Feminists are ruining men.

[Kamille]

That's interesting, because I'm the only one here who ever offers any.

:lmao:

No you don't and you know it. You're a pure propagandist. That or you're so convinced with your bs that you no longer care to use reliable evidence and sources.

 

Well, I had fun. Dase. Hope we can do this again sometime. Enjoy raging at the world all you want. Little tip: you could be more convincing if you were more open to actual dialogue.

[Woggle]

The problem is not feminism but the gender haters that hide behind it to deflect themselves from criticism. They make it so that a man can't respond to the misandrists without being accused of trying to send women back to the kitchen.

[phineas]

The problem is not feminism but the gender haters that hide behind it to deflect themselves from criticism. They make it so that a man can't respond to the misandrists without being accused of trying to send women back to the kitchen.

 

YEP!

 

Their no better than the people that call someone a racist because they criticize the president.

[phineas]

 

 

 

Delusional much? Ever consulted a census?

 

 

 

Census. LOL! I told the last jerk who called me I voted for Gene Amondson in the last election.

 

What census are you specifically citing?

Link please.

 

 

Ever consult a company payroll?

 

I have.

I can tell you that you are full of it if you are claiming corporations pay men more than women when both are doing the same job.

 

we are in a society where women run the show just as much as men do.

 

So don't try & tell me that women running departments pay their women employee's less than the men.

 

However, I have heard female VP's wishing they had more men working for them because men don't get pregnant & leave them short-handed.

[dasein]

Yawn. So tell us Dase, what does a post-feminist society look like?

 

It looks like a pre Roosevelt constitutional union, a Jeffersonian democracy, with power seated primarily locally, in states and municipalities, as opposed to a centralized corrupt bureaucracy, a government not large enough to become coopted by and beholden to various factions, a government with very little power to spew out an endless, expensive regulatory morass and entrench itself other than as necessary to the few legitimate functions of central government described in Locke and strictly enumerated in the Constitution.

 

There would be a possibility of short term expedient government action in times of crisis, but such actions would be verboten without explicit, inviolable sunsets in place from their inception outside of actual Constitutional amendment. The federal govenrment would cease to be a wealth transfer mechanism and would not engage in the provision of goods and services (social security, medicare, socialized medicine). In short, the government that would likely have emerged from post WW2 had FDR policies been properly sunset and not expanded by the left (and eventually the coopted right).

 

The left, fueled primarily by the feminist voting bloc, also by its successes in coopting the civil rights movement, and the Viet Nam war, perpetuated and enlarged bad Keynesian social policy to an unsustainable degree in the 60s and beyond. The right followed suit in making the exact same mistakes in an attempt to buy votes via expediency in response to its near demise. Remove feminism from the left, socialism becomes completely irrelevant in all its forms in the U.S. at the end of the cold war, meaningful government reform is accomplished. Profit for all. I can only dream.

 

Delusional much? Ever consulted a census?

 

You're delusional if you are relying on raw census data for evidence of a wage disparity. People who take time off from work to have kids (or perfect their golf swing) are not as valuable in the labor marketplace as those who stick around and gain experience at a younger age. Only in the bizarrely statistically challenged land of femthink is there a real wage gap. If you want to prove one it's on you to do so. If whatever you cite isn't properly adjusted to account for the tendencies of women to leave the workforce, work fewer hours/more part time, and work in lower paying less dangerous jobs, I won't bother responding. There is no material wage gap.

 

Why do you think more men and women are, for the first time in US-Canada history, equally employed? Yes, because companies are non-unionized and mostly focused on the service industries. That means more insecure, low-paying jobs.

 

I don't see a point in here, at least not one responsive to what I posted about the wage gap being disproven by competitive pressures.

 

Right. So you're not divisive eh? You care as much about women as men. You're incoherent Dasein. One minute you spout off about inequalities and then you argue that the 14% conviction rate on rape cases is too high. That the burden of proof lies on the part of the prosecuted and not the victim. That consent, ie, agreeing to have sex, is ill-defined. Spend your time better dear. Go tell men consent is sexy.

 

No idea what distortion of elementary statistics is taking place to get to a 14% conviction rate for rape, but I have a good idea. The statistics surrounding rape are perhaps the most absurdly doctored and made up stats in all of the mountain of feminist lies. That rape statistics are either manufactured or massaged in absurd ways proves everything I say about feminism to be true. Will post a law review article on rape stats soon for readers to consider and make up their own minds.

 

So why would you want to position yourself as a victim then, and literally counter-argue using the type of discursive tactics you say you despise.

 

The negation of a thing is not the opposite thing, keep trying to identify false dialectics.

 

I thought you wanted to make equal for all humans. What measured do you propose? Oh, the kind where you get to keep all the cake. Right.

 

Absurd to the level of unresponsive once again. Removing discriminatory measures does not equate to instituting other opposite discriminatory measures.

[dasein]

I can't find a link in html format. Readers who would like to explore the extent to which feminists lie in making up statistics in support of discriminatory political action please google the following:

 

Greer Rape Loyola Law Review Article.

 

You will be absolutely amazed, and the article has hundreds of footnotes for further reading, none from "MRA" sources, but as always, decide for yourself.

[dasein]

Oh and as far as my responsibility to offer mounds of empirical data on a dating board? Go sell that somewhere else. No one reads or discusses the links and facts I do post in any reasonable, adult way, so hell no. For nost of my adult life, I listened to and lazily accepted false feminist statistics as fact.

 

Once I started looking into claims such as "14% of rapes result in convictions," "one in four women is sexually abused," "wage gap," "glass ceiling," "domestic abuse shoots up during the super bowl," etc. etc., the whole mountain of it, I was stupified to find that there was NO empirical underlying evidence of any of it, all just an infinitely parroted pack of lies and distorted statistics. So feminists who have enjoyed the luxury of having lies accepted wholelsale for 50 years, it's on YOU not ME to substantiate the claims you make. We bought it hook, line, sinker, for 50 years, no more.

[TheBigQuestion]

When the statistics are properly adjusted for types of jobs, job titles, hours worked, and all the other variables dasein mentions, there is no statistically significant wage gap between men and women. There is no glass ceiling either, at least not one that pertains to women. Many racial minorities are certainly underrepresented in mid-to-high management for a variety of reasons, but nowadays there simply aren't very many institutional factors that genuinely discriminate against women advancing in the workforce or getting equal pay. Generally, anytime any such findings are published anywhere, they're always hushed away by fellow academics, if not shouted down vigorously.

 

The truth is, statistics don't really tell much, and anyone savvy enough can make them look like whatever they want.

[Kamille]

I can't find a link in html format. Readers who would like to explore the extent to which feminists lie in making up statistics in support of discriminatory political action please google the following:

 

Greer Rape Loyola Law Review Article.

 

 

 

 

The truth is, statistics don't really tell much, and anyone savvy enough can make them look like whatever they want.

 

Indeed!

 

If we're to take Greer's numbers as gospel (and a quick search shows they've been disputed), fact remains that 66-75% of cases are reliable reports. Then it's prosecutions job to prove of disprove the reports.

 

And P, are you suggesting there's a problem with workers making the same wage regardless of gender?

[dasein]

If we're to take Greer's numbers as gospel (and a quick search shows they've been disputed),

 

Well researched law review article, deeply sourced and... rape survivor blog entry. OK. Also notice that blogger fixes the conviction rate at ~24%, not 14%. Which is it then? Note that they just toss out numbers like 14% rape conviction rate with no substantiation whatsoever while in nearly the same breath claiming to prefer empirical rigor. Don't be fooled, that empirical rigor only applies to -you- or anyone who disputes their concocted statistics, -never- them.

 

As an aside here, anyone who is tired of hearing "funny money" statistics used to justify policy or whatever else, and wants to understand how the illusions are accomplished (in the rare cases when they aren't made up entirely), read the old, witty and blessedly short book "How to Lie With Statistics." Should be on amazon.

 

And also re: lying with statistics, read the below wiki link to learn more about what feminism is and what it is trying to do:

 

Rape statistics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Note the broad disparities, contradictions and heated debate over the statistics. Note also that anyone can contribute to wiki articles, so that despite them being a good place to get a basic grasp, the weaseling that goes on is rather transparent. See how many kinds of illegitimate statistical massage and slanted, feminist BS you can spot in the article, I stopped at ~15, but never made it past HS statistics. Read the comments page twice, note how ridiculously long it is. Ask yourself why the heated contention? Why are feminists so dogged in claiming ever higher and higher incidences of rape, bloating the stats with unsubtantiated claims about rape going unreported, etc.? Are we truly a nation of craven rapists? Are you and your friends rapists? Or...

 

Does feminism have a vested interest in portraying as many women as victims, and as many men as victimizers as it possibly can, and cares not one whit whether it does so honestly or not? If you are a man, this is the crosshair feminism seeks to paint on your head. Feminism wants the public to believe that all men are either rapists now, or rapists waiting to happen. Ignore feminism at your peril.

Edited April 6, 2012 by dasein

[Tony]

This thread has run its course, there has been enough dialogue to assume the OP's initial question has been answered.