Women on top

[Forty Two]

Just sounds like you're arguing against equality for the sake of it now. Cunt too.

Perhaps he is, but how does that change the substance of his argument? Does his purpose for making the argument change it?

His argument ploughs on regardless, as does yours. While you both continue to forward a strawman to argue against equality progress is impossible.

I've not argued against equality.

Well, I mean, males and females in reality are not statistically equal, that much is true, but that's not so much an argument as a biological fact. Men are on average taller. There, they are not equal in that respect.

That's not an argument "against equality." I am in favor all humans being treated equally under the law.

And, I have not advanced any strawman. Whose position have I strawmanned? Can you specify that? Yours? Someone else's?

[Brian Peacock]

His argument ploughs on regardless, as does yours. While you both continue to forward a strawman to argue against equality progress is impossible.

I've not argued against equality.

Well, I mean, males and females in reality are not statistically equal, that much is true, but that's not so much an argument as a biological fact. Men are on average taller. There, they are not equal in that respect.

There's the strawman right there.

[Cunt]

Equal pay for equal work. It isn't a difficult concept to process, whether talking about gender, skin colour, religion, height, or taste in music.

That's a great idea! You should support it.

Height IS a predictor for higher wages. So are a lot of other things which have nothing at all to do with 'equal pay for equal work'. That happens in Fantasyland (meaning government employees) but they don't manage to make it work out in the business world, where feminist bosses I respect tell their employees to keep their wages secret, or face vague consequences.

If fairness were really the issue, wealthy western women would not be the focus of this 'wage unfairness baloney', but probably someone who was getting the shittiest end of the stick.

[Svartalf]

... . Do you think wages should be fair for women? Or for everyone?

Does one necessarily exclude the other?

It does indeed! For example, comparing womens wages to a fair wage, might show that they were (or were not) paid fairly.

If instead, one were to compare womens wages against another group which is unfairly paid, all you are doing is showing that fair wages can produce amusing and irrelevant statistics.

If women are paid 'fairly', are we to ignore how skin colour affects wage expectations? How about height?

Ah, you're a heightist... now i understand... shorty.



Equal pay for equal work. It isn't a difficult concept to process, whether talking about gender, skin colour, religion, height, or taste in music.

No, those who do rap or listen to it should be paid in stones, like all those who commit Abominations as per OT.

[Cunt]

No, those who do rap or listen to it should be paid in stones, like all those who commit Abominations as per OT.

Does this mean I get to get stoned now? Awesome! Join me for a run after?

I heard that weed is a performance enhancing drug for endurance sports...gotta test that out...

[Cunt]

By the way, 11 pages of virtue-signalling and not one solid example of women dominating a competitive sport. That is hilarious to see, considering how many of you claim to think women are JUST AS ABLE as men lol

[Forty Two]

His argument ploughs on regardless, as does yours. While you both continue to forward a strawman to argue against equality progress is impossible.

I've not argued against equality.

Well, I mean, males and females in reality are not statistically equal, that much is true, but that's not so much an argument as a biological fact. Men are on average taller. There, they are not equal in that respect.

There's the strawman right there.

I didn't attribute an argument to someone that was not their own. How is this a strawman? Are you sure you know what a strawman argumen tis?

You said that I'm arguing against equality. I'm not. My post explained why. I did not attribute an argument to you or anyone else.

[Svartalf]

YOu did not read the thread carefully, I did mention Billy Jean King out doing a man at tennis

[Cunt]

It might be because of the amount of thought he gives to issues...if he really avoids considering the other side, this might look like a reasonably good rebuttal to him.

Shame he can't find a single example relating to the superiority of women in any sport venture. He would have enlightened me instead of amusing me.

Billy Jean King

So your example of a peak-of-career female athlete beating a has-been twice her age is supposed to show me that women outclass men regularly in tennis?

Maybe in tennis skirt wearing, or making straight girls uncomfortable in the change-rooms, but not in tennis. I don't know who the current world champs are, but if we got them to compete, would you bet on the male world champ against the female?

I mean if you were betting your own important amount of money...

[mistermack]

Things a real, actual, man should be able to do:

1) change a tire ..... Spell Tyre
2) grill a steak ....... Fry a steak
3) mix a decent martini ...... Are you from the nineteen fifties ??
4) start a lawnmower (even if you need starting fluid)
5) get an erection (even if you need starting fluid) That's woman's responsibility, I always said.
If they can get it hard, they can have it.

I'm sure there are others.

[Forty Two]

Equal pay for equal work. It isn't a difficult concept to process, whether talking about gender, skin colour, religion, height, or taste in music.

That's a great idea! You should support it.

Devil is in the Details, of course. I don't support any law that says everyone must pay equal pay for equal work. For example, because one company pays $20 an hour for a given job ought not mean that another company can't pay $30 or $10. Also, the phrase "equal work" comes with some uncertainty, because some people take it to mean "equal pay from the same employer for the same exact job with the same job duties and functions, where the employees are of the same seniority and qualifications..." -- I mean - equal pay for equal work, if taken too literally, could mean that a janitor who's been with a company for 40 years as a demonstrated, loyal employee must be paid the same as a snot-nosed kid out of high school, if they are both engaged in the same job tasks. That kind of equal pay for equal work doesn't seem reasonable. A company should be able to pay for loyalty, experience, talent, training, etc., even if the person does the same job as someone newer, less experienced, less talented and lacking in training.

So, these concepts sound simple, and inarguable on the surface, when one says that women should be paid the same as men for the same work. However, when we delve deeper - paid by whom? For what? What qualifications, seniority, etc., the analysis is not as simple as equal work.

Moreover, some folks use the term to draw equivalences between types of jobs. So, they want to say that a job predominently done by women is "equal" to some higher paying job done predominently by men, and that the only reason the male dominated job is paid more is because of a patriarchal prejudice that tells us that a male's job is more valuable than "woman's work." That faction wants to pay school teachers and social workers the same as engineers and hedge fund managers, because the "work" is equal, even if it's not the same job. And there is a faction working toward that kind of policy.

[Cunt]

Equal pay for equal work. It isn't a difficult concept to process, whether talking about gender, skin colour, religion, height, or taste in music.

That's a great idea! You should support it.

Devil is in the Details, of course. I don't support any law that says everyone must pay equal pay for equal work. For example, because one company pays $20 an hour for a given job ought not mean that another company can't pay $30 or $10. Also, the phrase "equal work" comes with some uncertainty, because some people take it to mean "equal pay from the same employer for the same exact job with the same job duties and functions, where the employees are of the same seniority and qualifications..." -- I mean - equal pay for equal work, if taken too literally, could mean that a janitor who's been with a company for 40 years as a demonstrated, loyal employee must be paid the same as a snot-nosed kid out of high school, if they are both engaged in the same job tasks. That kind of equal pay for equal work doesn't seem reasonable. A company should be able to pay for loyalty, experience, talent, training, etc., even if the person does the same job as someone newer, less experienced, less talented and lacking in training.

So, these concepts sound simple, and inarguable on the surface, when one says that women should be paid the same as men for the same work. However, when we delve deeper - paid by whom? For what? What qualifications, seniority, etc., the analysis is not as simple as equal work.

Moreover, some folks use the term to draw equivalences between types of jobs. So, they want to say that a job predominently done by women is "equal" to some higher paying job done predominently by men, and that the only reason the male dominated job is paid more is because of a patriarchal prejudice that tells us that a male's job is more valuable than "woman's work." That faction wants to pay school teachers and social workers the same as engineers and hedge fund managers, because the "work" is equal, even if it's not the same job. And there is a faction working toward that kind of policy.

It's a complicated area, for sure, which is why I wouldn't support fair wages for any special interest group, before it existed for everyone. Look at government (in Canada) where they try to apply those principles fully...bloated, fat beaurocrats with staffs of fat assistants hiring consultants to make decisions so that they may avoid consequences.

[Forty Two]

By the way, 11 pages of virtue-signalling and not one solid example of women dominating a competitive sport. That is hilarious to see, considering how many of you claim to think women are JUST AS ABLE as men lol

How about certain gymnastics competitions?

Figure skating?

And, I am not positive, but they have to be equal to men in "curling," no? Maybe not - since they don't keep up in other non-strength/stamina sports like darts. But, a lot of women play curling, so maybe that's one. Hey, Canucks out there! Have there been competitions between male and female teams in curling? I've seen mixed teams, but not battle-of-the-sexes stuff.

[Cunt]

Men would (do) destroy women in curling (at the high ranks)
That is why the olympics divide the sexes. Curling benefits a great deal from strength.

One feature I have noticed, which highlights this is that they tend to use only one sweeper at a time in the high levels. This saves the energy of the other sweepers for following efforts. Budgeting their strength.

As to figure skating, like dance, it's about looks for a lot of it, so tough to say. I will say, though, that men do much more demanding moves in the singles competitions.

Darts is an area where women could dominate, as it doesn't require a great deal of strength, rather strategy, patience and accuracy.

But I bet they don't.

I think we are doomed to find no examples from this lot. Must be that they aren't true feminist supporters...

[Cunt]

Wait - Forty Two - maybe all these folks are pretending to be feminists to make feminism look bad...perhaps if they didn't hate women so much, they would provide clear examples, which would represent their side firmly and clearly, rather than diverting and shitting up the thread with personal attacks...

I never realized before this...ALL the feminists here may well be plants by the anti-feminists!