Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Would you "turn back the clock" on feminism?
Female - Yes, would turn back the clock on feminism 19 8.64%
Female - No, would not turn back the clock on feminism 89 40.45%
Male - Yes, would turn back the clock on feminism 46 20.91%
Male - No, would not turn back the clock on feminism 66 30.00%
Voters: 220. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-11-2017, 01:19 AM
 
Location: Finland
6,418 posts, read 7,253,917 times
Reputation: 10441

Advertisements

Feminism is still needed today as women's rights are being erased by the trans movement (note: not genuine transsexuals who have never been an issue but men who have co-opted the trans movement to access women's sports, women's safe spaces like refuges and changing rooms, and any other areas that have been sex-segregated but now face losing that due to self-identity laws - the very existence of female as a biological fact is at threat and our ability to talk about female issues such as menstruation, pregnancy, abortion etc. are being threatened and called transphobic). I would never want to turn the clock back on feminism and hope that women don't rest easy now thinking the hard work is over, its not, we still have to fight for our rights.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-11-2017, 01:46 AM
 
8,924 posts, read 5,632,022 times
Reputation: 12560
Women deserve the same rights as a man. They pay the same taxes. Some women actually make more than their husbands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 06:53 AM
 
36,539 posts, read 30,885,552 times
Reputation: 32824
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrt1979 View Post
You didn't understand the post. The disadvantage is in the workplace. Women are at a disadvantage because they can't keep their emotions together, which is why most men and women prefer working with men.

Which one of these two would you rather work with?

Bob: Completely hates his life, but keeps it to himself. Handles stress by taking advantage of his smoke breaks and drinking a 6-pack every night while falling asleep on the couch watching the military Chanel. Bob is a master at smiling, nodding, and agreeing only do or think whatever the **** he wants anyways. When Bob has an issue with something, Bob will state what his issue is and move on. Bob isn't fun to work with, nor is he aweful to work with. Bob is Bob.

Sally: Is completely controlled by here emotions. When she's in a good mood she's ok to be around When she's not, she is anything but OK to be around. Handles stress by presenting resting b*tch face, being unproductive, or making everything about her. Takes an SSRI of some type, which helps with the "cray cray," but it doesn't fix it completely. Goes home every other night and gives her man the silent treatment for something he either didn't do or is unaware he did or didn't do while expecting him to know what's wrong. When sally has an issue in the work place she will never state what exactly her issue is to the only person that has the ability to handle said issue. She will instead create or stir up drama in regards to the issue that will eventually indirectly make it's way to someone that matters, which won't address the issue because said person doesn't want to deal with sally.




Also, Googling actual studies is almost pointless with stuff like this in 2017. This is because the truth is sexist/racist/not-PC/etc, which means you're not allowed present the findings unless it doesn't offend anyone but a white guy anyways.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GD6qtc2_AQA
Yeah, whatever. Maybe you should actually write what you mean or are you changing your tactic because the actual studies, which you are now saying are pointless although you suggested we (other posters) google your claim, tell a different story. You suggesting that actual published studies between male and female brain functions and hormone levels and their effect on emotions that I linked are bogus and racist in favor of a youtube video says all. Pssst, your emotions are out of control.

Because you say men and women prefer working with men does not make it true. I have been working since 1977 with and for both men and women. I have worked with wonderful, intelligent people, people whom I questioned how they even found their way to work, aholes, byotches, young and old. I have worked with women who were overly emotional, they might cry or get angry and I've worked with men who let their emotions get away expressed in angry outbursts, profanity and even fights, but I have never experienced women who are a problem in the workplace because they cant control their emotions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 07:12 AM
 
36,539 posts, read 30,885,552 times
Reputation: 32824
Quote:
Originally Posted by wanderlust76 View Post
You seem butthurt and angry. Guess I'm hitting to close to home, as I always know I am because the truth hurts some people. What I said was perfectly logical.
See there you go anytime a woman comments negatively to a negative post we are somehow butthurt. Why would I be butthurt? Sounds like it is you who are butthurt.
You said (feminism is ok) As long as they aren't hypocrites and try to tell men......
To me that is saying feminism is conditional. The condition being we still stay below men. Would you tell another man you have no problem with him having equal rights as you as long as he didnt tell you what to do. Would you tell a black man (assuming your white) equality is ok as long as he doesnt get uppity having his own opinion of you? Why is my perception of your statement angry.

And seriously, pointing out how men play both sides of the coin also is only showing the flaw in your statement. There is no anger on my part, perhaps yours as I have obviously crossed that conditional line by expressing my observation.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 07:48 AM
 
36,539 posts, read 30,885,552 times
Reputation: 32824
Quote:
omg I almost missed this. This explains so many things. The wage gap has been debunked, by many women in academia even, please educate yourself.
Quote:
Quote:

Why is it hard to believe? Employers had all sorts of reasons for paying women less,
must have missed this : Employers had. Please educate yourself.
The original post claimed: Well I for one have always been for equal pay for equal work and find it hard to believe, there was ever a distinction between men and women when it comes to compensation.
Yes there was ever, it is well documented that women were un-apologetically and boldly paid less than men. We are not saying that is true today, thanks to feminism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Living rent free in your head
42,850 posts, read 26,301,017 times
Reputation: 34059
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares View Post
must have missed this : Employers had. Please educate yourself.
The original post claimed: Well I for one have always been for equal pay for equal work and find it hard to believe, there was ever a distinction between men and women when it comes to compensation.
Yes there was ever, it is well documented that women were un-apologetically and boldly paid less than men. We are not saying that is true today, thanks to feminism.
Exactly! I can't believe that someone would contend that women were never paid less than men. In the 70's there was a California County which while it technically paid men and women the same, about 70% of female hires were put in a special category of "intermittent employee" They would lay them off for 2 days every 6 months and then re-hire them to avoid giving them benefits. To the best of my knowledge there were no men hired as 'intermittent employees'
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 08:54 AM
 
36,539 posts, read 30,885,552 times
Reputation: 32824
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy View Post
Exactly! I can't believe that someone would contend that women were never paid less than men. In the 70's there was a California County which while it technically paid men and women the same, about 70% of female hires were put in a special category of "intermittent employee" They would lay them off for 2 days every 6 months and then re-hire them to avoid giving them benefits. To the best of my knowledge there were no men hired as 'intermittent employees'
Yes it was commonly held that women because they were not the head of household and were not supporting a family did not need to be paid as much as men doing the same job as men. It didnt matter if they were single, they were not paid the same as single men, it did not matter if they were widowed/divorced and indeed supporting a family or if the family was struggling financially.
And of course few careers/positions were open to women and of course those particular positions paid less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 08:56 AM
 
7,235 posts, read 7,042,475 times
Reputation: 12265
I'm still waiting to hear what "turn the clock on feminism" means.

Go back to when a woman couldn't get her own credit card? Make laws against marital rape obsolete? Get rid of the Pill?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 09:20 AM
 
Location: 500 miles from home
33,942 posts, read 22,541,024 times
Reputation: 25816
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambient View Post
I think this whole thread is useless without a shared understanding of what defines "feminism.". Most everyone gets some butch dyke stereotype in their minds, but the term can encompass some very different things over the spectrum of time periods.

So true. Feminism is so much more than that old stereotype.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares View Post
See there you go anytime a woman comments negatively to a negative post we are somehow butthurt. Why would I be butthurt? Sounds like it is you who are butthurt.
You said (feminism is ok) As long as they aren't hypocrites and try to tell men......
To me that is saying feminism is conditional. The condition being we still stay below men. Would you tell another man you have no problem with him having equal rights as you as long as he didnt tell you what to do. Would you tell a black man (assuming your white) equality is ok as long as he doesnt get uppity having his own opinion of you? Why is my perception of your statement angry.

And seriously, pointing out how men play both sides of the coin also is only showing the flaw in your statement. There is no anger on my part, perhaps yours as I have obviously crossed that conditional line by expressing my observation.
Some folks have a very limited vocabulary. I have noticed that those tend the use the word 'butthurt" when that's all they have or just don't know how to use their words.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 09:24 AM
 
36,539 posts, read 30,885,552 times
Reputation: 32824
Quote:
Originally Posted by Natsku View Post
Feminism is still needed today as women's rights are being erased by the trans movement (note: not genuine transsexuals who have never been an issue but men who have co-opted the trans movement to access women's sports, women's safe spaces like refuges and changing rooms, and any other areas that have been sex-segregated but now face losing that due to self-identity laws - the very existence of female as a biological fact is at threat and our ability to talk about female issues such as menstruation, pregnancy, abortion etc. are being threatened and called transphobic). I would never want to turn the clock back on feminism and hope that women don't rest easy now thinking the hard work is over, its not, we still have to fight for our rights.

I realize there are aholes among us but I dont believe men would go to the trouble dressing and behaving like women to infiltrate women's sports and public restrooms.

Having segregated restrooms is not a right, it was designed to protect our sensitivities. Remember at one time we had separate restrooms for "whites" and "colored". The first unisex restroom I remember was on the Ally McBeal show and it was not meat for transgenders but to be "progressive".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:28 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top