Saturday, February 19, 2011

Neither saints nor whores, just women.

I recently ran across this picture online, which is evidently from a feminist protest in Mexico City in 1991; it was part of an exhibition of photos tracing the history of the feminist movement in Mexico City. (Here's a link to a Google Translated version of a web page on the exhibition,.)

I think the slogan is a pretty good description of how most feminists would like women to be regarded: Not as saints, not as whores, but just as women.

Or, in language more understandable to a lot of the MRAs/MGTOWers out there: "Not as pretty princesses, not as Ameriskanks, but just as women." 


--

If you enjoyed this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

*Yes, that was a Bioshock reference.

143 comments:

  1. It is a silly concept, trying to define over 1/2 the worlds population with a bumper sticker slogan. Certainly, all movements, all "isms," all distinct groups and communities do some branding of their own. People are catagorized. The truth about stereo-types is that they are often true. We are all people. So what?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Indeed, the virgin/whore false dichotomy is something women still have to contend with, even today. Either way, their value as a human being is measured by how they use their genitals, and particularly whether or not they use their genitals in accordance with male-imposed rules.

    The truth about stereo-types is that they are often true.

    Hey cool, I haven't seen this argument since the last time I talked to a high school student.

    Stereotyping is one of the privileges enjoyed by the privileged class. I mean, you can make up stereotypes about privileged classes - there are stereotypes about men and white people - but they're not imposed with any real seriousness. Consider the stereotype about men being clueless idiots - funny enough, I encounter this stereotype far more among patriarchally-minded women than I do among feminist women. That's a bit of irony that MRAs would do well to clue themselves into. My point is, you'll hear non-feminist women talking about men being stupid all the time, but they're still more than happy to let men run the world. Stereotypes only hold power over oppressed people.

    When I read lists of stereotypes about white people, they never make a lot of sense to me. Most of them don't apply to me. As a white person, I've enjoyed a lifelong privilege of not being judged by those stereotypes. The thing is, stereotypes about black people aren't any more accurate. But the privileged class gets to pretend they are because that's part of the process of othering - stripping members of the oppressed class of their individuality.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That's a bit of irony that MRAs would do well to clue themselves into.

    Not really. Many MRAs are as hard on "patriarchal" women and anti-feminist women are they are on folks like you; indeed, the argument of guys such as Pro-Male/Anti-feminist tech is that there's little difference between antifeminist and pro-feminist women in how they treat men.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is why I'm not thrown when misogynists trot out female lunatics to prove their arguments.

    I don't believe women are perfect, I believe women are people! A certain number of female crazy people and assholes is not only accounted for but predicted under this theory.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Consider the stereotype about men being clueless idiots - funny enough, I encounter this stereotype far more among patriarchally-minded women than I do among feminist women. That's a bit of irony that MRAs would do well to clue themselves into.

    That and the fact that, at least in the U.S., proposed amendments that would have paved the way for, amongst other things, gender equity in such things as alimony laws and child custody laws were proposed by feminists... it was non-feminist traditionalists (one in particular) who fought tooth and nail against that happening. Traditionalist non-feminist women wanted men to continue to be bound by law to provide for their wives, even after divorce.

    ReplyDelete
  6. indeed, the argument of guys such as Pro-Male/Anti-feminist tech is that there's little difference between antifeminist and pro-feminist women in how they treat men.

    MRAs don't often seem able to distinguish between women and feminists. They often talk like all women (or at least all Western women) are feminists and that things like alimony are a feminist conspiracy because they primarily benefit women.

    I mean, their anger is incredibly incoherent, which is natural given that it's based far more on emotion than logic, but at times they deride women for wanting to be indedenpent, and at other times they seem to think that feminism's goal is to leech of men (the opposite of independence).

    ReplyDelete
  7. I haven't been accused of trolling yet! I must be doing something right.

    MRAs don't often seem able to distinguish between women and feminists. They often talk like all women (or at least all Western women) are feminists and that things like alimony are a feminist conspiracy because they primarily benefit women.

    This is true, but to an extent, not entirely. It's actually a point of contention among MRAs; you have those who believe all or nearly all women "are like that" and those who are either willing to make peace with the traditionalists or believe that many or even most women aren't actually feminists and can be won over to the MRA cause. What you describe represents one of the (many) things MRAs fight amongst themselves over rather than a monolithic view, although it is commonly held.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What you describe represents one of the (many) things MRAs fight amongst themselves over rather than a monolithic view, although it is commonly held.

    Even if that's the case, one of the core premises of the MRA movement is that women have codified a bunch of anti-male policies into law, and they seem to conflate these anti-male laws (somehow enacted by a Congress that has never been more than 20% female) with feminist activism. That, I argue, is grossly inaccurate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Again, even that isn't necessarily an accurate summation of the MRA positions. One of the most persistent of their memes is that men can be divided into two groups--betas, the average guys (like them) who comprise the vast majority of society, and alphas, the top 10% or so of men who hold the real power (and whom women love). In their view, the anti-male laws can just as easily be explained as the small minority of alpha males passing legislation that benefits themselves while screwing over the vast majority of men, with women simply being beneficiaries on the side. This accounts for how "anti-male" laws can be passed while Congress is only 20% female--all the men in government are alphas, and are fucking over the rest of their fellow men.

    ReplyDelete
  10. “This is why I'm not thrown when misogynists trot out female lunatics to prove their arguments.”

    I don't believe women are perfect, I believe women are people! A certain number of female crazy people and assholes is not only accounted for but predicted under this theory.”



    So how many feminists believe there are just as many sexist/evil women than there are men?

    I hardly see feminists complaining about the other side of the story. And in this blog alone, when sexist/evil women are mentioned, in most cases, feminists try to pull it under the rug with some lame excuse.

    ReplyDelete
  11. MRA positions are generally self-contradictory, incoherent, and driven by emotion rather than logic. How is it possible to describe such a mish-mash "accurately"? The thing itself doesn't map to any meaningful concept of accuracy.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think it was Simone de Beauvoir who said that "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people." Or something along those lines.

    ReplyDelete
  13. So how many feminists believe there are just as many sexist/evil women than there are men?

    Jeezum crow, who except an 8-year-old would seriously pose such a question? "You've got more." No, YOU'VE got more!" Feh.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "I don't believe women are perfect, I believe women are people! A certain number of female crazy people and assholes is not only accounted for but predicted under this theory.”



    So how many feminists believe there are just as many sexist/evil women than there are men?"

    OH MY FUCKING GOD THAT IS THE EXACT FUCKING THING HE/SHE JUST SAID.

    Has your reading comprehension failed again you indignant misogynist?

    ReplyDelete
  15. triplanetary said...
    "The truth about stereo-types is that they are often true.

    Hey cool, I haven't seen this argument since the last time I talked to a high school student."

    That's because, unlike universities, high schools aren't yet completely infected with that bullshit communist religion of yours.

    A religion that evidently holds as dogmatic the idea that stereotypes are not the result of REPEATED observation by THOUSANDS of observers but instead that they are made to mysteriously appear out of thin air by the illuminati to hold back the 'genetically challenged'.

    "Consider the stereotype about men being clueless idiots - funny enough, I encounter this stereotype far more among patriarchally-minded women than I do among feminist women."

    Yes non-feminist women are smarter than feminist women. You ARE a clueless idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Has your reading comprehension failed again you indignant misogynist?"

    heh nope, just pointing out the obvious and unwanted truth of feminist bigotry.

    I wonder why they even call themselves feminists when they claim they are about gender equality. Which means, men’s problems are just as important as women's problems. But in a feminist perspective, only women’s problems are important enough to complain about.

    It's ironic accusing people of being sexist when the feminist stance within it's self is the very definition of sexism as they only feel the need to show concern towards women.

    ReplyDelete
  17. in this blog alone, when sexist/evil women are mentioned, in most cases, feminists try to pull it under the rug with some lame excuse.

    [citation needed]

    ReplyDelete
  18. That's because, unlike universities, high schools aren't yet completely infected with that bullshit communist religion of yours.

    Seriously, what the fuck are you talking about and how is that even relevant to what we're talking about?

    A religion that evidently holds as dogmatic the idea that stereotypes are not the result of REPEATED observation by THOUSANDS of observers but instead that they are made to mysteriously appear out of thin air by the illuminati to hold back the 'genetically challenged'.

    So, you're saying that stereotypes are completely true? All of them? Even those that contradict other stereotypes? Even cartoonish, racist stereotypes like "black people all like watermelon" and "asian people can't drive' and "jews only care about money?" Is that really the story you're going with?

    "Consider the stereotype about men being clueless idiots - funny enough, I encounter this stereotype far more among patriarchally-minded women than I do among feminist women."

    Yes non-feminist women are smarter than feminist women. You ARE a clueless idiot.


    So, all stereotypes are true, therefore men really are clueless idiots?

    I repeat: what the fuck are you talking about, and why should anyone take you seriously?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Last comment directed at evilwhitemale.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Which means, men’s problems are just as important as women's problems.

    I will grant that there's a slight difference between race and gender in that there are "men's problems" to be taken into account. Testicular cancer, lack of paternity leave, higher car insurance premiums... By contrast, when it comes to the race issue there are no "white people's problems" that need to be taken seriously.

    That being said, men are the privileged class and women are the oppressed class. Society already cares plenty about men's problems. When feminists start asking society to care equally about women's problems, it's nothing but base sexism that would motivate you to sit there and whine, "But what about uuuuussssss?" You're like a child who suddenly has a sibling and can't stand that you're not the sole focus of attention anymore.

    ReplyDelete
  21. David said:

    [citation needed]

    Now David, you know this would mean that I would have to take up plenty of time digging through threads to find each example. This is very time consuming. Just as it is when I asked you to prove to me how patriarchy exists in American society 2011. But instead you provided me links of feminist theory which would have taken me an hour or more worth of reading instead of just giving me a few paragraphs as it's supposedly so easy to point out.

    I can clearly see your tactic. You do this because it's convenient for you. You know that your opponent is not likely going to spend time consuming effort to prove a point in a single thread/opinion that will just be forgotten in a flash. And when they don't, you claim victory.

    I am sure you are familiar with my “perfect princesses” phrase. This is used often when I see the exact thing you are wanting citation for.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I know, it's so sneaky and evil of me to ask you to back up your assertions with even a single fact.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Nicko, you are spot on with David's tactics. He'll even venture into topics that have nothing to do with the one you are debating, to do this. Don't catch him out though, because he's just going to come back with "your arguments are dumb and I don't want to play any more." Check the previous topic, Part 2 on Lara Logan to see what I'm getting at.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Chuck, I think you've done a better job arguing your points than many have (including myself, at times), but this is David's blog, neither yours nor mine. Since he's the proprietor, he has the right to participate or not as he sees fit on any discussion. He owes us nothing, while we are simply guests on his own little corner of the Internet.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Thevagrantsv, I abide by one simple principle in any debate. Always respect the other person. That respect is unconditional, but that does not mean that I'm going to sit quietly by while David employs tactics that are disingenuous. This is an open forum, and it is fair game to call out the proprietor on tactics that he might employ with other guests. Nothing underhanded or unfair about that.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "That being said, men are the privileged class and women are the oppressed class."---Triplantery

    And this from someone who calls most MRAs racist and sexist pieces of shit. You are quite the authority.

    ReplyDelete
  27. "MRA positions are generally self-contradictory, incoherent, and driven by emotion rather than logic."---SS

    Spoken from self-projection like a cowardly misandrist.

    ReplyDelete
  28. So nicko doesn't want to spend much time reading through proposed evidence that David provided at (I presume) nicko's request, and nicko doesn't want to spend much time providing evidence to back up his own assertions at David's request, and yet David is the one being disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Having looked back at the Part 2 on Lara Logan topic, the taking it "to the hypothetical extreme" example that was provided is actually fairly representative of how historical accounts were written... men did the important stuff, the stuff that matters, women (the few who existed, anyway) just came along for the ride, doing trivial shit along the way.

    I'd wager that there are quite a number of people who have heard tell of Watson and Crick... I wonder how many have heard tell of Rosalind Franklin...

    I'm not looking to raise the "wage gap topic" again, but for those who don't or can't take time to look through that thread for the example I alluded to above, here it is:

    "Women are half the workforce... so? Let's take what I am getting at to the hypothetical extreme. Let's say that in a far-off planet in another part of the universe, there's a society where all the men are employed as miners and all the women are employed as tea-ladies. Exactly half the employed are women, and the other half men. But what does that prove with regards to contributing to the economy and economic growth? Saying that women are exactly half the workforce is meaningless without providing an analysis of their activities, whether it's part time or fulltime, how it relates to their career aspirations, and so on. It's the wage gap fiasco all over again."

    ReplyDelete
  30. Thevagrantsvoice said: "One of the most persistent of their memes is that men can be divided into two groups--betas, the average guys (like them) who comprise the vast majority of society, and alphas, the top 10% or so of men who hold the real power (and whom women love)."

    So true. I actually (me! a feminist!) find a lot to agree with in so-called MRM issues. I am against circumcision, I think that men should have more (socially supported) options when it comes to their family lives, I see a lot in men's health care that should be improved, I am a staunch anti-rape advocate in men's prisons (as in, I've actually worked on that issue in men's prisons), I think it's awful that crotch-violence humor is as prevalent as it is in American TV, etc. But then there's all the woman-hatred that accompanies those positions.

    But what really blows my mind--getting to your point, tvv--is that, at base, the MRA belief really seems to grow out of a fear that everyone is out to get them. Seen in that light, the movement becomes less about hating women or ensuring rights for men, and more about indulging paranoia. For me, that discredits the movement entirely and moves it into Incredibly Stupid Conspiracy Theory territory. Luckily, the MRM makes itself irrelevant. It just honks me off that it purports to be about men's rights when on the surface it is actually about hating women, and once you scratch the surface it becomes clear that it's actually about fearing the world.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Chuck: Here's a basic summary of our recent discussion.

    1) I suggested you were being a bit of a hypocrite demanding that someone provide a citation for a fairly basic fact -- the % of women in the workforce -- while yourself making an assertion without proof. I asked for proof.

    2) Also, I provided a citation for the % of women in the workforce.

    3) Instead of providing an answer to my question, you mentioned a couple of books, without actually saying where or how they refuted my argument. (If I were trying to rove there was misogyny in the Bible, I wouldn't simply cite the entire Bible; I'd point out relevant passages.)

    4) Also, you ignored the citation I gave on %of women in the workforce. And once again demanded the proof I HAD JUST GIVEN.

    6) I gave you yet another citation on women in the workforce.

    7) You wondered why were were talking about the wage gap when YOU WERE THE ONE WHO BROUGHT IT UP.

    8) You responded to my info about the % of women in the workforce by: a) suggesting that lawyers were parasites and b) making up a hypothetical example of a planet where men are miners and women are "tea ladies."

    9) I bowed out of the discussion because you're an idiot.

    10) You complained about this.

    http://www.manboobz.com/2011/02/new-low-in-victim-blaming-part-2-in.html?showComment=1298188088188#c7239336625962242455

    ReplyDelete
  32. "That being said, men are the privileged class and women are the oppressed class."

    Will someone please prove this to me. The only privilege that I have seen noted is the "privilege" not to be raped.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  33. "heh nope, just pointing out the obvious and unwanted truth of feminist bigotry."

    Lol, here's what you just said.

    "Huurr no, I meant to do that! Derp!"

    It's cute when you make a mistake then act like you meant to do that. Too bad it always fails you.

    The fact is that she said women aren't perfect, then you asked her if she thought that was true. It made no bloody sense.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "So nicko doesn't want to spend much time reading through proposed evidence that David provided at (I presume) nicko's request"

    The funny thing is, Pam, it didn't seem like evidence at all. It just looked like opinions from feminists of what their POV of what patriarchy is. If you call this evidence, I feel sorry for yours and David's intelligence.

    If it was an MRA having opinions of what this or that is when it comes to gender issues, you and David would be the first to dismiss it solely because it's from an MRA. And I agree, just someone's opinion is not proof of anything. It's just basically someone's opinion.

    But if patriarchy is so persuasive in society, it would be easy to point out within a few paragraphs instead of giving me a million words worth of reading knowing that I am not likely going to bother taking up the time to read it. It's a game that David plays often.

    "and nicko doesn't want to spend much time providing evidence to back up his own assertions at David's request, and yet David is the one being disingenuous."

    For one, I have a life, unlike David who spends most of his time in this blog because he has no friends in real life, no job, and no things to do in his life that seems more important.

    Secondly, I find it pointless to do time consuming work to that extent when it's just likely going to be dismissed by typical feminist bigots like David and the others in this blog. Not to mention, the work will be forgotten in a flash. Not worth the trouble.

    But I think David knows deep down inside what I am talking about when he has heard me use the "perfect princesses" phrase towards him when he tries to cover up sexist behaviour from women.

    I think everyone who at least has a balanced mind knows that David is a female favouring feminist bigot that is heavily deluded in feminist theory. Maybe his mum is a feminist, maybe he grew up surrounded by feminists, who knows what his disturbing childhood was like to make him end up to be an feminist extremist.

    ReplyDelete
  35. But if patriarchy is so persuasive in society, it would be easy to point out within a few paragraphs instead of giving me a million words worth of reading knowing that I am not likely going to bother taking up the time to read it.

    Patriarchy is so pervasive that most people, even people who aren't feminists, can see it, and MRAs have to spend practically all their mental energy denying it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. @ triplanetary

    Something is so pervasive that it can't be seen? I don't understand how that works.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  37. If we note the title of the post under which this thread takes place, namely, "New low in victim blaming", and if we note the subject matter (Lara Logan), we will realize that it has nothing to do with the wage gap. I made a brief reference to the wage gap in order to draw attention to the contradictions and the many complex variables that need to be considered. I did not introduce the wage gap to debate it. Why go into detail about the wage gap when the topic is Lara Logan?

    And insofar as some contributors have elected to labor over subthemes that have nothing to do with Lara Logan, the proportions of women and men in the workforce are subject to variables that are not explained by citing how many women are employed in one profession and another. There's affirmative action favouring women, there are air-conditioned office jobs favored by women over dusty, dangerous mines favored by men, and so on, on and on. Wage gap stuff all over again.

    Do we get it? Telling me that there are as many women as men who are "employed" (whatever that means, whether it includes part-time or full-time, or casual, or 1 year over a 10 year period, on and on and on) does not tell me anything. It tells me nothing about the social forces at work, and it tells me nothing about Lara Logan.

    Going off on a tangent to analyse a topic (the wage gap) that has nothing to do with the debate at hand (Lara Logan) is not only pure sophistry, it's just plain dumb.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Something is so pervasive that it can't be seen?

    That's the opposite of what I said, sir. I said, and I quote, "Patriarchy is so pervasive that most people, even people who aren't feminists, can see it."

    ReplyDelete
  39. Going off on a tangent to analyse a topic (the wage gap) that has nothing to do with the debate at hand (Lara Logan) is not only pure sophistry, it's just plain dumb.

    Then why did you do it?

    ReplyDelete
  40. triplanetary

    If patriarchy is so pervasive, wouldn't it be easy for you to give us a simple example in a paragraph of 2? Like it's something that you could provide here within 30 seconds?

    ReplyDelete
  41. Women earn 23.5% less than men earn in the United states.
    you can find out more about that here:
    http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new03_001.htm

    ReplyDelete
  42. @ triplanetary

    Ah, yes my bad about that.

    ReplyDelete
  43. @ briget

    That's because they work less hours and cluster in less lucrative fields.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  44. I cannot believe I co-exist with such ignorant and hateful men... :(

    too tired to hate you, or anybody.

    ReplyDelete
  45. doctressjulia said...
    "I cannot believe I co-exist with such ignorant and hateful men... :(

    too tired to hate you, or anybody."

    For a moment, I could have sworn that doctressjulia was a female version of Buffalo Bill from her pic alone. Then I realized it was the crack alley shot taken during the morning over a bizzard that made her hair askew, and the fact she was awoken from her cardboard home that pissed her off. As far as hate is concerned, she's hatin' on the haters!

    "I was just inspecting the inspected inspection, inspector!"

    ReplyDelete
  46. "That's because they work less hours and cluster in less lucrative fields."

    Why?

    ReplyDelete
  47. "That's because they work less hours and cluster in less lucrative fields."

    Why?


    Well if you ask him, it's because women are lazy and would prefer to let their husbands take care of them.

    Any notion that employers are inclined to give higher-paying positions to men would just be bigoted, misandrist, feminazi propaganda.

    ReplyDelete
  48. no richard, that figure is only concerning full time employees

    ReplyDelete
  49. Hide and Seek: Maybe Random Brother needs to have a chat with Chucky, who asserts that (most?) women are lawyers. (Or was that most lawyers are women? Or merely just that some women are lawyers or some lawyers are women? Honestly, his point is borderline incoherent, so it's hard to tell.) Regardless of lawyers' relative value to humanity (for what it's worth, Chucky thinks dimly on this subject), I think we can all agree that overall, in aggregate, on average, lawyers work a shittonne of hours and are fairly well compensated.

    It's just when it comes to pesky, trivial, basically worthless jobs--like educator--that women workers are seen to "cluster in less lucrative fields." Hey, you don't suppose that's because women's labor is traditionally valued less than manly labor, do you? Or do you think that fields that are harder for women to break into are just several times more important than jobs that have traditionally been seen as acceptable for women to fill?

    Oh well, it hardly matters that we reach a nuanced understanding of how sex roles, expectations, and values play into employment and wages, since MRAs can just point to the "part-time, more sick days" thing as their catchall explanation for the wage gap. (And for the love of god, DO NOT pay attention to child care and division of labor in the home!!!) I think it was O'Connor who said that the more men enter the field of nursing, the more we can expect nurses' pay to rise overall. Surely that's not because employers still, to this day, find reasons to pay their women employees less. Ah, but what does O'Connor know? She's a girl.

    ReplyDelete
  50. @ briget/hide and seek/triplanetary

    The reason they cluster in less lucrative fields and work less hours is because women tend to value their home lives/schedule flexibility more than men.

    Most financially lucrative careers have huge downsides in the amount of time one has to invest. 60 - 70+ hour weeks. This leaves little time for the kids.

    In fact according to this study
    http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/2010-09-01-single-women_N.htm

    Women without kids are making more than their male counterparts. (I won't bother holding my breath for NOW to start the fight against this staggering inequality).

    In other words the opportunity cost of children is less money.

    If you don't like it then find a house husband/boyfriend and have him watch the kids as you climb the corporate ladder.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  51. No Richard, the feminist argument is that most or all male employers are sexist. They run an evil scheme and secretly pay female employees less. What a huge coincidence ay?

    If men were to make such a ridiculous accusation against women or an accusation in the same level of ridiculousness, we would get laughed at and called misogynists as it's impossible for all these women to be so evil.

    Even that the US Department of Labor backs up your claim, Richard, you still must be wrong.

    http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender%20Wage%20Gap%20Final%20Report.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  52. @ Bee

    Bee said: ". . .It's just when it comes to pesky, trivial, basically worthless jobs--like educator--that women workers are seen to "cluster in less lucrative fields." Hey, you don't suppose that's because women's labor is traditionally valued less than manly labor, do you?"

    No. It's because educating children doesn't give one's shareholders a shit load of money.

    Bee continues: "Or do you think that fields that are harder for women to break into are just several times more important than jobs that have traditionally been seen as acceptable for women to fill?"

    This isn't 1920. If you want a high paying job, stop teaching and go where the money is. Again, for clairty, if you wan't to make money, GO WHERE THE MONEY IS! Instead you want jobs that pay next to no money to be forced to pay more. There's a reason that a fourth grade teacher doesn't get paid as much as a CEO and that isn't going to change any time soon.

    Bee said: "Oh well, it hardly matters that we reach a nuanced understanding of how sex roles, expectations, and values play into employment and wages, since MRAs can just point to the "part-time, more sick days" thing as their catchall explanation for the wage gap."

    We who? You have put forth rad fem theory, the rest of the world goes on making money.

    Bee: "(And for the love of god, DO NOT pay attention to child care and division of labor in the home!!!)"

    Your home life is not your employers problem. If you want to not be held back by the childcare issue, marry a househusband/boyfriend and climb your way to the top as he takes care of your kids. It's not your boss resposibility to worry about your child care.

    Bee said: "I think it was O'Connor who said that the more men enter the field of nursing, the more we can expect nurses' pay to rise overall. Surely that's not because employers still, to this day, find reasons to pay their women employees less. Ah, but what does O'Connor know? She's a girl."

    In other words, I want to make just as much as the person who spends 70 hours on the job, and makes his/her bosses millions, for teaching Suzie to finger paint while working 30 hours a week on flex time.

    Stop demanding the world bend to your whims, and go out there and work for your money. Teaching Suzie to finger paint isn't going to cut it.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  53. @ nicko81m

    What I love is that when women without kids earn more than men it's equality. When women who have kids and work less get paid less than men it's evil males plotting against women. Amazing.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  54. @ richard, I linked in the 2nd laura logan thread how to deal with that, if you would like me to link it here as well I will be more than happy to do so.

    ReplyDelete
  55. If men were to make such a ridiculous accusation against women or an accusation in the same level of ridiculousness, we would get laughed at and called misogynists as it's impossible for all these women to be so evil.

    It's not that it's impossible, it's just that, systemically speaking, it doesn't really comport with reality. Women don't have the power or social ranking to oppress men. Men do have the power and social ranking to oppress women. It really is that simple.

    Would women do the same thing if the roles were reversed? I don't fucking know.

    ReplyDelete
  56. This isn't 1920. If you want a high paying job, stop teaching and go where the money is. Again, for clairty, if you wan't to make money, GO WHERE THE MONEY IS! Instead you want jobs that pay next to no money to be forced to pay more. There's a reason that a fourth grade teacher doesn't get paid as much as a CEO and that isn't going to change any time soon.

    In your imaginary universe where it's exactly as easy for women as it is for men to enter into those lucrative career fields, this might be good advice.

    ReplyDelete
  57. @richard:

    "In other words the opportunity cost of children is less money."

    Why doesn't the opportunity cost of children mean less money for men? Shouldn't that cost be spread equally?

    ReplyDelete
  58. @ triplanetary

    How are single childless women getting paid more than men if they are NOT getting into lucrative career fields?

    Clearly they are.

    You claim some conspiracy to keep women from making as much as men, but more and more single childless women are making more than men.

    So is this male conspiracy only focussed at married women? If so why?

    And since you seem to be dealing in conspiracy and not facts, is Tupac alive?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  59. @ briget

    I looked at the links you posted.

    One doesn't show what fields the people work in.

    The other is the ridiculous idea that a stay at home mom should earn 120,000 per year. This study is so false it is laughable. To equate a stay at home mom, with a chef, chaufer, and CEO, is a gross stretch of logic and reality.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  60. @ Hide and Seek

    The opportunity cost can be spread equally if a couple works it that way. If both husband and wife take an equal share in dealing with the children (esp activities that take one parent away from work and advancement) that would not stop the opportunity cost but it would spread it among the couple keeping the wife's salary and earning potential higher than if she were the primary caretaker in the relationship.

    A woman who wants kids and wants to rise the corporate ladder with the least amount of negative from the child raising issue should marry a house husband type.

    However, none of this is your employer's problem.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  61. Feminists want their cake and eat it too or else it's oppression against women

    ReplyDelete
  62. "However, none of this is your employer's problem."

    Try telling that to feminists. They are never accountable for their problems. One way or the other, it's the fault of men.

    ReplyDelete
  63. richard, while in my younger years I was homeschooled by my single mother who worked full time. It was my responsibility to take care of my younger brother and sister and the entirety of the house on top of my school work. For all intents and purposes I was a stay at home mom. My tasks each day included a full house cleaning (this is completely necessary with two small children) full day of child care, cooking three meals, getting my brother and sister to their playdates, doctor's appointments (my brother has asperger's and my sister has a speech impediment so we had doctor's appointments at least 4 days a week), swimming lessons if it was that time of year, etc., doing laundry, taking what I couldn't launder at home to the dry cleaner, and grocery shopping. It takes as long to clean one's house when you have to watch a two year old and make sure that he doesn't smash his blocks into his three month old sister's head. I also had to make sure that there was lunch for my mom to take and that dinner was on the table by the time she got home at 6 every night. Now if the people who do these things all day long were not there, then someone would have to fill in for them. Why shouldn't the stay at home parent's work be compensated in the same way that any other worker would be? Oh and because it's ludicris is not an answer. I want a legitimate response as to why stay at home parents shouldn't be compensated properly for that work.

    ReplyDelete
  64. You claim some conspiracy to keep women from making as much as men, but more and more single childless women are making more than men.

    It's not a conspiracy, it's ingrained social biases.

    It was my responsibility to take care of my younger brother and sister and the entirety of the house on top of my school work. For all intents and purposes I was a stay at home mom. My tasks each day included a full house cleaning (this is completely necessary with two small children) full day of child care, cooking three meals, getting my brother and sister to their playdates, doctor's appointments (my brother has asperger's and my sister has a speech impediment so we had doctor's appointments at least 4 days a week), swimming lessons if it was that time of year, etc., doing laundry, taking what I couldn't launder at home to the dry cleaner, and grocery shopping. It takes as long to clean one's house when you have to watch a two year old and make sure that he doesn't smash his blocks into his three month old sister's head. I also had to make sure that there was lunch for my mom to take and that dinner was on the table by the time she got home at 6 every night.

    This is an MRA's idea of retirement.

    ReplyDelete
  65. wytch, cool it with the personal insults. I'll let the last one stand because it is completely ridiculous, but in the future I'll delete.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Oh, Random Brother, it’s absolutely adorable that you're pretending I've written anything about my own life, so you can attack me personally.

    "No. It's because educating children doesn't give one's shareholders a shit load of money."

    Oh, you think making money for shareholders is reflected in employees' paychecks? BRB, lolling forever. You know who makes a lot of money when shareholders make money? The CEO. You know how CEOs make money? By cutting salaries. It's a lot more complicated than that, but trust me as the former employee of a CEO of the only profitable company in its industry, who makes 5000 times what his best-paid non-managerial employee makes: Employees of profitable companies are not reaping the rewards of those companies.

    "This isn't 1920. If you want a high paying job, stop teaching and go where the money is. Again, for clairty, if you wan't to make money, GO WHERE THE MONEY IS! Instead you want jobs that pay next to no money to be forced to pay more. There's a reason that a fourth grade teacher doesn't get paid as much as a CEO and that isn't going to change any time soon."

    I don't remember saying that I'm a teacher. Perhaps that's because I'm not. But I do admire teachers. It's an important job, and it's a damn hard job. I'm not going to argue that a person who wants to make a huge paycheck should, given the choice, become a CEO rather than a teacher. But saying everyone should be a CEO isn't a satisfactory answer. What I was getting at, and what you've entirely missed, is that traditional fields for women generally are underpaid in comparison to traditional fields for men. And the difficulty, importance, and training involved don't really seem to account for those wage differences. The only thing that does is that women are seen to be less valuable than men. Women's labor is seen to be less valuable than men's labor.

    This too: There remain to this very day offices that would rather hire straight white men so the rest of the investment bankers have someone to shoot the shit with. There remain to this day union shops where the environment is so uncomfortably pro-male, pro-rape, and anti-woman that very few women stay. It's no longer the 1920s; but you wouldn't know that looking around, sometimes.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Continuing my response to Random Brother (sorry):

    Your home life is not your employers problem. If you want to not be held back by the childcare issue, marry a househusband/boyfriend and climb your way to the top as he takes care of your kids. It's not your boss resposibility to worry about your child care."

    No, it's not. But I was actually addressing arguments that MRAs on this very site were making about how women make out like thieves if they get married and work part time. If a woman is working part time out of the home and more than full time inside the home, I fail to see how that equals retirement.

    Responding to my O'Connor quote: "In other words, I want to make just as much as the person who spends 70 hours on the job, and makes his/her bosses millions, for teaching Suzie to finger paint while working 30 hours a week on flex time."

    No. In other words, it's very telling that once men enter a field, employers in that field start paying their employees more. Also, what you've said about employees who make their bosses millions seems to come from the viewpoint of a person who's spent very little time in the workforce in the last 30 years. You know how most employees are rewarded for making their bosses millions of dollars? In this economy, they aren’t.

    "Stop demanding the world bend to your whims, and go out there and work for your money. Teaching Suzie to finger paint isn't going to cut it."

    Again, this isn't about me. But I'm surprised that a member of a group whose biggest substantive complaint is that father's rights aren't what they might be is telling me that educating children is not important. Very interesting.

    ReplyDelete
  68. "but more and more single childless women are making more than men." And this couldn't possibly have anything to do with women's much higher rates of earning high school diplomas and university degrees. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the US's massive primarily male prison population does not earn wages. If you look within fields, the wage gap holds even for single, childless women, though they have an edge on women with children.

    ReplyDelete
  69. "However, none of this is your employer's problem."

    @Richard:

    I'm not sure that is true. In my experience, if one is employed to do knowledge work, as opposed to stamping out widgets on a widget-stamping machine, the idea of a bright line between home and work life is a myth.

    The employees I supervise, male and female, seem to be able to contribute the most to their positions if they aren't stressed about how they will pay their rent and who will be watching their children. Our willingness to be flexible benefits us and them.

    Do we have to? No, but if we don't we have higher turnover, spend more time hiring and training new people, and the workers who stay don't enjoy this work but rather cannot find work anywhere else.

    "Stop demanding the world bend to your whims,"

    I know that you said this in response to another commenter, but I hope no one takes this advice, ever. What good does it do to stop demanding that the world be the world we would like to live in? That's how things get changed. If humans, generally, took this advice, we'd still be freezing all winter and eating food we had fertilized with our own feces.

    ReplyDelete
  70. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  71. @ briget

    I need to clarify something here. Do you believe that soceity should be taxed in order to pay stay at home mothers and that stay at home mothers should earn approximatly $100,000 per year?

    And you do know that 75% of people in this country earn less than 50,000 per year, right?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  72. @ triplanetary

    triplanetary: "It's not a conspiracy, it's ingrained social biases."

    You're going to have to prove this to me.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  73. @ Bee

    Bee said: "Oh, Random Brother, it’s absolutely adorable that you're pretending I've written anything about my own life, so you can attack me personally."

    Oh, Bee babe, it's so sexy when we're passive aggressvie with each other, hawt! Anywho, I wasn't attacking you personally, I was referring to the meme of teachers being so important they need to be paid more than CEO's and the like.

    Bee said: "Oh, you think making money for shareholders is reflected in employees' paychecks? BRB, lolling forever."

    OMFG!!! Like lulz fore eva!!!!

    Bee said: "You know who makes a lot of money when shareholders make money? The CEO. You know how CEOs make money? By cutting salaries."

    Which gives there share holders a shit load of money like I said.

    Bee said: "It's a lot more complicated than that, but trust me as the former employee of a CEO of the only profitable company in its industry, who makes 5000 times what his best-paid non-managerial employee makes: Employees of profitable companies are not reaping the rewards of those companies."

    Are they making more than teachers? If so you have your answer there.

    Bee said: "I don't remember saying that I'm a teacher."

    I was making a point.

    Bee said: "Perhaps that's because I'm not. But I do admire teachers. It's an important job, and it's a damn hard job. I'm not going to argue that a person who wants to make a huge paycheck should, given the choice, become a CEO rather than a teacher. But saying everyone should be a CEO isn't a satisfactory answer."

    The answer is go to where the money is. That's the answer. There's no way you should sit there and arrogantly demand that the fields you happen to like are the most lucrative. If you want money, go and get money. It's that simple.

    Bee said: "What I was getting at, and what you've entirely missed, is that traditional fields for women generally are underpaid in comparison to traditional fields for men. And the difficulty, importance, and training involved don't really seem to account for those wage differences. The only thing that does is that women are seen to be less valuable than men. Women's labor is seen to be less valuable than men's labor."

    Fields are not magically male or female. If you enter an underpaid field you'll be underpaid. Get the education, flood male fields, and make money. How hard is that?

    Bee said: "This too: There remain to this very day offices that would rather hire straight white men so the rest of the investment bankers have someone to shoot the shit with. There remain to this day union shops where the environment is so uncomfortably pro-male, pro-rape, and anti-woman that very few women stay."

    Will refusing to join these offices and challenging them to hire you change this? If not again, you have your answer.

    Bee said: "It's no longer the 1920s; but you wouldn't know that looking around, sometimes."

    No one guarantees you a good salary. No one guarntees you a good job. No one guarntees you cash. You have to go and fight for it. If you're too lazy to fight, that's on you.

    Lets look at what you want to do logically. Lets say tommorrow the government decides that evil males earning money in male dominated fields MUST BE STOPPED. And they now force all female dominated jobs to pay equal or higher than male dominated jobs. Wouldn't men then try and flood into the female dominated jobs? So what happens a large number of people are all clamoring for jobs in a specific field? The wages go down, right? You got a solution for this? In the end the same jobs would likely have lower wages, unless women then kept men out of those jobs. Which is a whole 'nother can of worms.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  74. @ Bee

    Bee said: ". . . But I was actually addressing arguments that MRAs on this very site were making about how women make out like thieves if they get married and work part time. If a woman is working part time out of the home and more than full time inside the home, I fail to see how that equals retirement."

    Some do make out like bandits some don't. The difference between say what briget went through and say a wealthy stay at home mom with nannies and maids and the like can be staggering.

    Bee said: "No. In other words, it's very telling that once men enter a field, employers in that field start paying their employees more."

    Do you ever think it's because that field becomes more profitable? Have you any studies on that?

    Bee said: "Also, what you've said about employees who make their bosses millions seems to come from the viewpoint of a person who's spent very little time in the workforce in the last 30 years. You know how most employees are rewarded for making their bosses millions of dollars? In this economy, they aren’t."

    I'll try again. In jobs where you have the opportunity to make your boss money, you are more likely to make money. Certain jobs are more prone to higher pay. Jobs like teaching, nursing and the like have little to no opportunity to make you bosses or business more money. Don't go into those jobs if you want a lot of money unless there is a shorage of workers for those jobs.

    Bee: " Again, this isn't about me. But I'm surprised that a member of a group whose biggest substantive complaint is that father's rights aren't what they might be is telling me that educating children is not important. Very interesting."

    I didn't say educating children wasn't important. It's not half a million a year, CEO important to the society or else teachers would be paid that way.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  75. @ darksidecat:

    Darksidecat said: And this couldn't possibly have anything to do with women's much higher rates of earning high school diplomas and university degrees. It couldn't have anything to do with the fact that the US's massive primarily male prison population does not earn wages. If you look within fields, the wage gap holds even for single, childless women, though they have an edge on women with children."

    Proof please.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  76. @ hide and seek:

    hide and seek said: "

    @Richard:

    I'm not sure that is true. In my experience, if one is employed to do knowledge work, as opposed to stamping out widgets on a widget-stamping machine, the idea of a bright line between home and work life is a myth.

    The employees I supervise, male and female, seem to be able to contribute the most to their positions if they aren't stressed about how they will pay their rent and who will be watching their children. Our willingness to be flexible benefits us and them. "

    The questions then are should the government force you to be flexible? How flexible? How does this pan out over differing types of jobs?

    For example you may be able to give flex time to a talented women in your department with no ill effects, but what if another less talented woman demands to only be on site 8 hours a week and cites personal child care issues? What if the government forces you to accept this and there are negative consequences? If your organization does it on it's own, I assume for that organization it works, but when it comes top down from a government agent who may not know whats best for your business it may be very different.

    hide and seek: "Do we have to? No, but if we don't we have higher turnover, spend more time hiring and training new people, and the workers who stay don't enjoy this work but rather cannot find work anywhere else."

    This sounds like a solution for one individual business, but it may be an awful situation for another.

    hide and seek: "I know that you said this in response to another commenter, but I hope no one takes this advice, ever. What good does it do to stop demanding that the world be the world we would like to live in? That's how things get changed. If humans, generally, took this advice, we'd still be freezing all winter and eating food we had fertilized with our own feces."

    There is no way that we can accomdate everyone's whims in regard to employment. Attempting to do so, IMHO, is a waste of time, and someone will get screwed.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  77. "wytch, cool it with the personal insults. I'll let the last one stand because it is completely ridiculous, but in the future I'll delete."---David

    Hey, it's all good . . . only when feminists slam anyone else, yo?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Random Brother: You're not very good at this arguing thing, are you? To recap, I say that jobs that women have traditionally held are paid less because women's labor isn't valued as highly as men's labor. You say: What the hell, everyone should just apply for those vacant CEO positions!

    Do you see why that (a) doesn't really make sense, and (b) doesn't really address the problem?

    ReplyDelete
  79. @ Bee

    What a pathetic little straw man you've created. I thought I could have an adult conversation with you but clearly I cannot. Let me simplify so that even you should be able to understand.

    Here's what you should do (you may want to find someone intelligent to read this to you.)

    1. There's this little thing called the internet. On it you can actually look up salaries, compensation, requirements, future outlook, etc, of most jobs.
    2. Use this "internet" to find jobs in the proper salary range that you like.
    3. Use this "internet" to find out what the requirements are for those jobs.
    4. Get the requirements for the jobs.
    5. Apply to those jobs.
    6. Get paid.

    Got it?

    There has been no time in history where a woman has a better chance to be paid well, to exceed males in pay and still you bitch and moan endlessly, instead of getting off of your ass and doing anything positive.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  80. 3. Use this "internet" to find out what the requirements are for those jobs.
    4. Get the requirements for the jobs.


    The problem with this is that one of the unspoken requirements for many of the high-paying jobs out there is "a penis." Your denial of this is what's making you sound like a moron.

    Also the fact that you're a moron.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Sorry this isn't going as well for you as you thought it might, Random Brother. By the way, when you keep repeating something, and then someone says that you keep repeating that thing you keep repeating--that is somewhat different from someone creating a strawman.

    And, again--and I don't know how you keep missing this--we are not talking about me, my job prospects, or my ass. I honestly and truly am doing fine financially, though I thank you for your concern.

    Instead of you moving goalposts again, I've got an idea. How's about you tell us why jobs that are traditional women's jobs are paid less than traditional men's jobs? Or perhaps you can tell us why most servers at expensive restaurants are men and most servers at breakfast diners are women? Or why there exists to this day a socially imposed barrier surrounding women's participation in low-education but high-pay jobs? Or why companies like Walmart employ a minority of women in management even though their workforce overall is mostly female? Or why, even when women make it into management positions or those low-education/high-pay industries I was talking about, it's always on terms set by their male coworkers and supervisors: in order to keep their prized jobs, they have to put up with being called gendered names, listening to jokes whose punchlines are sex discrimination, and being constantly pre-judged on their sex rather than their work?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Richard wants proof that reality is reality. You can't prove it, can you! Huh.

    ReplyDelete
  83. @Richard:

    "The questions then are should the government force you to be flexible? How flexible? How does this pan out over differing types of jobs?"

    I don't have an answer to this. Should the government force businesses to be flexible? It depends, does the government have an interest in women deciding not to have children? What does the US look like in two generations if our population declines? What does it look like if there is a population decline among highly paid, well-educated people and an explosion among the poor? There's no way to accurately predict the future, but that sounds bad.

    "For example you may be able to give flex time to a talented women in your department with no ill effects, but what if another less talented woman demands to only be on site 8 hours a week and cites personal child care issues?"

    I think it makes sense to deal with people's results. If someone is a huge slacker who produces good work, does it really matter if they're on facebook all day? If someone can work from home 32 hours a week, but they're meeting their goals, then there is not a problem. If they are not, you work with them until they are. If that means more time in the office, fine. If they consistently can't meet their goals, the issue becomes how to replace them.

    "What if the government forces you to accept this and there are negative consequences?"

    I'm sure that this is a problem in some industries, who still have strong union representation, but for the vast majority of people, it's just not an issue. And, in my case, I have had several people who were not happy with our work culture, and the best way I've found to deal with it is to help them find somewhere else to work where they would be happier. The best solutions are usually win-win.

    "This sounds like a solution for one individual business, but it may be an awful situation for another."

    Um, of course. Solutions have to be tailored to the problems of the business and the problems of the workers. But just because I can't propose one simple, black and white, easy to implement solution that will solve everything doesn't mean a solution doesn't exist.

    "There is no way that we can accomdate everyone's whims in regard to employment. Attempting to do so, IMHO, is a waste of time, and someone will get screwed."

    I understand this position because I sit in meetings all the time with people who have it; it's the, "I don't want to do that, therefore, it must be impossible" formulation.

    Is there a way to, "accomdate everyone's whims in regard to employment"? I don't know. I know that it has not been tried in the past, but I also know that things are different now and a lot of things that seemed to work reasonably well in the past are failing miserably now. So, we try new things. Sometimes, those things also fail. But eventually we have ideas and make changes that don't fail. And then we start again. Such is life.

    ReplyDelete
  84. @ triplanetary

    triplanetary emoted: "The problem with this is that one of the unspoken requirements for many of the high-paying jobs out there is "a penis."

    Uh, proof? Links? Anything? Anything at all? Oh, wait you're just pulling it out of your ass.

    Just like feminists pulled the whole 15 out of 16 rapists never go to prison or on Superbowl Sunday there is an epidemic of wife/girlfriend beating or that we live in a rape culture or any number of other bullshit lies your kind makes up all the time.

    triplanetary: "Your denial of this is what's making you sound like a moron.

    Also the fact that you're a moron."

    No. You're a woman who has taken modern feminism to mean that you should be some sort of entitled parasite. You don't feel you should have to work hard. Everything should be handed to you because your a woman. You have no work ethic, no drive, and no ambition, except to make big daddy gubmint hand your lazy ass money.

    You have choosen to be a parasite on humankind. And in such you have no value whatsoever. Keep holding out for that big government check for laying around your house doing nothing but sitting on your ass.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  85. Bee: "Sorry this isn't going as well for you as you thought it might, Random Brother."

    Well I am trying to explain logic to feminists which is kind of like teaching pigs calculus, so I understand why you can't get it.

    Bee said: "By the way, when you keep repeating something, and then someone says that you keep repeating that thing you keep repeating--that is somewhat different from someone creating a strawman."

    Do you even know what a strawman is? Your claim is that women get paid less because they are women. Women get paid less because they flock to jobs that have less value. Do you really think that if a ton of men decide to become day care teachers that daycare teachers will see a six figure salary? Are you that dense?

    Bee said: "And, again--and I don't know how you keep missing this--we are not talking about me, my job prospects, or my ass. I honestly and truly am doing fine financially, though I thank you for your concern."

    Then quit bitching.

    Bee said: "Instead of you moving goalposts again, I've got an idea. How's about you tell us why jobs that are traditional women's jobs are paid less than traditional men's jobs?"

    Before I do that YOU TELL ME why women must go into those poor paying fields, then I'll get back to you. It's almost as if you think women aren't responsible for their own choices.

    Bee said: "Or perhaps you can tell us why most servers at expensive restaurants are men and most servers at breakfast diners are women?"

    Let me help you out here. Being a server at a restaurant whether upscale or not will not lead to a good salary. Now most men already know this but is seems my feminists friends need some help with it.

    Bee said: "Or why there exists to this day a socially imposed barrier surrounding women's participation in low-education but high-pay jobs?"

    Proof. Proof or call it your bullshit opinion, thanks.

    Bee said: "Or why companies like Walmart employ a minority of women in management even though their workforce overall is mostly female?"

    Walmart. You're talking about good jobs/salaries and you bring up Walmart. Jesus.

    Fine then.
    Do you have stats on how long women work at Walmart vs men? Do you have stats on male vs female job performance at Walmart, hmm dear? Do you have stats on male vs female education levels in regards to employees at Walmart, hmm dear? Do you have stats on who works the most overtime males or femals in regards to Walmart? No? Then you can't judge who deserves what now can you?

    Perhaps men who work at Walmart tend to not have children or their wives/girlfriends take care of the kids leaving them able to devote more hours to work and rise faster up the Walmart ladder. Ever think of that hun?

    Bee said: "Or why, even when women make it into management positions or those low-education/high-pay industries I was talking about, it's always on terms set by their male coworkers and supervisors:"

    You're supposed to work based on terms set by your supervisors, halfwhit.

    Bee said: "in order to keep their prized jobs, they have to put up with being called gendered names, listening to jokes whose punchlines are sex discrimination, and being constantly pre-judged on their sex rather than their work?"

    I thought women were tough and strong and could do anything a man could? A few harsh words sends her screaming out of the office? Weak. Why doesn't she sue for sexual harrassment. Isn't that what you feminuts do? Ruin businesses with shitty lawsuits?

    I feel like I've fallen into parasite central.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  86. @ triplanetary

    Well you're not a man, that's for sure.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  87. @ SallyStrange

    In other words, I have no proof so I'll throw in some lame snark. Thanks for sharing.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  88. Richard, please reread your latest two comments here. Do you notice a certain irony?

    ReplyDelete
  89. @ David

    Do you not see my long post previous the last two explaining my points?

    Do you not see that Sally offerred nothing to defend or clarify any point here just snark?

    Or is your feminism blinding you yet again?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  90. I see you repeating a lot of the same points you've made before, and then launching into weird tirades about "feminuts" and "parasites."

    ReplyDelete
  91. @ David

    Do you see any points at all made by Sally Strange in this thread? At least my alleged repeated points are an attempt at clarity unlike Sally who has added NOTHING but snark. No points, nothing. Do you get on her at all? No you don't because she has a vagina isn't that right "male" feminist?

    Oh, and while we're at it do you believe that stay at home moms should be paid $100,000 per year for taking care of their own kids?


    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  92. No I don't, but I also don't think housewives (or househusbands) are effectively "retired" with nothing to do but sit on their ass eating bon-bons.

    ReplyDelete
  93. @ David

    I didn't say they were retired.

    There is however a vast difference between a middle class housewife with three kids and a the houswife of a multi-millionaire with servants doing most of the chores.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  94. I was actually thinking of Chuck, who made the remark about retirement.

    And, yes, there is a big difference between a middle class housewife and the housewife of a multimillionaire.

    Granted, most of my information about the latter group comes from the Real Housewives shows.

    ReplyDelete
  95. There is however a vast difference between a middle class housewife with three kids and a the houswife of a multi-millionaire with servants doing most of the chores.

    Naturally. But those multimillionaires and their wives constitute 0.9% of the US population, so what do they have to do with housewives in general?

    ReplyDelete
  96. @ triplanetary

    The point is that differing households have different needs and some housewives have it easy and some hard.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  97. Yes, obviously I understand that part. But when less than 1% of the population makes that much money, you can't argue that these easy-living housewives represent any kind of norm.

    ReplyDelete
  98. @ triplanetary

    I agree that easy living housewives are a small portion of most housewives but even among those who work hard there must be vast differences. A women with say two well behaved children will undoubtedly work hard, but place her time and effort versus a woman with four kids one with a developmental disability, there will, I suspect, be a vast difference in the amount of work done. So how can there be a calculated sum for how much a houswife should be paid?

    That's not even getting into the argument that paying a woman for taking care of her own kids is patently ridiculous to start with and who the hell should pay for it.

    You take care of your own kids! Here's some government money!

    Do you see how ludicrous that sounds?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  99. That's not even getting into the argument that paying a woman for taking care of her own kids is patently ridiculous to start with and who the hell should pay for it.

    You take care of your own kids! Here's some government money!

    Do you see how ludicrous that sounds?


    Except that she's working to raise children who will become part of the next generation of taxPAYERS, so maybe it's not as ludicrous as it initially sounds.

    ReplyDelete
  100. @ Pam

    The more I hear about feminism the worse it sounds.

    If you have your way I will have to pay someone to take care of THEIR OWN FUCKING KIDS, while I have no voice in whether she has kids, nor how many nor when. I just have to stand there and let the government yank dollar after dollar out of my wallet and smile or I'm an asshole misogynist.

    I have to smile if I'm quota'd out of a job or I'm an asshole.

    If my coworker chooses to get pregant and can't do her job I have to help her or I'm an asshole.

    If I start a business, I have to bend over backward to provide flextime and training for women regardless of how it effects my bottom line or I'm an asshole.

    If after spending money to train her, she quits to be a stay at home mom and I'm upset well then I'm a child hating asshole.

    And if the femiloons have their way when the woman quits to become a stay at home mother I'll have to still pay her via taxes or again I'm an asshole.

    The world is just a big ATM machine to you feminists, isn't it?

    No ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country at all in feminism.

    Relentless parasitism.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  101. What I hear from Richard is "me me me me"

    *I* do not want to have to pay into a community *I* did not create. *I* do not want to pay for anything but what *I* think is appropriate.

    Look Richard-you live in a society created by people who paid for things you like without you paying for them yourself. Roads, the interwebz, the water distribution system, the telephone lines, the development of safe cars, the development of safe air travel...thousands of little things all day long make your life livable were created and paid for long before your whiny self was even thought of.

    Someone else paid for that-some of it was public (roads, clean water requirements, jails/prisons to house lawbreakers, schools, university research...etc), some of it was private (coding, cars, planes, mining materials...etc) however you did not...And someone had to have those babies who grew up to create all of the shit you take for granted daily.

    Someone had to wipe their nose, teach them how to do whatever, change their diaper, and watch to make sure they did not kill themselves before they grew up enough to make the stuff you want.

    And when you get old? Those children you hate because their parents did not consult with you prior to their conception and birth because heaven forbid you pay a dime to help make sure they grow up to be productive, will be the ones taking care of you when you are too feeble to help yourself. If you get Alzheimir’s and have to have someone to keep you from being hurt, they will be the ones doing this. If a cure is developed for something like arthritis, it certainly will not be you doing it (or if you do, definitely not alone) but you will be benefiting.

    It is called the social contract-someone else paid for your upbringing/infrastructure so you pay for the next generation’s upbringing/infrastructure and they pay (in more than money) for your needs as you grow old and useless. Or do you propose we take our elderly out the back door and shoot them?

    No? Then someone has to make sure they are okay, just as someone had to make sure they (you) were okay when they (you) were little.

    So yes, you are an asshole for complaining about paying to help some woman raise her kids she did not consult with you before having. You are an asshole for whining you have to help your pregnant co-worker (who if you had a sick kid at home would probably be willing to cover your shift). Or whining because someone wants to raise her child to be a productive citizen when you had paid for her training (since, again, someone has to produce the people that will clean up your whiny ass in just a few years.)

    ReplyDelete
  102. Oh Random Brother, you're really tempting me, what with all your lame personal jabs. But I'd rather remind you what a weird tangent you’ve gone off on. The comment you made that my original comment was responding to was this:

    "That's because they work less hours and cluster in less lucrative fields."

    So we're talking about the wage gap, and specifically we're talking about your assertion that the wage gap exists solely because women work less hours and tend to work in less lucrative fields. This is to say: We weren't talking about CEOs.

    So when you say something like: "Women get paid less because they flock to jobs that have less value. Do you really think that if a ton of men decide to become day care teachers that daycare teachers will see a six figure salary?"

    My response is that the jobs women flock to have less value because women flock to them. (See also: Any of my previous assertions that women's labor isn't valued as much as men's.) If more men worked in day care, wages in daycare would increase. Not to a six-figure level, no, but somewhat above what it is now.

    "Being a server at a restaurant whether upscale or not will not lead to a good salary. Now most men already know this but is seems my feminists friends need some help with it."

    I know servers who make fairly decent money, but it's clear that we hang out in different circles, so we needn't discuss that. Your point seems to go back to your CEO argument: A server in any restaurant could make more money if zie was an anesthesiologist! This is true, but--REMEMBER?--we weren't talking about CEOs oranesthesiologists. We were talking about the wage gap. So a discussion of women working in less expensive restaurants than men certainly does figure into the discussion.

    You missed a similar point in the Wal-Mart discussion. The point isn't whether Wal-Mart employees make the most money ever, but whether women who work at Wal-Mart are allowed the opportunity to make as much money as their male coworkers.

    "You're supposed to work based on terms set by your supervisors, halfwhit (sic)."

    And this just misses the point entirely. The "terms" I addressed (in the very same sentence) were terms that amounted to harassment. Employees are supposed to work on the legal terms set by their supervisors.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Random Brother:

    "Before I do that YOU TELL ME why women must go into those poor paying fields, then I'll get back to you. It's almost as if you think women aren't responsible for their own choices."

    I'll do this. I think that there are a variety of reasons for this, actually. There is a strong social component: Girls babysit; boys mow lawns. And society generally encourages that. So a young woman who doesn't want to go to college is more likely to work in childcare or at a beauty salon (lower paying jobs), while a man in the same position is more likely to push dirt for a living (higher paying). There's a lot of evidence that it's difficult for women to enter male-dominated fields. It's hard for them to get the job, but even if they can convince the employer that they're qualified it's hard for them to keep it. You want to sneer that away--if they're so strong, why don't they just take daily abuse year after year from their coworkers and supervisor, right? Wrong. No one should have to put up with abuse at work, and it's completely understandable why someone wouldn't want to.

    Now, I do, of course, think it's more complicated than that--I've just drawn a few quick outlines. And I do also think (or hope) some of this is changing. Are women responsible for their own choices? Nothing happens in a vacuum, of course, so you've got women who are responsible for making their own choices that are, to varying degrees, informed by societal norms. Some women (just like some men) don't so much make choices as they do what they can with a shitty situation.

    ReplyDelete
  104. @ Elizabeth

    Jesus after reading this shit you wrote I nearly punched my computer.

    I was going to go through it line by line but it just pissed me off too much.

    The more I talk with feminists the more I understand why they are so hated. I mean I hate a lot of feminists but man this cranked it up to level 10.

    To sit there and argue that soceity should foot the bill, hell a bill that has been falsely calculated at over 100,000 dollars to fucking have mothers take care of their own children is so out there, so repulsive, so vile and greedy and self serving that I can't believe a human being can argue it. It almost comes off as a parody. And when soceity doens't want to carry these leeches the productive people are shamed?!? And we should do this so the children of these lazy cows might, (MIGHT!) wipe our ass when we're old? No. Fuck no.

    It's my money. I WORK for it. I sweat for it. I bleed for it. You don't deserve it parasite.

    When other MRA's call you nutjobs communists and the like I thought they were exaggerating but clearly I was wrong.

    Filthy, valueless, arrogant parasites, is all I can say without completely cursing everyone and everything out on this site and forcing David to ban me.

    You nutcases will clearly bankrupt (an already nearly bankrupt) country and you're too stupid to realize it.

    Disgusting.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  105. Yes Richard, you got mad because you know I am correct and *gasp* admitting that would cause you problems.

    Did you-not anyone else-YOU personally design and build the road you use to drive to work today?

    Did you-not anyone else-YOU personally mine the materials, smelt them, create the fiberglass, the chrome, the plastic, tan the leather, weave the cloth, sew, design the vehicle and the attendant parts while at the same time assembling them into a working vehicle to drive on those roads?

    Did you-not anyone else-YOU personally farm the food you ate this morning? Did you raise the chickens to produce the eggs in your bread?

    Did you? No of course not.

    SOMEONE ELSE DID IT. And you claim "well I earned the money to pay for it..." ignoring all the while the vast socio-economic system that lead to you being able to earn that money to pay for that for the computer that you use to read this post that made you so mad that you wanted to punch it.

    Suck it freeloader-you are but a minor (very minor) cog in a huge machine who whines about having to pay into the system that gave you more then you could ever possibly put back into it.

    ReplyDelete
  106. @ Elizabeth

    How does any of that equal I should give your parasite ass 100K?

    BTW dear all the roads, and buildings and achievements, all those things that you mention were done without giving mothers 100K to do their fucking job!

    So, since all these things were accomplished without your parental parasite plan, it stand to reason we don't need your parental parasite plan now do we?

    I know I'm spoiling your plan to quit your low paying job, get knocked up by some idiot and sit on your resource draining ass eating bon bons all day, but some of us, you know have pride in working.

    Lazy moo cow.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  107. You might not want to make assumptions about my pay. I am pretty sure that my salary and benefits exceeds the amount of money anyone on here makes by a very large margin.

    Anyway-no one has suggested we pay moms $100,000 a year. What has been suggested is we respect what they do since what they do, if done by someone other then them, would be worth $100,000.

    Now I know this is very hard for you to grasp-those women are doing something that would make your life impossible if they stopped. By bearing and raising those kids, they are making sure that someone(s) invents the interwebz. Designs a road. Raises chickens. Does all the million and one tasks that take making modern life possible.

    Now you obviously are not the rugged outdoors type who is living in the middle of a forest somewhere (that laws, passed by former babies you hate the idea of helping pay for their upbringing, protect so you can do so and it is not cut down to build a house for some woman you hate who needs to have a safe place for her children...whom you also hate) and ignoring the rest of humanity...which means that you need someone else to have gotten knocked up and raised that kid to let you have the things you want.

    So grow up freeloader and quit whining about having to pay ANYTHING to the very society that makes this tantrum you are having possible.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Lazy moo cow

    C'mon, Richard, you can do better than that! What other kinds of cows are there?

    Just wondering if anyone else has that line from a Pink Floyd tune going through their head, "I'm alright Jack keep your hands off MY stack!"

    ReplyDelete
  109. @ Pam

    If I did say something "better" you and feminit nation would run to David and beg that I be banned.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  110. @ E lazy beth

    Elazybeth said: "You might not want to make assumptions about my pay. I am pretty sure that my salary and benefits exceeds the amount of money anyone on here makes by a very large margin."

    Then feel free to take your own money and give it to stay at home moms instead of putting your grubby hands in my wallet.

    Elazybeth: "Anyway-no one has suggested we pay moms $100,000 a year. What has been suggested is we respect what they do since what they do, if done by someone other then them, would be worth $100,000."

    1. What they do is not worth 100,000, not even close. Most of the jobs that moms do are listed as paying 30,000 per year (chaufer, chef, etc) it's only when we apply feminist logic, ie claiming that a stay at home mom also does the job of a CEO, psychologist, and facilities engineer does the amount get artificially inflated to plus 100K. But a stay at home mom's work has little similarity to a CEO, psychologist and or facilities manager.

    2. Women have children because they want children. It's called resposiblity. I know that feminism is a resposibilty free zone, but adult thinking women don't expect cash for handling their resposiblities.

    3. This little conversation has really helped me understand feminist "thinking" much more.

    Feminism isn't about equality. It's about shifting responsibility for the success of women's lives onto everyone else. It's a cult for the weak.

    If a woman looks at a magazine and sees a model who is too thin for her tastes, make it someone else's responsibility to ensure that all women on that magazine must be over a certain weight so that the complainer can feel good about herself. If a woman chooses a poorly paid field of employment, make it everyone elses responsibility to raise rates across the board for that field. If some college woman wants to fuck 40 men a night, make sure someone else has to pay for her birth control. If a woman get's pregnant and she doesn't want the child, make it everyone elses responsiblity to pay for the abortion. If a woman get's shit faced drunk and stumbles half naked into gangland, make it everyone elses responsibility to ensure she safe. If a woman wants to have a kid make sure it's everyone elses responsibility to pay for it.

    Apparently to feminists liberation = free ride.

    Random Brothe (Cont)

    ReplyDelete
  111. Elizabeth said: "Now I know this is very hard for you to grasp-those women are doing something that would make your life impossible if they stopped. By bearing and raising those kids,"

    You mean by bearing their own kids. The kids THEY wanted.

    Elizabeth: "they are making sure that someone(s) invents the interwebz. Designs a road. Raises chickens. Does all the million and one tasks that take making modern life possible."

    And again I ask, since all this has already been done and done without paying stay at home moms for it, why do we have to give moms cash now? Why are YOU violating the social contract that you blatherin on about?

    Elizabeth: "Now you obviously are not the rugged outdoors type who is living in the middle of a forest somewhere (that laws, passed by former babies you hate the idea of helping pay for their upbringing, protect so you can do so and it is not cut down to build a house for some woman you hate who needs to have a safe place for her children...whom you also hate) and ignoring the rest of humanity...which means that you need someone else to have gotten knocked up and raised that kid to let you have the things you want."

    I already pay for babies, and their mothers, it's called taxes. We already are taxed near the level of fucking serfs, is there no bottom to your greed parasite?

    Elizabeth: "So grow up freeloader and quit whining about having to pay ANYTHING to the very society that makes this tantrum you are having possible."

    Again brain donor, I already pay taxes and that's enough.

    The most compelling point here is all these things you whine about have been historically done without paying stay at home mom, so logically there is no reason to pay stay at home moms for raising there kid now.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  112. If I did say something "better" you and feminit nation would run to David and beg that I be banned.

    Wrong again, Richard. I, and I'm sure there are others, would never presume to tell David how to run his blog. Whomever he has banned (and I think that that's a grand total of how many, one??) has been his own decision for his own reasons. I have seen only two persons request that you be banned, and I didn't exactly agree with them, but David's decision is his own and you're still here.

    ReplyDelete
  113. "
    You mean by bearing their own kids. The kids THEY wanted."

    Oh, but of course, MEN never wants kids. Right?

    "@ Pam The more I hear about feminism the worse it sounds."

    You had your mind made up; don't kid yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  114. SallyStrange said...
    "Richard wants proof that reality is reality. You can't prove it, can you! Huh."

    Are you supposed to be working off those chubby glutes by fetching bon bons or something?

    ReplyDelete
  115. "Jesus after reading this shit you wrote I nearly punched my computer. I was going to go through it line by line but it just pissed me off too much."

    THIS IS BECAUSE ELIZABETH SUCCESSFULLY CALLED YOU ON YOUR NARCISSISM.

    You want to pretend that you're completely independent, a real he-man "rugged individualist"--entirely self-sustaining, not like those "parasite feminists." YET, Elizabeth successfully called you on your delusion. You still don't have a decent rebuttal. You prop up your own personal sense of superiority to feminists based on this, and you can't tolerate this being shown for the self-deception it really is.

    Yes, you pay taxes, but so do the feminists on this board. I'M POSITIVE that all you're going to be able to do in reply to that comment is name-call me on that one; I'm WAITING for you to call me a "moo cow," "brain donor," "filthy, worthless, arrogant parasite" or some other superbly "intelligent" ad-hominem attacks. My taxes paid for your use of roads, the schools you went to, infrastructure, water purification, and other benefits that YOU enjoyed. Keep telling me how PARASITICAL I AM, yeah, that's right!!

    You attend professional football, baseball, or basketball games?? MY TAX DOLLARS PAID FOR THAT. I don't go to professional sporting events, yet my tax dollars are paying for stadiums that frequently MEN push through state legislatures. I could go off the deep end on "sports welfare," and how MALE CLUB OWNERS "parasite" off of women's (and mens') taxes in **that** fashion, but I refuse to: I figure that if I don't go out and speak against it, I don't have the moral right to complain. Truthfully, women can also attend sporting events: many of us do. As far as I can tell, however, the BIG backers of tax-payer funded stadiums are MEN. As annoyed as I get at paying for sports, however, I don't feel a need to name-call or denigrate men who back stadiums; we happen to disagree about what spending priorities should be. They can organize, I can organize, we go to the voting booth or city council, and may the best organizer win!! I figure I can complain and disagree without dehumanizing them and calling them names, right??

    THAT'S CALLED SOCIETY. Get used to it!

    ReplyDelete
  116. Your mother gave birth to you! She carried you for 9 MONTHS in the womb; you didn't just spring up overnight from her shoulderblade! SOMEONE took care of you, fed you, clothed you, gave you a roof over your head! By your reasoning, you should be called a "parasite" because you were anything BUT a rugged individualist. If your dad supported you both, great! If the state supported you, at least you both were helped instead of being left to starve to death...

    ALL of us in this society benefit from the labor that others have engaged in long before, that WE didn't do. I have a male friend who is currently on welfare due to longstanding unemployment issues; he has seriously looked for a job to no avail. I AM HAPPY that there is a social net for him, although it IS going to disappear rapidly--which saddens me.

    But I'd rather my tax dollars go for helping HIM--WOULD MUCH RATHER see that than a filthy war in Iraq and Afghanistan that is the ACTUAL REASON why we are being seriously bankrupted!! (OH yeah, and not to mention derivatives being played with...) 50% of the American economy goes towards propping up an enormous military, and you're constantly bitching about women and children?? AND NO, I'm not going to "provide a link or proof," it's COMMON KNOWLEDGE how much money is being sucked up to fund a useless "war on terror."

    All the corporatist welfare in the world for you to LEGITIMATELY rant against: all the government contracts and government/corporate unity in the world that's sucking up your tax dollars and mine ...but making room in the corporate world for working mothers with kids is "parasitism?"

    "Do you really think that if a ton of men decide to become day care teachers that daycare teachers will see a six figure salary?"

    Uh, YES. WE DO! Or, at least there will be an big income increase. The work will, all of a sudden, be seen as VALUABLE. Work that is seen as being done by women is repeatedly devalued; the bias is unconscious but quite powerful. YES. Feminists have talked about this FOR DECADES. You keep ignoring Bee's attempts to reason with you on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  117. "Are you supposed to be working off those chubby glutes by fetching bon bons or something?"

    You say this to say--what?? How is this denigration of any value in this thread?

    ReplyDelete
  118. Julie did a great job of trashing your arguments Richard with one point not addressed...you are not a serf. You are no where near the serf level. To claim that you are because you pay (if you are really stupid with money) at most 40% of your income to all levels of government from sales taxes on the shoes you buy to the federal income taxes, essentially ignores what serfs were.

    You are not tied to your land. You are not held to farm the lord of the manor's land. You are not required to give respect and honour to the point of starvation for the lord of the manor. You are not subject to marauding bands of outlaws crossing your farm (of which was enough to barely feed your family) and guess what, you pay taxes alone instead of taxes AND farming the lord's land. So quit whining already-your pathetic attempts at insults aside...seriously, "Elazybeth?" your argument has little merit and what merit it may have is more than destroyed by your inability to understand modern society or reality.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Richard: And just to add one other point to the debate. If you don't like "parasites" leeching off of government, what about military contractors and their highly paid (and male) CEOs). How much money is wasted on insanely overpriced and sometimes barely functional military hardware, while soldiers in Iraq and
    Afghanistan have to pay for their own body armor?

    ReplyDelete
  120. Oops, missed Julie's post above mentioning the military.

    But here's an interesting chart showing how much we pay per capita on the military, with much of that money going to overpriced hardware and to fund two unwinnable, unnecessary wars.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PerCapitaInflationAdjustedDefenseSpending.PNG

    We all pay taxes, Richard, and most of us have issues with where at least some of that money goes.

    ReplyDelete
  121. Well done, David, although I'd like to add that these wars aren't actually unwinnable. Sadly to say, there's circumstantial but real evidence that the populations in Iraq and Afghanistan *are* actually being subjugated. Sadly.

    The reason I can say this is due to the fact that depleted uranium munitions is producing dust that is ***heavily suspected*** in causing hideous birth defects in places such as Fallujah and other areas in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    These birth defects are most likely due to uranium binding with the DNA of the local populace, and the end result is babies that can only live for a few days after birth. I've seen pictures, I WILL NOT REPRODUCE THEM HERE, for they are the stuff of nightmares. Frankly, I personally believe this to be genocide. If we continue to use depleted uranium on these populations, MUCH of their future generations will be wiped out.:((( "You make a desert, and then call it peace...":((

    This is one of the reasons why I'm considering moving to another country; I think that we've lost our moral compass completely when we allowed neocons, the NWO/PMIC, and multinational corporations to take over our government.

    ReplyDelete
  122. @ Pam

    Pam said: "Wrong again, Richard. I, and I'm sure there are others, would never presume to tell David how to run his blog. Whomever he has banned (and I think that that's a grand total of how many, one??) has been his own decision for his own reasons. I have seen only two persons request that you be banned, and I didn't exactly agree with them, but David's decision is his own and you're still here."

    Two people have outright called for me to be banned, how many people behind the scenes? Feminists generally cannot stand dissent, so when I call someone a moo cow or whatnot it is a substitute for far harsher things I might say in the real world. So I guess you'll have to get used to my "lame" insults.

    Honestly, if I had met you in some other venue I might thing you were the bees knees (yes I know that's lame, but I like the way it sounds), but here, well quite frankly your beliefs suck. And I will attack anyone who comes at me rude or snarky.

    Hey, it's just the intenet.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  123. @ Julie Canny

    Julie Canny said: "THIS IS BECAUSE ELIZABETH SUCCESSFULLY CALLED YOU ON YOUR NARCISSISM."

    No. I just violently hate stupid ideas.

    Julie Canny: "You want to pretend that you're completely independent, a real he-man "rugged individualist"--entirely self-sustaining, not like those "parasite feminists." YET, Elizabeth successfully called you on your delusion."

    I think you're the one who's deluded.

    Julie Canny: "You still don't have a decent rebuttal."

    Do you yet have a rebuttal for why the alleged social contract you nutjobs keep blabbering on about must now be rewritten to include 100K given to stay at home moms when this has never occurred before, dear?

    Julie Canny: "You prop up your own personal sense of superiority to feminists based on this, and you can't tolerate this being shown for the self-deception it really is."

    It's the truth. I am superior to a bunch of government leaching parasites. Don't like it? Stop being and or supporting leeches. Otherwise admit that you are nothing but a taker and I am a maker and vastly, VASTLY, superior to you in every way.

    Julie Canny: "Yes, you pay taxes, but so do the feminists on this board."

    So what?

    Julie Canny: "I'M POSITIVE that all you're going to be able to do in reply to that comment is name-call me on that one; I'm WAITING for you to call me a "moo cow," "brain donor," "filthy, worthless, arrogant parasite" or some other superbly "intelligent" ad-hominem attacks. My taxes paid for your use of roads, the schools you went to, infrastructure, water purification, and other benefits that YOU enjoyed. Keep telling me how PARASITICAL I AM, yeah, that's right!!"

    If you support this idea that women should be paid for raising THEIR OWN CHILDREN you are supporting parasitism, period. Also, just an FYI women tend to use more government services than men, they live longer to suck up more medicare and social security, so I don't really think you want to point the finger too close at yourself on the who parasite issue, mkay skirt?

    Julie Canny: "You attend professional football, baseball, or basketball games?? MY TAX DOLLARS PAID FOR THAT. I don't go to professional sporting events, yet my tax dollars are paying for stadiums that frequently MEN push through state legislatures."

    And that is completely wrong. If a team owner wants to build a stadium he/she should do it with their own money. My god, we agree on something! Is it possible you may have a brain?

    (Cont)
    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  124. @ Julie Canny

    (Cont)

    Julie Canny: "I could go off the deep end on "sports welfare," and how MALE CLUB OWNERS "parasite" off of women's (and mens') taxes in **that** fashion, but I refuse to:"

    Why would you refuse to? You'd be correct. Now they'd still be giving more back than some housewife, but the government shouldn't be involved in this sort of wealth tranfser.

    Julie Canny: ". . .for I figure that if I don't go out and speak against it, I don't have the moral right to complain."

    You have the right to complain about anything under the sun.

    Julie Canny: "Truthfully, women can also attend sporting events: many of us do. As far as I can tell, however, the BIG backers of tax-payer funded stadiums are MEN. As annoyed as I get at paying for sports, however, I don't feel a need to name-call or denigrate men who back stadiums; we happen to disagree about what spending priorities should be. They can organize, I can organize, we go to the voting booth or city council, and may the best organizer win!!"

    No, no, no, fucking no. It's not some glorified game of rob the least well connected! Certain things should strictly be off limits from the state. Just because your organizer is better doesn't mean he should stick his grubby fat fucking hands in anyone's walled. Yes, we need taxes, but this sort of wealth tranfer from one group of greedy activists to another group of greedy activists is disgusting and immoral.

    Julie Canny: "I figure I can complain and disagree without dehumanizing them and calling them names, right??"

    MRA's are ripped all the time on this board. I have been insulted on this board. Apparently you can only see when feminists are insulted. The bottom line is if you insult me, you'll be insulted back.

    Julie Canny: "THAT'S CALLED SOCIETY. Get used to it!"

    Well currently soceity DOES NOT PAY mothers for raising their own kids. So to all who disagree, I quote a feminist "THAT'S CALLED SOCIETY. Get used to it!"

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  125. Your rebuttal is "they should not get benefits because we did not pay for it back when women were entirely financially dependent on men..."

    Hmmm...Richard, I think you know that you are wrong here but have no idea how to express it. That is okay, have a cookie.

    ReplyDelete
  126. Richard, I think you're right, two people (or mayve it was one person twice, I don't remember), called for you to be banned. How many people behind the scenes? zero. Have I banned you? No. I think I may have deleted a couple of individual comments.

    You DO go for personal attacks more often and with more vehemence than most people here, and really nasty personal attacks are against my comment policy, but I tend to give you a bit of leeway on that because your insults tend to be sort of entertaining. So consider yourself the beneficiary of a Richard Pass -- or Dick Pass, for short.

    ReplyDelete
  127. @ Julie Canny

    Julie said: "Your mother gave birth to you! She carried you for 9 MONTHS in the womb; you didn't just spring up overnight from her shoulderblade! SOMEONE took care of you, fed you, clothed you, gave you a roof over your head!"

    My mom did take care of me and she didn't demand a god damn government check to do her job! She did it because I was her responsibility and my mom was a woman and not some parasite feminist.

    Responsibility, it's a word you feminists should look up.

    Julie: "By your reasoning, you should be called a "parasite" because you were anything BUT a rugged individualist. If your dad supported you both, great! If the state supported you, at least you both were helped instead of being left to starve to death..."

    Try to get this through your little, hysterical, estrogen addled, sub standard feminist brain, there is a huge difference between being occasionally helped by the government and handing out 18 years of checks of over 100,000 per year, paid for by the tax base, to mothers for doing their job as mothers to raise their own fucking kids, who they decided to have on their own. Got it?

    Julie: "ALL of us in this society benefit from the labor that others have engaged in long before, that WE didn't do."

    No shit.

    Julie: "I have a male friend who is currently on welfare due to longstanding unemployment issues; he has seriously looked for a job to no avail. I AM HAPPY that there is a social net for him, although it IS going to disappear rapidly--which saddens me."

    Should we pay him 100K to?

    Julie: "But I'd rather my tax dollars go for helping HIM--"

    Then take YOUR dollars and help him, not mine.

    Julie: ". . .WOULD MUCH RATHER see that than a filthy war in Iraq and Afghanistan that is the ACTUAL REASON why we are being seriously bankrupted!! (OH yeah, and not to mention derivatives being played with...) 50% of the American economy goes towards propping up an enormous military, and you're constantly bitching about women and children??"

    You're picking the wrong guy to make this argument to. I completely disagree with both wars. The U.S. should get out take a good quarter of a century and pretty much say fuck the world and work on it's own problems.

    Julie: "AND NO, I'm not going to "provide a link or proof," it's COMMON KNOWLEDGE how much money is being sucked up to fund a useless "war on terror."

    Again I agree with you, however what you feminists call common knowledge is often based on lies. On this though you're right.

    Julie: "All the corporatist welfare in the world for you to LEGITIMATELY rant against: all the government contracts and government/corporate unity in the world that's sucking up your tax dollars and mine ...but making room in the corporate world for working mothers with kids is "parasitism?""

    IT'S ALL PARASITISM. From the corporation, to the lazy mom. It is all a product of people wanting something for nothing, and it is all wrong.

    (Cont)
    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  128. (Cont)

    (Cont)

    Julie: "

    "Do you really think that if a ton of men decide to become day care teachers that daycare teachers will see a six figure salary?"

    Uh, YES. WE DO!"

    "

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!! Hey everyone listen, Julie thinks that watching little Janey eat paste could magically transform into a six figure job, if only some men would join the ranks! OMFG!!! Here's a thought. If it is SO OBVIOUS that this would occur, why don't you get men to become day care teachers? Surely these men would want to be in a field that will jump to six figures, right? So get men in the field and then count your cash, why don't you do that?

    I'll tell you why. You don't do it for the same reason that all these allegedly "underpaid" women don't all start their own business hiring only women and with the savings in labor put everyone else out of business. Because what you are saying is bull.

    Julie: "Or, at least there will be an big income increase."

    Which is it, six figures or a big income jump? If it's so obvious why don't you know which it is? You are just pulling this out of you ass.

    Julie: "The work will, all of a sudden, be seen as VALUABLE. Work that is seen as being done by women is repeatedly devalued; the bias is unconscious but quite powerful. YES."

    NO. Work that is generally considered valuable tend to make your bosses money. Get that through your head.

    Julie: "Feminists have talked about this FOR DECADES."

    And they're still fucking wrong decades later.

    Julie: "You keep ignoring Bee's attempts to reason with you on this issue."

    It's not reasoning. It's factless claims with some hysterical whining thrown in.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  129. @ David

    David said: "Richard, I think you're right, two people (or mayve it was one person twice, I don't remember), called for you to be banned. How many people behind the scenes? zero. Have I banned you? No. I think I may have deleted a couple of individual comments.

    You DO go for personal attacks more often and with more vehemence than most people here, and really nasty personal attacks are against my comment policy, but I tend to give you a bit of leeway on that because your insults tend to be sort of entertaining. So consider yourself the beneficiary of a Richard Pass -- or Dick Pass, for short."

    I'm going to call it MY BIG DICK PASS, because that's what a manly manly mannish MRA would do.

    :)

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  130. @ Elizabeth

    Oatmeal Raisin?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  131. @ David

    I hate military contractors, and their whole scheme to rob American blind.

    There are too many taxes, fees, fines, regulations, and rules. Adding more just makes life needlessly more complex.

    If Obama pulled us out of Iraq and Afghanistan I'd be the first to cheer.

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  132. Your mother did get government benefits-especially since homeschooling is a very recent phenom and almost everyone in the US went to one public school or another at some point in time.

    You benefited from that because she was able to use that education to get a job. And if you got loans for school or grants, they better have been 100% private because otherwise you blowing smoke again.

    And again, we are not saying hand over checks of $100,000 per year to ANYONE. What we are saying is show some fucking respect to the people like your own mother who got some government help to raise your ungrateful ass.

    And thin mints-what kind of blog do you think this is?

    ReplyDelete
  133. IT'S ALL PARASITISM. From the corporation, to the lazy mom. It is all a product of people wanting something for nothing, and it is all wrong.

    So, in this free-market, capitalist system under which a lot of us who frequent this board happen to live, if corporations didn't exist, there wouldn't be any shareholders (who you seem to be concerned about, from some of your posts), nor would there be need for any bosses for whom to perform valuable work, so then there would be no need for workers, and no need for mothers to give birth to and raise potential workers.... we wouldn't have to worry about paying taxes because how would you pay them, anyway.....so i guess we'd all just be parasites then?

    Don't get me wrong, Richard, I'm not a fan of the huge multinationals, but I'm wondering, since you seem to be a fan of the capitalist system that gives rise to such (and that's not to say that I agree or disagree with you), what is your idea of a more ideal system? Myself, I've been reading a little on something that's been termed The Third Way

    Oh, and btw, it's often been feminists who are accused of denigrating stay-at-home moms and calling them lazy, etc. ........ does that mean....???

    ReplyDelete
  134. And thin mints-what kind of blog do you think this is?

    Hey, if Richard don't want 'em, I'll take 'em!!!

    ReplyDelete
  135. "It's not reasoning. It's factless claims with some hysterical whining thrown in."

    Ouch! Nice use of the misogynist dog whistle, Random Brother. No, but seriously--when you decide to start providing verification for your assertions, I will too. As for the hysterical whining, gosh: I'll try to control myself. But let me guess ... you'll characterize the fact that I'm neither hysterical nor whining as either a factless claim or a hysterical whine.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Richard: "Do you yet have a rebuttal for why the alleged social contract you nutjobs keep blabbering on about must now be rewritten to include 100K given to stay at home moms when this has never occurred before, dear?"

    NO ONE HERE IS ARGUING for giving 100K to stay at home moms--we have said that they are WORTH this, ergo their work deserves respect!!


    "It's the truth. I am superior to a bunch of government leaching parasites. Don't like it? Stop being and or supporting leeches. Otherwise admit that you are nothing but a taker and I am a maker and vastly, VASTLY, superior to you in every way."

    NOPE. You are MOST CERTAINLY a taker. Undeniably. The ones with the aristocratic, superior attitudes are the biggest leeches on society proper. What silver spoon did YOU grow up with in your mouth, Richard?


    "Try to get this through your little, hysterical, estrogen addled, sub standard feminist brain,..."

    YOUR hysteria is showing with all the name-calling. You wouldn't know a rational argument if it hit you in the butt. Ad-hominem attacks all over the place, and you think you're so calm. "You feminists." I WEAR THAT TITLE PROUDLY.:-) Keep trying to use it as a swearword.:)

    "
    You're picking the wrong guy to make this argument to. I completely disagree with both wars. The U.S. should get out take a good quarter of a century and pretty much say fuck the world and work on it's own problems."

    *Fair enough*: why not train your big guns, then, on the biggest drain in the economy, WHICH ARE THE WARS, rather than women and children? Or are you one of these people who pray for "shrinking government down to the size of a baby and drowning it in a bathtub?" (Grover Norquist.) Ever consider that a small/weak government is an open invite to even greater predation by multinational corporations?

    "IT'S ALL PARASITISM. From the corporation, to the lazy mom. It is all a product of people wanting something for nothing, and it is all wrong."

    Yeah, and I'm looking at one of the biggest parasites I've seen on the Net, just WASTING people's time and energy. Oh, YOUR entitlement!! You still don't see it, do you? Didn't your mother teach you that you become what you hate, that you absolutely turn into what you despise? Sadly, I guess not...or perhaps she told you, and you didn't listen...

    "...why don't you get men to become day care teachers? Surely these men would want to be in a field that will jump to six figures, right? So get men in the field and then count your cash, why don't you do that?"

    (Predatory, lazy, shark smile coming on...)
    Yeah, Richard, perhaps I JUST MIGHT DO THAT. But the question is, could you handle the rising income power of both women and men teaching day care kids? Could you stand to see what just might be the beginning of a rising income elevation? Could you stand to see these people who are MORE LIKELY MUCH MORE LIBERAL THAN YOU to get real income power? Funding causes and candidates and think tanks that you wouldn't like? Really?? Be careful what you wish for or suggest, Richard.:)

    ReplyDelete
  137. "MRA's are ripped all the time on this board. I have been insulted on this board. Apparently you can only see when feminists are insulted. The bottom line is if you insult me, you'll be insulted back."

    All this namecalling you directed at me when I didn't call you a single name, and you sit there like some beleaguered victim. WOW, this is truly rich--Richard.:-) The closest I got in my first post to 'being insulting' was when I rightfully pointed out how narcissistic and deluded you were, and you go off the deep end calling me every name in the book: "skirt, hysterical, estrogen-addled," etc. I didn't start calling you a parasite until you threw that name all over the place. I made two posts taking you to task, and you LOST YOUR COOL, ranting at me for *four* posts. So, I'll waste another two posts replying: then I'm done, for my time is precious.:)

    Who's being hysterical and shrill now, Richard? That would be you. For example:

    "NO. Work that is generally considered valuable tend to make your bosses money. Get that through your head."

    Simply unthinking hogwash.:-) Police, firefighters, college administrators, and college professors do NOT tend to make profit money for their employers--in spite of that, they perform real services and are CONSIDERED INVALUABLE.

    Police and firefighters save people's lives and property, but the cities who hire them generally make no money off of saving properties. The cities can only raise the money for these services (so far) through taxation, NO PROFIT that I'm aware of. College administrators and professors are engaged in intangible services--admins hold the operations of the schools together, professors share knowledge. BUT, while they sometimes draw applications from all over the country (depending on reputation), what they do is NOT considered *directly* profitable. They don't "make money" for their employer. But if you can't see the value, the LONG-TERM VALUE, in what they offer, I truly feel for you...similarly, with day care teachers--much as you like to throw contempt on "watching little Janey eat paste," that too is valuable. HIGHLY valuable, and deserves as much honor as fighting fires in its own right. It's quiet, it's unglamorous...and every bit as necessary, much as that truth infuriates you.

    If you can't see how taking care of a child is valuable...wow, says volumes about you. NOW, I'm being serious. My gut hunch is that you've got some serious issues because you were devalued as a child--hence, you devalue children. Vulnerability brings out the snarl and the contempt in you, as does disagreement or criticism. You constantly insult and denigrate people--with an aim towards hogging the spotlight. ALL of these symptoms are associated with narcissism, which is usually incurred as the result of severe childhood emotional deprivation. Unfortunately, I wasn't kidding when I noticed narcissism symptoms in you: please get some professional help, because you have no idea how much you're damaging yourself. Sam Vaknin has some excellent videos on YouTube on narcissism; as a recovering narcissist, he paved the way for identifying and treating this disease. For your OWN sake, please check him out.

    ReplyDelete
  138. @ Elizabeth

    What you are actaully doing is laying the ground work for ANOTHER tax that will never end and progressively get higher and push this country further into debt and then collapse.

    Thin mints. Now you feminists want to be cheap?

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  139. @ Julie, Bee, and Pam

    We could go on forever with this. I'm just going to have to agree to disagree with you all on this. But in summation, I'm right. You are wrong. And all females legs should be hairless, so there :P

    Random Brother

    ReplyDelete
  140. What you are actaully doing is laying the ground work for ANOTHER tax that will never end and progressively get higher and push this country further into debt and then collapse.

    More taxes will drive the country into debt? That's funny, I thought a major part of our debt crisis was the fact that we're too busy kowtowing to the wealthy to tax them enough. If we taxed the wealthy as much as sensible countries do, we could be well on our way to fixing the national debt.

    ReplyDelete
  141. Incorrect Richard-those countries that have higher taxation on those with money force them to spend it on things like employees' wages and benefits. When they do that, they increase the standard of living for everyone. So high taxes, done correctly, have a major push on economic growth. That extra tax money that is collected can then be used to pay down debt or for large capital improvements that help the average businessman more then he is willing to admit.

    At five bucks a box, thin mints are not cheap.

    And all men should shave their damn faces if they want us women to shave our legs-that is way more surface to deal with and the least you can do is shave your face.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Elizabeth said: "Look Richard-you live in a society created by people who paid for things you like without you paying for them yourself. Roads, the interwebz, the water distribution system, the telephone lines, the development of safe cars, the development of safe air travel...thousands of little things all day long make your life livable were created and paid for long before your whiny self was even thought of."
    All those things that you say live we can't live without, were built by men. Almost entirely. The number of women who REFUSE to do these hard jobs way outnumber those who were discriminated against, in these fields. But in my own social circles, radical feminists would screech "I don't need a man!. I'm a independent womyn! I tell them: So, that means you don't need the firefighters. Or garbageman. Or electricians, etc. "Call out the sisterhood" on their hypocrisy!

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis