Sexist comment at work, not sure what to do

[zinfamous]

When they whine about it, tell them to blame their mothers for burning their bra's 40 years ago. You want equal rights? Here it is.

there were were maybe 2 women that burned bras at one event in the sixties, yet a single non-representative photo persists as some sort of symbol for something that it doesn't reflect, to people that don't know what they are talking about. it's odd, isn't it?

what the misogynists tend to label as "feminism" refers only to the fringe inconsequential group that tried to hijack the movement in the 70s with a more, uh "militant" bent.

none of these assumptions of "women should be doing all of the same things as men, without exception!" have anything to do with feminism.

 

[SheHateMe]

When may I expect your help?

I only offer to help people I care about.

 

[ch33zw1z]

there were were maybe 2 women that burned bras at one event in the sixties, yet a single non-representative photo persists as some sort of symbol for something that it doesn't reflect, to people that don't know what they are talking about. it's odd, isn't it?

what the misogynists tend to label as "feminism" refers only to the fringe inconsequential group that tried to hijack the movement in the 70s with a more, uh "militant" bent.

none of these assumptions of "women should be doing all of the same things as men, without exception!" have anything to do with feminism.

Still fun to do.

 

[Soundmanred]

I support equal rights and equal responsibility for gays.

LOL,no.
#notbornyesterday
#homophobemisogenistbbq

 

[JulesMaximus]

Not sure what to do.

Nuke yourself from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

 

[Texashiker]

LOL,no.
#notbornyesterday
#homophobemisogenistbbq

LOL, yea.

I fully support equal rights and equal responsibility for gays.

I only offer to help people I care about.

I fully support your right to do the same work I do, and I support you in getting hurt, and/or injured with a chainsaw just like what I risk.

I probably have a dozen trees that need to be cut up. Don't worry about bringing a saw, I have a good Stihl you can use.

 

[SheHateMe]

I fully support your right to do the same work I do, and I support you in getting hurt, and/or injured with a chainsaw just like what I risk.

I probably have a dozen trees that need to be cut up. Don't worry about bringing a saw, I have a good Stihl you can use.

The fact that those trees are going un-cut while you complain online about women joking about men moving a heavy table at work is telling.

 

[Texashiker]

The fact that those trees are going un-cut while you complain online about women joking about men moving a heavy table at work is telling.

Hoping to work on the trees during the weekend of June 22 and 23.

I'll post some before and after pics.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Make sure you get a picture of the wife in an apron holding a plate of sammiches in one hand, fresh squeezed lemonade in the other.

 

[WelshBloke]

Sexist comment at work, not sure what to do

You should run to the internet and passive aggressively whine about it... oh wait...

 

[nehalem256]

none of these assumptions of "women should be doing all of the same things as men, without exception!" have anything to do with feminism.

Technically you are correct, but probably not in the way you meant.

Feminism is about women getting all the perceived privilege of being a man with none of the responsibility.

As such the example in the OP is pretty much classic feminism.

There is a reason the phrase is "maning up"

 

[momeNt]

Technically you are correct, but probably not in the way you meant.

Feminism is about women getting all the perceived privilege of being a man with none of the responsibility.

As such the example in the OP is pretty much classic feminism.

There is a reason the phrase is "maning up"

Feminism cannot advocate physical equality, it can only deal with social aspects that are able to change...

As to the bold.... that's not true at all. That's just your misogynist hatred coming through. You act as if child support is a benefit to a woman, the same with birth control pills or abortion. Because we drew borders and labeled everything inside a "society" and have "societal interests" things like child support and birth control fall under these. They are not benefits of being a woman, they are costs that we collectively impose on ourselves because we group our interests together as a society.

I disagree with the societal interest, and thus from a policy issue I disagree with public funding of birth control and any public funding at all, but for completely different reasons than you. You hatred of women is quite frankly disgusting.

 

[Texashiker]

They are not benefits of being a woman, they are costs that we collectively impose on ourselves because we group our interests together as a society.

When was the last time you paid child support?

State attorney general ever ask to have you thrown in jail because you were unable to make child support payments?

My interest is for the custodial parent to get a job and support the children they helped create.

Like I said, I fully support equal rights and equal responsibility.

 

[nehalem256]

Feminism cannot advocate physical equality, it can only deal with social aspects that are able to change...

So what you are saying is that men and women are not equal.

And it is not just a physical issue. When is the last time you have heard a feminist talk about the college gender gap?

As to the bold.... that's not true at all. That's just your misogynist hatred coming through. You act as if child support is a benefit to a woman, the same with birth control pills or abortion. Because we drew borders and labeled everything inside a "society" and have "societal interests" things like child support and birth control fall under these. They are not benefits of being a woman, they are costs that we collectively impose on ourselves because we group our interests together as a society.

And note that all of these "societal interests" are about the woman getting swag. None are about society forcing the woman to take responsibility for her choices.

Also, if child support is about the well being of the child then shouldn't women be forced to name the father, so that the child can get the money he deserves?

 

[momeNt]

When was the last time you paid child support?

State attorney general ever ask to have you thrown in jail because you were unable to make child support payments?

My interest is for the custodial parent to get a job and support the children they helped create.

Like I said, I fully support equal rights and equal responsibility.

Equal rights and equal responsibility is impossible to attain in a non-voluntary society such as our own. So I think you do not support them, you only think you do, or only support them so far as you feel you benefit from it.

 

[Texashiker]

Equal rights and equal responsibility is impossible to attain in a non-voluntary society such as our own. So I think you do not support them, you only think you do, or only support them so far as you feel you benefit from it.

So you have never been court ordered to pay child support under threat of imprisonment?

 

[momeNt]

So you have never been court ordered to pay child support under threat of imprisonment?

I have not, yet I don't need experience in order to have an opinion on the subject. The interest lies with the child in these cases. Perhaps you should instead bitch about divorce maintenance or alimony. You'd be much harder pressed to find a valid societal interest that can justify those.

 

[momeNt]

So what you are saying is that men and women are not equal.

And it is not just a physical issue. When is the last time you have heard a feminist talk about the college gender gap?



And note that all of these "societal interests" are about the woman getting swag. None are about society forcing the woman to take responsibility for her choices.

Also, if child support is about the well being of the child then shouldn't women be forced to name the father, so that the child can get the money he deserves?

If society were to force women to take responsibility, even those women unable to raise productive children, how does that help society?

Hint: it does not, society has absolutely no interest in accountability, it looks at macro level goals such as the well-being of children. If a few dad's get thrown in jail for failing to pay child support, that is the cost of the goal.

 

[tcsenter]

Wait until they let women into military careers that require labor. Here's what I predict will happen...

At first, most won't be able to pass the minimum physical fitness requirements, particularly things that involve upper-body strength or heart-lung capacity. So they will need to lower those for women. This will prove to be a big glaring example of how women are NOT "equal" or "just as capable" as men, so the feminists will demand that physical fitness requirements be lowered for men, as well, so they can chant "women pass the same physical requirements as men".

Then once women get into AIT for their career, and after that, into their unit, again it will become blatantly obvious that most women who have reached this point are struggling mightily with the physical requirements of the job, things like hauling their gear, tool kits, and all that. So much, it will promote a lot of resentment because the men are having to pick-up their slack, which is NOT good for morale, unit cohesion, and that kind of thing which is actually quite important to a functioning unit, especially under the immense pressures of wartime.

This will be unacceptable to feminists, for obvious reasons. Therefore, all the logistics, rules, standards, customary practices, and policies will need to be - you guessed it - "fairness-ized". e.g. The tool kits and gear will need to be "reconfigured" and "improved" (translation: LIGHTENED), at enormous expense. They will need to expand the number of personnel in a unit or for any given task, again at enormous expense. Carrying lighter loads means less gear is being carried, so they'll need to add more personnel to make-up for this.

Even when the load carrying requirements are "equal", women will still struggle to keep pace with men's greater cardio-pulmonary capacity. Things will again - at enormous expense - need to be "equalized". And even after tens of billions and two decades to make the military hospitable to women by eliminating these unfair sexist disparities, you will still have a significant (and costly) rate of unexpected separation due to, you know....."Oopsie! It's two weeks before my scheduled deployment and I accidentally turn-up pregnant!" Or even up to three months after their deployment has begun - "Oopsie!"

This is all just speculation about what would happen. I mean, we don't really know, do we? Oh hey, wait...!

 

[momeNt]

Wait until they let women into military careers that require labor. Here's what I predict will happen...

At first, most won't be able to pass the minimum physical fitness requirements, particularly things that involve upper-body strength or heart-lung capacity. So they will need to lower those for women. This will prove to be a big glaring example of how women are NOT "equal" or "just as capable" as men, so the feminists will demand that physical fitness requirements be lowered for men, as well, so they can chant "women pass the same physical requirements as men".

Then once women get into AIT for their career, and after that, into their unit, again it will become blatantly obvious that most women who have reached this point are struggling mightily with the physical requirements of the job, things like hauling their gear, tool kits, and all that. So much, it will promote a lot of resentment because the men are having to pick-up their slack, which is NOT good for morale, unit cohesion, and that kind of thing which is actually quite important to a functioning unit, especially under the immense pressures of wartime.

This will be unacceptable to feminists, for obvious reasons. Therefore, all the logistics, rules, standards, customary practices, and policies will need to be - you guessed it - "fairness-ized". e.g. The tool kits and gear will need to be "reconfigured" and "improved" (translation: LIGHTENED), at enormous expense. They will need to expand the number of personnel in a unit or for any given task, again at enormous expense. Carrying lighter loads means less gear is being carried, so they'll need to add more personnel to make-up for this.

Even when the load carrying requirements are "equal", women will still struggle to keep pace with men's greater cardio-pulmonary capacity. Things will again - at enormous expense - need to be "equalized". And even after tens of billions and two decades to make the military hospitable to women by eliminating these unfair sexist disparities, you will still have a significant (and costly) rate of unexpected separation due to, you know....."Oopsie! It's two weeks before my scheduled deployment and I accidentally turn-up pregnant!" Or even up to three months after their deployment has begun - "Oopsie!"

This is all just speculation about what would happen. I mean, we don't really know, do we? Oh hey, wait...!

The military has a lot more problems than anything to do with women. Namely, how it's been used since since the revolutionary war.

 

[nehalem256]

If society were to force women to take responsibility, even those women unable to raise productive children, how does that help society?

Hint: it does not, society has absolutely no interest in accountability, it looks at macro level goals such as the well-being of children. If a few dad's get thrown in jail for failing to pay child support, that is the cost of the goal.

You mean unless it conflicts with what women want:

Also, if child support is about the well being of the child then shouldn't women be forced to name the father, so that the child can get the money he deserves?

Saying it is about the well-being of the child is just an excuse to get society to pay for women's choices.

EDIT: See octomom for another glaring example where the interests of the woman and the interests of the children are at odds at society chooses the interests of the woman over that of the children.

 

[momeNt]

You mean unless it conflicts with what women want:



Saying it is about the well-being of the child is just an excuse to get society to pay for women's choices.

EDIT: See octomom for another glaring example where the interests of the woman and the interests of the children are at odds at society chooses the interests of the woman over that of the children.

Is every mom that receives support octomom?

Perhaps we should take away the tax breaks for having dependents? Or should we focus solely on women and disregard the fact that single people without children must pay a higher tax rate?

You have a disgusting hatred of women that is irrational. Broaden the scope of what you disagree with and it won't be so glaringly obvious.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Women are too weak to move tables and not smart enough to know where to put them.

 

[Texashiker]

Same lady just asked me to look at the printer.

 

[nehalem256]

Is every mom that receives support octomom?

And in those situations how do you tell the difference between the interests of the child and the interests of the mother?

The question was whether society creates the programs for women or children. In doing so we must look to cases where those interests are divergent.

As examples
(1) If the mother doesn't want to name the father. There is no law forcing her to do so if she doesn't want. This is clearly detrimental to the child. As it loses its "right" to child support from the father.

(2) Octomom