I assume you're aware that you're contradicting yourself within the post - so which is it?
Legolas Send a noteboard - 05/10/2016 07:41:34 PM
View original postIt seems like some sort of 1950s stereotype to portray women as complaining that their own inferior negotiation skills, and taste for luxury, counts as discrimination. But since lacking a sense of humor is one of the most recognizable traits of feminists, I have to assume they are serious.
I see you bring up inferior negotiaton skills - meaning, they get lower pay for the same job.
View original postThe next question is, is everyone else as stupid as Seth Rogen's TV commercial character, enough so to believe this? Women are not paid less than men for the same job with the same qualifications. No one would ever get away with doing that, and if they could, they'd being hiring nothing but women to save money. And if one gender prefers to buy more expensive items, or can be suckered into paying more money for nothing, that is not remotely discrimination. When there is actual discrimination going on, such as charging men more for car insurance, no one with a brain complains about that, because we know they are operating on actuarial tables.
'Women are not paid less than men for the same job with the same qualifications'. So you're saying they get the same pay for the same job, and they don't have inferior negotiation skills, then? You can't have it both ways.
View original postWhat's more ridiculous, is that feminists, often the same ones, trumpet these same mythical "facts", of women getting paid less money AND spending more, when their whole raison d'etre is to convince people to trust women with responsibility. There is no more precise definition of fiscal irresponsibility than spending more while making less.
I'm pretty sure the raison d'etre of feminists is not to 'convince people to trust women with responsibility'. At least if we're talking about today's feminists who, apparently wrongly in your case, figure that they can take certain basic points for granted and skip ahead to the comparatively small yet remarkably difficult remaining steps towards full gender equality.
Of course the ad you linked to is pretty lame, and I have no idea what the comment about paying more for cars is even about, but that doesn't really make your post any less baffling.
Are feminists making fun of themselves?
- 01/10/2016 10:25:03 PM
969 Views
Can you link to one of these Seth Rogen commercials ? *NM*
- 02/10/2016 11:06:41 AM
274 Views
Sure
- 04/10/2016 11:14:40 PM
638 Views
Indeed that is bull. Notice comments are disabled for that specific commercial. *NM*
- 05/10/2016 09:19:46 AM
245 Views
Those commercials are stupid. Not sure why they think this well help them sell beer *NM*
- 05/10/2016 06:33:50 PM
211 Views
I assume you're aware that you're contradicting yourself within the post - so which is it?
- 05/10/2016 07:41:34 PM
601 Views
I'm not, you're making some (understandable) assumptions
- 05/10/2016 11:23:38 PM
611 Views
Okay, misunderstood you then. The different wages for the same job point still stands though.
- 06/10/2016 09:17:39 PM
630 Views
Re: Okay, misunderstood you then. The different wages for the same job point still stands though.
- 08/10/2016 01:50:52 AM
570 Views
That's something else - I agree many of these things can't really be solved legislatively.
- 09/10/2016 01:54:35 PM
608 Views