A Day Without A Woman
- Thread starter Dresden215
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
It's to shut down the economy if women didn't buy anything for the day.
They only condoned patronizing women-owned and minority-owned business for the day. All others -- no go. In other words: discriminating against businesses due to gender or skin color.... to protest discrimination based on gender and skin color (two Unity Principles of the women's march.) Yes, I'm serious.
Well, that plus it's now become a whole big can of worms, being tied to: Abortion / taxpayer-funded. Faux oppression ("gender wage gap"). Lack of national sovereignty. Open borders. Illegal immigration. A general hatred of America with particular hatred for straight white Christian men. Claiming to represent women but not embracing Pro-Life women. Not championing the rights of girls in the womb. Chanting "Allahu Akbar" over the speaker at protests while staying mum on actual oppression in parts of the world where that chant is heard: female genital mutilation, punishment of rape victims, caning and stoning women to death, not being allowed to drive, sharia law. The list goes on...
There's that too. You are only allowed to think how they say you should think. Your thoughts must fit the Democrats current agenda. If not, you should have your vagina taken away from you. (they said that)
IMO feminism should allow women to be free thinkers. They shouldn't be held back or discriminated against or disqualified because of their gender. The focus should be on that.
The whole wage gap thing is a big lie (these days) in order to get people to sympathize with the movements. It's nowhere close to the dishonestly advertised 79%. In most professions, the gap is very small and it's constantly improving in the favor of women. There are some professions, though, where it's significant but you can't really regulate that (salesperson, actor, athlete...)
The Atlantic has an interesting piece on this recently (as applied to MBA grads from Ivies).
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/02/the-ivy-leagues-gender-pay-gap-problem/515382/
The initial observation was:
In their early 20s, Ivy League women keep up with men. They graduate with higher GPAs and start at similar salaries. But somewhere between age 26 and 34, their male classmates advance professionally at a pace they don?t match.
When you get to 60 or so (currently), you will find that the gap is even wider. Women over 50 (currently) likely did experience wage discrimination and were more likely held back because of their gender at some point in their career path.
Considering that many people have experienced discrimination or know people who have, we feel that it's happening a lot more than it currently is.
But all that's starting to get off track. The 79% number is dishonestly used to recruit more people to their agenda. Often it's stated with the phrase "for equal work", which is misleading. Depending on your career, the number is probably closer to 95% for equal work.
I guess you didn't bother with the article. The answer is essentially children which is a burden that is inherently carried by women. That gap will only close once there are equal expectations (and sacrifices) for both men and women when it comes to raising children. Interestingly enough, the current gap is especially pronounced in cases where a woman in this particular group marries a high-earner.
I can circle it back to feminism, though. Per the bold section above, should we try to change that or should we leave it alone? IMO, we should leave it alone for the most part. (There are a couple of good ideas that can be done, though) If I was married to a high earner and didn't have to work, I would rather spend more time raising the kids.
I actually don't mind women who want to be superior to men or "man-haters".
Men do the same thing to each other (and to women).
That may be the only good thing if HRC became president, it would be awesome to have a female POTUS.
That doesn't take an Ivy. A high earning husband is a variable. Kids are a variable. Both of which encourage the Ivy to basically opt out of the employment rat race.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
Heh, what is that last line about?
"Avoid spending money"
"Avoid spending money"
Dresden215
New member
irvinehomeowner said:
It's to shut down the economy if women didn't buy anything for the day.
socal78
Well-known member
Yeah, I sat this one out, too.
I've never viewed myself as a victim due to my gender. What exactly am I oppressed by?... Being married? I consented to it. My kids? I created them. Being female? It's worked out pretty well for me.
Real women don't abandon their families. They don't punish their very own flesh & blood over something they have no control over. These Third Wave "feminists" are anything but feminine. It's no wonder some of them can't get a man let alone keep one. Yes, that's right, I went there. What those "women" are on strike from, I have absolutely no friggin' clue. A long cozy night with their eight cats, living in their mother's spare bedroom.
I celebrated this totally pointless march today by working, running errands, and cooking a tasty dinner. Holding down the fort. That won't earn me any brownie points among so-called progressives. But they're not the ones who count.
I've never viewed myself as a victim due to my gender. What exactly am I oppressed by?... Being married? I consented to it. My kids? I created them. Being female? It's worked out pretty well for me.
Real women don't abandon their families. They don't punish their very own flesh & blood over something they have no control over. These Third Wave "feminists" are anything but feminine. It's no wonder some of them can't get a man let alone keep one. Yes, that's right, I went there. What those "women" are on strike from, I have absolutely no friggin' clue. A long cozy night with their eight cats, living in their mother's spare bedroom.
I celebrated this totally pointless march today by working, running errands, and cooking a tasty dinner. Holding down the fort. That won't earn me any brownie points among so-called progressives. But they're not the ones who count.
socal78
Well-known member
irvinehomeowner said:
They only condoned patronizing women-owned and minority-owned business for the day. All others -- no go. In other words: discriminating against businesses due to gender or skin color.... to protest discrimination based on gender and skin color (two Unity Principles of the women's march.) Yes, I'm serious.
socal78
Well-known member
The "Manterrupting App" was introduced the day of the women's march. As the name implies, it tracks the interrupting of women done by men.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14294/manterruption-feminist-app-detects-when-men-james-barrett#
Guys. I truly apologize on behalf of the idiots who share my gender. Women today do not want to be equal to men. They want to be superior. There are those who are outright man-haters. It's sad.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/14294/manterruption-feminist-app-detects-when-men-james-barrett#
Guys. I truly apologize on behalf of the idiots who share my gender. Women today do not want to be equal to men. They want to be superior. There are those who are outright man-haters. It's sad.
socal78
Well-known member
spootieho said:
Well, that plus it's now become a whole big can of worms, being tied to: Abortion / taxpayer-funded. Faux oppression ("gender wage gap"). Lack of national sovereignty. Open borders. Illegal immigration. A general hatred of America with particular hatred for straight white Christian men. Claiming to represent women but not embracing Pro-Life women. Not championing the rights of girls in the womb. Chanting "Allahu Akbar" over the speaker at protests while staying mum on actual oppression in parts of the world where that chant is heard: female genital mutilation, punishment of rape victims, caning and stoning women to death, not being allowed to drive, sharia law. The list goes on...
SoCal said:
There's that too. You are only allowed to think how they say you should think. Your thoughts must fit the Democrats current agenda. If not, you should have your vagina taken away from you. (they said that)
IMO feminism should allow women to be free thinkers. They shouldn't be held back or discriminated against or disqualified because of their gender. The focus should be on that.
The whole wage gap thing is a big lie (these days) in order to get people to sympathize with the movements. It's nowhere close to the dishonestly advertised 79%. In most professions, the gap is very small and it's constantly improving in the favor of women. There are some professions, though, where it's significant but you can't really regulate that (salesperson, actor, athlete...)
spootieho said:
The Atlantic has an interesting piece on this recently (as applied to MBA grads from Ivies).
https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/02/the-ivy-leagues-gender-pay-gap-problem/515382/
The initial observation was:
In their early 20s, Ivy League women keep up with men. They graduate with higher GPAs and start at similar salaries. But somewhere between age 26 and 34, their male classmates advance professionally at a pace they don?t match.
In 10 years, that 34 number may become 44. Interestingly enough, studies show that women under 34 in just about every major city make more than their male peers.peppy said:
When you get to 60 or so (currently), you will find that the gap is even wider. Women over 50 (currently) likely did experience wage discrimination and were more likely held back because of their gender at some point in their career path.
Considering that many people have experienced discrimination or know people who have, we feel that it's happening a lot more than it currently is.
But all that's starting to get off track. The 79% number is dishonestly used to recruit more people to their agenda. Often it's stated with the phrase "for equal work", which is misleading. Depending on your career, the number is probably closer to 95% for equal work.
spootieho said:
I guess you didn't bother with the article. The answer is essentially children which is a burden that is inherently carried by women. That gap will only close once there are equal expectations (and sacrifices) for both men and women when it comes to raising children. Interestingly enough, the current gap is especially pronounced in cases where a woman in this particular group marries a high-earner.
Sorry, no I didn't. I will read through it later. I did skim it and it looks like an article that I would be very interested in, thank you. Kinda going off topic, but it's something worthy of a conversation.peppy said:
I can circle it back to feminism, though. Per the bold section above, should we try to change that or should we leave it alone? IMO, we should leave it alone for the most part. (There are a couple of good ideas that can be done, though) If I was married to a high earner and didn't have to work, I would rather spend more time raising the kids.
nosuchreality
Well-known member
That's a mighty long article to basically say, "somewhere between 26 and 34 more women than men chose something other than work"...
The more variables you control, the more similar the incomes become.
The more variables you control, the more similar the incomes become.
irvinehomeowner
Well-known member
SoCal said:
I actually don't mind women who want to be superior to men or "man-haters".
Men do the same thing to each other (and to women).
That may be the only good thing if HRC became president, it would be awesome to have a female POTUS.
socal78
Well-known member
Here's to gender inequality.
I love the things that make us different. Men & women naturally complement each other and that's the way it's supposed to be.
Feminists want to remove the distinctions between the masculine and the feminine, ironically, leaving what they offer sexually as the only thing that sets them apart -- the very thing they don't want to be "objectified" by. Let that sink in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pcd4WNiB6cc
I love the things that make us different. Men & women naturally complement each other and that's the way it's supposed to be.
Feminists want to remove the distinctions between the masculine and the feminine, ironically, leaving what they offer sexually as the only thing that sets them apart -- the very thing they don't want to be "objectified" by. Let that sink in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pcd4WNiB6cc
socal78
Well-known member
Feminism is truly depraved.
Photos have surfaced of the women's march in Argentina where they performed a mock abortion on a woman dressed as the Virgin Mary.
Warning: The satanic photos are enough to make you retch.
Photos have surfaced of the women's march in Argentina where they performed a mock abortion on a woman dressed as the Virgin Mary.
Warning: The satanic photos are enough to make you retch.
nosuchreality
Well-known member
peppy said:
That doesn't take an Ivy. A high earning husband is a variable. Kids are a variable. Both of which encourage the Ivy to basically opt out of the employment rat race.