I think feminism is pointless.

[Dodger]

Rape occurrence statistics are also exaggerated in a lot of studies to make men look like violent, uncontrollable beings.

[Ad Bot]

[Doomonkey]

this post stopped making sense like 5 words inthat's a really crappy excuse. plug your phone in

I'm not sure how you don't understand?

The billionaires, who are mostly men, own 99% of all of the money. Even with all of this wealth belonging to men, the women still make on average 70% as much as men. If you were to remove the billionaires from the equation then, the women might make more than men on average.

[Fredulus]

The billionaires, who are mostly men, own 99% of all of the money.

nope

[stuntman021]

Rape occurrence statistics are also exaggerated in a lot of studies to make men look like violent, uncontrollable beings.

do you have a source for this?

I'm not sure how you don't understand?

The billionaires, who are mostly men, own 99% of all of the money. Even with all of this wealth belonging to men, the women still make on average 70% as much as men. If you were to remove the billionaires from the equation then, the women might make more than men on average.

you can't go "WELL IF WE TAKE AWAY BILLIONARE MEN FROM THE EQUATION" then of course you're going to end up with a higher average pay for women
and the fact that most billionares are men also reinforces the fact that women are paid less on average

[Anti-Block]

I'm not sure how you don't understand?

The billionaires, who are mostly men, own 99% of all of the money. Even with all of this wealth belonging to men, the women still make on average 70% as much as men. If you were to remove the billionaires from the equation then, the women might make more than men on average.

Um, not at all, the billionaires only control about 40-30% of the wealth.
And even if you did take out the billionaires, you'd still have the government, and such.

[Doomonkey]

do you have a source for this?you can't go "WELL IF WE TAKE AWAY BILLIONARE MEN FROM THE EQUATION" then of course you're going to end up with a higher average pay for women
and the fact that most billionares are men also reinforces the fact that women are paid less on average

You don't understand my point. The first time I said this, I mentioned that all of those rich people are from an era of loveism. You cannot use the remnants of a past economy to make statistics for the current one.

nope

That seems to be what the protesters on wall street think.

[stuntman021]

You don't understand my point. The first time I said this, I mentioned that all of those rich people are from an era of loveism. You cannot use the remnants of a past economy to make statistics for the current one.
That seems to be what the protesters on wall street think.

except when the remnants of a past economy still survive in the current economy, i.e. most billionares being dudes (which you need to provide a source for anyhow), then you can't say "SINCE IT WAS IN THE PAST IT DOESN'T APPLY"
that's basically the exact same argument confederates who say "IT'S NOT HATE, IT'S HISTORY" use

[Doomonkey]

Okay so those statistics are off, whatever. My point is that I would like to see that statistic about wage recalculated only including people who got their jobs in the past 10 years. Anyone who got their job before that time is from a past era.

[stuntman021]

Okay so those statistics are off, whatever. My point is that I would like to see that statistic about wage recalculated only including people who got their jobs in the past 10 years. Anyone who got their job before that time is from a past era.

did you even read my post
if the remnants of said past era still survive, then the problems associated with whatever remnants survived still exist

[Anti-Block]

You don't understand my point. The first time I said this, I mentioned that all of those rich people are from an era of loveism. You cannot use the remnants of a past economy to make statistics for the current one.

So, an fluctuating economy just doesn't affect old people?
Sorry, that's not true at all.

That seems to be what the protesters on wall street think.

There's a difference between billionaires and big money corporations, Doo.

[Doomonkey]

-snip-

Nonono

Basically, they are saying, "Look at this statistic, modern economy is loveist."
I reply, "That statistic isn't valid because it includes the past, in order for us to create a statistic about modern economy we need to use modern economy."

[stuntman021]

Nonono

Basically, they are saying, "Look at this statistic, modern economy is loveist."
I reply, "That statistic isn't valid because it includes the past, in order for us to create a statistic about modern economy we need to use modern economy."

okay here are some instructions
1. read every word of this post:

did you even read my post
if the remnants of said past era still survive, then the problems associated with whatever remnants survived still exist

2. make sure you fully understand this post
after 1 and 2 are completed, then you can make a reply to it

[Dodger]

do you have a source for this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiV9i9cdVYg
http://www.city-journal.org/2008/18_1_campus_rape.html

[Anti-Block]

Nonono

Basically, they are saying, "Look at this statistic, modern economy is loveist."
I reply, "That statistic isn't valid because it includes the past, in order for us to create a statistic about modern economy we need to use modern economy."

wait wait wait.

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

[Doomonkey]

So, an fluctuating economy just doesn't affect old people?

Where is that from? I'm saying that the old people shouldn't count because they do not represent the modern economy. That would be like me calculating the modern mortality rate using data from the 20th century. The babies might be currently dead, but using those statistics does not allow for the inclusion of more modern medicine.