Gender Biased Pricing

[I Miss Trudeau]

It leaves nothing to bitch and moan about.

This is really rather offensive and, sadly, detracts from your otherwise valid points.

[caesar]

QUOTE (PocketRocket @ Mar 22 2005, 10:37 AM)

It leaves nothing to bitch and moan about.

This is really rather offensive and, sadly, detracts from your otherwise valid points.

Well, RB does seem to really think that women are being discriminated against beyond common sense. She ignores valid reasons for pricing differences. When she gets into pricing of food being discriminatory against women; she starts losing it.

Women do have a voice and the same rights as men.

There are many establishments that do charge the same price for men and women's hair; most women do not go there as they do not like the type of service. This can be true of men, too. My son likes to be pampered when it comes to his hair; shampoo and head massage and pays 75 dollars for a hair cut.

[PocketRocket]

It leaves nothing to bitch and moan about.

This is really rather offensive and, sadly, detracts from your otherwise valid points.

I'm sorry you see it that way.

In its original context, it was meant as a humorously unreasonable way to address what I thought was an unreasonable point.

My antagonist makes sweeping assertations accusing all men of being responsible for taking advantage of women at the cash counter.

When a valid point was brought up refuting some of her statements, she completely ignored the point.

I addressed that point, and, indirectly, her refusal to acknowledge that point, in what I saw as a joking fashion.

But I apologize if I caused offense.

My personal bitching and moaning is never meant to offend anyone

My breath, on the other hand....

What you seem to have missed is comments like this....

Question yourselves how come men are successful. Oh, and I am fed-up with the conceited line men usually give "I am smart"

Which she contradicts about two paragraphs later by saying....

Maybe the men are smarter in their buying habits

And then there's this.....

I am glad you mentioned we are born with potential tools. When I look at say men and war as in Iraq war it all conjures up imagery of maleness and power. Here is the example of maleness and war. It is all about weaponry with major thrusting of missiles with its piercing and explosive sounds. I mean these are all languages women know (that tool word), its mimics of the phallic side of sex. How interesting, a major overgrowth of men.

I mean, come on now. This thread is supposed to be about gender biased pricing.

However, if you contradict RB on her points, she will regularly throw something back at you which is completely unrelated.

"Thrusting of missiles"??? What are they supposed to do??? Just sit there on the launch pad??? Fat lot of good that would do. Perhaps they should fly out of their silos, and go nurture the enemy??? I don't think that's their purpose.

But because they are cylindrical, streamlined shape, they are automatically equated with the phallus, and just another way for RB to take a potshot at men.

If you read back, you will see several posts refuting RB's statements point by point, which she totally ignores except to throw more "sexist" rhetoric around.

If she wants a dedicated battle-of-the-sexes thread, then fine, she can open one up.

But this thread is about gender pricing, not about Freudian imagery as it relates to bullets, missiles et al.

When I am debated in a logical and sensible manner, I will respond in kind.

When I make a valid point, and it is responded to with misdirection and obfuscation, then I will poke fun, rather than start a flame war.

I-MISS-TRUDEAU (I do too, BTW), I hope that clears things up a bit regarding that little comment.

I'll quit bitching now. I have some serious moaning to do.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Let me add to the bitching.

Gender-war feminism serves as an ideological substitute for thought, rather than a useful analytical framework. No matter what the issue, no matter what the facts, gender-war feminism will always produce the same analysis (much like the Austrian School of 'economics', or the creation scientists in 'biology', or the medieval church Scolastics). Producing the same analysis no matter what the facts is not a useful practice when it comes to making choices.

RB seems to have swallowed whole and thoroughly internalized the dialect of gender-war feminism. Unfortunately, her emphasis on this dialect frequently interupts her ability to dialogue.

[RB]

Hello folks

Are you guys analysing what I post while I am still here. I can read you know. (noticed, I didn’t say my ideology)

......added after thought, about the "swallowed whole and thoroughly internalized" - I can confirm I didn't do any of the sort. No lies now, I mean I understand political parties usually die swallowing their own lies. I can only sympathise. So if I went into too much detail, please consider it pre-digested material. I can only reiterate that no one should swallow more than they can digest.

Why don't I clear up the smart comment here

QUOTE 

Question yourselves how come men are successful. Oh, and I am fed-up with the conceited line men usually give "I am smart"

Which she contradicts about two paragraphs later by saying....QUOTE

Maybe the men are smarter in their buying habits  

Well, it is exasperating to say the least that the men who utter nothingness to us also want to try and talk smart to us.

For example if we make a statement to say, “twice two makes four”. Here is the demand:

1) what do you mean by twice

2) what you by two

3) what by makes

4) what four

If you read back, you will see several posts refuting RB's statements point by point

I mean some of you are really detailing the demand.

So just for asking those questions it makes you respected, and smart. And then you also turn around to verbally remind us that you are the smart one, such self-conceit. So now, you've got brownie points, I actually credit you as smart, but you want to dispute it.

But I don’t mind repeating what others think, most men are accredited as foolish shortly after they leave the womb and this is reinforce when in a hurry they marry a woman who seem to be less prudence than they are – so that they can always say “I am smart”.

That is my explanation of smart.

To The Terrible Sweal:

The graph is correct. If you meant the line Po is to rise to A, I agree - it is difficult to draw a graph using only text.

Edited March 26, 2005 by RB

[PocketRocket]

Good Morning, RB:

Yes, I know you are still here. I don't believe that I wrote anything rude or offensive in my post regarding your method of response.

And yes, I for one am analyzing what you post. I analyze EVERY post that I read, for content, for grammatical accuracy, for style, for intelligence, and so much more.

And yes, when discussing something point-by-point, I expect a response in kind.

Let's put it this way, if you make an argument using several points to back up your stance, then I try to address each of those points in turn.

Quite often I end up writing posts that agree with several points, then disagree with others.

If I disagree with a particular point, I give the reasons rationalizing my disagreement.

I then expect you to defend those same points to back up your original premise.

By doing so, you may change my mind on some or all of them.

By simply leaving those disputed points alone, and moving on to secondary and tertiary arguments, and sometimes veering completely off-topic, you give the impression that you cannot back up those points which are being disputed.

This leaves the apparent impression that none of your original arguments held any water to begin with, and certainly weakens your stance.

When you then swamp us with information which is not relevant to the thread, but is simply more anti-male hoo-hoo, it leave the impression that you have no point at all, and are simply male-bashing.

In making sweeping "Men are responsible for...." type statements, you actually weaken your position, not to mention antagonizing any men that might agree with you.

Not ALL men are responsible for holding women back.

I agree that many men still have a very chauvinistic outlook. But by characterizing ALL men in this way, you prove yourself to be no better than those men you are refering to.

I have said to you before that I believe you to be very intelligent, and you do have a lot of valid concerns.

But in bringing these concerns to a forum, wherein they WILL be debated, you must be prepared to back them up.

Self contradictory statements do not help your position. Nor do sweeping, blanket statements.

Does that make our expectations a bit more clear???

Sorry if any offense was cause, certainly none was intended.

Have a fine day.

[RB]

PocketRocket

I don't think I am the one dismayed. I enjoy posting here but can only respond based on my own constrains, I am "on the go" most of the time.

In making sweeping "Men are responsible for...." type statements, you actually weaken your position, not to mention antagonizing any men that might agree with you.

Not ALL men are responsible for holding women back

I would be majorly optimistic if I think I could make men worse off than they already are

Does that make our expectations a bit more clear???

yes, sir

[yvestar]

I think gender-biased pricing is mostly non-existant.

If this were a true phenomenon then males should pay less in auto and life insurance while women paid the same as men. I'll gladly meet women half way in haircut and dry cleaning prices while they meet us half way so men pay less in auto and life insurance premiums.

The politician who brought this up obviously did not thoroughly inform himself before suggesting this bill.