What's the issue with feminism?

Discussion in 'Women's Rights' started by greatamerican128, May 8, 2012.

  1. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48

    I'm talking about the U.S. in the last 50 years or so. I'm not going back to the middle ages.
     
  2. JohnConstantine

    JohnConstantine Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2012
    Messages:
    939
    Likes Received:
    100
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Nope, there's a difference between being scared to come forward and being too macho to come forward. I'm not saying that there are not extreme cases of abuse perpetrated against men, by women. But I don't buy the idea that it is balanced, or even in women's favour. By your logic loads of men are getting raped by women and not reporting it?
     
  3. marleyfin

    marleyfin Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2010
    Messages:
    2,105
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    You wouldn't have to go that far back. I think I was clear in my statement and used divorce law as something that went from being discriminatory against women to being unfair to men. It became unfair to men after a push for equality was made. Efforts have been made to even it out and I think they are pretty much there today with it. There may still be discrimination against males by judges in a divorce, especially in regards to child custody but not by the law itself. The breadwinner ends up paying alimony whether its husband or wife. The person most able to take care of the child should get primary custody if a equal split can not be made. And of course the best solution is to have the divorcees to decide amicably what is best for them.. themselves.

    I feel that this is also the cause of the problem some people have with feminism today. Disregarding the idiots that are mad they can't control women any longer or have most of them compromise all their wants and needs in a relationship just to be married. Equality should be about equal opportunity and no more. Many times the push or reaction to inequality ends up swinging the balance too far in the other direction. Things like having to meet quotas, or lowering standards for only specific group are good examples of going too far to create a balance.
     
  4. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Men are 3 times as likely to get arrested than women when THEY call the Police reporting domestic violence. That's terrifying to men. They know the stigmas against male domestic violence and are scared (*)(*)(*)(*)less because they know women can get them locked up easily with very little evidence. All it takes is an accusation and a man's life can be completely and utterly ruined, true or not. Since the current structure exists almost entirely to protect women, men are moving uphill. Also, how scary do you think it is going into a Police station claiming that your 5'6 wife hit you? You're using your little "macho" tag to undermine men as so many feminists do. How the hell can it be fear for men and machismo for men? What a terrible double standard.
     
  5. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I also didn't say anything about rape. I'm talking about domestic violence. Loads of women find it acceptable to slap men when they're angry. That's domestic violence. Too many men just accept it as normal and move on, not realizing they're the victims of abuse. Just because a guy is bigger than his wife doesn't mean he can't be abused by them. It's not a simple cut and dry thing. Read that long article I just posted. Psychologists are beginning to realize that there's a lot more to domestic violence/dispute than men hitting women, despite feminists attempts to hide it.
     
  6. roadkoan

    roadkoan New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Wha?
    Sure, the statistics are feminist. Perhaps you could provide some "unbiased" ones? Or are you one of those people who doesn't need data to have an opinion?

    Look, I'm not arguing for preferential treatment. A modern woman can kill her own darn spiders. I don't really think quotas are fair either (as a white male) but I don't see how you will move towards an equitable society without advocacy groups.
     
  7. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I see I wasn't specific enough. An overall male/female income disparity does exist, but it does so for a reason. I'm disputing the fact that women with the same experience and qualifications doing the same job as men are paid LESS. This is what feminists try and lead everyone to believe.
     
  8. roadkoan

    roadkoan New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hmm, I take it you can't find any evidence to back up your suppositions?
    And if you clicked my link you will have seen a number of sources that disagree with you.
    You may also want to read the wiki page on the gender pay gap because it includes references to such "activist" sources as the GAO, the OECD, the European Commission and the Dept of Commerce.

    FTR I'm not trying to ride you (well not too hard anyway) I'm just trying to find if your opinion is affected by data. And if it is not, then what is it based on?

    -sidebar- Would you care to reveal which way you voted in 4horsemans truth poll thread?
     
  9. DorkdoltConservative

    DorkdoltConservative New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,545
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The gap is: "the average difference between men’s and women’s hourly earnings". Only a feminist can manage to interpret that as "less pay for equal work".
     
  10. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I just wanted to be clear we were arguing the same thing.

    This article sums most of it up quite nicely:
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505125_162-28246928/the-gender-pay-gap-is-a-complete-myth/

    Just use a little common sense and consider it from a economics perspective. If you, as an employer, can pay an equally qualified woman LESS than her male counterpart, why would you EVER higher men? No manager/owner is going to sacrifice his bottom line because he thinks girls are icky.
     
  11. DorkdoltConservative

    DorkdoltConservative New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2008
    Messages:
    1,545
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    0
    So the question is: Are feminists stupid or evil? I say both.
    And great article btw!
     
  12. roadkoan

    roadkoan New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes, lets. adjusted vs. unadjusted pay gap
    The report found that the part of the pay gap which is attributed to observed differences in characteristics (such as age, education, hours worked etc.) may still reflect the outcome of discriminatory social processes. Eurofond found that "the major reasons for this gap are very often related to both horizontal and vertical segregation – or the fact that women tend to choose lower-paid professions, reach a ‘glass ceiling’ in their careers, or have their jobs valued less favourably. The origins of these factors could be judged as being discriminatory in themselves – that is, when they are rooted in gender stereotypes of male and female occupations.
    Don't Rule Out Sexism So Quickly
    The media is abuzz about a recent study that found that the gender pay gap for newly trained physicians is widening compared to ten years ago. Adjusted for specialty and hours worked, new female physicians made an unexplained average of $16,819 dollars less per year than new male physicians in 2008.

    In 1999--without adjusting for specialty or work hours--new women physicians earned an average of $151,600 versus $173,400 for men (a 12.5% salary difference). About 17% of this difference ($3,600) remained after adjustments.

    In 2008, women earned $174,000 compared to men's $209,300 (a 17% difference). Roughly half of this difference ($16,819) remained after adjustments. Clearly, the unexplained adjusted starting gap widened.



    So you are saying that since it makes you more money, why should women be paid equally for the same job?
    Morality doesn't have the same incentive as money, eh? Speak for yourself.

    Oh, and logical flaws in your article include (but are not limited to):
    "Men are far more likely to choose careers that are more dangerous, so they naturally pay more."
    Flaw is that you are now not comparing apples to apples. I am. I.E. male Doctor vs. female Doctor.
    Same goes for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 6th points you emboldened.
    As far as your 7th point:
    "Women business owners make less than half of what male business owners make, which, since they have no boss, means it's independent of discrimination. "
    This is flawed because business owners can suffer from external discrimination when potential customer makes a purchasing/contracting decision based on the sex/race of the business owner rather on the skills/quality of the business/work performed.

    Other factors in the unadjusted figures that arestill attributable to gender discrimination include:

    And a recent Cornell study found that female job applicants with children would be less likely to get hired, and if they do, would be paid a lower salary than other candidates, male and female. By contrast, male applicants with children would be offered a higher salary than non-fathers and other mothers.

    And:
    A recent Carnegie Mellon study found that female job applicants who tried to negotiate a higher salary were less likely to be hired by male managers, while male applicants were not.

    And lastly i wanted to thank you for responding with a cited study and actual data. It sure makes for a better debate irregardless of our differences.
     
  13. septimine

    septimine New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2012
    Messages:
    1,425
    Likes Received:
    24
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Again, I think a lot of the difference is the way our family law is structured. A woman is a bigger risk in a critical leadership post because of the fact that she is much more likely to take leave for a sick kid or a older parent or other such things. Men don't. So if you're getting ready to expand, and you have a job that's absolutely critical and requires that the person chosen be present 100% of the time, I think you choose the man, simply because he's far more likely NOT to be on FMLA, or to call in sick to care for a sick child, or need time off for family obligations. The man is also far more likely to be able to relocate -- if the promotion requires him to move, he's probably going to be able to move -- a woman being that she works for less than her husband who would also have to move and seek work in the new city would not be likely to do so. Women in short make less money because they are much more tied to the family and thus unable to make the same sorts of commitments that a man could easily make. thus fewer promotions.
     
  14. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't take alleged feminists seriously unless they can use men for sex until men honestly clamor for a relationship; merely and ostensibly, for the sake and greater glory of our immortal souls through that form of true witness bearing morality if not holiness.
     
  15. Libhater

    Libhater Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    12,500
    Likes Received:
    2,486
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Cry us a river why don't ya. Look pal, nothing is equal, nor is there such a thing as equal rights. If these women (feminists) think they're getting the royal screw job when it comes to pay or whatever, then it would behoove them to work hard at becoming the CEO's of their particular business. Simple as that, the whining subsides and the case is closed. Did I hear something about living in a doggy dog world, or was that just a euphemism for the outward appearance of these feminists?
     
  16. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    This idea (the bolded) is pretty ridiculous. The market determines wages. Women dominate the education field which is one of the most poorly paid professions out there (for someone with a degree). Education offers very flexible hours and great benefits. Women sacrifice income for these benefits, which allows them to raise a family. This is the crux of the issue which even your article talks about. Women are more interested in life balance and raising families, men are more interested in earning more. With these two different motivators it's not surprising that men end up making more overall.

    $3600 dollars a year is a very small number and I wouldn't be surprised if it was statistically irrelevant. Either way, as in any other profession, women are more likely to choose the more "comfortable" work place while men choose the more lucrative one. A perfect example is the Finance world. In order to truly make it big within this field you're required to work a minimum of 60-80 hours a week, and many Investment Bankers are known to work more than 100 hours in a week. A recent study showed that something like 60% of Investment Bankers developed personality disorders in the first 5 years of their careers because of the stress and long hours. People doing this job are sacrificing their entire personal lives for years in order to get the big pay off later in their career. Men are more willing to do this than women. It's no surprise the upper echelons of the Finance world are dominated by men. That said, there are a few women who are willing to do this and they are just as successful and well compensated as any of their male peers.


    I don't think you understand what I was saying. Let me spell it out.

    In this scenario I'm Manager X with a $100 yearly budget to higher 10 employees. I enter the employment market and seek out qualified applicants. I find 10 men and 10 women, all with equal education and equal experience. Now, according to you, women are underpaid in the market. Since women are chronically underpaid, the 10 women will accept $9 a year while the men (who are better paid as you claim) will only work for $10 a year. If I'm a manager that can get 10 equally qualified employees for $90 a year or $100 a year, it's a no brainer, I'm going to choose the women every time. The $10 a year I save could come back to me in a performance bonus or just look good and lead to faster promotion. This is basic economics. If such a situation existed in the labor market women would get hired over men constantly until men were willing to accept lower wages, thus leveling out the wages.

    Choosing one profession to judge the entire labor market is silly. Men chose more dangerous jobs throughout the whole broad labor market and are more willing to work in overtime and in other unpleasant but more lucrative conditions. Feminists and the government, with their 76 cents to the dollar look at the overall market and don't make any effort to explain the realty been the gender pay differences.

    Your small business claim is silly too. It works both ways. Many women own their own day care businesses. I can guarantee you that a single 30 year old man trying to run such a day care business would be discriminated against because of his gender than some 30 year old mother.

    Mothers or expectant mothers are much more likely to drop out of the labor market. This is why they're paid less. It's also why it's more difficult to get a job in an entry level field in your late 50s. You're not going to be around long so companies don't want to invest in you. Married men fair better because they're seen as stable. Once they're settled in a job they're much less likely to accept a job half-way across the country because it would require uprooting their families.
     
  17. roadkoan

    roadkoan New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    17% of a persons pay is in no way irreverent.
    $3600 would pay a couple of bills where I come from. Or cover a couple small vacations.

    Would you give $3600 up just for whats between your legs?

    Wait a second.
    You just admited that there is gender discrimination?
    But it's ok with you as long as everyone gets discriminated against from time to time?

    I'm against discrimination of all sorts, myself.
     
  18. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    In my opinion, feminists would be more credible if they were insisting on getting men used for sex until men honestly clamor for a relationship in modern times, simply for the sake of the moral of true witness bearing.
     
  19. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Get your own statistics straight. It says half of the 17% pay disparity exists AFTER the "equalization." It is irrelevant because the study didn't use all the proper reasons for the pay disparity (i.e. motivation/family life etc.).

    No ones giving up $3600 dollars because of their genitals. They're giving up $3600 because they've chosen to have a better work life balance.



    I live in the real world. People are discriminated against for being ugly, attractive, fat, skinny, black, white etc. etc by individual people. You're claiming that customers are discriminatory against women, which explains the pay difference. In my opinion, that type of discrimination comes down to the individual customer, who is also just as likely to discriminate because there's a male salesman. It's be proven that in many sales jobs attractive women outsell everyone. The redbull girls are a perfect example. Do you consider it discrimination that these individual customers chose to go talk to the attractive people? You can't regulate customer discrimination, which covers the whole spectrum of race, gender, appearance, accent etc. etc. Finally, I think you'll find that when it comes to money, most people are willing to go with the cheapest bidder.
     
  20. roadkoan

    roadkoan New Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2012
    Messages:
    79
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Um, I think we are both takling about two different sentences. Please reread.
    [QUOTE+from my earlier post quoting the study]In 1999--without adjusting for specialty or work hours--new women physicians earned an average of $151,600 versus $173,400 for men (a 12.5% salary difference). About 17% of this difference ($3,600) remained after adjustments.

    In 2008, women earned $174,000 compared to men's $209,300 (a 17% difference). Roughly half of this difference ($16,819) remained after adjustments. Clearly, the unexplained adjusted starting gap widened.[/QUOTE]
    $3600 after adjustments in 1999
    and in 2008 roughly half that difference is equal to $16,819.

    So I say again: would you consider a $16000 pay cut "insignificant?"

    No I don't. this isn't even germane IMO because no one is being discriminated against. The "redbull girls" and men who, say dance for Chip and Dales are choosing to use their assets to their advantage.
    Do you argue that these jobs are discriminatory against ugly people or something? That is like saying that the music industry is discriminating against people who can't sing or play instruments...
     
  21. IgnoranceisBliss

    IgnoranceisBliss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2009
    Messages:
    5,201
    Likes Received:
    41
    Trophy Points:
    48
    $3600 after adjustments in 1999
    and in 2008 roughly half that difference is equal to $16,819.

    So I say again: would you consider a $16000 pay cut "insignificant?"


    No I don't. this isn't even germane IMO because no one is being discriminated against. The "redbull girls" and men who, say dance for Chip and Dales are choosing to use their assets to their advantage.
    Do you argue that these jobs are discriminatory against ugly people or something? That is like saying that the music industry is discriminating against people who can't sing or play instruments...[/QUOTE]

    I don't consider a 16,000 pay difference very much considering the work life balance they received in exchange for this pay cut, as well as the high salary of physicians. Using raw pay numbers like this is a silly tactic, you have to put them in context. To Bill Gates $16,000 would be absolutely nothing; To a homeless man, this would be a fortune.

    Well what about male carpenters or landscapers? Men are physically larger and more capable of physical labor (on average) then women. Would it not make sense for a customer to hire a male business owner and not a female one in this case? The point remains, you CANNOT FORCE customers to choose one small business over another. Certain bias exists in everyone that can manifest itself in customer choices.
     
  22. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    In my opinion, our capital and market based economy must be providing some accurate metrics from the general population regarding women receiving a superior pay rate in the porn sector when compared to men. Conversely, the non-porn sector must also be providing similar metrics from the general population.
     
  23. danielpalos

    danielpalos Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    43,110
    Likes Received:
    459
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    In my opinion, it may be a simple lack of morals. Shouldn't modern women in modern times simply bear true witness regarding fornicating us until we honestly clamor for a relationship, merely for the sake of morals?
     

Share This Page