Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

[Contra Mundum]

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/a...cussing-the-real-war-on-women/article/2556419

A powerful message there which I hope hits home to those in the community who think the direction radical left wing feminism is going is a good thing.

Things like employment quotas which promote inequality are just abusing the system, the movement needs to go back on course to address the macro issues of equality of rights and opportunity, not as a militant arm of the ultra left welfare system.

"...a guiding ideology is not what you say but the practices you adopt and what you actually do". Of course years of structural inequality can be cured by the free market, the number of woman in insecure forms of work is double that of males - that is just bad luck I suppose.

The trouble with the feminist bureaucracy is that it is populated exclusively by the haute bourgeois. They are not concerned your average woman marooned in a low paid casual or permanent part time job. They are concerned with the very low percentage of women who can make it as CEOs and on corporate boards

 

[fleabitten]

Apparently the myth has been taken up by the federal government

http://www.theage.com.au/national/workplace-gender-gap-is-still-too-wide-20141124-11svpd.html

"For the first time we have a baseline – comparable, standardised, broad-based data and it's transparent.

"If we can get this data out there and work with organisations when they get their individual benchmark reports, we believe that we can make change."

And it's still clearly a myth. Whatever the pay gap is, it's not even close to 24.7%, at least not in any meaningful sense.

 

[SpuriousPea]

Latest study from the UK: "the gap is negative for the 22-29 and 30-39 age groups, meaning that women earn on average more than men."
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_385428.pdf

Since gender pay gaps are terrible, apparently, something must be done. This. Is. Not. Okay.

:^)

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Latest study from the UK: "the gap is negative for the 22-29 and 30-39 age groups, meaning that women earn on average more than men."
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_385428.pdf

Since gender pay gaps are terrible, apparently, something must be done. This. Is. Not. Okay.

:^)

Why did you not include the full quote?

 

[SpuriousPea]

Why did you not include the full quote?

I find ignoring relevant data makes it easier to push my ideology.

;^)

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

I find ignoring relevant data makes it easier to push my ideology.

;^)

 

[Tas]

"...a guiding ideology is not what you say but the practices you adopt and what you actually do". Of course years of structural inequality can be cured by the free market, the number of woman in insecure forms of work is double that of males - that is just bad luck I suppose.

Insecure work, which is casual, short-term contracts and labour hire is becoming more common, we have more than 4 million insecure workers, only 60% of employees are working full-time or ongoing part-time jobs.

According to the ACTU, 55% of part-time work are casual jobs, that is work that isn't secure work, 28% of part-time employees are female compared to 20% being male, but 56% of casual employees are women, men tend to gravitate to other types of insecure work like contract work. Is this a result of a patriarchal society keeping women down? You have to look at the industries that are heavily based on casual work.

Hospitality industry is 66% casual and a lot of women are employed in this industry.
Retail industry has become 40% casual work.
Health care and social assistance is mostly casual.
Public education, safety and training is also heavily part-time based, about half the jobs are part-time.

The only other industry which has a very high rate of insecure work is the construction industry which is a male dominant field, most of the others tend to employ a lot of women in those industries.

While it would be great to give people more security and pay them more and give them more benefits that full-time employees enjoy, the cost has to come from somewhere. Someone has to pay. ACTU's solution is to force companies to pay by legislating to require less insecure work and forcing flexible working conditions. But ultimately, businesses have to make money, if many go broke forcing to utilise secure workers they will employ a lot fewer people and the quality of the service will decline and there will be fewer jobs forcing more people to welfare.

I don't think anyone is unwilling to address the problems, however, someone has to pay for this significant increase in employment cost. There are a lot of businesses which could probably afford to elevate some workers from insecure jobs to full time employment, especially if they employ two casuals to do the job of one full time employee to dodge paying entitlements.

However, the vast majority of these insecure employees are in fields where the government funds or subsidises and they are reluctant to keep spending more or are in industries which would struggle to cope with shifting workers to secure work. At the end of the day, insecure work is better than no work, we have to be careful that our attempts to fix the problem doesn't hurt a lot more people than it helps.

Ultimately if supply diminished then demand would influence employment, it is critical women do not just flood the same industries making the prospects for themselves and everyone else worse by saturating the market. Before someone decides they are going to head into retail, they need to know it is a shit career choice well in advance so while they are at school they can look to get the skills to head into different industries.

The trouble with the feminist bureaucracy is that it is populated exclusively by the haute bourgeois. They are not concerned your average woman marooned in a low paid casual or permanent part time job. They are concerned with the very low percentage of women who can make it as CEOs and on corporate boards

For some reason they believe it is men who are CEOs that are keeping women down, the CEO position itself means you are a servant of your stakeholders and they demand profitability. Having a woman as CEO isn't going to change that, it will just be a woman that makes the same kind of decisions a male CEO does currently.

I know a lot of women who could have been partners in large firms, CEOs of large companies, many choose not to go down that path because they dislike the sacrifices they would have to make and I do not fault them, I would rather shoot myself in the head than by a sycophant to money grubbers who expect their company to exploit their employees. These aren't invisible men sitting on mounds of cash, these are everyday people who own shares in these businesses, who's super funds control major interests in companies.

it is like the hilarious NMFC senario, we are being screwed by Docklands who are screwing us for the interest of industry superannuation funds who are represented by numerous North supporters and members. It is just easy to blame someone else like a corporation, however, we are a society that largely gives lip service when it comes to our compassion.

There would be nothing stopping us to change the legislation requiring corporation to not just be motivated by profit, we could enforce any social standards we want to enforce on these institutions, however, we allow them to operate as institutions without morals or responsibilities in society. We could change it but we wont. Same way we could ditch fossil fuels for renewable energy but we don't because it costs more money.

Morality is well and good but if the cost becomes a significant factor people would rather run you over in their car than reach out a hand to help anyone else.

 

[Aed0s]

I guess those Gender Studies degrees aren't so useless and worthless after all?

No hypocrites to be found here! Move along.

 

[kfc1]

What is the WGEA doing to address the gender imbalance?

 

[Fuzzy Wuzzy Bear]

A feminist online petition has managed to convince all Target stores in Australia to stop selling Grand Theft Auto 5:

http://www.news.com.au/technology/h...-sexual-violence/story-e6frfrt9-1227143245292

TARGET Australia will pull popular R-rated video game Grand Theft Auto V (GTA5) from its shelves after an online petition slammed the game for encouraging players to “commit sexual violence and kill women”.
The petition, authored by former sex workers, has so far attracted almost 40,000 signatures.
It says the “sickening game” encourages players to kill prostitutes and calls on Target to stop selling it.
“Games like this are grooming yet another generation of boys to tolerate violence against women,” the petition said.
General manager of corporate affairs Jim Cooper said Target would no longer sell the game.

So this is what we are coming to. Jokes on Target really, this will only raise publicity for the game and they will lose even more profit.

tesseract , SpuriousPea I wonder, are Target going to pull 50 shades of grey if we started a petition about it's depiction of men?

 

[kfc1]

So its fine to kill random men in a video game but not fine to kill prostitutes in a video game? Righto

 

[clogged]

Jokes on Target really, this will only raise publicity for the game and they will lose even more profit.

Target are owned by Wesfarmers and are a subsidiary specifically marketed at women. Wesfarmers will still sell GTAV in their other businesses - this is simply a marketing decision.

 

[Fuzzy Wuzzy Bear]

Target are owned by Wesfarmers and are a subsidiary specifically marketed at women. Wesfarmers will still sell GTAV in their other businesses - this is simply a marketing decision.

I looked them up and it appears they own Kmart too. What's to stop the same people from making a petition for that too?

 

[Fuzzy Wuzzy Bear]

So its fine to kill random men in a video game but not fine to kill prostitutes in a video game? Righto

I haven't played the game for months but IIRC you aren't even required to kill any women in story mode, you can only do it in free roam. Pretty much all the required kills are men.

 

[Richard Pryor]

A feminist online petition has managed to convince all Target stores in Australia to stop selling Grand Theft Auto 5:

http://www.news.com.au/technology/h...-sexual-violence/story-e6frfrt9-1227143245292



So this is what we are coming to. Jokes on Target really, this will only raise publicity for the game and they will lose even more profit.

tesseract , SpuriousPea I wonder, are Target going to pull 50 shades of grey if we started a petition about it's depiction of men?

Well played Target, they pull in big bucks selling it, and once the sales die down they pull it to pander to the moral police. Like the 'born again christian' card criminals play.

It's a weird phenomenon to witness though, the left moral police are starting to act in the same way as the religious bible belt moral police.

 

[Richard Pryor]

So its fine to kill random men in a video game but not fine to kill prostitutes in a video game? Righto

“This is the argument we hear every time violence against women is mentioned. Even on White Ribbon Day, there are cries of ‘But it happens to men, too’.

“In this case, the male gamers are saying they don’t mind violence against themselves in this game. Implicit in this is the recognition that if men don’t mind, then women have to put up with it.

You'd think GTAV was mandatory in Australia the way this lady is talking about it.

 

[clogged]

I looked them up and it appears they own Kmart too. What's to stop the same people from making a petition for that too?

Nothing's stopping anyone making a petition for anything.

 

[Fuzzy Wuzzy Bear]

Nothing's stopping anyone making a petition for anything.

What are your opinions on this? Do you support it?

 

[kfc1]

Detractors also say that the game is equally violent towards men, but Nicole said this argument didn’t hold water because the vast majority of sexual crimes were committed against women.

and the majority of violent crimes are committed against men

 

[clogged]

What are your opinions on this? Do you support it?

Support what?

When is the last time you willingly went into Target? The only purpose I can see for that store is so women can buy cheap bras.

 

[Fuzzy Wuzzy Bear]

Support what?

When is the last time you willingly went into Target? The only purpose I can see for that store is so women can buy cheap bras.

Well do you support the ban?

I've only ever gone there once in years, to buy cheap shirts to sweat in at gym.

 

[clogged]

Well do you support the ban?

Why would I either support it or be opposed to it?

Do you understand how marketing works? How many other petitions do you think go ignored and unreported? Why do you think Target is responding to this one? How many more units of GTA V could Target have expected to shift?

Target have just won praise amongst their most important market by making a decision that doesn't affect their bottom line. It's gotten them a run in all the papers without a dollar worth of cost in advertising. Next time a stay at home mum wants to buy something for themselves they'll choose the chain that "takes a stand" against violence against women.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

does anyone have the wording of the petition?

 

[Fuzzy Wuzzy Bear]

Why would I either support it or be opposed to it?

Do you understand how marketing works? How many other petitions do you think go ignored and unreported? Why do you think Target is responding to this one? How many more units of GTA V could Target have expected to shift?

Target have just won praise amongst their most important market by making a decision that doesn't affect their bottom line. It's gotten them a run in all the papers without a dollar worth of cost in advertising. Next time a stay at home mum wants to buy something for themselves they'll choose the chain that "takes a stand" against violence against women.

Fair enough I see your point re target, let me ask it this way, would you sign the petition, do you agree that video games incite violence against women?

 

[clogged]

Fair enough I see your point re target, let me ask it this way, would you sign the petition, do you agree that video games incite violence against women?

I don't think I've ever signed a petition. Except to stop Kony. Hate that guy.