Women in our Society - Feminine vs Masculine Principles

[bethanygm]

This is based on the thread about a woman's intellect. And my post isn't written very well, but if you have questions, I will clarify.

First, men... How would you feel about using this device???


"The "Umbrelly"

The newest development in male contraception was unveiled
recently at the American's Women's Surgical Symposium held
at the Ann Arbor Medical Center. Dr. Sophia Merkin, of the
Merkin Clinic, announced the preliminary findings of a study
conducted on 763 unsuspecting male grad students at a large
Midwestern university. In her report, Dr. Merkin stated that
the new contraceptive- the IPD -was a breakthrough in male
contraception. It will be marketed under the trade name "Umbrelly."

The IPD (intrapenal device) resembles a tiny folded umbrella
that is inserted through the head of the penis and pushed into
the scrotum with a plunger-like instrument. Occasionally, there
is perforation of the scrotum, but this is disregarded, since it
is known that the male has few nerve endings in this area of his
body. The underside of the umbrella contains a spermicidal jelly,
hence the name "Umbrelly."

Experiments on a thousand white whales from the Continental Shelf
(whose sexual apparatus is said to be closest to man's) proved the
Umbrelly to be 100 percent effective in preventing production of sperm
and eminently satisfactory to the female whale, since it doesn't
interfere with her rutting pleasure.

Dr. Merkin declared the Umbrelly to be statistically safe for the
human male. She reported that of the 763 grad students tested with
the device, only two died of scrotal infection, only twenty
experienced swelling of the tissues. Three developed cancer of the
testicles, and thirteen were too depressed to have an erection. She
states that common complaints ranged from cramping and bleeding to
acute abdominal pain. She emphasized that these symptoms were merely
indications that the man's body had not yet adjusted to the device.
Hopefully the symptoms were disappear within a year.

One complication caused by th IPD and briefly mentioned by Dr. Merkin
was the incidence of massive scrotal infection necessitating the surgical
removal of the testicles. "But this is a rare case," said Merkin, "too
rare to be statistically important. She said the other distinguished
members of the Women's College of Surgeons agreed that the benefits far
outweighed the risk to any individual man."


Would you use this product??? I haven't met a man yet who would agree to this, and yet millions of women are using IUDs with the same statistics. AND WE ARE ONLY FERTILE ONCE A MONTH! Men are fertile EVERY DAY. Of course, Nobody would ever fund a project to make anything like "The Umbrelly".
Think about this while you read the rest of this post.


I think the key (for women) is to just embrace our femininity.. and also be ourselves. We have to be assertive and stay true to what we think and who we are.
I'm going to have to make the claim that women are less respected because WE ALLOW IT. Not all women, but most women. We totally allow it. We've internalized the idea that we should "play nice" and be agreeable. Sure, not all women are this way, but *I* have had to deal with conflicting emotions on this subject.
Our society is WAY tilted in the favor of masculine principles, which doesn't leave much room for us to embrace those parts of us that are feminine in nature. If "masculine" ideas, like competition, aggressiveness etc, are what is rewarded in our society... women are left feeling they need to push aside their feminine attributes to be successful and taken seriously. In part, this is true. WOMEN are even brainwashed into taking a woman less seriously.
Studies show that women business owners charge less for their services than men who provide the exact same services.
Women, in large part, have somehow internalized the message that we are lacking in some way and are worth less, no matter what the Womens Movement would have us believe.



I'm sorry if I just went on a "feminist" rant... but our culture is inherently screwed up. Instead of BALANCE, we favor only one side of a coin. It pushes us too far to one side and, as a result, an entire gender is left feeling, deep, down that something might be wrong with them.

INTJ women may not feel this way, but there are so many women who really do.

[Monte314]

I wouldn't use this device, just as I wouldn't want my wife to use an IUD.

However, I don't see how the existence of dangerous IUD's has anything to do with gender bias. They would disappear from the market if women stopped using them.

I do agree that we should all be ourselves. In this millennium, however, this has come to mean that inherently male traits are character flaws, so men should become more like women. This has resulted in a feminization of Western culture. (I recognize that most Forum members, owing to their youth, do not realize how dramatic this shift has been.)

[Lucid]

They would disappear from the market if women stopped using them.

That's actually her point.

[Monte314]

That's actually her point.

OK, so women are to blame. Got it.

[LionsPride]

Dr. Merkin declared the Umbrelly to be statistically safe for the
human male. She reported that of the 763 grad students tested with
the device, only two died of scrotal infection, only twenty
experienced swelling of the tissues. Three developed cancer of the
testicles, and thirteen were too depressed to have an erection. She
states that common complaints ranged from cramping and bleeding to
acute abdominal pain. She emphasized that these symptoms were merely
indications that the man's body had not yet adjusted to the device.
Hopefully the symptoms were disappear within a year.


This is the part that I find interesting. This sort of medical treatment for men would never be accepted by the medical community. I'm not talking about consumers or patients, as they are often at the mercy of what their doctor says or what they are willing to ask and it's true, women and men should never put up with these sort of treatments. It's just I can't shake the feeling that if some doctor tried to market the 'umbrelly' the medical community would laugh them out of business. Yet equivalent female treatments are common practice.

[Synamon]

I wouldn't use this device, just as I wouldn't want my wife to use an IUD.

However, I don't see how the existence of dangerous IUD's has anything to do with gender bias. They would disappear from the market if women stopped using them.

I do agree that we should all be ourselves. In this millennium, however, this has come to mean that inherently male traits are character flaws, so men should become more like women. This has resulted in a feminization of Western culture. (I recognize that most Forum members, owing to their youth, do not realize how dramatic this shift has been.)
Yeah, the positive influence of women has been a tragedy in our society. All those female minds empowered by education and the belief that they are not second class citizens are destroying... what exactly? /end sarcasm

I'm plenty old enough to have seen this very small shift, which still has a long way to go. The shift from 100% masculine dominated control of every part of our society to a more balanced society is happening, you can call it feminization if you like. The struggle towards equal treatment does not result in demonizing male traits. Recognizing the value of women does not mean devaluing men.

[Vagrant]

Wait...

Two guys DIED from scrotal infection?

I don't mean to be rude, but I really don't trust that doctor -- two dying, 20 with swelling of tissues, and 3 with cancer in their tests? That's 3.3% of their subjects suffering somehow from this. That's not really much of an acceptable percentage in my books.

[Monte314]

Recognizing the value of women does not mean devaluing men.

It doesn't *have* to. But in my experience, it often does. Men have to be *very* careful about what they say and do today to avoid being tagged as sexist... women, not so much. As you well know, were I to respond to your "sarcasm" in-kind, I'd be "one of those men".

Popular culture leverages this imbalance constantly. Numerous sitcoms, for example, have as their standing joke the notion that men are inherently lazy, stupid, utterly self-serving pigs who are tolerated by their long-suffering, highly-intelligent wives. The "I Love Lucy"'s with scheming, long-winded, addled women and strong, sensible men are long gone, because "that would be sexist".

We are making progress as a society. But any significant correction in a large complex system will involve some over/under-correction, and will take time. We see the same thing with our attempts to correct racial injustice, age discrimination, financial exploitation, and the like.

[changos]

There is a t-shirt around there that says "I make the rules, I have p*ssy." While it might sound funny, or also insulting for some, it is true. I see some relation between this and infidelity... guys come back because they are forgiven... so, we are all part of a circle we feed somehow. I only relate all this to intelligence... whats bad for you, its bad. period (and who loves you would be against bad things for you). Do whats healthy for you.

As for the last part of your post I read extensively about this, sadly, the masculine methods are dangerous. It is easier to stop ONE cell in the woman than millions of a guy. (even so, I'm not justifying anything) Most of the test resulted in failure or infertility.

I wrote a lot here but is not important. All can be expressed in : mutual respect, mutual care, thats it.

[RobinHood]

It doesn't *have* to. But in my experience, it often does.

That's to be expected. Any significant correction in a large complex system will involve some over/under-correction, and will take time. We see the same thing with our attempts to correct racial injustice, age discrimination, financial exploitation, and the like.

I have a friend studying in Women's studies and we always had good discussions on the subject. I consider myself a feminist. However, even though she knows me well, I never felt welcomed in her "universe", same thing with her colleagues. I felt there was always a bias against my opinions and point of views, because I am a man. Even if I am a feminist (moderate). I know now what many women feel I guess. Too bad. And after reading Hite, MacKinnon, Dworkin I got discouraged. I know they are quite extreme, but still popular out there still (at least in academia). I found Linda LeMoncheck interesting though.

What's the secret to engage positively with feminists as a man? (In real life I mean, not on a forum)

[changos]

I do agree that we should all be ourselves. In this millennium, however, this has come to mean that inherently male traits are character flaws, so men should become more like women. This has resulted in a feminization of Western culture. (I recognize that most Forum members, owing to their youth, do not realize how dramatic this shift has been.)Thats very true Monte. Thats a problem but I guess the next generation will realize of this. More and more books I found (and are reviewed on some publications on the company I work fore) are telling the girls not to expect the guys to be "their best girlfriend" as we are not girls. The hard thing is convenience... because even the editors (girls) support such posture... who are they to go against nature? and "experts"? instead the feminist editors keep giving advice on expecting feminine reactions from guys.

Just as you said, younger generations won't realize of this, instead, just to get girls attention, some guys are becoming more girly. While a lot can be said about this "good or bad" its non functional.

[Vagrant]

It doesn't *have* to. But in my experience, it often does. Men have to be *very* careful about what they say and do today to avoid being tagged as sexist... women, not so much. As you well know, were I to respond to your "sarcasm" in-kind, I'd be "one of those sexist males".

Not to mention, things like aggression are often considered more acceptable in women than in men. I've noticed that it's considered more acceptable for women to slap men, than the reverse. Neither should be acceptable.



I give both genders equal respect -- usually only if I'm interested do I render more respect. But if I'm expected to act feminine to attract a woman, I refuse. I give respect. But I will not disrespect myself.

[Luthor Rex]

Would you use this product??? I haven't met a man yet who would agree to this, and yet millions of women are using IUDs with the same statistics. AND WE ARE ONLY FERTILE ONCE A MONTH! Men are fertile EVERY DAY. Of course, Nobody would ever fund a project to make anything like "The Umbrelly". Think about this while you read the rest of this post... I think the key (for women) is to just embrace our femininity.. and also be ourselves. We have to be assertive and stay true to what we think and who we are.
I'm going to have to make the claim that women are less respected because WE ALLOW IT. Not all women, but most women. We totally allow it. We've internalized the idea that we should "play nice" and be agreeable. Sure, not all women are this way, but *I* have had to deal with conflicting emotions on this subject.
Our society is WAY tilted in the favor of masculine principles, which doesn't leave much room for us to embrace those parts of us that are feminine in nature. If "masculine" ideas, like competition, aggressiveness etc, are what is rewarded in our society... women are left feeling they need to push aside their feminine attributes to be successful and taken seriously. In part, this is true.

I will enter and leave with this single post because I realize that using words and reason doesn't work against feminists, but I feel that that world would be diminished if someone didn't at least speak up against this kind of crap.

The women's movement convinced you that you were victims and you have conformed to this roll like lemmings. You have no one to blame except yourselves for your mess.

WOMEN are even brainwashed into taking a woman less seriously.

I was raised as a good feminist male. It was only after 15 years of dealing with REAL women and not THEORIES about women that I realized how much b.s. feminists preach about their gender.

I realized this when I took that old black man's advice and started to judge women by the content of their character and not the hotness of their ass-- when you do this you'll realize that most women just aren't decent people. Their ramblings about 'empowerment' is a thinly veiled guise of their actual lust for power and control.

The sexual revolution was a success like the French Revolution was a success, and now we live under a sexual reign of terror. Thank you matriarchy, I could have never seen the world for what it is without you.

To paraphrase a white-guy: "You were the chosen ones! It was said you would destroy the incivility in man, not join it! Bring balance to the genders, not leave us in darkness!" Oh what a twisted mechanical abomination the modern women has become.

And now, back to your reguarly scheduled program...

[schwartzie]

Yet another hijacked "women are horrors" thread... bleah.

[Reon]

It doesn't *have* to. But in my experience, it often does. Men have to be *very* careful about what they say and do today to avoid being tagged as sexist... women, not so much. As you well know, were I to respond to your "sarcasm" in-kind, I'd be "one of those men".

Popular culture leverages this imbalance constantly. Numerous sitcoms, for example, have as their standing joke the notion that men are inherently lazy, stupid, utterly self-serving pigs who are tolerated by their long-suffering, highly-intelligent wives. The "I Love Lucy"'s with scheming, long-winded, addled women and strong, sensible men are long gone, because "that would be sexist".

We are making progress as a society. But any significant correction in a large complex system will involve some over/under-correction, and will take time. We see the same thing with our attempts to correct racial injustice, age discrimination, financial exploitation, and the like.

I see no problem with using an umbrelly, although I wouldn't use it seeing as two 'deaths' are a bit concerning(not to mention that if you do get scrotum infection, they'd take your testicles..)I know tons of other man who have sex rather frequently who have been wishing for something like this.

Anyway, Monte, could you please explain to me in detail by how our society is being 'feminized' I've heard this arguments a few times but I never particularly 'got' it.

I will enter and leave with this single post because I realize that using words and reason doesn't work against feminists, but I feel that that world would be diminished if someone didn't at least speak up against this kind of crap.

The women's movement convinced you that you were victims and you have conformed to this roll like lemmings. You have no one to blame except yourselves for your mess.



I was raised as a good feminist male. It was only after 15 years of dealing with REAL women and not THEORIES about women that I realized how much b.s. feminists preach about their gender.

I realized this when I took that old black man's advice and started to judge women by the content of their character and not the hotness of their ass-- when you do this you'll realize that most women just aren't decent people. Their ramblings about 'empowerment' is a thinly veiled guise of their actual lust for power and control.

The sexual revolution was a success like the French Revolution was a success, and now we live under a sexual reign of terror. Thank you matriarchy, I could have never seen the world for what it is without you.

To paraphrase a white-guy: "You were the chosen ones! It was said you would destroy the incivility in man, not join it! Bring balance to the genders, not leave us in darkness!" Oh what a twisted mechanical abomination the modern women has become.

And now, back to your reguarly scheduled program...

I've been taught that as well (Just saying its still around.)

[Autoptic]

The device is a joke (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), duh.

[TheLastMohican]

The device is a joke (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), duh.

I was thinking those statistics were too bad to be true...and then I saw this. Lol.

[Henry]

I'm going to have to make the claim that women are less respected because WE ALLOW IT.

I don't respect women any less than men generally. I *do* have a callous disregard for anyone who loves to play the victim and those who launch social crusades over frivilous garbage, and this is a role a lot of women today love to play.

Our society is WAY tilted in the favor of masculine principles, which doesn't leave much room for us to embrace those parts of us that are feminine in nature. If "masculine" ideas, like competition, aggressiveness etc, are what is rewarded in our society... women are left feeling they need to push aside their feminine attributes to be successful and taken seriously. In part, this is true. WOMEN are even brainwashed into taking a woman less seriously.
Studies show that women business owners charge less for their services than men who provide the exact same services.
Women, in large part, have somehow internalized the message that we are lacking in some way and are worth less, no matter what the Womens Movement would have us believe.

Typical victim psychology: highlight a few valid concerns and blow them up completely out of proportion.

Prove that our society values masculine values more than feminine ones - I do not. Prove that women taking less money than men for similar services establishes that women are opressed - this may be rational profit-maximizing behavior.

[Vagrant]

I was thinking those statistics were too bad to be true...and then I saw this. Lol.

Yeah, I thought so too. 3.3% of all patients suffering negative side effects is too huge a percentage (2 of which DIED in clinical studies?) to actually be used medically (and recommended by a certified doctor no less) -- that percentage would need to be down by 0.05% to be considered.

[alphawolf]

Studies show that women business owners charge less for their services than men who provide the exact same services.
Women, in large part, have somehow internalized the message that we are lacking in some way and are worth less, no matter what the Womens Movement would have us believe.

Women are in no way worth less than men. Without women, men wouldn't last long. And vice versa.

If a woman does a certain job better than a man, then she should be paid more.

But that doesn't mean that women need to carry around a feminist chip on their shoulders when it comes to romantic relationships with men.

I can't speak for the rest of men, but I am not "out to oppress you". I just want to be able to love, and to be loved. Nothing more, nothing less.

[bethanygm]

Well, I am glad there is a discussion going on here. Yes, I said it wasn't real in my post..
The so-called "feminine" qualities that supposedly are taking over in this millennium are not really that.
Men are becoming more "metro"... if you want to call that a "feminine" quality, you can, but it's not! When girls get "pretty" they are often adhering to a standard set by MEN.. so it's actually a masculine thing. If guys want to freshen up their look, fine. It's nice to see them work on it like we do...
If men are starting to need to LISTEN more in a relationship.. That's just balance... I don't see masculine characteristics being pushed out at all. We are firmly in a world that favors masculine traits.

Let me clarify something. When I say masculine/feminine..... I mean Yin and Yang.
But a lot of the qualities that women tend to have obviously fall under "feminine" and in our society it's the masculine qualities that are held higher.
Think of it as yin and yang if you want. Our society is not a balanced one.

I don't have ANY DESIRE To be totally aggressive and have all this power-by-force and competition. But it is the only way to really get ahead in this masculine-oriented society.
If feminine principles (think yin and yang here if it helps) were more highly regarded, things like cooperation and community would play a bigger part.
BALANCE is what I am going for here..
I am no nazi feminist. I just see the irony here and I'm poking at it.
Poke at it however you want, but I see it and it makes me really think.

[Valiyn]

announced the preliminary findings of a study
conducted on 763 unsuspecting male grad students

She reported that of the 763 grad students tested with
the device, only two died of scrotal infection, only twenty
experienced swelling of the tissues.

Amusing...very amusing.

[bethanygm]

Amusing...very amusing.

What's not funny is the stuff that happened with the old IUDs. Tons of women got infections and some died, and lots became infertile. Then they figured out what was going on and fixed it. Same goes for a lot of the hormones women take for birth control.

[Vagrant]

Men are becoming more "metro"... if you want to call that a "feminine" quality, you can, but it's not! When girls get "pretty" they are often adhering to a standard set by MEN.

Do you mean to imply that it's masculine for a woman to try and look pretty?

(And to be perfectly honest, I know quite a few girls who like looking pretty for the sake of looking pretty. The only women I know who never care to look pretty are usually lesbian [not to make a stereotype, just my personal experience]. Both genders just like to look good. Even in my emotionless INTJ personality, I still prefer looking good as long as I'm comfy.)

Plus, what women define as good looking in a man varies monthly -- literally. Men are more consistent about what they find good looking in a woman.

But a lot of the qualities that women tend to have obviously fall under "feminine" and in our society it's the masculine qualities that are held higher.

I don't exactly believe that... a lot of traits that are considered motherly are often held in higher regard than even those of genderless qualities (usually some of the greatest virtues) -- such as pursuit of knowledge.

[demaugustus]

An Extremely Simple Anthropological Answer to Making the Sexes More "Equal" in Our Society or Around the World: End the agricultural basis of civilization and return to a lifestyle similar to that of pre-historic hunter-gatherers; how about Neo-Hunter-Gatherers? Most of you probably don't know what the hell I'm talking about (because I don't feel like writing a report for you and I got a bitch load of other home work to do), but basically the creation/invention of agriculture, according to many anthropologists, gave privileges to men over women. One example is that women had to bear more young with the invention of agriculture making them less important in the political matters of the state/clan. This still exists within our culture today and unless the other 90% of the world decides it wants to be like American-Western Civilization, which is economically impossible, the masculine attitude will continue to filter into American society.

[bethanygm]

An Extremely Simple Anthropological Answer to Making the Sexes More "Equal" in Our Society or Around the World: End the agricultural basis of civilization and return to a lifestyle similar to that of pre-historic hunter-gatherers; how about Neo-Hunter-Gatherers? Most of you probably don't know what the hell I'm talking about (because I don't feel like writing a report for you and I got a bitch load of other home work to do), but basically the creation/invention of agriculture, according to many anthropologists, gave privileges to men over women. One example is that women had to bear more young with the invention of agriculture making them less important in the political matters of the state/clan. This still exists within our culture today and unless the other 90% of the world decides it wants to be like American-Western Civilization, which is economically impossible, the masculine attitude will continue to filter into American society.
From what I've learned... if we could turn back time and rid the world of the war-mongering tribes, we'd be in a peaceful, matriarchal society. but who knows.

[ElstonGunn]

From what I've learned... if we could turn back time and rid the world of the war-mongering tribes, we'd be in a peaceful, matriarchal society. but who knows.

I was under the impression that several American Indian tribes were both matriarchal and pretty horrifyingly brutal. But if a stereotype is positive and helps make a point, then I can't really blame someone for using it.

[Reon]

From what I've learned... if we could turn back time and rid the world of the war-mongering tribes, we'd be in a peaceful, matriarchal society. but who knows.

You know women were part of those war-mongering tribes as well, some being completely female if I recall. Maybe you should wish for all violence to be gone from the world, cause thats pretty much what you just said.

[Lucid]

From what I've learned... if we could turn back time and rid the world of the war-mongering tribes, we'd be in a peaceful, matriarchal society. but who knows.

Listen Chica,

I'm all for equality and respect for women and I agree with your basic premise that women are less respected and valued in society than men are, but if you think that we're less brutal, horrible and just plain mean than men are... you need to get to know some more women.

While it is generally true that women are less physically aggressive than men are, we also tend to be more verbally and emotionally abusive. Also, when women are physically aggressive we tend to be less overt about it. However, women's prisons have a reputation for being far more brutal than men's prisons and as Elston already pointed out, many matriarchal societies were EXTREMELY brutal.
Also, I think I've seen way more girl fights (serious fights that is, with people throwing punches and honestly trying to fuck each other up) than guy fights. Although that's anecdotal evidence and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Either way, anybody who tries to say that women are more kind and peaceful than men are is basically full of it.

Also, with regard to your original analogy, I have to ask: are you speaking of the older copper wire IUDs, or the new plastic ones?

[Monte314]

It seems to me that both genders have the same human frailties... but exhibit them differently.

[TheLastMohican]

Amusing...very amusing.

Precisely, the nonchalant tone as well...good satire, I must say. :laugh:

[Kuu]

It seems to me that both genders have the same human frailties... but exhibit them differently.

I'd agree with this.

However, I think that from a young age boys and girls are trained to fit into roles. Playing make believe anyone? Young girls traditionally take the part of the healer, the nurse, the mother. While boys might be soldiers, or working men. Young girls get plastic kitchens, young men get plastic tool sets. Odd when you really consider it.

I might be deviating from the conversation, but the general gist is that we raise young women one way and young men another. A girl acts out in class, and is the class clown? Whoa, heresy! A boy? "Boys will be boys." Maybe that's why I act as masculine as possible, just to defy convention and test the limits of society's bounds of what is acceptable behavior for a woman, as well as going into "men's professions." Though, arguably it's political science, but with a focus on international relations and Arabic/Middle-Eastern/Islamic studies, so I guess it's more feminine than the sciences.

[Autoptic]

Not quite. (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.)

[NZPixie]

Hmmmm,

Well I certaintly don't think women are any less aggressive. Even physically aggressive. In my current (very unsatisfactory) relationship I have discovered all sorts of horrible things I am capable of. Prior to the last 6 months or so I would have considered myself usually calm and I guess relativly "female" as out western culture likes to veiw it.

Now I have discovered that I can have some rather serious anger issues that result in things getting destoryed (not my stuff though), and that I can actually be quite physically abusive, as well as saying some pretty awful things. Now I am not ever the instigator of this sort of behaviour but I certainly am very capable of being a complete and total bitch when he instigates this sort of thing. I am more physically violent than he is, in that I try to hurt him, where as he just tries to throw his weight around and prevent me from doing things. Like pinning me to the floor or not letting me off the couch. Which royally pisses me off until I being to get very abusive.

So I think actually that is is PEOPLE and not really men/women that have negative or positive things attached to them. In my experiance you are respected for what/who you are not because of your gender. There are things that are very gender-biased such as some sports and trades, but that will change i suppose. Perhaps we have spun more the other way, to women becomming too powerful and men getting a bit lost really. We need both genders, but most of all we need DECENT PEOPLE. Who cares if you are male or female, so long as you are a decent, functional person.

I have to say that my opinion of many men is not very kind. But that also goes for my opinion of many women.

[Deliberator]

The device is a joke (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.), duh.

And the word 'merkin' is a term for a pubic wig. Not kidding.





Deliberator added to this post, 3 minutes and 18 seconds later...

What's not funny is the stuff that happened with the old IUDs. Tons of women got infections and some died, and lots became infertile. Then they figured out what was going on and fixed it. Same goes for a lot of the hormones women take for birth control.

Yeah and women freakin' love birth control devices. They are what facilitated the sexual revolution of the 1960's and the idea that women can have sex with whomever they please without risk of pregnancy. When these began, this was about women's liberation. That's what I think is amusing.

[ame]

About modern "pretty boys"
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Cos all men need a bit of this in their life.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Vagrant]

Also, I think I've seen way more girl fights (serious fights that is, with people throwing punches and honestly trying to fuck each other up) than guy fights. Although that's anecdotal evidence and should be taken with a grain of salt.

The thing I've also noticed is that guys tend to have unspoken rules of combat. Honorable combat often results in friendships. I don't think women have the same concepts in their fights. (You can probably suggest this is similar to male rams butting heads, or male moose bucking against each other. The loser gives up and leaves, and the victor doesn't kill him.) I know that women go at each other tooth and nail. The worst I've seen on guys is a black eye -- and I've gotten far worse injuries from skateboarding.

[Lucid]

Yeah and women freakin' love birth control devices. They are what facilitated the sexual revolution of the 1960's and the idea that women can have sex with whomever they please without risk of pregnancy. When these began, this was about women's liberation. That's what I think is amusing.

This may actually be the reason for the popularity and continued use of birth control devices despite their dangers. Having control over one's reproductive system is HUGE. It's one of the more important advances in the 20th century and it has changed how we live. Much like back alley abortions when they were illegal, many people underestimate what women will go through to achieve this control.

Also, you should look at some of the health risks associated with Viagra. They also include death, as well as (more commonly) loss of vision, permanent damage to the penis, heart attack, stroke, as well as a plethora of other issues I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. Men willingly accept these health risks because being able to have an erection is that important to them. Just the ability to choose whether or not one will have a baby is that important to women.

(The reason I asked about which kind of IUD it was in the analogy earlier is because the old copper kind that caused so many problems did become very unpopular and many women stopped using it because it had so many issues.)

[OneHertz]

There is nothing wrong with standard gender roles. Women get paid less because they are rationally WORTH LESS because ON AVERAGE they take a lot more days off than men due to maternal reasons (having a baby) so it is very natural for companies to pay a female worker a bit less than a male one. Everyone should be paid what they are worth and no more and no less. It would be unfair if women got the same wages as men, unless they could sign something agreeing they will not have a child while they are working at the company. Unfortunately that is unethical by the current standards.

[alphawolf]

There is nothing wrong with standard gender roles. Women get paid less because they are rationally WORTH LESS because ON AVERAGE they take a lot more days off than men due to maternal reasons (having a baby) so it is very natural for companies to pay a female worker a bit less than a male one. Everyone should be paid what they are worth and no more and no less. It would be unfair if women got the same wages as men, unless they could sign something agreeing they will not have a child while they are working at the company. Unfortunately that is unethical by the current standards.


You can't see the forest for the trees. We NEED babies.

[Autoptic]

No, we don't. We're already overpopulated if you mean society. Last time I checked I'm not society and neither is anyone else anyway. They're having babies for their own purposes. Of course, they'll raise them too. Considering most of them are against what I'm for and for what I'm against, they're the enemy making more of themselves. I don't owe them for anything, certainly not this. "If we can't get them out, we'll breed them out." Braveheart I've actually heard softened version of this from some of the religious. Google dominionism sometime, "Focus on the Family" indeed. The Christians aren't the only one's doing in on purpose. How many idiots are doing it all the damn time, just because their too ignorant and stupid, while the bleeding hearts want to vampirize others with better sense, to pay for this unintentional reverse eugenics program?

[Vagrant]

No, we don't. We're already overpopulated if you mean society. Last time I checked I'm not society and neither is anyone else anyway. They're having babies for their own purposes. Of course, they'll raise them to. Considering most of them are against what I'm for and for what I'm against, they're the enemy making more of themselves. I don't owe them for anything, certainly not this. "If we can't get them out, we'll breed them out." Braveheart I've actually heard softened version of this from some of the religious. Google dominionism sometime, "Focus on the Family" indeed. The Christians aren't the only one's doing in on purpose. How many idiots are doing it all the damn time, just because their too ignorant and stupid, while the bleeding hearts want to vampirize others with better sense, to pay for this unintentional reverse eugenics program?

You realize most of the population growth in humans is not 1st world countries, right? Most of it is in third world countries (exception being China, but that falls in both the first and third world categories).

Europe is actually unstable, with a children per woman ratio lower than 2. America is right at stability point at around 2.1 children per woman. Third world countries have much higher ratios. So not many women are having kids in modernized nations.

[Kuu]

There is nothing wrong with standard gender roles. Women get paid less because they are rationally WORTH LESS because ON AVERAGE they take a lot more days off than men due to maternal reasons (having a baby) so it is very natural for companies to pay a female worker a bit less than a male one. Everyone should be paid what they are worth and no more and no less. It would be unfair if women got the same wages as men, unless they could sign something agreeing they will not have a child while they are working at the company. Unfortunately that is unethical by the current standards.

It's very unethical to pay them less too. What if a woman has no intention of having children, or what if there's a stay at home dad in the equation? Just a thought, I know you were generalizing, but it's this kind of generalizing that leads to gender inequality.

I, personally, would like the same wage as a man with the same job and credentials as me.

[ame]

There is nothing wrong with standard gender roles. Women get paid less because they are rationally WORTH LESS because ON AVERAGE they take a lot more days off than men due to maternal reasons (having a baby) so it is very natural for companies to pay a female worker a bit less than a male one. Everyone should be paid what they are worth and no more and no less. It would be unfair if women got the same wages as men, unless they could sign something agreeing they will not have a child while they are working at the company. Unfortunately that is unethical by the current standards.
You could see it another way.
I could jump to stereotype and say men are more likely to leave their children behind and get together with another woman, essentially starting again. So then you might say if women have a high paying career when they do get round to having children they can provide their family with a better living standard.
So when this bigot takes off said children are not left in the lurch.
Children who are better provided for generally grow up to become more productive in society. It all loops round to good things if you think it through to conclusion.

[alphawolf]

Europe is actually unstable, with a children per woman ratio lower than 2.

Yes, that's what I am talking about. In some countries, it seems to be less than 1. They are already raising the minimum retirement age to 70 in some European countries now because people are not having enough children to fund the retirement pay. Who the hell wants to work until they are 70? Not me.

People don't want to have children now because a bigger apartment, bigger car, vacations, etc cost so much more. We are starting to get into real trouble, and will soon be forced to let in floods of young immigrants which will bring a whole new set of social problems in already strongly xenophobic countries.

People need to start "getting busy", so to speak.

[Vagrant]

Yes, that's what I am talking about. In some countries, it seems to be less than 1. They are already raising the minimum retirement age to 70 in some European countries now because people are not having enough children to fund the retirement pay. Who the hell wants to work until they are 70? Not me.

People don't want to have children now because a bigger apartment, bigger car, vacations, etc cost so much more. We are starting to get into real trouble, and will soon be forced to let in floods of young immigrants which will bring a whole new set of social problems in already strongly xenophobic countries.

People need to start "getting busy", so to speak.

If only they could afford to get busy.

[Henry]

Yes, that's what I am talking about. In some countries, it seems to be less than 1. They are already raising the minimum retirement age to 70 in some European countries now because people are not having enough children to fund the retirement pay. Who the hell wants to work until they are 70? Not me.


Or you could - gasp - actually save money for your own retirement?

[alphawolf]

If only they could afford to get busy.

Governments need to financially encourage people to get busy.


Or you could - gasp - actually save money for your own retirement?

Depends on where you live. In some places, nearly all prices are fixed and disposable income is strongly controlled by the taxman and kept to just a hair about living costs - substantial saving is simply not possible.

[Autoptic]

Governments need to financially encourage people to get busy.
...
Depends on where you live. In some places, nearly all prices are fixed and disposable income is strongly controlled by the taxman and kept to just a hair about living costs - substantial saving is simply not possible.

Uh...

[OneHertz]

You could see it another way.
I could jump to stereotype and say men are more likely to leave their children behind and get together with another woman, essentially starting again. So then you might say if women have a high paying career when they do get round to having children they can provide their family with a better living standard.
So when this bigot takes off said children are not left in the lurch.
Children who are better provided for generally grow up to become more productive in society. It all loops round to good things if you think it through to conclusion.

What does that have to do with anything? Why the hell would an employer care about anyone's children? He pays his employees according to the long term and short term benefits they bring to the company. Their personal lives are not part of this.

[ame]

Because those children grow up to become the workforce that his successor will hire who have been well educated by courtesy of moms salary.
Outcomes for society in general are helped by that setup.
It's long term benefits I'm talking about. The company isn't going to go bust in one persons lifespan.

When you enter a job, an employer asking you to sign a contract to never leave could be another one you think works?
People leave their jobs all the time when better pay is available somewhere else.
And with the amount of people moving around the world to replace each other with ever more and more training and skills, (there are university educated folk beating down doors to get into jobs) with an observant/smart employer it shouldn't be that hard.

[OneHertz]

Because those children grow up to become the workforce that his successor will hire who have been well educated by courtesy of moms salary.
Outcomes for society in general are helped by that setup.
It's long term benefits I'm talking about. The company isn't going to go bust in one persons lifespan.

When you enter a job, an employer asking you to sign a contract to never leave could be another one you think works?
People leave their jobs all the time when better pay is available somewhere else.
And with the amount of people moving around the world to replace each other with ever more and more training and skills, (there are university educated folk beating down doors to get into jobs) with an observant/smart employer it shouldn't be that hard.

As an employer, I can honestly say I do not give a rat's ass about my successors.

Sure, any contract that both parties agree with should be valid.

I speak from experience. I have been screwed pretty hard by an important employee who decided she is going to have a baby. She had the nerve to come back over a year later and ask for a job too. No more women for me. EVER. At least not in any important positions. Men who want to leave can be reasoned with, I can give them higher pay, etc. A woman having a baby on the other hand is quite final.

[ame]

If everyone followed that same reasoning we'd be behind other countries eventually, who are using more than the 50% of the population workforce as was traditional.

[ElstonGunn]

(there are university educated folk beating down doors to get into jobs)

That's all the more reason for the employer not to care. If the labor market is competitive, the employer gets its pick of several candidates. They can pick the best ones, and not have to worry about hiring the people who are incompetent because they ate lead paint when their mothers couldn't afford daycare.

I don't think that's ethical, and I'd agree with you that it wouldn't help in the big picture or the long run. But if you just want to have good numbers this quarter, why bother paying for a kid who can't give you anything until 25 years from now?

[Nanashi]

Let me clarify something. When I say masculine/feminine..... I mean Yin and Yang.
But a lot of the qualities that women tend to have obviously fall under "feminine" and in our society it's the masculine qualities that are held higher.
Think of it as yin and yang if you want. Our society is not a balanced one.

I don't have ANY DESIRE To be totally aggressive and have all this power-by-force and competition. But it is the only way to really get ahead in this masculine-oriented society.
If feminine principles (think yin and yang here if it helps) were more highly regarded, things like cooperation and community would play a bigger part.
BALANCE is what I am going for here..
I am no nazi feminist. I just see the irony here and I'm poking at it.
Poke at it however you want, but I see it and it makes me really think.

I loathe the idea that female=loving. I'd agree with Beauvoir, the French existentialist, that a person responds to the world differently because of his/her body (and thus his/her experiences), but to say a woman is all about social awareness and men are naturally in to aggression is to deny the very essence of some people. Two of my male roommates are ENTP (ox-like and 6'0")and ENFP (petit & 5'7"). I'm a female INTJ (muscley ectomorph 5'9"). I may be the most active. I get the ENTP to do crunches with me, but I could kill the ENFP.

What I'm trying to say is that connecting 'feminine' traits with having a clitoris is absurd when you observe real life. These two guys are much more gregarious(ENTP's Fe coming out and ENFP's Fi is secondary rather than tertiary as in the INTJ) and nurturing than I am. Women are socialized to play nice, but beyond that, I think any 'feminine traits' have only to do with the physical and psychological and psychosocial responses of people to living in their bodies. Not all women are weaker than or less physically active than their male counterparts. BTW, both of my roommates are attractive imo.

[LionsPride]

Anyone want to nudge OneHertz and fill him in on something called paternity leave? I don't think it's nearly as widely recognized as maternity leave and men still carry some sort of shame for taking it in many aspects, but here the maximum 1 year off can be split between both parents, in fact the whole year could be taken by the man if the woman wanted to work. As far as I'm concerned the right to paternity leave (in both legal a legal and socially acceptable way) is a form of equality with women that men have been deprived of. Yes, not every man wants it, but they should have the right to it just the same, because that's equality.

I know the 2 weeks after birth should always be given to the woman for medical recovery time, but how a couple wants to spend the (up to) 1 year after should be up to them. I personally like the sharing of the leave so that both individuals get a chance to spend time with their child in the formative first year. In that regard, you can either both be off work at the same time or switch off like a shift. Others choose the person who makes the most money to return to work while the other stays home.

[Fireath]

I loathe the idea that female=loving. I'd agree with Beauvoir, the French existentialist, that a person responds to the world differently because of his/her body (and thus his/her experiences), but to say a woman is all about social awareness and men are naturally in to aggression is to deny the very essence of some people. Two of my male roommates are ENTP (ox-like and 6'0")and ENFP (petit & 5'7"). I'm a female INTJ (muscley ectomorph 5'9"). I may be the most active. I get the ENTP to do crunches with me, but I could kill the ENFP.

What I'm trying to say is that connecting 'feminine' traits with having a clitoris is absurd when you observe real life. These two guys are much more gregarious(ENTP's Fe coming out and ENFP's Fi is secondary rather than tertiary as in the INTJ) and nurturing than I am. Women are socialized to play nice, but beyond that, I think any 'feminine traits' have only to do with the physical and psychological and psychosocial responses of people to living in their bodies. Not all women are weaker than or less physically active than their male counterparts. BTW, both of my roommates are attractive imo.

I think the general idea of 'feminist' and 'masculine' traits are, on their own, a fundamentally flawed concept, although in many cases they are statistically justified generalizations. There will always be exceptions when making a generalization, but I also believe that a fully egalitarian view like this is also faulty in that it doesn't recognize fundamental biological differences, not to mention the social ones that are pressed into us since birth. It's a system of give and take, in which both genders must realize their own and each others' differences and importance in society. It would be great if we could all judge each other based on the people that we are, but the fact is, not everyone truly knows us when they first meet us, so often times certain things are assumed based on physical factors.

What I'm trying to say is, I believe it's correct to surmise that the majority of men (and many women) in the corporate world are aggressive and competitive (perhaps overly so). It is not fair, however, to say that they should change, especially since that particular world requires such behavior to keep ahead of other companies and turn profits. In the end, it is not fair to deny a woman a manager position merely because she, to use Nanashi's words, "has a clitoris", just as it is completely unfair for the judicial system to continue denying perfectly stable and fit fathers access to their children based on conjecture.

[OneHertz]

Anyone want to nudge OneHertz and fill him in on something called paternity leave? I don't think it's nearly as widely recognized as maternity leave and men still carry some sort of shame for taking it in many aspects, but here the maximum 1 year off can be split between both parents, in fact the whole year could be taken by the man if the woman wanted to work. As far as I'm concerned the right to paternity leave (in both legal a legal and socially acceptable way) is a form of equality with women that men have been deprived of. Yes, not every man wants it, but they should have the right to it just the same, because that's equality.

I know the 2 weeks after birth should always be given to the woman for medical recovery time, but how a couple wants to spend the (up to) 1 year after should be up to them. I personally like the sharing of the leave so that both individuals get a chance to spend time with their child in the formative first year. In that regard, you can either both be off work at the same time or switch off like a shift. Others choose the person who makes the most money to return to work while the other stays home.

Well aware but men usually do not take time off. Five of my employees had children over the last few years and not a single one took over 2 weeks.

[Kisai]

Listen Chica,

Also, I think I've seen way more girl fights (serious fights that is, with people throwing punches and honestly trying to fuck each other up) than guy fights. Although that's anecdotal evidence and should be taken with a grain of salt.


I've seen both girls fight each other and boys fight each other. Girls fight each other much more violently than men do. Guys will punch one another. Girls will try to scratch, rend, maim the other girl. It's also easier to break up fights between guys than girls.

[Reon]

Well, from what I've seen guys will just punch until the other guy falls down and declare himself the 'winner' Not a lot of damage is done. I've seen girls scratch, kick, use objects (I vividly remember this one girl who attacked someone with the crutches she was using at the same time) and just generally become more 'violent' than a 'fight' needs to be. not to pair this with the fact that guys tend to fight people to look 'hard' or somebody was talking about them; Girls tend to fight over the latter much more and it takes a significant less amount to get the stones rolling.

This is just what I observe

[NZPixie]

Being a 'traditional' employer, as in one who doesn't give a crap about their employees only works so long as there are plenty of people looking for work. Over here in New Zealand, it is hugely difficult to get skilled employees, the only large labour force is the unskilled minimum wage workers and even these are in relativly short supply for the number of jobs required. So there is pretty much no choice for the employer, and the power is all with the employee. Generally speaking, skilled New Zealanders will leave the country because the wages able to be offered here in our small economy are far too low. I will be leaving in order to service my student debt and save for a house. This means that our employers have to be pretty damn nice or their skilled workers will just go and work for someone else. So think about that, in a skill-shortage economy, loyalty does not exist and those that pay more and offer the best quality of life for their empoyees will get them.

And lets face it, the western world at large is going to become short on skilled workers, for the very reasons stated above, the rich and educated amoung us do NOT breed at the replacement rate, and these are the people who will educate their children. The rest are just breeding lots and lots of unskilled labour, and even here that unskilled labour is in short supply, and there are many options available to the workers.

So don't be so short-sighted. In New Zealand women are the most likely to pursue higher education than men, they are more likely to suceed in our feminized education system. So eventually, women are going to be the major source of skilled labour. For better or for worse. If something is not done about the state of the education systems and support and encouragment for male children.

[Hitorijime]

The difference between girl fights and guy fights are their respective ideas of dominance. Men are willing to stop the fight when it becomes apparent that one the physical superior of the other, but it doesn't work quite that way for women. Women think of things differently than men (duh), so it's not usually sufficient to just throw a couple punches and call it a fight. Usually when women get riled up enough to get into a real fight, they're not in it to establish dominance, but to do damage. Pulling hair and scratching is all just a way of inflicting as much pain as possible on the other person. Or at least, that's what I would do. I've never been mad enough at someone to get into such a fight, but I know that if I did, I'd be doing my best to rip them to shreds.

[Vagrant]

The difference between girl fights and guy fights are their respective ideas of dominance. Men are willing to stop the fight when it becomes apparent that one the physical superior of the other, but it doesn't work quite that way for women. Women think of things differently than men (duh), so it's not usually sufficient to just throw a couple punches and call it a fight. Usually when women get riled up enough to get into a real fight, they're not in it to establish dominance, but to do damage. Pulling hair and scratching is all just a way of inflicting as much pain as possible on the other person. Or at least, that's what I would do. I've never been mad enough at someone to get into such a fight, but I know that if I did, I'd be doing my best to rip them to shreds.

I don't think it could be better said. *applauds*

[NephilimAzrael]

Questioning the purposes of this topic, I am afraid that the positive righteous women that I can see in here through their posts, are a minority in the world. The "men are scum" mantra still reigns, as well as the idea that we men in general have a large representative of untrustworthy and/or undignified y-chromosome carriers in our midst. I will state however, that I subjectively believe that I view others as they present themselves. If a man or woman prostrates their integrity, does harm or malignantly represents their views, I shall treat them with what I qualify as a reasonable response.

[Lucid]

Questioning the purposes of this topic, I am afraid that the positive righteous women that I can see in here through their posts, are a minority in the world. The "men are scum" mantra still reigns, as well as the idea that we men in general have a large representative of untrustworthy and/or undignified y-chromosome carriers in our midst. I will state however, that I subjectively believe that I view others as they present themselves. If a man or woman prostrates their integrity, does harm or malignantly represents their views, I shall treat them with what I qualify as a reasonable response.

Unfortunately I think you're correct. I'd also add that the "women are evil, irrational and of less value to society" attitude is just as prolific. Just look at OneHertz and Autoptic. It's sad what people do to one another and the justifications for hatred or discrimination on both sides of the gender issue are frustrating and extremely detrimental for society as a whole. As I've said before, we all (men and women) sell ourselves and each other short. It would be nice if we could stop.

[Autoptic]

I'd also add that the "women are evil, irrational and of less value to society" attitude is just as prolific. Just look at OneHertz and Autoptic.

'Still not getting the misanthropy bit are you? This seems to support what I was seeing in the sex thread about abortion, specifically equalizing the matter with "male abortion". When I don't want to give women special privileges you suddenly have a problem with me and now OneHertz too.

[Lucid]

'Still not getting the misanthropy bit are you? This seems to support what I was seeing in the sex thread about abortion, specifically equalizing the matter with "male abortion". When I don't want to give women special privileges you suddenly have a problem with me and now OneHertz too.

Getting paid the same for the same work is special privileges? Being valued in society is a special privilege? And OneHertz's reasoning for this (SOME women take time off to have a baby so therefore ALL women are intrinsically less valuable and deserve less pay) is probably more irrational than the women he refuses to hire for important positions. Obviously he has some pre-existing attitudes about women and their ability to be as rational as men and his experience with ONE woman who wanted to come back to work after a long absence is just cherry picking the evidence so that it fits with what he's already decided.

Being hostile towards ALL women simply because they are women and you've had some negative experiences with SOME women in your life, is not simply 'not giving the special privileges.' It's essentially sexism and it's no different from racism, homophobia or any other irrational bias. It's the same argument as, "I was once beat up by a black guy, so therefore ALL black guys are bad and I hate the whole race."

You're trying to straw man me and, quite frankly, I think it's rather low of you. I do not want special privileges. I want the same privileges as men. Obviously YOU believe that women already have that and more. Fine. That's something I suppose we can debate. However, the fact is that many women don't agree with you about who has what privileges. It's not that we want special treatment, it's that we want equal treatment and there are areas in which we don't think we're getting it. You are interpreting this as wanting special treatment because you (apparently) cannot be bothered to actually understand someone else's point of view if it disagrees with yours.

And it's perfectly fine to disagree about who has what rights and privileges. You and OneHertz are entitled to whatever opinions you want to have. Just don't go around acting as if you're shining beacons of enlightenment or equality. It's counterproductive to try to deceive yourself or anyone else about it. And don't go getting offended if someone calls you out on your opinions either. That's just ridiculous.

[Autoptic]

Getting paid the same for the same work is special privileges? Being valued in society is a special privilege?

The first was about maternity not being part of the job which true. The second is groupthink and all about privilege and nothing but irrational biases. Value is bias. Groupthink induced values is almost always irrational.

[Lucid]

The first was about maternity not being part of the job which true. The second is groupthink and all about privilege and nothing but irrational biases. Value is bias. Groupthink induced values is almost always irrational.

Go re-read my post. Paying ALL women less (which is what OneHertz seems to be advocating for) because SOME want to have babies is bias.

You're either purposely misrepresenting or GROSSLY misunderstanding my argument. Your post seems to be saying that you think that women should not be valued equally in society. Fine. That's your prerogative. What was saying in the post you originally responded to was that such an attitude is still present in the world and I used you and OneHertz as examples of people who hold such an opinion. First you're trying to tell me that I'm wrong to say this about the two of you, now you're trying to tell me that the opinion I originally attributed to you was in fact, correct. Make up your mind.

[Autoptic]

Go re-read my post. Paying ALL women less (which is what OneHertz seems to be advocating for) because SOME want to have babies is bias.

What about charging all young people more for auto insurance and the like? If maternity leave was removed it wouldn't be an issue, but as is force is already being applied to the financial detriment of the employer, yes? Is that fair? He wasn't advocating, I think. He was explaining. I'm signed up with selective service by coercion. When are we fixing that? Women aren't baby machines. I'm not a meat shield.

[Lucid]

What about charging all young people more for auto insurance and the like? If maternity leave was removed it wouldn't be an issue, but as is force is already being applied to the financial detriment of the employer, yes? Is that fair?

What on earth makes you think I'm in favor of charging all young people more for auto insurance because some are bad drivers?

[Synamon]

We should eliminate disability pay as well then since that is detrimental to the employer financially. And all other benefits while we are at it.

[Autoptic]

We should eliminate disability pay as well then since that is detrimental to the employer financially. And all other benefits while we are at it.

If it's government enforced, yes.

[Lucid]

I'm signed up with selective service by coercion. When are we fixing that? Women aren't baby machines. I'm not a meat shield.

I just saw this... maybe it was an edit.

I don't think that men should have to register for selective service but not women. If one has to, the other should as well.

That's what I'm talking about with this straw man thing. You're just ascribing to me all these beliefs that I DO NOT hold and then arguing against them. Since I'm not disagreeing with you about that, it seems pointless to argue with me about it.

[Autoptic]

Your post seems to be saying that you think that women should not be valued equally in society.

I was arguing that nothing should be valued "in society". That's the groupthink. You're arguing for it to be enforced which brand doesn't matter. Remember I was against the government involving in the pregnancy matter on the basis that sex was the only thing the couple actually agreed to? I think I specifically pointed out that social contracts aren't contracts too.

[Sinequanon]

'Still not getting the misanthropy bit are you? This seems to support what I was seeing in the sex thread about abortion, specifically equalizing the matter with "male abortion". When I don't want to give women special privileges you suddenly have a problem with me and now OneHertz too.

In what context does misanthropy not include misogyny? It's like saying you're an atheist but taking offense when someone is incredulous that you deny Christ's divinity. It's sort of part of the package, innit?

[Lucid]

You're arguing for it to be enforced which brand doesn't matter.

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that some people still feel that women are evil (for lack of a less dramatic term), inherently irrational and of less value to society than men. And that it sucks. And that people who think that men are evil, inherently immoral and of less value to society than women are just as wrong. That's about the extent of my original comment. Go back and actually read it.

[Autoptic]

In what context does misanthropy not include misogyny? It's like saying you're an atheist but taking offense when someone is incredulous that you deny Christ's divinity. It's sort of part of the package, innit?

It includes misandry as well which is being ignored. Besides, considering I'm a T you're making many assumptions of what I'm advocating on the sole basis of my perceived feelings, and blatantly ignoring what stances I've already explicitly stated.

I've stated I find men less notable emotionally. That'd translate into less possible value as well.

[Sinequanon]

It includes misandry as well which is being ignored. Besides, considering I'm a T you're making many assumptions of what I'm advocating on the sole basis of my perceived feelings, and blatantly ignoring what stances I've already explicitly stated.

I've stated I find men less notable emotionally. That'd translate into less possible value as well.

I'm not ignoring misandry. It's irrelevant to the discussion. If your misanthropy includes a brand of hating women that is specifically not misogyny then this would be a relevant time to define it.

[Autoptic]

I'm not ignoring misandry. It's irrelevant to the discussion. If your misanthropy includes a brand of hating women that is specifically not misogyny then this would be a relevant time to define it.

Great the hating bit again...

Dislike and mistrust are not hate. The definitions vary. Even dictionaries that say misogyny is hate, dislike, or mistrust seem to want to make a misogynist someone who just hates. The term is loaded much like those related to misanthropy or even asocial which can become anti-social which can also become criminal or the like.





Autoptic added to this post, 1 minutes and 27 seconds later...

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that some people still feel that women are evil (for lack of a less dramatic term), inherently irrational and of less value to society than men. And that it sucks. And that people who think that men are evil, inherently immoral and of less value to society than women are just as wrong. That's about the extent of my original comment. Go back and actually read it.

What about the comment about OneHertz then for the reasons I stated no less?

[Sinequanon]

Great the hating bit again...
Forest. Trees. Hating, dislike, whatever, answer the question. Or don't. But enough with the smokescreens.

[TheLastMohican]

It seems this is coming down to the proper influence of statistics. While it is not fair to the women who do not want children, the lower pay is a valid consequence of a lower average productivity. As an example: if you know that 30% of the members of group A will be out of service for one year out of 10, while only 2% of the members of group B will be out of service for one year out of 10, then the average productivity of group A is lower, and therefore, if you must choose salaries on such a large scale, group A should be paid less.
Mathematically, this makes perfect sense. The controversy seems to be over whether there is a moral obligation to overlook the mathematical discrepancy in the name of fairness.
Of course, this could be seen as something of a false choice. Take the example of the higher insurance rates for young drivers. Teenage males have terrible driving statistics, and therefore it makes sense to charge them more for insurance. Otherwise the insurance companies might lose money from our business. However, this could be made both more fair and more profitable if the higher rates were made more selective. Many insurance companies are now using more detailed analyses, like GPAs, which correspond with safer driving habits. As more factors are taken into consideration, a greater percentage of the crowd being penalized is actuall responsible for the statistics, and the unfairness argument becomes moot.

[Lucid]

What about the comment about OneHertz then for the reasons I stated no less?

I'm sorry, but this sentence is extremely vague and I'm not sure what you're trying to ask.

I think you're trying to ask why I said that OneHertz didn't appreciate women or feel that they are as valuable as men.
I think he thinks that because he said he thinks that:
Women get paid less because they are rationally WORTH LESS because ON AVERAGE they take a lot more days off than men due to maternal reasons (having a baby).

He's making the same illogical some=all leap that you do with your "some women were bad to me so all women are bad" thing. This is something I disagree with, but at no time did I say that equality should be government mandated. Quite frankly, I'm not sure that's the solution. Just as your some=all is a leap in logic, so is your presumption that because I don't agree that women should be paid less than men it means that I think it should be illegal for them to be paid less than men.

However, logical failings are quite possibly beside the point, which was that you are wrong about my arguments (and I'm starting to think that it's because you're paying more attention to my gender than to what I'm actually saying), which were that gender bias and discrimination are still very much in existence on both sides and that they are wrong on both sides.

Also, what I think Sinequanon is saying (but please correct me if I misunderstand, Sinequanon) is that if you are a misanthrope, then you hate humans. That's the definition. Humans include women. So a misanthrope is also, by definition, both a misogynist and a misandrist.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with his (or her?) argument, just explaining it to you.

[Autoptic]

Everyone should be paid what they are worth and no more and no less. It would be unfair if women got the same wages as men, unless they could sign something agreeing they will not have a child while they are working at the company. Unfortunately that is unethical by the current standards.

Sure, any contract that both parties agree with should be valid.

He was advocating a fine grained approach himself but pointed out that the currently system wouldn't allow it. I don't think the legal system would itself. They'd probably call it discrimination. While it would be, it'd actually be going the other way.

I admit you didn't say anything about legal enforcement, and that was an assumption.





Autoptic added to this post, 8 minutes and 22 seconds later...

There is the true fact that most people's values disagree with mine, and said people are using force and fraud to advance their agendas, if possible not only against me but using me. That'd be the distrust which is quite logical. The dislike isn't meant to be rational.

There are intrinsically hostile emotions attached to them as a concept. Mother sent away my father and took me away from my friends, all female. I was originally stuck with my grandmother, and there was my aunt, all authoritarian assholes. Most of the people that directly or indirectly permanently fucked up my life were female, and there's the about two decades of sexual frustration, so, yes, it's unavoidable. It's the reason I think a relationships with a female is still viable as I obviously do very much care. Males I mostly can ignore at least in concept except in relation to attractive females.

I was simply explaining how I happen to feel. This isn't a choice. By my choices, most people have no clue about this at all. They probably just think I'm an aloof jerk as I don't talk to anyone or do much of anything around them much less with them. Note, I'm not doing anything to them either.

[Lucid]

He was advocating a fine grained approach himself but pointed out that the currently system wouldn't allow it. I don't think the legal system would itself. They'd probably call it discrimination. While it would be, it'd actually be going the other way.

The current state of affairs is that women make, on average, less than men do for doing the same jobs. It's not illegal and it's not considered discrimination. Whether it's due to maternity leave or not and whether (if that's the case) that's fair or not is debatable. I believe OneHertz is from Canada? I might be incorrect about that, and I don't know how maternity leave works in Canada, but here in the US, most women receive less pay while they are on maternity leave (so, for example, they might receive 40% of their regular pay while they are on maternity leave), although I think it varies by company (and I believe there is a government mandated minimum the company can pay for maternity leave, just as there's a minimum a company can pay for sick leave, vacation, etc). Also, it's becoming more and more common (and I think it's the right way to go) for men to take paternity leave when they have children.

I admit you didn't say anything about legal enforcement, and that was an assumption.

Thank you. :)

[Autoptic]

I might be incorrect about that, and I don't know how maternity leave works in Canada, but here in the US, most women receive less pay while they are on maternity leave (so, for example, they might receive 40% of their regular pay while they are on maternity leave), although I think it varies by company (and I believe there is a government mandated minimum the company can pay for maternity leave, just as there's a minimum a company can pay for sick leave, vacation, etc). Also, it's becoming more and more common (and I think it's the right way to go) for men to take paternity leave when they have children.

I have a problem with paternity leave too for the same reason. It's not part of the job but specifically not doing the damn job. If I as a single person wanted time off to pursue a personal project, this would be no different but wouldn't be at all allowed, and I wouldn't have anyone advocating it or legally enforcing it.

I'm not against unions if that's going to come up or simply clarifies anything. That's simply how the one group of individuals counter the other group of individuals. Basically, corporation = union. Lionizing the one or demonizing the other is irrational which I'm not saying your doing this but just stating.

[Sinequanon]

I have a problem with paternity leave too for the same reason. It's not part of the job but specifically not doing the damn job. If I as a single person wanted time off to pursue a personal project, this would be no different but wouldn't be at all allowed, and I wouldn't have anyone advocating it or legally enforcing it.
You can look at it that way, but it's extremely short-sighted. The species will get propagated, no matter how much work there is to do. In hiring people, and not robots, the employer is sort of taking the assumption that the people he or she hires will do annoying things like go to the bathroom, eat lunch and breed.

The key is not doing any of those three things specifically on your desk. ;)

[OneHertz]

Well that was interesting.

Lucid, could you explain why an employer should pay women and men the same? From my eyes, I see two people applying for a job. Both equally skilled/educated/etc. One is male the other is female. Statistically, females take more days off. This is an important position so those days off would cost me thousands. Why in the world would I hire the woman for the same pay?

Sure, she might be a great employee. She might even never take days off. But how do "I" know that? It is illogical for me to take a probable LOSS to my company and hire the woman. Being "fair" is no way to run a business. The difference is closed by reducing the salary paid to the woman.

A great point was brought up about insurance companies. This is EXACTLY the same scenario as the 18 year old having to pay a few times more for insurance on his mustang over a 50 year old. Statistics..

[Reon]

Well that was interesting.

Lucid, could you explain why an employer should pay women and men the same? From my eyes, I see two people applying for a job. Both equally skilled/educated/etc. One is male the other is female. Statistically, females take more days off. This is an important position so those days off would cost me thousands. Why in the world would I hire the woman for the same pay?

Sure, she might be a great employee. She might even never take days off. But how do "I" know that? It is illogical for me to take a probable LOSS to my company and hire the woman. Being "fair" is no way to run a business. The difference is closed by reducing the salary paid to the woman.

A great point was brought up about insurance companies. This is EXACTLY the same scenario as the 18 year old having to pay a few times more for insurance on his mustang over a 50 year old. Statistics..

Then why hire women at all? In a perfect utopian society, with that mentality, would you even bother hiring a woman? (I'm just trying to understand your logic better)

[OneHertz]

Then why hire women at all? In a perfect utopian society, with that mentality, would you even bother hiring a woman? (I'm just trying to understand your logic better)

If there is always an equally skilled male available then no. It would be illogical to do so. If we are still talking about the same pay.

Of course for certain jobs (marketing for example) different views are needed hence some women would be desirable; same with some members of various races. I am mostly talking about jobs like engineering in previous posts.

[Deliberator]

I've been thinking about the gender gap and was wondering if perhaps women also get paid less on average because they don't ask for higher pay as often as men might. This is more a question for those of you familiar with the workplace (which I am not). Are men more aggressive when negotiating wages?

[TheLastMohican]

I've been thinking about the gender gap and was wondering if perhaps women also get paid less on average because they don't ask for higher pay as often as men might. This is more a question for those of you familiar with the workplace (which I am not). Are men more aggressive when negotiating wages?

This has been shown to be true in studies.

[bethanygm]

Questioning the purposes of this topic, I am afraid that the positive righteous women that I can see in here through their posts, are a minority in the world. The "men are scum" mantra still reigns, as well as the idea that we men in general have a large representative of untrustworthy and/or undignified y-chromosome carriers in our midst. I will state however, that I subjectively believe that I view others as they present themselves. If a man or woman prostrates their integrity, does harm or malignantly represents their views, I shall treat them with what I qualify as a reasonable response.

I personally have met many men who use women and have little respect for women. They also blame women and say its our genders own fault that they disrespect us.
I am personally married to a past "user". He called himself a "playboy" since he never cheated on anyone (so can't really be called a "player")
but.. as a girl.. I can empathize with some of the girls who no doubt felt like shit when he never called or talked to them again. Maybe some girls just wanted to get laid or whatever.... but.. he was a user. I can't stand people like him and here I am, married to one. haha.
He treats me amazingly, never disrespects me for being a women and he (mostly) refrains from making disrespectful comments about other women in front of me..
What's weird is that he isn't a total pig like some guys I've met.
Here's what I think (after analyzing it a lot ha) His ENFPness made him want and NEED physical intimacy. He did it for the affection he needed and didn't have because he never found a gf he wanted to be with.
People are users for different reasons.

ANYWAY. I haven't met very many GOOD guys. Maybe the only good guys are the ones who fall in love with you, though. I know my husband obviously changed after he met me.





bethanygm added to this post, 4 minutes and 14 seconds later...

I have a problem with paternity leave too for the same reason. It's not part of the job but specifically not doing the damn job. If I as a single person wanted time off to pursue a personal project, this would be no different but wouldn't be at all allowed, and I wouldn't have anyone advocating it or legally enforcing it.

I'm not against unions if that's going to come up or simply clarifies anything. That's simply how the one group of individuals counter the other group of individuals. Basically, corporation = union. Lionizing the one or demonizing the other is irrational which I'm not saying your doing this but just stating.

Even though I don't even like kids, I am hoping I love my own and like them,..
Kids are important.. It is really important that you raise your children well, so that they can contribute to society in a meaningful way and grow up to hopefully realize their own potential. Taking time off to establish a bond with your child is mostly likely far better for society in the long run, than if you had done 600 extra tax returns or sold shit for 6 extra months of your life. There are far too many kids that are a product of broken/abusive homes. I wouldn't expect a shitty parent to stay home, anyway.. but hopefully good ones would take the time off.

[ElstonGunn]

If there is always an equally skilled male available then no. It would be illogical to do so. If we are still talking about the same pay.

Of course for certain jobs (marketing for example) different views are needed hence some women would be desirable; same with some members of various races. I am mostly talking about jobs like engineering in previous posts.

That's a pretty good disclaimer, there. If we're talking generalities-- which seems to be what you're doing-- then you'd have to admit that a generalized "female perspective" could be very helpful in a lot of situations. Even if there is a decent chance that a female applicant will take some time off to have a kid, she could make up for it in the overall picture by giving input that wouldn't be available in an all-male workplace. That's generalities, though, so it goes without saying that none of it necessarily applies in any given specific situation.


I've been thinking about the gender gap and was wondering if perhaps women also get paid less on average because they don't ask for higher pay as often as men might. This is more a question for those of you familiar with the workplace (which I am not). Are men more aggressive when negotiating wages?

I've heard that. Men show up and say, "If I'm going to do this job, I want 50 grand for my trouble," whereas women show up and say, "Well, I'd like to do this job... it sounds like a good opportunity, and I like your company. I'm flexible on the pay. I'm not sure what the going rate is, but I'd probably be happy with that, if that's alright with you." If what they say about how women tend to value consensus and interpersonal harmony is true (I'm not saying it is), then that makes some sense to me. That being said, I'm more likely to take the "female approach" myself. Again with the generalities.

[Lucid]

Well that was interesting.

Lucid, could you explain why an employer should pay women and men the same? From my eyes, I see two people applying for a job. Both equally skilled/educated/etc. One is male the other is female. Statistically, females take more days off. This is an important position so those days off would cost me thousands. Why in the world would I hire the woman for the same pay?

Sure, she might be a great employee. She might even never take days off. But how do "I" know that? It is illogical for me to take a probable LOSS to my company and hire the woman. Being "fair" is no way to run a business. The difference is closed by reducing the salary paid to the woman.

A great point was brought up about insurance companies. This is EXACTLY the same scenario as the 18 year old having to pay a few times more for insurance on his mustang over a 50 year old. Statistics..

How do you know a man won't take unnecessary days off? How do you know that he'll show up consistently and actually do the job? The problem is that these generalizations break down when you start talking about individuals, which is what you're doing. If an employee wants to take time off to have a child, why don't you just not pay them for the time they'll be off? If their absence will be an issue, you may discuss that with them when you hire them. Also, most companies that offer maternity leave... actually, all companies (in the US anyway) offer maternity leave and it hasn't really been a problem. What you seem to be suggesting is that because a woman might decide to have a child, and because many do, all women are unsuitable for employment for most positions.

Thank you for making my point about the persistence of ignorance and sexism for me. I don't feel I need to continue this argument with you, since I'm obviously not going to change your mind with any kind of rational thinking or logic, and I think you've made it pretty clear to everyone that you're basically starting with a premise (women<men) and then working your way backwards to rationalize it and cherry picking your points.

[OneHertz]

How do you know a man won't take unnecessary days off? How do you know that he'll show up consistently and actually do the job? The problem is that these generalizations break down when you start talking about individuals, which is what you're doing. If an employee wants to take time off to have a child, why don't you just not pay them for the time they'll be off? If their absence will be an issue, you may discuss that with them when you hire them. Also, most companies that offer maternity leave... actually, all companies (in the US anyway) offer maternity leave and it hasn't really been a problem. What you seem to be suggesting is that because a woman might decide to have a child, and because many do, all women are unsuitable for employment for most positions.

Thank you for making my point about the persistence of ignorance and sexism for me. I don't feel I need to continue this argument with you, since I'm obviously not going to change your mind with any kind of rational thinking or logic, and I think you've made it pretty clear to everyone that you're basically starting with a premise (women<men) and then working your way backwards to rationalize it and cherry picking your points.

Yet you still do not have any arguments. What you are saying is that if there are two options, one with 55% chance of success another with 45% you would choose the 45% because it MIGHT be the successful one. Great way of doing things. It will get you very far. The fact that you call your thinking rational amuses me a lot, because it is anything but that.

[Delarge]

An Extremely Simple Anthropological Answer to Making the Sexes More "Equal" in Our Society or Around the World: End the agricultural basis of civilization and return to a lifestyle similar to that of pre-historic hunter-gatherers; how about Neo-Hunter-Gatherers? Most of you probably don't know what the hell I'm talking about (because I don't feel like writing a report for you and I got a bitch load of other home work to do), but basically the creation/invention of agriculture, according to many anthropologists, gave privileges to men over women. One example is that women had to bear more young with the invention of agriculture making them less important in the political matters of the state/clan. This still exists within our culture today and unless the other 90% of the world decides it wants to be like American-Western Civilization, which is economically impossible, the masculine attitude will continue to filter into American society.

Hogwash. I suppose you subscribe to the myth of the noble savage too?

[invicta]

If there is always an equally skilled male available then no. It would be illogical to do so. If we are still talking about the same pay.

Of course for certain jobs (marketing for example) different views are needed hence some women would be desirable; same with some members of various races. I am mostly talking about jobs like engineering in previous posts.

This is not 1955, turnover rates are high regardless of gender, very few ambitious, competent employees with marketable skills avoid shopping for better offers for the simple sake of loyalty to the Y chromosome club.

The argument that only women leave companies is highly unrealistic.

On another note, and if anyone here has ideas on this I'd like to hear them, I don't know why men as a group devalue their own children so much that they don't demand paternity leave when their children are born. I don't know why men as a group in Western culture don't wish to take more responsibility for the actual physical and emotional care of their own children, they are 50% theirs after all. I think it has to do with valuing tradition and money over humanity itself, but as a woman I can't know the origins of this cultural phenomenon.

[Lucid]

Yet you still do not have any arguments. What you are saying is that if there are two options, one with 55% chance of success another with 45% you would choose the 45% because it MIGHT be the successful one. Great way of doing things. It will get you very far. The fact that you call your thinking rational amuses me a lot, because it is anything but that.

That's the thing. It's not a matter of 55% chance of one thing versus a 45% chance of another thing. It's just not that simple, no matter how hard you try to make it so.

And in by far the majority of cases taking maternity leave hasn't shown to be detrimental to anyone other than the woman who does it (her paycheck). So I don't really know why you're so upset about the prospect of it. In addition, if a male employee of yours were diagnosed with cancer and needed to take 6 months to a year off to undergo treatment, would you have the same attitude that you do about a female taking time off to continue the species?

We don't live in a world where most women have the option not to work. It's just not economically possible for 99% of the population.

Also, since women are now outnumbering and outperforming men in most universities (with the exception of engineering I believe), it's not even a matter of having two equally qualified candidates, one male and one female.

In addition, you're not employing robots, but humans. And as several people have pointed out, you need to let humans have time off occasionally to do things like recover from illnesses, sleep, use the bathroom and reproduce. I notice you didn't have anything to say to any of those comments. Hmmm.

Anyway, my original point wasn't actually to become involved in debate about the merits or pitfalls of employing women, but only to point out that views such as yours still persist. And really, it's like someone arguing that the world is flat. There's just not any point in doing anything but nodding and smiling at them and slowly backing away. Christ, wasn't there someone in another thread arguing that sexism is dead? Hilarious!

Anyway.

*nods and smiles and slowly backs away*

On another note, and if anyone here has ideas on this I'd like to hear them, I don't know why men as a group devalue their own children so much that they don't demand paternity leave when their children are born. I don't know why men as a group in Western culture don't wish to take more responsibility for the actual physical and emotional care of their own children, they are 50% theirs after all. I think it has to do with valuing tradition and money over humanity itself, but as a woman I can't know the origins of this cultural phenomenon.

I don't think it's that men don't value their children. I think that it's because until very recently society had certain views about men and what their role in a family should be (just like women) and they couldn't demand paternity leave.
Fortunately, the role of fathers in a family has changed a great deal in the last few decades and men are now able and expected to be more involved with their children, rather than just bringing home a paycheck to feed them.
I don't think it's that most men value tradition and money over humanity itself and what a horrible thing to say about them. This is certainly not the case with any of the fathers I know. I think that men in Western culture, as a group, do wish to take more responsibility for the physical and emotional care of their offspring and that's why we're seeing these changes in the acceptability of paternity leave and the changing role of fathers in any family.

[Autoptic]

Even though I don't even like kids, I am hoping I love my own and like them,..Kids are important.. It is really important that you raise your children well, so that they can contribute to society in a meaningful way and grow up to hopefully realize their own potential. Taking time off to establish a bond with your child is mostly likely far better for society in the long run, than if you had done 600 extra tax returns or sold shit for 6 extra months of your life.

Why exactly do you intend to have kids if you don't like them, some warped sense of social duty or a biological "itch"? Meaning is relative. Society as an entity isn't real, and even as just a group of individuals, each make their own meaning. Some people don't bond, and you're assuming a lot about it.

And in by far the majority of cases taking maternity leave hasn't shown to be detrimental to anyone other than the woman who does it (her paycheck).

That's an odd sentence. Not doing the job at all is quite detrimental to the employer much less paying her anything for the lack of it. I'm not arguing about others taking off for medical leave as that's a more complicated matter, and I've already stated my position on government interference, just pointing out that statement itself is bullshit. You are ignoring that choice is involved on her end too. If I purposely damage myself, I'm not even sure insurance would cover that.

Anyway, my original point wasn't actually to become involved in debate about the merits or pitfalls of employing women, but only to point out that views such as yours still persist. And really, it's like someone arguing that the world is flat.

Factually, the world isn't flat, but what we are arguing about are actual facts, again with sophistic bullshit. The argument is the response to these facts, but you are indeed trying to call an apple an orange to suit your position.

[Lucid]

That's an odd sentence. Not doing the job at all is quite detrimental to the employer much less paying her anything for the lack of it.

Yet somehow, the work still gets done, doesn't it? And just as with an employee who has a serious illness, a company will sometimes have to make sacrifices to keep a valuable employee. It's necessary for humans to reproduce, and it's also economically necessary for almost everyone to work. That's what you seem to be ignoring. You're making all these generalizations (most women, etc), yet your ignoring the those same generalizations when they detract from your views by saying, well it's her individual choice. Yes, in a way it is, but at the same time we need to continue the species.

I'm not arguing about others taking off for medical leave as that's a more complicated matter, and I've already stated my position on government interference, just pointing out that statement itself is bullshit. You are ignoring that choice is involved on her end too. If I purposely damage myself, I'm not even sure insurance would cover that.

Again, purposely damaging yourself doesn't benefit the species. And depending on how you do it, the insurance would cover it. Maternity leave isn't much different from a medical leave of absence.

Factually, the world isn't flat, but what we are arguing about are actual facts, again with sophistic bullshit. The argument is the response to these facts, but you are indeed trying to call an apple an orange to suit your position.

No, it seems you're trying to call an apple an orange to suit your position, but I suppose if we agreed on who was being unreasonable then we wouldn't be arguing. Factually, maternity leave is necessary and shown to have minimal adverse effects on a business. Just like medical leave. You're trying to say that the two are different because a woman chooses to get pregnant but people don't choose to get cancer. Yet many people smoke or eat poorly, don't they? Knowing that it may cause them to get sick. Also, you're ignoring the basic fact that if all women just quit having babies we'd be in some trouble. This, the sick leave and the bathroom breaks have continually been brought up and you continually ignore them. Why is that?

[Sinequanon]

Also, what I think Sinequanon is saying (but please correct me if I misunderstand, Sinequanon) is that if you are a misanthrope, then you hate humans. That's the definition. Humans include women. So a misanthrope is also, by definition, both a misogynist and a misandrist.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with his (or her?) argument, just explaining it to you.
I was waiting to give him a chance to say something like his misanthropy is a blanket hatred (or whatever) of people, not an aggregate of every system of hatred (or whatever) culled under one umbrella.

For instance, I definitely have misanthropic moments, moments where I have great contempt for society and all of the people in it. But I don't know if, at that point, I hate women in the way a misogynist hates women, or hate black people in the way a racist hates blacks. Do you know what I mean?

I gave Autoptic a fairly easy out on this and he didn't take it, which makes me think he doesn't really think about these things as deeply as he thinks he does. To be honest, through a lot of his posts it seems like he read the INTJ descriptions a few hundred times and is unwilling, unable or uninterested in becoming anything more than a rigid, boring stereotype. He makes INTJs look like unfeeling, uncaring robots and it's more than a little disturbing.

Oh, and I'm a he. ;) Cheers.

[invicta]

I don't think it's that most men value tradition and money over humanity itself and what a horrible thing to say about them. This is certainly not the case with any of the fathers I know. I think that men in Western culture, as a group, do wish to take more responsibility for the physical and emotional care of their offspring and that's why we're seeing these changes in the acceptability of paternity leave and the changing role of fathers in any family.

I didn't say that about them, I was offering a possible opinion from the outside, and was asking for the real veiwpoint from them. I like men, I am a working mother myself, and I like seeing the small advances that have been made by men to include themselves in something so rewarding for everyone involved.

I think that more needs to be done to shift away from the more dehumanizing aspects of the industrial revolution, but this will not happen unless the prevailing culture makes it happen.

I think we agree for the most part. Thanks for offering some input on that, I was wanting to hear what people are thinking.

*edit
I know that for a lot of older men, a common regret is that they didn't spend enough time with their families when they had the chance. It's sad that there isn't more resistance to the effects of Western culture that keep men from what should be a basic right as a parent.

[Autoptic]

I gave Autoptic a fairly easy out on this and he didn't take it, which makes me think he doesn't really think about these things as deeply as he thinks he does. To be honest, through a lot of his posts it seems like he read the INTJ descriptions a few hundred times and is unwilling, unable or uninterested in becoming anything more than a rigid, boring stereotype. He makes INTJs look like unfeeling, uncaring robots and it's more than a little disturbing.

Easy out, you're forgetting Lucid specifically stating that misanthropy included misogyny. That would've gone in circles.

Funny, I kept thinking I was an unusually emotional INTJ, especially in regards to romantic/sexual issues. I've been accused of being irrational on exactly that basis; then, there is the misanthropy itself.:confused:

You seem to be trying to claim any real emotion must side with you. That's as bad as the word, humanity, which, of course, refers to anything any human ever is or does, not just what you happen to like.

[Deliberator]

I don't know about the rest of you womenfolk but I'm a little more concerned with what I can do to be paid what I'm worth, not arguing about how it's not fair. Businesses are not concerned with fairness if you haven't noticed.

What I would like to know from OneHertz is, if you hire me and a man for similar positions, paying me slightly less to protect yourself from my propogative tendencies as a female, what happens if I end up outperforming my associate? What if I prove more productive? How quickly will you decide that I do not fit the generalization? Are you going to pay me more than my associate? How long will it take?

Maybe I'll just dress in drag for my next job interview.

[invicta]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You simply ask for equal pay for your equal work. If the employer gives you some crap about your ovaries, take him to court.

[Synamon]

He's not going to hire you so those questions are irrelevant. He is grasping at straws for an excuse not to hire a woman as Lucid already pointed out.

Discrimination based on sex has nothing to do with ability. There is no guarantee that the man who does get hired is going work harder or better even if he takes a few less sick days a year than the woman. Or that he's not going to get sick, disabled, addicted to drugs or alcohol, go back to school, or just leave for a better job.

note: Maternity/paternity benefits are government benefits here in Canada (where OneHertz is) so that is not his expense, it is part of Employment Insurance.

[Autoptic]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You simply ask for equal pay for your equal work. If the employer gives you some crap about your ovaries, take him to court.

Does this intrude on negotiated wages? That could leave the men to negotiate and the women just getting the same without the hassle that caused it. Men that didn't negotiate for more wouldn't be covered either.

[invicta]

I believe the law assumes equal negotiation attempts, but I am not a law expert, and I did not read through the entire thing. The law is not there to protect poor negotiators, but to protect against discrimination over gender differences.

At any rate, no employer wants the time and expense of a law suit, and so I don't imagine many competent employers actually bringing up reproductive abilities as a reason for less pay...this would be a clear case of discrimination.

[Autoptic]

"Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA prohibit compensation discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. Unlike the EPA, there is no requirement under Title VII, the ADEA, or the ADA that the claimant's job be substantially equal to that of a higher paid person outside the claimant's protected class, nor do these statutes require the claimant to work in the same establishment as a comparator."

Now, I see quite a problem with that.





Autoptic added to this post, 2 minutes and 25 seconds later...

At any rate, no employer wants the time and expense of a law suit, and so I don't imagine many competent employers actually bringing up reproductive abilities as a reason for less pay...this would be a clear case of discrimination.

Exactly, it allows anyone who isn't a white male to play a discrimination card without having to negotiate.

Edit: It does occur to me the majority in a given case won't always be white males.

[invicta]

"Title VII, the ADEA, and the ADA prohibit compensation discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or disability. Unlike the EPA, there is no requirement under Title VII, the ADEA, or the ADA that the claimant's job be substantially equal to that of a higher paid person outside the claimant's protected class, nor do these statutes require the claimant to work in the same establishment as a comparator."

Now, I see quite a problem with that.





Autoptic added to this post, 2 minutes and 25 seconds later...



Exactly, it allows anyone who isn't a white male to play a discrimination card without having to negotiate.

Edit: It does occur to me the majority in a given case won't always be white males.

I did not make the law, and I agree with your having a problem with that part of it. My point in bringing it up is that if it needs to be a recourse in a case of actual discrimination, then that is an option for those who need it.

As far as white males go, I do sympathize, losing a tersely accepted privelege would be uncomfortable. As far as allowing anyone not white and male to play the card...the employer certainly has every opportunity to prove that it was incompetence, poor negotiation skills, or whatever that held the applicant back from receiving an equal wage or salary, if that was indeed the case. If receiving an unequal wage truly was related to gender or race, then that employer should be held accountable.

[Lucid]

I don't know about the rest of you womenfolk but I'm a little more concerned with what I can do to be paid what I'm worth, not arguing about how it's not fair. Businesses are not concerned with fairness if you haven't noticed.

Who's arguing that anything isn't fair? You're making a few leaps in people's arguments here and basically ending up saying what the rest of us have already been saying.

Also, as Synamon mentioned, OneHertz isn't going to hire you anyway because it is possible for your gender to have children. It's not about your abilities, it's about your ovaries. Irrational? Yes. That's why it's sexism.

[Autoptic]

As far as white males go, I do sympathize, losing a tersely accepted privelege would be uncomfortable. As far as allowing anyone not white and male to play the card...the employer certainly has every opportunity to prove that it was incompetence, poor negotiation skills, or whatever that held the applicant back from receiving an equal wage or salary, if that was indeed the case. If receiving an unequal wage truly was related to gender or race, then that employer should be held accountable.

What privilege, having to negotiate for myself while others freeload off my effort or being in the majority in a given occupation?

I'm against government interference on the simple basis that it's private property. Personal preference in relation to one's own property is not something to be held accountable for except to one's self.

[OneHertz]

He's not going to hire you so those questions are irrelevant. He is grasping at straws for an excuse not to hire a woman as Lucid already pointed out.

Discrimination based on sex has nothing to do with ability. There is no guarantee that the man who does get hired is going work harder or better even if he takes a few less sick days a year than the woman. Or that he's not going to get sick, disabled, addicted to drugs or alcohol, go back to school, or just leave for a better job.

note: Maternity/paternity benefits are government benefits here in Canada (where OneHertz is) so that is not his expense, it is part of Employment Insurance.

No, YOU are grasping for straws to cry about inequality. I still do not have ANY logical arguments from your side. NONE. ZERO. All you keep saying is "what if" the individual doesn't fit the average. There is no way to determine that beforehand, now is there, so all I have are statistics, which show men taking less days off work, hence being more productive. That's life.

I am not talking about a large company here. My company is sub 20 people. Say one of the main sales people leaves me. That person was generating me $100k+/month. The training period for a new one is 3-6 months because the field I am in is highly technological. I am now stuck for quite a while losing a HECK of a lot of revenue. Why in the world would I take a higher chance (no matter how slight it is) of getting screwed by hiring a woman? Last time I hired a woman for sales it cost me 400k. That's four hundred thousand dollars. However you try to spin it that is just the reality of things, which some women will never accept.

And yes I do hire women. The person that does all my accounting is a single 57 year old woman. She has been absolutely great and has not made a mistake in 4 years now. She gets paid very well because I do not want to lose her and end up with some failure.

[invicta]

What privilege having to negotiate for myself while others freeload off my effort or being in the majority in a given occupation?

I'm against government interference on the simple basis that it's private property. Personal preference in relation to one's own property is not something to be held accountable for except to one's self.

Equality is so unfair! :D

Corporations are publicly traded, and not the private property of a single person. As the population changes, white males becoming a minority, which I think you are in favor of if I remember your fears about overpopulation, your fears of freeloading should diminish.

[Autoptic]

Equality is so unfair! :D

Corporations are publicly traded, and not the private property of a single person. As the population changes, white males becoming a minority, which I think you are in favor of if I remember your fears about overpopulation, your fears of freeloading should diminish.

What I just described was not equality.

Publicly traded according to contracts which then get ignored and rewritten at will by an enterprise that's nothing more than a publicly accepted mafia.

[invicta]

You don't feel that equality involves inclusion of the members of the population based on merit rather than white maleness?

[Autoptic]

You don't feel that equality involves inclusion of the members of the population based on merit rather than white maleness?

I just described having to negotiate for myself, while someone else cries discrimination since they aren't making as much, while another white male, making as much as said person, is stuck in the same situation I was. That is not equality.

On the other matter, the population that isn't part of the corporation doesn't deserve any inclusion at all. The others only deserve what was actually agreed to.

[invicta]

I just described having to negotiate for myself, while someone else cries discrimination since they aren't making as much, while another white male, making as much as said person, is stuck in the same situation I was. That is not equality.

On the other matter, the population that isn't part of the corporation doesn't deserve any inclusion at all. The others only deserve what was actually agreed to.

That is a what if situation. Unequal pay for equal work is a pervasive situation, it does occur, and without laws against it, it would continue to occur.
I find it difficult to find arguments supporting unequal pay for equal work. Your argument that some people are jerks is not equal in scope to large segments of the population being paid less based on the superficialities of gender and race.

Now, the inclusion of members of the population, without finding ways to exclude them, is a philosophical and political issue, not merely an issue of ownership. You don't have to agree with it.

[Autoptic]

Your argument that some people are jerks is not equal in scope to large segments of the population being paid less based on the superficialities of gender and race.

Do the not equal people have to pay for being made not equal so that special larger segments get to be "equal"?

[Sinequanon]

I just find this line of argument to be ridiculous.

I could similarly find some statistic where men become a liability and claim that hiring men is a poor risk. There are more men in prison than women, for instance. Therefore, I will not hire men because they are more likely to leave and be carted off to prison in the middle of a job than women. Men are more likely to be sued for sexual harassment. Therefore, hiring men is a lawsuit waiting to happen, and I will not hire them. And so on.

Hire the people that work best for your company, but don't justify your bigotry by bullshit statistics. Just straight up say you don't want to work with young women, perhaps because you don't respect them, or they intimidate you, or whatever. Or take a bit to reflect about why you hold those beliefs. You might shock yourself.

[thod]

There was this notion that society discriminates against women. Yet society consists of men and women only. Therefore the question arises, are men discriminating, women discriminating or both?

There are no legal disadvantages that I can think of that would make it a systemic issue. Certainly in public and most large organizations pay is down to grade, all grade 4's will earn within a range without reference to gender.

I think it is simply down to individuals. Women get less pay because they are not aggressive on the issue. The bosses job is to pay you as little as he can get away with, without you leaving. Your job is to get as high as you can without getting fired for someone cheaper.

The issue is largely down to interpersonal style. The way a woman negotiates with her man at home is not correct for the workplace. Women tend to seek consensus to resolve disputes, whereas men seek to have their view accepted in an adversarial manner.

Perhaps its because women are used to arguing with men in the home environment. There you are trying to maintain relationships and thus destroying your opponent is a pyhrric victory. They then bring this style into the workplace negotiation.

I consider myself an expert on this, having done countless interviews down the years. I am not trying to maintain any relationship because I am freelance. As a mercenary I am going take them for the max I can get, they are at the disadvantage since they are used to negotiating with employees not contractors. I will leave if I can do better elsewhere and we both know this. I have done numerous jobs where I found the others where getting more, and I kicked myself. Now I am bold and ask for silly sums. They don't know what you are worth. They assume anyone asking for a low amount must be poor and anyone that asks for a lot must be good, so ask for a lot.

[invicta]

Do the not equal people have to pay for being made not equal so that special larger segments get to be "equal"?

I am not sure what this has to do with paying women less because they are the more visible half of the reproductive equation. I think we've already gone over this, if someone is paid less because they are not white and male, this is a clear situation of discrimination.

If someone is paid less because they are unequal in ability, effort, or negotiation skills that is another situation, and I can't see how this costs anyone but the individual anything.

If someone takes unfair advantage of the system, that is of course unfair, but that is not the reason the equal pay law is necessary.

[Autoptic]

Wonder why none of us are attacking the "society needs babies" stuff? It's loaded and squishy and will just go splat.

"Even the striving for equality by means of a directed economy can result only in an officially enforced inequality - an authoritarian determination of the status of each individual in the new hierarchical order."

“From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time.”

Friedrich August von Hayek The man was on a roll.