PDA

View Full Version : Women's march



sandsjames
01-22-2017, 01:16 AM
So a bunch of women decide to embarrass their gender during a march. It's amazing that they are bitching..errr....marching for "women's rights" that they've had for 100 years. Also funny (not haha funny) that pro-life women's groups applications were denied...so I guess you're only a woman if you believe the same as the feminist pro-choicers or if you're a man who decides that he wants to be a woman? Women everywhere should be ashamed.

I wonder how these liberal women would feel about a transgender woman who was pro-life...would be interesting to see if they'd decide that the guy wasn't actually a woman and didn't have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

Rainmaker
01-22-2017, 03:26 AM
http://i.imgur.com/dTlrG7Q.jpg

garhkal
01-22-2017, 06:03 AM
I've always hated those marches..

Mjölnir
01-22-2017, 06:49 PM
Women's rights first came on the table 100 years ago. There are still legitimate issues that should be addressed and discussed. The marches yesterday were not that, it was an anti-President Trump rally thinly veiled as a right for women's rights.

It is odd, that feminist groups who are also pro-Life were denied participation, along with other groups that did not align 100% with an agenda that was not really about women's rights. Really odd that (at least in DC) one of the issues was DJT's statements on Islam (really radical Islamic terrorism) ... seeing one of the groups that was allowed to be included, is in favor of allowing Sharia courts to handle issues in those communities ... not really good for women's rights IMO.

None of this is really a surprise, the numbers weren't a surprise at all ... at least in DC. What will be interesting to watch will be what happens next. Obviously large numbers of people felt motivated enough to go out there what do they do next? Next election is less than 2 years away, several Senate Democrats are up for reelection in that cycle.

The marches yesterday were very interesting. However, it felt like football fans throwing a pep rally the day after their team lost the Super Bowl. Where was all the energy and organization BEFORE the election? These sorts of protests are great, but if you can only rally your support AFTER an election, you'll just not get very far. Maybe this will get more people interested in local and state elections instead of only showing up every four years. Remember that another census is on the horizon, if the Democrats (I'll assume most of the marchers support the D party) really want to get more power in this country, then they should focus on winning the small elections in the towns, cities, counties, and states so they can have more influence in shaping districts and thus shaping the federal government. If there's no follow through after this protest, then there'll be just more disappointment every November.

Also, it was disappointing to see the protesters stoop to same level of vulgarity they seem to be protesting. A lot of it was clever, but still a bit crude and even vulgar. Lowering your standards to the same level of the person (at least to the level you say he is at) you're protesting isn't going to win over too many people looking in from the outside. And if you're only getting your message to the people living in the same bubble in which you're living, you're not going to get anywhere new.


I wonder how these liberal women would feel about a transgender woman who was pro-life...would be interesting to see if they'd decide that the guy wasn't actually a woman and didn't have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

Be even weirder if the pro-life transgendered woman shot a gorilla with a handgun ... social media would explode.

garhkal
01-22-2017, 07:11 PM
It is odd, that feminist groups who are also pro-Life were denied participation, along with other groups that did not align 100% with an agenda that was not really about women's rights. Really odd that (at least in DC) one of the issues was DJT's statements on Islam (really radical Islamic terrorism) ... seeing one of the groups that was allowed to be included, is in favor of allowing Sharia courts to handle issues in those communities ... not really good for women's rights IMO.

And that to me is why these were NOT about 'womens rights' what so ever... The fact they aligned with groups who are Pro Sharia law (and woman have NO real rights under Sharia), or supported Hillary.. again not someone i would call a pro-woman rights person....

WILDJOKER5
01-23-2017, 11:26 AM
So a bunch of women decide to embarrass their gender during a march. It's amazing that they are bitching..errr....marching for "women's rights" that they've had for 100 years. Also funny (not haha funny) that pro-life women's groups applications were denied...so I guess you're only a woman if you believe the same as the feminist pro-choicers or if you're a man who decides that he wants to be a woman? Women everywhere should be ashamed.

I wonder how these liberal women would feel about a transgender woman who was pro-life...would be interesting to see if they'd decide that the guy wasn't actually a woman and didn't have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.

Shoot, they already showed that. A woman who was a conservative reporter was assaulted by a beta male who was part of the march, and the women cheered for the guy. Its not about their sex, its about their ideology.

garhkal
01-23-2017, 08:00 PM
Did anyone here Madonna's explitive laced rant, including where she said she would have loved to blown up the whitehouse..//??

sandsjames
01-23-2017, 08:15 PM
Did anyone here Madonna's explitive laced rant, including where she said she would have loved to blown up the whitehouse..//??

Yep...Secret Service is "looking into it".

waveshaper2
01-23-2017, 11:56 PM
Did anyone here Madonna's explitive laced rant, including where she said she would have loved to blown up the whitehouse..//??

My threat assessment of Madonna's comments is based on one key word "BLOW". I would expect Madonna to be wearing knee pads and not a suicide vest/belt or using a VBIED (in this case the V stand for Vag&^a not Vehicle) if she decides to carry out a terror attack on the White House .

WILDJOKER5
01-24-2017, 11:11 AM
Some where, a lot of husbands had a nice, peaceful afternoon as their wives were out ignoring their duties in the kitchen.

Rainmaker
01-24-2017, 03:05 PM
Women's rights first came on the table 100 years ago. There are still legitimate issues that should be addressed and discussed.

For heaven's sakes, man. What "legitimate" issues are there, that could possibly still need further "discussion"?

Just how much more screaming about the evil "patriarchy", from these fat-angry psychotics, is the rest of America supposed to entertain?



Remember that another census is on the horizon, if the Democrats (I'll assume most of the marchers support the D party) really want to get more power in this country, then they should focus on winning the small elections in the towns, cities, counties, and states so they can have more influence in shaping districts and thus shaping the federal government.

You still don't seem to recognize that over the course of the last 8 years, a sea change has occurred.

The culture wars are over & the most insidious of the communist party's ideologies, aimed at destroying the nuclear family (3rd wave feminism) has finally been rejected.

A bunch of tattooed intolerant morons, taking to the streets (with blue hair under their Hijabs) and screaming about "liberation" isn't going to change that fact.

Now, whether it meets a swift and painful end (or just fades into oblivion) remains to be seen. But, the writing's on the wall........

& mark Rainmaker's words Commander....... Because, Over the coming decade..... The next great movement in the western world is going to be back toward Christian Nationalism.

Old guard establishment, politicians that continue to ignore it, will do so, at their own peril.

WILDJOKER5
01-24-2017, 04:21 PM
For heaven's sakes, man. What "legitimate" issues are there, that could possibly still need further "discussion"?They are democrat women, they love complaining and being the victim class.


Just how much more screaming about the evil "patriarchy", from these fat-angry psychotics, is the rest of America supposed to entertain? This was nothing but a complete bitch fest. Most of them didn't even know what rights they didn't have to men, but made the strawman of not having as much rights as guns. They want to protest Trump, but Trump hasn't done anything but stop America from funding international abortions.

Rainmaker
01-24-2017, 06:17 PM
They are democrat women, they love complaining and being the victim class.

This was nothing but a complete bitch fest.

^^^^This^^^

The official narrative (Kool Aid) that we are supposed to drink, says that women are universally united against President Trump's " oppressive war on women".

But, it's important to keep in mind, that even according to the left-leaning outlets, 53% of all white women voted for him.

So, most of these chicks are just bull-dykes suffering from penis envy or jaded man-hating hags (outliers) and they're not actually representative of the majority viewpoint in our society

Mjölnir
01-24-2017, 07:54 PM
For heaven's sakes, man. What "legitimate" issues are there, that could possibly still need further "discussion"?

-abortion
-equal pay
-human trafficking
-domestic violence
-rape


Just how much more screaming about the evil "patriarchy", from these fat-angry psychotics, is the rest of America supposed to entertain?

You still don't seem to recognize that over the course of the last 8 years, a sea change has occurred.

The culture wars are over & the most insidious of the communist party's ideologies, aimed at destroying the nuclear family (3rd wave feminism) has finally been rejected.

I don't think the change is guaranteed to be permanent, I think overestimating that this is a permanent shift of American ideology will marginalize the liberal POV; marginalizing middle America and the left pushing too hard to the left during the Obama Administration is what caused the abrupt shift that elected President Trump. Trump is in a good position now, in 4 years he could be vulnerable (he could also be vulnerable to a challenge within the party for the nomination).

IMO, the fatal flaw with liberals in the last 8 years (which partisan Republicans also have) which is their utter dismissal of anyone who does not agree with their views -- not just disagree, but just not agree. Too many people who if you don't agree with them want to label you with an -ist (racist, misogynist, sexist) or talk about how you are stupid/unenlightened, even bigoted. Working in DC but living in rural MD I see every day that inside the District ideology is very one sided (liberal) and changes quickly and steadily as you move away from the city. Unlike the military where personnel have to put personal history, preference and ideology aside to accomplish a mission, too many do not know life outside DC, NY, LA, SF etc. in the same way that too many do not know life outside of Oklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas etc. All politics are local, even the national election of our President ... Who needs not only get numbers, but needs those numbers to be dispersed across the Republic and not concentrated in dense population centers which act as ideological echo chambers).

This election was much closer than we give it credit for. DJT won the Electoral College which is the measure of success / victory; HRC won the popular vote ... eliminate CA and DJT won by over a million votes. A swing of 80,000 votes in MI, WI, and PA and HRC would have won as well. Getting away from just the vote count, 48% to 46% is statistically close. Ignoring that 46% (or 48%) is possible, but will cost you in the long run, which is what happened in 2016. This was not a case of winning more battles and losing the war, this was winning more big battles while losing the more numerous smaller battles, which lost the war.

Right now, I am seeing too many Republicans saying exactly what you are, that this is a permanent shift in America. Looking at our Republic which was designed as a Union of States, despite the DNC having more registered voters and a win in the national popular vote, more state's Governors, more state's legislatures, more elected local politicians are Republicans. The US House and US Senate are controlled by Republicans and the President has aligned himself with the Republican Party. The President will soon nominate a Supreme Court Justice, and in the next four years could conceivably nominate one or two more ... maybe three (Ginsburg is 83, Kennedy is 80, and Breyer will be 78 in mid-August.). This is an incredible position for the GOP and could see a shift in government & policy for a generation ... but likely will not result in a permanent shift to the right.

This go around ... A hard and fast shift to the left that largely ignored cooperation (partisan passage of the ACA, modification of Senate rules on advice and consent, and statements like "I have a pen and a phone") saw an equal and opposite shift to the right which will in all likelihood also ignore cooperation ... this all can / will change.


Now, whether it meets a swift and painful end (or just fades into oblivion) remains to be seen. But, the writing's on the wall........

I will be interested to watch what comes after this, the women's march (originally conceived last summer as a HRC victory party) was more about being anti-Trump than anything really cohesive. It was about damn near everything, which to many meant it was about nothing.

My biggest issue is that the tone in many cases was vulgar. Making a human sized costume of a vagina and walking around with a sign saying "Hands off my fucking pussy" will get plenty of high fives and laughs from the crowd that already agrees with you, unfortunately those aren't the ones you are trying to convince and I was convinced of very little based on what I saw.


& mark Rainmaker's words Commander....... Because, Over the coming decade..... The next great movement in the west is going to be Christian Nationalism.

Old guard establishment, politicians that continue to ignore it, will do so, at their own peril.

Will see. Again, I don't think the shift to the right is permanent and the American electorate being a large bungee cord will likely pop back to the left, how far is likely determined by how far the push to the right goes.

Mjölnir
01-24-2017, 07:58 PM
They are democrat women, they love complaining and being the victim class.

Won't argue that ... not a bit.


This was nothing but a complete bitch fest. Most of them didn't even know what rights they didn't have to men, but made the strawman of not having as much rights as guns. They want to protest Trump, but Trump hasn't done anything but stop America from funding international abortions.

Agree, there was little cohesive thought on what this was about -- other than being anti-Trump.

Mjölnir
01-24-2017, 08:08 PM
^^^^This^^^

The official narrative (Kool Aid) that we are supposed to drink, says that women are universally united against President Trump's " oppressive war on women".

But, it's important to keep in mind, that even according to the left-leaning outlets, 53% of all white women voted for him.

I don't think it is universal, since obviously a large portion of the female electorate voted for him. Obviously a large number don't like him either, even though last I checked in the 96+ hours he has been President he hasn't taken away any female's rights.


So, most of these chicks are just bull-dykes suffering from penis envy or jaded man-hating hags (outliers) and they're not actually representative of the majority viewpoint in our society

I think a large part of this was a last gasp at crying/whining/bitching about HRC's loss. The event's nacent planning began last summer, oddly coinciding with the inauguration of the first woman Presi...... oooops.

Rainmaker
01-24-2017, 08:43 PM
-abortion
-equal pay
-human trafficking
-domestic violence
-rape

Radical Feminists continually beating the dead horse black and blue has become counter-productive, to actually fixing any of those issues.


the left pushing too hard to the left during the Obama Administration is what caused the abrupt shift that elected President Trump.

There was nothing abrupt about it. It's been trending this way for nearly a decade .

Starting with Ron Paul in 2008, and then the Tea party movement (Trump's coming out party was actually at a Tea party rally in 2011)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7JuXNPxIAw

The only reason a 1/2 Black socialist, even managed to get himself elected in the first place, was because of an economic collapse and the completely fake MSM's refusal to do any actual vetting whatsoever on him.

At the very least, He should've been crushed in the 2012 election.

But, The Romney campaign was either run by complete idiots, or they intentionally threw the election.

Rainmaker
01-24-2017, 09:07 PM
This election was much closer than we give it credit for. DJT won the Electoral College which is the measure of success

If the Neocons had embraced the people's will (instead of wasting Billions of $ and 18 months , trying to do everything they possibly could to torpedo the campaign) then this election wouldn't have even been as close as it (supposedly) was.



HRC won the popular vote.

Looks like she's batting a 1000!

http://prntly.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/fb_img_1479067382233.jpg

sandsjames
01-24-2017, 09:17 PM
-abortion
-equal pay
-human trafficking
-domestic violence
-rape




None of those are solely women's issues. Also, all of those things are always major topics that nobody is looking past. They are already in the spotlight.

Human trafficking -- task forces dedicated to the problem. Pretty sure there's nobody (other than the traffickers) who think it's ok.

Equal pay -- Government/military uses a pay grade scale...teachers have a pay scale...the only time the pay differs is in private companies where negotiating salaries is the norm. If women want more pay there, they need to make themselves indispensable and become better at negotiating their own pay. Actors/actresses? It's easy to prove that movies with male stars make more than movies with female stars, except in a few rare cases.

Abortion -- let's be honest...this isn't a women's issue. This is a liberal pro-choice issue.

Domestic violence -- again, happens to men and women and, though there are psychological issues, it's the responsibility of the woman to get out of the situation. I'm not sure what they would march for related to domestic abuse.

Rape -- really? This needs a march?

Matai
01-24-2017, 10:39 PM
I was talking about the "Women's March" with my wife just the other day. She happens to agree that this "march" was stupid and was a complete waste of time. Their behavior at the rally invalidated their cause. This march had zero to do with women's rights and everything to do with being anti-Trump.

Note: I don't post often, but I still read...

Matai
01-24-2017, 10:40 PM
I was talking about the "Women's March" with my wife just the other day. She happens to agree that this "march" was stupid and was a complete waste of time. Their behavior at the rally invalidated their cause. This march had zero to do with women's rights and everything to do with being anti-Trump.

Note: I don't post often, but I still read...

Mjölnir
01-24-2017, 10:42 PM
Radical Feminists continually beating the dead horse black and blue has become counter-productive, to actually fixing any of those issues.

Can't argue that the radical, the yelling and screaming counters any good that could be done.


[QUOTE=Rainmaker;369425]There was nothing abrupt about it. It's been trending this way for nearly a decade .

Starting with Ron Paul in 2008, and then the Tea party movement (Trump's coming out party was actually at a Tea party rally in 2011)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A7JuXNPxIAw

The only reason a 1/2 Black socialist, even managed to get himself elected in the first place, was because of an economic collapse and the completely fake MSM's refusal to do any actual vetting whatsoever on him.

At the very least, He should've been crushed in the 2012 election.

But, The Romney campaign was either run by complete idiots, or they intentionally threw the election.

The abrupt shift was the GOP / right's willingness to support a candidate like Trump. Overall, yes, the last 8 years saw a very noticeable erosion in elected democrats at the local, state and federal levels.

Mjölnir
01-24-2017, 10:58 PM
None of those are solely women's issues. Also, all of those things are always major topics that nobody is looking past. They are already in the spotlight.

They are not solely women's issues, but ones that do disproportionately impact women ...


Human trafficking -- task forces dedicated to the problem. Pretty sure there's nobody (other than the traffickers) who think it's ok.

Concur


Equal pay -- Government/military uses a pay grade scale...teachers have a pay scale...the only time the pay differs is in private companies where negotiating salaries is the norm. If women want more pay there, they need to make themselves indispensable and become better at negotiating their own pay. Actors/actresses? It's easy to prove that movies with male stars make more than movies with female stars, except in a few rare cases.

Outside of the small portion of the country that uses pay scales, equal pay for equal work is an issue. Depending on whose numbers you use, women make somewhere between ~$.70 on the dollar (liberal research) or ~$.90 on the dollar (conservative research) for doing the same jobs that men do. Trump's proposed Labor Secretary was recently asked if he would support paying a woman the same as a man, his response was perfect "if she does the same job and does it the same, yes" ... but, there are too many places where this isn't the case.

Ironically though, not too many voices being heard to effect equal hiring in construction, sanitation, or many trades where men dominate the numbers ... stressing quality in white collar work and not in blue collar work is ... not equal.


Abortion -- let's be honest...this isn't a women's issue. This is a liberal pro-choice issue.

Agree with you that it shouldn't be lumped into women's rights ... but was a major subject of the marches.


Domestic violence -- again, happens to men and women and, though there are psychological issues, it's the responsibility of the woman to get out of the situation. I'm not sure what they would march for related to domestic abuse.

Agree, the woman should get out of the situation. I don't fool myself that this is always possible / easy to do.


Rape -- really? This needs a march?

As long as people are willing to dismiss sexual assault as being the fault (in whole or in part) on the victim ... yeah ... probably needs attention drawn to the problem.

BT BT

I don't think all of these issues are as problematic as the marchers do, but they are legitimate concerns to a large number of women in the country. I think they really clouded their message on Saturday, made it worse by having celebrities talk (a couple had some good points, a couple were pretty ignorant). Overall, as I read about it, talk to some friends who went or observed ... it seems it was more of an anti-Trump event than a pro-woman event.

efmbman
01-24-2017, 11:01 PM
The abrupt shift was the GOP / right's willingness to support a candidate like Trump.

I got the impression that the GOP was not willing to support Trump. They showed no trust toward him - wasn't that the point of the "pledge" he had to sign early on? I don't think the majority of the GOP in positions of power support him - they are just thrilled that Clinton did not win.

Mjölnir
01-24-2017, 11:13 PM
I got the impression that the GOP was not willing to support Trump. They showed no trust toward him - wasn't that the point of the "pledge" he had to sign early on? I don't think the majority of the GOP in positions of power support him - they are just thrilled that Clinton did not win.

They (GOP leadership) weren't not at all; I meant the members / electorate. I will say I think the GOP was more fair in letting their members choose the party nominee than the DNC was.

After Trump was nominated, the GOP was fairly cool in supporting him, based on polling it didn't look like he was going to win and many tried to not alienate themselves with their constituents.

In the end, many voted for Trump as a way to vote against HRC ... the lesser of two evils to some. I feel that many in the GOP supported Trump as an anti-Hillary move ... rather having him vice her as President; where many DNC supporters would have supported Hillary against any GOP or other candidate.

efmbman
01-24-2017, 11:39 PM
They (GOP leadership) weren't not at all; I meant the members / electorate.

Gotcha. Understood and I completely agree with your assessment. Unfortunately, I think this was a preview of future elections. These are the best two candidates we could come up with - which one sucks the least?

sandsjames
01-25-2017, 02:07 AM
Outside of the small portion of the country that uses pay scales, equal pay for equal work is an issue. Depending on whose numbers you use, women make somewhere between ~$.70 on the dollar (liberal research) or ~$.90 on the dollar (conservative research) for doing the same jobs that men do. Trump's proposed Labor Secretary was recently asked if he would support paying a woman the same as a man, his response was perfect "if she does the same job and does it the same, yes" ... but, there are too many places where this isn't the case. Again, if it's a job where contracts are negotiated, women need to get better at negotiating. I'm curious as to what jobs aren't getting equal pay that aren't a result of the income actually brought in (ie sports/movies/etc). Do you have a list?



As long as people are willing to dismiss sexual assault as being the fault (in whole or in part) on the victim ... yeah ... probably needs attention drawn to the problem. Of course we don't want victim blaming. We also don't want people thinking it's safe to put themselves in stupid situations. Not a women's issue. Men get raped too, right?




I don't think all of these issues are as problematic as the marchers do, but they are legitimate concerns to a large number of women in the country. I think they really clouded their message on Saturday, made it worse by having celebrities talk (a couple had some good points, a couple were pretty ignorant). Overall, as I read about it, talk to some friends who went or observed ... it seems it was more of an anti-Trump event than a pro-woman event.Just amazes me that with female circumcisions, trafficking, abuse, murder, rape, and everything else that's been going on for years, Trump is where they draw the line. Make no mistake about it, Trump doesn't think he's better than women...Trump thinks he's better than everyone.

garhkal
01-25-2017, 03:41 AM
None of those are solely women's issues. Also, all of those things are always major topics that nobody is looking past. They are already in the spotlight.

Not just that, but many of them have been 'debated' (imo) to death, to the point we knee jerk too MUCH to the other side, branding people before knowing the facts.. Demonizing them even after courts rule they are not guilty or charges are dismissed...



Equal pay -- Government/military uses a pay grade scale...teachers have a pay scale...the only time the pay differs is in private companies where negotiating salaries is the norm. If women want more pay there, they need to make themselves indispensable and become better at negotiating their own pay. Actors/actresses? It's easy to prove that movies with male stars make more than movies with female stars, except in a few rare cases.

Heck look at the Clinton foundation. Women there make what, 75 cents to the dollar of guys?
And wasn't that one of Hillary's main areas she campaigned on? YET SHE doesn't do it herself?!!


Domestic violence -- again, happens to men and women and, though there are psychological issues, it's the responsibility of the woman to get out of the situation. I'm not sure what they would march for related to domestic abuse.


Additionally, how many hotlineds, DV clinics and support centers do we need, especially when 99% of them seem to ONLY be dedicated for female victims.?? (I still have not seen a MALE DV shelter, but i can name 8 female ones near me)..


Ironically though, not too many voices being heard to effect equal hiring in construction, sanitation, or many trades where men dominate the numbers ... stressing quality in white collar work and not in blue collar work is ... not equal.

OR in other areas. Just go to most shopping centers/food stores.. Most of those on the registers - women. Most of those doing stocking/behind the food counters - men. almost like they are showing their own discrimination there by saying men are only good for lifting, women for 'face stuff'..


Again, if it's a job where contracts are negotiated, women need to get better at negotiating. I'm curious as to what jobs aren't getting equal pay that aren't a result of the income actually brought in (ie sports/movies/etc). Do you have a list?

I would like to know that myself.. Heck recently the women's US soccer team made noise cause of their being paid LESS than the mens soccer stars, but they have A) A hell of a lot more talent, B) a LOT MORE renown and C) A lot more titles/awards...

Mjölnir
01-25-2017, 08:55 AM
Again, if it's a job where contracts are negotiated, women need to get better at negotiating. I'm curious as to what jobs aren't getting equal pay that aren't a result of the income actually brought in (ie sports/movies/etc). Do you have a list?

Negotiating is part of it, but would wonder if we just attribute it to negotiating ... if a female starts from a negotiating position that is already below males ... should they have to negotiate twice as hard to get the same pay for the same work (presuming they perform the work just as well)? It has been a few years since I looked at the data. As said, mostly white collar jobs: medical, law, administrative etc. In the federal workforce (military, GS's and contracting) this isn't as much of an issue since we have pay scales and laws that prohibit this.



Of course we don't want victim blaming. We also don't want people thinking it's safe to put themselves in stupid situations. Not a women's issue. Men get raped too, right?

It isn't safe to put yourself in a stupid situation ... agreed in part, but again ... it doesn't excuse sexual assault, in no way at all. You are correct, this is more than just a women's issue ... but one that is really important to women ...


Just amazes me that with female circumcisions, trafficking, abuse, murder, rape, and everything else that's been going on for years, Trump is where they draw the line. Make no mistake about it, Trump doesn't think he's better than women...Trump thinks he's better than everyone.

Again, this was supposed to be a victory rally ... that plan got upended in November so it turned into this. It amazes me that for all the issues that were lumped into this event the candidate preferred by most of these people was one that:

-ignored and enabled her husband's activities that was so counter to many of these issues.
-pretty much rode the coat tails of her husband to prominence, vice advancing on her own merits.
-changed her mind on some of these topics for political convenience.
-had a foundation that accepted millions of dollars in donations and fees from countries that are 180 degrees out from their positions on these issues.

Mjölnir
01-25-2017, 09:15 AM
Heck look at the Clinton foundation. Women there make what, 75 cents to the dollar of guys? And wasn't that one of Hillary's main areas she campaigned on? YET SHE doesn't do it herself?!!

Ironic ... dontcha think?


Additionally, how many hotlineds, DV clinics and support centers do we need, especially when 99% of them seem to ONLY be dedicated for female victims.?? (I still have not seen a MALE DV shelter, but i can name 8 female ones near me)..

Agree, it is lopsided. One factor on this may be that women are more willing to seek help or shelter than men are ... just a thought.


OR in other areas. Just go to most shopping centers/food stores.. Most of those on the registers - women. Most of those doing stocking/behind the food counters - men. almost like they are showing their own discrimination there by saying men are only good for lifting, women for 'face stuff'..

You mean the concern is for the more glamorous jobs and not the less glamorous? I am shocked ... not so much.


I would like to know that myself.. Heck recently the women's US soccer team made noise cause of their being paid LESS than the mens soccer stars, but they have A) A hell of a lot more talent, B) a LOT MORE renown and C) A lot more titles/awards...

What I read on this that makes sense is that US Women's Soccer produces less revenue than the men's team and the two are not two sets of the same organization (revenue is not pooled then divided). I can see their point to an extent ... it must be frustrating to be a female and be the best in your area of expertise and make less than an average player on the men's team. Then again, the best curler on the US Curling Team (granted ... not the same sport) probably makes less than the very best female soccer player ... their sport just doesn't produce the same revenue ... which is bullshit ... sliding that rock is complicated and enthralling stuff.

https://www.thestar.com/content/dam/thestar/sports/curling/2016/04/10/canada-wins-mens-curling-title-over-denmark/kevinkoe.jpg.size.customthumb.cropthumb.640x360.jp g

sandsjames
01-25-2017, 11:08 AM
Negotiating is part of it, but would wonder if we just attribute it to negotiating ... if a female starts from a negotiating position that is already below males ... should they have to negotiate twice as hard to get the same pay for the same work (presuming they perform the work just as well)? It has been a few years since I looked at the data. As said, mostly white collar jobs: medical, law, administrative etc. In the federal workforce (military, GS's and contracting) this isn't as much of an issue since we have pay scales and laws that prohibit this.




I'm sitting here watching Morning Joe, as I do every morning. There's no way I'd pay Mika as much as I'd pay Joe, even though they are co-hosts. The show goes on without Mika, but nobody watches without Joe. Mika is easily replaced.

It's supply and demand and it's what drives the economy.

We can't have laws telling private companies how much they pay. It's bad enough there are requirements for who gets hired (gender/race/etc). I guarantee that once a woman proves she's making as much money for the company and is just as valuable to the company then she will start getting equal pay.

Mjölnir
01-25-2017, 12:56 PM
I'm sitting here watching Morning Joe, as I do every morning. There's no way I'd pay Mika as much as I'd pay Joe, even though they are co-hosts. The show goes on without Mika, but nobody watches without Joe. Mika is easily replaced.

It's supply and demand and it's what drives the economy.

It is called Morning Joe, not Morning Mika.


We can't have laws telling private companies how much they pay. It's bad enough there are requirements for who gets hired (gender/race/etc).

We shouldn't have laws telling a private company how much they pay. We should have laws that make it illegal for a company shows a pattern of underpaying people (females, blacks, men, whomever) based on race, gender, religion etc. ... not performance or value to the company ... but on those factors.

Understanding that a company is going to want to keep operating costs as low as possible, they should not discriminate just because they 'can'.


I guarantee that once a woman proves she's making as much money for the company and is just as valuable to the company then she will start getting equal pay.

If that was the case, there wouldn't be studies that show that this is an issue.

WILDJOKER5
01-25-2017, 01:18 PM
^^^^This^^^

The official narrative (Kool Aid) that we are supposed to drink, says that women are universally united against President Trump's " oppressive war on women".

But, it's important to keep in mind, that even according to the left-leaning outlets, 53% of all white women voted for him.

So, most of these chicks are just bull-dykes suffering from penis envy or jaded man-hating hags (outliers) and they're not actually representative of the majority viewpoint in our societyIt was organized by a Muslim woman telling people to focus on women oppressed in America and ignore what goes on in Saudi. Or showing "positives" of sharia for women.


-abortion
-equal pay
-human trafficking
-domestic violence
-rape
Yeah, these are already illegal in the US. Hell, women actually get more rights than men in this because men aren't allowed to have an abortion or force their woman to have an abortion. But they do get stuck with paying child support even if they don't want too.


Won't argue that ... not a bit.

Agree, there was little cohesive thought on what this was about -- other than being anti-Trump.
"Cohesive thought" among women? LOL, they were all probably talking about what every other woman looked like in their respective vagina outfits.

Rainmaker
01-25-2017, 01:59 PM
'm sitting here watching Morning Joe, as I do every morning. There's no way I'd pay Mika as much as I'd pay Joe, even though they are co-hosts. The show goes on without Mika, but nobody watches without Joe. Mika is easily replaced.

Why anyone would willingly and knowingly subject themselves to watching SJW propaganda is beyond me......

But, If Rainmaker HAD to pick one, He'd take watching Mika over her token "conservative" sell-out cuck boyfriend (Joe). Because, at least, she's not 1/2 bad looking (after getting the 10 facelifts and pretty big rack)

sandsjames
01-25-2017, 02:02 PM
It is called Morning Joe, not Morning Mika. And there's a reason for that. If it was "Morning Mika" viewership would drop greatly.




We shouldn't have laws telling a private company how much they pay. We should have laws that make it illegal for a company shows a pattern of underpaying people (females, blacks, men, whomever) based on race, gender, religion etc. ... not performance or value to the company ... but on those factors.Underpaying? Or paying different? Of course people shouldn't be underpaid. That's different than not getting paid equally.


Understanding that a company is going to want to keep operating costs as low as possible, they should not discriminate just because they 'can'. The way you use the term "discriminate" here is misleading. If I can operate my company cheaper but just as efficiently then that should be up to me. If person "A" is willing to take the job for less money than person "B" then that's on the employee, not the company.




If that was the case, there wouldn't be studies that show that this is an issue.There are also plenty of studies showing that men put in a lot more time at work and need less time off...there are also studies showing that people are more willing to do business with male counterparts which, in turn, makes more money for the company.

It's been said several times but I'll say it again. Men and women are different. There's a reason that women get custody of the children at a much higher rate then men (all things being equal) even if both members are great parents. It's because the mother can provide things that the father can't. I'm ok with that. That's how it should be. There's also a reason that there are many more male CEO/CFO/COO/etc...because males are better equipped to deal with the situations. Just because it sounds sexist doesn't mean it's not true.

Rainmaker
01-25-2017, 02:33 PM
There are also plenty of studies showing that men put in a lot more time at work and need less time off...there are also studies showing that people are more willing to do business with male counterparts which, in turn, makes more money for the company.



+1. The "sexist glass ceiling" thing is nothing but BS.

If private companies could get away with arbitrarily paying employees less (for the same level of productivity) then you can guarandamntee that they'd be hiring nothing but women.

Rainmaker
01-25-2017, 03:15 PM
It was organized by a Muslim woman telling people to focus on women oppressed in America and ignore what goes on in Saudi. Or showing "positives" of sharia for women.


The best thing to come out of this shit-show is the #ShariaOurDaughters hashtag that's trending on twitter. Between that and Ashley Judd's seriously ranting about her period.... It's been pure comedy gold!

https://i.redd.it/8dzl8bqvjbby.jpg

WILDJOKER5
01-25-2017, 03:24 PM
The best thing to come out of this shit-show is the #ShariaOurDaughters hashtag that's trending on twitter. Between that and Ashley Judd's seriously ranting about her period.... It's been pure comedy gold!

https://i.redd.it/8dzl8bqvjbby.jpg

Sharia is pure patriarchy, but these women lift it up and whine about the invisible patriarchy in the US.

WILDJOKER5
01-25-2017, 03:25 PM
The best thing to come out of this shit-show is the #ShariaOurDaughters hashtag that's trending on twitter. Between that and Ashley Judd's seriously ranting about her period.... It's been pure comedy gold!

https://i.redd.it/8dzl8bqvjbby.jpg

Sharia is pure patriarchy, but these women lift it up and whine about the invisible patriarchy in the US.

Mjölnir
01-25-2017, 07:40 PM
And there's a reason for that. If it was "Morning Mika" viewership would drop greatly.

Morning Joe is kinda catchy.


Underpaying? Or paying different? Of course people shouldn't be underpaid. That's different than not getting paid equally.

The way you use the term "discriminate" here is misleading. If I can operate my company cheaper but just as efficiently then that should be up to me. If person "A" is willing to take the job for less money than person "B" then that's on the employee, not the company.

I think if two people are doing the same work, performing to the same level etc. they should be paid relatively the same. There are of course a lot of other factors in there that can vary that (time on the job etc.)

If you have 2 different night shift workers in a plant, both perform the same job, both perform to the same level, both are responsible for the same functions, been with the company the same amount of time ... it would be discriminatory to pay the black one less solely because he/she is black ... it is also discriminatory to pay the female less solely because she is female. If the company can quantify why the pay difference ... so be it ... if the reason is more "we pay her less because she is a she" ... that is (IMO) wrong.


There are also plenty of studies showing that men put in a lot more time at work and need less time off...there are also studies showing that people are more willing to do business with male counterparts which, in turn, makes more money for the company.

That could be ... and would be a factor that I think could make a difference.


It's been said several times but I'll say it again. Men and women are different. There's a reason that women get custody of the children at a much higher rate then men (all things being equal) even if both members are great parents. It's because the mother can provide things that the father can't. I'm ok with that. That's how it should be. There's also a reason that there are many more male CEO/CFO/COO/etc...because males are better equipped to deal with the situations. Just because it sounds sexist doesn't mean it's not true.

And it may be true, in those cases I wouldn't make a big deal about it. Where it can be proved that the determinant factor in paying someone less was gender, we should treat that akin to discriminating against someone because of race or religion.

garhkal
01-25-2017, 07:52 PM
Ironic ... dontcha think?

More like hypocritical..




Agree, it is lopsided. One factor on this may be that women are more willing to seek help or shelter than men are ... just a thought.

OR as i fear, most places just don't feel men can be victims, so don't think to add services for them..




You mean the concern is for the more glamorous jobs and not the less glamorous? I am shocked ... not so much.

Well, to me it is yet another area where there's a double standard..



What I read on this that makes sense is that US Women's Soccer produces less revenue than the men's team and the two are not two sets of the same organization (revenue is not pooled then divided). I can see their point to an extent ... it must be frustrating to be a female and be the best in your area of expertise and make less than an average player on the men's team.

Which is something i can't understand.. How they can be so winning and have such a fan base, but NOT 'produce as much revenue'...



It's been said several times but I'll say it again. Men and women are different. There's a reason that women get custody of the children at a much higher rate then men (all things being equal) even if both members are great parents. It's because the mother can provide things that the father can't. I'm ok with that. That's how it should be. There's also a reason that there are many more male CEO/CFO/COO/etc...because males are better equipped to deal with the situations. Just because it sounds sexist doesn't mean it's not true.

And that's just something the feminists can't counter..

sandsjames
01-25-2017, 09:19 PM
And it may be true, in those cases I wouldn't make a big deal about it. Where it can be proved that the determinant factor in paying someone less was gender, we should treat that akin to discriminating against someone because of race or religion.You bring up a great point. If I find that my clients are more likely to buy stuff from me if the salesman is white as opposed to being black, am I not justified in hiring a white guy instead of a black guy?

Mjölnir
01-25-2017, 09:23 PM
You bring up a great point. If I find that my clients are more likely to buy stuff from me if the salesman is white as opposed to being black, am I not justified in hiring a white guy instead of a black guy?

Under the law ... probably not.

A few years ago a guy sued Hooters claiming he was discriminated against since Hooters did not hire male wait staff. Hooters eventually settled; Hooters was also sued in the late 90's and forced to offer male jobs on the floor (but not as waiters). The way that LGBT issues are going, I do wonder if a trans-female applied for a position as a waitress was not hired could find legal standing to sue for discrimination. Based on the previous settlements I think it would go forward. It begs the question "how far can a business go to maintain its 'image' or brand?" if the lengths they go to would meet the current legal definition of discrimination?

BT BT

Most of us here (@rainmaker ... ??? I kid) are reasonably intelligent people. While many of the issues that were lumped into the Women's March have been 'settled' for some time ... then why do we all not agree. I don't agree with all the issues for sure, but if the 6 or so of us here can't agree on it, nationally there is probably a disconnect as well. I think maintaining attention on some of these issues was the goal (no hope of legislative change from it, no hope of overturning the election etc.). Some of the issues are contentious and seen by many as in danger of being rolled back or scaled down ...

sandsjames
01-26-2017, 12:37 AM
[QUOTE=Mjölnir;369460]Under the law ... probably not.

A few years ago a guy sued Hooters claiming he was discriminated against since Hooters did not hire male wait staff. Hooters eventually settled; Hooters was also sued in the late 90's and forced to offer male jobs on the floor (but not as waiters). The way that LGBT issues are going, I do wonder if a trans-female applied for a position as a waitress was not hired could find legal standing to sue for discrimination. Based on the previous settlements I think it would go forward. It begs the question "how far can a business go to maintain its 'image' or brand?" if the lengths they go to would meet the current legal definition of discrimination?



The Hooter's thing is stupid as shit. For them to have to settle at all on that is ridiculous. It's Hooters, for Christ's sake. Not only should they only hire women, they should only hire attractive women with medium to large breasts. Any guys bitching should be taken outside and pummeled for being idiots...then they should have their man cards pulled.

garhkal
01-26-2017, 05:47 AM
You bring up a great point. If I find that my clients are more likely to buy stuff from me if the salesman is white as opposed to being black, am I not justified in hiring a white guy instead of a black guy?

Good question. Though of the 'discriminations' one of the most often overlooked one is not sex or racism.. BUT ageism. Many places if you are 50+ don't even bother trying to apply for, and if you are 55+, most likely if you are trying to 'start a new job', good frikken luck...

Then there's also statusism. As we ALL know in the military, if you are single, you are gonna be 'dumped on' more so for weekend duty, overnight or late shifts etc, than someone will if they are married.. It may not be 'wrote down anywhere' but we have all more than likely experienced it.
I KNOW i have. And its not just for bum work spots, but also leave.



Most of us here (@rainmaker ... ??? I kid) are reasonably intelligent people. While many of the issues that were lumped into the Women's March have been 'settled' for some time ... then why do we all not agree. I don't agree with all the issues for sure, but if the 6 or so of us here can't agree on it, nationally there is probably a disconnect as well. I think maintaining attention on some of these issues was the goal (no hope of legislative change from it, no hope of overturning the election etc.). Some of the issues are contentious and seen by many as in danger of being rolled back or scaled down ...

We;ve kind of had that answered, when Abercrombie was sued by that muslim woman who wanted to wear her hijab, even though part OF abercrombies image was a clean cut American teen...



The Hooter's thing is stupid as shit. For them to have to settle at all on that is ridiculous. It's Hooters, for Christ's sake. Not only should they only hire women, they should only hire attractive women with medium to large breasts. Any guys bitching should be taken outside and pummeled for being idiots...then they should have their man cards pulled.

So IYO discrimination is A=ok?

sandsjames
01-26-2017, 10:40 AM
So IYO discrimination is A=ok?Absolutely...not in all cases and not for all reasons, but if it benefits my business to hire a specific demographic then I've got no problem with it. I wouldn't raise a stink crying that BET should hire more whites because that's not who their target is...

Also, the military is the biggest discriminator (and used to be moreso). Age restrictions, appearance restrictions, etc. If it's good for business then I'm good with it. If it's based on hatred then that's another story.

My point is simply that all discrimination isn't bad discrimination.

sandsjames
01-26-2017, 10:41 AM
So IYO discrimination is A=ok?Absolutely...not in all cases and not for all reasons, but if it benefits my business to hire a specific demographic then I've got no problem with it. I wouldn't raise a stink crying that BET should hire more whites because that's not who their target is...

Also, the military is the biggest discriminator (and used to be moreso). Age restrictions, appearance restrictions, etc. If it's good for business then I'm good with it. If it's based on hatred then that's another story.

My point is simply that all discrimination isn't bad discrimination.

WILDJOKER5
01-26-2017, 12:35 PM
It's been said several times but I'll say it again. Men and women are different. There's a reason that women get custody of the children at a much higher rate then men (all things being equal) even if both members are great parents. It's because the mother can provide things that the father can't. I'm ok with that. That's how it should be. There's also a reason that there are many more male CEO/CFO/COO/etc...because males are better equipped to deal with the situations. Just because it sounds sexist doesn't mean it's not true.

I am not saying you are wrong on any level, but when it comes to kids with their mothers, or mothers majority of the time, the likely hood of drop out and delinquency and teen pregnancy goes way up. The mothers do provide a lot of the caring and nurturing support of the parent duo, but the father, or father figure, provides the discipline. Now, this is a lump sum and generalization of all single mother households, but I would like to see a study of the difference between a mother who becomes single after 8+ years of marriage who has a career and/or education before the father leaves the picture, and the single mothers who were never married and got pregnant as a teen or early 20s. I am willing to bet there is a stark contrast in the two groups. But I also wasn't taking that chance when I went though my divorce and fought and gathered evidence to make sure my kids stayed with me. After 3+ years, she finally got her act together and I allowed for 50/50 split

sandsjames
01-26-2017, 12:53 PM
I am not saying you are wrong on any level, but when it comes to kids with their mothers, or mothers majority of the time, the likely hood of drop out and delinquency and teen pregnancy goes way up. The mothers do provide a lot of the caring and nurturing support of the parent duo, but the father, or father figure, provides the discipline. Now, this is a lump sum and generalization of all single mother households, but I would like to see a study of the difference between a mother who becomes single after 8+ years of marriage who has a career and/or education before the father leaves the picture, and the single mothers who were never married and got pregnant as a teen or early 20s. I am willing to bet there is a stark contrast in the two groups. But I also wasn't taking that chance when I went though my divorce and fought and gathered evidence to make sure my kids stayed with me. After 3+ years, she finally got her act together and I allowed for 50/50 splitOf course there are instances where it's not true but I look at it this way. If there is a two parent household and one is going to work and one is going to stay at home, 90% of the time I feel the mother is the better one to have at home. It's been this way for hundreds of years and has been proven. Of course, in the name of "progress", people claim it's not the case but most of us know it's true.

The father can discipline even if he's only around part time. It's much harder for the mother to be motherly if she's only around part time.

And, as I stated, this is assuming that both parents are good parents to begin with.

WILDJOKER5
01-26-2017, 03:01 PM
Of course there are instances where it's not true but I look at it this way. If there is a two parent household and one is going to work and one is going to stay at home, 90% of the time I feel the mother is the better one to have at home. It's been this way for hundreds of years and has been proven. Of course, in the name of "progress", people claim it's not the case but most of us know it's true. Yeah, new studies have shown when the father is allowed to focus solely on work, his production goes up, gets promoted faster, earns more in the long run. My brother is anecdotal, but that's how his house runs and his kids who have had a very devout mother are very well behaved, done well in school and sports, come to their mom for any problems they have. She also takes care of the finances, vacation plans, food, etc. They live very comfortably on one income, and he doesn't even have a college degree.

Have another example. Had a supervisor that had made rank first time testing all the way to MSgt, and 2nd time for Senior. He had 4 kids, and his wife allowed him 3 hrs of studying every night for months when he was going up for testing. She always had a 1 yo up till senior to look after.

Its always been this way though, men are the hunters, women are the care givers and gathers. "Progressives" deny science and natural laws that have allowed Human to thrive. BTW, none of my examples are because of their religious beliefs, they were agnostic/atheist if anything.


The father can discipline even if he's only around part time. It's much harder for the mother to be motherly if she's only around part time.True, but there has to be an expectation of discipline too. Not just a "every other weekend" discipline mind set. Even then, most fathers will chose to be the "fun parent" for their weekends and the mother will have to put up with the spoiled brat the rest of the time. 2 parent homes will always be the best for kids.


And, as I stated, this is assuming that both parents are good parents to begin with.Yep, very big assumption.