|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Sunday May 13, @07:52PM EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
You'd better believe it's a victory. As one having intimate knowledge of modern journalism, I can tell you that the Times' immediate seeking of a counter feminist point-of-view is standard operating procedure when the opinions of this feminist-dominated industry are successfully challenged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not much of a reply. All she said was essentially "yea, well I've seen lots of statistics" without really refuting the statistics presented in the original article.
If that's the best reply they can muster, why bother?
Tom Campbell
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday May 14, @04:22AM EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
It just occurred to me that all we ever see is _average wages_. Does anyone know what the _median wages_ for the sexes are? A couple of weeks ago I read that in my neck of the woods, about 65% of people have below-average salaries, because the top-end executive salaries are totally from another planet if you compare them to what Joe Average makes. And top executives are predominantly male, so they might skew average male salaries upwards.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
NOW's reply was what one might expect in this situation. Feminists love to quote fem-statistics until someone quotes back real statistics. Then, suddenly, the feminists' objections become vague and undefined: just the sort of thing that is impossible to contradict.
What did she really say in her article? "Statistics are bunk." (So why does NOW like them so much?) "We should all be nice to women." (Gee, who could be against that?) and "I've heard tell that women make less than men." (But no statistics or information to back up the claim because, hey: statistics are bunk.)
For anyone with a brain, she was obviously throwing sand in the reader's eyes.
On a more humorous note, I must admit that I love Dilbert's (aka Scott Adams') take on gender issues. From two Dilbert cartoons that I have saved at work:
#1
Tina: I just read that the average woman is paid 75 cents for every dollar that men make. That's an outrage!
Alice: I'm the highest paid engineer in the company.
Tina: That's impossible. The article says "average women" earn less.
Alice: Suddenly, the problem comes into focus.
#2
Tina: Alice, one day I hope that we can be judged by our accomplishments and not our gender.
Alice: I got my fourteenth patent today. I'm on my way to a lunch banquet in my honour.
Tina: And you wore that?
:-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Monday May 14, @01:09PM EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
You like dilbert too? god damn! I got at least seven books of dilbert and I got a sketch or two on gender issues from dilbert I want to post soon.
Cheers for reminding me,
Adam H
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
First of all, I have to say that when I read from a "man" who writes:
"I'm a man who, at his wife's urging, gave up much of his career to be the manager of a household"
I have a tendency to lose respect for him and would not care to have him as a representative of me or the male sex. Given his current occupation it does not surprise me that his method of countering falsehood is to whine:
"But please, stop claiming that women make less money than men because of "discrimination," "
as if asking feminists to stop something is actually going to work. I think Nietzsche said it best when he wrote:
"Thou goest to woman? -- Do not forget thy whip!"
Second, when a feminist writes: "It all comes down to fairness" you know she has no interest in fairness, or in the truth, for she lives by the lie. But she knows what a seductive effect those words have on men and therefore she uses them plentifully - do not believe her.
If you think that reasoning will have any effect, look at the following article written in 1873 to get an idea of how long men have wasted words thinking the recipients had a dint of a conscious to receive them:
http://www.hti.umich.edu/cgi/m/moajrnl/moajrnl-idx?notisid=ACW8433-1335APPL-108
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on Thursday May 17, @03:55PM EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Dear Spartacus:
Before I became the househusband you deride one of my careers was as a construction worker and a carpenter. One of my jobs was to hang off the side of a half-completed building, 100 feet up in the air, my life in the hands of only a hook belt, day after day. Like many men, I put my safety and health on the line to provide for my wife and children. Courage was demanded of me daily. Taking care of a baby (the greatest joy of my life) doesn't make me any less of a man.
--Glenn Sacks
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glenn has my full respect. In fact, losing respect from someone who does not understand the purpose of politely and publicly asking feminists to stop spreading falsehoods may not mean all that much anyway. Sacks obviously knows that most feminists are not going to budge, but when the public sees a sincere person exposing feminist distortions and asking them politely to stop spreading them, that is likely to have much more impact than name-calling or coming off as angry at women, which most of us are not anyway. The feminists would much rather an opponent who does the latter than the former, because the latter are less effective. Thankfully, people like Sacks do not give them that. Someone like him is one of their worst nightmares. They cannot possibly label him a women-hater and they know it.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
