Over on Reddit, DoktorTeufel has a problem: he likes the ladies, but he doesn’t like the feminists. Unfortunately, some ladies are also feminists! And therein lies the danger. Naturally, he turns to the fellas in the Men’s Rights subreddit for help.
I’m just going to come out and say it: I will never knowingly enter into a romantic relationship with a feminist. I do have some female relatives and acquaintances who are feminists … and it’s not like they all wear signs that proclaim I’M A FEMINIST. (Some do.)
Aside from obvious telltales (feminist bumper stickers, etc.) or outright asking them “Are you a feminist?”, what are some discreet ways to ferret out a woman’s views on gender activism without creating an awkward situation? Feminism is a minefield topic, and I certainly wouldn’t broach the subject directly with a woman I’ve just started dating.
Naturally, this being the Men’s Rights subreddit, he received much helpful advice. Celda broke it down for him:
You don’t really care whether she identifies as a feminist or not – you care what her views are.
For instance, does she feel women have the right to force men into parental obligations against their will?
Does she feel women are oppressed in Western society?
Does she think that women make less money than men for the same work?
If yes to these questions or similar, then you probably want to avoid her.
Exactly. Always avoid those with a basic grasp on reality. They’re the worst!
Naive1000 suggested looking for more subtle clues.
Ask their thoughts on “benevolent sexism” if they know what your talking about you likely have a feminist. Just to make sure go into male privilege, it’s the feminists’ most popular talking point. Let her talk about it then you can see what she’s really like. But, there are some women who call themselves feminists, but are really egalitarian: they just don’t know the term.
Memymineown also suggests a subtle approach, and holds out hope that some of the younger feminist girls can be won back to the path of righteousness:
Bring Men’s Rights issues into the conversation subtly. I was talking with my family about Justin Beiber and brought up the paternity charge and no rape charges filed against the woman.
That led into a discussion about how women aren’t punished for rape.
Just do things like that.
But you shouldn’t exclude all feminists. I would say that the vast majority are just girls(I do use that word on purpose) who have been lied to. Once you show them the real facts they will probably come around.
ThePigman, by contrast, urges DoktorTeufel to go for the jugular:
Why do you need to be discrete about it? Just ask her. If she is a member of the cult she will start screaming about the patriarchy, then her head will explode.
It’s true. Pretty much every conversation involving feminists quickly devolves into screaming about patriarchy. Heck, a feminist friend and I once screamed about patriarchy for five hours straight. We probably could have gone longer, but the manager at Applebee’s, evidently not a feminist, threw us out. Sometimes I start screaming about patriarchy when no one else is around, just to keep in practice.
Conversations with feminists pretty much all go like the conversation in the video below, only instead of a cat you need to picture a feminist, and instead of the word “no,” the word “patriarchy.” You can see how annoying that might get, and not just to Hitler.
Looking up statistics is too much work for me to do for someone who won’t listen anyway. (And it’s not like you looked up anything.) But I will have some fun with your math.
We can ignore this. It’s double-billing. Paying the women costs the company what paying the women costs. Breaking it down by worker and also adding that makes no sense.
This is half what you said before, but agreed. However, the company has to pay the women anyway, unless it lays them off. This is not an “extra” cost, this is what they pay to have employees at all.
This is the first one that’s a genuine cost paid that would not be paid if the women weren’t pregnant. So that’s $60K/year total cost for a company of 100 people, or $600/year/worker.
For only 4 people a year on maternity leave? I doubt this is necessary–regular HR people can handle this just fine. But let’s pretend. (That’s all we’re doing anyway.) Now we’re up to $100K/year/company, or $1000/year/worker.
No, this is a transfer of wealth from employers to their employees. That’s just silly.
The total cost, using your made-up numbers, is now $1000/year/worker, or $100 billion for an economy of 100 million workers.
It’s made-up numbers anyway, but at least make them up consistently.
NWO – Explaining that would count as actually answering the question XD
What am I shilling for? Why am I shilling?
Good start, now go explain to me and Ami! XD XD XD XD
Be back, with Ami! Have fun! XD
@zhinxy
I’m afraid after going to the link you gave I can only conclude you’re an idiot. You’re not anything, an anachist or otherwise. You just prattle endlessly. You’ll be on the “I breeze thru your nonsense without even reading it” list.
Oh NWO, it’s so cute when you try to hurt people’s feelings.
NWOslave hasn’t read anything since 1813 #nwofacts
Wait, wrong site?
Even if we accept that pregnant ladies are costing the economy $100 billion a year, though, imagine the cost if we didn’t have maternity leave!
Now 4% of women (using NWO’s numbers) are just flat leaving the workforce every year. All their training costs, hiring costs, all their experience, just subtracted from the company. I’m not going to make up numbers (that’s NWO’s job), but that doesn’t strike me as free of cost.
Also, if we didn’t have maternity leave a lot more mothers would have to be supported by (dun dun DUNNN) welfare.
@Holly Pervocracy
Even by your own very low calculations 100 billion was taken from people. 100 billion was just lost. That’s exactly what the State does, takes peoples money.
Oh, shut up, NWOpoopsy. You have no power here. We know your weakness.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
😀
@Holly Pervocracy
Even by you low calculations there’d be another 100 billion a year for that care. Take away welfare for about another 500 billion a year. See how quickly you’ve used up the average persons wealth?
NWO: Those “stats” you gave… utter nonsense.
Everyone is paying 80.00 a month. Everyone. Not gonna happen, not unless everyone is making significant money. The average wage in the US is about 41,000, but averages mislead.
Here is a chart with the Actual wage distribution
Note that the peak is well to the left of the median. The typical household in the US is pulling down somewhere between 20-30,000 per year.
Which invalidates all the pretty numbers you made up.
You are also assuming that the pooling of assets is actuarially limited to the company which has the employees, as opposed to being distrubuted among the entire working population.
If we assume that half the US population is a working adult, and the typical wage is 30,000, we have a semi-annual wage of 15,000. If we also assume that there is no loss of income to a woman who is taking maternity leave…
So we will assume, for the sake of argument that there are 4 million babies born in a year (in 2007 there were 4,317,119).
That 4,000,000 x 15,000 = 6,000,000,000, six billion a year which needs to be made up in lost wages. With an assumption of 150,000,000 workers, each of them needs to pay 400 dollars a year, or, 33.33 dollars per month.
That assumes a regressive, not a progressive, taxing structure on the plan. If the plan were progressive, then the typical worker might not need to pay more than 15 per month.
It didn’t go to the State. It went to private citizens, who will spend it on supporting themselves and their children.
I bet Gerber and Pampers don’t feel like that money is gone forever.
Holly, his math is still fucked–at a lot of companies, mine included, maternity leave is only 3 months.
NWO: Jesus would say the worker is worthy of his hire.
Jesus would say that no one should have any more than any other person.
Jesus would think the plan you are saying is impractical is too modest, it doesn’t do enough for the poor and the weak.
Have you given away your extra clothing yet?
Hellkell – Yeah, and I can’t imagine needing an extra HR person to cover just 4 maternity leaves a year.
Also the money to support mothers of young children has to come from somewhere, unless NWO is a Voluntary Human Extinction advocate. Whether by maternity leave, welfare, or child support, that money is coming out of the economy (er, not actually, but let’s pretend the mothers all stuff it under their mattresses) somehow. The question is how to do it efficiently and equitably, not how to avoid it.
How much of that isn’t pouring into the economy if 50% of the workforce is forced to stay home for 18 years?
Let’s see…
40,000 per person
50 women per 100 employees
2,000,000 per
Times that by 100 million people (not sure why, but this is NOW math so I can’t leave it out…)
That’s… uhm… I broke my calculator. Let me get a piece of paper…
$2,000 Trillian dollars per year!
Times 18 years… now you’re starting to talk REAL money!
No way in hell, Holly.
HR is only there to cover the company’s behind, NWO–it’s not there for just pregnant ladies.
Wait a second. NWO is against:
-Maternity leave
-Welfare
-Subsidized childcare
-Stay-at-home mothering
What does that leave? How in the hell should kids be raised? It seems like there’s no gaps left here.
I guess if a woman is independently wealthy enough to quit her job, support herself on savings while giving birth and caring for a newborn, and get a new job–which pays enough that she can afford full-time daycare–entirely on merit before the savings run out, then NWO says she can have a kid. Whee.
I suppose having a kid in any other situation is irresponsible. But wait, NWO is against abortion!
So I guess you can’t have sex unless you’re independently wealthy. But wait! NWO believes wearing clothing is consent to sex!
…So I guess you’re pretty much shit outta luck, women who aren’t independently wealthy.
If this:
is a response to this:
or to this:
Then that means, NWO, that you can, in fact, read posts that use emoticons! Guess you’ll have to come up with a new excuse not to answer Ami! 😀
In 1750 Ben Franklin stood before the english parliment and they asked, “how the colonies managed to collect enough taxes to handle all the poor and build all the poor houses?”
Ben answer, “We have no poor houses in the colonies and if we built them, there would be no one to put in them. We have no poor, unemployed or vagabonds. No taxes or impositions are imposed upon the people”
“In the colonies we issue paper money called colonial script. There is no inflation or defaltion as long as the money supply is kept equal to the value of good and servicies to be produced and moved about the country for human consumption. There is no interest to pay.”
No taxes, no corporate (tax) childcare, money with no interest controlled by the amount of services, goods and transportation leads to no poor or unemployed. Anything else leads to poverty and unemployment.
NWO: You do know that Ben Franklin was lying, right? There were poor houses. There were unemployed. There were vagabonds. There were taxes.
And the Government was in debt.
NWO, without maternity leave, subsidized childcare, welfare, child support or at least stay-at-home mothering, where the hell should we put kids?
As described above, I don’t see how anyone but very wealthy women (and you probably believe none of them deserve their wealth) could ever have a child. This isn’t about becoming free of the welfare state. This is about “kids eat stuff.” Where’s that stuff going to come from?
“I’m not sure why the HR person is being counted as a sudden cost. Like, are HR people ONLY for parental leave?”
My favourite on that little math puzzle. I have a family member works HR is an extremely male dominated industry. The female population in this company is literally her and the other individual working HR; did I mention they are both over 50? That’s a lot of pregnancies those two near menopausal women are having to create two full-time HR positions. Of course who knows who is really working HR because obviously their off on maternity leave ALL THE TIME.
Yup that, makes sense.
Also love the 4 women on mat leave every year at a company of 100. The birthrate is the US is about 14/1000 population. In a company of 100 that would translate to an average of 1.4. So only 1, occasionally 2, would be born to parents working in this company each year.
“Holly, his math is still fucked–at a lot of companies, mine included, maternity leave is only 3 months.”
And some offer none. And in Canada (you know the crazy socialists) you are guaranteed a year off but may only get paid money you paid yourself into your employment insurance. There are so many damn variables, it’s impossible to create the math unless you know the exact details of the individual.
@NWO: Do you think good ole Ben took slavery into account?
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/wahl.slavery.us
Holly: don’t be silly, there is still burqa and Amish clothes!