If Mort Divine ruled the world

[CiG]

I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.

I've never understood how having your race represented more than another is a privilege, it's as if these white people think us non-white people experience extreme trauma by not seeing non-white faces everywhere.

Who gives a flying shit? There's almost zero indigenous representation in the media/government/etc over here in Australia and not once have I given a fuck...
These fucks are hysterical.

Anyway, back to the article.

 

[rms]

I'm starting to think the complaints about minor things are getting to me

 

[Dak]

You can almost see in that article where the eyes of the author glazed over after drinking the koolaid.

Some of those things are ridiculous like what CIG targetted. Some are a matter of class, not race, and a couple are true but exactly how much does it matter? In the sense that it can be slung in people's faces as an excuse and a challenge rather than really undermining other Progressive talking points. For example, the fear of rape thing. It is true that on average, women have to deal with a greater fear of rape than men do. But why? Well, the reasons why fall right in line with the arguments against women in certain physical jobs. But let's not let facts get in the way. Furthermore, exactly how much does fear of rape hold someone back in life? Is that the reason for the mythic pay gap?

Referring back the whole animal sex thing: I am going to pull a mort and "I don't see it" on the whole thing. Sure, to apply terms like consent is anthropomorphic. And human w/human sex is more nuanced than with other animals. But, humans are animals. So by saying that humans are different enough that although Fido would mount nearly any other mammal if presented, it's wrong in the human case but not right nor wrong in all the other cases turns into the arguments which get denigrated as "anthropocentric" in every other case. Are we animals just like all the other animals or are we on a different (regardless of "higher" or not) plane. If we are not allowed to apply consent to animals, why do we apply anything else to them? It's all anthropomorphizing. But saying that is anthropocentric. Or one can just cherry pick whatever the gives them the good feels.

 

[CiG]

That's the thing isn't it? The fear of something, as if how someone feels should mean anything in that context, who cares?
It's akin to arguments people used to use about black people, being afraid of them, now it's just being blanketed to men in general.

 

[Einherjar86]

Sure, we anthropomorphize animals all the time; and yes, we do cherry pick terms and situations otherwise we "whereof one has nothing to say, thereof one must be silent."

But discussing the notion of consent with specific regard to sex has more political consequences than saying a dog likes to watch television, or some shit. Furthermore, consent is an abstract concept that implies a rational human being invoking a whole history of humanist baggage. And yes, humans are animals; but they are animals for whom it makes sense to talk about consent because consent is a concept formed within the history of conscious human beings.

Animals, as much as some people may want to extend human attributes to them, simply are not conscious in the way that human beings are; consciousness goes hand in hand with the way our bodies and minds have evolved, and the vast majority of animals do not share those characteristics. When we talk about animals having sex, we do not say "And, it looks like the female has consented!" We say "and the female submits"; because that is what happens between animals.

But humans have the capacity to conceive of themselves as able to consent and as consenting individuals; this makes consent a relevant issue for us and not necessarily relevant for other animals.

Now, whether this means that in a human-animal relationship consent is irrelevant, I'm not sure and I honestly don't care. In my opinion, a human being that identifies enough with animals to forego all remnants of ethical consciousness has more problems than a sexual fascination with animals. My only input would be that if an animal can submit or mount without necessarily comprehending consent, and we as humans understand the difference, then I think we hold an ethical responsibility to not have sex with animals.

EDIT: the "mythic" pay gap...?

 

[rms]

We've been talking about the lack of a real pay gap for pages and now you question it!

 

[CiG]

77 cents to the dollar (or 88 cents to the dollar, depending on which propaganda you follow) is discredited, it's actually around the 95 or 97 cents to the dollar if I remember correctly.

 

[Dak]

That's the thing isn't it? The fear of something, as if how someone feels should mean anything in that context, who cares?
It's akin to arguments people used to use about black people, being afraid of them, now it's just being blanketed to men in general.

A women is statistically more likely to be raped by a man than a man by a woman. A white person or a black person is statistically more likely to be attacked by a black person (in the US at least). A black person is statistically more likely to have encounters with the police (white or black) than white people (wonder if those last two are related?) Responding fearfully in two of these cases creates privileges for the other. Responding fearfully in one of these is raaaaacist.

Sure, we anthropomorphize animals all the time; and yes, we do cherry pick terms and situations otherwise we "whereof one has nothing to say, thereof one must be silent."

Now, whether this means that in a human-animal relationship consent is irrelevant, I'm not sure and I honestly don't care. In my opinion, a human being that identifies enough with animals to forego all remnants of ethical consciousness has more problems than a sexual fascination with animals. My only input would be that if an animal can submit or mount without necessarily comprehending consent, and we as humans understand the difference, then I think we hold an ethical responsibility to not have sex with animals.

EDIT: the "mythic" pay gap...?

Well I agree that as we know a difference, we may act differently. In other words, anthropocentrism, fuck yeah!

And yes, mythical pay gap. Nearly all of these studies which indicate a pay gap, involve comparing apples and oranges. The only apparent "gap" involves divergences in career choices and amount of experience. One that I did run across that made an attempt to do an apples to apples comparison was this:

http://www.payscale.com/gender-lifetime-earnings-gap

1-4% difference. Can we call 1-2% a true "Gap"? It would be well nigh impossible to have zero gap one way or the other. 3-4% approaches a gap, but those gaps are in fields relatively devoid of women anyway, particularly construction. That 4% gap may or may not be related to sex, and is only affecting a relatively small population.

Regardless, this "15 minutes of free work" crap is and has been bogus for a while now.

 

[Einherjar86]

We've been talking about the lack of a real pay gap for pages and now you question it!

To be honest, there's so much bullshit in this thread that sometimes I just gloss over it.

77 cents to the dollar (or 88 cents to the dollar, depending on which propaganda you follow) is discredited, it's actually around the 95 or 97 cents to the dollar if I remember correctly.

And yes, mythical pay gap. Nearly all of these studies...

This is just to verify, and I think I overreacted to your use of the word "mythic": all these studies indicate a small pay gap because it has lessened in the past several decades so as to become quite minuscule. This isn't to say that there was not a quite drastic disparity between men's and women's income from the '70s to about the '90s.

When you say "mythic" you make it sound as though it never existed.

 

[rms]

What were the numbers in the 70s?

 

[CiG]

Equal pay act in America was what, '63? I'm sure in that case the closing of the gap is noticeable between then and now.

 

[Einherjar86]

I'm not sure, I don't have these numbers on hand. There wasn't much enforcement of equal pay after it was instituted, and studies I've seen usually start around 1980. Since then the gap has decreased dramatically, but it was very substantial back then. I'd estimate that women earned around 60% of what men earned.

 

[Dak]

I'm not sure, I don't have these numbers on hand. There wasn't much enforcement of equal pay after it was instituted, and studies I've seen usually start around 1980. Since then the gap has decreased dramatically, but it was very substantial back then. I'd estimate that women earned around 60% of what men earned.

Oh I'm sure there was at one time a very real, very large wage gap. The problem though for organizations based on achieving a particular goal is that victories create a problem of relevance. So the alternatives are to either pick a new goal and have to totally reorganize (harder), or to pretend the victory was not achieved (easier). So we get all these absurd studies trotted out that twist the numbers any which way so as to create a gap which does not exist when the appropriate controls are used, or to highlight a gap that does exist but not because of gender discrimination but because of biological differences or because of personal choices. There's been simmering outrage at women not allowed into certain areas of the military. So the military was told to open them up. The Marine Corps experience with that:

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/story/military/2015/04/07/last-ioc-in-marine-experiment-drops-two-officers/25418867/

An intelligent person would look at this and go "Well, I guess there are limits to integration". The "equality" crowd will complain that the training is sexist, and it is, and it should remain that way.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420826/women-in-combat-military-effectiveness-deadly-pentagon

This whole article is 100% on point.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's amazing that you have such an overwhelming distrust of the media at large, but an overwhelming trust in the military to carry out and report a fair and unbiased testing of women, especially considering that many males in the military exhibit a clear preference (prior to any and all testing) that females not join.

At any rate, I can't speak to this. All I know is that plenty of women train to be able to life one hundred pounds, or five-gallon containers. They just don't choose to go into the military.

 

[Dak]

That's the thing isn't it? The fear of something, as if how someone feels should mean anything in that context, who cares?
It's akin to arguments people used to use about black people, being afraid of them, now it's just being blanketed to men in general.

It's amazing that you have such an overwhelming distrust of the media at large, but an overwhelming trust in the military to carry out and report a fair and unbiased testing of women, especially considering that many males in the military exhibit a clear preference (prior to any and all testing) that females not join.

At any rate, I can't speak to this. All I know is that plenty of women train to be able to life one hundred pounds, or five-gallon containers. They just don't choose to go into the military.

The testing has been biased in favor of women since the getgo, at least in the Marine Corps. It is a literal double standard of physical fitness requirements. Merely being able to pick up 100lbs, or pick up a five gallon container a few times is not enough (although many Marine males and females fall short of this, to say nothing of other branches). Look at the doublethink displayed here:

http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/03/31/3420829/women-marine-training/

The double standard:

the varying standards for physical fitness given between the two sexes: a perfect score for men is achieved by completing 18-minute three-mile run, 20 pull-ups and 100 sit-ups in two minutes; women are given three more minutes to run and pull-ups are replaced by a 70-second flexed arm hang.

The writer, a Marine 2nd Lt who failed out of the infantry training, partially blames this double standard for female failure despite not being able to max out the male test (however, her ability to do 16 pullups is a notable anomaly - which I will get back to). But who did it hold back? She claims the differences in the test should be done away with so that female Marines are encouraged to achieve physical equality. But obviously it didn't hold her back. She can do more pullups than many male Marines. She was one of the select few to even get invited and to accept going into the training. So how did her superior fitness relative to almost all females and a decent chunk of men service her in training:

Second Lt. Sage Santangelo wrote in the Washington Post last week of her experience in the Infantry Officer Course, detailing what it was like to be one of four women attempting to complete the Combat Endurance Test — the first and biggest hurdle in the 13-week course. While she started off strong, Santangelo recounted, “there came a point when I could not persuade my body to perform. It wasn’t a matter of will but of pure physical strength. My mind wanted more, but my muscles quivered in failure after multiple attempts. I began to shiver as I got cold. I was told I could not continue.” She failed the course, along with the three other female trainees.

So even with her outstanding physical fitness - her body quit on her under the training regimen. But you might say she was given a more difficult path or something which is why. But she says no:

“Men, meanwhile, are encouraged to perceive women as weak. I noticed that women were rarely chosen by their peers for some of the harder tasks in basic training.”

Which she finds problematic! Maybe it's because, you know, the jobs need to be done by those whose bodies won't quit on them. She also complains about women from this research not being allowed to retake the training, which is somehow discriminatory because it "doesn't allow them to try again with new knowledge". #1: it was a research effort, and in no small part having to draw "fleet" female Marines (those with other jobs) from their normal fields just to try and pass the training. It's bad for their careers and their fields for them to be out of their field for long periods of time. #2 If your body couldn't handle it the first time while in relatively outstanding physical shape, what great strides in short order would allow you to break through the second time?

Are there women that could pass the training? Sure. But they are few in number. Furthermore, as you noted, they choose not to go in. Which was my part of my point.

 

[Dak]

On a different note but related to this thread:

http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/17/news/companies/nestle-naked-baristas-coffee/index.html?iid=ob_homepage_deskrecommended_pool&iid=obnetwork

"Can I see your bum?" a female customer asks the male barista.
"Yeah, absolutely," he says, and turns around to give her a look.
"Yay!" she says. "Looks great."

#triggered.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

The prey asking to be eaten, that's why it's ok. On the other hand we cant hunt bitches by setting traps and hitting them over the head anymore. We have to feed them berries from our hands

 

[Dak]

The prey asking to be eaten, that's why it's ok. On the other hand we cant hunt bitches by setting traps and hitting them over the head anymore. We have to feed them berries from our hands

I can't even imagine the level of outrage, manifested in a billion tweets and blogs, if the opposite were to have occurred.

 

[Einherjar86]

It's the Magic Mike syndrome.

 

[Jimmy... Dead.]

I see it as natures way of testing us (men). Make us stronger, smarter. Pussy is evolving and we need to adapt, it's not supposed to be easy. lol yes I'm aware of how dumb that sounds but part of me believes it