|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 11:48 AM May 27th, 2005 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
On the Discover Channel they've been doing a series on Alaska fishermen, and they have been documenting how it is the deadliest occupation in the world.
Literally, every time a ship goes out a male is injured, washed overboard, or may even die.
Yet, there are no women! I would like to see Warren expose this cowardice of women and paint these men as hero's. They literally risk their lives to feed the nation. How are they thanked? The feminist paint them as the enemy and oppressors of women. They treat these hero’s like shit.
By contrast the Marxist-Feminist want to eliminate free-market forces and introduce comparable worth crap to justify redistributing the wages of the fisherman to some female grade school teacher who is in a cushy job.
Let's expose the Marxist-Feminist for what they are. Illustrate that they are demaning nothing more than a free handout and choosing to avoid high risk occupations.
Warble
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Tumescent on 01:18 PM May 27th, 2005 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
I wouldn't go so far as to say Alaska fishermen are Heroes. They do the dirty, dangerous work because it pays well-- better than if they chose to do something safer and easier. That is one of the reasons that men on average get paid more than women-- they earn it. Women have a tendancy to do the jobs that are not as dangerous so they get paid less on average. It's all explained in Farrell's book
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:05 PM May 27th, 2005 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
"I wouldn't go so far as to say Alaska fishermen are Heroes. They do the dirty, dangerous work because it pays well--"
I remember W.F. saying to a group, when he was campaigning for Governor of CA, that the etymology (origin) of the word "hero" goes back to the Greek word, "slave."
I took W.F's. explanation to mean that society imparts a nobility to the sacrifice and courage of the "hero" that belies the exploitation of the "slave" - the "slave" that society has conditioned to do the "dirty work."
This is a touchy area that it gets into fundamental questions of who we are as human beings. What are we born to be through biology, and what are we conditioned to be through societal expectations, education, etc.?
I think the death stats support that men are conditioned to a large degree by "factors" to be disposable. It is adding insult to injury to have gender feminists portray us as "privileged" on top of the abuse that we are programmed from birth to be our lot in life.
Ray
Death Is The Greatest Indicatior of Oppression/Death Stats Click View Larger, especially back. Disregard other info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by dschmidt on 02:29 PM May 27th, 2005 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I remember W.F. saying to a group, when he was campaigning for Governor of CA, that the etymology (origin) of the word "hero" goes back to the Greek word, "slave."
While that would certainly be a delicious tidbit were it true, I wouldn't claim so to any hostile parties in debate unless/until you find a more credible source for it than this.
In the cause,
David S.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:52 PM May 27th, 2005 EST (#12)
|
|
|
|
|
"I remember W.F. saying to a group, when he was campaigning for Governor of CA, that the etymology (origin) of the word "hero" goes back to the Greek word, "slave."
I never looked it up, but that's what I recall Farrell saying. Here is what I found in Webster's 3rd New International:
hero [back formation fr. heroes, pl., fr. ME, fr. L., fr. Gk. heroes pl. of heros; akin to L. servare to protect - more at serve]
Take that one step further and type in servant in the etymology dictionary and you will see the word slave. I don't seem to recall to many "free servants" in Greek and Roman times.
In Greek and Roman times a hero was akin to a servant or slave who protects. Obviously words change greatly over time, and that is the beauty of the word etymology (tracking the meaning of the word through time).
All that being said the Oxford English Dictionary would probably give the best eytomolgy. I'll try to give it a look later tonight, but it's small stuff and my eyes are weak.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:39 PM May 27th, 2005 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
"How are they thanked? The feminist paint them as the enemy and oppressors of women."
In air-headed women's studies classes in California, men are portrayed as "Privileged Patriarchs" who unfairly earn more than women do. They are vilified as oppressors who use power and control in the workforce, and everywhere else, to keep women subordinate to men.
However, according to statistics over 90% of people killed or seriously injured on jobs are men. "Why do men earn more?," because they take the dangerous jobs that women won't take. They take the dangerous jobs for a variety of reasons, but high up among the reasons are: "to care for their families," or "to get ahead," or "to help their families to get ahead."
I've always despised people who try to tear other people down to get ahead, rather than earn it on their own ability and hard work.
I salute Warren for writing a truthful book showing how men earn the money, and how women can earn the same money if they are up to making the same sacrifices.
Discrimination in hiring and promotion (based on one's sex) is illegal and has been since the 60's. If there is all this discrimination, where the heck are all the lawsuits? Ms. Burke cites one (1). If a good capitalist employer could get women (who do the same work as men) for less money, he/she would be falling all over himself/herself to get such a deal. Hmmm?
Once again, common sense and truth are the main factors the gender feminist argument is lacking.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 04:38 PM May 27th, 2005 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
I work in a steel factory. Material handling products that require engineering, forming, welding, painting, and shipping actual material very heavy objects.
Men --- and only men --- labor mightily every day to pound steel into useful tools to make industrial production more efficient.
Most women --- and damn few feminists --- could even conceive of this kind of work.
It's hot, dirty, smokey, noisy, dangerous actual "work."
The only females in the corporation are upstairs in the nice clean office, answering phones for more money than an entry-level male laborer gets.
No feminists have ever picketed the firm for discriminating against women seeking these hard, dirty jobs.
You gotta wonder why....
Because it's a clear case of gender discrimination!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 09:19 PM May 27th, 2005 EST (#11)
|
|
|
|
|
It's quite possible that it is the "free market forces" that create the conditions that some people, usually men, would so willingly choose to do such dangerous work in the first place.
Of course, the Socialist state would have to force you to do the work as one would do a slave for they lack the carrot. And so use the stick.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Underage on 05:09 PM May 27th, 2005 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
This is really great news to men's rights activists to have Warren Farrell on such a big show. However, remember it is 20/20 we are talking about. MEDIA=bombarded by feminism. No matter what, atleast one time on the show they will portray women as victims and men as oppressors. And hopefully not, but most likely at the end they will end with a quote that is pro-female and even perhaps anti-male. Just don't get your hopes to high guys. But in the rare occasion that everything does turn out right (and all feminist lies are exposed)-PARTY HARD AFTERWARDS!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Underage on 05:29 PM May 27th, 2005 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
Okay, sorry I am posting again, but I need to. It is absolutely important. I just came from doing some research on tonight's episode of 20/20 and by above theory was 100% correct. If you go to http://abcnews.go.com/2020/ and then click on the Is the Wage Gap Women's Choice? article you will find some misandry that makes me look at Warren Farrell in a different light (well, he was a feminist-and obviously still is). The article concludes with this quote:
"Women and men look at their life, and women say, 'What do I need? Do I need more money, or do I need more time?' And women are intelligent enough to say, I need more time. And so women lead balanced lives, men should be learning from women."
PLEASE DO NOT SUPPORT THIS EPISODE OF 20/20. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME TO BE PRACTICLY CALLED UNINTELLIGENT.
GUYS ROCK!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 06:14 AM May 28th, 2005 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Hey! This bag of diamonds you just gave me has a lump of coal in it! How dare you give me a lump of coal! Take it all back!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by zenpriest on 07:01 PM May 27th, 2005 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I hate to be a wet blanket, but I went to the 20/20 page and saw that sharing tonight's show will be another "husband who probably murdered his wife" sensationalist piece. I read part of the blurb about it and it did paint an interesting picture of a man pushed really hard to support the children his wife wanted, diagnosed with an incurable disease, and in a marriage which seemed to have few positives.
Perhaps the most chilling part was this -
'At the request of a victims' advocacy group, veteran prosecutor Lela Henke-Dobroth reviewed the evidence of the case with the aim of delivering an objective law enforcement perspective. Her conclusion? "The bottom line was that this case should have at all times been investigated as a homicide and that Mark Adanalian should be, and should have been at all times, the primary suspect and that was not done," she said." '
20/20 may giveth with one hand, but it seems to have to taketh away with the other. The juxtaposition of the 2 stories is just too surreal - a guy busting his butt on the male side of the mythical "wage-gap" to take care of the children his wife wanted "should" be the primary suspect if anything happens to her, just as Jennifer Willbanks fiance was immediately a suspect in her disappearance. I think I will pass - on the show, on busting my butt to support a woman and the children she wants and which the courts would inevitably give to her (along with most of my butt-busted-earned income) if she got tired of me, and on Farrell's shilling to sell copies of his books. I have heard that it contains suggestions for women in how to raise their incomes in male-dominated industries still without taking the risks men take. That isn't a pro-male enough message for me to shell out hard-earned bucks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Gregory on 10:05 PM May 27th, 2005 EST (#13)
|
|
|
|
|
I just watched John Stossel's "Give Me A Break" piece on 20/20 (May 27)in which he interviewed Warren Farrell about the gender wage gap. I wasn't disappointed in Farrell's comments and I appreciate Stossel's challenge to the wage gap discrimination myth. Stossel's "Give Me A Break" pieces are refreshing and enlightening. I've read Farrell's book "Why Men Earn More" and I came away feeling that it was informative, well researched, carefully reasoned and male-positive.
I agree that the TV networks are up to their usual practice of airing lots of stories about men who murder or abuse their intimate partners. This is typical mainstream media behavior. But I was somewhat encouraged by the major networks' airing a little while back of at least a couple of stories about abusive, murderous women (wives and ex-wives) who cruelly and pre-meditatedly killed their husbands and an ex-husband. These stories were IMO relatively tough on the women and didn't paint them as poor pitiful victims.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by zenpriest on 12:46 AM May 28th, 2005 EST (#14)
|
|
|
|
|
I'm glad that TV is FINALLY beginning to show the other side of the picture. However, since I got rid of my TV back in the 70s, the fact that it is less bad now than it was 2 years ago is not enough to motivate me to go out and get one.
I wish men could get organized and angry enough to start completely turning their backs on the advertisers who support this garbage. They do it because they are going for the money, and I think hitting them in the wallet will motivate change far faster than any degree of supplication and hoping.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:21 AM May 28th, 2005 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Sorry Glenn, and I know it's a different venue, but you let Martha Burke run on and on, when you should have been letting Farrell refute her B.S.
The feminist case went 1st on 20/20, and concluded with Burke's comments. It was then Stossel and Farrell's turn, and I loved Stossel repeated comment "Give me a break!" pointing out the asinine argumentation used by the feminists in support of the wage gap myth.
The weakest comment coming from Farrell was when he said that "women are 'smarter' in making career choices that lead to better quality lives and safer longer lives." Personally, I think soietal conditioning has as much to do with that as anything, but a small slip in an otherwise excellent presentation. Overall it was an excellent interview that concluded (ended) with the refutation of the feminist position. In other words the conclusion was that the greatly hyped wage gap is just another big fat femi-nut myth.
I'm off to Amazon to buy another copy of Warren's book. I already have one, but W.F. did well enough. He deserves it.
Sincerely, Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Gregory on 09:42 AM May 28th, 2005 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
I also was disappointed that Glenn Sacks didn't give Warren Farrell more opportunity to counter Burke's feminist crap. But Glenn usually does a pretty good job of pointing out the weaknesses in the feminist world view. And for that he deserves much credit.
Farrell has been saying (at least since The Myth of Male Power) that women have more lifestyle options than men and a greater ability to tailor their work life to their personalities -- thanks in part to the sacfrifices of men. What I wish he had emphasized in the Stossel piece is that it is male sacrifice that allows women the options and protections they enjoy -- and that it is women's attraction to successful men that contributes to men's drive to become financially successful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by mens_issues on 09:06 AM May 28th, 2005 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Isn't Martha's Whineyard somewhere off the coast of Massachusetts?
Martha's whine also sounds like a small family-owned winery somewhere in California.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 02:10 PM May 28th, 2005 EST (#20)
|
|
|
|
|
It's pretty clear that 20/20's audience is largely female. Stossel introduced the wage piece by fretting that he's going to get a lot of angry e-mails. And then there was that gross, suspected wife-killer "investigative" story. This is the sort of schlock women today eat up. Just reminds me to screen very carefully the women I date because I won't go out with any woman who isn't outraged about the misandry being spewed about today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 01:36 PM May 29th, 2005 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
You don't go out much, then do you?
Neither do I.
Actually, I don't go out at all, anymore. Almost all the women I have ever met have a negetive view of men and make anti-male comments. I can't remember the last time I have heared a woman say something good about men.
You do get the exeption to the rule now and then, but I haven't met her yet...,
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
