Feminism: Destroying the Male and Female Relationship

reply to post by tiger5


Can you provide any links that don't rely on "outdated statistics"; do not disregard extraneous variables which are likely to interfere with the accuracy of the study; and ones that don't blame men for the underachievement of women?

The whole problem with this notion of "evening the wage gap" is that it seeks to reward those who are not as skilled and hard-working as others with the same pay and entitlements just because they are apart of the "oppressed" sex. It is NOT evening the pay gap. It is increasing the wages of the less skilled and less capable by decreasing the wages of the more skilled and more capable.

reply to post by Dark Ghost


Can you please go and do some research for yourself. I know you can use a search engine. Would you also like me to argue your case for you whilst you perhaps open a cold one?

Given that there are two biological sexes if one shows a consistent history of being underpaid. What does Occams razor tell you regarding who is responsible for the pay difference? Nope you cannot blame robots for this.

I gave one example of 2010 research. Can you guess why I gave no 2011 research. It looks like if there will be 57 years before we get genuine equality in salaries between men and women. That is a crying shame for a western non-moslem country!

There comes a time when historical revisionism just become tiresome.

reply to post by tiger5


The Gender Wage Gap is a trivial issue - one designed to distract the masses and keep them divided, oblivious to more important issues that you don't hear about on the nightly news or from those in power.

- The gap in the disproportionately higher number of Males that commit suicide than Females
- the gap in the number of custody cases won by mothers compared to fathers
- the gap in the number of Taxpayer-funded services for Women compared to services available for Men
- the gap between the number of Men who lose out on job opportunities to make way for women, compared to the number of job opportunities women lose out on to make way for men

Like I said earlier in the thread: when it comes to the well-being of Women, society can never do enough. When it comes to the well-being of Men, well they should be able to take care of themselves. So many replies in this thread prove this point beyond a reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by tiger5
There comes a time when historical revisionism just become tiresome.

Historical Revisionism is tiresome for those who have gained socially and economically due to lies and historical inaccuracies in the "Official" version of History. Others prefer not to remain apathetic while their rights and quality of life are eroded by those who use references to these skewed events as justification for modern-day discrimination.

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by tiger5

 

The Gender Wage Gap is a trivial issue - one designed to distract the masses and keep them divided, oblivious to more important issues that you don't hear about on the nightly news or from those in power.

- The gap in the disproportionately higher number of Males that commit suicide than Females
- the gap in the number of custody cases won by mothers compared to fathers
- the gap in the number of Taxpayer-funded services for Women compared to services available for Men
- the gap between the number of Men who lose out on job opportunities to make way for women, compared to the number of job opportunities women lose out on to make way for men

Like I said earlier in the thread: when it comes to the well-being of Women, society can never do enough. When it comes to the well-being of Men, well they should be able to take care of themselves. So many replies in this thread prove this point beyond a reasonable doubt.

edit on 3/1/2011 by Dark Ghost because: clarity

umm....two of those gaps could be directly connected to the wage gap. If you had a choice between a mother and a father of equal parenting skills, or even if one might show a little higher skill witih the father able to gross $600 or so dollars a week, and the women able to gross $400 if she is lucky, and you know that having custody of these kids is gonna jeopardize those earnings, and the taxpayer is gonna end up picking up any deficit that those earnings can't cover, who's job are you gonna jeopardize???
and well, you sure there are more services for women, and not more services for CHILDREN?

As far as job opportunities goes?? Well, I will rely on my experience more than on your words!! I graduated from college in an environment where if there was a guy around wanting the job, any guy, well, a women wasn't gonna get the job, after all, the man had a family to take care of, the women had a man, or should have a man to take care of her!! And that was just how it was in TX. in the early 80's.
And, well, the lest two jobs I have worked, men that have less ability than me, less time in the company, have walked out with bigger paychecks, offered better positions in the company, ect....

so well, what can I say, give women an equal footing in the workforce, with equal pay, and maybe you will see those two other issues fade some??? Otherwise, well, suck it up and live with it, and I will live continue living with skimpy checks!!!

Originally posted by Dark Ghost
reply to post by tiger5

 

Can you provide any links that don't rely on "outdated statistics"; do not disregard extraneous variables which are likely to interfere with the accuracy of the study; and ones that don't blame men for the underachievement of women?

The whole problem with this notion of "evening the wage gap" is that it seeks to reward those who are not as skilled and hard-working as others with the same pay and entitlements just because they are apart of the "oppressed" sex. It is NOT evening the pay gap. It is increasing the wages of the less skilled and less capable by decreasing the wages of the more skilled and more capable.

edit on 3/1/2011 by Dark Ghost because: reworded

It's amazing that a guy who runs a road tractor makes 17/hr and a woman who runs an office, manages 10 salesmen and does the payroll makes 10/hr with a college degree. It's been proven that men are more aggressive when it comes to wages or salary. They negotiate harder and are rewarded for it. Statistics can be manipulated greatly by how the question is asked and how one groups the answers. If you honestly think that men and women are paid equally in society then women should be just as flush as men money wise. That is not the case. Again, there is the whole issue of leaving the workforce to raise children. I have known too many well educated women with college degrees who left the workforce and started a family. Their husband did very well, and when she returned to the workforce she could not even get considered for the same level job she had prior to starting a family. Employers take advantage of this and get a great worker for half of what she is worth.

We are going in circles. I can understand that some men have issues with what they perceive as inequality and maltreatment. Women have issues of being undervalued. Misogyny is rampant and at this point I think the discussion is stuck. I will go back to my prior point. If we all walked in unconditional love towards one another, this would be a non-existent subject. It's never too late to start.

Makow has been lamenting his concept of fallen 'manhood' for nearly a quarter of a century now. I wrote him once and reminded him that if his concepts were genuinely "fact" or "truth" in life and "normal" for all people, then it would BE so...and there would have been no uprising to begin with, engineered or not.

What Makow often neglects to include in his diatribes and debates on genders and roles, is the reality of personhood - something, a condition of being, that most bodies of western and eastern men and their institutions until this century have taken for granted was a singularly male human right.
It isnt. Personhood was never a right to be "granted" in the first place.

Men may have 'granted' women the right to vote..to do xyz...but those are social constructs...social controls, ones that dont ultimately define the existance of or impact the prescience of the innate "being" within each human, male or female, they only define fears.

As much as I love being a woman, and my freedom, I am not a bra burning feminist. I do though, thank the early sufferagettes' struggles for the social rights I enjoy today, and the fact that socially, I can dress feel and be feminine one day or be as butch as a bulldyke another day depending on the needs of that day and at my leisure. I can do this because I am socially free to, now. As a woman I no longer exist solely to 'please' men or anyone else in this world and I am not bound by the fears of men as many other women are today, still.
For me, these masks, roles and the garments of the same, are interchangable, not permenant facts of who I am or must be. For that I am grateful. That is about where it ends for me though.

Unlike feminists, I do not need or feel any desire to belittle, disposses men, or rule men or fight men.
I dont tend to argue about it any more anyway..I know there is no absolute right or wrong for all. Today I simply acknowledge that am a fully conscious person - a human being and individual spiritual entity first and foremost before any 'role' and within myself, and I place that personhood as valued above all other defintions of my self I might have or have thrust upon me.

As a mature adult, I know that my physical genitals and biological and psychological mechanisms and the desires they inspire or spawn emotionally or in my body no more choose my path or define my entire being in life today than my childs tantrums do. Those innate processes are a part of who I am..subject to my free will, they are not the sum of 'me' and I am not their slave.

I believe deeply and strongly in motherhood and fatherhood as bonds and literal and spiritual journeys of maturation. I believe in the job of parenting, and view it as a sacred obligation and I do see and accept the benefit of participation by both genders in the lives of our childrens development.
Again though, these roles, are choices, children grow regardless, they find what they need in the strangest of palces... and even these roles are not "definable" to a specific concept of view of what they 'ought' to be for 'everyone'.

Makows absolutist roles, and his views on those roles of men and women deny what 'is'. They are not truth for all...not "facts" scientifically, historically or otherwise. They are just his opinons and experiences and expression of his own desire.

For me, placing personhood/humanhood 'first' before such definitions as I do, is not an act of rebellion or an exclusion of men or an attack on the dignity of men or the family. Its about embracing my own dignity and taking up those roles and obligations where I choose, as a free choice, and so undertaking them truthflly, freely, willingly and consciously, engaging in them willfully, rather than as a byproduct of expectation or social burden.

Personhood, is a preperation for me, for true partnership. It has allowed me to be a better mother and mate. Embracing it as a priority in my life has allowed me to take back my usurped personal authority and to begin that process of real maturation and preperation with dignity.
Its also been about seizing my mind and self back from a very sick society that had manipulated and twisted gender and the sacred into something they never were and never were meant to be - devices of and for control - not just of my own body and being..but of men and other women, and wider society as well.

Without that freedom to choose at my disposal, an authentic one today that only came with claiming my personhood and recognizing my distinction from, not seperation from men, without the real choices and ability to exercise them, I was not whole so could not give myself wholley to another in truth.

And with external social dogmas fears definitions and perceptions ruling my person instead of my own self rule and self governership, all the natural instinct, desire, gender roles, desires etc that I might choose or inherrently posses would have remained meaningless to me. I would still be imprisoned by them not freed by them or through them as I have been as a free person.

Makows egocentrically defined defintions of the *roles* of men and women, makes prisoners of people and worse, turns people into possessions...imo...and imx. I am not a possession. Nor would my husband be to me. That would reduce his being to a comodity. Which it is not...it would be demeaning us both.

So...where males still might reign through circumstance here or there, I choose to rule my own being over them 'anyway' today. I dont need to raise a fuss about that or burn my bra or demand men accept it or as feminisim or any 'ism' would, try to enforce a reverse dogma or new definition.
I 'just do it'..what works for me....quietly and with dignity....and it does work for me.

I'm a person not a vagina....I am alive..the rest really is negotiable.


Rosha.

reply to post by Rosha


Excellant post however I have a problem with that last word "negotiable". See, when men say no, no is no but when women say no men think women are negotiable. When men find they end up with the smaller end of the stick, they go balistic.

I'm at a stage in my life where I don't negotiate and no is end game.

When I'm told I'll loose out, well, I just say what I never had is no lose to me!

reply to post by schrodingers dog


LOL.

The question is still open:

Please provide me with a relevant scenario in a 2011 Western society, where a woman is discriminated against, or where someone is discriminated against because of their race or ethnicity.


Of course, I expect you to squirm out of any attempt to answer my probing question ( as is the case so far ).

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


come spend some time at my shop, I am sure that if you spend enough time, you will find your scenerio....

ink is thinned for some, others are told that it has to be that thick to print, all the women printers have been told to just go over it twice and clear it, the men aren't told that, and I've counted, they are going over it more than me...
and let's not get into the guy who was asking me "what color ink is this" who then manages to take home as much money as I do, even after his child support payment is paid out! I have a family too ya know, and all but maybe $30 is used to keep it afloat!

just come spend some time where I work, and watch and listen, you will see it!

reply to post by Rosha


Thank you for bringing us back to the original OP. Henry Makow seems to be an advocate of going back to the “good old days” when women were economically dependent on men and men had rights over women. By attacking feminists it is clear that he is attacking the very people who fought for equality for women. Without the much abused feminists society would have been virtually unchanged since the 70s. Who else would have changed society? Not a bunch of men because we had power over women.

The blogger Courtney Milan correctly identified the nature of the relation between women and men as that of Feudal lord and vassal in 19th century England. He was in charge of her. Given that women’s jobs paid less and continue to pay less than men on average this was an even more grave state of affairs.

Part of the feudal set up was that once married a wife was a source of unlimited sexual intercourse for her husband. Again it was the 70s that saw the change in UK law.

www.leeds.ac.uk...

The law was changed in a landmark case in 1976.

So for me the 1970s was a time of massive change as I was a teen in those days. There were also large scale strikes at places like Ford and Grunwicks in the UK.

So rather than a meeting of equals in marriage it was a meeting were at best a woman could have hoped for an reasonable feudal lord with her as a vassal. Is this what we want for our daughters and women folk in this day and age? What about love, friendship, companionship and someone who would be a good father. The power relations between a Lord and his vassal under feudalism was not one I would have wanted for my female family.

Makow and his supporters are nasty little reactionaries on the issue of equal gender rights. To blame the feminist movement for relationship problems is patently absurd. I wonder whether Maskow and his followers have daughters? Again as a movement Feminism had a wide range of views from separation from men to integration from men. Many of these women were also closet romanticists also.

Before anyone calls me out I am a male that the myopic may see as Macho ( Contact sport playing, working out, etc). I am also a parent and heterosexual. I would not cal myself a feminist. I share their interest in true equality.

Originally posted by dawnstar
come spend some time at my shop, I am sure that if you spend enough time, you will find your scenerio....

Apparently not, as your subsequent comments do not support the scenario that I posited.

Originally posted by dawnstar
ink is thinned for some, others are told that it has to be that thick to print, all the women printers have been told to just go over it twice and clear it, the men aren't told that, and I've counted, they are going over it more than me...

LOL.

Newsflash: there are anti-discrimination laws that apply in the workplace.

If women are being treated unfairly or unequally in your work place, then your employee should be brought to book over this.

It's not exactly going to help, just sitting there and bitching about it, now is it ?

What have you done about the unequal treatment of women in your workplace ?

I'm afraid that it's people who don't do the right thing in circumstances such as these ( ie. reporting your employer for discrimination ) that contribute and perpetuate unequal treatment in the workplace.

If you don't report incidents such as this, then you can hardly complain when these practices continue.

What do you expect ?

Originally posted by dawnstar
and let's not get into the guy who was asking me "what color ink is this" who then manages to take home as much money as I do, even after his child support payment is paid out! I have a family too ya know, and all but maybe $30 is used to keep it afloat!

I'm not sure where you're going with this one.

No offence ( LOL ! ), but the guy you're talking about sounds like a bit of a wanker, yet I'm not sure what relevance his scenario has to this discussion.

Originally posted by dawnstar
just come spend some time where I work, and watch and listen, you will see it!

I doubt it.

There will always be people who discriminate against someone else because of race, gender, sexuality, religion etc.

We know that these people do exist, and always will.

What the odious feminists fail to mention and acknowledge, is that the laws are correctly in place so as to make sure that it's not possible to get away with any kind of discrimination.


If you're being discriminated against in the workplace for whatever reason, then there are legal routes that you can go down to alleviate these issues.

These problems won't fix themselves, and certainly whinging and bitching about them, without any consequent action, is fruitless and self-defeating.


Simples !

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/478d18ac76e3.jpg[/atsimg]

The law says alot of things, alot of times, reality just don't jive with the laws.
ei.....look at the danged real estate mess!!

I not one to go running to the gov't anyways, others in the shop have called, and they didn't get anywhere. My boss lied to me, or he is just plain dumb when it comes what is going on his shop!!
either way, doesn't matter to me, I had to stick it out at least till the physical problem that I still say the thick ink caused got fixed (don't have much faith in the disablility, workman's comp laws either )....they are fixed, and hopefully the job I am persuing will work out before february. you wanted a scenerio as far as discrimination in the workplace. I gave you one, really I gave you a few, from three different areas of the country through a little over a 20 year span! To sit there and say that I am the one that is to blame because I ain't bucking a system that seems to be pretty well set, well, sorry, there's been many, many people come and go, or stay at that shop, for the most part, when they decide that they just aren't gonna take it anymore, they leave! it a systematic problem that isn't gonna be solved till people, like you, me, the bosses, ect.....find a reason to change. it's a heart problem, not a law problem! But, it does exist!

"What the odious feminists fail to mention and acknowledge, is that the laws are correctly in place so as to make sure that it's not possible to get away with any kind of discrimination."

Ok But it was the feminists who campaigned to put the laws in place and to thus change the legal framework. It certainly was not men who were the vanguard of such a change..

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by Rosha

 

Excellant post however I have a problem with that last word "negotiable". See, when men say no, no is no but when women say no men think women are negotiable. When men find they end up with the smaller end of the stick, they go balistic.

I'm at a stage in my life where I don't negotiate and no is end game.

When I'm told I'll loose out, well, I just say what I never had is no lose to me!

But then you're assuming the negotiation I am speaking of is an external thing..which for me at least in the first instance, it isnt. Negotiation, for me, is also not about bater or comprimise over a thing..its more about *how* than *what*.

As far as external negotiations go, *some* men are unable for many reasons to trust women and negotiate from anything less than a defensive postion. This is fair and reasonable, when you consider that collectivly, we as women have done little to earn or foster such a trust within ourselves as much as in men and have done a lot to undermine it and ditto, collectivelly men have yet to experience that freedom of trust or earn that same trust with women and have activly undermined it as well. So any negoatiation hs to acknowledge that lack of trust exists..while retainig the perspective that we're both in the same boat..same oars..same deep water...with the same or a mutual responsiblity for it.

Me, and while I respect the opinions knowledge and experiences of the men around me, I respect the HUMAN beings around me very much more. So I would no more burden those beings with the obligation and responsibility of my life or with the gravity of being the sole deciders of my fate than I would expect them to lump their responsibility to and of their self onto me.
More, I dont *need* to do that, I might want to sometimes and he might want to take that obligation on sometimes..but there is no need. We are not platforms we are two people. Gifted with strengths and intellect and spiirt enough to figure out objectivly what is actualy needed from us both, rather than simply obeying and acting on a temporary emotional reaction. We can move and decide to act together as one...but we are not one...we are two. We can ignore that we are two for a time..but life will always bering us back to that reality.
I guess then its about the managment of expectations...the preplanned resentments of the emotional world.

Being a person takes a lot of effort, commitment and responsibility...its hard work..but for me its worth it..its not about a rejection of ANYTHING, or trying to be solely self sustaining..no one can ever be that..we, men and women, desperatly do need each other...need being the optimum word here as it defines the differences between what are just wants of the immediate, and the truth of who we really are, together and independantly.


Rosha.

Originally posted by Serenity08
It's amazing that a guy who runs a road tractor makes 17/hr and a woman who runs an office, manages 10 salesmen and does the payroll makes 10/hr with a college degree.

Not amazing at all.

Unless you are self-employed, then you have to realise that the wages you earn will ultimately be determined by your employer.

If someone wants to pay a tractor driver ''x'' amount of money, then that is entirely up to his employer.

If that ''x'' amount of money is more than the ''y'' amount of money that another employer pays the woman who runs the office, then so be it.


While I'm not a fan of free-market capitalism, we can't pretend that that isn't the way that the game works.

The situation you outline above seems more to do with this system, rather than gender.


I'm pretty sure that a guy who runs this hypothetical office will earn the same as a chick, and both will still earn less than the hypothetical tractor driver.


Your point seems to be addressing a completely different issue to any kind of gender shenanigans.

Originally posted by Serenity08
It's been proven that men are more aggressive when it comes to wages or salary. They negotiate harder and are rewarded for it. Statistics can be manipulated greatly by how the question is asked and how one groups the answers.

Then women need to step up to the plate and negotiate harder.

What are you seriously expecting ? Someone else to do the dirty work for you, so as you can get a free ride ?

Obviously, a potential employer is going to attempt to spend as little as possible on the wages of his employees. This is, and always will be, the case ( unless you are lucky enough to work for a philanthropic employer ).

In a firm that has a non-structured wage policy, then it's up to the individual to haggle for the best wage possible.


Seriously, this is what really pisses me off about feminists and feminism.

Expecting equal treatment, yet wanting someone to hold their hand in the big, bad world, to achieve something that should be earned by merit.

Men have to work hard to negotiate themselves a decent wage, then all things being equal, so should women.

Why do some women have an attitude of entitlement ?

If you want to earn a comparable wage to a man, then you have to work as hard as him to achieve it.


For goodness sake, even sports stars who earn tens of thousands pounds a week employ an agent to negotiate the best wage that they can get from their club !

Are these sportsmen being discriminated against, because their prospective club may be inclined to offer them as little as possible ?

Originally posted by Serenity08
If you honestly think that men and women are paid equally in society then women should be just as flush as men money wise. That is not the case.

I realise that your post is addressing another member's points, so forgive me if I butt in.
However, I'd like to attempt to answer your general comments as best I can.


Men and women are paid equally in society; if someone is paid unequally because of their gender, then this is not legally acceptable.

This is really quite simple.

Originally posted by Serenity08
Again, there is the whole issue of leaving the workforce to raise children. I have known too many well educated women with college degrees who left the workforce and started a family. Their husband did very well, and when she returned to the workforce she could not even get considered for the same level job she had prior to starting a family. Employers take advantage of this and get a great worker for half of what she is worth.

This is a point that I both agree and disagree with you on.

I agree on a personal level, as I don't think that a woman who has children ( or who may potentially have one ) should be treated any differently to anybody else.


I'm not directly responsible for employing people at work, however, I'm involved in the process of sifting through and ''pruning'' the applications, and I'm also one of a triumvirate who conduct interviews ( although, I don't have the final say on who's employed and who isn't ).

''Fascinating story, Sherlock, now what's your point ?'' I hear you say. LOL.

The point is that a woman's family or potential pregnancy has absolutely no relevance in my decision making during the application or interview process, and I've recommended pregnant women and women with a young family, before.

But, where my meandering story links up with the ''agree and disagree'' comment above, is in the fact that I don't personally pay the wages of people who work at my company. If a woman takes maternity leave, then it doesn't worry me financially, nor does it affect me in a working sense ( there are always people who are willing to cover maternity/paternity leave ).

Now if I actually owned the business, then the lack of working hours that a pregnant woman or a woman with a young family may work, would be rightfully factored into my consideration when I employed her.

It's a bit of a no-brainer, really... Young woman with child or middle-aged guy with grown-up children ? Which one would I get more working hours out of ?


Having said that, I'm a big softy, and if I were in charge of a firm, then I would never not employ a woman because she had young children. If anything, I would be more likely to give her the job, because she probably would find the money useful to herself and her family.

And that - I don't mind admitting - is why I'll never be a manager of a company, or progress beyond the level of ''middle-management''.

I lack the emotionless, amoral ruthlessness to succeed in business !

Originally posted by Serenity08
I can understand that some men have issues with what they perceive as inequality and maltreatment. Women have issues of being undervalued.

Men are demonstrably the victims of inequality and maltreatment. There are many example of this, such as the different tests for female firefighters that are used by some fire services, that I've previously mentioned.

I don't see how women are ''undervalued'' at all.

To not value a woman's contribution in the workplace would constitute ''cutting off your nose to spite your face''.


When racism was more prevalent in the US and the UK, sports teams continually played black players, because a lot of the black guys were as good as - or better than - the comparable white guys.

Despite racist attitudes, these black sportsmen were employed because they did the job as well as the white guys, thus being useful to the people running these sporting teams.

Similarly, if there is a woman who is the best at her job, then no employer ( no matter how sexist ) will turn her down for a well-paid job.


I fear, no matter how ''un-PC'' my comment may be, that a lot of women just aren't capable of successfully working in a lot of traditional male jobs.

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes
I fear, no matter how ''un-PC'' my comment may be, that a lot of women just aren't capable of successfully working in a lot of traditional male jobs.

Indubitably!

I like that you wrote 'a lot of'..not 'all'...ive seen some big scary girls that can change a mining tractors tyre faster than any bloke..and a guy that can do needlework so fine you heart cries when you see it...*some* is a great word in gender politics.


R

Originally posted by tiger5
Ok But it was the feminists who campaigned to put the laws in place and to thus change the legal framework. It certainly was not men who were the vanguard of such a change.

Nein, nej, non.

Ugly and bitter feminazis cannot possibly attempt to claim the credit for societal equality.

Equality, and a civilised society, is based upon the wonderful blend of logic/reason and compassion/empathy.

The legal framework was created, and implemented, by social powershakers.

Originally posted by tiger5
It certainly was not men who were the vanguard of such a change.

Nonsense.

It most certainly was men who thought out and implemented this change.

Some old-fashioned knuckle-draggers may have thought that women should remain in the kitchen, ''barefoot and pregnant'', but these men held extremely outdated and illogical views.

Although I wasn't around in this era, I think it is unfair of you to suggest that men at this time were old-fashioned reactionaries.

The changes to society were implemented by men.


I'm afraid that zitty femmos didn't have too much of an input towards this change.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Can you explaain to me why men suddenly decide to campaign and then change the laws regarding sex discrimination and spousal rape? Some links would be nice. The feminists lit the fuse by campaigning and demonstrating. I can remember the left giving some assistance also. I remember feminists on the current affairs shows and debates everywhere. The net effect was a social pressure that forced (well overdue) changes in the law. Many people like you were reactionary but the sheer numbers and the Agitprop actions won.

Do you not see an uncritical opposition to feminism in all forms makes you a reactionary?


If you were not around then why not ask those who were? Please give me some names of the prominent men who campaigned for the feminist agenda if it was not women. Did they write much? Where are they now?

In fact how did the law change? And why?

You may not like them but your intellectually honesty should give credit where credit is due unless you are overcome by blind hatred.

I am intrigued but believe that a feminist may have done something horrid to you but I will not pry.

reply to post by Sherlock Holmes


Thanks for the reply. There are plenty of examples of women who though they make up 70% of a workforce in a company only make up 10% of the mid-level and upper management. Wal-mart has a 10 year lawsuit over this issue. Women are routinely hired at low paying part time jobs and work up to a full-time position and promote to a department manager after working five or more years for the company, but some guy comes in and is promoted immediately, and within a year is in the salaried management class and working his way up to higher positions.

It has been going on a long time at many companies. The glass ceiling is real and so are male chauvinists who would hire a male over a female if given the choices and all things were equal. He'd pick the male. It's very easy for some to say, fight it, and it's against the law, but if you ever really experienced this sort of discrimination then you would know that bucking the system only gets you fired. Rarely do people win lawsuits over discrimination in the work place. It's too nebulous and costly to fight. Once you have been fired and made it a public issue of that workplace just whom do you expect would hire that person? So, risk your career and future or move on and hope to find a better job is what happens in reality.

I think I have made my points about the inequity of how women's work is valued and how men's work is valued. I doubt you will ever see this in any way other than how you do now, and thus we shall agree to disagree.