The Direct Descendants Of The Original Humans Dont Appear To Go Bald.

[That Guy]

Women still haven't achieved equality and especially not pay equity in the far western countries.

Bullshit. Women have equal opportunity in every thing you can name and the "wage gap" is exclusively American rhetoric that every other Western nation has bought into when statistics repeatedly show that women, by their own choice, occupy careers that just pay less in general and it is illegal to pay based on sex.

The left does not want equal opportunity, though — they want equal outcome.

And if we were true right wingers, most of us wouldn't believe in evolution.

Your scientific beliefs have little sway on where you stand on the slidey scale of Left Wing and Right Wing. In fact, John Locke, "the father of liberalism" supported separation of Church and State. Secondly, liberalism is a right-wing ideology because classical liberalism supports rule of law and economic freedom under free-market capitalism. You'll find no shortage of libertarian "right wingers" who still support gay rights, scientific progress, etc. but are vehemently opposed to socialist policies.

On the opposite end, you can absolutely find hardcore religious types who support social programs and other state-funded endeavors and thus are "left wingers" but are authoritarian as f***, anti-science, anti-gay, etc. because Abrahamic religion is inherently authoritarian ideology.

 

[hairblues]

Anyone who says women lead happier lives today than they did in the fifties is just desperatly justifying their feminist beliefs. Going from man to man, having abortions, raising children alone, most of them working jobs they hate - it's no way to live.

LOL Much happier to be a woman in 2017 vs 1957 thank you very much.

the undergarments alone for fucks sake.

 

[hairblues]

That's you, but surveys show most women were happier before feminism.

lol whatever you need to believe and tell yourself dude.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Anyone who says women lead happier lives today than they did in the fifties is just desperatly justifying their feminist beliefs. Going from man to man, having abortions, raising children alone, most of them working jobs they hate - it's no way to live.

Nobody in ruling circles gives a f*** about whether or not people (including women) are "happy", certainly not policy makers. The people in that African tribe featured in the OP might well be happier than we are on average.

In the 1940s and 1950s, women stayed home to do housework. With modern technological progress, such as washing machines and food manufacturing, it became better for the economy for women to work outside the home than to work in the home, particularly educated white women. So that's what happened.

 

[rclark]

There's an interesting study on chromosones and genes. Interesting, because it applies to two chromosones.

Informative, not so much. It really applies to only one in seven men.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081012164437.htm

 

[hairblues]

that means that you'll attract women that care about what you can DO for her, not about YOU.

men are attracted to the body of the woman, they fetichize it and write poems about it, you can't separate a woman from her body,
that means that men really love women.

women who are attracted to status or physical ability are parasites . and the men who chose to be with them are living a lie.

.

You just literally described men's objectification of a woman (nothing wrong with this within reason) but then you are criticizing women for objectifying men.
You just don't agree with what females are objectifying.
and your kind of judgey about it too.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Bullshit. Women have equal opportunity in every thing you can name and the "wage gap" is exclusively American rhetoric that every other Western nation has bought into when statistics repeatedly show that women, by their own choice, occupy careers that just pay less in general and it is illegal to pay based on sex.

Women's careers often end up paying less simply because the work women do is less valued. People tend to be more impressed with what men do, in part because men are in a leadership position and want to see younger versions of themselves succeed.

There are plenty of cases where women have less opportunity and less pay, two famous examples, one more impressive than the other, are professional sports and Hollywood. For example Hollywood has now made 318 movies with a budget exceeding 100 million, of those, only one (Kung Fu Panda 2) has been directed by one woman, do you really think that there's only one woman in Hollywood willing to work longer hours?

Colin Trevorrow, the mediocre director of Jurassic World and (soon) Star Wars IX, is a textbook example of white male privilege. He was given everything (mentorship, opportunity, can't-fail opportunities, respect, money, support, etc) because Steven Spielberg saw him as a younger version of himself. You can look up the quote.

Within science we're having an extensive discussion about the involvement of women. Women are less and less involved at every level, their participation drops from school kid science fair to advanced placement exams to undergraduate majors to PhDs to professors, gradually, for a variety of reasons. This is called the "leaky pipeline". Some of this is due to social factors, such as the lack of parental leave and prohibitive cost of daycare which impacts scientists aged 25-40 who are trying to establish themselves. Other factors include sexual harassment, for example some senior scientists seeing young women as a piece of meat, whereas they see young men as younger version of themselves and give them mentorship instead.

Myself, I've had five bosses in a professional context, four men and one woman. Of the four men, there are at least two that I could look up as older versions of myself on a consistent basis, it was inspiring in a way, and that's a huge help professionally. This can still happen cross-gender, cross-race, cross-class, etc but there's a more significant barrier.

 

[hairblues]

http://ftp.iza.org/dp4200.pdf

It really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. I can't imagine anyone being happier working 9 to 5 at McDonald's and then going to Wendy's to work the night shift rather than taking care of their kids.

People seem to think that women weren't allowed to leave the house before feminism, but there were lots of women who did great things. Amelia Earhart, Madam Curie, and Queen Victoria are a few examples. Women have been free to do what they want for most of modern history, most of them just chose to be homemakers. Feminism didn't liberate women, it convinced them that unless they make the choices feminists want them to make, they are worthless.

first off the equivalent of women working 9-5 in McDonalds is the lower poor class and they were still working way before feminism..they were working and getting paid less money then men. Children even worked from poor families.

SO I am not going to continue this conversation because you listing Amelia Earhart (wealthy) and Queen Victoria (Royalty) as your examples of average women to support your arguments is beyond ridiculous.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Men are better at sports than women, that is why more people want to watch men play sports than women. People want to watch the best. Women are good at tennis, so female tennis players actually make more money than male tennis players.

Did you ever think that women just aren't good directors? Equality of opportunity is fine, but equality of result isn't going to happen. Genius and idiocy are both much more common in men than in women. Women's IQs are more clustered in the center, while men have a wider range.

I know that men are better than women are sports, but the differences also apply to managerial positions. Among the major north american sports you have 120 general managers and 120 assistant general managers and not a single woman. It's not as though women would not be able to manage the draft or make trades. You might say that men do these jobs better, but the fact is that there are plenty of incompetent men who get these jobs.

There are women who are perfectly capable of being good directors and have proven it numerous times over. They just don't get follow-up opportunities the way men do. It has very little to do with genius ... do you consider Zack Snyder and Bryan Singer and Colin Trevorrow to be geniuses? Holy f*** of course not, they're slightly above average at best but they interview very well and thus they get opportunities. Jocelyn Moorhouse, Ava DuVernay, Karyn Kusama, etc easily mop the floor with them. It's the same reason many famous women writers used male pen names -- they wanted to be treated with credibility.

 

[hairblues]

Men are better at sports than women, that is why more people want to watch men play sports than women. People want to watch the best. Women are good at tennis, so female tennis players actually make more money than male tennis players.

Did you ever think that women just aren't good directors? Equality of opportunity is fine, but equality of result isn't going to happen. Genius and idiocy are both much more common in men than in women. Women's IQs are more clustered in the center, while men have a wider range.

Free to do what they wanted when they had WEALTH and ROYALTY or social status i.e. a Vanderbilt or a Whitney.

Women are good at tennis thats why people like to watch? LOL but feminism had NOTHIG to do with women being appreciated in Tennis as equals to men???---Jesus read some modern history.
Google Billy Jean King and her very famous tennis match with a mysognist prick Bobby Rigs. LOL
That match changed everything before that women were not really appreciated in the tennis world at all.

 

[hairblues]

All things being equal, average women would rather be homemakers than have careers. Those exceptional women who have a curiosity for the world, have always been free to do what they want. That's my point.

LOL they want to be homemakers IF it's a wealthy man not joe-average $70 grand a year, and that is the truth.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

the jobs generally go to Jewish men.

No lol that's incorrect.

they can create their own production companies, like Mel Gibson did. Or are women incapable of doing anything without men first creating the infrastructure and then handing it over to them?

You need money and power to create a production company, and to apply for loans from financing companies like Legendary.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Some people believe he threw that match, but whatever. The point is, where women are as good as men they have the same opportunites, and can make the same amount of money, or more money. Why aren't you calling for equal pay for male models and p*rn stars? The market decides what people are worth. If more people are going to pay to see men then men are worth more and vice versa.

Novak Djokovic would massacre Serena Williams in a match.

It's not that women tennis players are as good as male tennis players, it's that the sport of tennis has decided to market and develop both men's and women's tennis. They pay women tennis players the same as it's a good business decision.

 

[hairblues]

They generally give those jobs to former players, and I doubt there are many women applying for them.

I don't watch many movies, so I can't really comment on directors, but the jobs generally go to Jewish men. I'd argue that it's no more sexist than it is racist against non-Jews. I don't really care, they can hire who they want to hire. If women think they are being discriminated against, they can create their own production companies, like Mel Gibson did. Or are women incapable of doing anything without men first creating the infrastructure and then handing it over to them?

Women do make their own production companies.
duh.

 

[hairblues]

Sorry, but you don't speak for all women.

I am an average American woman..I don't know many people in USA who are going to be okay forgoing a good paying job to sit home and raise kids on husbands salary if its inadequate. and $70 grand in USA today with more than one kid is inadequate.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

Who runs Hollywood? C'mon

You stuck in the 1930s or something? Hollywood is not western Tel Aviv. The CEO of warner brothers is Kevin Tsujihara, he's not Jewish. The CEO of Lucas Films is Kathleen Kennedy, not Jewish.

Google's list of top directors:
Spielberg, Scorcese, Tarantino, Nolan, Scott, Coppola, Cameron, Eastwood ...
Eight men, one Jew.

Men were able to do it with no one handing it to them. Why don't women start from the ground up, and do it if they are so discriminated against?

No -- money was handed to them. All businesses require startup capital at birth. Further a lot of men don't need need their production companies.

 

[hairblues]

You could say the same for men.



Some people believe he threw that match, but whatever. The point is, where women are as good as men they have the same opportunites, and can make the same amount of money, or more money. Why aren't you calling for equal pay for male models and p*rn stars? The market decides what people are worth. If more people are going to pay to see men then men are worth more and vice versa.

You are not understanding the point I am making...its irrelevant if he won or she won.
before that female tennis was not looked upon as it is today.
And a huge reason was that match and the attention it gained and the light it shined on mysogeny.
it was like a wake up call to a lot of housewives who felt demeaned and devalued at that time period.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

You're not an average American woman if you are buying $1,000 coats, and think a man who makes $70,000 a year is broke.

Agreed.

Median household income in the USA is ~$52,000/year. That's median household income, it includes both the male and female salary, it includes houses with five kids, and it includes half the households that make less. Median personal income in the USA is ~$41,500/year for all workers. So half of workers make less, and all non-workers make less. Those salaries also come with minimal benefits and job security.

 

[Afro_Vacancy]

let's see the list of all directors, and remember that Jews only comprise about 2% of the US population.

I'm not going to look up hundreds of wikipedia entries to search "Jew" lol. I looked up the first ones that showed up on the screen, which is fair.

lThis is the same as the stupid white privilege argument. Money wasn't handed to them, they had to come up with a business plan and get a loan. Maybe it was easier to get the loan because the banks were run by men, but women can create banks too. I always here this about white men are successful because it was given to them by other white men. Well if you keep going back, at some point white men had to create something from scratch. Black men could've done the same thing, women could've done the same thing, Hispanics could've done the same thing. If white men pass their success onto white men that is not unearned privilege that is inheritance.

Inheritance is unearned privilege. You earn nothing when you're born.

Privilege, and discrimination, are real parts of the world. If you're tall, white, rich, male, healthy, good looking, etc you will face life on easy mode. We talk about this on the forum all the time.

Luck is a real part of the world.

 

[hairblues]

Agreed.

Median household income in the USA is ~$52,000/year. That's median household income, it includes both the male and female salary, it includes houses with five kids, and it includes half the households that make less. Median personal income in the USA is ~$41,500/year for all workers. So half of workers make less, and all non-workers make less. Those salaries also come with minimal benefits and job security.

It's irrelevant to the point.

My point is the same
Most women in USA are not day dreaming about forgoing their carearss and forgoing their college education to be housewives to have 2 or more kids with a man who makes $70 grand a year.
IF they are indeed daydreaming about being housewives as pegasus is saying then its to wealthy men.