(original text at bottom)
"Bullshit."
Oh, this is going to be good - all those economists proven wrong! This will shake the world!
"The law has loopholes for days"
What? Umm, ok, maybe a stroke was involved at that point. Nevertheless, I am sure this proof is coming soon!
"and proving workplace discrimination is not an easy task"
Yes it is, people did it all the time. HR departments were established to keep meticulous records to prove there was no favouritism - which economists have backed up. http://time.com/3222543/5-feminist-myths-that-will-not-die/
" nevertheless that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist"
I see. So the proof it exists is...
....
going to turn up some day soon?
" Furthermore"
So that proof?
Not coming then? You are just going to move on as if nothing happened? As if you'd shown it while we blinked?
That's just not going to fly.
So will you just change the topic now?
" sexism (and racism, since you mentioned that too) is entrenched into society "
Yup.
"there are clear patterns between socioeconomic status and race"
Yes, wealthy people have wealthy kids, as a rule - which is why Asians are at the top.
" So if you were fortunate enough to go to a ‘good’ school (or shall we just say school), then your odds of getting into a ‘good’ university increase tenfold."
And yet most university students are female - it used to be males, but that was considered sexist, so the situation was altered until it was males that washed out - and that was regarded as still not good enough. I have to wonder why you Feminists let men have an education at all.
"That then influences prospective employers reading through people’s resumes"
Which is not a proof of discrimination but that an employer wants to make money, and they hire whoever is most likely to make them money. That's not oppression, that is called Capitalism.
"In terms of gender, we again find that because of ingrained stereotypes, for example physical capability"
That's not a stereotype, that's called reality. Women have sued because they were asked to work as hard as men do for the same pay. They have smaller bodies, and less upper body strength and running abilities - because their bodies are different.
This is called sexual dimorphism. You movement seems unable to accept the reality of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_dimorphism#Humans
Males typically have larger tracheae and branching bronchi, with about 30 percent greater lung volume per body mass. On average, males have larger hearts, 10 percent higher red blood cell count, higher hemoglobin, hence greater oxygen-carrying capacity. They also have higher circulating clotting factors (vitamin K, prothrombin and platelets). These differences lead to faster healing of wounds and higher peripheral pain tolerance.[70]
...males convert more into muscle and expendable circulating energy reserves. Aggregated data of absolute strength indicates that females have, on average, 40-60% the upper body strength of males, and 70-75% the lower body strength.[66]
It will not go away for all your wishful thinking.
"This is shrugged off and explained away by suggesting that maybe the male has more experience."
Considering men work longer hours, it's pretty damn likely he does.
"Employers look at men because they believe they have more stickability"
Which they do - men sacrifice everything for their careers. Until recently, that is - now there's a movement of dropping out of the rat race as being rigged against us - but when we do that, feminists castigate us as being adult-sized children. They want us in the old gender roles - they just don't want us to feel any pride or joy in it.
"they are less likely to have to pay out leave if that person has a child"
You mean, if a woman has a child. Not a lot of men get pregnant. And feminists fight against parental rights for men - so why should men fight to have kids? They don't have any connection to them except as a mouth to feed and bills to pay. Go, Tender Years Doctrine, and go, NOW - fighting tirelessly against father's rights everywhere.
" ‘Okay’ you say “but that’s true, men are less likely to be the ones taking time off to look after a newborn”"
They don't have a womb. I mean, I know you don't like to face the sexual dimorphism bit - but doesn't it kick in somewhere? Your movement is the one that coined "no uterus, no opinion".
Our reply? "No uterus, no obligation".
" Because the social expectation falls on the woman to take time out of her career"
You think a trained dog could do it instead? How the hell do you think someone else will do it? You think a man can lactate? That he has to recover after giving birth? None of that makes sense.
And that's not even counting female sexuality, which looks for men who earn money, not who are good baby daddies. if a man loses his job - he can expect a divorce pretty soon. When a woman loses her job? She can always be a homemaker, or just take some 'me-time' to 'empower' herself.
“Our finding that women are less likely to leave if husbands are employed is thus consistent with all these; we suspect it reflects both the bargaining/exchange and institutionalist processes.
That is, women leave more when men are not employed both because men aren’t providing an economic incentive for them to stay, and because it seriously violates norms of what a marriage is supposed to be when the man does not have a job.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3347912/
" A baby is just as much a product of the father as it is the mother"
It's YOUR bloody movement that argues otherwise, you really need to get your story straight.
"each gender is just as likely to have a kid"
Did we not talk about the womb before? Where's the fetus going to gestate, are you going to keep it in a box?
"Actually a male has a far higher potential rate for having newborns, because they aren’t too busy growing one for nine months to create another one with someone else"
Yes, if a male existed in a world where there weren't roughly equal numbers of men and women, and men had to pay child support or face prison, then that might be relevant.
Unless you are talking about your fan-fic of "Y: The Last Man", it's not exactly relevant however.
And die at eleven times the rate in the workplace as compensation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupational_fatality#Risk_factors
The majority of occupational deaths occur among men. In one U.S. study, 93% of deaths on the job involved men,[4] with a death rate approximately 11 times higher than women. The industries with the highest death rates are mining, agriculture, forestry, fishing, and construction, all of which employ more men than women.[5]
We work longer hours, too. We deserve our bloody pay checks. If you think women are underpaid, there's nothing stopping you feminists pooling capital and starting feminist businesses where you pay women the incredibly high salaries you think they deserve. We antifeminists believe you will go broke unless propped up by state funding - and if you do that, then welcome to Communism, comrade!
" Society has etched into our brains certain gender roles"
You realise they have done primate experiments and found female apes are more likely to play with dolls? It's not society - it's biology.
" How is nothing wrong with that?"
Nothing is stopping women from doing the shitty, high risk work men are doing. Feminists don't want them. No call for quotas for women up power lines, no desire to join the ranks of men being killed on construction sites.
As an antifeminist, I would love to see you feminists actually work like men do.
Because then you would die - like men do.
And every time one of you dies, why, that would bring a little spark of happiness into our lives.
anonymous asked:
You realize that there is no gender pay gap crisis right? There will be a few instances where there is discrimination (still not a crisis) and those will, and have, been dealt with under the law. The same burden of proof when it comes to not hiring somebody on the base of race, or paying a black person less. So many economic factors come into play like the amount of experience one has, productive output, client networks. You don't get more or less just cause Feminism. Uh-uh. Not that simple.
Bullshit. The law has loopholes for days and proving workplace discrimination is not an easy task, nevertheless that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Furthermore, sexism (and racism, since you mentioned that too) is entrenched into society at such a level that identifying it as separate from culture and ~the way things are~ is an enormous feat when dealing with people who want to remain ignorant (generally people benefitting from the current system). The amount of experience one has, for example, can trace back to the socio-economic status of one’s parents. As you well know there are clear patterns between socioeconomic status and race. So if you were fortunate enough to go to a ‘good’ school (or shall we just say school), then your odds of getting into a ‘good’ university increase tenfold. That then influences prospective employers reading through people’s resumes. And I’m not suggesting that going to a less affluent school sentences someone to a life of hard work for minimum wage but the fact remains that employers want to know educational and work history for a reason and a good school has a better chance of getting you a foot in than a bad one.
In terms of gender, we again find that because of ingrained stereotypes, for example physical capability or emotional stability and consistency, one gender is often favoured over the other. This is shrugged off and explained away by suggesting that maybe the male has more experience. Employers look at men because they believe they have more stickability, and they are less likely to have to pay out leave if that person has a child. ‘Okay’ you say “but that’s true, men are less likely to be the ones taking time off to look after a newborn” and to that I say you’ve proven my point. Because the social expectation falls on the woman to take time out of her career to care for a baby, but that’s sexist. A baby is just as much a product of the father as it is the mother, and each gender is just as likely to have a kid. Actually a male has a far higher potential rate for having newborns, because they aren’t too busy growing one for nine months to create another one with someone else. So okay, I’m not suggesting that the hourly rate differs enormously between males and females (but if you check the tables here you will see that overall men do have a better chance at a high income with fulltime males earning about $1 more/hour), but instead what I’m saying is far worse. Society has etched into our brains certain gender roles and those gender roles determine the types of jobs we are most eligible for and in a lot of cases even the types of jobs we will expect to have or bother applying for. How is nothing wrong with that?
In terms of gender, we again find that because of ingrained stereotypes, for example physical capability or emotional stability and consistency, one gender is often favoured over the other. This is shrugged off and explained away by suggesting that maybe the male has more experience. Employers look at men because they believe they have more stickability, and they are less likely to have to pay out leave if that person has a child. ‘Okay’ you say “but that’s true, men are less likely to be the ones taking time off to look after a newborn” and to that I say you’ve proven my point. Because the social expectation falls on the woman to take time out of her career to care for a baby, but that’s sexist. A baby is just as much a product of the father as it is the mother, and each gender is just as likely to have a kid. Actually a male has a far higher potential rate for having newborns, because they aren’t too busy growing one for nine months to create another one with someone else. So okay, I’m not suggesting that the hourly rate differs enormously between males and females (but if you check the tables here you will see that overall men do have a better chance at a high income with fulltime males earning about $1 more/hour), but instead what I’m saying is far worse. Society has etched into our brains certain gender roles and those gender roles determine the types of jobs we are most eligible for and in a lot of cases even the types of jobs we will expect to have or bother applying for. How is nothing wrong with that?
No comments:
Post a Comment