LiquidOxygen80 isn't calling all "outsiders" "parasites and culture vultures" just the ones who act the part.

If other Feminists can disregard Christina Hoff Sommers because she's "not a real feminist" why can't we do the same to those who seem to ONLY want to be included because it's a "hip" thing atm.

No, I didn't refer to all outsiders as parasites and culture vultures. I referred to parasites and culture vultures as parasites and culture vultures. Apparently, your reading comprehension skills might need some polishing, my friend.

Consider it like this. You and a group of friends build a really nice room filled with things you enjoy. It takes time and money and people ridicule you for the things it contains, but you and your friends still love it. Little by little, you and your friends let other people in and they're kind and enjoy the things it contains, and they start visiting it too. They then introduce THEIR friends, who may not get everything in the room, but they pick and choose the things they like and they're fairly respectful to you and your friends. You get along, everyone gets along, everything's hunky dory. Then, those friends invite a group of disrespectful punks who smear mud all over the walls, break your things, and leave it trashed after they find out it doesn't meet their standards of what's "cool." Not only do they leave this mess, but they blame you for it, then your friends blame you for it and everyone now hates your room.

End of the day, you now have a trashed room that's still filled with things you enjoy, but now you have to work to clean up. On top of this, your original friends now call you elementary level insults for still enjoying your room. Now imagine that you're suddenly surrounded by people who just had their rooms trashed too. Would you not now have a predilection towards those people, instead of more assholes who are trying to regain entry into your room because "they get it now, it's art and stuff." When in reality, it's probably more akin to a trojan horse filled with neo facists looking to trash your room again? Would that not make you more cynical?

If you answered no, then you either have the patience of a saint or you're a bald faced liar.

Mr Warehall, I have little interest in your battle with "SJW"s, or feminists / "SJW"'s battles to do whatever it is they do, but I would like to suggest you're being a little naive with your "FACT" usage. Facts as you see them are in "fact" incredibly ambiguous things.

A fact can very rarely support an argument, it is our inferences from the fact that we then employ to support our arguments. I can't quite tell what your original point was, but I'm guessing it's that there is no gender pay gap (it seems to be a trend to your posts). You've announced that the fact that men work 8.2 hrs a day on average compared to 7.8hrs for women proves your point. You haven't even gone on to state your inferences of this fact (the fact in itself it proves nothing), but I assume you're suggesting that therefore men would gain a higher portion of income compared to women because of these increased hours. Such a suggestion is, of course, ridiculous as it has not analysed the jobs being worked, the kind of pay received in those jobs, in fact there are so many factors that it is totally useless as a statistic for making an argument.

By all means continue your thrashing around between each other and chucking links to statistics across to support your points. I used to do it too. However I find it much more interesting now to look at what these stats are actually talking about, and what it is actually fair to infer from these facts (and also, if they are even facts).

For you interest, and just of my own anecdotal experience, there is definitely a gender pay gap overall. The difference that I feel is not appreciated by many is that it's not distributed evenly across professions, and even across industry sectors. There is the most pronounced gender pay gap in areas where there is not effective competition. This is because women and men can do any technical job equally well, and if you wanted the best, you'd hire from that top pool, not from the top 50% of that pool. In my area, we need the best, and I was conversing with a colleague on this subject recently, and I said I'd employ a man, women, or martian if they could just do the job well. However there definitely are "boys club" areas of industry, such as banking, law, and "boardroom management" (I'm still not entirely sure of the skillset for entering that field). These guys don't have effective competition because of a large amount of regulation that stops it being easy to just start up a new company (to be an approved bank is a difficult thing). So in these areas I've both observed a culture of discrimintation, and am aware of a pay gap.

Maybe you also need to learn to read. My point is that the statistic of women earning 77 cents for every dollar a man makes is grossly misleading. First off, it is based on raw statistics that have gross deficiencies.
1) It's a statistic from 1999.
2) It completely ignores hours worked.
3) It ignores the types of jobs worked.
4) It ignores the FACT that many women work less to support their families.
5) Study after study has concluded that discrimination is not a significant portion of this statistic, if at all. I've linked them. Read them yourself. Not one study has shown more discrimination against women for being women. The vast majority of those 23 cents are clearly accounted for.
6) Here in the States, I have not witnessed any such pay gap, You may claim what you wish, maybe that only applies to the UK. Everything I linked is for the United States.
7) Quite frankly, anyone using this grossly exaggerated statistic as proof that there is mass discrimination of women is being rather dishonest.

So frankly, I find YOU to be rather NAIVE!

It was Ryan trying to distort the truth by claiming men and women work the same hours by linking a stat showing for only days worked, men work 8.2 hour vs 7.8 for women. He completely ignored the fact that men work more overtime (overtime is not accounted for in the 77 cent figure from 1999, nor is it considered in this hours worked per day statistic).

In fact, a recent study, attempted to rule out "couple family dynamics". It decided that by comparing single women to single men of ages 22-30 (which they had data) it would help rule out differences for women staying at home for their children...

The results...there was a 8 cent gender gap...single women aged 22-30 make $1.08 for every $1 single men 22-30 make. Does that mean young single men are being discriminated against now? And no, I'm not alleging that, but it certainly indicates that the way some people popularize these exaggerated figures and call it all discrimination are frankly full of something.

This is all U.S., I'm not going to pretend to understand European gender dynamics and I don't have information about your problems, but there is substantial employment information in the U.S. which allows a great deal of study.

And while none of these studies rule out a very small gender gap due to discrimination, it certainly is nowhere near 23 cents on a dollar and seems to be at MOST 3 cents and based in this recent study of young single workers, it appears likely there is no such thing.

Do you suspect I can't? You seem to be losing a little bit of your objectivity here.

You seemed to think your UK experiences had something to do with the U.S....
I also made it abundantly clear that my gripe is the gross exaggeration inherent in that misguided statistic...
You claim I originally brought up certain statistics which were linked by Ryan...
You also don't seem to have read what I have linked because my links specifically address why large portions of that 23 cent gap have nothing to do with discrimination...

You yes, I have had my doubts whether you can read...but more likely, just like Ryan, you just chose not to...

A weird statement to make on a text based forum.

I wish you all the best in your crusade. I'm sorry to have intervened. I'd heard about the polarity of it all, but had not experienced until now. I hope you'll at least try to take what I've advised about interpretation of facts on board, but ultimately whatever you want to pursue is up to you.

Best of luck,

Will

This thread really brings out the best in everyone! XD

If Gandhi came in here, within ten minutes he'd be telling someone to eat shit and die.

Is shit vegan?

No, I don't think shit is vegan when it can contain discarded intestinal cells, so IMHO it's cannibalism
<eats more popcorn>

And maybe you should rethink your own interpretation as well.

For example, Ryan claimed as fact his link proved women work as much as men. That is demonstrably FALSE.
He cited a statistic that was only hours of work per day. It is also a fact that men work more days per week. I provided that fact from the same source.
Put together, what Ryan posted was clearly misleading.

Those are facts. There is no doubt about any of them. There is no "interpretation".

Yet you claim somehow that facts very rarely can support an argument.
I 100% disagree and I think most reasonable people would agree with me. Facts and establishing information as factually as possible is the best way to support an argument. While many things in this world cannot be clearly defined, one does their best.

In this instance, and the particular argument mentioned. Ryan is clearly 100% factually wrong. There was nothing "ambiguous" about it. Your problem is you jumped into the middle of a conversation. Didn't read what transpired carefully at all and jumped to a rash judgement. That isn't my fault, that is yours. And you can throw around terms like polarization all you want, but what I see is someone jumping into the conversation, who didn't take any time at all to understand the debate and putting in an uninformed two cents...

Personally, I don't find much issue with people who believe the gender way gap (although proper the prohnouns are sex wage gap so as to not be homophobic and very obviously cissexist) because if the culmination of the fights of feminism today is to right 23 cents, I don't think any other ''problem'' they claim still exists is worth any more seriousness than that. Toilet paper and air conditioning are a close second then.

Seriously though, of the 23 cents, must we assume all 23 cents is because of patriarchy tithe? Must we completely deny a percentage of women prefer to stay in lower, less paying job positions because they want to look after their family? Because I wouldn't want to hush minority voices, especially since my privilege points are so over hiked for being in gamergate.

Since anyone who argues against the wage gap are obviously wrong by virtue of the fact that they argue in the first place, and so many people have such a problem with it; here's a challenge :

''CONVINCE ME ON THE WAGE GAP'' Anyone up for it?

EDITED : CONVINCE ME THAT THIS MISGENDERED WAGE GAP IS PROOF OF SEXHISM!

Let's be clear. Factually there is a wage gap. The average woman, the mean woman, the median woman in the United States makes less than the(average, mean, median) man. To that question there is no debate. No matter how the figure is computed on a national basis, women earn less on a composited whole. This is not true for all demographics or job types, but on a broad spectrum is true.

I think the real question you are asking is,
"Convince me the gender wage gap is the result of discrimination (i.e. hatred of women (misogyny) and/or patriarchy)
and not because women make more sacrifices for their family (stay home with children, work less, move to a new city following their husband's job, etc);
and not because their career choices lead them to lower paying jobs (degrees in women's studies or journalism or library studies);
and not because they make other choices that affect their pay (safer workplace, more benefits, flexible schedules, etc)

But plants eat shit and human eat plant.

So I think the point of being a vegan, other than health reason is, no animals get hurt.

On health reason, scientist has claim human can eat shit, But it is not a widespread practice, and the research is rather new, so I would advice against that in case scientist research wrong.

Drinking pee however, has long standing practice and demonstrated health benefits for many people. So you may want to try that.

And I don't see animals or human will get hurt if human start eating shit......