She shouldn't have dressed like a slut I guess (3 Viewers)

[Graney]

lol what about the massive differences in muscle mass, strength etc

 

[Subhas Bose]

 

[ali321]

Just writing to say that I support everything casablanca has said. I was going to reply to some of the incredibly ignorant and misogynistic comments being made on this thread last night, but i forgot my login and this thread has progressed a lot since then so I won't bother. But I am side-eyeing some people very hard.

 

[Lolsmith]

ugh okay here we go

How very kind of you. Instead of passing you off as a complete misogynistic jerk-face idiot who doesn't realise how privileged he is (assuming you're a man) I'm going to actually tackle your arguments and put forward my opinion.

How am I privileged in any way? Why is it that socially I am required to be more confident than a woman, be attractive in a completely different way that requires exceptionally more effort than a woman, work my whole life to provide for a woman and my children, never put myself first past the age of 25 and heaps of other bullshit nonsense? Look, I can pick out retarded nonsense that "dun seem dat dere fare tuh mee" but we don't complain about it because men grow up and deal with the issues facing them, not cry and ask the government to fix all their personal shortcomings.

I don't assume that this is how every single person deals with rape cases. I'm merely pointing out the fact that (although this has been said and is kind of annoyingly reductive) no one ever blames the murder victim. And how unfair it is that a victim of rape will have their sexual history questioned. Or that a Canadian policeman (yes I realise he has retracted his statements, but this is not an isolated case) still tells women that, if they want to avoid rape, they should think about how they're dressing. I'm not saying that everyone thinks this - that's absurd. I'm just saying that it's terrible that this is still an issue.

So you're upset that people are stupid? Really, that's surprising.

OK, I'd really love to seem some figures and references to back up those assertions, since I have listed a couple of websites that I found my information from. And regarding "cherry picking" or whatever, I think that the fact that there is a severely unequal representation of women on the ASX 200 boards is important, since these are the some of the most powerful/wealthy companies in Australia. Likewise, there is still a gap of representation in parliament - this has improved, and I'm not denying that, but these are the people supposedly representing us. How the hell can they properly represent the whole of Australia if parliament is mainly made up of white, middle-class, baby-boomer men? I'm not just talking about more women here, either. We should have more Indigenous Australians in parliament, more Australians born overseas or with migrant families. Again, I'm not pushing for affirmative action. I'm pushing for a shift in social attitudes, a recognition that we do need to change our thinking and support for women who do want to go into business or politics or whatever.

Business is beholden to their shareholders and consumers, not some social construct of "unfairness" because we have less tits in the boardroom.

Furthermore to the executive appointment argument, this entirely depends on your view on the way businesses (that you play no part in) should operate. Why should we have women on executive boards? Why should we have men on executive boards? We shouldn't have either of these things on executive boards, we should have people who are qualified to do what they're doing, regardless of their sex. People who run several billion dollar companies aren't going to pass up the opportunity to hire someone who is more qualified just because they are a woman. This just isn't logical, it doesn't do anyone any favours and it is stupid and makes them look stupid. However, I don't doubt it has happened in the past. Also, business isn't about "representation", that has nothing to do with anything at all and has no actual real world justification other than "it's sexist to have men working".

With the representation of government, the reason why we have "white baby-boomer men" is because that actually is the majority for starters. Secondly, people as political figures aren't taken seriously (seriously enough to be voted into Parliament) until they are of an older age. People don't like voting for young people unless they are so vehemently opposed to the current party in their electorate that they'd vote for any candidate the other party put forward. This is why we have a 21 year old male as a Liberal backbencher. Why do we need more Indigenous Australians? Why do we need more women? You also fail to realise that members of Parliament don't represent their own demographics. They don't ask their electorates to vote for them so they can increase the wealth of white men. Politicians represent their electorates and any of the demographics included in that, including women. Having more women in Parliament doesn't mean shit to the lot of women. Have you ever thought that these demographics you reference don't actually put themselves up to be a part of politics of their own volition?

Furthermore, your assertion that they are not "qualified" is flawed. Again, I'd love to see some facts to back up your reasoned argument, but I'll just deal with what I've got. As I've already said, I'm not saying we should be giving positions away - that's dumb and counter-productive. But you can not tell me that there are more men qualified than women for leadership roles across the board. i don't even see how that is statistically possible. Interestingly, university enrolments and graduates are made up of a majority of women, in Australia (as well as throughout other parts of the world). Clearly, something is going wrong if more women are graduating (it's about 55%-45% female/male at the moment) with university degrees but FAR more men are gaining better employment opportunities.

You choose to ignore an incredible amount of circumstances here and tend to lump a whole lot of things into the same group to, once again, fit your agenda. First of all, you're trying to tell me that 30 years ago when the current ASX200 execs were at university, there was a 55:45 split of female:male of university graduates in financial fields. That might be the case over the last decade, but people don't become CEO's and executives in a decade. You're arguing that because more females than males graduated yesterday, that we should immediately have more women in executive positions. After that, you're ignoring what degrees women and men are *choosing to go into of their own decision* and what employability they earn off the back of that. More women enroll in Arts degrees than men. Arts degrees don't earn people graduate employment. This must mean the world is sexist because women aren't getting hired for having no world skills for completing Arts degrees in Philosophy and French. A lot more men going into Engineering. They get employed because despite the fact they might not totally enjoy it, they know they'll get a job for it because it has high graduate demand. More men get employed because they chose a degree that gets them employed. This means the world is sexist because women aren't being put in Engineering jobs despite being unqualified for them. You don't really maintain any sort of logic with this kind of argument, which is why a lot of people don't take feminists seriously (rightfully so), since they don't actually have any sort of reasoning to their thoughts, since they merely cherry pick for their own misconceived agendas.

Now, regarding your point about women in politics, particularly the fact that we have a female prime minister. Again, I'm not stupid. I do see that we have got women in some leadership roles, which I think is fantastic. I point you though to the fact that only 30% of MPs are female. More importantly (I think) is the fact that female politicians are still judged on their gender. Let's just take Julia Gillard as our example. We've seen truly spectacular displays of sexism in protests against the carbon tax - "ditch the witch". Even if you go, ok, the protesters are an extreme minority (which I would disagree with), I point you towards Tony Abbott's reaction, supporting these protesters and cheering their signage. Now he is of course allowed to (and should, as opposition leader) protest and argue against the carbon tax. He should not be supporting sexist cries of "ditch the witch". Speaking of Tony Abbott, I love how he refers to Gillard as "Julia", while Gillard refers to Abbott as "Mr Abbott". Also, let's not forget the criticism Gillard received when she was appointed PM, regarding the fact that because she had no children, she was therefore unable to lead our country.

Ditch the witch is not sexism, get over yourself. Men are called all manor of abhorrent things in politics. They are called Nazis, fascists and even worse things but they don't cry about it because some Disney character shared the same gender as what they're being attributed to. He didn't cheer their signange at all, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. He and his entire party condemned it and at least he actually addressed the people of his country instead of labelling them as inconsequential ("the protest of no consequence") and extremists. So you'd rather support a woman that ignores their people and labels them inconsequential extremists just because they disagree with her policy, as opposed to a man who (yes, carelessly) stands in front of offensive signs and actually addresses his people's discontent about the government? Of course you would.
You wouldn't give one single fuck if Julia Gillard referred to Tony Abbott as "Tony". You wouldn't scream sexism because of it because men are not victims of sexism in politics, according to you. Feminists love to indulge ridiculous double standards whilst complaining about them at the same time.
Yes she was criticised by the religious and ultra-conservatives because she holds no religion, is in a de-facto relationship and doesn't have kids. So what? The same people blame the Holocaust and the Soviet Union on secularism. Your point has no weight to it and is not representative of any majority of a progressive society. The fact that you choose to ignore this is pretty representative of the way you go about achieving your own goals.

Now, I do agree that we've moved a "fuckload" in the right direction. But just because things are better, but not completely equal, does not mean we should stop pushing for total equality, which will be better for everyone.

But "true equality" is a farce. It is not an attainable goal. What is true equality? That men and women are equal? Equal on what grounds? Should the ASX200 have 50/50 split of men and women like you advocate for? Why would this be a positive for business? Should Parliament have a 50/50 split of men and women? What about transgender? What about racial minorities? What about Muslims? What about Christians? What about Scientologists? What about Pastafarians? What about Seventh Day Adventists? What about Gilgameks? What about Jews? What about the Irish? What about North Koreans? What about Americans? What about New South Welshmen?

I'm not "more than happy" to give women extra privilege. As I've explicitly stated a number of times, I disagree with affirmative action. This is what you're saying when you say "men would be passed up". I don't think that is the right way to tackle this situation, just so we're clear. In terms of "degrading" women, I agree and disagree with you. Look, this is a tricky situation. While quotas/affirmative action/whatever you call it does have some benefits, it is, as you put it, discriminatory in itself. That's why I (and many other people looking at this problem) see one positive action in mentoring and support. This means forming groups of likeminded business or political women who support each other to achieve their goals, and mentoring programmes with younger women (particularly in middle management positions) and higher-paid successful women. While you could pettily argue that this is discrimination because men wouldn't be included, I think we should weigh up the fact that women have been discriminated against for centuries in terms of the law, while these would not negatively affect men. Furthermore, men often do form these types of alliances and groups informally, while women don't seem to.

Quotas have absolutely no benefit whatsoever.

This is point is exactly why feminists aren't taken seriously anymore. You and the people like you are the reason you cripple other females' opportunities and feminists hopes of being taken as any actual form of legitimate political stance. Absolutely disgusting double standards like this is what turns the world against you. "Since we've been discriminated against for so long, we're going to do it to you" is not a fucking argument and you should be disgusted that you ever thought it is a fair stance to hold.

I have no issues with discrimination by a private business because it's their fucking decision to do what they want with their own property, I have problems with people who complain about discrimination, shrug off a group they don't like who they choose to discriminate against and then say it's okay because we're the ones doing the discriminating. You're also assuming that successful women want to take the time out of their busy schedules to help other women instead of, I don't know, having some time off or dedicating more time to getting ahead of those sexist pigs that don't want to hire them in the first place.

I'm confuse what the "total fabrication" is. I'm not a man hater, if that's what you're referring too. I am jealous. And, as a woman, I am steps behind my male counterparts, purely because I have a vagina rather than a penis. I don't see how this is a fabrication, since I've just shown you all the differences above, as well as linked a few sites in other posts... I'm not ashamed of being a feminist. I'm proud to be one, and I think that men can (and should) be feminists too. Feminism isn't about hating men, or sabotaging their success. Rather, third wave feminism (which we are currently in) is about making men and women equal, socially. It's about destroying gender barriers, and not just for women - why are boys who play with dolls considered weird, for example?

You are not steps behind men, that is a complete and utter lie that is built upon false information generated by people with agendas that don't consider any other positions that might have an impact on what they're saying because it detriments from their privilege seeking.

Feminism is an obscenely narrow-minded stance to take. I'm of the opinion that every individualist libertarian is a feminist if they stick to the tenets of individualism and are mature human beings. I am a libertarian, but I don't think that reason should be thrown out the window just because some women get upset that positions they'd never choose or want to occupy are being occupied by men.

 

[Graney]

tl;dr

 

[Blastus]

Julia frequently refers to Toby Arnott as Tony EVERYWHERE in QT in the media everywhere.

this fucking 'he doesn't say x about the prime minister' is bullshit cherry picking. There is no implicit respect due to the person who holds the office of the prime minister and rightly so.

 

[Blastus]

Want to know why there's pay inequality?

 

[Subhas Bose]

dan posts graph

expects everybody to understand

ntbc

 

[Lentern]

Julia frequently refers to Toby Arnott as Tony EVERYWHERE in QT in the media everywhere.

this fucking 'he doesn't say x about the prime minister' is bullshit cherry picking. There is no implicit respect due to the person who holds the office of the prime minister and rightly so.

Disclaimer: I didn't read the thread. I don't think Julia has copped anything that doesn't really go with the office, I don't people should use terms like "ditch the bitch" but I don't have any more problem with that then I did Mungo Mcallum calling John Howard a malignant turd etc. However you must admit Tim Matheson cops an extraordinary amount of sexism, it is utterly unthinkable that anyone would have handled Jannette Howard or Therese Rein as he has been handled and I think that reflects pretty badly on Aus.

 

[Blastus]

STEM = Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths

Male directed/dominated fields because there are inherent differences between the genders, right?

 

[Blastus]

Disclaimer: I didn't read the thread. I don't think Julia has copped anything that doesn't really go with the office, I don't people should use terms like "ditch the bitch" but I don't have any more problem with that then I did Mungo Mcallum calling John Howard a malignant turd etc. However you must admit Tim Matheson cops an extraordinary amount of sexism, it is utterly unthinkable that anyone would have handled Jannette Howard or Therese Rein as he has been handled and I think that reflects pretty badly on Aus.

Don't read the thread

 

[Lentern]

Don't read the thread

genuinely? I expected it to be gotten at by Cosmo style trolling, was pleasantly surprised to find the last page had some fairly fair dinkum gender discussion happening.

 

[Subhas Bose]

STEM = Science, Technology, Engineering, Maths

Male directed/dominated fields because there are inherent differences between the genders, right?

o ok

men are so much better than women

 

[Blastus]

o ok

men are so much better than women

you are misreading my tone son

 

[Subhas Bose]

you are misreading my tone son

huh bro

i wasnt being sarcastic

(srs)

 

[katie tully]

I'm not a "man hater", I don't think men should be forced to do anything. However, I guess you could say I am jealous. I am jealous that, because of my gender, from birth I am steps behind my male counterparts. But I'm not a "man hater", and anyone who tells you that this is the definition of feminism is lying and/or severely mistaken.

Bullshit.

 

[Chemical Ali]

fitters and boiler makers in the mines get paid heaps

why don't they need a female quota

 

[Chemical Ali]

there's a quote from a famous american feminist who, when asked why more women than men now get college degrees, said men are so dominant they don't even need college to dominate women

wish I could find it

 

[katie tully]

ANECDOTAL I KNOW, but I know sooooo many chicks working in mines, driving dump trucks and shit.

This who perception of women vs. man is so dumb I can't even begin to comprehend how archaic and ridiculous it is IN 2011.

 

[Bendent]

no pt in feminism. u either use soft power or hard power. those that use hard power are going the difficult path, silly.