|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:44 PM February 2nd, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
This is brilliant..."half the 1,000 women questioned for its survey reported some level of bias"
Eoc investigator: you were pregnant correct?
Mother: Yes
Eoc investigator: were you discriminated against?
Mother: ummm.. I don't think so.
Eoc investigator: Not in the slightest, not one bit?!?!?
Mother: Well, someone might of said something, like I was big as a house.
Eoc investigator:Aha! that is a form of bias maam. For if you were not pregnant that comment could not of been said.
End of investigation.
And the fembot response in the article "shocking". These feminist tactics are so old, they run a survey with vague definition, multiply by 10 and get the feminsit response. Now if you ask the companies if they were biased do you think it would come out to 50%.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by ArtflDgr on 01:00 PM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
the bottom line that makes this all total crap is that a persons opinion that they were discriminated against is not evidence of discrimination!
also... events that happen in tandem are not necessarily connected no matter how much it seems so. the woman who sent emails to her beau and such and came in obsolete said "he had no documentation", no boss shows someone they are firing documentation, memo's and such. they are getting rid of an employee, not supeonaed to a grand jury. she has no way to know if he has or has not any documentation, and we all work in an "at will" system where there does not have to be a reason to terminate (and its safer not to have one or to always put them in the same category).
i digress for a second....
last night was another american idol show, i ended up on it because i was working and just left the background noise on. anyway... it caught my attention for one person.. simon the nasty or rather simon le gree, told a girl that she needed lots and lots of work... she came out and started saying that simon said she was the best there but was too young (like the entertainment industry really cares if they destroy a young persons life).
the point of this digression is that this woman is a percentage of every survey. she has no problem recounting a history that never happened based on things only she heard. and this is why studies done like this are useless for the most part because most of these pseudo studies dont have any rigor or controls.
somewhere the fems figured out that it was easier to just slap together a poor marketing type questionaire and can package it as a study. ms mag did it for the 1 in 4 rape figure, walls street journal recently did it. the point is that there is a recent surge of the injection of material into the stream of knowledge.
its the same thing as an herbal remedy company packaging their product in bottles that look like real fda approved drugs and copying the look and feel of the commercials done by the medical field. (in fact have you noticed that these have started disappearing. the reason is that the med companies are aware that just as they uplift an herbal company, their practices lower them)
these false studies are a major cause of harm. the public doesnt know the difference between peer review and metodological conformity, all they see is a cover page with a phd on it (it may be totally unrelated to the subject at hand), and think that there was some kind of certification. not to mention the proclivity in the public to accept as gospel what a woman puts together and suspect anything as questionable when a man puts it together...
this is indicative of a large problem.. perhaps we should come up with a law that can misdemeanor ticket people that purport information falsely. if we can have truth in advertising laws why cant we have truth in news laws, or in science? these things are not any less damaging than lying about taxes, or stock transactions and such...
sure... and i would get a break too. : )
Sign me Artful Dodger...
PS- its also not like the women answering the survey cant figure out that if they say yes to the problem that women will get more!!! and they already believe that women get less, and realize that lying has no penalty.. and so they "help out"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by n.j. on 04:18 PM February 2nd, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
As the article said, most companies do support pregnant women.
It's a difficult problem; on the one hand, one shouldn't tell women simply to leave the workplace when pregnant - as men, we don't want to be forced into a life of labor without seeing much of our family either so women shouldn't be forced into their traditional role.
On the other hand, the disadvantage for the employer is undeniable, hence a solution might be difficult to find. The Scandinavian countries, though, have shown us that this is possible to a good extent. Women there usually interrupt their work for a short time only, and then daycare is available and it's also possible in many companies to take the baby with them to work.
Interestingly, in the collapsed communist GDR women also didn't need to stay at home for a prolonged time. After the re-unification, many Eastern German kindergardens were simply closed and the old "men must work, women must stay at the home with the kids" paradigm came back.
But this doesn't work, the result is less kids, not less women at work. Result: Scandinavia has a birth rate most other post-industrial countries can only dream of.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Graboid on 09:33 PM February 2nd, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
n.j. - I strongly disagree on the point you made about Scandinavian countries. A higher birthrate is just about the only good thing (in my opinion) you can say about life for men in Scandinavia. Have a look at this article entitled "The End of Marriage in Scandinavia". It's a long one, but very well worth the read.
The article is here:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Artic les/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp?pg=1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Graboid on 10:03 PM February 2nd, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, that link may not work - here is another one:
http://www.nationalcoalition.org/culture/articles/ ga040329.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 10:13 AM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
My letter to the EOC, with a copy to BBC and the newspapers listed by BBC
Let’s for a moment consider that, for a reason or another, a male employee would work the very maximum of three (3) months a year for, let’s say for six (6) years, yet claim and get all of his benefits. I doubt very much that anyone would complain if, at the end, he was told to go, or at least forfeit some of his benefits. Rather we would say “good riddance” and marvel the employers’ patience.
Now let’s reverse the roles. A woman who has a certain level of seniority decides that her biological clock is running out. She gets pregnant, suffers from morning sickness and uses her sick leave to the hilt. While at work she is too tired and her sympathetic co-workers, usually men, cover for her.
Once the baby is born she can take her twelve (12) month maternity leave. If you don’t want to hear the scream “discrimination!”, don’t suggest to her that the father of her child should be given the chance to take a portion of this leave and “allow” her to go back to work. The woman, and she alone, has the right to choose. Though there are no data on this regard my personal experience is that in 99.9% of the cases women will not give a day.
Once the twelve months are over our hypothetical woman will return to work for a few days, then take her 22 days of annual leave, then use her three (3) days of paid “family related leave”, and, bit by bit, her fifteen (15) days of paid sick leave. She is also pregnant again (don’t forget her biological clock is running out) and twice as tired and sick as she was during the first pregnancy.
In six (6) months she is again on maternity leave, alone with the new baby as she continues to send the older child to daycare. The same cycle is repeated, not once but twice, within a matter of six years. In fact there are no limits how many times and at what frequency a woman can have children. Theoretically, that is possible until she reaches menopause. Even that is no longer an obstacle as was shown recently when a 66 year old gave birth.
For the six years, most of which our hypothetical woman spent on paid leave while her employers were not able to replace her with a new permanent employee, she continued to accumulate her years of seniority, her pension and paid leave benefits. As she returned to work for short periods of time a new temporary worker, at times a good one, had to be hired during her absence, trained and released when she returned to her job. During the few weeks that she was physically present each year she was “too tired” to contribute in any meaningful way, she had to take off a few hours on many days because the children needed to be taken to the doctor or dentist, etc, not to mention that her coworkers often ended up working unpaid overtime in order to cover for her. On each return she also had to be retrained as operation systems have the tendency to change frequently, just like the move from DOS to Windows, to mention just one major one which affected employees at every level, from the lowest clerk to the CEO. Yet, had her employers asked her to resign they would have been in violation of the employment equity act.
Simultaneously those men who work the unpaid overtime because of the extra workload, are told that they are putting their work ahead of their families, their marriages may end in divorce as they cannot participate in the housework as much as their wives, duly trained according to the edicts of our princess culture, demand.
Not possible? You bet it is, though maybe quite rare still. A few decades ago before my retirement I witnessed the above situation, with one exception: in Canada maternity leave was nine (9) months during that time (now it is twelve (12) months).
When my children were small I stayed at home, and enjoyed every moment of it, until they reached their early teens and I realized that I had too much time in my hands. When I reached the magical 65 years I received a letter from the government telling me that as I apparently stayed at home while the children were small I presumably cooked their meals and cleaned up after them so I could claim pension benefits for those years also. How did they know that I did not have a nanny and a housekeeper, or that my mother-in-law or mother did not look after my children while I spent my husband’s wages playing bingo and fed the kids at McDonald’s? Can a man claim pension benefits for something that the government assumed that he did, without asking him if he, indeed, did it? (Don’t worry, I did not claim any benefits for the years that I considered to be vacation though I did not have any of the above helpers nor did I play Bingo. I retired at the earliest opportunity and thus cut my years of slavery, and pension entitlement, to the minimum, thanks to my husband who so faithfully has supported and helped me beyond the call of duty and without any interference)
We are told, or should I say nagged, about women’s “right to choose”. That should not mean that once we have eaten our cake we will be given another. Curiously, those who nag us the most, just like the EOC, consider that a woman has exercised her right only if she complies with the dictates of the sisterhood. Those of us who truly make our own choices are seen to be victims of patriarchy. Yet, if the world is not, and has not always been, a matriarchy, why does the overwhelming majority of men meekly agree to spend their lives slaving for us for nothing else than a bit of companionship and comfort?
So far the only three choice that men have is either to live up to their responsibilities as providers and labourers, go to jail or commit suicide. They are told that even if they are cast aside and thrown out of their homes, robbed of their children and all of their worldly belongings, their responsibilities to those who robbed them do not end. It is tragic that each year more and more of them take the last option when they no longer can meet the first one.
Sincerely,
etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:54 PM February 2nd, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
I'll have to remember this post the next time I hear someone complaining that fathers are discriminated against in family court. Basically, the author of this article uses a condescending tone to imply that women should be financially penalized for having children. I bet that sure is easy to say, given that men can't even biologically have children!
Maybe this was just the immature ranting of a single guy who doesn't plan to have kids or feels threatened by women (and god forbid mothers) in the workplace. But I hope I'm not the only person who is not going to punish women for an unchangable biological fact.
Indeed, if it's OK to pay women less or pass over them for promotions because of the pregnancy factor, I find it appalling to suggest that when it comes time for divorce, that women shouldn't be automatically granted custody of children. It's women who take the time off of work to care for an bond with their offspring, and they pay the price for it. So why not give them custody 90% of the time?
You can't have your cake and eat it too. There's got to be some give and take. Are you against hypocracy in general or just when it occurs in modern feminism?
I think the answer to that question is already evident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Luek on 08:23 PM February 2nd, 2005 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe this was just the immature ranting of a single guy who doesn't plan to have kids or feels threatened by women (and god forbid mothers) in the workplace.
Why would men be threatened by women in the workplace? Affirmative action, career ending sexual harassment charges, subsidizing women workers pregnancies by extra work...Nah!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by B_Riddick on 09:16 PM February 2nd, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"You can't have your cake and eat it too. There's got to be some give and take."
If only that were true for everyone equally....one thing folks have been pointing out time and time again on these sites is that women can and do have their cake and eat it too, as you put it. There is precious little give and take, unless you're talking about how women take and men give, largely. Women have choices. Men have much fewer choices. And yes, pregnancy/childbirth is one of those choices which women have. Should they be penalized for it? I really don't think it's as simple as saying yes or no to that. It is a choice though, and one many women opt for. It somewhat reminds me of the people who whine and complain about a wage gap, when a big part of that is due to women's choices...working part-time, or less overtime on a full-time job, taking careers which are less dangerous and have less pay, but can be more rewarding in other ways, etc.
You say that women get paid less or are passed over for promotions more like it's a solid fact. It isn't. Some have observed the contrary. Try reading Jack Kammer's book : "If Men Have All The Power, Why Do Women Make The Rules?" at www.rulymob.com (free pdf file), he debunks a lot of these typical assumptions/femstats pretty well. Or check out Warren Farrell's latest book, which covers that subject (wage gap myth) in detail.
Is there a particular gap or lack of promotion for pregnant women? I am skeptical, but I don't think one survey which may or may not have been done fairly and legitimately is going to say. The thing is, employers these days are so afraid of being accused of discriminating against women in any way, that they tend to err on the side of caution, and are more likely to discriminate FOR them as a result (as a post by someone running a business indicated on this site not too long ago, I wish I could remember which topic it was under). They're even afraid to lay off women who are seriously slacking off and not doing their jobs (without having pregnancy as an excuse) just because it opens them up to all kinds of legal ugliness that can be difficult to disprove, especially when accusations by women in our ever-so-enlightened society tend to be viewed as gospel truth until/unless disproven.
I'm against hypocrisy in general. You seem to be more about snap judgements on limited info. Feel free to prove me wrong by informing yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:15 AM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
>"You can't have your cake and eat it too."
What's the point of having cake if you can't eat it???????????
Besides not ONLY can Western women have THEIR cake and eat it, they can have your cake taken away from you for any reason. Ergo, women can have their cake AND your cake and eat BOTH of them.
Oh well. Let them eat cake...,
(and ya know what happened to the LAST person that said that...)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!'"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:48 PM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
"I WANT MY CAKE! IT'S FATHER'S DAY!!"
(Dead guy from the movie Creepshow)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:24 PM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
"I want my party cake!"
That's SPACEGHOST from the cable TV show "SPACEGHOST COAST TO COAST".
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by B_Riddick on 02:57 PM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
I think maybe you meant to reply to the person I was replying to (your message ended up threaded as a response to mine though), the stuff I had in quotes is what I was responding to as well (I am not sure if there is another way to respond to quoted text in this system, I didn't notice a command for it).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:58 PM February 2nd, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I hate the way that feminists have appropriated this argument to serve themselves.
This issue is not a gender issue, yet feminists constantly frame it as such. But, as one of the posters wrote:
"Many female workers and managers also feel angry about how they are expected to just let pregnant women disappear for 6-12 months - or more - and let them come waltzing back into their job as if they never left."
Despite this truth, feminists continue to paint this issue as men discriminating against women, much like they have done with the issue of abortion, despite the fact that just as many women as men are against abortion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:21 AM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Scudsucker-
I see you watched the President's speech, last night.
Bush also said he was for expanding the use of DNA testing, to free wrongly accused people. (read men accused of false rape) (Cool!)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:08 PM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
"...show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence" George W. Bush - Republican 2005 "
Now all we have to do is get that message to all those liberals in Hollywood, and other supporters of terrorists who are trying to destroy America - as well as the terrorists, and we can bring our armies home.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:08 PM February 4th, 2005 EST (#34)
|
|
|
|
|
No.
Bush in no way said that girls need to be taught respect for males and to reject violence.
Bush, like many Republicans is stuck in the 50's. Whereas he/they still believe that females are ALWAYS the victim and need saveing.
On the flip-side Many Democrats are stuck in the 60's and still believe that men are brutal monsters that need punishing (or killing).
The Republicans are stuck in chivalry mode, the Democrats are stuick in "men are evil" mode.
Both parties are woafuly out of touch with the reality of the so called "gender war".
Sorry, I don't mean to insult anyone, here, of either party, but that's just how I see things.
It is because of these reasons though that I am now an independant. (I used to be a Liberal Democrat).
So, no, I don't think we will hear any politition of any stripe say, anytime soon, that females should respect males.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by scudsucker on 10:10 PM February 4th, 2005 EST (#42)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry, I don't mean to insult anyone, here, of either party, but that's just how I see things.
And it's basically the truth. On the Dem side, pandering to feminists seems to be part of their strategy that has been costing them elections for decades: woman and minorities make up 75% or more of the population of the U.S., so if they pander to those groups, they'll win all the elections!
My beef is that there are a great number of individuals who blame all of feminisms excesses at the feet of *all* democrats, even though many of us support men's issues, but don't make a peep when Orin Hatch sponsors VAWA legislation and Bush makes comments like the one in my sig. Hypocrites.
I used to be a Liberal Democrat
Indeed. Maybe you could convince some of these neocons that people of BOTH parties are perfectly capapble of screwing people over. The national parties are both so full of crap right now, its not even funny.
"...show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence" George W. Bush - Republican 2005
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:39 AM February 4th, 2005 EST (#29)
|
|
|
|
|
"...show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence" George W. Bush - Republican 2005"
We should certainly show young women and ideal of womanhood that respects men, an ideal that rejects vilifying men, and rejects lying about violence against women. Yes, the President was pandering to the gender feminst misandrist in the democrat party when he said this.
"Oh, I see, you're just really really stupid. It's too bad your mother was an alcoholic boxer while she was pregnant with you."
Another ad hominem attack from Scudsucker showing his vileness to anyone who has an oppossing opinion. Once again he starts a political arguement, when someone shares their opinion. He attacks personally with his vicious, name calling hatred.
With such tyranical intolerance, it is easy to see how everyone in America walks on egg shells to avoid violating the politically correct bigotry, that unfortunately leads to such misguided statements as the one he quotes our President as saying.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:47 AM February 4th, 2005 EST (#30)
|
|
|
|
|
"To continue to lay the blame for feminisims excesses only at the feet of Democrates is delusional..."
No it isn't. It's simply insightful. It puts the blame for misandry in America precisely at the point of origin. How many women's studies professors and women's commissions feminists vote democrat? All of them, every last one of them.
The democrat party in America today is the party that shelters the gender feminist man-hating movement and bullies every other human being in America to accept their tyranically intolerant, politically correct agenda. To bad the President, played politics, tried to be "inclusive" (a uniter, not a divider), and pandered to that evil man-hating group.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 08:03 AM February 4th, 2005 EST (#31)
|
|
|
|
|
What about "showing young women an ideal of womanhood that respects men and rejects manipulation".
Now, THAT'S a policy I WOULD vote for!
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 08:09 AM February 4th, 2005 EST (#32)
|
|
|
|
|
Duh. Somebody already said that...
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:13 PM February 4th, 2005 EST (#35)
|
|
|
|
|
That's okay, AngryMan.
Good ideas NEED repeating.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 05:07 AM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe this was just the immature ranting of a single guy who doesn't plan to have kids or feels threatened by women (and god forbid mothers) in the workplace.
It's the old ad hominem attack once again. Attack the person not the argument. "You're only saying that because you're scared". If women (and especially mothers) are so discriminated against, then how can they be any possible threat? After all, if we are to believe the stories, they do more work, they get paid less, they are constrained by a glass ceiling, they are more likely to be passed over for promotion, discriminated against, sexually harrassed, fired for no reason, etc. If this is all true then women do not pose much of a threat in the workplace, do they? You can't have your cake and eat it. What, in your opinion, would constitute a more 'mature' position I wonder?
Anyway, there are three points to make:
(1) That childless workers subsidise those with children.
(2) That women workers have much more choice than their male colleagues.
(3) That despite this, feminists and the mainstream media frame the situation in terms of discrimination against women.
The argument is not actually a question of men having to subsidise women in the workplace, it's really a question of non-parents having to subsidise parents. However, because of the advantages that women have in society, this usually means in practice that men subsidise women.
The fact is that women make a choice to have children - it is not something that happens to them like an illness, they choose to do it. The troll says
"It's women who take the time off of work to care for an (sic) bond with their offspring, and they pay the price for it".
It is interesting to note that she characterises bonding with one's children as a sacrifice rather than a joy. Most fathers only wish they could be so unfortunate.
When a man has a child, this usually means that he will work more. When a woman has a child this usually means that she will work less. However, no-one is allowed to admit that she works less, so her co-workers have to pick up the slack and pretend that nothing is happening. Her employer is obliged to pay her to stay at home and then, as the other correspondent says, she can waltz back into the same job a year later as though nothing has happened, and if one of her colleagues (either male or childless female) has been promoted in the meantime, she can scream discrimination. A lot of this 'being passed over for promotion' is simply due to the fact that the world has moved on while she was away. However, she is allowed to cry victim.
A female worker is lucky enough to control her own reproduction, to decide if, when and how many children to have, to control her own work patterns, to get other people to cover for her at work, and subsidise her parenthood, and she is still allowed to claim unfair discrimination afterwards. Meanwhile, what about fathers? There must be a fairer way than this to do things.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:18 AM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, call me a troll or whatever you like, but you have all shown your true colors in this thread. I don't care if you plan to brush me off as a feminist or woman (I'm neither). I heard about this network through an article in the New York Times that I felt made some insightful points about male bashing.
I WILL, however, bookmark this discussion and use it as an example to others about what the men's movement is about today.
Be proud, gentlemen. And have fun banging your head against the wall for the rest of your lives, because this is not a mainstream movement, nor is it ever likely to be if you're going to waste time on topics like this.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by AngryMan
(end_misandryNOSPAM@yahoo.co.uk)
on 07:56 AM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
I don't think you can really complain about people being rude to you after what you said in your post - a case of the pot calling the kettle black.
Your attitude towards the men's movement sounds universally negative.
I would like to hear your opinion of what you think the men's movement should be doing.
What brought you to this website? Which topics have you read which you have found useful? What is your personal experience of male-bashing?
Go on. Say something positive.
Feminism will continue as long as there is money to be made from hating men.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:19 PM February 4th, 2005 EST (#37)
|
|
|
|
|
"...the New York Times that I felt made some insightful points..."
"have fun banging your head against the wall for the rest of your lives, because this is not a mainstream movement, nor is it ever likely to be..."
Duh, kind of hard to believe that someone who lives in the Fantasy world of the NYT would criticize the world(s) men are living in (fantasy or not). I guess those quoted statements above just point out the "tyranny of tolerance" that liberals are living in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:30 PM February 4th, 2005 EST (#38)
|
|
|
|
|
"I heard about this network through an article in the New York Times..."
Oh my gosh, it's someone from the NY Times crowd. Everyone look terribly refined and literary - and biased against males.
After all the male bashing that paper has done through misandrist reporting, and misandrist columnist(s), it's going to take more than a NYT article (calling attention to male bashing) to change my mind about the misandrist, tabloid style of journalism that is the forte' of that paper.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:50 PM February 4th, 2005 EST (#39)
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah.
And we all know how committed to accuracy and fairness the New York Times is.*snicker*
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by robrob on 03:45 PM February 4th, 2005 EST (#41)
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm - not a woman or a feminist? Who cares, I'm glad you've bookmarked this site.
I know it bugs you that it exists.
I want you to fume self righteously each time sickening hypocrisies are pointed out.
Your pregnant woman/salary "discrimination" = automatic child custody was so ludicrous, I chuckled to myself all day.
Please feel free to visit often - and choke on your cornflakes as you read us. The truth can hurt sometimes. There is more than ONE view of women.(y'know - other than the earth mother, war hating multi-tasking beatific goddess view).
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:57 PM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
immature ranting of a single guy who doesn't plan to have kids or feels threatened by women (and god forbid mothers) in the workplace.
The world doesn't evolve around you, please stop indulging in the silly "it's all about me" sentiments that tells you that people felt threatened when you does this and angry when you does that. I can assure you that the majority of the people in this world don't give a damn about what you do so long as it's not at their expense.
Indeed, if it's OK to pay women less or pass over them for promotions because of the pregnancy factor, I find it appalling to suggest that when it comes time for divorce, that women shouldn't be automatically granted custody of children.
You are saying that if she can't have children at the expenses of her colleages and employer she should be granted the special privilege of automatically having the custody of children in the event of divorce. So, someone just have to got to suffer for choices women made, and it's all 'give and take' according to you. Why do you people keeping have such sense of entitlement.
It's worth noting that hidden in your statement is the assumption that the father of the child does nothing, this is ignoring the fact that if a women does chooses stays at home to look after children whether on a temp or perm basis, the father got to work and provide.
If you want your career while having childrens; by all means go ahead. But not at the expenses of others. Stop pretending that you're discriminated, people don't own you anything in the very first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 07:36 PM February 3rd, 2005 EST (#28)
|
|
|
|
|
So true, Thomas.
Men should not be treated like worker drones. Many women take only a few weeks off for a pregnancy. Fathers as well as mothers should be given real choice about spending time with their children or working. And it is outrageous that child custody decisions continued to grossly deprive men of an equal opportunity for contact with their children.
Defending the indefensible just makes feminazis look even more fascist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 12:01 PM February 4th, 2005 EST (#33)
|
|
|
|
|
Indeed, if it's OK to pay women less or pass over them for promotions because of the pregnancy factor, I find it appalling to suggest that when it comes time for divorce, that women shouldn't be automatically granted custody of children. It's women who take the time off of work to care for an bond with their offspring, and they pay the price for it. So why not give them custody 90% of the time?
It's not the "pregnancy factor", or some sort of discrimination. Equality means equality... if you don't do the time at work, you don't get the seniority, the money, or the promotion. You aren't giving to the company what someone else does, why should you be rewarded? Should you give a raise to a low performer instead of a high performer?
Basically, what you are saying is that pregnancy requires an affirmative action in the workplace - in other words, because a woman MAKES A CHOICE to have a child, that choice should not affect the rest of her life, especially her career.
And you are also saying that if a woman is forced to bear the responsibility of her choice, she should be rewarded with custody of the children (not to mention the "massa" wages paid by their father). Can you be any more sexist and deluded?
If I choose to take time off for personal reasons, I don't expect that my company has to pretend that I'm still working there, growing in skill, doing a good job for them... I'm not!
Basically, feminism told women they could have it all, and it turns out they can't... some of their choices have consequences. But instead of bearing responsibility for those choices, feminists now want to legislatively force men )and childless people) to bear the responsibility for women's choices. Can you say victim mentality?
Get a frigging clue, Mr. Anonymous User "I'm going to be showing people what the men's movement is really about". Don't bother to post unless you can think about the real message hidden in what you say.
Hurkle, who forgot his password and doesn't want to wait for it to post...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thomas on 12:43 PM February 4th, 2005 EST (#36)
|
|
|
|
|
If I choose to take time off for personal reasons, I don't expect that my company has to pretend that I'm still working there
Exactly, Hurkle. If I have a job as an electrical engineer, or as a line worker in a widget factory, and I decide to take five years away from work to travel, or to pursue a lifelong dream of playing big band jazz, or to be with my children, or to take up landscape painting, the company for which I work does not owe me a living while I'm engaged in any of those activities. Also, when I return to my job, I do not have the right to force the company to place me in the position and pay me the salary of someone who was in my position five years earlier but stayed with the company the whole time.
In addition, if I take five years off from work to do one of those things, I'm supported by my spouse while I do it, and I have to take up where I left off when I return to work (and that's provided I haven't forgotten a lot and should return at a lower level), I do not have a greater claim to child custody (or for that matter to possessions and savings), if I then choose to divorce my spouse.
One of the basic tenets of feminism/one-sided chivalry is that women are oppressed if they aren't paid the same as men for far less work in a given field. I haven't read it yet, but apparently one of the points of Warren Farrell's newest book, "Why Men Earn More," is that for a given background, ability, and amount of work in a given field, women are paid at least as much as and often more than men.
Yet the feminists/one-sided chivalrists continue to claim that women suffer from a wage gap.
Thomas
-- Creating hostile environments for feminazis since the 1970s.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:55 PM February 4th, 2005 EST (#40)
|
|
|
|
|
"wage gap"
The only gap that feminists suffer from is the one between their ears!
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:19 PM February 7th, 2005 EST (#43)
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm - not a woman or a feminist? Who cares, I'm glad you've bookmarked this site.
I know it bugs you that it exists.
I want you to fume self righteously each time sickening hypocrisies are pointed out.
Your pregnant woman/salary "discrimination" = automatic child custody was so ludicrous, I chuckled to myself all day.
Please feel free to visit often - and choke on your cornflakes as you read us. The truth can hurt sometimes. There is more than ONE view of women.(y'know - other than the earth mother, war hating multi-tasking beatific goddess view).
Thanks.
Rob
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
