|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
by mcc99 on 02:10 PM January 27th, 2006 EST (#1)
|
|
|
|
|
Canada's going down a rreeallllyyy slipperly slope with this decision (not that our own Supreme Court here in the US of A is any more enlightened about a lot of things...). I do believe the Russians tried this sort of thinking and it resulted in some pretty disastrous consequences. I will hope for the best for you all, northern neighbors!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 02:34 PM January 27th, 2006 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
Well, then male fashion models should then be paid the same amount as female fashion models.
Currently male models make much less than their female counterparts.
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by MR on 02:48 PM January 27th, 2006 EST (#3)
|
|
|
|
|
Certainly, underpaid male custodians should be making what overpaid women's studies instructors are in colleges and universities if "commie" comparable worth becomes the law in Canada.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Thundercloud on 12:02 PM January 28th, 2006 EST (#17)
|
|
|
|
|
MR said;
>"Certainly, underpaid male custodians should be making what overpaid women's studies instructors are in collages and universities"
As a part time janitor, I certainly would be for that! :-)
Thundercloud.
"Hoka hey!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Baniadam on 04:55 PM January 27th, 2006 EST (#4)
|
|
|
|
|
The ultimate goal of feminism is socialism... a true feminist can't call herself a feminist unless she is a socialist.
Even those who claim they are not, are lying. For the objectives and the vast control they want to give to government would lend it to socialism.
And what is the next step up... Communism(?)
"We have to abolish and reform the institution of marriage ... By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God ... We must understand what we are attempting is a revolution, not a public relations movement."
- Gloria Steinem, quoted in the Saturday Review of Education, March 1973
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 07:02 PM January 27th, 2006 EST (#6)
|
|
|
|
|
I have decided to move to Canada, where I will soon be able to watch TV (that's my job as a self-employed media critic) and successfully sue on the basis that I should be paid as much as any television executive who actually makes television programming.
But before I move, I'm going to sue the owner of Mensactivism web site, because obviously my "work" as a poster should be held up as at least equivalent to his efforts in creating the actual web forum.
Without my equivalent "work," where would he be?
As the esteemed Canadian justices have proved, there is no qualitative difference between throwing peanuts at airborn captives and spewing cybertext at virtual ones.
MEMO to Mensactivism's attorney: I am willing to settle this potentially expensive matter out of court....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And I say "nonexistant" because socialism is about the state trying to advance the well-being of *everyone* not just one sex.
What you're overlooking is the means. Sure, the stated ends might be different (though I'm not necessarily convinced of that), but the means to achieve those ends are virtually identical:
Ever-increasing government controls.
Wow, so Orrin Hatch is a socialist, eh?
To the extent that he advocates more and more government control of private property and industry, while at the same time advocating the redistribution of wealth into various social programs. (VAWA, anyone?)
Orrin Hatch and Gloria Steinem have one basic thing in common: the heart of Immanuel Kant beats in both of them.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Doesn't matter when the goals are totally opposed. It would be like calling the GOP a socialist party because they want to pass laws to ban abortion and gay marriage because the means are "virtually identical".
You're overlooking the philosophical element. Philosophically feminism and socialism are identical in that they both depend on the Kantian notion of "duty" to define good.
If "good" is no longer defined in terms of one's duty (be it to the poor, the gender, the race, the country, whatever), the feminism/socialism are then rendered powerless. Feminism preaches a morality of "good" based on duty and sacrifice, and is put into practice through such laws as VAWA. Socialism preaches the same moral code (duty and sacrifice, only to the poor instead of one gender), and puts its moral code into practice in the same manner: the redistribution of wealth.
You can try to spin and deny it, but feminism and socialism share the same common philosophy: the perverted thought process of Immanuel Kant.
"Existence exists. A is A." -Ayn Rand
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by klp on 05:11 PM January 27th, 2006 EST (#5)
|
|
|
|
|
Could nonsense like this be the reason that Harper the conservative got elected?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 07:44 PM January 27th, 2006 EST (#7)
|
|
|
|
|
Renumeration for contribution should be equated with the responsibility of the position. By comparing waitresses on airplanes to People that make sure the plane doesn't crash(mechanics), and People that actually fly the plane,(pilots) is just plain stupid! I don't believe that there is any law that precludes Women from learning either job that they are comparing themselves to. If they want to get more renumeration they should learn a different job that has more responsibility. Simple. Equating feminism with socialism is like equating the KKK to the rainbow coalition, or the burning man get together. Feminists aren't socialists, they are much closer to facsists, or totalitarian egoists that believe that to be right you have to have a vagina!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Roy on 12:18 AM January 28th, 2006 EST (#9)
|
|
|
|
|
It's a well made argument, best supported by using the actual noun --- remuneration.
"Renumeration" is not in the dictionary ... yet... but it should be!
I renominate it for re-meaning all feminist reinterpretations for "getting paid to lie."
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 10:25 AM January 28th, 2006 EST (#15)
|
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the correction of my spelling. I have now pulled my dictionary from the drawer to my table, space is a commodity where I am at, but having the dictionary at hand will ensure that I do not butcher the kings english as bad as I have, maybe!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only way to wake everyone up, would be to get the Court Clerks to demand equal pay with the Judge !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 11:13 AM January 28th, 2006 EST (#16)
|
|
|
|
|
Since the court clerks actually have some control over what some judges see, it could be argued that their actual control in our court systems is greater than that of the judges. I am sure that they have thought about it, but if they were to start a movement to receive equal pay with judges we might have to examine the system a little closer. "Most" of the judges that I have seen in action are more concerned with not rocking the "boat" by not thinking about the case, and giving whatever the d.a. asks for. Almost like captured monkeys that perform for their meager care.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 10:05 PM January 27th, 2006 EST (#8)
|
|
|
|
|
These women are claiming that defibrillating, evacuating, etc. are serious jobs that should be ranked with piloting and air mechanics. However, my guess is that at least the pilots could and probably are able to perform all of these jobs as well -- not to mention doing something as worthless as flying a plane.
(Note: the fact that computers fly the plane much of the time isn't really the point. The point has to do with what the market sets as a price for the necessary training/risk/ability/demand.)
It's really frightening that this even has to be elaborated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 12:52 AM January 28th, 2006 EST (#10)
|
|
|
|
|
I realize that cabin crews do more than shlep lousy food, brotherskeeper, and obviously I was being sarcastic in the item when I submitted it, as I'm sure you realize. I also realize that there are men in these unions who will see a reward they didn't earn either from this sexism, to some limited extent, and like the women driving this case, they should be ashamed of themselves. It would be one thing if male cabin crew members were paid more than female cabin crew members, but that isn't the basis of the claim.
What irritates me to no end is that the gynarchy I live in has decreed that men and our skills, courage, competitiveness and sense of responsibility are all worthless, despite the fact that these are the very things women need to drain from men to support that same gynarchy. Yet, instead of expecting women to live up to the same high standards we're expected to meet in all walks of life, they're just going to change the rules so women get the same rights and privileges and compensation as men (more, in many, many cases), even if they never come close to the same levels of training, responsibility or professionalism and are never expected to carry a man's burdens. The fact that men are simply more competitive and responsible (willingness to take risks, carrying the financial burdens of supporting families and society, going off to war and dying to protect their countries, starting new businesses and exploring new areas), is the very reason that women who work for themselves earn 49% of what men who work for themselves do, even though women have superior access to government incentives and assistance and better access to higher education. I'm sure some angry feminist is busy writing about how women who work for themselves are oppressed by some man or another, but I don't buy that line of crap either, any more than I accept dual standards for female criminals and child abusers.
Between paternity-fraud-laden "mommy" support, no-fault alimony and the nearly universal transfer of wealth from men to women through the taxation of men's wages and the ever-expanding life expectancy gap, the gynarchy has created a system where a woman doesn't have to be or do anything at all, is exempt from the responsibilities and social and criminal penalties men face every damned day, and is still basically assured a good standard of living and an infinite range of choices, all at the expense of the men in society. It's discriminatory, disgusting and shameful, as are the women who happily take advantage of such a system with big, self-indulgent grins on their faces, all while pissing and moaning about how unfair life is to women. Female greed knows no limits, which makes sense as an evolutionary adaptation from a biological perspective, but that's another rant.
To summarize my thoughts: women think 'equality' means giving women whatever men have, even if those women don't earn it and aren't held to any similar standards of responsibility or merit. I suppose I could include some sort of disclaimer for the exceedingly rare women who actually "choose" to hold themselves to the same standards we face every day, but I won't, since that woman's right to "choose" not to do so is paid for by our lack thereof and our labour, and the vast majority of women clearly feel they are simply entitled. It must be nice to think the world owes you a right to "choose" whether or not to be a responsible human being because you have a vagina.
This isn't equality: it's a grostesque level of systematic exploitation of men, active, legislated discrimination against men, and the granting of special privileges to women.
To those women who actively support our cause of establishing true legal and social equality for both men and women, I have to apologize if you feel you've been unfairly lumped in with the other 95% of women in my ranting: we men actually do owe you a debt of gratitude for your support and intellectual honesty in a world of hateful, misandric ideology, and you may always assume that a) you have my personal thanks and admiration for your efforts and b) I consider you at the very least, my equal.
Sorry to rant so long folks, but this particular ruling has really, really pissed me off by exposing female greed and the average woman's idea of "equality" for what they really are.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Davidadelong on 03:33 PM January 28th, 2006 EST (#18)
|
|
|
|
|
Very good points, and statement. One of those, gee I wish I had said that! I didn't, and you did so well............
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by brotherskeeper on 12:27 AM January 29th, 2006 EST (#21)
|
|
|
|
|
Random Man,
I'm right with you.
When I stated that pilots could do all of the things listed as well as fly the plane, I was taking a (admittedly snide) swipe at these supremely selfish, pretentious attendants.
I'm in full agreement with your points.
Consider me a,
brotherskeeper
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by MAUS on 03:57 PM January 28th, 2006 EST (#19)
|
|
|
|
|
I work for the government of Canada. I am also a trade unionist. I happen to have been the shop stewart who represented the first of fourteen grievours in the highly controversial "pay equity" case for Canadian public servants.
Yes...that's right...nasty old MAUS..who has nothing good to say about feminists.
This judgement does not say that flight attendants should be paid the same as pilots.
The law in Canada states that people WORKING FOR THE SAME EMPLOYER doing jobs evaluated by a federally approved classification standards system (the one by which their own employees are evaluated) shall not be discriminated against in wage level by virtue of their gender.
This particular employer tried to worm out of that by saying that the fact that they bargain with more than one union should be grounds for exemption.
It was not grounds for exemption for the government.
Just by the way....I have come up with a formula...based on nearly twenty years of experience of dealing with this sort of thing down where the rubber meets the road that would stop this whining once and for all.
To put it in a nutshell...using the government's own classification standards...any woman who felt aggrieved could apply to Revenue Canada for income tax relief that would give her an after tax salary that was equal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 03:07 AM January 29th, 2006 EST (#22)
|
|
|
|
|
How very nice that a man got a job with the government, MAUS, since the pulic service has long since advertised, directly and otherwise, that white males need not apply.
MAUS, I understand the basis of Canada's employment equity laws thoroughly, I've been involved in their implementation (against my better judgement). Unfortunately, I refuse to hire anyone or pay them on any basis except merit, regardless of what the government might have to say.
The system we have assumes that the classifications across an organization are set fairly (assuming these women are trying to compare themselves across the organization as a whole - read on). Therein lies the problem: I believe that they are not, and that we are now consistently overrating the types of work "dominated" by women in order to make up for a non-existent "wage gap". Furthermore, it is not clear to me whether these women are seeking to be compared by classifications applied across the entire organization, where the work of a commercial pilot or skilled mechanic would clearly be far more valuable than that of a flight attendant, or if they are seeking to have their classification within a specific, "female-dominated" union compared unfairly to the union-specific classifications within a different bargaining unit that happens to be dominated by men who work at entirely different positions of greater skill and responsibility. A top-ranked cabin crew member within the flight attendant's union is not worth the same as a top-ranked pilot within the pilot's union. See where I'm going here?
Comparing classifications or pay bands assigned to a person based on position and experience/tenure which are set across the entire organization would be an "apples to apples" comparison, whereas comparing union-specific classifications between unions would not, again assuming that the classifications aren't already weighted to over-value the work of women because of the gynarchy's assumption that women are always "victims" of discrimination. Any idea which is the case here? I assumed they were looking to compare apples to oranges, as usual. Why? Well, please re-read the thrust of the article:
The court sent the case back to the Canadian Human Rights Commission to determine if Air Canada actually discriminated against the flight attendants by paying them less for work of equal value to that of the male-dominated pilots and ground crews.
Note the implied conclusion that their work is somehow of equal value to that of a pilot, and that the company must have been giving anyone in a "male-dominated" position preferential treatment.
Air Canada's approach, if it had been endorsed, would ”turn collective bargaining into a tool to consolidate discriminatory practices,” the justices said.
We can also safely assume that if the union is trying to compare their apples to the pilot's oranges and the ground crew's bananas, that this ruling turns collective bargaining into a tool to overvalue the work of women and to consolidate discriminatory practices against men: simply concentrate women in a single bargaining unit, set your own classifications within your unit and then compare with another bargaining unit's classifications and claim discrimination, even if what you do is completely different from the work performed by the members of the other bargaining unit, and is of radically different value.
I will be watching very closely to see if this results in a further, artificial promotion of the classification of the positions women "dominate", an outcome legally turning (and note that I am quoting directly from the ruling), collective bargaining into a tool to consolidate discriminatory practices against men, which apparently the Supreme Court feels is just fine, despite the fact that the entire basis of their ruling here is that the very same thing might be done to women, or a simple, outright sexist ruling against the more skilled and trained men in the other unions. I fully expect to be disappointed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 03:15 AM January 29th, 2006 EST (#23)
|
|
|
|
|
To put it in a nutshell...using the government's own classification standards...any woman who felt aggrieved could apply to Revenue Canada for income tax relief that would give her an after tax salary that was equal.
Why do you feel that this relief should only be available to women, when it's been demonstrated that women are actually slightly better paid than men with the same training and years of experience provided the man and woman have made the same career choices? Shouldn't some concession be made for the fact that men have a more difficult time obtaining the same education as women today?
Couldn't resist the urge to play devil's advocate here...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by MAUS on 02:26 PM January 29th, 2006 EST (#24)
|
|
|
|
|
I would be the last to deny that you were right on all counts.
In my department men have clearly become the minority and I doubt that there is so much as one job classification left in my department that is "male dominated".
The reason why I fought so hard for the original pay equity settlement was that the complainant who came to me was not a matter of apples and oranges...it was a matter of MacIntoshes and Granny Smiths. Too many departments were getting away with pay inequity between people who were doing substantively the same thing by calling it something different. I happen to be in one of the effected groups and just because I do "women's work" does not mean that I am going to put up with being underpaid.
Now being the old school trade unionist that I am, I deeply resent the notion that when a man gets hired, his wage level is determined by measuring his snap-on tool and applying a formula based on length and calibur.
Wages,like any other commodity are determined by supply and demand. Baseball and hockey players are not more valuable to society than those who get less.
If women want more they should be less willing to scab...those who settle for less get less...go buy a pair of thick soled walking shoes and be perpared to put some milage in on the picket line.
My reason for supporting this is that....granted you could argue about the aptness of a law...but the laws are what they are and employers are not above the law...even if they are the government or an auxilliary of the government...spider got caught in it's own web.
The reason why I came out of reclusion and rejoined the anti-feminist fight was that report that SOW commissioned the witches of Laval to write. With the exception of the SCUM Manifesto it is the most outrageous, inflamatory thing I have ever read...and THAT is saying something. When Sheila Copps was put under fire in question period about the continuing validity of SOW she had the audacity to play the pay equity thing as a wild card trump and her critics were suddenly dumbfounded....had I been present I would have booted her in the snatch and done the time with my head held high...her own government stonewalled pay equity for the government's own employees and overpaid a feminist lawyer for years to fight it.
If THAT is the final defense for retaining the appointees of SOW and the mutual admiration society that they give grants too then it is a bargain at the price.
You are very adept Devil's Advocate and obviously knowledgeable...if you have not already done so, you should consider offering yourself as a wage negotiator for your union.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by RandomMan on 02:55 PM January 29th, 2006 EST (#25)
|
|
|
|
|
Better yet, I went my own way and now charge outrageous amounts of money to do dignified work in an environment free of pheminist influence. I advise labourers everywhere I go of their rights at every opportunity, free of charge. I save the invoices for the feminist-influenced establishments they work for.
I was just coming back to post this when I spotted your reply:
Please don't misunderstand my comments, MAUS, I never for a moment doubted your intent. I'm a frequent reader of manpower, and I completely understand why you participated in the original suit and are supporting this one. Men are also included in that flight attendant's union, so I suppose it's better that a few of our enemies benefit so a few of our brothers can too.
As for that cunt Copps and her beloved SOWs, be of good cheer, MAUS. The Liberals who funded Canadian feminism lost. With any luck, a man might yet be appointed to a position of some authority within the Canadian order of preference/succession. We can even try to have a male equivalent of SOW created, but I don't like our chances, even with a right-wing majority government, if we ever have one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think my sister (a stewardess who has just received her commercial pilot's license) is going to be right ticked off when I show her this article. While she feels flight attendants are under appreciated, I know for a fact that she does not consider their responsiblities comperable to that of pilots.
I rember talking to a commercial pilot that I used to sky-dive with. He was retired and when I asked why he retired (he was kind of young to have retired) he said that being a commercial pilot is really easy now. Computers do all of the flying. Really pilots get paid more than the amount of work they do, but when something goes wrong, they earn every penny they have ever been paid . He wouldn't elaborate on that, but by the look on this face, I believe him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
RandomMan writes "According to this recent decision here in Canada, highly trained and experienced commercial pilots and skilled aircraft mechanics should not be paid more than women who spend most of their time handing out peanuts, serving lousy food, scowling at passengers and forcing males from their pre-assigned seats next to unaccompanied children (story