War on men - Feminism's lies and brainwashing

That was just a specific example to help Ben, who cannot seem to understand points.

So you don't even know if the judges example you used is even true... That's nice.

And I understood your point just fine and addressed it directly. I don't know what more you want other than to complain simply for the sake of complaining.

I am referring to studies that control for profession, experience and education and still show a gap in wages between men and women. I will see if I can dig up what I read a few years ago or if there's something more current.

The studies that I've seen that account for those things show a minimal pay gap if any.

The most commonly cited studies (ie. that women make 77 cents on the dollar) that liberals and feminists use simply looks at how much men and women make on average and doesn't account for anything.
 
It's disturbing that both sides seem to be becoming more extreme, when on one hand you have people 'reclassifying' it as any sex while intoxicated, and on the other, reclassifying it as some colloquial euphemism for something that has little to nothing to do with the original term. Seems both are doing it wrong.

Probably. But one leads to innocent peoples lives being ruined, while the other is merely offensive.

One is much worse than the other i think. Somebody getting a bad beat down is a negative thing. It's not entirely wrong to euphemistically call it rape as both are a negative. Classifying an innocent encounter of which the female decides in retrospect she wish didn't occur as a serious crime is down right horrible.
 
I'll ask again. Can somebody tell me a company in western culture that pays women less for equal time and work with equal experience.

Please tell me of this company.
 
Ok. I am under the same impression that most people are in this thread, that women are paid less in general, not in specific instances. I would be interested in being proved wrong though.

As am and would I. I assume that concept is more based on the idea that women in the workforce generally have less seniour positions, there are fewer women CEOs, fewer women millionaire inventors, ect, and that the social pressure is on encouraging women to pursue these roles, and make sure that they don't have any barriers to doing so.


Women take more sick leave. It's easy to find the stats. And for what it's worth I think most people who have been in the work force for a while will confirm this anecdotally.

Though I'm not putting it out there as an explanation, guys in general need to take more sick leave, see doctors more often for check ups, and generally take better care of themselves. Having guys come in for shifts trying to 'tough it out' or 'man up' when they are sick/contagious is just ridiculous in most cases.

Also, go get regular check ups. And get yourself screened for rectal/colon cancer!
 
That was just a specific example to help Ben, who cannot seem to understand points.

I am referring to studies that control for profession, experience and education and still show a gap in wages between men and women. I will see if I can dig up what I read a few years ago or if there's something more current.

Please do. I've read likely more than a dozen studies on the issues and the general trend I've noticed is that, the more legitimate factors the study considers, the more the wag gap closes up from the 77 cents on the dollar statistics to the point where some studies put it at something like 98 cents on the dollar with single, unmarried women actually earning more in many situations.

Did you by any chance watch the video/read the link I put up in my initial post? Both of those address points you're making.

I'll be curious to see what studies you bring up.

Also, to be clear to everyone, my aim here isn't to say "women are not discriminated against in our society." It's more to show the *masses* of misinformation, propaganda, and outright lies floating around which mislead and confuse the issue to the point where actually finding where equality lies is almost impossible. Part of the problem is that the side claiming gross inequality based on masses of false data and misleading information also is quite hostile to the notion that the other side has also started to face discrimination and legitimate issues. Oddly, I consider myself a feminist, and mainstream feminism today freaks me out - not because of the ideology behind the movement, but because of the horribly politicized monster the movement has become in practice, willing to be every bit as oppressive and dismissive as the patriarchy it claims to fight.
 
As am and would I. I assume that concept is more based on the idea that women in the workforce generally have less seniour positions, there are fewer women CEOs, fewer women millionaire inventors, ect, and that the social pressure is on encouraging women to pursue these roles, and make sure that they don't have any barriers to doing so.




Though I'm not putting it out there as an explanation, guys in general need to take more sick leave, see doctors more often for check ups, and generally take better care of themselves. Having guys come in for shifts trying to 'tough it out' or 'man up' when they are sick/contagious is just ridiculous in most cases.

Also, go get regular check ups. And get yourself screened for rectal/colon cancer!

Very true. Couldn't agree more. I've been trying to get my Dad to go for a while. And I'm in the military so I get medicals yearly. I should probably have my colon checked though.
 
I get the feeling that the extreme feminists and the extreme anti-feminists are basically the same thing... people who are unable to get laid and taking out their aggression against the opposite sex. We should pair them up in the bedroom. Problem solved :wink:
 
Probably. But one leads to innocent peoples lives being ruined, while the other is merely offensive.

One is much worse than the other i think. Somebody getting a bad beat down is a negative thing. It's not entirely wrong to euphemistically call it rape as both are a negative. Classifying an innocent encounter of which the female decides in retrospect she wish didn't occur as a serious crime is down right horrible.

Oh, some 12 year old kid winning a video game and telling someone on the other end of the headset that he 'raped' them is CERTAINLY not as damaging as falsely accusing someone of a crime (ANY crime).

That being said, again it's the two extremes that worry me. One seems to be taking the terrible and making it normal ('I raped you in that match!') and the other taking the normal and making it terrible (even previously consenting sex now counts as rape). Either would be an issue, but both seem like a larger one.

Although it's extreme, I'd hate to imagine someone who was legitimately the victim of sexual violence afraid of or not coming forward for fear of backlash ('was it REALLY rape?') or self doubt. let alone the damage done to the healing process.

if you've ever been there when someone uses 'Rape' as an innocuous part of a description in the presence of someone who has been assaulted, you realize how incredibly, well, unthinkingly ass-hole-ish it is.
 
You of course have no way of knowing that. And societies of all different types of clothing, from men wearing skirts ('it's a kilt!') to everyone wearing the same thing/nothing have seemed to do just fine (as far as their feelings towards their fashion choices go).

Regardless, this is an theoretical that points out nothing and goes nowhere. If you use 'anything is possible' as a counterpoint to every argument, I have to think you don't actually have much of a point to start with.

I say that because I know how they do it. There are many, many techniques. It's very top down.

Human beings are extremely well studied from a behavioral and psychological perspective. Through education (the younger the better), media (propaganda), and policies it is far easier to shape society than most think.

My point was that there is a big difference between nature and nurture and the more nurture gets involved in the equation the more unnatural things become. Determining what is natural becomes more and more difficult, with cause and effect becoming blurred. Something may appear natural when it is actually the direct result of social engineering.

In my theoretical example, in such a society that would be the norm. People would then assume that women have a natural desire to act as soldiers more so than men. As a sanity check though, someone could look throughout history or outside of their society and see that the opposite was true.

There does seem to be a push towards blurring the lines between men and women currently, and to erase the concept of gender roles and even the idea of gender. I think what this will end up doing is pressuring people into doing what they naturally wouldn't. They say opposites attract, and the ying and yang make the whole. What we are going to end up with is a bunch of yongs that have no use for anyone else and who will live in an unnatural state. That is one of the overall objectives.
 
Last edited:
As am and would I. I assume that concept is more based on the idea that women in the workforce generally have less seniour positions, there are fewer women CEOs, fewer women millionaire inventors, ect, and that the social pressure is on encouraging women to pursue these roles, and make sure that they don't have any barriers to doing so.




Though I'm not putting it out there as an explanation, guys in general need to take more sick leave, see doctors more often for check ups, and generally take better care of themselves. Having guys come in for shifts trying to 'tough it out' or 'man up' when they are sick/contagious is just ridiculous in most cases.

Also, go get regular check ups. And get yourself screened for rectal/colon cancer!

I would bet maternity leave drives that number up too. It doesnt take much to give someone a leg up for a promotion, and a month gap for maternity leave would certainly do the trick. Especially for a CEO who is expected to put in at least 100 hours a week.
 
I'll see if I can dig it up. I read it a few years ago.

Anyway, I think in terms of the wage gap, it is more social. For example, women are raised to be nurturers, supports, etc. and men are raised to be leaders, problem solvers, etc.. Of course the latter leads to choosing careers in business, STEM, etc. and the former careers as teachers, nurses, etc.. And that explains the gap.

But again, if you don't think there are men, and men in power, that do not view women as leaders and will literally promote a lessor qualified man instead, you're living under a rock.

When I have more time I'll look at the links in the OP. The rape claim you seem to imply is overstated is an eye opener.

The rape claim was to me as well. The popular 2% claim is some study done in New York, focusing on one area in New York state, in 1974. Since then, there have been dozens of other studies showing the numbers to be potentially *FAR* higher than that 2% - but still, the 2% is the number I see very frequently cited, despite it being questionable at best.

Now, when you're looking at sources, keep in mind that "women are raised to be nurturers" and "women in job X are promoted less than men in job X" are two different issues. If a woman is raised to think she should stay at home with the kids and shouldn't pursue a career this is a problem, but if she chooses to work less and pursue promotion less as a result, this is NOT discrimination in the work place. Simply put, she made her choice, even if it was because of societal issues like upbringing. You can't tell the employer "Pay Jane more and promote her to convince her to not leave the office and start a family, because she was unfairly taught to be a child rearer from a young age" - you have to change the upbringing of young girls, not how bosses treat people who put family ahead of work.

Now, when an employer DOES treat two people of different genders who focus on work the same differently, that is a problem - but it is a different problem than giving Jack the promotion because he works overtime and not giving it to Jane because she goes home from work to take care of the kids an hour early every day.
 
Here is a chart from the BLS that shows median income by profession and gender of full time and salaried workers. Men make more in nearly every single profession!

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm

This is about as specific as you can get (using a really good source).

I read a few articles that claim that when you account for OT, hours worked, time off, etc. and in comparative professions/experience, there is a 5 - 7% wage gap. I'll look for better articles though (very short, not enough info for my liking).
 
Part of the problem is that the side claiming gross inequality based on masses of false data and misleading information also is quite hostile to the notion that the other side has also started to face discrimination and legitimate issues.

Although this thread might not be the place for it, this is starting to turn up more and more (in my experience) in regards to social expectations and body image. We've got the first generation of guys who are growing up with obvious body image issues, eating disorders, anxiety, ect due to the incredibly increased pressure put on them by media in a formerly 'feminine' realm (why don't you have abs? Why do you have so much body hair? why are your biceps so small? ect).

Unfortunately, it seems that instead of this bringing both sides together in realizing the harm this pressure does to people, relationships, and ESPECIALLY kids, it seems to be often used to drive them apart. Men think that now they are suffering from body image pressure more than women (or even as much as, but that's opinion) and argue that fact, or that women don't have it so hard because everyone is pressured the same, women feel that they have been dealing with the issue much longer and point to things like the number of available elective surgeries and money spent on advertising to their side specifically, when all the while, the issue isn't who's getting it worse, it's that it's still happening and getting worse for everyone.

It seems unfortunate that when men start to suffer from the same issue as feminists have been talking about for years, that instead of creating a more solid base of opposition together, they start arguing, but I have to wonder if that has anything to do with the current 'uncool-ness' of identifying with (or in some cases agreeing with) 'feminists'. In the end, now everyones kids are going to suffer from something that we should have been opposing TOGETHER for a long time.



I get the feeling that the extreme feminists and the extreme anti-feminists are basically the same thing... people who are unable to get laid and taking out their aggression against the opposite sex. We should pair them up in the bedroom. Problem solved :wink:

Although it's a joke, the old 'you need to get laid' line isn't going to help in a discussion about (or heaven forbid WITH) feminists, who've likely heard it before said by people who think it's an actual counter argument to whatever point they're trying to make.
 
KPT, just looked at that chart, and it is one I've seen before several times.

First problem is, it counts "full time" which starts at 35 hours per week but can do up to far higher. It's been shown by other studies that men are *far* more likely to work past the 40 hour point than women are and, even in the full time range, women work fewer hours.

Second problem is, job negotiation. There are studies that show that women have a tendency to accept non-economic perks in a job far more than men - as in, a flexible schedule or medical benefits in favour of gross pay. These perks are not shown on this chart, but they absolutely do exist.

Third problem is, men are far less likely to leave a job than a woman is because not only do women have the issue of carrying the child, they are also more likely to take significant time off in order to rear the children - costing them seniority.

When all is said and done then, you've got a study which shows median differences in pay, but doesn't account for such significant non-sexism factors as those above. Is it in any way conclusive for determining sexism then?

Actually, a lot of these are covered in the link I posted, not the video.

Lastly, several of the more comprehensive studies I've seen still suggest a slight wage gap which people cannot conclusively pin down to either sexism or unconsidered factors. None of it is proof of consistent systemic pay discrimination though.
 
I would bet maternity leave drives that number up too. It doesnt take much to give someone a leg up for a promotion, and a month gap for maternity leave would certainly do the trick. Especially for a CEO who is expected to put in at least 100 hours a week.

Although I could see it, I'd still have to think that connections and mentoring would play a much larger role.

Although I have absolutely no evidence to back it up so feel free to dismiss it, I remember reading some years ago an interesting study that found that people coming out of prestigious universities and such were more likely to get better paying jobs in bigger companies, while those who attended less pretstigious places of education made less, even if the curriculum and grades were the exact same, and the difference was solely on the connections made while at the school, and those of the family beforehand.


Again though, it's (maternity) an issue that will likely work itself out over time as more and more men take advantage of maternity leave (in addition to women, not necessarily instead of).

Of course, the feminist agenda, equal rights, the acceptance of 'feminine' behaviour from men like taking "maternity" leave to spend some time with their infant children in one of their most important developemental stages, that's all just a front to break up families so that the illuminati/League of Assassins can plug us into batteries like the Matrix. Trust me. I studied it. Top down.
 
Here is a chart from the BLS that shows median income by profession and gender of full time and salaried workers. Men make more in nearly every single profession!

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat39.htm

This is about as specific as you can get (using a really good source).

I read a few articles that claim that when you account for OT, hours worked, time off, etc. and in comparative professions/experience, there is a 5 - 7% wage gap. I'll look for better articles though (very short, not enough info for my liking).

This is not really in contradiction to what anyone here has said.
 
Now, when an employer DOES treat two people of different genders who focus on work the same differently, that is a problem - but it is a different problem than giving Jack the promotion because he works overtime and not giving it to Jane because she goes home from work to take care of the kids an hour early every day.

TBF... This wouldn't make much economic sense on a macro scale.

If I were an employer, and I knew that I could get the same performance out of a woman as I could a man, but could pay them 77 cents on the dollar, then I would probably employ only women to save on labor costs.

Of course, if one of my competitors picked up on this strategy, they could poach my employees by offering them 80 cents on the dollar (still saving 20 cents per worker). Of course, what would eventually happen is as more and more employers started to exploit this wage discrepancy, women's wages would get bid up to basically the same amount as a man's assuming their performance level is equal.

So basically, women being payed 77 cents on the dollar for the same work makes absolutely no sense from an economic standpoint assuming job performance is equal.
 
You did read your own link right? The one I looked at completely contradicts your claim.

It busted your own myth, lol

Actually, I did look through it after the fact, and I noticed that it did attack some of the positions I've taken. I intentionally left it up after reading it because, simply put, I'm not trying to create an impression of "WAHHHH NOW MEN HAVE IT WORSE AND WOMEN ARE TOTALLY OFF THEIR ROCKER!" Women do have legitimate claims, but feminists oftentimes use grossly false claims to make their situation seem worse than it is. But, that link was one which is in my "men's issues" folder when it should be in my "women's issues" folder.

The article I'm pushing you towards is in the original post, not the "Links for further reading" bit. It's the "male matters" one. Check the bibliography and read about the author - it's not coming from a garbage source. It was the real eye opener for me.
 
Although I could see it, I'd still have to think that connections and mentoring would play a much larger role.

Although I have absolutely no evidence to back it up so feel free to dismiss it, I remember reading some years ago an interesting study that found that people coming out of prestigious universities and such were more likely to get better paying jobs in bigger companies, while those who attended less pretstigious places of education made less, even if the curriculum and grades were the exact same, and the difference was solely on the connections made while at the school, and those of the family beforehand.


Again though, it's (maternity) an issue that will likely work itself out over time as more and more men take advantage of maternity leave (in addition to women, not necessarily instead of).

Of course, the feminist agenda, equal rights, the acceptance of 'feminine' behaviour from men like taking "maternity" leave to spend some time with their infant children in one of their most important developemental stages, that's all just a front to break up families so that the illuminati/League of Assassins can plug us into batteries like the Matrix. Trust me. I studied it. Top down.

Of course connections are important, that is the main point of those prestigious universities. Given that Ivy league schools have just as many women as men, I would not assume that is the issue.

Men get maternity leave now? why? We didnt get that in the navy, and dont at the factory I work at now. I would think the boss might laugh at you if you asked.
 
Back
Top