men, women, social historians a question:

[mrswdk]

In Sweden a couple gets a year of parental leave after their child is born. 3 months for each parent, and 6 months to use as they please.

In America, politicians declare that rape victims should be forced to have their children because 'God wants it'.

The differences could not be more stark.

[mrswdk]

Looks what's in the news right now:

http://www.chinasmack.com/2013/pictures ... inism.html

[Anarkistsdream]

Looks what's in the news right now:

http://www.chinasmack.com/2013/pictures ... inism.html

As one of the comments stated, "What does female empowerment have to do with their vaginas?!" It DOES show again how a bunch of old men are always trying to tell women what they can do with their bodies, which is one of the most fucked up things going on in the world at this moment.

Also, I think that Sweden's law kicks ass. I know many fathers who get screwed into hardly ever seeing their babies because they get no time whatsoever to love their kids. They end up using sick time or annual, which isn't fair when women do get time (usually).

[BigBallinStalin]

Sure I cringe at some of what comes out of the more volatile/extreme, but on the flipside there is still a non-zero amount of inequality apparent in "western" (see: NZ, AUS, UK, US, etc) countries, especially in relation to things like pay and employment opportunities.

Again, women want to abolish all gender roles, except the ones that favour them. Let's take paid parental/maternity leave, for example. I'm not anti-maternity leave, I just think it's preposterous to demand "equality" and yet have no issues with reaping the benefits of perks exclusive to one gender.
Equality means does not mean ≥ , it means = .
As for employment opportunities, imagine the uproar if we actually had a 50/50 gender % in industries such as childcare.
Feminism doesn't strive for equality, it strives for gender perks without disadvantages...

1) Source please? I know far more woman who simply want relevant equality rather than woman who want to abolish gender roles. Stop listening to vocal minorities (sure sure PS maybe these vocal minorities hold to much sway/influence but I will quite happily agree with you on the failings of the media).

2) Do you know why woman are the ones taking maternity leave? Because a) in the first few weeks you physically need to, and, b) the child has to have someone looking after it, there are both rational (good/ok) and sexist (bad) reasons for it, but woman make less money on average and therefore its more common for the woman in the relationship to do this looking after. If you asked me, and many other level headed folk in favor of gender equality you would probably find them in favor of the option for paternity leave.

3) Hahahahaha, now excluding the extreme end of the spectrum I can guarantee you that the vast bulk of those in favor of gender equality are also screaming out for more men in childcare. A male, qualified, early childcare teacher is probably one of the most employable people in the world (much like qualified female business executives are in high demand). We actually have programs in NZ that activly encourage men getting into teaching.

Seriously mate you are either very naive or have your head firmly buried in the sand.

Also PS when I said there are non-zero amount of gender inequality I was adjusting for factors such as what roles woman typically do etc. Even after you cut it all away, on average woman still have less opportunities and get paid less than their male counterparts.

RE: (2), just wanted to add, that outcome--where the woman takes care of the child--is largely the result of a cultural bias: "men work; women care for the children." It's a matter of time until that flips around or approaches some equal distribution. Also, one concern about maternity leave is that if the maternity leave can't be transferred to their spouses, then it inadvertently encourages the heteronormativity (i.e. women care for kids; men work).


RE: (3), there may be some reasonable constraint on approaching an equal distribution between men and women in childcare and babysitting services. For example, if men are more likely to abduct and/or sexually abuse kids, is it reasonable for consumers to opt toward more women and less men in such markets?
(I don't know the answer to that; I'm not familiar with the empirical data--except for what my unreliable brain tells me, "men are more likely to do those things."


The underlined is false (to a large degree) if you control for relevant variables (e.g. education, age, experience, full-time v. part-time, job sector, and what not). The gap is closing, and IIRC after controlling correctly for those variables, I think there's a 2% discrepancy remaining, and that discrepancy is partly due to bias from some employers (some of which is justified and some of which is not) and partly due to the exceedingly difficult task of separating markets by the degree to which their profits are regulated (failing to account for this reflects 'bias' presumably from the market, but it's the result of public policies). An interesting argument I've heard is that if profits are more controlled, then it becomes less costly to discriminate (price floors, e.g. minimum wage, enable buyers to indulge in their preferences--like racial and gender preferences. Price ceilings, e.g. rent controls, enable sellers to indulge in their preferences). In short, price controls inadvertently decrease the costs of discrimination (see below for more sources). Also, median wages for all women in the US since the 1960s have been rising while median wages for all men have been stagnating/decreasing (this is a fact; google it).

I agree that there is a "non-zero amount of gender inequality," but many people incorrectly assume that (1) the inequality is very large, (2) the market is to be blamed for this--not government with its holy public policies that presumably save the day. Sometimes, they forget that (3) culture--excluding markets and government--is also responsible, and (4) many public policies are counterproductive for attaining their goal of gender equality, or equality in general.

Here's a short video on the gender-wage gap:


An Analysis of Reasons for the Disparity in Wages Between Men and Women:
(Also, this is a useful read because it explains how the gender-wage gap data are used misleadingly).

Diana Furchtgott-Roth's testimony before the Joint Economic Committee in 2010:
(You need to add ".pdf" to that file because let's blame the .gov for failing to do so).


For more about discrimination, ctrl + f "thomas sowell" and "walter williams" within the following:
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/capency.doc
(It provides a convenient literature review).

RE: price controls and discrimination, see:

Williams, Walter. Race & Economics: How Much Can Be Blamed on Discrimination?
The Case for Discrimination. pages 155 and onward.
Thomas Sowell has a good book or two about this as well, and it's readily applicable to the gender-wage gap debate.

[khazalid]

all good stuff. actually that's a lie - there's an interesting post appears in this godforsaken wasteland about once a year by the looks of things.

phatscotty - to answer your question, the image you'd posted, although specific, intimated that feminists / feminazis (whatever misleading expression you want to use) are fat hairy lesbians who didnt get any in high school and still bear a grudge. this may be true of sandra, i do not know, but what i do know is that it's as unhelpful as it is in reverse, when anyone (male) critiquing the ideological status quo is pretty much fair game for any manner of vitriol and slander. you ought to temper your instincts a little, and i say this because it seems you like the idea of being taken seriously, at least while your are commentating politically. if you show yourself as slightly less gung-ho and ignorant then it certainly gives less ammunition to your numerous ideological opponents (of which i do not count myself as one) if nothing else.

food for thought. just gotta find some chick to go cook it for ya

[Lootifer]

(3) culture

Correct. I would quite happily hand on heart state that the world right now does not to intend to be sexist. From me to nightstriuke and everyone inbetween, people would likely, when asked, say woman deserve equal pay/opportunities when all other variables are equal.

But our current culture does not permit it.

An example is men will inadvertedly give a man a job over a woman; simply because men find it easier to build a social relationship with another man, and when you "break the ice" so to speak and "have a larf" with someone you immediately build a better perception of them. And I am sure (no evidence sorry) that some of this will actually be hard-coded because of our evolutionary (or creationary if you like) history.

We have done well, but we still have a long way to go - though I'd say that diminishing returns has well and truely kicked in...

edit: Oh and BBS dont forget that you cant "adjust" for all factors as there is a large amount of dependence in the variables (e.g. woman get paid less because a higher proportion of them work part time, but a higher proportion of them work part time because they are woman... and loop), so while that 2% sounds about right i'd say it might be a bit higher (though that cant really be known with certainty, a known unknown if you will).

[BigBallinStalin]

(3) culture

Correct. I would quite happily hand on heart state that the world right now does not to intend to be sexist. From me to nightstriuke and everyone inbetween, people would likely, when asked, say woman deserve equal pay/opportunities when all other variables are equal.

But our current culture does not permit it.

An example is men will inadvertedly give a man a job over a woman; simply because men find it easier to build a social relationship with another man, and when you "break the ice" so to speak and "have a larf" with someone you immediately build a better perception of them. And I am sure (no evidence sorry) that some of this will actually be hard-coded because of our evolutionary (or creationary if you like) history.

We have done well, but we still have a long way to go - though I'd say that diminishing returns has well and truely kicked in...

Yeah, that may be true and many of the mental outcomes of today can have evolutionary vestiges, but what also matters is (a) the magnitude of the effect mentioned--compared to other such effects, and (b) the opportunity cost of hiring man (i.e. OC = hiring a woman).

(a) relative magnitudes
For example, to remain anecdotal, I've heard from an academic that women generally have better people skills in work places than men, so if this is true, how does this effect compare with the bromance effect?

(b) opportunity costs
Given the (a) effects, opportunity cost is to some degree determined by them. For example, if the benefits of hiring a man due to the bromance effect (+10) is greater than the benefits of hiring a woman due to the better people skills (+8), then obviously the man would be hired. Nevertheless, there's more factors which can be measured more accurately, e.g. productivity, experience, performance in interview, etc., and these are more influential for hiring---if the business is in a more competitive field and if price controls are lacking.

Given greater competition, it becomes relatively more costly to indulge in one's gender-based preferences. For example, turning down the okay-looking lady of greater productivity in exchange for the large-breasted lady of lesser productivity will hurt your bottom-line to some degree. Firms which tend to do less of this will increase their chances of profitability more.

With price controls, let's take rent control. Suppose you can only charge someone $300 per month (and we'll assume away fees and what not). Two people proposition you: (a) a fine young lady and (b) an old fat man. I'll assume most of us would settle for (a) since the cost of indulging in such preferences is $0.00. Without rent controls, the old fat man can have greater chance of getting the apartment because he can offer compensating differentials (e.g. "I may be old, fat, and ugly, but I can offer $600 per month.").

Now, restart the scenario. (a) offers $300 and (b) offers $600. If you indulge in your preferences, it'll cost you $300 to do so. That new opportunity cost forces us to make a tradeoff between affective preferences and an extra $300, which incentivizes people to be less discriminatory on looks, gender, and what not.

[saxitoxin]

Mets, Lootifer and I believe feminism isn't about giving men and women equal wages.

For instance, you could put a horse and a shark in the middle of the Pacific ocean and give them the same amount of food. That doesn't mean they're equal. The shark is in an environment designed for it. The horse will eventually drown whether it gets the same amount of food or not.

Women exist in an environment designed for, and by, men. Civilization will have to be dismantled and reconstructed.

In the words of the feminist writer Valerie Solanas -

Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex.

http://www.columbia.edu/itc/architectur ... olanis.pdf

We now have the technology that the entire species could continue without missing a beat with just a laboratory population of maybe 50 or so men.

[john9blue]

overthrow the government, sure... institute complete automation... sounds good... destroy the male sex... no prob- wait, WHAT??

[mrswdk]

I've heard that woman are worse at networking because they dislike building relationships that they see as lacking in integrity. So in this sense, women have worse social skills when it comes to the work environment.

Then again, they're great at finding a man to temporarily latch onto when they want money, so I'm not sure if the above anecdotal evidence is really valid.

[DoomYoshi]

I missed the ball on this one. But Sandra Fluke is hot, and a good lay.

[Phatscotty]

In Sweden a couple gets a year of parental leave after their child is born. 3 months for each parent, and 6 months to use as they please.

In America, politicians declare that rape victims should be forced to have their children because 'God wants it'.

The differences could not be more stark.

Man, you really don't know jack about America. Rape is the only thing most politicians agree on should be aborted. There might be one or two people like that, but 'America'? Seriously, what motivates you to post garbage like this.

[Phatscotty]

all good stuff. actually that's a lie - there's an interesting post appears in this godforsaken wasteland about once a year by the looks of things.

phatscotty - to answer your question, the image you'd posted, although specific, intimated that feminists / feminazis (whatever misleading expression you want to use) are fat hairy lesbians who didnt get any in high school and still bear a grudge. this may be true of sandra, i do not know, but what i do know is that it's as unhelpful as it is in reverse, when anyone (male) critiquing the ideological status quo is pretty much fair game for any manner of vitriol and slander. you ought to temper your instincts a little, and i say this because it seems you like the idea of being taken seriously, at least while your are commentating politically. if you show yourself as slightly less gung-ho and ignorant then it certainly gives less ammunition to your numerous ideological opponents (of which i do not count myself as one) if nothing else.

food for thought. just gotta find some chick to go cook it for ya

ummmmm, your whole post is lies. Not that I said any of that (but you did!). You actually did stumble into a bit of truth, rather clumsily however. Are you sure Sandra Fluke is a Lesbian? I have no idea, but you seem to. I'll take your word for it...wait, I better not

http://freebeacon.com/feds-spending-2-2 ... n-obesity/

I don't know anything about non being educated in high school or what you are talking about; Sandra Fluke has been in school for like 9 years and has all kinds of degrees, so that's all from your imagination. What do you base your falsehood on? I am taken seriously because I know the facts. Your entire post flies in the face of the facts, so you may not be taken too seriously on this one.

If you want to put words in my mouth, you're gonna need to do way better than that.

Here is a feminist who is hot. Is it all better now? Now that I posted a hot chik, does that mean I no longer want some chik to cook my food for me? When you try to smear someone, it has to make at least some kind of sense.

At the time, the auction – being held at a Nevada brothel, the Bunny Ranch (seen on HBO’s hit series Cathouse), where her older sister also happens to be working to pay off her own college debts – had peaked around $243,000. Originally hoping to attain $1 million, Dylan is still holding on to her chastity even after bids have now reached upwards of $3.8 million (apparently from more than 10,000 men).

Poll: A girl auctions off her virginity for millions: Empowering or Offensive?

According to a report from Reuters in September, this self-proclaimed feminist (who holds a bachelor’s degree in women’s studies from Sacramento State) actually finds her decision empowering. And the New York Daily News recently reported that she has even signed a book deal.

http://excelle.monster.com/news/article ... 38-million

As one of the comments stated, "What does female empowerment have to do with their vaginas?!" It DOES show again how a bunch of old men are always trying to tell women what they can do with their bodies, which is one of the most fucked up things going on in the world at this moment.

Actually, it DOESN'T. Does this woman who is making the argument auctioning off her vagina empowers her look like a bunch of old men to you?????????
I think this shows your scapegoat is imaginary, and your opinions on this matter misguided. Still a bunch of question on the previous pages for you.

[Lootifer]

In Sweden a couple gets a year of parental leave after their child is born. 3 months for each parent, and 6 months to use as they please.

In America, politicians declare that rape victims should be forced to have their children because 'God wants it'.

The differences could not be more stark.

Man, you really don't know jack about America. Rape is the only thing most politicians agree on should be aborted. There might be one or two people like that, but 'America'? Seriously, what motivates you to post garbage like this.

You forgot this man...

Click image to enlarge.

[Metsfanmax]

In Sweden a couple gets a year of parental leave after their child is born. 3 months for each parent, and 6 months to use as they please.

In America, politicians declare that rape victims should be forced to have their children because 'God wants it'.

The differences could not be more stark.

Man, you really don't know jack about America. Rape is the only thing most politicians agree on should be aborted. There might be one or two people like that, but 'America'? Seriously, what motivates you to post garbage like this.

It may not be a majority of Americans that feel that way, but around 20 percent of Americans think that abortion should be illegal without exception. So do these politicians:

Chuck Hagel
Todd Akin
Sarah Palin
Rick Perry
Roscoe Bartlett
Tom Smith
Paul Ryan
Herman Cain
John Koster
Rick Santorum
Richard Mourdock

[john9blue]

if you think abortion is murder, but you think someone that got raped should be allowed to murder, then you've got serious fucking problems

[Metsfanmax]

if you think abortion is murder, but you think someone that got raped should be allowed to murder, then you've got serious fucking problems

indeed. At least those people are being consistent.

[Phatscotty]

In Sweden a couple gets a year of parental leave after their child is born. 3 months for each parent, and 6 months to use as they please.

In America, politicians declare that rape victims should be forced to have their children because 'God wants it'.

The differences could not be more stark.

It may not be a majority of Americans that feel that way, but around 20 percent of Americans think that abortion should be illegal without exception. So do these politicians:

Chuck Hagel
Todd Akin
Sarah Palin
Rick Perry
Roscoe Bartlett
Tom Smith
Paul Ryan
Herman Cain
John Koster
Rick Santorum
Richard Mourdock

thank you for clarifying that it's closer to 1/5th of Americans, and not 100% (as Mrs. stated), certainly not a majority. Not even close. It's around the same as Congress's approval rating, or around the same as the # of Liberals in America.

Now I expect you will fight me over a couple % points in my statement, while saying nothing about Mrs. 80% mistatement.

I personally think abortion is a personal and private choice, but there is no way in the world I would tell a rape victim she must carry the rapist's baby and give birth. If that were the case, I would fully expect some kind back alley abortion to be performed, maybe even suicide. Victim's who carried the birth out of their own beliefs and gave up for adoption should be highly commended and hailed as brave and courageous, but I would not support that as law, nor would an overwhelming majority of Americans.

[mrswdk]

not 100% (as Mrs. stated)

You sure about that?

[Metsfanmax]

In Sweden a couple gets a year of parental leave after their child is born. 3 months for each parent, and 6 months to use as they please.

In America, politicians declare that rape victims should be forced to have their children because 'God wants it'.

The differences could not be more stark.

It may not be a majority of Americans that feel that way, but around 20 percent of Americans think that abortion should be illegal without exception. So do these politicians:

Chuck Hagel
Todd Akin
Sarah Palin
Rick Perry
Roscoe Bartlett
Tom Smith
Paul Ryan
Herman Cain
John Koster
Rick Santorum
Richard Mourdock

thank you for clarifying that it's closer to 1/5th of Americans, and not 100% (as Mrs. stated), certainly not a majority. Not even close. It's around the same as Congress's approval rating, or around the same as the # of Liberals in America.

Now I expect you will fight me over a couple % points in my statement, while saying nothing about Mrs. 80% mistatement.

I personally think abortion is a personal and private choice, but there is no way in the world I would tell a rape victim she must carry the rapist's baby and give birth. If that were the case, I would fully expect some kind back alley abortion to be performed, maybe even suicide. Victim's who carried the birth out of their own beliefs and gave up for adoption should be highly commended and hailed as brave and courageous, but I would not support that as law, nor would an overwhelming majority of Americans.

I think the point mrswdk was making was that in America, people can make statements like that and somehow still remain in office.

[PLAYER57832]

at what point did feminism stop being about equality and start being about superiority?

was it ever thus?

Never. Or, women have always been superior....

Seriously, men and women are different. However, a lot of the lines that are drawn about what men and women "can" do and "cannot" do don't really make sense. The whole "picket fence" and "mom stays home to watch the kiddies" has only existed for a couple of hundred years. Before that, both men and women pretty much just did what they had to do to survive. Few had real choice in much of anything.

Now, men have a lot of choices, so women want them, too. Only.. some men see that as a threat. And, in the process of seeking choices many men and women both have forgotten the most important point of our existence.. namely kids. Some "conservatives" try to lay that all in the hands of women, but the real truth is that children need both fathers and mothers (ideally). They can do without one or the other, but both is ideal. AND, the truth is also that having skilled people taking care of kids is important. In many cases, neither parent has the skills kids need. In days of vacuum cleaners, gas ovens, microwaves and store bought clothing, there is no reason why a woman should not be able to do something other than tending house as her major occupation, as long as there is effective and reasonable care for the kids. ALL can benefit. The trouble is when all of that burden is put on one gender. Then kids wind up with a distorted view and women wind up not doing all they can and should do, either.

[PLAYER57832]

In Sweden a couple gets a year of parental leave after their child is born. 3 months for each parent, and 6 months to use as they please.

In America, politicians declare that rape victims should be forced to have their children because 'God wants it'.

The differences could not be more stark.

Man, you really don't know jack about America. Rape is the only thing most politicians agree on should be aborted. There might be one or two people like that, but 'America'? Seriously, what motivates you to post garbage like this.

The Governor of North Dakota, (or was it South Dakota?) for one....

[Phatscotty]

not 100% (as Mrs. stated)

You sure about that?

In Sweden a couple gets a year of parental leave after their child is born. 3 months for each parent, and 6 months to use as they please.

In America, politicians declare that rape victims should be forced to have their children because 'God wants it'.

The differences could not be more stark.

That's what it looked like to me. See what Mets and Lootifer say though, they are the law around here when it comes to pointing out whenever I say something generalized like that, they make sure to get me to state that in issue xyz it's only 99% and not 100%.

To be clear, you might have said 'some politicians' or '1 out of 10 politicians', but then that would not work with your point. Your point only works if all or almost all politicians in America forced rape victims to carry the baby to birth, which is how we know what you meant. But since it's an issue Mets and Lootifer would like to push, they're giving you a pass and giving me shit.

[Phatscotty]

at what point did feminism stop being about equality and start being about superiority?

was it ever thus?

Never. Or, women have always been superior....

DID YOU HEAR THAT!!!!!

The simple fact that Player's comment can slide (rightly so), but anyone else would be punished (wrongly so) if they said that about men, PROVES that it's men who are under attack culturally, and there is no war on women.

[Metsfanmax]

not 100% (as Mrs. stated)

You sure about that?

In Sweden a couple gets a year of parental leave after their child is born. 3 months for each parent, and 6 months to use as they please.

In America, politicians declare that rape victims should be forced to have their children because 'God wants it'.

The differences could not be more stark.

That's what it looked like to me. See what Mets and Lootifer say though, they are the law around here when it comes to pointing out whenever I say something generalized like that, they make sure to get me to state that in issue xyz it's only 99% and not 100%.

To be clear, you might have said 'some politicians' or '1 out of 10 politicians', but then that would not work with your point. Your point only works if all or almost all politicians in America forced rape victims to carry the baby to birth, which is how we know what you meant. But since it's an issue Mets and Lootifer would like to push, they're giving you a pass and giving me shit.

The statement is quite literally true. mrswdk didn't say "all politicians." Just "politicians." Since there is more than one American politician who has said this, there is nothing wrong with the statement. And the point of the statement -- that this is considered an acceptable view for a mainstream politician to hold -- is valid even if it's a small percentage of politicians who openly state it.