Guy writes a satirical feminist article, and a feminist website published it

[DrenDran]

If a woman, who is undeniably weaker than a man, chooses to work in a job that does require strength, than that's her decision. Why stop her? If she's hurt because of it, that's her loss.

Except it's not just her loss.
A lot of the infamous 'pay gap' can be explained by men taking more physical or more dangerous jobs.
If a women were to enter such a job the government would force her to be paid the same as all her male coworkers, even though she may not be able to do the same work. No to mention that if she gets hurt she could get disability or unemployment, and that's just a bit more tax payer money right there.

Men get angry more often, and people can't think clearly when they're angry! Clearly, men are unsuitable leaders when compared to women, whose motherly instincts help them lead in a more caring yet protective manner.

You remember that whole "ban bossy" thread that was here a whole two days ago?
While I suppose the verdict is still out on whether this is 100% biological or not but women are far more affected by simple words, and need more frequently to be pushed and coddled into positions like this, where pushing and coddling really shouldn't be required.
Leaders should be naturally born and raised, if you have to beg and 'support' someone every step of the way to be a leader, then they're obviously not a very good leader.

I honestly don't see myself voting for anyone who cries over the issues in public.
Here's an article about how Hilary Clinton cried when asked about her personal life in an interview.

After the event, Pernold Young told ABC News that she was glad Clinton showed emotion.
"She allowed herself to feel," Pernold Young said.  " I was surprised and I said, ‘wow there’s someone there.’"
Another woman in the group, Alison Hamilton of Portsmouth, New Hampshire said she, like most of the people in the group, had been considering Obama.
But after seeing Clinton become emotional, she said she was going to vote for Clinton.

Like really?
You're voting for someone because they cried?
That's so absurd.

What if JFK or FDR started crying over how stressful campaign life was.
That'd be pretty loving weird.

[Ad Bot]

[Epicduke]

this whole argument is putting words into other peoples mouths

[dudeman162]

this whole argument is the reason why females should stay in the kitchen

YOU loveIST MISOGYNISTIC JERK AHH

[Chrono]

You know that barista with the bristly mustache at your local coffee joint, the one with the squinty eyes and creative tattoos that just make you tingle and forget all about your pretty frappuccino, have a tumble in the haystack with him.

I died.

Except it's not just her loss.
A lot of the infamous 'pay gap' can be explained by men taking more physical or more dangerous jobs.
If a women were to enter such a job the government would force her to be paid the same as all her male coworkers, even though she may not be able to do the same work. No to mention that if she gets hurt she could get disability or unemployment, and that's just a bit more tax payer money right there.

There's also the part where a male and a female decide to expand on their family, and add a child to their house. This female's income is cut by this thing called a maternity leave. Because this female's income is cut (due to not working at all), the male will often work harder to compensate. But hey, forget families, let's just give women more money right?

[Night Fox]

idk what's worse
like
is it the fact that they published this
or the fact that a guy wrote the entire article thinking nobody would see it except for, like, one editor

also, let's not forget that the site has ads, and we all know how nice traffic is for ads

[DrenDran]

But hey, forget families, let's just give women more money right?

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me here.

Ideally someone should be with the kids for their first few years, and should only have kids once they have the financial resources to do so.
Barring that, women obviously shouldn't get paid for work they don't do. Hopefully their jobs will be waiting for them when they can return to them but if not, who can blame the company for wanting to fill a job opening.

[Chrono]

I can't tell if you're agreeing with me here.

I am.

[childofdarkness016]

Except it's not just her loss.
A lot of the infamous 'pay gap' can be explained by men taking more physical or more dangerous jobs.
If a women were to enter such a job the government would force her to be paid the same as all her male coworkers, even though she may not be able to do the same work. No to mention that if she gets hurt she could get disability or unemployment, and that's just a bit more tax payer money right there.

You are aware that this argument really only holds any water for a job that demands physical labor, correct? Physical and more dangerous jobs don't always pay more, so what does it have to do with the pay gap? Regardless, you're (and I have, in order to debate with you) generalizing two groups of people with this story.

"All men are stronger than all women because of biological differences," is one of the core beliefs powering your argument.

Yes, these biological differences exist.

No, that doesn't mean it, being the core belief, is true.

If we were, for example, force a group of 30 people (15 male, 15 female, all around 18-30 years old) to work at a construction site, do you actually believe that every man is going to "work harder" than every woman? Logically speaking, some of the men may not be as athletic as some of the women, and therefore unable to work as well. Every person is different, so basing pay based on love, which may or may not be a hindrance, is stupid.

No to mention that if she gets hurt she could get disability or unemployment, and that's just a bit more tax payer money right there.

ok before i continue my story i just have to point out that this line was hilarious to me

you seem to imply that men are incapable of getting injured or becoming disabled from working in a job like that, which I am hoping you aren't trying to do.

As much as I hate to state publicly that I laughed at someone's reasoning, you seem to do it all the time and it makes you look like an elitist prick, which I presume is your intention.


Please explain to me how this, and the whole thing, does not apply to men. Are men incapable of being inferior to their female counterparts?

You remember that whole "ban bossy" thread that was here a whole two days ago?
While I suppose the verdict is still out on whether this is 100% biological or not but women are far more affected by simple words, and need more frequently to be pushed and coddled into positions like this, where pushing and coddling really shouldn't be required.
Leaders should be naturally born and raised, if you have to beg and 'support' someone every step of the way to be a leader, then they're obviously not a very good leader.

I disagree with the campaign, mind you. So do some women. But, this is not relevant evidence. There will always be people who are and aren't affected by negative reception from other people. I am an example of the latter. I care how people think about me, and if someone is discouraging me from doing something, I'm most likely not going to do that. I am a man, yet I have emotions. You may be the other kind of person. You might see discouragement from people as incentive to excel. You might not even notice that people are discouraging you. There are female leaders who don't need coddling or pushing to become a leader, and there are women who are held back by "simple words." Yes, biologically, it may seem that women are "more emotional," but it's in varying degrees. Some men are emotional. Some women are sociopaths. There are so many different kinds of people. Why generalize everyone?

I honestly don't see myself voting for anyone who cries over the issues in public.
Here's an article about how Hilary Clinton cried when asked about her personal life in an interview.Like really?
You're voting for someone because they cried?
That's so absurd.

I agree. Absurd. Doesn't mean that all women are emotional. Only those two.

What if JFK or FDR started crying over how stressful campaign life was.
That'd be pretty loving weird.

Hey, look, you're actually proving a point of mine I made earlier!

Society finds it "strange" when men act in an effeminate way because it's not what we're used to. Why should we restrict people into behaving a specific way?

There's also the part where a male and a female decide to expand on their family, and add a child to their house. This female's income is cut by this thing called a maternity leave. Because this female's income is cut (due to not working at all), the male will often work harder to compensate. But hey, forget families, let's just give women more money right?

First, that only applies to heteroloveual couples, which are still the norm, but not the only extant couple. It's absolutely reasonable that women don't get paid for a maternity leave, but why does that mean they, while working, get paid less? No one wants women to be paid more than men. People want women to be paid as much as men.

[Night Fox]

What if JFK or FDR started crying over how stressful campaign life was.
That'd be pretty loving weird.

they probably did, but not in public. it isn't about masculinity or femininity, though, it's a matter of professionalism

[DrenDran]

First night foxes since it's short

they probably did, but not in public. it isn't about masculinity or femininity, though, it's a matter of professionalism

That's perfectly right and fine.
There are some situations where it's acceptable to cry and some where its not. These should ideally be the same for men and women.
The only way gender comes into play is that the stereotype is that women are more likely to cry inappropriately.



Oh god so much to respond to.

You are aware that this argument really only holds any water for a job that demands physical labor, correct? Physical and more dangerous jobs don't always pay more, so what does it have to do with the pay gap? Regardless, you're (and I have, in order to debate with you) generalizing two groups of people with this story.

The point is that the statistic is a generalization.
It's: "Women are paid less than men." It's not: "Women who work in dangorous jobs are paid less than men."
The incompatiblity of women in these limited situations lowers the average for all women and makes it look like all women have it worse than they do.

"All men are stronger than all women because of biological differences," is one of the core beliefs powering your argument.

No it's not. That's just a strawman argument.
I said that statistically men are on average stronger physically than women.
There are probably some women who are stronger than some men.

Yes, these biological differences exist.
No, that doesn't mean it, being the core belief, is true.

You refuting the strawman argument.

If we were, for example, force a group of 30 people (15 male, 15 female, all around 18-30 years old) to work at a construction site, do you actually believe that every man is going to "work harder" than every woman? Logically speaking, some of the men may not be as athletic as some of the women, and therefore unable to work as well. Every person is different, so basing pay based on love, which may or may not be a hindrance, is stupid.

If a company wants to hire women and pay them the same and it all works out great, then fine.
But I wouldn't exactly get all buttmad if a construction firm showed a slight preference for hiring men over women. Some people find such bias extremely offensive. I think it's a business owners right to run their business as they please. Yes, there are some more extreme exceptions, but they aren't relevant.

ok before i continue my story i just have to point out that this line was hilarious to me
you seem to imply that men are incapable of getting injured or becoming disabled from working in a job like that, which I am hoping you aren't trying to do.
As much as I hate to state publicly that I laughed at someone's reasoning, you seem to do it all the time and it makes you look like an elitist prick, which I presume is your intention.

I don't get how you can interpret something that badly.
If you really think I'm saying men are incapiable of being weak or getting injured you're an idiot. No offence lol

I disagree with the campaign, mind you. So do some women. But, this is not relevant evidence. There will always be people who are and aren't affected by negative reception from other people. I am an example of the latter. I care how people think about me, and if someone is discouraging me from doing something, I'm most likely not going to do that. I am a man, yet I have emotions. You may be the other kind of person. You might see discouragement from people as incentive to excel. You might not even notice that people are discouraging you. There are female leaders who don't need coddling or pushing to become a leader, and there are women who are held back by "simple words." Yes, biologically, it may seem that women are "more emotional," but it's in varying degrees. Some men are emotional. Some women are sociopaths. There are so many different kinds of people. Why generalize everyone?
I agree. Absurd. Doesn't mean that all women are emotional. Only those two.

Let me try to explain this to you again from the top:

Some women are stronger than some men, however there are some averages that can be compared. In situations where you're dealing with massive amounts of people, it may be far more efficient to rule some people out because they have a higher probability of not being ideal. I'm not saying this is a perfect process and you might just skip over some real gems, but people out there was stereotyping like this to be a serious crime.

Why should we restrict people into behaving a specific way?

We shouldn't necessarily. At least not strictly based on gender or race or anything.
But there are standards (as night fox said) for professionalism.

First, that only applies to heteroloveual couples, which are still the norm, but not the only extant couple. It's absolutely reasonable that women don't get paid for a maternity leave, but why does that mean they, while working, get paid less? No one wants women to be paid more than men. People want women to be paid as much as men.

That was actually a separate argument.







When it comes right down to it, you misinterpreted a lot of what I said.
I didn't say that you should automatically pay women less, I'm sorry if I somehow implied that.
I'm basically just advocating for more freedom on the parts of the business owners and less political correctness.

[childofdarkness016]

Oh god so much to respond to.

The point is that the statistic is a generalization.
It's: "Women are paid less than men." It's not: "Women who work in dangorous jobs are paid less than men."
The incompatiblity of women in these limited situations lowers the average for all women and makes it look like all women have it worse than they do.

No it's not. That's just a strawman argument.
I said that statistically men are on average stronger physically than women.
There are probably some women who are stronger than some men.

You refuting the strawman argument.

If a company wants to hire women and pay them the same and it all works out great, then fine.
But I wouldn't exactly get all buttmad if a construction firm showed a slight preference for hiring men over women. Some people find such bias extremely offensive. I think it's a business owners right to run their business as they please. Yes, there are some more extreme exceptions, but they aren't relevant.

I don't get how you can interpret something that badly.
If you really think I'm saying men are incapiable of being weak or getting injured you're an idiot. No offence lol

Let me try to explain this to you again from the top:

Some women are stronger than some men, however there are some averages that can be compared. In situations where you're dealing with massive amounts of people, it may be far more efficient to rule some people out because they have a higher probability of not being ideal. I'm not saying this is a perfect process and you might just skip over some real gems, but people out there was stereotyping like this to be a serious crime. We shouldn't necessarily. At least not strictly based on gender or race or anything.
But there are standards (as night fox said) for professionalism.







When it comes right down to it, you misinterpreted a lot of what I said.
I didn't say that you should automatically pay women less, I'm sorry if I somehow implied that.
I'm basically just advocating for more freedom on the parts of the business owners and less political correctness.

I didn't misinterpret what you said. You changed your phrasing and elaborated just now to the point where I can deal with the fact you have a different opinion. Now I have to break this down

Oh god so much to respond to. The point is that the statistic is a generalization.
It's: "Women are paid less than men." It's not: "Women who work in dangorous jobs are paid less than men."
The incompatiblity of women in these limited situations lowers the average for all women and makes it look like all women have it worse than they do.

I used dangerous jobs because that's what was relevant in the discussion. You said the reason the pay gap existed was because of dangerous, more laborious jobs. What about jobs that don't involve physical labor? Why can a female microbiologist be paid less than a male microbiologist doing the same job, for example? And, later, you contradict yourself and say that some women are compatible with a laborious job.

No it's not. That's just a strawman argument.
I said that statistically men are on average stronger physically than women.
There are probably some women who are stronger than some men.

Stop backpedaling; You never implied that it was a statistical example of women. You said, in essence (this is not meant to be an exact quote): "When a woman is employed for a laborious job, she should understand that she could get hurt and deal with severe injury or unemployment because she's a woman. In addition, the government's going to pay her the same as her male counterparts (actually not true) despite the fact she is 'doing less work'." This is absolutely applicable to everyone (the parts about getting hurt, not the payment parts), yet you never mention that. This is where I was lead to the idea you were using a strawman argument. By implying that only women need to understand the risks of injury (and also that only women are injured while working, which I know that you know is false), I read your message differently than what your opinion is now suddenly.

If a company wants to hire women and pay them the same and it all works out great, then fine.
But I wouldn't exactly get all buttmad if a construction firm showed a slight preference for hiring men over women. Some people find such bias extremely offensive. I think it's a business owners right to run their business as they please. Yes, there are some more extreme exceptions, but they aren't relevant.

I personally think that gender and love are not factors that should prevent someone from working a laborious job, but it's something that I also believe is reasonably up for debate and therefore won't argue. I'm not angry that there is a preference towards men, I dislike the fact that you phrased your argument in a way that implied that all women are unfit for such a job. Now that you're re-phrasing it, I can't say anything because I agree on some parts.

I don't get how you can interpret something that badly.
If you really think I'm saying men are incapiable of being weak or getting injured you're an idiot. No offence lol

Of course I'm not stupid enough to think that you thought that. I just pointed out that the way you phrased that sentence was poor. The way you wrote the story implied that it could only work out in that manner for a woman. And not just one woman, all women. Now, you've stated that you acknowledge there are different kinds of people and that men were not impervious to such an event, completely affecting my view on your argument.

Let me try to explain this to you again from the top:

Some women are stronger than some men, however there are some averages that can be compared. In situations where you're dealing with massive amounts of people, it may be far more efficient to rule some people out because they have a higher probability of not being ideal. I'm not saying this is a perfect process and you might just skip over some real gems, but people out there was stereotyping like this to be a serious crime. We shouldn't necessarily. At least not strictly based on gender or race or anything.

Now you're saying something different than what your argument was before??? Regardless, I can actually agree with some parts of this tidbit. It still seems like backpedaling.

Before, you seemed to say that employers, specifically that of dangerous or laborious jobs, should follow these averages and disregard women as potential employees. Now you're saying it's "not the perfect process," to do so. Thanks to poor communication on both parts, your message was skewed into a totally different argument that was incredibly stupid.

[firestorm]

Maybe you don't see it because you're male, but women are still treated differently nowadays. Women are still loveually harassed, but men are rarely. Women aren't catcalling you as you're walking in public, are they? Yes, this is loveual harassment, as, without your permission, you're being viewed as loveual object, which may make you feel uncomfortable. In addition, people shame girls for dressing up "like sluts." Why should a women be told how to dress? It's her body, so she has the right to do what she wants with it. That, mind you, does not warrant people to harass someone. Also, Femininity is also viewed as a negative thing. Men can't be "emotional," or express interest in girly things, but women are allowed to play sports and do other masculine activities without social stigma. Have you ever walked into school or work wearing a skirt? Doubt it. Have you seen a girl wear a suit, or perhaps a flannel or jeans? Most likely.

I think there is a slight problem with feminism. Most feminist want an ideal world, where you can wear whatever you want, and not get called a slut, or receive catcalls. That's a problem on 2 fronts. Front one, you will always receive catcalls. Sociopaths see EVERYONE as an object, a complex object, but an object non the less. It's bound to happen. There will always be perverts in the world. Front two, is the acts of your fellow females. When a girl dresses in showy clothes, then tries to sleep with a majority of men, she creates the confines of "sluttery". Once a person acquires this mindset, they begin to think all girls who dress that way are sluts too. And I know the whole "Don't judge a book by it's cover" but to be honest and realistic, we all do it, subconsciously or not.

[otto-san]

1. Most women are against abortion anyway, guys have little to do with this.

i don't think it's good practice to generalise a group of people's opinions like this when the scale is so massive

[dorkdotdan]

You can tell an argument started because the pages got exponentially larger.

Anyways if you read the bottom of that site it says,"Laughed at this article? Check out Raul Felix, Jim Goad and Nicole Mullen for more great writing."

Chances are this is a satire site like the Onion.

[McZealot]

Yeah this is a satirical site. It's not taking any of these articles seriously.

Just look at some of these other articles:

I’m willing to bet my entire life savings ($200) that 97% of people who like guys have either sent or been sent a richard pic. Politicians are sending richard pics. Your professors are sending richard pics. Here’s the scenario: you’re talking to a new guy and suddenly (whether you ask for it or not), here comes a richard pic. It can be exciting if you’re into that type of thing. But it’s also a way to close the distance if your partner lives far away.

That said, there are plenty of folks out there who don’t like getting richard pics and who think it’s crazy, low-class, gross, or just plain stupid. Like this guy. But, ugh, whatever to those Puritanical people. In our age of social networking, text messages and picture phones, why is anyone surprised or offended that people are sending pics of their privates? Like, most of the Internet is research, everybody has a smartphone with video/photo capability, most everyone likes love so OF COURSE people are going to send xxx pics to each other.