The answer is - purely - they usually deserve it. I find what they say infuriating, along with the refusal to debate and the personal attacks they make to be hugely aggravating.
Disagree and you become a misogynist - and things go downhill from there.
But why do they deserve it? They say things like this...
Women have contributed more to the expansion of the world economy than either new technology or the emerging markets of China and IndiaThis just takes my breath away. More to the economy then technological improvement.
So women have contributed more then the economic value of agriculture? Or the ability to make fire?
Both of those are "new technologies" - without which we'd still be stuck in caves. True, I'm being a little silly there. Let's stick to new technologies within her lifetime.
How about advances in computing and electronics in the last 54 years - since she was born. I've got more computing power in my desktop then existed in the world for about half that time.
Put together.
That is part of what I find infuriating - they say silly things like that and expect you to accept it.
--
(I'm not going to go into the question of "Why didn't she directly compare the economic growth of men and women? Why cherry pick this part of the market....or that part of the market...not a useful overall comparison?)
21 comments:
I challenge you to write a post ranting for women instead of against. no negatives.
Please do not post my name as I do not want to upset anyone I know with this post.
'Women have contributed more to the expansion of the world economy than either new technology or the emerging markets of China and India'
They are absolutly correct in what they say, just in a completely different context to which they infer.
The way they achieved this was by having children.
No I am not putting them down, I am just agreeing with what they said. Also giving an example of how they did this, which they failed to do!
Anonymous - I could argue that men made just as critical a contribution. Someone had to father all those children.
Good point though.
--
The problem with that Isabelle is that there is no group of people who stand up and claim to speak for and about men, in the same way that feminists claim to speak for women.
So trying to find something to rant about would be difficult...
the reason for this born again is that men never had to defend themselves for their basic rights. most society have always been patriarcal and men have had higher statuses. so no they didnt have to fight for most of their rights.
and to claim that there are no groups who stand up for men that would be wrong ... father's rights groups. because "fathers are just incapable of caring for children on their own." "I dont understand why you would fight so radically to get to see your kids"
And plus if you cant even make an argument for women .. then in previous posts , stating that you are all for equality would be wrong. because obviously your not
also see...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men%27s_Movement
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father%27s_rights
"And plus if you cant even make an argument for women .. then in previous posts , stating that you are all for equality would be wrong. because obviously your not"
I'd disagree. I find it very easy to find feminists so easy to rant about is because they make claims in public forums that sometimes lack grounding in reality - such as the new technology quote.
It's immediate, obvious and clearly not entirely accurate.
In comparison fathers rights groups say such things as "We want to be able to see our children". "The presumption should be shared parenting". "Mothers should not automaticly win custody of children".
I find it hard to rant about such comments because they are very hard to disagree with.
More to the point I rant about what I observe - and I haven't seen such groups in the news media all year.
--
Will post seperate comments per point - it's easier
"he reason for this born again is that men never had to defend themselves for their basic rights. most society have always been patriarcal and men have had higher statuses. so no they didnt have to fight for most of their rights."
The reason men don't stand up and say rather silly things in public forums is because they're never had to stand up for their rights.
Well, l'm going to disagree there. Let's look at the most basic right - the right to life.
During World War Two the military started as a strictly volunteer force which proved to be woefully lacking in numbers.
So if you happened to be male, of the "right" age and fit you won a prize - the chance to go be shot. Which I suppose was better then the first world war, with the horror of being gassed.
I could go on - the refugee crisis in Darfur. Many thousands of women starving to death, being attacked. But the men - their husbands, sons and the like - are already dead.
Both men and women have rights. In most of the free world we have broadly equal rights.
We have the right to speak our minds.
We also have the right to be laughed at for what we say.
--
Actualy, I have a "pro-women rant". Will post it later. You won't like it though...
women didnt fight in that war because they were seen as lower and not aloud to fight even if they wanted to go and save the poor men.
So you're saying hundreds of thousands of men were sent to their deaths because they were seen to be superiour.
I'm sure that thought would comfort them as they lay dying.
Actualy, as memory serves there was a group of women during WW2 who gave white flowers to young men who weren't serving - as silent accusations of cowardice.
I remember listening to an interview of one man who aquired a military uniform to wear during the day so they would leave him alone.
He was a firefighter in london during the worst of the blitz.
And soo all women should be judge based on one group of women who handed out flowers to make the men feel bad?
just like we could say all men beat their wives based on a group who do... no!!!
and stop saying things i didnt say , all i said is women in canada were fighting to have the right to go to war and werent allowed to go.
Your country was lead by men at the time decided men should go to war, so wait men take decision for men and men are unhappy... hummmm ?!?! the problem lies with men. men probably decided they didnt want women to go either.
I guess ur at DnD tonight , will ttyl when you get back... if im out, the weather is so nice and the snow is almost all gone :D
new post pls
Did heroic instance last night, killed most bosses with a group of only 4 players. If we had another player along then we could have done it!!!
I was the healer - and I'm not specced to be a healer :D
If we had a priest who could have helped with removing posions then we could have completed that instance!!
It's a shame no priest (shadow or otherwise) can do a damned thing about poison...
true, shadow/normal priests cannot do anything about posions, but they could put a heal over time on everyone effected so that I had a chance of getting everyone de-posioned in time...
Yes, I know that shadow priests loose 10% damage when they do that - but better a dead boss giving nice loot compared to a wipe.
The AOE posion occurs when the boss gets to 75%, 50% and 25% health, so you stay in shadow until at least the 1st occurance of the posion aoe.
Although during that run, I only needed the help when we had the 2nd AOE posioning, as that is when he calls aload of snakes that annoyingly attack the healer - this delays the deposioning and healling process. So when we get to the 25% health left stage most players are at half health and I have no chance of saving the party!
"Yes, I know that shadow priests loose 10% damage when they do that"
Nope.
They loose 15% immediately and their +crit percentage to all DoTs as well as some other effects...
So on Ao right now, we're talking 23% straight damage drop right now.
Senario:
Your group just wiped on a boss that does AOE poisioning each time he looses 25% of his
health, and at 50% health he calls loads of snakes that the warrior has no chance of
picking up. You had got him down to 25% but the last set of AOE posions is just too
much...
Don't forget:
a) Your in a heroic, and the only healer you have is a retri paladin who has healed for
all the instance successfully except for this 1 boss.
b) Your tank is a druid, so he has no AOE based agro abilities so he cannot grab the
critters unleased at 50%.
c) Instead of having 5 people in the group, you only have 4 as noone else wanted to go.
d) This is the heroic daily quest boss.
e) the posions are deadly, dealing enough damage to kill someone whos on half their
health.
Q. you get the boss down to 50% again, he's just put a powerful AOE posion on the whole
party and last time you wiped on the very next stage (25%) as the healer cannot
de-poison and heal everyone in time...
What do you do?
1) continue dealing your damage and hope this time its different, and the healer will
heal you and everyone in time, even though he has loads of critters hitting him....
2) put heal over time spells on everyone, to help counter out the amount of health lost
to the poison giving the healer a fighting chance to heal everyone before the boss hits
25%. Even though this means you loose 1.2k from your 5k mind blasts and your dots do
less damage.
3) die and start blaming the healer again!
4) run out the instance screeming and healing yourself, letting the party wipe!
If that's the instance I think it is, did you consider using the corner trick with the door to avoid the poison nova?
We did, and it didn't work
Post a Comment