Society/Culture Feminism part 1 - continued in part 2

[fleabitten]

The 2 per cent figure is at a company *actively* trying to eliminate the gender pay gap FFS is it that hard to understand?

I'm just asking what the figure actually represents. Surely that's worth knowing? And what exactly are they *actively* trying to do? Make it so that 50% of their payroll goes to men and 50% goes to women? Ensure that equally qualified people in identical jobs get paid the same amount (which is totally the right thing to do and they can do it in an instant if they want to)?

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

I'm just asking what the figure actually represents. Surely that's worth knowing? And what exactly are they *actively* trying to do? Make it so that 50% of their payroll goes to men and 50% goes to women? Ensure that equally qualified people in identical jobs get paid the same amount (which is totally the right thing to do and they can do it in an instant if they want to)?

I really have to spoon feed you don't I? I was referring to your comment that '2% is nowhere near the figures that are constantly thrown around. The argument about the pay gap was mostly about the misleading numbers. It's not 77 cents on the dollar for the same job.'

 

[fleabitten]

I really have to spoon feed you don't I? I was referring to your comment that '2% is nowhere near the figures that are constantly thrown around. The argument about the pay gap was mostly about the misleading numbers. It's not 77 cents on the dollar for the same job.'

Okay then. How does a loosely defined 2% pay gap at one company back up the 77 cents on the dollar that gets thrown around all the time?

We don't even know what the 2% means, let alone how it supports the commonly claimed pay gap figures. You can spoon feed me if you like, but it all tastes like bullshit.

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Are you playing dumb?

A company that has committed to removing gender pay gaps has not managed to do it - what do you think would be the outcome for companies that do not have that commitment?

 

[Kynge of Begrem]

Good to see the Courier Mail are taking a leading role in publicising domestic violence - 3 women murdered in one state in one week absolutely sickening, But lets focus on comments by a sexuality officer in Europe, a poster from the Americas or a survey of a dozen people about thermal comfort hey boys?

 

[cartwright]

^^ I just don't know what else to say anymore.

 

[fleabitten]

Are you playing dumb?

A company that has committed to removing gender pay gaps has not managed to do it - what do you think would be the outcome for companies that do not have that commitment?

It's like talking to a brick wall. I understand what you're trying to say, but it's meaningless unless we know what the 2% represents and how they are actively trying to remove the pay gap. If they are comparing people in identical jobs, with identical experience/qualifications/expertise, and finding that they are paying women 2% less than men, then surely if they are committed to removing gender pay gaps, they just need to increase the females' pay so that they're being paid the proper going rate. So what is the 2%? Maybe that represents the fact that the men holding the same job titles have more experience than the women? Are they actively trying to remove the pay gap between experienced and inexperienced employees?

 

[fleabitten]

Good to see the Courier Mail are taking a leading role in publicising domestic violence - 3 women murdered in one state in one week absolutely sickening, But lets focus on comments by a sexuality officer in Europe, a poster from the Americas or a survey of a dozen people about thermal comfort hey boys?

You bring those topics up more than anyone else, just like you bring up some obscure thing tesseract said on another thread dozens of times over when it has no relevance to the issue being discussed. I can't even remember the first two items you mentioned and the other one has only been talked about by you for about the last 5 pages.

People post silly things in this thread and criticize them. That's what the thread is about. I'd be happy to have a separate thread where we can focus on DV.

 

[cartwright]

You bring those topics up more than anyone else, just like you bring up some obscure thing tesseract said on another thread dozens of times over when it has no relevance to the issue being discussed. I can't even remember the first two items you mentioned and the other one has only been talked about by you for about the last 5 pages.

People post silly things in this thread and criticize them. That's what the thread is about. I'd be happy to have a separate thread where we can focus on DV.

there was a separate thread on violence, against women, in society. It was exactly like this one. A thread to just bitch about women.

 

[fleabitten]

Are you talking about "Violence in Society: Who is to blame?"? That's all I could find in a quick search. I actually got banned due to posts in that thread, rather unjustly IMO. This pretty much sums up my contributions there and here:

Sorry, but too often I get into these conversations and it's like beating your head against a wall. I'm a left-leaning, woman-friendly dude who has raised two daughters by myself and worked in several traditionally female-dominated fields. If I can't have a conversation with feminists without wanting to hang myself, then what chance does someone with more conservative views have? And if there's no discussion, then there's no progress.

 

[SonOfurX]

Are you talking about "Violence in Society: Who is to blame?"? That's all I could find in a quick search. I actually got banned due to posts in that thread, rather unjustly IMO. This pretty much sums up my contributions there and here:

Until there is a realistic and practical discussion on DV the issue will get far worse. The discussion needs to be balanced, pragmatic, and evidence based - and not just studies undertaken in Australia. I've personally written to both Pru Goward and Fiona Richardson in regards to my concerns. Another concern I highlighted was the hysteria around this issue, it is causing policy/changes to be rushed through, and we don't even know if they are effective, and we also don't take into account how it affects other policy areas. The thing in regards to DV is that it is a complex dynamic, and both genders play a role in that dynamic, until there is a practical discussion around that - then I fear these politicians are doing more damage than good.

 

[cartwright]

Until there is a realistic and practical discussion on DV the issue will get far worse. The discussion needs to be balanced, pragmatic, and evidence based - and not just studies undertaken in Australia. I've personally written to both Pru Goward and Fiona Richardson in regards to my concerns. Another concern I highlighted was around the hysteria around this issue, it is causing policy and changes to be rushed through, and we don't even know if these are effective, and we also don't take into account how it affects other policy areas. The thing in regards to DV is that it is a complex dynamic, and both genders play a role in that dynamic, until there is a practical discussion around that - then I fear these politicians are doing more damage than good.

Give me example of policy, rushed changes that have occurred from the "hysteria" of a woman being murdered each week in this country, by an intimate partner.

 

[SonOfurX]

Give me example of policy, rushed changes that have occurred from the "hysteria" of a woman being murdered each week in this country, by an intimate partner.

Introduction of specialized domestic violence courts would be one. They will cover a range of new policies around victim reporting, perpetrator education and monitoring. Education measures introduced see men as a group, they will be targeted as an aggregate - which takes away psychological component into offending, and why they offended. By doing this it does away with any accountability the woman takes in regards to DV, and the thing is, we know intimate partner violence is a complex issue between BOTH partners. So these measures aren't even in line with the issue at hand, all they are doing is targeting men as a group, and trying to educate them through feminist literature. This literature is all just abstract literature, it is NOT even remotely in line with reality, that is why these measures are dangerous, and that is why this issue will get worse. We need effective and evidence based solutions to this problem, and we are not going to get it through feminist literature.

 

[BORK]

Australia has a problem with public discourse on certain issues when the perpetrator is of an uncomfortable demographic to possibly direct shame toward.

 

[romeohwho]

Introduction of specialized domestic violence courts would be one. They will cover a range of new policies around victim reporting, perpetrator education and monitoring. Education measures introduced see men as a group, they will be targeted as an aggregate - which takes away psychological component into offending, and why they offended. By doing this it does away with any accountability the woman takes in regards to DV, and the thing is, we know intimate partner violence is a complex issue between BOTH partners. So these measures aren't even in line with the issue at hand, all they are doing is targeting men as a group, and trying to educate them through feminist literature. This literature is all just abstract literature, it is NOT even remotely in line with reality, that is why these measures are dangerous, and that is why this issue will get worse. We need effective and evidence based solutions to this problem, and we are not going to get it through feminist literature.

What are these education measures that see men as a group-whatever that mean anyway? Is there a problem with educating people re dv? How exactly are men being targetted other than the obvious fact that men are the main perpetrators? How are they being educated through feminist literature?
Specialised courts operate in many areas of legal system -they get set up because they are more effective (specialized people who are trained in those areas).

 

[SonOfurX]

What are these education measures that see men as a group-whatever that mean anyway? Is there a problem with educating people re dv? How exactly are men being targetted other than the obvious fact that men are the main perpetrators? How are they being educated through feminist literature?
Specialised courts operate in many areas of legal system -they get set up because they are more effective (specialized people who are trained in those areas).

Feminist literate underpins education measures in regards to DV. The emphasis is on the victim - not the perpetrator, so it doesn't get to the cause of offending. This type of literature only ever sees females as the victim, so in regards to domestic violence it is flawed - because DV is a complex dynamic. If men are violent, then why are they violent? These questions aren't answered within the feminist paradigm, they simply aren't interested in the motivations of the offender, they are only interested in the victim, and the victim in their eyes is ALWAYS the female. In the 70's the feminists actually went off of a medical model, which concentrated on the offender, but then critics harped that it neglected the victim, so they went away with that system. Now they've shifted towards targeting men in groups -as an aggregate - and educating them. Just throw a net over men, they are perps and need to be educated. But, that doesn't get to the cause of DV, convenient, because the feminist literate assumes women are always innocent, they are always the victims. Australia needs to get real on this issue, and have a balanced discussion about it. Because women aren't always the victims. Sorry to disappoint you.

 

[romeohwho]

Feminist literate underpins education measures in regards to DV. The emphasis is on the victim - not the perpetrator, so it doesn't get to the cause of offending. This type of literature only ever sees females as the victim, so in regards to domestic violence it is flawed - because DV is a complex dynamic. If men are violent, then why are they violent? These questions aren't answered within the feminist paradigm, they simply aren't interested in the motivations of the offender, they are only interested in the victim, and the victim in their eyes is ALWAYS the female. In the 70's the feminists actually went off of a medical model, which concentrated on the offender, but then critics harped that it neglected the victim, so they went away with that system. Now they've shifted towards targeting men in groups -as an aggregate - and educating them. Just throw a net over men, they are perps and need to be educated. But, that doesn't get to the cause of DV, convenient, because the feminist literate assumes women are always innocent, they are always the victims. Australia needs to get real on this issue, and have a balanced discussion about it. Because women aren't always the victims. Sorry to disappoint you.

Don't believe I said women are always the victims-sorry to disappoint you.
What I did say, is that the vast majority of perpetrators of violence against men, women and children are male. So a bit of education can't hurt.
You still haven't shown in anyway how feminist lit underpins the education measures-seems to be just your opinion.

 

[SonOfurX]

Don't believe I said women are always the victims-sorry to disappoint you.
What I did say, is that the vast majority of perpetrators of violence against men, women and children are male. So a bit of education can't hurt.
You still haven't shown in anyway how feminist lit underpins the education measures-seems to be just your opinion.

A good start for you might be to read some of Donald Dutton's books on domestic violence, then maybe look into Murray Straus. Both experts in the field of domestic violence. These guys have been in the game a very long time, they actually have evidence based material on the subject. Perhaps that will save me debating over feminist literature and DV, because I've read through this thread before, and I've seen what happens to blokes who start going against the grain. So I will leave you with your studies.

 

[BORK]

Don't believe I said women are always the victims-sorry to disappoint you.
What I did say, is that the vast majority of perpetrators of violence against men, women and children are male. So a bit of education can't hurt.
You still haven't shown in anyway how feminist lit underpins the education measures-seems to be just your opinion.

Men are not perpetrators of the 'vast majority' of violence against children.

Women are responsible for the overall majority of child abuse. The grouping of children with women as the victims of men in the issue of family violence is the biggest lie going around.

 

[romeohwho]

A good start for you might be to read some of Donald Dutton's books on domestic violence, then maybe look into Murray Straus. Both experts in the field of domestic violence. These guys have been in the game a very long time, they actually have evidence based material on the subject. Perhaps that will save me debating over feminist literature and DV, because I've read through this thread before, and I've seen what happens to blokes who start going against the grain. So I will leave you with your studies.

The readings and theories of those people may be very interesting but still doesn't confirm what the education measures are based upon. Am not debating fem lit, am questioning your claims re policy changes being based on it and your links to these people don't support those claims.

 

[romeohwho]

Men are not perpetrators of the 'vast majority' of violence against children.

Women are responsible for the overall majority of child abuse. The grouping of children with women as the victims of men in the issue of family violence is the biggest lie going around.

First thing I found when I googled suggests not quite correct.
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/who-abuses-children

 

[cartwright]

First thing I found when I googled suggests not quite correct.
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/who-abuses-children

^ Thanks for the report, the section about dv was interesting in how being a witness to DV as a child is now abuse in its own right. .

This reports, for nsw at least,

• Police identified 94 persons as responsible for, or persons of interest in, the deaths of the 83 children.
  

• The persons of interest included birth parents (36 mothers and 21 fathers) and intimate partners of birth parents (31 male, 1 female).
  
  Which suggests that, combined fathers / intimate partners, men are still higher perpetrators
  
  https://www.ombo.nsw.gov.au/__data/...port-of-reviewable-child-deaths-June-2015.pdf
  
  

 

[RobbieGray17]

Can i please have some opinions on this article. I dont like it, and is one of the things i hate about how feminism is advertised. Firstly the photo was stunning, and he didnt even say anything wrong. It goes both ways. Men admire women, and women admire men. Whats the problem.

The shaming of guys showing their private messages is immature. The first message shown is a bit wrong, and desperate, but the last one, i think is totally unfair to shame a guy for that.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/alex...arlotte-proudman/story-e6frfm1i-1227520434171

 

[Maggie5]

Can i please have some opinions on this article. I dont like it, and is one of the things i hate about how feminism is advertised. Firstly the photo was stunning, and he didnt even say anything wrong. It goes both ways. Men admire women, and women admire men. Whats the problem.

The shaming of guys showing their private messages is immature. The first message shown is a bit wrong, and desperate, but the last one, i think is totally unfair to shame a guy for that.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/alex...arlotte-proudman/story-e6frfm1i-1227520434171

Do you know what type of organisation Linkedln is?

It is a business-oriented professional networking service. I am on there but not my photo though many do have their photo on there.

Not sure that men or women should be making those type of comments. Personally, I would have just ignored it

 

[cartwright]

Can i please have some opinions on this article. I dont like it, and is one of the things i hate about how feminism is advertised. Firstly the photo was stunning, and he didnt even say anything wrong. It goes both ways. Men admire women, and women admire men. Whats the problem.

The shaming of guys showing their private messages is immature. The first message shown is a bit wrong, and desperate, but the last one, i think is totally unfair to shame a guy for that.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/alex...arlotte-proudman/story-e6frfm1i-1227520434171

Offensive? No
Inappropriate? Unnecessary? Yes.