We have not changed the way we count unemployment, despite the efforts of some to muddy the difference between the U3 and U6 numbers. No “magic” involved at all.
Sweety, I don’t know if you read, but perhaps you watch television? Think of it as a ‘cold open’, say, where the intent is to pique the reader’s interest. If you really can’t remember what you’ve only recently posted in a thread (or if, perhaps, you respond with a kneejerk ‘No’ to any opposing opinion), there’s a little arrow in the quote box which will point you to the post being quoted (and plenty of clues in the remainder of that same post quoted directly beneath the ‘No’). There, ignorance fought. So proud to part of this site.
I notice, by the way, that you really haven’t responded to much else from that post. It’s a tiresome tactic, to glance across someone’s contribution and ignore the bits you don’t have an answer for and only respond to the bits you do think you have something to say about.
I don’t doubt that ‘debate’ is often treated as a combative game, in which the aim is to win by any means. For myself, I prefer to think of it as a way in which ‘opposing’ ideas can be explored in order to reach common ground - much as those truly interested in equality would be looking for ways to reach true equality, rather than just fanatically grasping anything they can for their side and refusing to let go of anything they already have.
I should have stated more clearly that yes, I agree that men who are falsely accused of rape (like any innocent person falsely accused of any crime, for that matter) have a lot of pain. And no, I disagree that it should be considered acceptable not to spare somebody the pain of a false accusation merely because it might provide a beneficial learning experience for them in some other respects.
So, I’ll just choose one element of that bulk of the post that you ignored, and press you for a reasoned response:
What would constitute ‘equality’ now? How do we reach it, and how do we reach agreement on it?
“Sweety”?
Hmm. Let’s see what I said (and which you quoted):
I’ve trimmed that down so you might see more clearly what was being said. Is the author of post #52 one of those people? I don’t think so. This is almost as poor an argument as when I said ‘imagine a detestable, despicable gender bigot’ and various posters replied ‘are you calling me detestable and despicable’ etc.
No, I meant in the way it’s most often encountered - something along the lines of ‘women earn 70 cents on the dollar compared to men. Women should be paid the same as men for the same work’.
But they are. It’s the law (and if it weren’t, there’d be a lot more unemployed men - shareholders would demand it).
As for the ‘gender pay gap’ you’re pushing, please link me to your campaign encouraging women to stop having babies and start choosing dirty, dangerous jobs that pay better than the jobs they’re currently choosing. Expressing a ‘gender pay gap’ as a feminist argument (with the implicit demand that men do something about it) does not empower women.
Who spends the money men earn, by the way? Who makes the purchasing decisions in mixed-gender households? Do you factor that in at all? Men earn money and give it to women to spend (or women take it from, in divorce courts - most ‘deadbeat’ ex-partners, by the way, those who fail to pay maintenance to ex-partners and caregivers, are women).
And what’s your solution to the problem of men and women being different, and economics naturally favouring work, production, value and so on (because economics isn’t a patriarchal sexist invention, you understand that, right?)
Are women to be paid for their mere existence? Are all men now responsible for all women’s economic well-being (but not vice versa, that’s not the kind of equality we want, eh?)
Find me a woman who wants a line-manager for her role as woman. How many would accept performance related pay? Will all women be saved from poverty? How about all men? Attacking poverty, and structures that have nothing to do with gender but everything to do with keeping the power of money in the hands of those who already have it (plenty of whom are women, ostensibly feminist women, who don’t a flying **** for poor women).
Here’s a thing - maybe, instead of just trying to throw your faeces at those who don’t share your cultish ideology, you could actually dig into the ideas and explore ways of reaching equality for everyone.
Yes. Not a Doctor Who fan?
ETA: 1) I seem to have left unattributed elements of kimstu’s post in mine - it should be fairly easy to work out which paragraph it was.
and 2) Ironic, don’t you think, that the bulk of the post you snipped a contentious bit from was about the cheap and nasty practise of just snipping contentious bits from a post while ignoring the bits you’d rather not have to address. Thanks for the prompt demonstration.
I read the whole post. I just thought your opening “Sweety” was the encapsulation of the overwhelming condescension that permeated the entire post and so I went with that. There’s a comment on the giving of enough rope and the consequences thereof you may want to consider.
A fictional television character can pull off “Sweety” in the appropriate context. You didn’t.
Oh leave him his precious fantasies… He has so little else.
Wrong.
The pillar is that women (or men) shouldn’t be oppressed. If and when you encounter a woman (or man) who is oppressed, then you should stop it.
If you don’t encounter any, you don’t worry about it.
There, that puts to rest your failed argument.
That’s not an explanation of how the wage gap is “mythical”, that’s merely an attempt to explain why the wage gap is justified.
I think you meant to quote post #84, not #82.
Gaah, you’re right.
That’s not an explanation of how the wage gap is “mythical”, that’s merely an attempt to explain why the wage gap is justified.
Cite?
Not evidence for “the toll on men of feminism.” Regarding “feminism”: Cue Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Quite possibly, this is proof that more feminism is required, to offset this cultural sex bias. Of course, there might be other explanations. But it’s not an outcome of feminism, except to the extent that women are no longer considered chattel of men, with the concomitant assumption that after divorce, all “assets” (including children) devolve to males. Seriously, do you have an argument here?
I bet men are more likely to commit suicide than women in general. Once again, you take a fact and assume it’s evidence for some case against feminism, without making any actual connection to feminism.
An idea is not responsible for its apologists.
Feminism is simply the idea that women should have equal rights and responsibilities as men. Do some women dress up their misnadry as feminism? Of course they do. Should we object? Sure. Many of your objections fall into this category. They are not arguments against feminism, but rather, of some feminists.
From your lips to… oh, nevermind… :smack:
Not sure where you’re going with the daughters, but I’m glad you support shared custody. You should know though, if you don’t - that you’re out of step with NOW, which opposes shared custody, and paints fathers who want it as abusers.
Can you imagine the shit-storm if “The Journal of Higher Education” published an article arguing that women were genetically defective, because they were missing the Y chromosome?
They didn’t do that of course.
You can look at what what they did say, if you like.
You are of course, free to think what you like, but there is such a thing as masculinity. And we know it, because when they see it, women are attracted to it. Describing it to beyond what I’m prepared to do right now, but I will say this: one of the things women are attracted to, is men who are in charge.
Feminists may hate that - and they do - but instead of looking at themselves, they’ve chosen the path of shaming men for being masculine. It’s counterproductive, mean-spirited, and unhealthy. But it’s what they do.
I agree. It was written by Andrea Dworkin, a leading 2nd wave feminist, in her book “Intercourse.”
Well, here’s one example: Why Women Need To Start Asking Men Out…Because Men Have No Balls
All that is admirable, and in an ideal world - unlike the one we live in - I’d cheer you on. But men who fail to be men are simply failures. Now, ironing your own ROTC uniform doesn’t make you a failure. But failing to become a man does. And feminists are hard at work making that transition - from boy to man - ever more difficult. Which isn’t to say it wasn’t difficult already.
We live in a post-feminist world now. But it’s a world where men need to learn to stop walking on egg shells. Women only despise the men who do, and the men who do it wind up despising themselves.
Your previous cites from NOW don’t support this – they support the claim that NOW opposes any default to shared custody. I agree with NOW on that – there should be no default. Shared custody is appropriate in some situations, and I’ve seen nothing to suggest that NOW claims that any father who wants shared custody is abusive. NOW opposes a presumption of joint custody, as do I – there should be no presumption at all, and every situation should be judged on its merits.
I don’t accept that you know what all women are attracted to. Some women may be attracted to traditional displays of masculinity, and some are not. Some men are attracted to traditional displays of femininity, and others are not.
Certain aspects of traditional masculinity and femininity – that men should be aggressive, that violence and rage are acceptable, that men must be in charge and women must be submissive, and more – are very negative and should be challenged and criticized.
I don’t accept your implication that men who might reject aspects of traditional masculinity are failures. Some of these aspects are bad and should be rejected. Men are not inherently better leaders than women, and women are not inherently better parents than men.
I don’t accept that you know what all women want, desire, or despise. Some women may be like this but many are not. Claiming you have some special knowledge of what women as a whole really truly desire or despise is very foolish and presumptuous, in my opinion.
Stop the presses. I agree with you.
The idiot who wrote that article should be roundly mocked for making baseless sweeping generalizations and pulling unfounded conclusions out of his ass.
But of course, you’re already very familiar with that form of rhetoric.
I’m all for equality - although I will say that feminists have a pattern of taking credit for every bit of historical progress, despite the support of millions of men who also supported equality along the way. The 19th Amendment, for example, was supported by an overwhelming number of Congressmen (I assume they were men) as well as the legislatures of most states (as would have to be the case, to pass a Constitutional Amendment).
Feminism, on the other hand, has a long history of misandry, falsification of facts and statistics, and a habit of elevating any perceived slight against women to epic proportions, while actively attacking anyone who points to real - and harmful - discrimination against men. It does not, in other words, have anything to do with equality. It’s more like a tribal religion. The relentless personal attacks and Pit threads are verification. Whenever a group is mostly concerned with shutting someone up it shows the weakness of their own position. Feminism has long outlived any legitimate purpose it might have had.
Your caricature of feminism seems to have these qualities, but the feminism that I know and practice, and the feminism of the feminists I know, does not.
…says the man trying to shut up feminists.