I'm afraid of the answer, but is this another example of you wanting it to be legal to show your female coworkers your penis? Because if so, you have a really unhealthy fixation on trying to get laid at work.
How Problematic is "All Lives Matter?"
- Thread starter Saint of M
- Start date
? It was me wanting it to be legal for women to have women only businesses and for men to have male only businesses if that is what they want to do. Rather than, say, have California enact a law requiring bigotry against men when a Californian corporations form a corporate board. Which they did.
Okay, so it's just more of your arbitrary victim complex bullshit. Is there anything in the world that doesn't terrify you?
This thread is still going? What is- ...Oh. It took another weird detour?
So, to you, the issue isn't that corporate boards are have traditionally almost always been exclusively older white men because of some flavor of bigotry (either they don't think women can do the job, or they have a horndog "wimminz are dolls for sex, nothing wrong with grabbing the married secretary's butt" attitude that they will feel uncomfortable doing if there are women present, or the shareholders who appoint them just think that "only men are ruthless and cutthroat enough to maximize our profits! Women will just care too much about the employees and cost us money!")...
To you the issue isn't even that these corporate boards have FAR too much lobbying power and are sometimes able to full-on bribe politicians to enact legislation that benefits them at the expense of everyone else, and that the people hired to run these things tend to be utter sociopaths who would happily fire 800 workers at the height of their profitability just to make their end of year report have higher numbers, even if it means a bunch of those workers might end up homeless or unable to afford healthcare...
No, to you, the issue is that California was like "Hey, so, we noticed that corporate boards are often bigoted against women and gatekeep them out of the entire job most of the time, which means that like half the population has their perspective completely ignored because most of these dudes don't understand women at all. We should mandate that you have some women on these overly powerful psychopath-run corporate boards to counter the bigotry against women that they tend to have", which you claim is bigotry against men?
....I don't...Get it?
Like, I don't super give a damn about this SPECIFIC issue, since I just have severe distaste for corporate higher ups already, so the gender of the psychopaths at the top hardly matters to me (Although, having a more diverse corporate perspective DOES mean less grating "sex sells" advertising, and maybe some more effective decisions) ...
...But to claim that it's bigotry against men to ask that the board that has such a huge amount of power have at least some female perspective is just puzzling to me. If the law was like "You must by law have mostly women on the board", then sure, you'd have a point, but otherwise I don't really see the issue.
Man, between this and the "butt grabbing" post on the old forum, your stance on men and women just plain puzzles me.
So, to you, the issue isn't that corporate boards are have traditionally almost always been exclusively older white men because of some flavor of bigotry (either they don't think women can do the job, or they have a horndog "wimminz are dolls for sex, nothing wrong with grabbing the married secretary's butt" attitude that they will feel uncomfortable doing if there are women present, or the shareholders who appoint them just think that "only men are ruthless and cutthroat enough to maximize our profits! Women will just care too much about the employees and cost us money!")...
To you the issue isn't even that these corporate boards have FAR too much lobbying power and are sometimes able to full-on bribe politicians to enact legislation that benefits them at the expense of everyone else, and that the people hired to run these things tend to be utter sociopaths who would happily fire 800 workers at the height of their profitability just to make their end of year report have higher numbers, even if it means a bunch of those workers might end up homeless or unable to afford healthcare...
No, to you, the issue is that California was like "Hey, so, we noticed that corporate boards are often bigoted against women and gatekeep them out of the entire job most of the time, which means that like half the population has their perspective completely ignored because most of these dudes don't understand women at all. We should mandate that you have some women on these overly powerful psychopath-run corporate boards to counter the bigotry against women that they tend to have", which you claim is bigotry against men?
....I don't...Get it?
Like, I don't super give a damn about this SPECIFIC issue, since I just have severe distaste for corporate higher ups already, so the gender of the psychopaths at the top hardly matters to me (Although, having a more diverse corporate perspective DOES mean less grating "sex sells" advertising, and maybe some more effective decisions) ...
...But to claim that it's bigotry against men to ask that the board that has such a huge amount of power have at least some female perspective is just puzzling to me. If the law was like "You must by law have mostly women on the board", then sure, you'd have a point, but otherwise I don't really see the issue.
Last edited:
The problem is that you are saying that there is an imbalance, that it favours one sex. Gorfias thinks its totally even, so any move would make it uneven
No, he pretty clearly thinks it's currently uneven in favor of women and that it's only real equality if men are "first among equals" without exception.
I vaguely remember him on the old forums saying something along the lines that he felt women had too much power in regular society...
But on corporate boards that are typically either completely men, or dominated by men??? Visibly so??? 0_o
No, not even.
Since 2015, women have controlled more wealth than men in the US (this may be in part due to them living longer and therefore, having the entire wealth of the family estate shift to soley them). They are a political majority. Making 85% of the buying choices they shape our markets. Socially, men are treated like walking ATMs, suffering from divorce rape and father alienation and more.
Aegix Drakan states that women are discriminated against when forming corporate boards. Well... they have more money than men. Form your own dang boards. Form a women's consortium and buy FORD. Make the letter's Female Only Road Devices. Whatever.
Men have their own problems. Women have more wealth, political, ecomonic and social power than do men. Accepting bigotry against men is like transferring wealth from the poor to the rich because, well, rich people's stuff cost more than poor people's stuff so they really need the money. Absurd.
And you know who is really getting shafted by this system? Black Men. The lives of those men who are many times more likely than women to be homeless, face 60% longer prison terms for the same crimes with the same criminal history, are nearly 4 times as likely to commit suicide than women? They matter. And while I'm at it, the lives of men of other races matter too. All lives matter.
Dude. Have you stopped to ask yourself why men not having total cultural and economic hegemony scares you?
And there go the goalposts. Yet another reason I can't take MRAs seriously. This is basically what happened:
YOU: Men are discriminated against in business.
AEGIX: The overwhelming majority of executive boards are old, white men.
YOU: Well if women want to have jobs, they should make their own!
Seriously, you have just argued that men are at once under-represented in the white collar world and admitted that they do indeed hold a disproportionate share of the higher-ranking management and executive jobs. You have argued that 2 mutually exclusive things are true.
And then you try to ALM this shit is such a transparently hamfisted attempt at regaining the moral high ground after being called out for your condoning work place sexual harassment. The only thing clumsier than such a self-serving, thoughtless platitude is your attempts to cast yourself as the victim in every equation. If in one sentence you say that "Black Lives Matter" should change because it scares you as a white man, and in the next sentence try to pretend you care about suicide rates among black communities, people are going to rightly assume that the only person you're really concerned about is yourself.
Uh-huh.
I went looking into that statistic that women control more wealth than men in the US. The origin appears to be a claim by the Bank of Montreal in 2015, in a report about money matters for women. Notably, in the page in which that fact is given, it is the only fact given without a citation. All other citations of this claim lead back to this report, so I'm gonna have to stick a giant "evidence needed" pin in that one.
I attempted to find alternative sources, but most of them have to do with difference in wages, not wealth. The only other prominent study on the "wealth gap" I could find was from a finance magazine called Barron's, which only projected that women would retire with $1 million less in earnings due to breaks from working for child rearing, elderly parent caring, and elderly spouse caring. Them's right there are big damn assumptions, so I ultimately give that no more weight than one would afford a speculative "what if" scenario to prod discussion.
There seems to be a Washington Post article with a citation about the wealth gap (Google preview makes it look like women come out on the poorer side of it), but I cannot read the article because it is behind a paywall, so fuck the Washington Post.
Facts I have verified: more women have been graduating from undergraduate degree programs than men for decades, now. Women as of last year just took the majority of jobs requiring education. They seem to have a majority of low and middle management positions across the board.
You know what? Good for them. I've had men bosses and women bosses. I've never noticed maleness or femaleness getting in the way of effectiveness. I ain't scared for my job prospects. Being a stay at home dad sounds pretty nice, honestly.
I didn't even bother researching your point that women make 85% of buying decisions and "shape our markets". It sounds like buying into stereotypes, as it doesn't even deign to present any nuance. Which markets? Are women buying up all the construction equipment? Are they buying tools in trades and hobbies which they are under-represented in? Why do we even need to fear this? What is it about Mom doing the grocery shopping that threatens Dad in the social network? Maybe Dad should buy his own damn groceries if he's so worried.
We don't need to "fear" this. I'm just putting it out there that the Feminist narrative is that historically, women did not have mainstream access to liberty (wealth, the vote) but that this is irrelevant. That a woman's grandfather may have exploited MY grandmother gives her no rights against me. Where are we today?
Example; "Currently women control about 60% of the wealth in the US, and that number will continue to rise. In other words, female wealth is growing exponentially." https://www.nationalsmallloan.com/female-wealth/ This is 2018, only 3 years after the 52% 2015 rate of which I read, which also noted that we can expect those numbers to climb.
My point is, today, women are no one's victims in need of laws requiring bigotry against men. Black men or other.
Serious question. When you talk of emasculated men whose wives make all the financial decisions for them, who are objectively less financially secure than the women in their lives, who are too scared to ever say how they feel in front of a woman... is this your personal, lived experience? And either way, why do you assume it is true for the rest of us?
I would be really interested to know where you got that stat from, and what their methodology is.
Ok, now I REAAAALLY want to know where you got that stat, Gorf.
*chokes on his apple juice*
I beg your pardon?
Lemme google that real quick...Let's see....Genders of US congress...Aaaaand Senate
...Google says...
Congress: 23.2% Women.
Senate: 25% Women.
I mean, that's a respectable number, but FAAAAAAARRRR from a majority.
Also, ZERO presidents.
Finally, let's take a look at the real power players in US government. ...Oh look, the only woman who comes to mind is Nancy Pelosi, who is incredibly ineffectual and basically just exists to stonewall anything remotely left-leaning before symbolically resisting the Republicans and then giving them like 90% of what they want, even when she's in a position to fight for more and win.
So yeah, I do NOT buy your claim. At all.
Maybe by the time we get a President AOC, you'll have a case to make here.
I mean, I can buy THIS one.
Seriously, women are basically told nonstop "You need the LATEST fashion or you're worthless! You need like 18 different lipstick colors, half of which end up being the same color anyway. You NEED like 8 different pairs of high heels! You need like 7 different smells of shampoo, while men only really get one because we don't tend to give a shit", etc etc etc, and the stereotypical woman's hobby is "going shopping".
Combine that with the fact that among couples, women tend to be the ones who get shopping duty for anything that's not a power tool (including the most common of shopping, Groceries!), AND the fact the tend to get saddled with cleaning duty, and thus buy all of THOSE products too...And yeah, I can buy that claim. Even though in the latter case, it's mostly on the husband for not stepping up and going more of the shopping himself.
But they hardly control the entire market. There's a considerable amount of stuff directed solely at dudes, or even both genders.
And you know what, I feel sympathy for men who are being dug for gold, or who lose custody of their kids even if they're actually good people. The latter is especially something that needs rectifying.
But also, note that socially...
- Women are treated like walking sex dolls, objects to be ogled, fondled, and aggressively chased for sex even when they REALLY don't want to,
- Women suffer from rape and sexual assault that rarely gets actually investigated by police or brought to court (Virtually every woman I know has at least one horror story. It's pretty much just my mom who doesn't have one).
- Women are, in red states mostly, steered away from contraceptives and find it very VERY difficult to not have to bear their rapist's child if they happen to get pregnant.
- Women are often taken advantage of in the workplace, up to and including cases of superiors tying promotions to sex with them regardless of consent.
- Women are treated like the nanny that has to take care of ALL their children's needs, AND the cleaning, AND the cooking, on top of having a full time job a lot of the time.
And also....Women are often treated like freaks if they demand independence from those things.
Now, I will concede HALF A POINT though.
In the sense that white women do indeed have a certain social power in that they can scream "ermagerd I'm in dangerrrr" and get immediate rescue from a dude who told them to leash their dog. I've seen the Privilege that the Karens wield like a bazooka.
But I've ALSO seen virtually every woman I know have to put up with some seriously nasty shit, and often enough the cops are like "We don't care. You shouldn't have been on the subway at night. You shouldn't have had a drink if you didn't wanna be roofied. You shouldn't have gone to a party with mostly strangers". Point being, the crimes they were victims of were never given even minor attention.
Hell, look at the Ubisoft scandal, and all the shit that's been coming out from that, with serial predators getting away with serious sexual assault, HR and the top dogs covering it up, women leads hired on the promise of "you CAN make a game with a leading lady...PSYCHE, WE LIED! Protagonists must be straight white alpha males, and we will fight you tooth and nail on that and only VERY slowly begin to lean towards player choice on gender over the course of a decade. Also, we're going to continually blame all our problems on you being women in our field and claim all the projects problems are your fault and demote you accordingly, while promoting the known predators and making one of the worst ones be basically creative lead of the whole company".
I mean, citation and methodology still needed on their more wealth, and whether or not it takes into account billionaires and how much it takes into account homeless men (who, yes, as far as I'm aware are statistically more likely to be homeless)
Because to me it still seems like transferring wealth from the rich to the poor, but in the sense that everyone involved is still likely a sociopath who would fire people just to have a better end of year earnings report.
Great, I concur, it's a problem.
If only there were people trying to fight for these black men...Oh wait, they're routinely ignored and told that they're unpatriotic traitors for kneeling at a football game, or that "loud protests with even a hint of any kind of looting that may not even be done by the activists is UNACCEPTABLE and you should just be purely peaceful (so you can be ignored or dismissed again)"...
Well, if only there was an organization with a lot of loud activists and a hell of a lot of momentum behind them that's been trying to fight to fix these-....OH WAIT, you declared them part of some genocidal marxist plot and therefore untrustworthy.
Great, so I'm going to assume you're on board with the following, then?
...You...ARE in favor of all those things, right? Because all of those things would save lives.
Or are they considered too "marxist" for you, like the the GOP and the talking heads on corporate news keep screaming?
Women live around 10% longer than men during their eligible voting years. That isn't even getting to the number of men that outnumber women who become unqualified to vote due to criminal convictions. The men left in government are gynocentric. They will govern in ways that serve themselves first (not other men) and women in general next.
As to women having control of more money than men in the US, https://www.nationalsmallloan.com/female-wealth/ is just an example (in 2015 it was 52% but predicted to grow. This link is to a 2018 article that puts the number to 60%.
My main point: women are a powerful, monied political majority. There is no justification for codified discrimination against men. Black men or other.
*sigh* I spent an hour trying to make a comprehensive answer, an hour I could have spent on my personal project that's got my brain on fire these days, or enjoying video games.
And the response all boils down to:
Also, they serve women second most, right. Which is why virtually everyone in the GOP is staunchly against access to contraceptives and abortion, a dual stance that boils down to controlling women and punishing them for having sex even when they didn't ask for it. CLEARLY, something that is NOT serving any women outside the brainwashed evangelical cult.
The men in government don't put themselves first and women second.
They put themselves first and NO ONE ELSE, second. This goes DOUBLE for the GOP.
On that note, if you care about All Lives, and Other Men, you should be supporting the insurgent left of the US political spectrum (Bernie, The Squad, Justice Democrats) who are trying to change things for the better (fighting to get money out of politics) and give more things to the people (including Other Men), and not supporting the highly corrupt, and uncaring GOP.
Honestly, man, it just feels like you have a legit phobia of "Women Taking Over" or something, and that's not something I'm qualified to diagnose and treat.
And the response all boils down to:
First of all, the men LEFT in government? The whopping 75% of them? That's not "what's left", that's a massive majority.
Also, they serve women second most, right. Which is why virtually everyone in the GOP is staunchly against access to contraceptives and abortion, a dual stance that boils down to controlling women and punishing them for having sex even when they didn't ask for it. CLEARLY, something that is NOT serving any women outside the brainwashed evangelical cult.
The men in government don't put themselves first and women second.
They put themselves first and NO ONE ELSE, second. This goes DOUBLE for the GOP.
On that note, if you care about All Lives, and Other Men, you should be supporting the insurgent left of the US political spectrum (Bernie, The Squad, Justice Democrats) who are trying to change things for the better (fighting to get money out of politics) and give more things to the people (including Other Men), and not supporting the highly corrupt, and uncaring GOP.
Honestly, man, it just feels like you have a legit phobia of "Women Taking Over" or something, and that's not something I'm qualified to diagnose and treat.
Whatcha working on? Recent events have inspired me to start creative writing. Out of spite.
To be fair, here, lots of women are against abortion. You can call them brainwashed evangelicals, but there is a logical argument to be made: if you do believe in souls, which anybody with a religion that includes an afterlife is basically required to, the easiest answer to when the soul enters the body is "at conception."
I'm not saying there aren't a lot of brainwashed evangelicals out there, but I can respect arguments from this point of view on abortion being murder. Respect, as in, deign to recognize. I'm honestly not for or against abortion, I think it's a woman's issue and should be decided by women. I certainly wouldn't want to be part of a society that euthanized segments of the population at the will of those who have oversight of them. If I believed in souls (my position on which is "hope for, but see no reason to believe in"), I'd be viewing abortion in that light.
This is all an aside from Gorfias' preoccupation with society becoming a matriarchy, tho. My position on gender issues is that I'd gladly split the difference between my paycheck and a female colleague's to eliminate the wage gap, and that I've met too many women smarter and better at working than I am to say that there's some wishy washy biological reason that they need to stay at the house. Besides, maybe a woman run society will get us in fewer wars.
What do you think this article says? The only 60% I can see is related to what percentage of women earn their million, rather than inherit it. So... not about wealth but where it’s sourced from. Which is straight after 45% of millionaires are women... which is about wealth.
The one thing I would focus on is that women are completing graduate course at a higher rate. This will probably lead to wage discrepancy
I'm a semi regular on RPGmaker.net (although their forums are sloooooow and there's little non-RPGmaking discussion), and a new event dropped a few weeks ago to make a game with a "diverse cast" in 50 days.
I wound up resurrecting an old "Dragon Hunt" story from a setting I used to use a lot a few years ago, and found that diversifying my cast of characters made the story waaaaay more interesting, and puts the focus more on "What they risk losing by trying to help the main character get her revenge", which has way more drama potential.
I have fallen in creative love with my characters at this point. ...That and going back to my old combat system, now with a few more bells and whistles, is also pretty nostalgic for me.
Please note the previous words "And Contraception".
If someone is just against abortion, I get that. I disagree heavily, but I get it.
But if, on top of that, they do something like try to make a company be able to deny contraceptives in their health insurance, or their state deliberately has poor sex ex and poor access to contraceptives and fights to keep things that way...Well...Contraceptives are a very good prevention tool. You can't get pregnant with a baby you can't care for if you use contraceptives, right?
If contraceptive use is widespread, then the number of abortions drops like a rock and mostly only boil down to cases of rape, danger to the mother, or their life radically changing so that they can't support a baby.
So, given that, opposing both feels like trying to "force consequences on women for having sex, in the form of children, which would also likely make her financially dependent on the man involved".
^ *Gasp* no don't you see, they will do MORE wars in an attempt to kill most of the men so that they will only exist as sex trophies for women and their takeover of society will be compleeeeeete!!! ^ /s
Oooops... good catch. My bad. That did not read what I thought it read.
This Forbes link puts it at 60% in 2008 but I don't think they are talking about what I"m talking about: https://www.forbes.com/sites/work-i...ic-strides-and-not-slowing-down/#64534ca62750 Maybe just who is making the buying decisions in a household, which I'd thought was 85%.
But my point is, they have their own money. No justification for enacting statutes requiring bigotry against men.
I imagine Donald Trump has actually paid women to get abortions. I don't think governing Republicans do anything more than talk about abortion. How many USSC justices that are upholding Roe v Wade were put there by Republican Presidents? EDIT: 5/9 were put there by Republicans, yet Roe still stands.
ITMT: we have a program that actually bribes women to socially disenfranchise men: WICBMFO: Women, Infants, Children But Men Fuck Off. And while domestic violence is instigated 50-50 men and women in hetero couples, we have a Federal DVAWBMFO act.. Domestic Violence Against Women But Men Fuck Off act. As women live longer, it is more likely that a social security check is sent to them, not men. And more.
My fear is, with the Left, not only will men become virtually enslaved but often murdered, with our corpses rotting in a killing field somewhere. No thanks. For now, if we could just get the government to stop proactively harming us, that would be something.
Last edited: