Feminism?

A2K78
My question is, what sort of brainwashing is this.
Click to expand...
Good, you can spot bias. Now look for it in your own comments.

I highly doubt they said "you aren't a real woman if you don't support expanding the welfare state". I also don't believe you about the sports thing. I bet they said something along the lines of "male sports culture alienates female fans" which is a completely different and much more reasonable thing to say.
 
Last edited:
A2K78
Just recently I was watching a show called To The Contrary and they were talking about the lack of women in congress. Now according to one of the guest, none of Republican women can really be women because:

- they don't support an expansion of the welfare state
- they don't support abortion

Now I am no fan individuals like Jodi Ernst but to say that women who don't support an expansion of the welfare state aren't women is down right retarded. To make things worse one of women declared men's sports as being opressive to women. My question is, what sort of brainwashing is this.
Click to expand...

Citation please? Or at least the name of the guest.

I cannot find mention of this in any of the program's transcripts.
 
A2K78
Just recently I was watching a show called To The Contrary and they were talking about the lack of women in congress. Now according to one of the guest, none of Republican women can really be women because:

- they don't support an expansion of the welfare state
- they don't support abortion

Now I am no fan individuals like Jodi Ernst but to say that women who don't support an expansion of the welfare state aren't women is down right retarded. To make things worse one of women declared men's sports as being opressive to women. My question is, what sort of brainwashing is this.
Click to expand...
This is actually very impressive. I'm blown away to be honest. So proud and amazed that you managed to not start a new thread.
 
Previously banned members are not welcome here.
White knight points seems to be a thing for certain folks supporting this feminist movement. It's really cute when feminist whine and complain about there being a wage gap, of-course there's going to be one when you get a liberal arts degree. Hilary Clinton just had one job to do and that was to assist Billy Boy but she failed and Monica got the job done.
 
DRLOVE
White knight points seems to be a thing for certain folks supporting this feminist movement. It's really cute when feminist whine and complain about there being a wage gap, of-course there's going to be one when you get a liberal arts degree. Hilary Clinton just had one job to do and that was to assist Billy Boy but she failed and Monica got the job done.
Click to expand...


Why do you share a video with a title that promotes sexual violence? How do you explain the gap in wages between men and women with the same education and the same job?

https://www.glassdoor.com/blog/engi...eals-many-women-engineers-earn-less-than-men/

Why do you think that it's a wife's duty to satisfy her husband?
 
DRLOVE
White knight points seems to be a thing for certain folks supporting this feminist movement.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, the conversation-avoidance method favored by MRAs the world over.

DRLOVE
It's really cute when feminist whine and complain about there being a wage gap, of-course there's going to be one when you get a liberal arts degree.
Click to expand...

You do know that the wage gap still exists when comparing men and women working the same jobs, right?

DRLOVE
Hilary Clinton just had one job to do and that was to assist Billy Boy but she failed and Monica got the job done.
Click to expand...

Wow. You're an 🤬.
 
eran0004
Probably because the hours worked are the same.

http://www.aauw.org/files/2013/02/Behind-the-Pay-Gap.pdf
Click to expand...

Wow, there's a lot of material there. Some of it seems to indicate that women work fewer hours than men, and somehow claims to account for this and still see a pay gap. I do have a theory about this though, and someone who has time to read that pdf let me know if it's in there.

Women generally do not expect to have to support their partner. Socially it is acceptable for a woman to make less money, or even not work at all. By contrast it's far less socially acceptable for a man to choose not to work, or to make less money than his wife. As a result, there is a lot more pressure on men to get bigger raises and bonuses. Even before they marry, not potentially even knowing whether they will eventually marry, men largely feel that they must be ready for a wife who chooses to provide childcare, at least in part. Even if they resolve themselves to find a working woman, they must prepare for the notion that she'll change her mind after having kids. Even if they resolve themselves to finding a working woman and have no children, many men feel it is essential to their relationship and self-esteem to out-earn their wife.

By contrast, women, if anything, are often socially stigmatized for making too much money or placing too much emphasis on career (often by other women, or by their spouses). But aside from any stigma, there still doesn't exist the same internal pressure to prepare for the possibility that her husband might want to provide childcare, or choose not to work. And women are less likely to associate their salaries with self-image.

It comes down to some of the most basic instincts we have. Men want to appeal to women by being able to bring home the meat. Women know that men are often looking more at their physique than at their pocketbooks.

As a result, men make more money than women at the same job because they push harder. They're after the boss more for raises and bonuses and higher starting salaries. They want it more so they get it. I personally play the other role. I make less money than my wife, and honestly it's not worth that much for me to go after raises or bonuses. I don't bother with it much because it'll hardly make a difference in the bottom line. I play the role of the less-motivated wife, who's willing to let her husband chase raises.

...and here's the real kicker. My wife does the same thing. The reason is because I make plenty of money too. If she chases a raise it doesn't buy her much. So we're BOTH more willing to let others chase down raises and bonuses because we benefit from the income of the other one. So what are the statistics of dual income families vs. single income families when it comes to men and women? I'll leave this much here... 30% of all US mothers are stay at home.

I think that's sufficient to make the case for the income gap.
 
^ This. Women earn less because generally they want it less, they don't chase those promotions, do those long difficult degrees, put in those endless all nighters in the office etc and once their biological clock starts ticking or if there are already children in the picture their drive for those things is even less.

There is often more pressure on women to settle down, get married and have a family. They are more likely to be judged badly if they don't do those things instead of excel in a career. The pay gap if anything has been a by product of women influencing the minds of other women rather than the 'man's world' the feminists love to blame. It's the girlfriends who will tell them that they can do better than thier current partner (usually financially)... they will be the ones which say you shouldn't be having to put in all those hours at work etc so the mindset of finding a provider continues to be reinforced. As a result their pay reflects this mindset.
 
If I'm looking to hire smart, dependable employees to work together on an important project as part of a team, I wouldn't have to worry about a man suddenly getting pregnant and leaving the team for 3 months. Putting down the political correctness glasses and looking at this from an economic standpoint, that makes the man a more valuable employee, for that specific role.

On a more sarcastic note, Bill Burr does some great standup about these issues :lol:

** LANGUAGE WARNING **
 
Harry6784
I wouldn't have to worry about a man suddenly getting pregnant and leaving the team for 3 months.
Click to expand...

Clearly those men are somewhat disempowered if they don't have the option of paternity leave. That's a shame, some people would consider a country where that's the case to be quite backward. Forcing employees to work longer isn't getting the best out of them, you should try the PC glasses as things may make more sense than cave-land economics.
 
Danoff
Wow, there's a lot of material there. Some of it seems to indicate that women work fewer hours than men, and somehow claims to account for this and still see a pay gap. I do have a theory about this though, and someone who has time to read that pdf let me know if it's in there.

Women generally do not expect to have to support their partner. Socially it is acceptable for a woman to make less money, or even not work at all. By contrast it's far less socially acceptable for a man to choose not to work, or to make less money than his wife. As a result, there is a lot more pressure on men to get bigger raises and bonuses. Even before they marry, not potentially even knowing whether they will eventually marry, men largely feel that they must be ready for a wife who chooses to provide childcare, at least in part. Even if they resolve themselves to find a working woman, they must prepare for the notion that she'll change her mind after having kids. Even if they resolve themselves to finding a working woman and have no children, many men feel it is essential to their relationship and self-esteem to out-earn their wife.

By contrast, women, if anything, are often socially stigmatized for making too much money or placing too much emphasis on career (often by other women, or by their spouses). But aside from any stigma, there still doesn't exist the same internal pressure to prepare for the possibility that her husband might want to provide childcare, or choose not to work. And women are less likely to associate their salaries with self-image.

It comes down to some of the most basic instincts we have. Men want to appeal to women by being able to bring home the meat. Women know that men are often looking more at their physique than at their pocketbooks.

As a result, men make more money than women at the same job because they push harder. They're after the boss more for raises and bonuses and higher starting salaries. They want it more so they get it. I personally play the other role. I make less money than my wife, and honestly it's not worth that much for me to go after raises or bonuses. I don't bother with it much because it'll hardly make a difference in the bottom line. I play the role of the less-motivated wife, who's willing to let her husband chase raises.

...and here's the real kicker. My wife does the same thing. The reason is because I make plenty of money too. If she chases a raise it doesn't buy her much. So we're BOTH more willing to let others chase down raises and bonuses because we benefit from the income of the other one. So what are the statistics of dual income families vs. single income families when it comes to men and women? I'll leave this much here... 30% of all US mothers are stay at home.

I think that's sufficient to make the case for the income gap.
Click to expand...

It all seems like possible explanations, but I think that one thing that needs to be added is that male workforce is valued higher than female workforce, because males are not expected to leave work to raise their children, and that makes the employer more motivated to invest in male employees than female employees.

But whatever the reasons may be, the income gap creates a lot of problems. Even if a woman chooses to spend most of her time at home raising their children and is happy to let her husband provide for her, it makes her dependant on him. Which may be fine if the plan is to live happily together for the rest of their lives. But sometimes plans do change and if they were to split up then he would probably manage pretty well on his income, while she would have a much harder time earning her living.

Another example is what happens after they retire. Consider a typical married couple, the husband works full time while the wife works part time and spends the rest of the time at home taking care of the children and the household. As the husband worked full time, he would have an okay pension when he retires. The wife on the other hand, as she only worked part time, would have a much lower pension. And at first that might seem fair when you think about how much they both worked, but what we're not taking into account then is all the work that the wife did for the household - work that she did not get paid for and doesn't have any pension from.

So what is the solution? Maybe it's not so much about inventing some kind of household pension system, but rather to break up the gender roles so that both the husband and the wife works about as much at their job, and about as much at home? For instance, if men spent about as much time as women raising their children, that would also change the different expectations that the employer may have on the males and females, and reduce the incentives for investing more in male staff than in female staff.
 
VolkswagenX
Another link with no mention of hour worked?
Click to expand...

The link I provided contains data for 60,746 men, and 48,334 women - a pretty nice sample size. The men make an average of $895 per week, while the women make $726, a difference of 18.8%.

Let's play a game where we imagine we have 50,000 each of men and women, and try to find that 18.8%.

If we assume that all of the men work 40 hours per week, we have 104,000,000 hours of labor per year. For your theory - that hours worked accounts for the wage gap - to be true, the 50,000 women would have to log 19,552,000 fewer hours (18.8%) than their male colleagues.

Now, there are approximately 72,000,000 women currently in the US labor force, and we currently welcome something like 4,000,000 babies to the US per year. If we assume that those are all single births (obviously untrue), and that all women who give birth are employed (also obviously untrue) we find that 5.5% of currently-employed women miss work due to childbirth. This comes to 2,750 of our group of 50,000.

If we assume that all of them take the maximum 12 weeks of unpaid maternity leave (untrue) allowed to them by law, and that they would only miss 32.5 hours per week instead of 40 (18.8% fewer), we find 1,072,500 of the 19,522,000 fewer hours we're trying to account for.

So there are 18,449,500 missing hours still to be found - or 390 hours each for our remaining 47,250 women who did not have a child. So those 390 hours are, what, laziness? The average woman is lazier than the average man to the tune of almost 10 weeks per year? Give me a break.
 
Last edited:
eran0004
It all seems like possible explanations, but I think that one thing that needs to be added is that male workforce is valued higher than female workforce, because males are not expected to leave work to raise their children, and that makes the employer more motivated to invest in male employees than female employees.
Click to expand...

I don't see that so much with my wife. Her employers have not been concerned about her leaving the workforce or them for children. On the contrary, she was pregnant when she interviewed with them, and told them BEFORE they made her the offer that she'd be out for 3 months within the first half-year she worked for them. They didn't bat an eye. Few employers are that short-sighted.

However, I know that she doesn't bother as much with chasing down money as her male colleagues, so I'm sure she makes a little less. Her male colleagues have stay at home spouses, she has a working husband. It's a question of motivation.

My wife does the same job for less money because she has a working spouse. I do the same job for less money because I have a working spouse. Neither of us feels the sting or the reward of a bonus as much. Men are FAR more likely to be the single income earner, so they'll outpace the woman on pay generally. To both myself and my wife, that's fine with us. We're both that much easier to employ (and it's a lot less stress).

I think this is a big portion of the issue.

huskeR32
The link I provided contains data for 60,746 men, and 48,334 women - a pretty nice sample size. The men make an average of $895 per week, while the women make $726, a difference of 18.8%.
Click to expand...

I imagine that figure is not adjusted for the same job.

Edit:

Let me put it this way. Let's remove the 30% of families with a stay at home parent from the statistics altogether. The sole-providers don't count. Anyone want to wager which direction the income gap would go? I can basically promise it goes down.
 
Last edited:
I hope all of you figure this out quickly, because I would really like to get the $150,000 extra that my male nurse counterparts will 'earn' of the next 30 years.
 
huskeR32
The link I provided contains data for 60,746 men, and 48,334 women - a pretty nice sample size. The men make an average of $895 per week, while the women make $726, a difference of 18.8%.

Let's play a game where we imagine we have 50,000 each of men and women, and try to find that 18.8%.

If we assume that all of the men work 40 hours per week, we have 104,000,000 hours of labor per year. For your theory - that hours worked accounts for the wage gap - to be true, the 50,000 women would have to log 19,552,000 fewer hours (18.8%) than their male colleagues.

Now, there are approximately 72,000,000 women currently in the US labor force, and we currently welcome something like 4,000,000 babies to the US per year. If we assume that those are all single births (obviously untrue), and that all women who give birth are employed (also obviously untrue) we find that 5.5% of currently-employed women miss work due to childbirth. This comes to 2,750 of our group of 50,000.

If we assume that all of them take the maximum 12 weeks of unpaid maternity leave (untrue) allowed to them by law, and that they would only miss 32.5 hours per week instead of 40 (18.8% fewer), we find 1,072,500 of the 19,522,000 fewer hours we're trying to account for.

So there are 18,449,500 missing hours still to be found - or 390 hours each for our remaining 47,250 women who did not have a child. So those 390 hours are, what, laziness? The average women is lazier than the average man to the tune of almost 10 weeks per year? Give me a break.
Click to expand...
The one giant flaw in this analysis is your assuming hours worked are similar, we need these numbers to insure we can see the full picture.
 
huskeR32
Why?
Click to expand...

Whats wrong with feminism(other than the fact its nonsense founded on marxist and egalitarian social thories) is the pure fact that it falsey preach the idea that females are being deprived of opportunities by certain areas or institutions within society which is clearly not true. The sad thing is that a recent TV ad by Microsoft clings to this false notion.

In regard to the idea of a wage gap(which is really nothing but a myth) its amazing that we're still debating this when reality there is a wealth of economic data that disproves when you account for things such as age, marital status, education, occupation and in some areas racial/national origin.

Overall as Tom Woods once said in one of his brilliant podcast destroying the myth of the wage gap, its proponents hate facts.
 
WhoosierGirl
I hope all of you figure this out quickly, because I would really like to get the $150,000 extra that my male nurse counterparts will 'earn' of the next 30 years.
Click to expand...

You will if that's what you want. If what I'm saying is true (and it has to be true to at least some extent), it's a choice.
 
eran0004
It all seems like possible explanations, but I think that one thing that needs to be added is that male workforce is valued higher than female workforce, because males are not expected to leave work to raise their children, and that makes the employer more motivated to invest in male employees than female employees.

But whatever the reasons may be, the income gap creates a lot of problems. Even if a woman chooses to spend most of her time at home raising their children and is happy to let her husband provide for her, it makes her dependant on him. Which may be fine if the plan is to live happily together for the rest of their lives. But sometimes plans do change and if they were to split up then he would probably manage pretty well on his income, while she would have a much harder time earning her living.

Another example is what happens after they retire. Consider a typical married couple, the husband works full time while the wife works part time and spends the rest of the time at home taking care of the children and the household. As the husband worked full time, he would have an okay pension when he retires. The wife on the other hand, as she only worked part time, would have a much lower pension. And at first that might seem fair when you think about how much they both worked, but what we're not taking into account then is all the work that the wife did for the household - work that she did not get paid for and doesn't have any pension from.

So what is the solution? Maybe it's not so much about inventing some kind of household pension system, but rather to break up the gender roles so that both the husband and the wife works about as much at their job, and about as much at home? For instance, if men spent about as much time as women raising their children, that would also change the different expectations that the employer may have on the males and females, and reduce the incentives for investing more in male staff than in female staff.
Click to expand...
In Canada the pension issue would be sorted in a divorce court if the need arose. You can't have one spouse work, earn a good pension and just take it all with them in a divorce. If they are still married then the point is moot as are the "problems" concerning the income gap when one spouse stayed home to raise the kids and the other worked. Maybe the solution is let couples decide on their own how they want to run their relationships, and put effective legislation into place to allow them to choose to do so, concerning maternity leave etc. Let businesses decide who they want to invest in based on their own needs/wants.

Maybe Canada is different, but I don't know a single woman that makes less money than a man doing the same job with the same experience, where applicable. I know many nurses, a few doctors, lots of people in tool and die, lots of self employed people and lots that work for the government and none of them have experienced any kind of gender pay gap.
 
Feminism (Third Wave Feminism): Another testament of today that shows society has gotten so much better than it has in the past that some people need to nitpick "issues" that are mostly illusionary to fulfill some need of generational accomplishment. Just my take.
 
Last edited:
TenEightyOne
Such as?

Isn't one of the main characteristics of Third Wave Feminism that it illustrates both diversity and division and, thereby, why it's so hard to compartmentalise "feminists" in the first place?
Click to expand...

I would say that such issues lie in exaggerated and misleading statistics regarding the wage gap, rape culture, etc. As for compartmentalizing "feminists", you right that Third Wave Feminism illustrates diversity, but that's it. Today, social issues are handled intersectionally. There's singular focus on a certain social group, otherwise, "egalitarianism" as a label would be the dominant movement and would override the need for singularly focused groups such a feminists.
 

Similar threads

JohnBM01
College Basketball: 2024-2025 Season (Men and Women)
Replies
1
Views
629
JohnBM01
JohnBM01
JohnBM01
College Basketball: 2023-2024 Season (Men and Women)
2 3 4
Replies
103
Views
9K
JohnBM01
JohnBM01
MatskiMonk
What's in a name? Sir Lewis Carl David Larbalestier-Hamilton MBE HonFREng
Replies
11
Views
2K
NotThePrez
NotThePrez
VBR
The MRA, MGTOW & Red Pill Thread
2 3
Replies
78
Views
6K
Danoff
Danoff
Joey D
And Now For Some Good News
Replies
1
Views
729
DesertPenguin
DesertPenguin

Latest Posts

Back