Radical Feminism *WARNING* There is a pic of Beth Ditto involved

Astronomer · 08-25-2009, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dano

If you were fired for being pregnant, you have a winnable supreme court case on your hands. Thats absolutely ridiculous, may I inquire as to who you worked for?

There is a workplace law that states if the business has under 150 workers, they can dismiss anyone without having a reason. I worked for a business with under 150 employees. But I am a member of a workers union and I have known women who have been fired when they became pregnant and the employers used a different excuse so that they didn't get in trouble. It happens all the time. Studies have also shown that employers are more likely to hire a man over a woman because the woman may eventually get pregnant and want maternity leave. I know all of this because when I did get fired I tried to take it to court/ to a union but there was nothing I could do. Basically, workers rights are still not 100% equal when it comes to being female.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dano

Also, the sexual harassment issue/domestic violence reference. I believe that this is something that occurs in nature as well. Its the fact that men are generally stronger and bigger than women, thats also something that will never cease to exist. You cant blame that on society, you can blame that on individual incidents that occur because men can simply overpower a woman and men are generally hornier and hit on women with far more inclination to do so.

Firstly, men being stronger than females DOES NOT give them the right to sexually harass them/ rape them/ hurt them. Likewise, just because men are 'bigger' and 'hornier' this also DOES NOT give them the right to treat women in a derogatory manner.

Secondly, you can blame it on society. Society gives off a lot of negative messages about how women should be treated. You can see it everywhere - in the media, in workplaces, in people's general attitudes. It is often these attitudes that society holds that gives men the idea that this type of behaviour is okay.

Astronomer · 08-25-2009, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

You do realize that becoming pregnant is not a part of equal opportunity rights, right?
If an employer feels that you will, at some point, not be able to maintain contribution to his/her company, you are in completely legal grounds to be fired. Regardless of circumstance.
If you're LUCKY, you might keep the job.
Just because guys can't get pregnant doesn't mean it's unfair treatment. Businesses look out for their business. Maintaining a proper work force is part of their obligation to their own business. Just because you become pregnant does not mean they have to suffer for it.
Companies don't owe anything to their employees except pay and whatever else is in their agreement. Male OR female.
If you're making a case about the fact that males don't get fired for becoming pregnant and unable to work, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

Incorrect, there are equal opportunity laws in place that prevent employers from firing women when they get pregnant. It is not up to the business.

There are also laws which also require employers to give the woman a certain amount of paid maternity leave when the baby arrives. These laws are concrete. The issue is that many businesses sneakily get around these laws.

Being pregnant doesn't make you disabled. Many women can still work their job for the term of their pregnancy.

It's just the same as a certain type of business firing a male because he's not an attractive young female and he's not going to bring as much business as an attractive woman would. You can't fire people over things like this, it would be discrimination. Unless it is part of a specific contract signed or something, it is not supposed to happen. There are laws in place to protect this.

Firing a women because she has ovaries and may get pregnant is gender discrimination.

~~Dano~~ · 08-25-2009, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lateralus

Firstly, men being stronger than females DOES NOT give them the right to sexually harass them/ rape them/ hurt them. Likewise, just because men are 'bigger' and 'hornier' this also DOES NOT give them the right to treat women in a derogatory manner.

Secondly, you can blame it on society. Society gives off a lot of negative messages about how women should be treated. You can see it everywhere - in the media, in workplaces, in people's general attitudes. It is often these attitudes that society holds that gives men the idea that this type of behaviour is okay.

I was elaborating the reason behind this trend, not the justification. Im not advocating it or justifying it, im just saying the reason this occurs is because women cant even technically rape a man (as far as im concerned, and yes im being serious) but the reason that domestic violence is a generally male crime is because men are generally the stronger person in a state of nature in a relationship. Again., this isnt a justification. It doesn't take a genius to see that rape and domestic violence are a predominantly male crime, this would happen in a state of nature with no laws.

Society does not imply that this type of behavior is ok simply because of the double standard. The double standard may be discriminative in the sense that men who sleep around are "pimps" and women are "sluts", but it doesn't reinforce or justify domestic violence/sexual harassment and rape for men. Its an individual crime, its a genetic inclination not something encouraged or fueled by society..

Freebase Dali · 08-25-2009, 01:16 AM

@ Lateralus... Answer: Good lawyers.

But I guess it depends on the job.
I'm not talking about Starbucks here...

Wayfarer · 08-25-2009, 02:30 AM

In light of these last few posts I'm feeling properly compelled to reiterate an excerpt of a post I pissed a good five minutes away writing earlier on in this abortion of a thread:

Quote:

Yes, because throughout the entire world, women are treated, without exception, as equals, and nothing less, right?

Nyesus, just because some friend of your mommy's is now, thanks to the feminist movement, able to earn over $60,000 a year doesn't necessarily mean that women throughout the "third world" are being treated as equals. To claim that there's "nothing left for feminist activists to do" is just bloody ridiculous and almost cheerfully ignorant.

Also allow me to add that by no means am I implying that one wouldn't be grievously and severely retarded to sincerely believe that women in the "first world" are given thoroughly equal treatment.

Srsly guise.

Barnard17 · 08-25-2009, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dano

google.com

Helping idiots seem educated since 1996

Pity, you should've used it. Then you'd maybe seem like less of ... well ... an idiot. The dictionary page I would have linked you to is

Societal Definition | Definition of Societal at Dictionary.com

Kudos to franzfergidon. As for people who rank right up there in "should've used a dictionary or google to help their meagre intelligence quotient compete with an argument", your opening statement

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dano

Feminist are ****ing retarted, theres no such thing as Mascunists therefore feminism ironically indicates the inferiority of a gender that needs a series of movements to seem adequate.

(Did you mean masculists? I'm not an idiot for admitting it's something I needed to look up, your an idiot for casting aspersions on people who don't already know everything. Primarily because, as we've seen already, you're making enough of a twat out of yourself for that already).

So I point out the applicable sort of terms that would define the male-dominant mindset that women are fighting against. Your response was

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dano

A series of overused multisyllabic terms used to indicate a feminine man who sides with the feminists movement and enjoys the terms Misogynists, which indicated a mistrust of women not overall lack of respect by the way.

Which suggests you should spend more time on google before opening your mouth because you appear to completely misunderstand the meaning of both words.

To be honest I was going to go through the remained of this thread to rebut your absurd claims, general ignorance and willingness to buy into cop outs. But you'd save everyone a whole lot of time and effort if you just opened your eyes, threw away the cap of the male chauvinist and actually spent some time in the real world as opposed to dreaming your life away stoned off vicodin.

boo boo · 08-25-2009, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fruitonica

A lot of your first post and then replies did imply that modern feminism was quite radical when in fact they're the vast minority. That's why it was a generalisation. I mean....

and plenty of other similar points you made, do you have anything at all to back it up?

Anyway, I'll give it a rest, this isn't going to go anywhere.

"A lot of feminists". Do you know what that means?

"A lot". It doesn't mean all feminists, most feminists or even a great majority of feminists, it just means a rather large portion. And yeah I forgot to say "radical" again, silly me.

I'm not judging all feminists based on it, I don't know how many f*cking times I have to repeat that to make it goddamn clear enough. I think telling me that just because it dosen't account for every feminist (or rather, "real" feminists, whatever you think that is) somehow makes it a non issue that should never EVER be discussed is the most incredibly closedminded thing you can say.

Not ALL muslims are radical extremists, so they must be irrelevant and never talked about, not ALL christians are psychotic bigots so no let's never talk about Fred Phelps, that might offend some of the "good" christians.

I really hate this way of thinking, very much.

Perhaps saying feminism is obsolete was taking it way too far, I apologise for not making it clear enough what I actually meant. Because at least for the US I think feminism has become a parody of itself, that's not to say we have TOTAL equality now, but I don't think there's any civil rights issues left in America that feminist activists really have any control over. Now they're just pushing a lot of ideals that like I've said many times, are f*cking retarded. Again, "a lot", "radical", how many times do I have to use these words? Is ADHD that big of a problem nowadays?

I'm sorry for assuming everyone here knew how to read, clearly I was wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

Um...
What rights do men have that women do not?

Being able to use the urinals, obviously.

boo boo · 08-25-2009, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freebase Dali

You do realize that becoming pregnant is not a part of equal opportunity rights, right?
If an employer feels that you will, at some point, not be able to maintain contribution to his/her company, you are in completely legal grounds to be fired. Regardless of circumstance.
If you're LUCKY, you might keep the job.
Just because guys can't get pregnant doesn't mean it's unfair treatment. Businesses look out for their business. Maintaining a proper work force is part of their obligation to their own business. Just because you become pregnant does not mean they have to suffer for it.
Companies don't owe anything to their employees except pay and whatever else is in their agreement. Male OR female.
If you're making a case about the fact that males don't get fired for becoming pregnant and unable to work, then you're barking up the wrong tree.

Well I guess it depends on the kinda job. But for the most part I think you're right.

The only problem is, a lot of women are laid off for this reason without being told the real reason they were laid off.

It's not that I don't sympathize with these women and that they feel like they're being persecuted, but you gotta look at it from a business standpoint, if they're doing something that will interfere with their performance and I'm sure getting pregnant qualifies, that's a perfectly legit reason to fire them.

I know there's maternity leave, not a lot of companies are fond of it, and for good reason. I think it's quite sexist actually, if you want equal rights for women, then perhaps you shouldn't imply that women have such special needs as to justify getting 50 weeks pay for missing work. Seriously that's a bunch of bullsh*t.

So yeah, I'm such a huge retard for thinking feminism is obsolete in America. And yet this is the big equality issue we are discussing?

It's not equality if you're giving women special pay for special needs. And yes, pregnant women DO have special needs, so we can't be truly equal can we?

Double X · 08-25-2009, 09:25 AM

Complaining about maternity leave? You would be saying differently if it was your wife. Women need a maternity leave if they want kids, and they shouldn't be discriminated against just because they are physically different. That is the whole point of gender equality.

boo boo · 08-25-2009, 09:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Double X

Complaining about maternity leave? You would be saying differently if it was your wife. Women need a maternity leave if they want kids, and they shouldn't be discriminated against just because they are physically different. That is the whole point of gender equality.

My point is, maternity leave throws out any opportunity for men and women to be truly equal.

If you're pro maternity leave, fine. But then you must accept that men and women can't be truly equal in every possible way.

08-25-2009, 01:16 AM	#94 (permalink)
Freebase Dali Partying on the inside Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,584	@ Lateralus... Answer: Good lawyers. But I guess it depends on the job. I'm not talking about Starbucks here... __________________

08-25-2009, 09:25 AM	#99 (permalink)
Double X sleepe Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: boston Posts: 1,140	Complaining about maternity leave? You would be saying differently if it was your wife. Women need a maternity leave if they want kids, and they shouldn't be discriminated against just because they are physically different. That is the whole point of gender equality.