Feminism goes insane in Norway

[Guest American Woman]

Being forced to sit at the back of the bus is a clear cut case. Yours is not.

Allowing blacks to sit at the front of the bus is not a policy which would ever create discrimination. There is no requirement that so many blacks sit up front. They simply removed the rule that they must sit in the back. There is no rule that says women cannot be on a Board of Directors.

The policies you promote will create actual cases of sex-based hiring.

I'm not necessarily promoting the policy. I am, however, saying I can see why some would find in necessary. And as I said, the government gets involved in businesses in other areas, and if women aren't being offered the same opportunities as men, then that's wrong. Any business that doesn't give women the same opportunities as men is showing discrimination, and no one will convince me that only an itty bitty percentage of women in these fields aspire to achieve the same level men do; especially in light of the research I posted. It just doesn't make sense. I've asked you several times for your opinion, why you think so few women are on the Board of Directors, and you can't even come up with an answer.

[jefferiah]

And as I said, the government gets involved in businesses in other areas, and if women aren't being offered the same opportunities as men, then that's wrong. Any business that doesn't give women the same opportunities as men is showing discrimination, and no one will convince me that only an itty bitty percentage of women in these fields aspire to achieve the same level men do; especially in light of the research I posted. It just doesn't make sense.

But you still have not established that women are not being given the same opportunities. One of my elderly relatives has to have a special care worker come to her house everyday for so many hours. There is a certain agency which the government employs to provide this service. The agency never seems to send the same person everyday, because so far my elderly relative has had a lot of different special care workers. Not one of them has yet been male. Does this mean that they do not provide opportunities to males?

I've asked you several times for your opinion, why you think so few women are on the Board of Directors, and you can't even come up with an answer.

I already answered you a few posts back. I said I do not know all the reason"s". And neither do you. I don't have to come up with the answer. You do.

If you wish to know my opinion (which is not relevant), I am sure there are cases where some of this can be attributed to discrimination. But I do not think that discrimination accounts for fifty percent of the inequality. I am sure there are a lot of reasons.

Edited October 21, 2007 by jefferiah

[Guest American Woman]

But you still have not established that women are not being given the same opportunities. One of my elderly relatives has to have a special care worker come to her house everyday for so many hours. There is a certain agency which the government employs to provide this service. The agency never seems to send the same person everyday, because so far my elderly relative has had a lot of different special care workers. Not one of them has yet been male. Does this mean that they do not provide opportunities to males?

Yes I did. You just refuse to accept it as legitimate. Your example, nursing, is a field seen by most men as women's job, so that's men viewing it that way, not any sort of discrimination. There are not men aspiring to be nurses but not being hired because of their sex, and I'm guessing you know that as well as I do. We are talking about a high power, high salary position that women make up a tiny percentage of. It makes no sense that women would pay the same price for an education as men, put in the same effort on the job, and not aspire to achieve the same goals. That just a teeny tiny percentage of women would have the same aspirations as men doesn't make sense, and if something doesn't make sense, it's usually because it's not true.

I already answered you a few posts back. I said I do not know all the reason"s". And neither do you. I don't have to come up with the answer. You do.

If you wish to know my opinion (which is not relevant), I am sure there are cases where some of this can be attributed to discrimination. But I do not think that discrimination accounts for fifty percent of the inequality. I am sure there are a lot of reasons.

I came up with an answer, which is more than you did, but you don't like it so you dismiss it even though I provided research. But at least you are admitting that there are cases where it can be attributed to discrimination, so that's a start.

I'd like to know what at least a couple of the "a lot of reasons" you "are sure" attribute to the huge, huge discrepency, but so far you've been mum on giving your opinion. Makes me wonder why.

Edited October 21, 2007 by American Woman

[ScottSA]

I came up with an answer, which is more than you did, but you don't like it so you dismiss it even though I provided research. But at least you are admitting that there are cases where it can be attributed to discrimination, so that's a start.

I'd like to know what at least a couple of the "a lot of reasons" you "are sure" attribute to the huge, huge discrepency, but so far you've been mum on giving your opinion. Makes me wonder why.

The research you provided was based on asking professional women if they'd like to advance in their careers to the top. It's a no brainer that they said yes. What the research didn't account for was:

1 relative # of women in that position vs number of men,

2 relative # of women to men in the industry,

3 length of time of each women and man in the industry

4 control from general population

1-10,000 a trillion other control factors,

PLUS: the fact that the sampling is of a group that obviously wants to advance, so it has zero (0) utlity as any kind of "study" at all. It's like asking Doctors if they want to make more money in medicine, or pedophiles...well anyway, you didn't provide any research at all.

[jefferiah]

There are not men aspiring to be nurses but not being hired because of their sex, and I'm guessing you know that as well as I do.

Guessing that I know that? Of course I do. That is my whole point, American Woman. Statistics can't tell you there is discrimination. There are other factors which can account for an inequality in numbers in the workforce.

I can tell you that, personally, out the people I know who watch hockey most of them tend to be male. That does not mean only men can watch it. And it does not mean that there are no women who like hockey. It does not mean that hockey is a man's sport and women ought not to watch it. (In fact, I have met some girls with alot of hockey knowledge, who can beat any guy I know in trivia on the subject.) But if less women are watching hockey it may be because less women choose to. It may be that, even though less women are stereotypically feminine than in previous eras, that there are still many women who are still stereotypically feminine in some aspects of life by their own free choice.

Now as for your site, if they were interested in equality in the workplace you would think they would have a mission statement more along the lines about equality of all groups in the workplace (a group which I would also probably disagree with in most instances)----but the statement suggests that their main concern is women. So it can suggest a bias, just as you said my being white and male can suggest a bias.

Perhaps the bias is not a feminist one though. To me it seems that a great deal of feminist organizations (people for the advancement of women, etc) have a certain other bias, one that has nothing to do with gender and a great deal to do with a certain part of the political spectrum.

A large part of the reason you will find me disagreeing with a great deal of the conclusions of feminist groups is the fact that they seem to lean toward "socialist" solutions towards any problem. Because of this, feminist groups, whether conscious of this or not, have been a great tool (whether consciously or not) in the hands of socialist advocates. You see by nature a person who disagrees with socialism finds himself disagreeing with a large number of feminist groups. And the counterattack that can be made is that those who do not support "socialism" are anti-woman, because the same people who dislike socialism, are the same people who find themselves debating feminist groups.

If you don't like the feminists you must hate women. But what a great deal of us dislike about the fem. orgs is the socialism, not the fact that they are women.

Edited October 22, 2007 by jefferiah

[jefferiah]

But at least you are admitting that there are cases where it can be attributed to discrimination, so that's a start.

The funny thing, AM, is that I was never implying that there was no such thing as discrimination in the work force. Re-read my posts and you will see that I never denied the existence of discrimination, I simply said that no one can say it accounts for the greater part of the inequalities we see. So it is not as if this is some great admission on my part. My argument has been that no one knows how much of the "uneveness" in statistics is a direct result of discrimination. Which is why I made my special care analogy. It was not a complaint against men not being there. And it was also why I kept asking you questions as to whether things would magically even out in a society where no one held any discriminatory views. You admitted that they would not. So you know that there must be other factors besides discrimination to account for an unevenness. Even when there are gross "inequalities" in statistics it does not necessarily suggest anything.

Now these policies will directly create cases where sexual discrimination in hiring will be MANDATORY!!!! The law does not state that women have to sit at the back of the bus (ie, that women employees must work in the mail room). The law allows for women to work in the mail room and as CEOs. So-called equal opportunity policies actually do create sexual restrictions. So even though discrimination exists, it is quite possible (I think probable) that such laws will acount for more sexual discrimination in hiring than previously existed.

This house is about 30 years old. I am willing to bet you that of all the people who went in and out over the years, not one of them has been a black person. Is discrimination the only possible answer to this statistic?

Edited October 22, 2007 by jefferiah

[Drea]

Again, reading comprehension... reduce household chores so they can deal with "other issues," not reduce household chores so they can deal with other household chores? Are you intentionally trying to be dense?

Didn't you see the winking icon?

Since the sexual revolution, sexual deviance has become more normalized. Chances are that incest will become "normal" given the way things are going. I don't like it, but evidently you feel that the rights of sexual deviants are more important to having a moral society.

Where did I say anything about sexual devianc? I was speaking of heterosexual sex between one male and one female (at a time). Is that deviant in your opinion?

It's not nasty; it's something that you have forced others to think about you based on your conduct. The blame is on you and you alone.

You essentially called me a prostitute by inferring that I "probably work nights". Yet I am blamed for you slandering me? Your words are my responsibility? Your over-reaction to my lifestyle is my responsibility? You and you alone are responsible for how you react in any given situation, or in any given conversation. If you choose to infer insults the least you could do is take responsiblity for doing so.

Nope, read the Bible. God created man, not sinful pleasure. That's something that mankind brought upon itself.

Not all people believe in the words of the bible to which you refer. Many believe we are creatures of the earth and enjoy life as it is. Read my tagline.

So you view parts of your body as "a toy"?

Yes. Parts of the female human body are made for only one purpose. Sexual pleasure and orgasm. And sex is (should be) fun so, yes I called it a "toy".

I haven't insulted you, just made factual statements. You on the other hand have made direct insulting remarks, and you have not apologized for calling me a misogynist.

Ok I will apologize for calling you that. And yes, inferring a person works "at night" (is a hooker) is an insult to a person such as myself -- so yes, you did insult me.

Sexual freedom does not necessarily include irresponsibility. It does not mean jumping into bed with every person -- it means the freedom to explore one's sexuality. This may or may not mean with a variety of partners, depending on the person.

The fact of the matter is that if you don't like the topic being discussed or what another member says, then no one is you--a supposedly autonomous woman--to continue in the discussion. Threatening to go to a mod is pretty pathetic.

Many women for instance are now starting to find that feminism has brainwashed them into thinking that they have to shirk their femininity and enter the corporate world, and they now prefer to stay at home and raise children.

Some do.

But by your own admission, women should follow their biology and have children.

"Many of us never had any desire to be wives or mothers. "

Right, that's the point; who drove these ideas into your head? This often happens in a very subtle manner, so of course you can make excuses for why it wasn't because of feminism. But in the end, that's what it boils down to.

You assume that "brainwashing" is the reason that some women don't want children. If they were "normal" (not brainwashed) they would want babies.

You should ask him exactly how he feels about having to outlay a disproportionate amount of money to secure your interest, how he feels about the liberties you take with his income.

You assume a woman makes less money (or none) than her husband. You assume that she shops without regard, you assume a woman needs her "interests" to be secured.

I don't think so. Women entering the workforce just contributes to inflation

That is your opinion. No economics text (no I'm not an economist, jeez just took it in college) that I have read has said that if a large percentage of the working population were not there, the economy would be better off.

My college-economics-101-opinion: Without women working there would be less buying power, there would be less products sold, there would be less jobs, therefore there would be less money.

Sure you are.

...another inferred insult.

Oh, and I don't work nights. After 28 years in the workforce I get day shift and I even weekends off!

Edited October 22, 2007 by Drea