Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Women are often not kind or, supportive of other women.
Even the beginning of this thread the looks of the FOX reporters was the subject.
Not their education.......or, their ability......just looks.
Men occasionally have similar behavior, just on different topics.
I brought up Palin before, because I absolutely love to use her as my favorite hypocrisy revealer. It doesn't matter what her politics are, right? Women are supposed to support women, right? Yet, some feminists were happy to see her run for VP. Others were aghast and called her every despicable name in the book (and some they thought up).
So, were feminists more concerned about political ideology, or about gender? In this case, it turns out that the feminist movement was more concerned about ideology than gender. In fact, feminism has tried to alter what it means to be female ( change the behavior of women ) more than it has to try to influence society to be more respectful and less denigrating to women of late.
As with all "movements", NOW has lost its way. The big battles are won, but like an army who won, but wants to keep the glory going, it fights ever smaller and smaller battles against increasingly more imaginary enemies - to the point they have begun attacking even the fundamental characteristics of the gender itself.
All of this, according the OP, is about "equality".
Which is why I have to ask what one means by the word.
Men occasionally have similar behavior, just on different topics.
I brought up Palin before, because I absolutely love to use her as my favorite hypocrisy revealer. It doesn't matter what her politics are, right? Women are supposed to support women, right? Yet, some feminists were happy to see her run for VP. Others were aghast and called her every despicable name in the book (and some they thought up).
So, were feminists more concerned about political ideology, or about gender? In this case, it turns out that the feminist movement was more concerned about ideology than gender. In fact, feminism has tried to alter what it means to be female ( change the behavior of women ) more than it has to try to influence society to be more respectful and less denigrating to women of late.
As with all "movements", NOW has lost its way. The big battles are won, but like an army who won, but wants to keep the glory going, it fights ever smaller and smaller battles against increasingly more imaginary enemies - to the point they have begun attacking even the fundamental characteristics of the gender itself.
All of this, according the OP, is about "equality".
Which is why I have to ask what one means by the word.
I agree with you on Palin.
I do not like to talk about her on CD because I really like her.......from a personal view.
you may find the "rhetoric" useless, I do not, now states the case very clearly. yes I think a job should pay the same for both men and women when they start out. your idea that canadian lady doctors work less should earn less than a male doctor who works more hours is common sense. anyone who works less hours should get less money, however if they have the same education and do the same exact job their base "hourly" pay rate should be the same.
Of course it's common sense.
Anyone who works less and does less gets paid less.
BTW, this is NOT "my idea". I actually read about the research in Canada, when they noticed that when you had higher rates of female doctors, that it required more of them to see and treat the same number of patients. Those who said so got called "sexist" and prejudiced and attacked by feminists.
So, when you see outcomes diverge between the genders in corporate life, is that prejudice? Or choices? Because, it turns out that on the whole, this behavior is not limited to doctors. It applies, on the average, to everyone.
So, do yardstick statistical "numbers" indicate inequality?
NOW says it does.
The facts... are ambiguous as to being any proof.
So, what is equality?
Those famously liberal movie producers paid Jennifer Lawrence LESS than her male co-stars. Is that "equality"? What if they paid her more? Would that be "equality"?
It seems you want to paper over a lot of reality with some empty rhetoric, while doing your hardest to claim that NOW is objective and their definitions (which they refuse to make) are good.
Men occasionally have similar behavior, just on different topics.
I brought up Palin before, because I absolutely love to use her as my favorite hypocrisy revealer. It doesn't matter what her politics are, right? Women are supposed to support women, right? Yet, some feminists were happy to see her run for VP. Others were aghast and called her every despicable name in the book (and some they thought up).
So, were feminists more concerned about political ideology, or about gender? In this case, it turns out that the feminist movement was more concerned about ideology than gender. In fact, feminism has tried to alter what it means to be female ( change the behavior of women ) more than it has to try to influence society to be more respectful and less denigrating to women of late.
As with all "movements", NOW has lost its way. The big battles are won, but like an army who won, but wants to keep the glory going, it fights ever smaller and smaller battles against increasingly more imaginary enemies - to the point they have begun attacking even the fundamental characteristics of the gender itself.
All of this, according the OP, is about "equality".
Which is why I have to ask what one means by the word.
so you want a woman to vote and support another woman just because she is another woman? you want women to vote against what they individually believe and vote for another woman based on gender? not voting for another woman just because she is a woman has nothing to do with gender equality it is called voting your belief. gender is taken out of the voting booth as it should be in most things.
no, feminism has never tried to alter what it means to be female. we altered the way men and the general public looked upon the "abilities" of a woman. as said before we were pretty much shut out of the working world from 1900 to well into this past century.
now has not lost it's way, they are still doing the work that needs doing. the work they always did.
Anyone who works less and does less gets paid less.
BTW, this is NOT "my idea". I actually read about the research in Canada, when they noticed that when you had higher rates of female doctors, that it required more of them to see and treat the same number of patients. Those who said so got called "sexist" and prejudiced and attacked by feminists.
So, when you see outcomes diverge between the genders in corporate life, is that prejudice? Or choices? Because, it turns out that on the whole, this behavior is not limited to doctors. It applies, on the average, to everyone.
So, do yardstick statistical "numbers" indicate inequality?
NOW says it does.
The facts... are ambiguous as to being any proof.
So, what is equality?
Those famously liberal movie producers paid Jennifer Lawrence LESS than her male co-stars. Is that "equality"? What if they paid her more? Would that be "equality"?
It seems you want to paper over a lot of reality with some empty rhetoric, while doing your hardest to claim that NOW is objective and their definitions (which they refuse to make) are good.
the idea that woman docs see less patients than male docs in canada sounds to be the opinion of who ever stated that. is it fact? I haven't a clue. however yes it is common sense that if you work less you should earn less.
women do have a handicap in business if they want to have a family. taking time off does hinder your ability to get ahead in work.
yes I think jlaw should be paid as much as her co star who has the same billing if she worked the same amount of hours.
I do not like to talk about her on CD because I really like her.......from a personal view.
Is Palin divisive? Or are her self-proclaimed enemies trying to make her so?
Palin and I don't share a lot in terms of our politics. Mine are much closer to libertarian and hers are about having a relatively benign "big" government. You know, like the pre LBJ 60's. On the other hand, watching the political establishment go beserk over a non-establishment, non-political class candidate has been a source of immense entertainment.
Objectively, the Palins can balance a checkbook, and Palin was a good governor. That, collectively, bests the entire political class in Washington DC, in terms of intellect AND ability - and we know this, because they are unable.
Perhaps you should learn to know a bit more about Palin before you try distancing yourself. She doesn't use the political-speak many of us are used to, but in terms of sensibility, it's so far beyond the political class...
As would be the vast majority of people. In terms of judgement and actual ability, perhaps 10% of the country ranks lower than the political class.
Perhaps you should learn to know a bit more about Palin before you try distancing yourself. She doesn't use the political-speak many of us are used to, but in terms of sensibility, it's so far beyond the political class...
I do not like to talk about her because my husband hunts with her husband.
Our relationship is not political........I really like the Palins.
the idea that woman docs see less patients than male docs in canada sounds to be the opinion of who ever stated that. is it fact? I haven't a clue. however yes it is common sense that if you work less you should earn less.
It's the studied analysis of the Canadian medical system. I reference them, because apparently, they're not afraid to say things objectively true, whereas our AMA, for instance, would rather commit suicide than betray the feminist agenda.
Quote:
women do have a handicap in business if they want to have a family. taking time off does hinder your ability to get ahead in work.
Absolutely. Does this inherently make society "unequal"? Because this is much of the difference in outcomes between men and women in corporate careers. How much? There's no objective way to know. Thus, it makes great fodder for the feminist movement who capitalizes on it as proof they need to use political force to adjust society. Is that justice? Is it even equitable? Much less, is it real "equality"?
Quote:
yes I think jlaw should be paid as much as her co star who has the same billing if she worked the same amount of hours.
Such compensation is never based on "hours". It is based on what those create the movies think the person is worth to the success of the venture.
Could they cast someone other than Jennifer and have the series succeed? She IS the face of the entire franchise. Sad to say, it's hypocrisy beyond belief. I did go see the first movie. If I ever watch the rest, it'll be because of her talents (no, not her looks). I thought she embodied the character they wanted to portray.
I do not like to talk about her because my husband hunts with her husband.
Our relationship is not political........I really like the Palins.
Cool.
I've never met them, though friends have. My former business partner apparently crossed paths with them many times, as both fished in Alaska, in the same place.
Good luck on not being deluged with hate, now. Perhaps you shouldn't have said that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
