The latest Feminist deflection

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Actually it was answered. Feminism isn't about equal rights. It's about equality in general.

A self-described male feminist has stated that feminism IS about equal rights. He is the one arguing WITH you so ambitiously. Now you are saying feminism (which I believe you admitted earlier you don't identify as being a follower of) isn't about equal rights but rather is about equality in general.

Now why has no one answered the converse? What rights have men lost?

It has been answered by myself at least twice already. From memory it has been answered by at least 2 others as well. You are refusing to consider the arguments that were presented to you in your crusade to promote that EVERY variable can be attributed to misogyny.

For anybody following this thread that is annoyed by my last series of replies, I am sorry but those things needed to be answered by me as I am the author of the thread and I was away when they were being discussed.

originally posted by: rockintitz
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Sure. It's the reason I said more likely to be hired for most jobs.

I just showed you data that shows there is evidence of bias in favor of hiring women, and your response is to complain that it's not that way everywhere?

There's bias against hiring women but it's an accepted practice by hiring bosses(not covered by discrimination laws), such as women in their child birth years, especially if they were married recently because they are assumed to start a family soon.

originally posted by: dreamingawake
There's bias against hiring women but it's an accepted practice by hiring bosses(not covered by discrimination laws), such as women in their child birth years, especially if they were married recently because they are assumed to start a family soon.

By "child birth years" I assume you mean the age range of 18-35? I don't see too many unemployed females in particular compared to their similarly aged male counterparts at that age being discriminated against because of their sex alone. Do you honestly believe that is the case, and the reason for that being the case can be reasonably explained by some type of hidden sense of misogyny?

There IS bias against hiring or keeping any individual (male or female) who either states they DO intend to take time off soon after the job has commenced for ANY reason (which employers are entitled to ask BEFORE considering the applicant), AND if an individual who is already employed needs to take time off which will affect their hours of work and will require the need for replacement or temporary staff in their absence to cover the work and loss of revenue.

If the employee refuses to disclose such important information by choice (after being asked) or in the fear they will be discriminated against for doing so, they can either take an uncalculated risk and choose not to reveal the information and hope it all works out, or they can take a calculated risk and rather speak the truth and say they fear discrimination but need to express their need for time off, and see if their request is agreed to. Which option would you choose?

Do you believe any of the above is unfair for a company functioning in a capitalist economy?

An example of a non-pregnancy related reason to take time off work: a man who wants to go on holiday during the stock take period and only lets his boss know 5 days before. Is the boss required to accept this request or does the boss have the right to explain why the request is unreasonable and if the man does not come in for stock take, his job may be in jeopardy?

This is a situation I have personally been involved in soon after entering the workforce. Lucky for me, my boss was a nice guy and probably understood I was young and new to the workforce so he made other arrangements.

At the time I would have been angry if he fired me, but now I can understand the reason he would have needed to. Experience is a wonderful thing.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

It was unfair to me because I had job positions that I otherwise qualified for but the employer was looking for an older woman not in that bracket. How come men within the typical "birthing" years where there wife or gf may become pregnant are affected the same, considering some men are "stay at home moms". Not even to forget the women who are married or not within those years who don't want children or cannot have them.

There are many legal discriminatory practices that affect both men and women, FB viewing(employers can judge on not only appearance from there but what a person does and what they share) for example opens a whole new sector on that especially when jobs require people to hand over passwords(deemed not legal when sent to court at these once or so).

Times have changed many employers have not. Anyway these are a whole other side issue that is apparently not brought up in studies but impacts people.

To be more on topic, as a female yes I was in a potential situation where if I was hired by a certain employer(had applied and interviews for) I would have been paid less then the male employees for the same position. At the time, that was of course, unknown to female employees. This company was later sued and went out of business for paying women less.

originally posted by: dreamingawake
It was unfair to me because I had job positions that I otherwise qualified for but the employer was looking for an older woman not in that bracket. How come men within the typical "birthing" years where there wife or gf may become pregnant are affected the same, considering some men are "stay at home moms". Not even to forget the women who are married or not within those years who don't want children or cannot have them.

I am sorry this happened to you at such a difficult time in your life. Unfortunately, in regards to your argument that this is common occurrence for women in that age bracket compared to men, what (aside from your one personal experience) are you basing that argument on? Do you have any studies?

There are many legal discriminatory practices that affect both men and women, FB viewing(employers can judge on not only appearance from there but what a person does and what they share) for example opens a whole new sector on that especially when jobs require people to hand over passwords(deemed not legal when sent to court at these once or so).

I agree. Notice how in this particular case it is affecting BOTH men and women and not just one sex in particular? That is important to recognise.

Times have changed many employers have not. Anyway these are a whole other side issue that is apparently not brought up in studies but impacts people.

The question is if you truly believe you are being discriminated against based on your gender and there is no way to avoid this, do you think embracing victim hood and waiting until the government fixes the alleged problem is better than pushing on and being determined to find a job with employers who do not have the same perspective? Surely you aren't insinuating that a majority of employers out there WILL discriminate against you for the sole fact you are female, and therefore finding a different job that is similar in pay is impossible?

To be more on topic, as a female yes I was in a potential situation where if I was hired by a certain employer(had applied and interviews for) I would have been paid less then the male employees for the same position. At the time, that was of course, unknown to female employees. This company was later sued and went out of business for paying women less.

See, the law works. The company did not get away with their discriminatory perspective because there must have been enough evidence to convince the judge or jury that unreasonable levels of discrimination were prevalent within the management of the company.

Do you think companies in the year 2017 should take a large uncalulated risk by legally paying females less because they assume nobody will sue them, or ensure pay is as even as possible and not have to realistically worry about an audit or lawsuit which would probably lead to them losing more money than if they had taken the first option instead?

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: dreamingawake
It was unfair to me because I had job positions that I otherwise qualified for but the employer was looking for an older woman not in that bracket. How come men within the typical "birthing" years where there wife or gf may become pregnant are affected the same, considering some men are "stay at home moms". Not even to forget the women who are married or not within those years who don't want children or cannot have them.

I am sorry this happened to you at such a difficult time in your life. Unfortunately, in regards to your argument that this is common occurrence for women in that age bracket compared to men, what (aside from your one personal experience) are you basing that argument on? Do you have any studies?

I've known others affected and according to people offline affected by it and I have viewed convos of and talked to on the net over the years bosses and not it's a very common accepted practice., would love to see studies on it.

There are many legal discriminatory practices that affect both men and women, FB viewing(employers can judge on not only appearance from there but what a person does and what they share) for example opens a whole new sector on that especially when jobs require people to hand over passwords(deemed not legal when sent to court at these once or so).

I agree. Notice how in this particular case it is affecting BOTH men and women and not just one sex in particular? That is important to recognise.

I don't see why men can't address that themselves, feminism is not stopping men from that, everyone has the potential to be affected.

Times have changed many employers have not. Anyway these are a whole other side issue that is apparently not brought up in studies but impacts people.

The question is if you truly believe you are being discriminated against based on your gender and there is no way to avoid this, do you think embracing victim hood and waiting until the government fixes the alleged problem is better than pushing on and being determined to find a job with employers who do not have the same perspective? Surely you aren't insinuating that a majority of employers out there WILL discriminate against you for the sole fact you are female, and therefore finding a different job that is similar in pay is impossible?

I never embraced being a victim, sorry that you see someone bringing this up and feminism bringing up inequality with pay as such when it does happen. This isn't about being a victim it's about addressing these things that do happen to help them stop happening. As this can happen, doesn't mean it happens 100 percent of the time, that much is known. Should pay inequality for the same position should happen, no it should not.

Government fixes, such as what more laws? That won't cure all, such as seen with discriminatory laws being broken, but it may discourage some companies from such practices.

It can be difficult when there's that window of certain amount of hiring managers who practice that. You have to keep in mind sometimes there's few to nill options when it comes to jobs on some areas for people, they will be affected the most by having even less limited job options. I moved on, it was very difficult to be paid less and retrained being outside of what I was qualified for, etc, because they were worried I was going to become pregnant as a young female.


Do you feel this would affect men adversely if the issue is dealt with, such as with oversight instead of invasive government laws against employers(one might be alluding to here which i don't support)?

Why can't it be addressed accordingly and overall the pay not being equal to men(I agree with looking at studies shown earlier in the thread for example). Many young women and older of course have the potential to be be paid unfairly.

To be more on topic, as a female yes I was in a potential situation where if I was hired by a certain employer(had applied and interviews for) I would have been paid less then the male employees for the same position. At the time, that was of course, unknown to female employees. This company was later sued and went out of business for paying women less.

See, the law works. The company did not get away with their discriminatory perspective because there must have been enough evidence to convince the judge or jury that unreasonable levels of discrimination were prevalent within the management of the company.

Do you think companies in the year 2017 should take a large uncalulated risk by legally paying females less because they assume nobody will sue them, or ensure pay is as even as possible and not have to realistically worry about an audit or lawsuit which would probably lead to them losing more money than if they had taken the first option instead?

No, the "law" didn't work until they were sued otherwise they'd still be doing it, getting away with it. Why would I think they should take an uncalculated risk? They should not but they do, and look at the consequences:
That was an example that it does happen. Yes, luckily it was dealt with but not before many years on. Now it no longer exists, if they didn't conduct themselves in that manner they would still be around offer employment, considering that did sadly put them out of business instead of being able to correct the issue and not to see it happen again, in areas where there is little. In that case, that it would affect them so much they should have been more cautionary that such a thing would not happen in the first place.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

Do you think she her chance of being harmed (in any form) was increased, wouldn't matter either way or deceased by her decision to consume so much alcohol that her vision became blurred?

It. doesn't. matter.

If the people flying on the plane that the terrorists hijacked and flew into the world trade center hadn't gotten on the plane, they wouldn't have died. Should we be focusing on the fact that if those people hadn't gotten on the plane their chance of dying would have decreased? Shouldn't we be focusing on what the terrorists did wrong and not what the victims did wrong?

No, I am asking why her experience cannot be used to help PREVENT MORE rapes (not ALL rapes, but MORE rapes) from happening to other women in the future. Is that a reasonable question?

No, we need to focus on what the rapists are doing, not what the victims are doing. We need to change the rapists' behavior, not change the victim's behavior.

All I implied is that the story serves the wrong purpose: for feminists to detract from criticism that threatens the validity of their moment.

So, should the story have been published or not (in your opinion)?

Actually, we should be focusing on the fact the CIA and Pentagon were warned of a possible incoming attack on domestic targets and didn't do anything about it, as well as the implication that jet fuel melts steel beams but not the paper passports of the supposed hi-jackers.

In terms of protecting yourself, minimizing your risk of bad things happening to you, you are the government, not the airline passengers.

No one is bloody saying rape is okay.
No one freakin says that.
But that doesn't mean it's a good idea to strip naked for a relaxing moonlight stroll through east Compton.
Sometimes bad things happen to people, and you will never stop that truth. No matter how hard you try there will always be some bad stuff in the world.

Incidentally, I feel like you're raping me with all these intrusive strawmen. You can't see where they came from, but they snuck in and the more you tell them no the more insistent they get...

Yes, pun intended.
.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: Semidemigod

Actually it was answered. Feminism isn't about equal rights. It's about equality in general.

Now why has no one answered the converse? What rights have men lost?

Back in the day of heated debates on ERA, people like Phyllis Schlafly argued that the amendment would create a scenario which had the potential to force women to be drafted into wars and go to the Front lines when they are pregnant or young mothers and such. Militant feminism has its radicalness which is rooted in an attitude where women are not protected by men and society. It is truly a shame that common sense and chivalry has been replaced by idiocy like females wearing pink ears on their heads to prove a point.

originally posted by: dreamingawake
I've known others affected and according to people offline affected by it and I have viewed convos of and talked to on the net over the years bosses and not it's a very common accepted practice., would love to see studies on it.

Ok, do you strongly feel this is a widespread problem that extends outside the group of people you know? It's one thing for somebody to go through a similar situation as you and somebody that has gone through an almost identical situation to you. The problem with the former is that any details that are the same make the situation seem more similar than they actually are. If enough people are all agreeing on the same story because of insignificant features of the experiences, then they cannot make a claim as bold as "sexism against women was the reason" without some type of proof.

I don't see why men can't address that themselves, feminism is not stopping men from that, everyone has the potential to be affected.

That particular situation, which was an example YOU introduced, had not been brought up until you did. Who has said that particular issue you are referring to is a problem for men before you introduced it? I acknowledged it was a problem for both sexes, I did not say I had a solution to fix it or that MRAs would fix it.

I never embraced being a victim, sorry that you see someone bringing this up and feminism bringing up inequality with pay as such when it does happen. This isn't about being a victim it's about addressing these things that do happen to help them stop happening. As this can happen, doesn't mean it happens 100 percent of the time, that much is known. Should pay inequality for the same position should happen, no it should not.

Hold on, you are now misrepresenting my position.

When did I say the "pay gap" (which I have already demonstrated is actually a false issue in the way it has been misrepresented in one of my previous posts) even if it were true, when did I imply THAT would be an example of embracing victim-hood? I said not being able to provide any kind of evidence (not proof, but evidence) and then concluding you were being discriminated against based on your gender, and then filing a lawsuit and hoping the government would aid you in the lawsuit and fix the problem, while that situation then caused you NOT to try look for work somewhere else but rather wait for your lawsuit to be victorious — then THAT would be embracing victim-hood.

It's not like we are talking about this happening to you at more than 1 job is it? As if in the 9 months you were pregnant you were repeatedly denied a job by 5 different employers as soon as they found out you were pregnant, is it?

Government fixes, such as what more laws? That won't cure all, such as seen with discriminatory laws being broken, but it may discourage some companies from such practices.

Which is why we already have laws in place for that purpose. If you can provide evidence of what you are complaining about then you can proceed to take legal action. That is how it works.

It can be difficult when there's that window of certain amount of hiring managers who practice that. You have to keep in mind sometimes there's few to nill options when it comes to jobs on some areas for people, they will be affected the most by having even less limited job options. I moved on, it was very difficult to be paid less and retrained being outside of what I was qualified for, etc, because they were worried I was going to become pregnant as a young female.

How long ago are we talking here? I cannot imagine that what you have just described is something that took place in the last 30 years, is it? Either you were not confident in your ability to win the case on facts/evidence beyond a reasonable doubt and felt even putting in the effort was not worth it (even if it meant allowing them to continue going unpunished for what they did), or you are lying to try and make a point. It does not add up in the way you have described the situation.

Do you feel this would affect men adversely if the issue is dealt with, such as with oversight instead of invasive government laws against employers(one might be alluding to here which i don't support)?

Oversight is no problem. How much oversight are you suggesting? As long as you are not advocating special treatment for women and then not willing to have the same oversight for men (in relation to being threatened to lose your job if you are taking too much time off). You can say "well only women get pregnant" but then I can say "yes but they are not the only parent UNLESS they are single mothers." See how true equality is not all rainbows and lollipops?

Why can't it be addressed accordingly and overall the pay not being equal to men(I agree with looking at studies shown earlier in the thread for example). Many young women and older of course have the potential to be be paid unfairly.

The pay gap as it is presented in every current form that exists — from the 60% or 69% or 72% or 79% figure to the 80% figure I have personally witnessed seeing in the past — have all been misrepresentations of how wages are paid in a capitalist economy. None of them take into account the number of hours worked, amount of time taken off during the time you worked, title or position of the people doing the job who are being compared and to a lesser extent level of previous experience before doing the current job if this is to start a new job and negotiate a contract. ALL of these factors are critical (except the last one) to determining how wages ought to be paid within a capitalist economy.

Show me a single study backed by an actual economist that satisfy ALL but the last of those factors and I will stop arguing, drop everything and admit there is a unjust problem that requires immediate fixing.

Until then, presenting the studies as though they are actual pieces of evidence is wrong, stupid and dishonest.

No, the "law" didn't work until they were sued otherwise they'd still be doing it, getting away with it. Why would I think they should take an uncalculated risk? They should not but they do, and look at the consequences:
That was an example that it does happen. Yes, luckily it was dealt with but not before many years on. Now it no longer exists, if they didn't conduct themselves in that manner they would still be around offer employment, considering that did sadly put them out of business instead of being able to correct the issue and not to see it happen again, in areas where there is little. In that case, that it would affect them so much they should have been more cautionary that such a thing would not happen in the first place.

How do you expect the law to work if there is no evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to demonstrate the law has been broken? How is that possible? Do you want female workers to get special treatment in this regard? That they are protected from taking any time off but men can still be fired for taking too much time off? Is that really equal and fair?

You said “ Now it no longer exists”. I thought you were presenting this as a current issue that is still widespread and needs handling as of this moment. What is the incentive then to hire a female worker if by doing so you are risking having what you just described as a reality? Women would not be able to get jobs. But they do. They are. Women in the West are doing EXTREMELY well.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost
The following article appeared on the News.com.au Website this morning (11:21am):
Dendy cancels screenings of The Red Pill

Which was the top story soon after it was released.

As of this evening (5:42pm), the top story is now this:
Miss World Australia finalist Adau Mornyang says she was sexually assaulted at age 17

I'm at the point where I'd be happy to make a deal to trade one of my legal rights as a woman (own property, vote, or something) if it meant feminists STFU permanently. I don't care about the damn causes. No one else but them cares anymore, they ruined themselves. They're creating apathy at breakneck speed, and it's going to bite them in the ass so hard they won't be able to be taken seriously ever again.

In interacting with MRA's, I have found there is the exact same phenomenon you find in feminist circles- there is a legitimate issue, there is a rational and balanced theory which reaches towards equal rights of both sexes....
But then there is the nut jobs who get involved. The extremists. The individuals who are not keeping their sights set on that goal of equal rights for both, but rather, is embittered and angry for their own personal reasons against the opposite sex.

I interact with feminists that are like this too, taking feminism too far, into misandry.

I often wonder why the more intellectually balanced MRA's or feminists, don't attempt to curb their colleagues behavior which gives them all a bad name. They sit by silently instead.

It made me come to the conclusion that on each side, activists just enjoy conflict and though some want to stand by a rational stance, they enjoy the provocation and discord that is stirred up by their hothead irrational colleagues, even if it turns more of the public against their cause.... because then they can claim even more victimhood!!!

A lot of addicts of victimization out there.

originally posted by: Nyiah
I'm at the point where I'd be happy to make a deal to trade one of my legal rights as a woman (own property, vote, or something) if it meant feminists STFU permanently. I don't care about the damn causes. No one else but them cares anymore, they ruined themselves. They're creating apathy at breakneck speed, and it's going to bite them in the ass so hard they won't be able to be taken seriously ever again.

Thank you for speaking out. Not because I think you are courageous for doing so, but because you are willing to demonstrate that this is not an issue of sexism against women. People can only take by my word on that no matter how much evidence and reason I present, whereas with you as a female, you are living proof that the issues feminists in the West are raising is beyond ridiculous at this point.

Even so, don't offer yourself as the sacrifice that is needed to make them see sense. Let them be forced to give up their current privileges they so enjoy and take for granted and THEN they will no longer have the option to do what you are offering to do.

Thank you. You are a person that is brimming with integrity.

originally posted by: Bluesma
A lot of addicts of victimization out there.

Indeed, there are.

However, let's put into perspective the following facts before we get too complacent:

Feminism was an extreme reaction to an extreme situation, an extreme situation that no longer exists in the West. MRAs was an extreme reaction to feminism's refusal to include men in the dialogue when discussing issues regarding equality that affect men. 100% of feminism's issues have been acknowledged, 99% of them have been fixed in a reasonable manner. Only about 50% of men's issues have been acknowledged and about 5% are only in the process of being fixed. (No issues have been fixed).

Yes feminism has been around longer and MRAs will take time. But how will it EVER get moving if feminists have the political power to shut down a documentary about MRAs (directed by a female feminist — I kid you not, I'm not lying, look it up!) before it has been seen or critiqued on the assumption that it is anti-feminist, anti-women and wants to take away all the rights women have gained, when such a claim is backed by 0% evidence. Do you see the problem?

I have made a thread that details all of this, if you want the link look at my thread history or I can PM it to you. I'm not linking it because I already did and doing it again will seem like I'm after stars/flags, which I'm not.

a reply to: Dark Ghost

I see exactly what they are. They have yet to see & understand they are precisely what they claim to fight against -- their undoing. It's like a self-fulfilling curse of willful blindness.
I liken it to poor children never receiving gifts on Christmas becoming wealthy, and getting everything they ever wanted. After a while, the genuine gratefulness wears off, and entitlement sets in. They keep claiming nobody ever gives them anything, the other siblings always get more, adults favor them and it's wrong. Give them more gifts, more, more more.

At some point, they alienate the gift-givers, and receive nothing for their ingratitude.

originally posted by: Nyiah
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I see exactly what they are. They have yet to see & understand they are precisely what they claim to fight against -- their undoing. I liken it to poor children never receiving gifts on Christmas becoming wealthy, and getting everything they ever wanted. After a while, the genuine gratefulness wears off, and entitlement sets in. They keep claiming nobody ever gives them anything, the other siblings always get more, adults favor them and it's wrong. Give them more gifts, more, more more.

At some point, they alienate the gift-givers, and receive nothing for their ingratitude.

Awesome analogy!

Hopefully people like you and I can help them understand the situation before they suffer the backlash in the realms of feminism in the future being only remembered as an historic male hate movement.

originally posted by: Dark Ghost

originally posted by: Nyiah
a reply to: Dark Ghost

I see exactly what they are. They have yet to see & understand they are precisely what they claim to fight against -- their undoing. I liken it to poor children never receiving gifts on Christmas becoming wealthy, and getting everything they ever wanted. After a while, the genuine gratefulness wears off, and entitlement sets in. They keep claiming nobody ever gives them anything, the other siblings always get more, adults favor them and it's wrong. Give them more gifts, more, more more.

At some point, they alienate the gift-givers, and receive nothing for their ingratitude.

Awesome analogy!

Hopefully people like you and I can help them understand the situation before they suffer the backlash in the realms of feminism in the future being only remembered as an historic male hate movement.

A good start would be to remove the right to alimony, and rework child support to perhaps a utility support system. Not enough women are pursued for skipping out on CS, and too many men are paying far too much. Limit alimony to the physically disabled or terminally ill spouses if we must, and limit child support to utility payments only. THAT is fair. Having a divorced, childless woman sponge off her ex while she's in a damn good job already is not fair when men see it happen in their favor substantially less, and the child support system does not support the child in ways that matter. Limit it to a needed utility (water, electric, gas) and call it even. I'd say assuring quality of life necessities would be worth more to a child than spending it willy nilly is.

This is the kind of crap feminists need to work on to make life better. Not keep demanding more. Life is better when everyone comes to a useful compromise and both sides win, not when you F one gender into the ground.

originally posted by: Nyiah
A good start would be to remove the right to alimony, and rework child support to perhaps a utility support system. Not enough women are pursued for skipping out on CS, and too many men are paying far too much. Limit alimony to the physically disabled or terminally ill spouses if we must, and limit child support to utility payments only. THAT is fair. Having a divorced, childless woman sponge off her ex while she's in a damn good job already is not fair when men see it happen in their favor substantially less, and the child support system does not support the child in ways that matter. Limit it to a needed utility (water, electric, gas) and call it even. I'd say assuring quality of life necessities would be worth more to a child than spending it willy nilly is.

This is the kind of crap feminists need to work on to make life better. Not keep demanding more. Life is better when everyone comes to a useful compromise and both sides win, not when you F one gender into the ground.

Despite knowing you probably are married, and considering I don't even want to get married at this stage of my life...will you please marry me? (In the metaphorical sense, of course. Just IN CASE a feminist comes along and accuses me of sexism.)