Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

My wife, the stark raving feministFollow

#77 Jun 30 2016 at 7:45 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Let's see an example of feminists castigating you, Kuwoobie.
Well, this month's is if you don't think the Ghostbusters reboot trailers are great then you obviously hate all women everywhere.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#78 Jun 30 2016 at 8:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
What if i just think Ghostbusters didn't warrant a reboot?
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#79 Jun 30 2016 at 9:29 AM Rating: Excellent
*******
50,767 posts
Then you're very clearly a forty-five year old misogynist that hates women, have no friends, and live in your mother's basement.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#80 Jun 30 2016 at 10:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,474 posts
Must find some women to belittle...
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#81 Jun 30 2016 at 10:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Well it's either that or be the person slamming Finding Dory because that blue fish doesn't breed in captivity, and now they'll have to capture more from the wild to feed the increased demands for them in people's fish tanks.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#82 Jun 30 2016 at 12:15 PM Rating: Good
*****
16,160 posts
Just a thought-- wage disparity may be a myth.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp9656.pdf

In short, these Cornell researchers say that the data they've studied puts the wage gap at 92%, not the 79% that is commonly bandied about for political purposes. Furthermore, the study says that remaining 8% is because men are more wage focused than women in that men place a premium on a higher income, thus put more time and effort into work, whereas women seek balance in their lives, which results in a lower hours per week worked.

Obviously, from this we can solidly conclude that women are lazy, shiftless, and seek to avoid every opportunity to avoid their responsibility to support the men in their lives wherever they can. So, Kelvy, again, slap the wifey on the a55 and tell her to go make you a sammich.
#83 Jun 30 2016 at 1:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Quote:
Although human capital factors are now relatively unimportant in the aggregate, women’s work force interruptions and shorter hours remain significant in high skilled occupations, possibly due to compensating differentials.
I'd say I'd largely agree. A good portion of the wage difference isn't "don't give her a raise/promotion because she's a woman, lacks qualifications, etc" it's more of societal expectations of how women manage their time and family. Women are expected to be the ones to pick up a sick kid from school then stay home with them the next 2 days, manage the household affairs, etc. and many do end up putting family first more often because of this or other reasons (I mean home/life balance is a good thing to have in general, and many men aren't good at balancing the two). Whereas expectations for the man aren't the same, and they're more likely to have the luxury of working uninterrupted when household life is more hectic. This greater empathesis on the workplace naturally lends itself to higher wages, even in an idealized environment where a woman would be equally rewarded for work done.

Solving the first parts were easier. Getting women in the workplace in the first place was good for our economy. Appropriately rewarding women for their effort is good for business. Making it so men focus less on the workplace, so they can focus more on family matters, is harder. It's going to lower their productivity from their employer's perspective (as well as go against society's expectation that we put work first). But I don't see how women finish closing the wage gap without men taking over more of the other responsibilities. I mean, women can't be expected to handle the rest of life, as well as being equally productive in the work force. There's only so many hours in a day, and people only have so much energy.

Edited, Jun 30th 2016 12:59pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#84 Jun 30 2016 at 1:48 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Myth or not, it's irrelevant to the question of whether advocating for even wages is indicative of hating men or a "fringe" position.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#85 Jun 30 2016 at 2:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Myth or not, it's irrelevant to the question of whether advocating for even wages is indicative of hating men or a "fringe" position.
It probably depends a lot on what you mean by "even wages" and what your solution to the problem is. If you argue that 'X' amount of work should generate 'Y' amount of salary, regardless of who does it, most people will be on-board with it. If you argue that women are paid less on average because men are a bunch of vengeful misogynistic douchbags you're likely going to face more opposition to your idea.

Edited, Jun 30th 2016 1:07pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#86 Jun 30 2016 at 2:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
If you argue that women are paid less on average because men are a bunch of vengeful misogynistic douchbags you're likely going to face more opposition to your idea.

It would seem that this is the only opinion Kuwoobie can find.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#87 Jun 30 2016 at 2:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
If you argue that women are paid less on average because men are a bunch of vengeful misogynistic douchbags you're likely going to face more opposition to your idea.
It would seem that this is the only opinion Kuwoobie can find.
To be fair to him most people with reasonable opinions aren't masochistic enough to share them openly on the internet.

Edited, Jun 30th 2016 1:21pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#88 Jun 30 2016 at 2:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
There's tons of places on the net where people are giving non-vengeful-misogynist evaluations of wages across genders. That said, I doubt you're looking to have a proxy argument on Kuwoobie's behalf Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#89 Jun 30 2016 at 2:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Not really, I mostly just saw a science thingy and felt like nerding out with it a little. Smiley: nod

Defending someone else's sub-par browsing habits isn't really my thing, and beyond sharing the amazingly insightful observation that the internet is the ideal platform for amplifying the dumbest arguments there really isn't much left to add.

It was fun to type stuff though.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#90 Jun 30 2016 at 3:08 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Myth or not, it's irrelevant to the question of whether advocating for even wages is indicative of hating men or a "fringe" position.
It probably depends a lot on what you mean by "even wages" and what your solution to the problem is. If you argue that 'X' amount of work should generate 'Y' amount of salary, regardless of who does it, most people will be on-board with it. If you argue that women are paid less on average because men are a bunch of vengeful misogynistic douchbags you're likely going to face more opposition to your idea.


It's not even that specific though. If you quote the stats saying something like "Women earn X cents for every dollar men earn" and then follow up with a call for "equal pay for equal work", you are very much supporting the assumption that the reason for the first quoted stat is that women are actually being systematically paid less for the same work. You don't have to follow that up with "because men don't view women as valuable/skilled/whatever as they view men". It's assumed that's the reason, and many (most?) people will proceed based on that assumption.

Which leads somewhat directly to angry people on feminist boards blaming misogynistic men for all the woes in the world.

Edited, Jun 30th 2016 2:41pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#91 Jun 30 2016 at 3:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's not even that specific though. If you quote the stats saying something like "Women earn X cents for every dollar men earn" and then follow up with a call for "equal pay for equal work", you are very much supporting the assumption that the reason for the first quoted state is that women are actually being paid less for the same work. You don't have to follow that up with "because men don't view women as valuable/skilled/whatever as they view men". It's assumed that's the reason, and many (most?) people will proceed based on that assumption.
I agree that the "Women earn X cents for every dollar men earn" is fundamentally misleading. At least without a metric addressing alternative forms of compensation. If more women than men are willing to choose a more flexible work schedule (or other non-monetary compensation) in lieu of increased pay then a woman can be fairly compensated for her work while at the same time appearing not to be. Tie this into society's habit of judging a man's worth by the amount of his salary and you end up with a perpetual political rallying cry of dubious value, along with a way to consistently troll people on the internet.

Not that to say there isn't discrimination and people who are ******** and whatnot. There very clearly are; but it was nice to see the paper address the other reasons for the wage disparity, and try and break out how much of that may be due to various societal factors.

Edited, Jun 30th 2016 2:33pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#92 Jun 30 2016 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Either you're not looking or you have a dramatically more lax definition of "fringe" than I have.

...

Is calling for justice reforms "fringe"?


No.

Jophiel wrote:
Is addressing wage disparity "fringe"? Is bringing attention to the plight of women in other countries "fringe"? Is talking about sexual abuse in college athletic programs "fringe"?


No. Certainly not, and no.

Quote:
You can't find anyone discussing these things without saying "All men need to be murdered and every time someone shakes my hand it's rape"?.


Sure, something that extreme is rare. Most of what I'm referring to is somewhere between "seems innocent enough" and "everything is rape", though. Most of what I see essentially boils down to "men are out to get you" thinly veiled by some other, unrelated topic. I guess it's just exhausting when feminist pages and people I know aren't talking about the issues you mention above, rather they bemoan the cost of female deodorant compared to men's (as if anyone is holding a gun to their head and making them buy it) and generally just posting a lot of really dumb things that leave me feeling more than a little disgusted and embarrassed just being associated with them and their ideologies whereas most everything else they talk about I agree with completely. I want to point out to them that these are the things that give them all such a bad name but I prefer to avoid the gigantic ********* that happens whenever someone else does.

lolgaxe wrote:
Well, this month's is if you don't think the Ghostbusters reboot trailers are great then you obviously hate all women everywhere.


^

Edited, Jun 30th 2016 9:27pm by Kuwoobie
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#93 Jun 30 2016 at 4:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Eh, I've participated in threads about the new movie. People who tried to make it "not funny" because it had a female cast or people who went in with "OMG this is just political correctness!" got push back. People who just said "Man, I wish this tickled me more because I loved the original but I watched the trailer and just didn't laugh" didn't get hassled for it. Spoken as someone who watched the trailers and just didn't laugh and wasn't afraid to say that, but I don't think the problem is the gender of the cast.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#94 Jun 30 2016 at 4:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Not that to say there isn't discrimination and people who are ******** and whatnot.

Thing is, it doesn't take malice to undercut or unequally represent someone. If you (general 'you') hear "Women make X for Y" and can only think "they must think men are evil" then that's a big part of the problem. It's less a matter of intent than a question of a status quo where most of the people at "the top" aren't adversely affected by it so it doesn't occur to them to change it, they have no incentive to change it nor is it even something on their radar. Which is why you have some women (and men) who actively advocate to change it which I guess then leads to select people who get all put off by how this broad is telling them how to act.

I'm no big fan of the Tumblr/Salon/Jezebel bit of throwing cutsie terms on what is essentially "being a jerk" ("mansplaining", etc), I've no problem with finding flaws in the latest Sarkeesian "Let's gripe about Mario Brothers" installment, etc. But I can recognize that there's legitimate issues even if the messenger is sort of annoying. And there's more channels to exploring those issues than "Crazy woman on Facebook comparing holding a door to rape" so using her as an excuse to avoid the issues is pretty weak stuff.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#95 Jun 30 2016 at 4:50 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Thing is, it doesn't take malice to undercut or unequally represent someone. If you (general 'you') hear "Women make X for Y" and can only think "they must think men are evil" then that's a big part of the problem.
Well certainly.

The only caveat I'd add to this though is that the phrase has been used in political circles. Ones a phrase becomes politicized it's difficult to have a rational discussion about the content as a percentage of the population will always have a knee-jerk reaction to it; since it was previously used to push a contrary political agenda. Could say something similar about using charity as a means to address inequality in society. There isn't anything wrong with charity, but the context it was used in (i.e. anti-welfare) can give people a more negative reaction to things related to that concept. Phrases that trigger the "us vs. them" response are probably best avoided whenever possible. People hearing them from a non-political source should take a moment to let calmer heads prevail too of course. But you know, telling crazy people not to be crazy, it usually doesn't end well. Smiley: rolleyes

Jophiel wrote:
It's less a matter of intent than a question of a status quo where most of the people at "the top" aren't adversely affected by it so it doesn't occur to them to change it, they have no incentive to change it nor is it even something on their radar. Which is why you have some women (and men) who actively advocate to change it which I guess then leads to select people who get all put off by how this broad is telling them how to act.
Wait... is this really an income level fight? Maybe it's just my own generally poor browsing habits, but I hadn't heard of gender pay inequality being framed as a class-based fight before. I mean I've heard of the whole "old rich boss doesn't like women working for him" stereotype thrown around a little, but thought of that more as a generational disconnect rather than an income-level disconnect. Maybe that's my bad though.

Jophiel wrote:
"Crazy woman on Facebook comparing holding a door to rape" so using her as an excuse to avoid the issues is pretty weak stuff.
Agreed.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#96 Jun 30 2016 at 5:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Wait... is this really an income level fight?

No, I'm speaking much more generally. Consider instead behaviors regarding rape, consent, etc. Stuff that was, for a long time, seen as semi-acceptable and guys didn't put any effort into caring about (much less changing) because it didn't affect them and, if anything, they benefited from not worrying about it.

It's "class based" more in that males typically have the upper hand in a status quo by virtue of social inertia and it always being that way. So less income based and more gender based.

I'm trying to detach my point from wages because my point isn't actually about that one issue and bogging it down in "Let's talk about wages or how wages are discussed or this study about wages" detracts from my actual point.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#97 Jun 30 2016 at 5:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Not that to say there isn't discrimination and people who are ******** and whatnot. There very clearly are; but it was nice to see the paper address the other reasons for the wage disparity, and try and break out how much of that may be due to various societal factors.


Sure. You can always find individual cases of discrimination. But is that the rule, or the exception? When one trots out the stat in question and follows it with a statement about "fighting for wage equality", it does send a strong message that said discrimination is widespread, when it's actually not. When we actually look away from individual cases and instead at the stats for sets of women in an industry, with the same job titles and time on the job as a set of men in the same industry, we find that pay gap disappears, and in some cases is reversed. The problem is that the set of "all women" do not chose the same jobs as the set of "all men", and that women statistically work fewer total hours per year and fewer years over their entire working life. Assuming that pay tends to increase on average the longer you work in any given profession, this is a fact that cannot be ignored, but almost always is.

So even looking at a single profession, the stats can appear skewed. Looking at "all accountants", doesn't tell you anything if the average male accountant has worked in the field for 5-6 years longer than the average female accountant. Remember that every woman who drops out of the workforce to raise children is going to affect the stat, because the average woman left in that field will be younger than the average man. Which, again, has a significant effect on the average pay. If the male side of the stat includes a relatively steady participation rate at all age ranges between the ages 20 and 65, and the female side of the stat includes a sharp decline in workplace participation starting around age 30, the percent of women in the set who have had long careers in their chosen field will be smaller than the percentage of men. But all are "averaged" in the stat.

It's the wrong stat to use, but it's used because it's dramatic, and most people don't understand the math, and thus they can be influenced into an emotional response.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#98 Jun 30 2016 at 6:04 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Wait... is this really an income level fight?

No, I'm speaking much more generally. Consider instead behaviors regarding rape, consent, etc. Stuff that was, for a long time, seen as semi-acceptable and guys didn't put any effort into caring about (much less changing) because it didn't affect them and, if anything, they benefited from not worrying about it.


Sure. But the problem is when bogus stats are generated and then used and reused as a means of pushing an agenda, it's hard to not fall into an appearance of fighting "against" fairness, when you're basically presented with the options of "ignore that the starting claims are false", and "speak up about it and be made out to be a hater".

Let me give you an example

Hillary's platform on women wrote:
Confront violence against women. One in five women in America is sexually assaulted while in college. Twenty-two percent of women experience severe physical violence by an intimate partner at some point in their lifetime. American women are 11 times more likely to be murdered with guns than women in other high-income countries. It’s time to address violence against women—and Hillary will put forward bold plans to do that.


Remember waaaaay back when we got into an argument about this (ok, we've had several arguments about this topic, most of which end badly at some point), and I pointed out that the "1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted while in college" stat was based on a study conducted by a professor that set the bar for sexual assault so low that "having sex with your boyfriend after consuming any alcohol" was counted. Everyone on this forum insisted that no one actually used that stat for anything because of course everyone knows it's bogus.

And yet. Here we are, still having the same stat trotted out in women's studies classes, and posted on boards around college campuses to "raise awareness", and being included as a plank in a presidential campaign. So obviously, the BS stats do get used. So what do I do? Stay silent about the use of false data? Or speak up and be accused of hating women?

If you can't make your point using good solid relevant data, then maybe you should be rethinking your point. Sadly, in our political environment, it's almost always more effective to use a false but powerful claim than rely on truth. is there any wonder why we have such a polarized political environment? We're being told constantly that our "side" is fighting against some terrible harm being done to this group or that group, and so many of us conclude that if the other side doesn't join us, then they must want that harm to occur to those groups. It's a terribly simple political tool. But IMO, it's also terribly harmful to a society.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#99 Jun 30 2016 at 6:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I have zero interest in discussing this with Mr. "Date rape is when she has sex but later decides she didn't want to"
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#100 Jun 30 2016 at 6:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Wait... is this really an income level fight?

No, I'm speaking much more generally. Consider instead behaviors regarding rape, consent, etc. Stuff that was, for a long time, seen as semi-acceptable and guys didn't put any effort into caring about (much less changing) because it didn't affect them and, if anything, they benefited from not worrying about it.

It's "class based" more in that males typically have the upper hand in a status quo by virtue of social inertia and it always being that way. So less income based and more gender based.

I'm trying to detach my point from wages because my point isn't actually about that one issue and bogging it down in "Let's talk about wages or how wages are discussed or this study about wages" detracts from my actual point.
Gotya. Smiley: thumbsup

Also, blame Totem for that.

Also, also, if you want to talk about something not wages, you should link a study about something not wages. Science being irresistibly awesome and all. Smiley: cool

Edited, Jun 30th 2016 5:39pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#101 Jun 30 2016 at 6:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Not that to say there isn't discrimination and people who are ******** and whatnot. There very clearly are; but it was nice to see the paper address the other reasons for the wage disparity, and try and break out how much of that may be due to various societal factors.


Sure. You can always find individual cases of discrimination. But is that the rule, or the exception?
Which, again, is why I was glad to see the study attempt to tease out how relevant things like that are. It's definitely an under-researched area. inb4 scientist saying more research is needed, yada yada... Smiley: tinfoilhat

Interestingly enough behind this all is the implicit assumption that those numbers should be equal. There's no reason to assume that even in an idealized world men and women would want the same work/home balance when averaged across a large population. Men (or women for that matter, not necessarily going to presume) may simply be happier with a work/home balance that results in a higher salary, and there's nothing necessarily wrong with that as long as individuals are happy with the balance of monetary and non-monetary compensation they receive.

Also could say something about the pitfalls of having such a income-centric metric and how that doesn't really seem to jive well with liberal values (shouldn't it be workplace-related happiness or something those lines?), but that's a fight for another day perhaps.

Edited, Jun 30th 2016 5:44pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 441 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (441)