baseballlover312 wrote:
The same can be said for protests in my opinion. I am all for peaceful protest, but you need to pick and choose battles or the battles are meaningless.
So as an example, is it better to protest against the lawmakers or the against the law? And is it then worthless to protest against the law and the people who made it, when you could focus on either?
Paul23 wrote:
@TMM: Linda Sarsour wasn't the only organizer. I never said that. But she was one of the persons at the top.
And that devalues the entire basis of the march? So i could take certain views from a member of the Trump administration, or of the right-wing, and use that to devalue the entire thing?
Well, then that's a really stupid thing to do. Do I go out and wear a slave outfit, to show support to the black people, whose ancestors were slaves? No, because that's stupid.
Mostly because slavery is illegal and unverally decried by the vast majority of people, whereas racism against people from the Middle East and discrimmination based on religion is still rife and being pursued by the people in power.
I am probably on a different standpoint as you on the abortion thing then. I would allow it, when a woman got raped.
You're one step better than Trump then. As he wants to ban it outright completely, and has already made an Executive Order based on this stance, using it as part of a basis for a protest seems perfectly reasonable.
There is no gender pay gap. To be accurate, it's around 3-7% and it only occurs, because men negotiate their contracts better. The main problem is, that women work in jobs, which are not well paid itself, whilst more men work in well paid jobs.
Also women work less time in average, because they take time to raise children.
I also addressed his stance on maternity leave which can give rise to various concerns which ties nicely into this.
But it is true there is a gap in pay based upon gender. No it's not entirely due to pure discrimination. And there is a lot of variation and discussion about what that gap is and what causes it. That's a whole other argument.
As relation to the point of Womens March, it was a part of their reasoning and wider into general discrimination. On that point the BBC today released a, admitedly small study, showing that people with a Muslim name are less likely to get invite to an interview than people with 'normal' names. It's this genearl discrimmination that is a focus, not the small details which are still debated.
"Then there's his whole LGBTQ stance."
Gonna be honest, i don't get your response here or what it has to do with the Womens March as was the discussion.
And please don't confuse Gender with Sex. Gender being a social construct, Sex being the genetic and physical genitalia. There are lots of Genders and there are more than two Sexes. Heck, by having more than two Sexes there must be an equal number of Genders at least. Some people (tumblr ) go overboard on the Gender issue, i agree, but it's a small minorty.
I actually mostly agree with what you said, apart from the pay gap stuff and apart from that:
"And that devalues the entire basis of the march? So i could take certain views from a member of the Trump administration, or of the right-wing, and use that to devalue the entire thing?"
It was enough to devalue the AfD, because some voters were right-wingers. It was enough to devalue Pegida(which I still disagree with), because one of the organizers was a right-winger.
If you do it on one side, please do it for the other side as well.
baseballlover312 wrote:
The same can be said for protests in my opinion. I am all for peaceful protest, but you need to pick and choose battles or the battles are meaningless.
So as an example, is it better to protest against the lawmakers or the against the law? And is it then worthless to protest against the law and the people who made it, when you could focus on either?
The law in my opinion. The lawmakers are set. They were just elected, and there are no recalls for federal representatives. Protest the specific law or action that is unacceptable. If you protest everything a lawmaker does, I think it comes off as whiny, and it certainly doesn't convince the lawmaker to do anything different - it just pisses them off, especially with a guy as reactionary as Trump.
RIP Exxon Duke, David Veilleux, Double Feature, and Monster Energy
Taking it one step further, what if the law makers are putting through a number of controversial and "wrong" laws? Do you protest each one individually in turn? That's a better strategy than larger but broader protests, even if it may therefore take longer and more protests?
I ask because it's not like there's one problem, more like Romania, but it's a collection of issues. Yes, more specifically focused action would garner better response but that's why the Trump administration is powering through so many things so fast. It is part of the strategy that in the long term not everything will remain, but enough things will slip by. And i won't argue, that's a deviously clever ploy because it is working.
baseballlover312 wrote:
The same can be said for protests in my opinion. I am all for peaceful protest, but you need to pick and choose battles or the battles are meaningless.
So as an example, is it better to protest against the lawmakers or the against the law? And is it then worthless to protest against the law and the people who made it, when you could focus on either?
The law in my opinion. The lawmakers are set. They were just elected, and there are no recalls for federal representatives. Protest the specific law or action that is unacceptable. If you protest everything a lawmaker does, I think it comes off as whiny, and it certainly doesn't convince the lawmaker to do anything different - it just pisses them off, especially with a guy as reactionary as Trump.
I disagree here. I feel it is the lawmakers/government you should protest but it needs to be organised and focussed. Protesting the actual laws is what is currently happening in America and everyone is just running around like headless chickens protesting against everything Trump says.
The womens march was organised but it was one section of the population doing their own thing, protesting for their own interests, while others do their own thing. That is the problem at the moment. All of the protesters are looking at the issues from their own perspective and not the bigger picture. Would those women have been protesting if Trump hadn't said "grab em in the pussy"? Would they be protesting the travel ban or are they only interested in their own womens rights?
There needs to be one movement with a specific goal to really generate momentum otherwise, as BBL says, it just comes across as whiny when you turn the news on everyday and they are protesting something new.
It's like a pack of sled dogs. If they all pull in roughly the same direction they will move forward but will inevitably all hold each other back. If they all pull together behind one leader/cause they will be 10 times stronger and can really make a difference.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
ringo182 wrote:
Would they be protesting the travel ban or are they only interested in their own womens rights?
Well, as i wrote the Womens March had a variety of points over which they marched which was beyond a simplisitic "womens rights" movement.
I will also point out that the travel ban, Executive Order 13769, was signed on 27th January, whilst the Womens March was on the 21st January. It would have been incredible to protest against a ban that hadn't happened yet.
And as i said already, there is a wide range of anti-Trump protest because the administration is pushing through a range of actions at speed. So would you then say people should wait until he's finished, then have big overarching protest? And that as it's an anti-Trump sentiment, that it needs a specific central figure? Because it has one cause, stop Trump.
Paul23 wrote:
@Alak: The womens march was mostly non-violent. It was mostly nonsense, but that's a topic for another day.
Oh i wanna hear this
I can tell you that too if you want.
The whole Womens march was one big crap idiocy. Women protesting for the rights they already have, that is what you call a first world problems. I hope they at least were fast enough to get back to the kitchen after that...
And as Paul wrote, mixing it with right to wear the muslim women pyjamas is pure hell, nobody sees the major paradox in it?
ringo182 wrote:
Would they be protesting the travel ban or are they only interested in their own womens rights?
And as i said already, there is a wide range of anti-Trump protest because the administration is pushing through a range of actions at speed. So would you then say people should wait until he's finished, then have big overarching protest? And that as it's an anti-Trump sentiment, that it needs a specific central figure? Because it has one cause, stop Trump.
I think they would benefit from taking a step back, organising and then working together for a single goal rather than reacting to everything as it happens.
Obviously that will be very difficult to do given the wide range of people pissed off at Trump for a wide range of issues. But it's the only way they are going to effect any real change.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
Time for another protest Her job for 4 years is literally to make poor kids have no access to good education so they stay dumb and vote Republican in years to come.
Time for another protest Her job for 4 years is literally to make poor kids have no access to good education so they stay dumb and vote Republican in years to come.
This is an extremely sad day for the already poor education system in America. Luckily I am done with education in May
PCM.Daily NFL Fantasy Football Champion: 2012 PCM.Daily NHL Prediction Game Champion: 2013 PCM.Daily NFL Prediction Game Champion: 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016, 2021
Paul23 wrote:
There is no gender pay gap. To be accurate, it's around 3-7% and it only occurs, because men negotiate their contracts better. The main problem is, that women work in jobs, which are not well paid itself, whilst more men work in well paid jobs.
Also women work less time in average, because they take time to raise children.
That's simply not true! When you take away all other factors women are still getting paid less than men, if what you were saying was true then why is it when women who do the same jobs as men on average get paid less? We have more woman getting a university education than men yet when they enter the workforce are receiving less pay, plenty of studies have shown when women try and negotiate a better pay rate in interviews that they are less likely to get the job than a male doing the same thing, Female physicians, for instance, earn 71 percent of what male physicians earn, and lawyers earn 82 percent. Consider the discrepancies in jobs requiring similar education and responsibility, or similar skills, but divided by gender. According to US Bureau of Labor Statistics data the median earnings of Info technology managers (mostly men) are 27 percent higher than human resources managers (mostly women), then at the end of wage earners we have janitors (usually men) earn 22 percent more than maids and housecleaners (usually women). We also have data showing that between 1950 to 2000 the share of women increased in many fields and found that when women moved into occupations in large numbers, those jobs began paying less even after controlling for education, work experience, skills, race and geography. The gender pay is shrinking but the reasons it still exists are for more reasons than you have stated.
Hells 500 Crew and 6 x Everester
Don Rd Launching Place
Melbourne Hill Rd Warrandyte
Colby Drive Belgrave South
William Rd The Patch
David Hill Rd Monbulk
Lakeside Drive Emerald https://www.everesting.cc/hall-of-fame/
The pay gap is a difficult one. There is obviously a discrepancy but there are also often valid reasons.
It's important not to simply pay women the same as men just because they are women, because that is just as sexist/discriminatory as the current situation.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
I wonder if all the people know that we live in society where market points the value of labour and height of salaries.
Market, no socialist politicians or social justice warriors, who want to unify everything in lives of mankind for uknown reason (uknown for me, who lived his early childhood in socialism and who was tought by parents that socialism means the destruction of individuality, which is true).
You can live in your equality bubbles, but in real life, men and women all have different qualities for certain jobs and there are also jobs, where women are paid more than men. It is also no secret that women employees are somewhat bigger "danger" for the employer, because they usually leave the job for years to raise the children. Women are also more driven by emotions than a reason by nature and thus not generally suitable for some kind of jobs, especially under pressure. There are exceptions of course, but anyone who have worked in larger team for some years know about these differencies.
So to make the point - let market set the value of work of every individual, no social engineering, which is the way to hell for many reasons.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Women are also more driven by emotions than a reason by nature and thus not generally suitable for some kind of jobs, especially under pressure.
Yeah, thankfully we've got guys like Trump in charge making decisions based on reason.
And I won't get into the whole unfettered markets thing...
Paul23 wrote:
There is no gender pay gap. To be accurate, it's around 3-7% and it only occurs, because men negotiate their contracts better. The main problem is, that women work in jobs, which are not well paid itself, whilst more men work in well paid jobs.
Also women work less time in average, because they take time to raise children.
That's simply not true! When you take away all other factors women are still getting paid less than men, if what you were saying was true then why is it when women who do the same jobs as men on average get paid less? We have more woman getting a university education than men yet when they enter the workforce are receiving less pay, plenty of studies have shown when women try and negotiate a better pay rate in interviews that they are less likely to get the job than a male doing the same thing, Female physicians, for instance, earn 71 percent of what male physicians earn, and lawyers earn 82 percent. Consider the discrepancies in jobs requiring similar education and responsibility, or similar skills, but divided by gender. According to US Bureau of Labor Statistics data the median earnings of Info technology managers (mostly men) are 27 percent higher than human resources managers (mostly women), then at the end of wage earners we have janitors (usually men) earn 22 percent more than maids and housecleaners (usually women). We also have data showing that between 1950 to 2000 the share of women increased in many fields and found that when women moved into occupations in large numbers, those jobs began paying less even after controlling for education, work experience, skills, race and geography. The gender pay is shrinking but the reasons it still exists are for more reasons than you have stated.
Sorry, that I actually have connections to some big companies. I have connections to the "Deutsche Bahn", to "Palfinger Platforms", "DVAG", to some hospitals, because of my mom...Nowhere there get women paid less. Not a single cent. My mom even laughed first, when I asked her about the pay gap. She still does.
The Army pays them equal as well. Also when you're working on a construction site, you get paid the same.(not completely, because they pay you by performance, so most women get paid less, but there are guys that get paid even less and women that earn more.)
@Avin: I totally agree with you. Couldn't agree more.
@wackojackohighcliffe: Nice job trying to change the facts. It doesn't work like that:
Person A: "Women are worse than men in sports."
Person B: "But you are worse than Marianne Vos in cycling."
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Women are also more driven by emotions than a reason by nature and thus not generally suitable for some kind of jobs, especially under pressure.
Yeah, thankfully we've got guys like Trump in charge making decisions based on reason.
And I won't get into the whole unfettered markets thing...
What does the person of an american president has to do with my post? I dont see any connection, apart from fact that if american president was a woman, she would have same rights and benefits as the male president.
As i wrote, there are exceptions of course, but market usually follows the general rule, not exceptions.
Avin Wargunnson wrote:
Women are also more driven by emotions than a reason by nature and thus not generally suitable for some kind of jobs, especially under pressure.
Yeah, thankfully we've got guys like Trump in charge making decisions based on reason.
And I won't get into the whole unfettered markets thing...
What does the person of an american president has to do with my post? I dont see any connection, apart from fact that if american president was a woman, she would have same rights and benefits as the male president.
As i wrote, there are exceptions of course, but market usually follows the general rule, not exceptions.
I think Wacko's Trump comment was a bit tongue in cheek.
I guess we'll see if a female president gets the same rights as a male one if one ever gets elected. If Clinton couldn't beat Trump then it looks like it's going to be a long time before it happens.
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
ringo182 wrote:
If Clinton couldn't beat Trump then it looks like it's going to be a long time before it happens.
That wasn't so much because Clinton was female, as the fact that the Democrats royally screwed up their campaign in the late stages. Combined with a general underestimation of the numbers of quiet supporters of Trump.
I mean, the USA is somewhat tolerant. They did vote for a black guy twice
ringo182 wrote:
If Clinton couldn't beat Trump then it looks like it's going to be a long time before it happens.
That wasn't so much because Clinton was female, as the fact that the Democrats royally screwed up their campaign in the late stages. Combined with a general underestimation of the numbers of quiet supporters of Trump.
I mean, the USA is somewhat tolerant. They did vote for a black guy twice
Well Kanye West is going to be the next president so it'll be at least another 10 years
"Ringo is exactly right", Shonak - 8 September 2016
![imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg](https://imgur.com/KlJUqDx.jpg[/img[img]]https://imgur.com/yUygrQ.jpg)
) go overboard on the Gender issue, i agree, but it's a small minorty.
