(May 21, 2016 at 9:29 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: I want this thread to shrivel up and DIE.

I want people to realize that the first criteria to fight for equal rights is to NOT have equal rights.
But hey, we don't always get what we wish for,now do we?

But no one is even discussing that anymore! That's why I want the thread to die.

Like, okay. Do women get equal pay or not? I thought not.

(May 21, 2016 at 9:33 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Like, okay. Do women get equal pay or not? I thought not.

The logic is simple :
1) Women have equal rights.
2) A movement that "fights" for equal rights for women is senseless.

Equal pay is not related with equal rights.
Furthermore, it is against the law to discriminate someone based on their gender in the workplace.

But since you brought up the issue, here is something of an interesting read of discrimination :

Quote:THE REAL MONEY GAP.
Men earn 61.5% of all income but only account for 25% of domestic spending. Men only spend 40% of what they earn after tax. In contrast women make up 38.5% of all income but control 75% of domestic spending, women on average spend 90% MORE MONEY THAN THEY EARN. Men are exploited as cash machines and even with spending on children accounted for women still spend more money on themselves than the combined spending for men and children. This can even be observed in the floor space allocated to women's products in most shopping centres.
TAX & HEALTHCARE DISCRIMINATION
Men pay over 70% of income tax but the vast majority of public spending is on services for women. There is more money spent on breast cancer than lung cancer and prostate cancer combined, despite the fact that lung cancer alone has 3-4 times more fatalities than breast cancer. A man's chance of getting cancer is 44% and 23% of men will die from cancer, 38% of women get cancer and 19% die. Yet there is vastly more money spent on cancer for women, this is lethal discrimination. Women pay 60% less tax despite spending 300% more in domestic spending than men. Women also consume two third of public spending, there are 3 times the amount of gender specific health services for women than men despite the fact that for equal increases in health spending a man's life expectancy rate increases nearly twice as much as a woman's.

Last post for me here:

Submitted by Olivia on Fri, 2016-05-20 06:37
http://www.oliviapierson.org
I wrote in my latest book, Western Values Defended: a Primer, http://www.amazon.com/Western-Values-... that feminism and misogyny are two sides of the same coin. Both are a gratuitous absorption in resentment of the opposite sex. But it has become increasingly clear that it is feminism which now leads the war against women. Here’s how:

After women won the right to vote in the late 19th Century and the early decades of the 20th– a feat which largely succeeded thanks to the women of the 100 year-old Temperance movement, conditions for women improved dramatically because of the excellence of Western medicine and modern technological innovation. They did not improve because women now had a voice on all things political. If women believe that the right to self-determination was obtained through “winning the vote” they are grossly misguided (though I’ll forgive them for thinking this way because I know that’s what they are spoon fed by modern educational institutions and media).

When it comes to self-determination, do you think 18th Century Enlightenment thinker, Mary Wollstonecraft, needed the permission of society to write her radical book on natural rights, “Vindication of the Rights of Woman,” where she called for the education of the female mind against the backdrop of the French Revolution? Did Emilie du Chatelet need permission to do her ground-breaking mathematical and scientific research in the 18th Century? Did Florence Nightingale sit around waiting to win the vote before she radically reformed 19th Century nursing and hygiene standards? What of scientist Marie Curie in the early 1930s? Did Maria Montessori hold herself back because her sex hadn’t yet won the right to vote when she forged her magnificent education system in the early 1900s in Italy? (Bear in mind Italy did not acquire the female vote until 1945.)

All of these women achieved remarkable endeavours before their respective countries were anywhere close to ushering in Female Suffrage, and this small list of remarkable women is far from being exhaustive. What these women needed more than anything in order to preserve their self-determined lives was better medical technology. At age 43, du Chatelet died in childbirth from puerperal fever, so did Wollstonecraft at age 38. Curie died at age 66 from her exposure to radioactive material, which she handled without protection not knowing the terrible risks she was running in doing so. Out of this particular set of women, only Maria Montessori and Florence Nightingale lived long lives. Montessori died at age 81 after being nominated for her third Nobel prize. Nightingale died at the ripe old age of 90. She wrote these words in her later years: “I attribute my success to this - I never gave or took any excuse.”
Now that’s the spirit.

Yet, here we are in year 2016 and Social Justice Warrior women, who have all had the vote for around a century, are still griping about male oppression. This is not only delusional, it smacks of a major grievance industry which has gone on for far too long and reached ridiculous heights. This is the gratuitous absorption in resentment that I speak of. In one word it is “victimhood.” Do you want to know why a man is often paid more for doing the same job as a woman? It is because men do not take time off for menstrual related ailments every month, do not require their employers to pay them maternity leave if they decide to reproduce, and because said men can usually have a fight with their significant other without needing a day off the following morning. It is also because men, on the whole, have greater powers of physical endurance, which serves them well when it comes to working long days under huge amounts of pressure. Furthermore, they tend to spend less hours gossiping about co-workers on the job and back-stabbing their unreasonable bosses. This makes them more valuable as employees. There. I've said it.

There are women of course, who do not fall into these less valuable patterns in the workforce, but you’ll find that these women are highly aware of their points of difference to other women and tend to negotiate a better rate of pay for themselves – and get it. If they don’t get it, they walk and find themselves something better where their realistic worth is valued more highly in monetary terms. These are the women who are paid as the equals of men, because they perform as the equals of men. I read recently about Donald Trump placing a woman, Barbara Res, as his head of construction on Trump Tower in the 1980s, to his old-school father, Fred Trump’s horror. Donald maintained that in his line of work “men were better than women, but a good woman was better than 10 good men.” Now if I were Barbara Res (a Hillary supporter, no surprise), I would take that as one hell of a compliment (that appointment solidified Res’ reputation in the New York construction industry after working for Trump for over a decade), but the aggrieved blisterhood are spinning that profound compliment into some heinous example of Trump’s evil sexism toward women. Good grief! Why do they have to turn every scene into playing one of being hard-done-by because they have a twot? The ever circling Humourless Harriets.

For feminist SJWs all over the Western world to still be waving the tired little flag of “equal pay for equal work” – then they better be prepared to confront what the word equal actually means - then grow-up and man-up (to say nothing of lightening-up) to go get it.

Women do not do themselves, or their sons and daughters, any favours by denying the very real differences between the sexes. To say “girls can do anything” might be a truism, but for girls to do anything at the same performance level as men takes a very rare girl indeed. Take a leaf out of the Israeli Defence Force’s book – their highly trained fighting girls could kill any civilian man in hand-to-hand combat (Krav Maga), but a fighting man trained in the same skill can always kill the fighting girl – why? Because a highly trained fit, healthy male is physically stronger than a highly trained fit, healthy female. This is why the Israelis use their IDF females predominantly for weapons training and combat intelligence – the well-honed natural powers of female perception and awareness make them an incredible asset in these important fields.

All things being equal: the physical superiority of a GI Jane over any one of her brothers-in-arms is purely fictional.

But one of the things which disturbs me most about modern feminism is the hitching of their wagon to the cause of multiculturalism, and the soft-headed, PC narratives of the Left. I have read articles from America, England, France, Germany, Australia and New Zealand by prominent self-styled feminists who misguidedly not only defend the right of Muslim female immigrants to cover their heads in public, but actually try to reframe the issue into something as soft and irrelevant as how we Westerners treat “diversity” - as if Islam never murders its own women who are not compliant to Sharia law. A classic example of this is a piece written by New Zealand comedienne, Michele A’Court, that defends a young Muslim law-student turned away from a holiday job in a jewellery shop, because she did not want to remove her hijab. Where is the sense of solidarity with the employer who has a product to sell, and when it comes to selling jewellery, necklaces and earrings are pretty much what it's all about? Where's the solidarity with Muslim women who are trying to throw off the traditional shackles of Islamic law (like compulsory head-coverings) at the risk of their very lives? Gee thanks a lot, Sis. It’s a good thing Muslim women occasionally find a good ally in one of their own brothers, like Pakistani journalist Kunwar Khuldune Shahid, who wrote this rather sarcastic “thank you" letter to the women who defend Islam: “A Letter of Gratitude to #MuslimahPride Social Media Jihadis.” http://tarekfatah.com/an-excel... Here’s just a snippet:

“Dear ‘revolutionary’ Muslimaat, thank you for ignoring the life threats that Amina Tyler and many others like her are facing, after choosing to protest against the harassment that they have to bear on a daily basis.

Thank you for overlooking other lesser issues like terrorists attacking a 15-year-old schoolgirl; female genital mutilation; women being raped with judicial approval just so they don’t die virgins; two-year-old girls being forced to wear veils because the disgusting men in your country have no self-control; and fathers legally getting away with raping their daughters by paying a few riyals.
Thank you very much for screaming bloody murder over half-naked women’s claim of representing you, but accepting rapists, pedophiles and sorry excuses for human beings as your state leaders and role models.”

It’s all very well to want to take the soft option and be the defender of Muslim girls in Western countries for their right to choose whatever they want, including the hijab if that is their wish, but it is inexcusable to blatantly ignore the far more important fact that in their countries of origin (and sometimes in the West) this is not a matter of choice, but of perpetual, violent oppression.

While we are on the topic of multiculturalists and feminists: German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has facilitated into Europe millions of welfare dependent Sunni Muslims (75 percent of them are male) in the name of European tolerance and kindness (which really means guilt over initiating two vicious World Wars). How is this a kind act to Europe’s young women considering it is their interests she is meant to represent? We know what happened on New Year’s Eve in Cologne and Stockholm when Muslim migrant men went out on mass sexual assault rampages on Europe's daughters. As if that weren't bad enough. Viennese police are now telling blonde girls to dye their hair in order to not look so appealing to groping migrants who exhibit decidedly Eastern manners on the subject of sex. It is actually much, much worse than this – German and Swedish police, and media, are discouraged from revealing descriptions of the sexual assailants in order to avoid being labelled xenophobic or racist. Are you getting all this?

Where are all the feminists who purport to care about female Liberty??

We know where they are; they are all around us and multiculturalism has solicited their silence.

Just to be crystal clear, the dogma of multiculturalism asserts that all cultures are equal regardless of the diverse practices of each culture. Yeah, right. Tell that to the hundreds of millions of women https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...... who live lives wholly unaquainted with their natural rights.

http://www.oliviapierson.org/blog/femini...inst-women

Did you seriously just post a massive copypasta?

(May 20, 2016 at 10:40 pm)pool the great Wrote:

(May 20, 2016 at 9:26 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote: I said and you have my quote right there, that it wasn't just about equal rights in response to you saying that it was dumb for people with equal rights to fight for equal rights.

I don't see anything other than "equal rights" . Maybe other subsections of equal rights but equal rights is what it boils down to.

Equal rights are the rights granted under the law, feminism also battles against gender roles, labels, social stigmas and stereotypes. Also If you don't think a woman's right to bodily autonomy is still being fought for, then clearly your head is in the sand.

(May 21, 2016 at 9:41 am)pool the great Wrote:

(May 21, 2016 at 9:33 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Like, okay. Do women get equal pay or not? I thought not.

The logic is simple :
1) Women have equal rights.
2) A movement that "fights" for equal rights for women is senseless.

Equal pay is not related with equal rights.
Furthermore, it is against the law to discriminate someone based on their gender in the workplace.

But since you brought up the issue, here is something of an interesting read of discrimination :

Quote:THE REAL MONEY GAP.
Men earn 61.5% of all income but only account for 25% of domestic spending. Men only spend 40% of what they earn after tax. In contrast women make up 38.5% of all income but control 75% of domestic spending, women on average spend 90% MORE MONEY THAN THEY EARN. Men are exploited as cash machines and even with spending on children accounted for women still spend more money on themselves than the combined spending for men and children. This can even be observed in the floor space allocated to women's products in most shopping centres.
TAX & HEALTHCARE DISCRIMINATION
Men pay over 70% of income tax but the vast majority of public spending is on services for women. There is more money spent on breast cancer than lung cancer and prostate cancer combined, despite the fact that lung cancer alone has 3-4 times more fatalities than breast cancer. A man's chance of getting cancer is 44% and 23% of men will die from cancer, 38% of women get cancer and 19% die. Yet there is vastly more money spent on cancer for women, this is lethal discrimination. Women pay 60% less tax despite spending 300% more in domestic spending than men. Women also consume two third of public spending, there are 3 times the amount of gender specific health services for women than men despite the fact that for equal increases in health spending a man's life expectancy rate increases nearly twice as much as a woman's.

Okay...regarding the money gap, I don't understand your position at ALL. You argue in favor of tradition gender roles (i.e. Men as providers and women being home to raise the children) but it irritates you that women spend more than they earn? You can't have it both ways pool. As a stay at home mom, I spend more money than I earn (which is exactly zero dollars) and all of the money I spend is my husbands. So...am I taking advantage of my husband now? Despite the fact that the money I spend is almost NEVEr spent on myself?

Also, how is the right to earn the same wages as men for the same position and job performance not a right?

Some men are pigs, some are not. I love the ones who are not.

(May 21, 2016 at 9:41 am)pool the great Wrote:

(May 21, 2016 at 9:33 am)LadyForCamus Wrote: Like, okay.  Do women get equal pay or not?  I thought not.  

The logic is simple :
1) Women have equal rights.
2) A movement that "fights" for equal rights for women is senseless.

Equal pay is not related with equal rights.
Furthermore, it is against the law to discriminate someone based on their gender in the workplace.

But since you brought up the issue, here is something of an interesting read of discrimination :

Quote:THE REAL MONEY GAP.
Men earn 61.5% of all income but only account for 25% of domestic spending. Men only spend 40% of what they earn after tax. In contrast women make up 38.5% of all income but control 75% of domestic spending, women on average spend 90% MORE MONEY THAN THEY EARN. Men are exploited as cash machines and even with spending on children accounted for women still spend more money on themselves than the combined spending for men and children. This can even be observed in the floor space allocated to women's products in most shopping centres.
TAX & HEALTHCARE DISCRIMINATION
Men pay over 70% of income tax but the vast majority of public spending is on services for women. There is more money spent on breast cancer than lung cancer and prostate cancer combined, despite the fact that lung cancer alone has 3-4 times more fatalities than breast cancer. A man's chance of getting cancer is 44% and 23% of men will die from cancer, 38% of women get cancer and 19% die. Yet there is vastly more money spent on cancer for women, this is lethal discrimination. Women pay 60% less tax despite spending 300% more in domestic spending than men. Women also consume two third of public spending, there are 3 times the amount of gender specific health services for women than men despite the fact that for equal increases in health spending a man's life expectancy rate increases nearly twice as much as a woman's.

That doesn't answer her question.

At least you seem to be making some headway, albeit painfully slowly, on the difference between de jure and de facto.

Hopefully you'll keep up what is obviously very hard work for you. Maybe one day you'll get it.