Feminism goes insane in Norway

[jefferiah]

No. It sounds nice on paper though.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take it you're a white male.

Yep and I know some black ones who agree with me wholeheartedly.

Hmm does being a white male discount my opinion. Perhaps I should have refused to answer such a race-based question.

The problem with it is that the law will actualy be directly responsible (because of these policies) for disciminatory hiring. Because if not all uneven-ness in society is attributed to discrimination (and I think its safe to say that not all of it is), then in these cases people will be forced to hire in the future based on a discriminatory policy.

When the Law does not impose its will on such matters it keeps its hands clean of it. But when it attempts to impose policies on it, it will become a guilty party to the discrimination.

Edited October 19, 2007 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

Now how did I know that, eh?

Edited to add:

Just read your edit:

Hmm does being a white male discount my opinion. Perhaps I should have refused to answer such a race-based question.

You could have pleaded the Fifth.

It certainly helps explain your opinion. It's easy to believe it's ok to discriminate when you're from a group that generally doesn't have to deal with discrimination.

Edited October 19, 2007 by American Woman

[jefferiah]

Now how did I know that, eh?

Edited to add:

Just read your edit:

Hmm does being a white male discount my opinion. Perhaps I should have refused to answer such a race-based question.

You could have pleaded the Fifth.

It certainly helps explain your opinion. It's easy to believe it's ok to discriminate when you're from a group that generally doesn't have to deal with discrimination.

Thats racism, and sexism.

I am quite aware that I am not a homosexual black woman American Woman. But I still don't think the law should have power over this, because not all uneven-ness in society can be attributed to discrimination. And in such cases, the law you impose will create further discrimination.

Edited October 19, 2007 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

Thats racism, and sexism.

Believing that employers shouldn't discriminate is racism and sexism??

[jefferiah]

Believing that employers shouldn't discriminate is racism and sexism??

No your comments about me being white and male.

Now, how can you prove an employer is discriminating? Does the fact that he has more employees from a certain group suffice?

[jefferiah]

Now your turn

In a society where everyone was free from discrimination do you think everything would just evenly pan out in a magical way.

If someone from this ideal society had a party and invited all the people they liked would it have equal numbers of black people, white people, males, females, shemales, etc.

Edited October 19, 2007 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

I am quite aware that I am not a homosexual black woman American Woman. But I still don't think the law should have power of this, because not all uneven-ness in society can be attributed to discrimination. And in such cases, the law you impose will create further discrimination.

Just read your edit so will comment on that.

First of all, let me rephrase what I said earlier. I'm changing it's easy to believe it's ok to discriminate when you're from a group that generally doesn't have to deal with discrimination to it's easy to think the government shouldn't have the right to tell people they can't discriminate when you're from a group that generally doesn't have to deal with discrimination.

And I stand by that statement. You might very well feel differently if you were from a group that has to deal with discrimination.

[jefferiah]

Just read your edit so will comment on that.

First of all, let me rephrase what I said earlier. I'm changing it's easy to believe it's ok to discriminate when you're from a group that generally doesn't have to deal with discrimination to it's easy to think the government shouldn't have the right to tell people they can't discriminate when you're from a group that generally doesn't have to deal with discrimination.

And I stand by that statement. You might very well feel differently if you were from a group that has to deal with discrimination.

I know people from those groups who agree with me. One fellow is a black fellow from texas who chats on a conservative american chat I used to frequent a little. And he grew up quite poor too and in some bad circumstances. We both went to a lefty chat room and the topic of such policies came up.

He made the same arguments I am making right now.

Interesting thing is that, had this been him in my place, posting to you...welll

Would you have known he was black?

The people in the leftist chat called him a racist white supremacist bigot, etc etc. Never once did he point out that he was black.

Edited October 19, 2007 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

Now your turn

In a society where everyone was free from discrimination do you think everything would just evenly pan out in a magical way.

If someone from this ideal society had a party and invited all the people they liked would it have equal numbers of black people, white people, males, females, shemales, etc.

A party is a bit different from the work world, wouldn't you say? A bit different from the "equal opportunity" issue in the work word? Furthermore, while there is bascially an equal number of men and women in this world, I don't think there's an equal number of black people, white people, shemales, etc. And I'll point out again that it's not an "equal number" that this policy is calling for, but a 4-6 ratio.

I believe that everyone should have equal opportunity. I also believe that's not going to happen without some government intervention. Is a policy like this a perfect solution? A totally fair solution? No. I don't think there is such a thing. But it's more fair than the alternative. If you have a better solution I'd like to hear it. I know I don't.

That women should just have to live with the "it's a man's world" mentality is not right.

[jefferiah]

deleted

Edited October 19, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

A party is a bit different from the work world, wouldn't you say? A bit different from the "equal opportunity" issue in the work word? Furthermore, while there is bascially an equal number of men and women in this world, I don't think there's an equal number of black people, white people, shemales, etc. And I'll point out again that it's not an "equal number" that this policy is calling for, but a 4-6 ratio.

I believe that everyone should have equal opportunity. I also believe that's not going to happen without some government intervention. Is a policy like this a perfect solution? A totally fair solution? No. I don't think there is such a thing. But it's more fair than the alternative. If you have a better solution I'd like to hear it. I know I don't.

That women should just have to live with the "it's a man's world" mentality is not right.

How do you know it is more fair than the alternative? You have not even established yet that in most cases where men outnumber women that it is directly because of discrimination.

Edited October 19, 2007 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

How do you know it is more fair than the alternative? You have not even established yet that in most cases where men outnumber women that it is directly because of discrimination.

I'll ask you again. Are you saying it's because women aren't as qualified?-- Because so many, many fewer women aspire to the same position in the work world as men?

Edited October 19, 2007 by American Woman

[kengs333]

The more money that is printed, the higher inflation will go. We had better get those women OUT of the mint! LOL

Prices adjust to household incomes. If house hold incomes increase because the majority have two members who are employed as opposed to one, then prices follow suit.

Birth control was brought in by feminism. No feminism, no control over the number of children one has.

This, again, is quite incorrect. There were a number of ways in which the number of children a family had in the olden days could be regulated, and these practices were commonly used. The primary consideration was the ability to feed the children; households that were less able to feed children tended to have fewer children. Go look at any census return from the 19th century and you'll see many families with only two or three children. In some cases this reflects higher infant mortality--a problem since rectified thanks to men--and the greater prevelance of childhood illnesses--again a problem largely rectified thanks to men--but in general it was the result of "natural" birth control--not feminism.

So I should be a breeding machine because I am female?

The use of the term "breeding machine" really says a lot about how you value human life. You think it's a good thing that feminism has pumped such negative attitudes towards life into your mind, and that you in turn spread it to others?

Can you please quote me on that? Can you please find the post in which I said that women are inherently more nuturing than men? They are not. Father's love their children just as much as mother's do.

I never stated that you said anything to the effect; if you look at how I phrased the statement, that should be quite evident.

Yes I can bed who I want, when I want. Why is this a problem for you? Why? Do you want to control me? Control my uterus?

It has nothing to do with control, but abiding by a universal standard that applies to both men and women. We have countless examples of how promiscuity leads to strifle, depression, discord, negativity, etc., etc., etc. Having the "right" to engage in self-destructive behaviour "when I want" is a pretty pathetic way of asserting one's independence. "Bedding" people reduces the person to a mere instrument for fulfilling one's sexual urges; I fail to see how engaging in superficial relationships makes one a better person; the fact that feminism has taught you this only serves to reinforce the notion that feminism is a problem.

Pedophilia has nothing to do with feminism. My aunt (in 1936) gave birth to a baby boy -- the father was HER father. Dirty bastard! Yet in 1936 there was NO ONE she could turn to for help. And you think this is a good thing?

We're talking about under age sex. This is a direct result of the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution in general has opened pandora's box, and what was once sexual deviance is now becoming normalized and socially acceptable. One can only wonder what will be going on in 50 years.

Ha ha, I have a son. A wonderful teenager! He does the dinner dishes.. he cleans the toilet.. He will grow up knowing he does not have to "take care of" a partner -- he will grow up knowing that partners share in the financial/emotional aspects of the marriage.

Even worse. We've all seen what is becoming of men in an increasingly feminized world. It's interesting that you pride yourself in having taught him to wash dishes and clean toilets, yet mention noting of his intelligence or intellect. I guess that's just not a priority for you. Well, at least one day when scores of women have bedded him and fleeced for what he's worth, he can always fall back on janitorial work or washing dishes at a restaurant to make his child support payments...

You want to control women. You do not want women to have autonomy. Therefore you are a mysogynist. Ugly word isn't it?

Again, what does this have to do with control? Do you think that because you're a woman you don't have to listen to the opinions of men that you don't agree with? Keep in mind that there are rules here for labelling people "bigots" and "racists", etc.--"misogynist" is just another form of this.

There have been millions of good men, there will be millions more. I have no hatred toward men. I do not want to "control" them or "put them in their place".

Just millions?

Secure my interests? Why would he be "resentful"? Good god man, I make plenty of my own money. In fact we pull in about the same amount. It all goes into one big pot. But in your eyes it would be better if I stayed home and didn't bring in any money. (THAT would be cause for resentment IMO)

Why is it when women talk about equality we are labelled feminazis? Labelled cold hard bitches? Why is that?

Wanting a woman to be a better person does not mean forcing her into a gender stereotyped mold.

It's like saying ALL men like hockey. It is simply not true. While a good number of men may like hockey, there are some that have no use for it at all.

You are trying to paint all women the same. This is unrealistic. We are each individual (just as men are) and deserve to be treated as humans first.

I am a human being, respect me as such.

Yawn, this is all getting rather boring... I never said you weren't or have consider you to not be a "human being". That's typical feminist, though, isn't it, making such accusations? The fact of the matter is my concern is the betterment of all people, male or female; it's people who want to lower themselves by engaging in promiscuous or other viceful behaviour that make themselves less human.

[jefferiah]

Even worse. We've all seen what is becoming of men in an increasingly feminized world. It's interesting that you pride yourself in having taught him to wash dishes and clean toilets, yet mention noting of his intelligence or intellect.

I do the dishes too, Kengs. Some of the world's best chef's are men, and if you want to get biblical remember that the domestic Jacob was chosen over his macho hunter brother Esau.

The sexual revolution and feminism may have come about mutually and had many ties and connections, but they are not exactly the same.

I do not support a great deal of the ideas of those who call themselves feminists, but do you think it is wrong for women to work? To vote?

[jefferiah]

I'll ask you again. Are you saying it's because women aren't as qualified?-- Because so many, many fewer women aspire to the same position in the work world as men?

This is not my question to answer but yours. You are making the case against businessmen for being bigots. Burden of proof is on you.

Are you saying that everytime a workplace has more men than women it is because of discrimination?

[kengs333]

I do not support a great deal of the ideas of those who call themselves feminists, but do you think it is wrong for women to work? To vote?

This is the thing that gets me; how exactly does having concerns with the ideology of feminism equate to wanting women to not work or vote?

Basically what feminists wants is for men to not question feminist ideologies and what feminists say. Does that strike you as the kind of attitude one would expect from people who claim to believe in equality?

[jefferiah]

This is the thing that gets me; how exactly does having concerns with the ideology of feminism equate to wanting women to not work or vote?

Basically what feminists wants is for men to not question feminist ideologies and what feminists say. Does that strike you as the kind of attitude one would expect from people who claim to believe in equality?

Well I can understand that. No it is not mysogynistic to disagree with a feminist. If so then that would basically amount to "Feminists are always right."

[jefferiah]

A party is a bit different from the work world, wouldn't you say?

No, not if the work world is a private corporation. Private interests are private interests--whether they be those of a bejewelled gajillionaire with regard to his privately owned company or those of a ragged looney-aire with regard to his hut. The freedom you procure from the richest of the rich is the same freedom you procure from the poorest of the poor.

Edited October 19, 2007 by jefferiah

[August1991]

I'll ask you again. Are you saying it's because women aren't as qualified?-- Because so many, many fewer women aspire to the same position in the work world as men?

Jefferiah and American Woman, in the event you ever return to this thread and read my post, the question is: why don't firms hire women who are cheaper? If greedy capitalists want to make money, then surely cheap women are a good choice.

IOW, sexism is contrary to greed - and greed is a universal human trait.

Edited October 19, 2007 by August1991

[Drea]

Prices adjust to household incomes. If house hold incomes increase because the majority have two members who are employed as opposed to one, then prices follow suit.

Gee you mean if all of us women would have just stayed home the price of a house would be less?

I still remember when women had to use wringer washers and hang the laundry outside... as items to ease life were invented (thanks to men as very few women were able to attain gainful employment let alone invent) more and more women were able to work outside the home. Doe that mean men invented feminism? Hmmm.... if it weren't for those men inventing those life-easing items...

This, again, is quite incorrect. There were a number of ways in which the number of children a family had in the olden days could be regulated, and these practices were commonly used. The primary consideration was the ability to feed the children; households that were less able to feed children tended to have fewer children. Go look at any census return from the 19th century and you'll see many families with only two or three children. In some cases this reflects higher infant mortality--a problem since rectified thanks to men--and the greater prevelance of childhood illnesses--again a problem largely rectified thanks to men--but in general it was the result of "natural" birth control--not feminism.

Yes the rhythm method. Just make sure to have sex only one week before menstration and one week after. What if hubby and wife get all hot and heavy on the wrong day?

The use of the term "breeding machine" really says a lot about how you value human life. You think it's a good thing that feminism has pumped such negative attitudes towards life into your mind, and that you in turn spread it to others?

As I stated before... all men do not like hockey -- all women do not want to have lots of children; some even only want one, or none.

It has nothing to do with control, but abiding by a universal standard that applies to both men and women. We have countless examples of how promiscuity leads to strifle, depression, discord, negativity, etc., etc., etc. Having the "right" to engage in self-destructive behaviour "when I want" is a pretty pathetic way of asserting one's independence. "Bedding" people reduces the person to a mere instrument for fulfilling one's sexual urges; I fail to see how engaging in superficial relationships makes one a better person; the fact that feminism has taught you this only serves to reinforce the notion that feminism is a problem.

Why is it self destructive? Why is it pathetic (for a woman) to like sex with different men? Do you feel the same way about a young man "sowing his oats"?

We're talking about under age sex. This is a direct result of the sexual revolution. The sexual revolution in general has opened pandora's box, and what was once sexual deviance is now becoming normalized and socially acceptable. One can only wonder what will be going on in 50 years.

1936 -- the sexual revolution had not come about then -- yet there it is -- a man screwed his daugher. Was he a product of feminism? Or was he asserting his "patriachal right" to bed this girl (the wife, my grandmother, had died in childbirth -- too many children). My father was 11, his older sister was 13 when she gave birth.

Even worse. We've all seen what is becoming of men in an increasingly feminized world. It's interesting that you pride yourself in having taught him to wash dishes and clean toilets, yet mention noting of his intelligence or intellect. I guess that's just not a priority for you. Well, at least one day when scores of women have bedded him and fleeced for what he's worth, he can always fall back on janitorial work or washing dishes at a restaurant to make his child support payments...

He's a great kid! Very well rounded. Gets good grades. But the gist of your topic is men being feminized -- so I responded by laughing at you and telling you that my son is "feminized". LOL

Again, what does this have to do with control? Do you think that because you're a woman you don't have to listen to the opinions of men that you don't agree with? Keep in mind that there are rules here for labelling people "bigots" and "racists", etc.--"misogynist" is just another form of this.

Sorry for you.

Just millions?

Yawn, this is all getting rather boring... I never said you weren't or have consider you to not be a "human being". That's typical feminist, though, isn't it, making such accusations? The fact of the matter is my concern is the betterment of all people, male or female; it's people who want to lower themselves by engaging in promiscuous or other viceful behaviour that make themselves less human.

Ah yes, I am a human being.

But in your mind because I am a human being of the female persuasion I should not have control over what I do with my vulva or my uterus. You believe that women should be controlled by their very sex organs. Are you controlled by yours? No? Then afford me the same respect.

Sexual enjoyment is purely human. God given (if you believe in the sky daddy) pure enjoyment.

Life is great!

Here is what I think you are trying to tell us:

"People who have sex are less human than those who do not engage in such activity"

"Women are supposed to want children, lots of them"

"Women suck money from men"

None of these things are even remotely true.

Have a nice day! I will be thinking of you while I work and earn money -- thinking of how you are so resentful that I, as a woman, have autonomy.

LOL

Edited October 19, 2007 by Drea

[margrace]

This, again, is quite incorrect. There were a number of ways in which the number of children a family had in the olden days could be regulated, and these practices were commonly used. The primary consideration was the ability to feed the children; households that were less able to feed children tended to have fewer children. Go look at any census return from the 19th century and you'll see many families with only two or three children. In some cases this reflects higher infant mortality--a problem since rectified thanks to men--and the greater prevelance of childhood illnesses--again a problem largely rectified thanks to men--but in general it was the result of "natural" birth control--not feminism.

Yes Kengs, I do a lot of family history and there are a few families with not too many children, mainly I find because the woman died and someone else had to raise any children left. One Family for instance Joseph Shier and Anne Sparling had 10 children and 95 grandchildre , there was a lot of birth control wasn't there. Only one woman had 2 children, she died in childbirth

[myata]

the question is: why don't firms hire women who are cheaper?

...

IOW, sexism is contrary to greed - and greed is a universal human trait.

Market isn't universally right and oftentimes needs regulation. E.g. just so that an occasional run on the bank wouldn't end up as a devastating recession.

Gender discrepancy in the corporate government is an indicator that existing structure, on average, is not adequate for the changed demographics of the work force. The two will eventually have to be reconciled. Some companies are certainly realizing it on their own, of pure greed or other reason. The question is, should it be left entirely to the goodwill of the business or it would benefit from some sort of "assistance" (or prodding)? The answer, to me at least, is not obvious - while I don't advocate (and really like) the Norvegian solution.

[Guest American Woman]

Jefferiah and American Woman, in the event you ever return to this thread and read my post, the question is: why don't firms hire women who are cheaper? If greedy capitalists want to make money, then surely cheap women are a good choice.

IOW, sexism is contrary to greed - and greed is a universal human trait.

The fact that women who are as qualified for a position as men are viewed as "cheaper," as "cheap women," is a whole different topic, but definitely confirms the fact that something needs to be done about the inequality women experience in the work world.

If "greedy capitalists" were concerned only about "cheap labor," they would be hiring illegal immigrants. This issue is about gender, not greed.

I started out with serious doubts about this policy in Norway, but the more I think about it (ie: the more I read the comments in this thread), the less objections I have-- and I'm starting to think it's necessary in order to help make things right, and hopefully the day will come when there is no longer a need for such policies.

Here's a fact. Women have to survive financially in this world the same as men do. That women should be denied the same opportunities, overlooked because of their gender, and regarded as "cheap labor," is inexcusable.

Edited October 19, 2007 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

This is not my question to answer but yours. You are making the case against businessmen for being bigots. Burden of proof is on you.

Are you saying that everytime a workplace has more men than women it is because of discrimination?

I never once claimed businessmen were bigots, so please don't state my case for me since I'm perfectly capable of doing that myself, but rather respond to what I've actually said. Thank you.

But it is your question, because I'm asking you for your opinion. That's all. I'm not asking you for "proof" of anything; merely your opinion. Furthermore, this isn't about a "workplace" that has more men than women; it's about a specific position in many workplaces that have a helluva lot more men than women; sometimes no women.

So how about it. Are you able to answer the question?

Edited October 19, 2007 by American Woman

[jefferiah]

So how about it. Are you able to answer the question?

That's just it. I don't know. I don't know each individual case. I don't know the women who applied. And I don't know how many women applied in comparison to men. And neither do you. And it is still your question to answer. Since you want to take away the power of the owners of a private company to decide who they can employ, you have to provide the evidence. What we both know and can agree on is that there is a great margin of error in such a policy. You did agree with me on this. And you are aware that there will be cases where these policies will actually "require" the employer to hire based on the sex of the applicant.

Now, some may argue that in some situations intervention is needed. For the sake of argument, let's assume that is true. You asked, "Should women have to live with the way things are." What way is that? Not being on a Board of Directors? To my mind that is not such an urgent state of affairs to necessitate applying interventionist policies that will supercede private freedom, and in turn create some cases of actual discrimination in hiring, where they may have been none in the first place.

You had might as well say that America has to appoint Obama or Hillary president on the basis that 100 percent of its presidents have been white and male.

Edited October 20, 2007 by jefferiah