[Prayer Warrior]

Originally Posted by HandJob

As I understand it, you are arguing against all feminists. However, this post seems to target extreme feminists who cannot stand around for a second without screaming that something is unequal. Some of these do have impaired logic. However, some points stated here are off as well. I will answer from the viewpoint of a fairly impartial human.

There'd be no point in calling themselves a feminist if they didn't think that women should get more rights, or that women "aren't equal enough". Most, if not all feminists fall under that category. Maybe there are exceptions just like maybe there are a few nice people who called themselves nazis, but the group's ideology as a whole is corrupt. Anyone who doesn't advocate "more equality" for women isn't really a feminist.

Originally Posted by HandJob

No, it doesn't. You are generalizing way too much. Both genders pay taxes, why would men still be getting welfare and healthcare if women do not? This would only be "equal" if both men and women do not receive healthcare, which would ruin the point of healthcare.

Because feminists are the one screeching about independence. I don't hear any groups screaming about male independence. Accepting government healthcare /food stamps etc. is dependence. Either they want independence or they don't.

Like orphanages infringe on the independence of children. I don't think you have a firm grasp on independence.

Children don't have independence. Children are dependent upon their parents, or an orphanage. Are you saying women are the basically like children? That's one part I can agree with you on. However, you don't see rights groups picketing about giving children equal pay, or giving children the right to vote etc.

"Men can't get pregnant" is exactly the point. It is not unequal, because women are the ones pregnant, not men. These laws balance out nature's inequality. Also, just because they get pregnant and men don't doesn't mean they're inferior.

The average man is physically stronger than the average woman. Anyone who denies this, male or female, is completely ignorant of the various studies conducted over centuries. This is why women need laws and rules to protect them.

Yes, women should admit that their gender is physically inferior. However, they as an individual might not be.

"Nature's inequality"? I believe it is God's inequality. God designed women to be inferior to men. However, whether or not you believe it was God who designed women this way, or it was "nature", we can both admit that women are naturally unequal. Thus, they shouldn't get equal pay. If they do, it is because they are dependent on a man to fill in the gaps for the times when they can't work.

I know a friend who wants to work for the NFL and be a professionalism football player, but he can't. He simply isn't tall enough. Should we get laws to compensate him for "nature's inequality"? Should you be able to get paid as a football player even if no one wants to pay to see you play? Should you be able to get paid as a writer even if no one wants to pay to read your books? Should you be able to get paid as an artist if no one wants to buy your paintings?

Either laws should be applied equally to humans, or you want laws to benefit inferior humans.

If men want to pay for these things, they have the right to. If they do not want to, they have the right to not pay. Women have the right to pay, as well as the right to not let men pay. How does this infringe on the rights of anyone?

So, feminists should be treated equally to men while simultaneously having a man pay for their dinner, rent, car payments, utilities, etc.? What you're talking about sounds like a child to me. Either feminists want independence or they don't. If they're going to claim to be independent from men, then let them back it up.

Where'd you get this information? And have you thought about why this might be so? And women still pay taxes, so they should still be able to get public education for the taxes they paid.

Where? Right out of the mouths of feminists themselves http://thefeministwire.com/2012/05/g...rer-by-age-65/ . They admit women are 1.5 million dollars poorer by age 65, and taxes are based on income. The less money they make, the less taxes they pay.

You would think with the news media blasting Mitt Romney's 47% comments over and over you would have heard him by now, but apparently not. Almost half of the people living in America pay no income tax. Most of these people are women.

Yes, I have considered why. Even liberal news organizations like NBC admit that women call in sick to work almost twice as often as men. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21547885/n.../#.UQyAEqXOoaM
Yet women still complain about unequal pay. In other words, they want a man to do the work for them on the days they call in sick, while getting the same pay as that man. If women were really doing equal work for less money, you would see men being fired en masse and being replaced with women. What do CEOs need these men for? They can hire a women for 20% less. Yet obviously that is not happening. It is become women are inferior. They do inferior work, and they should get inferior pay as a result.

So where are men and women equals? In intelligence, morality, etc., and in the fact that they're both humans. Hence, laws for equality for all humans.

The trend has been going towards equality for all humans for quite a while now. Sorry to say, but you are fighting a losing battle.

If women are so equal to men in terms of intelligence, morality, drive, etc. why are there so few women billionaires, millionaires, and CEOs? Why do they need their own brand of sporting events? I constantly hear about women getting so many college degrees, yet they can rarely seem to turn these degrees into something useful other than student debt which just creates an even greater burden for the government.

You say want to be impartial, then you do nothing but attempt to fight for feminists. You asked me to provide a source for my information, but provided none for your own. You say women should be treated equally under the law while explaining how there should be special exceptions in the law that only benefit women.

The only thing impartial about you is probably how you impartially deliver handjobs regardless of whether or not the recipient is ugly, fat, a man, woman, etc.

[Tool of satan]

Originally Posted by Prayer Warrior

There'd be no point in calling themselves a feminist if they didn't think that women should get more rights, or that women "aren't equal enough". Most, if not all feminists fall under that category. Maybe there are exceptions just like maybe there are a few nice people who called themselves nazis, but the group's ideology as a whole is corrupt. Anyone who doesn't advocate "more equality" for women isn't really a feminist.

Obviously, they do want equal rights.

Because feminists are the one screeching about independence. I don't hear any groups screaming about male independence. Accepting government healthcare /food stamps etc. is dependence. Either they want independence or they don't.

Well, feminists in America already have the same essential rights as other males. They are arguing against cultural stereotypes and discrimination. Good point though, some radical feminists do go over the top with wanting females to be independent.

Children don't have independence. Children are dependent upon their parents, or an orphanage. Are you saying women are the basically like children? That's one part I can agree with you on. However, you don't see rights groups picketing about giving children equal pay, or giving children the right to vote etc.

No, that wasn't the point of the comment. Anyways, females in shelters are dependent on others, they aren't denying this.

"Nature's inequality"? I believe it is God's inequality. God designed women to be inferior to men. However, whether or not you believe it was God who designed women this way, or it was "nature", we can both admit that women are naturally unequal. Thus, they shouldn't get equal pay. If they do, it is because they are dependent on a man to fill in the gaps for the times when they can't work.

Naturally unequal physically, yes. No, they should not get equal pay if they do not do the same work. However, they should get equal pay if they do equal work.

I know a friend who wants to work for the NFL and be a professionalism football player, but he can't. He simply isn't tall enough.

Is he a good football player, as good as those on NFL, even though he's short? If so, the rule is wrong and should be corrected to look for ability, not height.

Should we get laws to compensate him for "nature's inequality"? Should you be able to get paid as a football player even if no one wants to pay to see you play? Should you be able to get paid as a writer even if no one wants to pay to read your books? Should you be able to get paid as an artist if no one wants to buy your paintings?

Either laws should be applied equally to humans, or you want laws to benefit inferior humans.

No, of course not. The laws and rules protect women from getting hurt physically by men or having to compete physically with them. Likewise, laws also prevent women from hurting men. This is what I meant, not that they should be compensated for lacking in physical ability.

So, feminists should be treated equally to men while simultaneously having a man pay for their dinner, rent, car payments, utilities, etc.?

No, the man has a choice. The woman has a choice. If they scream that they want to be independent while accepting other's payments for their things, then they are hypocrites. But most of them do not do this.

Where? Right out of the mouths of feminists themselves http://thefeministwire.com/2012/05/g...rer-by-age-65/ . They admit women are 1.5 million dollars poorer by age 65, and taxes are based on income. The less money they make, the less taxes they pay.

Yes, I have considered why. Even liberal news organizations like MSNBC admit that women call in sick to work almost twice as often as men. http://www.nbcnews.com/id/21547885/n.../#.UQyAEqXOoaM
Yet women still complain about unequal pay. In other words, they want a man to do the work for them on the days they call in sick, while getting the same pay as that man.

Well, if they don't do work, they should not complain about unequal pay. If they do equal work to men, which many of them do, they should get equal pay as men.

If women were really doing equal work for less money, you would see men being fired en masse and being replaced with women. What do CEOs need these men for? They can hire a women for 20% less. Yet obviously that is not happening. It is become women are inferior. They do inferior work, and they should get inferior pay as a result.

If so, then yes. However, this is not the case, as they are already getting equal pay in many places. In other places, however, they are discriminated against and get inferior pay for the same work.

If women are so equal to men in terms of intelligence, morality, drive, etc. why are there so few women billionaires, millionaires, and CEOs? Why do they need their own brand of sporting events? I constantly hear about women getting so many college degrees, yet they can rarely seem to turn these degrees into something useful other than student debt which just creates an even greater burden for the government.

Discrimination. Less opportunities. Chance/luck. And they need their own sporting events because the most talented woman at a sport cannot compete equally with the most talented man at a sport, because women are physically weaker.

You say want to be impartial, then you do nothing but attempt to fight for feminists. You asked me to provide a source for my information, but provided none for your own. You say women should be treated equally under the law while explaining how there should be special exceptions in the law that only benefit women.

Pregnancy is an exception. They have to carry a baby for 9 months and may not be able to work effectively during this time, which means they probably will need more support than males do.

The only thing impartial about you is probably how you impartially deliver handjobs regardless of whether or not the recipient is ugly, fat, a man, woman, etc.

Foul words from a True Christian.

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Originally Posted by HandJob

Read it. Good book.

So you read books about pigs, but you refuse to study the Holy Word of God?

[Tool of satan]

Originally Posted by Pastor Ezekiel

So you read books about pigs, but you refuse to study the Holy Word of God?

That's one conclusion you could come to.

[Prayer Warrior]

Originally Posted by HandJob

Obviously, they do want equal rights.

Since they want equal rights so badly, all I'm asking is that they get equal responsibility as well.

Originally Posted by HandJob

Well, feminists in America already have the same essential rights as other males. They are arguing against cultural stereotypes and discrimination. Good point though, some radical feminists do go over the top with wanting females to be independent.

Most of these "cultural stereotypes" are accurate. They didn't appear out of thin air.

Since when has discrimination become a bad thing? I hate how the liberal mainstream media always acts like discrimination is so awful and horrible, yet they do it everyday.

When you're hiring for a position, and there is one person with no experience, and one with 20 years experience, what do you do? You discriminate against the person with no experience!

When an agent for a car insurance company is trying to decide what rate their customers should pay they discriminate against people who have had accidents in the past!

When you are trying to hire, you discriminate against people who are twice as likely to call in sick (women).

Arbitrary discrimination is wrong. eg. Discrimination because someone has strong religious beliefs. Not discrimination because they don't do their work properly.

Like orphanages infringe on the independence of children. I don't think you have a firm grasp on independence.

No, that wasn't the point of the comment. Anyways, females in shelters are dependent on others, they aren't denying this.

First you try to counter my point by telling me my grasp of independence is incorrect, then when you're called out on it you say "Well.. they actually are dependent"? I think you're the only one here without a firm grasp of independence. Also, if these women in shelters are so dependent, then why should they be talking about how equal they are to men while men are paying for their housing, food, etc.?

Naturally unequal physically, yes. No, they should not get equal pay if they do not do the same work. However, they should get equal pay if they do equal work.

Since I already showed that they show up to work late twice as often as men, they don't do equal work, they don't get equal pay, and that's the way it should be. I don't talk about the way the world could be or would be, just the way it is.

Is he a good football player, as good as those on NFL, even though he's short? If so, the rule is wrong and should be corrected to look for ability, not height.

Among people in his height, he's the best person I know. However, due to his height he simply can't run as fast, and can't endure tackles as much. So, no due to his height he isn't good enough. Though I think if he were taller he probably would be. He trains just as hard.

Yet I'm not aware of any "short people football". Women are a protected class who get their own segment of sports. There are lots of men just like my friend who can compete with the best women, but are not good enough to compete with the best men. These men are unfairly excluded from sports just because they happen to be a man.

No, of course not. The laws and rules protect women from getting hurt physically by men or having to compete physically with them. Likewise, laws also prevent women from hurting men. This is what I meant, not that they should be compensated for lacking in physical ability.

My post didn't say "there should be no laws whatsoever protected women from getting attacked". Only that the violence against women act shouldn't apply to them. This is an act that was designed by Joe Biden http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/v...inst-women-act . Last I checked, the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, yet this law demands special protection that only applies to women. It priorities women getting beaten above men getting beaten. What is "equal" about that?

No, the man has a choice. The woman has a choice. If they scream that they want to be independent while accepting other's payments for their things, then they are hypocrites. But most of them do not do this.

Most of them do not do this?? Where'd you hear that? There's something called the US census, maybe you've heard of it. It indicates that 97% of all alimony payments are paid by men to women. It also indicates that women tend to have lower wages in joint couples. Ask any of these women if they want equal rights or independence, I bet most of them would tell you that they do.

Alimony is all about the women maintaining the lifestyle she has become accustomed to. Yet if a man were to say he was accustomed to having his laundry done, his food made, and his house clean, it wouldn't mean squat.

Again, you demand sources from me but provide none yourself.

Well, if they don't do work, they should not complain about unequal pay. If they do equal work to men, which many of them do, they should get equal pay as men.

(See above)

If so, then yes. However, this is not the case, as they are already getting equal pay in many places. In other places, however, they are discriminated against and get inferior pay for the same work.

Discrimination. Less opportunities. Chance/luck. And they need their own sporting events because the most talented woman at a sport cannot compete equally with the most talented man at a sport, because women are physically weaker.

If women were really doing equal work for less money, you would see men being fired en masse and being replaced with women. What do CEOs need these men for? They can hire a women for 20% less. Yet obviously that is not happening. It is become women are inferior. They do inferior work, and they should get inferior pay as a result.

I already responded to this, and I think my response is good enough. I'm done providing sources when you haven't provided any. You say they're doing the same work? That it is all due to chance and luck? Prove it.

Pregnancy is an exception. They have to carry a baby for 9 months and may not be able to work effectively during this time, which means they probably will need more support than males do.

These feminists have fought tooth and nail for the right to use birth control, and kill their babies with abortions. Yet the one time they could use it for a good cause, they don't. Better yet, how about they stop being such big sluts and keep their legs shut while they're on the job? They don't "have" to do anything. Can you imagine if this was applied to any other situation? Imagine if I just wanted to go mediate for 9 months, or if I just wanted to go to another country to give to charity. Should I get a meditation leave? A charity leave?

These women have a job to do, and they signed a contract to do it. It isn't the employer's problem that these women decided to be sluts. And to the women who are married, and plan to have children and take care of them. They shouldn't be getting jobs that don't have 9 months worth of vacation days.

Foul words from a True Christian.

I'm not the one who comes here and posts with the name "Handjob". Do you go in public naked, and then blame people for accusing you of being naked? Do you shoot people, then say the people who are calling you a murderer are foul?

[Tool of satan]

Originally Posted by Prayer Warrior

Since they want equal rights so badly, all I'm asking is that they get equal responsibility as well.

You don't think they are equally responsible for their actions?

Most of these "cultural stereotypes" are accurate. They didn't appear out of thin air.

In some cases, they are a tendency. They are not what one should look upon as a fact.

Since when has discrimination become a bad thing? I hate how the liberal mainstream media always acts like discrimination is so awful and horrible, yet they do it everyday.

When you're hiring for a position, and there is one person with no experience, and one with 20 years experience, what do you do? You discriminate against the person with no experience!

Obviously. It really depends on the job, sometimes experience is a must-have advantage. And sometimes, you take the person with more ability over the one with more experience.

When an agent for a car insurance company is trying to decide what rate their customers should pay they discriminate against people who have had accidents in the past!

Again, depends on the situation. They should not discriminate without knowing anything about the accidents. However, if the person has been in many accidents because of their own reckless driving, it's really the person's fault that they drove recklessly that they now have to pay higher for insurance.

When you are trying to hire, you discriminate against people who are twice as likely to call in sick (women).

Arbitrary discrimination is wrong. eg. Discrimination because someone has strong religious beliefs. Not discrimination because they don't do their work properly.

How do you know they won't do their work properly? Women are a large group, how do you know that they as an individual act like their group? Since you know nothing about how often the individual usually calls in sick, you should not discriminate against them.

First you try to counter my point by telling me my grasp of independence is incorrect, then when you're called out on it you say "Well.. they actually are dependent"? I think you're the only one here without a firm grasp of independence.

There are different kinds of independence. Your's takes on a very "black or white" form.

Also, if these women in shelters are so dependent, then why should they be talking about how equal they are to men while men are paying for their housing, food, etc.?

Are they?

Since I already showed that they show up to work late twice as often as men, they don't do equal work, they don't get equal pay, and that's the way it should be. I don't talk about the way the world could be or would be, just the way it is.

That doesn't apply to all women. Simply, equal work= equal pay. An individual woman should get the same pay if she works as much as an individual man. On the same thing of course.

Among people in his height, he's the best person I know. However, due to his height he simply can't run as fast, and can't endure tackles as much. So, no due to his height he isn't good enough. Though I think if he were taller he probably would be. He trains just as hard.

Yet I'm not aware of any "short people football". Women are the only protected class who get their segment of sports. There are lots of men just like my friend who can compete with the best women, but are not good enough to compete with the best men. These men are unfairly excluded from sports just because they happen to be a short man.

Well, sadly, short people aren't as large a group as women, and there aren't as many people interested in short people sports as there are in women sports.

My post didn't say "there should be no laws whatsoever protected women from getting attacked". Only that the violence against women act shouldn't apply to them.

Well if it didn't apply to them, it would be rather pointless..

This is an act that was designed by Joe Biden http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/v...inst-women-act . Last I checked, the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law, yet this law demands special protection that only applies to women. It priorities women getting beaten above men getting beaten. What is "equal" about that?

It is unequal, and men should get equal protection against violence as well.

Most of them do not do this?? Where'd you hear that? There's something called the US census, maybe you've heard of it. It indicates that 97% of all alimony payments are paid by men to women. Ask any of these women if they want equal rights or independence, I bet most of them would tell you that they do.

Well, I was using your view on independence when I said that. Anyways, women living off alimony payments are dependent, but I would suppose many of them would want to become independent at some point. Not absolutely independent, of course.

It also indicates that women tend to have lower wages in joint couples.

Same argument.

Again, you demand sources from me but provide none yourself.

Did I?

I already responded to this, and I think my response is good enough. I'm done providing sources when you haven't provided any. You say they're doing the same work? Prove it.

Most convinient source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2..._United_States

These feminists have fought tooth and nail for the right to use birth control, and kill their babies with abortions. Yet the one time they could use it for a good cause, they don't. Better yet, how about they stop being such big sluts and keep their legs shut while they're on the job? They don't "have" to do anything.

Well, birth control would help with this. Also, parental leave is for the good of the child, not just the mother.

I'm not the one who comes here and posts with the name "Handjob"

That was not my choice, as discussed in my intro thread.

[Prayer Warrior]

Originally Posted by HandJob

You don't think they are equally responsible for their actions?

I just said if want to try to be equal they should have equal responsibilities. That would include being equally responsible.

Originally Posted by HandJob

In some cases, they are a tendency. They are not what one should look upon as a fact.

I didn't say "In all cases all stereotypes are correct", or that they're all factual.

Originally Posted by HandJob

Obviously. It really depends on the job, sometimes experience is a must-have advantage. And sometimes, you take the person with more ability over the one with more experience.

Again, depends on the situation. They should not discriminate without knowing anything about the accidents. However, if the person has been in many accidents because of their own reckless driving, it's really the person's fault that they drove recklessly that they now have to pay higher for insurance.

These are just examples to prove a point. The point is discrimination is good in some circumstances, and everybody does it. "Discriminate against" doesn't mean you will for certain go with the other side, just that you tend to favor it. There are still other factors you take into consideration. Did you expect me to say "In the event there are two applicants whom have equal abilities, and all other traits that would be relevant to the job are equal, with the only difference between the two candidates being that one has more experience than another, and that experience is applicable to the job, the majority of people would be more likely to hire the individual with the greatest amount of experience among the two".

Originally Posted by HandJob

How do you know they won't do their work properly? Women are a large group, how do you know that they as an individual act like their group? Since you know nothing about how often the individual usually calls in sick, you should not discriminate against them.

I didn't say "every individual women will do a worse job than every individual men." There are lazy men you can find. So what? In the same context that you say women are weaker than men and can't compete, I say women don't do as good of a job as men. How do I know? Because they collectively, earn a lower wage than men, and call in sick nearly twice as often. That means for each individual women, she is twice as likely to call in sick.

Originally Posted by HandJob

There are different kinds of independence. Your's takes on a very "black or white" form.

Why don't you enlighten me and explain what kind of independence they want to have. I thought when they said they wanted "independence", it meant independence as it applies to everything. If women only want selective independence, such as the independence to decide what sort of seasoning to use on the meal she cooks her husband, or the independence to decide what sort of cleaner she uses when she scrubs the floor, sure, I've got no problem with that.

Originally Posted by HandJob

Are they?

If a women is a feminist, then yes. This is about feminists not being in women's shelters. I didn't say anything about other women.

Originally Posted by HandJob

That doesn't apply to all women. Simply, equal work= equal pay. An individual woman should get the same pay if she works as much as an individual man. On the same thing of course.

Yup, and that is how it works now. The reason women get payed less is because they are calling in sick and screwing up so often. There are lazy men too.

Originally Posted by HandJob

Well, sadly, short people aren't as large a group as women, and there aren't as many people interested in short people sports as there are in women sports.

Right, and because of that, he doesn't get a special exception that allows him to get paid what a professional football player would get paid. Regardless of whether or not it is "naturally unequal". In the same sense, women should not get extra time off, regardless of whether or not they get pregnant. Bosses don't care when you get pregnant. They have work they want done.

Originally Posted by HandJob

Well if it didn't apply to them, it would be rather pointless..

It's a corrupt and unequal law that violates the constitution, it should be rendered pointless.

Originally Posted by HandJob

It is unequal, and men should get equal protection against violence as well.

Then you should have no problem with the violence against women act being abolished.

Originally Posted by HandJob

Well, I was using your view on independence when I said that. Anyways, women living off alimony payments are dependent, but I would suppose many of them would want to become independent at some point. Not absolutely independent, of course.

What do you mean "absolutely independent"? It doesn't matter what they want at some point. My friend wants to be in the super bowl at some point. If you're not "absolutely independent" today then you're dependent.

Originally Posted by HandJob

Did I?

Originally Posted by HandJob

Where'd you get this information? And have you thought about why this might be so?

Originally Posted by HandJob

How do you know they won't do their work properly? Women are a large group, how do you know that they as an individual act like their group?

You ask me for a source then in the same post proceed to question whether or not you were asking for a source? Geeze, I knew atheists were dumb, but do they have memory problems too?

Most convinient source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2..._United_States

Well, first of all anyone can edit this, so I don't know how credible it is when wikipedia is your only source, but lets ignore that for now. Did you even bother to read this link? Most of it is talking about them not getting called back for interviews and such, and the income disparity. I did not read the entire article, but from what I read, all I saw is that women get paid less. It doesn't prove that the women who get paid less actually are doing equal work. There's probably a very good reason why they're getting less money.

And what about CEOs? If these women who are so smart won't get hired by these big-bad men how about they start their own company if they're so much smarter?

Originally Posted by HandJob

Well, birth control would help with this. Also, parental leave is for the good of the child, not just the mother.

So what? Do you think the boss cares about the good of the child? It isn't the boss's child. It isn't the employers problem. What if I wanted to go spend time in Africa helping sick children? Should I be able to leave my job, do that, while still getting paid as if I was at my job?

Originally Posted by HandJob

That was not my choice, as discussed in my intro thread.

You sure like blaming other people for your mistakes, don't you? I signed up and I have kept the name I registered with. I don't need to make excuses about pastors and moderators going in and editing my username. If anyone forced you to choose a different username, it was probably the demons that were possessing you while you were registering. This sort of thing wouldn't happen if you gave yourself over to Jesus and read the Bible instead of pig stories and feminist propaganda.

[Tool of satan]

Originally Posted by Prayer Warrior

I just said if want to try to be equal they should have equal responsibilities. That would include being equally responsible.

How are they not?

I didn't say "In all cases all stereotypes are correct", or that they're all factual.

No, you said that "most of these cultural stereotypes are accurate." Which is incorrect, depending on the case.

These are just examples to prove a point. The point is discrimination is good in some circumstances, and everybody does it. "Discriminate against" doesn't mean you will for certain go with the other side, just that you tend to favor it. There are still other factors you take into consideration. Did you expect me to say "In the event there are two applicants whom have equal abilities, and all other traits that would be relevant to the job are equal, with the only difference between the two candidates being that one has more experience than another, and that experience is applicable to the job, the majority of people would be more likely to hire the individual with the greatest amount of experience among the two".

That's highly improbable, but sure, say that. Also, if one has less experience, it is highly unlikely that they will have equal ability, depending on the job.

I didn't say "every individual women will do a worse job than every individual men." There are lazy men you can find. So what? In the same context that you say women are weaker than men and can't compete, I say women don't do as good of a job as men. How do I know? Because they collectively, earn a lower wage than men, and call in sick nearly twice as often. That means for each individual women, she is twice as likely to call in sick.

Possibly twice as likely. Which means that you shouldn't discriminate and say that they will and not hire them. Also, collectively earning less does not mean they don't do as good a job, they might just be doing different things or they are discriminated against. Again, see the wage gap.

Why don't you enlighten me and explain what kind of independence they want to have. I thought when they said they wanted "independence", it meant independence as it applies to everything. If women only want selective independence, such as the independence to decide what sort of seasoning to use on the meal she cooks her husband, or the independence to decide what sort of cleaner she uses when she scrubs the floor, sure, I've got no problem with that.

I think you'd define that as freedom, not independence. Your independence is not relying on anyone, which is what some feminists want. However, see below on defining independence.

If a women is a feminist, then yes. This is about feminists not being in women's shelters. I didn't say anything about other women.

You were talking about people who wanted independence while being in shelters. Yes, they do want independence to be able to live on their own, but they have to be dependent for the time being on the shelter.

Right, and because of that, he doesn't get a special exception that allows him to get paid what a professional football player would get paid. Regardless of whether or not it is "naturally unequal". In the same sense, women should not get extra time off, regardless of whether or not they get pregnant. Bosses don't care when you get pregnant. They have work they want done.

The government and at least half the population cares. So it's really too bad for you.

It's a corrupt and unequal law that violates the constitution, it should be rendered pointless.

Or it should apply to men.

Then you should have no problem with the violence against women act being abolished.

See above.

What do you mean "absolutely independent"? It doesn't matter what they want at some point. My friend wants to be in the super bowl at some point. If you're not "absolutely independent" today then you're dependent.

independent







1. not influenced or controlled by others in matters of opinion, conduct, etc.; thinking or acting for oneself: an independent thinker.

2. not subject to another's authority or jurisdiction; autonomous; free: an independent businessman.

3. not influenced by the thought or action of others: independent research.

4. not dependent; not depending or contingent upon something else for existence, operation, etc.

5. not relying on another or others for aid or support.



No one can be truly independent unless they live in anarchy or outside societal influence. Feminists are not calling for absolute independence. They probably want #1, #2 to an extent, and #3. #4 and #5 are options depending on whether they are able to achieve this. Obviously, if they aren't able to, they should not be saying that they are able to be independent.

You ask me for a source then in the same post proceed to question whether or not you were asking for a source? Geeze, I knew atheists were dumb, but do they have memory problems too?

Not asking for a source in that post, I was asking for an opinion. In the first post, yes, I was asking for a source.

Well, first of all anyone can edit this, so I don't know how credible it is when wikipedia is your only source, but lets ignore that for now. Did you even bother to read this link? Most of it is talking about them not getting called back for interviews and such, and the income disparity. I did not read the entire article, but from what I read, all I saw is that women get paid less. It doesn't prove that the women who get paid less actually are doing equal work. There's probably a very good reason why they're getting less money.

Many factors, one of them being "the estimates for the discriminatory component of the gender pay gap include 5%[4]:2 and 7%[3]:9 and in at least one study grow as men and women's careers progress."

And what about CEOs? If these women who are so smart won't get hired by these big-bad men how about they start their own company if they're so much smarter?

Not enough support from society? Some do start companies. Also, they aren't claiming that they're smarter.

So what? Do you think the boss cares about the good of the child? It isn't the boss's child. It isn't the employers problem. What if I wanted to go spend time in Africa helping sick children? Should I be able to leave my job, do that, while still getting paid as if I was at my job?

See above.

You sure like blaming other people for your mistakes, don't you? I signed up and I have kept the name I registered with. I don't need to make excuses about pastors and moderators going in and editing my username. If anyone forced you to choose a different username, it was probably the demons that were possessing you while you were registering. This sort of thing wouldn't happen if you gave yourself over to Jesus and read the Bible instead of pig stories and feminist propaganda.

Sure, if that's what you want to believe.

[Levi Jones]

tl:dr Have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior yet?

[Tool of satan]

Originally Posted by Levi Jones

tl:dr Have you accepted Jesus as your personal savior yet?

Prayer's probably still responding

Not yet.

[Prayer Warrior]

Originally Posted by HandJob

How are they not?

In the ways that I explained in the opening post.

Originally Posted by HandJob

No, you said that "most of these cultural stereotypes are accurate." Which is incorrect, depending on the case.

Which cultural stereotypes are feminists trying to fight against?

Originally Posted by HandJob

That's highly improbable, but sure, say that. Also, if one has less experience, it is highly unlikely that they will have equal ability, depending on the job.

Yeah, it is highly improbable. That is why from the start I simply said you discriminate against people with less experience. Because people with more experience are generally better at the job.

Originally Posted by HandJob

Possibly twice as likely. Which means that you shouldn't discriminate and say that they will and not hire them. Also, collectively earning less does not mean they don't do as good a job, they might just be doing different things or they are discriminated against. Again, see the wage gap.

Sure, different. Like how men are doctors, and women are nurses. How men are managers, and women are secretaries. They do different work in the sense that it is work that doesn't pay as well.

Originally Posted by HandJob

I think you'd define that as freedom, not independence. Your independence is not relying on anyone, which is what some feminists want. However, see below on defining independence.



You were talking about people who wanted independence while being in shelters. Yes, they do want independence to be able to live on their own, but they have to be dependent for the time being on the shelter.

Again it doesn't matter what they want sometime in the future, they are dependent right now. Once they've gotten out of the shelter, then they can talk.

Originally Posted by HandJob

The government and at least half the population cares. So it's really too bad for you.

So, when you can't come up with a logical or moral reason to refute my claims, your argument is "other people like it"? I thought atheists were supposed to be logical (Yeah right)

A corrupt government run by Obama, along with sinful people that includes a women vote. It isn't just too bad for me. It is too bad for millions of business owners across the nation who are already struggling. It is too bad for all of the other qualified applicants who want to get a job, but can't because the position is held by a women out for pregnancy leave. It is too bad for America.

Originally Posted by HandJob

Or it should apply to men.

Sure, once I see the "Violence against men act", I'll back down from this position.

Originally Posted by HandJob

No one can be truly independent unless they live in anarchy or outside societal influence. Feminists are not calling for absolute independence. They probably want #1, #2 to an extent, and #3. #4 and #5 are options depending on whether they are able to achieve this. Obviously, if they aren't able to, they should not be saying that they are able to be independent.

Exactly, they shouldn't say they're independent if they aren't. All I'm asking is that people who claim to be independent actually be independent. Women who want to remain dependent on men are free to do so provided they follow my simple instructions outlined in the opening post.

Originally Posted by HandJob

Not asking for a source in that post, I was asking for an opinion. In the first post, yes, I was asking for a source.

You asked how I knew, not why I believed. Knowledge is not an opinion, knowledge is a fact.

Originally Posted by HandJob

Many factors, one of them being "the estimates for the discriminatory component of the gender pay gap include 5%[4]:2 and 7%[3]:9 and in at least one study grow as men and women's careers progress."

So what? Again, all this shows is that men discriminate against women. As I mentioned earlier there's nothing wrong with discrimination when you have the right criteria. It doesn't prove that women who are discriminated against actually provide equal work.

With your reasoning, I could say "children get hired for 50% less often, and they get 20% less pay on average even though there are one or two children who happen to be good people who are good at the job. How unjust."

Originally Posted by HandJob

Not enough support from society? Some do start companies. Also, they aren't claiming that they're smarter.

Not enough support from society? Only in America would women be granted a free education, food stamps, loans, the ability to invest, then turn around and claim they don't have enough support from society. What exactly is "enough"? Where a man is sitting behind the scenes explaining exactly what to do?

Some women do have companies, just ask Meg Whitman (CEO of eBay). There is nothing "holding women back" except their own lack of intelligence and drive. If they were smart enough, and they wanted to, they could start a company, yet so few of them do. There are more men in millionaire and billionaire positions than women, just like how there are more men CEOs than women. That's a fact. Maybe instead of blaming chance, luck, and society for their failures, they should take a look in the mirror and realize how inadequate they really are.

I only hope that feminists can see the error in their line of thinking, and accept their God given role as inferior beings designed to serve men. And if they can't do that, then at least stop wasting men's tax dollars and resources on unequal benefits for themselves.

[Cranky Old Man]

I don't get what feminists are whining about. I treat all women exactly the same!

[Tool of satan]

Originally Posted by Prayer Warrior

In the ways that I explained in the opening post.

Well we've been through that first post so I'm just going to move on..

Yeah, it is highly improbable. That is why from the start I simply said you discriminate against people with less experience. Because people with more experience are generally better at the job.

They also have results to show, while the inexperienced do not.

Sure, different. Like how men are doctors, and women are nurses. How men are managers, and women are secretaries. They do different work in the sense that it is work that doesn't pay as well.

Again, stereotyping jobs, which is why women don't get these jobs or feel reluctant to pursue those fields.

Again it doesn't matter what they want sometime in the future, they are dependent right now. Once they've gotten out of the shelter, then they can talk.

They should be able to say they want to become independent, because that would be exactly what they want, to not have to rely on the shelter anymore.

So, when you can't come up with a logical or moral reason to refute my claims, your argument is "other people like it"? I thought atheists were supposed to be logical (Yeah right)

Stereotyping again I see. Bosses care about money, not about whether there employees can't work. That's why we have government and labor laws.

A corrupt government run by Obama, along with sinful people that includes a women vote. It isn't just too bad for me. It is too bad for millions of business owners across the nation who are already struggling. It is too bad for all of the other qualified applicants who want to get a job, but can't because the position is held by a women out for pregnancy leave. It is too bad for America.

And you, and the losing battle you're trying to fight.

You asked how I knew, not why I believed. Knowledge is not an opinion, knowledge is a fact.

You don't have knowledge about the individual woman yet you made claims as if you did.

So what? Again, all this shows is that men discriminate against women. As I mentioned earlier there's nothing wrong with discrimination when you have the right criteria. It doesn't prove that women who are discriminated against actually provide equal work.

Doesn't prove that they don't provide equal work.

Not enough support from society? Only in America would women be granted a free education, food stamps, loans, the ability to invest, then turn around and claim they don't have enough support from society. What exactly is "enough"? Where a man is sitting behind the scenes explaining exactly what to do?

"Women's experiences of gender discrimination and feminist protests concerning a contemporary backlash against women reflect women's inroads into traditionally masculine arenas, especially their efforts to gain access to high-status, high-paying male-dominated jobs, which are thought to require characteristics stereotypically ascribed to men."

Enough is when they are no longer stereotyped and discriminated against.

Which cultural stereotypes are feminists trying to fight against?

Some women do have companies, just ask Meg Whitman (CEO of eBay). There is nothing "holding women back" except their own lack of intelligence and drive. If they were smart enough, and they wanted to, they could start a company, yet so few of them do. There are more men in millionaire and billionaire positions than women, just like how there are more men CEOs than women. That's a fact. Maybe instead of blaming chance, luck, and society for their failures, they should take a look in the mirror and realize how inadequate they really are.

Again, many factors. Such as, they are stereotyped to rearing children, to being inferior to men, to "prejudice against women in masculine domains (e.g. male-dominated jobs, male-stereotypic behavior)." Anyways, Meg Whitman is an example of a woman who is more than capable of being a CEO. Kind of tramples on your "women are inferior" stereotype, but continue believing that if you want to.

I only hope that feminists can see the error in their line of thinking, and accept their God given role as inferior beings designed to serve men. And if they can't do that, then at least stop wasting men's tax dollars and resources on unequal benefits for themselves.

Not going to happen any time soon. Also, not unequal benefits, explained this in my first post.

[James Hutchins]

If women want to be treated as equals to a man, no man would marry one (unless he was a Homer). It is in a females instinct to cater to the mans needs, cooking, cleaning and pleasing him. Just like it is in a mans instincts to tolerate the females presence. No different than a good hunting dog. Even as a pup, they know what they must do. Not letting a dog hunt leaves them unfulfilled. So I do not care what the God haters believe, there is no way I am going to be cruel to a female and let her feel unfulfilled and unneeded.

[Tool of satan]

Originally Posted by James Hutchins

It is in a females instinct to cater to the mans needs, cooking, cleaning and pleasing him. Just like it is in a mans instincts to tolerate the females presence.

Well, I personally am happy that modern society resists this opinion and is moving away from it.

[James Hutchins]

Originally Posted by HandJob

Well, I personally am happy that modern society resists this opinion and is moving away from it.

No friend, not true.
Perhaps the pantie waisted 'men' you spend your time with who are surrounded by raging bull dyke full on lesbeans feel that way because the 'tough chicks' will sock them.
There is not a single female anywhere in the Shenandoah mountains or the Smokies that 'wears the pants'.
Perhaps you feel inclined to scrub toilets or darn socks. For normal men, that simply is not the case.
That is not an opinon, that is a fact.

[BelieverInGod]

Originally Posted by HandJob

Well, I personally am happy that modern society resists this opinion and is moving away from it.

And any woman who WANTS to be "just a housewife" is just backwards and stupid and deserves anything she gets.


Honestly, "feminists" are nothing more than another socialist plot so that the state raises our children. Society is falling apart around our knees, divorce is rampant, but somehow these things are nothing compared to a woman having the right to abandon her family in order to have a career where she gets all the rights of men, but extra benefits because she's a woman and therefore "special".

[Tool of satan]

Originally Posted by James Hutchins

No friend, not true.
There is not a single female anywhere in the Shenandoah mountains or the Smokies that 'wears the pants'.

Do you know every single female in these areas?

Perhaps you feel inclined to scrub toilets or darn socks. For normal men, that simply is not the case.
That is not an opinon, that is a fact.

And that is your opinion.

[Tool of satan]

Originally Posted by BelieverInGod

And any woman who WANTS to be "just a housewife" is just backwards and stupid and deserves anything she gets.

No.

Honestly, "feminists" are nothing more than another socialist plot so that the state raises our children. Society is falling apart around our knees, divorce is rampant, but somehow these things are nothing compared to a woman having the right to abandon her family in order to have a career where she gets all the rights of men, but extra benefits because she's a woman and therefore "special".

..Read above for a long winded argument about all of this.

[James Hutchins]

Originally Posted by HandJob

Do you know every single female in these areas?

As far as anyone can tell. We are pretty close knitted here in the mountains.
Tell me, do you know all the females everywhere else and they all share your views? When are you planning to 'be with child'?

And that is your opinion.

Not really, it is the female opinon. The few females I have met that feel like you are either drag queens from California (Los Angeles or San Francisco) or from Connecticut. In every case, they came from broken homes where the male member was dead, either from a industrial accident or from trying to save the world from communism and the spread of hate. For the male children in those homes, the females often mutilated the child's genitals causing the boy to want to become a Homer.
When did your dad die?

I think women should be women. That is my opinion.