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.)
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.
Let’s not forget that Sofia was a blogger at GIRL GAME, the blog that was supposed to be the female version of Roissy, inspired by him.
Her, Bhetti, Lil Gil and a few others tried their damnedest to fit in over at his blog and get his approval, some even posting pics for ratings. When that never happened they created their own blog, but not as a counter to his half-baked and hacked theories, but as a “supplement” or “complement” thereof.
Its like Hestia and other “homesteading housewives” over at The Spearhead. They are desperate to prove NAWALT (I’m Not Like That! Please Love Me!) and get male approval.
On top of that Sofia is desperate to fit in with White people, hence her HBD talk, even though she belongs to one of the minority groups that HBDers don’t like.
Identity issues much? I’d say so.
Pecunium, I’m sorry for that. I was in the mode of “in house yelling at troll in a libertarian setting” where [i]GTFO of my movement, asshole,[/i] was appropriate, not a mixed setting where “No no, guys, you don’t get it, little anarchistic left-libertarians like me are DIFFERENT, so when you say libertarian you should really mean US” could be interpreted – Crucial failure of context, and I deeply apologize. I know I’m part of a fractured, divided movement, and voiced like mine are far from the loudest, or even audible.
P.s – I’d love to discuss that Lind article after I do mom stuff? Forums?
Here’s the deal, guys. Basically, Rutee wants to be able to piss and moan about every little instance of misogyny she can possibly suss out, but doesn’t want herself, women in general, or feminists in general to have to do any inconvenient soul-searching about their own misandry in return. So while hating on men isn’t okay per se… it’s also not that big of a deal, so don’t get too worked up over it, gurlz.
I say again, Rutee, this entire argument is imbecilic and moronic because you are factually incorrect, by any dictionary. Go invent your own word.
And Pecunium, yes, some words have multiple meanings. “Fuck” for instance, has two, and you’ll find both in any dictionary. Misandry, on the other hand, has just one meaning. It’s not Rutee’s fantasy definition.
And furthermore, Rutee’s definition is at odds with the actual one. It’s basically a way for her to say “That’s not actually misandrist”, when, going by the dictionary’s definition, it is. So we’ve got two contradictory meanings, one of which was dreamed up by some feminist victim fetishist living in la la land, and one in Merriam-Webster. I know which one I’m going with.
Open a thread, and I’ll try to spot it. I don’t spend much time in fora, but I’ll look for it.
I’d like to see you provide substantiation for your points, you grand idiot. Hell, if you’d like to claim you actually have a serious objection to the studies I linked already, be my guest. But you have to actually come up with substantive arguments, and I think we both know that’s not going to happen, because if you could do that already you would have.
I’d like to see you provide substantiation for your points, you grand idiot.
Look, jackass, it doesn’t matter what “substantiation” I provide for my points, you’ll just say they’re wrong. It doesn’t matter what studies I use to support me, you’ll just say they’re flawed, and all your friends here will automatically agree with you. I’ve been here long enough to see how this works. So why bother? Why do you think I said I’d like to see you support your views in a place which isn’t a yes-man echo chamber for feminism? But we both know that’s not gonna happen either, so forget it. Personally I’m done with this pointless argument.
Pecunium: Go to Stormfront.org and try making a persuasive, well-documented argument that all races should get along as equals for a change. Let me know when you’ve won them over. Then I’ll do the same here.
Hengist: If you think this forum is that closed-minded, why bash your head on the wall?
The thing is, what happens here is substantively different.
Rutee didn’t actually say you couldn’t defend CONSAD. Rutee said that just citing it won’t cut the mustard. If you think you can analyse it in some way that will actually show that the wage gap is non-existent, you are free to try.
You have your work cut out for you, because you are going to have to take the data, and find a way to look at it which is 1: rigorous, and 2: substantiates a different conclusion than the authors of the paper came to.
Good luck with that.
But, if the wage gap is so non-existent as the anti-feminists purport, then there ought to be any number of studies which aren’t CONSAD, which support you.
But you aren’t willing to do that. You are going to play the internet version of, “you’re all a bunch of meanies, so I’m going to say I won, take my ball and go home.”
Fine, if you want do that, it’s your privilege to pull a cop-out. It’s ours to point it out for what it is.
If I can, yes. If I can point out obvious flaws in a study, it is, and this may be weird to get, obviously flawed. Take CONSAD; it tries to conflate part time and full time workers and erases benefits packages from consideration. Guess which gender was more likely to be part time within a profession (And take a flying leap as to why), and guess how much benefits packages mater (Even at the lowest levels of income). Then, *AFTER ALL OF THIS*, it still finds a wage gap, just ‘not a large one’, at 13%.
Find studies that lack obvious flaws. Point out the problems with mine, if you’re so sure you can find a substantive argument against them.
Oh HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO HO.
Are you familiar with the atheist community? Because I’ve defended and expanded feminism successfully within it. And that is now what any remotely reasonable person would consider a ‘yes-man echo chamber for feminism’. Funny how those who claim someplace is an echo chamber never seem to be able to offer actual arguments, claiming instead they are drowned by the multitude of voices. It’s as if we can cut off your posts halfway.
“Hengist: If you think this forum is that closed-minded, why bash your head on the wall?”
Now that is a good point.
“But you aren’t willing to do that. You are going to play the internet version of, “you’re all a bunch of meanies, so I’m going to say I won, take my ball and go home.”
Er, not really. More like “this is pointless and not worth wasting time on.” If you want to treat it as a victory, feel free. I’m sure those guys who spend their days arguing about how Star Wars ships could totally kick Star Trek’s ass also feel like they “won” when a normal person walks away.
The wage gap exists alright! The problem is that you can’t, and won’t ever be able to convincingly prove, or demonstrate, that the wage gap is a result of gender bias. Every differing job has a differing rate of pay, every different company pays a differing rate of pay to other companies. Every worker works differing hours to the others. The longer a worker works with the same company (think maternity leave) the more rises in pay they earn. The more over-time a worker works, the more pay they receive etc etc etc. How many variables are there exactly?, and yet people can claim with certainty that “men are paid more than women”: it isn’t true and it can’t be proven to be so.
See, that’s a cute trick, but no. You didn’t shake your head and walk away initially; you made fact claims about the state of the world. You said feminists were wrong. When approached with studies, and told you were going to have to do better than your movement’s flagship on the matter (And you do, because your flagship study against the wage gap is, to continue the metaphor, taking on water and has half the bilge pumps disabled), you huffed and said that obviously the playing field wasn’t level. That isn’t a normal person choosing not to engage; that is a spoiled child who wanted to win whining that it isn’t being handed to them.
Look, you obviously aren’t willing to let this go, so I’ll just stop giving you material. You’re right about one thing, shaking my head and walking away is what I should have done from the beginning.