I get objectified because of my charming personality all the time.... maybe not....

As far as I am aware, quotas are not a problem in my country at all. There has been some suggestion that they should be introduced. If you look at the top of most of the large organisations in Aus there are very few women. Last I heard around 12% of the top 200 board of execs were women, but that's up from 8% a few years earlier so hopefully it rights itself without intervention (not saying it should be 50/50 but 92/8 seems a little off to me).
I feel you may have missed my point. Maybe it was not well made.

Why should you get a higher hourly rate because you have a shorter lunch break? That doesn't make sense to me. You are doing exactly the same work when you are working, the rate should be the same.

I think white supremacists do think they are fighting for equality for white people.


Great point. So people who are worried about the suicide rates of men in California, and who have some evidence that it is related to threats of false rape accusations (really, that's your example?) can advocate a change to that law.

Meanwhile, people who want to advocate the legalisation of weed can deal with that.

People who want to advocate for some women's issue in California can do that as well.

People who want to legalise same sex marriage can deal with that.

Everyone can advocate for whatever issue they want.

I was ignoring gaming for this entire scandal and now that I'm back it's pretty embarrassing all around. Quinn sounds like a pretty terrible person, so those deifying her get a massive eye roll from me. That said her personal behavior is really none of your business and it's a shame we had to learn about it. No one should have their dirty laundry spread around, and the internet is a dangerous thing for that reason.

I feel dirty.

We have those quotas here for a long time now and they are getting more and higher all the time, by now we are at 60% minimum in some cases, which is just insane.

The result is, that people (in this case women) get the jobs not for their skills and effort anymore and the overall quality is getting worse. Many years ago, the only one (or two) women of a staff in an area in which not many females are interested in was a suitable addition, today women here that normally wouldn't be interested in it and don't have the particular talent but are encouraged everywhere are getting these jobs easily only because of their gender.
We have the results of long term quota-mania and they are bad and only have negative results, not to mention that they are pure sexism in itself anyway.

I'm working in a men-only team which would surely prefer women too, but there aren't any interested and then of course she would have to be productive enough to be financially viable for such a small company that has to struggle to survive anyway, although I'm very sure everybody in the team (but me) would prefer a skillful woman over a skillful man, which again, is sexist of course, but men like to have women around, it's as simple as that.
As an artisan, muscle power AND fine stuff is needed and regarding the lack of muscle power I even wanted to gift my old (for me too light) bar-bells to the last ones in our workshop, but they didn't want to have them, they don't want to have to be able to do the same stuff as their collegues. Women here are pampered up to a ridiculous degree.

That sounds pretty terrible. 60% does seem insane to me.

The field that I work in is dominated by men, usually old ones. My firm is 60% men and 40% women but every single man is higher up on the pecking order than ever single woman. Arguably I am partly to blame as I have hired the last three senior employees - all men. I hire based on ability, not gender but I hope that the next time I have to hire someone there is a suitable female candidate. A firm culture that comes only from men can have issues.

Of course, but there are other issues in firms where this isn't the case.

At times when a woman was part of my team for a short time, the results where as following:
+ the guys clean up after themselves a bit more = slightly less messy working environment
+ no more annoying and time consuming "men-talk" when she is in hearing distance
+ slightly elevated working speed (to show off)

- time consuming and annoying flirting towards this "rarity" (even towards a 15 year old girl, which was quite shameful)
- flirting towards the guys that only want to work effectively in the time they are paid for (=me)
- too slow pace when the working flow demanded muscle related actions from the woman once
-> in addition a man had to be called to do it = working flow properly destroyed

I don't added "bitching/nagging", because guys do it up to a comparable degree too.

I don't know, that's why it would need to be investigated. You can't just look at the paychecks and be like "SEXISM!". is there a reason for the difference in payment? Higher risks for one group or more concentrated work output? Only after investigating the surrounding factors can you proclaim to know the reason. Basic science rules.

Look, all I'm saying is that this law has potential to be abused. The effects of that abuse could manifest in an entirely different problem. The law is giving power to people to make other people's live a living hell. Just look at alimony laws. Robin Williams had two divorces and his ex-wives were milking him for money. I'm not saying that's what made him commit suicide, but it certainly didn't help. Do you now see why feminism is a dangerous ideology?

There are bad people everywhere in every group and giving power to one group will unavoidably give power to the bad people of that group as well. Just imagine what damage a few bad people can do. This will also backfire at the good people, because now everyone will be suspicious of the entire group. This is not limited to just gender, it applies to any other group.

A firm that has issues will be devoured by the ones that don't. The natural process will take care of it, no need to apply artificial correction through quotas. If a 100% male enterprise works fine, then there is no need to mess with it. If it doesn't, then it will either correct itself, change or go under.

Let's put this discussion in context. You said "You can't claim to be for equality and then only look at one side." I disagree with that proposition.

In my example, I am not saying someone should not investigate whether there is a reason why women are getting paid less than the men, I am saying that it is perfectly reasonable for one person to advocate that the women should be paid equally to the men and ignore the men's issues (thereby only looking at one side) and perfectly reasonable for another person to say that men should have the same lunch break as women and ignore the women's issues (thereby only looking at one side).

The only point that I am trying to make (obviously very badly) is that it is fine for people to only look at one specific interest of one specific group. I would go further and say it is often necessary for there to be any meaningful change (as otherwise everyone would only be spending a very short period of time looking at a myriad of issues).

All I am saying is if a group of people think that law is being abused, they should do something about it. Because its a "Mens Rights Issue", I don't feel that they should be forced to advocate for "Women's rights issues" at the same time. It is perfectly reasonable for them to say, the law should be changed because it is hurting men and for another group to say, the law shouldn't be changed because it would hurt women.

I don't want my firm to be devoured by another firm. I like my firm. I'm not advocating quotas, I am just saying when I hire my next employees, I will probably be more inclined to hire a woman or two because having only men as senior employees is, in my view, not ideal. Of course if there are no female suitable candidates, I'll hire a bloke.

So let's say there was an instance of men being paid less for the same work than women. Would you still call it "not my problem"? If so, then you are a bigot, there is no other way for me to put it. There are only few instances where discrimination is acceptable. For instance, no one can expect a gynaecologist to also be proficient with male anatomy. But a paycheque is a paycheque, it doesn't matter what's between your legs.

OK, data boy - munch on these numbers:
In this thread 5 of my posts got rated high. 0 of my posts got rated low.
Just as a matter of simple comparison: only 1 of your posts got rated. It has received a low rating. It's precisely the one where you tell me that I need to work on my ability to express thoughts.

You are free to make claims of all sorts, offering as little justification and elaboration as you wish.
Claiming that people have difficulty understanding or are unwilling to agree with me, especially because of my allegedly insufficient eloquence, is simply ridiculous.

Why you chose to evade pretty much the entirety of my writing, instead committing fully to a bizarre ad hominem, is something I will leave for others to consider ^^'.

The linguistic and underlying ideological parallels between the Men's Right movement and the White Power movement are both astonishing (if not wholly unexpected) and revealing.

What caught my attention:

"She (=ZQ) asked about why we thought women should work for free, so we explained that they will get 8% of the profits from the game (which in television, is what a producer would make) but also getting all the art that was created for their pitch for free."

A fair question, eh?

Those making the best games, or the most profitable games, hardly worked for free - or would have, should they have been the under-represented game developers. To me, it should rather be about access to capital, and equitable take in of business ideas.

And just simply ensuring that anyone amongst us can immerse - should we be just slightly honest, we would surely admit that gaming is mainly attuned for the hetero white protagonist.

Based on the lowness of the backlash - "she slept with tit for tat, add a multiplier" - I still think this could be something fictional to probe if we are source critical at all.

I would actually be happy to KickStarter back up Zoe Quinn - if she actually exists and has good ideas. Surely an innovative women should not work for free, when there is the notion of capital investment.

Again, you are not following what I am trying to say.

My point is, if there is an instance of men being paid less for the same work as women, it is perfectly fine for someone to say, "this is outrageous I am going to do something about this" and focus only on that issue. That person should not also have to consider that women in another workplace may also be underpaid - someone else can deal with that issue if he or she chooses. That person should be permitted to focus on working on that one injustice to the exclusion of others if he or she so chooses and people should not criticise him/her for doing so.
hahaha, data boy. :)

I have tried to respond to your posts, if you look back you will see if I have often quoted what you have written and responded. We are clearly on completely different wavelengths, even though, as I have said, we probably agree more than you realise.

If you would like to take my criticism as an ad hominem attack that's your decision. I regret that you have done so.

Did you seriously think feminism is about advancing the rights of men? Didn't the use of "fem" give it away?

Do you think it is fine for a movement to advance the rights of men in custody battles? Do you think that is perverse? I don't at all, because I recognise that in some areas men's rights need to be advocated (custody rights being one area) and in other areas women's rights need to be.

I don't think that is a correct use of the word "trope".

Do you think the majority of rapists are women and the majority of domestic violence is committed by women?

What about anyone being paid less for having, say, red hair?

Supposedly there should be less black cats in Ireland, because those were systematically burned on pyres for witchcraft during middle ages.

There are two moral issues: burning of cats in general, and burning them because they happen to be black. Both wrong, I would say. And you?


Edit: lost the reply to post in the thread, but the question remains.