If you were walking with a woman late at night and a mugger came up to the both of you. You, by societal standards, would be expected to defend her, pretty much to the death.
Prove to me that's not something men themselves perpetuate. Give me a break. Men have such a Neo-Macho attitude these days.
My goodness Shawn, do we have so little firepower left intellectually that we have to just make assertions and call names?
As for whether you have seen it or not, I did not know you were the sole determiner of truth. If you haven't seen it, it must not be so.
As for the resentment, you obviously didn't trouble yourself to read the article. One of the most common named problems with education is that boys acting like boys in an elementary setting are declared ADD and given Ritalin. Yep all those drugged up 8 year old boys are pissing and moaning that women aren't in the kitchen where they belong. Of course all the others we don't know where they are but they sure as heck aren't on a college campus because as the article mentioned only receive 43% of all college degrees are given to men.
Your unsupported pay assertions again are becoming numbingly unpersuasive. Equal work for equal pay among feminists means they get to decide what jobs are equal and should receive commiserate pay. So if I, as a feminist declare that a secretary is equal work to an elevator repair mechanic and the secretary makes 70% of what the mechanic does then I declare her oppressed. You would know this if you actually researched what you believe.
Any study that has compared genders with the same degree and job has found that they are within 2-3% of each other. If you are going to mindlessly assert it at least post a link to prove it.
As for Title IX, if there have been 20,000 male scholarships lost, numerous athletic teams actually dismantled, etc. and it has all only been done to men, then that is systematic oppression of men. The lawsuits were brought about by womens groups so it was done by women. This isn't just nonsense. I remember reading about teams that gave us numerous Olympians were dismantled. Simply do a Google search and you will see how many men and of course their educations have been removed from colleges.
As for me being an abortion terrorist, if you want to commit libel, then I suggest you study sharply for your law degree so you can defend yourself in court. You cannot even find a statement where I support abortion terrorists. You have to resort to such attacks because you no longer have the ability to think and reason. How typical of the left, you have no ideas so you demonize those who do. Keep committing your hate speech and don't be surprised if you receive a subpoena someday.
The fact that you try to disassociate yourself from what you are shows that feminists do not seek gender equity but rather practice hate speech. Why would anyone want to be associated with domestic violence, sexual harassment, rape, and criminality. Since that is what they associate being male with, you obviously do not wish to be male. However most males do none of these things and thus should not be called and treated as such.
I did include your career prospects, so I hope you feel better. Though I don't have to discredit you as it is obvious from the replies you are quite good at doing that yourself.
Nick
You are seriously deluded in thinking I'm calling you names. Quit your whining- you've attacked everything personal of me in other threads and now you're whining about nothing.
Just shut up. The great name-caller is you here.
Equal Pay concerns itself with the wide discrepancy in pay between genders for the same position. Studies have shown that women, on average earn 76 cents on the dollar of what males earn. (or just about).
About criminal activities, I'm sorry, but that's a male thing. Most men don't do that but of those who do, they're mostly men!
About Title IX, you complain and complain and complain about male scholarships and athletic teams being lost when just as many women's sports teams were created!? I'm sorry but let's start making a list:
Trumptman,
1) Vehemently disagrees with Title IX. Males should have more sports teams than females. Female coaches should be paid less.
2) Vehemently disagrees that there is a pay discrepancy There is no pay discrepancy- it's only a few cents here or there!
You are seriously deluded in thinking I'm calling you names. Quit your whining- you've attacked everything personal of me in other threads and now you're whining about nothing.
Just shut up. The great name-caller is you here.
Equal Pay concerns itself with the wide discrepancy in pay between genders for the same position. Studies have shown that women, on average earn 76 cents on the dollar of what males earn. (or just about).
About criminal activities, I'm sorry, but that's a male thing. Most men don't do that but of those who do, they're mostly men!
About Title IX, you complain and complain and complain about male scholarships and athletic teams being lost when just as many women's sports teams were created!? I'm sorry but let's start making a list:
Trumptman,
1) Vehemently disagrees with Title IX. Males should have more sports teams than females. Female coaches should be paid less.
2) Vehemently disagrees that there is a pay discrepancy There is no pay discrepancy- it's only a few cents here or there!
3) Thinks that "Feminists practice hate speech."
Rolling back the 20th Century.....
Shawn you have said the phrase yourself. I know you haven't looked this up because point blank they do not consider the same job and degree. Equal work for equal pay. The feminists get to determine what is equal work. It does not say equal job for equal pay. They do not compare the same job, work experience and degree. They complain that an English major makes 76% of what an Engineering major makes and things of that nature. They are NOT comparing apples to apples. In fact most of the time they aren't comparing anything besides annual median salary.
When you graduate with your law degree and are earning $100k a year while I am earning $65k a year as a teacher, are you oppressing me Shawn? Why would this be true if I was a woman? You would state the obvious. Well go get your degree and your grades from the school I went to and you will likely earn the same. It is true across genders as well. If I stated well I don't want 3 more years of pay, 80 hour work weeks and I enjoy having the summers off with my family, you would tell me correctly that I should make less because of this. Likewise when you compare apples to apples, you get the same result. Repeat it as often as you like and again I challenge you to find a comparision tht does this. You won't because you can't deal with the truth.
You made the assertion about pay. Please back it up with something besides... repetition.
As for Title IX again the reading comprehension thing for you. There were not an equal number of men's positions dropped to provide for female positions. 4,500 female positions were added and 20,000 male positions were dropped.
The provision REQUIRES them to insure an equal number of men and women WANT to play on team sports. If the women were proposing a team and being turned down, then you would have a point. However what has happened is that women are just not as interested in team sports as men. (Gee big surprise here) This has been found to be true even at colleges where there are NO MEN. (We are oppressing from afar there I suppose)
When they cannot get women to join team sports, they much ELIMINATE men's sports teams until they can.
However this isn't an empowered position, it is a weak position.
No, but it reveals the empowered position. The men are more inherently trusted to do more. In this example, it's a negative. It 98% of the examples, it's a positive.
However what has happened is that women are just not as interested in team sports as men. (Gee big surprise here) This has been found to be true even at colleges where there are NO MEN. (We are oppressing from afar there I suppose)
This is because women are (previously) discouraged from sports at a young age. So in essence, I guess you're right that 'we' are oppressing from afar.
anyway, I still think that in general life we need to think about gender in deep ways and that yes women deal with sexism everyday in ways that most of us men will never understand.
this is true, although i should note that at least in the field my wife is going into (architecture) ALL of the sexism she's had to deal with has come from women, not men.
Quote:
If you were walking with a woman late at night and a mugger came up to the both of you. You, by societal standards, would be expected to defend her, pretty much to the death.
of course, if you were a man walking alone there'd be a much lower chance of getting mugged. and a man and woman walking together would be even lower. a woman walking alone would be much more likely to get mugged. that's not empowerment.
Quote:
When you graduate with your law degree and are earning $100k a year while I am earning $65k a year as a teacher, are you oppressing me Shawn? Why would this be true if I was a woman? You would state the obvious. Well go get your degree and your grades from the school I went to and you will likely earn the same. It is true across genders as well. If I stated well I don't want 3 more years of pay, 80 hour work weeks and I enjoy having the summers off with my family, you would tell me correctly that I should make less because of this.
actually, on this board they'd probably tell you you're underpaid. trust me, you don't want to go down that road.
trumptman you got a link for that 1-2% figure that's getting tossed around? i'd like to be able to read it for myself.
This is because women are (previously) discouraged from sports at a young age. So in essence, I guess you're right that 'we' are oppressing from afar.
Would you care to cite something to prove your assertion? Do you have any proof beyond claiming that men kept women from playing sport?
Likewise could it be women themselves simply expressing a preference?
I say this because, (and I honestly wish I could keep on file all the books I read) I remember reading a few years ago about discrimination regarding female singers in country music. Seems all the best selling artists were men (this was just as Shania, Dixie Chicks and others were coming up) and that this was considered proof that women were being repressed.
However someone was smart enough to do a demographic analysis of the typical country music purchaser. Turns out the typical persona purchasing country music was a 30 year old white women and what they preferred seeing were handsome men singing love songs.
So the oppressors were who? Who had the money and was spending it?
I find it amazing that even when women make the choice, it is men who have made it for them.
It couldn't possibly be that women just don't like sports as much as men.
I suppose with all the statistics I quoted it was just that men like Ritalin, prison, death, and lowered life expectancy more than women.
of course, if you were a man walking alone there'd be a much lower chance of getting mugged. and a man and woman walking together would be even lower. a woman walking alone would be much more likely to get mugged. that's not empowerment.
trumptman you got a link for that 1-2% figure that's getting tossed around? i'd like to be able to read it for myself.
Actually the first example could be considered an example of empowerment. Perhaps the mugger knows that even though men earn more money, women carry and spend more money than men.
I would say that if you have an open mind, the mugger is just going where the money is at. The man and woman walking together are less likely to be mugged because the mugger knows he has already spent all his money on the woman. Hahahahaha
I don't have a current link and searching on Google turns up plenty of studies that do what I asserted, compare yearly income and nothing else. The also do the other thing I mentioned which is comparable work instead of comparing the same job. I typed this in from an older book I have from William Farrer, the only male ever elected to the board of directors for the National Organization of Women. I often read books and pass them on, so I might have had something newer from him, but alas I need the multiple rooms in my house these books would have filled.
As for teacher pay, you might be surprised at some of the interesting things I have encountered concerning sexism and being a teacher evn when dealing with a union.
For example in our district we receive a stipend toward medical benefits. If the stipend doesn't cover the full cost of your medical plan, the rest comes out of pocket. You would be amazed at the number of women who have dismissed this as okay because "my husband's job gives us full medical."
When I press as to why it is okay they will tell you just what I have mentioned here. He works longer hours, he doesn't enjoy his work as much, etc. In fact since they have full medical from his job they are free to take the medical stipend...and keep it as income.
I pointed out at a union meeting that this policy hurts single working women while rewarding women who have husbands with full benefits by giving them even more money.
However the women weren't willing to fight for full benefits because it would mean them giving up $3000 they currently get to keep. Women contribute to this expectation/oppresion model as well. That is what I have been trying to get across.
Item: Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Geraldine Ferraro and Walter Mondale agreed on but one statistic during the 1984 election: that full time working women earn "59 cents to the men's dollar."
The importance of this statistic? Millions of couples, planning children, focus on the man's career due in part to the greater ease it is assumed the man has in producing income. And for many women, the belief that "women still get paid but 59 cents to the men's dollar..." encourages women to "marry up" for economic security. He feels pressure to be the "up."
She perceives a "great American man shortage" because she overlooks millions of creative, intelligent, sensitive, single male artists, actors, writers, photographers, and musicians unless they have the "potential" for earning more than enough to support themselves. If they fail, they become ineligible, or rather, invisible. Fearing invisibility to women, men learn success is the best preventive medicine to avoid the cancer of female rejection.
The statistic, then, helps the women's movement recruit. It does not encourage women to pursue careers. Nor men to pursue careers they enjoy more even if they earn less.
After a full year of researching pay equity for "Why Men Are the Way They Are," I discovered 13 variables that make the "59 cents" comparison a myth. Here are a few of the more startling.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS) reports men who work full time average eight hours more per week than women who work full time. Their equal classifications -- "full time" -- make them appear equal. But the eight hours difference makes "full time" unequal.
Men are much more likely to hold two work-place jobs. But statistic- ally, he is considered one full-time worker. So we are often comparing his two jobs to her one job. This does not mean women work less than men. Full time working women put in more work time at home. But they put in less at work and this is what the statistic compares. Let's look more closely.
When the USBLS says "full time" they mean as little as 35 hours per week, as few as 26 weeks per year. Women are much more likely to work 35 hours per week; men much more likely to work 40-60 hours per week. Women are much more likely to work 26 weeks per year, men 52 weeks per year. Equal pay is not equal.
None of this is women's fault. Women are still forty-three times more likely than men to leave the workplace for six months or longer for family reasons -- a couple decision. But if she returns to work her income is impacted. Even professional women have ten fewer years in the workplace by the time they reach their forties than professional men.
All of this helps us understand why women who have never been married earn 93% of what men earn; they are much more involved in the workplace. And why black mothers with young children earn one dollar for each 59 cents white mothers with young children earn: they are more involved in the workplace. (No one dares assume it is because black mothers benefit from discrimination.)
If women really earned 59 cents to the dollar for the same work as men, what business could possibly compete effectively by hiring men? At any level?
One of the most important reasons women's and men's full time pay differs is because of their career choices. Both sexes have equal knowledge that engineers will average a higher income than French Literature or Art History majors. Yet even in 1986, more than 90 percent of engineering majors are male and more than 90 percent of French Literature majors are female. As for secretaries, 99 percent are female. Why? If a man is a secretary, he knows a female secretary will look right past him to a male executive. He knows the male physician will marry the female nurse, but the female physician will not marry the male nurse.
Men, then, narrow their career options to jobs everyone knows pay more whether or not they enjoy the work. Including jobs that involve a 600 percent higher incidence of work-related accidents (over 2 million disabling injuries and 14,000 deaths each year).
The myth that women earn 59 cents to the dollar for the same work as men reinforces traditional roles. It does not encourage women to control their own lives. It does encourage women to find male "success objects." In brief, the myth may be good for the women's movement, but it is not good for women.
Do you not think the reverse is true? Men are so disposable by societal standards that they don't think about it.
If you were walking with a woman late at night and a mugger came up to the both of you. You, by societal standards, would be expected to defend her, pretty much to the death.
You must be joking right?!?!?
this is the basis of your feeling "oppressed" ?!?!?
do you realize that you not only have shown your cards and they are shiit but that you are a whining whimp to boot!!!
And I know plenty of women who would not only stick up for themselves but would quite obviously kick your ass too.
Quote:
Equality indeed,
Nick [/B]
This is the most pathetic out of you yet
its embarrassing to watch the ridiculous prevarications and contortions you go through to try and make your stupid point
and then you tag on this supposed little coup de gras ending as if you've made your arguement QED!! id laugh if I didn't think that you were so deluded
Nick although I agree with some of what you've been arguing in this thread, there's one area where I think women get the shaft - home life.
There's a theory out there that men really get a great deal in marriage, and women really get the shaft. Here's an example.
Basically, the theory is that since most women are also employed, they get two jobs: working woman and housewife. But most working husbands are not househusbands. Men just get the better deal with marriage - we get a maid and a second income. We sit on our recliners watching football when we get home so tired after work while our wives, usually in worse jobs, come home and make us dinner and deal with the kids. Men get a net benefit from marriage, and women get a net minus.
From that book's sleeve:
Quote:
Wives do on average 90 per cent of the laundry and 82 per cent of all indoor cleaning and tidying.
The difference between the domestic work-load of husbands with employed wives and husbands of non-employed wives was found to be exactly ten minutes a day.
One US study found that 70 per cent of a random sample of fathers were not responsible for any child-care tasks, and an additional 22 per cent were responsible for only one such task.
this is the basis of your feeling "oppressed" ?!?!?
do you realize that you not only have shown your cards and they are shiit but that you are a whining whimp to boot!!!
And I know plenty of women who would not only stick up for themselves but would quite obviously kick your ass too.
This is the most pathetic out of you yet
its embarrassing to watch the ridiculous prevarications and contortions you go through to try and make your stupid point
and then you tag on this supposed little coup de gras ending as if you've made your arguement QED!! id laugh if I didn't think that you were so deluded
poor male . . . so downtrodden
Thanks for proving my point with your neanderthal reply pfflam.
To suggest that a man not be disposable leads to name calling and scorn just as you demonstrated. Wimp...poor male... downtrodden....stupid
I suppose you would judge a woman as less capable because she could or could not "kick someone's ass" right? Perhaps she deserves less legal standing or financial standing, or would you treat her as an equal regardless of what she could do physically and whether or not she would or could risk her own life for you? That is the point!
I am comfortable enough with my masculity and desire to be loved that I don't have to show what I can do physically or violently to prove my worth to society. I mean, I played center on a football team and could likely still benchpress more than you weigh.(You do weigh less than 225 don't you?)
But the point really should be that regardless of this, I am not superior and more deserving than a woman right? Isn't that what equality is all about? If I can't beat her on the merits then I don't deserve it. However what I am proving here is that society judges men on much more than how they can do a job. That in turn affects what types of jobs they pursue, whether they will take sick days or time off, neglect their own health or family based off how many hours they work.
I think this is the first thread in which I have ever been both "pseudo-macho" and "wimpy" at the same time.
Likewise think about what kind of society you create ppflam when you ridicule men who are unwilling to act violently or demonstrate their physical prowess. If these are the "manly" answers to problems, then it is no wonder that men are declared domestic abusers, rapists, and sexual predators. It is a view you encourage.
So thanks for proving my point. If I am not a male with physical prowess and a means to commit violence, then I am downtrodden, poor, weak and stupid. I should be embarassed and society should not treat me well. I likely am not deserving of a spouse or love unless I demonstrate a willingness to show these actions.
Heck I should probably get paid less too, maybe not even be allowed to vote.
Comments
Originally posted by trumptman
If you were walking with a woman late at night and a mugger came up to the both of you. You, by societal standards, would be expected to defend her, pretty much to the death.
Prove to me that's not something men themselves perpetuate. Give me a break. Men have such a Neo-Macho attitude these days.
Originally posted by trumptman
My goodness Shawn, do we have so little firepower left intellectually that we have to just make assertions and call names?
As for whether you have seen it or not, I did not know you were the sole determiner of truth. If you haven't seen it, it must not be so.
As for the resentment, you obviously didn't trouble yourself to read the article. One of the most common named problems with education is that boys acting like boys in an elementary setting are declared ADD and given Ritalin. Yep all those drugged up 8 year old boys are pissing and moaning that women aren't in the kitchen where they belong. Of course all the others we don't know where they are but they sure as heck aren't on a college campus because as the article mentioned only receive 43% of all college degrees are given to men.
Your unsupported pay assertions again are becoming numbingly unpersuasive. Equal work for equal pay among feminists means they get to decide what jobs are equal and should receive commiserate pay. So if I, as a feminist declare that a secretary is equal work to an elevator repair mechanic and the secretary makes 70% of what the mechanic does then I declare her oppressed. You would know this if you actually researched what you believe.
Any study that has compared genders with the same degree and job has found that they are within 2-3% of each other. If you are going to mindlessly assert it at least post a link to prove it.
As for Title IX, if there have been 20,000 male scholarships lost, numerous athletic teams actually dismantled, etc. and it has all only been done to men, then that is systematic oppression of men. The lawsuits were brought about by womens groups so it was done by women. This isn't just nonsense. I remember reading about teams that gave us numerous Olympians were dismantled. Simply do a Google search and you will see how many men and of course their educations have been removed from colleges.
As for me being an abortion terrorist, if you want to commit libel, then I suggest you study sharply for your law degree so you can defend yourself in court. You cannot even find a statement where I support abortion terrorists. You have to resort to such attacks because you no longer have the ability to think and reason. How typical of the left, you have no ideas so you demonize those who do. Keep committing your hate speech and don't be surprised if you receive a subpoena someday.
The fact that you try to disassociate yourself from what you are shows that feminists do not seek gender equity but rather practice hate speech. Why would anyone want to be associated with domestic violence, sexual harassment, rape, and criminality. Since that is what they associate being male with, you obviously do not wish to be male. However most males do none of these things and thus should not be called and treated as such.
I did include your career prospects, so I hope you feel better. Though I don't have to discredit you as it is obvious from the replies you are quite good at doing that yourself.
Nick
You are seriously deluded in thinking I'm calling you names. Quit your whining- you've attacked everything personal of me in other threads and now you're whining about nothing.
Just shut up. The great name-caller is you here.
Equal Pay concerns itself with the wide discrepancy in pay between genders for the same position. Studies have shown that women, on average earn 76 cents on the dollar of what males earn. (or just about).
About criminal activities, I'm sorry, but that's a male thing. Most men don't do that but of those who do, they're mostly men!
About Title IX, you complain and complain and complain about male scholarships and athletic teams being lost when just as many women's sports teams were created!? I'm sorry but let's start making a list:
Trumptman,
1) Vehemently disagrees with Title IX. Males should have more sports teams than females. Female coaches should be paid less.
2) Vehemently disagrees that there is a pay discrepancy There is no pay discrepancy- it's only a few cents here or there!
3) Thinks that "Feminists practice hate speech."
Rolling back the 20th Century.....
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
You are seriously deluded in thinking I'm calling you names. Quit your whining- you've attacked everything personal of me in other threads and now you're whining about nothing.
Just shut up. The great name-caller is you here.
Equal Pay concerns itself with the wide discrepancy in pay between genders for the same position. Studies have shown that women, on average earn 76 cents on the dollar of what males earn. (or just about).
About criminal activities, I'm sorry, but that's a male thing. Most men don't do that but of those who do, they're mostly men!
About Title IX, you complain and complain and complain about male scholarships and athletic teams being lost when just as many women's sports teams were created!? I'm sorry but let's start making a list:
Trumptman,
1) Vehemently disagrees with Title IX. Males should have more sports teams than females. Female coaches should be paid less.
2) Vehemently disagrees that there is a pay discrepancy There is no pay discrepancy- it's only a few cents here or there!
3) Thinks that "Feminists practice hate speech."
Rolling back the 20th Century.....
Shawn you have said the phrase yourself. I know you haven't looked this up because point blank they do not consider the same job and degree. Equal work for equal pay. The feminists get to determine what is equal work. It does not say equal job for equal pay. They do not compare the same job, work experience and degree. They complain that an English major makes 76% of what an Engineering major makes and things of that nature. They are NOT comparing apples to apples. In fact most of the time they aren't comparing anything besides annual median salary.
When you graduate with your law degree and are earning $100k a year while I am earning $65k a year as a teacher, are you oppressing me Shawn? Why would this be true if I was a woman? You would state the obvious. Well go get your degree and your grades from the school I went to and you will likely earn the same. It is true across genders as well. If I stated well I don't want 3 more years of pay, 80 hour work weeks and I enjoy having the summers off with my family, you would tell me correctly that I should make less because of this. Likewise when you compare apples to apples, you get the same result. Repeat it as often as you like and again I challenge you to find a comparision tht does this. You won't because you can't deal with the truth.
You made the assertion about pay. Please back it up with something besides... repetition.
As for Title IX again the reading comprehension thing for you. There were not an equal number of men's positions dropped to provide for female positions. 4,500 female positions were added and 20,000 male positions were dropped.
The provision REQUIRES them to insure an equal number of men and women WANT to play on team sports. If the women were proposing a team and being turned down, then you would have a point. However what has happened is that women are just not as interested in team sports as men. (Gee big surprise here) This has been found to be true even at colleges where there are NO MEN. (We are oppressing from afar there I suppose)
When they cannot get women to join team sports, they much ELIMINATE men's sports teams until they can.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
However this isn't an empowered position, it is a weak position.
No, but it reveals the empowered position. The men are more inherently trusted to do more. In this example, it's a negative. It 98% of the examples, it's a positive.
Originally posted by trumptman
However what has happened is that women are just not as interested in team sports as men. (Gee big surprise here) This has been found to be true even at colleges where there are NO MEN. (We are oppressing from afar there I suppose)
This is because women are (previously) discouraged from sports at a young age. So in essence, I guess you're right that 'we' are oppressing from afar.
anyway, I still think that in general life we need to think about gender in deep ways and that yes women deal with sexism everyday in ways that most of us men will never understand.
this is true, although i should note that at least in the field my wife is going into (architecture) ALL of the sexism she's had to deal with has come from women, not men.
If you were walking with a woman late at night and a mugger came up to the both of you. You, by societal standards, would be expected to defend her, pretty much to the death.
of course, if you were a man walking alone there'd be a much lower chance of getting mugged. and a man and woman walking together would be even lower. a woman walking alone would be much more likely to get mugged. that's not empowerment.
When you graduate with your law degree and are earning $100k a year while I am earning $65k a year as a teacher, are you oppressing me Shawn? Why would this be true if I was a woman? You would state the obvious. Well go get your degree and your grades from the school I went to and you will likely earn the same. It is true across genders as well. If I stated well I don't want 3 more years of pay, 80 hour work weeks and I enjoy having the summers off with my family, you would tell me correctly that I should make less because of this.
actually, on this board they'd probably tell you you're underpaid.
trumptman you got a link for that 1-2% figure that's getting tossed around? i'd like to be able to read it for myself.
Originally posted by bunge
This is because women are (previously) discouraged from sports at a young age. So in essence, I guess you're right that 'we' are oppressing from afar.
Would you care to cite something to prove your assertion? Do you have any proof beyond claiming that men kept women from playing sport?
Likewise could it be women themselves simply expressing a preference?
I say this because, (and I honestly wish I could keep on file all the books I read) I remember reading a few years ago about discrimination regarding female singers in country music. Seems all the best selling artists were men (this was just as Shania, Dixie Chicks and others were coming up) and that this was considered proof that women were being repressed.
However someone was smart enough to do a demographic analysis of the typical country music purchaser. Turns out the typical persona purchasing country music was a 30 year old white women and what they preferred seeing were handsome men singing love songs.
So the oppressors were who? Who had the money and was spending it?
I find it amazing that even when women make the choice, it is men who have made it for them.
It couldn't possibly be that women just don't like sports as much as men.
I suppose with all the statistics I quoted it was just that men like Ritalin, prison, death, and lowered life expectancy more than women.
Nick
Originally posted by alcimedes
of course, if you were a man walking alone there'd be a much lower chance of getting mugged. and a man and woman walking together would be even lower. a woman walking alone would be much more likely to get mugged. that's not empowerment.
trumptman you got a link for that 1-2% figure that's getting tossed around? i'd like to be able to read it for myself.
Actually the first example could be considered an example of empowerment. Perhaps the mugger knows that even though men earn more money, women carry and spend more money than men.
I would say that if you have an open mind, the mugger is just going where the money is at. The man and woman walking together are less likely to be mugged because the mugger knows he has already spent all his money on the woman. Hahahahaha
I don't have a current link and searching on Google turns up plenty of studies that do what I asserted, compare yearly income and nothing else. The also do the other thing I mentioned which is comparable work instead of comparing the same job. I typed this in from an older book I have from William Farrer, the only male ever elected to the board of directors for the National Organization of Women. I often read books and pass them on, so I might have had something newer from him, but alas I need the multiple rooms in my house these books would have filled.
As for teacher pay, you might be surprised at some of the interesting things I have encountered concerning sexism and being a teacher evn when dealing with a union.
For example in our district we receive a stipend toward medical benefits. If the stipend doesn't cover the full cost of your medical plan, the rest comes out of pocket. You would be amazed at the number of women who have dismissed this as okay because "my husband's job gives us full medical."
When I press as to why it is okay they will tell you just what I have mentioned here. He works longer hours, he doesn't enjoy his work as much, etc. In fact since they have full medical from his job they are free to take the medical stipend...and keep it as income.
I pointed out at a union meeting that this policy hurts single working women while rewarding women who have husbands with full benefits by giving them even more money.
However the women weren't willing to fight for full benefits because it would mean them giving up $3000 they currently get to keep. Women contribute to this expectation/oppresion model as well. That is what I have been trying to get across.
__________________________________________________ __
Item: Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Geraldine Ferraro and Walter Mondale agreed on but one statistic during the 1984 election: that full time working women earn "59 cents to the men's dollar."
The importance of this statistic? Millions of couples, planning children, focus on the man's career due in part to the greater ease it is assumed the man has in producing income. And for many women, the belief that "women still get paid but 59 cents to the men's dollar..." encourages women to "marry up" for economic security. He feels pressure to be the "up."
She perceives a "great American man shortage" because she overlooks millions of creative, intelligent, sensitive, single male artists, actors, writers, photographers, and musicians unless they have the "potential" for earning more than enough to support themselves. If they fail, they become ineligible, or rather, invisible. Fearing invisibility to women, men learn success is the best preventive medicine to avoid the cancer of female rejection.
The statistic, then, helps the women's movement recruit. It does not encourage women to pursue careers. Nor men to pursue careers they enjoy more even if they earn less.
After a full year of researching pay equity for "Why Men Are the Way They Are," I discovered 13 variables that make the "59 cents" comparison a myth. Here are a few of the more startling.
The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (USBLS) reports men who work full time average eight hours more per week than women who work full time. Their equal classifications -- "full time" -- make them appear equal. But the eight hours difference makes "full time" unequal.
Men are much more likely to hold two work-place jobs. But statistic- ally, he is considered one full-time worker. So we are often comparing his two jobs to her one job. This does not mean women work less than men. Full time working women put in more work time at home. But they put in less at work and this is what the statistic compares. Let's look more closely.
When the USBLS says "full time" they mean as little as 35 hours per week, as few as 26 weeks per year. Women are much more likely to work 35 hours per week; men much more likely to work 40-60 hours per week. Women are much more likely to work 26 weeks per year, men 52 weeks per year. Equal pay is not equal.
None of this is women's fault. Women are still forty-three times more likely than men to leave the workplace for six months or longer for family reasons -- a couple decision. But if she returns to work her income is impacted. Even professional women have ten fewer years in the workplace by the time they reach their forties than professional men.
All of this helps us understand why women who have never been married earn 93% of what men earn; they are much more involved in the workplace. And why black mothers with young children earn one dollar for each 59 cents white mothers with young children earn: they are more involved in the workplace. (No one dares assume it is because black mothers benefit from discrimination.)
If women really earned 59 cents to the dollar for the same work as men, what business could possibly compete effectively by hiring men? At any level?
One of the most important reasons women's and men's full time pay differs is because of their career choices. Both sexes have equal knowledge that engineers will average a higher income than French Literature or Art History majors. Yet even in 1986, more than 90 percent of engineering majors are male and more than 90 percent of French Literature majors are female. As for secretaries, 99 percent are female. Why? If a man is a secretary, he knows a female secretary will look right past him to a male executive. He knows the male physician will marry the female nurse, but the female physician will not marry the male nurse.
Men, then, narrow their career options to jobs everyone knows pay more whether or not they enjoy the work. Including jobs that involve a 600 percent higher incidence of work-related accidents (over 2 million disabling injuries and 14,000 deaths each year).
The myth that women earn 59 cents to the dollar for the same work as men reinforces traditional roles. It does not encourage women to control their own lives. It does encourage women to find male "success objects." In brief, the myth may be good for the women's movement, but it is not good for women.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Do you not think the reverse is true? Men are so disposable by societal standards that they don't think about it.
If you were walking with a woman late at night and a mugger came up to the both of you. You, by societal standards, would be expected to defend her, pretty much to the death.
You must be joking right?!?!?
this is the basis of your feeling "oppressed" ?!?!?
do you realize that you not only have shown your cards and they are shiit but that you are a whining whimp to boot!!!
And I know plenty of women who would not only stick up for themselves but would quite obviously kick your ass too.
Equality indeed,
Nick [/B]
This is the most pathetic out of you yet
its embarrassing to watch the ridiculous prevarications and contortions you go through to try and make your stupid point
and then you tag on this supposed little coup de gras ending as if you've made your arguement QED!! id laugh if I didn't think that you were so deluded
poor male . . . so downtrodden
There's a theory out there that men really get a great deal in marriage, and women really get the shaft. Here's an example.
Basically, the theory is that since most women are also employed, they get two jobs: working woman and housewife. But most working husbands are not househusbands. Men just get the better deal with marriage - we get a maid and a second income. We sit on our recliners watching football when we get home so tired after work while our wives, usually in worse jobs, come home and make us dinner and deal with the kids. Men get a net benefit from marriage, and women get a net minus.
From that book's sleeve:
Wives do on average 90 per cent of the laundry and 82 per cent of all indoor cleaning and tidying.
The difference between the domestic work-load of husbands with employed wives and husbands of non-employed wives was found to be exactly ten minutes a day.
One US study found that 70 per cent of a random sample of fathers were not responsible for any child-care tasks, and an additional 22 per cent were responsible for only one such task.
etc. etc.
What do you think about that?
Originally posted by pfflam
You must be joking right?!?!?
this is the basis of your feeling "oppressed" ?!?!?
do you realize that you not only have shown your cards and they are shiit but that you are a whining whimp to boot!!!
And I know plenty of women who would not only stick up for themselves but would quite obviously kick your ass too.
This is the most pathetic out of you yet
its embarrassing to watch the ridiculous prevarications and contortions you go through to try and make your stupid point
and then you tag on this supposed little coup de gras ending as if you've made your arguement QED!! id laugh if I didn't think that you were so deluded
poor male . . . so downtrodden
Thanks for proving my point with your neanderthal reply pfflam.
To suggest that a man not be disposable leads to name calling and scorn just as you demonstrated. Wimp...poor male... downtrodden....stupid
I suppose you would judge a woman as less capable because she could or could not "kick someone's ass" right? Perhaps she deserves less legal standing or financial standing, or would you treat her as an equal regardless of what she could do physically and whether or not she would or could risk her own life for you? That is the point!
I am comfortable enough with my masculity and desire to be loved that I don't have to show what I can do physically or violently to prove my worth to society. I mean, I played center on a football team and could likely still benchpress more than you weigh.(You do weigh less than 225 don't you?)
But the point really should be that regardless of this, I am not superior and more deserving than a woman right? Isn't that what equality is all about? If I can't beat her on the merits then I don't deserve it. However what I am proving here is that society judges men on much more than how they can do a job. That in turn affects what types of jobs they pursue, whether they will take sick days or time off, neglect their own health or family based off how many hours they work.
I think this is the first thread in which I have ever been both "pseudo-macho" and "wimpy" at the same time.
Likewise think about what kind of society you create ppflam when you ridicule men who are unwilling to act violently or demonstrate their physical prowess. If these are the "manly" answers to problems, then it is no wonder that men are declared domestic abusers, rapists, and sexual predators. It is a view you encourage.
So thanks for proving my point. If I am not a male with physical prowess and a means to commit violence, then I am downtrodden, poor, weak and stupid. I should be embarassed and society should not treat me well. I likely am not deserving of a spouse or love unless I demonstrate a willingness to show these actions.
Heck I should probably get paid less too, maybe not even be allowed to vote.
Good one ppflam,
Nick
The thread is dead, you've all said your peace.