Feminism Has to Go...

Post Reply New Topic

What an interesting assertion. I counter it thus:

There is much in public services that may and does come before "equality" and "diversity".

Feminism is a fine word. We won't let our enemies or a fringe minority of kooks define us.

Is that the game? I make off the wall allegations and then say everyone else needs to prove me wrong?
Okay. There is a God. God is a she and she looks like a hummingbird, the size of a galaxy.
Off the wall pile, but have fun spending a mighty long time trying to prove it wrong.
If you want, i could come up with a different fact by taking a small bit of information and extrapolating into a single direction, regardless of what other correlations or evidence to the contrary might also exist.
It seems to me, with such a statement, i should be the one to prove it right..but...

Last edited by 100000fireflies on 08 Feb 2016, 6:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I would agree with you..but as stated, i pay no attention to the random fools who somehow (i.e. sensationalism) get a lot of press. To me, despite press, they are a minority and don't represent the underlying concepts or meanings. The same as any extreme faction.

Splitting a name off to something else - if then a positive - would again remain so temporarily as unfortunately, the select individuals would just change their banner. So, i'd instead rather keep the name and push back against those individuals for their improper use, if not destructive abuse, of the term.

OK?

If you're assuming though that the government wouldn't change a law or rules cause it might put people at risk, that's a bit of a worry.

I'm assuming that the Health & Safety laws (and their enforcement officers) which lead to a plethora of 'Danger!' signs and warnings, and to local government office workers being chastised for putting up Christmas decorations without taking the proper precautions, would balk at the idea of allowing Fire Brigade entrance tests to be changed, let alone in a way that endangered the public, in the name of 'feminism'.

I'm further assuming the government don't give two hoots about feminism, beyond paying occasional lip service to it in an attempt to make feminists shut up and go away.

You're getting confused between local councils and a corporate run government. Who's going to sue government? They don't seem to mind risk being sued when blowing people up across the world, so why would they be worried about the consequences of changing fireman laws? The enforcement officers would be working for the government, so it's a separate issue.

Of course they don't, it's just a token gesture and a deliberate policy to "rub the right's nose in diversity" and "render their argument's out of date", and to get both sexes paying taxes.

Can you please back up your claim here that the UK Fire Brigade had its entrance requirements changed in such a way that endangers the public in order to 'rub the right's nose in diversity'?

And I trust you'll now drop your claim that it was done in the interests of feminism?

And given the fire brigade are paid for from the public purse, in what way does having more women working there increase the tax intake?

Sadly, I think the type of feminist that I talked about in my OP is neither fringe nor minority, based on my experience anyway.

"So if i'm twisting your words, fine. Then what does If there were anything else involved, it would technically be unlawful. mean?"

Meaning that if there were any discrimination occurring, it would be picked up by law and the women would be reimbursed. If it were a societal norm to pay women less than men, whilst simultaneously a transgression, then it would be plastered all over the news. Seriously, I don't mean to be condescending, but do I really have to explain everything to you bit by bit?

"As for "proof"- you said it doesn't exist because illegal doesn't happen, not me."

Absolutely no words.

"There also is the assumption that such cases would be easy to prove in court since david v goliath, in court, david always wins (/sarcasm).. or that women making $10/hr could afford to lose their job let alone higher a lawyer. You however are attempting to incorrectly find a lack of cases as further "proof" something doesn't exist."

How very perceptive of you, only if it were as extreme a case as people made it out to be, why would any woman even need a good lawyer? If it were as bad as the propaganda suggests, at 77 cents to a dollar (debunked in an article I posted above), then it would be an evident issue. And I'm not trying to find a lack of cases to prove something doesn't exist. It's called the burden of proof. Somebody made a claim, and thus they need to prove it. Is it honestly that hard for you to understand?

"While i am flattered that apparently i have fantastic word twisting skills, the reality is that you repeatedly make egregious claims for which you provide not an ounce of empirical backing. E.g. it's a "fact" that black people are more aggressive than whites and they're biologically programed that way (that alone shows a serious lack of understanding of human biology) - quite a claim of "fact" without a shred of true evidence; history has no relevance and it's just pushed by left wingers..while you reference Orwell who ironically was Very much left; or here - you stated that it cannot/would not happen because it would be illegal. No "twisting" required - -that- is what you said. So i merely called you on the flaw in that conclusion as things that are illegal do happen."

This paragraph is just gold. Not only does it imply that Orwell was left (somehow relevant; I too am left), nor trying to reel in past discussions that I sparked about black people (I'll save that for another time), but it once more says the same thing that you have mentioned three times prior which is absolutely wrong! Three times!! ! How can you even manage such a thing? You don't read what I write, do you? You're the person trying to argue somehow that two plus two equals five, and feel that vehement pursuit will somehow have you come out on top.


"Thus the burden of proof is on you. Additionally, turning it to me would be asking to prove the negative - which by definition cannot be done. That is , even if i could find no cases, that still wouldn't mean it wasn't happening, it would only mean that i couldn't find cases."

OK, some major flaws here; proving the negative? How can you be proving the negative when you're the one defending what was claimed? How??? And your line about if there were no cases it doesn't mean it's not happening; that's true, but you'd expect to hear a lot more about it if it were happening.

"Regardless, for fun and nothing more, the class action suit against walmart."

Checked out the case, found 1,975 women who had been discriminated against by a corporation who apparently has a bad streak for lawsuits and shady practices, discovered that there was no word on it's conclusion, stopped wasting my time.

Irrespective of whether this case is accurate or not, Walmart has also shown to discriminate against many other people; disabled, LGBT, they're just a shady corporation. They don't operate exclusively on female discrimination is the point, and less than 2,000 is hardly a trend, certainly not a societal norm that we come to expect.



Hm, close but no cigar, unfortunately. We know that something is occurring and are yet to dictate the true causality of the situation. We thus develop theories as to potential causes. Primarily, these are broken into; societal, socioeconomic, racial, and any more that you could conjure up. Use your imagination.

When we rule out societal and socioeconomic, what are we left with? The main reasons we rule out socioeconomic is that most black men make around about the same amount as white women, on average. Thus, we can suggest by looking at it that, since the statistics show black people in general commit more crimes than white people, it is safe to say that money is not the primary cause. The other primary correlation we pick up on is societal, that being the potential causes of racial tensions or discrimination. This is of course a potential cause, but bear in mind that black on black and black on white violence is usually far more common than white on black.

I'm not saying I'm specifically correct in pinning it on racial causes, which is why I wanted somebody to bring up another potential reason for this. Since nobody bothered (primarily AR, but also yourself for being so childish and petty), then I've yet to have anything to nullify my argument.

So you defeated yourself. Well done. I knew you'd manage eventually.

Why not we let the minorities define a lot of groups. We let the 1% minorities run our lies and control us. We let a tiny minority of politicians do what they want. We distrust all men based of s minority. I don't see why feminism would be protected from this mondset. Like it or not feminism is judged by most people by its fringe minority which I too don't think is a minority anymore.

Really should get the fringe fired then and take back your group. Either that or make a new one

Just from a quick news search of late Jan, early Feb and not remotely all there was:

http://www.npr.org/2016/02/06/465587253 ... r-wage-gap
http://time.com/money/4207853/gender-pa ... etirement/
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0VE1ZM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/29/us/po ... .html?_r=0
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... p-20160201
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... close-wag/
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/upsho ... .html?_r=0
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... sary-lilly
http://fortune.com/2016/02/03/intel-gender-pay-parity/
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oba ... ap-n506941
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... usinesses/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jmaureenhen ... cec7676e8a
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... e-pay-data
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/arc ... ma/433926/


And the tip of a very long list of lawsuits:
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-18-15.cfm
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-5-12a.cfm
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-12-13.cfm
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/7-11-13a.cfm
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-27-15b.cfm
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/8-4-14.cfm
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-11-16a.cfm
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/1-5-16.cfm
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/relea ... -00-b.html
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/9-3-13.cfm
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/11-10-11a.cfm
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/2-19-14.cfm
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/4-2-14.cfm
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/10-1-15e.cfm





So because they also discriminate against other groups like gays, that means it can't be an example of that which is more pervasive? Discrimination against gays is pervasive too. If anything, it's a perfect example of underlying, residual America that has not yet vanished. Which indeed contains discrimination against many groups.







It took a three second search to find the BLS weekly report for Jan 22, 2016.
All working full time:
White men: $931. Black men (and yes, if you even begin to base a theory like that on just income, compare men to men): $674
White women: $729 Black women: $621

So no, black men do in general have a measurably lower income than white men. Which is beside the point as the issue is far more complex than just apples to apples income, as AR nicely explained in the other post.







Black on black crime being higher than black on white in no way suddenly negates deeper, historical and societal reasons.







It looks like you deleted your post that stated it was a fact that black people are biologically more aggressive. No word twisting there. That was pretty much verbatim. I remember as it was one of those jaw drop you can't make that kind of stuff up that someone in 2016 actually said that

It was then modified in future posts to more likely to commit aggressive crimes. Those were a bit more of an open discussion - i see this fbi report as backing for the statement. The former...out of the gate factual biology..not so much.

Nonetheless, it appears pretty much everyone on the thread indeed bothered with explanations such as... another correlation could be there are also many white men let off for that which a black man is nailed to the wall. Plus as a few brought up, history and hundreds of years of systemic oppression doesn't vanish over night and does have residual impact. (Enter history is irrelevant today). So to say no one offered a counterpoint is not quite true. A big counterpoint was offered - things aren't so simple.






And do you think you could step down on the name calling and condescension a bit?



.

Labour did it with immigration, which has lead to deaths, so why wouldn't they do something similar with the Fire Brigade? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... viser.html

It wasn't done for real feminism, and I don't think I said that did I? Pretty sure I said it was done for "equality" and put it in quotations. I know full well that the government do not care about real equality for women, it's either token gestures or keeping the right people above them or alongside them happy.

Lol, do you think our taxes all go back to helping us, or anywhere close to it?

Oh dear, here we go again. I've only seen five of those many links you produced, though the majority of them appear to be hinting at the long debunked belief that men get paid less than women on average (they do; not for the same quality of work). I linked an article, I mentioned the article, but you evidently didn't read the article. But for the sake of ease, here;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christina ... 73804.html

Also, the article does note that discrimination still exists, but it is nowhere near as bad as people claim it to be.



Let me see the attitudes towards employees in general, or alternatively note the very specific motives of these cases (you don't need to go through all of them, else I'll be here forever responding). One of them just claimed that a woman was fired and another gentleman replaced her, without any mention of her actual attitude or efficiency in the workplace. Something tells me confirmation bias, especially noting the address.



We're looking into a case that specifically discriminates against women, yet they have been known to discriminate against many others as well. That doesn't mean they have justification or that there isn't a problem, but it does show that there is a far bigger problem than just "misogyny"; it's a company saving money, as companies do.



Thank you for pointing out how long the search took. Would you like to see the returned results on my search for panda bears?

About 3,500,000 results (0.34 seconds)
Search Results
Giant panda - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_panda

0.34 seconds. Crazy what search engines can manage, isn't it?

And it looks like you didn't read my actual point, again. Black men versus white women earn the same amount, yet the cases are specifically looking at race, not gender. So black people commit more crimes than white people, despite black men earning the same amount as white women. If it were a factor to be considered, the white women who apparently face a comparable issue would inflate the statistics of white crime. Do you understand now?



Of course it is. What would you propose the other factors involve?




Again, such as?






I didn't delete that post, actually. I'm pretty sure somebody else did, perhaps a moderator. Though it is no secret that black and white people have varying physiology and likely psychology that it would appear it would be a reasonable assumption to point out that black people are more violent than white due to these differing traits. I know it "makes your jaw drop", because you evidently lead a sheltered life where everybody coddles your opinions. Welcome to the real world.



What is the variation between aggression and aggressive crimes?



For which I am pretty certain is false, as more white people than black were killed by the police force in recent years, something which is commonly neglected (black lives matter, rather than just all lives matter. But let's forget the white male cis scum, right?). All this shows is that authority does not take the same view towards black people as many would have you believe.



So does systemic oppression make black people want to steal cars and kill innocent people, despite occurring at the very least 50 years ago? News to me. And again, I've already pointed out that black on black crime is incredibly common. So what does that have to do with it in the first place?



No one offered a valid counterpoint that was not already contradicted and disproved. "Things aren't so simple" is hardly valid, as it offers nothing for me to work with.




I don't recall ever calling you a name, though if I did it was probably with good reason. After all, you did state something which I cleared up already three times in your post. That's got to be worth at least an offhand remark. Regarding the condescension; I do recall the first comment I noticed of you was regarding something I had said, spoken in mimicry as a means of mocking. So why should I treat you with respect when any controversial opinion you come across, you mock? Why bother? Read my signature next time.

You're the second person that has told me stop acting insulting when they started off being insulting themselves. I'm noticing a trend...

For f***s sake, how many times do I have to repeat that this thread is not for debating feminism itself? And learn to trim a damn quote tree.

[MODERATOR]

Serious, TheExodus, cool it with the aggression and insults.

If you can't debate without resulting to shouting and personal attacks, further administrative action may have to be taken.

[/MODERATOR]