Feminism | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Feminism

an article about some actual research on the gender pay gap.
The pay gap is a Loch Ness Monster, it doesn't exist. Collating all male and female salaries in a given industry is a furphy. Compare like for like roles and if you can identify one company paying women less for the same work, I'll show you a company in a world of trouble. It just ain't happening.

It is useless to compare the wages for a petty cash clerk with those of a cheque accounts clerk and saying there is a gap. It is absolute rubbish.

The 'gender pay gap' as it is being perpetrated upon the publis is a lie. It is needlessly making women angry.
“Not all women, but a lot of women, don’t see their accomplishments and don’t talk themselves up. They’re frightened they are going to sound like they are big noting themselves. That doesn’t really happen in male interviews,” she said.
Another *smile* lie by someone who knows better. I have a lot of trouble talking myself up at interviews.

No wonder people like this are dismissed by some men as troublemakers. That is what they are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Another *smile* lie by someone who knows better. I have a lot of trouble talking myself up at interviews.

No wonder people like this are dismissed by some men as troublemakers. That is what they are.
She is basing her view on years of experience, and probably 1000s of interviews with staff about pay. you are basing your view on your experience.
I know who is more likely to be knowledgeable in the area.

and yes, like most women who argue for equality or against gender inbalances, she is dismissed as a trouble maker by some men.
 
i 100% agree no pay gap for same work. pretty sure this has been eliminated in Australia at least almost 100%

for senior management representation you need it to start with recruitment. To get adequate representation of any group you need hiring to be in those ratios too and Then you are looking 20 years down the road assuming you get applicants. It’s a tough thing to change because ’integrity of selection’ is critical Too. Starts with everyone feeling like they can make it in that profession.

not sure how You can assert to having a man in charge being a preference . Generally I find male leaders to be lacking in EQ relative to female leaders and being poor people managers. Fear as a motivator from Some of the men who taught in school may control a classroom but not sure that is what you want from a leader. Would you follow Cameron or dimma? What we want from a leader is subjective too and I think In general you want a variety of perspective to get better decisions.

myers Briggs studies and brain science (men are from Mars / women are from Venus) clearly show female brains activate much more (typically) in the social space. i have no comment on mental illness percentages - maybe women are more likely to seek help and get diagnosed? men clearly suicide successfully a lot more. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190313-why-more-men-kill-themselves-than-women _ maybe because men don’t know how to deal with emotions because generally we see them as ‘bad’. I think you are confirming this in your post. This is being acknowledged more widely now with things like ‘r u ok day’ and the talk it out game this week for spud.

since separating I have more child care responsibilities. I get my job done and work different hours sometimes when the kids are asleep to do it. But sometimes I leave at 330pm to pick the kids Up I’d put it to you that women (or men) who manage all this stuff and a career are far more balanced and usually effective than folks who just do work. I’m sure there are some too who exploit it But IMO those folk don’t get the promotions. generally Outcomes and not time at work is the measuring stick For any job that works this way.
I have read and listened to a lot of what Camile Paglia says. She is a feminist of the 1950s-60s persuasion who essentially is a dissident to the dominant form of feminism which has been in vogue over the past 3 to 4 decades.

She sees the root problem with the brand of feminism that has percolated from University academia (then fed into our public institutions, corporate sector and general public) is that it is based on the central premise that we are all essentially androgynous drones, entirely shaped by socialisation. Or at least, relegates the biology/nature element to the periphery. In this sense, it is a movement trying to debase it's explanation of the world from observable, objective science and biology. It is willfully blind, naive or outright dishonest. And then leads off to other tangents such as young boys being tacitly viewed as deficient girls who need reprogramming. What this means is that we are setting ourselves up for unobtainable goals, perpetual disappointment and perpetual conflict. Or at least, far from optimal outcomes.

Now, how do we relate this to occupations? Well if we take engineering for example. Pure nature of men and women will mean you will naturally have a far larger pool of men than women with a desire to pursue this field due to natural inclination. So if you were to socially engineer an outcome where 50% of engineers are female (and hence 50% of leadership positions in engineering are held by women), you are recruiting from a smaller pool of people, so you are not getting your best talent. Construction fields at the trades level also a similar phenomenon (and hence leadership positions also in these fields). Military another.

That's certainly not to say that women should be precluded from, or feel unwelcome going into these fields if that individual so desires (which is the main crux of Paglia's argument of female empowerment). But you are going to be perpetually disappointed if an equal (or close to equal) split at various levels of these fields is what is desired. The only way to achieve that split is via tyrannical means. Likewise, but in reverse, I don't think you'd ever see anything close to an even split in fields such as nursing or childcare unless tyrannical overreach were used to achieve it.

That being said, I can see a lot of fields, that previously were highly dominated by men (due to social restrictions on women) that innately (in general terms of course) would suit the natural tendencies of women, and hence, they may naturally come to dominate these fields. Many fields of medicine for example, where care giving is the focus. And we are indeed seeing this with graduation rates in University medicine fields. Some fields of law is another example. In the blue collar trades space, I have seen a growing number of female painters - particularly those specialising in interior design. As well as a growing number of women in carpentry pathing a niche in fine furniture design and building.

And then of course the elephant in the room is the undeniable natural, biological element of child birth and child rearing and how this affects the dynamics. And Camile Paglia also says that feminism (or the current dominant brand of it) has never reconciled, or been honest with itself, as to where child birth and child rearing fits into this paradigm.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
She is basing her view on years of experience, and probably 1000s of interviews with staff about pay. you are basing your view on your experience.
I know who is more likely to be knowledgeable in the area.
She has uttered an outright lie. "Men don't have trouble talking themselves up." It's a generalisation.

Yes I can imagine women in general lacking confidence to be assertive when negotiating a salary. Whose problem is that?

My problem with confidence is my problem, nobody else's. Extroverts get what introverts miss out on, is my experience of the workplace.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Nothing I can add to this thread so I'm unsubscribing to avoid future conflict. Women have it pretty good IMO but they're being whipped into a frenzy for political purposes. They should man up and soldier on.
 
Nothing I can add to this thread so I'm unsubscribing to avoid future conflict. Women have it pretty good IMO but they're being whipped into a frenzy for political purposes. They should man up and soldier on.
That’s mischievous. Lol. IMO Tigris put it well. We shouldn’t expect things to be identical. That’s a stupid goal and will lead to stupid outcomes. As much as if we said 50% of men should give birth.

Equality of opportunity I can get behind. But even then would I sacrifice opportunities for my children to help others out who are less well off? Definitely not so I’m a hypocrite already.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Morrison has been putting on the emotion the last few days. does that make him unsuited to be PM? or because he is a fake we just ignore because we know an advisor told him to look upset?

Porter was pretty emotional before going on leave. should he be booted too?
Probably.
 
I have read and listened to a lot of what Camile Paglia says. She is a feminist of the 1950s-60s persuasion who essentially is a dissident to the dominant form of feminism which has been in vogue over the past 3 to 4 decades.

She sees the root problem with the brand of feminism that has percolated from University academia (then fed into our public institutions, corporate sector and general public) is that it is based on the central premise that we are all essentially androgynous drones, entirely shaped by socialisation. Or at least, relegates the biology/nature element to the periphery. In this sense, it is a movement trying to debase it's explanation of the world from observable, objective science and biology. It is willfully blind, naive or outright dishonest. And then leads off to other tangents such as young boys being tacitly viewed as deficient girls who need reprogramming. What this means is that we are setting ourselves up for unobtainable goals, perpetual disappointment and perpetual conflict. Or at least, far from optimal outcomes.

Now, how do we relate this to occupations? Well if we take engineering for example. Pure nature of men and women will mean you will naturally have a far larger pool of men than women with a desire to pursue this field due to natural inclination. So if you were to socially engineer an outcome where 50% of engineers are female (and hence 50% of leadership positions in engineering are held by women), you are recruiting from a smaller pool of people, so you are not getting your best talent. Construction fields at the trades level also a similar phenomenon (and hence leadership positions also in these fields). Military another.

That's certainly not to say that women should be precluded from, or feel unwelcome going into these fields if that individual so desires (which is the main crux of Paglia's argument of female empowerment). But you are going to be perpetually disappointed if an equal (or close to equal) split at various levels of these fields is what is desired. The only way to achieve that split is via tyrannical means. Likewise, but in reverse, I don't think you'd ever see anything close to an even split in fields such as nursing or childcare unless tyrannical overreach were used to achieve it.

That being said, I can see a lot of fields, that previously were highly dominated by men (due to social restrictions on women) that innately (in general terms of course) would suit the natural tendencies of women, and by hence, they may naturally come to dominate these fields. Many fields of medicine for example, where care giving is the focus. And we are indeed seeing this with graduation rates in University medicine fields. Some fields of law is another example. In the trades space, I have seen a growing number of female painters - particularly those specialising in interior design. As well as a growing number of women in carpentry pathing a niche in fine furniture design and building.

And then of course the elephant in the room is the undeniable natural, biological element of child birth and child rearing and how this affects the dynamics. And Camile Paglia also says that feminism (or the current dominant brand of it) has never reconciled, or been honest with itself, as to where child birth and child rearing fits into this paradigm.
Women make much better equipment operators. Saw this time and again in the mining industry. If more women applied for such roles I'd guarantee that there'd be equality in numbers at a minimum.
 
Women make much better equipment operators. Saw this time and again in the mining industry. If more women applied for such roles I'd guarantee that there'd be equality in numbers at a minimum.
Quite possibly. Although it comes down to interest too. As in, what type of work the sexes are (in gross general terms) naturally inclined to gravitate towards.
 
What did it actually say? Show me examples of business paying women less for doing exactly the same thing.
No one has ever suggested that's happening, and it's a stawman on here pretty often.

The issue is that women, by virtue of being born women, will on average earn less than if they were born a man, and our society creates that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Racial and sexual discrimination are illegal so that has been dealt with?
Legally yes. Of course it is human nature to behave badly ignorantly sometimes so these bad attitudes will always be with us.

FFS are you seriously saying that people of colour and women are treated just the same as white fellas?
White people certainly have an advantage in our society because they are brought up in our society and speak its cultural language. Women are treated differently in our society and always have been. I agree that sexual harassment of women in the work environment goes on way too much is not appropriate. But I think our society as a whole is fairly just and equitable and that people are treated according to how they behave.

If that is the case then what is your explanation for the fact that men outnumber women in cabinet, in CEO positions, in senior positions across the workforce and there is still a gender pay gap?
I've tried to explain this a few times. I'm not going to repeat myself.

This is totally about power, what else is it about? It is all about how men have more power to further their interests than women do. When power is tied to sex at birth or skin colour it is wrong.

Yes I agree that sexism and racism is wrong and should be stamped out. But not using racism and sexism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
No one has ever suggested that's happening, and it's a stawman on here pretty often.

The issue is that women, by virtue of being born women, will on average earn less than if they were born a man, and our society creates that.
Does society create that or does nature? Or more accurately is it a combination of both? And which of these two elements contributes how much?

When it’s stated in as absolute terms as you have above (I accept you possibly don’t mean it quite that absolutely, as it’s hard to fit too much detail in these posts), this is an example of what Camille Paglia is critical about with the dominant form of modern feminism. That is, completely debasing the movement from objective, observable science & biology in offering an explanation of the world around us. Or at least relegating the biological/scientific element to the periphery. When in actual fact it’s a huge element. That said, it is true that we as humans tend to have a level of arrogance that we can always beat nature, which in actual fact we cannot always.

A slight different tangent just to take another angle. I note that childless lesbian couples (like their same sex male counterparts) earn considerably above that of the average household and perform considerably above average in a range of socioeconomic indicators.

So again a lot of it comes down to life choices, or not so much choices, but biological urges that drive those choices that contributes greatly.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
As much as if we said 50% of men should give birth.
Don’t worry, post-modernists are already in the early stages of cultivating an illusion that they could argue such absurdity.

Saw a number of articles this week showing ‘fathers’ with the baby they had just given birth to.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Local school near me (Warrnambool) BRAUER COLLEGE made the boys stand up and say sorry yesterday at assembly.
All over the news today.

Ridiculous
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Local school near me (Warrnambool) BRAUER COLLEGE made the boys stand up and say sorry yesterday at assembly.
All over the news today.

Ridiculous
Yes saw that. Seems just ‘a touch’ perverse.

But then I suppose religions are full of performative, ritualistic symbolism. So only stands to reason that social justice movements, that tend to morph into post-modernist manifestations of quasi-religion, would follow suit and mimic that aspect.
 
Last edited:
Men are discriminated against in the workplace by the action of quotas.
Djevv, I'm not a fan of quotas so I'm guessing that must happen in some organisations.

They are discriminated against by the family court in granting access to their children. They thus lose their parenting rights.
Most judges are male. Are you suggesting that most judges including male judges make decisions based on feminist dogma rather than on the merits of each case? Do you have any evidence feminist ideology is driving a male dominated judiciary?

They are demonised in the mainstream media as perpetrators of domestic and sexual violence against women.
Ok fair enough, good point so if men are not the perpetrators of domestic and sexual violence against women who is ? I don’t expect you to provide names and addresses but if not men who is it? It can't all be self inflicted?
Masculine characteristics are derided as ‘toxic’.
I’m not quite sure what you mean. Which masculine characteristics are toxic ?

Sexism is practiced without penalty against men as an allegedly ‘privileged’ class. Now this has not yet led to any diminution of freedoms and rights, but wait a few years! Feminists have already floated the idea of a curfew so women can walk the streets safely.
Ok so you’ve changed your mind. In an earlier post you said ‘’3rd wave feminism is bad for men and boys and is eroding their rights and freedoms’ but here you’re suggesting the opposite ‘...but wait a few years.’ Hahahaha very funny!

Well let me help you out a little, one right feminism has taken away from men is the right to rape their wife. While Richmond was resting on its laurels after winning the 1980’s flag feminists successfully won the battle to have marital rape criminalised in 1981. So that is indeed 1 right men have lost due to feminists.



Most serious to my mind is the poor performance of boys in education. It’s a massive issue that receives virtually no coverage in the media. It has the potential to turn men into second class citizens in future if not addressed.
How is the poor performance of boys in school connected to feminism?


There is also the massive over-representation of men in the suicide and car accident statistics as well as the prison population.
How is this connected to feminism?

Why on a feminists thread would you constantly try to remove the focus from feminism and women onto how men and boys are suffering?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users