My Theory About Why Feminism is Currently Irrelevent to Millenials

[Kaight]

Originally Posted by Patriam1066 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why did you drive an expedition in NYC?

It was my ex's in college, we decided to keep it around. We didn't specifically buy a huge SUV while living in the city or anything.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Again, bogus "theories" of genetic racial or gender superiority are not science.

who said anything about superiority? Yikes you got inner demons that you gotta talk to someone about.

[JurisDictum]

Capitalism implies that people that make more money are superior to those that make less. This is a myth we are all told.

Capitalism implies that men are better than women for this reason. This is why there is an assumption that a guy that makes less than you isn't good enough for you.

So capitalists have found that they can get women triggered about being women and re-direct their hostile energies toward men instead of capitalism.

[JurisDictum]

The pay gap myth is probably the most pervasive and successful idea that capitalist elites use to divide the working and middle classes. While there is a small amount of direct discrimination in female pay...it accounts for like a 2% differential that effects certain women, not every woman. Yet anyone who has spent time around progressive intellectual women knows that there is a huge angst in this demographic over this (largely) fake issue.

Equal Pay Myths

It probably doesn’t come as news that airline companies pay pilots more than cabin crew—but according to the dogma of the gender wage gap, we’re supposed to find this fact troubling. The British government now requires companies to report their raw gender gap—that is, the difference in the median hourly wages earned by their male and female employees. Ignoring occupational differences, seniority, employment history, hours worked, or any of the countless other factors affecting salaries, these data are misleading at best. Nevertheless, when budget airline EasyJet reported a 51 percent pay gap between its male and female employees, the company knew that its reputation perched on the edge of a PR abyss.

And that’s the whole point of the exercise: simplify statistics to shock people at the seeming injustice done to women and shame companies into action; refuse to compare similar job functions; ignore the fact that, like every other airline, EasyJet’s pilots are disproportionately male, while their cabin crews skew female; forget that almost all carriers compete for the same 4 percent of the world’s female pilots; and whatever you do, don’t mention that the EasyJet CEO, who was in charge of this bigoted organization and also its highest-paid employee until retiring earlier this year, was a woman. The company should be branded with a scarlet “51 percent” until it . . . does what? Cuts pilots’ pay? Hikes the salaries of female cabin crew? Hires male attendants instead of female? Goes bankrupt?

The United States does not—yet—use such a travesty of a reporting system, but it does maintain the same illusion that a gender wage gap is, by definition, proof of injustice. Activists have declared April 10 Equal Pay Day, to protest the approximately 20 percent pay gap between men and women, which, as in the EasyJet example, tells us more about the activists’ false ideology of gender equivalence than about whether women are being treated fairly in the labor market.

We, as in: Men, Women, minority and beleaguered populations are almost ALL having trouble right now. We are almost all dissatisfied with the opportunities presented to us. The amount we get paid for the amount we have to work.

Trust me when I say, It isn't all its cracked up to be to be born a white man. Maybe if you are Trump's son it is...or hell, maybe even just Mick's son will do trick -- how the fuck would I know? My background is completely different.

Where are all these people that respect the hell out of you for being a white man I keep hearing about? Even someone like Zuckerberg...we can't wait to take the piss out of him for looking like Data and being creepy* or whatever. I think it's safe to say it was a damn good thing for him he created something so useful (after stealing a blueprint). He would have a hell of time getting promoted on the basis of his wonderful white man presence from what I can tell.

But if you want to pretend Zuckerberg is where he is at because a white man, I guess I can't stop you with appeals to reason and empirical evidence.

On a slightly different topic, where are all these millennial men getting caught for sexual harassment? The Aziz shit? That's is literally the one scandal that has come to light.

Face it millennials -- the gender thing is a dead end for us. That's your mother's shit your professor's are shoving down your throat. 1/4 college girls aren't raped -- at least anymore.

What you need is what we all need. More security and time to pursue our passions rather thing being enslaved to an arbitrary workday filled with pointless tasks. It's like we are all mostly in a old school FDR make-work program...where they would round up a bunch of poor dudes to dig trench one day, and then hire them all to fill in the next.

Pointless jobs, inequality of wealth, and a slavish work week. We are having a hell of a time addressing these issues when a significant part of women are just blaming men for taking all the good jobs and opportunities from them...it's not just you. There's no special meeting were all invented to after work that makes all the difference.

*That's a bad thing to be called this days...considering the word is associated with being a rapist or killer or something.

[Jimjam]

It makes me think of futurama where job roles are assigned; perhaps to the intention of mandatory equality?

The example of easy jet shows how equality of opportunity won't result in equality of outcome. I don't think equality of out come is so important though; thanks to increased opportunities, and diffused social expectations we now have many more female doctors and male nurses than previously (which in some ways turns the pilot/crew example on its head). I don't think we can argue against people who are competent, capable and motivated going into jobs they love), and it would be wrong to push people jno careers they don't enjoy (momentary nod towards wage/debt/subsistence slaves in the modern world).

[AzzarTheGod]

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Capitalism implies that people that make more money are superior to those that make less. This is a myth we are all told.

Capitalism implies that men are better than women for this reason. This is why there is an assumption that a guy that makes less than you isn't good enough for you.

So capitalists have found that they can get women triggered about being women and re-direct their hostile energies toward men instead of capitalism.

damn dat boy ridin around on dunkballs

[loramin]

Originally Posted by Jimjam [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

It makes me think of futurama where job roles are assigned; perhaps to the intention of mandatory equality?

The example of easy jet shows how equality of opportunity won't result in equality of outcome. I don't think equality of out come is so important though; thanks to increased opportunities, and diffused social expectations we now have many more female doctors and male nurses than previously (which in some ways turns the pilot/crew example on its head). I don't think we can argue against people who are competent, capable and motivated going into jobs they love), and it would be wrong to push people jno careers they don't enjoy (momentary nod towards wage/debt/subsistence slaves in the modern world).

Absolutely. But at the same time you also have to remember: for the vast majority of human history half of all humans were considered property. Obviously things have changed a bit in the last century or so, but it's all still very recent in historical terms. Heck, less than a hundred years ago women in America didn't even get their own citizenship: there are still people alive today who were alive back when a woman marrying a non-American meant that they stopped being American!

My point is that systematic oppression like that doesn't just go away overnight, and even though we've seen lots of progress, we shouldn't mistake progress for the problem being solved (more women doctors doesn't mean half our society has equal opportunities to the other half).

You can't have a ref who cheats and throws the game to one team for the almost the entire game, and then two minutes before the buzzer throw in a ref who calls things more fairly (but still not completely fairly), and declare that both teams are equal and can now play the game normally.

[mickmoranis]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Absolutely. But at the same time you also have to remember: for the vast majority of human history half of all humans were considered property. Obviously things have changed a bit in the last century or so, but it's all still very recent in historical terms. Heck, less than a hundred years ago women in America didn't even get their own citizenship: there are still people alive today who were alive back when a woman marrying a non-American meant that they stopped being American!

My point is that systematic oppression like that doesn't just go away overnight, and even though we've seen lots of progress, we shouldn't mistake progress for the problem being solved (more women doctors doesn't mean half our society has equal opportunities to the other half).

You can't have a ref who cheats and throws the game to one team for the almost the entire game, and then two minutes before the buzzer throw in a ref who calls things more fairly (but still not completely fairly), and declare that both teams are equal and can now play the game normally.

loramin you may be born into a white privlaged family (like most socialists) but for most of us, the ref has not been throwing the game for.

So quit it with that bullshit cus all you're doing is making feminism irrelevant to menials by continuing this clearly false narrative.

[Jimjam]

Originally Posted by loramin [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Absolutely. But at the same time you also have to remember: for the vast majority of human history half of all humans were considered property. Obviously things have changed a bit in the last century or so, but it's all still very recent in historical terms. Heck, less than a hundred years ago women in America didn't even get their own citizenship: there are still people alive today who were alive back when a woman marrying a non-American meant that they stopped being American!

My point is that systematic oppression like that doesn't just go away overnight, and even though we've seen lots of progress, we shouldn't mistake progress for the problem being solved (more women doctors doesn't mean half our society has equal opportunities to the other half).

You can't have a ref who cheats and throws the game to one team for the almost the entire game, and then two minutes before the buzzer throw in a ref who calls things more fairly (but still not completely fairly), and declare that both teams are equal and can now play the game normally.

Only half?

For most of history basically everyone has been property. Slowly more people became land owners (mainly men) which granted them a degree of self determination (and political rights).

People talk about how raw deal women got, but it was only a very narrow period where non-land owning men had any significant political or social power before female entitlements also began to arise.

[skarlorn]

hm nice