Looks to me like Landriault and da wolfe are the same person. Anyway, the arguments are the same ones being made by the Men's Rights Group currently invading Antonia Zerbisias' blog. And those arguments are pretty much the same as those made by Marc Lepine in his rationale for the Montreal Massacre. These people think extending rights means giving them up. There's no reasoning with them.
It's why I can't bear Zerbisias's blog anymore. She's such a target for the dreariest whiners you'd never want to meet...petulant and weepy/creepy men's rights misogynists and conservative anti-feminist women, all united by one thing...they're fucking morons who should get the hell of the computer and go read a book.I wish she'd go back to critiquing media. We don't have one mainstream media critic anymore.
eh."weepy/creepy menz rights"That's a good one. I may use it again.BTW, fathers4justice has a chapter in Saudi Arabia. Who knew?
Newsflash to Sara: "Equalist" = "Feminist".Anyone who thinks "feminism" = "women being *more equal* than men" is not an "equalist". Or a feminist.This is a pretty simple concept. For most.
I had a similar experience when I tried to explain gender-based pay discrimination to Suzie-all-caps, Lulu. She essentially came back with "well my husband explained it to me, and no woman in the entire history of the species has ever been paid less for the same work."That it's bullshit should be laughably obvious...except maybe to ignorant hacks like Suzie.wv="snesal"
no woman in the entire history of the species has ever been paid less for the same work.This is typical of the tortured logic employed by these people. The statement is actually true, if you use their kind of definition of "same".For example, "waiter" and "waitress" are not the same work, therefore they can be paid differently. Same thing for "Doctor" and "lady Doctor".Every job name has something to distinguish gender of the worker, so a more correct statement would be "no woman in the entire history of the species has ever done the same work as a man".
the lies they like the best are the ones they tell to themselves.KEvron
I had a similar experience when I tried to explain gender-based pay discrimination to Suzie-all-caps, Lulu. She essentially came back with "well my husband explained it to me, and no woman in the entire history of the species has ever been paid less for the same work."Her husband is wrong. There's the case of Lilly Ledbetter who was paid 15% less than the lowest paid male manager. They never questioned that she was being discriminated against -- it was all a matter of the timing of her complaint. Then there was the female food inspector paid less than her male counterparts in ArizonaAnd... well to go further is sort of depressing. One thing that gets me -- why do they cite their husbands as a source? It's not as though he's infallible/perfect. It just boggles the mind.
Sharon,That's just the thing. She came back with the "my husband told me so, so there!" BS after I hit her with the Lilly Ledbetter stick. It's like she's immune to facts (probably because reality has a liberal bias).As for why conservative women cite their husbands as an infallible source, it probably has to do with that whole "Wifely Submission" crap. It seems to satisfy that "just as the zombie incarnation of my deity is 10,000,000x more perfect than any man could possibly be, men are 10,000,000x more perfect than any mere woman could possibly be" impulse among conservatives.vw="comereer" umm...I'm not touching that one with a ten-foot pole...
Post a Comment