I think feminism is pointless.

[Doomonkey]

wait wait wait.

woman's .70 cents to a man's dollar IS modern.
That estimate came out a year ago.

Yes, but see the last post. It uses modern people, but some of those people got their jobs before a year ago. A lot of the people with high incomes have been working a long time.

[Ad Bot]

[stuntman021]

do you have a reputable source for this?

[Harm94]

:|

i do hope you never become a judge.

What I trying to say is in most cases a woman gets away a crime because she can come up with the excuse/lie that her husband beats her.

[Fredulus]

Yes, but see the last post. It uses modern people, but some of those people got their jobs before a year ago. A lot of the people with high incomes have been working a long time.

if we did it your way we'd only see statistics for newly hired workers, which we're not interested in, we're interested in the big picture. and these billionaires from "loveist times" you keep talking about aren't included in this .70/1.00 ratio anyway, they don't get an hourly wage lol, they're just living off their fortune in the bank.

[Anti-Block]

Yes, but see the last post. It uses modern people, but some of those people got their jobs before a year ago. A lot of the people with high incomes have been working a long time.

this isn't about those people!

it doesn't matter about the veterans of the trade.

The modern economy reaches out to all and everything. It is not a single thing which exists in multiple times. It is ever changing, and it encompasses new and old. these averages .70 cents to a dollar, are averages of EVERYBODY; they're all contributing to one number

[The Corporation]

it's fine by me until it gets the the point the feminist in question seems to want greater rights and not equal rights.

[Doomonkey]

if we did it your way we'd only see statistics for newly hired workers, which we're not interested in, we're interested in the big picture. and these billionaires from "loveist times" you keep talking about aren't included in this .70/1.00 ratio anyway, they don't get an hourly wage lol, they're just living off their fortune in the bank.

this isn't about those people!

it doesn't matter about the veterans of the trade.

The modern economy reaches out to all and everything. It is not a single thing which exists in multiple times. It is ever changing, and it encompasses new and old. these averages .70 cents to a dollar, are averages of EVERYBODY; they're all contributing to one number

But a lot of the people who are high up in corporations and earn a lot of money got into those corporations a long time ago. They got there when there was loveism.

It would be like calling a country tribal because a majority of black people are in their jails. But you don't add in the fact that they recently had all sorts of new laws against that. Sure, there would be a large number of people in jails, but past offenses cannot describe current situations in this case.

[Anti-Block]

But a lot of the people who are high up in corporations and earn a lot of money got into those corporations a long time ago. They got there when there was loveism.

there still is loveism. That's why women make .70 to each 1.00

It would be like calling a country tribal because a majority of black people are in their jails. But you don't add in the fact that they recently had all sorts of new laws against that.

There are no new laws against jailing black people. I don't think congress would pass a bill that says "black people can't go to jail". And if what you're implying is that the country is tribal, it could easily be true.

Sure, there would be a large number of people in jails, but past offenses cannot describe current situations in this case.

so then why should the old people getting into the industry in the past count now?

[Doomonkey]

there still is loveism. That's why women make .70 to each 1.00

That is 100% handicapped. Part of the reason why that statistic is what it is is because of PAST EVENTS. In order to have an accurate picture of CURRENT loveist situations, one should examine people who acquired jobs in RECENT history.

I'm not saying there isn't loveism, I'm saying that factoring in things that happened before the current era is ridiculous.

[Anti-Block]

That is 100% handicapped. Part of the reason why that statistic is what it is is because of PAST EVENTS. In order to have an accurate picture of CURRENT loveist situations, one should examine people who acquired jobs in RECENT history.

I'm not saying there isn't loveism, I'm saying that factoring in things that happened before the current era is ridiculous.

um, that's a statistic of the working class.

[Doomonkey]

um, that's a statistic of the working class.

In the working class their are unions, part of a lot of unions is seniority. That means people who got a job in the PAST now make more money. While loveism may have let them get the job in the past, that part is over and their modern pay does not represent modern loveism, it represents past loveism.

[(Fallen)]

Ugly woman are secretly jealous of beautiful women who have control over men. So, the ugly women, or feminists, try to create a world were beauty doesn't exists and everyone is neutral. That's why they don't wear make up or try to act feminine. That's the gist of it.

[Slugger]

Man kills woman- life in prison.

woman kills man- life in prison.

What about that woman who shot her husband in the head while he was sleeping? And all she had to say was that her husband beat her, and then after she said that she got acquitted.

[Dodger]

do you have a reputable source for this?

The guy in the video lists multiple sources, the myth that 1 in 4 college women are raped conflicts with FBI statistics stating only 56.6 per 100,000 female inhabitants were raped on average in 2009, a small decrease from 2008.

Imagine how the audience would act if the roles were reversed

[Clone v.117]

"A MAN told me i was a bad driver! That loveist bastard!!11! Just because i stole a car and killed 3 people, and so what if i don't even have a license?
The point is this guy is a loveist richard!"