Stop your sobbing (or expect to get paid less, ladies)
Quit it with the waterworks, lady!
I’ll give Sofia, the antifeminist bloggress behind the blog Sofiastry, credit for one thing: unlike a lot of Men’s Rightsers, she doesn’t deny that there is a wage gap between men and women. She just thinks that it’s justified – that women should be paid less.
Why? Well, I admit I don’t quite understand her explanation, which has something to do with women getting worse grades in school, working less, and, well, whatever the hell she’s trying to say here:
women who are likely seen in executive and higher-earning positions are estrogenically flawed in their lack of sufficient desire to prioritize family life. Its the equivalent of a man who has no creative, intellectual or ambitious drive — all hallmarks of testosterone.
Oh, and because, like Barbie, women think that math class is tough:
can it not simply be reduced to the fact that the average man has more of of an aptitude for finance and numbers than the average woman?
No, I’m pretty sure it can’t.
In a followup post, Sofia raised a critical issue that she somehow had overlooked in her earlier analysis: women are a bunch of blubbering crybabies.
I couldn’t count on one hand the number of times a female co-worker cried on the job (myself included), but I couldn’t name a single male (homosexuals excluded & even then…). Women are more emotional, more likely to take days off for such reasons (or no reason) and quantifiably put in less hours on the job. Depending on the field, I’d also wager that women are less likely to revolutionize an industry or make the same amount of exceptional contributions men do.
Seriously, gal. Don’t be a bunch of Lady-Boehners. Stop all of your sobbing! (Oh, oh oh.)
Posted on September 14, 2011, in antifeminism, antifeminst women, misogyny, MRA, reactionary bullshit. Bookmark the permalink. 421 Comments.
Have I ever cared what you think of me? Nope! Whereas your previous posts, as well as your rather transparent aping of my diction in giving tips to the recent trolls, indicate the reverse does not hold true.
Yeah… I’m not going to help you play a shell game wherein you hold actions against men to a lesser standard than those against women. I reserve misogynistic for cases where ideas that actually disadvantage women. Sexist is used in other circumstances, regardless of gender.
Sexism does hurt some men. But it benefits substantially more, and even those men it hurts still reap substantial benefits. About the only way to be an outright loser due to gender is to straight up become a housedad, at which point you take shit and get nothing back.
Great, Rutee, then have fun with your made-up definitions for “misogyny” and “misandry”. As long as you know they’re made up.
I like how you can’t actually substantiate that men are the ones who suffer from sexism, that women benefit. You seem to be aware of this, but are unwilling to concede the point. IS that why you consider it ‘activism’ to slam women? Because you know there’s not really a massive matriarchy to fight? Because there’s still useful work you can do without benefiting women too much, if you go help male survivors of DV or rape.
“women who are likely seen in executive and higher-earning positions are estrogenically flawed in their lack of sufficient desire to prioritize family life. Its the equivalent of a man who has no creative, intellectual or ambitious drive — all hallmarks of testosterone.”
Has testosterone been scientifically linked with creativity and intellect? I thought it was the exact opposite.
[stuff removed by DF]
I love how lawyer is sofia’s targeted career, considering it is a highly male dominated field, with astronomically high rates of depression, suicide, and substance abuse.
That’s not the debate. You and I do not agree regarding who suffers the most from sexism, and never will, so I’m not interested in arguing about that. I’m just trying to establish that you’re using the incorrect definition of misogyny and misandry.
MRAL But you don’t use misandry to mean hatred of men. You use it to complain about things you think disadvantage men.
So, pick one. If it’s hatred of men, then you have to show the actual hatred, the emotional aspect of despising them.
Thats a much higher burden of proof than the one Rutee used. If I were you, I’d use hers.
Do you really want to open that can of worms, Pecunium? How often do feminists use the word “misogyny” to refer to anything from pro-lifers to street harassment to men looking at women the wrong way? You can use Rutee’s way out-there definition, or you can take contempt and prejudice to be a form of hatred (which I think it is).
Just a few points which I’m sure I’ll be wrong about.
First, neither maternal, nor paternal leave should ever be “paid leave.” This is a money drain on any/every company that is forced to comply. This is another example of communism/socialism which is unsustainable. Wealth is taken from employees, placed into a fund, then doled out according to State dictates. Freedom doesn’t come with a safety net, nor should it. And no one should be forced to pay for that safety net. Everyone loses from these socialist policies.
Second, if men are working more hours, of course they’ll earn more in pay alone. This also demonstrates initiative and loyalty to a company which will of course translate into a higher hourly wage. Further, no one has mentioned the “quality” of work being performed. Two people doing the same job won’t necessarily translate into the same pay if one person does a higher quality work. Again we can see the communism/socialism in the same work/same pay mentality. If everyone is guarunteed the same pay reguardless of effort, why put forth anything but minimul effort.
Third, and equally important, women leaving the workplace to raise children is most definitely a welcome break from the rat race. There is no place like home. Even when you return from a vacation, your first words are usually, “it’s good to be home.” I doubt if thruout history, there were many people at deaths door wishing they’d spent more time at work.
I would bet real money this is an MRA in female garb.
Holly:
Not really, since this wasn’t actual science but instead, Fake Science.
NWO, I really wish there was a big underwater city where you could go live out your mega-libertarian fantasies far away from the rest of us.
And I wish that the waterproofing was left up to private charity and personal responsibility.
I need to start a Society for the Prevention of Abuse to vowels. NWO would be the first target.
With a special subcommittee: No, You Can’t Substitute a ‘Y’ for Every Vowel in a Word. No, Not Even if it’s ‘Ironic.’
What if it’s Yrynyc?
Hey Slavey, how’s trying to have sex with fifteen year olds working out?
Now, I’m no native speaker so I might not understand the subtle nuances of the language, but I think the word сволочь applies to you.
FOREVER ALONE!
NWOslave
@Holly Pervocracy
“NWO, I really wish there was a big underwater city where you could go live out your mega-libertarian fantasies far away from the rest of us.”
These, “mega-libertarian fantasies” of mine are what the country was founded on. It’s that constituion thingy, pre-amendments of course. You do know all these socialist policies, (laws) are new don’t you? Before all these policies were taught as something normal as part of your freedom, everyone had freedom and much more disposable wealth as well.
Look at it this way, if having one child is such a financial burden that “paid leave” is a financial must. How is it that 50 years ago people had the financial ability to have four and five children as the norm? When every policy enacted, which supposedly creates wealth and ensures your freedom, actually causes a loss of wealth and freedom. Those policies must be destroyed, before everyone is destroyed but those very policies.
Uhm, MRAL… You’re not “men” you may be “a man” but you are not “men”
You are not the whole of men, you do not speak for men, you are not the final arbiter of men.
Get over you’re self. You’ve been a dick and Rutee responds to YOU not “men”
Now sit down and open your ears before you embarrass yourself again
Holly: Especially not then.
NWO: Have you ever actually read the Constitution? Because it really doesn’t say what you think it does.
Weren’t you going Galt to show us how society was going to fall apart without you?
I mean you’re such a producer. Go, make us suffer. We’ll do our best without your contributions. It’ll be hard and we’ll eventually fail. But you’ll never know until you finally actually start your life apart in Galt Gulch.
And by ‘new,’ NWO means these ‘socialist’ laws have been around… well, for quite awhile. Laws to assist the poor (for various values of ‘assist,’ of course) have been around in England since before the reign of Elizabeth I. The laws weren’t great by modern standards, but the bones of a system to help people have been in place for a long, long time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poor_Law
50 years ago?
With lots of welfare
And socialism
Libertarians are dumb.
@NWO
Just a few points which I’m sure I’ll be wrong about.
Well, since you haven’t actually stated any facts, I’m not sure that your comment is wrong so much as wrong-headed. The purpose of family leave is primarily to benefit the child, from the increased bonding time with an available parent. In my own family, Paid Family Leave allowed my wife and I to spend more time at home with our children when they were infants than we otherwise would be able to afford to do. Far from hurting everyone, this sort of policy benefits everyone, in the form of reduced social costs down the road. Studies have shown that every dollar invested in early childhood programs brings a return of 7 dollars in savings on prisons, special education, and other services.
I would think that a pro-life, lower taxes guy such as yourself would be in favor of policies that benefit children after they are born, and which decrease the overall cost of public services, but, sadly, this is usually not the case.
MRAL: Do you really want to open that can of worms, Pecunium? How often do feminists use the word “misogyny” to refer to anything from pro-lifers to street harassment to men looking at women the wrong way? You can use Rutee’s way out-there definition, or you can take contempt and prejudice to be a form of hatred (which I think it is).
Ok, let us open that can of worms.
By your definition you hate women.
Why, since you so plainly hate them should they give a rat’s ass about you?
Now, to look at the things you just mentioned.
Pro-lifers are disadvantaging women (that’s Rutee’s defintion).
Street harassment is putting women at a disadvantage; hate need not be involved, but it actively makes them feel insecure, it denies them the free and easy use of public spaces (that’s Rutee’s definition).
Women looking at men, “the wrong way”? What does that mean? Who has said this is misogyny, and how did they define “the wrong way.”?
Trust me, I’m more than willing to defend my positions. If I weren’t, I’d not bring them up.
Kobold, that’s a really unkind thing to say about swine. They are clean, intelligent, and friendly.
For a more apt explication of NWO, and one which is fit for general consumption, дурак.
For a more descriptive phrase тот мальчик очень некультурный.
Hey, NWO, I’m a libertarian anarcha-feminist. Maybe we should fight sometime. Until then, I’m just gonna leave you with a quote from Kevin Carson.
http://mutualist.blogspot.com/2008/03/on-dissolving-state-and-what-to-replace.html
” it’s a messed-up state that systematically creates poverty through the enforcement of special privilege, and then uses welfare programs to ameliorate a small part of the poverty and inequality caused by its own policies. “But it’s a messed-up libertarianism that looks at that situation and says, ‘Man, first thing we gotta do is get rid of that welfare!'” Or as I once put it,
If the privilege remains, statist “corrective” action will be the inevitable result. That’s why I don’t get too bent out of shape about the statism of the minimum wage or overtime laws–in my list of statist evils, the guys who are breaking legs rank considerably higher than the ones handing out government crutches. All too many libertarians could care less about the statism that causes the problems of income disparity, but go ballistic over the statism intended to alleviate it. It’s another example of the general rule that statism that helps the rich is kinda sorta bad, maybe, I guess, but statism that helps the poor is flaming red ruin on wheels. ”
Sometimes? When people auto turn on people who start with the “Private Charity/Personal Responsibility/Socialism bad/Safety Net Evil” talk – It aint cause they’re BOUND TO BE COMMIES, so much as plenty of right wingers use that as barely designed drooling over some pseudo-Randian bircher mad-max world where the poor are ground under the boots of the worthies. In other words, keeping state privelege for the powerful, and corporate, you know all those “movers and shakers and employers,” and taking away the bones they throw the workers. And people don’t like that shit.
Yes, I think there’s a genuinely freed market libertarian alternative that provides for peoples needs and freedoms. Wouldn’t be a libertarian otherwise, especially since it doesn’t exactly make me lots of cool feminist friends. But my libertopia looks very f’n little like Fifties America.
Yes, a lot of people in this country could use a better, more nuanced picture of variously libertarian ideas, particularly progressives, and plenty of people do just shout them down or straw them ad nauseum. (It’d be nice if people realized we aren’t all Rand Fans, for one.) But PART of the reason for that is idiots on the internet giving the strawiest version of libertarianism possible.
And NWO, you aint helpin. Also, if you don’t identify as libertarian, and I don’t think you do, please state so when you state your crazy pseudolibertarian ideas.
I really hate this game a few libertarians play, actually. It’s not straw if people on the same side constantly spew this rhetoric. You don’t get to say the blame is *partially* on your side when your side does this shit ad nauseum. It defies the definition of straw man to begin with. You can say it straw mans you, your specific positions, if they tell you what you, specificlaly, believe, but it is not the fault of anyone else that you have a fractured movement wherein no school of thought has a clear claim to the title. And it’s certainly not our fault that if you’re not in a minority, which I strongly doubt, that the libertarians who go everywhere else are the ‘straw’ ones.
Pecunium, I choose to see misandry and misogyny by, you know, their actual definitions, as in expressing a form of hatred. Thus, street harassment of women is misogynist, because it’s an expression of contempt and disrespect, a form of hatred… just as anti-male behavior is misandrist. It has nothing to do with the “disadvantage” it may or may not cause this woman or all women. Rutee wants to basically invalidate misandry (but not misogyny) by attaching this weird tag that it “has to cause societal disadvantages” to “count”. Er, no it doesn’t. Go invent your own word.
HEY NWO IS HERE! :D
(also Zhinxy! :D *hugs Zhinxy* :3 )
HEY NWO WE HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU :D (me, Ozy and Summer Snow)
Do you want a golden apple? :D
I’m just trying to establish that you’re using the incorrect definition of misogyny and misandry.
What are the correct definitions? :3
Tu Quoque does not establish you as correct, but to answer the question asked:
Pro-lifers *ARE* misogynistic by my definition: They disadvantage women by campaigning against bodily autonomy for women, sometimes successfully.
Street Harrassment is almost entirely directed to women, and it prevents most of us from enjoying our time out as much. It is not a large thing, but it *is* a disadvantage extended based on belonging to a class.
I’ve never heard of a feminist use that choice of words… but if you mean that feminists are against the objectification of women because it’s misogynistic, well, you’re not judged for your looks as a human being as a man.
It’s a definition that looks at broad effect. It’s the same reason cracker isn’t really racist; white people don’t suffer for it.
You would win. She’s an anti-feminist.
“you’re not judged for your looks as a human being as a man”
This isn’t really an argument you can make with MRAL. XD
I know what paranoid fantasies he holds. I also know how wrong he is.
Holy crap, I think he may have evolved sentience!
What if a company finds it can’t attract the young, bright workers it wants because those workers demand the security to be able to have a family later in life? Libertarian fail.
(Unless NWO is just trying to create a workplace biased towards 50-year-olds?)
Ok, Pecunium, now you’re making me sad I lost my Russian! Yes, it was a one semester early-morning high school class, but I at least could read Cyrillic out loud and sing the alphabet song. Ah, Beh, Ve, Geh, Deh, Yeh, Yull, Jeh, Zeh, E, E-crekya, Ka, El, Em, En, Oh, Pey, Yer, Esta-hoo-hah-stah-something, this is where I lose it… I do remember that you have to go through the American alphabet song twice to get through the letters, and it ends with “Etta Ruski alphabet, das va danya tvaristi.” All of which I’ve probably misspelled.
I remember *loving* how pretty it was to write in cursive in Cyrillic – I should learn again!
P.S. “I’m not one of *those* Libertarians!” sounds a whole fucking lot like “I’m not one of *those* Christians!” from where I’m sitting.
David, I’m sending you to the other side of the Mississippi.
Insert angry face with tongue.
Rutee: So in essence it’s okay for women to attack and insult men because men are privileged and misandry doesn’t exist, however men are not allowed to do the same because that makes them misogynists. Is that it?
“Hengist, two observations:
1. It’s not all about your father and his family. Your experience and your subjective evaluation of it isn’t determinative of other people’s.”
I brought it up once in response to somebody saying, essentially, that people who work longer hours are stupid and inefficient – that was cleared up afterwards. Then again after cynickal’s response that the reason my father did so was because he didn’t like me and didn’t want to see me. Which is a pretty shitty and ignorant thing to say, but of course nobody batted an eyelid because she’s “one of the gang”.
2. It’s truly heart-warming that your father did “his damnedest” (only his subjective damnedest, not the objective damnedest) and how he wasn’t perfect, but you still consider him a hero despite those flaws. Did your mother enjoy a similarly lenient standard? Do women in your life? Or are they expected to meet some insane standard of perfection, like taking care of others 24/7 with no weekends or holidays? Being full-time mothers AND wage-earners, while the men’s obligations to their family are considered discharged merely by having a job, and playing with the kiddies once a week is pure gravy? (Sorry to pry, but hey, you brought it up.)”
What the… where would you get that? Funnily enough it’s completely false. Although I respect my father for what he did, I’ve always been a lot closer to my mother. She was like a friend, whereas he was more like my boss. And where did I say ANYTHING about holding women to an “insane standard of perfection”? I feel like you’re arguing with somebody in your head who happens to have the same name as me, or something…
You’re about as sharp as a spoon, aren’t you?
Misandry is amazingly limited. ABout the only claims actually born out by the evidence are a *small* disadvantage in the criminal courts (Specifically criminal, and it’s in sentencing differences; women get roughly 10% lighter sentences. Women judges are the most gender equal, so I wouldn’t go whining about how it’s feminists’ fault either), and historically, the draft (Because the draft is a complete nonissue now, this is strictly historical). Worldwide, there are also a few countries that still have conscription policies, and that also gender those conscription policies. Other than that, claims of ‘misandry’ aren’t really born out by the evidence. Even hiring gaps in specific feminine oriented fields such as wait staff or nursing are accompanied by a glass elevator effect, and they’re both weaker and less widespread than hiring gaps that advantage men
None of this means that it is okay to be sexist against men. What it means is that being sexist against men is a substantially smaller problem. Unless I am a prosecutor, jurist, defense attorney, or judge, there is more or less nothing I can do to perpetuate a massive problem against men, and even if I did discriminate it would be a drop in the ocean. You have a much wider society that adores and advantages you for your cock. There’s just nothing I can do to turn that tide back, even if I were so inclined, and I’m not. I’m not inclined to that *because it’s not okay still*. It’s the same reason I don’t use the word “dick” as an insult. It’s not as bad as the c-word, but it’s still a gendered insult.
Strikethrough tags apparently do not work. That’s a shame.
Paying attention to wider cultural narratives about parenthood, I imagine. I know you guys aren’t actually good at this, but the short version is that men get praised as awesome fathers for amazingly small amounts of effort put into the actual child rearing segment (Regardless of whether or not the mother works similarly)
Rutee: “None of this means that it is okay to be sexist against men.” Good to know. So claiming that men are lazier and less efficient in the workplace… okay or not?
Paying attention to wider cultural narratives about parenthood, I imagine. I know you guys aren’t actually good at this, but the short version is that men get praised as awesome fathers for amazingly small amounts of effort put into the actual child rearing segment (Regardless of whether or not the mother works similarly)
I should say men who work full-time AND raise children _should_ be praised as awesome fathers. Mothers who do the same should be praised equally. You’re saying that’s not the case?
Also, your whole argument hinges on taking it for granted that women are some kind of oppressed underclass, which outside feminist circles is debatable at best, for the western world anyway.
NWOslave:
so, let me understand. A giant underclass, working at poverty level wages, is unable even to breed without fear that they’ll lose their jobs. Since there’s no social services or welfare, these poor, angry, destitute people with the majority of children and population will look up to those with money, who get to have sick days and go to doctors and have vacations and spend time with their newborn children and…
well, to me, the answer ends in rage, fire, and guillotines, but believe whatever you want.
You want a strict non-tree-hugging reason to have welfare? Here it is: it keeps the underclass distracted. It makes them feel like they’re part of the system, it makes them feel indebted. Even if they become entitled asses, they’ll still fight to defend the current system because it feeds them. If the government doesn’t feed them, and the jobs don’t feed them… then they’ll kill everyone.
You know where we get most of our soldiers? Poverty-ridden households. We dole out some welfare and in return get fanatical, generational loyalists to the state and to the State system. Welfare is a brilliant scam, designed to keep the underclass from rising up and murdering those above.
Marx’s theories on how to run a society were ultimately bullshit, but the problems he articulated in capitalism were–and are–very real.
COME AT ME BRO.
It’s conversations like this that make me proud to be a socialist, because being on the side against murdering, starving, and hating people gives a nice warm fuzzy feeling. Also, you know what, I don’t care about the “economy” for any reason other than a possible net human benefit. If it isn’t doing that, fuck it, tank it, it is useless to us anyways. Why should the poor care if the rich get fucked if the poor get fucked either way? Oh noes, poor poor CEOs whatever shall they do if they have to treat workers with basic human rights and dignity.
Additional fun fact, the US is the only developed country without at least some guaranteed paid parental leave.
PS, All anti-choicers hate women, some of them are just better at lying about their motives. You want to deny someone rights over their own body? You want to deny them opportunity to exercise bodily autonomy and basic self direction? If so, then you hate them. Plain and simple. All protests to the contrary are totally unconvincing.
So in essence it’s okay for women to attack and insult men because men are privileged and misandry doesn’t exist, however men are not allowed to do the same because that makes them misogynists. Is that it?
What do you mean attack and insult men? What specific things are you referring to? o:
NWO, you don’t believe there should be a paid maternity leave? I guess it’s no problem for you, since you’ll never go through childbirth. I’ve done it twice and it took every bit of six weeks to recuperate enough to work. They were uncomplicated deliveries, too. Mothers that have cesarean births need even longer to recover. The time right after delivery is also the best time for babies to be breastfed, since it gives them their immune systems a jump start. This could benefit the company because the mother won’t have to take off work as often for ear infections and other illnesses babies and toddlers get frequently. Do you have the same problems with paid funeral leave or people that take a paid leave to care for a sick parent?
What, as if it’s inherent to gender? No, it’s not. If it’s true, it’s only true because women have less margin to fuck up in business. It’s like saying white people are more likely to do drugs than almost any minority; it’s true, sure, but it misses the reason why, and that’s the fact that minorities get away with that bullshit less. It’s not that white people are just bigger druggies, they are just substantially less likely to be punished, and punished severely. Same with men, especially men with middle class status in the workplace.
Should be, or are? Because a dad gets praises for ‘babysitting his own kids’ if he works. Mothers get shit talked regardless of effort spent with kids if they have a job. In the real world, they’re not praised remotely equally for equal work. A mother has to be a stay at home mom who devotes herself entirely to the kids to be a good mom, and a dad just has to play catch with their sons every so often. That’s what happens *right now*, and that’s what I said is the case.
I substantiated my claim that we were already. You didn’t contest it then, and I doubt you suddenly have evidence against it now. Of course, you’re an MRA, mras don’t operate off of the evidence. Your movement would be fucked if it did that.
Ah, that was Luke, not you.
http://manboobz.com/2011/09/14/stop-your-sobbing-or-expect-to-get-paid-less-ladies/comment-page-2/#comment-60169
That’s just simple substantiation of some of the economic benefits of being male, as well as political. There are literally dozens of studies who’s findings all support that women are the underclass. Also, you’re in feminist circles now, bucko, so according to you I should be shoving the burden of proof on you anyway. But I’m nice. In seriousness, if you seriously want to claim women aren’t the oppressed gender, sources, nao. You’ll lose, but I need to know which precise studies or articles to grab to disprove your shit.
And protip: Don’t try the CONSAD report. On top of being piss poor scholarship in an attempt to erase the wage gap, it fails. It only finds a smaller one.
I should say men who work full-time AND raise children _should_ be praised as awesome fathers. Mothers who do the same should be praised equally. You’re saying that’s not the case?
You need to ask this on a thread about a post opining that working women are “estrogenically flawed in their lack of sufficient desire to prioritize family life” and “the equivalent of a man who has no creative, intellectual or ambitious drive”? A thread where one poster charmingly describes mothers as “lazy, arrogant couch potatoes who often sit around and expect things to come to them because of their vagina” and whose advice to women who want to work is “don’t shit out womb turds”? (This is a guy with a working mom who supports him financially, by the way.)
No, I’d say there’s not a lot of praise for women who work full-time and raise children. A bunch of MRAs piled on this very thread to argue that women who do both are bad workers and bad women.
MRAL: That’s not how you use misogyny. You pretend it doesn’t exist. You pretend you aren’t a misogynist.
You argue that your hatred of women is justified.
Then you argue that programs to recitify harms against women aren’t designed to balance the equation, but are rather the expression of misandry.
So, explain to me how any of the programs you say are “misandric” are, at root, based on a hatred of men.
I’ll wait.
Is someone who hates men egaging in misandry? Yes.
Is someone who hates women a misogynist? Yes.
But you know what, neither of those words is limted to one single definition. That’s the amazing power of connotation.
Let’s look at the word, fuck. It means “to have sex”.
But when you said, “Fuck you, Pecunium”, I didn’t really think you were offering me a night of carnal bliss. If you were, I’m flattered, but I’m straight, and it wouldn’t be that much fun for either of us.
So words have multiple denotational meanings, as well as multiple connotational meanings. You want to ignore all of those, except the one that lets you bash people who disagree with you.
Which means this little piece of sophistry you are using, to take someone who is being rude to you, and pretending they hate all men; it may make you feel better, but it’s not, at root, any better than NWO pretending that he’s answered questions because he’s typed someone’s name and then babbled about how the Illuminati has been telling 14 year olds to come on to him so they can have him thrown in prison for opposing their plans.
HengistRutee: “None of this means that it is okay to be sexist against men.” Good to know. So claiming that men are lazier and less efficient in the workplace… okay or not?
Depends on why, and how, the case is being made.
I should say men who work full-time AND raise children _should_ be praised as awesome fathers. Mothers who do the same should be praised equally. You’re saying that’s not the case?
Depends on what you mean by, “not the case”. Should they be praised the same? Yes. Are they? no.
Men who play catch on the weekends are treated as great parents. If they take the effort to do something else durin the week, they are often treated as the second coming of Doctor Spock.
A woman who has a career, and is actively trying to get ahead (even when she doesn’t put in the sort of mono-maniacal devotion to it a lot of fathers do), is shamed for it, called a bad mother. To add insult to injury she is denied promotions because she, “spends too much time with the children.”
If she hires a nanny, she is uncaring.
A single father who hires a nanny is, “looking after the best interests of the child.”
So, while it should be, it ain’t.
Anybody who quotes Carson is not on the same side as right-wing libertarians. He’s a mutualist, and so he explicitly self-identifies as a socialist (though an individualist anarchist rather than a collectivist/class warfare anarchist). He has more in common with my own political lineage (anarcho-communism) than the libertarian right.
There really is no pleasing everyone when you’re a mom. If you work outside the home, you’re selfish for putting your career in front of your children. When you take off work for a sick child, you’re a slacker at work. If you hire a nanny, you’re pawning your child off on someone and not really raising your own child. If you quit work to stay home with your kids, you’re lazy for not having a job. If you don’t devote every minute of every day to entertaining your child, you’re a lazy mom. If you devote every minute of every day to your children, then you are a smothering, helicopter mom with no life of her own.
In addition to all of the societal pressures for mothers, you’re also expected to cook amazing food, keep a spotless house, and be a sex goddess for your husband. Single moms have everything even harder, and people scorn them no matter what they do. Fathers don’t face nearly the amount of pressure mothers do. If women actually were crybabies at work, which they’re not, it’s very understandable. They should be upset about the way things are.
Not if I’m insulting a singular person. Which I am, snowflake.
Or if you read both sentences of my post and had a minimum amount of reading comprehension.
Some say the world is flat! Experts disagree!
“Should be, or are? Because a dad gets praises for ‘babysitting his own kids’ if he works. Mothers get shit talked regardless of effort spent with kids if they have a job. In the real world, they’re not praised remotely equally for equal work. A mother has to be a stay at home mom who devotes herself entirely to the kids to be a good mom, and a dad just has to play catch with their sons every so often. That’s what happens *right now*, and that’s what I said is the case.”
I’m curious about this. Can you point to one article, opinion piece or blog post or something in the mainstream media (not MRA or feminist source) which praises dads for spending minimal time with kids, or which condemns mothers for having a career? Because it’s not been my experience at all, and frankly sounds like an urban legend of which you’ve convinced yourself.
But I’m nice.
HAHAHA, that was a good one.
In seriousness, if you seriously want to claim women aren’t the oppressed gender, sources, nao. You’ll lose, but I need to know which precise studies or articles to grab to disprove your shit.
And protip: Don’t try the CONSAD report. On top of being piss poor scholarship in an attempt to erase the wage gap, it fails. It only finds a smaller one.
Well you just answered my question. I could just play your game, and claim that all the studies you cite are flawed, biased, whatever, just as you claim about everything that doesn’t agree with your world view. In the end, neither one of us is convinced of anything. But I would like to see you argue some of your points outside this echo chamber, clique environment.
Women get paid less than men yet still have have a greater share of the wealth. There is no wage gap between men and women with no children. It is a personal choice by women to earn less. FACT.
Buttman, are you saying you agree with MRAL’s solution for women to stop “shitting out womb turds”? Do you think it’s fair that fathers don’t have the same problems juggling work and family life as mothers?
Do you think it’s fair that 90% of all child support, alimony, welfare, charity, etc go to women? It more than equals out in their favour.
Buttman – Women get more charity and support because they’re poorer.
God, it’s like arguing that homeless people have it so good because they get free soup.
For the love of God, you were here two days ago! You know, when everyone called out Ginmar? Hell, some people didn’t like her tone towards an obvious troll.
Again, several people disagreed with this statement in this very thread (I would have as well if it hadn’t already been buried by the time I got on), thereby disproving the previous quote.
There are way more homeless men than women. There are far more impoverished men than there are impoverished women. MEN’s wealth is redistributed to women.
http://www.unifem.org/gender_issues/women_poverty_economics/
According to some estimates, women represent 70 percent of the world’s poor.
According to the National Coalition for the Homeless, 40% of homeless men served in the armed forces. There is a clear indication that we allow our military to eat these people up and spit them out. If you think that’s the fault of feminism, then I have a bridge to sell you.
Buttman: Women get paid less than men yet still have have a greater share of the wealth. There is no wage gap between men and women with no children. It is a personal choice by women to earn less. FACT.
[citations needed]
[quote] I really hate this game a few libertarians play, actually. It’s not straw if people on the same side constantly spew this rhetoric.
Anybody who quotes Carson is not on the same side as right-wing libertarians. He’s a mutualist, and so he explicitly self-identifies as a socialist (though an individualist anarchist rather than a collectivist/class warfare anarchist). He has more in common with my own political lineage (anarcho-communism) than the libertarian right. [/quote]
I do consider myself a mutualist. But sorry, guys, I was directing my comments to NWO, and I wasn’t really trying to do a “Hey, I’m not like that!” to anybody else involved.
“yet still have have a greater share of the wealth” Citation sorely needed, because census data says the exact opposite (i.e. that for every single racial category measured, men have greater net worth than women).
Women receive child support ON BEHALF OF THEIR MINOR CHILDREN more often because they are the primary caretakers far, far more often, and primary caretakers are the ones who receive child support on behalf of their minor children. As to alimony, these laws are facially gender neutral. They apply to all married couples. It just happens that the partner who makes more is almost always the man, see “wealth gap”.
Also, your statistics regarding homelessness are pulled right out of their ass. To the best of my knowledge, there are no good studies comparing total rates of male and female homelessness. As homeless women are known to be far more likely to be the custodian of a homeless minor child, the bulk of homeless women in urban areas and elsewhere are grouped statistically as “homeless families” and not included in single adult homelessness studies. Even in single adult homelessness studies, men only are more likely to be homeless when the area surveyed is urban, suburban areas have some variation but fluctuate between about even rates and higher rates for women, rural areas have higher rates for women. There really is not much particulary good large scale data dealing with broad categories of homelessness, and this means that there are not significant studies on rates of homelessness of single adults vs adults with childen (“families”) vs homeless minors vs homeless minors with minor children of their own. Some regions are chronically understudied, as are some populations-for example, rural homelessness studies are an incredibly new phenomena for the most part. So making large pronouncements of these rates in comparison to each other is misguided at best.
Hengist: Well you just answered my question. I could just play your game, and claim that all the studies you cite are flawed, biased, whatever, just as you claim about everything that doesn’t agree with your world view. In the end, neither one of us is convinced of anything.
That’s a cop out. It’s not that Rutee said nothing was persuasive. What Rutee did was save you the trouble of citing a report which fails to do what those who usually cite it claim. If you were to cite it to show there is no wage gap then it wouldn’t do you any good because it doesn’t show that.
It shows that, across the board, women in given jobs are paid less than men. Less than other studies show, but still a wage gap. It’s also shows that at the levels where the gap is most damaging, it’s more prevalent.
That’s not dismissing any study you might put forth. But, if you want to go on sobbing that no one here is suadable, feel free, just don’t complain when your lack of evidence means you don’t convince anyone you are right.
You might not like people’s positions here, but you can’t really say they don’t provide the basis on which they came to them, and why those bases are persuasive, right down to admitting women get slightly shorter sentences for similar crimes, and calling that an injustice.
zhinxy: I do consider myself a mutualist. But sorry, guys, I was directing my comments to NWO, and I wasn’t really trying to do a “Hey, I’m not like that!” to anybody else involved.
What you did implied that, “good” libertarians agreed with you, and that people like NWO weren’t “true Libertarians”.
But the core of the movement is anti-democracy/pro-authoritarianism.