|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 28, 2009 11:22:55 GMT -5
My B-Law teacher brought something about this up when we were going over the chapter on employment discrimination. At a college he was previously with, a female law professor raised a massive fuss on the basis that she was seemingly denied a promotion on the basis of her gender. This included getting student rallies together all for the sake of getting her promoted. Everything came to a crashing halt when another female law professor fired off a response message. It turns out that the reason why the professor in question never got promoted was because no one in the department liked her, in large part owing to her habit of over-reacting to things. Not only did this immediately halt the rallies, he implied that it may have ended her career. Remember this the next time you get butthurt when someone suggests Mormons are polygamists who believe ridiculous things like eternal celestial skygodsex. This is not intended to attack your religion, but rather to demonstrate that it's not fun when you're the recipient of rule by stereotype or rule by minority. ETA: Or, in light of DV's argument, rule by Bullshit, as this case seems to be. Now now, do we need to have the hypocracy discussion again? |
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 28, 2009 11:33:35 GMT -5
I know, it'll never get through to him. Still, sometimes you need to say it.  |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Apr 28, 2009 11:39:00 GMT -5
True
Maybe we should start a group collection to install a nanny or some type of figure into Sky's life behind the computer. Every time he makes another idiotic move, that person belts him in the head with a clue bat.
One thing for sure will come out of it, a smarter Sky, or epic lulz from all the times you see fdjrsyuj written in his posts from his face smacking the keyboard
|
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 28, 2009 11:52:31 GMT -5
I'm sorry, that's just not true. Women in higher ed do get a raw deal. My B-Law teacher brought something about this up when we were going over the chapter on employment discrimination. At a college he was previously with, a female law professor raised a massive fuss on the basis that she was seemingly denied a promotion on the basis of her gender. This included getting student rallies together all for the sake of getting her promoted. Everything came to a crashing halt when another female law professor fired off a response message. It turns out that the reason why the professor in question never got promoted was because no one in the department liked her, in large part owing to her habit of over-reacting to things. Not only did this immediately halt the rallies, he implied that it may have ended her career. Okay, you hate women, we get it. I'd smite you again, except I just exalted someone else. meh, looking at your Karma, I can see it's already been done. |
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 28, 2009 11:54:36 GMT -5
I don't actually think he hates women. I believe things like that just scare him. It's an issue of power transfer, and that's hard for some people to give up/deal with. Of course, I can never prove that, so it's just as well to say he probably hates them, I guess.  |
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 28, 2009 12:01:04 GMT -5
Well as far as the working hard gets you ahead thing.
How many people in poverty work two jobs? How many people in homeless shelters have a full time job? Hard work does nothing. Sure an education helps, but if you can't take the time off to get educated because you have to feed yourself, how do you get out of the circle?
|
|
|
|
Post by Angel on Apr 28, 2009 12:12:54 GMT -5
How is this thread suddenly all about skyfire?
|
|
|
|
Post by ironbite on Apr 28, 2009 12:41:34 GMT -5
Cause he posted idiotic crap in it again. Sad no?
Also...going by Sky's professor's story it seems he also has a problem with women.
Ironbite-hwo interesting that Sky's teacher's seem to also be sexist bastards.
|
|
|
|
Post by schizophonic on Apr 28, 2009 15:10:58 GMT -5
I don't actually think he hates women. I believe things like that just scare him. It's an issue of power transfer, and that's hard for some people to give up/deal with. Of course, I can never prove that, so it's just as well to say he probably hates them, I guess. His Church teaches gender roles, and he argues things which reinforce them. I'm not sure it's hate OR fear. I think he's just justifying what he was told by rote. Women are homemakers, and anything that enforces that, and what women should be doing, is therefore validated. But Antichrist has a decent point. Starting about three years ago, the homeless shelters around here started to overflow. I helped in building bunk beds (and pity anyone who had to live with my carpentry skills) because, even with expanded capacity offered by a couple of the churches in town, these sites were still well over capacity. A lot of these people had jobs, some more than one. They are still on their streets or in their cars. And I wonder, if everything's in your reach if you work hard enough, did everyone just get lazy all at once, before the big crash? Why is more of the working class and/or middle class seeing worse and worse results for their hard work? |
|
|
|
Post by skyfire on Apr 28, 2009 15:15:10 GMT -5
Why is more of the working class and/or middle class seeing worse and worse results for their hard work? The economy was actually starting to slump before the "crash" officially took place. While you had a lot of people who were still spending like there was no tomorrow, you also had a lot of people who were pulling back owing to one concern or another. The latter caused work orders to begin slowing, making for leaner times at a bunch of companies. What we're seeing is just something that's been a long time coming. |
|
|
|
Post by antichrist on Apr 28, 2009 15:20:44 GMT -5
Food banks didn't exist before the 80's
Provincial governments keep the number of "unemployed" low by kicking people off of welfare. They only count people on EI and Welfare as unemployed. Therefore as the homeless rates skyrocket, the official numbers stay stable.
They use the same argument that "they just don't want it bad enough". Well yeah, excuse them for having emotional/mental/health/drug issues that screw them up. Even if they did apply for a job, are you going to hire them?
|
|
|
|
Post by John E on Apr 28, 2009 15:53:59 GMT -5
My comment on the OT is simply this:
If one's position is life is exactly proportional to how hard they work, then Paris Hilton must work about 100 times harder than any of us here.
|
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Apr 28, 2009 15:59:47 GMT -5
Why is more of the working class and/or middle class seeing worse and worse results for their hard work? The economy was actually starting to slump before the "crash" officially took place. While you had a lot of people who were still spending like there was no tomorrow, you also had a lot of people who were pulling back owing to one concern or another. The latter caused work orders to begin slowing, making for leaner times at a bunch of companies. What we're seeing is just something that's been a long time coming. Wrong, the economy was actually doing quite well, production was extremely high. Despite this, median income families saw no increase in real wages. However, what you did see is extremely large increases in the wages of the top 5%, so basically, the rich were shafting the people creating the wealth and redistributing it to themselves. It's part of the reason this economic downturn is so bad, is the lower 80% of America hasn't been able to BUY more to make more growth, and rich people getting money has very little effect on the economy, because your propensity to spend goes down the more money you make. This can be thought of as letting our economy become too top-heavy and unbalanced. |
|
|
|
Post by Death on Apr 28, 2009 16:00:07 GMT -5
Women don't always prefer a "work/life" balance, Skyfire. Our culture makes it largely unacceptable for women to NOT "prefer" to take care of their family in favor of an "aggressive" career. The sheer number of businesses with inadequate maternity and family leave alone proves that point. That flex scheduling you're pointing out took decades of feminist protesting to achieve. And even then, many places rarely offer flextime, so don't act like it's such a given. Men are given a pass when it comes to choosing career over family. Women are not. Some mild reading on the matter would clear that right up for you. The "raw data", by the way, is based on women and men doing the exact same job with the exact same qualifications. Not comparing apples to oranges. If they're doing the same work with the same skills, why are they still being paid less? boobs? Do man-boobs count? |
|
nuitarihw
Junior Member
What's holding up is a mirror
Posts: 90
|
Post by nuitarihw on Apr 28, 2009 16:06:42 GMT -5
Just thought I'd add this to add emphasis to my point: This is from an article at the end of August '07: "For example, while productivity is up nearly 20% since 2000, the real median hourly wage is up 3% overall and 1% for men, with none of this growth occurring over the three-and-a-half years since 2003. At the top of the wage scale—at the 95th percentile—real wages are up 9%. " www.epi.org/publications/entry/bp195/ |
|
