Glenn Debates Swedish Official Who Claims Men Are Primarily Responsible for Global Warming
March 31st, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"The fact that women travel less than men – measured in person- kilometers per car, plane, boat and motorcycle – means that women cause considerably fewer CO2 emissions than men and thus considerable less climate change.
"If women’s consumption levels were to be the norm, both emissions and climate change would be significantly less than today. To put it differently, if men were to change their behavior, emissions and climate change might be a much more limited problem as compared to what it is today."--Gerd Johnsson-Latham
I recently debated Gerd Johnsson-Latham of the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs on her assertion that men are primarily responsible for global warming. Johnsson-Latham authored a 2007 study called Gender Equality as a Prerequisite for Sustainable Development, excerpted above.
The debate was taped for a UK documentary called The Greener Gender. Below are some of my thoughts on the debate.
One of Johnsson-Latham's main theories is that global warming is a gender issue because men pollute more. Men work more, drive longer, take airplane trips, etc., whereas women pollute less because they are at home and are not driving or traveling as much.
I had problems with this for several reasons. One of them is that I believe that many men do these things in part so they can earn the esteem, affection, love, and loyalty of women. I said that one of the problems we have is that there is a big, big difference between what feminists want men to do -- focus less on making money, spend more time taking care of their children, be less competitive -- and what women in the dating market place want men to do.
I said that this is a problem which I have never heard a feminist take responsibility for. I said, "The first time I hear a feminist say that women have to change their expectations of men and their choices of men, she will be the first." To my surprise and pleasure, she said, "Well, let me be the first" and said that women do need to take responsibility for this.
Johnsson-Latham said that men are the decision-makers in society, and that they want a consumer oriented-society. She believes that if women were in power, societies would be more about reproductive rights, women's rights to control their sexuality, fairness and equality and safety for women. My view is that if and when women are in positions of power, they'll make the same decisions that men do. Most of what leaders do they don't do because they are men--they do them because that's what leaders have to do, regardless of gender.
The English commentator asked me how I got interested in men's issues. I explained that during the '80s and '90s there was a tremendous amount of man-bashing in our popular media. Men were blamed for everything and anything and their sins blown way, way out of proportion. She replied, "Glenn is upset about man bashing but I'm upset about woman beating. Women are beaten, they earn less money, they have less freedom, they have less power, and they face a grim reality."
I replied that while women may indeed face a grim reality in some parts of the world -- and men's reality in those countries isn't much better -- it would be highly misleading to portray American women or Western European women or Swedish women as having "a grim reality."
"));
19 queries. 1.102 seconds.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Prediction: a whole bunch of people will miss the point and declare DA WIMMINZ IZ WASTEFULL CONSUMERIST HARPEEZ!1!!
March 31st, 2008 at 11:37 pm
While women are at home taking care of the children the men are out working. They can only stay at home because the men are working. In Sweeden they can only offer generous benefits because the men are working. She needs to read Warren Farrell.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:39 pm
What about the fact that women and children consume much more than men do...doesn't buying stuff all the time contribute to global warming as well? Aren't most WOMEN the ones driving SUVs vs. men?
March 31st, 2008 at 11:44 pm
Glenn,
A 2nd, and not insignificant factor is that the world is much closer to an Ice age than it is to global warming.
Ask any degree'd pratitioner of the study of the atmosphere to look up historic temperature, CO2, and Methane concentrations. We are quite low versus historical numbers on all accounts, and all three factors have fairly repeatable trends going back hundreds of thousands or years, and are still right on trend.
Also, two more factors to consider.
(1) many cite trends of the last 30 or so years. Bear in mind that over that time the sites of many of the weather monitoring stations have been paved over, a thermometer setting above blacktop will, all other factors being equal, read many degrees higher, and much of this pave-around has occurred over that same time frame (I've even seen one station with the Thermometer mounted above a building air conditioning condenser !!!!!
(2) Back in 2000, after the Y2K scare, NASA got lots of data mixed up and posted un-processed data where processed data should have been posted, the original data showed some absolute temperature records (for recorded history), but after fixing the missing correction factor, the temperatures fell back into a slight decline - you can guess which numbers the GW experts chose to use.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:55 pm
"One of Johnsson-Latham's main theories is that global warming is a gender issue because men pollute more because they work more, drive longer, take airplane trips, etc., whereas women pollute less because they are at home are not driving or traveling as much."
Unfrigginbelievable.
Barf bag please.
March 31st, 2008 at 11:56 pm
Oh come now Harq....you can hardly take the most likely answer to the question and rephrase in mocking tones, and expect that invalidates the argument. How does this possibility "miss the point"?
April 1st, 2008 at 12:01 am
"The Greener Gender" Gee, I wonder who dreamed up this measure of human existance.
Do you think it was someone primarily interested in fueling gender wars???
Just another "How to Lie with Stastics" number to use as a WMD (weapons of male distruction)???
Good grief, lady...
DanH
April 1st, 2008 at 12:01 am
Patricia Win Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Glen's never met a feminist who advocated that women take responsibility ?? I've met no other kind. I've been reading this web site for some time now and believe that the only way anyone can have these extremely simplistic, close-minded views of feminism is because, like anyone who stereotypes, they focus only or primarily on the negatives and ignore the positives. Sexism is alive and well, unfortunately. I'm a therapist, a feminist-therapist of over twenty years. I work with men who are screwed over by women and I'm as disgusted by this as I am by the very disporoportionate number of females who have this done to them by men. There are, most of us know, both good and bad in both genders and men of quality support equality for women. Humanists unite, you have nothing to lose but your prejudice.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:07 am
Glenn, you did a great job. The hardest part had to be keeping a straight face. The entire topic is so ludicrous, the Stalinist assault on capitalism (aka the patriarchy) so frivolous, one scarcely knows where to begin to illustrate its utter and complete inanity.
When women assume power they will . . . . oh, wait one moment, are we not a democracy, and do not women comprise the majority of voters? Silly me -- women ARE in power. The fact that they keep electing men is their free choice (please don't insult my intelligence by suggesting otherwise). In the U.S. presidential election, most women are choosing NOT to vote for Mrs. Clinton. The silliness of this argument is almost too much to bear.
Newsflash for our Marxist-Stalinist-anti-Capitalist feminists: yes, men pollute more than women. Big deal, and who cares? Men do more of almost EVERTYTHIING than women. They always have, they always will. Women were ordained by biology to bear children; men were ordained by biology to take risks, to produce things, to defend their community, and to be breadwinners. Men do more to pollute AND to protect the environment than women. Ask ten people on the street if this is not so and nine would get it right.
It is almost depressing to think there are people this dense walking about on planet earth.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:08 am
Oh! I see! So, should men work less?
Or should they swim across an ocean or two to do business? Incidentally, more and more bsinessmen are doing teleconferencing now.
Or should men walk to work now with our tools on our back?
And, of course, take care of children after walking back from work? Cleaning? Cooking? Repairing the car? The plumbing?
BTW! Today, I had one woman (stronger than I am) ask me to help her change the tire at work (I work with 95% women). Unfortunately, I had to go shopping to go cooking! Kidding!
UNBELIEVABLE!
April 1st, 2008 at 12:13 am
This whole argument is ridiculous. If this ever came up for serious legislative debate in Canada (meaning the NDP and the Bloq don't count), I'd bolt so fast it'd make your head spin. Goodbye, mother country.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:16 am
Swedish men - Are you really happy the way things are in your country?
Glenn, I think that must have been quite a debate. I really wonder how you and many other MRAs keep their cool in these debates!! (maybe it is me who has anger issues).
Bachelor and young men in Sweden must be either be invisible or super rich. Has this woman seen the inside of a young (unmarried) man's apartment? The sheer austerity of the place would have told her who needs all the consumer goods. I would post pictures of my place to make the point. Besides, if the men would not go out and make all those goodies women buy and in effect pay to get made, who would?
But then I have heard the denouncement of competition, private ownership, capitalism, concept of money (shocker, isn't it?) and for-profit organizations from these same people. I wonder why such anti-western (I am not implying pro-eastern) people get a foot hold in politics of western nations!
April 1st, 2008 at 12:19 am
Patricia Win Says "Glen's never met a feminist who advocated that women take responsibility ?? I've met no other kind."
I'd never met one who advocated that women take responsibility for that particular issue. I've occasionally met feminists who advocate that women take responsibility for certain problems. Not nearly enough, however.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:21 am
I wonder if she practices what she preaches...they never do...
April 1st, 2008 at 12:34 am
Guys some funny podcasts about this topic...
http://www.therudeguy.com/audio/The_Rude_Guy-2006-02-06-4.mp3
http://www.therudeguy.com/audio/The_Rude_Guy-2006-08-21-23.mp3
April 1st, 2008 at 12:35 am
One of Johnsson-Latham's main theories is that global warming is a gender issue because men pollute morebecause they work more, drive longer, take airplane trips, etc., whereas women pollute less because they are at home are not driving or traveling as much.
Actually, on page 14 of the study she claimed that women work more than men:
"Women suffer more from lack of time than men – in other words, men have more leisure time than women - Women use more of their own time in caring for others than men do, and worldwide suffer from greater time poverty than men. The World Bank study, Voices of the Poor, shows that women often work a 16-hour day, compared with an 8-hour day for men – who thus have a significant welfare advantage over women."
Basically all of her claims are ridiculously stupid. Here was my favorite one:
On page 16, she wrote, "As members of the same biological sex, all men are assumed to have an interest in ensuring that their health is secured by means of improved care and research on male diseases (such as prostate cancer)"
April 1st, 2008 at 12:37 am
Well done Glenn. Good points. I really liked the feminist request versus the dating market point. Great point on leadership decisions. (And it isn't like there haven't been women leaders. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind as a paradigm. I once saw a great survey a few years ago. A feminist news caster bated a man on the street saying, don't you think it is time we had a woman president? The man replied, "We don't need a man or a woman. We *need* someone with a brain."
April 1st, 2008 at 12:44 am
Another flawed study. Women consume much more than men. Women spend 90% of all purchasing and control 2/3 of all wealth in the US. Women chose driving over walking even if it is one or two blocks to the location. Women have the true power with none of the responsibilities. Children are awarded to women no matter what and the system rewards the big spenders and those who have addictive issues.
Marcy Ganz
San Diego, CA
http://crispe.org
April 1st, 2008 at 12:46 am
As I understand it, women were the ones who began agriculture. The men were out hunting, and the women grew crops and domesticated cattle.
If there is such a thing as global warming - which I do not believe - it would seem that women were, more than a thousand years ago, largely responsible for it. After all, if we still just hunted game and ate roots and berries, we would not have huge forests plowed under to provide grazing for cattle and space to grow corn and other crops. We would not need machinery guzzling gas to plant and harvest crops and cattle flatulence.
Obviously, the women began this vicious cycle and now will not own up to it.
I'm a woman, but I would gladly give up my right to vote if all the idiots of my so-called fairer sex could not vote. :)
Pat
April 1st, 2008 at 1:00 am
Yes of course, girls are made of sugar and spice and boys, well.... Of course men are responsible for all evil. Global warming, men's fault. Wars, men's fault. Sickness and poverty, all men's fault. Marital infidelity, only men do it because they want to be deadbeat dads. Why not? Though I suspect women use more disposable things that use up fossil fuels and add to human rubbish piles.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:03 am
On second thought, I have heard that. Men are bad and women are good. How can it be any other way?
Patricia,
I agree - Glenn is wrong - ALL feminists ask women to take one very important responsibility - that of blaming men without any evidence using any convoluted logic possible - for every single thing that is wrong in the world. Not ONE feminist disagrees with that. Either its men or its patriarchy (aka. "I really want to say MEN without actually saying MEN").
Ok, thats a lie, but its amazing how much in denial and self-righteous some people can be!
April 1st, 2008 at 1:06 am
Pat, are you actually saying that agriculture is the main cause of global warming/climate change??? What about pollution from corporations that refuse to clean up their mess? The toxins that are released into the environment, into the oceans, poisoning the fish, poisoning the land, poisoning the people? And women are the cause??? Plus, your solution is to give people bows and arrows and have them kill their food? Do you live in 2000 BC?
April 1st, 2008 at 1:12 am
Johnsson-Latham said that men are the decision-makers in society, and that they want a consumer oriented-society. She believes that if women were in power, societies would be more about reproductive rights, women's rights to control their sexuality, fairness and equality and safety for women.
Which is totally different from the current government orientation which is more about men's reproductive rights, men's rights to control their sexuality, fairness and equality and safety for men?
She replied, "Glenn is upset about man bashing but I'm upset about woman beating. Women are beaten, they earn less money, they have less freedom, they have less power, and they face a grim reality."
Looks like you cornered her in her own BS feminist argument and out comes the Red Herrings. If the debate went on any longer she would have brought the rape card out. And after you pwned her on that one she would have started to cry and whine that you were being mean to her and "Why do you hate women Glenn!!!!".
Good job Glenn.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:13 am
Glenn Sacks Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 12:19 am
Patricia Win Says "Glen's never met a feminist who advocated that women take responsibility ?? I've met no other kind." I'd never met one who advocated that women take responsibility for that particular issue. I've occasionally met feminists who advocate that women take responsibility for certain problems. Not nearly enough, however.
I take responsibility in my family of ways to save the Earth (such as using recyclable bags at the store), and now my husband does too. Except that he bought an SUV, when we really should have bought a Prius.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:18 am
"Men are responsible for global warming"??? Aren't we getting a weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee little bit carried away with the male bashing thing???
Gunner Retired
April 1st, 2008 at 1:22 am
jeana,
Follow this chain if you will -
Agriculture needs deforestation - Agriculture allows larger human population. Larger human population creates 'available' creative minds. This leads to innovations. Innovations lead to technology - Technology creates solutions - solutions are goods, then humans (80+% females) buy these goods. Production of these goods in order to provide the already enlarged and growing human population needs mass production which will cause inevitably cause pollution. Humans deforest some more and build houses to safely enjoy life and these goods. Then they need roads to get these goods to them from their manufacturing site and then ... we end up where we are today.
So there you go, we ended up in modern age due to women and agriculture started the chain to global warming. How is that for a blame theory? I am not kidding either - everything I have said can be verified from history.
And yet, I do not blame women for global warming, rather I am hopeful that someday a group of scientists will figure out a way to reverse global warming and we as humans become environmentally considerate and responsible organisms who learn to consume minimal resources.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:24 am
@Pat Lessard...
Watched a tv documentary about this very thing a few days ago. The first sustained use of agriculture apparently stemmed from a need to feed workers engaged in building an early African religious structure. It was apparently the first known instance of large, diverse groups coming together in the same vicinity - the first city if you like. Prior to that humans lived in small, nomadic hunter gatherer groups. If you wish I can track down the details. I wasn't totally tuned into it at the time.
It was mentioned that virtually all the world's agricultural wheat can be linked genetically to a variety that grows only in an area about twenty miles from this site.
Given the nomadic nature of the species' early history it stands to reason that agriculture could only come about with the establishment of larger, permanent populations. If we find the first cities we will also find the first farms.
I'm not willing to ascribe agriculture to either gender in terms of it's genesis. I would point out, however, that the creation of large scale, long term processes has tended to be a male proclivity.
Patricia Win said...
Humanists unite, you have nothing to lose but your prejudice.
You could start the ball rolling by dropping the label "feminist" from your resumé.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:37 am
gwallan,
the easy availability of food caused populations to grow around and in areas with active agriculture. You are confusing cause and effect. It was the gatherers that started farming, most of whom were women (primitive tribes even today follow the same pattern). Take the Nile valley for instance. Most densely populated civilizations even today live near sources of water because they can grow food using the water. There are rare exceptions to this too - like everything else.
Alright, that is enough evolution of civilization for one night.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:40 am
Pankaj, first of all, I don't know where you get your figure that 80% of consumption is due to females. Are you including household items/food, which perhaps (though I'm not certain) more women buy but are consumed by both men and women? Or just relying on stereotypes that women like to shop (which may be true)?
Women causing global warming is as ridiculous as men causing global warming. And I think over population, along with disasterous "free trade" policies and greedy governments and corporations, are what we should be focusing our attention on. Not one gender vs another.
And although you basically said that we females were the cause of global warming thru your flawed logic, thank you for being so magnanimous and not saying you don't blame us.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:25 am
Did I say consumption? I think not, but if I did I correct myself - 80%+ of the buying is done by females.
I was trying to show the ridiculous blame game which is apparently acceptable. You mention "corporations" - but aren't these household goods or food - produced by corporations? In fact they will have to shut their businesses down if people do not buy from them.
And just because household items and food are so, why should they get a pass? Does their production not contribute to global warming?
As for the shopping stereotype - consider this - why are there more stores with more items for use by women than men? It is easy to excuse buying a pair shoes while complaining about your husbands gas guzzling SUV. But have you consider the amount of poisonous waste tanneries and footwear manufacturers dump into the environment? Now if you have fewer shoes than your husbands, you are great! but still a rare exception. But the norm is that the wife will have at least twice as many shoes than the husband. Same thing for clothes, jewellery etc etc.
As a bachelor, a man's existence is pretty much on the utilitarian side, except for his hobbies. But yet after marriage he has to take blame for 50% of the spending that his wife does? Let me give you an example, go to TJ Max or Payless shoes or any other consumer goods store - count the # of men and women in there. Now go to Walmart or any other grocery store count the ratio in there. Let me know if you find more men in a the consumer store than in the grocery store. I recently noted that there were at least as many women in Outdoor world (i am inclined to think they were just following men around) and Bestbuy as men.
I have explicitly stated that I DO NOT blame women for global warming - the theory is an example of blame theory - void of any responsibility of men in the process. It is definitely flawed and even I do not intend to support it, in spite of its historical grounding. There are a lot of holes in that theory, I know that myself. But my discounting of this blame theory is considered to be "magnanimous"?
In fact you yourself, have not pointed out a single flaw in the theory. I am sure that if you think a little over it, you will find them.
The technique I used was to prove how ridiculous blame theories can be constructed with tit-bits of historical information, just as this feminist has. Obviously it stung you a little - stung enough to make you question my intentions when I clarify my position on the issue, yet you think men are complaining about nothing?
Do you have any denouncement for the feminist's blame theory? Or is your objective here is to simply try to balance criticism by taking a pacifist's stand? Again, I have to tell you I do appreciate your comments and interest here - a lot. But please don't make assumptions and second guess my intentions when I write something. Ask for clarification if you will - I will be glad to provide it.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:47 am
I was trying to show the ridiculous blame game which is apparently acceptable.
It is not as ridiculous if you turn it around and place the blame where it really belongs. After all men wouldn't do the majority of things they do if it wasn't tied to some reproductive goal. Women set the standards for whom they will mate. They have determined that the man who is the strongest and can provide the most resources for her and her children will be the one she mates with. Those men who fail don't get to mate or mate with fuglies.
It's interesting that women talk about cooperation in the workplace and a reduction in competition and yet they not only insist on competing with men in the workforce (unfairly I might add) but at the same time have raised the standards of male performance and resource gathering to all new heights. After all if she can make 40k a year then he needs to make twice that to be worthy of her.
When women everywhere start dating only environmentally conscious and under employed men who shop only at thrift stores and live with their parents and men still work long hours and drive SUV's then you can make the claim that men are at fault for global warming.
I'm not sure why I'm wasting my time on this. Trying to get women to look introspectively at themselves or their gender is a fools errand.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:49 am
Can some scholarly people here cite the reference for consumer spending patterns across genders for Jeana's advantage? Thanks.
Here is what I found via quick Google search- http://www.inc.com/articles/2003/01/25019.html
April 1st, 2008 at 2:57 am
Jean,
Just being a Geek kicks you out of the dating market. I was watching a movie yesterday where the term "computer programmer" was used as if its stigma or anti-qualification to find a date. I laughed thinking how true and how dehumanizing! Just he other day another feminist told me that she and "most of the women she knows" likes Geeks because they are rich. Now ain't that honest (and delusional) feminism?
April 1st, 2008 at 3:04 am
Johnnson-Lathham is but yet another in a long line of liberal, Anti-male "Do as I say-Not as I do"... power junkies !!
People like this invite closer scruitney don't you think ? Yes...I think they do, let us oblige them.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:10 am
There are so many absurdities in Johnsson-Latham's remarks that one could almost fall over laughing.
With a panache so typical of feminist tunnel vision, it does not occur to this dim-wit that it is the females that want the men to go out and earn the dinner meat. It is the females who are sat at home enjoying the benefits of that labour which uses energy and produces CO2.
But worse, this mind-numbing jerk seems to think that it is only moving around that produces CO2 pollutants. One can say broadly that any energy use produces CO2 pollutants: directly or indirectly. When the little lady at home is doing the laundry she is producing CO2; when the little lady at home is doing the vacuuming she is producing CO2; when the little lady at home is doing the cooking she is producing CO2; when the little lady is doing the shopping she is producing CO2; when the little lady at home keeping herself warm during the winter she is producing CO2; when the little lady at home with the air conditioning keeping her cool during the summer she is producing CO2; when the little lady is at home farting she is producing CH4 which is twenty-one times worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2!
The real cause of this massive increase in greenhouse gasses is capitalism. In that Johnsson-Latham is right when she says: "...men are the decision-makers in society, and that they want a consumer oriented-society." It /is/ largely men that make these decisions but only a small number of very greedy me. The vast majority of men are going along with it (as employees) because they are more or less forced to by the demands, expectations and structures of a society that permits little else.
But we are not suppose to say that capitalism is the key problem here - no matter how obvious it may be. As has been said many times in the last 150 years, "Whatever goes on in a society is selected and institutionally reinforced to the degree that it buttresses the principle mode of social production." The capitalists (who are largely men, but not men /per/ /se/) overwhelmingly decide not just what goes on inside a company but what goes on in the political and social sphere too. The whole of western society is structured to serve the purposes of these few greedy, selfish people who care not for the destruction they heap upon the rest of us and the planet as a whole.
Johnsson-Latham would do better attacking capitalism than men.
The very reason that modern feminism has been such a disaster is because it has attacked the wrong target from the mid-seventies onward. The radical feminists who set about men realised that attacking the true cause of their problems: capitalism, would meet with far more resistance. By inventing what is now called the 'Frontman Hypothesis' and in so doing displacing the blame for the way the world is onto men /per/ /se/ rather than those men who are, in fact, responsible, the radical feminists succeeded in achieving far more than they might otherwise; and caused a massive rift between men and women that was and is totally unnecessary. In fact, we should have been working together against the common enemy rather than fighting each other as Johnsson-Latham would continue to do. As Germaine Greer made clear in The Female Eunuch several years before the radicals got going:
"Women must also reject their role as principal consumers in the capitalist state. Although it would be a retrogressive step to refuse to buy household appliances in that women's work would be increased and become more confining than it need be, it would be a serious blow to the industries involved if women shared, say, one washing machine between three families, and did not regard the possession of the latest model as the necessary index of prestige and success. They could form household cooperatives, sharing their work about, and liberating each other for days on end. Their children instead of being pitted against one another could be encouraged to share the toys that lie discarded as soon as they are sick of them. This would not be so repugnant to children as parents hope. I can recall being beaten for giving away all my toys when I was about four. I really didn't want them any more. Children do not need expensive toys, and women could reject the advertising that seeks to draw millions of pounds out of them each Christmas. Some of the mark-up on soap powders and the like could be avoided by buying unbranded goods in bulk and resisting the appeal of packaging. In the same way food can be bought in direct from the suppliers, and if women combine to cheat the middlemen they have an even better chance of making it work. 'Cheaper by the dozen' does not have to be limited to one family. Women ought also to get over the prejudice attaching to second-hand clothes and goods. The clothes children grow out of can be shared about and if children weren't already victims of oversell they wouldn't mind. Baby carriages and the like are already swapped around in most working-class families. Part of the aim of these cooperative enterprises is to break down the isolation of the single family and of the single parent, but principally I am considering ways to short-circuit the function of the women as chief fall-guys for advertising, chief spenders of the nation's loot."
This is not what happened.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:25 am
Pankaj said...
Can some scholarly people here cite the reference for consumer spending patterns across genders for Jeana's advantage? Thanks.
Here is what I found via quick Google search- http://www.inc.com/articles/2003/01/25019.html
I haven't got time right now to track them down. Too late in the day. I looked this up a couple of months back for some reason.
Two I'm aware of...
- Fairly recent EEC data on spending patterns showed 79% of discretional spending controlled by women.
- US study showing 80% published by one of the bigger US business magazines.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:18 am
for the record Motor vehicles emit Carbon Monoxide CO, not CO2, & other harmful Pollutants, Perhaps these swede should get the facts straight before opening the piehole. just another cheap attempt to denigrate men. Shameless behavior.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:26 am
We are all aware that women know they have priviledges that we Men do not have.
Like Jack Nicholson said "if you take a Man, remove all logic and reason from him, the result will be a woman".
Stop complaining, put the toilet seat down for yourself. Grow up!
April 1st, 2008 at 4:38 am
Why do you talk to us that way? You're so mean.
FINE! fix your own flat now, see if we care.
Does this tool belt make me look fat?
Women will get equal pay when they stop complaining about the job to get the Man to do it for them.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:35 am
Larry Coan,
Motor vehicles emit both CO and CO2.
For CO there are catalytic converters, for CO2 you need trees. Then there nitrogen oxides to various degrees, which are also harmful to life, but more corrosive in nature.
CO basically disables your blood's oxygen carrying capacity. Then there is particulate matter which are be very nasty to breath and cause respiratory diseases.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:42 am
Ok. Let's not take something a few feminists say and conflate it out to all women. What's next? Women responsible for Viking raids? (Well...) It's a disingenuous blame game designed to create even more distance between the sexes. Everyone benefits and everyone is responsible for the problem.
Anyway, I found a simple solution:
http://emailfromgrandma.com/2008/03/30/who-needs-a-truck/
April 1st, 2008 at 5:57 am
Not quite sure what those type of women are on about, how about all us men stay at home and women work. But that would mean, women are more responsible for global warming. Apart from that, isn't there a lot of animal testing in regards to beaty products? Meaning women are far more responsible for animal cruelty than men, but of course the reply to that will be that men want women to look beautiful and hence it's the male dominant societies fault
April 1st, 2008 at 6:22 am
This woman has no idea what she is talking about.
Consumption produces CO2. Women spend 86% of disposable wealth, driving that consumption. That is not to say women are responsible for global warming, because women simply spend the money, but men, women and child all consume.
However, I'm more concerned about her other comments. "Women are beaten, they earn less money, they have less freedom, they have less power, and they face a grim reality."
Women are beaten, men are beaten much much more, why is she not concerned about the more pressing problem? It seems she believes women are more important, therefore their suffering must be put above the suffering of men. That is chauvanism. Women do earn less money, because they work less. However that is irrelevant because the advantage of earning money is spending it, which women do. Women do not have less freedom. The UN charter for human rights dictates that slavery is illegal, except when men are enslaved. Men have NO reproductive rights at all, in any country in the world. In the third world, gender roles are pretty rigid for both sexes. However in the West women can do as they wish and be subsidised by the state, men's gender roles remain unchanged.
In the question of power, then it is harder to say. Most positions of power are held by men, but these men do not and never have favoured other men. They favour themselves and their families before anyone else. Not only this, but men will look after all women's welfare before they do the same for men. So women's welfare is protected by men they are close to, men they aren't close to, and women in power. Men's interests are protected by noone. How's that for power?
And I suppose that being more likely to die from war, famine, disease, work, genocide, crime and the state is not a grim existence? That the vast majority of those in extreme poverty are men is not a grim existence? I could go on with many examples, but I'll leave it at that.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:23 am
Patricia Win Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Glen's never met a feminist who advocated that women take responsibility ?? I've met no other kind. I've been reading this web site for some time now and believe that the only way anyone can have these extremely simplistic, close-minded views of feminism is because, like anyone who stereotypes, they focus only or primarily on the negatives and ignore the positives. Sexism is alive and well, unfortunately. I'm a therapist, a feminist-therapist of over twenty years. I work with men who are screwed over by women and I'm as disgusted by this as I am by the very disporoportionate number of females who have this done to them by men. There are, most of us know, both good and bad in both genders and men of quality support equality for women. Humanists unite, you have nothing to lose but your prejudice.
------------------------
Patricia, before the MRA gained any sort of notoriety and modern feminism flourished and grew without significant opposition, making up stories, statistics and lies along the way... it could no longer be described as the admirable movement you've mentioned above (a movement which you apparently believe holds females accountable for their actions). Now that a MRM exists, and modern feminists have been called on a lot of the gender disproportion they've contributed to the mix, suddenly they are for and have always been (they say) for gender equity, not superiority. I'm sure for some modern feminists that's true ... but most? I strongly have my doubts.
"There are, most of us know, both good and bad in both genders ..." That is exactly the point the MRM, and this site, is trying to get across! Men do not have a monopoly on bad behaviour. Bad behaviour simply does not discriminate. Both men and women suffer from (and contribute to) the ills that assail society in general. There are rotten members of BOTH genders, but the feminist juggernaut clearly will have us believe otherwise when they continue to come up with such preposterous arguments, laws and models such as Johnsson-Latham's, VAWA and Duluth. You wouldn't hear such nonsense that "women don't lie about rape" and the like. Yes, I believe sexism against women still exists, but if one is going to protest red-faced and angry about sexism, protest about ALL forms of sexism. Far too many women cry sexism without realising that women are also some of the greatest practitioners of sexism (particularly in the workforce, which is darn ironic since we constantly complain about that very issue and how it affect women's advancement in the corporate arena). Oh wait, women can not be sexists. Right. You see, what I mean, that statement in and of itself is SEXIST.
Feminism is the establishment, MRAs and MRM sympathisers are the challengers. And if you ask me, it's about time. Ultimately only men can change how feminists use negative gender stereotypes to discriminate the male population.
And please, I mean no personal offence, but I'm considerably suspicious of any health care professional that subscribe to the feminist agenda. I can not seem to forget last year on trip to Hollywood to visit some friends, a therapist told my friend (who was going through a rough patch in her marriage at the time) that she can accuse her husband of DV so she can remain in the country. My friend is from overseas and had dreams of being an actress. She strongly considered this option, but thankfully she didn't do it in the end. Still ... the fact that a therapist would encourage a patient to destroy another person's life in such a malicious fashion .... it's chilling.
I'd be really ridiculous to say that this is common place advice among health care professionals, I don't want believe it is, but ... in our feminised society's quest to paint and blame all men as evil, who knows. For eg: it would appear as though some feminists would rather see a woman beaten up or raped than not, just to feel gratified in their cooked up statistics and self-righteousness.
Furthermore, your argument that "men of quality support equality for women" is true, but I get the impression (and I may be wrong) that the undertones of that message scream of feminist bigotry as far too many feminists take offense at anyone (in particular a man) criticising their ideology. So are you saying that any man who criticise feminism is not a "man of quality"?
April 1st, 2008 at 7:04 am
At the risk of sounding obvious "DA WIMMINZ IZ WASTEFULL CONSUMERIST HARPEEZ!1!!" I dont know why that 1 is in there, and even for someone "educated" in America the spelling is atrocious. To think that your sex is the one that makes up the bulk of the student body in American Unis is, paradoxically, both depressing and amusing. Twenty years from now American politics will be dominated by feminists who run around mispronouncing nuclear, putting possessive apostrophes at the end of plurals and mis-quoting Derrida, and some fat black woman in un-washed jeans will have to write a book called "Stupid White Women".
Here's the news. Men work more because they are still the primary earners in most families, and they would rather be overworked than see their families go without, not to mention of course, that the money for those push presents has to come from somewhere. Also, if "Da-wimminz" werent so obsessed with how much money men make, the single men would probably work less than they do. And yes, most of the consumption in western society is the doing of females- those shoes piling up in your closets, girls, they're not made by elves anymore, they're made in a factory that spews garbage into the atmosphere.
Furthermore, this poor excuse for a woman comes from a country where they want women to work more- wont that increase global warming? Or is it only "male work" that causes greenhouse gases? Someday a feminist somewhere will assert that the flatulence of bulls is creating more methane than the flatulence of cows, and needless to say, the BBC will make a documentary about that- they'll probably call it "The Male Cow- Enemy of Humanity."
"Glenn is upset about man bashing but I'm upset about woman beating. Women are beaten, they earn less money, they have less freedom, they have less power, and they face a grim reality."
Women are beaten, but not as often as men are beaten, much less are they murdered as often as men, but what matters to this kind of woman isnt the majority of victims who are males, only the minority who are females;
they earn less money because they work less- she herself alludes to that; they have less power because for every Germaine Greer nature hurls at us she graces us with three Norman Mailers, dont ask me why she does - im not a geneticist; they have less freedom because they are allowed to do everything men are allowed to do plus a few things men arent allowed to do, like shirk their parental responsibity by destroying a human life to-be; they face a grim reality because, not withstanding the rich and powerful, the average white western female is the most privileged creature on the face of the planet. She lives longer, is healthier, more protected by both Government and community, and exonerated of every adult responsibilty from parenthood to mass murder. Men should face so grim a reality.
"She believes that if women were in power, societies would be more about reproductive rights, women's rights to control their sexuality, fairness and equality and safety for women."
I believe that's Swedish for "Its all about me, babe". Did she claim that the women would make things better for the poor? the children? the blacks? the gays? the sick? the elderly? Did these groups even cross her self-obsessed little mind? It never ceases to amaze me that the sex that considers itself to be morally superior thinks only of itself- men create philosophies that are about helping other people, women create philosophies that are about helping themselves,and then act as if selfishness is somehow a higher calling than altruism.
By the way, she looks pretty dry for someone who i assume swam to the UK.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:08 am
Moreover Johnsson-Latham is a swedish feminist. They are among the most radical in the world. Proud man-haters and they make no bones about it.
After seeing a Swedish Feminist Party march in Norway on International Women's day some years back, where the leader gave a speech saying that all men are an abomination to their mothers, on whom they spit because of men's continued violence against women, I'm not at all surprised.
These people are fanatics.
Actually Johnsson-Latham's tirade is mild in comparison. Not her ridiculous argument that men are solely responsible for global warming, but considering what I've previously heard from her sisters, I guess she could have delivered her arguments with a lot more vitriol.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:39 am
Only anecdotal I know, but on living with a female roommate, our gas and electric bills have tripled:
"I'm cold", she will say, and on goes the central heating, rather than putting on some socks and a sweater. Sometimes I come home to find the both heating and air conditioning ("to clear the air") are running at the same time.
The washing machine and clothes dryer are always running during waking hours, even though we live in a bone dry climate where hanging clothes out to dry is easy. When I empty the dryer, I find that it has been running for an hour with only three items of female clothing in it. At least they match.
A couple of weeks before any Hallmark holiday (most recently, Easter), I am informed "WE need to decorate! YOU need to buy...."
In short, we went from frugal household to environmental disaster!
April 1st, 2008 at 7:56 am
ya kick her ass glenn
April 1st, 2008 at 7:57 am
Last time I saw someone driving a gas guzzling suv, it was a woman w/ no kids in tow, probly left them at their dads, who drives a 1982 chevette, cause he has to pay for the suv...
April 1st, 2008 at 8:00 am
Sorry, didnt need to be so negative, but most women i know dont care about global warming, let alone what causes it, or how to solve it...
April 1st, 2008 at 8:01 am
Oh, wow. Women worry about getting beat. Woman make less. Men are vile, world destroying viruses. I am so sick of this crap all over the world.
When are they going to stop spouting this crap. Thank GOD someone is around to question them. We need a few billion more Glen Sacks. I am beginning to think the the real reason women are afraid of men beating them is because women like her go around saying it all the time. Half the media out there potrays it as funny when a man gets beat down with weapons by a woman. Heck I watched a show with my kids the other day (eight legged feaks or something like that) which was sort of a comedy horror. A young male was comming on to a teen girl (few years older then my daughter) and she tazered him in the private. Haha.. are you kidding me? She said no, she didn't want to lose her virginity. I didn't see her push him away and tell him to back off in a stern way. I was kissy kissy and then a gental push. Then more kissing and her pushing then tazer. Anyway I think she way over reacted and should have told him more sternly. The kid of course urinated all over himself (which again is so funny) and she then drove away with his truck. Funny again. I guess my point is, every bloody show you see has women getting stalked and murdered by men, and it's always horrid. Then men getting beat down and hurt it's always funn (i mean they have laughing and light upbeat music and so on). Coudl this be part of the reason why women are so bloody afraid and why many think it's perfectly ok to smak men around with whatever object they can cause the most damage with?
This women make less money bs needs to stop too. I have taken a personal survey of the couples i know, and guess what! out of 10 or so couples, 1 man makes more money then his wife or spouce. This was only because she didn't go to school after high school and made some really iffy life choices. Now she wants to go back to school.
I'd love to see real numbers on men and women doing real jobs and their pay. It sure seems to me that any fire women or police officers we have are going to bloody well maket he same amount of money. Most of those 10 couples are in the IT field. 1 is a couple where one works in construction and the other works for the government.
Heck, some to think of it, my X who took my kids also makes more money then me. hehe maybe I am way under paid.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:08 am
Maybe she just has too many Swedish meat balls.
Steve Kemp
April 1st, 2008 at 8:20 am
Sundance Channel has a documentary on tonight about Michael Reynolds, "The garbage warrior". A visionary maverick creating sustainable housing from waste in the desert. If she's gonna bash men how about a little recognition of the good we do?
The point is MEN will be the ones to come up with the technology solutions to solve the environmental mess. WOMEN through power of choice and purse can accelerate it.
COOPERATION - novel idea but it is what separates us from all the apes including the female dominated bonobos.
Men in subarctic Sweden build the power plants that keep J-L warm under her comforter at night and not in an igloo. ie. they made her sad life a little less grim.
J-L works in foreign affairs. Why isn't she haranging the Chinese about building one dirty coal power plant a week that will pollute for decades.
How about having Volva make a hybrid and have every Swedish women drive one. Call it the THOR.
If J-L wanted to work effectively on the environment there are a lot of things she could do. If she wants to advance a feminist agenda she should do it out in the open, don't use the PLANET to cover your tracks. GAIA is not pleased.
We are lucky to have Glenn as a spokesperson to go against dragon ladies like this!!!
April 1st, 2008 at 8:22 am
ROFL - Great point there Tweesdad! I never thought of that. I bet you could go on one of these conferences and blame it all on women. I mean global warming all causes by women. My wife does the same thing. Turns the heat on all the time, turns it up, runs a white noise generator to sleep at night and so on and so on and so on.
I just throw some slippers and socks on and use a sweater or blanket when I am cold _ i am more conscious of the bill because i have to pay power.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:46 am
I came here from Tom Nelson's blog. Is this woman serious? Or is it just an April Fool's day joke?
Actually, it's not too surprising. A lot of global warming's traction is due to the fact that it lets people bash white people. The next logical step is to use it to bash white men.
"Men do more of almost EVERTYTHIING than women."
This is basically correct. Almost all of the wonderful gadgets and ideas that make our lives healthier, safer, and more convenient than in the past have come from men. If you are going to bash men as a group, you need to give men (as a group) a lot of credit too.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:48 am
Patricia Win - I wouldn't even call today's neo fem a feminist. In my mind we should all be working towards a day when we look past gender. A day when the laws protect people and have nothing to do with gender. I don't think that will happen until we make a few changes, "equal oportunity" laws and such or any law that makes it possible to put value on someones gender, religion, sexual preference. In my opinion these sorts of things, and people like the one mentioned in the above article only make things worse and promote segregation by constantly throwing out these statements (some of which are completely bogus and it just seperates us as people.
I mean even talking about which gender causes more global warming is rediculas. In my opinion, the human race would be better served with these sorts of people not in the picture. Global warming is a human issue NOT a womens issue and that goes for half the crap that claim to be womens issues.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:57 am
I applaud Glenn for agreeing to take on their nonsense, but it's so inane it needs to be ridiculed, not seriously addressed.
Men pollute more than women? GUILTY. And who cares? We're polluting for women, too. Try and plausibly deny that, lady.
As noted above: Men do more of almost EVERTYTHIING than women. Women were ordained by biology to bear children; men do pretty much everything else more than women -- because we're not bearing children.
Yawn. This is called "common sense."
April 1st, 2008 at 9:06 am
Having read many "academic" writings from many disciplines in my life, I think that upon having scanned this document and read in detail several sections (including her data table comparing male and female activities) I can safely state that this woman, as a social/economic researcher, is either insane, cognitively impaired, or mentally ill.
What a nut bag.
How about these profound observations (-) and implications(=>):
-wealthy people, women included, have a larger environmental footprint than poor people!
=> let's put all wealthy people to their death and give their assets to the government for environmental cleanup!
-people who leave their homes have a larger environmental footprint!
=> let's incarcerate all people in their homes
-people who live in group homes have a smaller environmental footprint!
=> let's compel all people to live in barracks on bunk-beds stacked 5-high
-quadriplegics have superior environmental footprints -- they use neither power boats nor cars!
=> let's cut off everyone's limbs!
-babies and toddlers have smaller environmental footprints than older children!
=> lets euthanize all humans above age 5
Such moronic thinking as is projected by this living insult to the human race and the word processor has rarely, and perhaps never before, be exported from the Kingdom of Sweden.
Oh, I forgot this profound insight:
-miniature poodles have smaller environmental footprints (and leave less hair) than larger dogs
=> lets kill all pets larger than a miniature poodle
and
-gerbils have smaller environmental footprints than people!
=> let's kill all people and replace them with gerbils
AND LET'S START WITH THE SWEDISH FOREIGN MINISTRY
It is mind-boggling that this whack-job would, rather than focus on energy footprints of specific practices of PEOPLE (driving SUVs, powerboats, flying, etc.), attempt to find the largest possible group of people she could (an entire gender) and attack that gender's average activity levels in each area of claimed excess rather than attack BOTH GENDERS of power boat users (for example).
So by eliminating men from the planet, suddenly power boat use by women is not energy-consuming?
I hope this moron doesn't start following around board members of public companies in neighboring Norway -- she might find that the 40% of those who are "women" are taking just as many board-meeting related business trips as are -- god forbid -- MEN. How terribly shocking.
Oh, but surely those women have less frequent flatulence or at least produce less total methane per flatulence incident due to consuming less food, so I guess that will help them keep winning the footprint contest?
In this woman's case the flatulence comes from her "mind".
April 1st, 2008 at 9:20 am
Is this an April Fool's joke post? Blaming men for global warming. Isn't funny that when something bad happens its always the fault of men but when something good happens feminists will trip over themselves to take credit for it?
By all that is holy please tell me this is an April Fool's joke post...
April 1st, 2008 at 9:24 am
Also, just to note. Women didn't start agriculture. Neither did men. Men grew crops and women processed them, much as women cooked made and used animal furs to make clothes.
Besides, the issue is far too complicated to say 'men did it' or 'women did it' since neither are wholly true.
April 1st, 2008 at 9:25 am
Just to name a few things off the top of my head,
1) Scientists are still debating our part in global warming after all global warming started 10,000 years ago and what industry did we have then?
2) That’s right women are at home more often
a) This means that they have the heat on or
b) They have the a/c on for an entire house [if I had my druthers the head would be set at 60* there is always a sweater or blanket [the women at work are always cranking the heat up and the men are always turning it down] hmmmmmm carbon foot print?
3) Women are the primary users of aromatic products candles and other household scent products many of which emit things like acetone, benzene, lead, soot and particulate matter. Not exactly good for the environment either
4) Women are the primary users of hair dryers is this really necessary?
CO2 emitted = 2kW x 0.17 [10 min] x 0.527 kg CO2 kWH = 0.2kg CO2 approx
Just at 75 million women using a hair dryer every day that is 15,000,000 kg of CO2 daily or 5,475,000,000 kg a year hmmmm
5) Hairspray aerosols were banned only 30 years ago; yep folks what women used in their hair is going to be out there at least another 70 years
b
April 1st, 2008 at 9:32 am
Mr. Sacks,
I recommend that you stay away from the idiots when they start talking global warming. It's a hoax and arguing it will only get you steamed up over hot air. :p
April 1st, 2008 at 9:41 am
If women live 7 years longer than men, aren't they contributing longer to global warming?
What does she expect to do about that?
April 1st, 2008 at 9:47 am
David M Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 9:41 am
If women live 7 years longer than men, aren't they contributing longer to global warming?
What does she expect to do about that?
-=-=-=-=-=
Nice way to think out of the box! You are a true master, very good, standing O
b
April 1st, 2008 at 9:55 am
To put it differently, if men were to change their behavior, emissions and climate change might be a much more limited problem as compared to what it is today."--Gerd Johnsson-Latham
If men were to change their behavior you would be living in a cave burning trees for heating and cooking.
The very luxuries you have, electricity,heat, food, the ability to buy tasteless jewelry, and men-like clothing have all been provided by forward thinking men.
When are you going to give these things up Gerd?
Surely you are not going to take advantage of what men provide when it benefits you and then criticize men when it doesn't??? Gerd? Gerd? Gerd?
April 1st, 2008 at 10:10 am
1) Scientists are still debating our part in global warming after all global warming started 10,000 years ago and what industry did we have then?
No they're not. The entire scientific community are in agreement that the current levels of warming are anthropogenic (created by people) mainly due to deforestation and co2 emmissions from industry.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:12 am
Yeah, all the free health care, minimal crime, and high standards of living in the Scandinavian countries makes things real, real tough on women over there.
Get a friggin' job, lady.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:25 am
Any landfill or garbage dump anywhere in the world will reveal more female than male generated trash, and tampons are a huge contributor to this problem.
Men simply cut their hair. Women consume mountains of chemical treatments and mechanical devices to modify their hair, and they do it weekly. A man will get his hair cut about every 6 weeks or so, if that often.
Men wash and shave their face. They can shave with ordinary soap. Women use tons of chemicals and dyes to enhance their face. Dye chemistry was the foundation for our modern chemical industries, eventually giving rise to oil refinery and the fixation of nitrogen out of air to make explosives and fertilizers. The rise of fertilizers and mosquito controlling chemicals is the primary factor in our global population explosion.
Men are utilitarian in their clothing choices. Women scrap their wardrobe every year to wear the latest fashions. Case in point : a few years back the shirt hems were high so we could see their midrifs. As most ladies had enough articles of this style, the clothing manufacturers decided to change the style so they could sell more clothes, and the hem was lowered. And on and on it goes. Men's clothing has changed little in the last 20 years, and men are simply not susceptable to fashion trends. I have raged at men on other threads to improve their grooming and attire and the feedback is : why bother?
Women are the great drivers and consumers of capitalist society. As others have noted, a man's home is fairly spartan, whereas a woman's home is festooned with trinkets and crap.
A man will drive a car until it falls apart., the older it gets, the more he loves it. He will only buy a shiny new car to impress women. Women need gigantic shiny new SUVs so that they never need consider its mechanical aspects.
But really, I love women and don't care. But please stop with the lies that men are the great polluters of the world.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:28 am
Anybody got a number on the carbon footprint of Swedish officials? I'll bet dollars to donuts that it's higher than mine.
Ergo, if Swedish officials would reduce their consumption to the levels of run of the mill men like me, we could drasitcally reduce global warming.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:29 am
As a point of information- the scietific community is not uncertain that humans are making the planet warmer.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf
The IPCC report at the above link was a peer-reviewed REVIEW of already published and peer-reviewed research.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1_home.html
Suggestion that global warming is a hoax or sham is as uninformed as this woman blaming it on men. I caution us not to put on a feminist type blinder -- it goes against what I want to believe so it must be false-- with regard to this.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:32 am
Callum Says:
"It seems she believes women are more important, therefore their suffering must be put above the suffering of men. That is chauvanism...."
Amen, Callum. That's EXACTLY it. A total lack of empathy for other human beings who just happen to have penises. I don't get it.
That's why the feminists who tend to come here are so defensive and hellbent and showing ALL MRAs why they are such woman-hating sexist bastards. They are extremely caught up in their victimhood, and because of this they do believe only their own problems are of any true significance. After all, due to male "privilege" only women suffer to a great extent in every possible situation you can think of throughout the world, right?
That's why when you start discussing serious MRM issues like DV or rape with feminists they tell you "yes, I'm sure there are some men who've experienced DV, but far more women do." While that may be true, it's beside the point. The fact remains that some men have also experienced intimate partner violence. Leaving out that little tidbit ... it's kinda hard to not construe that as a barefaced effort to lie, deceive and mislead.
I suppose in a couple of years the next charge from Johnsson-Latham and her crew will be that men created global warning to further oppress and subjugate women.
Christ, when will this madness stop...
April 1st, 2008 at 10:41 am
If we all take a single action today...
MENTIONING GLENN SACKS TO A CO-WORKER, OR FRIEND, and make sure they have the website spelled correctly,
Than we could get 5000 more viewers, and potential voices of protest against women like this..
Raise awareness!!!!
April 1st, 2008 at 10:44 am
By the way there doesn't seem to be anything at the link in the story. Is that just me?
April 1st, 2008 at 10:45 am
jeana Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 1:13 am
Glenn Sacks Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 12:19 am
Patricia Win Says "Glen's never met a feminist who advocated that women take responsibility ?? I've met no other kind." I'd never met one who advocated that women take responsibility for that particular issue. I've occasionally met feminists who advocate that women take responsibility for certain problems. Not nearly enough, however.
I take responsibility in my family of ways to save the Earth (such as using recyclable bags at the store), and now my husband does too. Except that he bought an SUV, when we really should have bought a Prius.
Are you kidding me? "I take resposibility... such as using recyclable bags at the store.' Jeana, This is your idea of taking responsibility?
Jeana Says,Except that he bought an SUV, when we really should have bought a Prius. Jeana, Why don't you with
hold sex from him to punish him for not going along with your way of thinking? Then after he sells the SUV for a prius you can bitch at him because the car is to small for you and the kids and too small for family vacations.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:49 am
Oh, dear! We bad men are rape, rape, RAPING poor Mother Earth? Nasty. And the women are just "closing their eyes and thinking of England."
Good job, Glenn. Just goes to show what can happen when feminists aren't free to start every polemic with, "And I believe I can say without fear of contradiction...."
Thank goodness for feminist idiots like good ol' Gerd. The more that they slither out from under their rocks out into the sunshine spewing their ever more silly nonsense, the more they can be appreciated for what they are -- illogical, untruthful hate-mongers. How can the average woman hear this stuff from feminists and not be ashamed? I guess they just don't think about it.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:01 am
She has a disturbing lack of clarity.
As an agnostic, I'll pray for her.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:02 am
Every year in America we savage the environment with pesticides, fertilizers, and lawn mowers to keep pristine grass lawns.
Women are the instigators of this madness. They want huge, flawless grass lawns for aesthetics, safety, and status.
Men want grass lawns for two things : grazing animals and playing their sports. No need for excessive cultivation to achieve this. In the absence of animal ownership, no need for a lawn, as communal fields are fine for sports.
Probably every man on this site has had his weekend sleep ruined by the infernal drone of his neighbor's lawn mower. Or worse yet, has had his mother or wife wake him up and chain him to the contraption.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:18 am
Davina Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 10:32 am
Callum Says:
"It seems she believes women are more important, therefore their suffering must be put above the suffering of men. That is chauvanism...."
Amen, Callum. That's EXACTLY it. A total lack of empathy for other human beings who just happen to have penises. I don't get it.
Thanks Davina for restoring my faith that there are women who believe in true fairness and equality and are not agenda driven misandrists.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:21 am
We are all responsible for global warming. Turning it into a gendre issue be it against men or women is wrong and totally unhelpful.
Many people are becoming more environmentally aware men included and some of the loudest voicies in the global warming lobby are male (Al Gore and George Monbiot spring to mind).
Turning an issue like climate change into an excuse to bash men is misguided and unhelpful .
April 1st, 2008 at 11:32 am
callum Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 10:10 am
1) Scientists are still debating our part in global warming after all global warming started 10,000 years ago and what industry did we have then?
No they're not. The entire scientific community are in agreement that the current levels of warming are anthropogenic (created by people) mainly due to deforestation and CO2 emmissions from industry.
-=-=-=-=
Entire? I do not think that you will ever find an entire community of anybody the will agree 100%. I think you will still find a large number of scientists are still debating out role in global warming and how much CO2 is contributing, and what amount it take to do what damage. Did you know that this is not the first time the earth has done this? The earth is on a cycle because the axis wobbles? Why did other ice ages come and go? This was because of global cooling and warming even when man was not around. Hmmmmmmm
b
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University 20 September 2006
For the problem with An Inconvenient Truth is that it is well-made propaganda for the global warming cause rather than well-made climate science. Nowhere does Mr Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet. Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change. This is not surprising, for no such evidence yet exists.
This is just one of about 19,000 scientist dissidents.
Just for info
In an interview with Grist Magazine, when asked about his film: do you scare people or give them hope?
Mr Gore replied:
Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual solutions on how dangerous it (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis.
His words not mine, scary he is . . .
b
April 1st, 2008 at 11:35 am
. I am beginning to think the the real reason women are afraid of men beating them is because women like her go around saying it all the time.
The same thing is true with rape. Feminists constantly claim that all men are potential rapists, a rape occurs ever 3 seconds, 1 in 4 women will be raped, etc.
"Take Back the Night" rallies would be completely unnecessary if the feminists would stop trying to scare women.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:38 am
Lewis Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 10:29 am
Suggestion that global warming is a hoax or sham is as uninformed as this woman blaming it on men. I caution us not to put on a feminist type blinder -- it goes against what I want to believe so it must be false-- with regard to this.
-=-=-=
Suggesting that I said it was a hoax is a feminists site like tactic. I never said that. I said "1) Scientists are still debating our part in global warming after all global warming started 10,000 years ago and what industry did we have then?"
Please do not try to depose me by saying I said things that I did not.
b
April 1st, 2008 at 11:41 am
Causes of global warming
"The main human activities that contribute to global warming are the burning of fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and the clearing of land. Most of the burning occurs in automobiles, in factories, and in electric power plants that provide energy for houses and office buildings."
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
About 40% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions stem from the burning of fossil fuels for the purpose of electricity generation.
About 33% of U.S carbon dioxide emissions come from the burning of gasoline in internal-combustion engines of cars and light trucks (minivans, sport utility vehicles, pick-up trucks, and jeeps).
About 12% of U.S. buildings structure account for carbon dioxide emissions.
http://www.ecobridge.org/content/g_cse.htm
Whoever is sheltered by a building to use its appliances or uses a motorized vehicle maybe guilty of contributing to global warming.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:49 am
Throughout history and throughout the world, men have gathered in fraternal clans to drink, gamble, fight, and go a-whorin'.
We are perfectly content with our beer and bunkhouses.
It is women, seeking free support and fealty, that have manipulated church and state to coerce men out of their bunkhouses and into servitude to provide women with nice homes, clothes, and food, and hence, world environmental collapse.
Just an idiot, but plausible theory, on par with any feminist world view.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:51 am
jeana Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 1:13 am
Glenn Sacks Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 12:19 am
I take responsibility in my family of ways to save the Earth
-=-=-=-=
By the way you have the wrong idea and perception. It is "SAVE YOURSELF" not mother earth. In the scheme of things WE CANNOT HURT MOTHER EARTH. Bluntly we are nothing but a pimple on her butt. If we were all to disappear tomorrow in a blink of an eye no one would be able to tell that we were ever here and earth would be a beautiful and pristine paradise, complete with a dominate life form to fill the void in the matrix.
Once we get over our own vanity perhaps we can save ourselves provided that mother nature agrees to keep us. Much is entirely up to her about our existence, whether or not you are willing to accept that fact
b
April 1st, 2008 at 11:57 am
Hmmm, I am concocting gender theories without restraint or facts.
I feel so...empowered!
April 1st, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Gerd Johnsson-Latham ought to help more immediate emergencies in Switzerland.
UBS Unveils $12B Loss, Write-Downs of $19 Billion
UBS AG's chairman abruptly resigned Tuesday as the Swiss bank reported a first-quarter loss of $12.1 billion and said it would seek $15.1 billion in new capital.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080401/switzerland_ubs.html?.v=10
How diversity helps UBS Warburg acheive goals
"Perhaps the most visible aspect of the initiative is the conferences promoted by the All Bar None women’s network. 160 women attended the first UK Women and Leadership Conference in June 2001, based around the theme of "Profit through Diversity"."
"As a result of these meetings, a formal women’s network was established, which provides a forum for exchanging ideas and supporting women at UBS."
http://www.ubs.com/1/e/about/annual_review/2001/talent_and_culture/diversity.html
Maybe "diversity" is primarily responsible for UBS financial loss.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Bernie I did not attribute a particular quote to you and in this post someone --not you-- did use the word HOAX.
Tomare Utsu Zo Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 9:32 am
Mr. Sacks,
I recommend that you stay away from the idiots when they start talking global warming. It's a hoax and arguing it will only get you steamed up over hot air. :p" (emphasis added)
Bernie I believe this is correctly attributed to you: "Bernie Misiura Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 9:25 am
Just to name a few things off the top of my head,
1) Scientists are still debating our part in global warming after all global warming started 10,000 years ago and what industry did we have then? "
So I will grant that YOU did not say it was a hoax. You said scientists are still debating. Well they may technically be debating (scientists are always debating and challenging and discarding what doesn't fit the data) but you are attempting to confuse what is meant by 'global warming.' And you only provide exaples of people disagreeing with Al Gore's film and not with the science.
So here is a challenge for you (and it should be easy right "This is just one of about 19,000 scientist dissidents. ) find a peer-reviewed paper disputing that present levels of atmospheric CO2 are higher now than at any point within science's current ability to determine.
I will grant that there is dispute about the consequences of said CO2.
I will also grant that there is dispute about what should be done.
I also grant that Al Gore is not a climate scientist.
So find me reputable climatologists having published peer reviewed works that:
A) Dispute that humans have significantly altered the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
B) Dispute that CO2 is the most significant of the 'greenhouse gases.'
Shouldn't be too hard if there is still 'debate.'
And here is an interesting take on Al Gore's film. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/
Also I personally do not do all I can to reduce my own contributions. I am not telling anyone to give up their SUV. I'm saying that I believe the scientists when they say the planet is getting warmer.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Some other fun tidbits
Do you not find it interesting that the coldest recorded temperature came after the warmest recorded temperature?
El Azizia, Libya Sept. 13, 1922 136*
"Vostok, Antarctica holds the world's record for coldest temperature: -129°F (7/21/83)."
The Sahara has been expanding for at least 7,000 years what did we have to do with that?
b
April 1st, 2008 at 12:26 pm
Bernie Misiura:
Very eloquently put. The irony is that people use the excuse of it hurting human welfare if we try and stop global warming, yet ultimately it is humanity that will pay.
April 1st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Climate is average weather over time.
I can not tell you what the temperature will be on July 4th 2015. I can tell you that it will most likely be on the warm side of 72 degree F.
And I've found this to support my consensus claim.
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
April 1st, 2008 at 12:42 pm
Well maybe im gonna stay home from work for a few days a week,wait if i do i'll have almost no income at all cause im a single father raising my own son and his mother the "egg doner" doesnt contribute a dime!I know she doesnt contribute to global warming,how can you from a couch?I guess im just gonna have to be the bad guy and go to work!Maybe i should walk to work?Ya thats gonna solve the problem!She sits on the couch and i walk to work to support our son so i dont add to the emmision problem.I never thought of that!Maybe i should work some overtime too while im at it and help her out with her cable bill,then we know she is gonna stay right where she wont pollute the air!I think im on to something here,thanks for opening my eyes Gerd Johnsson-Latham,i cant beleive i was driving to work all these years!
April 1st, 2008 at 12:44 pm
The Greener Gender will be released in May. Please keep your comments coming, as useful perspectives may further influence the documentary's trajectory.
Thanks,
Tom Martin.
For media enquiries only, tcmartin1@hotmail.com
April 1st, 2008 at 1:03 pm
What a stupid thing for her to say. You can't look at the average travel of men and compare it to the average travel of women, without accounting for the fact that the reason many women can stay at home is because they're being supported by their husband/partner. So he is doing twice the work, and she is doing none. Of course there is going to be a discrepancy. That doesn't mean men are more to blame.
If she was saying this from the point of view that green campaigning should be aimed at men, then fair enough. But using it to lay blame is misleading.
April 1st, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Lewis Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 12:16 pm
Bernie I did not attribute a particular quote to you and in this post someone --not you-- did use the word HOAX.
Sorry about that then.
BUT
So I will grant that YOU did not say it was a hoax. You said scientists are still debating.
No, I said "scientists are still debating our part in global warming after all global warming started 10,000 years ago and what industry did we have then?" A significant difference that you conspicuously left out of my quote that changed its meaning.
BTW another unanswered question.
Well they may technically be debating (scientists are always debating and challenging and discarding what doesn't fit the data) but you are attempting to confuse what is meant by 'global warming.' And you only provide exaples of people disagreeing with Al Gore's film and not with the science.
Now moot in light of the quote correction
I think this demonstrates that you are confusing what is meant by global warming, most take that to mean that humans are fully to blame [let us not kid ourselves]. That is simply not true. Al Gores film is about global warming and the science of how humans have caused it, I am saying by quoting who I did that science is not blaming everything on humans.
And I did offer suggestions that you have not given me answers to with science like This has happened throughout the history of the world with many warming and cooling periods even before we were here. Like our unstable axis also contributes. Add solar flares, sunspots, geomagnetic storms, solar heat output, which have increased which are credibly suspect to the addition of this problem [this "may" diminish over the next hundred years]
What about answering:
That you made a blanket statement that the ENTIRE scientific community agrees
That Al Gore admitted to hyping the problem to get people to listen.
So my challenge to you is to answer mine first. The ball is in your court.
Besides if you grant me "that there is dispute about the consequences of said CO2"
then
does this not make the below moot I believe it does
So find me reputable climatologists having published peer reviewed works that:
A) Dispute that humans have significantly altered the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
B) Dispute that CO2 is the most significant of the 'greenhouse gases.'
Ironically, I never said that we have not and it is not. Suggestive deposing is a tactic that is used to convince the ignorant masses.
b
April 1st, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Lewis Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Climate is average weather over time.
I can not tell you what the temperature will be on July 4th 2015. I can tell you that it will most likely be on the warm side of 72 degree F.
And I've found this to support my consensus claim.
-=-=-=-=
Where? And that is important!
In Buffalo for the last month of so our high has been up to 15* below normal, Boy won't you be surprised tomorrow when you wake up frozen solid by a super cell with still undigested pizza in you gut. LOL
b
April 1st, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Did anybody stop to think that global warming might actually be good for mankind? All that arable land in the north going to waste half the year under a blanket of snow, in relation to world hunger? More photosynthesis, more algae, more fish in the seas to feed the hungry? Cheap, efficient solar power? The convenience of cooking breakfast on the sidewalk? Oh wait, we're only worried about waterfront property values. No wonder so many pampered rich people get into this cause.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:34 pm
Patricia Win Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 12:01 am
Patricia Win Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 12:00 am
Glen's never met a feminist who advocated that women take responsibility ?? I've met no other kind. I've been reading this web site for some time now and believe that the only way anyone can have these extremely simplistic, close-minded views of feminism is because, like anyone who stereotypes, they focus only or primarily on the negatives and ignore the positives. Sexism is alive and well, unfortunately. I'm a therapist, a feminist-therapist of over twenty years. I work with men who are screwed over by women and I'm as disgusted by this as I am by the very disporoportionate number of females who have this done to them by men. There are, most of us know, both good and bad in both genders and men of quality support equality for women. Humanists unite, you have nothing to lose but your prejudice.
I'm sure there's good and bad people of both genders. However, Feminisim seems to be a constant drum beat of "men suck, men suck", with a chorus of "Rapist! Pedophile! Batterer! Oppressor!" every few bars. Most couple's therapy that I've encountered is centered on fixing what's wrong with the man, not on unrealistic expectations by the woman, nor her contributions to the problem.
The views and claims of many prominent feminists are rarely challenged, and are just accepted as fact. Even when they have been disavowed by the very people who did the original study the claims are based off of. The usual result of any challenge is not to engage the study, but instead to attack the challenger as trying to "turn the clock back to the good ol' days of wifebeating and raping", and claim they just want to get back to the 1950's relics of June and Ward Cleaver.
We do appreciate the positives. However, the negatives, especially the ones we're concerned about here, are the "advancement" of women at the cost of the basic civil rights of men, including the presumption of innocence, and the double standards in family and criminal law.
My views on women, and the current situation of gender and sex issues in this country come at 43 years of direct experience. My direct experience includes criminal and civil law, false allegations, daily villification and other misandry, and double standards in the workplace, plus a very oppressive and demeaning social system and a government that has plenty of social programs and subsidies for women, but only disdain for men.
Can you imagine what that's like? Picture being forced out of your own house (your own separate property, I might add), by someone who contributes nothing? Try living on $10 a month and the generosity of your friends, all while being compelled to support someone who goes out of their way to exacerbate and prolong the situation. Try comprehending the admonishment of the judge for the unsubstantiated claims of the other party, while he ignores the well documented and substantiated wrongdoing of the same party. How could anyone come away from that process and not think that there is absolutely zero accountability for women in the legal system, and a witch-hunt for men?
I'm certain there are plenty of women who are responsible for their actions and decisions. Where they exist, they are as invisible as the men who do the same. If this is the case, then it is a a loud, vocal, and painfully "In Yer FAAAAAAAACE" minority that is tarnishing the reputation of the quiet majority.
Much as women are advised to consider men with caution, (because you never know who's going to take advantage of the situation to become a rapist), so must men take extreme caution to protect themselves against a false allegation of rape, sexual harassment, assault, or the long term concern that his spouse will decide to villify him as a divorce tactic that's now encouraged as a standard practice.
I've been ready to accept women as equals for some time. I'm still waiting on them to step up to the plate and BE equals. So far, I'm not impressed with what I've seen from anyone who claims to be a feminist. I've seen some pretty impressive feats by women who have turned their back on 'feminism'. The most notable case being my mother in law (well, techncially, my ex-mother in law), who at the age of 47, completed a GED, then obtained a 4.0 degree in nursing, and now works in that field.
Her daughter, on the other hand...
As far as capitalizing on the whole Global Warming thing - I'm all for getting a t-shirt that says "Stop Global Whining".
AlGore is the biggest hypocrite when it comes to consumption. He wants everyone *else* to change their ways, and live a more expensive lifestyle, all of which benefits his investments, without changing his extravagant lifestyle a whit. Case in point, his pool alone has a higher carbon footprint than my 1660 square foot house with 3 people. When he lives in a 750 sq foot shitbox apartment lit with 3 CFL bulbs, does his own shopping and cooking, gives up his Secret Service entourage and pampering staff, and walks to work everyday instead of flying all over the planet, I'll take him seriously. Until then, he has as much credibility as GERD (Gastro-Esoughogeal Reflux Disease?) Johnson-hyphenated-Latham. Very typical of every politician I have ever met. These people are just as bad as the fundamentalists - their only gratification in life is in making other people change their ways, through fake morality and shaming.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Barsin: Well, 80% of the world's population live on the coast, so rising sea levels are bad. Global warming has increased desertification, which obviously is bad for agriculture. Plants also need water to photosynthesise, unless global warming increases water levels (it won't) then it won't help plant growth. Solar power is SUNLIGHT, not heat. Global warming only effects temperature, not sun levels.
And for all your talk about pampered rich people, it is the poor who will suffer the most from this crisis. As in all problems, people with less resources lose out more. Don't try and paint global warming as some 'pampered rich person' problem, especially since it rich people and nations who produce the most CO2.
April 1st, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Offended_Dad: Great stuff. But don't bring global warming into it. Who cares if Al Gore produces lots of CO2? Unless you can refute the premise that global warming is a problem then there's nothing to say on the matter.
AL GORE DID NOT INVENT GLOBAL WARMING. He merely brought it to the attention of the American public. The rest of the civilised world has known global warming to be a problem for decades, America hasn't. Mainly from the people who brought us the wholly unscientific 'creationism'.
You may hate Al Gore. But this is not about political beliefs. It is about truth. Global warming poses a threat to mankind. Global warming is being caused by humanity. These are truths about which there is no serious debate. Like domestic violence was in the past, the issue of global warming is being politicised, and it shouldn't be.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:02 pm
barsin Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 2:18 pm
-=-=-=-=
You got it and that has been brought up by many scientists
b
April 1st, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Offended_Dad said: "I'm sure there's good and bad people of both genders. However, Feminisim seems to be a constant drum beat of "men suck, men suck", with a chorus of "Rapist! Pedophile! Batterer! Oppressor!" every few bars."
I agree, Offended Dad. My problem isn't with classical feminist theory -- which seeks to eradicate gender stereotypes for everyone-- my problem is with the women's rights lobbies precisely because they don't follow classical feminism; they've become nothing more than lobbies for certain women's groups. These lobbies (NOW comes to mind) freely engage in the very thing classical feminism preached against -- unfair gender stereotyping -- so long as it helps certain demographics of women. Example: NOW's opposition to the presumption of shared parenting using the rationale of males as abusers.
The other problem a lot of men -- men who favor total equality of the genders have with the feminism in vogue is the dishonesty. Let's be honest: they distort "facts," sometimes make them up out of wholecloth to underscore that women are hurt by men or the evil system men benefit from, the patriarchy. Examples: the 77 cents one the dollar (a gross simplification of a very complex issue), the one-in-four sexual assaults on campus (if college campuses were this dangerous, no parent would allow a daughter to attend college). And my own personal favorite: only 2 percent of rape claims are false. Volumes of objective evidence show that's not true, but it's repeated over and over. Why can't one can acknowledge that rape is an awful thing and, without contradiction, assert that false accusations of rape are not "an urban myth" as some of these people maintain? It is hurtful that some who want to raise awareness about rape feel a need to denigrate falsely accused men by dismissing their victimization as an "urban myth" -- simply because they can NEVER acknowledge that men, too, are sometimes hurt because of the gender they were born into.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:10 pm
Offended_Dad Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 2:34 pm
-=-=-=-=
Try a 900-1000 sqft house with 5 and a dog!
b
April 1st, 2008 at 3:16 pm
callum Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Barsin: Well, 80% of the world's population live on the coast, so rising sea levels are bad. Global warming has increased desertification, which obviously is bad for agriculture. Plants also need water to photosynthesise, unless global warming increases water levels (it won't) then it won't help plant growth.
-=-=-=-=
We are not talking about an 80* difference here, desertification has been happening for thousands of years, as far as agriculture where planting is done may change a little but then again that has been some thing that has always happened to a degree, water levels can increase by the nature of less land more surface area more evaporation [referencing the 80* change because depending yes water can become airborne and locked.
b
April 1st, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Perhaps it is not such a good thing to post on April first.
b
April 1st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
Callum, in two successive posts - ”Don't try and paint global warming as some 'pampered rich person' problem, especially since it rich people and nations who produce the most CO2.” & ”It is about truth. Global warming poses a threat to mankind. Global warming is being caused by humanity. These are truths about which there is no serious debate.”
I had hoped to stay out of this part of the debate, since it isn’t seminal to the gender issues herein; yet, I find myself chomping at the bit when I read stuff like this.
Now, Callum, you’re normally quite wise and rational in what you post, but these two demonstrate a true ignorance regarding the issue of anthropomorphic global warming. First, although the US and Europe were once the primary producers of excess CO2 (that which isn’t part of the much larger natural source of CO2), but if it hasn’t already happened, it will soon be that China and India will both exceed the output of the US.
Secondly, there is serious debate – lot’s of it, by people who have the education and credentials to understand the issue much better than the all too easily duped general population.
I don’t want to steer this thread off into the ditch any further (if you take the time to do a little research, there is a wealth of REAL information to be found), so I’ll leave you with this thought:
I the unquestioned acceptance of the threat of anthropomorphic global warming, you’re taking the word of the main-stream media and select leftists – the very same people who are telling you that DV is almost entirely man-on-woman, that all men are (potential) rapists, that women are cheated in the work-place, in family courts, and in quality of life.
Think about it. If they’re lying to you about leftist-Feminist issues, what makes you think you can believe them on leftist-environmental issues? Personally, I believe that we should try to avoid polluting the environment – we don’t need to sell our souls the AGW panic to have good reason.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:27 pm
The fact that women travel less than men – measured in person- kilometers per car, plane, boat and motorcycle – means that women cause considerably fewer CO2 emissions than men and thus considerable less climate change.
That's because women are busy making men their beast's of burden. How does she expect men to get to work or travel to business meetings across the country? On a magic carpet? If less woman sat at home eating bon-bons and watching daytime t.v., and more of them empowered their lazy asses to get a job, they would end up traveling more also.
If women’s consumption levels were to be the norm, both emissions and climate change would be significantly less than today.
Bwhahaha. I had to laugh at this one. Who is traditionally more materialistic men or women? Who's more likely to buy unneeded shoes, clothes, crap from ikea, chocolate, or; jewellery made out of diamonds and gold. Materials that were produced using energy, natural resources, harsh chemicals, and child slave labor in the case of diamonds & chocolate.
Unlike driving to your job consuming those things are unnecessary in order to survive in the modern world. The whole premise that woman are oppressed in Democratic Western societies in general and Sweden in particular is absurd. Woman constitute a 51% majority! They could vote to totally change the way we lived if they desired; and if anyone's to blame for environmental damage it's them!
April 1st, 2008 at 3:34 pm
..I believe global warming to be a scam. But media outlets have bought into it fully and won't give both sides. Check out the BBC documentary, "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It documents how the whole thing started with the 1970's global cooling scare and mushroomed from there...Wasn't this the coldest winter in years?....
April 1st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
This idea circulated some time ago in Germany as well, but I think today, April the first, is probably better suited to launch this idea on Glenn’s site.
Basically, global consumer spending is one of the main drivers behind the current imbalance between a growing population and the kind of resource usage that probably seems to act on global warming. Jeffrey Sachs recently wrote about this phenomenon in his latest book ‘Common Wealth’. When it comes to responsibility, we normally don’t look at the executioner but at the judge who decides about the verdicts. In other terms and in the context of who is responsible for global warming, the one who is responsible for the spending is responsible for the results as well. Based on various explorations it is estimated that women in the Western world decide about 80 percent more or less of consumer spending, which totals about 15 trillion dollars a year. I did some calculations on a rainy Sunday, and to put this into perspective : if about 8 percent of the amount spend by western women on consumer products would be used in a different way the global energy demand could be met in a carbon-neutral way, all poverty problems (in the world and in the USA as well) could have been solved, and the educational and health-care problems would cease to exist worldwide. That is without taking the multiplier effects, as described by Keynes, into account. The big problem of course, as Jeffrey Sachs brilliantly describes, is how to achieve a combined action.
However, when it comes to an answer to the question about the responsibility for global warming, my response to the ladies would be “What is holding you back ?” (“Ladies first”)
April 1st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Al Gore has misrepresented 'Global Warming', to the point where any science I read on it has as much credibility as any feminist rant. Any other group that's been up front in advocating the hype over global warming has been so wrapped up in villifying any opposition that I find them just as disingenuous and intellectually bankrupt and dishonest as the feminists and the race mongers.
AFAIK, anyone who's pushing it has another agenda, and it's to get more government funding, or re-direct tax money to their own purposes. Just as VAWA and Title IX are a bunch of Feminist Pork, the Global Warming Schtick seems to be all about money. Don't worry about the facts, it's a crisis! Just let us tax the hell out of those evil capitalists. Screw those soccer moms! It's all Starbuck's fault! We're all going to die! Terrorists are everywhere! Men are beating their wimmenz every 1.3586 seconds! Children are starving!
I'm all for encouraging the reduction of waste, but I'd rather we look at things that we CAN see, and can do something about, such as enforcing the protection of fish populations that are being depleted, and holding huge 3rd world countries (like China and India) accountable for their pollution. Yes, I'd like to see some companies held liable for cleaning up their mess. Part of our country's problem in our manufacturing industry is that while American companies had to meet federal and state emission standards, foreign companies have not had the same requirements (these would be emissions for things like paint, urethane curing, plastic production, foam rubbers, etc.).
These idiots that think that taxing the hell out of petroleum or other energy sources are not a regressive tax (That means that it's hurting poor people worse than it's hurting rich people), need to be struck repeatedly around the head and neck with a blunt stick. The increased cost of energy is affecting everyone's basic life, from higher heating and cooling costs, to production costs that are passed down to the consumer. Where sales taxes are only enumerated at the last sale (the consumer's purchase), the other taxes continue to add up and multiply at every step of production. Taxing goods on their "carbon footprint" is insane, and unsustainable. Politicians love proposing new tax systems - more contracts and goodies to pass out to their campaign contributors, and more bureaucracy to tinker with.
Look what's happening from the ethanol fallout - farmers are not growing food crops, they're growing corn for ethanol production. Combined with the energy taxes, the prices for cereals and related products have shot through the roof! I'm sure this will make the PETA/Vegan freaks happy, but the cost of milk and meat will soon follow.
Everyone has some grandiose scheme to make other people ride the bus. Everyone seems to have some huge central plan to push the costs off on 'rich people', without realizing that the rich people have the means to opt out. Every city government thinks it's a great idea to have some sprawling public transportation system - they make money on it no matter how inefficient it is, and most are subsidized by the people who don't even ride it. In our local area, the subsidy would be so bad that they could buy every proposed rider a low end Hyundai car ($12,000), and still save money. But that would mean they wouldn't have goodies to pass out for political favors, so....
April 1st, 2008 at 3:43 pm
Offended_Dad - "Al Gore has misrepresented 'Global Warming', to the point where any science I read on it has as much credibility as any feminist rant."
Good point.
This is not the right forum for this, but I've made this observation elsewhere. The AGW socio-political "movement" is already in decline, and more people are starting to question it. The movement "Jumped the Shark" the day Al Gore won the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts to cash-in on peoples fears.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Okay I'm just going to throw this out there on Al Gore's hypocrisy, "If Isaac Newton is revealed to be a hypocrite do we have to rewrite all the physics texts?"
Will force cease to be the product of mass and acceleration? Will gravity cease to function? Will questions of Newton's character change the facts?
I have much else to say and little time now.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Ummm Offended_Dad, you made a lot of irrelevant points there. Some were good (like ethanol fuels being bad for the poor, Chomsky's written about it) but most are completely irrelevant to the issue.
Do you accept or deny that global warming is a problem for humanity? You ranted at Al Gore, petrol taxes, biofuel, China and India, taxes and some other things which have nothing to do with the environment, the economy, taxation or anything else. The second paragraph seemed more a rant at liberal types of any sort.
I ask again. Do you accept scientific fact or do you not? Once we sort that out, then we can discuss the specifics.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Another tidbit
Human breathing pumps out 2.4gt of CO2 every year
200,000,000 US drivers pump out 1.0959 gt of CO2 every year YEP less than half
things that make you say hummmmmmmm
b
April 1st, 2008 at 3:48 pm
slwerner: Al Gore never started any 'movement', the concept that global warming is an important issue has been known in the rest of the world for decades, Al Gore merely told America about it. And I don't know how you can conclude that 'the movement' is getting weaker when environmental problems are more in the public eye than ever before.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:50 pm
Bernie, obviously. The biggest source of CO2 emissions on the planet are cockroaches. However the carbon cycle had adjusted to this, humans have tipped the scales with industrial emmissions.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:52 pm
pjk: That documentary was discredited a thousand times after it came out. The makers had to issue a public apology admitting they lied to the public during the documentary and none of the experts that appeared on there were credible.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Can anyone look at this past election cycle, at any candidate, and genuinely think that any of these people have any interest other than their political career? These people would do or say anything if it got them votes or political capitol. None of them would be impacted by the outcome, because our political elites have managed to exempt themselves from every major social program they've enacted.
Americans with disabilities act - congress is exempt from every requirement.
Health care - congress has a good health care system, paid for by you. Most polititicians are either independantly wealthy, or their constituents pay for it, or their lobbyists do.
School choice - every politician puts their kid in private school. No issues with security, unions, teaching standards, tenure, etc.
Unions - no politician has a requirement to deal with a union for their own staff. The rest of the employees they work with are patronage jobs for the most part - make work jobs to reward people for supporting them. That, and volunteers.
Crime - the court just ruled that the FBI's corruption investigation of Jefferson was improper. This is the guy with $50,000 or so in his freezer. He's allowed to prevent the FBI from searching his office for incriminating paperwork.
Illegal immigration - remember nannygate?
None of these people have to go to work, few drive their own cars, maintain their own household, have to worry about defending themselves, or the cost of housing and other living expenses. But they all have very specific reasons why you need to do it their way. Do as I say, not as I do.
Do you really want to trust THESE people with decisions that are going to fundamentally change everything we do, from now on? Even if you do think that global warming is an issue that necessitates these sort of changes, you can't seriously think these people won't sell you out to the highest bidder, just like VAWA, Toll Roads, the mortgage bail outs, defense spending, illegal immigration, every entitlement program EVAR...
April 1st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Lewis - "I have much else to say and little time now."
Good,
trying to compare a oppurtunistic fraud like Al Gore to a great scientist (who did actual research to back his observations) like Newton was truly weak!
Callum - "I ask again. Do you accept scientific fact or do you not?"
A more pertainent question would be, do you?
For example (just one out of dozens and dozens of really compelling examples), read this and see if you wish to believe scientific facts - or whether you'd prefer to continue to get all your information from the leftist-Feminist media.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Tim Murray
And my own personal favorite: only 2 percent of rape claims are false. Volumes of objective evidence show that's not true, but it's repeated over and over. Why can't one can acknowledge that rape is an awful thing and, without contradiction, assert that false accusations of rape are not "an urban myth" as some of these people maintain? It is hurtful that some who want to raise awareness about rape feel a need to denigrate falsely accused men by dismissing their victimization as an "urban myth" -- simply because they can NEVER acknowledge that men, too, are sometimes hurt because of the gender they were born into.
Sorry for the side track folks but I have a question. There are a lot of people out there that claim only 2% of rape claims are false. These are often the same people that claim that the REAL victims of false rape accusations are the women (and almost always say "women" not just "rape victims") who are really raped and are scared into not coming forward. If they are so concerned about real rape victims not coming foward wouldn't you think they would make dealing with false accusations a top priority? If they would put a little effort into getting that number to an ACTUAL 2% (such as by supporting measures to charge and punish those that intentionally make false reports) the real victims wouldn't have much to be afraid of right?
April 1st, 2008 at 3:57 pm
slwerner: Have you actually seen ANY of the facts, statistics or papers on global warming? I have. You seem to think that 'they' (presumably left wing politicians) are lying about women's issues and global warming. That's the problem, both left AND right lie about women's issues. And in Europe at least, both left and right agree on global warming. The problem here is not political, it is factual. American politics have made it political when it shouldn't be.
And no, I don't believe that 99% of the scientific community, along with every major scientific body and commission of climate science has 'lied to me' because I have seen the facts, the studies, the graphs, the statistics myself. Try reading up a bit, and then deny global warming.
I hate to say it, but you are a result of your culture. Only in America can scientific truths like evolution and global warming be denied. I don't know why, but it troubles me deeply.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Any other group that's been up front in advocating the hype over global warming has been so wrapped up in villifying any opposition that I find them just as disingenuous and intellectually bankrupt and dishonest as the feminists and the race mongers.
David Suzuki actually wants the government to imprison politicians who deny that global warming exists and is anthropogenic.
April 1st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Patricia Win said "There are, most of us know, both good and bad in both genders and men of quality support equality for women. Humanists unite, you have nothing to lose but your prejudice."
But why not also "There are, most of us know, both good and bad in both genders and women of quality support equality for men. Humanists unite, you have nothing to lose but your prejudice.?
Or even better, perhaps even what should only have been said "There are, most of us know, both good and bad in both genders and people of quality support equality for people. Humanists unite, you have nothing to lose but your prejudice.
Perhaps Patricia needs to understand that she also fits her own bill of having to lose prejudice. Show us you're willing to take that on board Patricia and you'll improve your own lot.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:05 pm
slwerner: That example you used of Mars was discredited the moment it came out, as the climate change was due to planetary shifts rather than solar flares.
And yes, I take objective scrutiny extremely seriously, that's why I'm an atheist. I believe that every opinion should be supported by facts, rather than emotion.
P.S. Did you even read the second page of the article? It says how the researcher who came up with that hypothesis claimed that greenhouse gasses had no effect on earth, whereas if earth had no greenhouse gasses it would be a ball of ice.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:16 pm
"David Suzuki actually wants the government to imprison politicians who deny that global warming exists and is anthropogenic."
I don't agree with that, it's not helpful for debate. However it should be noted that this is what they do to holocaust deniers in Germany. That's what you get for denying the truth for political motives.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Another thing that concerns me about government action and global warming:
I look at things like Stem Cell Research. All of these entities are crying that the federal government won't let them perform research on stem cells.
Not true. (as I understand it...) The federal government won't FUND stem cell research. Private companies may spend their own money as they see fit.
Same thing with the AIDS epidemic. Lots of people are demanding other people's money for programs related to AIDS, from research to outreach programs. Can't suggest to people that they not shoot dope, or have risky sex, until we figure out what's going on, can we? Nope, we've got to have huge, expensive, risky schemes to spend money to give people free needles, condoms, bad advice, medicine, etc., but in THIS area, GAWD FERBID you suggest people change their behavior.
Oh, wait, since it's rich, straight, white, males that are the root cause of global warming, it's ok.
To steal a line from the feminists - if global warming were caused by (some female only activity, say, abortion), we'd be required to celebrate it, and there'd be federal grants to have it every where we could.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Offended_Dad: You have yet to answer my question. Do you accept of deny anthropogenic global warming?
April 1st, 2008 at 4:21 pm
....isn't water vapor a greenhouse gas? Should we get rid of water, then?...Man does not control the weather. Temperatures have always fluctuated. Always will. Mankind's contribution is the equivalent of a cup of water in the Pacific Ocean... Notice how all these global warming experts like Al Gore live like Imperial Royalty? His utility bills are multiples more than the average Joe. But sacrifice at the altar of global warming is for the Little People like you and me. Not for a rich elitist like Al Gore, who will always live better than pretty much everybody else on the planet....
April 1st, 2008 at 4:23 pm
It is just amazing to see the fantastic tales that come out of the mind of Fem-Quida. Would they be happy if men just vaporized?
The correct equation should consider activities that are not related to putting food on the table. I will be the first to agree that men go fishing more than women and the some men that are fortunate to have fishing boats will use more fuel to propel their boats than the men that are fishing from the docks. However Women too go boating entire families go boating so that argument is shot down. I don't know about other neighborhoods but in my neighborhood the biggest SUVs are driven by women. Anyway I am not sure who burns more carbon fuel. I was on a flight las night and I didn't see any more men than women
April 1st, 2008 at 4:23 pm
pjk: Temperatures DO fluctuate. Climate is average temperatures of many years. These have been increasing since the industrial revolution. And water vapour is a greenhouse gas, but we're not producing more of it. Seriously, you sound like an idiot.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Sadly, the thread is in the ditch –“”slwerner: Al Gore never started any 'movement', the concept that global warming is an important issue has been known in the rest of the world for decades, Al Gore merely told America about it. And I don't know how you can conclude that 'the movement' is getting weaker when environmental problems are more in the public eye than ever before.”
I never said Al Gore started it, he just tried to get rich off it. You should leave the false attributions to the likes of Amanda Marcotte.
As a scientist, I do see that there has been a fundamental change in the level of unquestioning belief in AGW. I work with many scientists who are dedicated environmentalists, and who truly wished to believe in man-made global warming with all their hearts. They too, once said the debate is over; but they’ve begun to show a change of heart (and, more importantly, mind).
As they’ve come to learn about scientific facts, such as global warming/cooling cycles, warmer historical temperatures, incorrect and falsified NASA temperature data, and things which mankind simply cannot have had any effect on (global warming on Mars), they’ve taken a fresh look. And, with Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, most will no longer even discuss the issue – out of sheer embarrassment.
Yes, there’s still plenty of stuff hitting the news. But, as scientists are starting to waiver in their belief in AGW, the non-science minded public will eventually begin to catch on too.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
slwerner: What kind of scientist are you? Because you are deluded if you think that thousands of climatologists who have studied climate all their lives would not think to include warming/colling cycles in their calculations. As I said the 'global warming' on Mars was immediately discredited.
Besides, even if Al Gore did try and get rich off it, which I doubt. Does that alter the facts? No.
You seem to think that more and more scientists are changing their minds. Where is your evidence? Because every major scientific body in the world has aknowledged that anthopogenic global warming is a problem. You cannot make such a loaded statement without citation.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Callum erroneously claims - "And water vapour is a greenhouse gas, but we're not producing more of it. Seriously, you sound like an idiot.”
Callum;
Do consider the basic equation of oxidative combustion of hydrocarbon:
CH4 + 2 O2 = CO2 + H2O (sorry for the lack of proper subscripting and symbols)
Now, please explain how it is that we are supposedly not making more water vapor as we make CO2.
Careful who you call an idiot.
And, it should be noted that water vapor is a better green house gas than CO2. Anyone who’s noticed that it gets cooler when clouds block the sun, or who’s been in an airplane above clouds and seen just how well solar energy (light) is reflected back into space, or anyone who’s ever noticed that it gets much cooler on cloudless nights, already knows this. They just didn’t realize that they did.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:39 pm
slwerner: Exactly, water is a byproduct of burning fossil fuels. Your premise was that we should 'get rid of water'
Are you denying that global warming is occuring?
April 1st, 2008 at 4:42 pm
from a 3/31 news article:
This year of 2008 is starting out cold—but according to the "consensus" climate watchers it's still likely to be one of the "top 10 warmest" in the thermometer record before it's over. After all, the Greenhouse gasses continue to accumulate in the atmosphere.
But wait. Something isn't following the Greenhouse script. The oceans, which contain 80 to 90 percent of the planet's heat, have recently stopped warming!
Over the past 4-5 years, "there has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Josh Willis of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory recently told National Public Radio.
Nothing very significant—except the ocean warming trend has stopped?! This, in the midst of the biggest furor over global temperatures and climate overheating in human history?
April 1st, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Again, what kind of scientist are you? What field do you work in? What is your profession? Because you'd better well be damn qualified if you're going to take on the entire field of climatology on their own subject.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Callum,
If the earth's average temperature has been rising since the industrial revolution...what was it doing prior to that? It is my understanding that the 19th was actually a very "cold" century, as it relates to the earth's history. And if this is so glaringly obvious to all, what was with the global cooling scare in the 70's? How did they have it backwards just 30 years ago? Proving how much impact humans have on the global climate is very dificult because the data we have is so limited. If i look at one or two hours out of a persons life...does that make me an expert on his or her schedule?
April 1st, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Callum still goes on... - "slwerner: What kind of scientist are you? Because you are deluded if you think that thousands of climatologists who have studied climate all their lives would not think to include warming/colling cycles in their calculations. As I said the 'global warming' on Mars was immediately discredited."
I'm andanalytical reasearch chemist with an enviromental research agency. And, climatologist HAD NOT been routinely considering long-time span global cycles - precisely the reason why they are now having to rework their thoeries. Guess what else they haven't considered - water vapor. Not one computer climate model takes into account cloud activity - not one.
And, warming on Mars has not been discredited - it happened, and was measured (I guess you'd have to be the sort who accepts scientific facts to understand). All that was discredited was the underlying assumption as to why it happened. It still happen, and man still had no hand in it. What it shows us is that it global warming can also be caused by planetary shifts - the same as those responsible for the cycles that have dominated the temperature trends here on Earth long before man ever set fire to any hydrocarbons.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Callum - sorry, didn't know that the question was directed at me.
Personally, I'm inclined to believe it's all hype from people wanting money. I'm inclined to think 'deny', until I see better reports, and more consistency, and less villification of opposition. My reasons are due to the complete lack of credibility of it's major proponents. Giving AlGore a nobel prize continues to sink any credibility.
I'm a pretty technical person. I'm a subscriber to scientific american, and I'm increasingly dismayed at how political it's gotten over the last few years, constantly decrying that the Bush administration isn't spending other people's money on this or that pet science project.
I don't question evolution, I don't think AIDS is some government plot, I don't think the earth is 6000 years old. I'm not, generally, someone who believes in a lot of conspiracy theories. I think too many of the people with Darwin Fish on the back of their cars clearly don't think it applies to them.
April 1st, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Callum asks - "Are you denying that global warming is occuring?"
No, Callum, I am not. It has been getting warmer. Up until this year anyway.
But, it's been warmer in the past. they used to grow crops on Greenland. The ice is just now beginning to receed back from it's encroachment. Melting glaciers reveal signs of human activities from warmer times - before the Little Ice Age. Tree rings show us that there were times of greater growth before we measured global temperatures.
Ask yourself this: What warmed the Earth even hotter than today before the industrial emmisions of our modern world?
Man is NOT the sole cause of global warming. Even climatologists - for whom you presume to speak - recognize this scientific fact. There just no money in natural causes - and no one to blame.
Wouldn't it be weird if it turned out that there were natuarl differences between man and women, and no one was to blame. The Feminist industry would go bankrupt.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:01 pm
slwerner: Yes, there are other causes for global warming. However the current warming happens to coincide with industrialisation, and has followed CO2 levels exactly as they have increased due to industry. That is no coincidence?
Again I ask you, what are your scientific credentials? You're gonna need a hell of a lot to argue against the world's foremost body on climate change the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
"The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)]."
Can you retort?
April 1st, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Callum - "Can you retort?"
I don't really need to. Many others have already addressed the issue. here's but one:
Global Climate Change Facts: The Truth, The Consensus, and the Skeptics
And, an organization brought o us by the UN - the same people who brought us the godess Gia (sp?) and those conferences on womens rights!? Who could question their motivations.
Also, you may want to note, they were also instrumental in the formation of the Kyoto Protocol - which call for major 3rd world polluters like China and India to do nothing in regards to their carbon emmisions, as part of the grand world-wide wealth redistribution from teh 1st-world industrial nations to the developing 3rd-world ones. Can you say "Global Socialism" - the real reason why leftists have so misinformed us about the level of mans involvement in gobal warming. Note - I'm note claiming we've had none. Rather, I'm pointing out that there are other (and potentially greater) causes, and the motives behind those who've been pushing for radical actions have been much less than "pure".
Now, is there any chance we could get back to Men's issues?
April 1st, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Do you want to know who are the greenest gender… well the answer why the FU£^ do you want to know that or even ask it. What are you going to do about the less "greener" gender… tax them, cull them?
Well that male TAX has already been suggested before in the UN and got laughed off. It was a Feminist Swedish group that suggested it.
I'm not one of those who believe in Global Warming. I believe in natural climate change. This is a ploy to tax the sh** out of us.
Harq al-Ada Says: Prediction: a whole bunch of people will miss the point and declare DA WIMMINZ IZ WASTEFULL CONSUMERIST HARPEEZ!1!!
Let me say those who wrote the report are a waste of space and life. And second being the greater consumerist is an issue. Also the title to the documentary "The Greener Gender" not the "Global Warming Causing Gender"
Glenn,
You should have gone on the offensive. These women are deluded… AAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
Here are a few facts:
Biggest producers of hot air – Women. Well mainly Feminists. Of course they are tied with Neo-Cons, top politicians, religious leaders, and loony left.
Biggest consumers are women. Clothes, Shoes etc.
Biggest pollutants are pharmaceutical and cosmetic industry. Biggest consumers of these are Women and Women.
How do you think all these raw and finished goods get transported? Teleportation? And what energy is used to produce all this junk? And workers who have to work in those industry?
And what about the biggest pollutants:
Well woman are the biggest consumers by a long shot and the pharmaceutical biggest consumer market. Surely that makes them the less "Greener" of the genders.
I mean, the estrogens found in the Pill screws up our whole eco-system. UK Environment agency has already acknowledged this and is doing nothing about it.
Overall it doesn’t matter. This question should not have been even asked or taken seriously. But if someone suggests policies should be made to tackle it as a gender issue, then you should show them for the pathetic being they are. These people should not be given the chance to be taken seriously.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:19 pm
The IPCC has an vested interest in making anthropogenic climate change a big issue. They want funding. Other people want to use their results to justify making other people change their behavior, so there is as much pressure on them to produce test results that match the political "climate".
the IPCC's self promoting mission statement is not going to give them any additional credibility with me. The UN is full of BS agencies and their own scandals. Why is this one somehow exempt from question? Because "No one would lie about it"? I've heard that somewhere before.
Think how much our own goverment only looks at reports that justify VAWA. I have no reason to believe that the climate change issue is any different.
Or, perhaps the whole "Weapons of Mass Distruction" issue would be a better point? Or any issue regarding big tobacco, or big pharma, or big oil?
The point, which gets back to the original post, is that this woman is trying to tie two bad issues togeather. I'm not sure of her goal yet, but involving both feminism and global warming is sure to make me see how deep the BS is going to get.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:23 pm
The willingness of folks here to actually launch into a debate on the merits or non-merits of global warming -- a topic which could be debated until the end of time -- is not something which, in my view, is helping the credibility of this blog.
If what this blog is all about is people who like to chew on irresolvable issues, then I should not be here.
I thought this blog was about men whose rights in their families are being stolen from them, and the broader anti-male context within which that is occurring in America.
That is a serious, relevant, and actionable subject.
Anybody who wants to debate global warming can find endless sites to chew on that well worn topic.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:31 pm
AP suggests - "The willingness of folks here to actually launch into a debate on the merits or non-merits of global warming -- a topic which could be debated until the end of time -- is not something which, in my view, is helping the credibility of this blog."
I must agree - and, I must apologize for my part in adding to the misguided discussion.
To one and all, my apologies. I promise not to post one more item vis-a-vi AGW.
April 1st, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Gerd Johnsson-Latham of the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs
In what capacity is this female gender-terrorist employed? Official title?
Clearly she is on a mission to geminate and disseminate male hatred (misandry) by any vehicle she can. Her urinating in the public information pool did not just drop in out of the blue. Any more of her blatant misandry available?
DanH
April 1st, 2008 at 6:07 pm
In 1832 CO2 was 284ppm today it is about 384 a 35% increase
Well our population from 1850 to 1999 increased by 373.7%
this would mean that just by humans breathing our CO2 output level would have increased by the same all tings being equal and if not absorbed by the environment, so that should have brought the CO2 level up to 1345.308ppm
things that make you say hmmmmmm
b
April 1st, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Lewis Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Okay I'm just going to throw this out there on Al Gore's hypocrisy, "If Isaac Newton is revealed to be a hypocrite do we have to rewrite all the physics texts?"
Will force cease to be the product of mass and acceleration? Will gravity cease to function? Will questions of Newton's character change the facts?
I have much else to say and little time now
-=-=-=-=
But he wass not a hypocrite about the laws of nature, so your agrument is moot
b
April 1st, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Jeana said: Pankaj, first of all, I don't know where you get your figure that 80% of consumption is due to females. Are you including household items/food, which perhaps (though I'm not certain) more women buy but are consumed by both men and women? Or just relying on stereotypes that women like to shop (which may be true)?
Over 80% of domestic spending is controlled by women. 7 times the retail floor space in the U.S. is devoted to female specific items. (both statistics can be found in Myth of Male Power by Warren Farell) Women are the materialists which makes sense since they aren't necessarily the person who has to go out and make the money to pursue materialism.
Women causing global warming is as ridiculous as men causing global warming. And I think over population, along with disasterous "free trade" policies and greedy governments and corporations, are what we should be focusing our attention on. Not one gender vs another.
It's not ridiculous. Yet I'm sure it seems so since the link between women and global warming is abstract. And historically speaking, women have refused to make connections between their own behavior and the behavior of men. It's so much easier to blame men and then expect men to fix things than to think introspectively at the ways women shape male behavior.
From the time a boy hits puberty he is faced with the reality that he is inadequate and unworthy of a woman's love unless he can perform. So men perform for women. We become sports stars and executives if we are lucky but it's rare. The rest of us plug away at a job we don't like and we save our money and buy a house and live frugally so we might have enough resources to attract a wife. And I think a lot of men are like my father who at the age of 50 wore the same suit to church that he wore when he graduated from college. He rarely got new clothing, he always drove used cars, and he did it so his kids and his wife could have more.
I recently thanked my father for all that he did for us and he told me, "I always wished I could do more." I never saw my mother or step-mother make sacrifices like my father.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:28 pm
callum Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 4:05 pm
And yes, I take objective scrutiny extremely seriously, that's why I'm an atheist. I believe that every opinion should be supported by facts, rather than emotion
-=-=-=-
callum now you have made a grievous error. Fact: People, atheists, and scientists accept that the universe was always here through the big bang and the expanding universe or when it was a quantum singularity. This too is based on emotion rather than fact. Proposal: If the universe was always here why could not a being (supreme) not have always existed and/or have created the universe? You are living in a self-sustaining delusion if you can accept that all this was always here and you cannot entertain the possibility that a being God if you will was always here, it does not follow the logic you preach.
b
April 1st, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Pankaj said:Jean,
Just being a Geek kicks you out of the dating market. I was watching a movie yesterday where the term "computer programmer" was used as if its stigma or anti-qualification to find a date. I laughed thinking how true and how dehumanizing! Just he other day another feminist told me that she and "most of the women she knows" likes Geeks because they are rich. Now ain't that honest (and delusional) feminism?
I've noticed this change over the last 20 years. Bill Gates and other dotcommers have done wonders to improve the viability of nerds in the dating world.
And it also supports the notion that women are the ones contributing the most to global warming. They want rich men so they can purchase more material goods. Men want to be rich not so they can buy stuff but so women will love them.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Men work more, drive longer, take airplane trips, etc., whereas women pollute less because they are at home and are not driving or traveling as much."
Certainly women pollute less because they are provided the luxuries that result from male labor. While I don't have a problem with a man supporting his wife so that she can care for their child at home, I certainly have a problem with some fanatical feminist distorting the facts of men's generosity in so much that he is willing to sacrifice far more hours out of his life as well as endure in many cases, harsh work conditions to keep a decent home for his wife and children. The sacrifices made by men and the advances derived from those sacrifices have greatly benefited society as a whole, yet more so his mate i.e. women. In fact it is for that reason; we still continue to strive further in progress as to ensure that women and children have it easier. Gerd Johnsson-Latham rebutting Glenn, states that “Glenn is upset about man bashing but I'm upset about woman beating. Women are beaten, they earn less money, they have less freedom, they have less power, and they face a grim reality."
The grim reality is that violence against men, EVEN if we just use the stats in the U.S. alone far exceed that of women. Imagine world wide. Is this fool out of her mind? This fanatical feminist has nothing on us. Men have been made to feel and view themselves as something not worthy of respect and kindness as a result from years of feminist shibboleths along with the help of some very powerful men. Yet still for the most part men view women and children as sacred. "Johnsson-Latham said that men are the decision-makers in society", but conveniently omits that by large those decisions are based on how it will make life more convenient and safer for the "fairer sex and child” With all the advances men have made which feminists have enjoyed since the beginning of dawn and use against men, my question to this kook is " In what way has feminism benefited society as a whole...no...In what way has it benefited men? This is not an opinion but a fact when I say that men have been for far too long lenient with feminists. It’s time we took off the kid gloves and take them on fire with fire. We are the stronger sex, it's time we behaved like it. Glenn, I love ya but you should have blown her away. The argument is on our side.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I must agree with Gerd: women do pollute less. For example, when women defecate, their feces, which have no smell, immediately vanish into the nether world never to be seen again. As opposed to men's feces which, besides smelling very very bad, remain here on earth for many centuries to pollute the oceans and rivers and produce methane gas which contributes to global warming.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:57 pm
We are all aware that women know they have priviledges that we Men do not have.
Like Jack Nicholson said "if you take a Man, remove all logic and reason from him, the result will be a woman".
Stop complaining, put the toilet seat down for yourself. Grow up!
I've never heard Jack Nicholson say this. However, a character he played in "As Good As It Gets" said something similar.
When asked by a fan about how he "writes" women. Jack's character "Melvin" responded, "I think of a man and take away reason and accountability. . ."
A great line and I think in many cases very true.
April 1st, 2008 at 6:59 pm
callum Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 4:23 pm
pjk: Temperatures DO fluctuate. Climate is average temperatures of many years. These have been increasing since the industrial revolution. And water vapour is a greenhouse gas, but we're not producing more of it. Seriously, you sound like an idiot.
-=-=-=-=
callum seriously catastrophic events always happen in nature, things build until they go catastrophic, which includes quickly. The end game in nature is always a catastrophic event that happens quickly. The environment spiraling out of control does not mean that we caused it. Mammoths were found frozen with food in their mouths, I would say that was catastrophic and fast. A thunderstorm comes out of nowhere and suddenly a tornado appears. Earthquakes strike without warning. Let us not forget Pompeii. The list is long an telling, nature spirals out of control by itself, so we happen to be in the middle of one of these events, so what it does not mean that we caused any of the past or present events. Gore is predicting the ocean conveyor stopping because of non-saline water dumping in the ocean. Can this happen? Sure, but it does not mean that we did it. He also left out in his analysis "a inconvienient truth" [for him anyway] that that the continents are drifting which also can cause the conveyor to stop. It has happened in the past and conveyors have started in the past hundreds of millions of years ago, could it be that we are due?
All this does not matter because without warning in the next year the Yellowstone Caldera will wipe us all out anyway (-;
b
April 1st, 2008 at 7:06 pm
slwerner Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
Callum erroneously claims - "And water vapour is a greenhouse gas, but we're not producing more of it. Seriously, you sound like an idiot.”
Callum;
Do consider the basic equation of oxidative combustion of hydrocarbon:
CH4 + 2 O2 = CO2 + H2O (sorry for the lack of proper subscripting and symbols)
Now, please explain how it is that we are supposedly not making more water vapor as we make CO2.
Careful who you call an idiot.
And, it should be noted that water vapor is a better green house gas than CO2.
-=-=-=-=
And what are we going to do? Make hydrogen cars that only produce water.
You gotta love it.
b
April 1st, 2008 at 7:07 pm
You have to admit, Glenn's site has attracted a lot of contentious dialogue and a fair number of female posters who bring analysis, experience, and provocation worthy of reading. (I usually just skim the thread and see who is in the neighborhood and then go back and read selectively in depth...)
It is arguably sexist, but I am mostly interested in the female voices -- and how they respond to male voices.
Because they are either potential allies, or trojan horses.
I'm still trying to figure it out. (Sun Tzu - The Art of War.)
I am going to risk posing this question to all the MRA-friendly females:
Other than expressing sympathy for "father's and men's rights," --
what ACTIONS have you taken?
(Back to the doghouse again, no doubt....)
April 1st, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Barsin said: Ok. Let's not take something a few feminists say and conflate it out to all women. What's next? Women responsible for Viking raids? (Well...) It's a disingenuous blame game designed to create even more distance between the sexes. Everyone benefits and everyone is responsible for the problem.
As I read this line I had a funny visual image. I thought of the last 37 years of my life and all the ways that women have pushed men away and created distance between the sexes. Now that I'm traveling happily on a course away from women and continuing the work women started I hear the calls to stop creating "even more distance between the sexes."
I, for one, see no reason to bridge the gap between the sexes. Having been on my own for most of my life I realize that women have nothing to offer me but the yoke of servitude. Having done my own cooking and cleaning and shopping and sewing I realize also that the exchange of my labor in the workforce for a woman's labor in the home is grossly imbalanced. And since women can only make 75% of what I make and yet spend 7 times as much I don't see how marrying a working woman benefits me as well.
I'm thinking of this song by Sting:
Fortress Around Your Heart - Sting
Under the ruins of a walled city
Crumbling towers in beams of yellow light
No flags of truce, no cries of pity
The siege guns had been pounding all through the night
It took a day to build the city
We walked through its streets in the afternoon
As I returned across the fields I'd known
I recognized the walls that I once laid
I had to stop in my tracks for fear
Of walking on the mines I'd laid
And if I have built this fortress around your heart
Encircled you in trenches and barbed wire
Then let me build a bridge
For I cannot fill the chasm
And let me set the battlements on fire
Then I went off to fight some battle
That I'd invented inside my head
Away so long for years and years
You probably thought or even wished that I was dead
While the armies all are sleeping
Beneath the tattered flag we'd made
I had to stop in my tracks for fear
Of walking on the mines I'd laid
This prison has now become your home
A sentence you seem prepared to pay
It took a day to build the city
We walked through its streets in the afternoon
As I returned across the lands I'd known
I recognized the fields where I'd once played
I had to stop in my tracks for fear
Of walking on the mines I'd laid
I think of the above song as sung by a woman. And it will be women who bridge the gap between the sexes not me. I didn't spend my life building those battlements and if they decide they no longer want them then they can break them down.
Let them navigate the mines they've laid.
April 1st, 2008 at 7:45 pm
Did you know that CO2 has been as high as 6,000ppm?
b
April 1st, 2008 at 8:26 pm
Bernie gets an unearned run
Bernie Misiura Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 1:19 pm”Where? And that is important!
In Buffalo for the last month of so our high has been up to 15* below normal, Boy won't you be surprised tomorrow when you wake up frozen solid by a super cell with still undigested pizza in you gut. LOL”
I was sloppy and left out a location. That is a very good point. I should have said I can not tell you what the temperature will be on July 4th 2015 in New Orleans. I can tell you that it will most likely be on the warm side of 72 degrees F.
http://www.rssweather.com/climate/Louisiana/New%20Orleans/
My sloopiness in no way makes this from Bernie anything other than interesting trivia.
” Do you not find it interesting that the coldest recorded temperature came after the warmest recorded temperature?
El Azizia, Libya Sept. 13, 1922 136*
"Vostok, Antarctica holds the world's record for coldest temperature: -129°F (7/21/83)."
The highest High and the lowest low in two very different locations and location is important as Bernie just pointed out are not “proof” for or against global warming. Global warming is about climate which is average weather over time. That today is warm or cold is proof of nothing.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Bernie Misiura Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 7:45 pm
"Did you know that CO2 has been as high as 6,000ppm?
When and under what circumstances? Where did you find that information? Were there humans at that time?
April 1st, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Some of Bernie’s other points
Bernie Misiura Says: April 1st, 2008 at 1:06 pmNo, I said "scientists are still debating our part in global warming after all global warming started 10,000 years ago and what industry did we have then?" A significant difference that you conspicuously left out of my quote that changed its meaning.
And also this accused me of a blanket statement (which I would call a misprecision on my part)
”What about answering: That you made a blanket statement that the ENTIRE scientific community agrees”
I don’t suppose the ENTIRE (meaning every darned scientist) scientific community completely agrees with total unity (down to the finest and most minute detail) however according to this:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
There are a significant number of scientists who do.
Bernie also asks ” That Al Gore admitted to hyping the problem to get people to listen.
So that means there isn’t a problem because it has been hyped by Al Gore? Hasn’t the movement that has brought us to this website also been accused of that? Accused of blowing things out of proportion?
Someone attacked Mr. Gore’s credibility and I’m forced to ask if Mr. Gore said, “water is wet” or “2+2=4” one would argue with those facts because of Mr. Gore’s untrustworthyness?
Isn’t that an ad homineim attack? We do not have to discredit the message when it is easier to discredit the messenger. We’ve been rolling in the mud with the feminists too long.
April 1st, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Lewis,
That is the problem, if you argue with a fool too long, people tend to forget who the fool in the argument is. I have to make a conscious effort to not make hysterical arguments when debating feminists. But Bernie here just likes to have some fun once in a while (so do I)
April 1st, 2008 at 8:38 pm
Bernie asks ” Besides if you grant me "that there is dispute about the consequences of said CO2" which he uses to avoid my challenge:
So find me reputable climatologists having published peer reviewed works that:
A) Dispute that humans have significantly altered the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
B) Dispute that CO2 is the most significant of the 'greenhouse gases.'
despite his ” This is just one of about 19,000 scientist dissidents.”
We don’t know what the consequences might be so it isn’t a problem? Again a misprecision on my part. I failed to enumerate the consequences not agreed on. They don’t agree on how warm and how fast and how bad those changes will be for humans. So back to you any peer reviewed works that dispute this:
”Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values determined from ice cores spanning many thousands of years (see Figure SPM.1). The global increases in carbon dioxide concentration are due primarily to fossil fuel use and land use change, while those of methane and nitrous oxide are primarily due to agriculture. {2.3, 6.4, 7.3}”
” dioxide is the most important anthropogenic greenhouse gas (see Figure SPM.2). The global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased from a pre-industrial value of about 280 ppm to 379 ppm3 in 2005. The atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 exceeds by far the natural range over the last 650,000 years (180 to 300 ppm) as determined from ice cores. The annual carbon dioxide concentration growth rate was larger during the last 10 years (1995–2005 average: 1.9 ppm per year), than it has been since the beginning of continuous direct atmospheric measurements (1960–2005 average: 1.4 ppm per year) although there is year-to-year variability in growth rates. {2.3, 7.3}
” The understanding of anthropogenic warming and cooling influences on climate has improved since the TAR, leading to very high confidence7 that the global average net effect of human activities since 1750 has been one of warming, with a radiative forcing of +1.6 [+0.6 to +2.4] W m–2 (see Figure SPM.2). {2.3., 6.5, 2.9}”
” Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global average sea level (see Figure SPM.3). {3.2, 4.2, 5.5}”
April 1st, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Rather than considering only our CARBON footprints, the documentary in question, The Greener Gender, considers men's and women's differing ENVIRONMENTAL footprints - taking into account all environmental impacts of production and consumption, so the carbon emissions/global warming issue is only one factor - air pollution, noise pollution, water-use, land-use, land-grabs, traffic congestion, suburban sprawl, violence, sexual violence, fear of violence, drug and alcohol abuse, health-hazardous industries. Do male or female behaviors cause more of these environmental problems?
While we can and do argue over who pollutes more, The Greener Gender will also establish how men's and women's environmental desires for the ideal partner measure up. Are we attracted to potential mates who exhibit environmentally friendly traits, or otherwise?
Please keep the comments coming, as your perspectives may affect the documentary's eventual trajectory.
Tom Martin
For media enquires only, tcmartin1@hotmail.com
April 1st, 2008 at 9:31 pm
The Global Warming issue is a FRAUD and is not even a valid argument to begin with. NONE of their so-called proof is valid; there have and always will be surface temperature changes and it is not a crisis. Too much evidence is all around us and can be provided on the contrary of what is called "Global Warming" such as surface temperatures fluctuating, but being relatively the same and not a cause for alarm. Please do a proper study on this and you will see. It's nothing but a multi-million dollar scam that is being forced on the public by Al Gore and the like, and cannot even be legitimately debated by him or anyone else; what has been brought up as "legitimate" is misleading or completely false, just like all the other extreme biases. So then, what's the point of even debating that men are not at fault more than women, other than the obvious gender biased politics involved in that arena?!!
April 1st, 2008 at 9:52 pm
# Pankaj Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 8:38 pm
"Lewis,
That is the problem, if you argue with a fool too long, people tend to forget who the fool in the argument is. I have to make a conscious effort to not make hysterical arguments when debating feminists. But Bernie here just likes to have some fun once in a while (so do I)"
Well much of what the climate skeptics have been saying today gives me some idea of how some feminists probably see MRA arguments. "They keep bringing up all this stuff that just isn't true. Don't they know it just isn't true? I know it is a hoax why can't they see it is a hoax. Do they actually believe this stuff?"
"Please do a proper study on this and you will see.
Like these? http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
April 1st, 2008 at 9:57 pm
[Resubmitting earlier comment]:
Patricia Win,
I resent the implication that us critics of feminists are all close-minded. In my experience, feminists tend to be a lot more close-minded and ideologically rigid than their critics. In your post you resort to a lot of generalised slogan-chanting instead of actually dealing with specific arguments of ours. You want to dismiss all of us critics without dealing with one honest argument. The shrillness of some of the responses you get from feminists on this site actually reveals how insecure they really are about their own beliefs being properly scrutinised.
To accuse anti-feminists of being close-minded or not considering the other side is particularly unfair. Anyone who has been raised during the past four decades would have invariably been exposed to feminist arguments in schools, mainstream media, universities, advertising etc. Feminists have had more than their fair share of opportunities to put their view across. Many of us are tired of having feminist propaganda rammed down our throats, and not having adequate coverage of alternative perspectives.
Many people on sites like this are actually former feminists who have since changed their views. Until my early 20s I was more sympathetic to the feminist position, and I assumed that MRAs were just a bunch of usual suspects. It was only when I really started thinking about the issues properly, that I realised how flawed and simplistic feminist arguments were. It is not that I have never considered the other side. I tried feminism and then realised what a croc it is.
It is feminists who are far more close-minded and believe that feminism is the only legitimate view. They are the ones who need to have their minds opened to alternative views.
April 1st, 2008 at 10:05 pm
The case for man-made global warming is grossly exaggerated, and certainly does not warrant the level of panic and calls for large economic sacrifices being made.
Given all the problems that western societies are facing, such as the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, family breakdown, declining birthrates and ageing populations it is kind of amusing that people are worrying about weather patterns. We sure have our priorities right! A lot of the global warming alarmism is really a psychological displacement for deeper cultural anxieties.
The argument that man-made global warming is the greatest threat to civilisation is about as credible as the millenium bug or the 1 in 4 claim about college date rape. It is a fad hysteria.
April 1st, 2008 at 11:01 pm
400 myr BP of over 6,000 ppm
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/fig3-2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmospheric_CO2
April 1st, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Lewis Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 8:31 pm
And also this accused me of a blanket statement (which I would call a misprecision on my part)
”What about answering: That you made a blanket statement that the ENTIRE scientific community agrees”
I don’t suppose the ENTIRE (meaning every darned scientist) scientific community completely agrees with total unity (down to the finest and most minute detail) however according to this:
http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensusD1.htm
There are a significant number of scientists who do.
19,000 scientists is not significant?
Bernie also asks ” That Al Gore admitted to hyping the problem to get people to listen.
So that means there isn’t a problem because it has been hyped by Al Gore?
I did not say that I just question how much of "the problem is our fault
Hasn’t the movement that has brought us to this website also been accused of that? Accused of blowing things out of proportion?
As much as the sandwich sign man on the street corner claiming "The end is near" or "We are all going to die tomorrow because of our part in global warming"
Someone attacked Mr. Gore’s credibility and I’m forced to ask if Mr. Gore said, “water is wet” or “2+2=4” one would argue with those facts because of Mr. Gore’s untrustworthyness?
As with plants, radical feminists, radical doomsday sayers, etc. where there is one there are others.
Isn’t that an ad homineim attack? We do not have to discredit the message when it is easier to discredit the messenger.
No, unless you can agree that Al Gore doing what you claim here.
We’ve been rolling in the mud with the feminists too long.
That very well could be my friend, LOL
b
April 1st, 2008 at 11:23 pm
Lewis Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Bernie Misiura Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 7:45 pm
"Did you know that CO2 has been as high as 6,000ppm?
When and under what circumstances?
I thought you were well read on the subject
Where did you find that information?
Were there humans at that time?
Exactly. This my point there were none. Thanks for proving my point.
b
April 1st, 2008 at 11:32 pm
Nick S Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 10:05 pm
The argument that man-made global warming is the greatest threat to civilisation is about as credible as the millenium bug
-=-=-=-=
Nick, Great point how many people spent their life savings on bunkers and MRE's? How many here are willing to admit:
1) That the believers in man made global warming and also fell for the millenium bug?
2) That even though they did not believe in the millenium bug because of all the hype by all the experts that until 00:00:01 01/01/00 that they did not have a wee bit of concern.
I know I expected some minor disturbances and interruptions, and did not believe in the millenium problem.
What a disappointment (-;
b
April 1st, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Pankaj What are you trying to say?
But Bernie here just likes to have some fun once in a while (so do I)
(-;
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:50 am
Up until the 1970s there was a widespread view among scientists that global temperatures were falling at an alarming rate and that the world was headed for another ice age. Then when temperatures started rising they suddenly turned 180 degrees and decided that global warming was actually the problem. How convenient. Many scientists who supported the global cooling thesis also got on board the global warming thesis.
The point is that in every profession there is often a consensus that emerges from time to time that people are unwilling to challenge. The conventional wisdom changes over time.
I am not willing to believe man-made global warming simply because a few so-called experts swear it is true. How many so-called experts in various fields have said that feminist claims about various issues are true, despite ever growing evidence that they are false? The point is that people in all disciplines have their own agendas, sympathies and ideologies that cloud their judgement. There are few impartial experts. There is also a HUGE amount of peer group pressure to toe the PC line. Let's not be naive.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:02 am
Lewis, do you not find it curious at all that in your post "Lewis Says: April 1st, 2008 at 8:38 pm quoting http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf that during 1995-2005 The carbon dioxide radiative
forcing increased by 20% from 1995 to 2005," and at least 14% of that 20% can be attributed to human population increase through respiration and that about 1/4 of the population dispels a significant amount of methane in their farts that could also increase this percentage to 17.5% of green house gasses emitted by population growth leaving only a 2.5% disparity, not to mention all the extra animals that are bred to feed and clothe these people that also breath, belch, and fart that I am sure overwhelm the remaining 2.5% left?
So much for industrial carbon emissions.
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:03 am
Our survival is solely dependant upon thinking outside the brainwashed box.
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:10 am
I also believe [I will have to look it up] that a few years ago they predicted the worst hurricane season in history, due to global warming, and it was a total bust with none hitting land fall and I think only 3 named hurricanes.
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:16 am
OK found it it was 2006 and the total was5 none made land fall after a prediction of 17 oops.
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:26 am
callum Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 4:23 pm
pjk: Temperatures DO fluctuate. Climate is average temperatures of many years. These have been increasing since the industrial revolution. And water vapour is a greenhouse gas, but we're not producing more of it. Seriously, you sound like an idiot.
-=-=-=-=-=
By the way we are producing more water by ground water wells for irrigation, drinking, bathing, cooking, live stock. etc. all this water would not normally be available by evaporation if it were not for our water harvesting.
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:28 am
Batter up!
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:40 am
You guys ganged up on callum just like you usually gang up on females. I would have liked to be online earlier to support him. I am not a scientist and so I will not argue with Climatologists. But if anyone seriously thinks that dumping toxic waste into the environment doesn't have any effect and that the melting Arctic is ok by you, then I don't know what to say. Why is it such a bad thing not to waste? Why do you laugh at people who recycle and drive smaller cars?
Scientists are still debating the exact nature of gravity, although they know it exists. Al Gore doesn't have to get everything exactly right (although I think he is pretty close), but if he is even partly right, we're in deep trouble.
Also, I did not realize that me and my 20+ pairs of shoes, plus the fact that females worked in the fields thousands of years ago, are the primary reasons for climate change, and I would like to apologize. Thank you for enlightening me.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:51 am
Jeana,
no-one ganged up on Callum. Many here had a different opinion, but Callum is more than capable of fending for himself.
I don't laugh at people who recycle and drive smaller cars. There are probably other sensible reasons for doing these things. But the threat of man-made global warming is grossly exaggerated. The only qualification I would put is that sometimes recycling is not always energy efficient. I believe that recycling paper actually uses up more energy than producing it from scratch. Besides, paper breaks down in the earth so there is less need to re-use it. That is why I avoid recycled paper, because it is irresponsible to waste more resources merely to indulge one's moral vanity.
No, the melting arctic is not really okay with me. It is just that there is nothing we can do about it. Nature will do what she wishes regardless of what us humans do.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:51 am
re: You guys ganged up on callum just like you usually gang up on females. .
..um, callum did come in and start name-calling. Anybody who dares to disagree with him is an idiot?
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:59 am
Actually, Nick, you are sadly right that some alternatives to bad processes are not much better, like turning corn into ethanol to run cars off of or whatever they're trying to do. I think, however, we could do SOMETHING. I read recently how that hole in the ozone over Australia is either closed or almost closed as a result of the ban on CFCs or whatever was banned. The good thing is that the earth can heal, and I hope to God (although I'm agnostic so I don't know if that is hypocritical) that the anti-climate changers are right. Otherwise we may need to buy an ark.
And pjk, I've never seen a guy get ganged up on. I've also never agreed with callum. Two firsts for me today.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:10 am
jeana April 2nd, 2008 at 1:40 am that was condescending and did not state any proof whether or not global warming is caused by us. Why is Gore right and we dissidents wrong? Because he is a celebrity and we are not? I did not know that would make any one credible. What if we are even partly right, then we are not in trouble at all and we are being baffoned into flushing our hard earned cash down the toilet. What if it is mother nature and there is nothing we can do about it?
Now this should prove to you that we do not pick on women for the sake that you are a women, it is just that we stand up for what we believe in and will debate the points.
And like it or not your 20 and 1/2 pair of shoes are part of the problem. As my father always use to say "Nothing to excess" and you will do OK.
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:11 am
Oh yeah we are not laugh at any one for making attempts to control their excess, the bottom line is are we really responsible?
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:13 am
Jeana - Get over yourself. You are not the center of the universe nor of global warming.
On second thought, keep harping on points. If you like I will give you a bunch of blame theories so you can finally confirm what you have wanted to believe so badly. That way your rosy ideas of feminism and chivalry can be alive and well, without criticism or challenge.
For a person so strongly indignant over someone(me) casting a blame on an entire sex, you hardly have criticized Johnsson-Latham of intellectual dishonesty and misandry. I guess when men do it - its an illogical misogynistic attack, but when things are turned around, its OK to blame men for the same problem and with equally if not more faulty logic.
Thanks, but we already knew that "Men are bad" and "Women are good" - whats new?.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:17 am
jeana Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:59 am
Actually, Nick, you are sadly right that some alternatives to bad processes are not much better, like turning corn into ethanol to run cars off of or whatever they're trying to do. I think, however, we could do SOMETHING. I read recently how that hole in the ozone over Australia is either closed or almost closed as a result of the ban on CFCs or whatever was banned.
-=-=-=-=
That is a misnomer. The stuff in land fills like cigarette filter, foam, plates, cups packaging is still degrading and will for some time. The fact is that if we stop doing everything claimed to be harmful to the ozone and the global warming problem the amount of that stuff will increase for years to come until their half life has passed. So the closing is not our doing it is mother nature.
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:21 am
Bernie, I already said that I am not a Climatologist and I cannot talk about CO2 levels like the rest of you. But from everything I have heard and read, climate change is real and a lot of the dissidents' claims have been debunked. I don't know exactly which ones so I'm not the best to talk about it. Weren't there like 700 peer-reviewed articles about global warming and none (I think) on non-global warming? I have to go with the scientists--and not just any scientist, but scientists in the field. Exxon Mobil scientists disagree, and maybe a few others, but the bulk do agree.
Everyone's consumption does matter, of course, but I think my shoes are less a problem than other things. I know you have a sore spot for women and shoes. So maybe shoes weren't a good example for me to use.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:31 am
Pankaj,
I know I am not the center of the universe; not sure where that came from. And last night I said in an earlier post, "Women causing global warming is as ridiculous as men causing global warming." You guys get so crazed over something lame some female says and you attribute it to all females/feminists. Who said men are bad and women are good? Oh, that's right; you just did. And haven't you heard--chivalry is dead,. Who thinks it's alive? Not any female I know!!
It's interesting that if a woman says that men are to blame for global warming, she's a nutbag, but many of you spent a long time (I read all the posts) trying to blame global warming on women. And that somehow passes for sanity?
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:37 am
"You guys get so crazed over something lame some female says and you attribute it to all females/feminists"
Crazed? I don't know what gave you that idea. Can you explain?
And if you can find me a feminist (excluding i-feminists and all masculists) that does not believe in the concept of male privilege and patriarchy - I will drop my generalization.
If not, I think the generalization is valid.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:45 am
Of course there are people who identify feminism with equality of sexes, without realizing that equality in most definitions of feminism is equality of outcome. Not equality of opportunity
Eg. Men and women can apply for the same job, but if there are more men than women are hired, it has to be sexism. Exception to this rule is when the job is dangerous, dirty, inconvenient or underpaid.
another example is Title IX
If you are one of these people, and you really believe in feminism's one flavor, tell us what type of feminist are you? If you are an i-feminist, you are already exempted from all my criticisms by default, so what is the problem?
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:45 am
jeana Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:21 am
Bernie, I already said that I am not a Climatologist and I cannot talk about CO2 levels like the rest of you. But from everything I have heard and read, climate change is real and a lot of the dissidents' claims have been debunked. I don't know exactly which ones so I'm not the best to talk about it. Weren't there like 700 peer-reviewed articles about global warming and none (I think) on non-global warming? I have to go with the scientists--and not just any scientist, but scientists in the field. Exxon Mobil scientists disagree, and maybe a few others, but the bulk do agree.
Everyone's consumption does matter, of course, but I think my shoes are less a problem than other things. I know you have a sore spot for women and shoes. So maybe shoes weren't a good example for me to use.
-=-=-=-=-
19,000 scientists to be exact and growing, and no shoes are not a problem for me it is an inside joke that no one would understand so I will explain, when I was a kid and money was tight my parents would like others argue about it and having the sense of humor that I have always had I counted the number of shoes my mother had . . . she had 51 and 1/2 pair of shoes, I am embarrassed to say how much they were worth but the bottom line is that my mother did not need any more shoes and she would never need them because it is inconceivable how one could wear out 51 and 1/2 pair of shoes. The other point is she had so many she did not know where the one mate was, I found it hysterical.
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:50 am
jeana Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:31 am
Pankaj,
It's interesting that if a woman says that men are to blame for global warming, she's a nutbag, but many of you spent a long time (I read all the posts) trying to blame global warming on women. And that somehow passes for sanity?
-=-=-=
Dis yoou not see Lewis and me joking about the posts saying:
Bernie Misiura Says:
April 1st, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Lewis Says:
We’ve been rolling in the mud with the feminists too long.
That very well could be my friend, LOL
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 am
Many articles posted center around something a woman said, oftentimes something either out there or just crazy, and that drives all of you absolutely crazy. You perhaps can't see it or feel it, but I can. The responses to pretty much all articles ultimately blame females, feminists in particular, for whever topic was being discussed.
I don't know what i-feminists are. I won't generalize for all feminists, but I can only speak for myself. I know none of you believe such a thing as patriarchy ever existed and women have had it swell forever. I disagree. Men have always ruled and still do in much of the world. We're lucky to live here where there are laws that have helped level the playing field a lot. Not all the laws are perfect, but nothing ever is.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:59 am
Bernie, I saw your post about mud-rolling but didn't know what you meant. I actually still don't. And I wouldn't buy a lot of shoes if we couldn't afford it.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:07 am
jeana Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:51 am
I don't know what i-feminists are. I won't generalize for all feminists, but I can only speak for myself. I know none of you believe such a thing as patriarchy ever existed and women have had it swell forever. I disagree. Men have always ruled and still do in much of the world. We're lucky to live here where there are laws that have helped level the playing field a lot. Not all the laws are perfect, but nothing ever is.
-=-=-=-=-=
This is very telling. Your choice of words like "I know none of you believe such a thing as patriarchy ever existed and women have had it swell forever." Sure we believe that men and women always had advantages, the problem is that women do not recognize that they have had advantages also. Perfect example "I disagree. Men have always ruled and still do in much of the world. " and "We're lucky to live here where there are laws that have helped level the playing field a lot." That is just another way to say advantage and privilege, I do not deserve not to get a job when I am more qualified than a woman or other minority. It has affected not just me but my family as well for things that I have never done. Furthermore, women have legal recourse whereas men do not because laws have been passed so we can be discriminated against, that my dear is an exurbanite excess in upsetting things that are not perfect in fact it is intentional and a conspiracy, planned and executed by a government that is supposed to protect against this sort of thing. I have said this time and again but you choose not to hear it.
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:23 am
Bernie,
I don't think that giving someone an opportunity means advantage and privilege. If a company has all white men in executive positions, why shouldn't they be made to hire a woman or a minority? Because I would guess that the lack of female or non-white staff is a result of discrimination. And whenever there were affirmative action programs, it wasn't as if companies had to stop hiring white men; they needed to make some effort to have some degree of diversity.
Males have always had more clout in the workplace (women weren't even allowed to hold most jobs or were fired when becoming married or pregnant not that long ago), in government, and even in the legal system. I really don't see how women have the government under our thumbs. That is certainly not what I've ever read, seen, heard, or experienced.
You call the laws discrimination, but they are designed, not perfectly, but with the intent of compensating for discrimination.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:30 am
Do women have it "swell" now?
Will women ever have it "swell"? Give me a picture - imagine a society where women have it "swell" and describe it to me.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:38 am
Pankaj, I said that there is the belief that women always had it swell. I've seen it in many posts. There is so much wrong with that belief that I can't even begin. And for so many women today in other parts of the world, life is hellish. Ok, it's not fun for men either. I acknowledged that it is much better here than most places. Both men and women are lucky to live in the US. We, however, are not living like queens toted around by our male servants. At least not most of us. I cannot believe in any oppression men supposedly are living under, at least not in the US. Some laws favor females, some males, and it is a positive thing to try to work on them so that things are as equal as possible.
I'm not trying to fight; I'm just giving my opinion.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:48 am
Maybe you did not understand my question/request
Either name an era/civilization where women had it swell So I can look it up.
Or
Paint a picture of how the ideal world would be where women had it swell. You paint it, and then we will try to work towards it. At the least, I will be able to see that not all females identifying with feminists have bad things to say about men and men do have a place in this ideal world. This way we can bring the two sides together. What you say?
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:49 am
and by paint, I mean verbalize.. I am bad at art :( so dont bother with all the colors.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:52 am
Also, please tell me when was the last time you heard politicians fighting over
"Who would be better for men?"
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:58 am
Pankaj, I never said women ever had it swell. I don't even know why I used the word "swell" like it was the 20s!! I think we are living in the best of times in terms of gender equality, but there is still work to be done. Women and men wouldn't have competitions about who is the more oppressed or who has it worse. People wouldn't treat children as pawns in relationships or divorces, and neither would they be forced to have them if they didn't want them. Everyone would have a living wage so that a person could actually support his/her family if they worked 40 hours. Traditionally male jobs would have even more females in them in the same numbers as men, and the same goes for female jobs (nurse & teacher come to mind). Women would earn the same wage as men for the same work, regardless of hours worked since I think that is not the point. Men could once again compliment women without fear of retribution, women could accept the compliments as they were meant and not see anything malicious in them. There's a lot that would be idea. Oh, and men would get more sex and women would get more foot rubs.
And it is 1 am and I need to go to bed. Bye for now.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:04 am
These radical feminazi crackpots belong in a cage as they blame men for everything.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:37 am
What is the point, then?
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:01 am
If it requires somebody better qualified is sacrificed then it most certainly is. It is the epitome of privilege for those thus advantaged.
Why should they? How dare YOU assume the right to tell a private individual or entity what THEY must do. What arrogance.
By the way that movement you support is renowned for it's operation of closed shops. They do it not only on the basis of gender but also of ideology.
No, you do not "guess". You assume. You go directly from enequal outcome to automatic presumption of discrimination. Do not pass go. Simplistic thinking at best. Outrageous dishonesty at worst.
UK readers may be able to provide more information but I believe there are instances of exactly this in Britain.
No, let's just discriminatate against the occasional, better qualified, better performed, individual. Bad luck if you happen to be one of those many individuals deliberately disadvantaged because of your gender or colour.
Every time principles other than merit determine an outcome we sacrifice quality. Your prefered world is one of mediocrity, inefficiency and entropy. Grass huts time.
Why?
What "they" should be doing is pursuing quality, not some child's game where everybody "gets a turn".
Clout in the workplace? The huge majority of men have never had any "clout" in the workplace. The only time they had any say was when they did it collectively. Oftentimes they were brutalised for doing so. You owe them far, far more than you realise. I guess, like the vote, you got it scott free. What we don't pay for we can't really value.
Not "allowed to hold most jobs"? Proof?
Did any of this, even if it did occur, happen during your lifetime?
I take it you haven't absorbed a single word in all the time you've been here.
So it's OK with you for an innocent to be held responsible, punished, or otherwise disavantaged today for what you think happened in the past? What was that about equality again?
You clearly believe in retribution. Eye for an eye. The real horror of this is punishing the sons for the non-existant sins of the fathers. Not unusual amongst feminists and absolutely the primary reason feminism must be opposed with prejudice.
Where have you been for the past fifty years? I take it you like the idea that women have been allowed a non-stop, unilateral nag session for half a century. Definitely no right of reply allowed of course.
I've now refered you to the Gendercide web site two, make that three, times. Have you bothered to take a look. "Opression" has existed in far more equal opportunity terms than feminism would have you believe. If you aren't even willing to look at the other half of that equation, as feminism has been, you are guilty of willing ignorance.
You support a presumption of joint custody? Would you also support my proposition that a raped boy should be allowed to compel his rapist to abort? Forced parenthood remember?
What the...? How is it not the point? Are you seriously suggesting this?
I've been arguing for years that, given the framing of their argument, feminists were aiming for this. I call it the "tennis solution". Men work a five day week, women work a three day week, and we all get the same pay. Equality, feminist style. Call it a strawman if you will but their statistics always ignore the hours worked.
Thankyou for being honest.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:16 am
I don't support this and i am an MRA
I do not want want see ANY woman forced to have an abortion.... The raped boy should be able allowed to either, opt out of legal parenthood or get full legal custody of the said child.
That IMHO would be fair.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:17 am
PS The rest of your post I pretty much agree with.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:51 am
Beste said...
I don't support this and i am an MRA
I do not want want see ANY woman forced to have an abortion.... The raped boy should be able allowed to either, opt out of legal parenthood or get full legal custody of the said child.
That IMHO would be fair.
It compels parenthood on a child regardless of those options. Consider some of the punishments given men who commit the same crime. How often do male offenders have physiological punishments forced on them such as chemical castration? And none of them can collect money from their victims with the aid of the state.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:55 am
jeana:
'If a company has all white men in executive positions, why shouldn't they be made to hire a woman or a minority?"
No cpmany should be MADE to hire anyone. That's fascism.
This is ithe problem with feminists and liberals; they think that you can achieve a utopia through legislation. You can't.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:13 am
Please keep those gender and the environment comments coming! The Greener Gender documentary (and the planet) needs you!
Tom Martin
Media enquires only, tcmartin1@hotmail.com
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:46 am
Is the message independent of the messenger? Do you trust the message even though you distrust the messenger?
For those who want information this is a reasonable place to start:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:21 am
Gett'n in late on this one. What about all these entitlement princesses driving their big SUV's? They all start to look the same; designer sunglasses, designer handbags, big diamond rings, too much make up, 3 kids in the back seat, gated community etc. They do more harm to this planet than any other organism.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:33 am
Jeana - "I read recently how that hole in the ozone over Australia is either closed or almost closed as a result of the ban on CFCs or whatever was banned."
You non-science minded types really ought to do a little checking. The Ozone hole NEVER extended over Australia. Perhaps you meant to say Antarctica?
Plus, it hasn’t closed. It’s roughly the same size it’s been since they started measuring it. It actually changes year to year, bigger one year, smaller the next, only to be larger the next. Here’s an item from theozonehole.com which gives the facts.
And, the reason you don’t hear about it any longer is that all those scientists who initially were alarmed and supported the CFC-based theories have eventually come to realize that not only were there significant “holes” in the theory (ie, why no northern hole, when most CFC’s were used in northern hemisphere; and, why didn’t the hole stop forming in years after CFC bans), there were also other factors which influenced ozone hole formation, like volcanic emissions like Mt. Erebus, in Antarctica. Here’s a quote to sting your ears:
Volcanic plumes contain sulfate aerosols, which play a large natural role in ozone depletion. Included in these aerosols are large amounts of hydrogen chloride (HCl). Some scientists argue that the amount of chlorine put into the stratosphere by a major volcanic eruption rivals that of anthropogenically produced chlorine.
The long and short of it all is that people tend to jump on band-wagons until the facts get sorted out, and the “emergency” is found to be non-existent.
Now, I’m all for controlling emissions and other sorts of environmental wastes – because it’s pollution, and I know first hand (the research in my field) that we have a multitude of environmental waste problems not yet rectified. But, we don’t need radical actions made out of panic.
It’s just like all those studies by “respected” researchers which have been used to back up the man-bad, woman-good mythology. When we take a closer look, even the peer-reviewed ones are often found lacking in proper experimental design and control. It’s turns out that no one was willing to take a stand against a socio-politically popular notion.
Happens all the time. I’ve seen colleagues let obviously unsubstantiated data interpretations “slide” because they respected the researcher, and didn’t want to cause them any embarrassment (etc). Peer-review is sadly not all that it’s cracked-up to be.
Most people posting here are keenly aware that most of the most cherished Feminist ideals are based on faulty data (if not out-right lies) perpetuated via the main-stream media. Given that we know that they’ve been unfounded, I believe that the take home message for all is to take everything you get from the MSM with a huge grain of salt. Don’t panic, don’t jump on band-wagons, and wait until sound science catches up with over-wrought emotion and heated rhetoric.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:40 am
Gwallan, well said.
Jeana Says:
"Women would earn the same wage as men for the same work, regardless of hours worked since I think that is not the point...."
Jeana, I share your idealistic outlook of what the world should be like (in the sense that I want us all, men, women and child alike to live in harmony), but really I had to take issue with the above. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and think you were either tired and just wanted to get of the computer as quickly as possible when you wrote that (I've certainly been in that situation before) or you meant something totally different. Like for example same hourly pay for the same job. If that was what you meant then I agree 100%. Women should be paid the same per hour wage as a man regardless of hours worked.
However, one of the contributing factors as to why we continue to earn less than men IS because women, on average, tend to work less than men. In the consulting business where I work 55% of our consultants are women. At 5:01pm you're far more likely to see the women leave than the men (some have to go pick up their kids, some just prefer to have a little more time for themselves). The question to be asked then is why on earth should we women expect to earn more for doing the same job in less time with no added efficiency?
I strongly recommend that you read Warren Farrell's Why Men Earn More. If you're as open-minded as you're claiming to be (personally I think you still have a ways to go, but we've encountered worse feminists here than you, and well, you seem likeable--as far as one can like an anonymous person on the net--enough even though we disagree enormously), I think you might learn a thing or two. It's not that I'm attempting to change your feminist perspective (only you can do that), I just wish for you to be exposed to literature that is not at the mercy of the feminist agenda, the politically incorrect male perspective. I strongly believe when one has both perspectives available, we're able to draw a more informed conclusion and not resort to kneejerk reactions like "it's the patriarchy", "men are sh!t!" etc etc
And I have another slightly unrelated question for you, Jeana. It's one that I always ask women who identify as feminists. Feminists usually say they advocate for increased rights and opportunities for ALL women regardless of race, yet African American and Hispanic women on average earn a lot less than white women for the same job.
http://www.iwpr.org/pdf/IWPRRelease3_29_05.pdf
My question to you is this: how come I never hear white feminists championing this cause on behalf of their sisters from another mother? Isn't this wage disparity in a woman vs women situation just as unfair as women vs men situation? For African American and Hispanic feminists ... why do they insist upon painting white men as the only evil when clearly white female feminists are not doing anything themselves to even the playing field among ALL women?
Some of the feminists I've discussed this with have argued that this is not a feminist issue, it's a race issue that race advocates should address. Needless to say, I disagree. We can not be burning men (and not just white men, but ALL men) at the stake for earning more when white women are earning at least 20% more than the average non-white woman (the only exception is probably asian women).
I'd appreciate your take on this. This is not an attempt to get into a fight with you, so don't take it as such. I'm genuinely puzzled and in need of enlightenment.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:49 am
Someone attacked Mr. Gore’s credibility and I’m forced to ask if Mr. Gore said, “water is wet” or “2+2=4” one would argue with those facts because of Mr. Gore’s untrustworthyness?
Well, simply put, even a broken clock is right twice a day.
That AlGore manages to parrot someone else's work to suit his ends does not mean that the information is valid, or that it justifies the massive political, economic and social changes he demands the entire rest of the world (except himself) adopt.
To put it in terms of the issues that brought us here -
If Andrea Dworken (Amanda Marqotte, pick your feminist loonie) was touring the planet at taxpayer expense, and her presentation was: Based on some awful, uncontrolled study that some scientist that I don't know, with motivations and pressures from people with vested interests in the outcomes, found that sometimes, some amount of women say they are attacked to some degree. Therefore all men, ALL men, must therefore be presumed guilty in advance, and must surrender their rights, priviledges, and hard earned cash, must not be judged on their merits, and answer to a standard of accountability that I myself refuse to submit to. Any man who refuses to acknowledge his current or potential guilt just wants to perpetuate the abuse, and is a scumbag unworthy of consideration of his peers.
.... really, would you think that SOMETHING stunk about this issue?
Figures don't lie, but sometimes, liars figure.
I see the same cult of personality surrounding too many figures - AlGore, Saint Hillary, Jim Jones, etc. Lets all jump on the runaway train to hell, because we're all hip, trendy, concerned people who all want to do the right thing, even if we can't begin to comprehend the justification for what we're doing, or what the unintended consequences of our actions are.
When I see Algore stripped of his Nobel prize and rediculed as a heretic/ hipocrite by the global warming alarmists, I'll reconsider their credibility. Sorry, yes, in this case, the movement's choice of a messenger has severely undermined their credibility, and the global orgasm over this self promoting attention whore getting a Nobel prize has both cheapened the credibility of the Nobel council and the issue itself.
If you want to buy a Priapus and drive around feeling all smug and superior, by all means, go ahead and do so. If you want to focus your life around minimizing your carbon footprint, by all means, go ahead. IMHO, you have as much right to live your life with whatever belief system that you want, with whatever priorities you want. If you want to believe the earth is 6000 years old, or 6 billion, your choice. Don't want to ever pray, or want to do it twice a week, or 6 times a day - that's your business. Don't want to eat pork, cheeseburgers, meat, bacon, fine. Don't like leather, fur, or other stolen animal products, fine. Only want to eat raw, organic food, fine. Don't like a particular kind of coffee because of where it came from, or want to boycott a pizza chain because the owner donates his money to a pro choice or pro life group, fine. It's your life, and you're an adult. Enjoy it.
That stops when you start demanding changes that affect me. I'm tired of being systematically robbed by people who are "only concerned for my well being." and "it's only a little bit, and only for a little while". (re- war on poverty, war on education, war on drugs, war on terror, war on crime). If you ask me, governments make the biggest environmental impact.
Oh, for what it's worth, I don't own an SUV, I have had the same 4 cylinder car I've had for 10 years now, and I keep it maintained. The environmental impact of a 10 year old engine is negligable to the impact of making and trashing the 2 or three new cars that my peers have gone through. Every bulb in the house is a CFL, but the environmentally conscious city I live in has no idea how to handle a bad CFL bulb (mercury concerns), so I have to store a half dozen failed units until they get their head out of their ass and figure out how to handle the Hazmat they're promoting everyone have in their house. And in regards to the original post: even with 2 kids, my weekly trash output is less that 25% of when I was married, let alone not having an overflowing bin of recyclable glass wine bottles every week. I don't water the lawn, and I live in Texas. Some months, it's brown and crispy. I mow it when I feel like it, and I refuse to use a leaf blower. When I get a coffee, I have a thermos mug that I refil, while the self styled eco-nazi's are getting a fresh paper cup and liner, and tossing out a wooden stirrer stick and a splenda wrapper. I'm not trying to be environmentally conscious, I just notice that my impact is pretty damn low in comparison to the people who make the biggest noise about it. Re: Algore writ large.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:05 am
Offended_Dad - "That stops when you start demanding changes that affect me. I'm tired of being systematically robbed by people who are "only concerned for my well being." and "it's only a little bit, and only for a little while". (re- war on poverty, war on education, war on drugs, war on terror, war on crime). If you ask me, governments make the biggest environmental impact."
Brilliant post, Sir!
I couldn't agree more. The real issue here should not be about our difference over environmental concerns, but rather that some people will always try to blame others for problems over which they have little influence (like blaming men, in general, for the bad acts of a relative few; or holding all men accountable for the myth of Patriarchy, or all white people accountable for the myth of White Privilege: and, yes, holding 1st world countries more culpable for environmental pollution) and seeking to extract punishments from them, based only on who they are, not what they’ve actually done.
I think that basically encompasses the injustices that the MRM seeks to address.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:09 am
Actually, I hope we haven't "ganged up" on Callum, or anyone else here. I respect his opinion and outlook, he's articulate and well read, and argues his point competantly, much as any regular poster here. I have the same respect for Lewis and SLWerner.
We can respectfully disagree, which is what I love about this site. If nothing else, we get the opportunity to hone our individual arguments.
I think this thread has shown people how important credibility is, and how once it's lost, how difficult it can be to regain. Maybe feminists can take note of this point, and re-evaluate the issues and conclusions that are important to them.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:44 am
Do it yourself!
Offended Dad writes: "post: even with 2 kids, my weekly trash output is less that 25% of when I was married"
PK adds: Hear hear! My wife is amazed that I would rather spend 2 hours fixing an old microwave than buying a new one for 40 bucks. Theoretically, my time is worth at least that but I like the feeling of knowing that I didn't throw away an (inperfectly) good applicance just because an old switch broke and needed resoldering. My wife criticizes me for fixing old "junk" but by the time I'm through with it, it's not junk anymore.
It's staggering that a swedish feminist compares working men to stay-at-home mothers when the goal of feminism is to make women exactly like men, but to consume far more with fast food in leau of home cooking, outside child care in leau of a parent doing it, etc. Commercials are FILLED with selling overpriced junk to women.
Absolutely friggin' hilarious. But then again, Al Gore riding around in a private jet preaching the evils of... people riding around in jets is also amazing. Even many leftists I know have taken a step back when I point this out to them about their spokesman.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:56 am
It's the children, stupid!
Jeana writes: "Pankaj, first of all, I don't know where you get your figure that 80% of consumption is due to females. Are you including household items/food, which perhaps (though I'm not certain) more women buy but are consumed by both men and women? Or just relying on stereotypes that women like to shop (which may be true)?"
PK responds: I'll add to the other posters and observe that feminism has come full circle to where many of them brag that women "gestate" and men can't (nyah nyah nyah). This "ability" is about the same as someone who has a handicapped parking plate. They can park in a few minutes, but it's entirely artificial and not based upon actual ability. Children also are not an asset except in agricultural communities where someone uses their children as cheap labor.
And even in these cultures, overpopulation is a massive problem. Let's look at the U.S. Back in WWII, our population was about 1/4 of what it is today. If we had kept that number stable, we'd be energy independent and wouldn't have import a DROP of foreign oil. Our carbon emissions would be cut by 75%. Our roads would rarely be congested meaning even more fuel savings in addition to hundreds of hours lost due to traffic jams and accidents. It's MIND BOGGLING what overpopulation has cost us.
And even now, we hear that women are more valuable along with illiterate third world immigrants because we need more bodies to try to keep the ponzi scheme of social security afloat and get cheap lawncare. That's almost as insane as Al Gore riding around in a private jet lecturing about the evils of consumption. Or Swedish feminists arguing that stay-at-home mothers are great even as she's trying to push them into the workplace!
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Just go to any shopping mall and one will find most stores cater to women - clothings, accessories, cosmetics, jewelry, shoes, salons, etc. Don't tell me that there are no carbon emissions in making these products. Take a cruise or a vacation and see how many women are enjoying themselves.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:06 pm
We see her true colors... shining through!
Jeana writes: "Because I would guess that the lack of female or non-white staff is a result of discrimination. "
PK observes: Just as police sometimes 'guess' that a black man driving in a white neighborhood at night is probably a criminal up to no good.
But you go further than a mere traffic stop. You argue that white men as a group should have their civil rights violated, and denied a job, simply upon suspician of racial and gender guilt.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
"That stops when you start demanding changes that affect me. I'm tired of being systematically robbed by people who are "only concerned for my well being." and "it's only a little bit, and only for a little while". (re- war on poverty, war on education, war on drugs, war on terror, war on crime). If you ask me, governments make the biggest environmental impact."
And there we get to it don't we? I shouldn't be made to care and take responsibility?
I don't drive an SUV I'm not to blame. I turn off my lights. I can barely afford to maintain the vehichle I have how can I get a "greener" vehicle? I don't have children why should I care that you don't get to see yours? I've never falsely accused someone of sexual assault to take their children from them. Why should I be concerned that others have?
Is that really the direction we want to go? I didn't create it so it isn't my problem?
That is the essential question in a nation founded on individual freedom isn't it? When should the individual be coerced to do things against their will for the common good?
I don't know the answer to that.
What I do know is to consider the veracity of information independently of its implications if true. To be cautious about dismissing information because I don't like the source. To be cautious about dismissing information because it might have consequences I'm unable to affect or that trying to affect would cause me hardship.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:23 pm
7-2 offsuit beats A-A. Really! Don't you know anything?
Davina tries to be reasonable with Jeana: "I'd appreciate your take on this. This is not an attempt to get into a fight with you, so don't take it as such. I'm genuinely puzzled and in need of enlightenment."
PK responds: If someone genuinely steps on your toes by accident, and you notify them, they will generally check to see if your allegations are correct and even if not, will apologize for the slight and move on.
I've learned in dealing with people that if you point out that someone is hurting you, and then they start weaseling or trying to change the subject (such as Obama saying "resentful" whites should blame "corporations") or getting forgetful, it's not an accident. They know, at some level, what they are doing and they think they're fooling people and hope that if they get a large enough crowd to say the same thing, that it will carry an aura of respectability. Hey, even hand out a Nobel Prize. That means it HAS to be true!
Jeana watches her WPT Poker. She's bluffing.
Say what you like about white male patriarchy (because nearly everything bad has been said already) but they had a useful role for women. If men were having such a great time in the coal mines making big bucks such as my grandparents, it was because their wives were safe at home raising children and doing work on the side to help the family get by.
Jeana acts as if her having a husband that earns less than her AND doesn't do housework somehow proves something. Men have been supporting their spouses AND families, even when the spouse is a lousy housekeeper, for the past million years or so.
She knows that most women are unwilling to marry a man who isn't a breadwinner and this leaves millions of women out in the cold hence her desire to offer social services "for all", at taxpayer expense of course, to provide for single "parents" and for goodies for women in leau of a husband. Men who fall through the cracks, why, they get a great choice: prison or the streets! Ironically, this has been mostly black men and Obama has ignored this because he's too busy race hustling and his minister now has a million dollar mansion in a 93% white suburb!!!!
I guess her husband should be glad that Jeana allows him to live there (for now) but that makes him a pet, basically. Maybe she treats the pet nice or badly, but he's still a pet. Davina, would you want a man like this? I think Jeana and you enjoy us cootie covered creeps because we speak our minds rather than "yes dear." You get it straight and there's a certain (old style) Clint Eastwood and John Wayne grit to us.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Davina,
Of course I meant that women should be paid the same hourly rate. If you work more hours, you would of course get paid more. I got the feeling that a lot of people here think that the more you work entitles you to a bigger hourly rate. That is what I object to.
Another thing—I also work for a consulting company, and yes, I go home at 5:00 pm and lots of the guys don’t. They stay and the office heads see them working and praise them for their dedication. What they don’t see is that after we have dinner and I put my son to bed, I turn on my computer again and work. It may look like females aren’t working as much but I think that is a fallacy. We just have to squeeze in work and family, while I really don’t see that being as much of an issue with the men. Men have even said at my work that they go home late ON PURPOSE because then the kids are in bed, the house is straightened, and they don’t have to deal with any of that. I’m not saying that’s what most do, but I do notice, for instance, that it is primarily the females who take off work to go to the kids’ school for events during the day. Some working dads, but more working moms. I’m not counting stay at home moms (or dads) because I feel they have way more availability and should do more (but they disagree).
And about non-white females, I totally agree that all females, regardless of color, should be included. Whoever said that the non-whites don’t count was idiotic. I would say they count more than the whites, actually, because their situation is worse.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:40 pm
PK, my husband makes more than me, not less. And the only point I ever think I made about housework is that I do most of it and he should then do most of the outside work, which he lets slide. It doesn’t mean he’s a horrible person; it means it’s not as important to him as it is to me. My husband is a pet???? What are you talking about? The thing many of you don’t understand is that marriage is a two-way street and both partners give and take. It’s all financial for you guys. You cry if you have to pay for a date, you want to split everything down the middle—I don’t understand. Even if your spouse doesn’t work, she still contributes to the family and you don’t seem to value that contribution at all.
Maybe most women are unwilling to marry a man who isn’t a breadwinner, and by breadwinner, I am assuming you mean a man who makes more, not a man who is the sole financial support, because that would not be true. So what’s wrong with that? I think that actually you guys are jealous that women think more about their future and their stability and include in their “wish list” a guy with a job. If it bothers you so much, then how about you marry or date someone WITH A JOB? Don’t complain later after years of marriage and then divorce that your wife only wanted your $$. I would never want someone without a job (laid off people not included) or someone who couldn’t hold a job. Most women wouldn’t. There is nothing wrong with that. It doesn’t mean that we are only looking for money. But you have to be sensible.
And why are you picking on Davina when she always supports you people? She is far too kind, in my opinion.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:47 pm
(jeana asked) -- "Why is it such a bad thing not to waste?"
Well, becuase the most un-American thing you can do is to adopt a lifestyle where you do not CONSUME MORE THAN YOU NEED.
Or aspire to greater levels of consumption.
Or find some degree of contentment not requiring regular shopping.
Or reject the "free market" BS.
And, it is all connected to the Gender Wars.....
After all, women control some 85% of domestic spending.
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Jenna,
There you go, you said precisely what I expected you to say. Apart from condescending implication on men's sex drive (and the implied reason MRA's do what they do) and reducing the threat level that keeps men from getting back to their pleasing role towards women, you have no concerns for men. You believe in the wage gap in favor of men, when the opposite is true today, but ignore that for now. Do you also believe that male management prefer to hire men over women just because they are "like themselves" (they are sexists)? I would like to ask you how many male managers have you met? And how you can generalize over all of them?
You also assumed existence of a "victim" race - when most people here are pointing out the problems faced by men. I guess if men complain about something that society does to them, it automatically is a victim race? Even in that case, do not worry, feminists would be way ahead if there existed such a race. Heck, they would would hold the situtation of them being ahead in the victims race another discrimination against women! (Never mind that only feminists are running in the race)
Now unless men have it swell today, why would you skip out men so blatantly? That ALL being said please tell me why men should get out of moving towards this? What will men gain out of this?
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
jenna, Opportunities are fine, but when something is mandatory either by the big boss or the government regarding hiring or non-hiring practices it is the epitome of discrimination.
Ah good one, it is their business why can they not be allowed to run it the way they see fit? Let me ask you, I own a small business capable of employing about 25 people. I have a large family with 75 people in the area. The business is an auto parts store. The women in my family have no interest in this business but the men and boys do, are you telling me that I have to hire someone I do not know over my family? It is my business and I have an obligation to my family members first, no?
The above demonstrates that you do not think Gestalt and you guess does not fit all circumstances at least in the true way that discrimination is meant.
The do exactly that and do not tell me that because I am a victim of exactly that. Tell me how it is not very discouraging and disparaging when every commercial advertised on TV or radio for a job opening is completed with the sentence "Women an minorities are encouraged to apply?"
Tell me how it is not discrimination when the government goes door to door knocking on only minority and females doors notifying and asking them to take the next civil service test? This bumps up the competition and the likely hood of hiring someone that did not even have the interest or effort to get the job, how do you think and what do you think that they will do on the job? You as a tax payer should be appalled that they are not hiring the best qualified firefighters, or cops after all you life depends on these people that are 1500 on the list when they are only hiring 50. How safe do feel now especially in light that they had to be prompted to take the test and are not the best qualified?
Not only is that an overly simplistic view but, say I do not have a big family and I hire a non mechanic white male for the job when a black male mechanic also applied for the job this IS discrimination right? Well I think we all can agree to that so when it comes to a more qualified white male and he is not hired and a lesser qualified female or black male is how is the not discrimination?
Well jenna if you are at least 45 years old or younger I can safely say that you have not been looking. Ironically I and every one else here know that you have, because we know that you know that private sector and civil service jobs are MADE to hire female and minorities how can you say that men have always had more clout in the work place and women do not have the government under their thumbs? Can you demonstrate just one equal but opposite law for me?
I believe that you have effectively skewed what discrimination is and only to a females advantage. Please tell me how compensation based on race or gender is not discrimination, after all women claim that they do not get paid what men do based on gender and that is discrimination, right?
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:06 pm
When I am a management person I will obviously pay more to keep the person who contributes to the growth of the company more.
So I disagree with the uniform rate for part-time and full time employees and for overtime. Please, talk to a union worker and tell him/her that overtime should be paid at same rate as regular time, let me know how it goes.
There is a reason why it is the way it is - I will give you an analogy. You go out on a second date with a person , would you expect your date to pickup your kids from school that day or maybe have access to your house keys? what about after 5 or 10 years?
I am guessing you answered - No and Yes. Because there is a level of commitment difference between them. Same thing happens to an employee and an employer. The commitment is reflected by the hours/time period because companies cannot say - "oops! don't have it done or it will be delivered late, but we worked for 40 hours so buy our product." Some one has to work more and make sure things are finished, done and delivered. So why should the one that takes this initiative be paid same as everyone else, who left at 5'0 clock?
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
"PK observes: Just as police sometimes 'guess' that a black man driving in a white neighborhood at night is probably a criminal up to no good."
Very astute PK - but you forget it is OK when WHITE women get to discriminate against WHITE MEN - not all racism/sexism is bad - just that authority of determination lies with feminists.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Pankaj,
I think people discriminate and don't even realize it. And some do realize it and do it anyway. Which is why I am still in favor of some sort of regulation in the workplace. I think that public companies should abide by rules that require a certain percentage of the population they hire to be women and minorities. I don't have a problem with that. It doesn't mean that you have to hire unqualified people. I think sometimes workplaces used to intentionally hire unqualified people just so they could "prove" that affirmative action was a bad thing.
That being said, I don't think that Bernie's own company should be forced to hire anyone it doesn't want to hire. There is a difference between a mom & pop establishment and IBM. And of course I want only qualified firefighters and police to be hired. As long as the women can meet the same fitness & strength standards, then they should be hired. If not, do not hire them. Hiring really should be on the basis of skill and aptitude for most things. But sometimes companies need a little shove in the right direction.
Bernie, I am 42, in case you were wondering. You say, "Please tell me how compensation based on race or gender is not discrimination, after all women claim that they do not get paid what men do based on gender and that is discrimination, right?" I never said women or minorities should get paid MORE, just equitably. Why does it matter if women and minorities are encouraged to apply? In nursing jobs, men are encouraged to apply. So what? You can still apply yourself.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
jeana Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:38 am
Same goes for men and what I have seen and heard women say about men
Not that I do not care but there is little we can do for them especially since we have not figured it out for men and women here yet. Why force them to make the mistakes we are making until we get it right?
And men are living like Kings and are toted around by our female servants?
At least not most of us either
Wow you have been given plenty of examples and are ignoring them conspicuously. Adding to the list a woman gets arrested for DWI they call a responsible adult to take her home a man must stay in the tank overnight. Men have cameras in their cells and no jailer to cater to all their questions, statements, or wants, they get checked only once every half hour. Women have no cameras in their cells, and have a matron there in plain view to monitor them, address their questions, statements and wants. Because of this the likelihood that a man can successfully commit suicide in a cell is greatly increased especially in light that most men are successful because the actually want to do it and women are typically calling out for help and or looking for attention. These are fair laws?
OK we here know this . . . but
I am sure the men here would like to know about these can you give us examples or is it just you opinion?
Agreed
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Pankaj,
You are comparing apples to oranges. Overtime and straight time wages are different, of course. That is, if you get to be paid overtime. And I'm not saying that overall, if someone works harder at a company, they should be paid the same as someone who barely works at all. Of course not. Working more hours, doing better quality work, etc. should mean that you get raises and make more. And in terms of PT and FT work, PT people usually don't get benefits, so they are, in effect, being paid less even if their hourly rate is the same.
Also, as I said above, just because you leave at 5:00 doesn't mean you are done working for the day. These days of laptops & blackberries have everyone working way too many hours. Myself included. Probably you too.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:24 pm
"I think people discriminate and don't even realize it."
Can I use that line about women?
"And some do realize it and do it anyway"
and that for feminists?
"I think sometimes workplaces used to intentionally hire unqualified people just so they could "prove" that affirmative action was a bad thing." - that made me laugh. Maybe same thing applies to women who marry men known batterers to prove that men are bad.
"There is a difference between a mom & pop establishment and IBM" and the difference is?
"As long as the women can meet the same fitness & strength standards, then they should be hired. If not, do not hire them. Hiring really should be on the basis of skill and aptitude for most things. But sometimes companies need a little shove in the right direction." - so the regulators know better than companies themselves.. Hmm.. damn those companies, they don't care as much about profit do they?
"I never said women or minorities should get paid MORE, just equitably." - who defines equitably? Do they consider experience performance and qualification? And if they are required to consider race and sex(be racist and sexist) while hiring, why should they not be required to do the same for pay grade?
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Working more hours, doing better quality work, etc. should mean that you get raises and make more
Glad you agree. In effect, you just destroyed the equal pay argument. Pay should be based on work not gender or race. Those companies that pay people on "show" of work, rather than work itself go down in efficiency. Those who know how to work good and hard should NOT work for such companies.
Yet you say this
"You are comparing apples to oranges" - you proved negated yourself later, so I think you did not mean this.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
"And for so many women today in other parts of the world, life is hellish"
And men in these parts of the world are enjoying a normal life... right?
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:41 pm
Jenna you posted this at 4am for me LOL
Agreed, but the part about the living wage is a little idealistic.
Why? The reason for this is primarily the people, the men and women themselves. We have different interests and likes and that includes jobs that intrigue us. So in reality this will never happen because of personal choices.
They do
WHAT?!?!?!? You are kidding me right? So a man should take home the same paycheck after working 40-60 hours as a woman who works 20? This is delusional and demonstrates your propensity to female privilege. WOW
You see you got this wrong also, and are showing female privilege again it should have been stated like this "Women could accept men's compliments as they were meant and not see anything malicious in them, and men could once again compliment women without fear of retribution." Because you see the other way around is sexual harassment another law that prevents men from making the first move towards this, get rid of the part of the law that states sexual harassment is how it makes the other person feel rather than how the person verbalizing meant it and it might happen.
Accepted, that is more than fair
See my first statement LOL right now it is 13:36hrs
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Pankaj, I don't think I destroyed any argument. Paying someone the same wage for the same job only makes sense. Are you assuming that women and minorities get huge raises and men don't? All things being equal, raises should be equal regardless of gender or ethnicity. I seem to hear that you guys think that white men are more efficient and better workers than women & minorities. If that's what you believe, then I disagree. And I think that regulators should ensure equality. If a company wanted to have Whites only or Blacks only lunchrooms, would that be ok? Or how about Women only and Men only? I don't think we can rely on the generosity of Corporate America. That being said, I think most companies have made tremendous strides for equality and I think everyone has benefitted from it. I really don't see "gender wars" as much as I see anti-labor sentiment. That is the real problem, and it affects both genders.
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
gwallan Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:01 am
gwallan, I have to say great post. It is remarkable that without the benefit of reading you comments first that we posed almost exactly the same thing, it astounds me. You know what they say "Great minds think alike." LOL
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
"I seem to hear that you guys think that white men are more efficient and better workers than women & minorities" As a a reasonable person I have to disagree. My contention is the authority, method of measurement of worth and sincerity in doing so is flawed right now. The affirmative action is not needed, it only hurts the minorities and women who pull their share of load. They are not seen as equals just due to mere existence of affirmative action.
"How about Women only and Men only?" We are doing it to restrooms now... hahaha. Thanks for the joke, but try not to go on "fishing" expeditions to prove a point that already has been discredited. "I don't think we can rely on the generosity of Corporate America?" Where is this? I want to go live there.
"most companies have made tremendous strides for equality and I think everyone has benefited from it." Yes, you are right, but that is in spite of legislation - not because of it and now a sexist racist feminist system wants to turn it back using legal "nudge".
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Bernie, Bernie, Bernie,
If men work overtime, as I've clarified above, they SHOULD MAKE MORE. Much more. Way way way way more. (Happy?) I never meant to imply otherwise. I still don't believe in a wage gap, regardless of what you guys say. But I won't have time till July to investigate this stuff for myself.
And I was referring to sexual harrassment laws because I think they've accomplished what they were meant to (no molesting at work, please), but I think they've gone too far and people need common sense. I heard of a guy who was fired for saying "Mulva" (while talking about a Jerry Seinfeld episode) and women who were fired for sending an email entitled "Why Gingerbread Men are Better than Real Men" or something like that. Common sense should prevail and sexual inuendo should not be punished. I was agreeing you you MRAs for once.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:02 pm
Jeana,you may mean well on this blog and may not consider yourself a feminist but,from reading you it seems that your mind has been constructed and fashioned by feminists.You appear to want equal pay but do not want to do the hours,nor probably do you want to relocate or work weekends in some remote spot.You won't want to do dangerous or filthy work but you want to be allowed to take some guys place in the services,be it army,fire service or police but
you don't want to have to qualify for same by going through the physical tests as men used to,I say used to because the bars have had to be lowered to accomodate women,some of whom can't even talk english.
Men only had clout in the workplace through the unions,in the Uk,when we lost the powerful unions and women
entered the workforce the latter decided to take jobs at much lower rates thus doing men out of a job and ensuring that all women would have to work in the 2 wage families to make ends meet.
Far from living in a time of equality men suffer in the fields of health by inadequate money for research for such things as prostate cancer,we somehow can't afford it in my country but we have full funding for cervical and cancers affecting women even though the death toll is very similar and the fact that women can now expect to live 7 years longer than men is indicative of feminist discrimination.
Discriminatory laws are so numerous as to warrant a small volume,Education is another thing,the education system is rife with feminists and most teachers are female with the result that the upbringing of boys to fit in with a feminist
gyneocracy has confused boys so much that their education is suffering badly with the result that we are bringing up a set of ticking time bombs.The system has come into being by a witch hunt for paedophiles.
Female politicians in the uk are elected along party lines and do not disclose to the public their hate for all things male until they get their feet under the table.They then come out and say they are in politics to represent women
which means they do not represent half the population.
If you imagine yourself to be in the least supportive of men you might wish to delve further into these subjects with the guys here,if not perhaps you would tell us exactly what women want,if not,why bother?
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:03 pm
Alright I was not polite in the last post - I apologize. But I really want to know who or what corporate America is?
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:11 pm
"And I was referring to sexual harrassment laws because I think they've accomplished what they were meant to."
Jeana, you misunderstand what the laws were meant to accomplish or their success. But I hope you are right.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Pankaj,
Corporations rule America. What they say, goes. If they want legislation passed that benefits them, they have the money & lobbyists to get it passed. Everything we do has the bottom line of the corporation in mind. Should we recall this dangerous product? Well, let's do a cost-benefit analysis first and see how much we might have to pay out in lawsuit settlements.
Mike, I do want to work the hours that men do and I expect to be paid similarly. I will admit that I don't want to do manual labor. I don't. Lots of men don't either. And I've already said that women should pass the same endurance tests (if the jobs actually require it--an office job in a police dept should not require the same level of physical skill as an actual policeman on the street).
In regard to prostate cancer--men should push for an Office of Men's Health. Push for the recognition you deserve. Women won't object. They won't. Maybe some crazies will, but no one with a husband, boyfriend, father, son, brother, grandfather will want them to die if it can be avoided. I do think that women have been way more successful than men in pushing our issues, such as breast, ovarian & cervical cancer screens. Men need to do the same. I think what turns females off is anti-woman rhetoric and the assumption that feminists are out to get you. You deserve funding for male diseases. Not because women have funding and recognition but because you are dying and that is not right.
And I really don't think that female teachers are destroying males. Haven't teachers always been female? And speaking of that, why are only 12% of teachers (at least, elementary & high school teachers) female? If the pay were better, I bet more men would want to teach. Why is there no national initiative to encourage males to go into teaching? I think there should be. For nursing too.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Haven't teachers always been female? - No actually. There were a significant minority of male teachers a few generations ago.
"If the pay were better, I bet more men would want to teach" - I agree, but ponder on this for a moment, why do women accept a low paying job while men don't?
"men should push for an Office of Men's Health"
&
"Why is there no national initiative to encourage males to go into teaching? I think there should be" - for the love of GOD, not another sexist bureaucracy. Please! Its bad enough there is one for women. The problem is those "brilliant" MEN in congress you trust to make affirmative action laws, but not to make any other laws (ONLY these are controlled by corporations somehow? I don't get it!), they do not know anything about cancer, but are given the authority to decide what is the best way to treat it - thanks to blind faith in govt.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
People who go into teaching love it and have no choice but to accept the wages. They do go on strike occasionally. What else can they do but leave a field they love?
And ok, Pankaj, instead of creating more bureaucracy, we should better utilize what is already there. Such as the National Institutes of Health. There's a lot of already existing groups and agencies that need to be pressured to concentrate on men's health. You're right. Why create another one. Make the existing ones do their job. Congress shouldn't generally pass laws making decisions about health care anyway except to provide it.
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:49 pm
OK so you married up like it has been suggested that most women do. you proved one of our points.
See the above and there will be a below statement addressing this
Because this adds credibility that men are wallets to women, another point you just proved for us [your colors are coming out] Why are not women always expected to pay, because it all about money with you girls?
How can you say in the same statement ideas that are diametrically apposed to each other? "Maybe most women are unwilling to marry a man who isn’t a breadwinner" . . . "So what’s wrong with that?" . . . . "because that would not be true." This is hypocritical of you point to be made further down
That statement is blatantly naive and we know you are more intelligent that that you you must be playing dumb, to what end I do not know because it makes you appear unlearned and silly. You know the answer and it is of course because women will not date or marry mam like this and see men like this a bums and a few other choice words. I will address this that you have proven this in your statement below
Why not if they were that deceiving and superficial and not marrying for love and respect?
GAME SET AND MACH! You just proved that woman will not date men without a job and that they marry for the financial stability that men provide.
MOOT. See above, you yourself stated otherwise
WHAT? Men are not allow this latitude by women, you stated it yourself
The bottom line is if both men and women choose not to work and attempted to marry only those that worked for financial stability where would we be, no one would be working.
I object to what you have said here because you are implying that we are not intelligent enough to see through the blatant contradictory statements that you have made in this post.
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 2:57 pm
jeana
Now you are coming around.. I appreciate it deeply, however there is still a problem
"There's a lot of already existing groups and agencies that need to be pressured to concentrate on men's health". Why should you pressure to concentrate on men's health or anywhere else for that matter? NIH ideally should not even be in the business of deciding and guiding research (or exist for that matter). Its basically a govt funded bully in the research domain. Research should be controlled by demand alone and not big govt institutions like NIH - because the govt and by association NIH can be influenced by lobbyists, SIGs and corporations - sidelining the main people supposed to benefit from the research.
Now we cannot live ideally, but at least we can control the tendencies to vilify one group so the other group's needs become "visible" to this opportunistic monster conglomeration of corporations and politicians. This is precisely what I stand for. The argument about Prostate vs Breast cancer is merely an illustration of which SIG the politicians take more seriously - and that is women voters. But the same thing applies to VAWA as well. Why is there only a VAWA and why not VAMA? Personally I oppose both in favor of better enforcement of existing laws. But hysterical laws based on hysterical cries by hateful groups like NOW only create problems and then some more problems.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Discriminate against cake and eat it too.
Jeana correct me: PK, my husband makes more than me, not less.
PK exclaims: Doh! I remember you listing some of your women friends that had married down and I got confused. My bad.
Jeana continues: And the only point I ever think I made about housework is that I do most of it and he should then do most of the outside work, which he lets slide. It doesn’t mean he’s a horrible person; it means it’s not as important to him as it is to me.
PK responds: You had argued above that men had told you that they worked long hours precisely to avoid housework undermining the claim that the longer hours they put it should affect their hourly rate. That said, I'll be the first to say that employers sometimes make poor and shallow judgements about effectiveness and will reward someone who puts in more hours, but is less effective, than someone who works half the time but gets more done.
Ironically, your contention against paying someone a higher rate for working more hours goes against the notion of overtime. Many people would say that your philosophy is great for business managers looking to cut costs. Have three employees work a total of 160 hours instead of paying the benefits for four 40 hour workers. Super! So how is this making people's lives better?
Jeana continues: My husband is a pet???? What are you talking about?
PK explains: I was talking about high income career feminist women who argue for discriminating against high income earning men BUT nonetheless marry down. These women, to their credit, at least are finding a role for men disenfranchised by "equality" by giving them a home. I say they're like a pet because I allow a cat or dog to stay but reserve the right to put them to "sleep" if they become too much of a burden. A career woman can, and does, easily show these sensitive guys the door from time to time. Granted, patriarchal breadwinning men sometimes abandoned their SAH housewives too which is why feminism caught on with normal women. But... unlike career women most patriarchal men don't find women who earn less then them as "settling."
Jeana argues: The thing many of you don’t understand is that marriage is a two-way street and both partners give and take. It’s all financial for you guys.
PK: Pot, meet kettle. Your agenda is all about getting more more more goodies for women especially in careers even as statistics show that women are more often refusing to marry at all rather than marry down and you accuse US of being all about the financials.
Jeana: You cry if you have to pay for a date, you want to split everything down the middle—
PK: So we're crybabies for wanting equality. Versus women who play stupid little games to try to mooch meals and then cry that men are dishonest with them. One woman I know was crying that men were "using" her for sex after buyer her free meals. There is something lower than a prostitute and that's a prostitute who thinks that she isn't one.
Jeana: I don’t understand. Even if your spouse doesn’t work, she still contributes to the family and you don’t seem to value that contribution at all.
PK: ?!?!? On the contrary, it's men who the ones more willing to support someone while most women will, at best, marry slightly down (out of desperation). It's feminists who spent years bashing SAH women as losers who didn't have careers! Hey, the Mommy Wars are YOUR creation, not ours!
Jeana: Maybe most women are unwilling to marry a man who isn’t a breadwinner, and by breadwinner, I am assuming you mean a man who makes more, not a man who is the sole financial support, because that would not be true.
PK: This distinction is irrelevent. No doubt your husband has washed a dish or two making you merely someone who does 'more' housework, not the sole houseworker... Isn't it neat when men play those games too?
Jeana: So what’s wrong with that? I think that actually you guys are jealous that women think more about their future and their stability and include in their “wish list” a guy with a job.
PK: I'm not jealous but rather, admittantly, furious that you and many of these women complain that they're oppressed that they don't all earn as much as the average man even as they try to find a man who earns more than they do on their 'wish list.' If you discriminate against cake, you can't eat it too!
But philosophically, I did think about dating career women but found them to be too much bother. They often had "independent" streaks and tried to mooch at the same time. I'm not jealous of them since so many I know about are now single and childless. I guess evolution is more true than Intelligent Design since they will probably not produce progeny...
Jeana writes: If it bothers you so much, then how about you marry or date someone WITH A JOB? Don’t complain later after years of marriage and then divorce that your wife only wanted your $$. I would never want someone without a job (laid off people not included) or someone who couldn’t hold a job. Most women wouldn’t. There is nothing wrong with that. It doesn’t mean that we are only looking for money. But you have to be sensible.
And why are you picking on Davina when she always supports you people? She is far too kind, in my opinion."
PK: I have not picked on Davina (at least recently). It may surprise you to hear but men are individuals and many of us are different than each other. Take it up with your husband and ask him to stop picking on Davina. He's one of us guilty men you know.
In regards to wanting women with a job: I agree, but simply having a job isn't the same as "equality". Women don't merely want a man with a "job" working at 7-11 but even a man working at 7-11 won't try to stick someone with the check on a first date. Your women friends need to grow up FIRST and then we'll take their claims that their lack of income performance is automatically due to discrimination more seriously.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:06 pm
You already answered why men do not take lower paying jobs here
"Maybe most women are unwilling to marry a man who isn’t a breadwinner, and by breadwinner, I am assuming you mean a man who makes more, not a man who is the sole financial support, because that would not be true. So what’s wrong with that?"
There is nothing wrong with it.
A man who continues to carry on with his love of teaching faces the prospect of being alone his entire life. Now that is the choice that men have. And most men are forced to choose to sacrifice their love of teaching in order to meet a more human requirement of love, companionship, sex and reproduction under this undeclared code of socio-economic conduct.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:08 pm
Here she comes to save the day! Because Mighty Mouse, is on his way!
Jeana extends a fig leaf: "And ok, Pankaj, instead of creating more bureaucracy, we should better utilize what is already there. Such as the National Institutes of Health. There's a lot of already existing groups and agencies that need to be pressured to concentrate on men's health. You're right. Why create another one. Make the existing ones do their job. Congress shouldn't generally pass laws making decisions about health care anyway except to provide it."
PK rejects it like a carrot tossed into his pit: Did we need a "violence against women act" when there were already law enforcement agencies at the federal, state, AND local level that were supposed to already address DV? Oh, wait, it's for women. Nevermind. Unless it's men, then feminism will argue we should maybe get around to the problem in a few centuries or so. But first, job handouts for rich white women because as long as there is a black man who senses some discrimination from a white person he sees on the street, or a woman in some far off non-white country somewhere who is oppressed, feminists will seek to right those injustices by demanding special job programs to benefit mostly white, well-off, educated white women! Because they CARE!
Yeah, right. Give a buck to the "help starving children" fund care of me. I guarantee a percentage will go to starving children. 0 is a percent, right?
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Haven't teachers always been female? - No actually. There were a significant minority of male teachers a few generations ago.
"If the pay were better, I bet more men would want to teach" - I agree, but ponder on this for a moment, why do women accept a low paying job while men don't?
We all know that money is not the only reason men shy away from the field of teaching these days. I was listening to Glenn on the radio last week and relayed a story about being scolded for taking a female student into a small side room to find out why she was crying.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:14 pm
"Evening Things Out"
Jeana writes: "And I really don't think that female teachers are destroying males. Haven't teachers always been female? And speaking of that, why are only 12% of teachers (at least, elementary & high school teachers) female? If the pay were better, I bet more men would want to teach. Why is there no national initiative to encourage males to go into teaching? I think there should be. For nursing too."
PK: Actually, I think teachers were usually men until recently. Same with nursing. In answer to your last question, it's not uncommon to see diversity quotas used against white males even when nearly all the people in an office or school are non-white males. An office with 100 black female workers is "diverse" but an office with 50 white guys and 50 white women is 50% "diverse" meaning that the 50 white guys should be fired and replaced with anyone else.
Even so, even if we got those two fig leaves, the big money isn't in teaching or nursing but also in the welfare system and family courts. Let's have the courts give men default custody, alimony, and child-support and welfare for the next 100 years or so (or more). That should "even things out" as liberals like to say when "addressing racism" by instituting it against target groups...
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Yeah, I am with Tim Murray. Gerd's whole point of making a gender issue out of travel based pollution is really wacky.Everybody already noted the obvious: men travel to make money. Men make money to support their family. If a man with a family does not work, they are labelled deadbeats by these same feminists who support said men being put in jail and kept away from their children and family...
Right.
Straight up political hate based non-logic. We, as a nation, seriously need to stop funding these hate mongers and let them compete fairly in a family based economy. That would be the end of feminism as it now exists. They live on VAWA, grant money, child support, and alimony.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:18 pm
Danny,
I did not miss that point either. Yes, if a man talking to children in broad daylight gets arrested for "creepy" behavior, If major airlines automatically assume a man to be a possible pedophile just because he is sitting besides kids and he is a man, I doubt a man in a closed space with a lot of children and a few hysterical parents will be found "not guilty" against any charge that may be leveled against him. He better stay out of school and away from kids, if he wants to hold on to the morsel of dignity and freedom he has as his own.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Bernie Misiura Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
I am still waiting for an answer to this:
I am sure the men here would like to know about these [laws that favor men] can you give us examples or is it just you opinion?
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Sometimes a job isn't enough
Jeana had written: I think that actually you guys are jealous that women think more about their future and their stability and include in their “wish list” a guy with a job. If it bothers you so much, then how about you marry or date someone WITH A JOB?
Bernie had responded: That statement is blatantly naive and we know you are more intelligent that that you you must be playing dumb, to what end I do not know because it makes you appear unlearned and silly. You know the answer and it is of course because women will not date or marry mam like this and see men like this a bums and a few other choice words. I will address this that you have proven this in your statement below
PK, surprisingly, defends Jeana: I think she was saying that it's good to marry someone with a notion of basic responsibility including having a job. Many men would agree with this. I personally would get very cautious if a woman told me she didn't work at all and this applied even back before feminism. On the contrary, only recently have a few well-to-do women enjoyed the luxury of becoming full time housewives and never having to work outside of the home or at least in the fields. How do you think all those textiles were made in jolly old England in the 18th century?
In addition, what she means by men being blamed for women wanting them "only" for their "$$$" is when a man marries a woman without a job then of course she was a golddigger. But as men know here, plenty of working women including career women also are mercenary including when they only get "traditional" when it comes time to f*** men over for a free dinner. A woman who earns $200K can't pick up her own dinner check and plays silly "asker pays" games for weeks and we're supposed to respect her as a financial equal.
I know women like this and when they make a lot more than their husband, her money is HER money and she keeps a seperate checking account and all the stuff in her own name. What's mine is mine and what's yours is mine and you know why? Because YOU'RE greedy, that's why. And cheap too.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Bernie observes: "The bottom line is if both men and women choose not to work and attempted to marry only those that worked for financial stability where would we be, no one would be working. "
PK adds: Indeed Bernie. Check out what happened to working class minority neighborhoods, that were on their way to improving their lives, after welfare and feminism were introduced in the 1960's. They were better off under Jim Crow.
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:34 pm
First my 40-60 hours was not meant as an over time issue, I was directly referring to your statement below and now that you have clarified that you meant that it is in reference to an hourly rate it is more moot but not totally. You have to admit that the way you stated it, it was easily construed to mean that men who worked 40 hours and women who worked 20 should take home the same paycheck.
Second your condescending "Happy?" and "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia" [LOL] was not necessary since it was you who erroneously made a statement that you did not mean.
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:57 pm
How do you mean this? That there should be none or there is none?
That is the the understatement of the millenium!
But that is exactly what they are targeting as you have proven
Yeaaaa! (-;
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Jeana wrote: "I heard of a guy who was fired for saying "Mulva" (while talking about a Jerry Seinfeld episode) and women who were fired for sending an email entitled "Why Gingerbread Men are Better than Real Men" or something like that. Common sense should prevail and sexual inuendo should not be punished"
PK adds: I would argue that the two situations are distinctly different. In the first case (that supposedly became a national story), the man fired for saying "Mulva" was fired for a sexual innuendo. Kind of like someone having a "Life is a Beach" Mug (like Peter had on Family Guy). These can be conscrued as unprofessional but by no means revealing a hostile work environment that supposedly sexual harassment laws were meant to address.
On the other hand, sending an email bashing men can easily be conscrued as hate speech. It depends upon the circumstances it was sent, of course. But if it was sent from her company email to another person in the company or even worse, a business associate, then it's quite severe. I don't think a firing is appropriate but a more severe reprimand is warranted.
Jeana: "And I was referring to sexual harrassment laws because I think they've accomplished what they were meant to (no molesting at work, please), but I think they've gone too far and people need common sense. "
PK: Sexual harassment laws went beyond molesting at work and, in theory, there were laws to protect women from such a thing already. In the very least, such conduct is lewd behavior and even proposition for prostitution which is illegal (I think wrongly) in most areas of the USA. It's also possibly blackmail and extortion.
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
jenna why is it OK to have an all female business and an all black business but not an all white male business?
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Sorry but men at my work have been talked to about sexual harassment because of swearing because of a complaint but when the men after this incident complained about a woman who markedly had a worse mouth than any of the men they were summarily dismissed.
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Pk, a woman who makes $200k probably is dating a man who makes even more, in which case, who cares which one pays for dinner? And if it bothers you that she is cheap, then dump her and find someone else!!
Females looking for a working guy is not the same as females looking for a millionaire. It doesn't mean you're a gold digger. A gold digger, in my opinion, goes after rich guys.
Maybe the whole "men paying for dates" thing is part of the dating ritual that hasn't gone away. Maybe it's not women being cheap.
Marrying someone who earns less isn't really "marrying down". Maybe if they made much, much less.
Having a separate checking account is a good idea. Contributing to the overall financial stability of the family is a must. Both situations can exist and work out great. That's what my husband and I do. If your wife doesn't share any of her money and you pay for everything, I'd say you have a problem that needs to be dealt with.
I have a solution to your who's-paying-for-dinner woes. Only go to buy one, get one free places. Then you can pay for yours and hers is free!
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Bernie,
I think that most laws were made with men in mind. I don't want to say what I think about certain ones because you will skewer me. I will have to get back to you.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:04 pm
(jeana says) -- "People who go into teaching love it and have no choice but to accept the wages."
Yes, that may be true.
But then how do you explain that today more than 50% of young teachers leave the profession within 5 years to seek jobs with higher compensation?
It's a big issue in the K-12 field.
I guess love doesn't pay enough?
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Still waiting
Bernie Misiura Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 3:21 pm
Bernie Misiura Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Same goes for men and what I have seen and heard women say about men
Not that I do not care but there is little we can do for them especially since we have not figured it out for men and women here yet. Why force them to make the mistakes we are making until we get it right?
And men are living like Kings and are toted around by our female servants?And men are living like Kings and are toted around by our female servants?
Bernie Misiura Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:57 pm
jenna, Opportunities are fine, but when something is mandatory either by the big boss or the government regarding hiring or non-hiring practices it is the epitome of discrimination.
.
Wow you have been given plenty of examples and are ignoring them conspicuously. Adding to the list a woman gets arrested for DWI they call a responsible adult to take her home a man must stay in the tank overnight. Men have cameras in their cells and no jailer to cater to all their questions, statements, or wants, they get checked only once every half hour. Women have no cameras in their cells, and have a matron there in plain view to monitor them, address their questions, statements and wants. Because of this the likelihood that a man can successfully commit suicide in a cell is greatly increased especially in light that most men are successful because the actually want to do it and women are typically calling out for help and or looking for attention. These are fair laws?
I have more
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Bernie,
If the company is small and/or family-owned, I think it can hire Martians for all it matters. Also, if you can show that you make a reasonable attempt to hire people that are not all white males, I have no problem with that.
Also, in regard to "Sorry but men at my work have been talked to about sexual harassment because of swearing because of a complaint but when the men after this incident complained about a woman who markedly had a worse mouth than any of the men they were summarily dismissed."--what's that about? Sexual harassment goes both ways. Your HR person was wrong.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:28 pm
jenna, you cannot be referring to this:
Bernie Misiura Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 4:53 pm
jeana why is it OK to have an all female business and an all black business but not an all white male business?
b
when you said this, can you?
Which ones?!
I am not asking what you think of them and if you can show me the law(s) they exist and cannot be skwered unless you misinterpreted them.
I am just asking for the laws, which you seem to know exist, so where are they?
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:29 pm
Bernie, I bet all police depts & jails are different. And is the jail thing a law or a practice? Because if a law, then you're right, it's discrimination. If a practice, then it could be more easily changed to have men monitored more. Maybe there are way too many men being arrested, so they found it cheaper to monitor them by video.
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
These two statements are diametrically opposed. I should be able to hire just my family without justification.
No kidding and THAT is the point, most people at many places of employment only enforce this in a mail against a female, female against a female, and a male against a male in that order and disregard a female against a male, no matter what the law really is . . .
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Bernie, why are you hounding me!! Ok, I think domestic violence laws always favored men. Please don't yell. DV was always ignored or not followed up but now, when the laws are tougher, they force them to apply to females as much as males. Even if the situation isn't really woman-on-man abuse. Like a woman who waits after being beaten up and then when the guy isn't looking, whacks him with a bottle, she's the one who goes to jail. I don't think that's fair. How about women who go to jail because they went back to their husbands or boyfriends who were abusing them after the judge told them not to? That's not fair. How about the fact that men's prior assault and rape charges can't be brought up in a trial, but a woman's entire medical and counseling history is an open book?
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:42 pm
The jail thing is law the DWI is practice because it cost money to hire a matron at a temporary holding center.
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Oh I forgot to add, the videos are NOT a substitute for monitoring, they have to be physically checked every 1/2 hour and a state document signed by the checker every 1/2 hour so some one still has to be present. Even in the female cell bock the matron has to sign the state card every 1/2 hour this is law. Furthermore Women can frisk men but men cannot frisk women in the holding area nor can men take women to the bathroom but women can take men.
hmmmm
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Bernie,
I think the law is different in different areas. Are men still doing strip searches of women? They always did. Maybe they put those laws into place because of abusive practices by the police.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:06 pm
And Bernie, since jails seem to be one of your issues, I would say that instead of wondering why female prisoners get a matron to watch over them, a bigger issue is why do we have the largest prison population in the world? (I think.) Why are people, mostly men, being tossed into the slammer for 1) nonviolent crimes 2) drug crimes 3) prostitution? Who cares if people smoke pot or pay for sex? I don't. And what about those 3 strikes laws, brought about by lobbyists for the private prison industry, the fastest growing industry in the US? Do we really need to pay $20-$40k for a guy who stole a bike, 3 videos, and smoked pot? Our stupid, punishing laws destroy more families than all the feminists combined!
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Buy one career girl, get one free!
Jeana tries to b*tch slap me by arguing: "Pk, a woman who makes $200k probably is dating a man who makes even more, in which case, who cares which one pays for dinner? And if it bothers you that she is cheap, then dump her and find someone else!! "
PK: My oh my, talk about an attempt at redirection. I must pause for a moment and say, BRAVO! BRAVO! Nice try and A for effort! THAT performance paid for your supper! BRAVO! If only meal whores were as creative as that!
So you're trying to make this about me and my being "bothered" and my fault for not dumping such women (which I never indicated otherwise) rather... than career women apparently not being innocent victims of sexism and wage disparity but rather mercenary arrogant cheapskates themselves. Don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.
Jeana tries a Harry Potter incantation: "Sticko The Check on the Mano!" when she writes: "Maybe the whole "men paying for dates" thing is part of the dating ritual that hasn't gone away. Maybe it's not women being cheap. "
PK lifts up Jeana's petticoat (figuratively) and reveals: Jeana, if women are sticking the check on men, and they have legal right to work to pay their way, then they're being cheap IN ADDITION to being sexist. When men slack on the housekeeping duties, you have NO PROBLEM figuring that out.
Jeana writes: Marrying someone who earns less isn't really "marrying down". Maybe if they made much, much less.
PK agrees: I agree with this. Technically it is and there are many women out there who either wouldn't marry a man who earns less than her OR they would make a big deal about it and nag him. But now that feminism has killed so many of those golden geese (well, that doesn't really work but you know what I mean), most are forced to SETTLE for a guy that's merely in her income or status bracket. It must really ruin the taste of those 'free" lobster dinners. tee hee.
Jeana continues: Having a separate checking account is a good idea.
PK observes: In theory, if I paid the dinner tab for a $200K "traditional" career woman then I would insist that I "traditionally" get an equal share for her bank account too. Looking back, I could have probably done this with some such women I dated but I'm happy with how things turned out.
Jeana: Contributing to the overall financial stability of the family is a must.
PK counters: I already pointed out that this is a big barn door. Your husband can wash a few dishes and claim to "contribute" to housework. By the same token, a woman throwing a few bucks in the pot for a phone bill doesn't make a big difference one way or the other.
Jeana is optimistic: Both situations can exist and work out great. That's what my husband and I do. If your wife doesn't share any of her money and you pay for everything, I'd say you have a problem that needs to be dealt with.
PK: It's funny that you had just argued that it was us MEN that saw marriage in terms of financial transactions and now you're pontificating that I have a problem if I'm not getting some token money from my wife? I don't have a problem since I don't believe in female equality mumbo jumbo and my wife is cool with that too since she knows I'm giving her what she wants without apology or resentment.
Jeana offers: I have a solution to your who's-paying-for-dinner woes. Only go to buy one, get one free places. Then you can pay for yours and hers is free!
PK: Hahahaha! Hilarious. Jeana, you really do have a sense of humor. The only problem with this is that my wife and I find just ONE portion for dinner too large and we split and then split a dessert too. We don't have to take things home or feel bloated trying to stuff a whole meal down (Americans are big enough, don't you think?)
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:26 pm
I am not hounding I make a good effort to answer all of your questions and I just would like the same
Not now. Have you not read any of the posts here?
If you are referring to the caps of the word THAT it was to accentuate a point not yelling. To me that reeks of female privilege of "did he hit you?" "No, but I am afraid of him." So he gets arrested
You are right like when the man was hit over the head with a cast iron frying pan or a rolling pin, he was laughed at by the responding police and nothing was done.
Ha! Where do you live, really? This I can assure you is not true it is called the primary aggressor law where the bigger, stronger person is arrested, or the person who has more bruises regardless of who started it and since women typically bruise more easily and the man was just using defencive move so he does not ge hurt he will be arrested Where do you get your information from?
That is blatantly not true! If she was beaten up she would have bruises more than one and the man not have any if hit with a bottle orf if he does he only has one so again he goes to jail, again it is called the primary aggressor law.
That the man goes to jail in these instances, you are right I agree with you.
That is also blatantly not true. The only reason a judge would say that to a woman is if there is an order of protection against her. So if she goes there is is in contempt of court and was told that by the judge when she wast told by him/her and she had to sign that order. Really where are thes laws?
Yes it is because men are subject to this same law.
This too is blatantly not true, a woman who has been raped cannot be questioned about her sexual promiscuity in the past to prove that she wanted it by her accused rapist.
WOW what law books have you read? I would like to see any of these laws that you stated.
b
Have to go to the firehall now, later.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
PolishKnight Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Jeana offers: I have a solution to your who's-paying-for-dinner woes. Only go to buy one, get one free places. Then you can pay for yours and hers is free!
-=-=-=-=
PK and I am sure THAT would make a GREAT impression on your date, right?
and I know that you will understand that I am not yelling at you so I used caps
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:36 pm
Now I really got to go I am late.
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:38 pm
Jim Crow for White Guys
Jeana thinks she's being reasonable when she writes: If the company is small and/or family-owned, I think it can hire Martians for all it matters. Also, if you can show that you make a reasonable attempt to hire people that are not all white males, I have no problem with that.
PK observes: It's useful sometimes to replace one situation with another to show where someone is not seeing the assumptions they are making.
Let's try this. Let's say a policemen said that as long as a police department made an attempt to reduce black criminals in white neighborhoods and they would have no problem with that, would you be able to see that they are being racist? Why not reduce ALL criminals? Why is racism and sexism seemingly important to you ONLY when it's against someone whose not white and male? And how is your reverse racism any better or different than the traditional racism and sexism you're trying to correct?
Those are not rhetorical questions. Your wording indicates that you are racist and sexist against white males. You either need to address the underlying causes for this prejudice, or, if you want to try to fool us, at least try to be a bit more careful like Barack Hussein Obama when he race hustles.
Jeana continues: Also, in regard to "Sorry but men at my work have been talked to about sexual harassment because of swearing because of a complaint but when the men after this incident complained about a woman who markedly had a worse mouth than any of the men they were summarily dismissed."--what's that about? Sexual harassment goes both ways. Your HR person was wrong.
PK observes: It's a matter of the men standing up for their rights. I agree with you: Men who stand up for their rights and know what they are doing can come out on top. I did in one case where a woman made up a BS claim of SH against me for political reasons and I fought the case and won. The key was that I never apologized or admitted guilt plus I dug up evidence showing she had no problems with far worse language from her political allies.
Ironically, it's sexist men like me that survive and even thrive in the system. It's the nice-guys who actually believe feminists or in equal rights that are ground up like hamburger.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Bernie, laws are different in Arizona. And a rape shield law doesn't come into play if a woman tries to bring up, for instance, an STD she got from the guy. Then they have access to everything. Plus, not all judges follow the law.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:42 pm
PK,
I still don’t understand your obsession with who pays for which meal. If you’re thought of as cheap for not paying for a meal here and there, then you’re dating the wrong woman. If you insist on splitting everything down the middle exactly, well, isn’t that kind of cheap?
Marrying a man who makes an honest living is not settling. I cringe whenever I hear comedians make fun of people with jobs who ask “do you want fries with that” or who wear their name on their uniform. Work is work and it shouldn’t be demeaned.
And throwing a few bucks for a phone bill, unless you make a very small amount of money, isn’t contributing to the financial stability of the family. Is it? I don’t think so. Because I give out more than half of what I make, we can live in a much more upscale house and area and take Maui vacations each year. My husband alone couldn’t do that. If you’re fine being the sole supporter, great. I want more. I am materialistic, I admit. (Don’t tell Bernie.) But I also pay for it. This doesn’t mean that marriage is a financial arrangement only. I would hate to have to rely on a guy to support me. I would feel like I was taking his money. Maybe if I got married early instead of at 31 I would think differently.
Splitting a meal is a good idea (although waiters probably hate you). So is taking it home for leftovers. And yes, Americans eat way too much.
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
PK,
Your example is not a good one. Why would someone just get rid of one race or gender of criminals? I'm probably the least racist person you'd ever meet. I just feel like I have to point out that there are issues with people other than white males. And I thought Obama's speech was right on target. Anything he'd say about race would be taken the wrong way anyway. Like anything I try to say about females or feminists is. Not that I'm comparing myself to him.
I'm not anti-white person. I am a white person with a white family. And a brown husband. I just will not buy the line that conservatives have been toting that in order to achieve a color-blind society, we need to get rid of all affirmative action programs. No.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:12 pm
jeana Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 12:25 pm
"Davina, Of course I meant that women should be paid the same hourly rate. If you work more hours, you would of course get paid more. I got the feeling that a lot of people here think that the more you work entitles you to a bigger hourly rate. That is what I object to."
I hear you. In my previous post to you, I just had to clarify because hourly wages and monthly wages are not easily compared. My sister owns a catering company and she pays her wait staff by the hour but pay her accountant in a lump sum (monthly wage). Merits for which monthly wages for men and women should be increased are sometimes harder to determine. Working more, willingness to travel, etc usually increase a man's overall monthly income as opposed to a woman's. At my sister's catering business everyone gets the same hourly rate, but guys might still end up earning more than girls because they work more hours. For eg: in my sister's business guys are far more willing to stay behind an extra 2-3 hrs to clean up, pack away tables and chairs etc than girls. Now, if the guys were earning more per hour for no other reason than they being male that is a major problem. But that's it though, I don't believe such a wage gap exists. When all contributing data is factored in, there is little or no wage gap. In some fields even after the above factors have been considered there is still a slight wage gap, and that might be due to discrimination or any other number of reasons. But, the overall argument that the wage gap is men's conspiracy to discriminate women, I'm not buying it. Not in this day and age in America. In developing countries, yes, but not--rampantly--here. The usual wage gap discussion on here normally goes along those lines, not that men should be paid more just because they're men. Pay attention, Jeana.
"Another thing—I also work for a consulting company, and yes, I go home at 5:00 pm and lots of the guys don’t. They stay and the office heads see them working and praise them for their dedication. What they don’t see is that after we have dinner and I put my son to bed, I turn on my computer again and work. It may look like females aren’t working as much but I think that is a fallacy."
I agree it is a fallacy. I think many of the women in my company are just as dedicated as the men. But the fact remains that men and women have different priorities. A man's self-esteem is usually wrapped up in his work, so family and sometimes social activities end up on the back burner. As an example, my husband can be a work fanatic. He's mellowed over the years. But when our children were young, if I'd let him, sometimes he'd allow himself to get by on only 4hrs sleep. So we adopted a rule in our house, neither of us will bring home work unless its the weekend. It doesn't always work but we do our best. This consept was a bit easier to adopt since we lived in Scandinavia where this practice is quite common and normal (At 4pm everyday, both men and women in for eg Norway are out for the day).
Women on the other hand thrive on companionship(sp), either with friends or family. I could use myself as an example. My children are more or less grown. My older son is a freshman in college and is no longer living at home. My younger boy will graduate high school and head of to college soon as well. I don't NEED to leave the office at 5pm but I do. I want to because seeing my son before he rushes off to one or the other of his extra curricular activities is more important to me ... even though he's 17 and a very good kid. He's fairly respectful of the rules we set down for him (curfew @ 9pm, always call, do not sleep out etc). And he's very self-sufficient. Sometimes he even makes his own dinner before he goes off to basketball or football or whatever he's up to. But, I want to see him. I want to make him a meal. I don't want him to feel like both his parents are too busy to care about what's going on in his life. So I leave at 5pm and I am there when he gets home and I have his dinner ready and I can be his mom and fuss over him before he goes off. That's important to me. And I can see (even though he trys to hide it) that it's important to my son too.
I love watching the sunset or having a glass of wine with my husband on our porch(sp?). That's important to me.
I love hanging out with my sister and our eclectic group of friends. I love having a couple of hours to myself at home before my husband gets home.
These things are more important to me than the few extra dollars I'd earn if I'd stayed another 2hrs or so on the job. At work just under a half of the women are single, unmarried and without children. Those who I've spoken to have all voiced similar sentiments to the above. For the moms with kids esp. toddlers, it's a bit more challenging. However they too would still prioritorise other things than money even if they didn't have to consider the children. So a pattern is definitely there, Jeana.
As for working more at home afterward. I agree ... if the work done at home produces measureable results then by all means we should be compensated for it. Checking and answering a couple emails really doesn't cut it (not saying you or women in general do this). Furthermore, men who take home work also tend to stay longer at it (and often to his wife's annoyance--I know in the earlier years this was an issue of great discontent btw my husband and me) than us. Again, this is not due to a lack of dedication or commitment to one's work ... it's just preference. We might work a couple of hours at home before we turn our attention to something else. Some men will fall asleep at their desk.
"We just have to squeeze in work and family, while I really don’t see that being as much of an issue with the men. Men have even said at my work that they go home late ON PURPOSE because then the kids are in bed, the house is straightened, and they don’t have to deal with any of that."
Yes, I've heard this too. Some of my male colleagues have said its not that they don't want to contribute physical labour to household chores, its because if they take the work home it probably will not get done. Since they tend to prioritorise work, staying back seems like reasonable plan to them.
Look at it this way, Jeana. Technically, they are both still working. So when he comes home and everything is already taken care of, they can both have some time to relax. Seems like a fair deal to me. Now, if he was out drinking with his pals while she's home struggling with two or more kids, then that would have been a problem.
"And about non-white females, I totally agree that all females, regardless of color, should be included. Whoever said that the non-whites don’t count was idiotic. I would say they count more than the whites, actually, because their situation is worse."
Well, Jeana, that was my question to you. Why don't they count in the feminist movement? I know of no prominent feminist figure who openly advocates for equal pay in a woman/woman situation. It's always woman/man, and the charges and villification are often quite caustic.
PK Says:
"Maybe she treats the pet nice or badly, but he's still a pet. Davina, would you want a man like this? I think Jeana and you enjoy us cootie covered creeps because we speak our minds rather than "yes dear." You get it straight and there's a certain (old style) Clint Eastwood and John Wayne grit to us."
Oh PK, PK. Well, I already have a pet and it isnt my husband. And no, I'm not interested in human pets. My husband is his own man. If that's what you describe as "cootie covered creeps" who give it "straight and there's a certain (old style) Clint Eastwood and John Wayne grit to us." Then hell yes, I love me some creep. Maybe that's why I'm still fond of my husband after 23 (in June) years of marriage! :-)
You just love stirring up trouble, dont you, PK?
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:19 pm
Jeanna, because women are more un-restrained in their violence, If and when we tell men that
"when their wifes or girlfriends hit them, They must call the police....."
Then, when we start arresting more women, garanteed there will be some voices that pine for the good old days when domestic violence was not focused on at the hysterical level that it is now..
Immediate gratification through domestic violence hysteria, will win some immediatte battles, but when we start arresting violent women..we will then see what happens????
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:27 pm
There is no free lunch (literally here)
Jeana asks: I still don’t understand your obsession with who pays for which meal. If you’re thought of as cheap for not paying for a meal here and there, then you’re dating the wrong woman.
PK responds: This isn't just about paying for the meal "here and there", it's about the first date which implies that, as I said, a woman's income is just a hobby because the man is established as a breadwinner. It's like insisting women flash their breasts during dinner to show him what he's getting.
And by "wrong women", you'd be talking about nearly 99% of the women I, and men I know, well, know. Now you can say that we were looking in the wrong places but I suspect you're sending me on a snipe hunt. Sometimes, it's hard to find something simply because it isn't there...
Jeana asks: If you insist on splitting everything down the middle exactly, well, isn’t that kind of cheap?
PK educates: My oh my, what a wonderful open ended question! You earned yourself ANOTHER dinner! Allow me to elucidate:
"Kind of" cheap is when someone makes any effort to save money or to not demonstrate generosity. Unless you're a wealthy person, we're all "kind of cheap". Being an adult often means sometimes having to be unpleasant and insisting that other people pay their fair share or adjust a bill. Most of us can't afford to be Santa Claus!
Sure, I guess philosophically it is "kind of cheap" but then again, most women are "cheap" period. Nearly all stick the first dinner date check on men no matter how they rationalize it or they offer to pay just their own share and there's usually strings attached (as in she won't see him again.) Hey, I personally don't mind being called cheap. You know what the alternative is? Being pressured to do something to avoid being called names. Do you respect men who are insecure and worried about impressing women?
Jeana opines: Marrying a man who makes an honest living is not settling.
PK counters: On an absolute level, I agree with you. Neither is someone paying their fair share really "cheap". But to women with entitlement attitudes, men expecting her to pay her way and who don't earn at least as much as they are "cheap" and "settle" material respectively.
Jeana: I cringe whenever I hear comedians make fun of people with jobs who ask “do you want fries with that” or who wear their name on their uniform. Work is work and it shouldn’t be demeaned.
PK counters: Talk is cheap and so are career women on first dates. :-)
You aren't married to a burger flipper. It's men who are willing to date down.
Jeana writes: And throwing a few bucks for a phone bill, unless you make a very small amount of money, isn’t contributing to the financial stability of the family. Is it? I don’t think so. Because I give out more than half of what I make, we can live in a much more upscale house and area and take Maui vacations each year.
PK counters: I think it's a wash. Since women have entered the workforce wages have stagnated, taxes have risen, the welfare state has had to deal with all the minority men pushed out to make room for more educated white women, and real estate prices have shot up (but that's quickly being corrected. I'm glad I didn't buy 4 years ago!)
Men in jobs such as your husband did all that on a SINGLE salary a generation ago. My father was working class and even HE was able to handle it. I guess you "settled" for someone who NEEDS your income (sneer.) That's almost like using a 2 for 1 coupon on a date!
Jeana continues: My husband alone couldn’t do that.
PK responds: 'er, 'nuff said. I bet your husband can't crack bones in his arms AND legs all at the same time while streching either...
Jeana writes: If you’re fine being the sole supporter, great. I want more. I am materialistic, I admit. (Don’t tell Bernie.) But I also pay for it.
PK counters: There's an interesting interview with Bettie Friedan where she laments the materialistic culture even as she is so happy women can make more mullah. Boo hoo, she cried, why can't corporations rob others to give more money to white women? I laughed hard at it:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/CAREER/trends/01/29/conference/index.html
Jeana, it's called living within your means. Get a smaller home and work a few hours less. My wife and I enjoy quality time together. We bring coupons and get a good deal at a restaurant AND still tip the waitstaff decently and all are happy. I met a lot of women like this and I got the feeling that their appetities were demanding and I didn't trust them. If some other man wants to work himself to death for her, more power to him.
Did you ever see the film "The Gods Must be Crazy?" I'm reminded of a line by the Kalahari where he sees a white woman and says: "Yikes! She's horrible! A man would a man have to work all day to feed her!"
Jeana writes: This doesn’t mean that marriage is a financial arrangement only. I would hate to have to rely on a guy to support me. I would feel like I was taking his money. Maybe if I got married early instead of at 31 I would think differently.
PK responds: If you view marriage as a "financial arrangement" and expected men to pay for first dates, you were taking his money even if you had to settle for less. We've established what you are, now we're just haggling over price.
Jeana writes: Splitting a meal is a good idea (although waiters probably hate you). So is taking it home for leftovers. And yes, Americans eat way too much.
PK responds: I don't like leftovers because the smell gets everywhere and it ruins the evening if we want to walk around the pier or kill time or have a cocktail. The waitors didn't hate us because we had money for a good tip. I'm not cheap mind you!
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Davina,
Only 2 comments:
1) You say, "The usual wage gap discussion on here normally goes along those lines ['men's conspiracy to discriminate women], not that men should be paid more just because they're men. Pay attention, Jeana."
All I ever have seen here is that there is no wage gap--it's a myth. I will admit I do not have statistics or methodologies and have never looked into the calculations. All I know is what I see. I used to work in HR in a company and I saw females' wages less than males for the same engineering jobs for the same level of experience. That was in the 80s and hopefully things have changed significantly.
2) You also say, "So when he comes home and everything is already taken care of, they can both have some time to relax. Seems like a fair deal to me."
I think that a guy owes it to his wife to come home and help with the kids and not hide out at work. Then she can have actual time to relax. It's been my experience that females don't expect much from males in terms of child care and housework, so anything they do is extremely appreciated. By the time I'm done with everything, I'm too tired for anything with my husband. If he helps, then I have more energy. I don't think a lot of males understand the different responsibilities lots of females have or appreciate it. Clothes just magically wash themselves. Floors sweep and mop themselves. But if they empty the dishwasher, I have to give a compliment. I don't even know what my point was.
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:31 pm
"I think that public companies should abide by rules that require a certain percentage of the population they hire to be women and minorities."
jeana -- Will your opinion change when Obama becomes President?
How many more black Presidents will your "certain percentage" require?
"Require" is an interesting word. It means coercion. Or quotas.
You seem to like rules.
Why is that?
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
PK,
One last thing and I have to go. Maybe it's because I have been out of the dating scene for 10 years, but my experience is that guys like paying for the first date, at least. They have never minded paying for me. Of course, they also made a lot more and so maybe it wasn't an issue to them. Maybe they were used to it. Maybe they never thought about it. And the females I know say that the guy wants to pay for dinner. They must think it's polite or something. They are not angry, bitter men who see paying for a meal as a form of oppression. They really don't care. Now, if you're a struggling single father, I get it that you can't pay for meals. Although even when I dated a single father, he still paid. What do you do if they guy doesn't want you to pay? I can't force him to take my money. The best I ever could do is to tell him in the beginning that dinner was on me. And that usually worked. Maybe things are different now. If I dated you, I would be sure to pay for fear of my life, that's for sure.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Jeana,
Why does a guy's earning have anything to do with them paying for you? It seems a convenient thing to first inculcate chivalry into young boys and then when they pay out of the misguidance they are given as kids - "Oh! they must like paying". Maybe it was an issue for them, but what were they going to do about it? Its not like there are a ton of females out there that respect the man's right to the money he earned. How come your female friends did not see their dates pay for their poorer male friends or even poorer non-romantic female friends? All of a sudden these "likes" seem to evaporate.. right?
If you don't pay on a date monetarily and then you have sex with the person - you know what that means - prostitution. If you don't pay on a date with a seeming assurance of sex - that just makes it delayed prostitution. If you go out with a guy that pays for every single friend who earns less, and then he pays for you - that is charity. Which is fine by me, but its a charity date. The person that does not pay is the needy and the payer is the generous donor. That is by no means an equal footing to me.
Since you say you do have a son, all you have to do is wait and watch. Like Obama's preacher might say, the chivalrist-feminist chickens are going to come home to roost. Don't tell us that we did not warn you.
April 2nd, 2008 at 8:48 pm
"Now, if you're a struggling single father, I get it that you can't pay for meals. Although even when I dated a single father, he still paid. What do you do if they guy doesn't want you to pay? I can't force him to take my money."
Wow .. nice! now would you tolerate him telling you that you were not his equal? Its not like you can force him to shut his mouth, right?
Interesting that you let his actions say that and it did not bother you the least bit.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Jeana says "Maybe most women are unwilling to marry a man who isn’t a breadwinner, and by breadwinner, I am assuming you mean a man who makes more, not a man who is the sole financial support, because that would not be true. So what’s wrong with that? I think that actually you guys are jealous that women think more about their future and their stability and include in their “wish list” a guy with a job. If it bothers you so much, then how about you marry or date someone WITH A JOB? Don’t complain later after years of marriage and then divorce that your wife only wanted your $$. I would never want someone without a job (laid off people not included) or someone who couldn’t hold a job. Most women wouldn’t. There is nothing wrong with that. It doesn’t mean that we are only looking for money. But you have to be sensible."
Have you never considered the hypocrisy of your position Jeana? You freely admit that MOST women are not willing to marry a man who does not make more money than they do. And yet if men are over-represented in any area (like corporate boardrooms) you immediately squeal discrimination and say that affirmative action for women is justified. Did it not occur to you that maybe men are more successful in certain occupations precisely because they have to strive more in order to get ahead, so they then have a better chance of having a family and having some status in society?
If men are successful they get blamed for supposedly perpetuating inequality or denying women equal outcomes. Yet if men are not successful or don't have good jobs they are more likely to be rejected by women, and become more socially marginalised. So men can't win either way.
The problem is that many women today expect to have all the opportunities, yet still want to find a man who can earn enough. Women today have more opportunities than men. Girls and women get better education, while women benefit from affirmative action. Yet men are still judged more according to their earnings ability and success than women are. How can this be justified? How is it sustainable?
Many women value men for their ability to earn, and yet if men are more successful in earning the women want to use that as more evidence that men are advantaged. This is a racket.
A lot of your views simply illustrate how much women today have been cocooned from looking at the world through any other perspective than that which suits them.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:14 pm
jeana Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Bernie, laws are different in Arizona. And a rape shield law doesn't come into play if a woman tries to bring up, for instance, an STD she got from the guy. Then they have access to everything. Plus, not all judges follow the law.
-=-=-=-=
I kinda had a feeling that you were going to back out on the premise that laws are different. But truly by the circumstance that you quote it does not prove that the law is different. You see under the 5th amendment you cannot testify to a related incident and not testify to the rest. What that means is if she wants to use that she did not have a STD BEFORE being raped and she has one now and the accused has the same STD then YES her medical records have to be looked at and they have to show that she was not being treated for and STD [previous sex] prior to the rape otherwise she could have had it [and knowing that] and [knowing that she more than likely had given it to him in consensual manor] and could use it as proof falsely that he raped her even though she gave it to him. This is only common sense.
So the bottom line is if she or her lawyer introduces a piece of evidence like she received an STD from him it is her obligation to prove the tenacity of this evidence. This was their choice to introduce it and the defense has the right to cross examine and demand evidence proving the claim. You can not just make a statement and just expect some one to accept it they will want you to prove it. Let us see in your thinking then the guy should be able to say “I didn’t do it!” Case closed he said he did not do it and he should not have to prove it.
Your logic is severely flawed
b
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:27 pm
(jeana) -- "If I dated you, I would be sure to pay for fear of my life, that's for sure."
You have to admit.
This woman should be doing stand-up comedy!
I just really like her voice.
Keep writing girl.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Jeana says " I don't think a lot of males understand the different responsibilities lots of females have or appreciate it. Clothes just magically wash themselves. Floors sweep and mop themselves. But if they empty the dishwasher, I have to give a compliment. I don't even know what my point was."
As a single male who has been doing all my own domestic chores for a long time, I can safely say that cooking, cleaning and doing my laundry is a lot less taxing than doing various household tasks that males are more likely to do (like moving heavy objects, gardening, chopping firewood, fixing appliances, maintaining cars etc.). I don't really need a wife to do the former tasks. I could really use a husband to help with the latter tasks!
Why would I make a huge financial commitment and give up my sexual freedom just so that I can have maybe a couple of meals served a day and a clean shirt (if she is in a good mood). It doesn't seem like a worthwhile investment.
April 2nd, 2008 at 10:46 pm
We're now at three hundred comments on this thread. I've left off making this observation in order to see where the discussion went.
Gerd Johnsson-Latham in portraying men as the agents of global warming has perpetrated the perfect "wedge".
There are different variants of the wedge, the most common being the demonisation of a sub-group in order to justify harsher treatment of them. Once effectively demonised they can be split off, or "wedged" from the mainstream.
Johnsson-Latham's is a slightly less common variant but one used frequently by politicians for partizan political reasons. The target of her wedge is actually men. However she links the target group to an issue, in this case global warming, in the knowledge that this linking will disappear under the weight of disagreement on the issue itself.
This has played itself out admirably in this thread. As we can see much of it surrounds debate over whether or not global warming actually exists as a human caused effect. She achieves her end of making men the demons while driving a wedge amongst those demons to ensure they are unable to counter her real position.
Divide and conquer.
The only way to effectively counter Johnsson-Latham's wedge is to ignore difference over the truth of global warning, or whatever issue is highlighted, and focus on her positioning of men as it's sole agents. One must virtually accept the truth of global warming to argue a case that she is wrong to cast men in this way. Of course this satisfies her secondary aim of legitimising the issue itself. It's the perfect wedge.
This woman probably cares very little about global warming. Remember that, being a woman, she bears no responsibility. She sees the issue only as a means to an end. That end is nothing more than furthering the free expression of hatred for half of the species.
April 2nd, 2008 at 11:07 pm
Maybe this reflects part of the reason there is a higher percentage of men than women in science and engineering. Inasmuch as Glenn is representative of men, men tend to operate from logic, reason, and fact. Inasmuch as Gerd is representative of women, women tend to operate from emotion, manipulation, and political pandering.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:14 am
Gwallan,
The point about global warming is that Johnnson-Latham is clearly wrong on both counts. First, the evidence for man-made global warming both being real and a major threat is grossly exaggerated and is nowhere near as compelling as we have been led to believe. Secondly, the argument that men contribute more to carbon emissions is seriously flawed. So effectively she is blaming men for a problem which;
a) may not be real AND
b) even if it is real, men would be no more to blame than women anyway
Johnnson-Latham's position is a bit like declaring someone guily of a crime, when in fact there is insufficient evidence that the crime even happened, and moreover even if the crime did happen there is little evidence that the accused could have done it. She is a bigot.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:20 am
Gwallan,
Good point about wedge politics. By dividing men over the issue of how real global warming is, she is able to make it more difficult for us to fight back over the fact that we are being blamed for it. Divide and conquer.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:27 am
jeana Says:
April 2nd, 2008 at 7:50 pm
PK,
If I dated you, I would be sure to pay for fear of my life, that's for sure.
-=-=-=-=
I do not care if I am the only one to say it but Glenn this is not only appalling but totally out of line and should be yanked
b
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:38 am
@Nick S...
I'm rather ambivalent on global warming and prefer to avoid discussions about it. Personally I feel that taking steps to avoid poisoning the environment are worthy in their own terms. Maybe it's that ambivalence that allows me to see through Johnnson-Latham's falacious position and tactics right from the outset.
Your statement...
Johnnson-Latham's position is a bit like declaring someone guily of a crime, when in fact there is insufficient evidence that the crime even happened, and moreover even if the crime did happen there is little evidence that the accused could have done it.
is the appropriate analogy.
It is simply another false allegation. Part of the reason feminists refuse to see the light on false allegations is that it is their normal modus operandi, not just with regard to sexual abuse but every single thing they touch. It's become so normalised they no longer see it as wrong. It's the "slipery slope" I refered to in a post a couple of weeks ago. And this slippery slope is one we've slid a long way down.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:43 am
come on Bernie, don't be intimidated by amateur shaming tactics. If we become appalled that easily, how will the feminists ever express themselves freely over here? Its not the first time, some one has pretended to be afraid of "angry men" here and I don't think its time for Glenn to use censor her yet. Besides, she has shown some flexibility. I want to see if she will actually consider what we tell her, conduct research and change her mind.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:54 am
Pankaj said...
I want to see if she will actually consider what we tell her, conduct research and change her mind.
So do I. I wouldn't recommend holding our collective breath however.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:56 am
If you are not equipped to discuss this then you should not because our arguments are based in fact not feelings or occasional observations.
Did you have access to there experience records, did you know for a fact that they were dedicated enough to stay after work when the company needed them or did they go home at quitting time every time. If the women did that all the time and the men did not then the deserve a higher rate of pay because the men could have saved the company a client that in the long run would have cost the company more money in the long run as apposed to paying him the necessary overtime to get the job done and not loose the customer. This is valuable to the company when someone steps up to the plate and they are comensated for their dedication, loss of family time, and family responsibilities. This seems fair to me.
2) You also say, "So when he comes home and everything is already taken care of, they can both have some time to relax. Seems like a fair deal to me."
Hide out at work! HA! He is providing for his family better by having a higher income which seems to be important to you, you cannot condemn in a man what you want then put restraints on him so he cannot accomplish this.
I am sure he is hiding out at work to relax, unbelievable.
Let me see those household chores are very dangerous poor baby, come talk to me when in hurricane winds the shingles were ripped off my house and at 3 am I had to go on the roof so I did not loose the rest of house lying flat on the roof so I do not blow off or slip off trying to nail a patch lying flat is not easy, and then there was the tree limbs and lightning that you had to avoid, but this was all done so that we would have a roof over our heads for the rest of the night.. BTW storms like this cause very cold rain or hail that can cause hypothermia, not to mention having to go to work in the morning. I do not think you women understand the different responsibilities of lots of males or appreciate it, These things do not fix themselves and the are immediate emergencies, you can take a break from washing clothes, sweeping and mopping floors, what I did there was no break or you would loose the house. But if they have to hand me up another tool I have to complement them.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:01 am
Bernie,
I'm sure that most people will see Jeana's comments for the cheap posturing that they are. Feminists always like to portray MRAs as more extreme than we really are. The funny thing is that feminists come to sites like this and complain that they are unfairly demonised. Yet they are happy to portray MRAs as monsters, and misrepresent us beyond recognition.
The problem is that most feminist arguments are so weak that the only way they can win arguments is by comparing themselves to the weakest, most extreme or fictitious opponents. They want to knock over straw bogeymen because they can't deal with real intelligent, informed critics.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:24 am
How do you come about this information did you ask them?
SAA
Did they know this? If they did how did they know this? Did you mention it? If you did then I would say that you would at least be suspect of guilting him into paying. I am not saying that you did this but you have to admit that is it suspect.
This is called Pavlovian conditioning which does not make it right
So if a slave is happy, not angry, not bitter, do not see it as oppression and as his lot in life, and really does not care, this makes it OK?
Just because he is poor does not mean he is immune to Pavlovian conditioning. Let me ask you if he was struggling why did you agree to go out to diner knowing that it would cause him some even minute financial difficulty?
You are right women have never insisted on anything and never got their way in this manor before. You were just not insistent enough. I did at one time when a woman I helped with a flat insisted on me taking a monitory gratuity and I tried to walk away and she followed and shoved the money in my jacket pocket. You could have grabbed the check. you could have "went to the bathroom" and told the waiter not to give him the check. You could have taken care of it when you "went to the bathroom." You could have told the waiter to tell him that the check was anonymously taken care of to save his ego if that is what you were concerned about. But you do not think this way do you? I do and have done similar things for couples that went out with us that could not afford to be out with us, it is called common courtesy and decency.
SAA
I addressed this already yeesh
b
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:30 am
The growing lethargy of females disappoints me. With all the simplifications from technological appliances, they claim it's harder now than ever before to do simple household chores. This trend is highly alarming. It means eventually we will enter a point where 80-85% of all work is done by men, but HR/boardroom/services females will receive an equally large paycheck for not doing a damn thing. I say its time to seriously consider abandoning the coasts and completely taking over the plains and rockies, until such time as we have created a defensible enough position to secede. That will certainly be what they eventually drive us to. Hopefully someone else will see it as a grand time for an invasion, as I would welcome the assistance.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:44 am
True Nick but I have to give Jeana some props for the fact that she is actually engaging i conversation and not giving the old feminist, "ugh", response or try to convince us that all of our problems are our own fault.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:03 am
Danny,
it is possible that Jeana is genuinely trying to understand the other side. Although much of the time she seems to be only interested in self-justification. I still think she clearly doesn't get it.
Jeana's comments provide an insight into the way many women have never had their beliefs or attitudes questioned, or have never been forced to look at the other side. This breeds the sort of misplaced smugness and condescension that her posts are brimming with.
Whenever some feminist comes on this forum, it is tiresomely predictable just what sort of arguments and tactics they will resort to. At least we know our enemy. That is an advantage.
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:02 am
Great posts!!!!! Where does global warming come into all of this? LOL
I want a Sugar Momma to pay for EVERYTHING. I am tired of working and I need a new Rolex. I also want to dine at the finest places, travel the world, lay around watching baseball and just relax. I don't care if she is a feminut or not. As long as I have a computer to read all this great stuff here! Thanks Glenn!
April 3rd, 2008 at 7:50 am
gwallan said:
"Divide and conquer.
The only way to effectively counter Johnsson-Latham's wedge is to ignore difference over the truth of global warning, or whatever issue is highlighted, and focus on her positioning of men as it's sole agents. One must virtually accept the truth of global warming to argue a case that she is wrong to cast men in this way. Of course this satisfies her secondary aim of legitimising the issue itself. It's the perfect wedge.
This woman probably cares very little about global warming. Remember that, being a woman, she bears no responsibility. She sees the issue only as a means to an end. That end is nothing more than furthering the free expression of hatred for half of the species."
And
"I'm rather ambivalent on global warming and prefer to avoid discussions about it. Personally I feel that taking steps to avoid poisoning the environment are worthy in their own terms. Maybe it's that ambivalence that allows me to see through Johnnson-Latham's falacious position and tactics right from the outset."
Are excellent points.
I would prefer to avoid discussions of GW as well for the same reason I prefer to avoid discussions of evolution but I am often weak in both regards. No matter your rejection or acceptnace Johnsson-Latham is incorrect that men are solely to blame for Global Warming.
I did not read the report but for some reason I suspect that more men are coal miners figures into it somehow. :-)
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:46 am
Now how about a nice game of chess?
Jeana writes: One last thing and I have to go. Maybe it's because I have been out of the dating scene for 10 years, but my experience is that guys like paying for the first date, at least. They have never minded paying for me. Of course, they also made a lot more and so maybe it wasn't an issue to them.
PK: First off, Jeana, I want to say it's wonderful that you're discussing these things because us guys could just gripe among ourselves but we can't make this stuff up. You have a right to explain yourself and I appreciate when you do.
Others have addressed much of your argument but the part I want to address most is "in your experience". You chose to date men who had more money than you even as you pontificate about the evils of lesser inequality in women's wages compared to men's. You're like Al Gore blasting around the world in a private jet lecturing about the evils of global warming.
I've been out of the dating scene in the states for about the same period of time as you and the reality back then for me was that when I didn't put on a show that I had a lot of money AND that I "liked" paying, the women got all nasty. If they "offered" to pay, it was usually because they didn't think I was going to foot the bill (and they were one step out the door) or it was an insincere pretense. If a man used coupons or even got a take-out container, that also shattered the illusion he was a "big spender."
Men had a joke during the time I dated: Feed 'em, flatter 'em, f*** 'em, and forget 'em! Some men lived up to that and some went along with the game and were often on the losing end. They're GAMES after all! There are winners and losers on both sides otherwise why bother playing? Now how about a nice game of chess? It sounds like the game worked out well for you, but the fact is that it was just a game. You clearly didn't enjoy paying for the first date since, as a feminist, you have NO problems standing up for yourself when it's some kind of goodie you want. You have NO problems figuring out that men don't like to do housework BUT you know that there are limits to what men can be trained to say or do (especially after they've already gotten their "treat" if you know what I mean).
This ties into something Davina said to me (and Davina, I'm flattered): "Then hell yes, I love me some creep. Maybe that's why I'm still fond of my husband after 23 (in June) years of marriage! :-) You just love stirring up trouble, dont you, PK?"
PK responds to Davina: Indeed. I see people who play by the rules and lead average lives and sometimes even above average lives and I find it horrific. In some cases, it works for them and sometimes, it doesn't. But even when it does I find putting my fate and even thinking into the mindless collective herd to be terrifying. The herd mentality is where people say: "Look! I bought a house 10 years ago! I'm a financial genius!" and they really do OR someone buys a house 2 years ago and says: "I don't get it! I did what EVERYONE else did! How could I go wrong?" Even if I screw up my own destiny, I like at least knowing WHY. "You've already made the decision Neo. Now you just have to figure out why." -- The Matrix II (Bad movie, but some great lines.)
Jeana continues: Maybe they were used to it. Maybe they never thought about it.
PK responds: And this is the kind of men you like Jeana? What do you think of men who desire submissive women who don't "think" and "get used to" certain treatment and don't question it? You were attracted EITHER to submissive OR manipulative men and you didn't mind because you were led literally by your nose to a free meal. That puts you on the same level as my cat.
Jeana writes: And the females I know say that the guy wants to pay for dinner. They must think it's polite or something.
PK writes: This sounds like projection. The women justify themselves by saying that men letting women mooch off them is "polite" or _else_ no candy for baby! Then the men say what they want to hear and, why, that just has to make it true. Yeah baby, and we love you for your mind! Do you REALLY think this? Be warned, if you continue to talk to men here we're going to grind up any sacred cows that you let wander into our cave...
Jeana: They are not angry, bitter men who see paying for a meal as a form of oppression.
PK responds: That sounds like a shaming ploy. "Bad dog!" "No soup for you!"
But let's take that epithet at face value for a moment. If someone is trying to mooch off of you, and you get annoyed at it (and I see women get annoyed when other women try these little manipulation games with them), it's reasonable to be angry or bitter. On the other hand, feminists are made up of angry, bitter women who often are over INDULGED rather than oppressed. Poor rich white women: After getting free meals, protection, and support from men throughout their lives... GASP! there are employers who think they should earn a job on ability! Eeek! AND pay for their own daycare out of their income! THAT money is for more STUFF such as a bigger home, shopping mall, vacations, etc.
Your reality is one big bubble Jeana. You had pray that it better not pop during your lifetime because the odds are it will.
Jeana continues: They really don't care. Now, if you're a struggling single father, I get it that you can't pay for meals. Although even when I dated a single father, he still paid.
PK responds: Hahahaha! So in the one case you actually dated a guy where you maybe should have picked up the tab, you still let him pick up the tab. Amazing. And you think this proves what? That men like paying? It doesn't. But it DOES prove that you didn't care about the precious rules of the richer person (that you preferred to date) being the one to pick up the tab because then you sat back anyway.
Jeana writes: What do you do if they guy doesn't want you to pay? I can't force him to take my money.
PK responds: Someone above already addressed that. It's amazing how helpless the modern career woman becomes expressing herself when she "wants" to pay the bill. Indeed, they develop bladder control problems and need to use the bathroom. Or they newly discover the wonders of chivalry and sexism. In other words, they're just opportunists. And no, men aren't that way because after we get done oppressing women by working our butts off, we still usually pay our way.
Jeana finishes: The best I ever could do is to tell him in the beginning that dinner was on me. And that usually worked. Maybe things are different now. If I dated you, I would be sure to pay for fear of my life, that's for sure.
PK responds: I don't take what you said literally. But yes, a lot of guys have been jerks back at women and the women are still clinging to the hopes that they can just avoid the jerks and get those chivalrous, wealthy, men whose dream is to indulge women while accepting that he's the oppressor. This often caused them, Jeana, to wind up going for smooth talking losers. I know more than a few guys like that. You managed to go snorkel fishing in a shark pond and got lucky.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:53 am
Jeana, in response to your first point, you are right. My husband is an engineer in the oil industry. Back in the early 80s it was not uncommon to discover that men were earning more money for the same job. Women in the workforce was still a fairly new concept ... so I acquiesce that it is quite likely that this disparity in wages was in some cases due to discrimination. However, times have changed. Based on recent studies that I've come across (see NY Times and Reuters article below) that trend has vastly impoved and is slowly becoming obsolete as women in the workforce becomes the norm.
In fact, things have gotten so much better that in many urban cities young women are outearning men for the same jobs according to a recent NY times article.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/03/nyregion/03women.html
Female Corporate directors are also outearning their male counterparts according to a similar article from Reuters.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0752118220071107
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/nov2007/db2007118_811986.htm?campaign_id=nws_insdr_nov9&link_position=link4
This doesn't surprise me either because as more and more women in the generation following us are opting out of home and family they have the time and opportunity to focus on their careers. Single, unmarried women without children (or those who no longer have children at home) have the option of increasing their income by working overtime, they are more willing to travel or relocate ... it's not really surprising. In Warren Farrell's Why Men Earn More, a similar theory is addressed. And as I said before when all things are factored in as to why women continue to earn less, there is in some professions a minor gap. Why that slight gap still remains is up for discussion but the wage gap is by far not as wide as feminist theorists would have us believe. Nor is it vastly due to the inherent sexist nature of men in most cases.
That is why a lot of people here, including myself, get so fed up with feminists regarding this. It would seem as if you guys are not interested in the facts. You just want more grist for your anger mill and another reason to portray men as the picture of all evil (I'm speaking in general terms and not necessarily as a personal critique of you). You certainly have no real interest in asking yourselves "Could there be another reason why a wage gap, if any, exists?" No, in every profession in ALL fields the wage gap exists because men as sexist A-holes. No questions asked. That's what I have a problem with Jeana. The lack of intellectual honesty. And that is why it's so important to get the male perspectives out there in the open because it helps us to question feminist biases. If modern feminists are truly interested in equality in its truest form and they have nothing to hide they would not have a problem with dissent.
In response to your second point, seriously, this is the reason why the divorce rate has sky-rocketed and it's 70% of women who are taking out these divorces. Because a total lack of compromise, and as usual women want men to be more considerate of them, but they do not want to return the favour.
A guy isn't "hiding" out at work. He's working. He's contributing to the household by making more money which will provide a better life for himself and his family in the long run. But most certainly he isn't "hiding out". I agree, ideally, it would have been better if he came home, but look rationally at the situation. He is NOT out on the town chucking down beers and checking up women. He's working. You're working. What you both contribute helps to improve the quality of all your lives. When he gets home, he's done with work and you're done with work (that is in the scenario you described about the kids being in bed, the house cleaned etc).
Then the both of you can sit down and have a glass of wine together and tell each other about your day. If there's anything left over in the house to do, then you do it together or take turns, but as long as he's at work, and his wife is a SAM, it is her job until he gets home to do things accordingly. It's called compromise, working as team. There can be no tit-for-tat in marriage. It is hardly ever 50/50. If you want a long lasting partnership, we must compromise even when the outcome is not ideal. Life isn't a bed of roses. We can't have our cake and it too. In many cases we have to make a choice. Divorce an otherwise perfectly good husband or just make the best out of the situation we have. If you get tired of housework and childcare all day, get a job outside of the home. Don't allow yourself to be taken for granted. If you ask for more help and he doesn't give it, put your kids in daycare and get a job.
Don't just be resentful when someone doesn't behave the way you want them to behave. As far as I'm concerned, if I was a SAM, as long as my husband is at work, working and earning us some extra money, I'm not going to b!tch about my at home duties (as long as he understands that I too am working, and not just sitting on my butt watching daytime TV). I have a few SAM friends and their husbands have to come home and cook, clean, wash clothes, run after the kids while they sit and "relax". What on earth have they been doing all day, if he has to come home and do all the things they have agreed that she will do while he's at work?
So in closing, I agree with Nick S, feminists' comments provide an insight into the way many women have never had their beliefs or attitudes questioned, or have never been forced to look at the other side. This breeds the sort of misplaced smugness and condescension we often see among most women who subscribe to the feminist agenda.
That being said Jeana is turning out to be a lot agreeable than most who've come here. I hope she sticks around.
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:24 am
Davina points out to jeana - "However, times have changed. Based on recent studies that I've come across (see NY Times and Reuters article below) that trend has vastly impoved and is slowly becoming obsolete as women in the workforce becomes the norm.
In fact, things have gotten so much better that in many urban cities young women are outearning men for the same jobs according to a recent NY times article."
Davina,
I don't know where jeana stands on this issue, but, in general, asking Feminsts to take a fresh look at an overused statistic from the now relatively distant past (based on the rapid pace of change in our modern world), and to make a new assesment based on current data amounts to asking them to slaughter on of their "Sacred Cows".
If anyone knows of more recent and documented statistics regarding the gender income-gap, it would be an invaluable resource to post a link to here.
April 3rd, 2008 at 11:20 am
10,000BC (when Men were Men and there were no office jobs)
Davina takes us back to the time of Dynasty and Shoulder Pads when she writes: "Back in the early 80s it was not uncommon to discover that men were earning more money for the same job. Women in the workforce was still a fairly new concept ... so I acquiesce that it is quite likely that this disparity in wages was in some cases due to discrimination."
PK goes back in time and reports: Davina, I came of age during that time and while it was not uncommon to meet men who made more money for the same job, it was also not uncommon to meet women who outearned men also. They just tended to be in fields that women had either traditionally or quickly dominated such as accounting. In some cases, at that time, it was not uncommon to see ENTIRE accounting departments filled by women with posters up warning about "discrimination against women". If there were any men around to discriminate against them, I suppose it would have been a problem!
I'm reminded of the film 10,000BC (which I fortunately have NOT seen) where in the previews they show dangerous saber tooth tigers attacking the lead character. We don't have that problem anymore because there aren't saber tooth tigers out there. By the same token, feminism is about recognizing any POTENTIAL discrimination or bias against women to the point where they don't even notice when men aren't around anymore.
During the 80's, I pointed out to a relative who made a great deal of money that it didn't make sense for her to insist men pay for dates anymore. She argued that she was "traditional" AND modern and now that women had their rights secured, why not? When I pointed out that this was unfair on her part she replied with: "Well, there are women around the world who earn less than a similar man so this is fair." So her boyfriend and later husband had to live as a second class citizen for the nameless and even unidentified misdeeds of some random man, somewhere.
Later on, she began to outearn her husband and she told everyone about it. He worked 60 hour workweeks and went to school and lobbied for a more difficult job until he corrected the situation. I guess this is more evidence of anti-women discrimination...
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:44 pm
Ok,
So there is no solution to who pays for dinner unless it's split exactly down the middle (including tax and tip). How many decimal points would you like me to take that out to?
Bernie--I have no problem with looking at a medical record to verify a claim. I should have been more clear with my problem with that--they use that as an excuse and then, since they have complete access to the sexual history of the female, they use anything in her medical record against her. Any STD she previously had. Any birth control she was on (because that must mean she is loose, right?). If she had any previous assaults, whatever. I don't like people using irrelevant info against you.
Roy—whatever you were saying at 7:31 has confused me to no end. Are you saying that I think Obama should be president because of a quota? Are you a madman? Yes, I like rules that make sense. Regulation is important or people will run amok. The strong will always dominate and take advantage of the weak. There’s nothing wrong with accountability.
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:45 pm
gwallan: “Remember that, being a woman, she bears no responsibility.” You make me wish I was old enough to have used the term “male chauvinist pig”. “Sexist” just doesn’t have as much punch.
April 3rd, 2008 at 1:01 pm
Nick,
Yes, I do want it all. I have a good education, I expect a good job, I expect a good husband, I expect to be happy, I expect to be financially stable. Yes I do. And I have all of them. Plus an awesome son. I’m not jealous of those who have more or angry because someone got a job or promotion that I think I should have had.
I’m not sure what wanting a man with a good job has to do with wanting to work at a company that is fair-minded. “If men are successful they get blamed for supposedly perpetuating inequality or denying women equal outcomes.” No, men should not be blamed for being successful. More power to them. We’re all capitalists, right? Make as much as you can. But making a tiny bit of room for someone else who may not have had your advantages is not an evil feminist plot. It’s my liberal ideology not likely to change.
Great that you do all the things yourself. Understand that not all males do. I think men and women need to teach their sons to be more responsible and help out around the house (and their daughters to do other, typically “male” jobs) to better prepare them for adulthood. I think that it is sad that you are giving up the prospect of a wife and family because you only think of a female as a nagging bitch whose only goal is to rob you blind. But many of the guys here feel that way.
I apologize for my “cheap posturing”, which I call giving my opinion. MRAs extreme? What gives you that idea? That you think that all females are knife-wielding castrating demons? “The problem is that most feminist arguments are so weak that the only way they can win arguments is by comparing themselves to the weakest, most extreme or fictitious opponents. They want to knock over straw bogeymen because they can't deal with real intelligent, informed critics.” That’s funny since all of you find some female who says or does something outrageous (or mildly weird) and you blame all of us. Remember, we females are apparently responsible for global warming, even tho’ most of you don’t even believe in it.
How funny you say, “Whenever some feminist comes on this forum, it is tiresomely predictable just what sort of arguments and tactics they will resort to.” I think the same thing about all of you. I know exactly what your arguments will be before you make them.
“At least we know our enemy.” Here’s the problem with most of you in a nutshell. We are not your enemy. But you will never believe it.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Red Lobster
Jeana suggests: "So there is no solution to who pays for dinner unless it's split exactly down the middle (including tax and tip). How many decimal points would you like me to take that out to?"
PK responds: While this sounds rather harsh, let's consider that we now live in a society where we practically have to sign a waiver before telling a woman in the workplace she looks nice today. But I think there are alternatives.
One solution, Jeana, is for you gals to have all the "fun" us men did and start asking us out and buying us lobster dinners. Oh, wait: HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, like THAT is going to happen! Listen, you gals claim to want "equality" and mo' money earned on your own and all, so it's really up to you to start living up to that role rather than trying to mooch out and this includes being prissy and counting the check out to the penny.
My women friends tell me that drives them nuts when they go out with other women buddies who then start engaging in dinner check negotiations that would make even Donald Trump frustrated and willing to just throw money at the problem to make it go away. That's another game I caught onto. It helps to have two sisters so batting eyelashes, etc. doesn't have any hypno-powers over me!
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:53 pm
"A guy isn't "hiding" out at work. He's working. He's contributing to the household by making more money which will provide a better life for himself and his family in the long run. But most certainly he isn't "hiding out".
Well, actually, he is hiding out.
He is hiding out from what he might have become if he had never married and had kids.
April 3rd, 2008 at 2:56 pm
(jeana) -- "Yes, I like rules that make sense. Regulation is important or people will run amok."
You are living in fear.
Am I wrong?
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:13 pm
"Yes, I do want it all."
Jeana neatly summarizes the diverse set of views here as: "What gives you that idea? That you think that all females are knife-wielding castrating demons?"
And also claims: "Plus an awesome son. I’m not jealous of those who have more or angry because someone got a job or promotion that I think I should have had."
Yet you have often written comments such as: "Because I would guess that the lack of female or non-white staff is a result of discrimination."
PK comments: You make blanket statements all the time implying that white males are up to no good and justifying discrimination against us and excusing away sexism when it benefits women. When challenged on these assumptions, you maybe project blanket racist and sexist bias against this forum. This is what Barack Hussein Obama did when his minister got caught making nasty, hateful remarks: He tried to blame the negative press on "talk radio" conservatives (even as he claimed to want to create an environment of inclusiveness and togetherness, etc.)
Honestly, the most racist, sexist people around are those who justify it against white males. But you happen to LIKE this racism and sexism because you're a beneficiary of it. Ok, fine. I think most of us here can UNDERSTAND that. We may not agree with it, and we may find it incredibly distasteful, and we may even think it's rather foolish (white guys are your benefactors most of the time), but hey, I can see why you're that way. You "want it all." Fine.
You suggest: "But making a tiny bit of room for someone else who may not have had your advantages is not an evil feminist plot."
PK counters: None of us are saying that you shouldn't have your 'awesome' son forego higher education and maybe dig ditches for a living to make room for some worthy minority or woman to get a high paying job. I'm sure that feminists will respect him for his and your principles and not for how much money he has or how many dinners he can buy them, right?
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Who said this here?
I'm curious, who said this on this forum:
"MRAs extreme? What gives you that idea? That you think that all females are knife-wielding castrating demons?"
I don't seem to recall anyone saying such a thing.
April 3rd, 2008 at 5:48 pm
We're going to Disneyland!
Davina writes: That is why a lot of people here, including myself, get so fed up with feminists regarding this. It would seem as if you guys are not interested in the facts. You just want more grist for your anger mill and another reason to portray men as the picture of all evil (I'm speaking in general terms and not necessarily as a personal critique of you).
PK explains: Davina, Jeana has made it clear that she's living the (new) American dream: She makes good money, her hubby earns more than her, she has a nice house and she's one of the special interest race/gender victim groups.
She naturally doesn't want to tip that apple cart. She's grown up thinking that solving the world's problems means more and more goodies for her at some guy-behind-the-tree's expense! Now put yourself in her shoes: Would you view it as good news that rather than solving the world's problems by getting more goodies for yourself, instead you should actually give up not only special "victim" status but even have your own sins to make up for? It's like a child being told that they're going to Disneyland but instead going to the Dentist.
In all fairness, we don't usually blame the spoiled child when they throw a tantrum in the dentist's office but usually the PARENTS. That is, the men who don't stand up for themselves even when it's no big risk to do so. The men who put up with games and even abuse from women and suck it up due to "politeness" or "being a man." Being a man MEANS standing up for yourself. Many believe that it means being a "gentleman" and letting the cute girls hit him in the nads while he doesn't fight back. As bad as I think feminism is, it doesn't absolve men of this basic responsibility. I've taken flak for saying that and "blaming the victim" but I view it as empowering rather than blaming.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:21 pm
PK Says:
"In all fairness, we don't usually blame the spoiled child when they throw a tantrum in the dentist's office but usually the PARENTS. That is, the men who don't stand up for themselves even when it's no big risk to do so. The men who put up with games and even abuse from women and suck it up due to "politeness" or "being a man." Being a man MEANS standing up for yourself. Many believe that it means being a "gentleman" and letting the cute girls hit him in the nads while he doesn't fight back. As bad as I think feminism is, it doesn't absolve men of this basic responsibility. I've taken flak for saying that and "blaming the victim" but I view it as empowering rather than blaming."
Well, PK, I believe this is first time we're in complete agreement.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:37 pm
I find it all very pathetic that a rather insignificant and completely ridiculous idea like: who's more environmentally friendly, men or woman seems to grab your attention....
The sorry world of Americanism seems to affect you to an extreme degree....[Me, Me, Me]
I wonder how many of you if put in the same room would get on with each other??
Why are you so self absorbed with such mundane issues, which are centered around you, you, you...
I know the the Producer of this documentary personally, although he's a friend of mine i never have agreed with his political direction. Their seems to be something fundementally wrong with men's lives that are negatively absorbed with mens rights to such a degree as suggested in this website.
We know their are issues but theirs know need for open warefare.
...and yes you might stand out by redefining yourselfs as mens actvists and even make yourself loacally famous!!! but its not going to do you any long term favours. what you need is to get on with life and ignore feminists, dont give them ammunition.
If silly laws wind you up , ignore them, im sure their are laws that still wind up women and EVERYONE!!!
Stop intellectually isolating yourselves from half of the human race, or you will one day end up in living in a Gay bar by default.... wondering why you ended up there...
I dont mean to insult you but the end result of such thinking and intellectual and social isolation,is isolation.
Women are beautiful and all you have to do is be naturally charming to them and they generally luv you. If you have issues with women,as in dating them, then work on this, take a serious look at yourself and ask yourself why? dont blame the world and everything else for your short comings...
Keep things in balance and get on with life, and dont get angry about little things, life is to short, be generous be charming and be balanced!!
as for my friend he comes up with loads of superfical stories and facts which fall into the realm of 'men are being mistreated.... again...' usually they are quite comical and i enjoy them but i dont go to bed worrying about them or let this information formulate the direction of my future, their are to many beautiful, nice and geninunely pleasant girls to get to know and God knows you guys have only one life.
Stop complaining...........
As for my friend i like him alot and he's geniuinely a character, pleasantly nice and not ugly, but i dont for some reason tend to expose him to my girlfriends because he tends to frighten them off..........
I'm sure he will make a career in men's rights as their seems to be niche opening at this time in Britain, id rather though he be a bit more British about things.
I wonder why.......
April 3rd, 2008 at 8:08 pm
jeana said...
gwallan: “Remember that, being a woman, she bears no responsibility.” You make me wish I was old enough to have used the term “male chauvinist pig”. “Sexist” just doesn’t have as much punch.
For goodness sake jeana, the individual I was refering to wants to cast men as the sole agents of global warming and you have the gall to accuse me of sexism.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:50 pm
SithLord writes: I find it all very pathetic that a rather insignificant and completely ridiculous idea like: who's more environmentally friendly, men or woman seems to grab your attention....
PK observes: Spelling isn't your forte obviously. And that's ok but it reflects the sloppiness of your whole argument including that we should just shut up, blah blah blah, even as you made a stumbling effort to attack us.
April 3rd, 2008 at 9:56 pm
Thunderdome: Obama and Hillary go in, one come out
(jeana) -- "Yes, I like rules that make sense. Regulation is important or people will run amok."
(roy) You are living in fear. Am I wrong?
PK: I see her point, at least from the snippet, which is that she loves "sens[ible]" rules when they suit her. Most people do.
In context of the whole paragraph:
"Roy—whatever you were saying at 7:31 has confused me to no end. Are you saying that I think Obama should be president because of a quota? Are you a madman? Yes, I like rules that make sense. Regulation is important or people will run amok. The strong will always dominate and take advantage of the weak. There’s nothing wrong with accountability."
I'm honestly a bit confused. Is she supporting the notion of Obama getting elected on a quota so that whites are held accountable, or is she saying that the rules don't make sense there? If she prefers quotas in determining a doctor operating on her son, or an engineer setting up quality standards for the food he eats, why not the presidency? If the strong _always_ dominate, then why bother with all these fancy handout programs that have tended to mostly benefit white women?
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:35 pm
j
Agreed, but they cannot do that is is only the relevant information that is allowed to be admitted. Correct me if I am wrong but men have been jailed for raping a prostitutes. This demonstrates that past sexual behavior is not allowed to be admitted.
b
April 3rd, 2008 at 10:37 pm
If we are lucky none come out. (-;
b
April 4th, 2008 at 12:50 am
I skipped over all of the previous comments to post here and now.
Thanks to Glenn for taking the time to offer some countering points to the Swedish Foreign Affairs Minister. If Swedish men won't supply some commentary to another uninformed out of control female bureaucrat then others like Glenn will have to.
All of the bloggers that respond to the varied articles that Glenn supplies to us respond with comments of their own to each blog article that is reflective of the man's position and sorely missing from regular public space. This just proves that there is a huge unbalanced perception in what passes in the public eye for gender awareness that is foisted upon people via regular channelled media. A lot of this unbalanced perception comes right out of "women's studies" programs that are not held to standards of veracity and accountability. If these programs were investigated for fact the rest of the planet would not be barraged with so many incomplete assertions.
Every ambiguous comment that comes out of the mouths from the vast array of female supremacists can create the perception to the unknowing that these people actually know what they are talking about and that their perceptions are a certifiable valid reality. How can these supremacists properly know the state of gender awareness while being so ignorant of the gender they speak so disparagingly about? Their area of study is about female kind so they create an imbalance by ignoring man-kind when trying to gain a world view on matters.
Cut off the enormous funding to this propaganda, challenge their claims with views that escape their limited perceptions and show these people for what they are to the rest of the world. Ignorant. If we do not counter these parochial perceptions we get more and more of the same from them and their sordid views become further entrenched into all aspects of society.
Thanks, again, Glenn for your work on my behalf and the men in Sweden.
April 4th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Jeana,
You neatly dance around the point on many issues, while distorting other issues beyond belief and taking cheap shots.
Your claim that most posters here both deny global warming and blame women for it is a cheap shot. Name one poster who actually BOTH claimed that global warming is not real AND blamed women for the problem. What I said is that I am not convinced that man-made global warming is both real and a serious threat, but moreover even if it is true there is not much evidence that men are really responsible for more carbon emissions than women.
If man-made global warming is not a real threat, then neither men nor women are to blame. But if global warming is real, then maybe women are actually more to blame than men. Any woman who believes in man-made global warming has a choice. Either become a skeptic or start accepting responsibility for the extent to which women contribute to the problem through greater consumption.
"I’m not sure what wanting a man with a good job has to do with wanting to work at a company that is fair-minded. “If men are successful they get blamed for supposedly perpetuating inequality or denying women equal outcomes.” No, men should not be blamed for being successful. More power to them. We’re all capitalists, right? Make as much as you can. But making a tiny bit of room for someone else who may not have had your advantages is not an evil feminist plot. It’s my liberal ideology not likely to change."
Jeana, there are two problems with this. The first is that you conclude that because men are more successful in any area of the economy this must be due to them having unfair advantages or discrimination, without offering any evidence to support this. The second point is that you don't see any tension or hypocrisy between on the one hand wanting a man who can make enough money, and then crying foul if men are over-represented in higher-paying jobs. The point is that you and many other women would prefer a man who MAKES MORE MONEY, and then you want to blame men if they MAKE MORE MONEY. Duh.
"I apologize for my “cheap posturing”, which I call giving my opinion. MRAs extreme? What gives you that idea? That you think that all females are knife-wielding castrating demons? “The problem is that most feminist arguments are so weak that the only way they can win arguments is by comparing themselves to the weakest, most extreme or fictitious opponents. They want to knock over straw bogeymen because they can't deal with real intelligent, informed critics.” That’s funny since all of you find some female who says or does something outrageous (or mildly weird) and you blame all of us. Remember, we females are apparently responsible for global warming, even tho’ most of you don’t even believe in it."
Your comment about "knife-wielding castrating demons" is more cheap hyperbole. I don’t know how many times I have come across feminists who, when having their arguments challenged, respond with a patronising ‘you silly boys, we don’t want to cut off your willies’ or some such tripe as you did. Accusing your opponents of being insecure or having some phobia about their genitals is an easy way of putting them down without having to deal honestly with their arguments. This is textbook feminist nonsense. As I said, feminist tactics are so predictable.
You also ignore the point about the domestic chores that men and women do. You initially said that men don’t appreciate all the things that women do around the home. Bernie and I pointed out that men are more likely to do more physically taxing jobs around the home that tend to go unappreciated by women.
April 4th, 2008 at 2:18 am
Re: Davina and Jeana
About the wage gap. The point that is so often ignored is that the extra money men earn invariably gets redistributed to women either in the form of private transfers or state transfers that heavily favour women. If you add up private consumption and public expenditure on services that women consume more of, overall women consume a much higher proportion of society's resources than men do. Yet we are endlessly bombarded with propaganda about how women are so economically disadvantaged compared to men. It is nonsense.
The fact is that men are not paid more for doing the same work. But even if they were, the extra money would most likely end up benefitting women who work less anyway. So who loses?
A lot of liberals claim that employers are desperate to cut labour costs and increase profits. Yet it is usually the same people who argue that women are paid less than men for the same work. But if employers are so desperate to drive down labour costs, why the hell would they pay men more for work that they could get women to do for less money? Jeana, could you give me an answer please? You might need to think about it.
April 4th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Why ask Why?
NickS asks: "But if employers are so desperate to drive down labour costs, why the hell would they pay men more for work that they could get women to do for less money? Jeana, could you give me an answer please? You might need to think about it."
PK: I can't answer for her, but I can guess at some straws she'll grasp at: White guys are in charge and want to hire other white guys. But... it's now well known that big business and the left have joined together for the same cause (albeit dissimilar interests) to flood the country with illegals or H1B's to hire non-whites to drive labor costs down and at the same time build an electorate of anti-white, special-interests socialist voters. Even Bill Gates of Microsoft, which gets BILLIONS to make total crap, doesn't want to pay an extra $10 an hour for an American worker.
Most discrimination against women in the past was part of a larger social agenda shared by most people to give job preferences to MARRIED men ahead of married women and single MEN. In other words, a single woman very often earned about, or the same as, a single man for the same work. Of course, employers also considered that all men were expected to foot the bills in their lives and not mooch off of someone else (Jeana will know what I'm referring to.)
Modern feminists I talked about this with told me that personal lives are none of employers' business, blah blah blah, and they should give women as much money as possible and to hell with society. Then, in the next breath, when they realize that career women have money problems with daycare, healthcare and time issues, they say the employer should create special "family friendly" policies that tend to benefit... working women! So employers should treat everyone as equals and mind their own business EXCEPT when giving out goodies with two hands to women (especially targeted towards well educated white women. The most oppressed group in the world since Marie Antoinette.)
And for some reason, Jeana seems to observe some hostility from the men in this group for her brave new world. Cumbahyah "unity" and "change", my friends. Don't forget to set your car alarm!
April 5th, 2008 at 9:44 am
"PK: I can't answer for her, but I can guess at some straws she'll grasp at: White guys are in charge and want to hire other white guys."
I can guess at some other straws she will clutch at. Maybe she will say that I am only raising the subject because I can't get laid. Earlier she managed to diagnose a castration anxiety without having even met me. Funny how when feminists can't deal with your arguments properly, they start talking about your genitals.
Great post. The points about feminist hypocrisy are particularly good.
BTW: Didn't Marie Antoinette say 'let them eat cake'? Not 'let them have their cake and eat it' LOL :-)
April 5th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Correct. It was a gesture of disdain for the poor and miserable.
April 7th, 2008 at 11:25 am
[...] Our debate was taped for a UK documentary called The Greener Gender. To learn more, see my recent blog post Glenn Debates Swedish Official Who Claims Men Are Primarily Responsible for Global Warming. [...]
April 7th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
[...] taped for a UK documentary called The Greener Gender. To learn more, see my recent blog posts Glenn Debates Swedish Official Who Claims Men Are Primarily Responsible for Global Warming and Swedish Official on Environmental Problems: 'Women give priority to others – men invest more [...]
April 8th, 2008 at 7:26 am
Wow . finally the much needed criticism emerges . for far too long people have tolerated nonsense in the name of feminism
April 8th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
I wouldn't even acknowledge that men contribute more to global warming.
Consider that women spend 70 % of consumer dollars. If a guy drives to work in winter.. he burns some gas but it's the wife who stays home and keeps the heat cranked up on the thermostat while the guy shares heated space with his work colleagues. Keep in mind, heating burns more fossil fuels than transportation, especially in those cold Scandinavian climates.
And who is it that wants to move into the bigger house? Usually the woman. A guy may travel now and again, but a house burns fuel 24/7.
Then consider every time a woman wants to have a second or third kid when the husband doesn't want to. Each new kid burns something like 30,000 tons of fossil fuel over its lifetime, then probably goes on to have kids of its own - what a waste.
Finally,, consider there is a difference in in necessity between traveling for work and traveling to the local PTA meeting or to the mall.
Contrast a business trip versus a "women's travel club" http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=women+travel&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8 .
,, and all the women who whine to their husbands that "they never get to travel any place nice."
Women like to become stewardresses why? Because they love frivolous travel.
Does any guy travel to Paris unless some woman has conned him into buying a ticket for her to go along?
Please. How. Ridiculous.
Most guys, if they have their way, will sit at home with a Nintendo and leave the house only for beer and chips.
It's only because women are constant nags that we ever get are induced to eave, either with them or to escape them.
April 26th, 2008 at 11:25 am
[...] taped for a UK documentary called The Greener Gender. To learn more, see my recent blog posts Glenn Debates Swedish Official Who Claims Men Are Primarily Responsible for Global Warming (Part I), Part II, and Part [...]
May 8th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Citizen Eco Drive Watch...
I found your site on technorati and read a few of your other posts. Keep up the good work. I just added your RSS feed to my Google News Reader. Looking forward to reading more from you....
May 15th, 2008 at 3:07 pm
[...] here. [...]
October 12th, 2008 at 9:50 am
Gadget...
Great article, Go Gadget go...