Theaters also used to have "crying rooms", an enclosed room in the theater with windows facing the screen and a speaker so mothers could hear and watch the movie while they changed and fed their crying babies so it wouldn't bother the rest of the audience.
Or tax dollars now pay for "colleges" to have cry spaces and coloring books for those offended...
Can I be offended that your offended that I'm offended that your offended that I'm offended that your offended that I be offended that your offended that I'm offended that your offended that I'm offended that your offended.........................................................................................
[ - ] HughBriss 1 point 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 22:44:16 ago (+1/-0)
You're drunk. Go to sleep. It will be better in the morning. Then, when you wake up and you decide to comment, you can be sober and perhaps be more certain that you're commenting on the topic.
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 22:47:31 ago (+1/-0)
That's exactly what I was thinking. After all of this equality talk I've had to listen to for years, they are confirming they want equal pay to literally do less work. I'm going to guess they want this in addition to regular PTO. Exactly how many days will menstrual leave entail I wonder...it's fairly unreal that this particular company's policy involves 'as much time as needed'. So are we talking two days? Five days? If this is a monthly recurrence, that is a significant amount of time off the job. If she is still expected to work from home, that might alleviate some of this absurdity, given many jobs have gone remote, but common sense tells us that even if this is the case, in practice the expectations for her during that time won't be anything close to what they are for men (working remotely or otherwise).
If you add all of this to the ordinary special treatment women often get on the job already, it would be hard to explain why male workers wouldn't be protesting this. Having worked in many co-ed job environments, I've seen no end to the special treatment afforded to women in the workplace, particularly moms.
"My daughter has soccer games on Tuesdays and Thursdays. I was wondering if I could cut out 45 minutes early. She would be crushed, and she needs a ride home."
"It's cold and raining out there. I can't get sick and take that home. I have a third grader."
"These are too heavy. You can't expect women to work in this department." The same woman: "When X is done with his, can you send him over here to Y department to help catch us up?"
Its important to remember that this didnt happen because women demanded it. This happened because some woke hr type pushed it through and women wont object because its good for them.
But we can now just ask what differentiates this HR person from the women who did not object to the special treatment.
First of all, was the HR person a woman? Maybe, maybe not. Common sense says she was. Not only is HR skewed in terms of employment for women, but I just highly doubt that a male HR executive is dying to give female employees monthly, indefinitely long amounts of time off work.
Next, if the women at the ground level feel good about the change (it benefits them), such that they won't speak out against it, then if these women are presumed to be working for the purpose of promotion (like anybody else, and mind you, in a company demonstrating some favoritism as it stands), do we think that those women would not pursue more female-centric policy should they achieve the relevant roles within the company?
Whether the demand was a priori is really not relevant; once it has become a part of culture at this company, two things happen. One, there is an expectation set within the company. Once such ground is gained, the real furor would erupt once it was later attempted to take it away. Two, if the precedent takes hold in one company within an industry, woke people in other companies are bound to hear word of this. Female employees of this second company might now be primed to think they too deserve this treatment if it can be done viably elsewhere. Else, their own company is being sexist if it is not complying with the highest standards of female treatment, the precedent for which was set elsewhere.
But we can now just ask what differentiates this HR person from the women who did not object to the special treatment.
Did men speak out when porn was legalized and mainstreamed? Did old people speak out against SS and meidicare? Did farmers speak out when cheap beaner labor was legitimized. Is that who was leading these shifts? Blue collar members of the teamsters?
The role of bureacracy is to share accurate economic/cultural/moral information between groups of workers to improve efficiency, and it is itself pure overhead and wasteful if it is not value added. Corrupt bureacracies sow disinformation to empower themselves and enslave workers. They intentionally destroy good economic information to pander to special interests. This comes in the form of easing negative consequences of underperformance. Which appeals to everyone at some point. And jewish narratives will smooth the way for a lack of accountability. When a short term benefit is given to you people tend to take it, especially when the decision is “above my pay grade” and a plausible justification is offered. Nobody objects to the destruction of economic consequences when it benefits them. And so the cycle of pandering continues. Eventually the only people benefiting are the people who really most heavily on opportunistic strategies, ie bureacrats. Then productive people stop working and even the bureaucrats go broke. Parasitic behaviors only have big pay offs when there are productive “suckers” to exploit.
As Ive said before, moral standards can be thought of as economically efficient behavior. Evolution predicts that organisms will tend to exploit new opportunities for survival including living off of other species, living off their own species using deception, violence etc. I can name hundreds of instances in which men accept an opportunity in which they benefit at another persons expense dishonestly. It isnt a male or female thing. The point is to pursue a policy of radical truth with respect to economic productivity, favoring high compensation for jobs with work products that are objectively valuable, and low compensation for jobs with more subjective value (all bureacratic jobs). Many women are making money off highly subsidized jobs like HR work. Women can be productive in some jobs that can be objectively valued. So let them.
The other side of this coin is preventing employers from becoming to exploitive. That can be done too but I wont bore you with the details here.
Did men speak out when porn was legalized and mainstreamed?
Was the distribution of legalized porn an example of a gender-specific award to men, that women couldn't access, and which directly caused a male situation to be better 'dollar for dollar' than women's simultaneously?
Did old people speak out against SS and medicare?
This is also different. The benefits discussed in my comment and the OP are time-sensitive in a way that SS is not. SS is frontloaded by the taxes of the young and working, for the sake of the old and with the explicit promise that when the young grow old, their contributions will be repaid and then some. A person who earns $60k per year under the current system for 37 years, retiring at full retirement age, will probably generate around $200k for the fund, and will collect (if they live until 90, say) three times that amount.
There are problems with the system obviously. In principle, I consider it the best of the socialized entitlements that exist; we run into problems with any centralized form of financial care. I digress.
Your second paragraph deals with economic concerns and bureaucracies subsidizing the underperformance of groups with whom they have special relationships. I agree it is a problem, but I don't think it is particularly relevant to the situation we were discussing.
An HR executive, who is female, is not an elected official; nor does she form special economic relations with the female employees of the company she works for. I mean, are we really imagining that women in the workplace are systematically lobbying the female HR exec to get these 'menstrual privileges'? Sliding her money under the door? No, we're talking about ideological wokeness that the liberal executive uses for her own personal gain, for the moral virtue that a particular kind of culture seeks to elevate into positions of power, and where she is confined by her own ideology to actively pushing these kinds of changes in ANY institution for the sake of the god of Equity.
This is why such an ideology can be weaponized regardless of gender or race. There is no special relationship the women in that workplace require with the woke HR executive. The HR executive will, for her own interests, attempt to convince the female worker population about their victimhood, selling them on an illusory problem and galvanizing their revolutionary spirit. Now, I'll grant that if she is successful, then she will establish a privileged relationship between herself and the victim group so as to form a kind of dependence that garners her independent power within the company (since she is now the quasi-union leader of the victim class she created). This is how the revolution works to disrupt the hierarchy.
I can name hundreds of instances in which men accept an opportunity in which they benefit at another persons expense dishonestly.
I see that you included the 'dishonestly' qualifier at the end, but let's ignore it for a moment. Are we talking about individuals or classes of people? Do you know of instances where men as a class, as in every male employee in a company, accepted some new provision that advantaged them significantly and without exception over every member of the class women in the same company? I mean in objective, straightforward ways, i.e. paid time off from the job that women couldn't possibly access?
Unequal outcomes are not the problem. There are cases where a person accepts opportunities not available to others, and this is totally justified. The individual merited it in other words. Nobody can be faulted for accepting a promotion, for example. A properly functioning hierarchy necessarily rewards some and not others, with more and more privilege the higher you go.
I think you are confusing the vertical direction here with the horizontal one. A policy of 'radical truth with respect to economic productivity' is just what a proper hierarchy should be, elevating the reward for the highest value members. But nothing in the OP described the situation as one where the female privilege was also identical to being somewhere in the hierarchy of reward. It was universal. It applied horizontally.
Take whatever level of the hierarchy you like, productive or less productive levels. Within that level that features people on a relative par with one another in terms of workload and compensation, the policy described in the OP is granting horizontally-distributed privilege to the women as a class, and not to men.
This is not based on merit. It's based on sex.
The difference between men and women in the horizontal direction is what creates the opportunity for the kind of revolutionizing I discussed above, the ability for the snakes to do the dividing. It's almost like man and woman separated their activities categorically in the past because that separation made their organization in male-female pairs less vulnerable and more efficient. Men and women are equipped in the evolutionary sense for one-to-one competition, which is to say competition between one male and one female in the sexual (and marital) relationship. Observe the dynamic between husband and wife in any home, and this becomes clear.
Men and women are not equipped by evolution for class-level competition between males and females as exclusive social groups. This instability of these mixed-gender egalitarian workspaces is an engine for producing societal breakdown because it places women in a class-level competition with men for the majority of their weeks, and pushes out (or onto the backburner) her main productive one-to-one competition with the husband. This latter competition becomes merely an adjunct, an annoyance heaped on top of her existing corporate pile of stress, weakening the marriage which is already a sufficient amount of stress for even healthy couples.
You are already aware I disagree with your view of morality; I don't think Darwinism is capable of explaining goodness, which is the object of moral behaviors. If you want to take a strict evolutionary approach, I'd be interested for you to defend an argument for women in the workplace (women's lib generally) from that perspective. I think you'll have a very difficult time convincing someone why in strict materialistic/genetic terms, men should not keep women out of the work place and isolate them to the full extent it's possible.
Can women be productive in some jobs? Sure. My arm could also block a bullet from entering my abdomen. Does that possible benefit indicate it is the primary purpose of an arm? Of course not. Can women possibly do good work in some jobs? Sure. I consider that obvious. This is NOT an attack on female intelligence per se. If you are approaching this with the idea in mind 'women can do it too', then we are on different pages. One requires a notion of final cause (ends, purpose) to discriminate between the proper order for men and women in life; like an arm can catch a bullet, but is truly ordered to grasp things rather than catch bullets, women are capable of doing corporate work, but are they more naturally ordered for something else in the world? I think so, and we should identify the legal and economic factors that disrupt that order, financially forcing couples to both be 'career people' because neither one alone can support the family any longer.
Was the distribution of legalized porn an example of a gender-specific award to men, that women couldn't access, and which directly caused a male situation to be better 'dollar for dollar' than women's simultaneously?
Yes. A few women have made a little bit of money off it. Not as much as male pornographers pandering to male vice. Men like to look at naked ladies. A lot more that the reverse. Some very young women in their late teens/ early twenties have been enticed into that shitty industry by much older men, often jews (although the top 3 werent) and they ended up on drugs and with AIDS or other STDs. And the consumer is overwhelmingly male and the objections to the industry were and are overwhelmingly female. The short term benefactor of porn is the male, although it is addictive and enslaving, BUT SO ARE PERIOD SUBSIDIES. You don’t really think women benefit long term from HR gibs, do you?
This is also different
I don’t think so. I think its just another bureaucatic scam. A gib. They pandered to old follks. I just got finished arguing with another zoomer about boomer hate. Its a source of resentment and these kids want boomers to hurry up and die.
Your second paragraph deals with economic concerns and bureaucracies subsidizing the underperformance of groups ....but I don't think it is particularly relevant to the situation we were discussing.
I don’t agree. You have a race of people who live almost solely off the bureacracies of other people. Their morals and values facilitate that. They develop ideologies that help them exploit bureacracies. They train likely allies that stand to gain (at least short term ) from an easing of the old moral regime (destruction of economic information) and an expansion of the new bureacratic regime (top down, command economy, ultimately corrupt, arbitrary, jewish). What else is this revolutionary spirit but their moral paradigm replacing ours because it benefits them?
Do you know of instances where men as a class, as in every male employee in a company, accepted some new provision that advantaged them significantly and without exception over every member of the class women in the same company?
I cant think of one recently off hand. In the olden days, one presumes it was quite common, and women werent able to apply for alot of jobs they were well qualified for. Now that wont explicitly happen because of the political climate and the legislation. Jews have seen the writing on the wall and there is a payoff pandering to women, not white men. Not explicitly as a class. They did for a long while and now theyve shifted their game to exploit a new opportunity.
Here’s one: coverage for erectile dysfunction meds, treatment etc. Its not a big gib. I don’t know what ciallis costs. But its a BS problem. If youre old and you cant have a hard on, save your shekels and buy it yourself. But guys thought, why not me? Everyone else is on the take. And so the mechanism of action and consequence is further compromised.
But I don’t think the fact that woke HR reps are not explicitly pandering to white males as a class right now is evidence that white males as a class wouldn’t/don’t behave opportunisticaly or would go out of their way to stand up for an injustice to women that benefits them, or that they wouldn’t behave opportunistically as a part of some other class when it benefits them. They have. They do. They are human. Give them a plausible justification to take advantage of a situation and many will.
This is not based on merit. It's based on sex.
I understand. And I understand that women are specifically being pandered to by the bureacracy in the workplace and there are specific reasons why women make a better ally to jews right now as a group. But there are other ways to pander to less meritocratic people besides sex. White men are not more or less likely to take advantage of a situation that benefits them unfairly.
This instability of these mixed-gender egalitarian workspaces is an engine for producing societal breakdown
Hmmm. Im willing to have a conversation about the bad reproductive outcomes resulting from “career women “ or whatever. Should we have all male and all female businesses? Should we change the structure of employment so that more part time jobs are available to women? Should we forbid moms from working? I don’t know, but before women worked, there was a big problem and we traded it in for some new problems — but it was real, and the problem was that women who got married and had kids young were/are economically at the whim of their husbands, and many white men in that position were/are tyrannical or just plain fucked off, and women historically suffered the consequences and had little recourse. And I heard many a sad tale and I saw a few first hand. And I dont see women as gladly going back to that situation without some failsafes. Trusting your entire economic wellbeing to one man, as well as your children’s, is a massive risk. How many women who are competant to support themselves should submit to a worse/riskier situation because of horizontal competition or whatever?
I think you'll have a very difficult time convincing someone why in strict materialistic/genetic terms, men should not keep women out of the work place and isolate them to the full extent it's possible.
I don’t know. I think in some instances men have evolved to be highly productive (whites, E. Asians) but working class women have always been moderately productive in virtually every society (farming, textiles, pottery, domestic work, teaching/child care, nursing). In some societies they do the lion’s share of the work while men spend time warring with each other. These are all pretty poor countries lol.
But I wonder how you can convince women who are competant at some high value jobs that they need to give that up to be subject to their husband who will behave opportunistically, the same way that the menstruators are at this company— because they can. Isn’t this a horizontally distributed privilege based on sex?
[ - ] x0x7 1 point 2 yearsMay 1, 2022 00:03:36 ago (+1/-0)
I don't see anything wrong. If anything it's kind of based and honest.
We don't want you around while you are emotional. It's probably the best for everyone if you just stay home. Being able to actually say that in this era takes balls.
Acknowledging nature rather than demanding nature conform to you is alright.
In fairness, would you want a cursed woman on your property? She'll only attract bears or get blood-rage and commit a vehicular homocide. It's a health risk to other employees.
[ + ] HughBriss
[ - ] HughBriss 4 points 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 19:51:04 ago (+4/-0)
[ + ] deleted
[ - ] deleted 2 points 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 20:07:46 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] HughBriss
[ - ] HughBriss 3 points 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 20:23:14 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] 2Drunk
[ - ] 2Drunk 2 points 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 21:01:11 ago (+2/-0)
Can I be offended that your offended that I'm offended that your offended that I'm offended that your offended that I be offended that your offended that I'm offended that your offended that I'm offended that your offended.........................................................................................
[ + ] HughBriss
[ - ] HughBriss 1 point 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 22:44:16 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] 2Drunk
[ - ] 2Drunk 1 point 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 23:05:22 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] lord_nougat
[ - ] lord_nougat 0 points 2 yearsMay 1, 2022 00:12:56 ago (+0/-0)
Somewhat disgustedly, but that's partly what drives me to drinking. I also feel compelled to try to keep up with you!
[ + ] 2Drunk
[ - ] 2Drunk 1 point 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 23:07:39 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] KyleIsThisTall
[ - ] KyleIsThisTall 0 points 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 23:29:22 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 1 point 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 20:21:29 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] HughBriss
[ - ] HughBriss 2 points 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 20:26:24 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] lord_nougat
[ - ] lord_nougat 1 point 2 yearsMay 1, 2022 00:13:34 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] totes_magotes
[ - ] totes_magotes 3 points 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 22:01:17 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 1 point 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 22:47:31 ago (+1/-0)
If you add all of this to the ordinary special treatment women often get on the job already, it would be hard to explain why male workers wouldn't be protesting this. Having worked in many co-ed job environments, I've seen no end to the special treatment afforded to women in the workplace, particularly moms.
"My daughter has soccer games on Tuesdays and Thursdays. I was wondering if I could cut out 45 minutes early. She would be crushed, and she needs a ride home."
"It's cold and raining out there. I can't get sick and take that home. I have a third grader."
"These are too heavy. You can't expect women to work in this department." The same woman: "When X is done with his, can you send him over here to Y department to help catch us up?"
I've seen all of these succeed.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2 yearsMay 1, 2022 11:30:32 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 2 yearsMay 1, 2022 11:40:50 ago (+0/-0)
First of all, was the HR person a woman? Maybe, maybe not. Common sense says she was. Not only is HR skewed in terms of employment for women, but I just highly doubt that a male HR executive is dying to give female employees monthly, indefinitely long amounts of time off work.
Next, if the women at the ground level feel good about the change (it benefits them), such that they won't speak out against it, then if these women are presumed to be working for the purpose of promotion (like anybody else, and mind you, in a company demonstrating some favoritism as it stands), do we think that those women would not pursue more female-centric policy should they achieve the relevant roles within the company?
Whether the demand was a priori is really not relevant; once it has become a part of culture at this company, two things happen. One, there is an expectation set within the company. Once such ground is gained, the real furor would erupt once it was later attempted to take it away. Two, if the precedent takes hold in one company within an industry, woke people in other companies are bound to hear word of this. Female employees of this second company might now be primed to think they too deserve this treatment if it can be done viably elsewhere. Else, their own company is being sexist if it is not complying with the highest standards of female treatment, the precedent for which was set elsewhere.
Just my two cents.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2 yearsMay 1, 2022 15:42:51 ago (+0/-0)
Did men speak out when porn was legalized and mainstreamed? Did old people speak out against SS and meidicare? Did farmers speak out when cheap beaner labor was legitimized. Is that who was leading these shifts? Blue collar members of the teamsters?
The role of bureacracy is to share accurate economic/cultural/moral information between groups of workers to improve efficiency, and it is itself pure overhead and wasteful if it is not value added. Corrupt bureacracies sow disinformation to empower themselves and enslave workers. They intentionally destroy good economic information to pander to special interests. This comes in the form of easing negative consequences of underperformance. Which appeals to everyone at some point. And jewish narratives will smooth the way for a lack of accountability. When a short term benefit is given to you people tend to take it, especially when the decision is “above my pay grade” and a plausible justification is offered.
Nobody objects to the destruction of economic consequences when it benefits them. And so the cycle of pandering continues. Eventually the only people benefiting are the people who really most heavily on opportunistic strategies, ie bureacrats. Then productive people stop working and even the bureaucrats go broke. Parasitic behaviors only have big pay offs when there are productive “suckers” to exploit.
As Ive said before, moral standards can be thought of as economically efficient behavior. Evolution predicts that organisms will tend to exploit new opportunities for survival including living off of other species, living off their own species using deception, violence etc.
I can name hundreds of instances in which men accept an opportunity in which they benefit at another persons expense dishonestly. It isnt a male or female thing. The point is to pursue a policy of radical truth with respect to economic productivity, favoring high compensation for jobs with work products that are objectively valuable, and low compensation for jobs with more subjective value (all bureacratic jobs). Many women are making money off highly subsidized jobs like HR work. Women can be productive in some jobs that can be objectively valued. So let them.
The other side of this coin is preventing employers from becoming to exploitive. That can be done too but I wont bore you with the details here.
[ + ] CHIRO
[ - ] CHIRO 0 points 2 yearsMay 2, 2022 10:31:27 ago (+0/-0)*
Was the distribution of legalized porn an example of a gender-specific award to men, that women couldn't access, and which directly caused a male situation to be better 'dollar for dollar' than women's simultaneously?
This is also different. The benefits discussed in my comment and the OP are time-sensitive in a way that SS is not. SS is frontloaded by the taxes of the young and working, for the sake of the old and with the explicit promise that when the young grow old, their contributions will be repaid and then some. A person who earns $60k per year under the current system for 37 years, retiring at full retirement age, will probably generate around $200k for the fund, and will collect (if they live until 90, say) three times that amount.
There are problems with the system obviously. In principle, I consider it the best of the socialized entitlements that exist; we run into problems with any centralized form of financial care. I digress.
Your second paragraph deals with economic concerns and bureaucracies subsidizing the underperformance of groups with whom they have special relationships. I agree it is a problem, but I don't think it is particularly relevant to the situation we were discussing.
An HR executive, who is female, is not an elected official; nor does she form special economic relations with the female employees of the company she works for. I mean, are we really imagining that women in the workplace are systematically lobbying the female HR exec to get these 'menstrual privileges'? Sliding her money under the door? No, we're talking about ideological wokeness that the liberal executive uses for her own personal gain, for the moral virtue that a particular kind of culture seeks to elevate into positions of power, and where she is confined by her own ideology to actively pushing these kinds of changes in ANY institution for the sake of the god of Equity.
This is why such an ideology can be weaponized regardless of gender or race. There is no special relationship the women in that workplace require with the woke HR executive. The HR executive will, for her own interests, attempt to convince the female worker population about their victimhood, selling them on an illusory problem and galvanizing their revolutionary spirit. Now, I'll grant that if she is successful, then she will establish a privileged relationship between herself and the victim group so as to form a kind of dependence that garners her independent power within the company (since she is now the quasi-union leader of the victim class she created). This is how the revolution works to disrupt the hierarchy.
I see that you included the 'dishonestly' qualifier at the end, but let's ignore it for a moment. Are we talking about individuals or classes of people? Do you know of instances where men as a class, as in every male employee in a company, accepted some new provision that advantaged them significantly and without exception over every member of the class women in the same company? I mean in objective, straightforward ways, i.e. paid time off from the job that women couldn't possibly access?
Unequal outcomes are not the problem. There are cases where a person accepts opportunities not available to others, and this is totally justified. The individual merited it in other words. Nobody can be faulted for accepting a promotion, for example. A properly functioning hierarchy necessarily rewards some and not others, with more and more privilege the higher you go.
I think you are confusing the vertical direction here with the horizontal one. A policy of 'radical truth with respect to economic productivity' is just what a proper hierarchy should be, elevating the reward for the highest value members. But nothing in the OP described the situation as one where the female privilege was also identical to being somewhere in the hierarchy of reward. It was universal. It applied horizontally.
Take whatever level of the hierarchy you like, productive or less productive levels. Within that level that features people on a relative par with one another in terms of workload and compensation, the policy described in the OP is granting horizontally-distributed privilege to the women as a class, and not to men.
This is not based on merit. It's based on sex.
The difference between men and women in the horizontal direction is what creates the opportunity for the kind of revolutionizing I discussed above, the ability for the snakes to do the dividing. It's almost like man and woman separated their activities categorically in the past because that separation made their organization in male-female pairs less vulnerable and more efficient. Men and women are equipped in the evolutionary sense for one-to-one competition, which is to say competition between one male and one female in the sexual (and marital) relationship. Observe the dynamic between husband and wife in any home, and this becomes clear.
Men and women are not equipped by evolution for class-level competition between males and females as exclusive social groups. This instability of these mixed-gender egalitarian workspaces is an engine for producing societal breakdown because it places women in a class-level competition with men for the majority of their weeks, and pushes out (or onto the backburner) her main productive one-to-one competition with the husband. This latter competition becomes merely an adjunct, an annoyance heaped on top of her existing corporate pile of stress, weakening the marriage which is already a sufficient amount of stress for even healthy couples.
You are already aware I disagree with your view of morality; I don't think Darwinism is capable of explaining goodness, which is the object of moral behaviors. If you want to take a strict evolutionary approach, I'd be interested for you to defend an argument for women in the workplace (women's lib generally) from that perspective. I think you'll have a very difficult time convincing someone why in strict materialistic/genetic terms, men should not keep women out of the work place and isolate them to the full extent it's possible.
Can women be productive in some jobs? Sure. My arm could also block a bullet from entering my abdomen. Does that possible benefit indicate it is the primary purpose of an arm? Of course not. Can women possibly do good work in some jobs? Sure. I consider that obvious. This is NOT an attack on female intelligence per se. If you are approaching this with the idea in mind 'women can do it too', then we are on different pages. One requires a notion of final cause (ends, purpose) to discriminate between the proper order for men and women in life; like an arm can catch a bullet, but is truly ordered to grasp things rather than catch bullets, women are capable of doing corporate work, but are they more naturally ordered for something else in the world? I think so, and we should identify the legal and economic factors that disrupt that order, financially forcing couples to both be 'career people' because neither one alone can support the family any longer.
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 0 points 2 yearsMay 2, 2022 19:53:46 ago (+0/-0)*
Yes. A few women have made a little bit of money off it. Not as much as male pornographers pandering to male vice. Men like to look at naked ladies. A lot more that the reverse. Some very young women in their late teens/ early twenties have been enticed into that shitty industry by much older men, often jews (although the top 3 werent) and they ended up on drugs and with AIDS or other STDs. And the consumer is overwhelmingly male and the objections to the industry were and are overwhelmingly female. The short term benefactor of porn is the male, although it is addictive and enslaving, BUT SO ARE PERIOD SUBSIDIES. You don’t really think women benefit long term from HR gibs, do you?
I don’t think so. I think its just another bureaucatic scam. A gib. They pandered to old follks. I just got finished arguing with another zoomer about boomer hate. Its a source of resentment and these kids want boomers to hurry up and die.
I don’t agree. You have a race of people who live almost solely off the bureacracies of other people. Their morals and values facilitate that. They develop ideologies that help them exploit bureacracies. They train likely allies that stand to gain (at least short term ) from an easing of the old moral regime (destruction of economic information) and an expansion of the new bureacratic regime (top down, command economy, ultimately corrupt, arbitrary, jewish). What else is this revolutionary spirit but their moral paradigm replacing ours because it benefits them?
I cant think of one recently off hand. In the olden days, one presumes it was quite common, and women werent able to apply for alot of jobs they were well qualified for. Now that wont explicitly happen because of the political climate and the legislation. Jews have seen the writing on the wall and there is a payoff pandering to women, not white men. Not explicitly as a class. They did for a long while and now theyve shifted their game to exploit a new opportunity.
Here’s one: coverage for erectile dysfunction meds, treatment etc. Its not a big gib. I don’t know what ciallis costs. But its a BS problem. If youre old and you cant have a hard on, save your shekels and buy it yourself. But guys thought, why not me? Everyone else is on the take. And so the mechanism of action and consequence is further compromised.
But I don’t think the fact that woke HR reps are not explicitly pandering to white males as a class right now is evidence that white males as a class wouldn’t/don’t behave opportunisticaly or would go out of their way to stand up for an injustice to women that benefits them, or that they wouldn’t behave opportunistically as a part of some other class when it benefits them. They have. They do. They are human. Give them a plausible justification to take advantage of a situation and many will.
I understand. And I understand that women are specifically being pandered to by the bureacracy in the workplace and there are specific reasons why women make a better ally to jews right now as a group. But there are other ways to pander to less meritocratic people besides sex. White men are not more or less likely to take advantage of a situation that benefits them unfairly.
Hmmm. Im willing to have a conversation about the bad reproductive outcomes resulting from “career women “ or whatever. Should we have all male and all female businesses? Should we change the structure of employment so that more part time jobs are available to women? Should we forbid moms from working? I don’t know, but before women worked, there was a big problem and we traded it in for some new problems — but it was real, and the problem was that women who got married and had kids young were/are economically at the whim of their husbands, and many white men in that position were/are tyrannical or just plain fucked off, and women historically suffered the consequences and had little recourse. And I heard many a sad tale and I saw a few first hand. And I dont see women as gladly going back to that situation without some failsafes. Trusting your entire economic wellbeing to one man, as well as your children’s, is a massive risk. How many women who are competant to support themselves should submit to a worse/riskier situation because of horizontal competition or whatever?
I don’t know. I think in some instances men have evolved to be highly productive (whites, E. Asians) but working class women have always been moderately productive in virtually every society (farming, textiles, pottery, domestic work, teaching/child care, nursing). In some societies they do the lion’s share of the work while men spend time warring with each other. These are all pretty poor countries lol.
But I wonder how you can convince women who are competant at some high value jobs that they need to give that up to be subject to their husband who will behave opportunistically, the same way that the menstruators are at this company— because they can. Isn’t this a horizontally distributed privilege based on sex?
[ + ] giantprick
[ - ] giantprick 0 points 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 23:08:48 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] IfuckedYerMum
[ - ] IfuckedYerMum 3 points 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 20:44:28 ago (+3/-0)
[ + ] PostWallHelena
[ - ] PostWallHelena 2 points 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 20:15:49 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] diggernicks
[ - ] diggernicks 2 points 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 20:17:48 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] RecycledElectrons
[ - ] RecycledElectrons 1 point 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 21:06:58 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] x0x7
[ - ] x0x7 1 point 2 yearsMay 1, 2022 00:03:36 ago (+1/-0)
We don't want you around while you are emotional. It's probably the best for everyone if you just stay home. Being able to actually say that in this era takes balls.
Acknowledging nature rather than demanding nature conform to you is alright.
[ + ] noonefromnowhere
[ - ] noonefromnowhere 1 point 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 20:08:25 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 20:06:01 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ]deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 19:54:35 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] ToNigIsToNog
[ - ] ToNigIsToNog 0 points 2 yearsMay 1, 2022 10:42:25 ago (+0/-0)
I have period pains, I have to go home.
[ + ] Broc_Liath
[ - ] Broc_Liath 0 points 2 yearsMay 1, 2022 06:58:52 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] drhitler
[ - ] drhitler 0 points 2 yearsMay 1, 2022 05:54:56 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Kozel
[ - ] Kozel 0 points 2 yearsMay 1, 2022 01:38:35 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] 2Drunk
[ - ] 2Drunk 0 points 2 yearsApr 30, 2022 20:56:57 ago (+0/-0)