The Glade 4.0

Because if they make more, they'll never get married.
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... ap-between

I can't wait for this backwards generation of fools to **** die already.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

The generation that takes 7 year old quotes by people we've hardly know out of context and makes them "news" in order to fit their agenda? I'll be happy when that's over yes.

However if we are going to fix the "pay gap" we should probably start at the White House.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"

I have a shocking theory that I hope doesn't get me in trouble with the feminists.

What is best, economically, for a particular woman depends on her situation and what she wants out of life.

I have always worked with a lot of women, and ONE AND ONLY ONE has been focused on career development ambition instead of first on family. And, arguably, this woman was trying to do both and was really a disaster.

My wife has the same general background that I do, with more education, and makes roughly half of what I do, working part time for a non profit. She doesn't want to make more money, but would love for me to do so.

I do feel bad for women. They feel a lot of pressure to be both a career gal and a traditional mom. Since I changed my schedule (6:30 to 3PM on Tues-Thurs) so that I can meet the afternoon bus, I see the pressure first hand. There's a lot of 2:30 meetings that I have to scramble to deal with. It's a hard juggling act to be sure.

Even if the number of women is large enough to constitute a supermajority, a group of women not wanting to make more money is different than a policy to pay women less. The fact that most women are driven to be mothers and to take care of their family, even when that desire impedes their career advancement, is something that goes overlooked by feminist advocates all too often.

That is not what Phyllis Schlafly was saying. We are not taking her out of context. This is not like when liberals hated on Sarah Palin because she didn't follow mainstream feminist ideals. Phyllis Schlafly is saying that women should be paid less for the same job, as a matter of policy, to encourage them to stay in the kitchen and serve their men. That she and others like her hold influence in the Republican Party is the reason why they can't win elections despite the Democrats' repeated failures.

Just because what she's saying sounds bad, and just because she's a God-fearing Christian being lambasted by an anti-Christian liberal media does not mean Phyllis Schlafly's statements are being misconstrued.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Obviously not the main thrust of your post, Coro, but on this point, I think the more thoughtful feminist advocates would argue that (i) the fact that women are more likely than men to choose family over career is itself the result of sexist social conditioning, and (ii) one of the main reasons our work culture and policies aren't more conducive to balancing family needs (e.g., limited parental leave and flex time options, professional disdain for people who take a break from their career to have kids, etc.) is that such culture and policies developed in a patriarchal context that presumed there was a woman at home to raise the family, so there was no need for such balancing.

Bullshit! Oh, not your post, other than the word "more thoughtful". Your post is right - "Feminist advocates" probably would argue that. However, they advocate bullshit!

I so much wish I could have been a stay-at-home mom. "Careers" are a bullshit waste of a life. I won't want to spend all my time working for other people. The economics of the situation, though, dictate that I have to. I have nothing but disdain for the entire culture of careers defining people - be it men or women who focus on it.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

A) Phyllis Schalfely is not, and has never been an advocate for the "religious right", her personal Roman Catholic faith notwithstanding. While some of her positions, most notably that on abortion, intersect with that demographic, she is not a religious advocate and her positions have nothing to do with being a "God-fearing Christian". She is a political traditionalist, not a religious one, and an anti-feminist. MSNBC is just throwing the "religious right" thing on there to pander to its normal audience's predjudices, and incidentally Coro's as well, who didn't bother to think this all the way through before deciding that somehow this all relates to the Christian boogeyman as opposed to an 86-year-old woman just being an 86-year-old woman.

B) Second, yes, Schlafely IS being misinterpreyted and taken out of context because the debate now is NOT equal pay for equal work. That debate has been over for decades, and is now morphed into the "gender pay gap" debate, wherein equal work is simply ASSUMED (despite overwhelming evidence that men work more hours, are willing to take harder jobs, and die on the job vastly more often than women) and that the fact that women IN GENERAL make less money than men is taken as evidence of a social problem.

In other words "equal pay for equal work" has simply become "equal pay" in common parlance with the euphemism "gender pay gap" used to cover it up. Of course, actually pointing out that women have different motivations because they have different biological imperatives (which inconveniently are based on the survivalist imperative the species had until between fifty and a hundred years ago and which now we want to just go away) is verboten. So is pointing out that men behave differently in regards to work in general, and most importantly, that men are still very much judged on their ability to provide resources.

In point of fact, our entire legal system is set up this way. Women have massive advantages in terms of obtaining control of children, resources, or both from men that they either married, had children with, or both. Women have near-total control of reproductive decisions and can choose to abort or not their responsibility for a child even AFTER it is born (abandoning children at hospitals, fire stations, and other places of safety) while any protest of this arrangement is met with the protest that men "had their choice when they decided to have sex". Yet strangely, in any OTHER context, (such as abstinence education or whether teenagers should be able to get abortions without parental knowledge) somehow expecting people to refrain from sex is barbaric and heinous. Males have exactly ONE method of birth control under their control, the method that's generally least popular to have to use (condoms) but yet the availability of far more options - most of which make lying about using them very easy indeed - to women is treated as some sort of oppressive "why do WOMEN have to take responsibility for birth control?!?" oppression.

That's what the gender pay issue and feminism in general have always been about - obtaining rights and freedoms for women, while treating any corresponding RESPONSIBILITY as "oppressive". The RIGHT to equal pay (measured by group equality) without the RESPONSIBILITY of equal work. The RIGHT to reproductive freedom without the RESPONSIBILITY to raise children without the guarantee of resources from someone else they supposedly need about as much as a fish needs a bicycle.

Phyllis may be behind the times, out of date, and very clumsy in her presentation, but she is not advocating unequal pay for equal work, no matter how giddy Coro is at yet another opportunity to talk sarcastically about "god fearing Christians", relevant or not.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

There pretty much is no such thing as a "thoughtful feminist advocate". Our social conditioning is what it is because of our biology. Furthermore, the fact that women have the option to choose family over career makes that argument absurd on its face. Men do not, for the most part, have any option to be the stay-at-home; it's socially unacceptable, and if there's a divorce, the male will rarely get the kids. Even if he was a stay-at-home he'll be seen as a deadbeat if he does not go get a job and pay child support, and a leech if he somehow manages to get the kids and child support from the woman. A woman who is a stay at home gets not only to keep the kids and generous child support, but gets to whine about how she put herself behind his ambitions all those years and now has no skills or options and needs public help because of that big meanie who no doubt left her for a younger woman - or even if she just unilaterally left him, who "took her for granted" or some crap by being a responsible provider.

Second, there is nothing "patriarchal" about "women staying home to care for children"; it has to do with the fact that males in societies until pretty much the last 50 years needed males to go out and do the work because so much of it was manual labor. If no one stays at home and both work, child care becomes a major drain on resources.

The idea that feminists have is that any given woman should have total freedom to choose children, career, or split the difference, with or without a man, and suffer no economic disadvantage regardless of personal choice. A man in her life should tailor whatever he does to what she wants to do, because if she does anything at all based on the fact that she's the one with the uterus, that's "patriarchy" and "sexism". That includes when she decides to ditch him for whatever reason, or he decides to ditch her - she has the overwhelming advantage in continuing to obtain resources from him, while he loses most or all control over the raising of his kids.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I feel the same way. However, the social pressures on me, as a man, to pursue a career rather than stay home with the kids regardless of my spouses' income level are far, far greater than they are on you, as a woman. And vice-versa. My fiancée and I each make enough that the other one could stay home with the (hypothetical, future) kids, but if I stayed home while she kept working, we would both get way more side-eye (me for staying home, her for not staying home) than if we did it the other way around.

That's a massive overstatement, DE. Of course biology plays a role, but exactly how much in any given aspect of life is nothing more than a question mark at this point.


Yes, that is the flip-side of the coin. Women face pressure to prioritize family over career, and men face pressure to prioritize their career. Sexist social expectations hurt both men and women.


Well, first of all, just because there was an allegedly legitimate reason for gendered roles doesn't change the fact the male role involved controlling the power and resources (i.e., patriarchy). And secondly, the manual labor excuse was never as true as you suggest. Women always performed manual labor; it was the white collar roles (medicine, law, business, government, etc.) that were closed to them the longest based on bullshit prejudice about women being too stupid, flighty, emotional, or whatever. And thirdly, whatever validity the manual labor thing once had is largely irrelevant now outside of a handful of occupations where raw strength is a significant contributor to productivity.

Our social conditioning is driven by our social evolution from the past, dating to before our invention of basic language, hunter gatherer societies, etc. Our biology is still tailored to that and our social evolution has proceeded along a path driven by that origin. It's not an overstatement at all. The only question is how much is driven by our biology directly, right now, as opposed to past habits driven by previous biological imperatives. Either way, it all starts with how we're put together. Feminists are notoriously unable to explain where all this "patriarchy" came from in the first place, except to appeal to it in the past, without explaining how it came about to begin with - it's always just treated as if it just magically happened because penis.



Except that isn't sexist. Women have more options; men are mostly restricted to one option but are able to better optimize for it. That isn't sexist or unequal at all - it's just different, and it's not "hurting" anyone.



Except that men didn't "control the power and resources". Most men had no control over any power and had very few resources which they labored very long hours to obtain - just enough to get by. They were further obligated to use that resource for the maintenance of women and children. For those men that DID have overt power and more resource, they were still obligated to provide for women and children in a manner befitting their station, and women had considerable covert control - through normal marital give-and-take, social pressure, and most importantly lack of legal responsibility. Men were responsible for the crimes and debts of their wives.



Except that it isn't irrelevant now. women still heavily avoid the hardest manual labor jobs, and even in the past when they did them they tended to do jobs that involved sitting, doing them from home, and skills around the house. Even today, women are in no rush to take jobs as coal miners, merchant marine crew, garbage collectors, and such despite whining about numbers of women CEOs. When they do take "manual labor"jobs, they inevitably want those with status and glamor (at least in the eyes of some people) such as police, firefighting, and the military. When they DO take these jobs, they inevitably demand that both standards and environment be tailored to their sensibilities and physical capabilities, all the while complaining that they supposedly work twice as hard as males do to get there.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

If that were the case, DE, there would never be outliers or cultures with different social structures because we all share the same biology.

Furthermore, natural does not necessarily equal 'just' or 'desirable'. (appeal to nature fallacy)

I made no judgement about whether anything was desirable; I pointed out that it is not the result of some "social conditioning" that just exists for no apparent reason - especially not some patriarchy that just happened because men are big meanies or something.

As for outliers and such "driven by biology" does not mean "dictated in every particular." My position in no way precludes these. Don't be absurd.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

This is true, but by overstating this you're ignoring the best method for separating our societal structure from raw biology. Social activism splits society from tradition. In this case, the social activists trying to change our society's traditions are the feminists. So in a way you are agreeing with them - we are what we are based on traditional influences. They are trying to change that.

Many practices that are considered evil today have roots in biology. It falls to activists to pull society away from these practices (examples include slavery, rape, abuse against women, child labor, chewing with your mouth open)

This looks like a useful phrase.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

I'm not disagreeing with that, nor ignoring anything. I'm pointing out why those traditional influences are what they are, and that the forces that created those influences still are in play today. Furthermore, the opposite of the appeal to nature and appeal to tradition is also fallacious - just because something comes from nature or is traditional does not make it fallacious, nor bad.



So?

Just because someone is an activist does not mean they are striving against an evil, or are not replacing it with a new evil more to their liking.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's amazingly useful.. and if you like that, I'll link when I get home a video of a major NOW figure (might be the president, don't recall off the top of my head) talking aobut how she "knows in her vagina...." <insert various nonsense here. Most feminist thought can basically be boiled down to "men bad/rape/patriarchy/misogeny because penis" or "women good/right/oppressed because vagina".. and we pretty much have a video of a NOW speech to prove it. Remember folks, men thinking with their genitals is bad, but women can crow about doing the same thing as a form of pride.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I could have used that in all sorts of situations. For example, at my wedding reception, 18+ years ago!

"Oh, it's only 11pm. Are you leaving already?"
"Yes, because penis."

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Feminists should go take Biology and learn how sexually reproducing species work. Prioritizing reproduction is not the result of a misogynistic patriarchy.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

It's also not "evolution" to try to change this. It's a good way to make our species go into a tailspin. There's no more important imperative.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

1. Mutations.

but for a point in your favor its been found our dna rewrites itself depending on environmental conditions.

So mostly what DE is saying but not all of it.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Natural Selection requires a constant supply of mutations and outliers, which means we need to have more kids.

Now, some people would argue that humans have too many children. I disagree. I don't disagree we're overpopulating, but I do disagree we're having too many children. The problem is, natural selection is being circumvented, and a consequence the wrong people are having too many children.

In developed countries, the lower your socioeconomic status, the more children you are likely to have, and younger.

If a sixteen year old genius IQ gets knocked up and decides to keep her baby, she's almost guaranteed a life of struggling to make ends meet for herself. Meanwhile, we reward people with more welfare for having more kids. And a super-successful executive woman has to delay having kids until 40 (and thus increase the risk of mental defect in her kids) if she wants her career to go anywhere.

This is all the opposite of where things should be going. Our most successful, gifted people should be the ones having the most kids, and doing it younger. Our least talented people should often run into a situation not ever have the opportunity or resources to breed.

We've created a society that will regress, from an evolutionary perspective, and it's rather scary.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Humanity removed itself from the natural selection pool when we started changing our environments to suit us.

No, we really didn't. We have a degree of ability to affect our own selection, but thinking we're immune from natural forces is not the case at all. In any case, we aren't talking about natural selection specifically so much as the biology that was already selected for influencing our social development.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Lots of animals change their environments to suit themselves, to varying degrees. While we've done it better than most, we also tend to greatly overestimate our own effect on the environment. We are, at worst, a minor inconvenience to nature, and she can still frequently toss us around at her whim just to prove that point.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █