It isn't only the suggestion of under-agedness that troubles me, it's the idea that people are attracted to the idea of eating an ice cream cone that's been sprayed with wee...
Huh.
[m]http://youtu.be/P0t4ruBVxSA[/m]
It isn't only the suggestion of under-agedness that troubles me, it's the idea that people are attracted to the idea of eating an ice cream cone that's been sprayed with wee...
They're being repeatedly told by the rest of society that they're valued for their appearance and not their actions, so they're clearly not going to go after those kinds of degrees when they don't think their contributions will be valued.
And so they are too weak to even stand against a preconception. So weakened and belittled that there is no more fight in them; that in the long and storied history of human oppression, nobody has stood against the prevailing thought for what hey believe is right. This is where you put women and you come to their aid, like a man should.
This thread is seriously short on researched information and knowledge and far too long on hearsay and (regurgitated), ill-conceived opinion.
The post at that site is simply a wrapper for the facts that were culled from DOL stats. Every single AVFM opinion in that article can be ignored as far as I'm concerned, I only need to use the facts from it.gopostal, you haven't posted any facts outside of that list of "Doctoral Degrees," and you've put your own spin on those facts. Your other source is from a hate site, and if you think it's such a bad source, why even use it? A Voice for Men isn't exactly well known, so why are you going there in the first place if not to legitimize your own world view?
So in essence You can't/won't 'waste' time with sources and facts? I'm not interested in arguing opinions with you since neither of us will obviously alter a single thing the other thinks. Post me up a fact-filled rebuttal or stop wasting everyone's time with emotional appeal. You argue like a woman (do I even need to add that this is very tongue in cheek?)You say that I'm engaging in a character assassination, but you have yet to address any of my points from my previous posts. I've addressed your points, so if you're going to whine, at least try to refute anything that I've said. Thus far, all you've done is complain that you're being personally attacked, when you provide all the ammunition yourself. As far as some of my rebuttals to your arguments go, these are things I learned in high school. I shouldn't have to provide sources for what is (or should be) common knowledge (ie. most of what could be addressed in any basic sociology class). Besides, I'm not going to waste the time finding sources just so you can ignore them like you've done with almost everything else so far.
No, you are adding your opinion to a fact. When I order at McDonalds I'm looked at as an object (number 33 in line). Does that mean I'm being dominated? How someone views you does not EVER equal domination over you. This appeals to you emotionally and so you add to a simple equation making it much more nuanced that it has to be.Women being viewed as sex objects and not as equals does put them under the heel of men. When they're looked at as objects and not people, they are being dominated.
By and large they very much do because it just doesn't affect them directly. Men don't sit around drinking beer and discussing LGBT issues at the pub because they just mostly don't care. Make it something that affects them daily (work, weather, kids) and it's always discussed (and acted upon if needed).If what you said is true, men would ignore these social movements, but they don't.
It doesn't. They go to college for the same amount of time, work just as hard, and end up with jobs that pay less. Check this little graphic out:Based on what you've said previously, service degrees don't give women much of a boost in terms of gender equality.
OFC I make more money than her, I'm a man (more joke, calm down). She's way better off because she chose that career. It's her dream to work with low-functioning/autistic kids and she's damn good at it. My job is robotic and with very little challenge. Rate-of-pay is not the single arbiter of 'who has it best'. I can never leave my job because the benefits and pay are just too good. It's the best for all my family. I don't hate it but she's certainly much better off.Her degrees don't appear to help all that much in terms of salary, so why are you implying that she's better off than you in some way?
Who's fault is that? You know you are painting things like women have no responsibility and that this entirely rests on men. You know why you are arguing this? Because men run things. It's hard to get away from, isn't it?they don't think their contributions will be valued.
Google:Beyond that, you've said that men rule the world and always will, but if women live easier lives, wouldn't they be the ones doing less work and making important decisions that would earn them the widespread respect of society?
By and large they very much do because it just doesn't affect them directly. Men don't sit around drinking beer and discussing LGBT issues at the pub because they just mostly don't care. Make it something that affects them daily (work, weather, kids) and it's always discussed (and acted upon if needed).
No, you are adding your opinion to a fact. When I order at McDonalds I'm looked at as an object (number 33 in line). Does that mean I'm being dominated? How someone views you does not EVER equal domination over you. This appeals to you emotionally and so you add to a simple equation making it much more nuanced that it has to be.
She's way better off because she chose that career.
Google:
<any country> road crew
<any country> sanitation worker
<any country> construction worker
then hit IMAGES. That's why women live easier lives. It's (overwhelmingly) not them working in 110 degree heat in the open sun pouring the roads, hanging off the iron of a high rise, or shoveling the dead animals off the road.
You and three girls are driving home from the pub. You get a flat tire. Who gets to do the changing while who gets to sit in the car? Doesn't even matter who owns the car either. You are expected to do the work because 'you are the man'. If one of the women said "No, it's cool. I got this," you'd be seriously impressed and THIS is where equality lies.
So in essence You can't/won't 'waste' time with sources and facts? I'm not interested in arguing opinions with you since neither of us will obviously alter a single thing the other thinks. Post me up a fact-filled rebuttal or stop wasting everyone's time with emotional appeal. You argue like a woman (do I even need to add that this is very tongue in cheek?)
You'll never improve anything by standing on the outside and chanting "this is wrong!"
True change happens from within from people who honestly understand the nuts and bolts of the issue and work on fixing the causes/reasons and not the results.
Women being viewed as sex objects and not as equals does put them under the heel of men. When they're looked at as objects and not people, they are being dominated.
If this were true, why then would there be such virulent opposition to all of those social movements? Why do these movements have significant male opposition to them? If what you said is true, men would ignore these social movements, but they don't.
You mentioned that women are getting more college degrees, but that those are largely service degrees; you also said that men run things because they have business, science, and technical degrees. Why do service degrees suddenly become more important here? Based on what you've said previously, service degrees don't give women much of a boost in terms of gender equality. You basically said that her degrees don't level the playing field with you because they're service based, but this quote makes it seem like you think it at least puts her on par with or better off than you being a mailman. It really can't be both ways.
To put your example of you being a mailman and your wife being a teacher in perspective, depending on where they work, what organization they work for, etc., the average salary for a mailman starts out at around $50k. Again, factoring in for location and organization, the average salary for a teacher tends to be less, with starting salary at $32k. Her degrees don't appear to help all that much in terms of salary, so why are you implying that she's better off than you in some way?
Even though it's an ad for Verizion, this video perfectly illustrates part of the reason why fewer women go into math or science-based fields. They're being repeatedly told by the rest of society that they're valued for their appearance and not their actions, so they're clearly not going to go after those kinds of degrees when they don't think their contributions will be valued.
I don't even know where to start with this. I'm genuinely curious, what makes you think that women live easier lives? Childbirth is one of the most painful experiences a person can go through; the average man will never experience that kind of pain. After that, women are largely the ones who take care of domestic tasks and childcare, even in relationships where both spouses claim they divide work equally; women are expected to be the domestic workers and are raised as such, so of course they're going to do most of the the work in that area. Women don't even get paid for all the work they do, and they do far, far more domestic work than men. In the event of an unintended pregnancy, women are usually the ones who get blamed for it (slut, whore, etc.) and get saddled with the childcare because it was somehow the fault of the woman and her fault alone. Men, on the other hand, get to go out, have all the sex they want, and be "players" and "studs." None of these situations that women face sound "easy" to me.
Beyond that, you've said that men rule the world and always will, but if women live easier lives, wouldn't they be the ones doing less work and making important decisions that would earn them the widespread respect of society?
As for living longer, correlation does not imply causation. You can say that women live better lives because they live longer, but that could simply be boiled down to the fact that women are less likely to engage in risk-taking behavior than men.
That's the same thing that has been said countless times to women, African Americans, and other groups when they mobilized to get the right to vote. Things changed; sure, it took a lot longer than it should have for them to get the right to vote, but things did change. That's the thing about social movements: they don't succeed over night. There is absolutely no reason why society cannot change so that women and men would be genuinely equal. Quite frankly, when you say that nothing will ever change and tell the women in your life that, no matter what they do, they will never be equal to men, you are part of the problem.
You might think that it's harmless to tell people that things will never change, but it's not. You're instilling a sense of defeatism in them that makes them think, "Well, things are never going to get any better, so why try?"
I think that succinctly encapsulates the entire discussion and all the posts are varying degrees of those two sentences. This has been very stimulating and a thread I've enjoyed greatly.This is not about equity it is a fight for domination. Average men don’t want to relinquish more than true equity would demand while feminists want it all for themselves.
How did a thread about pee-joke snow cones turn into a gaggle of white knights protecting the virtue of all the women not reading the thread?
unless you were trying to illustrate the transitive properties of "opposites," then the pictures you just posted have literally nothing to do with anything and are about as useless as the ridiculous argument you got bogged down in that made everyone else abandon the topic.
bravo.
unless you were trying to illustrate the transitive properties of "opposites," then the pictures you just posted have literally nothing to do with anything and are about as useless as the ridiculous argument you got bogged down in that made everyone else abandon the topic.
bravo.
I can't tell you how much your thoughts mean to me and I am so sorry the significance of the pictures is lost on you. I am surprised, because it is you that usually discerns the finer things in posts; you have this delicate, yet powerful ability to infer the nuances of people and ideas. At least I gave you cause to post again, releasing another grain of your salty wit to spice up all of our lives.
In my own defense jack, look at my joined date! How can I possibly measure up to your exacting standards with such little posting experience? I’m still on my little training wheels and you want me to race with the big dogs like you! Have a heart!
You take care now and keep up the great and exhausting work of keeping it simple! I will sincerely try harder not to upset your minimalist sensibilities in the future.
Just for clarification: I assume that "bogged down" means my post is not a byte-sized chunk of reductionist gibberish or a glib one-liner that wants to sound profound but is really just obtuse in order to conceal deep and far-reaching apathy and/or ignorance, right? Who can possibly keep up with you jack! And while I appreciate being the sole focus of your undivided attention, I think the other posters who likewise wrote far too much in this thread are going to feel left out unless you include them in your future proclamations of righteousness.