like another orchestrated terrorist attack similar to 9/11 this time created by left/right wing domestic "terrorists" ?
If they could pull off 9/11, I'm sure they can do that again with domestic "enemy". But then what's the purpose? Why to do that? Usually, not to loose power. But they are in the power all the time anyway (military/industrial complex). So, what gives?
They are an established power, but they've still had to deal with societal friction in response to their actions. This slows them down as they attempt to compete with other global factions. Hence the need to lessen societal friction by making things more "expensive" to those who gum up the works for them. And yeah, more "strategy of tension" operations wouldn't be surprising.
because there was no easy/centralized way to spread propaganda. One had to use terror/fear to stay in power. The truth was obvious, so somebody had to keep population scared, so they don't revolt. Nowadays, subtle propaganda works. You air day and night stuff explaining people that white is black and black is white and this works. People see the truth, want to revolt, but then "the experts" from the silver box explain that the opposite is actually true. Everybody happy thinking they are free while they are slaves to the banks and constantly monitored by the Government.
In the same way, government could ignore the law, fake election results, and whatever - and no one would be wiser, because the only form of mass information distribution, newspapers, are government control.
I suspect the situation had been as bad or worse before radio and television; that throughout history with very minor exceptions, there has not been a functioning democracy anywhere (in the common meaning of the term). I don't find your argument there was one convincing.
but how do you know if all those Zeitgeist, Russia TV, and other revelations (Greenpeace) aren't just paid and orchestrated by Russia to destabilize US. I know they are.
How is RT or Zeitgeist (bleurgh) a primary source for any of this? If they aren't, why bring them up? And what does Greenpeace have to do with anything?
Sponsored/funded by KGB/FSB to destabilize US by creating an army of useful idiots.
Zeitgeist is a name to Marxism that doesn't suck. Anything green is left by definition. RT is official Russian Government propaganda channel. All the journalists you see there are FSB agents are have to cooperate with FSB.
At the same time US backed NGO in Russia are banned from receiving any money from the outside world and the Russian media are tightly controlled by Kremlin. There is no "voice of America" in Russia.
Why to fire bullets when soft skills of youth and intelligentsia indoctrination will do? It woke out great for them, hasn't it? We have a president Marxist, perfect product of the same forces in the educational system in the USA.
Just look how US becomes more and more like Russia as the years pass. I.e. oligarchs (the 1%), poor getting poorer, the police state, lack of democracy. The country is being russiaficated and nobody even notices what is the root of the evil. Genius!
I asked why you brought it up in context of the post you replied to, yes.
Are you meaning to say that any and all outrage about totalitarianism is, like anything "left", planted by the KGB, and just a means to subvert the US, so it can be overtaken by totalitarianism? So what is your solution? A better police state to defend liberty?
Why exactly I don't see these many discussion about women in construction industry as I see about women in IT? Why exactly I don't see any discussion about courts giving children to their fathers in 50% of cases?
Why exactly my wife is so brainwashed that even when I make 5.2 times money she does, she still needs to go to work which costs us more than her paycheck once we pay for the childcare and food. Her work is net negative to home budget. Unfortunately, she doesn't get it because as her mom says "women MUST work".
> Why exactly I don't see any discussion about courts giving children to their fathers in 50% of cases?
Because when fathers do actually contest custody, they usually get joint or sole custody? http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias... ("These trends were apparent in an earlier study of a sample of 500 Middlesex County cases filed between 1978 and 1981. Fathers had sought sole custody in about 8% of the cases. They received sole custody in 41% of those cases, and joint custody in 38%. In 5% of the cases, custody went to someone other than a parent. In instances in which fathers sought sole custody, mothers received sole custody in only 15% of the cases.").
> Why exactly my wife is so brainwashed that even when I make 5.2 times money she does, she still needs to go to work which costs us more than her paycheck once we pay for the childcare and food.
Because she can do math and realizes that while child care expenses are temporary (and drop off substantially in just 5-6 years once children enter school), the lifetime impact on earnings from taking time off to raise children is substantial and permanent?
Did you notice how that study didn't control for anything? Like say, the reasons that fathers were seeking sole custody? Fathers virtually only seek sole custody when the mother is abusive or grossly negligent. In cases where the mother is not abusive or negligent, fathers almost always accept minimal joint custody as they feel it is what is best for the children. The fact that people throw this around as some sick attempt to portray fathers are not caring about their children and the courts being totally fair is disgusting.
"""
Although perceptions of bias that discourage fathers from seeking custody are a concern, n52 the outcome of cases in which custody is contested provides a more direct source of information about possible judicial gender bias. We heard testimony from George Kelly, a representative of Concerned Fathers, that in contested custody cases, mothers are awarded physical custody over 90% of the time. Mr. Kelly was unable to provide substantiation, however, n53 and our own investigation revealed a very different picture.
The statewide sample of attorneys who responded to the family law survey had collectively represented fathers seeking custody in over 2,100 cases in the last 5 years. n54 They reported that the fathers obtained primary physical custody in 29% of the cases, and joint physical custody in an additional 65% of the cases. Thus, when fathers actively sought physical custody, mothers obtained primary physical custody in only 7% of cases. The attorneys reported that the fathers had been primary caretakers in 29% of the cases in which they had sought custody.
The preliminary findings of the Middlesex Divorce Research Group relitigation study show a similarly high rate of paternal success, but fewer awards of joint physical custody. In their sample of 700 cases in Middlesex County between 1978 and 1984, fathers had sought custody in 57 cases (8.14% of the sample). In two-thirds of the cases in which fathers sought custody, they received primary physical custody (42% in which fathers were awarded sole legal and sole physical custody, plus [*832] 25% in which fathers were awarded joint legal and primary physical custody). Joint physical and joint legal custody was awarded in 3.5% of cases. In 11% of the cases, mothers received primary physical and joint legal custody; in 12%, mothers were awarded sole legal and physical custody; other custodial arrangements were ordered in the remaining cases. Thus, when fathers sought custody, mothers received primary physical custody in fewer than one-quarter of the cases in the Middlesex study. Information about which parent had been the primary caretaker was not available for the Middlesex cases.
These trends were apparent in an earlier study of a sample of 500 Middlesex County cases filed between 1978 and 1981. Fathers had sought sole custody in about 8% of the cases. They received sole custody in 41% of those cases, and joint custody in 38%. In 5% of the cases, custody went to someone other than a parent. In instances in which fathers sought sole custody, mothers received sole custody in only 15% of the cases (Phear et al., 1983).
These statistics may be a surprise to many. They are, however, consistent with findings in other states. A study of court records in Los Angeles County, California, in 1977 found that fathers who sought sole custody obtained it in 63% of the cases (up from a success rate of 37% in 1972) (Weitzman, 1985, p. 233). A nationwide survey of all reported appellate decisions in child custody cases in 1982 found that fathers obtained custody in 51% of the cases, up from an estimated 10% in 1980 (Atkinson, 1984).
The high success rate of fathers does not by itself establish gender bias against women. Additional evidence, however, indicates that women may be less able to afford the lawyers and experts needed in contested custody cases (see "Family Law Overview") and that, in contested cases, different and stricter standards are applied to mothers.
"""
These studies are underpinned by sexism, racism, represent xenophobia and people who conducted them surely have issues with relating themselves to the opposite sex.
Now, try discussing that. Beceause this is what you'll get once you'll present a study showing men are better soldiers than women to a feminist. And nobody cares. Equality at the Army, period. Actually special treatment for women because apparently they need to run just 4 miles to get to the Marines when males have to run 6 miles. Because obviously the enemy will stop 2 miles short just to treat our female soldiers better than others. Or like this precious thing that a women in the uniform can't have be moving machine gun. It is too heavy for her for goodness sake. This is all about special treatment and not equality.
So maybe that's how we (males) should start rolling as well. 50% cases children go to the fathers, period. If you don't agree you are a sexist xenophobic in need of a psychological treatment for aggression impulses and the whole study is a hate speech.
Of course. It's impossible to respond when you have provided good logical evidence and get emotional instability and calling names in return. I just wanted you to got through the exercise to see that whatever feminists demand, whether it is logical or makes sense or not - they get. And if you try to respond in logical fashion, you get this, what I gave you. Just to prove a point. Females are more important to children than males. I agree 100%, you don't need to provide me with any evidence. That's common sense. The same way males are better soldiers than females. I agree 100%. You don't need to provide me with any evidence. That's common sense. But why we live in society where we apply logic to certain things (like divorces and who gets children as their result), and to other (i.e. female soldiers) we would rather gag logic in the name of the political correctness, is beyond me.
Hey, MensRights: any casual reader of this thread can see your clumsy rhetorical trick here. "Females are more important to children than males. I agree 100%. The sky is polka-dot and I am the witch king lord set over all chocolate bars. I agree 100%. One hundred percent! Damn you, political correctness!"
"I agree with something you never said" is a 14-year-old's debate tactic, right up there with "stop hitting yourself". Which is unsurprising, because the logic of "MensRights" is mired in about the same developmental stage.
Why would anyone take you seriously ever again after you wrote a comment like this? I do not know, and think that they should not.
name calling - of course; (check!)
aggression - of course; (check!)
pointing to issues with semantics and form and not addressing the issues themselves - of course (check!)
That's how I know I talk to a feminist.
Other left-wingers like Marxists - you need to spend some time showing them your argumentation before they give up and do that. Start attacking a person instead of attacking argumentation or addressing issues.
Feminists go to that right away. Again, not surprised at all. You are very angry group of people indeed. And that's why in most polls women disagree with feminists. Nobody likes angry mean person who attacks messenger instead of addressing issues calmly.
Nothing you said addresses my point. Notice how only 8% of fathers are seeking custody? Why is that? Using statistics to deliberately mislead people is dishonest.
I'm not. I am blaming you for presenting a statistic in a misleading way. You are suggesting that courts are fair because fathers get custody when they seek it. But you are leaving out the part where they only seek it in cases of abuse. Fair would be default joint custody, which feminist organizations like NOW actively campaign against.
As a father, I find the idea that I could lose custody of my children though a legal default to be ridiculous. Custody is not a casual decision. 8% of fathers demand custody because that is approximately the fraction of fathers who want it. The vast majority of fathers are fiercely career/work-oriented.
I don't understand your first statement. You currently lose custody of your children by default, that's the problem. Attempts have been made to change the law in some states to fix that, but were defeated by NOW and their supporters. Currently, the law considers the best interests of the child to be "with the mother". It should consider the best interests of the child to be "with both parents".
A review of the cases does not support your claim. 8% of fathers demand custody because 8% of fathers feel the mother is so bad that the children are better off with the father. The fact that they generally win in such cases is expected, but can not be generalized to imply that if fathers simply seek custody more often, they will still get it that often. When they seek custody in cases where the mother is not abusive, they lose.
The same way vast majority of mothers used to be fiercely home-stay oriented. It was explained to them that it's wrong. That they should be also present in the workforce. They should make up 50% of US CEO's. They should be in Congress.
So, why not to, start social marxist change also in court rulings. Let's explain fathers they should take responsibility for children in 50% of divorce cases. Let's have legislation enforcing that. Let's have think-tanks to make it happen.
I don't really care, I love working with women. My only problem is that things born in Marxist ideology like feminism are making social experiments on us whether we want it or not. And none of these left wing dreamed of social experiments work.
Why are we putting all these women under so much pressure? You have to be in IT. There are not enough women there. You must be good in IT. And what about this what women want to do? Women's psyche is more gentle than ours. You show thin teens on magazine covers long enough and next thing you know you deal with anorexia/bulimia pandemic. You create social pressure for them not to have kids, to delay having family, to go there and compete in brutal business world. What gives you right to do that?
Have you read the article under which we are commenting? The author is not happy. She definitely feels like her life choices were forced upon her. All I'm saying is that this is wrong. You don't feel social pressure to be a good cook, or spend 8 hours a day with a kid. Feminism hurts women, not men. This is what the article shows.
What a creepy comment. Of course, HN can reliably expect to see comments about how much weaker women are than men on any thread involving gender. It's apparently a law of physics.
Yes, women are the weaker sex. And your task as male is to protect them. No need to say thank you. But your parents should have told you that long time ago. Maybe they did, but you didn't listen. You don't seem to be good at listening.
You are the one pretending not to see that women are after "equality" as far as clean, safe office jobs go. I don't you see you or them demanding 50% of construction jobs to be filled by females. Yeah, I will probably make $260k this year. My Manager is a woman and I love working with her. Because she is smart and has more balls than most dudes have. I have no problem with women. I have problem with people who want special treatment. And these come in all sexes, colors, shapes and sizes.
Protip: when you are arguing with someone who is "on your side" as if they are your opponent, you might just be an overzealous douche who wants to argue too much.
Feminists look up the socioeconomic spectrum and see men as CEOs say, and want some of that for themselves and their friends. Fair enough, who doesn't want success? But they never look down and see the men mining coal, collecting trash, packing meat, pouring cement and all the other dirty, dangerous, low pay and low prestige jobs. We actually need those people far more than we do a new social network. Society collapses without them. That is something the movement is going to need to reconcile at some point.
This reads to me like you think only women are or can be feminists. So let me give you my perspective:
To the extent there are institutional barriers that prevent women from being able to get those jobs if they want them, those barriers should be torn down. But the reason that's not happening as fast isn't because women don't want those jobs, it's because no one wants those jobs. So for my part, I'm more concerned with the social factors -- gender, but more likely class politics -- that lead to anyone needing to do shitty dangerous work who doesn't really want to.
In brief, if society would collapse without them, we should be paying them a lot more, not relying on bullshit machismo and a lack of options. I consider that a feminist position.
Sure but there is an elephant in the corner of that room. Prestige is social standing, and social standing is deeply baked into mammals as a proxy for desirability as a mate.
You will hear feminist principles at work when someone wants to go up in social standing. But if the principle of equality is to be upheld it has to go the other way too, and it won't, so long as a persons job has anything to do with their social rank. What determines all this? Well the consensus of the tribe sure, but let's be completely frank: the collective opinion of the opposite sex about what signals desirability is what determines a lot more than we would comfortably admit structures our supposedly sophisticated society.
Okay, but... I feel like you're completely ignoring the feminist principle I just outlined to go on a little monologue. Is there any chance of us having a productive discussion that relates in some way what I actually wrote?
OK think about this: being a nurse is a low paid job[1] that involves, umm, cleaning up after other people. It is quite literally "a shitty job". But people still want to be nurses, and nurses have a high social status. So what is the difference between this, and one of the jobs you have identified that no one wants to do? It is entirely one of perception.
Sure. Perception, physical labor, bodily danger, advancement prospects, hours, locations, unions, a direct involvement in the lives of others, and, if you like, social status. Fine. Are you gonna drop the relevant part on me now?
What never stops amazing me that Feminism which is Left ideology, it's almost like Marxism in action. Well, it really is Marxism in action when I think about it. Well, this Marxist ideology is all about women being these capitalistic successful CEOs of these international corporations that are all about greed, greed, greed and profits. I'm sorry but it's quite literally impossible to take all this nonsense seriously. Feminism in all about special treatment for special interest group, that's all, just open your eyes to see.
Of course typical weak response attacking form and not the content. I didn't expect much more.
One of the reasons left is not at all that popular when it should be, for example in Greece, is that it forgot about its ideology and sold out to the capital. Hence feminist parties in Europe never above 1% vote. Hence Greek left is done and neo-nazis topping the polls. Once you sold your soul to the devil there is no coming back Mr. let's get CEO jobs for women.
So if you want political advise it would be don't be a whore sold to the capital. The age of conformism and technocrats in politics is over. It is all about the ground work, grassroots and standing for something in life nowadays. And I don't see feminists there. I see them in 100 richest and most powerful capitalist club instead. You are a fake.
Don't say never. You think police or fire departments or military are highly paid or safe? Many women have fought for the chance to show they can do those jobs.
Sure, that's where prestige comes in. For many people, the social standing of their job is as if not more important than their pay. But my point stands. Real equality must permeate all jobs.
I suppose there are some who want that, but many just want the opportunity. Why is this so hard for you to grasp? Barring people from an activity strictly because of their gender or race is absurd. The race barrier has huge holes in it today, and the gender barrier is being torn apart as well.
Here's an example (from my example professions). Women in the police forces used to be relegated to meter maids, secretarial/administrative roles and other "safe" jobs. Promotion into positions like detective were not open, or only open for the rare ones that caught the right persons attention or had some other pull (family, political, whatever) or the one who did 10x what their male colleagues did to show they were capable. Today those barriers are gone (going away?).
Yes, those 'barriers' are gone because female firefighters, soldiers, etc. are subject to lesser physical requirements than the men are. Hope you're not too fat for her to carry you out of the burning building.
The part that is difficult for me to grasp is why they want to be 50% of all the CEOs but not of all the Policemen. I mean it's very easy for me to explain (i.e. they want special treatment for themselves). But I'd love to see you struggling to explain to me why is that and not look ridiculously funny.
Why the Feminist so rarely have any arguments on their side. From my experience it is never addressing the underlying issue. And almost always personal attacks. This doesn't show your strength, it just shows weakness and lack of arguments.
Where are the feminist fighting for 50% workforce presentation in construction? Answer that! Don't call me names. Just answer. Where are the feminist fighting for 50% of all divorce cases ending in fathers staying with children? Any arguments? Or just the usual aggression, name calling?
Why you are surprised feminism is not taken seriously. If you don't address the issues, the issues address you. And you are done. Despite personal attacks.
> Where are the feminist fighting for 50% of all divorce cases ending in fathers staying with children? Any arguments? Or just the usual aggression, name calling?
Women who are interested in IT jobs get them. So why all the fuss?
Because according to the feminist ideology not enough women are interested. You see, it's exactly what the story is about. Feminism is Marxism ideology that wants to change society where we - both sexes - understand that women can be as good as men in all the jobs. So, I'd ask you and others to do the same for men. To understand that they can be as a good parent as a mother can.
Now, you see a little bit clearer the idiocy of that movement?
It's about changing us all, our societies to ones that even women who didn't want to go to IT, will go due to the social pressure.
Women are under tremendous pressure nowadays to compete with men in all these industries. It's like men would be expected now to take 50% of all the kids in divorce cases. Feminism like all left ideologies wants good by in reality it doesn't work. And people who are affected by their social experiments are the real victims here.
It is not like the feminist groups are fighting to make sure 50% of all pouring concrete jobs is done by women. It's not like feminist fight to make sure that in 50% of divorce cases children go to fathers. This isn't helping feminist image at all. Another special interest group that fights for special treatment. This much about equality.
If they could pull off 9/11, I'm sure they can do that again with domestic "enemy". But then what's the purpose? Why to do that? Usually, not to loose power. But they are in the power all the time anyway (military/industrial complex). So, what gives?