Women Are A Minority--The Great American Lie

[Jedi Knight]

I have been compiling a list of lies that men have to deal with in the United States by matriarchal totalitarian cultural terrorists. Considering the vast genius of my intellect, the list is rather extensive. Having prioritized them, here is the biggest lie--women are a "minority".

Women in the United States make up 52% of the population. Perhaps a matriarchal totalitalian can explain to me why women deserve 'minority' status in the United States. If anything, men should get minority status.

Take healthcare for women, for example. More money is spent on healthcare for women than all other "groups" in the United States combined. Hospitals have entire departments devoted to women, many in the "let's do it for the children" psychological operations setting. It is simply astonishing how the matriarchal cultural terrorism in this country surges unabated.

But someone please explain to me how a 52% majority population can be a minority--or is it just cultural terrorism--pure communism?

JK

[WildCat]

Now JK is officially back. :D
Welcome back, it wasn't as interesting here w/o you. Not that I agree w/ all the things you say, but I love the way you say it.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Welcome back Jedi.

Now we just need to get The Fool to run naked around the White House and my JREF forum experiences for this month will be complete.

[sorgoth]

Matriachal Terrorism.


...



:D Heh...There's my 'stupid phrase of the day!'

[Khalid01]

Of all the months that I've seen JK post, this is the first time that he has truly brought my jaw to the ground. I usually dismiss him, and I let the whole "everyone left of me is a Communist" mentality roll off of my back, but for the first time I am truly stunned by JK. I can not give a reply, I can't even laugh about his statements.

[JAR]

Well said. I showed this post to my parents. They had a good laugh. My dad especially liked the part about women having more spent on them than other groups combined.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Khalid01
Of all the months that I've seen JK post, this is the first time that he has truly brought my jaw to the ground. I usually dismiss him, and I let the whole "everyone left of me is a Communist" mentality roll off of my back, but for the first time I am truly stunned by JK. I can not give a reply, I can't even laugh about his statements.

Ah yes, the shocking effect of truth.

Here is a screamer for you: "women and minorities".

Think about that for a moment. Women and minorities. How many times do you hear the leftist media talk about that? That tiny little phrase. Women and minorities.

It is extremely clever psycho-babble that lumps 52% of the US population with real minorities, seeking to gather the same internal intellectual support from the masses for everything matriarchal. Matriarchal totalitarians try to make it appear like they are a group of oppressed minorities deserving of minority status when in actuality they are the majority population--a tyrannical majority.

Women are as much of a minority as Stalin was a capitalist.

"Women and minorities". Everytime I hear that phrase in the leftist media, usually at least 50 times a week, I wonder what the matriarchs would say if the leftist media said: "Men and minorities" 50 times per day.

I don't think I have ever heard the leftist media ever say: "Men and minorities".

It is the tyranny of the majority when a 52% population can claim to be a minority. It is the most sophisticated, undemocratic propaganda agenda ever witnessed in the history of mankind. The founding fathers are probably rolling over in their graves over it.

JK

[Gem]

The JREF communist party welcomes you back JK. As matriarchal supreme leader, I offer my thanks for your enlightening views of situations, which has help the People's Membership grow faster than in Red China.

As for your topic about minority, yes, it might be outdated. But for the health care, since when did you have maternity care recently? Or breast cancer? Or implants?

Welcome back.

Gem

[Whomp]

Posted by Psiload in another thread and hijacked by Whomp:
It gets to the point where it useless to even try. You just gaze in perplexed wonder,

and say... http://h4h.com/louis/spock3.jpg Fascinating.

[subgenius]

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

requires excessive admiration

has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
Associated Features

Depressed Mood
Dramatic or Erratic or Antisocial Personality

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
The JREF communist party welcomes you back JK. As matriarchal supreme leader, I offer my thanks for your enlightening views of situations, which has help the People's Membership grow faster than in Red China.

As for your topic about minority, yes, it might be outdated. But for the health care, since when did you have maternity care recently? Or breast cancer? Or implants?

Welcome back.

Gem

So men don't get breast cancer? Since when is breast cancer gender specific? It is a feminazi myth that breast cancer is a female-only genetic deficiency, but currently an effective con regarding medical research fund allocation. Is there a breast size thingy that makes women more susceptible to breast cancer? I haven't seen such a study. Big tits = breast cancer? Little tits = no breast cancer? Is that it?

What do "implants" have to do with anything medically related? Women don't have the right to confront society and say that society owes them implants or anything related to the effects of having implant surgery, whatever the type. Oh but wait, is that the "esteem" venue? You know, the venue almost all matriarchal totalitarian objectives pursue?

Gosh, we better let Sally get those implants or her self-esteem as a "minority" will be damaged.

Now, as far as maternity care goes, that is relatively cost-effective and the costs of pregnancy are simple to calculate in longevity because men have dealt with pregnancies since the beginning of time. It is nothing new.

Explain to me what gender specific (not pseudo-scientific) traits women have that men do not that require radically unfair (the current status of medical research based on gender myth) research investment.

I think men have been conned with the "women and minorities" lie, and the "let's do it for the children" commie pseudo-reality male-lure agenda.

I am a skeptic. What can I say?

JK

[Boo]

Ok, I'll bite.

First, where did you get your numbers?

Second, the AMA admits that the the overwhelming majority of the money spent on health care studies, testing, and procedures are done on men and rarely have any validity when applied to women.

Third, on the possiblility that women may be in the physical majority (they do tend to live longer) their total earning power and lobbying power is well below that of men.

Fourth, many cultures are matriarchal in structure.

I am surmising here that you have a problem with the phrase 'women and minorities'. This phrase does not name women as minorities it defines them as a class, that is to say seperates them from the mainstream of male dominated society.

Boo

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by subgenius
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

requires excessive admiration

has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations

is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends

lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her

shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
Associated Features

Depressed Mood
Dramatic or Erratic or Antisocial Personality

Good work, sub-man--you have just described the entire US population.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Boo
Ok, I'll bite.

First, where did you get your numbers?

Second, the AMA admits that the the overwhelming majority of the money spent on health care studies, testing, and procedures are done on men and rarely have any validity when applied to women.

Third, on the possiblility that women may be in the physical majority (they do tend to live longer) their total earning power and lobbying power is well below that of men.

Fourth, many cultures are matriarchal in structure.

I am surmising here that you have a problem with the phrase 'women and minorities'. This phrase does not name women as minorities it defines them as a class, that is to say seperates them from the mainstream of male dominated society.

Boo

If you weren't a sock-puppet I would reply to your matriarchal brain-washing and try to help you get straightened out. Post as your main account and I will debate the feminist myths you posted above.

JK

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

So men don't get breast cancer? Since when is breast cancer gender specific? It is a feminazi myth that breast cancer is a female-only genetic deficiency, but currently an effective con regarding medical research fund allocation. Is there a breast size thingy that makes women more susceptible to breast cancer? I haven't seen such a study. Big tits = breast cancer? Little tits = no breast cancer? Is that it?


From the American Cancer Society:


http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_1X_What_are_the_key_statistics_for_male_br east_cancer_28.asp

Breast cancer is about 100 times more common among women.

I have never heard anyone claim that breast cancer never occurs in men (you really should invite some of these matriarchal totalitarian communists to join the board). The above quote might explain why breast cancer is predominantly a women's issue.

Come to think of it, I've never heard anyone claim that women are a minority

[QuarkChild]

Another Jedi Knight classic. Glad you're back, JK. I love your posts. Keep 'em coming.

What do the rest of you think about creating a Jedi Knight drinking game?
Keywords:
"matriarchal totalitarians"
"leftist media"
"feminist myths"
etc.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Flatworm


From the American Cancer Society:

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/cri/content/cri_2_4_1x_what_are_the_key_statistics_for_male_br east_cancer_28.asp



I have never heard anyone claim that breast cancer never occurs in men (you really should invite some of these matriarchal totalitarian communists to join the board). The above quote might explain why breast cancer is predominantly a women's issue.

Come to think of it, I've never heard anyone claim that women are a minority.

Breast cancer has been hijacked by the radical leftist matriarchal totalitarians as a gender-specific cash-cow for medical research purposes. The term "breast" can only mean something female when talking about medical conditions. It is American matriarchal totalitarianism that has done that, not medical doctors per se.

Also the '100 x' is fuzzy math. I can take any cancer population survey cluster and disprove that. Many of the cancer statistics for breast cancer in women are taken from small benign cysts surgically removed and then categorized as "breast cancer" as well. Survey populations in research clusters dealing with numbers are always suspect, but effective for ca$hing in on research money. If men probed themselves on their breasts all day looking for tiny lumps, the cysts removed would propel male breast cancer statistics through the roof. Where are men trained to look for "lumps" by feminists? lol.

Go talk to any high school kid and ask them: "what is breast cancer"? 10 out of 10 will tell you: "it is a chick thing". Johnny student would get run out of school by those mad women if he ever dared say that men get it too.

That is what I am talking about--not the obvious fact that men do get breast cancer--but the effective propaganda that isolates breast cancer as an industry for women, like abortion is an industry, like divorce is an industry etc etc etc.

When a culture cannot differentiate between the reality of disease (where disease is only microcosm gender specific), the outcome can lead to cultural terror and grand deception. The only obvious diseases that are gender specific are things like cancer of the uterous, as women cannot get testicular cancer.

I am merely pointing out, in a skeptical way, that breast cancer is not gender specific, and it is dishonest for women to allow young minds to think it is. That said however, the benefits of that convenience are obvious, in a non-skeptical, profitable and power-grabbing tyrannical sort of way.

JK

[Boo]

JK,

Just out of curiosity could identify the hand up my.....? I generally object to being fisted without my knowledge or consent.


Quarkchild,

I believe JK has already started without us, given the ramblings that follow the use of those terms in his posts.


BTW, Can anybody tell me if 3 posts is a record for being accused as a sock puppet?


Boo

[QuarkChild]

Add the phrase "radical leftist" to my list.

[c0rbin]

Hey, JK, two questions:

1) Have women in the US ever been sytematically shut out of society?

2) Do you accuse anyone who has a will to struggle from under the thumb of slavery, serfdom, oppression, or exclusion a "leftist"?

Thanks!

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by c0rbin
Hey, JK, two questions:

1) Have women in the US ever been sytematically shut out of society?

No

2) Do you accuse anyone who has a will to struggle from under the thumb of slavery, serfdom, oppression, or exclusion a "leftist"?

No

Thanks!

Don't mention it.

JK

[Bjorn]

Have women in the US ever been sytematically shut out of society?

No1872: Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Sojourner Truth attempted to vote in the presidential election. Stanton was arrested and tried in court. Truth was turned away at the polls. 1878: An act to amend the Constitution to grant women the right to vote was introduced into Congress. It took legislators 42 years to adopt the amendment and obtain ratification by the states. 1920: The 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, granting women the right to vote. :rolleyes:

[peptoabysmal]

Here are some statistics: Men get prostate cancer at a rate of about 147 cases per 100,000 men; women get breast cancer at a rate of 113 per 100,000 women. The mortality rate for breast cancer and prostate cancer is about the same. The federal government spends roughly four times as much on breast cancer research as on prostate cancer research.


Full Story (http://dpcopy1.tripod.com/1_books/cw_intro1a2.html)

I had heard about this some time ago. I was too lazy to look up a more authoritative source, but the truth is out there. Anyway, this page is funnier :D

WB JK :cool:

[celter]

It’s not reasonable to compare men’s and women’s breast cancer rates. It makes more sense to compare rates of breast cancer in woman to rates of prostate cancer in men.

When we do that we find that in the US in 2002, 189,000 men were diagnosed with prostate cancer and during the same year 30,000 men died from the disease. Comparable numbers for women are 203,000 new cases with 40,000 deaths.

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/STT/stt_0.asp


When we explore further we find that while prostate cancer makes up 37% of all cancer cases, it receives only 5% of federal research funding.

“ ... the federal government spends four times as much on breast cancer research as prostate cancer research, and the money raised by private charities for breast cancer is estimated to outnumber that for prostate cancer 20 to 1. Commendably, women's health advocates led the campaign for the breast cancer postage stamp, which has raised over $25 million for breast cancer research since 1998. Unfortunately, a bill proposing a similar stamp for prostate cancer research, introduced in Congress in 1999, was unsuccessfu”

http://www.glennsacks.com/mens_silent_health.htm

[subgenius]

Did you have a good Mother's Day?

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I have been compiling a list of lies that men have to deal with in the United States by matriarchal totalitarian cultural terrorists. Considering the vast genius of my intellect, the list is rather extensive. Having prioritized them, here is the biggest lie--women are a "minority".

Women in the United States make up 52% of the population. Perhaps a matriarchal totalitalian can explain to me why women deserve 'minority' status in the United States. If anything, men should get minority status.

Take healthcare for women, for example. More money is spent on healthcare for women than all other "groups" in the United States combined. Hospitals have entire departments devoted to women, many in the "let's do it for the children" psychological operations setting. It is simply astonishing how the matriarchal cultural terrorism in this country surges unabated.

But someone please explain to me how a 52% majority population can be a minority--or is it just cultural terrorism--pure communism?

JK

Its simple man. It's all about money, its capitalism at work. Women are more needy, so they have more goods and services directed at them.

In addition, women are more emotional and thus also eaier to market too. Look at all the ads on tv today. About 80% of the are targeted at women. Why? Cause women are easy to manipulate.

The same also goes for other minorities though, because commercialization represents the maintream, it is like a level of social acceptance. So, here in white America, commercials targeted at minorites make them feel included, and thus they have a higher rate of effectiveness on minorites. Its not to say that commercials targeted at blacks will get better results overall than whites, but as a target market blacks or hispanics are easier to market too, because the marketing makes them feel included as a valuable member of society. Same with women in a way too.

Its a way of saying "Hey, we're your friends."

Notice too how many commercials put women in a position of empoerment over men. Just watch, its like virtually every one if there is any kind of power play at all.

The guy says something goofy, the women is the rational one.

The woman takes charge, the guy tags along.

The guy makes a suggestion, the women acts on it.

Same theme virtually every commercial. Women like to be told that they are empowered, it makes them feel good and want to buy products.

White males don't care, and increasingly buy into media created stereo types. (Hey I can't ask for directions, I'm a MAN) *wink wink* (Oh, I better go sit on the couch and watch football.)

Who do all the best psychologists and anthropologists work for today? Advertising frims.

Just pay attention to commercials, you will see that in 90% of the cases where there is male female interaton, the female is in the postion of power.

So, conclusion, women are not in charge, they are being used by the commercial system.

Edit: actually thats not exactly, right, women are more responsive to the commercial system and so they are catered to more heavily as a customer, so they are being used, but by the same token they are also being served.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by subgenius
Did you have a good Mother's Day?

LMFAO Biatch!

[The Fool]

Jedi.
Are all the worlds problems caused by women? How does it compare to Communists? is it a 50/50 split.

We are having a problem with poor rainfall in a lot of Australia, Is this due to women or communists?

I noticed my local hospital has a maternity ward dedicated solely to women. This is ourageous, what percentage of people who give birth are actually women? Where are all the mens maternity wards........This is very unfair.

And lastly..Don't I remember you making a grand theatrical exit? What happened? Did you miss all your communist friends?

[athon]

You have no idea of what a minority is, do you JK?

A minority has nothing to do with percentage of a population. It has to do with represented precentage in a given field, such as politics or business. One needs to explore the effect of bias versus equity (NOT equality).

Yes, there is a lot to be said for inequities such as medical expenditure on breast cancer compared to prostate cancer. As for enforced quotas, I think they are patronising to say the least.

But it takes a radical imbalance to create what is called a social paradigm shift. Society has changed, now attitudes need to catch up. Once it was argued that a woman can't lead because they lack the aggression needed. Look at Margaret Thatcher and say that!

Once again, your inflammatory trolling JK displays more ignorance than real thought.

Athon

[subgenius]

Originally posted by The Fool

And lastly..Don't I remember you making a grand theatrical exit? What happened? Did you miss all your communist friends?
DSM IV-TR 301.81

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by athon
You have no idea of what a minority is, do you JK?

A minority has nothing to do with percentage of a population.

By your reasoning, Black people in South Africa were/are very much in the minority. How would you justify a handover from white-majority rule to communist black-minority rule?

[athon]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


By your reasoning, Black people in South Africa were/are very much in the minority. How would you justify a handover from white-majority rule to communist black-minority rule?

A bit of a loaded question, don't you think?

I would doubt that it would be a simple issue, to start with. But on face value, I don't agree with it. As for labelling it 'communist', it is irrelevant as far as the argument of minority rule goes. The type of government is not an issue in this thread. Who runs it might be, but you're leading the question with a connotative statement.

The needs of a people must be taken into full account by the ruling body. If a ruling body has no strong representatives of a demographic, it is difficult for them to make decisions that take their needs into account. Our own Australian government has created, and continues to create in some ways, problems with aboriginal Australians because of this. Imposing concepts in housing, education and health from a western view has caused major problems in a culture that has worked differently for 40,000 years. While a representing body (ATSIC) has attempted to remedy this, it has been plagued with problems.

I don't know the full story of South Africa's recent history, apart from the basics. Perhaps there is justification for having a political body ruled by a minority - I won't make a call on it. But my definition is pretty much text book, and while simplified, gives a better idea of what a minority truly is.

Athon

[Jon_in_london]

Athon, are you sane?

[c0rbin]

1) Have women in the US ever been sytematically shut out of society?

No


JK, thanks for responding. I wanted to see how uneducated you were. I had some suspicions, based on the sort of posts you made in the past, but I wasn't sure.

Now I know.

Thanks again.

[Dancing David]

Very nice JK,

So I agree that there is a numerical majority for women, very good.

I don't expect an answer but, hope springs eternal.

So could you care to enlighten us on how you came by the statistic that more money is spent on women health care than mens?

Inquiring Minds Want To Know.

Your polemic is slipping, I think I would rate you as highly intelligent but you aren't showing your genius flair.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Gem
But for the health care, since when did you have maternity care recently? Or breast cancer? Or implants?

OMG!!!:eek:

It all makes sense now! JK's absence from the forum was so that he could have breast implants and penetrate (pun intended) the maternalistic feminazi totalitarian cabal! Watch out women! Jedi is among you!

[LW]

Originally posted by Boo








Fourth, many cultures are matriarchal in structure.

You caught my interest here. Could you define what you mean by "matriarchal in structure" and give few examples of such cultures?

[celter]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Very nice JK,

So could you care to enlighten us on how you came by the statistic that more money is spent on women health care than mens?

Inquiring Minds Want To Know.



I'm not supporting JKs arguments here but I thought you might find the following of interest.

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/96jun/cancer/kadar.htm

From the article:
"In the United States women seek out and consequently receive more medical care than men. This is true even if pregnancy-related care is excluded. Department of Health and Human Services surveys show that women visit doctors more often than men, are hospitalized more often, and undergo more operations. Women are more likely than men to visit a doctor for a general physical exam when they are feeling well, and complain of symptoms more often. Thus two out of every three health-care dollars are spent by women."

And ...

http://www.glennsacks.com/mens_silent_health.htm

From the article:
Today the disparity between men's and women's NIH research has grown from 2 to 1 in favor of women to 2.5 to 1. The ratio of female to male enrollments in studies, and in gender specific studies, which slightly favored women before the creation of the Office of Women's Health, by the late 1990s had grown to favor women three to two and three to one respectively. At the time the Office of Women's Health was formed and even more so today, more money was spent on women's medical research and issues than on men's at every level of government.

[jj]

SOMEhow, a particular Tina Turner tune starts to play in my head when JK shows up.

Yep, it's back, indeed.

[Jedi Knight]

No one has explained to me how "women and minorities" is valid word-play.

How can women, comprising 52% of the US population, be lumped into the minority category? Women are not a minority.

Minority 1. Smaller part or number.

Women obviously do not qualify as a minority. It is like trying to take a round peg and forcing it through a square hole. You can hammer it all you want to, but the peg gets stuck and just doesn't fit.

It is a lie that floats around the consciousness of American culture and all our institutions.

Women stand side by side with real minority groups, siphoning off those minorities cultural power through affirmative action, proactive representation and other forms of special treatment.

The whole feminist thing is a huge deception--a majority population inflicting majority terror in unnatural ways upon unsuspecting internal populations of the nation-state who have been lied to and are brainwashed into thinking women are a minority.

Men are the true minority and deserve affirmative action protection and all the other perks of being a minority.

JK

[Dancing David]

Celter- do the statistic you cite count visits for children as well. And since men don't get treatment in a timely manner, what is the percetage for drastic surgery that men recieve?

Thanks

[Michael Redman]

Who cares? "Minority status" is simply a creation of whoever uses the term. The government doesn't recognize minorities and majorities, it recognizes classes: race, sex, religion, occupation, hair color, party affiliation, right-or-left handedness, or whatever you wish. We have laws that prohibit certain types of discrimination based on membership in certain classes. We have these laws because we have found that certain classes have suffered historically from unjust discrimination, and we want to stop it. (This, obviously, is where "women and minorities" comes from. They are historically discriminated-against groups.)

Whether or not women are called a "minority" by commentators, laws that prohibit sex based discrimination don't prohibit discrimination directed at women, they prohibit discrimination based on sex. Likewise, there aren't laws prohibiting hotels from excluding black patrons, there are laws prohibiting hotels from excluding people based on color.

This whole “who’s a minority” complaint is based on the false (but common in certain circles) notion that people who get the label "minority" therefore somehow get special protection. They don't. Everyone gets the same protection. Just because white men in this society rarely need to ask the government to protect them from discrimination, and others often do, doesn't mean that the law is unbalanced. It means that the society is.

That more gets spent on breast cancer research than on prostate cancer research is clearly not a result of women being labeled “minorities”, or anything else. It’s because woman complain loudly when they and those they love have their breasts cut off, or die, due to breast cancer, while men play denial, and try to pretend that prostate cancer doesn’t even exist!

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Who cares? "Minority status" is simply a creation of whoever uses the term. The government doesn't recognize minorities and majorities, it recognizes classes: race, sex, religion, occupation, hair color, party affiliation, right-or-left handedness, or whatever you wish. We have laws that prohibit certain types of discrimination based on membership in certain classes. We have these laws because we have found that certain classes have suffered historically from unjust discrimination, and we want to stop it. (This, obviously, is where "women and minorities" comes from. They are historically discriminated-against groups.)

Whether or not women are called a "minority" by commentators, laws that prohibit sex based discrimination don't prohibit discrimination directed at women, they prohibit discrimination based on sex. Likewise, there aren't laws prohibiting hotels from excluding black patrons, there are laws prohibiting hotels from excluding people based on color.

This whole “who’s a minority” complaint is based on the false (but common in certain circles) notion that people who get the label "minority" therefore somehow get special protection. They don't. Everyone gets the same protection. Just because white men in this society rarely need to ask the government to protect them from discrimination, and others often do, doesn't mean that the law is unbalanced. It means that the society is.

That more gets spent on breast cancer research than on prostate cancer research is clearly not a result of women being labeled “minorities”, or anything else. It’s because woman complain loudly when they and those they love have their breasts cut off, or die, due to breast cancer, while men play denial, and try to pretend that prostate cancer doesn’t even exist!

Hi Michael, I am very skeptical of feminist claims of female discrimination.

I see no women being discriminated against. Perhaps you could enlighten me to the feminist discrimination theory you brought up as fact. I don't think it exists in reality and is a pseudo-claim, but hey, I could be wrong (is it possible?).

JK

[Crossbow]

I sure did enjoy the quite that ensued after JK's most recent departure.

Perhaps next time it will last a few days longer.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Crossbow
I sure did enjoy the quite that ensued after JK's most recent departure.

Perhaps next time it will last a few days longer.

You know Crossbow, when my ideas get inside your head they may be very, very difficult to get out lol.

JK

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I see no women being discriminated against. Perhaps you could enlighten me to the feminist discrimination theory you brought up as fact.
JK In this country, women have been prohibited by law from:
1) Voting
2) Serving on juries
3) Owning property
4) Wearing pants

Men, on the other hand, were allowed to do these things. This is sex-based discrimination. I am fairly certain that you are not so stupid as to be unable to understand this, although you present a persuasive argument that perhaps you are.

(Yes, these things were in the past. Note my use of the word "historically" in my previous post. Present conditions are irrelevant to my point.)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Hi Michael, I am very skeptical of feminist claims of female discrimination.

I see no women being discriminated against. Perhaps you could enlighten me to the feminist discrimination theory you brought up as fact. I don't think it exists in reality and is a pseudo-claim, but hey, I could be wrong (is it possible?).

JK

I think that the feminist discrimination runs the standard form for discrimination, women are passed over for jobs and promotions because they are women, and that there are men who are given those jobs and promoted because they are men.

I had a friend who claimed that she could have gotten an American Express card if she was male but they had a higher income guideline for women.

More common discrimination would be based on gender steotypes (no women in the Masters golf), such as 'you can't know nothin about cars, you're a girl', of course that one cuts both ways.

Funkopalooza

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
In this country, women have been prohibited by law from:
1) Voting
2) Serving on juries
3) Owning property
4) Wearing pants

Men, on the other hand, were allowed to do these things. This is sex-based discrimination. I am fairly certain that you are not so stupid as to be unable to understand this, although you present a persuasive argument that perhaps you are.

(Yes, these things were in the past. Note my use of the word "historically" in my previous post. Present conditions are irrelevant to my point.)

None of the things you listed have never happened in my lifetime or my father's lifetime, perhaps even my grandfather's.

My ancestors were killed in the Irish potato famine and were slaves. I guess I am just wondering when it is acceptable for everyone to admit that they are not victims and never have been. Name one woman alive today that was not allowed to wear pants, ever. Or vote. Or serve on a jury. Or own property. Women have owned property for all of recorded history.

Do you have any non-myth facts to share?

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Dancing David
I think that the feminist discrimination runs the standard form for discrimination, women are passed over for jobs and promotions because they are women, and that there are men who are given those jobs and promoted because they are men.

Not true. Men are just as likely to suffer from those incidents as women are, and in fact, women are less likely to suffer from those circumstances.

I had a friend who claimed that she could have gotten an American Express card if she was male but they had a higher income guideline for women.

...and men are 80% more likely to be passed over for small business loans as the dramatic numbers of women-owned small businesses proves.

More common discrimination would be based on gender steotypes (no women in the Masters golf), such as 'you can't know nothin about cars, you're a girl', of course that one cuts both ways.

The "Masters" is a tournament at a private men-only golf club. If women want a "Masters", why don't they make one themselves? Freedom of Association is a guaranteed right in the US Constitution.

Private clubs can set their own standards for membership.

More myth, Dancing David. How about some facts?

JK

[celter]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Celter- do the statistic you cite count visits for children as well. And since men don't get treatment in a timely manner, what is the percetage for drastic surgery that men recieve?

Thanks

I don't think the stats include children, I believe they just compare men and women but I'll dig around a little and see what i can find.

With respect to the impact of not getting timely treatment, the following link is to an article from a UK publication that discusses why standards of male health are so much worse than those of women. This one incidentally says that eight times more public money is spent on women's health issues than male diseases.
http://www.bigglesguy.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/health.html

"... men of all ages are far less likely to seek advice and help on health issues than women, and in many cases will only look for assistance when they are desperate."

"Little wonder, then, that while men are almost "invisible" in GP's surgeries, the report found they more than make up for it in accident and emergency departments, where doctors are forced to use aggressive surgical procedures instead of the gentler, proactive work that is possible when presentation is earlier."

There seems to be a widely held belief that women are discriminated against by the health care system. I believe that such beliefs need to be examined critically. In my city there are dozens of clinics that focus exclusively on women's health issues; there is one devoted to men's health. The two largest local pharmacies have programs for helping women to manage health care concerns; no similar programs exist for men. There are currently seven federal Offices of Women's Health. There are no comparable men's offices.
A google search on "women's health care" results in 35,000 hits, while "men's health care" produces 880 hits.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


None of the things you listed have never happened in my lifetime or my father's lifetime, perhaps even my grandfather's.Not true.My ancestors were killed in the Irish potato famine and were slaves. I guess I am just wondering when it is acceptable for everyone to admit that they are not victims and never have been. Are you going to "admit" that the Irish "never have been" victims?Name one woman alive today that was not allowed to wear pants, ever. My mother was not allowed to wear pants at her public high school. That's just the first woman I checked with. There are probably millions, but I'll let you do the research.Or vote.There may be a few still women around who were of voting age before they had the right to vote. Maybe not. Irrelevant, of course. Or serve on a jury. They're out there. Do some research.Or own property. Women have owned property for all of recorded history.They have also been denied property for all of history.

You're missing the point (on purpose, I hope.) Women didn't have the right to vote until is was given to them by law. Women are not discriminated against at the voting booth because the law prevents it! The fact that there are few or no women that have been denied the right to vote does not prove that women are not the targets of discrimination, as you contend, but rather that the law works. Women are routinely discriminated against in employment, housing, and credit situations. You will not acknowledge that this is so, but it is.

Do you have any non-myth facts to share?Yes, you're an ignorant fool.

[LW]

Originally posted by Michael Redman

Its because woman complain loudly when they and those they love have their breasts cut off, or die, due to breast cancer, while men play denial, and try to pretend that prostate cancer doesnt even exist!

And sometimes that loud complaining gets forms that are rather ridiculous. Several years ago a woman wrote to the Letters to the Editor -section of some newspaper that I read (probably Helsingin Sanomat but I can't remember for certain) about breast cancer. I can't remember her whole text, but the final words of her letter are engraved in my memory:

If men suffered from breast cancer, we would already have a cure for it.

Yeah, sure, like we do for prostate cancer.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Originally posted by Dancing David
I think that the feminist discrimination runs the standard form for discrimination, women are passed over for jobs and promotions because they are women, and that there are men who are given those jobs and promoted because they are men.

Not true. Men are just as likely to suffer from those incidents as women are, and in fact, women are less likely to suffer from those circumstances.

I had a friend who claimed that she could have gotten an American Express card if she was male but they had a higher income guideline for women.

...and men are 80% more likely to be passed over for small business loans as the dramatic numbers of women-owned small businesses proves.

More common discrimination would be based on gender steotypes (no women in the Masters golf), such as 'you can't know nothin about cars, you're a girl', of course that one cuts both ways.

The "Masters" is a tournament at a private men-only golf club. If women want a "Masters", why don't they make one themselves? Freedom of Association is a guaranteed right in the US Constitution.

Private clubs can set their own standards for membership.

More myth, Dancing David. How about some facts?

JK

Hey don't cal me myth thats Mythter!

I am overwhelmed by your rebuttal sir, I will now jerk my knees in a prototypical Liberal fashion.

In nursing and social work and education there is a preponderance of women ,yes? So why are the supervisors usually men.

And you are sooo right about the Masters, how about baseball then, oh well I guess those are private clubs too, it's just the stadiums that are subsidiesed.

So JK, do you really believe that women are in a stronger position than men?

Peace

[Chris Haynes]

Since the top two causes of death are equal opportunity killers:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hus/tables/2001/01hus032.pdf ...

I think that it makes sense that the medical research be split 50/50. For a breakdown of Cause of Death #2 check out the tables of http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2000/results_merged/sect_01_overview.pdf
(and yes, deaths from male reproductive organs are more than those of female organs... though breast cancer brings up more to the female side --- which is then balanced with deaths from respiratory, blood, colon, pancreas and so on which occur more often in men).

Personally I am waiting for the world that JK is envisioning. I think it would be great when half of all nurses are male, half of all elementary school teachers are male, half of all engineers are female, half of all airline pilots are female, half of the stay at home parents are dads, and then to top it off: half of all elected officie holders are male... and the other half female.

[Dancing David]

you forgot social workers, when half of social workers are male...
although I do like being the only guy where I work.

Peace

[celter]

Originally posted by Hydrogen Cyanide
Personally I am waiting for the world that JK is envisioning. I think it would be great when half of all nurses are male, half of all elementary school teachers are male, half of all engineers are female, half of all airline pilots are female, half of the stay at home parents are dads, and then to top it off: half of all elected officie holders are male... and the other half female.

Would you also like to see more balance with respect to the following?

More than 95% of workplace fatalities are male.
Over 80% of the homeless people in the U.S. are male.
Over 80% of the suicides are committed by males.
Over 70% of the victims of violent crime (murder, rape, assault, etc.) are male.
Men live nearly seven years less on average than women do.
Over 90% of our prison population are male.
Females are more likely to graduate high school, enter college, and graduate college than males.
Boys are more likely to be held back in school, to be diagnosed with learning disabilities and be drugged as a result. They lag far behind girls in every area except math where girls have virtually closed the historical gap; the average boy in high school is now two full grade levels behind girls in language skills.

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by celter


Would you also like to see more balance with respect to the following?

More than 95% of workplace fatalities are male.
Over 80% of the homeless people in the U.S. are male.
Over 80% of the suicides are committed by males.
Over 70% of the victims of violent crime (murder, rape, assault, etc.) are male.
Men live nearly seven years less on average than women do.
Over 90% of our prison population are male.
Females are more likely to graduate high school, enter college, and graduate college than males.
Boys are more likely to be held back in school, to be diagnosed with learning disabilities and be drugged as a result. They lag far behind girls in every area except math where girls have virtually closed the historical gap; the average boy in high school is now two full grade levels behind girls in language skills. How, exactly, are these things due to discrimination against men? Or did I miss your point?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Michael Redman
Yes, you're an ignorant fool.

No, I am a genius intellectual.

JK

[Chris Haynes]

Sure, celter (editted to add for clarity)... with a drastic reduction in total numbers.

I also know very much about the male imbalance with learning and language disorders. One of my sons has a severe speech disability. His special ed. classrooms are disporportionally male... which is better than the situation was 30 years ago where those classrooms did NOT exist (I have been told that if he had been born 30 years earlier he would have been labeled mentally retarded and denied an education).

I did see an improvement over "traditional" numbers the other day. I helped out on a 3rd grade field trip. Out of the 7 parents who volunteered on that trip... 4 were fathers!

In a survey of "at risk" conditions, single parent household was the highest: http://landview.census.gov/population/www/documentation/twps0052.html

Perhaps the statistics you cited would be reduced if there more paternal influence. Unfortunately most single parent homes are headed by women. http://landview.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb94_26.pdf

You could help with the dire statistics: http://www.bbbsi.org/

Oh, just checked the census, one of your statistics is misleading. Men still have more college degrees total, just by a little bit, and they have only been edged out for the population under age 39:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-51.html

JK is right, things are getting more equitable:
http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/2003/cb03-53.html

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Dancing David


Hey don't cal me myth thats Mythter!

I am overwhelmed by your rebuttal sir, I will now jerk my knees in a prototypical Liberal fashion.

In nursing and social work and education there is a preponderance of women ,yes? So why are the supervisors usually men.

And you are sooo right about the Masters, how about baseball then, oh well I guess those are private clubs too, it's just the stadiums that are subsidiesed.

So JK, do you really believe that women are in a stronger position than men?

Peace

The reason why women aren't in professional baseball is because they couldn't compete against men. They would destroy baseball if they got involved in it.

That is the gist of the whole problem. Women are trying to get people convinced that they are men. Women are not men.

Why does it bother women so much that a handful of men have a golfing tournament once a year? Because women have to get their nasty little fingers, driven by a self-announcement of entitlement, into anything men try to do. Men are getting pretty sick of it. It has gone way beyond women in the workplace competing for jobs, ect.

We are talking now about standard reductions that give women a pseudo-realistic legitimacy competing against men in some fields. I say some because there are some women can't compete against men in. It is not discrimination--it is fact. Reducing standards still does not make women men, it colors over and piles onto the rampantly growing cultural anger that women are demanding affirmative action type reductions of standards to claim universal equality with men when they are a 52% majority population in the United States.

Then with a complacent media the problem, the lie, the myth of gender neutrality in all things is perpetuated, sometimes with dangerous results.

Take Jessica Lynch, for example. That has got to be this decade's most deceptive example of gender neutrality dangerousness I have ever seen. The military puts up with it because they are ordered to, but when a female clerk gets taken prisoner of war and the rest of the females with her get gunned down like ducks in a row, it is inherently dangerous to lie about it.

But the myth of gender equality must go on, and the military is the primary vehicle that matriarchal totalitarian cultural terrorists have to perpetuate the gender neutral myth. War is not gender neutral. Neither is baseball. Neither is golf.

That really pisses off these radical feminazis too because they have to be baking their noodles trying to figure out a way to tap into these things and "oversee" the men. That is what it is all about. It isn't about pure competition. Just the fact that men have something they can do that women can't is enough to get the gazillions of radical feminazis panties all wound up in knots.

So what if men get together and play golf, baseball and form military units that women couldn't survive in if their lives depended on it. So what? It doesn't matter to most men because men must function at that standard in order to remain healthy, both psychologically and physically.

But women, gosh, they would kill any standard, implement any reduction of the bar necessary to lower it enough so they could find legitimacy in all things. Men are not women. Women are not men. To even toy with that biological truth is false-legitimacy.

That is why when Annika or whatever that chick's name is didn't qualify for the men's tournament the men who watched it thought: "well, she didn't qualify because she isn't a man and God chose who she was at birth and it isn't a man's fault nor is it men's fault collectively that she couldn't do it."

The women who watched it thought: "Those goddamned men. Those bastards. How dare they form a group together. Men cannot be allowed to form any groups together that are only men. We must destroy permanently all male private clubs and remove the truth that men are stronger biologically than women and are better in certain sports and the military. We must get the standards reduced to dangerous levels so our women militants can invade everything men do and then we can claim equality."

JK

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The reason why women aren't in professional baseball is because they couldn't compete against men. They would destroy baseball if they got involved in it.

That is the gist of the whole problem. Women are trying to get people convinced that they are men. Women are not men.

Why does it bother women so much that a handful of men have a golfing tournament once a year? Because women have to get their nasty little fingers, driven by a self-announcement of entitlement, into anything men try to do. Men are getting pretty sick of it. It has gone way beyond women in the workplace competing for jobs, ect.

We are talking now about standard reductions that give women a pseudo-realistic legitimacy competing against men in some fields. I say some because there are some women can't compete against men in. It is not discrimination--it is fact. Reducing standards still does not make women men, it colors over and piles onto the rampantly growing cultural anger that women are demanding affirmative action type reductions of standards to claim universal equality with men when they are a 52% majority population in the United States.

Then with a complacent media the problem, the lie, the myth of gender neutrality in all things is perpetuated, sometimes with dangerous results.

Take Jessica Lynch, for example. That has got to be this decade's most deceptive example of gender neutrality dangerousness I have ever seen. The military puts up with it because they are ordered to, but when a female clerk gets taken prisoner of war and the rest of the females with her get gunned down like ducks in a row, it is inherently dangerous to lie about it.

But the myth of gender equality must go on, and the military is the primary vehicle that matriarchal totalitarian cultural terrorists have to perpetuate the gender neutral myth. War is not gender neutral. Neither is baseball. Neither is golf.

That really pisses off these radical feminazis too because they have to be baking their noodles trying to figure out a way to tap into these things and "oversee" the men. That is what it is all about. It isn't about pure competition. Just the fact that men have something they can do that women can't is enough to get the gazillions of radical feminazis panties all wound up in knots.

So what if men get together and play golf, baseball and form military units that women couldn't survive in if their lives depended on it. So what? It doesn't matter to most men because men must function at that standard in order to remain healthy, both psychologically and physically.

But women, gosh, they would kill any standard, implement any reduction of the bar necessary to lower it enough so they could find legitimacy in all things. Men are not women. Women are not men. To even toy with that biological truth is false-legitimacy.

That is why when Annika or whatever that chick's name is didn't qualify for the men's tournament the men who watched it thought: "well, she didn't qualify because she isn't a man and God chose who she was at birth and it isn't a man's fault nor is it men's fault collectively that she couldn't do it."

The women who watched it thought: "Those goddamned men. Those bastards. How dare they form a group together. Men cannot be allowed to form any groups together that are only men. We must destroy permanently all male private clubs and remove the truth that men are stronger biologically than women and are better in certain sports and the military. We must get the standards reduced to dangerous levels so our women militants can invade everything men do and then we can claim equality."

JK

Hmm I explained it to you, but you didnt' reply. You seem not to understand that women are being catered to due capitalism and the fact that women spend more money more freely then men and women are more needy. That's it. If you don't like, blame capitlaism.

You seem to want a market driven world, well this is it, you have it, this is the market driven world.

BTW, "women" are not in control of anything people with money are in control, most of those people are still men. The women with money taken bigger advantage of women then men do, because they know how to. Its all about using emotions to get people's money.

The things you bring up are all due to market share and how money is spent and by whom.

[c0rbin]

JK,

War and sports are not the only aspects of society you, uneducated dingus.

You see, some people have what are called "jobs" and some people work very hard to build their "careers."

Some of these people are actually women.

Would you be pissed if you wrked really hard to get to a certain level of profession and found out you were being paid signifigantly less than your peers?

Imagine how pissed you would be if you found out that reason was based on some 15th century chivalric code?

[QuarkChild]

A lot this discussion has centered around imbalances of funding and/or publicitly in gendered health issues. What about the effects of this funding imbalance? Can it be shown that men are worse off than women because their health needs are under-funded? I know that causation is really difficult to prove (esp. since in this case controlled studies might be unethical), but I think that before we admit the relevance of funding statistics, it is first necessary to determine to what degree more funding promotes women's health.

Or do we have to just assume that more funding translates into better health, because there's no way to prove it?

Just curious. I don't have an agenda here.

edited to add:
I probably posted this too late, since everyone is now talking about career discrimination. Oh well.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Malachi151


Hmm I explained it to you, but you didnt' reply. You seem not to understand that women are being catered to due capitalism and the fact that women spend more money more freely then men and women are more needy. That's it. If you don't like, blame capitlaism.

You seem to want a market driven world, well this is it, you have it, this is the market driven world.

BTW, "women" are not in control of anything people with money are in control, most of those people are still men. The women with money taken bigger advantage of women then men do, because they know how to. Its all about using emotions to get people's money.

The things you bring up are all due to market share and how money is spent and by whom.

Market share? The US loses $trillions of dollars outsourcing manufacturing and reducing standards to fit radical ideologies.

The only thing that interests me is the health and welfare of the nation-state. I study extremism in foreign governments, their systems, extemist groups and extremist cells that seek to damage the United States. That is what I do.

That said, what I am talking about goes much deeper than domestic market economics and simple economic policy.

JK

[Dancing David]

Yeah radical ideologies like capitalism are responsible for the loss of market share, oh oops but that is capitalism.

So reall are there no women who could compete weith men at golf, I just ask that they be allowed the tryout, if they don't make the cut , cool. Gets a chance to bloat the male ego and all.

(Jedi do remember that tenneis match in the seventies, Billy jean and some has been)

[celter]

Hydrogen Cyanide, thanks for the response.
I'm very glad to hear of more fathers getting involved at your child's school, that is good news. Do you mind if I ask whether you are a mom or a dad?
It is very difficult for me to participate in field trips because, like every other father in my son's third grade class, I work full time. I'm lucky to get home in time to read to my son before bed. The mothers who typically volunteer at my son's school either work part time or are stay at home moms. I don't know how much of this is choice, though I do know that I've never felt like I have any choice but to work full-time; I certainly don't have a choice at this point in my life.

Thank you for the correction with respect to relative numbers of male and female college graduates, I will recheck my source. The rest of the stats are, I believe, accurate though.

I agree that there's been plenty of research on the importance of a father or father figure to a child's growth and development.

Your last link to the includes the following statement:
"For example, women age 15 and over who worked full time, year-round in 2001 earned 76 cents for every $1 earned by their male counterparts. That is an all-time high."
This is an interesting topic. That statement is true but I believe it's quite misleading.

http://www.cnn.com/2000/CAREER/trends/12/12/womenpay/

From the article:
” Citing the national census data is pointless, the foundation's analysts say, because it doesn't take into account factors that affect wages -- age, education and experience."

Women who work the same number of hours in the same job as men, and have the same amount of experience, earn virtually the same as men. Half of the 24-cent difference disappears when we account for the fact that full time hours for women are about 84% of full time hours worked by men. Also, full-time employed females have, as a whole, 25 percent less job experience than their male counterparts, usually, I think because of time out of the workforce to have children.
Men are also far more likely to work in dangerous occupations and the market has decided that people should be compensated for risk of death or injury in the workplace.

I really wonder how much of the gender imbalances in particular careers are a result of discrimination and how much are a result simply of choices that informed people make based on their own values and priorities.
Best regards

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Market share? The US loses $trillions of dollars outsourcing manufacturing and reducing standards to fit radical ideologies.

The only thing that interests me is the health and welfare of the nation-state. I study extremism in foreign governments, their systems, extemist groups and extremist cells that seek to damage the United States. That is what I do.

That said, what I am talking about goes much deeper than domestic market economics and simple economic policy.

JK

That makes no sense at all.

The US loses trillions? Who? People in the US make billions doing that. Who is sending the jobs over seas, the unions? LOL!

Yes, its the nasty socialists that are sending American jobs to Mexcio and Indonesia, and they were teh ones supply Indonesia with weapons and military assistace and the American socialists are the ones to backed Indonesia when they shot sociaist demonstrators with American made assault rifles that they had been given from the US. Yep, you're right, the evil Marxists did all that because Marxists are ruled by evil militant women, who have the lowest wages in the country but they want their under paids jobs going overseas to even more underpaid people so that executives can get rich :p :rolleyes:

The capitalsits are who send the jobs over seas.

What has that do to with women though or my reply?

Women are the hottest target market in the US. Therefore they are catered to the most in the ways that you were discussing. I know not what that has to do with jobs overseas.

Oh yeah, and don't forget that asside from WWII one of the largest entries of women into the work force was under Reagan. Why? Beause they had to in order to support the family with dropping middle class wages due to the weakening of unions and the lower minimum wages, and the fact that wages for excutive skyrocketed while workers wages stagnated and dipped.

Edit:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/this_w2.gif

I'm sure you can see this as half empty or half full depending on perspective.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Yeah radical ideologies like capitalism are responsible for the loss of market share, oh oops but that is capitalism.

So reall are there no women who could compete weith men at golf, I just ask that they be allowed the tryout, if they don't make the cut , cool. Gets a chance to bloat the male ego and all.

(Jedi do remember that tenneis match in the seventies, Billy jean and some has been)

You could take young men from high school and college that play golf and have them overwhelm the WPGA. Would the ladies like that? No way. They would never allow it.

If men played in the women's PGA they would win every match and every single prize. Women wouldn't even be a factor if men decided to call their bluff and play in the women's PGA and let chicks in the men's PGA. If the men's PGA called their bluff, there probably won't be any more female golfers playing professionally because they wouldn't make the cut.

That is the whole point. If some professional golfer like Tiger Woods showed up to play in the women's league knowing at the standard women play at he could win every tournament, how long would it be before the matriarchal totalitarian monsters started going bananas? Immediately.

Women are not being discriminated against at all. Someone has to tell them that in a way that really sinks in because men can have private golfing organizations and chicks whining about it only makes more and more men criticize them.

Women can't do some things that men can do--like play golf at the male PGA standard.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Malachi151


That makes no sense at all.

The US loses trillions? Who? People in the US make billions doing that. Who is sending the jobs over seas, the unions? LOL!

Yes, its the nasty socialists that are sending American jobs to Mexcio and Indonesia, and they were teh ones supply Indonesia with weapons and military assistace and the American socialists are the ones to backed Indonesia when they shot sociaist demonstrators with American made assault rifles that they had been given from the US. Yep, you're right, the evil Marxists did all that because Marxists are ruled by evil militant women, who have the lowest wages in the country but they want their under paids jobs going overseas to even more underpaid people so that executives can get rich :p :rolleyes:

The capitalsits are who send the jobs over seas.

What has that do to with women though or my reply?

Women are the hottest target market in the US. Therefore they are catered to the most in the ways that you were discussing. I know not what that has to do with jobs overseas.

Oh yeah, and don't forget that asside from WWII one of the largest entries of women into the work force was under Reagan. Why? Beause they had to in order to support the family with dropping middle class wages due to the weakening of unions and the lower minimum wages, and the fact that wages for excutive skyrocketed while workers wages stagnated and dipped.

Edit:

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/this_w2.gif

I'm sure you can see this as half empty or half full depending on perspective.

Women do not work as many hours as men and that is why they make less money. You are harping on a common feminist myth that women make less because 'men' subvert their success. That is totally untrue. Men average 20-30 hours more work per week than women do in the workplace. If women worked 80 hours per week like men do, they would make the same amount of money as men if not more.

The point I made about outsourcing is that outsourcing manufacturing jobs hurts women (and men) because manufacturing is the best paying segment of the economy and always has been.

But socialists want a global Marxist redistribution of wealth and that is why those jobs are being outsourced to foreign countries--but it has to be a capitalist conspiracy, right? lol

The corporations are just taking advantage of Marxist intellectual stupidity with outsourcing and laughing all the way to the bank. Capitalists will always be smarter than Marxists.

JK

[Gem]

Women do not work as many hours as men and that is why they make less money. You are harping on a common feminist myth that women make less because 'men' subvert their success. That is totally untrue. Men average 20-30 hours more work per week than women do in the workplace. If women worked 80 hours per week like men do, they would make the same amount of money as men if not more.

Good point, do you have statistics to prove it?

Women can't do some things that men can do--like play golf at the male PGA standard

Since the standard for women is lower, they must have their own tournaments. Men are not allowed because they shoot futher than them, which makes it unfair.

BUT if a woman CAN play at the male PGA standard, why not allow her? If a man played gold as good as a woman, he could play the female PGA, but he won't, because he'll be ridiculed.

Women and Men are different in biology in AVERAGE. There are women physicly stronger than men, you know? Why can't we let them play with men?

Gem

JK's thread are the only one where a topic about the status of women reaches golf.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Men average 20-30 hours more work per week than women do in the workplace. If women worked 80 hours per week like men do, they would make the same amount of money as men if not more.



Absolute rubbish.
the true figures for the USA are easily available at
[url]http://www.bls.gov

I used to give JK the benefit of the doubt, I thought he just made up statistics as he went along because he was so convinced that he is correct that the figures would just have to be correct too. However, this has gone on so long and with such consistancy that the only possible conclusion is that JK is deliberately fabricating statistics on an ongoing basis. This is done deliberately to attempt to add weight to whatever spam he is pushing at the time. It is just lies, plain simple and deliberate.

so Jedi...Is the statement that men work 20-30 hours per week more than women a lie or ignorance?? Is the statement that men work 80 hours a week a lie or ignorance??

[Malachi151]

But socialists want a global Marxist redistribution of wealth and that is why those jobs are being outsourced to foreign countries--but it has to be a capitalist conspiracy, right? lol

The corporations are just taking advantage of Marxist intellectual stupidity with outsourcing and laughing all the way to the bank. Capitalists will always be smarter than Marxists.

*sigh*

No, you see, this is where you are all wrong.

Capitalists want to keep borders and keep separate forms of currency, instead of a global dollar, etc, because then they get to take advantage of trade boundaries. Then they can use labor in Indonesia where labor is cheap, they pay "foreign aid" to that government so that the rulers will not adopt labor friendly laws, etc.

This keeps cheap foreign labor markets where working conditions are bad, and domestic labor markets were people have freedom and rights and good labor conditions. Those people are consumers, the others are producers.

The capitalism buys labor cheap in the foreign country and then sells where labor is high, domestically. Buy cheap sell high, it works with labor like anything else.

As people in America try to unionize and keep labor prices high, we cannot because we compete with foreign labor in places where people have fewer rights and where the population density is 5 times higher so competition for labor is higher which drives prices down. So, that also keeps American labor prices down too because it is a global market.

Who wanted NAFTA, etc? Bush. Who opened trade to China? Nixon.

What socialists want is a TRUE global economy with a global dollar and an end to this ******** of keeping wages depressed in 3rd world countries. This will bring labor prices up globally, which will improve the standard of living for people around the world, and also it will make domestic production more attractive, so that there will be less draw to foreign labor, brining production back to America, not away.

As labor prices rise in Asia and South America then it is not as attractive to outsource labor, its more attractive to save on shipping and keep American jobs in America.

So, in reality Socialism, by creating a level world economy will strengthen local markets and local production. Its a way to PROTECT American jobs. We don't want to send work there, we want them to make more money so that the work does not go there in the first place, it stays here.

To do this they need to develop internal economies instead of having their economies tied to America.

At that point socialism becomes important because with capitalism as the global labor economy increases we cannot compete in terms of wage labor prices because we have 100,000,000 workers and they have about 2 billion workers in all of Asia. So, because capitalism uses competition and supply and demand to set prices, as the global market opens up the Asians will always outbid Americans in terms of cheap labor. The solution is either continued tariffs and artificially maintained disparity, which leads to conflict, or socialism.

The capitalists want international trade, maintained by using puppet leaders in foreign countries and the American dollar as the defacto international reserve currency, but with each country having their own separate curreny and monitary system. That greatly benefits the US because the US dollar is generally strong and they get to buy more with the dollar that way. Each small economy is greatly subject to inflation and has weak dollars, we have the largest monitary system and we get to use our leverage against their weak dollars, which is quite unfair to them, but its great for American capitalists, allowing ther money to buy more over seas.

By breaking all that down the advantage of foreign trade is reduced for America, making domestic prodcution more attractive. For example, if Mexico and America shared the same currency, we would not be making so many Fords in Mexico right now. The capitalsists are who wantnot maintain that system. Of course there are other implications too.

[Gem]

Malachi151, I don't completely agree with you.
But here is where I agree.
Capitalist "free trade" is free trade that benefits them, not consumers. Go look on the thread about coffee prices remaining high but farmers going broke.

[Gem]

The Fool, bls is pretty extended. Which sections and sub sections do you recommend me looking for?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
Men are not allowed because they shoot futher than them, which makes it unfair.

Exactly. This is the point that I am making. When men play golf they don't think about how far they are hitting the ball in relation to the distance that women can hit the ball.

Yet women start cultural wars (matriarchal totalitarian cultural terrorism) trying to find ways to lower standards so they can claim equality against all men in all things, ignoring basic biological differences that separate men and women.

Now that we have come this far together, Gem, let's take it a step further. What if we were dealing with a standard that was dangerous to change because it did not involve sport?

The battlefield, for example, creates its own standards. Men and women can't dictate what those standards are. The battlefield is a very dangerous place; a very lethal environment.

Now, if you have male soldiers and tell them that they have to do 80 pushups on a test to meet the battlefield standard and you tell women they have to do 30 pushups, does the conditions of the battlefield change to accomodate the fake atmosphere of equality where the male and female pushup difference is 'celebrated' as the same?

Would the men be stronger for doing 80 pushups, or would the women be unable to do 80? Would the men rather do 30 with the women? If they did 30 with the women, would that hurt their chances for success on the battlefield?

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Malachi151
But socialists want a global Marxist redistribution of wealth and that is why those jobs are being outsourced to foreign countries--but it has to be a capitalist conspiracy, right? lol

The corporations are just taking advantage of Marxist intellectual stupidity with outsourcing and laughing all the way to the bank. Capitalists will always be smarter than Marxists.

*sigh*

No, you see, this is where you are all wrong.

Capitalists want to keep borders and keep separate forms of currency, instead of a global dollar, etc, because then they get to take advantage of trade boundaries. Then they can use labor in Indonesia where labor is cheap, they pay "foreign aid" to that government so that the rulers will not adopt labor friendly laws, etc.

This keeps cheap foreign labor markets where working conditions are bad, and domestic labor markets were people have freedom and rights and good labor conditions. Those people are consumers, the others are producers.

The capitalism buys labor cheap in the foreign country and then sells where labor is high, domestically. Buy cheap sell high, it works with labor like anything else.

As people in America try to unionize and keep labor prices high, we cannot because we compete with foreign labor in places where people have fewer rights and where the population density is 5 times higher so competition for labor is higher which drives prices down. So, that also keeps American labor prices down too because it is a global market.

Who wanted NAFTA, etc? Bush. Who opened trade to China? Nixon.

What socialists want is a TRUE global economy with a global dollar and an end to this ******** of keeping wages depressed in 3rd world countries. This will bring labor prices up globally, which will improve the standard of living for people around the world, and also it will make domestic production more attractive, so that there will be less draw to foreign labor, brining production back to America, not away.

As labor prices rise in Asia and South America then it is not as attractive to outsource labor, its more attractive to save on shipping and keep American jobs in America.

So, in reality Socialism, by creating a level world economy will strengthen local markets and local production. Its a way to PROTECT American jobs. We don't want to send work there, we want them to make more money so that the work does not go there in the first place, it stays here.

To do this they need to develop internal economies instead of having their economies tied to America.

At that point socialism becomes important because with capitalism as the global labor economy increases we cannot compete in terms of wage labor prices because we have 100,000,000 workers and they have about 2 billion workers in all of Asia. So, because capitalism uses competition and supply and demand to set prices, as the global market opens up the Asians will always outbid Americans in terms of cheap labor. The solution is either continued tariffs and artificially maintained disparity, which leads to conflict, or socialism.

The capitalists want international trade, maintained by using puppet leaders in foreign countries and the American dollar as the defacto international reserve currency, but with each country having their own separate curreny and monitary system. That greatly benefits the US because the US dollar is generally strong and they get to buy more with the dollar that way. Each small economy is greatly subject to inflation and has weak dollars, we have the largest monitary system and we get to use our leverage against their weak dollars, which is quite unfair to them, but its great for American capitalists, allowing ther money to buy more over seas.

By breaking all that down the advantage of foreign trade is reduced for America, making domestic prodcution more attractive. For example, if Mexico and America shared the same currency, we would not be making so many Fords in Mexico right now. The capitalsists are who wantnot maintain that system. Of course there are other implications too.

You didn't mention one critical point in your explanation. Only 4% of the global population of earth can afford to buy US made products.

Our economy has always been self-sustaining.

The outsourcing is being done because radical leftists think it is cool and fashionable to send manufacturing jobs to the 3rd and 4th world in a form of global socialism.

So your socialism is already happening on a global scale. NAFTA and outsourcing jobs to Asia (India, China, Taiwan, Indonesia, etc) is Marxist redistribution of wealth--American wealth heading overseas.

Corporations and their shareholders will make more money because they will be manufacturing products cheaper and selling to more consumers because the products are manufactured cheaper, but your socialism is what is sending jobs overseas.

Since only 4% of the global population can afford to buy US made products, that means the world has a trade relationship with our country like Japan did with the rest of the world. Exports only. The US is importing everything made in the world. The socialist bubble will pop the day US consumers stop buying these products. Our importation of foreign made goods is the only thing keeping the global economy from collapsing. It is global Marxism labeled as Capitalism.

Now that can change to Capitalism once other countries start importing goods from our country on an even scale to what we are doing everywhere else but I don't count on it.

Your definition of socialism must be different from the textbook definition. You never mentioned what it was to you--care to explain?

JK

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Gem
The Fool, bls is pretty extended. Which sections and sub sections do you recommend me looking for?
you are right...its huge...
Here's a quick and interesting graph from
http://www.naalc.org/english/publications/ewna_part1.htm

Hey JK!!!!! 80 hours seems to be a little high, Don't suppose you want to support this figure?.......thought not.....

[athon]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Athon, are you sane?

Not at the best of times. But in response to this topic, I don't see what your issue is.

I didn't argue one way or another in reference to a minority ruling party in South Africa, mostly because I humbly admit I don't know the full story. I know the basic history, but the intricacies I've never studied. So I don't have an opinion there.

As for my definition of a minority, again I fail to see what you could disagree with. Politically and socially, a minority is any group that is under-represented. You could have fifty-million women, ruled by five men. That is a minority by most definitions. If you are talking population demographic, then it isn't. But that is not what JK is talking about.

So, my definition stands until somebody can say why it is wrong.

Athon

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by athon
I didn't argue one way or another in reference to a minority ruling party in South Africa, mostly because I humbly admit I don't know the full story. I know the basic history, but the intricacies I've never studied. So I don't have an opinion there.


You said that being a minority had nothing to do with being a minority but everything to do with being under-empowered. Ergo because Black South Africans are underempowered they were in the minority. Ergo Apartheid rule of South Africa was by the white majority government- so why impose sanctions on a democratic majority ruled country? (South Africa is 10% white)

[Malachi151]

The Fool

http://www.naalc.org/english/publications/ewna_part1.htm

nice link.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Malachi151
The Fool

http://www.naalc.org/english/publications/ewna_part1.htm

nice link.

I am still waiting for you to define what you think socialism is. Do you think it is Marxist theft of the labor from non-idle producers (the usual socialism) or is it something else?

JK

[Dancing David]

Jedi,
Are you sure about the Marxizts and outsourcing,
It was your beloved Republican party which was promoting global free trade, and it was the liberals who were decrying it.
Cool spin though, how many RPMs is that?

Still glad to see you back, so should there be one PGA, there would be the cool golfers and the duffers, then it would be gender neutral.

[Malachi151]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I am still waiting for you to define what you think socialism is. Do you think it is Marxist theft of the labor from non-idle producers (the usual socialism) or is it something else?

JK

Its covered in this thread:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=20147

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Cool spin though, how many RPMs is that?

ahh hahahaha.

Are you sure about the Marxizts and outsourcing,
It was your beloved Republican party which was promoting global free trade, and it was the liberals who were decrying it.

Global free trade means a two-way street. What has happened is that countries think they can only export and not import. That is Marxist redistribution of wealth--the wealth stolen from American workers.

Still glad to see you back, so should there be one PGA, there would be the cool golfers and the duffers, then it would be gender neutral.

Hey, I am glad to be back. I know you guys missed me.

If women and men played a combined form of the PGA, there would be no more professional PGA women golfers because they wouldn't make it.

In sum, what is happening is that chicks got their own PGA league void of men, and still want the men to let them play in the men's league. The usual matriarchal perversion.

JK

[Gem]

What if there was a woman that was as good (or better) than Tiger Woods. Why couldn't she play in the PGA? If she's good, she can play with the men.

What would you do if a woman is as good as men in golf, JK?

Gem

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Gem
What if there was a woman that was as good (or better) than Tiger Woods. Why couldn't she play in the PGA? If she's good, she can play with the men.

What would you do if a woman is as good as men in golf, JK?

Gem

What if I could talk NASA into letting me borrow a spaceship to go to Mars to check out the ancient human ruins there--it would never happen.

Sort of sounds like a woman being able to compete with Tiger Woods. In fact, I would probably have a better chance of getting a spaceship to go to Cydonia than a woman would have beating Tiger.

That is the whole point too. The 'what if'. What if Annika could 'qualify'. It wasn't that she could--she wanted to and got her chance while Vegas gave her 500:1 odds lol. It is unbelievable.

If there was a woman that could compete with the men I wouldn't have a problem with it and would never even talk about it.

What I am talking about is matriarchal totalitarian cultural terrorism. Annika says: "I wanna play with the men" and she gets to, no questions asked. Can you imagine the brunt of pure cultural terrorism the men would have faced if they tried to stop her?

It is a crossroads in the gender equality lie. Sports make truth. If I take a man and put him against a woman in professional sports, the woman will lose every time. Even if the entire population of women on the planet managed to produced one freak of nature that could compete with men, that doesn't make the other 5.8 billion ravenous militant feminist fanatics qualified to do it.

It is all deception and terror against men. Any chick that wins a game of golf against Tiger Woods would be a mutant, a choas theory blip in the gender statistics.

My question is this--when will it end? Do women have to destroy everything men do so they feel better--so they can continue to perpetuate the lie of gender equality?

You know that if Annika qualified that day that feminazi groups from here to North Korea (their financiers) would demand every 300 pound hippo who claimed she could play golf would invade men's golfing everywhere, plastering their ugly, fat, Oreo-Cookie eating faces on TV and destroying the sport.

Personally I would like to see women play professional football with the men so they could all be taken out on stretchers after every game. That would be entertainment. There is nothing entertaining about women who get on TV playing sports and think they are men.

Women, to me, are people that you hug, get cozy with, fall in love and then complete the natural biological function. Hairy-legged brutes trying to act like men in various sports just doesn't turn me on.

Check out Ghenghis' avatar. Now that is my idea of women.

JK

[The Fool]

"so Jedi...Is the statement that men work 20-30 hours per week more than women a lie or ignorance?? Is the statement that men work 80 hours a week a lie or ignorance??"

Crickets still chirping..........

oh yea, you were asking me for a definition of socialism?

Thats not an easy question, there are many versions. I am not a socialist so its not something i am all that familiar with.

but here goes.

Socialism: Anything Jedi knight disagrees with.

Hows that?

[Flatworm]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight

Breast cancer has been hijacked by the radical leftist matriarchal totalitarians as a gender-specific cash-cow for medical research purposes.


I'd say a hundredfold diffirence in incidence rates makes it pretty darned gender-specific. If it weren't so gender-specific, the women's movement would certainly want to find a different cause célèbre.


The term "breast" can only mean something female when talking about medical conditions.


Yet there it is, on the web page of the American Cancer Society : Male Breast Cancer.


Also the '100 x' is fuzzy math. I can take any cancer population survey cluster and disprove that.


Please, by all means, go ahead and try. What are the real numbers, and where did you get them?


Many of the cancer statistics for breast cancer in women are taken from small benign cysts surgically removed and then categorized as "breast cancer" as well.


What is your evidence for this?


Go talk to any high school kid and ask them: "what is breast cancer"? 10 out of 10 will tell you: "it is a chick thing". Johnny student would get run out of school by those mad women if he ever dared say that men get it too.


Can you offer any support for this assertion, considering that the fact that men get breast cancer too (albeit in much smaller numbers) is openly proclaimed on the ACA's webpage?


That is what I am talking about--not the obvious fact that men do get breast cancer--but the effective propaganda that isolates breast cancer as an industry for women, like abortion is an industry, like divorce is an industry etc etc etc.


Is this the same propaganda that isolates arthritis and alzheimer's as an industry for seniors? Is it the same propaganda that isolates hair loss as an industry for men?

Face it, there is a significant gender differential in the incidence rate of breast cancer, so its greater importance to women is a natural consequence, not the result of a conspiracy.


When a culture cannot differentiate between the reality of disease (where disease is only microcosm gender specific), the outcome can lead to cultural terror and grand deception.


You still haven't answered my question: Who is claiming that breast cancer affects only women? The simple fact is that so few men get breast cancer that it isn't much of a concern for them. The same is not at all true for women. Where's the conspiracy?


I am merely pointing out, in a skeptical way, that breast cancer is not gender specific,


A hundredfold difference in incidence rates isn't gender-specific enough for you?

That said however, the benefits of that convenience are obvious, in a non-skeptical, profitable and power-grabbing tyrannical sort of way.

How? Do you actually think that if feminists started crying from the rooftops "Men get breast cancer, too!", then all the funding would be cut for breast cancer research? How would excluding men from the pool of potential victims procure more attention and funding? Do you actually think there's a conspiracy in breast cancer research whereby they want to find a cure, but only if no men will be cured?

[Gem]

Annika says: "I wanna play with the men" and she gets to, no questions asked.

Yeah, no questions. Just a lot of complaining from the men. Or do you think the men in the PGA were 100% ok with her playing the PGA?

Gem

[athon]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


You said that being a minority had nothing to do with being a minority but everything to do with being under-empowered. Ergo because Black South Africans are underempowered they were in the minority. Ergo Apartheid rule of South Africa was by the white majority government- so why impose sanctions on a democratic majority ruled country? (South Africa is 10% white)

OK, maybe I'm a little daft, but I fail to see how this challenges my definition of 'minority'. I agree with what you're saying - minority demographic ruling a minority in terms of empowerment. When we talk about 'minorities', rarely are we talking sociographic. We are referring to the impact they have on their own empowerment.

As for the sanctions, you state 'democratic' as if it the entire South African population voted for the white parties. From what I've read, this was far from the truth. A democratic government elected by a minority is not a democratic government, at least in my books.

I usually enjoy a good debate, but I'm lost to see here why idiots like JK, and people like you (usually your posts are rather intelligent Jon, what's happened?) don't see the logic in my definition of minority.

Athon

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by athon


OK, maybe I'm a little daft, but I fail to see how this challenges my definition of 'minority'. I agree with what you're saying - minority demographic ruling a minority in terms of empowerment. When we talk about 'minorities', rarely are we talking sociographic. We are referring to the impact they have on their own empowerment.

As for the sanctions, you state 'democratic' as if it the entire South African population voted for the white parties. From what I've read, this was far from the truth. A democratic government elected by a minority is not a democratic government, at least in my books.

I usually enjoy a good debate, but I'm lost to see here why idiots like JK, and people like you (usually your posts are rather intelligent Jon, what's happened?) don't see the logic in my definition of minority.

Athon

I am not going to step into the gutter with you with your name-calling you are doing now, but the truth is that you really do not have a grasp of what a minority is when thinking about policy issues like government.

South Africa has always maintained a majority black population and just because they were ruled by white Afrikaners doesn't mean they were in the minority. That is why the definition of aparteid was developed.

Now aparteid has nothing to do with tabulation like minority does. Aparteid has to do with racial segregation and political power. I am taking the time to explain this to you because it is important that you understand it.

When you talk about minority status you must use numbers in the equation, no matter what you are talking about. The word minority deals strictly with tabulation. Aparteid is racial segregation.

When you are talking about political power, you speak specifically about representation. Populations may be underrepresented, but they can also be majority populations. (ie..Serbs ruled by Austrio-Hungarians for example). The list of examples are endless. The word minority should not suffer the consequences of majority populations that fail to assert themselves in history. A minority is always a lesser number, unless we want to start wading into half-truths and deceptions. No matter how you use the word minority it must be used in this manner:

1. A lesser number

2. Racial, religious etc groups that differ from the larger group.

Notice how tabulation is the key to this word. The English language is pretty straight-forward but in the past decade or so folks have been chewing it up like an old piece of bubble gum to suit their own world-views.

On a global scale, white Europeans are the minority population. That is never peered into because the European global minority is wealthy and there is no justification in circles to study it.

In the United States, minority populations are all numerically less than majority populations--that is the trigger that categorizes those populations. The confusion comes into play when women latch onto the minority status of other minority groups since women are 52% of the population.

That confusion then spreads to every other special interest group imagineable whom all want their issue to be represented.

Now, getting back to South Africa as the example, when you can get past the fact that the black populations were the majority populations, then you can break it down and look at other facts at levels below the populations of the racial groups. Were blacks underrepresented in South Africa during aparteid? Of course. The racial segregation demanded it. So the blacks held minority status in political representation because the very definition of the system they lived in ensured it.

But they were not the minority population of the nation-state.

That is all I tried to say about the issue--completely sticking to the facts.

So I hear what you are trying to say but it is incorrect. There is no need to call Jon names or me names about it. Just ask us to explain it to you.

JK

[Aardvark_DK]

[lurk mode off]

Holy mackerel! I actually find myself agreeing with JK (about the whole minority thing, that is)! What is the world coming to?

And obviously if a woman is allowed to play in the men's golf tournament then men should be allowed to play in the women's golf tournament. Let's apply that to all sports and that'll be the end of female athletes.

I'm gonna miss women's tennis, though.


Edited to add parentheses - wouldn't want people to think that I agree with him about the Mars thing or, well, pretty much anything else.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK
[lurk mode off]

And obviously if a woman is allowed to play in the men's golf tournament then men should be allowed to play in the women's golf tournament. Let's apply that to all sports and that'll be the end of female athletes.



Actually, these majors are called "open" tournaments. What does that mean? well, If a tournament is titled a "seniors" tournament then it is only open to people over a certain age. If its titled a "womens tournament" it is only open to women. If it is an Amateur tournament...It is only open to Amateurs. If it was called a "mens" tournament it would only be open to men.

These are "open" tournaments

The term "open" in tournaments means it is open to all, as long as they qualify. In the case of these golf tournaments you have to meet some standard....Like prizemoney, victories in qualifying tournaments etc OR be invited by who ever is Authorised to invite people into the tournament. That is how Amateurs and old favourites and, yes, even women get in. Having testicles is not required.

I don't see anyone throwing thier hands in the air and claiming this means Pro's should be able to play in amateur tournaments because amateurs are allowed into the "Pro" tournaments.

They are not "Pro" tournaments, they are open tournaments.

I don't see anyone saying young golfers should be able to play in Seniors tournaments because seniors are allowed in "young" tournaments.

They are not "young" tournaments they are open tournaments.

Yet many people will say that men should be able to play in womens tournaments if women are allowed into "Mens" tournaments.

They are not "mens" tournaments they are open tournaments.


These invitations into opens can be given to anybody. Its always been that way, as this current situation demonstrates. I could play in an open if I was invited, so could My wife...So could Annika, thats how she got in.

So once again, lets all say this together....these are OPEN tournaments not MENS tournaments....If you want "mens" tournaments then organise some.... Its a free country.

Otherwise, stop complaining when eligible people play. OK?

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by The Fool
So once again, lets all say this together....these are OPEN tournaments not MENS tournaments....If you want "mens" tournaments then organise some.... Its a free country.
My bad. Sorry. I plead ignorance of golf tournaments.

[athon]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


When you are talking about political power, you speak specifically about representation. Populations may be underrepresented, but they can also be majority populations. (ie..Serbs ruled by Austrio-Hungarians for example). The list of examples are endless. The word minority should not suffer the consequences of majority populations that fail to assert themselves in history. A minority is always a lesser number, unless we want to start wading into half-truths and deceptions. No matter how you use the word minority it must be used in this manner:




Point taken insofar as I should not have stooped to name-calling - I should have berated your argument as idiotic - I have no idea of whether you are an idiot or not.

Firstly, the whole apartheid argument is moot - I was not using it as an example, but rather Jon brought it up to use as an example to argue my definition of a minority rule. I was making the statement that minority, as far as a definition goes in socio-political terms, refers to the amount of expression a group has in determining its government.

Period! Apartheid was a government policy designed with an intention to encourage specific demographics to develop along specific paths (i.e. each treated according to their needs - who decided what those 'needs' was where the controversy lay), not a definition of minority rule.

Your waffling and condescending expression goes further to show that you do more ranting than reading. I have not commented on the subject at large (women in sports etc.) because they are many issues covering many areas, not a single issue with a single cause. I simply gave the definition used in sociology.

I still stand by the argument that when we talk about a group of people as a minority, we talk about their impact on a population's government. The blacks were a minority because of their expression in South African government (to address Jon's example). This is regardless of the government's impact through policies such as apartheid. They are still a minority in terms of rule.

You bring up pointless statements like tabulation of numbers etc. It is really semiotics here - what do you take 'minority' to mean? You take it to mean the smaller number in a total population. Fine, but then you use arguments to suggest that it is unfair that they impact on policy making and social direction. So, you are crossing definitions. You take the denotative meaning which gives a false meaning. Who cares if there are fifty million of one race and three of another? If the three rule, and the fifty-million don't, the fifty-million are a minority as far as impact goes. And when they talk about minorities in socio-politics, they are talking about the impact a demographic has on their governed state.

I don't know what the fuss is about. You've taken a literal translation of a term that has a different connotation. The English language is not straight forward, and it takes an understanding of the context to see the real meanings. Something which, sorry to say, you've missed.

Athon

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

My bad. Sorry. I plead ignorance of golf tournaments.
I wasn't having a go at you specifically, Its a common perception. Because people watch these tournaments and nearly always see men they assume that they are "men only".

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by athon
Point taken insofar as I should not have stooped to name-calling - I should have berated your argument as idiotic - I have no idea of whether you are an idiot or not.

Then why even use the perjorative to begin with? You were lashing out--we are all guilty of that at one time or another but it is best if we move past the name calling.

Firstly, the whole apartheid argument is moot - I was not using it as an example, but rather Jon brought it up to use as an example to argue my definition of a minority rule. I was making the statement that minority, as far as a definition goes in socio-political terms, refers to the amount of expression a group has in determining its government.

You are wrong. I explained this very articulately above and you aren't getting it. A majority population may have minority representation in the government power structure that governs them, but they are still a majority. If all the whites in America get added up by the 5 year census and then claim they are a 'minority' population in the US, are they? Hell no. If all the blacks were added up in South Africa, are they a minority population? No. The word 'minority' doesn't change just because leftists in public schools have subverted it with 1960's-era affinity group logic.

If you are going to use 'minority', you have to first look at the population you are describing for tabulation and then determine representation. That is all I am saying. Minority means numbers.

I take it that you are not well-traveled. The United States public school system is infamous for making blanket statements about minorities insofar that anyone who is a non-white (especially females) is a minority globally. That is the greatest deception racket of our nation's young minds going.

The United States and some European nation-states are the only chunks of land on Earth that have white majority populations. The rest of the world is clearly and decisively a majority non-white population--overwhelmingly so statistically.

Period! Apartheid was a government policy designed with an intention to encourage specific demographics to develop along specific paths (i.e. each treated according to their needs - who decided what those 'needs' was where the controversy lay), not a definition of minority rule.

You ignored the articulate explanation I gave you about aparteid in my reply to you above this post. Aparteid has nothing to do with tabulation and everything to do with racial segregation.

Your waffling and condescending expression goes further to show that you do more ranting than reading. I have not commented on the subject at large (women in sports etc.) because they are many issues covering many areas, not a single issue with a single cause. I simply gave the definition used in sociology.

Ah, I get it now. Your ego is driving you to ignore the information I provided to you in the post above because you think it is "condescending". Well, I really don't know what to say about that other than you need to have a thicker skin if you are going to debate intellectuals like me. I don't care if you like me or not--I am not debating you as part of a popularity contest. You throw bad information out there I will correct it.

I still stand by the argument that when we talk about a group of people as a minority, we talk about their impact on a population's government. The blacks were a minority because of their expression in South African government (to address Jon's example). This is regardless of the government's impact through policies such as apartheid. They are still a minority in terms of rule.

They had minority representation in government because they lived under a political ideology of aparteid (racial segregation). The black populations in South Africa were never a minority population during the aparteid years. You are confused about that and you need to put your emotions aside and look at it as a scientist and a skeptic, rather than a pseudo-outlook.

You bring up pointless statements like tabulation of numbers etc. It is really semiotics here - what do you take 'minority' to mean? You take it to mean the smaller number in a total population. Fine, but then you use arguments to suggest that it is unfair that they impact on policy making and social direction. So, you are crossing definitions. You take the denotative meaning which gives a false meaning. Who cares if there are fifty million of one race and three of another? If the three rule, and the fifty-million don't, the fifty-million are a minority as far as impact goes. And when they talk about minorities in socio-politics, they are talking about the impact a demographic has on their governed state.

You are being tedious and you aren't going to change truth. If you have a nation-state where 50 million people live and they are of the same race and 3 are not and lead the 50 million, the 50 million are still the majority population.

You have to get away from the leftist brain-washing of these matters by US public schools. Just because a person is 'black' doesn't mean that they are a minority no matter where they live. Think about how you have fallen into an intellectual trap in agreeing that they are. It is a lie. It is the propaganda fed to you from leftists. Did blacks have less representation in South Africa under aparteid? You bet they did because that is what aparteid is. Were they minority populations? No way.

I don't know what the fuss is about. You've taken a literal translation of a term that has a different connotation. The English language is not straight forward, and it takes an understanding of the context to see the real meanings. Something which, sorry to say, you've missed.

You are being sophomoric and are whining. Look at the facts I have presented you and if you disagree you may not be intellectually salvageable. That is a shame too because you seem to have potential to debate these matters.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Athon, are women a 'minority' in the United States?

JK

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Originally posted by athon
[B]You are being sophomoric and are whining. Look at the facts I have presented you and if you disagree you may not be intellectually salvageable. That is a shame too because you seem to have potential to debate these matters.

JK
Look at the facts?
here is an example of a "Fact" you presented in this thread.


Men average 20-30 hours more work per week than women do in the workplace. If women worked 80 hours per week like men do, they would make the same amount of money as men if not more.


These figures are rubbish. I have asked you to support them a number of times and you seem to think that ignoring it will make your problem go away.

It amazes me that you would talk about someones "potential to debate". How do you expect people to participate in debate topics with you when you are so willing to simply manufacture figures whenever you choose. By default I assume any statistic you now quote is false, is this an unfair assumption? Do you ever wonder why most of your threads degenerate into "lets laugh at Jedi and the wacky things he invents".

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool

Look at the facts?
here is an example of a "Fact" you presented in this thread.


Men average 20-30 hours more work per week than women do in the workplace. If women worked 80 hours per week like men do, they would make the same amount of money as men if not more.


These figures are rubbish. I have asked you to support them a number of times and you seem to think that ignoring it will make your problem go away.

It amazes me that you would talk about someones "potential to debate". How do you expect people to participate in debate topics with you when you are so willing to simply manufacture figures whenever you choose. By default I assume any statistic you now quote is false, is this an unfair assumption? Do you ever wonder why most of your threads degenerate into "lets laugh at Jedi and the wacky things he invents".

Men work more hours per week on average than women do. That is why the pay differential between men and women is different. What you are pushing is feminist myth of pay inequality.

JK

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Men work more hours per week on average than women do. That is why the pay differential between men and women is different. What you are pushing is feminist myth of pay inequality.

JK

Look, Jedi, some women are just bastards, maybe your mother was. Not all of them are, so let's just get over this concept of women being expected to be perfect. They aren't, they never will be. Nor will men. We are all fallible. On the whole, more men a violent than women, women are better at psychological torture than men. It is pretty simple, really.

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Men work more hours per week on average than women do.

I do not challange that statement. But it wasn't what you said Again I ask...is the 20-30 hours per week you claim a "fact" Is your statement that men work 80 hours per week a "fact"?

That is why the pay differential between men and women is different.

Is it? Are you saying it is the only factor? What about people who work on an hourly rate....or people on a fixed working week. Are you claiming that there is no difference in rates of pay between men and women where the working hours are identical or if the pay is a "per hour" rate?



What you are pushing is feminist myth of pay inequality.

No, what I am "pushing" is that you manufacture facts to support your arguments and when challenged you either ignore what you have posted, use a straw man or change the subject....as you have just demonstrated in this post. I have never mentioned Pay, I was talking about your claim regarding hours of work, you have introduced the pay rate issue as an attempt to muddy the waters.

Lets stick to the subject of my challenge to you, specifically, the "facts" you presented

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool


Women work less hours than men do. That is the only fact that I have discussed relating to that topic.

Work less = less money.

Not paid less.

JK

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Women work less hours than men do. That is the only fact that I have discussed relating to that topic.

Work less = less money.

Not paid less.

JK
well, if you want to add another "fact" (that the only difference in male and female earnings is due to the number of hours worked) it will have to join the cue. I'll demolish that one after we've dealt with your first 2 "facts".



JK, If you have no intention of answering my question then just say so, I don't want to waste both our time.

Was your statement that men work 20-30 hours a week more than women a "fact" or did you make it up?

Was your statement that men work 80 hours per week a "Fact" or did you make it up.

It is you that are making the big deal over people not paying attention to the "facts" you present....well, here I am. I'm being very attentive. so what about it? Do you stand by your "facts" or go missing in action?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool

well, if you want to add another "fact" (that the only difference in male and female earnings is due to the number of hours worked) it will have to join the cue. I'll demolish that one after we've dealt with your first 2 "facts".



JK, If you have no intention of answering my question then just say so, I don't want to waste both our time.

Was your statement that men work 20-30 hours a week more than women a "fact" or did you make it up?

Was your statement that men work 80 hours per week a "Fact" or did you make it up.

It is you that are making the big deal over people not paying attention to the "facts" you present....well, here I am. I'm being very attentive. so what about it? Do you stand by your "facts" or go missing in action?

I would even go as far as saying men work up to 20 - 40 hours more per week.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Fool, you need to read "The Myth of Male Power" by Warren Farrell; ISBN: 0425181448.

It will be your first step in recognizing feminist myths.

JK

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I would even go as far as saying men work up to 20 - 40 hours more per week.

JK
I'm sure you would, unfotunately, that statement is also wrong. But look, I'm going to leave it at that, repeating the question for you to ignore is pointless. You have obviously gone missing in action on this. You really need to review your policy of manufacturing statistics, It does your credibility no good at all.

And as for the book you cite. Does the author share your definition of "fact"? ie....pick a number between 1 and 100 then claim it is a statistic that supports your argument?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by The Fool

I'm sure you would, unfotunately, that statement is also wrong. But look, I'm going to leave it at that, repeating the question for you to ignore is pointless. You have obviously gone missing in action on this. You really need to review your policy of manufacturing statistics, It does your credibility no good at all.

And as for the book you cite. Does the author share your definition of "fact"? ie....pick a number between 1 and 100 then claim it is a statistic that supports your argument?

So are you saying women work more hours than men? That is what is being debated.

Women make up 52% of the US population. You think of them as a 'minority' population in the workplace being discriminated against pay-wise in their employment. I do not.

If men work more hours than women, which they do as proven statistically, are women paid less because of evil conspiring men, or are men simply working harder?

The men are working harder. In that book I listed for you it explains it pretty well the difference between men and women in the workplace, the risks involved for both genders (where men are involved in much more dangerous employment) and pay equity. Buy the book and read about it.

Men die in the workplace everyday in numbers equivalent to those during the peak of the Vietnam War. Women do not.

Anything to the contrary is feminist myth, and those myths have permeated people's minds through the media and leftist schools.

Some studies say men work 9 hours more per week, some say men work 20 hours more per week. You latched onto a study you think works for you and I latched onto one I think works for me regarding the truth. None of those studies change the fact, however, that men work more than women and that is why they are paid more, statistically, albeit 9 hours, 20, 30, 50 or 100.

JK

[Aardvark_DK]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
You latched onto a study you think works for you and I latched onto one I think works for me regarding the truth.
I don't mean to nitpick but could you point to the study that you "latched onto"?

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Take healthcare for women, for example. More money is spent on healthcare for women than all other "groups" in the United States combined. Hospitals have entire departments devoted to women, many in the "let's do it for the children" psychological operations setting. It is simply astonishing how the matriarchal cultural terrorism in this country surges unabated.


Without having read any of the posts in this thread, I'll contribute this (which may have already been stated):

Most hospitals would undoubtedly have an entire department devoted to women; it's called the Obstetrics department, and it's where women give birth, as well as receive pre- and post-natal care. Women can't exactly go to the Surgery or Radiology departments to give birth, and men have no need to go to the Obstetrics department, since they don't get pregnant. :D

[DavidJames]

"So are you saying women work more hours than men? That is what is being debated"

May I suggest:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0439542588/qid=1054504931/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/002-0059914-8607245

:)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Aardvark_DK

I don't mean to nitpick but could you point to the study that you "latched onto"?
most unlikely....

[athon]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Originally posted by athon
You are being sophomoric and are whining. Look at the facts I have presented you and if you disagree you may not be intellectually salvageable. That is a shame too because you seem to have potential to debate these matters.

JK

I was going to go point by point and counter argue, but when I read this, I saw that it would be senseless to try. I haven't whined at all - if you would spend a moment to try to see what the argument is, you would understand that the point of contention here is the use of the term in way of context.

As for being well-travelled, or arguing about the apartheid (I didn't ignore your post - I just didn't agree that the apartheid had a place in your argument), or accusing me of being emotional, they are all condescending statements that do nothing to support your point of view. The bottom line is that our definitions differ, and you are applying your definition in a way that confuses the issue.

Yes, minority can indeed refer to the numbers in a population. If I were to take a pod of whales, and see that there are three females and twenty males, then females are in the minority. That would be useful if exploring the effect of sex ratio on birth-rate, for instance.

However, when we argue it in terms of empowerment, which is what we are looking at here (the influence a minority has on decision making and the positions of power in a society) the definition of 'minority' refers to who has that empowerment.

I thought it was an important distinction. Is it lost on you? Perhaps. It's not that I don't see your point of view, I just think that you don't understand the context.

I think I'll leave this one as a 'agree to disagree', mainly because neither one of us can give more evidence to support our point, and it is now just an argument of semiotics.

If you weren't so pompous about it, JK, I might actually take your criticisms constructively as I usually do.

Athon

[Dancing David]

Athon, you might as well ask the peacock to give up his feathers as try to engage JK in debate, he usually only responds when you key into his polemic, this thread of his has more merit than most. Witness:

HEY JK: what proof do you have that male on female domestic violence is a myth? Any way you would care to counter the fact that men are charged with domestic battery every year? How does that fit you fact that domestic battery doesn't exist, and that there are no 'battered' women in the USA. Do you think that all those law enforcement officials are deluded?

I predict:
A. JK will ingnore this post.
B. Jk will spout his rhetoric about the matriarchal terrorists.
C. JK will make his deluded claim that there are no battered women in the USA
D. JK will bring up a side issue unrelated to domestic battery.

Per past behavior JK will do any of the above, but he will not admit that there are battered women in the USA nor will he cite any statistics to prove that there aren't.

Peace
PS JK I think this has been the best thread I have seen you write in.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by athon


I was going to go point by point and counter argue, but when I read this, I saw that it would be senseless to try. I haven't whined at all - if you would spend a moment to try to see what the argument is, you would understand that the point of contention here is the use of the term in way of context.

As for being well-travelled, or arguing about the apartheid (I didn't ignore your post - I just didn't agree that the apartheid had a place in your argument), or accusing me of being emotional, they are all condescending statements that do nothing to support your point of view. The bottom line is that our definitions differ, and you are applying your definition in a way that confuses the issue.

Yes, minority can indeed refer to the numbers in a population. If I were to take a pod of whales, and see that there are three females and twenty males, then females are in the minority. That would be useful if exploring the effect of sex ratio on birth-rate, for instance.

However, when we argue it in terms of empowerment, which is what we are looking at here (the influence a minority has on decision making and the positions of power in a society) the definition of 'minority' refers to who has that empowerment.

I thought it was an important distinction. Is it lost on you? Perhaps. It's not that I don't see your point of view, I just think that you don't understand the context.

I think I'll leave this one as a 'agree to disagree', mainly because neither one of us can give more evidence to support our point, and it is now just an argument of semiotics.

If you weren't so pompous about it, JK, I might actually take your criticisms constructively as I usually do.

Athon

The problem, Athon, is that you are Americanizing 'minority'. We all know blacks are a minority in the United States because the population of blacks is only 12% of the national population. So yes, they are a minority population seeking empowerment.

Politics is the conflict over limited resources. That is all that politics is.

Now, any group that wants its way is not a minority group. Any group that is 'seeking empowerment' is not a minority group. It could very well be a majority. Take women's groups, for example. Women are the majority population in the United States (at 52%) and yet the country has been conditioned to believe they are a fragile minority worthy of more flexibility than blacks or other minorities. That is what I am talking about and what the definitions of the terms really mean. It also exposes the flaw of your argument and I was just pointing it out.

The word 'minority' has a very specific definition. There are no alternates. Minority deals with tabulation.

Aparteid deals with racial segregation.

I will keep coming back to remind you if you persist in destroying the English language.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Dancing David
Athon, you might as well ask the peacock to give up his feathers as try to engage JK in debate, he usually only responds when you key into his polemic, this thread of his has more merit than most. Witness:

HEY JK: what proof do you have that male on female domestic violence is a myth? Any way you would care to counter the fact that men are charged with domestic battery every year? How does that fit you fact that domestic battery doesn't exist, and that there are no 'battered' women in the USA. Do you think that all those law enforcement officials are deluded?

I predict:
A. JK will ingnore this post.
B. Jk will spout his rhetoric about the matriarchal terrorists.
C. JK will make his deluded claim that there are no battered women in the USA
D. JK will bring up a side issue unrelated to domestic battery.

Per past behavior JK will do any of the above, but he will not admit that there are battered women in the USA nor will he cite any statistics to prove that there aren't.

Peace
PS JK I think this has been the best thread I have seen you write in.

We have debated this extensively in another thread. The point I argued is that there is no gender advantage as a 'victim' regarding domestic violence, statistically. That said, women use so-called domestic violence as a vehicle to attack men regularly in such a way that all women are victims and all men are initiators.

Domestic violence is a blended-gender activity, an expression of equality in a negative way.

JK

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


We have debated this extensively in another thread. The point I argued is that there is no gender advantage as a 'victim' regarding domestic violence, statistically. That said, women use so-called domestic violence as a vehicle to attack men regularly in such a way that all women are victims and all men are initiators.

Domestic violence is a blended-gender activity, an expression of equality in a negative way.

JK

I stand corrected, I will now have my humble pie.

I think you will find that women are charged with domestic battery, and that women are the recipients of orders of protection. It just happens that the numbers of perpetrators are men.

Does that bother you JK? If you ever worked at a matriarchal vision center (what you called a DV shelter), then you would realisde that most victims have no desire to get ven with thier perpetrators, just to get away from them safely is usually enough. I know of no cases where a woman has come to our shelter just to get even with her abuser.

Does it bother you that men just happen to commit more physical domestic violence than men?

Thank You for this conversation, I have to agree with some of what you say, I think women should have to meet the same standards as men for getting into the armed forces.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Dancing David


I stand corrected, I will now have my humble pie.

I think you will find that women are charged with domestic battery, and that women are the recipients of orders of protection. It just happens that the numbers of perpetrators are men.

Does that bother you JK? If you ever worked at a matriarchal vision center (what you called a DV shelter), then you would realisde that most victims have no desire to get ven with thier perpetrators, just to get away from them safely is usually enough. I know of no cases where a woman has come to our shelter just to get even with her abuser.

Does it bother you that men just happen to commit more physical domestic violence than men?

Thank You for this conversation, I have to agree with some of what you say, I think women should have to meet the same standards as men for getting into the armed forces.

Men are taught since youth to 'take it'. That is why you don't see hoards of men forming their own domestic abuse shelters to protect them from predatory female abusers.

The domestic abuse lie is just another layer of lies pushed by feminists of all shapes and sizes. (male feminists too)

So just because you work in a 'shelter' where you see nothing but women and listen to their problems as seen through their eyes, there are perhaps 100's of men to each one of those women you see who don't seek help from their sociopathological female spouses or girlfriends or whatever relationship they have considering the definition of relationship is whatever the radical left wants it to be on a given day.

JK

[athon]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The problem, Athon, is that you are Americanizing 'minority'. We all know blacks are a minority in the United States because the population of blacks is only 12% of the national population. So yes, they are a minority population seeking empowerment.

Politics is the conflict over limited resources. That is all that politics is.

Now, any group that wants its way is not a minority group. Any group that is 'seeking empowerment' is not a minority group. It could very well be a majority. Take women's groups, for example. Women are the majority population in the United States (at 52%) and yet the country has been conditioned to believe they are a fragile minority worthy of more flexibility than blacks or other minorities. That is what I am talking about and what the definitions of the terms really mean. It also exposes the flaw of your argument and I was just pointing it out.

The word 'minority' has a very specific definition. There are no alternates. Minority deals with tabulation.

Aparteid deals with racial segregation.

I will keep coming back to remind you if you persist in destroying the English language.

JK

Hehe, this would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Where, can I ask, do you get this definition from? You are talking from professional experience? Having studied sociology? If so, I put it down to perhaps a difference in what we were taught.

Much of my past study has been on the semiotics of science and the effect of language on the media and on society. I've come across a lot of texts on sociology and the effect of minorities. In most of what I've read, minority in the context you are using it has little to do with the direct percentage of a population, because (as I've said) it gives an illusion of power where there is none.

You sound a lot like those who would swear that literacy is all about reading and writing (my god, I've had some arguments with educators about that one), or that language is only ever verbal. Just because a term is used in a common way does not mean it has only that meaning, and only that context. Jargon is an annoying thing, I know, but it has its uses.

JK, I'm willing to see where you're coming from, and in case you haven't noticed, I haven't commented on any of your other opinions. They all seem to echo one who has a little information, but can't see the big picture. That's cool - I was only pointing out a small error in how you interpreted a basic definition. You're entitled to the rest of your thoughts.

Just calm the arrogance down. You might actually learn something.

Athon

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by athon


Hehe, this would be funny if it weren't so tragic. Where, can I ask, do you get this definition from? You are talking from professional experience? Having studied sociology? If so, I put it down to perhaps a difference in what we were taught.

Much of my past study has been on the semiotics of science and the effect of language on the media and on society. I've come across a lot of texts on sociology and the effect of minorities. In most of what I've read, minority in the context you are using it has little to do with the direct percentage of a population, because (as I've said) it gives an illusion of power where there is none.

You sound a lot like those who would swear that literacy is all about reading and writing (my god, I've had some arguments with educators about that one), or that language is only ever verbal. Just because a term is used in a common way does not mean it has only that meaning, and only that context. Jargon is an annoying thing, I know, but it has its uses.

JK, I'm willing to see where you're coming from, and in case you haven't noticed, I haven't commented on any of your other opinions. They all seem to echo one who has a little information, but can't see the big picture. That's cool - I was only pointing out a small error in how you interpreted a basic definition. You're entitled to the rest of your thoughts.

Just calm the arrogance down. You might actually learn something.

Athon

You talk like someone that only has 1/2 an education and that is the problem, not the information that I have presented to counter your misconceptions on how to use the term 'minority'. Reading your position it is clear that your thinking has been poisoned by activist leftism and that is a drawback for you. Look how you cling to the same tired leftist understanding of certain english words:

If so, I put it down to perhaps a difference in what we were taught

That is the problem. You were taught that english words mean things they do not. To confirm, read what you said below.

In most of what I've read, minority in the context you are using it has little to do with the direct percentage of a population, because (as I've said) it gives an illusion of power where there is none.

An amateurish position on your part. When there is aparteid rule, there is racial segregation. One race is going to have power in aparteid. The minority definition isn't even needed. You can't get past your leftist brainwashed "empowerment" bumper-sticker logic to see it. It just so happens that the true 'minority' in South Africa during aparteid was the white ruling class Afrikaners. That is what is baking your noodle and you can't get past it. You see all blacks as 'minorities' because that is what you were taught in school. What you were taught is not valid information.

Then you said:

You sound a lot like those who would swear that literacy is all about reading and writing (my god, I've had some arguments with educators about that one), or that language is only ever verbal. Just because a term is used in a common way does not mean it has only that meaning, and only that context. Jargon is an annoying thing, I know, but it has its uses.

Literacy is alll about reading and writing and understanding the language. If you don't know what words mean in the English language, how can you communicate with anyone?

Then you said:

JK, I'm willing to see where you're coming from, and in case you haven't noticed, I haven't commented on any of your other opinions. They all seem to echo one who has a little information, but can't see the big picture.

You can't comment on my facts because they rail against the lies you were taught in school and the destruction of the English language you regularly persist in pushing on others. Don't get angry with me about it. I see the 'big picture'. Leftist public schools have destroyed perhaps two generations of impressionable young minds in the United States. Go to a real school and get your thinking straightened out.

JK

[athon]

Sorry JK. When you start using the 'leftist conspiracy' arguments, I can't fight against that. It's like saying 'you've been brainwashed to believe that'. Well, I could counter the same, and where would that leave us?

I don't know where you get the idea that I'm angry. I initially thought you had studied this area, from one or two of the words you used, and I corrected you, thinking you had made a common error (that many make). Now I see that you have moulded the whole idea to fit your conspiracy-theorist view of the world.

Cool with me. At least I feel comforted by the fact that few people could take your ideas seriously.

Athon
(BTW, I don't know the intricacies of US culture, having not lived there, but in Australia - where I've done most of my study - the truth is this country - (in particular its education system) - is mostly right wing by nature. So if anything, I should technically be brianwashed as being rather conservative. This is afterall Pauline Hanson country)

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Men are taught since youth to 'take it'. That is why you don't see hoards of men forming their own domestic abuse shelters to protect them from predatory female abusers.

The domestic abuse lie is just another layer of lies pushed by feminists of all shapes and sizes. (male feminists too)

So just because you work in a 'shelter' where you see nothing but women and listen to their problems as seen through their eyes, there are perhaps 100's of men to each one of those women you see who don't seek help from their sociopathological female spouses or girlfriends or whatever relationship they have considering the definition of relationship is whatever the radical left wants it to be on a given day.

JK

A. This just shows the depth of your lack of knowledge JK, the reason that men don't use shelters is socio-economic.

B. How is domestic abuse a lie? Are you again saying that all the law enforcement officials are liars, they lie down thier lives for our society and you dare to call them liars. Shame on you.

C. Again you are just showing your lack of knowledge, men do acsess and use the domestic violence laws and services.

Why do you spout this crap JK, is is true that men are more likely to commit domestic abuse, why do you have aproblem with that. Are you a man, do you ever confrony jerks when they dominate thier wifes/girlfriends.

No one in the DV movement who isn't a radical feminist says that men can't be victims.

Men for cultural reasons have a higher chance of leaving a bad relationship, they are more likely to be victims of emotional abuse(personal opinion).

Why so hateful JK, you must be Sith, you have too much pain in your soul.