The NationStates Feminist Thread

[Byzantium Imperial]

No it doesn't.
Because if she was in the exact same circumstances, she could sue for discrimination.
Chances are, she isn't in the exact same circumstances, and the man is, in some way, working harder.
When I say that shit, i'm not claiming men are better. Women are living the way people should be living. It's that men are pressured into workaholism.

Like I said, since you can sue for discrimination if your pay is different and you're in the same circumstances and position as a coworker, what is the fucking problem?
No feminist ever answers this.

It's very hard to prove you have been discriminated against, since most women don't share their contract with a male counterpart.
There, I answered it. One weapon removed from your anti-feminist arsenal, God knows how many to go.

You dont seem to be getting that this is exactly the problem with taking action against this supposed "paygap". Government shouldn't be acting on something that cant be proven to the satisfaction of anyone, and macroeconomic statistics don't reveal anything about the beliefs of individual employers.

[Ostroeuropa]

As many of the posters above me stated, when we are talking about "paygaps" we must also take in account intangibles such as competitiveness of the individual and the flexibility sought by the employee, that are hard to measure in any raw numbers statistics like wage gaps.

While one such as 72 is stark enough to suggest something beyond intangibles, by the time you get to 95, the difference starts becoming negligible.

77:100 is the basic women to men pay ratio. When you factor in women working lesser hours, taking lower-paying jobs, raising children between jobs, etc., then you get 95:100. That means there is still discrimination. Once it is no longer statistically impossible for women to be earning the same as men, then I'll be content.
Unlike Chess...

You get to 95:100.

And for some reason, employers seem to view those employees who work more hours, don't take time off to raise kids and thus have more experience, work overtime, etc as more desirable employees in general.
It must be discrimination and based on their penises that they are viewed as more desirable employees.
Not, you know, all that other shit.
Right?

There is discrimination between good employees and mediocre ones.

The horror.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

77:100 is the basic women to men pay ratio. When you factor in women working lesser hours, taking lower-paying jobs, raising children between jobs, etc., then you get 95:100. That means there is still discrimination. Once it is no longer statistically impossible for women to be earning the same as men, then I'll be content.
Unlike Chess...

You get to 95:100.

And for some reason, employers seem to view those employees who work more hours, don't take time off to raise kids and thus have more experience, work overtime, etc as more desirable employees in general.
It must be discrimination and based on their penises that they are viewed as more desirable employees.
Not, you know, all that other shit.
Right?

The truth is that in a capitalist venture, your time is money.

Employers will pay you for the money you make them, not for the money you don't make them.

Say, for instance, if you can double an employer's returns of investment in you then you will get paid better, because they see you are worth every penny. If you are out of their office not making them money they won't bother much in actually raising your paycheck.

[Ostroeuropa]

You get to 95:100.

And for some reason, employers seem to view those employees who work more hours, don't take time off to raise kids and thus have more experience, work overtime, etc as more desirable employees in general.
It must be discrimination and based on their penises that they are viewed as more desirable employees.
Not, you know, all that other shit.
Right?

The truth is that in a capitalist venture, your time is money.

Employers will pay you for the money you make them, not for the money you don't make them.

Say, for instance, if you can double an employer's returns of investment in you then you will get paid better, because they see you are worth every penny. If you are out of their office not making them money they won't bother much in actually raising your paycheck.

Pretty much.
And let's not ignore the fact that an employer will want to horde all these workaholic employees and would kind of prefer the other ones fuck off to their competition in exchange for their workaholics.
That means they'll pay their workaholics more to keep them around, and will view the others as no real loss if they leave to another company for higher pay.


The reason men end up the major beneficiary of this, is that more of them are workaholics, and that's due to discrimination against them.
But when women are workaholics, and do the same shit those men do, they will be paid the same, or can sue.
It's that simple.

The wage gap is utter fucking nonsense.

[Wallenburg]

77:100 is the basic women to men pay ratio. When you factor in women working lesser hours, taking lower-paying jobs, raising children between jobs, etc., then you get 95:100. That means there is still discrimination. Once it is no longer statistically impossible for women to be earning the same as men, then I'll be content.
Unlike Chess...

You get to 95:100.

And for some reason, employers seem to view those employees who work more hours, don't take time off to raise kids and thus have more experience, work overtime, etc as more desirable employees in general.
It must be discrimination and based on their penises that they are viewed as more desirable employees.
Not, you know, all that other shit.
Right?

There is discrimination between good employees and mediocre ones.

The horror.

If you don't want to read what I want, just say that.

[Haktiva]

Is it just me or is feminism starting to eat itself?

[The Nuclear Fist]

You get to 95:100.

And for some reason, employers seem to view those employees who work more hours, don't take time off to raise kids and thus have more experience, work overtime, etc as more desirable employees in general.
It must be discrimination and based on their penises that they are viewed as more desirable employees.
Not, you know, all that other shit.
Right?

There is discrimination between good employees and mediocre ones.

The horror.

If you don't want to read what I want, just say that.

Maybe if don't actually want to debate their arguments you shouldn't be on a debate forum. Perhaps some feminist hugbox like Jezebel would suit you better? :v

[Wallenburg]

Is it just me or is feminism starting to eat itself?

A little bit of both. Mostly the latter though. Surprising, since I abhor cannibalism!

[British Empire Strikes Back]

What are your opinions on The Men's Rights Movement?

[Conserative Morality]

What are your opinions on The Men's Rights Movement?

Generally, MRAs pretend to care about legitimate issues that feminist movements nominally support but sometimes sideline. In reality, MRAs are usually more interested in tearing down feminism than doing anything for gender equality.

[Ostroeuropa]

What are your opinions on The Men's Rights Movement?

Generally, MRAs pretend to care about legitimate issues that feminist movements nominally support but sometimes sideline. In reality, MRAs are usually more interested in tearing down feminism than doing anything for gender equality.

That'd be because feminists use their power in the media to derail any attempt to help men, as well as protest our events and meetings.
We have a good reason to want to get feminism defanged.
It's also the current gender orthodoxy in institutions. In order for mens issues to be taken seriously, it must be discredited.

You're ignoring that any attempts to manifest IRL have resulted in feminists doing all they can to destroy those events/groups etc.

And you're ignoring all the mailing, petition work, outreach, education etc.

It's because of US that so many people online know about mens issues now. We're doing fine.

AND you're ignoring all the support and advice they offer victimized men.

Basically, you've parroted the feminist opinion on MRAs. Like much else they say, it's bullshit.

[Haktiva]

What are your opinions on The Men's Rights Movement?

Generally, MRAs pretend to care about legitimate issues that feminist movements nominally support but sometimes sideline. In reality, MRAs are usually more interested in tearing down feminism than doing anything for gender equality.

"equality" is dropped at the first sign of supremacy.

[Wallenburg]

What are your opinions on The Men's Rights Movement?

Exactly like feminism, but for men and men's issues. Both feminism and the Men's Rights Movement have plenty of true egalitarians within their ranks, but all we hear about are the radicals.

[Haktiva]

Generally, MRAs pretend to care about legitimate issues that feminist movements nominally support but sometimes sideline. In reality, MRAs are usually more interested in tearing down feminism than doing anything for gender equality.

That'd be because feminists use their power in the media to derail any attempt to help men, as well as protest our events and meetings.
We have a good reason to want to get feminism defanged.
It's also the current gender orthodoxy in institutions. In order for mens issues to be taken seriously, it must be discredited.

You're ignoring that any attempts to manifest IRL have resulted in feminists doing all they can to destroy those events/groups etc.

And you're ignoring all the mailing, petition work, outreach, education etc.

It's because of US that so many people online know about mens issues now. We're doing fine.

AND you're ignoring all the support and advice they offer victimized men.

Basically, you've parroted the feminist opinion on MRAs. Like much else they say, it's bullshit.

Feminism is largely a manifestation of women's desire for authority without the responsibility given legal power. not sustainable for a civilization.

[Wallenburg]

That'd be because feminists use their power in the media to derail any attempt to help men, as well as protest our events and meetings.
We have a good reason to want to get feminism defanged.
It's also the current gender orthodoxy in institutions. In order for mens issues to be taken seriously, it must be discredited.

You're ignoring that any attempts to manifest IRL have resulted in feminists doing all they can to destroy those events/groups etc.

And you're ignoring all the mailing, petition work, outreach, education etc.

It's because of US that so many people online know about mens issues now. We're doing fine.

AND you're ignoring all the support and advice they offer victimized men.

Basically, you've parroted the feminist opinion on MRAs. Like much else they say, it's bullshit.

Feminism is largely a manifestation of women's desire for authority without the responsibility given legal power. not sustainable for a civilization.

Not quite. This is why I am ready to identify as feminist AND as an MRA.

[USS Monitor]

Is it just me or is feminism starting to eat itself?

It's HuffPo.

[Ostroeuropa]

Feminism is largely a manifestation of women's desire for authority without the responsibility given legal power. not sustainable for a civilization.

Not quite. This is why I am ready to identify as feminist AND as an MRA.

You have to understand, Haktiva is an MGTOW.
I'm not quite sure how far along that axis he goes, but you aren't going to convince him.

https://omegavirginrevolt.files.wordpre ... minist.jpg

Stuff like that will prevent you.

I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure he's of the party that
"Feminism is merely the organized expression of womens nature."

When you throw in that part of that nature is deceit when it benefits you, then you simply won't convince him.

I saw a post about a weaker version of this strain of MGTOW elsewhere:

(Reply to "Not all women" post.)

I think this is true, but I also think you should reflect on what it says about how women in general treat men that many men are so ready to believe they are incapable of love / are wholly self-centered and merely use men, etc etc. Exceptions exist, but you know, I think that it's really sad, but the fact remains most women probably are selfish cunts to men, and this does ruin some men's ability to trust women in general, including the exceptions, because the manner in which those women do this is through deceit and acting like they aren't a cunt, often feigning interest and such so long as it benefits them, and feigning sympathy too. They are raised to be this way, and it takes a particular type of upbringing to avoid it, as well as being able to avoid being socially coerced into being like that by your peers.
But basically, you're stood in a row with 99 other women saying the same thing you are. Fair Wind is admitting her motivations, and Perhaps 89 of those women think the same as Fair wind, but dare not admit so, and you're all saying the same thing, so answer me this: How do we know you aren't one of them? That's right, we can't, and It makes me sad too.
It doesn't help matters that the very visible women's gender equality movement really is wholly self-centered and selfish, and uses men as resources while projecting a very clear no fucks given about men's own desires or problems, It lends a great deal of credence to radicals who say that feminism is merely the organized expression of women's nature in the eyes of men already predisposed to believing that.
Another thing that doesn't help is the relative lack of women who took the men's issues seriously compared to those viciously hostile to it, I think that burned out a lot of men in terms of trusting women, this is a bit of a cycle, since being viewed such a way probably pushes women away from the movement, but there again it loops back into this narrative: "You see, women care more about how they are viewed than they do about men suffering." Nor does framing and lenses in conjunction with confirmation bias, because of this view, you'll find people going out to find evidence in support of it, which will snowball, so there's a bunch of factors leading to this view on women, and unfortunately, a lot of them are women's behavior. Not all women, but as I pointed out, you can't really tell the difference.

The "Strong" version would be "No, all women really are like that."

I dunno what Haktiva subscribes to.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/11/technol ... index.html

Feminists gear up to campaign to change anti-discrimination laws so they can discriminate against men easier.

The same thing they did in the UK with all-women short lists.

With the current focus on women in tech and engineering, some in Silicon Valley fear that that unless something changes, other entrepreneurs will become targets. Women.VC launched a petition on August 7 to unite venture capitalists and entrepreneurs to help change the law.

"Considering the hype around women entrepreneurship and women-targeted products on the market right now, it may be necessary to adjust the legislation accordingly," said Renata Akhunova, a board member of Women.VC.

The petition name is pure fucking gold by the way.

PROTECT WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS AND COMMUNITIES FROM "EQUALITY-SEEKERS"

However, there are many similar lawsuits in California attacking businesses that exclude men from participation, no matter the social good that these businesses promote, and no matter the historical and contemporary gender inequalities that these businesses attempt to remedy.

It is obvious for us, that running and supporting female-only goods and services entrepreneurs do not even think about discriminating men.

Hopefully the california legislature resists them.

PROTECT WHITE ENTREPRENEURS AND COMMUNITIES FROM "EQUALITY-SEEKERS"
Exclusion is not discrimination!

Notably, these women seem incapable of understanding that Segregation is a social ill. That while women might benefit from sexist organizations in their favor, society doesn't.
They view the benefits women receive and think "This is a social good" while ignoring men and their situation. I've noticed this is pretty common among sexist women that their definitions of society, civilization, and humanity, seem to implicitly exclude men.

These women have had de facto female privilege where they could discriminate against men with impunity, now they want to codify their privilege into law now that it's being challenged on equal rights grounds.
Equality is misogyny!

Two legs good, three legs bad!

Let me say that once more.

Feminists in california do not think men should be protected by equal rights acts, and are mobilizing to enforce their view.

Aligning yourself with these people in any way will mean you cannot be taken seriously as a gender equality advocate.
Even by being a "Normal" feminist, you empower these people. Stop legitimizing their hatred.

[Hirota]

What are your opinions on The Men's Rights Movement?

That we should have a thread about them, and not hijack this feminism thread too much.

[Swith Witherward]

What are your opinions on The Men's Rights Movement?

That we should have a thread about them, and not hijack this feminism thread too much.

Thank you for saying that.

While I don't mind discussing MRAs here, I don't think they'll get a fare shake considering this thread is meant to specifically support feminism. I'd love to see an MRA thread, though. I'm hoping someone will create one.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/11/technology/mens-rights-activist-chic-ceo/index.html

Feminists gear up to campaign to change anti-discrimination laws so they can discriminate against men easier.

The same thing they did in the UK with all-women short lists.

With the current focus on women in tech and engineering, some in Silicon Valley fear that that unless something changes, other entrepreneurs will become targets. Women.VC launched a petition on August 7 to unite venture capitalists and entrepreneurs to help change the law.

"Considering the hype around women entrepreneurship and women-targeted products on the market right now, it may be necessary to adjust the legislation accordingly," said Renata Akhunova, a board member of Women.VC.

The petition name is pure fucking gold by the way.

PROTECT WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS AND COMMUNITIES FROM "EQUALITY-SEEKERS"

However, there are many similar lawsuits in California attacking businesses that exclude men from participation, no matter the social good that these businesses promote, and no matter the historical and contemporary gender inequalities that these businesses attempt to remedy.

It is obvious for us, that running and supporting female-only goods and services entrepreneurs do not even think about discriminating men.

Hopefully the california legislature resists them.

PROTECT WHITE ENTREPRENEURS AND COMMUNITIES FROM "EQUALITY-SEEKERS"
Exclusion is not discrimination!

Notably, these women seem incapable of understanding that Segregation is a social ill. That while women might benefit from sexist organizations in their favor, society doesn't.
They view the benefits women receive and think "This is a social good" while ignoring men and their situation. I've noticed this is pretty common among sexist women that their definitions of society, civilization, and humanity, seem to implicitly exclude men.

These women have had de facto female privilege where they could discriminate against men with impunity, now they want to codify their privilege into law now that it's being challenged on equal rights grounds.
Equality is misogyny!

Two legs good, three legs bad!

Let me say that once more.

Feminists in california do not think men should be protected by equal rights acts, and are mobilizing to enforce their view.

Aligning yourself with these people in any way will mean you cannot be taken seriously as a gender equality advocate.
Even by being a "Normal" feminist, you empower these people. Stop legitimizing their hatred.

The problem is not the law in this case. Although California's market opportunities of entry are pretty restrictive. I, for instance, couldn't have a micropreneurship in California if I wanted to.

The problem down at California isn't the fact women are discriminating against men, it is that the laws are being targeted against female entrepreneurs; and that there should be protections without bordering discriminatory practices.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://money.cnn.com/2015/08/11/technology/mens-rights-activist-chic-ceo/index.html

Feminists gear up to campaign to change anti-discrimination laws so they can discriminate against men easier.

The same thing they did in the UK with all-women short lists.



The petition name is pure fucking gold by the way.

PROTECT WOMEN ENTREPRENEURS AND COMMUNITIES FROM "EQUALITY-SEEKERS"





Hopefully the california legislature resists them.

PROTECT WHITE ENTREPRENEURS AND COMMUNITIES FROM "EQUALITY-SEEKERS"
Exclusion is not discrimination!

Notably, these women seem incapable of understanding that Segregation is a social ill. That while women might benefit from sexist organizations in their favor, society doesn't.
They view the benefits women receive and think "This is a social good" while ignoring men and their situation. I've noticed this is pretty common among sexist women that their definitions of society, civilization, and humanity, seem to implicitly exclude men.

These women have had de facto female privilege where they could discriminate against men with impunity, now they want to codify their privilege into law now that it's being challenged on equal rights grounds.
Equality is misogyny!

Two legs good, three legs bad!

Let me say that once more.

Feminists in california do not think men should be protected by equal rights acts, and are mobilizing to enforce their view.

Aligning yourself with these people in any way will mean you cannot be taken seriously as a gender equality advocate.
Even by being a "Normal" feminist, you empower these people. Stop legitimizing their hatred.

The problem is not the law in this case. Although California's market opportunities of entry are pretty restrictive. I, for instance, couldn't have a micropreneurship in California if I wanted to.

The problem down at California isn't the fact women are discriminating against men, it is that the laws are being targeted against female entrepreneurs; and that there should be protections without bordering discriminatory practices.

How are the laws targeting them?
By forcing them not to be bigots?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

The problem is not the law in this case. Although California's market opportunities of entry are pretty restrictive. I, for instance, couldn't have a micropreneurship in California if I wanted to.

The problem down at California isn't the fact women are discriminating against men, it is that the laws are being targeted against female entrepreneurs; and that there should be protections without bordering discriminatory practices.

How are the laws targeting them?
By forcing them not to be bigots?

No, by actually (and most likely is what is happening in certain of these cases) placing frivolous suits for things that are unfortunately covered in the law which it shouldn't.

Kind of like how patent mills make patents for the most inane shit imaginable and if your product falls within those guidelines you get sued by a company which never uses the fucking thing.

I mean, it's 150 lawsuits by a single lawyer on gender discrimination, a good portion of which, apparently, have been settled instead of contested in court.

[Sino nations]

Feminism Is F****** Hate Crime!

Look It Up In Internet

For Example In Twitter:

[Ostroeuropa]

How are the laws targeting them?
By forcing them not to be bigots?

No, by actually (and most likely is what is happening in certain of these cases) placing frivolous suits for things that are unfortunately covered in the law which it shouldn't.

Kind of like how patent mills make patents for the most inane shit imaginable and if your product falls within those guidelines you get sued by a company which never uses the fucking thing.

I mean, it's 150 lawsuits by a single lawyer on gender discrimination, a good portion of which, apparently, have been settled instead of contested in court.

Well there aren't many lawyers who'll take mens cases on discrimination.
Settling out of court is normal for lawsuits.