Feminism vs Truth video

DoYouEvenLift

Surprised this has so little views seeing as it seems anything relating to feminism goes viral almost instantly lately. It's always interesting hearing the claims of unequal pay between genders that seems to go in perfect tandem with tumblr feminists. Is there nothing to be said for another mass?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oqyrflOQFc

Also, here's the latest attempt at backing feminist campaigns, using and abusing innocent children: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=793691827336181&id=145318588840178&refid=17

Wibbs

An interesting video there DYEL and much of it does personally strike some chords, or at the very least asks some good questions, but I'd want to see corroborating evidence in links from objective sources, or enough sources that would make it clearly objective. Plus what are your opinions on the subject being debated DYEL? Is it a link and run or can we have more of a decent debate on the subject. One is warranted no doubt but again personally I'd like to see more of a too and fro going on.

Kinda like when I see a post/thread/blog/opinion piece about "rape culture" that is dropped in as a given. Give me debate, stats and reality otherwise GTFO, if you know what I mean?

mackg

Is the pay gap they are talking about just in the U.S?

I've heard both sides of this any number of times but have never seen any of the info.

Wibbs

In the Irish context I think it was Pawwed Rig who linked to a study by an Irish women's group that showed yes there was a gender disparity in earnings, but it showed that it was with women with children, but childless women were actually quite the bit ahead of men in earnings. I can't find the link now(cos I'm a tad slow at the best of times. I use a Mac ffs), but no doubt someone will.

KomradeBishop

Christina Hoff Sommers, the person in that video, is someone I've seen (both directly and indirectly) posted a fair bit lately, and she hails from organizations like the America Enterprise Institute, and Independent Womans Forum - both organizations with a track record for funding/supporting propaganda like global warming denialism, and the AEI is also notable for playing a part in helping with the push for war in Iraq.

To pre-emptively disclaimerize this: The above has nothing to do with, and is not an attempt at attacking, her arguments. It's relevant though, for demanding a higher standard of evidence/backing, for the arguments she does make - i.e. as Wibbs says, "I'd want to see corroborating evidence in links from objective sources, or enough sources that would make it clearly objective".

mackg

Wibbs wrote: »

In the Irish context I think it was Pawwed Rig who linked to a study by an Irish women's group that showed yes there was a gender disparity in earnings, but it showed that it was with women with children, but childless women were actually quite the bit ahead of men in earnings. I can't find the link now(cos I'm a tad slow at the best of times. I use a Mac ffs), but no doubt someone will.

Perfect, if anyone has the link or even knows what thread it's in send it on I'd appreciate it.

Lemming

Wibbs wrote: »

In the Irish context I think it was Pawwed Rig who linked to a study by an Irish women's group that showed yes there was a gender disparity in earnings, but it showed that it was with women with children, but childless women were actually quite the bit ahead of men in earnings. I can't find the link now(cos I'm a tad slow at the best of times. I use a Mac ffs), but no doubt someone will.

The link was posted within the last two/three weeks if I recall, and the figure was presented as -17% for childless women (yes, they tried to spin it as a negative ... ) in comparison to male equivalent pay.

AndreaCollins

Good video. I was horrified by the recent feminist video where little children were swearing in the name of feminism. Have you seen that one lads? http://vimeo.com/109573972 NSFW. strong language.

DoYouEvenLift

AndreaCollins wrote: »

Good video. I was horrified by the recent feminist video where little children were swearing in the name of feminism. Have you seen that one lads? http://vimeo.com/109573972

Yeah it's in the op, absolutely disgusting.

KomradeBishop

That video is produced by the for-profit FCKH8 company though, in order to sell t-shirts; it's not really representative of 'feminists', is it?

Wibbs

All it's representative is of clickbait to sell stuff. These days I make the distinction between clickbait, whether it be newspaper, site or blog that uses outrage to flog hits or papers or stuff and links which are more sober and low key. The latter while often dry and dusty may actually cuase more of an eyebrow to be raised, EG the Irish women's group funded by the gov IIRC that stated childless women earned nearly 20% more on average than childless men, but buried this stat in a pretty underhanded way. That's more in need of scrutiny than some eejits trying to flog tee shirts on the back of the US "gender war" nonsense. Arms dealers in a gender war. You couldn't make it up.

I always thought the women earn less that men thing was because women are more likely to work in industries that pay less, more likely to work less that full hours because of childcare commitment.

So while it is technically true that women earn less than men it is nothing to do with discrimination against women its more to do with how the world of work is organised.

Carpo II

Wibbs wrote: »

In the Irish context I think it was Pawwed Rig who linked to a study by an Irish women's group that showed yes there was a gender disparity in earnings, but it showed that it was with women with children, but childless women were actually quite the bit ahead of men in earnings. I can't find the link now(cos I'm a tad slow at the best of times. I use a Mac ffs), but no doubt someone will.

It was based on OECD data

(sorry, can't post working link)
www. activecharts. org/share/58860e383bd40245e2dd3c714910916f

fits

mariaalice wrote: »

So while it is technically true that women earn less than men it is nothing to do with discrimination against women its more to do with how the world of work is organised.

Which discriminates against women!!! (and men) by shouldering women with the responsibility for childcare but not providing men with the opportunity to do same.

Wibbs

DoYouEvenLift wrote: »

Yeah it's in the op, absolutely disgusting.

Hardly much of an addition to the debate?

iptba

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Christina Hoff Sommers, the person in that video, is someone I've seen (both directly and indirectly) posted a fair bit lately, and she hails from organizations like the America Enterprise Institute, and Independent Womans Forum - both organizations with a track record for funding/supporting propaganda like global warming denialism, and the AEI is also notable for playing a part in helping with the push for war in Iraq.

To pre-emptively disclaimerize this: The above has nothing to do with, and is not an attempt at attacking, her arguments. It's relevant though, for demanding a higher standard of evidence/backing, for the arguments she does make - i.e. as Wibbs says, "I'd want to see corroborating evidence in links from objective sources, or enough sources that would make it clearly objective".

I find it difficult to accept it's not an attempt at attacking her arguments. Put another way, if somebody posts something you agree with, are you as keen to post critical comments about the person making the comments. If you claim your are, I'm not going to be convinced until you link to previous comments where you have done so.

KomradeBishop

iptba wrote: »

I find it difficult to accept it's not an attempt at attacking her arguments. Put another way, if somebody posts something you agree with, are you as keen to post critical comments about the person making the comments. If you claim your are, I'm not going to be convinced until you link to previous comments where you have done so.

I'm not here to convince you. The people who support the video in the OP are here to convince everyone else, of its arguments.

Your argument there is basically whataboutery as well: "You criticize the person making arguments you disagree with, but what about those you agree with?"

iptba

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I'm not here to convince you.

You are trying to convince the readers of the thread of the following:

The above has nothing to do with, and is not an attempt at attacking, her arguments

I'm pointing out to the readers of the thread that just because somebody simply says this, doesn't mean it's necessarily true. And that if you were doing this for the reasons you say, one would expect similar criticisms of the sources of alternative views. Given you have now responded and not linked to other examples where you agreed with a source, but still cast aspirations on it, I would argue lends weight to the argument that your initial comment may have been motivated by your disagreeing with what was said.

Like you suggest, the readers of the thread can make up their own minds on this. Others weren't convinced of your approach in a recent discussion on another thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057215976 (pages 5 & 6).

Seriously?

I think there's a pattern here.

Rather than attempt to refute the facts, an attempt to tarish the message by attacking the messager is used.

KomradeBishop

iptba wrote: »

You are trying to convince the readers of the thread of the following:

I'm pointing out to the readers of the thread that just because somebody simply says this, doesn't mean it's necessarily true. And that if you were doing this for the reasons you say, one would expect similar criticisms of the sources of alternative views. Given you have now responded and not linked to other examples where you agreed with a source, but still cast aspirations on it, I would argue lends weight to the argument that your initial comment may have been motivated by your disagreeing with what was said.

Like you suggest, the readers of the thread can make up their own minds on this. Others weren't convinced of your approach in a recent discussion on another thread: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057215976 (pages 5 & 6).

I don't care if you or anyone else thinks it's an attack on the authors arguments. I've said it is not, so that is the end of it as a far as I'm concerned - if you take it as an attack on her arguments, that is a straw-man of your creation, which I'm not getting into.

You can't read my mind and know what I'm thinking, and any attempt to put words in my mouth, seems like a deliberate attempt at straw-manning and misrepresenting me.

Ironically, that would be considered 'playing the man, not the ball'.

lazybones32

Wibbs wrote: »

... yes there was a gender disparity in earnings, but it showed that it was with women with children, but childless women were actually quite the bit ahead of men in earnings.

The ESRI released findings about 2 years ago (?...maybe even less) which showed that men did receive more money than women in the same position: the difference was her 78c to his 100c.

However, in explaining their findings, the ESRI said how they had included women working part-time in the same group as women working full-time (but didn't mention if FT/PT men were grouped together) which could skew the overall averages. Interestingly, the ESRI also noted that men work more hours and on average get 18% more work done than the average female: avg. female produces 82 units in the same time avg. male produces 100 units.


The study wasn't specifically about gender wage-gap but that was the part of the bulletin I remember. I have no link to confirm what I've written - since I heard it on radio News while driving and for some reason, it wasn't repeated on the next News bulletin - but I've given a quick search through the ESRI site and cannot find what I'm looking for.

whats newxt

I like this video better

daft video Snipped

Wibbs

Right so, this thread has gone from post video, feign outrage, avoid further discussion, to going wildly off a topic that was barely there in the first place and ended with stupidity in whats newxt's link. NO more or that again please.

There is a standard of posting required in this forum and this thread was lacking. Thread closed.

PS there is a long running sexism/misandry thread already in existence in the forum. Please use that in future. Thank you.