than by men with children[28] and more jobs for women when orchestras moved to blind auditions (though the data was mixed on this, since, in normal orchestra interviews, women were preferentially chosen over men for some instruments, such as the flute).[27]




(20-10-2014 12:46 AM)BryanS Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 12:22 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  fair representation in positions of power and government
Unless you are accusing women of being self loathing, you do realize women are a slight majority of the voting pool, don't you?

"Unless you are accusing women of being self loathing,"

"Unless you are accusing women of being self loathing,"

"Unless you are accusing women of being self loathing,"

[Image: 200_s.gif]

You do realize that our voting system is systemically broken (first past the post voting will always devolve into a two-party system), don't you?

That females don't make up anything close to 50% of eligible candidates, don't you?

That woman don't make up 50% of the voting options in the booth on election day, don't you?

You know you can't effectively vote for candidates who aren't there, don't you?


Women currently hold 99 of 535 seats in Congress, roughly 18.5% representation for the gender that makes up over 50% of the population.


Need I go on, or do you realize just how fucking stupid that statement was?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-10-2014, 02:21 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2014 02:25 AM by Mathilda.)
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(19-10-2014 11:59 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  For fuck's sake, thanks for showing you've read zero posts here, where everyone who has self identified as a feminist here has advocated for gender equality; because that's what it means. But no, people keep perpetuating the 'feminist is women only' crap... Dodgy


Also the same men who argue that feminists should be gender equalists (which they are) also don't ever go out and campaign for gender equality themselves.

They expect the women to do it for them.

Three things to remember:
  • Feminism is called feminism because there has been a historical lack of equal rights for women. There still is an imbalance.
  • People campaign for what they care about. If men don't campaign for equal rights for men then it's because it's not a big enough problem for them to care about.
  • Many feminists are men.

Let's be honest here. It's just an excuse from people who like the status quo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Mathilda's post
20-10-2014, 02:22 AM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
EvolutionKills, I have a few points of yours I disagree with. These points seem to be based on the assumption that only women can represent women, and only men can represent men (particularly in politics). If this were true, male feminists could not exist, and female feminists would not be interested in attaining equality on all issues; just the ones women are disadvantaged in.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 02:48 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2014 02:51 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 02:22 AM)One Above All Wrote:  EvolutionKills, I have a few points of yours I disagree with. These points seem to be based on the assumption that only women can represent women, and only men can represent men (particularly in politics). If this were true, male feminists could not exist, and female feminists would not be interested in attaining equality on all issues; just the ones women are disadvantaged in.

Do I realistically expect them to perfectly match the actual population ratios? No, that would be silly. Ideally you should be able to vote for the candidate that best represents your values, regardless of gender. Clearly however there is a dearth of choices, you cannot vote for candidates that don't exists; and when the political parties give you primarily men to vote for? But women are still less than 20% of all representation, really? Especially when woman's issues like abortion have such political traction?

I mean, hell, I'm a man but my current favorite Presidential hopeful is Elizabeth Warren.

[Image: tumblr_n0ux9p3hOP1qc6j5yo1_500.jpg]

REPRESENT. Cool

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-10-2014, 02:57 AM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 02:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Ideally you should be able to vote for the candidate that best represents your values, regardless of gender. Clearly however there is a dearth of choices, you cannot vote for candidates that don't exists; and when the political parties give you primarily men to vote for?

Bold mine.
Do you see why I would perceive the bolded statements as contradictory?

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes One Above All's post
20-10-2014, 03:09 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2014 03:19 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 02:57 AM)One Above All Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 02:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Ideally you should be able to vote for the candidate that best represents your values, regardless of gender. Clearly however there is a dearth of choices, you cannot vote for candidates that don't exists; and when the political parties give you primarily men to vote for?

Bold mine.
Do you see why I would perceive the bolded statements as contradictory?

I fail to see how not having the option to vote for a female candidate, who may better align with what you want, counts as real 'choice'.

Unfortunately, our 'choices' are dictated by a broken two-party system that persists because of our ineffective first-past-the-post voting system. The whole thing needs to be replaced with something that allows for more parties with greater choice, allowing a greater variety of candidates. Now combine that with getting money out of politics and having modest publicly funded campaigns, and we might finally see decent choices (of either gender) at the ballot.




[Image: lizwarren.jpg]

I'm saving this one for Lumi's (or whoever the next Libertarian wacko is) next bought of mental diarrhea.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
20-10-2014, 03:14 AM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 02:57 AM)One Above All Wrote:  
(20-10-2014 02:48 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Ideally you should be able to vote for the candidate that best represents your values, regardless of gender. Clearly however there is a dearth of choices, you cannot vote for candidates that don't exists; and when the political parties give you primarily men to vote for?

Bold mine.
Do you see why I would perceive the bolded statements as contradictory?

Because you are forcing an issue. Ideally is not reality and in this instance a group that is in fact a majority of voters has less than 23% of the representatives. If you don't see the problem with that you need to go take some basic math courses.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 03:20 AM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 03:09 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  I fail to see how not having the option to vote for a woman, who may better align with what you want in a candidate, counts as real 'choice'.

Then allow me to explain.
You're once again basing your point on the assumption that men can't represent women. SCOTUS, for example, has twice as many male members as it does female ones, yet they still vote in favor of women's issues (not unanimously, but that's expected anyway). Obama, last time I checked, is a male.
The people in positions of power may not be composed equal percentages of men and women, but they still vote in favor of women's issues (again, not unanimously).
I won't (read: can't, since it's true) argue that many people are still reluctant, if not outright refuse to, vote for and hire women, solely on the basis that they're women, but to imply that men cannot represent women (and vice-versa) is fallacious and contrary to evidence.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes One Above All's post
20-10-2014, 03:22 AM (This post was last modified: 20-10-2014 03:28 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 03:20 AM)One Above All Wrote:  ..but to imply that men cannot represent women (and vice-versa) is fallacious and contrary to evidence.

Facepalm

[Image: tumblr_inline_mgtttkMdQa1qfe5t2.png]

Woman cannot be voted into office if they're not even on the ballot. I want more choice, I want the chance to be able to see female candidates, evaluate their positions, and the option to vote for them. But when the only two options I have are a male Democrat and a male Republican, I don't even get that choice. I'm not saying that I would vote for the woman, or that men can't represent women, but I want the have the fucking option.

And I would bet good money, that if we all had more choices, women would make up more than a measly <20% of representation.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-10-2014, 03:22 AM
RE: Anti-Feminism is poisoning atheism
(20-10-2014 03:14 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  Because you are forcing an issue. Ideally is not reality and in this instance a group that is in fact a majority of voters has less than 23% of the representatives. If you don't see the problem with that you need to go take some basic math courses.

The problem is your assumption that men can't represent women. If you don't see the problem with that, you need to go out and interact with intelligent men and women.

The truth is absolute. Life forms are specks of specks (...) of specks of dust in the universe.
Why settle for normal, when you can be so much more? Why settle for something, when you can have everything?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: