- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, Maximum:5000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 420 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
23 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 59925
Do you know what I don't get about the gender pay gap?
If companies can get away with paying women less than men then why don't they only hire women and save themselves loadsa money?
|>>|| No. 60028
I'd like to know what you do just so I know how wrong you've been
|>>|| No. 60035
Oh Honey, The fact that you think the height of measuring wealth is by what someone else pays you to do makes you adorable. You are like a little hairy armpitted Loadsamoney
|>>|| No. 60036
I'm not the person you were talking to, I'm just aware of what most people who post here earn.
>YOU THINK THE HEIGHT OF MEASURING WEALTH IS BY WHAT SOMEONE ELSE PAYS YOU
So you're a trust fund kid? Well done.
|>>|| No. 60037
>I'm not the person you were talking to
Hush then. Men Speaking.
(A good day to you Sir!)
|>>|| No. 60040
I'M TOO FRIGHTENED TO LOOK AT MY BANK STATEMENTS AND HAVE NO INCOME!
|>>|| No. 60041
As we've learned in this thread, you don't measure wealth with money, so don't worry about it.
|>>|| No. 60042
Is this whole issue being deliberately simplified and reduced to us vs them for the sake of courting women voters?
|>>|| No. 60043
It's classic divide and conquer by the Tories to implement these gender audits.
The problem is that the so called progressives lap it up, particularly as they struggle to grasp how to interpret statistics and the concept that equality of opportunity does not equate to equality of outcome.
They're being played for the complete useful idiots that they are by the government. The Tories just need to light the touchpaper and then let these idiots run with it, blinded by their ever increasing desire to segment people into various groups of oppression and losing sight of the one that truly matters which is class.
|>>|| No. 60044
But then presumably the tories then have the lefties asking them to put money in to women?
|>>|| No. 60045
>It's classic divide and conquer by the Tories to implement these gender audits.
Why on earth would you think this is a perfectly constructed right wing conspiracy? when it is easier to assume it to be a grass roots half baked idea crafted by idiots for idiots.
|>>|| No. 60046
Nah, it's all the fault of the big bad corporations.
Dawn Butler has written in the Guardian today to say that Labour would fine companies who aren't tackling their gender pay gap, that is where the average man is paid more than the average woman and doesn't take into account things like length of service, hours worked, qualifications and what job they actually do.
|>>|| No. 60047
It's a sop. It's a complete sop.
Theresa May has made a lot of noise about tackling corporate excess and doing gimmicks like putting workers on the company boards, but she doesn't really want to do anything about it.
These gender audits are a massive distraction but a) it makes Theresa look like she's doing something b) it allows the professionally offended to go into overdrive.
|>>|| No. 60049
>simplified and reduced to us vs them for the sake of courting women voters?
Welcome to popularism.
That is all the average voter ever understands and cares about. When a person declares themselves a victim, or discriminated against, you don't get them to vote for you by telling them they are wrong, you need to indulge their fantasy.
The Obama administration ended up doing this, he announced they were going to conduct a huge investigation to right the wrongs of why women make only 77cents to the dollar, when the answer came back "they don't" they quietly buried the report and never spoke of it. Because no one wants to hear that kind of answer. People would probably protest him if he gave it.
|>>|| No. 60050
But it's not "us vs them", it's employers vs employees. No one's blaming you for paying woman less. You're putting that victimisation on yourselves.
|>>|| No. 60051
Nah, m8. It's a huge patriarchal conspiracy.
Haven't you been going to your local weekly meetings about how us menfolk can keep women firmly in their places?
|>>|| No. 60053
I don't think you understand. Are you actually pale, male and stale enough?
|>>|| No. 60055
You seem like the kind of lad to read a headline and get too teary to carry on.
|>>|| No. 60056
I think that's why the Beeb were made to issue theirs first.
A lot of their staff, male and female, are overpaid so it softens the mentality of "the women shouldn't be paid more; the men should be paid less."
|>>|| No. 60065
>Should men take a pay cut?
>Ban salary negotiations
No thanks. Look at what's happened in the public sector in recent years, where the employer (the government) can dictate pay. What's that? You've got reliable data showing your market value? Fuck you, here's £16k and a 1% rise next year.
|>>|| No. 60067
>Feminist[s] [are] unwitting stooges in an assault on the proletariat.
That's all any of this modern progressivism has ever been, lad.
The key difference between an "intersectional feminist" and a plain old Marxist is that the feminist pledges allegiance whole heartedly to the consumer capitalist economic system; and attempts to understand the injustice inflicted upon segments of society through the lens of that system's unquestioned moral neutrality.
Feminism has been, since its earliest days, co-opted by the industrialist bourgeois to exert downwards pressure on labour. Progressive politics as we know it exists to strangle the threat of any resurgence in genuine socialism, like a nest-invading parasite cuckoo.
|>>|| No. 60068
The older I get and the more time I spend with intersectional feminists the more this seems like it might be true. Follow the money, as they say.
|>>|| No. 60069
What does intersectional even mean? Is it just a new way to feel even more oppressed?
|>>|| No. 60071
Intersectionality in a nutshell: Black women get it harder than white women.
|>>|| No. 60073
I would love to hear the better definition - my understanding is a bit like yours, intersectionality is the idea that oppressed people should stick together, so black people, women etc, all have a similar bag of spuds. Bit like how the gays and the miners got together in the miners strike. But I know nothing.
|>>|| No. 60074
So it's the feminists coming up with their own terminology for the oppression Olympics whereby you're seeing who can claim to be the biggest victim?
|>>|| No. 60077
It is the idea is that there are a range of qualities that mean a person is favoured or discriminated against, that can work in tandem with each other and we should strive to overcome them. The problem is in practice this is combined with a load of post-modern and cultural Marxist dogma that turns it into bollocks.
The logic follows that being able to speak clearly or make a coherent point is the result of privilege so we must strive to ignore that, and that personal experience and feelings are a 'truth' and therefore are an important and valid form or argument (more so then hard data and logic, that lacks the emotional consideration) what this leads to is a) that you have to listen to all manner of drivel the more incoherent the speaker the more 'valid' it is that you hear it and support it, and therefore more valid then the so called experts who are blinded by their privilege, b)That you cannot invalidate someone’s personal truth particularly if it is from a perspective you don't personally have.
This is what leads to the 'oppression Olympics’ [sic] and the absurd articles about men keeping their legs open on the tube is sexist. And actual maritime issues/dolphin rape of ‘you would believe that being a man/white’.
It also has significant flaws in that the unprivileged groups are dictated by predefined special class rather than by the fluid current circumstance which means the dogma is entirely dictated by the egocentrism of the United States. The idea that a black person isn’t a victim of slavery or that white Europeans are capable of discriminating against other white Europeans, or even a white person could be in a culture that discriminates against them is beyond the dogma.
|>>|| No. 60078
It reminds me of when I was a teenlad and joined a vegetarian society. It was full of insufferable people engaged in a never-ending game of one-upmanship to prove who was the most pure, saying things like that lemons are waxed with shellac so if you've ever eaten something with lemon juice as an ingredient you're scum and need to go and die in a fire.
|>>|| No. 60080
>IT IS THE IDEA IS THAT THERE ARE A RANGE OF QUALITIES THAT MEAN A PERSON IS FAVOURED OR DISCRIMINATED AGAINST
So we're a couple of steps from quantifying your discrimination levels. I wonder how much I score on the oppress-o-meter?
I feel a dystopian novel coming on.
|>>|| No. 60081
A lot of discussions in the social justice community descend into a game of oppression top trumps. There'll probably be an app out soon that scans your Facebook page and gives you an oppression score.
|>>|| No. 60084
Don't forget white parsing. The broad brushstroke dolphin rape isn't even well hidden.
|>>|| No. 60086
I'VE NEVER WORKED IN HR OR HIRED AT A COMPANY BIG ENOUGH TO HAVE AN APPLICATIONS SYSTEM, BUT SAY IF I WAS APPLYING FOR A JOB AT CORPORATION X AND AT THE BIT ON THEIR SITE THAT ASKS ME WHAT COLOUR AND SEX AND THAT I AM, IF I PUT THAT I'M A DISABLED BLACK LESBIAN AM I MORE LIKELY TO GET THE JOB? OBVIOUSLY WHEN I GET TO THE INTERVIEW AND THEY REALISE I'M A WHITE BLOKE THEY CAN'T SAY ANYTHING IN CASE THAT'S JUST HOW I IDENTIFY.
IS THIS THE PERFECT CRIME?
|>>|| No. 60087
Black lesbian might be a stretch, but if you tick the disabled box (for a guaranteed interview) it's not for them to decide otherwise. Though to be honest if you're as much of a mouth-breathing autist as your post suggests it wouldn't exactly be a lie.
|>>|| No. 60089
I wasn't lying, I identify as a black lesbian, here is my Tumblr to prove it, give me £15m in damages thanks.
|>>|| No. 60090
>If companies can get away with paying women less than men then why don't they only hire women and save themselves loadsa money?
Because women are crap.
|>>|| No. 60104
I've ticked the disabled box on several applications which apparently offer a guaranteed interview to mongs (of which I am diagnosed as one), only to be rejected before interview.
|>>|| No. 60106
Maybe you were out-disabled. Maybe you're intersectionality wasn't intersected enough.
|>>|| No. 60111
What happens if you tick the box that asks if you're a pedo?
|>>|| No. 60114
>T IF YOU'RE AS MUCH OF A MOUTH-BREATHING AUTIST AS YOUR POST SUGGESTS
I know this is IQ but what was it that made you feel this way?
|>>|| No. 60127
Women must act now, or male-designed robots will take over our lives
I think the next fight for us women is to ensure artificial intelligence does not become the ultimate expression of masculinity.
There are many reasons to fear this could happen. First, the algorithms that codify human choices about how decisions should be made. It is not possible for algorithms to remain immune from the human values of their creators. If a non-diverse workforce is creating them, they are more prone to be implanted with unexamined, undiscussed, often unconscious assumptions and biases about things such as race, gender and class. What if the workforce designing those algorithms is male-dominated? This is the first major problem: the lack of female scientists and, even worse, the lack of true intersectional thinking behind the creation of algorithms.
There's nothing worse than a lack of true intersectional thinking.
|>>|| No. 60128
From the comments:
AIs have no votes. They have no rights. they can be switched off with no appeals process. On an intersectional basis they probably come up top trumps. So we have to listen to what they say without judging. I think.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ Last 50 posts ]