Jennifer Lawrence and the argument about gender pay gaps

[~~~]

I wish banana and pandarilla would just bump uglies and let me watch

Fixed that

[banana]

I'd argue the majority of jobs are a fixed salary in the UK, A female police officer, firefighter, super market working etc.. will earn exactly the same as a man.

True to an extent, though men will still often be earning more due to things mentioned before - more overtime, bigger bonuses, fewer sick days, etc.

[banana]

"Feminism is surely not defined by those who oppose it. For me (and many other coffee shop feminists) there is nothing anti-man about it. Nothing at all. "


I never said it was defined by those who oppose it, I said it's defined by feminism in action. Feminism hides behind a dictionary definition ("Equality!", which is swallowed by coffee shop feminists and society at large) while practicing something very different when given power. Why would you keep ignoring my examples of where feminism has purposely worked against men, even past any measurable points of equality for women?

There is a metric shittone of anti-male rhetoric and policy right now in North America, across Europe, and increasingly so in the UK, pushed by feminism and partly legitimised by the masses of coffee shop feminists who do not stopped to think about what they are actually supporting vs. their supposed ideals.

I suggest looking up 'egalitarianism' is you're intent on labeling your views and being for equality.

‘The truth is that men and women have been and are often treated poorly everywhere, and have always been.’
Yes of course they have – but very often this was due to the decision made by the men in power (usually (but by no mean always) white men – if we want to throw race into the mixer).

This is one of the biggest red herrings of feminism. Men in positions of decision-making power represent a tiny proportion of all men, and so to equate that with 'men in general' is ludicrous. The vast majority of men are and always have been as relatively powerless as women, and as the Glass Floor analogy shows, very often treated far poorer. Why would you keep pointing to the Glass Ceiling but repeatedly ignore the Glass Floor?

The white skin thing is the latest trend of anti-white hate racist nonsense that I hope you're not buying into, the latest in a long line of one-eyed bullshit theories academic feminism comes up with and preaches. Regardless of skin colour, people have butchered and mistreated each other since the dawn of time, everywhere.

You mention the White Feather campaign of the First World War (of which my great grandfather was subjected to once). We teach this as part of our FWW course and I’m almost certain it is shown in the recent US suffrage film ‘Iron Jawed Angels’ – it’s certainly not been airbrushed from history. But again I make the point that it was men who decided who voted and who didn’t in Britain – and women were added on in 1918 as a bit of an after-thought.

You then mention the idea of ‘different spheres’ in society. This is the very language used by those opposed to women getting the vote 100 years ago. To me that is not a coincidence – and that it is not me and my coffee-shop pals that are being duped by propaganda.

Absolutely delighted to hear you're teaching that. Please if you can add in how most of the men sent to their demise had no vote, while upper class women in the UK were playing their part in White Feathering and demanding a vote, of course without the responsibility to be sent to the frontlines.

The next part is the same red herring mentioned previously.

Different spheres is the very language used by women of the time who were opposed to getting the vote because of the fear of the responsibilities that they thought would come with it, and of losing their own influence in what they considered their spheres. The vote was however instead handed on a plate, responsibility-free, to women by these awful men in power you keep mentioning. In the US, those pressing for votes for women were also from the upper classes and wanted the vote for themselves, not for all women. Indeed, the same women opposed the vote for black people.

One final point on this, the time gap between all men getting a vote and all women getting a vote has usually been relatively short if any difference. Most men have, the same as women, for most of history never had a vote.

You are absolutely being at least partially duped by one-eyed propaganda, please in the name of god do some digging below the surface on this topic to get some perspective and balance.

‘The rape/sexual assault numbers are indeed very close for the normal population.’
Obviously finding accurate rape statistics is mired in difficulties but after a quick search for the UK I found these figures:
69,000 female, 9,000 male rape victims per year: get the full data – Home Office/ Dept. of Justice – England & Wales
Now I’m pretty sure you’ll dispute these numbers and have counter figures but still. I simply cannot accept that the number of rapes are anywhere near ‘very close’ when gender is compared.

This is you admitting and clinging to indoctrination. Come on, dude.

The figures you mention are intentionally misleading. Read up on them and see if you can spot how. Do the same for the current rape hysteria bullshit fabricated by feminists that is sweeping US campuses.

‘Yes, job slaves in the same way that women are viewed as house slaves. Forced by societal norms to go out to work in all weather and conditions to support the women and children at home.’
I’m not having this either. I’m a believer that employment is a human right and for most women that was denied – other than domestic service. The term job slaves screams out something that anti-feminists have created to counter the historical argument against them. This is about capitalism – and again it was men making the decision at the top.


In terms of education there is now a lot of focus on boys from white working class backgrounds who have been the ones left behind in recent years. This is entirely right but there are also still too few girls choosing the STEM subjects (bright girls who could undoubtedly cope with them). Efforts generally go to where the figures point – unless you want to bring in the old private school debate.

I believe access to employment should be a right too. Pity you can't find it in yourself to extend the same empathy to being forced to work and provide, often in unsafe conditions rather than the relative safety and comfort of home.

Can you point to evidence of that focus on boys, I'd be interested in seeing what's been done.

The STEM thing has become hysterical to the point of demeaning to girls and women's ability to make up their own mind what to do with their lives. If a girl/woman wants to go into STEM, then they put in the requisite work, outperformed the other candidates, graduate, and put in the grind at work. Equality, girl power and all that.

It's at the stage now in the US where companies have been shamed into chaining themselves to hilarious employee diversity targets, without considering that if only e.g. 15% of I.T. graduates are women, it's almost impossible to reach 30, or 40, or 50% targets. If a company can, that means that other companies with these targets are going to find it even harder as they've sucked up a load of the available pool. There aren't enough 'diverse' people to go around. The result is that more and more well qualified 'bad for diversity' people are being pass over and let go in favour of worse and worse qualified 'good for diversity' people. It's an absolute farce.

Also note that, mysteriously, the stats produced to show a gender gap in STEM fields (therefore sexism, ofc) do not include various STEMy subjects where women are the majority. Surely someone's not fixing the numbers to push an agenda?

In relation to your final question – I think the biggest issue for women in the west is twofold:
Firstly, there is institutional imbalance in places of power (boardrooms, parliaments). Huge strides have been made obviously (women now make up 23.5% of ftse 100 directorships – which has doubled in the last couple of years) but I think there is an aggressive, testosterone-fueled emphasis in many of these places (including from many of the women who have made it).
Secondly, despite (again) great strides, there is still too much violence against women. I posted the figures above (Home Office) and they are generally what I’d expect to see.

Red herring, again. And I've touched on it plenty of times, different life choices push more men upwards on hierarchies than women. Men naturally having more testosterone and the competitiveness it brings, being one reason, not something to blame. Equality of outcomes vs. equality of opportunity. I frankly couldn't care what % of women and men are on boards, as long as they're there by merit and not by infantilising special privileges such as quotas.

Ah, that other classic 1000 tonne mace of feminism, violence against women. I suggest that the figures are what you'd expect to see as you've already made your mind up what the reality is and who needs special protection (re: admitted indoctrination). Why is there too much violence against women, but not too much violence against men, who are ~75% of the victims of violence?

On domestic violence, it is also pretty much equal by gender of victim and perpetrator. This has been known and repeatedly shown for decades, but intentionally and repeatedly voraciously covered up by feminists in academia and feminist advocacy groups. I've mentioned her way back, as a starter read up on experiences of Erin Pizzey, the founder of the first shelters for domestic violence victims in the west.

Any actual issues that don't involve treating women like children, handing out special privileges, censorship, bogus stats, and promoting selective empathy?

[banana]

I'm slightly concerned that even if I don't consent we'd be having sex anyway...

(I would like to clearly state that I am in no way suggesting that banana is a rapist)

WTF

[Antti Niemi]

I'd fill her gender pay gaps.

[KnightswoodBear]

I'd like to fill in her gender pay gap.

I'd fill her gender pay gaps.

Get your own shite patter.

[BFTD]

Anyone else think that JLaw might enjoy a little backdoor action?

[~~~]

I'd fill her gender pay gaps

[Joey Jo Jo Junior Shabadoo]

I'd stick my cock in her phanny.

[KnightswoodBear]

Anyone else think that JLaw might enjoy a little backdoor action?

She definitely takes it up the wrong un

[Gordon EF]

Anyone else think that JLaw might enjoy a little backdoor action?

Jude?

Giving or receiving?

[BFTD]

Jude?

Giving or receiving?

Ooft, good point. There have been rumours over the years.

The lassies' mags would go nuts if those two got together - JLaw², probably. Not that I'd be aware of such things

[RussellAnderson]

So basically there is an issue with gender pay gaps but J Law was the wrong person to highlight it and chose the wrong time to do so?

[~~~]

So basically there is an issue with gender pay gaps but J Law was the wrong person to highlight it and chose the wrong time to do so?

Needs to be looked at in context, as already mentioned she is in a profession that actors of both sexes get to negotiate wages for starring in a film.

It's not based on her sex, it's to do with how big a box office you are and if your starring as in it or just a supporting actor

[RussellAnderson]

Needs to be looked at in context, as already mentioned she is in a profession that actors of both sexes get to negotiate wages for starring in a film.

It's not based on her sex, it's to do with how big a box office you are and if your starring as in it or just a supporting actor

Aye the comparison with Downey Jr and Paltrow is obviously a non starter, but some of the examples listed above make it seem like there is an issue.

Perhaps the bigger issue is why aren't there more female orientated films. People list Bridesmaids but for each film like that there's ten Hangovers. For each Black Widow there's 10 Thors. I think a big part of it is that it's just so fucking easy to write a shitty female love interest part. There's so many gorgeous female actors who can draw an audience and almost justify it. Writers/directors/producers need to up their game and make these characters better. Then what Lawrence says will seem a little more credible.

[RussellAnderson]

^^^ And by female orientated I don't mean aimed at females I mean starring, plot revolves around, etc

[diegomarahenry]

Perhaps the bigger issue is why aren't there more female orientated films. People list Bridesmaids but for each film like that there's ten Hangovers. For each Black Widow there's 10 Thors. I think a big part of it is that it's just so fucking easy to write a shitty female love interest part. There's so many gorgeous female actors who can draw an audience and almost justify it. Writers/directors/producers need to up their game and make these characters better. Then what Lawrence says will seem a little more credible.

Bridesmaids was a success and there have been 2-3 other pale imitations since, The stars of the film are now churning out a dozen films a year as they have proven to be popular, Melissa McCarthy played a lead role in an action film this year. Much of the same cast is in the new Ghostbusters film.

Since the deal with DC/Marvel comics and major film studios, they have been churning out films of the most popular comics, most of these have been male superhero comics from the 60s-70s when they were seen as a male "thing" and were geared towards adolescent males meaning the odd sexy sidekick were thrown in once and a while, They are going to make films of established characters, it is shooty-in

So Hollywood respond to what makes money, Bridesmaids was popular, the cast were popular so they flog it to death, like the two films too long hangover trilogy. The old, firm favorite Superhero cartoons familiar to middle aged and young folk are easy, greenscreen cashcows.

[RussellAnderson]

Bridesmaids was a success and there have been 2-3 other pale imitations since, The stars of the film are now churning out a dozen films a year as they have proven to be popular, Melissa McCarthy played a lead role in an action film this year. Much of the same cast is in the new Ghostbusters film.

Since the deal with DC/Marvel comics and major film studios, they have been churning out films of the most popular comics, most of these have been male superhero comics from the 60s-70s when they were seen as a male "thing" and were geared towards adolescent males meaning the odd sexy sidekick were thrown in once and a while, They are going to make films of established characters, it is shooty-in

So Hollywood respond to what makes money, Bridesmaids was popular, the cast were popular so they flog it to death, like the two films too long hangover trilogy. The old, firm favorite Superhero cartoons familiar to middle aged and young folk are easy, greenscreen cashcows.

Exactly my point! Hollywood needs to be a bit braver and put out some films which break the mould! Give the part of the troubled genius to a woman! Not from time to time in a token sense but regularly! There's plenty of female actors who are capable of it.

[BFTD]

Exactly my point! Hollywood needs to be a bit braver and put out some films which break the mould! Give the part of the troubled genius to a woman! Not from time to time in a token sense but regularly! There's plenty of female actors who are capable of it.

Apropos of nowt, this immediately brought to mind Tara Reid in Alone in the Dark

Uwe Boll is a pioneer

[RussellAnderson]

Apropos of nowt, this immediately brought to mind Tara Reid in Alone in the Dark

Uwe Boll is a pioneer

Haha I'm not sure Tara Reid is the shining knight for feminism in films!!